I suppose I should also add massive spending cuts as an option, but the government is not competent enough to consider this.
Monthly Archives: December 2010
Joseph Conrad’s Praxeology
Like Willa Cather, Joseph Conrad was a great economic novelist who maintained a contemptuous distance from the “economic” novel.
. . . .
The fullest, indeed the virtually inexhaustible, expression of Conrad’s praxeology is his novel The Secret Agent (1907). Cather thought that her era was characterized by “the revolt against individualism.”[3] Conrad saw something larger: a revolt against human action as it really is. The Secret Agent attempts to explain both the revolt and what it revolts against.
I.
The praxeology of The Secret Agent emerges from Conrad’s interest in a certain group of characters — political radicals — who are engaged in plotting, or at least in ardently desiring, the downfall of the capitalist system. These people have their own theories about human action, theories that Conrad finds enticing targets for ridicule. From the ruins of their ideologies, he retrieves much that is useful by an opposing system of thought.
(Read more from )
I had no idea. How interesting!
Three Myths about Trash
There are three things everybody knows when we talk trash:
1. We know we’re running out of landfill space;
2. we know we’re saving resources and protecting the environment by recycling; and
3. we know no one would recycle if they weren’t forced to.
Let’s look at these three things we think we know. Are they real or are they rubbish? (Read more from mises.org)
Companies aren’t charities
This whole article is excellent. Here’s a quick excerpt:
In poor countries the problem is not that businesses are unethical but that there are too few of them.
. . . .
Anti-corporate activists sometimes claim that big companies are mightier than governments. This is absurd. Governments can pass laws, raise taxes and declare war. Companies have virtually no powers of coercion. If people do not voluntarily buy their products, they go bankrupt. Business is thus extremely sensitive to public opinion. This is often a good thing. Ms Bernstein cites the example of white-owned shops in South Africa under apartheid. When black shoppers started boycotting them, “it was remarkable how rapidly most white shop owners were prepared to ditch racist practices.” Yet companies can also be bullied into doing the wrong thing. When multinationals bow to pressure from campaigners against “sweatshops” and sever links with suppliers in poor countries, the workers who previously stitched shoes for export may end up scavenging from rubbish heaps. (Read more from economist.com)
Not a union by choice, but a union held together by force of arms
“Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” ~The London Times, 1865
In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President with less than 40% of the popular vote.
Having run on a radical whig platform of high protective tarriffs, tax funded subsidies to favored corporate interests, and an aggressive funding of “internal improvements,” he sought to finally bring to fruition what Hamilton and Clay could not, a highly centralized Federal Government with diminished state sovereignty.
Holding that the Federal Government was in violation of the terms of the Constitution, South Carolina and several other states peacably and democratically convened their legislatures to decide on a withdrawal. The vote was for secession.
“The Union, in any event, won’t be dissolved. We don’t want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it, we won’t let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury in our hands and at our command, you couldn’t do it. . . We do not want to dissolve the Union; you shall not.” ~ Abraham Lincoln
“I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction, but as the redemption of Democracy, and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.” ~ Lord John Acton, British House of Commons, In a Letter to Robert E. Lee, 1866
***
I found these quotes/facts/opinions in this video:
I will add that slavery ended peacefully all over the world. I do not believe that 600,000 young American men had to die for it to end here.
CrossTalk on 9/11
World Trade Center Eyewitness Paul Lemos
People’s Revolutionary masses take to the streets in London
Great pictures of the London protests can be found here.
These are the socialists. They believe they are entitled to receive something and a price of their choosing. No doubt they also consider the ongoing economic crises (which is about to get *MUCH* worse), as part of the same conspiracy that raises their tuition.
It is important for those of us who believe in liberty to win the intellectual debate, to point out to the world that it is exactly the same sense of entitlement felt by government, its vast bureaucracies, and its constituencies, that leads to the catastrophic economic crisis we are about to face.
As regular readers of this blog know, I am wary of police and the government monopoly on violence. However this is a protest in which security (public or private) had a very appropriate role.
One of the pictures shows blatant, senseless destruction of private property by protesters:
No terror arrests in 100,000 police counter-terror searches, figures show
More than 100,000 people were stopped and searched by police under counter-terrorism powers last year but none of them were arrested for terrorism-related offences, according to Home Office figures published today.
