BO Stinkin So Bad CBS Notices

Chrysler Bankruptcy Exposes Dirty Politics - CBS News

WOW, Dan Rather would have a cat. The loyal lefty memo forgers are willing to point out that BO is illegally paying off folks that supported his campaign. I'm not talking about "illegal" because this simple "pay for play" as politicians tend to do constantly, but because the Sr Creditors had a CONTRACT -- and they were NOT "speculators" any more than any other investor, and far less than most. In fact ANY stock holder is FAR more a "speculator" (as if that was a bad thing) than ANY bondholder.

Read the whole article, here are a few quotes. The very idea that someone at CBS would know about the Federalist Papers and ideas like "contracts" and "rule of law" is enough to make one wonder if reform of even the dregs isn't possible once a vermin like Gunga Dan has vacated!

Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, sent reporters a statement calling the creditors "vultures" and "rouge hedge funds." Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm piled on, taking aim during her radio address at a "few greedy hedge funds that didn't care how much pain the company's failure would have inflicted on families and communities everywhere."

It must be a coincidence that the United Auto Workers has handed $25.4 million to federal politicians over the last two decades, with 99 percent of that cash going to Democrats. And that Mr. Obama's final campaign stop on Election Day was a UAW phone bank.

"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.

Forget Reagan?

Should the GOP Forget Reagan? - WSJ.com

The answer to that historic question is an apt subject this week as the GOP, looking for a path from the wilderness, says farewell at National Cathedral tomorrow to Jack Kemp, who remained a Reaganite to the end.

Jack Kemp, anyone who spent time around him will tell you, stayed on message. That message, like Reagan's, had a number of parts, but it is not possible to even guess how many times Jack Kemp summarized his explanations of that message in three words: "Work, save and invest." Republicans should think hard about building a governing philosophy on the foundation of those three words, ideas that most voters understand.

I have a picture of Reagan up in my office at work. I viewed my trip to Reagan Library as something like "going to Mecca". I love Reagan. I say that people that still believe in America -- be they Republican, Libertarian, apolitical, or "confused" need to "forget Reagan". Why? Primarily because it was never about "Reagan" -- it was about basic principles. "Work, save and invest" are good. Believe in something that transcends yourself and even America (hopefully God), and always believe in the exceptionalism of America and the majesty of her founding Constitution, are also important. Being responsible, prudent, reasonable, focused on truth, focused on reality and in the ultimate sense optimistic even though these days are dark and look to be going to get a lot darker.

Reagan NEVER said "trust in me", or "trust in government" -- he said "trust in America -- that shining city on the hill". "Trust in God". "Trust in the PEOPLE of America". The very same "We The People" of the Preamble to the Constitution.

"We The People" have horribly lost our way, and the idea that we would make the memory of Ronald Reagan into some totem or litmus test for leaders of the future is just one more sign of how lost we really are.

The American Nightmare

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/greider

I suggest holding one's nose, having a very stiff drink handy and being ready to get up and go for a walk a couple times during reading this -- if you have a brain. If you don't, then you are going to LOVE IT!!

Here is Greider's view of "the new American Dream".

Here is the grand vision I suggest Americans can pursue: the right of all citizens to larger lives. Not to get richer than the next guy or necessarily to accumulate more and more stuff but the right to live life more fully and engage more expansively the elemental possibilities of human existence. That is the essence of what so many now seem to yearn for in their lives. People--even successful and affluent people--are frustrated because the intangible dimensions of life have been held back or displaced in large and small ways, pushed aside by the economic system's relentless demands to maximize yields of profit and wealth. Our common moral verities have been trashed in the name of greater returns. The softer aspects of mortal experience are diminished because life itself is not tabulated in the economic system's accounting.

Let me try to parse that "big idea". There is some "right to live large lives"-- but competition and money aren't part of that. Can somebody explain to me why people today don't have a right to live whatever life they want that doesn't include "money and things"?

Current people's "common moral verities have been trashed" -- by I guess, someone looking for greater returns. Apparently, Greider and the people he normally talks to are "victims" -- this horrible current overzealous and overly productive wealth system just "pushes them around". Somehow the fact that others have "money and things" somehow "prevents" them from living the life they would like without the dreaded "money and things"? Is there potentially just a bit of plain old envy here trying to make sure that once the folks that Greider thinks have "too much" have been swatted down to size, then "somehow" the world will just be "better".

What's needed in American life is a redefinition of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Given the nation's great wealth, the ancient threats of scarcity and deprivation have been eliminated. Yet people remain yoked to economic demands despite wanting something more from life--freedom to explore the mysteries and bring forth all that is within them. Collectively, Americans need to take a deep breath and reconsider what it means to be rich.

