Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Lil’ Timmy Geithner’ Category

One of the things I have truly enjoyed in starting a dialogue with Rutherford is the opportunity to engage a few leftists who actually make a real attempt to justify their beliefs, and are capable of talking without simply tossing a bomb and leaving. One of these people is the Rutherford regular, Hippieprof.

A few days ago, the Hippieprof tossed out the idea that FOX is an “unbalanced” news source because he has never seen a positive news story on Obama’s successes on it. I suggested that perhaps that would be because there was no success to report. Which then tumbled to his postulation that conservatives never see any of his successes as successes because we only watch FOX and FOX only says that he is a dismal failure. (Yeah, I know that means that he always seems to miss where Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, and other left-leaning spin doctors try to educate the various viewers about all the things the Democrats do right, I was trying to roll with it…), and I asked him what these successes were.

Life was intervening at various points, and the only answer he had time to provide was the appointment of Justice Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. I asked him why he thought this was so, and pointed him to my post “Unfit and Injudicious”. Instead of telling me why this was a success, he simply informed me that my demonstration of her repeated instances of injudicious conduct was simply an opinion, which could be wrong because other “experts” had come to a different conclusion. I suppose that because some “experts” believe that drug use is a victimless crime, those who conclude differently by measuring the cost to society and damage to non-using family members also have an opinion that could be wrong, because of the “experts” who never actually answer those issues.

This morning, he finally gave a more detailed response to my query about Obama’s successes, and rather than trying to my response into another blogger’s comment section, it seemed appropriate to offer a post here rebutting my learned friend’s opinions.

BiW….

On to Obama’s successes (including a list of what I see to be his failures at the end). I suspect you will not agree with any of the successes I list. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. There is no objective standard on most of these – and we have no historical perspective.

I take issue with the false premise that you begin with, that being that there can be no objective measure of success. Success, like every other word has a definition, and to define something is to clearly declare its meaning. To say that a word that has a clear meaning, several of them, in fact, is somehow incapable of being objectively measured is sophistry, plain and simple. But before I begin my rebuttal in earnest, I will set forth the definition of “success”, so that we can be clear about our expectations.

From the Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language:

Success: 1. The favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors;
2. the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like;
3. a successful performance or achievement;
4. a person or a thing that is successful.

Note also that we are merely 13 months into his term – so much of this remains a work in progress.

Wow. I cannot tell you how disappointing this particular walk-back of expectation is after all the “The First 100 Days” hype we were treated to every single one of those first 100 days by MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc…

Here goes:

1) Obama has symbolically broken the racial glass ceiling. He has empowered a huge segment of our society – a group who in fact felt that the American dream did not apply to them. He has given a sense of hope to the disenfranchised. Go ahead and scoff at this – but believe me, it is real and it is important. This is one reason I am so resentful of those who seek to take Obama down for mere political gain. You may have already seen my blog post on the topic: http://hippieprofessor.com/2010/02/10/ahhh-sarah-about-that-hopey-changey-thing/

Really?  I thought that Billy Jeff was the nation’s very first African-American President? 

He has not empowered anyone, and any sense of hope that he might have offered was the cruelest kind of illusion.

There has been no explosion of minority entrepreneurial activity.  The black single mom living in the ghetto with her three kids relying on welfare under Bush is still living in the same place and still relying on welfare for a living under Obama.  If there is a difference, it is that more Americans, ones who don’t want to be dependent upon government now find themselves in reduced circumstances and relying on unemployment extensions to keep paying some of their bills.  There is no growth in opportunity to take control of one’s own destiny and cast of the shackles of government dependency.  Indeed, the cornerstone of his plan to fundamentally change our country has been to offer even more dependency in the offensive usurpation of power that is the health care take over plan.

What hope has he offered?  Now that we have a black President, is it a hope that blacks will finally “come into their own” and take a larger leadership role in government because of his being elected President?  I think that is very insulting to every “person of color” who worked their way into positions of power on their own accord and by measurable, concrete achievement.   However, after decades of being called Uncle Toms and worse by a self-appointed African-American leadership for not staying on the modern-day plantation and accepting the prevailing political philosophy, people like Justice Thomas, Dr. Rice, or Thomas Sowell either have the good grace to let such assertions go unchallenged, or are too busy actually doing what they do with skill and intellect to bother speaking against this mirage.  Certainly such a belief continues to mistake equality of opportunity with equality of ability.

Or perhaps you were speaking of the Hope his candidacy offered to white liberals who don’t just hold close to a race guilt that they do not deserve, but actually cling to it as an article of faith?  Certainly these people were instrumental in this historic candidacy, and such irrationalism would be necessary to elect a person so undeserving of the position. 

I can see the color coming to your cheeks, and the OUTRAGE!111!! building behind your eyes.  Take a breath and ask yourself this question:  “Would I have cast my vote for a white man with the same or similar record?”  Obama is a supposedly brilliant man, yet we don’t know what his grades were at Occidental College or at Harvard.  We know his opponent’s class rank.  We know what kind of grades his predecessor got, and Al Gore’s grades for that matter. 

What did he do for a living beforehand?  He was a ‘community organizer’ and sometimes law lecturer.  But what does that mean?  He certainly wasn’t going to tell us that it means coaching organizations on new and better ways to work against the government, or lecturing to students about what a deeply flawed instrument the Constitution is because it provided no means to accomplish the aims of social justice a/k/a wealth redistribution.

Where did he distinguish himself in politics?  What ideas or issues were so important to him that he put something…anything on the line in defense of them?  He gave a nice speech at the Democratic Convention years prior, and voted ‘present’ in the Senate most of the time.  Before that, when in the Illinois State Senate, he found it important to stand against palliative comfort care for children with the temerity to survive their mother’s attempts to murder them.   I can’t think of very many serious candidates in years before with similarly sparse resume’s who rated real consideration for the office.  It certainly didn’t measure up to his opponent’s curriculum vitae, which reflected achievement, accomplishment, and sacrifice, not just for select subgroups of the country, but for us all, despite the fact I have disagreements with the various issues he has chosen to make a stand on, such as campaign finance, and illegal immigration.

You, and so many like you expose an unhealthy fascination with race, when you show that you are willing to elect a person carrying a paper-thin resume, and vague promises of hope and change because you find the historic achievement to be so necessary that you cannot wait for someone with both the correct racial pedigree and a demonstrated ability and character for the job (and speaking against even comfort care for the most innocent and defenseless among us is NOT the kind of character required for the leader of the free world).  And it so blinds you legitimate criticisms that you are willing to dismiss real and logical disagreements as criticism for “mere political gain”, which you deem as offensive, and I suspect, inherently unacceptable.  I don’t know what country you grew up in, but I would call your attention to the first real Presidential campaign between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and the years intervening, when there was a vile vitriol between the two camps that was all about “political gain”, and it consisted not just of different political philosophies, but slanderous filth of the most unimaginable kind.  The Chicago Messiah™ has so far had it much easier than his immediate two predecessors, both in scrutiny from the press, and criticism by political opponents and interest groups, and neither of their critics were continually savaged with the politically correct attempt to shut them up with the hysterical cries of “Racism!11!!!”, which has become the textbook response by people who have no desire to honestly address criticism.