The statistics show that 504 people out of the 101,248 searches were arrested for any offence – an arrest rate of 0.5%, compared with an average 10% arrest rate for street searches under normal police powers.
The figures prompted the former Conservative home affairs spokesman David Davis to call for the controversial policy to be scrapped. (Read more from guardian.co.uk)
The Myth of the Rule of Law
The Myth of the Rule of Law by John Hasnas does a great job dispelling the myth of the rule of law.
The long essay makes a strong case against the possibility of the rule of law, and talks about spontaneous justice in communities outside the state justice system.
Excerpts:
The same is true of the violence directed against the nonviolent civil rights protestors in the American South during the civil rights movement. Although much of the white population of the southern states held racist beliefs, one cannot account for the overwhelming support given to the violent repression of these protests on the assumption that the vast majority of the white Southerners were sadistic racists devoid of moral sensibilities. The true explanation is that most of these people were able to view themselves not as perpetuating racial oppression and injustice, but as upholding the rule of law against criminals and outside agitators. Similarly, since despite the . 60s rhetoric, all police officers are not “fascist pigs,” some other explanation is needed for their willingness to participate in the “police riot” at the 1968 Democratic convention, or the campaign of illegal arrests and civil rights violations against those demonstrating in Washington against President Nixon’s policies in Vietnam, or the effort to infiltrate and destroy the sanctuary movement that sheltered refugees from Salvadorian death squads during the Reagan era or, for that matter, the attack on and destruction of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. It is only when these officers have fully bought into the myth that “we are a government of laws and not people,” when they truly believe that their actions are commanded by some impersonal body of just rules, that they can fail to see that they are the agency used by those in power to oppress others.
The reason why the myth of the rule of law has survived for 100 years despite the knowledge of its falsity is that it is too valuable a tool to relinquish. The myth of impersonal government is simply the most effective means of social control available to the state.
. . . .
It is true that the Crits want to impose “democratic” or socialistic values on everyone through the mechanism of the law. But this does not distinguish them from anyone else. Religious fundamentalists want to impose “Christian” values on all via the law. Liberal Democrats want the law to ensure that everyone acts so as to realize a “compassionate” society, while conservative Republicans want it to ensure the realization of “family values” or “civic virtue.” Even libertarians insist that all should be governed by a law that enshrines respect for individual liberty as its preeminent value.
The Crits may believe that the law should embody a different set of values than liberals, or conservatives, or libertarians, but this is the only thing that differentiates them from these other groups. Because the other groups have accepted the myth of the rule of law, they perceive what they are doing not as a struggle for political control, but as an attempt to depoliticize the law and return it to its proper form as the neutral embodiment of objective principles of justice. But the rule of law is a myth, and perception does not change reality. Although only the Crits may recognize it, all are engaged in a political struggle to impose their version of “the good” on the rest of society. And as long as the law remains the exclusive province of the state, this will always be the case.
XI.
What is the significance of these observations? Are we condemned to a continual political struggle for control of the legal system? Well, yes; as long as the law remains a state monopoly, we are. But I would ask you to note that this is a conditional statement while you consider the following parable.
. . . .
Most people have been raised to identify law with the state. They cannot even conceive of the idea of legal services apart from the government. The very notion of a free market in legal services conjures up the image of anarchic gang warfare or rule by organized crime. In our system, an advocate of free market law is treated the same way Socrates was treated in Monosizea, and is confronted with the same types of arguments.
The primary reason for this is that the public has been politically indoctrinated to fail to recognize the distinction between order and law. Order is what people need if they are to live together in peace and security. Law, on the other hand, is a particular method of producing order. As it is presently constituted, law is the production of order by requiring all members of society to live under the same set of state-generated rules; it is order produced by centralized planning. Yet, from childhood, citizens are taught to invariably link the words “law” and “order.” Political discourse conditions them to hear and use the terms as though they were synonymous and to express the desire for a safer, more peaceful society as a desire for “law and order.”
The state nurtures this confusion because it is the public’s inability to distinguish order from law that generates its fundamental support for the state. As long as the public identifies order with law, it will believe that an orderly society is impossible without the law the state provides. And as long as the public believes this, it will continue to support the state almost without regard to how oppressive it may become.
. . . .