So according to Greider, we are rich enough and there are no threats of scarcity or deprivation -- "plenty has been achieved", and apparently, it would be impossible to kill the goose that layed this golden egg. My thought on that is; Great, so now you can go forth and live the minimalist life you desire -- live long and avoid prospering. Nobody is stopping you. Oh, wait, that doesn't seem to be it:

Guaranteed public jobs paying more than the minimum wage would permanently and automatically stabilize the economy, swelling the ranks of public workers in recessions and shrinking them when private jobs become more abundant. Instead of punishing the working poor most severely in downturns, as the system does now, the government would redistribute the costs of recession so that all taxpayers would share the burden as a public obligation.

Ah, we need a "gaurenteed public job at more than minium wage" -- uh, so that will sort of make "minimum wage" meaningless won't it? Seems that I may as well take that guarenteed public job that I can't be fired from and just show up and drink coffee with the other guaranteed job public workers until I get my check. It will be fun to chat about the private fools working their butts off to pay the taxes so that I can be as indolent as my heart desires. Oh, wait, how likely is it that "all taxpayers will share the burden as a public obligation"? Think they might not like me sitting there doing zip getting "more than minium wage" while all their dining and retail establishments raise prices and close down because of the high cost of labor?

The article drones on ... "Social Corporations" ... where that nasty idea of "profit" is far down the list of priorities. Ah yes, how much better life could be if we didn't need to produce something that someone else was pay more than it cost to make if for!! It is true that wiping out competition might help there -- if there is no competition, products can be pretty bad and still purchased, but even then, there is a limit.

One might imagine that thinking like this in a major US magazine, and a guy in the White House that would nearly certainly agree with much of it would be a fantasy ... but alas, it is an actual "waking nightmare".

Investing with BO

RealClearPolitics - Sunbeams from Cucumbers

Good article, this paragraph sums a lot of the current situation up for me.

It is Demagoguery 101 to identify an unpopular minority to blame for problems. The president has chosen to blame "speculators" -- aka investors; anyone who buys a share of a company's stock is speculating about the company's future -- for Chrysler's bankruptcy and the dubious legality of his proposal. Yet he simultaneously says he hopes that private investors will begin supplanting government as a source of capital for the companies. Breathes there an investor/speculator with such a stunted sense of risk that he or she would go into business with this capricious government?

The Fascist Descent Continues

www.washingtonexaminer.com >> Politics >> - White House puts UAW ahead of property rights

Think carefully about what’s happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored. In the process, it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House’s power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along.

Support BO or be destroyed !!!

But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning. “One of my clients,” Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, “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.”

If you don't like the stench of BO, learn to hold your nose harder!!

Nice Coverage of Liberty and Tyranny

Mike Adams : Liberty and Tyranny - Townhall.com

I've already reviewed the book, but Adams does an excellent job. I like this:

There is little question that a guaranteed outcome undercuts man’s ability to overcome his weaknesses. The statist fails to realize that by confiscating a man’s property – in service to equality of outcome – he confiscates his incentive to improve his own life by building his own home, growing his own food, and making his own clothes. When the statist confiscates property he also confiscates a man’s ability to improve his life.

Coochgate

RealClearPolitics - Democrats Wallow in a 'Culture of Corruption'

Nice list of Democrat scandals that are getting little to no reporting, followed by this gem:

But you know what? We ain't seen nothing yet. For starters, the real corruption isn't what the media are ignoring or downplaying as isolated incidents. It's what the media are hailing as bold, inspirational leadership. The White House, as a matter of policy, is rewriting legal contracts, picking winners (mostly labor unions and mortgage defaulters) and singling out losers (evil "speculators") while much of the media continue to ponder whether Obama is better than FDR.

If a Republican administration, staffed with cronies from Goldman Sachs and Citibank, was cutting special deals for its political allies, I suspect we'd be hearing fewer FDR analogies and more nouns ending with the suffix "gate."

Pretty hard to argue with. Mostly, BO is simply paying off his constituencies with borrowed money + whatever he can chisel out of the folks that earn money. Were he a Republican, it would be a scandal, since he is a Democrat, it is a "New New Deal".

Bad Week For Business

Specter, Bank of America, Chrysler: A Bad Week for Business - BusinessWeek

I wonder who knows more about the prospects for the US? Dana Milbank, declaring the official deification of BO, or Jack and Suzy Welch over at BusinessWeek.

Let's see, Jack was head of GE during some of it's most successful years ... Dana Milbank? Uh ...

Jack doesn't seem to think that the unions that were a huge factor (maybe the decisive one?) in running the auto companies into the ground, deserve to be handed 51% of them on a silver platter, ahead of bond holders who have the actual legal right to more of the company.

However, Dana has BO, Community Organizer on his side, and BO is no mere mortal. Hopefully failed Community Organizers are more brilliant on how to operate business and create a thriving economy than the former CEO of GE.

Onion Still A Good News Source

Shirtless Biden Washes Trans Am In White House Driveway | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Actually, I'm certain that Joe would never work this hard, but it is cute anyway.