2) He has stabilized the economy at a time when we might well have made a tailspin into a second great depression. You will scoff. Seriously – can you honestly claim that the economy would be in better shape right now without the stimulus? Had GM and Chrysler and AIG failed we would have seen a massive cascade of business failures and unemployment would be far far far higher than it is now. I have said it a billion times – in economics we don’t get a control group. Wish we did – because I know I would be right.

I don’t recall him “saving the economy”.  In fact, I’m pretty sure that it was his predecessor who peddled the intellectually bankrupt concept of “breaking the rules of the free market system in order to save it.”  Yes, your messiah was involved, but he only came to the TARP table reluctantly…after basically saying “If you need me, call me.”  That was hardly the act of someone who was interested in the job, or the effect of the economy on the American people.

As for the spendulous, while it has benefitted a lot of people in government jobs (i.e. people who don’t produce anything that contributes to economic growth), I can say that we would be better.  When there was 6.4 Billion Dollars spent in Congressional Districts that don’t exist (there’s a story for an uncritical Fourth Estate to pursue…unless it would be raaaacist to do so.), unemployment that went well above what we were promised that it would, and lots of signs touting invisible projects funded by the bill, and an enormous bill that necessarily has to fall on to the backs of my children, no, I can’t say that we are better off.  In fact, for me to do so would be a silly as touting a belief in the ridiculous and unprovable metric of “Millions of jobs saved or created”.

3) BTW – saving GM and Chrysler – at least for now – was a big thing. I suspect you will claim it was illegal and unconstitutional. I tend to think it wasn’t – but as you have pointed out I don’t have a law degree. Now we will actually see the Chevy Volt – and with Toyota in disarray the US may even to be able to catch up in the race for green technology. Yeah – I know – not important to you.

Hmmm.  I guess I’ll start with a simple question:  Do you believe in private property?  If your answer to that question is “yes”, then I’d like to know what that concept means to you. If private property means that something is truly the property of them what owns it and pays the bills due on it, then it is not a legitimate or legal act for government to step in, take it over, screw over preferred creditors…private parties who took a risk in granting these companies additional capital in exchange for collateral so that they knew exactly what they were risking in making the loans…in favor of unsecured creditors who played a large part in making the entities fail economically.  Put another way, government had neither the right or authority to take over the corporations, ignore established bankruptcy laws, strong-arm collaterized creditors, and then essentially give the corporations to the very parties that contributed to their downfall (i.e. the UAW) with their inflexible approach and sense of entitlement to a much higher standard of living than virtually every other class of manufacturing worker currently employed in this country. 

I care about this more than you can imagine.  I grew up in the Flint suburbs, in a family that has always driven Chryslers, and when I reached adulthood, I tended to favor GM.  These workers were the parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents of my friends.  They were my neighbors.  We drove American through the 70’s and 80’s, when driving American wasn’t cool.  I have a Chevy and a Chrysler in my driveway right now.  I was looking forward to the hope of picking up a used Dodge Challenger in a few years, just because the idea of owning such a sleek Gaia-raping, deep-throated street predator filled me with such awe and wonder that it almost made me giggle with delight.  That isn’t going to happen now, and if I am going to stick by my committment to drive American, I have to look at Ford when the time comes to replace my beloved Impala, simply because I have no intention to reward the bad behavior of any of the parties involved…managment, union, or government.

However, a more important consideration is this:  GM is now basically a union-government joint venture.  During and after the restructuring, they received even more of our money to stay afloat.  No steps have been taken to control legacy costs, or even to address incredibly generous union contracts, and as long as Uncle Sugar (really you and me) keep writing the checks, the unions have no incentive to make their end of the business more competitive.  They will continue to spend our money for as long as they possibly can.

As for AIG and the rest, it was patently wrong for the government, which already played a role in the economy as regulator, to step in and become a participant.  Business succeeds in generating wealth not just for its owners, but for the national economy at large because it has a better idea, or can be more cost efficient than its competitors.  Competitors that can’t or won’t control their costs, and/or put out inferior products should fail because of competitors that accomplish this better.  Ford did this better than GM or Chrysler, and as a result, had every right to expect to be rewarded for doing so with the greater market share that comes when a competitor fails.  And while it has continued to do much better since turning down the sugar that Uncle peddled, it now is in competition with the same entity that regulates the market, and its practices and processes. 

The government, which already had enormous regulatory power over financial markets, and had instituted policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks and other regulated lenders to make bad business decisions in the form of risky loans, decided to that it was appropriate to step in and pick winners and losers when the decade of looting, overseen by prominent (and well-paid) Democrats such as Jaime Gorelick and Franklin Raines, could no longer be concealed and the time came to pay the bill.  We paid gobs and buckets of money to cover bad loans that we never should have made in the first place through the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of the home finance world, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then we decided that firms that took part in this ongoing fraud such as Bear Sterns were not worthy of saving, but Goldman Sachs (Turbo Tax Timmy’s old gang)  and AIG HAD to be saved at any cost…which means at any cost to the taxpayer.  Interference with private property rights, circumventing the law, competing in the same markets it also regulates, and spending piles and piles of other people’s money on these dubious investments is not something that should be celebrated.  It should be severely sanctioned with convictions, jail time, restitution, and if all else fails, tar and feathers.

4) He has articulated a moderate vision of health care reform. Despite dishonest conservative commentary(fueled by a desperate insurance industry) It is far from a progressive position – a progressive position would entail single payer or at least a very robust public option. An honest politician on the right would find a lot to like in the bills now on the table – yet they seek to to score political points instead – and they disgust me. See my section on failures below for commentary on Obama’s failure to get this done.

It isn’t up to the government to provide health care for people, and that includes Medicaid and Medicare.  I would make an exception for the care that the VA renders because I believe that injuries suffered by those willing to give their lives to preserve our way of life should be repaid in such a fashion, and because the injuries were suffered in the service of the Republic, we assumed that duty. 

Medicaid and Medicare prove that government cannot efficiently manage such a process.  The billions of dollars in waste and fraud and decades worth of IOUs for tax receipts looted for other entitlement spending are ample testimony to that.  There are other considerations also, first and foremost being that such an undertaking is not Constitutional.  I know from our previous exchanges on this subject that you want to believe otherwise, and will seize upon any argument you feel supports your decision (the welfare clause, the fact that Medicare has never been declared Unconstitutional, etc, etc, etc.) but the fact remains that there simply is no Constitutional authority making it the government’s right and duty to see to it that we have to provide any health insurance for everyone, and the idea that government can impose financial penalties and prison time for my failure to purchase a plan it approves of is antithetical to every principle this nation was founded on.  If health care becomes the purview of the government, then what health care I can receive by necessity also becomes the purview of the government.  Just as the power to tax a thing is the power to destroy a thing, the power to control health care is the power to deny health care.  The power to deny health care is the power to kill.  I shouldn’t have to point to the proof available to all who look, such as the NHS in Britain denying breast cancer drugs that work to breast cancer patients because they cost too much, or the old Soviet trick of declaring political opponents and critics to be “mentally ill” and institutionalizing them in wretched facilities with the expectation that they die there, isolated and silenced.  “That’s extreme!!!111!!!”  you say.  “Perhaps,” I say, “but at the same time, I’m not inclined to leave my physical well-being in the hands of people so unprincipled that they continue to subvert and ignore the inviolate law of the land, and act in contravention to the will of the recognized source of our unalienable rights.” 