So, what would a free market in legal services be like? As Sherlock Holmes would regularly say to the good doctor, “You see, Watson, but you do not observe.” Examples of non-state law are all around us. Consider labor-management collective bargaining agreements. In addition to setting wage rates, such agreements typically determine both the work rules the parties must abide by and the grievance procedures they must follow to resolve disputes. In essence, such contracts create the substantive law of the workplace as well as the workplace judiciary. A similar situation exists with regard to homeowner agreements, which create both the rules and dispute settlement procedures within a condominium or housing development, i.e., the law and judicial procedure of the residential community. Perhaps a better example is supplied by universities. These institutions create their own codes of conduct for both students and faculty that cover everything from academic dishonesty to what constitutes acceptable speech and dating behavior. In addition, they not only devise their own elaborate judicial procedures to deal with violations of these codes, but typically supply their own campus police forces as well. A final example may be supplied by the many commercial enterprises that voluntarily opt out of the state judicial system by writing clauses in their contracts that require disputes to be settled through binding arbitration or mediation rather than through a lawsuit. In this vein, the variegated “legal” procedures that have recently been assigned the sobriquet of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) do a good job of suggesting what a free market in legal service might be like. (35)
Of course, it is not merely that we fail to observe what is presently all around us. We also act as though we have no knowledge of our own cultural or legal history. Consider, for example, the situation of African-American communities in the segregated South or the immigrant communities in New York in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Because of prejudice, poverty and the language barrier, these groups were essentially cut off from the state legal system. And yet, rather than disintegrate into chaotic disorder, they were able to privately supply themselves with the rules of behavior and dispute-settlement procedures necessary to maintain peaceful, stable, and highly structured communities. Furthermore, virtually none of the law that orders our interpersonal relationships was produced by the intentional actions of central governments. Our commercial law arose almost entirely from the Law Merchant, a non-governmental set of rules and procedures developed by merchants to quickly and peacefully resolve disputes and facilitate commercial relations. Property, tort, and criminal law are all the products of common law processes by which rules of behavior evolve out of and are informed by the particular circumstances of actual human controversies. In fact, a careful study of Anglo-American legal history will demonstrate that almost all of the law which facilitates peaceful human interaction arose in this way. On the other hand, the source of the law which produces oppression and social division is almost always the state. Measures that impose religious or racial intolerance, economic exploitation, one group’s idea of “fairness,” or another’s of “community” or “family” values virtually always originate in legislation, the law consciously made by the central government. If the purpose of the law really is to bring order to human existence, then it is fair to say that the law actually made by the state is precisely the law that does not work.
. . . .
One thing it seems safe to assume is that there would not be any universally binding, society-wide set of “legal” rules. In a free market, the law would not come in one-size-fits-all. Although the rules necessary to the maintenance of a minimal level of order, such as prohibitions against murder, assault, and theft, would be common to most systems, different communities of interest would assuredly adopt those rules and dispute-settlement procedures that would best fit their needs. For example, it seems extremely unlikely that there would be anything resembling a uniform body of contract law. Consider, as just one illustration, the differences between commercial and consumer contracts. Commercial contracts are usually between corporate entities with specialized knowledge of industrial practices and a financial interest in minimizing the interruption of business. On the other hand, consumer contracts are those in which one or both parties lack commercial sophistication and large sums do not rest upon a speedy resolution of any dispute that might arise. In a free market for legal services, the rules that govern these types of contracts would necessarily be radically different.
This example can also illustrate the different types of dispute-settlement procedures that would be likely to arise. In disputes over consumer contracts, the parties might well be satisfied with the current system of litigation in which the parties present their cases to an impartial judge or jury who renders a verdict for one side or the other. However, in commercial disputes, the parties might prefer a mediational process with a negotiated settlement in order to preserve an ongoing commercial relationship or a quick and informal arbitration in order to avoid the losses associated with excessive delay. Further, it is virtually certain that they would want mediators, arbitrators, or judges who are highly knowledgeable about commercial practice, rather than the typical generalist judge or a jury of lay people.