Press Chooses It's Stand

Our press is without bias!

Most Open Administration Ever?

PHOTOS OF AIR FORCE ONE BACKUP PLANE FLYING OVER NYC NOT TO BE SEEN BY PUBLIC - New York Post

Gee, the photos of BOs plane over Manhattan that cost us over $300 grand aren't going to be shown? Imagine that! Of course, the evil NY Post is the only place even mentioning that they would exist -- the rest of the media is completely silent that the fly-by even happened.

BO Looks Divine

Dana Milbank - Washington Sketch: Obama's World Looks More and More Divine - washingtonpost.com


Here is a nice "hard hitting piece of journalism".

You would think there would be limits to just how excited one would be about a nation abandoning all that has made it great and turning whole heartedly to a path that has failed many times (witness England prior to Thatcher for example), Japan (in recession/depression for 17 years now and Europe in general where every one of the countries was in worse shape than us prior to the crisis, had worse effects from the crisis, and has worse prospects for ever coming out of it than us.

Again, "rationality" just isn't strong in the lefty lexicon.

Let's Hope BO Never Learns

RealClearPolitics - Obama Gets It Wrong on Churchill & Torture

Not a badly written article -- covers the same issue on BO being wrong on Britan torturing in WWII. Brings in the point that things like firebombing Dresden, nuking Hiroshama and Nagasaki, allowing Coventry to be bombed to protect the knowledge of the codebreaking, interning Japanese in the US and no doubt thousands of other things in WWII (or any war) are "shortcuts".

War is about inflicting more pain on your enemy than on your own soldiers and civilians -- that is how one is most likely to win the war. It isn't a pretty thing, that is why we call it War. There was a brief time in Europe when war was at least visualized to have "honor" -- the British wore red coats and marched in columns while the "terrorists" of the day, the US forces hid in the woods and picked them off. The British found that to be "dishonorable" -- we called it "winning".

I think his last paragraph hits the nail on the head. In "ugly things", we are OFTEN working very hard to find a "shortcut" -- maybe some old surgeon would say that orthoscopic surgery is a "shortcut" for example. Maybe another 3, 5, 10 or even 100K Americans could have died not finding out one or more plot that was discovered by "putting the screws to" the guys that had information that helped the Bush administration stop the attacks. Were those American's lives worth less than what BO sees as "the character cost" of having a known al Quaeda opertive exposed to the same techniqe we use on our own troops to simulate torture?

Maybe BO doesn't understand "simulated vs real". Why did he need a "real" picture of Air Force One flying at low level around NYC? It was fake anyway -- it isn't AF-1 unless the President is on it. It is the person of the President on the plane that gives it that designation, not the paint job. A photoshop using the plane taken when he was on it (or any other President -- it is the OFFICE that has the majesty, not the person or the props!) with the Statue of Liberty in the background would be identically as "genuine" -- at least the plane would be real!

It might seem otherwise, but I'm not making the case for what some people see as torture. I'm simply noting that war is always about shortcuts - all are horrible; some are necessary. If Obama doesn't understand that, let's hope he never has to learn it.

Beneath Contempt

RealClearPolitics - Pelosi: Utterly Contemptible

Charles is pretty easy on Pelosi, this is beneath contempt. It is another lesson in how the Statist mind works:

In 2007, she admitted that she was briefed BEFORE the methods were used:

In December 2007, after a Washington Post report that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."

Now she is "repeatably clear" that they were NOT told AFTER ... this is precisely like Slick Willie with "there is currently no ..." -- "that depends on what the meaning of is ... is":

"we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."

Here is what Porter Goss says about the briefings:

Porter Goss, then chairman of the House intelligence committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."

So what are we to make of this? She was in the briefings where she was briefed on what they CIA was PLANNING to do, and did not object, and in fact at a minimum went along with folks asking if the CIA needed MORE support to carry this out!

So, when would one expect someone opposed to these methods a supervisory role to object? BEFORE they are carried out? or AFTER they are carried out?? If they objected AFTER, what kind of oversight is that? "Go ahead and get this information with my blessing, and even offer of added support, but after you get the information, let me denigrate the methods I approved and seek to impugn and even prosecute you for using them??"

How does that mange to rise to the standard of "contemptable"? This is beneath contept -- this is a lying weasel of the worst sort.

Shocked!!! Britan DID Torture in WWII

The secrets of the London Cage | UK news | The Guardian


Can it be? BO **LIED**!!!!
It is only fair to hold him to the same standard as Bush, right? ... also, since BO is omniscient, there is no chance that he didn't know.

Is it REALLY a surprise to ANYONE that the Brits tortured German prisoners to get information to save the lives of their people and their soldiers??? How about if they hadn't and the war was lost? Would the modern moralists think that a better outcome???

Again, we aren't talking "fuzzy caterpillars and things we do to our own folks" -- we are talking "being beaten until they begged to be killed". I'm betting that "left a mark".