But my insurance company can deny me a drug or a treatment now, you say.  You are correct, but my decision to buy health insurance is just that: my decision.  If my employer provides it to me, then it is something my employer chose to provide to me.  Nothing is stopping me from shopping for and purchasing my own policy right now.  If we get Obamacare sans the “public option”[for now…Bwarney Fwanks was absolutely correct that it is the next inevitable step], I don’t get to chose not to have a plan…a choice made by many young people because they are young and in good health.  I don’t get the plan of my choosing.  I get to choose from the plans that government will approve.  This is a wonderful opportunity for graft and kickbacks, and will still lead to the death of private insurance because a publically funded alternative has NO INCENTIVE to operate like a business.  If the money runs out, they simply charge the taxpayer more, and the private companies have to compete with an entity that has its hand in our collective pocket every time they spend too much.  If I didn’t understand the underlying belief held dear by most liberals that people should be relieved of the burden of making their own choices and the consequences of the choices that they do make, though the power of the government, that they, as the ones who know what’s best for us, always plan to control, I would say that it is an unusual position for someone who believes in freedom of choice, as long as it includes the right of a mother to murder their offspring.

5) He is taking strides to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” – he should have done it earlier, and it will take too long in the end – but it is the right thing to do.

Why is it the right thing to do?  I have yet to hear a logical explanation why we as a nation have a vested interest in upholding and supporting the notion of gay rights.  Indeed, most of the arguments that I do hear could just as easily be employed my NAMBLA members or people who like having sex with farm animals.  Come to me with scientific proof of an immutable condition, or admit that if we accept the current reasoning, there is a great deal of behavior, including behavior that liberals find offensive, that we will have to legitimize for the exact same reasons later.

6) He has, as promised, given a tax cut to the vast majority of working Americans. That they apparently don’t realize this is testimony to the power of the conservative press. You can be damned sure that had McCain lowered middle-class taxes to a similar degree FOX would be shouting it from the mountaintops.

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset raised taxes for everyone.  Manipulating the withholding tables to give an average of $13 of the normal American’s pay back to him in his weekly paycheck, while making no change in the actual tax rates that dictate the amount of taxes that they will pay for the year is not a real tax cut.  Of course, most Americans won’t really pick up on this until next year, and the continued lack of any movement by members of both parties will create a situation were more and more middle class Americans will be hammered by the AMT, but that won’t be honestly reported if the Chicago Messiah™ gets to continue lowering the definition of who is actually “rich” in America.  By then, his strategy of fomenting class envy and generally pushing the various doctrines that comprise The Politics of Lowered Expectations™ will really be taking hold, as the entitlement class grows more restless in its greed, and the paying class grows weary of the increasing levels of confiscation of its life energy imposed on it from a ballooning government.  On the Mark Twain scale, your statement isn’t just a lie, its a damn lie.

7) He acted boldly and decisively with the Somali pirate situation. Before you scoff, just think what you would be saying had that rescue attempt failed. Why – you would be saying the same things you say about Carter’s failure to rescue the Iran hostages (though of course that was a much bigger undertaking).

I’m scoffing because his action was neither “bold” or “decisive”.  The Maersk Alabama was hijacked on April 8, 2009.  The crew themselves took the ship back later that day.  The US dispatched response arrived the following day, but the captain of the Alabama was not freed until the 12th…after Obama sent FBI negotiators to talk to the pirates, and dithered for days about letting the Navy do its job and dispatch the pirates with extreme prejudice.  I realize that in academia, bold and decisive action is rapidly criticizing a decision made by a conservative politician or denouncing a state government for reducing the number of taxpayer dollars that a legislature will be sending to institutions of higher indoctrination within their borders in that budget year, but in this case bold and decisive action would have been immediately unleashing the SEALs to kill the pirates and rescue the captain if possible, and then to bomb the pirates’ land based support into rubble, and capturing and hanging any pirates who subsequently attempted to hijack commercial shipping in the area.
 

He has made an unprecedented outreach to the Islamic world. No doubt you will think this was a mistake – a sign of weakness perhaps. You fail to realize how badly our image has fallen in the rest of the world after Bush. Something needs to be done about that – this is a start.

I know.  Actually acting after stacks of resolutions against Iraq piled up for violating the otherwise ineffective directives of the “international authorities” and many of our allies profited on the side from the Oil-for-Food program while helping a ruthless dictator to rearm and continue to attack people that “international authorities” continually told him to keep away from was pretty reprehensible.  After all, it is bad form to shed light on and shut off your allies’ graft personal enrichment programs that are in direct contravention of their public statements made in front of cameras and reporters.  Its kind of like waiting to tell your wife that you’re sterile until after she announces that she’s pregnant.

I do support his current program of reaching out to jihadis with Predator drones and missile strikes, as well as sharing real time intelligence with governments that actually make an effort to root out such vipers in their midst, as is currently occurring in some middle east nations like Yemen.  Unlike you, I have no illusion that this will somehow translate in to lots of fluffy bunny and skittle crapping unicorn sessions with the various members of the Islamic world, but also unlike you, I have no reason to see the approbation and approval of people who have demonstrated a willingness time and time again to kill anyone who doesn’t think like they do, which means most of the western world.

9) He made a good choice for his first Supreme Court appointment. I stand by that. I knew what “wise Latina” meant the moment I heard the phrase – and I am saddened that she had to backtrack on that and pretend it meant something other than it did. Yes – we all know what you think here.

Yes, but I still don’t know why you think it was a good choice.  I suspect, based on our exchanges, but I do not know.  You simply keep saying that it was a good choice, and frankly, that reads much like some of her more notorious decisions.

[I have omitted the rest of his comment because he started on his list of Obama failures, and while I don’t agree with much of his underlying rationale, I also didn’t see cause for disappointment in these “failures”.]

Read Full Post »

I have to confess, I didn’t bother watching Professor Knownothing’s SOTU speech tonight.  I had two good reasons for not doing so.  The first is avoiding his speeches prevents me from boosting my blood pressure to levels it shouldn’t be at, and the second was that I was at church, learning how to be a better judgmental Christianist who actually believes in an absolute truth other than the only remaining post-modern absolute truth that there is no absolute truth.   Because of the first, I long ago started reading the transcripts instead, although I did watch the clip where the famed “Constitutional Scholar” and noted imbecile had the audacity to sass his intellectual betters on the Court and propose that Congress pass a law reaffirming a principle that the Court just struck down as unconstitutional, presumably so the Court can…strike it down again?  This demonstration of no due respect to the concept of separation of powers reveals yet again a very, very Lilliputian intellect continually trying to clothe itself in the rainment of greatness, only to fail miserably and parade around displaying a naked pettiness and arrogance than ill-becomes any President, including the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Yes, I read the whole thing, and I highlighted the few portions that I felt deserved special rebuttal because I know the speaker knew better when the teleprompter made him utter them.  If you’re a masochist, or you just relish lies, insincerity, and complete and utter tripe wrapped up in one complete package, you can read the whole thing here.

To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn’t keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

Never mind the fact that members of my administration forced some of those banks to take the money, against their better judgement, and nevermind the fact that almost all have paid these loans back, with interest.  They remain a sector of the economy that is working, and if we can’t keep them chained down with our “charity”, then we will penalize them for their independence.

As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible and help Americans who had become unemployed.