The problem with trying to specify the individuated “legal systems” which would develop is that there is no limit to the number of dimensions along which individuals may choose to order their lives, and hence no limit to the number of overlapping sets of rules and dispute resolution procedures to which they may subscribe. An individual might settle his or her disputes with neighbors according to voluntarily adopted homeowner association rules and procedures, with co-workers according to the rules and procedures described in a collective bargaining agreement, with members of his or her religious congregation according to scriptural law and tribunal, with other drivers according to the processes agreed to in his or her automobile insurance contract, and with total strangers by selecting a dispute resolution company from the yellow pages of the phone book. Given the current thinking about racial and sexual identity, it seems likely that many disputes among members of the same minority group or among women would be brought to “niche” dispute resolution companies composed predominantly of members of the relevant group, who would use their specialized knowledge of group “culture” to devise superior rules and procedures for intra-group dispute resolution. (36)
I suspect that in many ways a free market in law would resemble the situation in Medieval Europe before the rise of strong central governments in which disputants could select among several fora. Depending upon the nature of the dispute, its geographical location, the parties’ status, and what was convenient, the parties could bring their case in either village, shire, urban, merchant, manorial, ecclesiastical, or royal courts. Even with the limited mobility and communications of the time, this restricted market for dispute-settlement services was able to generate the order necessary for both the commercial and civil advancement of society. Consider how much more effectively such a market could function given the current level of travel and telecommunication technology.
. . . .
My personal belief is that under free market conditions, most people would adopt compositional, rather than confrontational, dispute settlement procedures, i.e., procedures designed to compose disputes and reconcile the parties rather than render third party judgments. This was, in fact, the essential character of the ancient “legal system” that was replaced by the extension of royal jurisdiction. Before the rise of the European nation-states, what we might anachronistically call judicial procedure was chiefly a set of complex negotiations between the parties mediated by the members of the local community in an effort to reestablish a harmonious relationship. Essentially, public pressure was brought upon the parties to settle their dispute peacefully through negotiation and compromise. The incentives of this ancient system favored cooperation and conciliation rather than defeating one’s opponent. (38)
Although I have no crystal ball, I suspect that a free market in law would resemble the ancient system a great deal more than the modern one. Recent experiments with negotiated dispute-settlement have demonstrated that mediation 1) produces a higher level of participant satisfaction with regard to both process and result, 2) resolves cases more quickly and at significantly lower cost, and 3) results in a higher rate of voluntary compliance with the final decree than was the case with traditional litigation. (39)
. . . .
The fact is that there is no such thing as a government of law and not people. The law is an amalgam of contradictory rules and counter-rules expressed in inherently vague language that can yield a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion. For this reason, as long as the law remains a state monopoly, it will always reflect the political ideology of those invested with decisionmaking power. Like it or not, we are faced with only two choices. We can continue the ideological power struggle for control of the law in which the group that gains dominance is empowered to impose its will on the rest of society, or we can end the monopoly.
Our long-standing love affair with the myth of the rule of law has made us blind to the latter possibility.
I’m not sure how to reconcile his “Myth of the Rule of Law” with his 2006 winning of the Bastiat prize for an essay supporting the rule of law, but I think here was using the idea of the Rule of Law as a counterweight against Activist Judges.
***
Also by John Hasnas, Philosophical Case Against Corporate Criminal Liability
* Corporate criminal liability does not serve any legitimate purpose of punishment.
– retribution (It’s the owners, not the guilty people who are punished, and by definition, a coorporation is the seperation of ownership and control.
– deterrence (while it is a deternent, it is not deterrence by punishment of the guilty. Corporate criminal liability as deterrence is analogous to punishing parents for the crimes of their teenagers)
– rehabilitative (punishing the owners for the crime of employees is only rehabilitative in the sense of group punishment — the guilty along with the innocent)
@ 16:00 he makes a now-incorrect predition of Enron — that they won’t be prosecuted.
* No limit on discretion. No difference in evidence and burden of proof to charge individuals vs. coorporation. It’s entirely up to the discretion of the prosecutors and rife with abuse. Also corporations cannot control all their employees. Corporate criminal liability ensures innocent will be punished along with guilty.
* No difference in harm caused by individual vs. corporation. Individual criminal liability is a stronger deterrence than coorporate criminal liability. (Civil liabilities and regulations still exist.)
Why do we have it?
Supreme Court argues it’s a matter of public policy — more effective law enforcement. But this cannot (should not) override our protection of innocent people.
@ 29:00 Corporate criminal liability actually forces corporations to cooperate with Dept. of Justice, and PROTECTS guilty individuals.
Today the crime is not the criminal act, but failure to cooperate, and the punishment is a corporate endictment, which can be a death sentence.
Purpose of corporate criminal liability is to enlist corporations into the service of the “justice” system.
What’s so bad about this?
State unrestrained. Cost of law enforcement exported to private sector. No limitation to regulations.
@ 33:15 Example: KPNG investigated for tax sheltering which it camed was legal. Under threat of endictment, KPNG caved in, admitted guilt, did everything it could to help feds prosecute employees, partners, including refuing to pay attorney fees. Many of the partners thought everything they did was legal b/c KPNG’s legal department kept telling them the tax shelters were legal. KPNG ruined their defense. Pre-existing contract threatened to fire KPNG employees who disagreed with the company indictment of some of its employees.
SA@TAC – The Conservative Purpose of Wikileaks
ADA study confirms dangers of fluoridated water, especially for babies
dvocates of fluoridated water insist that the chemical additive is good for teeth, but actual science routinely shows otherwise, including a new study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association confirming fluoride as a toxic substance that actually destroys teeth, particularly those of developing young children and babies.
When people are exposed to excessive levels of fluoride through sources like drinking water, foods and beverages and even swallowed toothpaste, it often results in a condition known as dental fluorosis. The internal uptake of fluoride into teeth over time causes their enamel to become mottled and discolored, the end result being damaged teeth that have essentially rotted from the inside out.
Dr. Steven Levy, D.D.S., and his team found during their study that “fluoride intakes during each of the first four years (of a child’s life) were individually significantly related to fluorosis on maxillary central incisors, with the first year more important.” They went on to warn that “infant formulas reconstituted with higher fluoride water can provide 100 to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk, or cow’s milk.” (Read more from naturalnews.com)
Can the Government Require You to Eat Asparagus?
While hearing oral arguments about the constitutionality of the new health care law yesterday, a Virginia judge suggested that the legal logic underlying the law’s individual mandate, which requires everyone to purchase health insurance, could give the federal government “boundless” power over U.S. citizens. From The Wall Street Journal’s report on yesterday’s hearing:
Allowing [the individual mandate], Judge Hudson said, could open the door for the federal government to require residents to buy a car, join a gym and “eat asparagus,” he said. “It’s boundless.” (Read more from poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com)
This is what I said.
Scandal Coming to White House?
Part 1:
And I take no pleasure in saying Obama should not be re-elected in 2012.
That is a very strong statement – anything recent that causes you to now say you will not support Obama in 2012? (Long pause – question is repeated) There is much I have been told, some I know, some more that will probably develop in the coming weeks and months. But you want specifics, right? I understand that…I’ll give you an example of why President Obama is not right for America. He sure as hell has not been right for the party. Not long ago, the president took a meeting. He’s late, which apparently is becoming more and more common with him. The meeting was almost cancelled. In strolls the president, joking with an aide. He plops down on a sofa, leans over and claps another guy on the back asking how he’s been. Apologizes for being late, says he was “held up”. He laughs some more. The meeting begins. After just ten minutes, during which time the president appears to almost totally withdraw into himself, an aide walks in and whispers something to the president, who then nods and quickly stands up, shakes a few hands and tells another aide to update him later on the rest of the meeting. As the president is walking out he is laughing at something yet again. He asked no questions of those at the meeting – not one. He left after just ten minutes, coming in laughing and leaving laughing. His behavior during that brief time he was there was described as “borderline manic”.
Ok, you have already stated previously that the president doesn’t show much interest in the day to day business of being president – why is this example so bad, or different? Care to know what that particular meeting was about on that day?
Certainly. Afghanistan. That meeting was an update on Afghanistan, and the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, could give a -expletive-.
Were you actually there to witness this? No, I was long gone from the White House by then. It was told to me though by someone who was. They were there. First hand. They were also left to apologize to the ones left in the room after the president left. Some of these were military. They were not happy. No…that is not accurate. They were pissed. They didn’t say much at the time, but word got back. They were in shock at the president’s behavior. The country had just lost a number of soldiers the week prior, the public opinion on the war was falling…and the president didn’t seem to care. He arrives late, leaves early, appears to emotionally shut down during the actual discussion, and to then start laughing once again as he is leaving…how does someone reconcile with that kind of behavior? I can’t. It turns my stomach. I didn’t want to believe what I was being told, but I had seen similar kinds of behavior from the president myself, and I can’t dispute the credibility of the source. They have no reason to lie.