And those people in the 99th congressional district of North Dakota, and the other 439 non-existent congressional districts that shared in 6.5 Billion of your tax dollars are very, very grateful indeed for your generous largesse, as are the companies that got the signs advertising all those “shovel-ready” projects made possible by your children’s willingness to become indebted to help save or create all these jobs.  As soon as I can introduce the legislation into Congress, we’ll take all these impertinent tea-baggers into custody and give them shovels to use as they work on those projects.

Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven’t raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

That’s right.  We made a minor adjustment to payroll withholding so that you could have enough extra in your weekly check to fill the tanks of your Geo Metros, and then allowed the Bush tax cuts to sunset, so that you’ll still have to pay it all back at the end of the year.  Whatta burner on you suckers who let us have your money interest-free so you could take a vacation or buy a big screen tv with your “refund”, huh?  Don’t make any plans for Aruba this year, peasant.

Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed — 200,000 work in construction and clean energy, 300,000 are teachers and other education workers, tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers and first responders. And we are on track to add another one-and-a-half-million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

Nevermind the fact that private sector jobs, the ones that actually produce the wealth to pay the taxes, are on the decline, which ultimately means less tax revenue to use to pay the higher than private sector salaries for these government jobs.  You will live to serve your betters in government, and when it becomes apparent that this approach is not sustainable, I will have found a new and better way to blame Bush for this fine mess I keep dragging us deeper into.

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America’s businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

But I’m not interested in those, because like all elitists who have never worked in the private sector, I am fully possessed by the false belief that small businesses can thrive under a regime of regulation that interferes with the owners’ and entrepreurs’ instincts and judgment, and taxes designed to take the incentive out the risk-taking that drives the growth of small business to begin with.  Geniuses like myself understand that using other people’s property and labor to fund the needs of social justice aren’t just the right of government.  It is government’s duty.  Pay no attention to that silly Constitution.  I’ve told you before that it is a fundamentally flawed document.

We should start where most new jobs do — in small businesses, companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream or a worker decides it’s time she became her own boss.

Yes, because when we lack that courage ourselves, and have no real comprehension how they really could help the recovery, not by oppressive taxes and regulations, but by actually creating jobs, it is always best to be the perfect parasite; never really killing the host, only taking it to the threshold of death.  But hey, if you actually beat the odds and become successful, then you should be required to pay exorbitant taxes.  Do you think redistributing all this nation’s wealth is easy?   Government will have to hire hundreds of thousands of people to give your money to others, minus the usual handling costs.

Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and are ready to grow.

Actually, I know that it is despite my naive and dangerous fiscal policy, and all the uncertainty that it brings, that some companies have managed to hang on.  Make no mistake, we will be doing everything we can to make them as dependent on us as the rest of the population, or we will drive the out of business.

One place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks, I’m interested in protecting our economy.

Oh no.  I am much more interested in controlling them.    But for those that continue to fail to see it our way, yeah, we will lean on them, demonize them, and not stop until protestors are on the lawns of the executives of those uncooperative banks, and they have to come to us for protection.

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.

…unless they are unions, which do their damnedest to prevent our nations corporations from being competitive with the rest of the world, and have elevated scorched earth from a last-ditch effort of desperate powers to a predictable and repeated tactic directly contributing to the downfall of companies that are “too big to fail”, making it necessary for us to steal from your children, and your children’s children, to prop these companies back up so we can give the to the very same powerful interests, the unions, in derrogation of legitimate creditors and bondholders, the ones who formerly took that risk because they foolishly believed that the law was inviolate and protected their interests and investments…right up to the moment we told them to capitulate, or else…

 They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

Because, while I’m rumored to be a Constitutional scholar, I already told you that I believe that the document is fundamentally flawed, and the idea that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not constitutional is one of those many flaws.  Let me be clear.  Over two hundred years of jurisprudence is wrong.  We are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of men, ruled by men, and more specifically, me.  And I say that my friends in the unions do not like having competition in the area of political speech by the owners of corporations, so I will personally see to it that any bill Congress sees fit to pass that reaffirms the principle overturned by the Court last week will be upheld, even if I have start appointing more Justices to the Court to do it.  I have a whole bunch of eminently qualified people in my administration to nominate.  Sterling intellects like Harold Koh, and John Holdren, who will help ensure the advancement of whatever progressive principles that we cannot achieve in Congress, thanks to those spineless members who have fallen prey to the false belief that they are actually accountable to the voters, rather than charged with doing what we tell them is best for the citizens.

Crossposted at The Hostages

Read Full Post »

He ain't heavy, he's my brother.

Once again, we’re at that time of year when everyone examines the year that was with their clever lists, and wry observations.  being neither clever or wry, I’ll simply point out where we weren’t a year ago, before the Dawn of the Age of the HopeyChangeyness (now with Skittles-crapping unicorns.)

A year ago, the government wasn’t the owner of two previously privately held auto companies, the largest insurer in the nation, or a large mortgage bank.

A year ago, our President wasn’t buddy-buddy with Chavez or Castro.

A year ago, we didn’t have a tax-cheat as Treasury Secretary.

A year ago, we didn’t have an Executive Order authorizing the immigration and placement of thousands of Palestinians in the U.S.

A year ago, U.S. taxpayers weren’t funding and facilitating abortions in other countries.

A year ago, five percent fewer federal employees made over $100,000.00 a year.  It must be nice to get a raise in the worst recession in my memory…especially when you already have the job security of a federal employee.

A year ago, we had a President who wasn’t on record as thinking that the Constitution is “fundamentally flawed”.

A year ago, we had a President who did not bow deeply to the Saudi King and the Japanese Emperor.

A year ago, we had a President who did not avoid the Senate’s advise and consent role by appointing czars in places where they had never been before.

A year ago, we had a President who did not go out of his way to insult average Americans by casting aspersions on their values and the values of their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents.

A year ago, we did not have a Supreme Court Justice who completely and utterly disqualified themselves before appointment with repeated statements calling their integrity and impartiality into question.

A year ago, we did not have government officials threatening private investors who were trying to protect their legal rights in bankruptcy.

A year ago, we did not have a presidentially appointed self-admitted Communist in government.

A year ago, a government official would not have dreamt of quoting Mao in public as a favorite philosopher.

A year ago, our elected representatives would not have dared to ask constituents for ID before answering their questions, or used union goons and police to silence and remove constituents from public meetings.

A year ago, the conventional wisdom would have laughed at the notion that we need hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus spending that stimulates nothing in order to turn the rising tide of unemployment.

A year ago, the government did not deign to set compensation levels for employees of privately held companies.

A year ago, the idea of government health care for all was the punchline of a Hillary Clinton joke.

A year ago, we didn’t have a President who has informed a whole sector of the energy industry that he wants to put them out of business.

A year ago, the EPA was not threatening to regulate carbon dioxide emissions if Congress doesn’t.

A year ago, INTERPOL could not operate on American soil without regard to the American Constitution and American due process.

A year ago, we didn’t have an attorney general who believed it was appropriate or necessary to try foreign terrorists in Article III courts.

A year ago, we had a President and administration that recognized that we were already in a war on terrorism, because the terrorists had already declared war on us.

A year ago, a statement to the nation about a terrorist act committed against Americans by the President was a duty, and not an annoyance.

A year ago, carbon dioxide was good because it helps plants grow, and not a pollutant requiring taxes by Congress that will be paid by energy consumers.

A year ago, in was understood that the government cannot force me to buy a government-approved health care plan with the threat of exorbitant fines and/or jail time.

A year ago, it wasn’t the priority of one political party to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to a group of community activists that have engaged in voter fraud and other criminal enterprises…time and again.

A year ago, the government didn’t fire watchdogs who caught influential friends of the government with their sticky fingers in the government till.

A year ago, we had a President and Leader of the Free World who didn’t sit on his hands and “bear witness” to the brutal repression and murder of people resisting a totalitarian regime that is determined to destabilize the region it is in.

A year ago, we had a President who did not support a leader attempting a coup by vilifying the people who lawfully prevented it.

A year ago, we did not face a government that grows fat and belligerent on our tax dollar, while constantly threatening to take more of our money and freedom from us.

A year ago, we didn’t have a President that accused our soldiers of perpetrating war crimes for political gain, or declared police guilty of acting stupidly while admitting in the same breath that he didn’t have all the facts.

A year ago, dissent was the highest form of patriotism; now it’s racist!

Crossposted at The Hostages.

Read Full Post »

And now, its time for the first WTF? moment of the day, reported to us by the Wall Street Journal:

Policies that set the pay for tens of thousands of bank employees nationwide would require approval from the Federal Reserve as part of a far-reaching proposal to rein in risk-taking at financial institutions.

Where to start with this?  Determining the maximum limits on someone else’s earnings?  Excuse me?  These are private institutions, not governmental entities.  This smacks of class warfare at its finest, and the crass hijacking of envy at its worst. 

If this is allowed to succeed, you can expect it to spread to other private businesses as well, Comrade, because we all know that everyone but me makes too much money, and that those filthy evil earnings need to be curbed for the benefit of society.

Secondly, who is the Federal Reserve to decide this?  The power-hungry lefties in government aren’t even usurping this power themselves.  Instead they are leaving it to a quasi-governmental entity whose authority to act in any manner that it does is questionable at best?  Maybe next we can have AMTRAK set the fee rates for lawyers, or maybe the Post Office should be deciding what doctors can charge?  What’s next?  Price controls?  Wage and price controls…yeah, that’s the ticket.  They have always been successful in turning the economy around in the past, if by turning the economy around, you mean driving up inflation and scarcity of goods and services.

This is NOT the proper role of government, and it is certainly NOT the proper role of quasi-governmental entities.

Read Full Post »

“Beware the wrath of a patient adversary.” – John C. Calhoun

Originally, my next post was going to be about the real racists in this country crying “Racism!” when they aren’t allowed to act like jackasses unchallenged, or when the one with power are challenged for advocating silliness.  However, I think that has been pretty well addressed at this point.  You either get it, know what is going on, and are repulsed by it, or you get it, know what is going on, and are willing to engage in it or make excuses for it anyway.   Keep advocating complete immersion in the Age of Unreason, brought to us by The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, like a sand castle on the ocean shore, you will be washed away.

And now, the government wants Americans to inform on other Americans for the “crime” of daring to question the lies they keep telling the American people?

Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to “uncover” the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.

…Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Excuse me?  EXCUSE ME???

Of course, this is only part of the emergence of this trend toward tyranny, enforced by intimidation.

From The Politico, Democratic Strategist and Attorney Lanny Davis weighs in with his careful, considered opinion:

Let’s have the media name names, publish photographs, and do interviews of those responsible for approving, even organizing these techniues. And let’s find an investigative journalist – are there many left – to prove these so-called grassroots shouters are, or are not, being paid.

An ATTORNEY is suggesting that the media name the names and publish photographs of CITIZENS who dare to express their discontent with their elected representatives who have manifested their willingness to enslave this generation and the next, and the one after that to pay for enormous wealth-redistribution programs that will permanently cripple the economy and destroy the American spirit and the American Exceptionalism that have made us a model for the world.  An ATTORNEY thinks that CITIZENS seeking redress of grievances with their representatives should be intimidated and investigated by a media that has perfected the art of the smear, destroying careers and lives without regard for truth.  That demonstrates an inexcusable contempt for the American citizen and the First Amendment.  I think he needs a refresher course on the Constitution, and he should be treated with as much or more contempt than he has shown us.

If you are going to abridge our rights, and encourage Americans to report on other Americans, then you should be prepared for the effects of the lawless society you create.

UPDATE:

Could it be that little Lanny’s perception is colored by by his past experience?  Irony.  Its what’s for dinner.

Read Full Post »

Now where have I heard that before?  I’m sure it will come to me…

He’s got it right, although I doubt the efficacy of the tea party movement.  I don’t see where Congress is listening.  They aren’t listening when we call, they aren’t listening when we write, and an envelope with a tag and string from a teabag isn’t really being heard either.  I’m starting to doubt if the country can survive their deaf ears.

Read Full Post »

Naturally, when one makes progressive steps, there may be some who see it as a betrayal of their goals and interests. – Louis Farrakhan

Yet there comes a time in the life of a patriot when abdication would amount to a betrayal if not outright treachery.  – Olusegun Obasanjo

There are three signs of a hypocrite: when he speaks he speaks lies, when he makes a promise he breaks it, and when he is trusted he betrays his trust.  –Muhammad

One should rather die than be betrayed.  There is no deceit in death.  It delivers precisely what it has promised.  Betrayal though … betrayal is the willful slaughter of hope.  –Steven Deitz 

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.  But it cannot survive treason from within.  An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is know and carries his banner openly.  But the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.  A murderer is less to fear.  The traitor is the plague.  – Cicero 

 Though those that are betray’d do feel the treason sharply, yet the traitor stands in worse case of woe.  –William Shakespeare

Any appeasement of tyranny is treason to this republic and to the democratic ideal.  –William Allen White

While I ate my lunch today, I sat and wondered “When does betrayal become treason?”  I know, none of you have any idea why such thoughts might start screaming through my head. But in all seriousness, I think this question is closer to the tips of more American tongues than at any time since 1860.  I thought it might be instructive to start with a defintion.

be⋅tray

1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.
2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.
3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one’s friends.
4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.
5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.
6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.
7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.
8. to seduce and desert.
Origin:
1200–50; ME bitraien, equiv. to bi- be- + traien < OF trair < L trādere to betray. See traitor


be⋅tray⋅al, noun
be⋅tray⋅er, noun

4.
bare, expose, tell, divulge. 6. display, manifest, expose, uncover.

4, 6.
hide, conceal.

 

 

I submit to you that this administration and Congress have engaged in acts of betrayal against the American people.  The evidence, in no particular order or rank of importance:

1.  President Obama’s “Apologize for America Tour”.

No one asked him to do it.  No true patriot could countenance the election of a President who felt compelled to stand on the dais in foreign cities, ensconsed in nations with endless trains of human rights abuses and decades of abuses and tyrannies against their own people who would have the audacity to want something more than what their rulers deigned to let them have. 

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods. Facing the Washington monument that I spoke of is a memorial to Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. And our country still struggles with the legacy of our past treatment of Native Americans.

Not content to discuss the shortcomings of America’s past with people all too eager to justify their hostility toward us, he doubled down with the twin deceptions of flattery and lies.

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

And except for that whole “convert or die” and the “Kill all the jews” thing, they have been great models of tolerant behavior.   Nobody can strap on a bomb and wade into a crowd in a marketplace, or hijack a jetliner and slam it into a skyscraper like these paragons of ‘religious tolerance and racial equity’.  And they way they can behead westerners that fall into their captivity?  Truly epic style.  