. . . .
So is that one example the real tipping point for you in no longer being willing to support Obama in 2012? Or do you have any others you wish to share? Oh, I have others, though I cannot share all of them at this point because they involve some still in range of potential White House retribution. Then again, I suppose I am still in range of such retribution myself.
What do you mean by retribution? Punishment. Political punishment, and even personal punishment. The powers of a president extend far beyond the Oval Office – you know that. I make my living, and it has been a very good living, working within the system of politics. A president can create considerable…pressure if you will, to limit or even destroy my place in that system. Working with a president is an extraordinary and terrifying thing. In regards to my experience with Obama, it became far less extraordinary and far more terrifying. And it’s getting worse.
Terrifying? Yes, terrifying. To see one’s expectations so disappointed. To see a figure who wields such great power and influence fall so short of the responsibilities of that power and influence…that is terrifying to witness. Initially I developed great fear for my party – for the Democrats whose political careers were being destroyed by this administration and party leadership. Now I sincerely fear for my country.
. . . .
I do not know if the country can survive another four years of Barack Obama, and frankly, I want nothing to do with helping us find out. The man is an incompetent. The man is a tool of the extreme far left that has utterly corrupted the Democratic Party. The man and those now closest to him in the administration appear to abhor America’s history. They detest anyone who does not fully subscribe to their positions. They are corrupt, they are increasingly paranoid, and they are taking this country down a path by which we may never recover.
You sound like Rush Limbaugh. -Expletive- you…(pause) I apologize for that, but no, I am not some right winger. You know that. I have spent decades helping to build the Democratic Party up.
. . . .
My primary goal now is to help as many good Democrats survive the disaster that will be the November elections, and from there, provide a far more capable and competent candidate to be the Democratic Party nominee for 2012.
Here’s your headline for today – there is a movement within the Democratic Party to make Hillary the nominee in 2012 – not Obama. I’m not talking a small group of “what ifs” here, I’m talking about significant members of the party, significant financial backers…a legitimate and serious move to make Hillary Clinton our nominee. It is not quite fully initiated yet, but it’s getting there.
Part 2:
Ok then – I’ll point your nose in the right direction. Enough people are sniffing in the same garbage pile anyways, including the Times. Though I suspect they are burying it at the moment, or trying to. They are still heavily invested in Obama, but that may change soon… Go back to Chicago. That is the key. There is other crap around the White House, other things that could trip them up, but Chicago is where the real heavy deal is that could bring the administration down. Go back and review Blagojevich. Go back and review Rezko, Barton, Stern, Giordano, Carothers, Jarret. It’s one and the same. It’s all connected, and it’s big. And people know. The White House is -expletive- itself over this stuff. Pelosi has it. Clintons have it – more of it than they had in 2008.
(Interrupts) What do you mean “have it”? The information – the story. At least some of it, enough of it. It’s all a chess match you know. A series of moves. Right now the White House is scrambling, and they don’t know enemies from friends anymore. The party is attempting to localize the damage so it doesn’t spread. Make it just about Chicago, and worst case, Obama – but not the party. And so you look back to Chicago, you look at the Justice Department, connect the dots. One investigation will potentially reveal the other. And it’s all setting up to happen now if the November elections go down with a Republican landslide. Obama will be left without protection. His inner circle is scared to death. I mean truly frightened by the prospects of what could be coming at them in the coming months. They have enemies both in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. President Obama is lost. Absolutely lost.”
. . . .
Look at the Democrats who are now openly challenging the president. Every day another one rebukes the president. That is an incredibly dangerous thing to do politically – it can destroy a career. Ask yourself why they would be so willing to do that. Are they just stupid, too bold – or is it something else?
I don’t know… (shakes head) The word is out there – President Obama is in real trouble. They may not have the specifics, but the story of a big scandal coming is circulating now within the party – both parties. So why put your own political career on the line supporting a president who is facing such a fiasco? Simple – they won’t. (Read more from newsflavor.com)