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.”

Of course, he was speaking from a position of weakness.  The nation was not prepared for a fight with savage pirates half-way around the world at that time, so he took the only prudent course of action that he could at that time.  He stalled for time.  It worked, and when we were ready, we acted like men, and bloodied the noses of those particular bullies, which prevented any further trouble with those ‘lions of islam’ for quite some time.

 

2.   The quiet agreement to resettle Palestinians in America itself.

 

Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related To Gaza
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the “Act”), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

 

 

(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, January 27, 2009
[FR Doc. E9-2488
Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P 
 
3.  Vilification of AIG Bonuses by the President and Members of Congress, After They Had Taken Steps To Ensure That They Remained In The Stimulus Bill Passed Before The News Was Broken To The Public.

The bailout of AIG theoretically posed the potential for stopping the payment of these bonuses, yet at least one Senator stated that he was asked by the Administration to retain the bonuses in the bill, which means that they were there to read by other members of Congress before passing it, and before the President signed it.  When the public got wind of it, The President and some members of Congress, as well as some state Attorneys General decided that public OUTRAGE! trumped rule of law and eager to not have to answer for their roles of incompetence in the matter, they felt free to vilify people who had negotiated for compensation in a lawful manner and threaten to take away what they were lawfully entitled to as a matter of contract law, in derogation of the Constitution.

In a stunning development, Sen. Christopher Dodd said that Obama administration officials asked him to add language to last month’s federal stimulus bill to make sure the controversial AIG bonuses remained in place.

In the last six months, AIG has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury. And I’ve asked Secretary Geithner to use that leverage and pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole. (Applause.)

(“This is an outrage,” is how Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority Leader, characterized the bonuses on ABC’s This Week, echoing what candidate Obama said just a few months ago.)

In a letter to CEO Edward Liddy, Cuomo said he’s been investigating AIG compensation arrangements since last fall and would issue subpoenas at 4 p.m. EST Monday if he didn’t get the names of employees scheduled for bonuses plus information about their work and contracts.

“Blumenthal claimed the AIG executives were “undeserving” of the bonuses. Blumenthal also pointed out the bonuses paid out were to increase next year. However, Beck pressed Blumenthal on the legality of that and Blumenthal came up blank in this exchange:”

And standing by and saying nothing when ACORN and the SEIU were bussing people to protest outside of the homes of some who were to receive bonus money?  Shameful.

4.   Appointing a Tax Cheat As Treasury Secretary, And Continually Nominating Persons For Government Positions Who Have Trouble Making Timely And Accurate Tax Payments.

Do we really want someone who had trouble paying his taxes to become the Treasury Secretary?  Afterall, the IRS falls under the Treasury Department.  Is this the right tone to set for the American Taxpayer?  Especially in a tax-happy administration?

In 2006, the IRS audited Mr. Geithner’s 2003 and 2004 taxes and concluded he owed taxes and interest totaling $17,230, according to documents released by the Senate Finance Committee. The IRS waived the related penalties.

During the vetting of Mr. Geithner late last year, the Obama transition team discovered the nominee had failed to pay the same taxes for 2001 and 2002. “Upon learning of this error on Nov. 21, 2008, Mr. Geithner immediately submitted payment for tax that would have been due in those years, plus interest,” a transition aide said. The sum totaled $25,970.

It only gets better, though.  He didn’t simply “make an error” during those years, because the calculation was not only done for him, he had to acknowledge that he was going to use the money to pay the taxes when it was given to him.

The IMF did not withhold state and federal income taxes or self-employment taxes — Social Security and Medicare — from its employees’ paychecks. But the IMF took great care to explain to those employees, in detail and frequently, what their tax responsibilities were. …

The tax allowance has turned out to be a key part of the Geithner situation. This is how it worked. IMF employees were expected to pay their taxes out of their own money. But the IMF then gave them an extra allowance, known as a “gross-up,” to cover those tax payments. This was done in the Annual Tax Allowance Request, in which the employee filled out some basic information — marital status, dependent children, etc. — and the IMF then estimated the amount of taxes the employee would owe and gave the employee a corresponding allowance.

At the end of the tax allowance form were the words, “I hereby certify that all the information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I will pay the taxes for which I have received tax allowance payments from the Fund.” Geithner signed the form. He accepted the allowance payment. He didn’t pay the tax. For several years in a row.

And he wasn’t the only one.  There were others nominated by the Administration that have similar difficulties.  If this isn’t a “big deal” for them, why is it such a big deal if you don’t pay your taxes?  Never mind.  Put your notions of “Rules for thee, but not for me” back on the shelf and get back to work, peasant.  We have a lot money promised to ACORN and midnight basketball.

The confirmation of another Cabinet member stalled Thursday because of unpaid taxes after USA TODAY disclosed that the husband of Labor secretary nominee Hilda Solis paid about $6,400 this week to settle numerous tax liens against his business dating to 1993.

 
 
Some attempt was made to call these “honest mistakes”.  A *few* of them even might be, but when they are being tapped to serve in an Administration that is determined to layer new tax after new tax on people who are already paying the taxes, and giving more and more of that tax revenue to the people who pay little or nothing, it is certainly a provocative strategy.  A little like holding a bomb and playing “Eenie, Meanie, Miney, Moe” with the wires and a pair of scissors.  Taxes are a primary reason why we aren’t part of British North America today.  Apparently, some people have forgotten that fact.
 
5.  The Publication of a DHS Memo That Characterized Typically Patriotic Citizens As Potential “Right Wing Extremists”.
While this memowas purported to have been written during the Bush Administration, it was released by President Obama’s DHS, and later retracted with a half-hearted apology to the citizens targeted by their own government.
 
 
Note to faceless bureaucrat author:  When you are busy targeting as threats the people who put their lives on the line to protect and serve this nation, that might be a rather large indication that its YOU who might be part of the problem.
 
6.   The President’s Bow to a Foreign Leader.

Oh, yes.  I always bend way over when shaking with both hands.  I’m sure that’s it, Gibby.

7.  The Obama Czar Explosion.

President Barack Obama’s decision to place czars above Cabinet-level agencies presents dangers beyond confusion over who’s in charge and an organizational chart that looks like pasta carbonara. There’s also the potential for a constitutional crisis.

Obama’s czars, the most ever appointed by an administration, are likely to have the authority to influence or make decisions for Cabinet-level agencies. Yet they aren’t confirmed by Congress and don’t have to respond to pesky requests to testify before oversight committees.

 

“The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances,” Senator Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, warned in a letter to the White House.

Each of these has enormous government power, and answers only to the president. 

The quiet accumulation of power by executive appointment, done by an Administration that has made some compelling noises about restoring “transparency” to government.   Once again, it is more instructive to note what the President has done, not what he has said on the subject.

8.  Firing Government Watchdogs Who Blow The Whistle On Freinds of The President Who Have Their Sticky Fingers In The Government Till.

 It wasn’t enough to fire someone who caught a “Friend of Obama” diverting public money to personal purposes.  The Adminstration decided to break the law in doing so, and smear a public servant’s good name at the same time.

A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.

Mr. Walpin’s investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car.

There’s also the question of how Mr. Walpin was terminated. He says the phone call came from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, who said the President felt it was time for Mr. Walpin to “move on,” and that it was “pure coincidence” he was asked to leave during the St. HOPE controversy. Yet the Administration has already had to walk back that claim.

That’s because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. A co-sponsor of that bill was none other than Senator Obama. Having failed to pressure Mr. Walpin into resigning (which in itself might violate the law), the Administration was forced to say he’d be terminated in 30 days, and to tell Congress its reasons.

9.  Buying GM and Chrysler with Taxpayer Money, Then Giving Them To The Unions.

Our story begins with the slow downfall of Chrysler, which succumbed to bankruptcy after experiencing a steep sales decline of 48 percent in one year. During its slide, Chrysler borrowed money from lenders and in return signed a contract promising that as so-called senior creditors, they’d get paid before anyone else if the company went under.

These creditors, by the way, represent something of a cross-section of America: the University of Kentucky, Kraft Foods’ retirement fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, pension funds, teachers’ credit unions, and so on.

A normal bankruptcy filing would be straightforward. Senior creditors get paid 100 cents on the dollar. Everyone else gets in line.

But President Obama and his allies don’t want that to happen. So they interfered on behalf of unions (the junior creditors) and publicly upbraided the senior creditors who were asserting their contractual rights and threatening to head to bankruptcy court.

One disturbing report came from a well-respected attorney representing the dissident Chrysler creditors. Thomas Lauria, the head of White & Case’s bankruptcy practice, says that he was threatened by Steven Rattner, the White House’s auto task force chief. (A White House spokesman denies making any threats.)

“I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday,” Lauria said on a Detroit radio show. “One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.” Lauria said that his clients were willing to compromise on 50 cents on the dollar, but the government offered them only 29 cents.

In the Federalist Papers in 1788, James Madison wrote that “laws impairing the obligation of contracts are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.” Unfortunately, Washington politicians seem to pay little attention to history, morality, or the rule of law.

President Obama defended his decision to take a majority stake in GM, saying it was unavoidable and temporary. “We are acting as reluctant shareholders,” he said in a televised address.
The government-orchestrated shrinkage will cost taxpayers $30 billion, on top of $20 billion in U.S. funds already put into the company. In exchange, the U.S. will own 60% of the new GM. In all, the rescue of the car industry could cost taxpayers close to $100 billion.

The government’s plan calls for 10% of the new GM to be owned by existing bondholders, while a United Auto Workers union health-care fund will own 17.5%. The Canadian government will own the remaining 12.5%.

As part of the “Bailout Fever” that gripped Babylon on the Potomac, there came the conclusion that Chrysler and GM were “too big to fail.”  As a result, hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars were pumped into the ailing companies, by a government that imposed conditions that could not possibly be met.  Then, like the neighborhood loanshark, it made demands that secured creditors accept less than what they were entitled to under law, forcing the bankruptcies of the companies, which were then rushed into waiting restructuring plans, which favored unsecured or junior lienholders, like the United Autoworkers Union, over secured creditors, many of which were pension plans, that later faced the insult of vilification by the very same scheming kleptocrats who orchestrated these purchases with taxpayer dollars, on top of the injuries inflicted on them in bankruptcy.  And the best part?  Despite our (I mean the taxpayers’) significant investments, most of the money given to the these companies is now gone, and will not be repaid.  That isn’t really change we can believe in.

10.  “Bailout Fever” in Babylon on the Potomac/The Great Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac Swindle.

Yes, it started under Bush, which is yet another reason I wasn’t pleased with him, either.  And yet, for all Obama seems to want to blame the economy on him, one might wonder about the wisdom of continuing and expanding the practice.  There are several reasons why the practice is onerous.  The first of which is that the government has a role to play as a regulator, yet when it starts to decide which companies it is going to bailout and which companies it will “let fail”, it is not longer a regulator, it is also a paarticipant in the marketplace, and once it wears both hats, it loses objectivity and throws the whole balance off-kilter.  Throw in a few left-leaning, Chicago politics style ‘czars’, and you have just placed capitalism itself in danger.  For an intellectually honest government that is held accountable by the fourth estate, this could be a serious problem.  Since we have neither, the apparent course of action was to double down, and justify such extra-governmental activity by proclaiming capitalism “broken” and in need of serious governmental intervention and reconstruction.  Unfortunately for us, with such genius at work in D.C., this may well become a self-fullfilling prophecy, leaving only one remaining question for the Obama Administration: How do they convince people that the Great Depression of 2010-2016 was the fault of Bush?

Of course, its hard to distinguish between corruption, and business as usual in DC after the Democrats in Congress let Fannie and Freddie become millstones around the necks of taxpayers on their watch, eventually crashing the economy, and having the stones to blame Republicans for it, by saying that the poor regulation was their fault.  Of course, the warnings were there, being made by Republicans, and repeatedly glossed over by Democrats, who cheerfully covered their eyes and said “Elephant in the room? What elephant in the room?  Fannie and Freddie are fine, and no, they are not backed by the US government.  Quit talking crazy you silly Republicans!”

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.  Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn’t make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

11.   Stealing From Future Generations To Fund A ‘Stimulus’ Bill That Has Done Little to Stimulate the Economy, But Spends Plenty Of Borrowed Money On Things The Government Has No Business Spending Money On.

Under the guise of “We have to pass this bill now or the economy is gonna die and take us all with it!!!” , Congress passed the biggest crap sandwich in the history of the counrty, spending more in ONE BILL than the sum total of all PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS.  This is a bill jam packed with so many things the government has no business spending our money on, let alone money that will be borrowed, and paid back by us, our children, and our grandchildren at damn near usurious rates.  This is an act of generational theft that wouldonly be undertaken by madmen and people Hell-bent on destroying the country.

We’ve looked it over, and even we can’t quite believe it. There’s $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There’s even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

And that ‘stimulation’ for the economy that is supposed to be helping the now Carterian unemployment levels that continue to rise with every single month?

No Jobs: While they have not been able to support these claims, Pelosi/Obama promise between 3 & 4 million jobs, yet House Tax Committee staff can’t estimate even ONE job will be created.

Ineffective: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 52% of the spending in the ‘stimulus’ bill can even be spent by the end of FY’10. Well short of the 75% benchmark.

Make no mistake, this will be a disaster for this country.  Much of this money is not yet borrowed.  That borrowing is accomplished by the sales of US Treasuries.  Other countries aren’t buying, and won’t until the interest rates are made more attractive.  The more treasuries that are sold, the more succeeding buyers want a higher rate of return.  What that does to interest rates here is make them climb…to layers we have not ever seen in this country.

12.   Silence From The Oval Office When Young Iranians Turn On A Corrupt Government.

There are two maxims for any POTUS who will have to deal with any situation in the Middle East:

1.   Tread carefully.  You need to be conscious of what you say and do; and

2.   No matter what you do or say, the mad mullahocracies will find a way to blame you for anything that happens that you don’t like.

What this means is that even if you eschew plain speaking and acting in America’s interests alone, if you are at least a pragmatist, you whould understand that when you’re damned no matter what you do or do not do, you should act like an American and be damned for the correct conduct, which does far more to enhance your credibility and standing among the free peoples of the world.   The Administration seems to have missed this memo when it saw fit to stay silent on this matter, until even Fwance had strong words of condemnation for the clerical leaders of Iran regarding their brutal crackdown on the youth of Iran which was attempting to throw off the shackles of a corrupt and repressive government.  This apparently had the effect of prodding the President into this tepid statement on the subject:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

You “mourn” them, sir?  I’m sure they find that thought very comforting as they are hunted down in the street.  “Bear witness”?  I’m afraid that the world has borne witness to your complete and utter lack of courage.   If we had simply “borne witness” to Soviet oppression, then the world’s bloodiest political belief would still hold sway over half the globe, sir.  You were presented with a chance to be Presidential, and you voted present.  Congratulations for souring another generation of Iranians on America and Americans, and causing people everywhere who desire freedom to know that as long as you occupy the Oval Office, they can expect no support from us.   What happened to the man who said this a few months earlier in Cairo:

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

Let me be clear, I think you suffer from an epic misunderstanding of this country and its role in the world.  Make no mistake, as you continue with an agenda to subvert the every fabric of this nation, and pay lipservice to concepts of freedom and democracy as long as no cost or action is expected of you, I will consider you to be unworthy of categorization as American.

13.  Active Advocation For Return To Power Of A Would-Be Tyrant Who Violated His Country’s Constitution.

The President has his very own example of EPIC FAILURE FOREIGN POLICY that can be summed up in just one word:  Honduras.

The military removal of Zelaya as president – and the appointment of Roberto Micheletti  as interim President by the Honduran legislature – came after Zelaya attempted to rewrite his nation’s constitution to end term limits to continue his rule, despite the fact that term limits in the constitution is one of eight “firm articles” that cannot be changed.

After the Honduran Legislature refused to call a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution, Zelaya called for a referendum to do so, which the Honduran Supreme Court and Attorney General declared unconstitutional.  Zelaya, allied with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez , fired top military commander Romeo Vásquez Velásquez for refusing to carry out the referendum.  Every branch of government sided against Zelaya and Congress began discussing impeachment proceedings. Acting on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, soldiers arrested Zelaya on June 28 and sent him into exile in Costa Rica. 

Let that sink in for a moment.  An American President is advocating for the return to power of a man who violated his country’s constitution in an attempt to prolong his tenure in office.  That country’s military obeys an order of that nation’s highest court and removes said official and puts him into exile.  The military did not take over.  The military did not put two behind the offender’s ear and dump him in a ditch.  They followed a lawful order of the civillian government and removed a would be despot from power.   In Latin America.  This is progress.  What is the President’s response? “It’s a coup.”

The usual suspects were outraged.  Castro, Chavez, the petty dictators who might be threatened by a people actually enforcing the rule of law to the detriment of a dictator.  I’ll leave it to you, the jury, to identitfy the President’s real motives.   Keep in mind, we had to “bear witness” to the atrocities in Iran, but this was a “coup” worthy of forcefull opposition.

Last week, responding to the Honduran military removal of Zelaya as president, President Obama said “it would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections. The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don’t want to go back to a dark past.”

“We are very clear about the fact that President Zelaya is the democratically elected president,” President Obama said.

To be sure.  Afterall, the soul-crushing “dark present” in Cuba and Venezuela are far preferable.  Never mind that Constitution thing.  I’m sure it means nothing, because Zelaya won the election, you know.  Therefore the Constitution doesn’t apply to him.

Something clearly has gone awry with the rule of law in Honduras — but it is not necessarily what you think. Begin with Zelaya’s arrest. The Supreme Court of Honduras, as it turns out, had orderedthe military to arrest Zelaya two days earlier. A second order (issued on the same day) authorized the military to enter Zelaya’s home to execute the arrest. These orders were issued at the urgent request of the country’s attorney general. All the relevant legal documents can be accessed (in Spanish) on the Supreme Court’s website. They make for interesting reading.

What you’ll learn is that the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country’s borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must “succeed one another” in a “republican form of government.”

But don’t let those pesky facts, or even prior positions of “bearing witness” get in the way.

14.  The House Passes ‘Cap and Trade” Legislation, Which Will Be The Largest Single Tax Increase On American Families Ever Passed.

Forget the fact that the CBO’s forecast tax numbers are well below those compiled by the Heritage Foundation.  Put aside the fact that 300+ pages of amendments were submitted at 3 AM the morning before the vote.  Put aside the fact that no one who voted for it could have possibly read it, since there was not even a copy availble on the floor to House members to peruse during debate or the vote.  Any of these is sufficiently outrageous enough to warrant a pitchfork and torch party for the House.  The worst part is that it is in support of the biggest scientific hoax since Piltdown ManMan-Made Global Warming.

Make no mistake, if passed, this bill will cripple American energy and manufacturing, raise taxes in a way that one one will be able to ignore, and of course, contains goodies for the typical pet projects and supported of the left.

Under the new democratic cap and trade legislation all US homes will have to meet strict government eco-standards before they can be sold. This will cost homeowners thousands of dollars before the home can even be put up for sale.

Why not?  Every major spending bill passed by the Dems so far this year has been a major boon for ACORN, so why should this one be any different? Jamie Dupree has been going over the bill with a fine toothed comb, and says the term, “community development corporation” is found  a bunch of times in it.

15.   The Rush To Impose Government Run Healthcare.

Undeterred by the poor quality of care and the rationing of life-saving drugs and treatments in other nation’s government run healthcare, this administration has made it a priority to impose government run health care upon us all.  Key provisions include yet more taxes to be placed on small businesses.

The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government.  If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax.  Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).”  The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could exempt classes of people from this new tax.  To avoid this tax, you would have to report your health insurance information for each month of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.”

And of course, Congress is incapable of resisting the temptation to slide pork into the bill.

 Sweeping healthcare legislation working its way through Congress is more than an effort to provide insurance to millions of Americans without coverage. Tucked within is a provision that could provide billions of dollars for walking paths, streetlights, jungle gyms, and even farmers’ markets.

The plan as imagined contains some sinister implications, as well.  From the mouth of the President himself:

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that’s not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let

doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.

Healthcare.  At a ginnormous cost.  Brought to you by the same people who brought you such paragons of efficiency and economic frugality, such as the Post Office, AMTRAK, and Medicare.  They will not be happy until government’s yoke is firmly around our necks.

 

So at what point does such a series of ongoing offenses and injuries, committed with impunity by elected officials become Treason?  Being the purist that I am, I start with that dusty old document that the President dislikes and would “fix” at the earliest opportunity, The Constitution, which defines treason thusly:

Section 3.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

While I freely admit that none of the institutions or individuals indicted have picked up arms against the nation, I submit that the net effect of their actions is nevertheless a declaration of war.  When government, though its various branches, commits a series of actions that have the effect of destroying the country through taxes that will drive businesses away, thus driving up unemployment, and general misery, the result is no different than setting off bombs in the offices, factories, and storefronts of the country.   When these actions would denigrate and destroy our finances and economy, leaving other nations to capitalize on the misfortune wrought on us by our own government, buttressed by overt statements of geopolitical moral equivalence, and remarks that denigrate this nation and its history, made in foreign capitols, to countries that would love to see an America descendant, how is it not giving aid and comfort to our enemies?   When they actively pass spending bills that cannot be paid for except by borrowing, to fund initiatives and groups that they are not constitutionally permitted to give taxpayer money to, with bills that they could not have even read, how can such contempt for the Constitution, and the American People not be levying war against the country?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I leave it to you to consider the question put to you.  When does betrayal become treason?  When does an irresponsible and non-responsive government cross the line from possessing a venomous contempt of its people to an outright intent to enslave them to ideals that are foreign to reason and history? 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »