Archive for June, 2009

Obama’s Vicious ‘Elder Abuse’ Political Attack Against IG Gerald Walpin

June 18, 2009

Last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for IGs, who have the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies, against interference by political appointees or the White House.  Two things the act provided was 1) that Congress be given 30 days notice before any firing; and 2) that specific cause for firing be given.

Barack Obama co-sponsored that act.  But now that he’s president, he apparently thinks himself to be above such petty limits, given his reaction to an Inspector General whose investigation just concluded that one of Obama’s personal friends had abused nearly $900,000 in government funds.

According to Washington Examiner journalist Byron York, “Walpin was told that he had one hour to either resign or be fired.  Senate sources say Walpin asked why he was being fired and, according to one source, “The answer that was given was that it’s just time to move on.  The president would like to have someone else in that position.”  Walpin declined to resign.”  The White House tried to muscled Walpin out of his job, and only began to follow the law after Walpin refused and public pressure was placed on them.

Sen. Chuck Grassley sent a letter to the White House:

“I was troubled to learn that [last Wednesday] night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated,” Grassley wrote.  “As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions.  Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure.  This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny.”

The Democratic Senator who actually authored the law that mandates that the president give Congress 30 days’ notice before dismissing an Inspector General, along with an explanation of cause, Senator Claire McCaskill, said as of June 16:

The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service.  The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal. ‘Loss of confidence’ is not a sufficient reason.  I’m hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible.”

When Gerald Walpin was told about the “loss of confidence” explanation, he said, “That’s a conclusion, not a cause.”

And that’s when the White House issued a different reason for removing Inspector General Walpin.  White House special counsel Norman Eisen on June 15 said:

Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions, and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve.”

Which is essentially an argument that Gerald Walpin is too senile to do his job.  The Washington Times points out that this answer as to cause by the White House “treads on exceedingly shaky ground that raises the specter of improper age discrimination.”

Glenn Beck, during the course of his TV program on June 17, pretty much proves that it is nothing SHORT of a vicious personal attack as well as “improper age discrimination.”

Beck: You had this meeting [the meeting in which Walpin was called ‘confused’ and ‘disoriented’] in May.  And then they asked you to give a 20 minute speech, where you got more time than the head of the corporation, right?

Walpin: That is correct.  That’s what I was told.

Beck: So why would they do that if you were confused?

Walpin: It’s idiotic.

Beck: They’re trying to besmirch this man.  So what I’m going to do is I’m going to give you the test.  This is the state examination.  If Grandpa comes in and he’s like, “Ooh, I’m drooling and I’m – peanuts? Where did I lost my shoes?” That’s when you go to the hospital and they give Grandpa this test.  Let’s do it.  I’m going to do it exactly the way they do it in the hospital.

Beck proceeded to give Walpin the assessment test live on the air.  And Gerald Walpin demonstrated rather conclusively that he was neither ‘confused’ nor ‘disoriented.’

Personally, I think the American people should use the same line of reasoning, citing Obama’s mention of having visited all 57 states as proof that he is too confused and disoriented to do HIS job.

The Washington Times has an article entitled, “IG Witness Blows Up White House Excuse” that reveals the shocking pattern of transparent deceit used to try to destroy a good and honest man.

HotAir offers the following concise account as to what happened prior to Gerald Walpin being dismissed for being older than retarded:

Let’s unwind the timeline a bit to test this new allegation.  Walpin pressed hard to prosecute Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson for defrauding the government over more than $400,000 in community service grants.  Johnson, an Obama supporter, got a deal from the White House that allowed him to manage federal funds again and avoid paying back at least half of the grant money he used illegally.  The White House cut Walpin out of those negotiations, and Walpin went to Congress about it.

At that point, the White House called Walpin and told him he had an hour to resign or be fired.  Now, if the White House thought that Walpin was somehow incapacitated or disoriented, why bother to make that call at all?  In fact, wouldn’t an employer with an ounce of empathy send the employee to a physician for diagnosis first?  Even without the empathy, the proper course would have been to address the issue with Congress first instead of making an intimidation attempt to someone the White House now paints as all but senile.

This is nothing more than a bare-knuckled smear job, a despicable attempt to use allegations of mental illness to discredit someone who ran afoul of Barack Obama for taking the independence of his job seriously.  That may play in Chicago, and it used to play in Moscow, but it shouldn’t play in Washington DC and America.

Michelle Malkin further unloads on Obama:

Far from being “confused” and “disoriented,” Walpin is clear as day. Anyone who actually reads through his audits and investigative reports knows that. You can, should, and must read Walpin’s reports both on CUNY funding abuse and on the Johnson scandal here.

I also continue to hammer at the Michelle Obama angle. Her vested interest in propping up the government-subsidized volunteer industry stretches back to her days leading the Chicago non-profit Public Allies (scroll down to the end of my column for what the AmeriCorps’ inspector general found while investigating money troubles at Mrs. O’s old friends at Public Allies). And we can’t forget her days working to promote national service — and to set up cozy public chat forums with her husband and Weather Underground Bill Ayers — while at the University of Chicago.

Last week, I said this reeked of the Clintons’ Travelgate. It’s much, much worse.

That’s right.  The “Michelle Obama” angle.  A video that everyone should have watched BEFORE the election (along with a serious consideration of her views and attitudes) comes into play.

Surprise, surprise: the Chicago political power couple know how to play Chicago politics!

Do you remember how Democrats came unglued when George Bush fired seven US Attorneys who served at his pleasure?  In spite of the fact that Bill Clinton had previously fired every single one of NINETY-THREE US Attorneys and replaced them?  The Democrats charged that he singled the seven attorneys may have been singled out.

This is a clear case of singling out and punishing one man who initiated an investigation that DOCUMENTED that Obama friend Kevin Johnson abused $850,000 in AmeriCorps grant money.

This is the height of the politics of personal destruction.  Every American should be outraged; but in particular, every older American should be out in the streets for such a vicious personal attack on a VERY alert and intelligent older man.  If you’re an older worker, and you don’t want some young punk doing to you what Obama is doing to Walpin, you should be flooding the White House with angry phone calls.

This isn’t Bush’s firing of seven US attorneys; this is Nixon’s Midnight Massacre.

Advertisements

Obama Wreckovery Act And Stimulus ‘Employment’: The Pathetic Reality

June 17, 2009

I downloaded the Obama administration’s “Recovery Report: 100 Days, 100 Projects.” It was an utterly laughable experience.

I copied the “100 projects” into a Word file and then conducted a search with the word “employees.” Here were the results of EVERY single occurrence:

9) A company in Maine “that had been struggling to pay its 19 employees” now being “back to work” thanks to a $2 million stimulus handout.

14) A New York construction company was able to rehire laid-off seasonal employees. Slate Hill had previously laid off 40 seasonal employees, possibly at the END OF THE SEASON. There is no mention of how many seasonal employees (meaning these are not full time jobs) were rehired, but the cost was over $7 million of your dollars in stimulus contract money.

15) The president of New Hampshire paving company Continental Paving ESTIMATES he would have had to lay off 75 employees if it weren’t for the Recovery Act (I “estimate” he may be a liberal). In any event, however many of those 75 jobs were actually “saved” come at the cost of $10 million in stimulus money.

29) EnergX, a Department of Energy contractor, has 87 new employees on the job. We’re told that that these jobs “are supported by Recovery Act funding” – whatever that means. No mention of how much government money they are getting.

51) An auto-repair business owner received $463,500 in stimulus funds which we’re told are “strengthening his short-term cash flow and putting him and his 10 employees in position to increase sales as the economy turns around.” Note that no mention is made of any new employees hired.

58) A start-up tire-recycling plant owner had borrowing fees of $45,750 for a $1.715 million equipment loan paid by stimulus funds. The owner “hopes to have 34 employees onboard by New Year’s Day next year.” Clearly, IF the owner is able to hire 34 employees, it will NOT be due to the pissant borrowing fees for the near $2 million in private bank loans.

75) Four hundred employees hired using Recovery Act funding reported for work at the Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State. Now we’re getting somewhere! 400 plus a few employees from the other 74 programs, at a cost of ONLY $3.27 TRILLION!!! We’re not told how much these employees cost taxpayers, but we ARE told that most of the employees will be UNION.

83) A company selling and installing energy-saving window films for commercial buildings, saved $6,970 in fees on its SBA 504 loan when it bought a new space five times larger than its previous home. We’re told “the savings will help owners John and Kimberly Henderson add three employees to their staff of 12.” If you know any business owner who has ever hired full-time employees, ask him or her how much $7 grand in saved fee-money would go toward such a hiring decision. And THINK ABOUT IT: $3.27 TRILLION DOLLARS, AND OBAMA IS POINTING AT “HELPING” HIRE 3 EMPLOYEES IN ITS LIST OF HIS TOP 100 ACHIEVEMENTS!!!

And that’s IT. That’s ALL THE JOBS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR. And most of the list of EIGHT businesses really aren’t able to hire employees based on anything Obama did with his – did I mention? – $3.27 TRILLION in porkulus.

Think about it: this is Obama’s own “Look what we’ve accomplished!” list. This is all the man has to show for the largest spending bill in the history of human civilization! How would Mister Rogers put it: “Can you say, “pathetic”? I think you can!”

I wrote an article earlier this month titled, “Obama And Unemployment: Just So You Know How Pathetically Incompetent Dear Leader Is.” You might say it’s a harshly-worded title – until you see just what a ZERO Obama (who interestingly enough is often ALSO called “Zero“) has produced with more money than any government has ever spent in the entire history of the planet. That article mentions facts such as how Republicans were shut out of the bill; how no one in Congress was even allowed to read it before it was rushed through; how Republicans PREDICTED it would be a gigantic boondoggle; how Obama time after time boasted that he’d “saved” jobs only to see those very jobs go down the drain; how Obama created a marketing term called “saved jobs” to “create” 150,000 phantom jobs out of thin air that he could take credit for; how the stimulus money isn’t even going to the poorest counties that need help most; and how the Obama administration promised that unemployment – which is now at 9.4%would NOT go above 8% if his stimulus bill was passed. And on, and on. Hence the disparaging title describing a failed president and a failed economic policy.

Obama is now claiming that his administration will “create or save” 600,000 MORE phantom jobs. Just realize that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics is already on record claiming it has no way to verify Obama’s job numbers. Because they are a fantasy (Michelle Malkin calls it “The biggest most magical makework program ever“). The mainstream media – which adores their new “Dear Leader” – would never haved allowed President Bush to make claims about “saved” jobs. The whole thing is like building a house of cards in the wind.

All that as an introduction to this:

Stimulus program fraught with waste, report says

A Republican senator’s office says stimulus funds are going toward dubious projects, such as a $3.4-million tunnel for turtles. Obama aides say the report is flawed.

By Peter Nicholas, June 15, 2009

Reporting from Washington — A report due to be released today by a Republican senator contends the Obama administration’s stimulus program is fraught with waste and incompetence — evidenced by a turtle crossing in northern Florida that will cost more than $3 million and a snafu in which thousands of Social Security checks went out to people who had died.

Modeled after a release from the White House describing 100 stimulus projects that were in the works, the report put out by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma looks at the same number of projects but reaches starkly different conclusions. The title is “A Second Opinion on the Stimulus.”

“Will these projects make real improvements in the lives of taxpayers and communities or are they simply pet projects of politicians and lobbyists that never got off the ground because they are a low priority?” the report says.

Coburn’s staff spent about a month interviewing federal officials, reviewing data and compiling news clippings in a continuing examination of the $787-billion stimulus package.

Millions of dollars are going toward bicycle lockers, bike paths, walking trails and a skate park, Coburn said. One town in North Carolina is using stimulus funds to hire an administrator whose job will be to procure more stimulus funds, according to the report. […]

A theme of Coburn’s work is that money is going toward dubious projects that will leave little imprint. One project mentioned is the $3.4-million construction of a 13-foot tunnel near Tallahassee, Fla., that will allow turtles and other wildlife to safely cross U.S. Highway 27.

The report said the area “has the highest road-kill mortality rate for turtles in the world.” But it also suggests other uses for the money, and mentions Florida State University’s plans to lay off 200 faculty and staff members in hopes of saving millions of dollars.

Officials at the Florida Department of Transportation defended the project as one that not only would save turtles but also protect motorists. “A lot of these turtles are quite large. They get hit by a car, and they turn into flying objects,” said Josh Boan, the department’s natural resources manager.

Construction on the tunnel is to begin in September. State officials could not estimate how many jobs would be created.

Raising questions about the government’s ability to manage the stimulus money, Coburn’s report also focuses on more than 8,000 Social Security checks that have been mailed to people who are dead.

A spokesman for the Social Security system said the checks were mailed based on erroneous records. In most cases, the Postal Service returns the checks directly to the government.

One $250 check went to the home of Antonietta Santopadre, a 74-year-old retired hairdresser living in New York. The check was made out to her father, who died 35 years ago. In an interview Monday, Santopadre said: “I was infuriated. Where’s our money going? Our country is in such trouble right now.”

The Coburn report entitled “A Second Opinion on the Stimulus” is now available. Some of the section titles:

– “Free” Stimulus Money Results in Higher Utility Costs for Residents of Perkins, Oklahoma.

– FutureGen: The Stimulus Earmark that Wasn’t, Becomes the Costliest Pork Project in History.

– Little-Used “Shovel-Ready” Bridges in Rural Wisconsin Given Priority Over Widely Used Structurally Deficient Bridges.

– $800,000 for little-used Johnstown, Pennsylvania airport to repave a back-up runway; the “Airport for Nobody” Has Already Received Tens of Millions in Taxpayer dollars [note: that’s in pork-king and king-scumbag Jack Murtha’s district].

– $3.4 Million for Wildlife “Eco-Passage” in Florida; Project Still May Take Years to Finish [note: that’s the one about the turtles while 200 nearby employees are being laid off].

– Nevada Non-Profit Gets Weatherization Contract After Being Fired For Same Work.

– Non-Existent Oklahoma Lake in Line for Over $1 Million To Construct a New Guardrail.

– Taxpayers Taken for a Ride: Nearly $10 Million to be Spent to Renovate a Century Old Train Station that Hasn’t Been Used in 30 Years.

– Ten Thousand Dead People Get Stimulus Checks, Social Security Administration Blames a Tough Deadline.

-Town of Union, New York, Encouraged to Spend Money It Did Not Request For a Homelessness Problem It Does Not Have.

Mind you, this is just the porkulus bill. There was also the 9,287 pork-project-laden $410 billion Omnibus spending bill and the soon-to-come $1.5 trillion socialized health care bill (which will easily be triple that, given the longstanding tradition of massive underestimation of the actual cost of government programs).

And as we speak, Obama is showing how much he wants to save taxpayer money by illegally firing an Inspector General (in flagrant violation of a law he personally co-sponsored as a Senator) in order to protect one of his friends who abused Americorps funds.

One quote in particular that set me off:

In the course of his investigation, Walpin found [Sacramento Mayor and personal friend of Barack Obama Kevin] Johnson and St. HOPE had failed to use the federal money they received for the purposes specified in the grant and had also used federally-funded AmeriCorps staff for, among other things, “driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands.”

I don’t know ’bout you, but I’m hoping to get me a job shinin’ Massah Bureaucrat’s shoes some day.

There are a whole lot of questions about whether Obama is creating any jobs with his massive government spending, but there is no question at all that the trillions of dollars being spent are all-too-real. And there is no question that the anvil will fall on the US economy due to the near doubling of the national debt as Obama adds a projected $9.3 trillion to the $11.7 trillion hole we’re already in. Obama is borrowing 50 cents on the dollar as he explodes the federal deficit by spending four times more than Bush spent in 2008 and in the process “adding more to the debt than all presidents — from George Washington to George Bush — combined.” And most terrifying of all, Obama’s spending will cause debt to double from 41% of GDP in 2008 to a crushing 82% of GDP in 2019.

What will be the result of all this insane spending, and not very far off? A quote from a CNS News story should awaken anyone who thinks the future will be rosy:

By 2019, the CBO said, a whopping 82 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) will go to pay down the national debt. This means that in future years, the government could owe its creditors more than the goods and services that the entire economy can produce.

All that staggering hyperinflation-creating debt, and about the only jobs that are being created by it are washing cars and running errands for politically-connected Democrats.

Obama Health Care Plan Is Backdoor To Nationalized Health Care

June 16, 2009

This is SO not surprising:

[Youtube Video]

I came across this by watching Glenn Beck.  He credited Verum Serum for the video, and then improved it.  Only for some reason my browser doesn’t access Fox News video.  Just to give full credit to where it is due, and to direct attention to what may be an even better damnation of the liberal-Obama agenda on health care.

Some great quotes:

“A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).

“Someone once said to me that this is a Trojan horse for single-payer, and I said, ‘Well it’s not a Trojan horse, right?  It’s just right there!  I’m telling you!  We’re going to get there.  Over time, slowly, but we’ll move away from reliance on employment-based health insurance – as we should – but we’ll do it in a way that we’re not going to frighten people into thinking they are going to lose their private insurance” – Dr. Jacob Hacker, New America Foundation.

“This is not a principled fight.  This is a fight about a strategy for getting there, and I believe we will” – Rep. Jan Schakowski

We see that there is no intention of telling the American people the truth; rather, the idea is to keep the American people from realizing what is happening until it is too late.  And the people who are running this deception-campaign don’t give a damn about principles, but only about the ends they are trying to impose.

Verum Serum is on top of this: they also have videos revealing that prominent Senator Russ Feingold sees the ultimate goal of the health care plan to be a single-payer universal health care system.

They have a very good article to show that there is a clear agenda to sell a “public plan option” while smuggling in universal health care by poisoning the health insurance industry.  That article includes this statement by Rep. Jan Schakowsky with a corresponding video.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and co-sponsor of HR-676 answered criticisms from single-payer advocates. She said the public option is not a compromise, but a strategic step toward the single-payer system and the elimination of the private insurance industry

schakowskyThe public option is simply the opening salvo against the private sector, Schakowsky and other speakers said.

Both Schakowsky and McNary stressed the need for solidarity among health care reform activists, in order to build mass support and momentum toward the goal of a single-payer system.

Liberals such as Schakowsky are literally boasting at liberal rallies for Obama’s healthcare initiative that their government-provided healthcare plan will put private insurers out of business – ending any privatized system.

The American people need to wake up and realize that they are NOT choosing any sort of compromise between a private system and a more government-controlled system, but that the Democrats are determined to usher in a total-government controlled nationalized socialized healthcare system based on the failed European model.

We have frankly known this was coming since the so-called “Stimulus” bill was passed.  And even back then, we learned that the bill would ultimately create a rationing system that would result in the premature death of senior citizens as bureaucrats determined that their care was too expensive.

Aged-based health care rationing will be the cornerstone of any Democrat universal healthcare plan.  You can count on it.  Bottom line: it is a fact that the largest consumption of health care resources occurs in the final six months of one’s life.

The problem is that there is no way to know exactly when that “final six months” actually is.  Take a 75-year old woman with cancer: she may very well die in six months without treatment; but she might well live another 20 years if she HAS treatment.

What you need to do is decide RIGHT NOW whether you want a bureaucrat making that assessment based on a chart in some office in Washington, rather than you and your physicians.

D. James Kennedy made a prophetic statement:

“Watch out, Grandma and Grandpa: Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you.

And that day of reckoning is coming under the first president to come from that very generation.  Unless we stop him.

As a PS, Obama in his speech today claimed that 46 million Americans are uninsured.  That claim is false, and in fact is an implicit statement as to his intention to cover illegal immigrants.

My mother – who is nearing her mid-70s – has been undergoing treatment for an aggressive form of breast cancer.  The oncologist repeatedly said that the chemotherapy mortality studies did not even include women in her age group.  In hindsight, I reflect on those words and realize how easy it would have been for some bureaucrat to deny her lifesaving treatment.

And when I realize that my mother – who I would throw myself under the path of an oncoming bus to save – might well someday be denied essential treatment so that someone who doesn’t even belong in this country can gave full access to our medical system, I am enraged.

Partisan Political Hack Leon Panetta Demonizes Dick Cheney

June 16, 2009

Leon Panetta is proving what a partisan political hack Americans always should have known he is and always has been.  I first called Panetta a “partisan political hack” back in January when he was first nominated.  And Panetta’s outrageous cheap-shot at Dick Cheney is nothing short than the tactics of a partisan political hack.

The difference between the CIA and the KGB has always been that the one was geared toward intelligence, while the latter was geared toward enforcing political ideology.  At least until Barack Obama came along, that is.  Now we’ve got our first “communist show trials” since the days of McCarthy and the latter days of the USSR in the works.

And now we’ve got Obama’s Homeland Security defining “rightwing extremists” in terms of Obama’s conservative political opponents (not to mention returning combat veterans), and we’ve also got Leon Panetta demonizing political disagreement by personally attacking the motives of conservatives.

Cheney: I Hope Panetta Was ‘Misquoted’ in Claiming My Wish for Attack
After the CIA director apparently told The New Yorker that he thinks the former vice president is crossing his fingers for another attack on America, Dick Cheney says he hopes his “old friend” didn’t really say those words.

FOXNews.com
Monday, June 15, 2009

Dick Cheney says he wants to know if he heard Leon Panetta correctly.

After the CIA director apparently told The New Yorker that he thinks the former vice president is crossing his fingers for another attack on America, Cheney said Monday he hopes his “old friend” didn’t really say those words.

“I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted,” Cheney said, in a written statement to FOX News. “The important thing is whether the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the past eight years.”

Others were not quite willing to give Panetta the benefit of the doubt, as his politically charged quote stirred controversy on Capitol Hill.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called on Panetta to “retract immediately” his statement, arguing that the director crossed the line.

“I disagreed with the Cheney policy on interrogation techniques, but never did it cross my mind that Dick Cheney would ever want an attack on the United States of America,” the former GOP presidential candidate told FOX News Monday. “And it’s unfair, and I think that Mr. Panetta should retract, and retract immediately.

“By the way, I hear morale is not at an all-time high over at the CIA under Mr. Panetta’s leadership,” he said.

Panetta, a long-time Washington insider with scant intelligence experience, has been caught in the middle of a political war during his first few months on the job. First, he had to deal with morale issues as President Obama cracked down on the rules for detainee interrogations. Then he stepped up to dispute House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s allegation that the CIA misled Congress about the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques.

This time, he’s firing back against Cheney’s frequent media appearances in which he’s accused Obama of making America less safe.

According to The New Yorker, Panetta said Cheney “smells some blood in the water” on the security issue.

“It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics,” he said, according to the piece.

Asked about the statement, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ducked.

“I’m not going to get into motivations. That’s not what our business is. The president’s concern is keeping the American people safe,” Gibbs said Monday.

FOX News’ Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.

Maybe Gibbs isn’t “going to get into motivations.”  But his fellow liberal hack – CIA Director Leon Panetta – sure will.

Maybe the CIA has some kind of “motive analyzer” that Panetta zapped Dick Cheney with.  In the liberal tradition, I must ask, “Doesn’t Panetta need some kind of warrant to zap private citizen Cheney with his spook motive-detector gizmo?  Liberals and the ACLU should be crawling out of the woodwork.  Don’t forget, that’s what they did when they found out that the government was listening in to calls made to or from people on the terrorist watch list to or from this country.

This is classic liberal politics of demonization and demagoguery.  This is classic Nancy Pelosi.  This is classic Barack Obama.

A quote from an earlier article about the LAST TIME liberals hatefully and viciously teed-off on Dick Cheney should serve to show just how often Obama has demagogued – and hypocritically demagogued at that – Bush-era policies:

Right now, liberals like Keith Olbermann are teeing off on conservatives for waterboarding when we now learn that liberals like Nancy Pelosi and many other Democrats were fully briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed,” and neither said or did anything to prevent such techniques.  And even the very liberal new CIA Director under Obam0, Leon Panetta, essentially says Pelosi is lying.  How are their attacks now anything but partisan demagoguery?

And right now, liberals including Barack Obama himself are deceitfully claiming the moral high ground even as the new liberal administration takes many of the same positions that it hypocritically and demagogically found so hateful on the campaign trail.  As many policies as Obama has undone that will make this country less safe, there have been almost as many that he once demonized, only to follow himself once in office.

For instance, President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate.  Given that President Bush used the technique against only three individuals shortly after the worst disaster in US history, how is Obama any different?  In fact he’s worse, because Bush and Cheney never demagogued the issue as Obama has repeatedly done.

Obama demonized Bush over the Bush policy on rendition.  But now this demagogue is quietly continuing to carry out the same rendition policy – abducting terrorist suspects and sending them to countries that will use harsh interrogation methods – even as he congratulates himself in front of a fawning media for his being better than Bush.  But Obama isn’t better than Bush and Cheney; he’s worse.  Because he’s a hypocrite and a demagogue.

In the words of the New York Times, military commissions was “a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.”  But now the hypocrite and demagogue is going to quietly use them himself.

And Obama has indicated that he likewise reserves the right to continue to hold some prisoners without trial indefinitely – a position he demonized during the campaign.  How can such a man who so hypocritically employed such demagoguery only to come to the same position as the man he demagogued claim any semblance of moral high ground?  Obama is lower than Bush in his character, not higher.  Bush and Cheney didn’t self-righteously demagogue; only Obama did.

Dick Cheney is often called “Darth Vader” by the left.  But I think in Cheney’s gracious response to Panetta’s vicious, hateful, and evil comment who the REAL “Darth Vaders” are.  Panetta savagely attacked Cheney’s motives; Cheney responded by politely pointing at policy disagreement.

Now that liberals have opened the door wide to attacking people based on their motives and their politics, let me do a little “motive assessment” of my own: Maybe Leon Panetta is aware that the morale of his agency is at a shocking low after the butchery Democrats have done to its credibility.  And maybe he is aware – due to the “depressed, sullen, and enraged” morale at the CIA in the wake of the Obama administration’s and Democrat’s attacks against them – that the United States is now exposed to another massive terrorist attack.

From a Newsweek article on the poor morale of the CIA:

[T]he CIA better change their mission to “CYA,” because our government is not going to stand behind you.”

Those concerns were echoed by a retired undercover operative who still works under contract for the agency (and asked to remain anonymous when discussing internal agency politics). Clandestine Service officers are both demoralized and angry at Obama’s decisions to release the memos and ban future agency use of aggressive interrogation tactics, the former operative said. “It embarrasses our families. You just can’t keep hitting us. Sooner or later we’re going to stop going out and working.” The official added that “a lot of offense was taken” among some Clandestine Service veterans when Obama declared that the interrogation practices the agency employed under Bush were wrong, even though the new Administration would not prosecute operatives for carrying them out.

Just maybe Panetta and his boss realize that the only way to avoid blame for such an upcoming attack will be to try to preemptively blame and scapegoat  conservatives by saying that THEY are somehow more responsible than the Democrats who totally undermined our war on terror at every single turn because conservatives might have somehow hoped for it.

Even Liberals Complaining About Obama’s ‘Lindsey Lohan’ TV Narcisism

June 16, 2009

Note from uber-liberal Bill Maher: “Hey, Obama: please do a little less talking, and a lot more shutting the hell up.  Your nutjob-narcissism is getting too disgusting even for your own side.”

As a conservative, I never get tired of being able to say, “I told you so.”  Here’s just a few of my pre-election articles, from earliest to latest:

Brandenburg Gate: Pseudo-Candidates Need Pseudo-Credibility

Obama Suffers From Kennedy-Confusion Syndrome

Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama: Saving The Planet, Megalomaniac-style

Invesco Field ‘Temple Of Barack’ Reveals Pathological Pretension

And now – to my I-laughed-so-hard-I-hurt-myself chortling glee, I discover that even BILL MAHER has come to realize what a pathological narcissist Barry Hussein really is:

June 14, 2009
Bill Maher: Obama obsessed with being on TV

Self-described libertarian pundit Bill Maher ripped Barak Obama during a lengthy monologue on his HBO program Friday night, accusing the president of being obsessed with appearing on TV and failing to come through on pre-election promises.

“This is not what I voted for,” Maher said. “I don’t want my president to be a TV star.”

Maher criticized Obama’s constant television coverage (“I get it: you love being on TV”) and said the president should focus on fixing the nation’s problems instead.

“You don’t have to be on television every minute of every day — you’re the president, not a rerun of ‘Law & Order,'” Maher said. “TV stars are too worried bout being popular and too concerned about being renewed.”

Maher continued: “You’re skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady — but so is Lindsay Lohan. And just like Lindsay, we see your name in the paper a lot but we’re kind of wondering when you’re actually going to do something.”

Maher added that Obama’s presidential rival John McCain was right to say Obama acted like a celebrity and, amazingly for Maher, the comedian suggested Obama needs to act more like his predecessor.

“I never thought I’d say this, what [Obama] needs in his personality is a little George Bush.”

Video

What can you say for a president who is so pathetic he makes even Bill Maher pine for George W. Bush?

Barry Hussein is a disaster.  The only question is whether he will take the American people down the drain with him before enough of them wake up and realize that their president is “Lindsey Lohan.”

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez – another man known for spending long hours dominating his country’s television in order to puff himself up – recently said that “Comrade” Obama is proving himself to be more leftwing than he or Castro is.  And surprise, surprise, Obama is turning out to be every bit as conceited and narcissistic and disastrous for his country as Chavez – and the networks who helped bring their Dear Leader to power are now afraid not to run him for fear of his reprisals.

In a way, that last bit is rather like one of those horror flicks, where the weasel mad scientist who manufactured the monster gets eaten by his own creation.

But a better TV analogy to horror movies or even “Lindsey Lohan” might be the unceasing advertisements.  Seeing Barack Obama on television is really a lot like seeing a really stupid and annoying commercial: it happens all the damn time, and you know that it’s just somebody’s way of trying to sell you more ridiculous crap.

Did Obama Actually Claim Credit For Ahmadinejad’s Victory?

June 14, 2009

Barack Obama was asked a question about what he thought about what was going on with the Iranian election, and his answer was his usual precise, clear, and masterful exercise in eloquent oration:

“Uh, we are excited, uh, to see, uh, what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran.  And obviously after the speech, uh, that I made in Cairo, uh, we tried to send a clear message that, uh, we think there is the possibility of change, uhhh, aaaand — ehhh, yuh– oh —  Ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide, but just a-as has been true in Lebanon, uh, what’s, uh — can be true in Iran as well is that you’re seeing, uh, people looking at new, uh, possibilities. And, uh, whoever ends up winning, uh, the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help, uh, advance, uh, our ability to engage them in new ways.”

You can watch it for yourself.  And here’s a game you can play at home or in your cubicle:  see if I got all the various iterations of “uh” right.  It’s actually not easy to keep track of them with a man who seems to be more speaking in tongues than he is answering a question.

Which leads to one of those things that lets you know we are living in a true age of propaganda.  We have the media swooning over Obama as a masterful communicator when he routinely utters gibberish without a teleprompter to tell him what to say.  And this assessment from the same people who routinely mocked George Bush for his “teleprompter-less” utterings.  We have Maxim Magazine declaring that Michelle Obama is one of the “100 hottest women in the world” when she would have to be literally set on fire to make that list.

You begin to understand that liberalism is a disease that rots the visual and auditory areas of the brain, such that the sufferers of this terrible malady can only see and hear what their ideology compels them to see and hear.

Bet let us contemplate the substance of Obama’s near gibberish utterance:

Barack Obama, perennial narcissist that he truly is, couldn’t help but tie events in Iran with a speech he gave in Egypt.  What was happening in Iran simply had to ultimately be about Barack Obama.  Because, on his view, every single Iranian – some 40 million people – simply had to have watched him in a rapturous adoration that would surely emerge in the vote.

And they would obviously want some of Obama’s magic “change you can believe in.”

Well, “change you can believe in” is a nuclear weaponized Iran.  It means the re-election of a man who says the Holocaust didn’t happen, and who has called Israel a “disgraceful blot” that should be “wiped off the face of the earth.”

Was the election rigged, as many are wondering? That would present its own dilemmas for Obama.  And anyway, like our own election, it doesn’t really matter: Iran – whether the people or the mullahs – has made Mahmoud Ahmadinejad their president.  And for what it’s worth, the only “independent” pre-election poll taken 3 weeks prior to the election indicated that Ahmadinejad would win by a 2-1 margin, and even indicated that Ahmadinejad would even defeat Hussein Moussavi in his own hometown.

Anyway, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hatred for Israel probably sounds very much like some good old home preaching, given what Obama’s Reverend, “spiritual adviser,” and “friend and mentor” for 23 years has been saying:

“Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me,” Wright told the Daily Press in Newport News, Va. “I told my baby daughter that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office.”

That little antisemitic rambling was really only news because Wright said it the day before a deranged psycho tried to storm the Holocaust Museum and killed a guard before being gunned down himself.  But Barack Obama’s pastor has been saying stuff like that for a long time:

“[T]he Jewish vote, the A-I-P-A-C vote, that’s controlling him, that would not let him send representation to the Darfur Review Conference, that’s talking this craziness on this trip, cause they’re Zionists, they would not let him talk to someone who calls a spade what it is.”

And before that Wright spoke lovingly of Jews in his sermons:

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

And:

“We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. … We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. …”

With that, Obama may get along just fine with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Let’s just hope Obama doesn’t begin to think of Ahmadinejad as his “spiritual adviser” or “mentor” like he did with Jeremiah Wright.  Don’t forget that nature abhors a vacuum; and if Jeremiah Wright isn’t still Obama’s spiritual adviser, friend, and mentor, some other nutjob must surely rush in to fill the void.

It’s true that Obama left Jeremiah Wright’s church.  It’s also true that he left it 23 years too late to matter.

I wrote an article back in October of last year: “Jews And Americans Alike Need To Fear Obama Presidency.”

Jews in Israel have since gotten the message:  When George Bush was president, fully 88% of Israeli Jews believed the president was “pro-Israel”; today under Obama, only 31% of Israeli Jews think so.

Anyway, Obama gives a speech in Egypt, and – in a stumbling, bumbling, near-incoherent message – talked about the great speech the Teleprompter of the United States gave in Egypt.  Clearly, Obama believes that TOTUS’s speech changed the world.  But the re-election of nuclear-weapons-crazy and kill-all-the-Jews-mad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a rather clear signal that nothing of the sort happened.

Hey, I’ve got an idea.  With North Korea going more nuts than its ever been since 1950, maybe Obama can go to Seoul, South Korea, and give a speech there.  That’ll surely turn that mean ole’ Kim Jong-Il around!

Obama’s Plan To Destroy America’s Farms Moving Full Steam Ahead

June 13, 2009

The bill is House Resolution 2454, imposing a domestic carbon emissions cap-and-trade program on the American economy.

The goal seems to be nothing short of eradicating American farms and self-sustainability.

Even DEMOCRATS are opposing the Obama Energy Bill. Climate change legislation will be utterly devastating for American farmers. Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) of the House Agriculture Committee says that not only will he not vote for it, but no one else on his committee will support it either. The bill would increase the cost of everything that farmers depend on, such as diesel fuel, gasoline, fertilizers, pesticides, and a host of other things. It would raise taxes on energy by $846 billion over the next ten years. Due to the fact that farming is so energy intensive, one major study shows that it would reduce farm income by $8 billion or 28% over the next four years, by $25 billion (or by 60%) through 2024, and by $50 billion (or by 94%) by 2035 [source: Heritage Foundation study]. Many are shaking their heads in amazement over the proposed impact.

Cap and trade legislation would utterly devastate the agricultural community with stratospheric operating costs, and would just as utterly destroy rural America.

To make matters even worse, the 1,000 page bill pushed through by Henry Waxman and Ed Markey has barely been examined in spite of its sweeping consequences as Democrats play cutthroat politics with America’s future.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) is complaining that the Agriculture Department has little if any role in the climate change bill, and that the EPA is driving it. Peterson said, “A lot of us on the Committee do not want the EPA near our farms.”

Agriculture Department Secy Tom Vilsack repeatedly said, “There is obviously work yet to be done on this bill.”

Nevertheless, Nancy Pelosi is trying to rush the bill through the House, demanding that it be finished by the end of next week – leaving almost no change lawmakers could change it. And Barack Obama is pushing hard to impose his agenda before Americans have a chance to know more about it and oppose it.

The economic aspects are terrible enough:

WASHINGTON, DC, June 9 — A US House bill that would introduce a domestic carbon emissions cap-and-trade program would cost $846 billion in new taxes, the Congressional Budget Office said on June 5. [….]

American Petroleum Institute President Jack N. Gerard said on June 8 that the analysis confirmed the bill would be “massively costly.”

“The $846 billion price tag on emission allowances, borne disproportionately by oil consumers, will drive up costs of producing and refining gasoline, diesel, and other fuel products while doing nothing to protect fuel consumers, including American families, trucking, the airlines, the construction industry, and many other businesses that rely on oil to make or transport products,” Gerard said.

API: ‘A job-killer’
API said that based on allowance costs in CBO’s study, impacts could be as much as 77¢/gal for gasoline, 83¢/gal for jet fuel, and 88¢/gal for diesel fuel.

“This is what happens when market-based regulation is abandoned in favor of picking winners and losers,” Gerard said. “Putting most of the burden on one sector also helps explain why this legislation promises to be a job-killer.”

The bill was cosponsored by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the committee’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

But the impact on industries such as farming will be utterly devastating:

For Farmers, Cap and Trade is a Permanent Drought Season

Economists at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis are digging deeper into the effects of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation that includes a cap and trade plan to reduce carbon dioxide by 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020 and by 83 percent below 2005 levels in 2050. Today’s victim: Farmers. Our CDA analysts found that Waxman-Markey would adversely affect farmers in a number of ways:

• Farm income (or the amount left over after paying all expenses) is expected to drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28%, 60% and 94%, respectively.
• The average net income lost over the 2010-2035 timeline is $23 billion – a 57% decrease from the baseline.
• Construction costs of farm buildings will go up by 5.5 percent in 2025 and 10 percent by 2034 (from the baseline).
• By 2035, gasoline and diesel costs are expected to be 58 percent higher and electric rates 90 percent higher.

And for the rest of us, including those of us on fixed incomes and already struggling in these tough economic times:

• The cost of producing everything from wheat to beef will increase. Indeed, the price deflator for private farm inventories goes up over 20 points by 2035. This increase gets quickly translated into much higher food prices for consumers at the grocery stores.
farm-inventory-costs

Most of our readers know cap and trade is an energy tax in disguise. The goal of cap and trade is to drive up energy costs so much that Americans use less. But there’s a fundamental problem with this. Just about everything we do and everything we consume uses energy, so even after consumers turn up their thermostats in the summer and down in the winter, consumers are still using a lot of energy. But under a cap and trade, they’ll be paying an exorbitantly high price for it.

Farming is no exception; in fact, farming is very energy-intensive, with fuel, chemical, electricity and fertilizer costs. They have to purchase a lot of equipment and have to construct a lot of buildings. The Heritage Foundation’s CDA estimates that the price of constructing farm buildings will go up by 4.5 percent in 2024 and by over 10 percent in 2034 (from the baseline) solely because of the upward pressure cap and trade puts on energy prices.
farm-construction

The price of tractors– and every other piece of farm equipment you can think of– will increase as well.
farm-transportation

Worst of all is what happens to farmers’ net income. Farmers live off their gross income; what they earn in addition to that is their net income or marginal income. Waxman-Markey significantly shrinks farmers’ net income pie. Farm income is expected to drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28%, 60% and 94% from the baseline, respectively.
farm-income-lost

Waxman-Markey increases the costs of farm inventories, which in turn raises the cost of food sold to the consumer. At first glance, this may appear to be a good thing for farmers. Higher prices equals higher profit. But this would only be true if all other things were equal. That’s certainly not the case here. Higher energy prices hurt the overall economy, which means less demand for all goods, less production, higher unemployment, and reduced income. This overall economic slowdown reduces demand for agricultural goods, too. And, as we’ve seen above from the charts, a lot changes for farmers; particularly, their overall cost of operations rise and their net incomes fall.

Waxman-Markey’s effect on farmers should raise a red flag for those in the farm belt and will put U.S. agriculture at a tremendous competitive disadvantage if enacted. Consumers will feel the pain as well, not only from the increase in their own energy prices, but increased food prices. And for what? A change in the temperature too small to notice.

For more, check out The Heritage Foundation’s Rapid Response Page

This won’t just undermine the American farmer; it will force him out of farming altogether.

How is it NOT a truly terrible idea to annihilate America’s ability to feed its own people?

This goes beyond undermining the US economy; it may well literally create starvation conditions for millions of Americans.

Last May, while on the campaign trail, Barack Obama said:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.

And now we see what Obama’s “leadership” looks like: it looks like a bigger version of North Korea.  Nationalizing the auto industry and imposing tiny little clown cars on the country; an energy policy that will tax us into freezing in the dark at night (or conversely sweltering in the summer heat); and of course the whole famine thing.

You can’t say he didn’t warn us, I suppose.

Revelation 6:5-6 “When he opened the third seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” And I looked, and behold, a black horse! And its rider had a pair of scales in his hand. And I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures, saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wage, and three quarts of barley for a day’s wage, and do not harm the oil and wine.”

The beast is coming. That approaching reality is becoming clearer every single day.

Amazing NASA Discovery: The Sun, Not Man, Causes Warming

June 13, 2009

Finally NASA is coming to the same conclusion that Japanese scientists (who have compared global warming “science” to astrology) have reached: it is the sun, rather than factories, cars, or cow flatulence, that warms the earth.

NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming

Michael Andrews – June 4, 2009 9:37 AM

Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution


Past studies have shown that sunspot numbers correspond to warming or cooling trends. The twentieth century has featured heightened activity, indicating a warming trend. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes.  They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation.  Skeptics, though, argue that there’s little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.
Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest.  A study from
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate.  The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles.  At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat.  According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, “Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”

Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, “The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth’s global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum.  The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012.”

According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth’s outermost atmosphere.  Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun’s influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks.  Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns.  Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The incontrovertible fact here is that even NASA’s own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past.  And even the study’s members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.

But we have a true crisis of ignorance, propaganda, and demagoguery: as “global warming” is increasingly shown to be bunk, liberals merely change terms to “climate change” and keep up the deception campaign.

Global warming, by any other name, is not about science, but socialism masquerading as science.  The mainstream media, big government bureaucrats, and pseudo-scientists who benefit from government funding to save the planet from the “crisis,” are seeking to impose one-world government and greater government control over human behavior.

The Obama agenda to impose his radical global warming agenda will bankrupt America.

We’re already beginning to see a Big-Brotheresque mindset to dealing with “global warming deniers” (think “Holocaust deniers) as mentally ill.  To wit: when the pseudo-science fails, send in the psychologists.

Of course, Big Brother ‘Bama is going to have to order a LOT of straitjackets, given that fewer than half of Americans buy the bunk of global warming.  It’s Al Gore, rather than people who recognize propaganda when they hear it, who should be fitted for a jacket that has sleeves that tie in the back.

I’ve written two articles on the subject of global warming that I challenge anyone claiming that global warming is a “crisis” – or even legitimate science – to read:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

Whether one looks at the present or the past, global warming alarmism is just one among many flavors of leftwing Kool-Aid.

This isn’t a merely academic debate.  It is having consequences that will cost trillions of dollars, eradicate whole industries, and quite possibly even cost countless American lives.

Even DEMOCRATS are opposing Obama’s Energy Bill, saying that climate change legislation will be utterly devastating for farmers.  Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) of the House Agriculture Committee says not only will he not vote for the bill, but that no one else on the committee will support it either.  The bill will increase the cost of everything farmers depend on, such as diesel fuel, gasoline, fertilizer, and a host of other things.  It would raise taxes on energy by $846 billion over the next ten years.  And due to the fact that farming is so energy intensive, one major study shows that it would reduce farm income by $8 billion or 28% by 2012, by $25 billion (or by 60%) through 2024, and by $50 billion (or by 94%) by 2035 [source: Heritage Foundation study].  Many are shaking their heads in amazement over the proposed impact.

Cap and trade legislation would devastate the agricultural community with stratospheriec operating costs, and would destroy rural America.

To make matters worse, the 1,000 page bill pushed through by Democrats Henry Waxman and Ed Markey has barely been examined in spite of its sweeping and shockingly expensive and damaging consequences.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) complained that the Agriculture Department has little if any role in the climate change bill, and that the EPA is driving it.  Peterson said, “A lot of us on the Committee do not want the EPA near our farms.”

Nevertheless, Nancy Pelosi is trying to rush the bill through the House, demanding that it be finished by the end of next week – leaving almost no change lawmakers could change it.

One consequence of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi winning their climate change agenda may litterly be millions of Americans starving to death.  And that is no exaggeration.

More and more, the legitimate  science is proving that we should at least be incredibly skeptical toward global warming.  But even as the science toward global warming demonstrates that any warming is the result of solar cycles rather than carbon emissions, Democrats are demagoguing the issue to drive home a radical agenda that will destroy America.

Internal Chrysler Emails And The Tyranny Of Government As God

June 11, 2009

What follows is a Wall Street Journal article on the abuse of the federal government to impose it’s will –

U.S. Pushed Fiat Deal on Chrysler
Internal Emails Reveal Resentment; Court Upholds Pact

By NEIL KING JR. and JEFFREY MCCRACKEN

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration rushed an alliance between Chrysler LLC and Fiat SpA despite Chrysler’s worries about Fiat’s financial health and its willingness to share technology, according to internal company emails.

The emails show Fiat ignoring requests for documents and trying to change contract terms late in the talks. A Chrysler adviser at one point said the deal risked looking as if the U.S. auto maker and the Treasury Department, which helped broker the pact, were “in bed with a shady partner.” In another note, an official referred to the Treasury Department as “God.”

Emails about the Chrysler-Fiat deal reveal tense debate and last-minute attempts at negotiation just hours before Chrysler filed for bankruptcy. In one email, above, a top Chrysler financial adviser tried for new contract terms with a head lawyer for Treasury, who swiftly declined.

The documents, filed in the Southern District of New York as part of Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings, provide a glimpse at the tense debates that shaped Chrysler’s final days as it raced to find a suitor.

On Friday, a federal appeals court upheld Chrysler’s Fiat deal, dismissing a challenge by dissident Chrysler debt holders. But the court also issued a stay until 4 p.m. Monday — leaving a small window for Thomas Lauria, the lawyer pursuing the case, to appeal to the Supreme Court. One judge on the three-judge panel suggested the Supreme Court should have “a swing at this ball.”

Mr. Lauria’s persistence led one government lawyer in the Chrysler case to dub him a “terrorist” in an email to a Chrysler adviser.

In a written statement, Chrysler said “comments extracted from emails exchanged in the heat of negotiations reflect the normal hyperbole that occurs in the final stages of negotiating any complex transaction.” Chrysler said its concerns about the deal were answered.

Fiat said it “provided full access to all information relevant to the due-diligence exercise performed by Chrysler and the prospective lenders.”

The revelations come as the Obama administration is rushing to get a bankruptcy court to sign off on the Chrysler-Fiat merger as early as next week. Fiat has the right to walk away from the deal if it isn’t consummated by June 15.

Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection April 30 armed with $12 billion from the government. Earlier this week, the government ushered General Motors Corp. into what it hopes also will be a speedy bankruptcy.

In an interview, an administration official said any concerns about Fiat were resolved in the final week. The Italian company gave Chrysler and the U.S. “total access to technology” and revealed enough about its financial status to persuade the U.S. the company was not just stable, but strong, the official said.

The official called the negotiations “a high-wire act” in which a small team of government advisers had to quickly pull together a complicated deal. In such situations, “people speak in elevated tones,” the official said. “People get threatening.”

The emails, which run from mid-March until early May, were put into the court record following a request by Mr. Lauria, the lawyer fighting the bankruptcy on behalf of various Indiana pension and investment funds that hold Chrysler bank debt. They argue that the case has trampled on established bankruptcy law.

In early March, both Chrysler and the government seemed unsure about Fiat. In a March 10 letter to the Treasury auto team, Chrysler Chief Executive Robert Nardelli said he shared some of the government’s worries about a Fiat alliance, including that the introduction of Fiat in the U.S. “may have a negative impact” on General Motors and Ford.

Mr. Nardelli also noted how Treasury officials had complained Fiat was “not bringing enough to the table” and had to be forced to put up cash for an equity stake.

A Chrysler spokeswoman said Mr. Nardelli wouldn’t comment beyond his affidavit. In the affidavit, he said that by April’s end, “Chrysler’s management became comfortable with entrusting our precious assets to Fiat.”

Chrysler’s advisers told the company their Italian counterparts were refusing to provide sufficient financial information to evaluate the deal. A team sent to Fiat headquarters in Turin, Italy, reported back on March 14 that “no financial due diligence … has or can be performed.”

An internal memo 13 days later from Chrysler’s advisory team also said Fiat’s “off-balance-sheet investments” in joint ventures around the world posed an economic risk and a political risk,” including the appearance that “Treasury/Chrysler” was “in bed with a shady partner.”

Eight days before President Barack Obama announced his support for the alliance in an April 30 speech, Chrysler officials were still bristling over what they considered Fiat’s unwillingness to provide even basic information about its finances. “They requested us to re-submit a written request” for the information, one Chrysler official wrote on April 22 to Mr. Nardelli, the CEO.

Treasury officials, meanwhile, worried about Fiat’s willingness to share technology with Chrysler, one of the deal’s underpinnings. Fiat stands to get an initial 35% stake in Chrysler, and potentially 50%, based on its ability to help upgrade Chrysler’s technology. Fiat is putting in no cash.

On April 22, Mr. Manzo of Capstone, the Chrysler adviser, sent a note — like some of the emails, containing misspellings — to Matthew Feldman, a member of the Obama auto team, to complain that Fiat “is trying to be squirely” about sharing technology.

Mr. Feldman emailed back: “We know.”

Mr. Feldman declined to comment on the emails.

At the outset, the Chrysler team appeared leery of the role being played by the Treasury, which was leading the effort to save the auto maker. “I think we are clearly getting more cooks in the kitchen,” Mr. Nardelli said in an email.

However, Chrysler quickly learned to defer to the Treasury team. In one email chain, Ron Bloom of the Treasury chastised a Chrysler official for trying to hammer out some lingering issues with Daimler, Chrysler’s former partner, without looping in the Treasury.

I am more than a little surprised,” Mr. Bloom wrote, that Chrysler was proceeding “without our approval.”

Mr. Nardelli jumped in: “Ron, thought we were helping, how would you like to handle!”

Later, the Chrysler executives deleted Mr. Bloom from the address line, and continued talking. “I guess the UST is running it!” said Mr. Nardelli, referring to the Treasury.

“26 days and counting,” said Tom LaSorda, Chrysler’s then-president, referring to the April 30 deadline to either do a deal or file for bankruptcy.

“Amen!” responded Mr. Nardelli.

Mr. LaSorda didn’t return calls seeking comment.

Despite the push to do a deal with Fiat, Chrysler advisers continued into April urging the Treasury to think again about a potential merger with GM. Earlier talks between the two auto giants had broken down in November, and the Obama administration put little stock in the idea.

On April 10, Mr. Manzo emailed Mr. Nardelli to say he told the Treasury to reconsider a GM pair-up. Four days later, Mr. Manzo sent an email to several Treasury officials, as well as Messrs. Nardelli and LaSorda, urging them to reconsider.

“We continue to believe that revisiting the combination/alliance discussion with gm from the fall is the best alternative for all parties,” he said.

In an interview, Mr. Manzo said conflicts will happen when a company like Chrysler is asking for money from a lender, particularly the government. He also said the emails reflected his “fiduciary duty to get the best value” for Chrysler.

Just before the filing, tensions boiled over. Mr. Manzo offered a suggestion to Mr. Feldman about making a last-minute offer to Chrysler’s debt holders. “I’m now not talking to you,” Mr. Feldman wrote back.

The next morning, hours before President Obama announced the bankruptcy, Chrysler President Mr. LaSorda emailed Mr. Manzo asking if Chapter 11 filing was inevitable.

“Not good,” Mr. Manzo replied. “These washington guys want to show the market that they can be tuff. We are the gueni pigs unfortunately.”
—Alex Kellogg, Stacy Meichtry and Jake Seward contributed to this article.

Related Documents

March 10: Chrysler Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Robert Nardelli writes a letter to the U.S. Treasury laying out his thoughts and concerns about a potential Fiat merger.

March 17: Chrysler advisor Robert Manzo passes along an email noting how the Treasury team seems to know little about Chapter 11.

March 25: Chrysler top brass discuss how the company will definitely go into Chapter 11.

March 27: Chrysler’s advisers report that they have too little financial information to determine Fiat’s viability.

April 4: Treasury’s Ron Bloom chastises Chrysler’s Nardelli for negotiating with Daimler.

April 14: Manzo urges all sides to reconsider a Chrysler alliance with General Motors.

April 22: Chrysler top officials are told that Fiat is still refusing to turn over key financial information, demanding they make a “written request.”

April 23: Treasury’s bankruptcy lawyer, Matthew Feldman, acknowledges that Fiat is holding out on a promised technology deal.

April 30: Manzo tells Chrysler President Tom LaSorda that for Treasury, “We are the gueni pigs unfortunately.”

The same day, as Chrysler files for bankruptcy, Treasury’s Feldman calls a lawyer opposing the bankruptcy a “terrorist”

Bankruptcy attorney Thomas Lauria came out and said that his firm was being directly threatened by an Obama official, Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration’s Auto Industry Task Force.  Lauria claimed that Rattner was threatening to use the White House Press corps, which is very much in Obama’s pocket, to destroy Lauria’s firm’s reputation.  The White House denied these charges.  But now we find another Obama official, Treasury official Matthew Feldman, directly calling Lauria a “terrorist”?

If federal officials directly said this to Lauria for the record, what do you think they said to his face in private?

Another creepy thing is how often we’re hearing Obama or his government being referred to as “God.” This is right out of the pages of the Bible about the end times.

A third thing that screams massive “foul” is that the federal government has usurped contract law and bankruptcy proceedings.  They have retroactively changed the rules for bondholders in order to reward partisan political interests.  The UAW was owed unsecured debt of $20 billion and received $17.4 billion in the restructuring, for an 87% recovery.  Yet the bondholders – who held secured debt that was supposed to put them at the front of the bankruptcy court line by law – were owed $27 billion, but were only offered $3.8 – $4 billion, for a recovery of only 14% to 17.7%!!!  Why is it that secured debtholders take an 82-86% haircut, while politically-connected Democrat special interest groups only lose 13% of their money?  How do you possibly justify that?

How is it that unions win so big, while investors lose so big, in these government bailouts?

Fascism didn’t just “happen” one day in Germany or Italy, just as Marxism didn’t just “happen” in Russia.  There was a movement toward these ideologies before the final pieces just clicked into place and the people lost their freedoms.

When you pay attention to what is going on, and follow the government’s impositions on the auto companies, on banks (many of which didn’t need bailouts but had them imposed on them in order to conceal the unhealthy banks), and on industries that didn’t even get ANY bailout money, you should be concerned as an American citizen.

If you’re a liberal, realize that the dictatorial policies Obama is now ramming home will set the stage for the next dictator – whether he (or she) is a Democrat OR Republican.

Obama’s Foreign Policy: Miranda Rights For Terrorists

June 11, 2009

It’s no longer a “war on terror,” and we are no longer dealing with “terrorism” or “terrorists.” Oh, no. Obama will give a 6,000 word speech in Egypt on American-Islamic issues and NEVER use any of those hateful terms.

Nope.  We’re now a nation that is managing an “overseas contingency operation,” rather than fighting a war on terror.  We’re trying to reduce “man-caused disasters” rather than terrorism (at least while my lawsuit against DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano for sexually discriminating by calling it “man-caused” rather than “human-caused” is still pending).  And, whatever you want to call the people who are launching murderous attacks against innocent and unarmed civilians, don’t you DARE call them “terrorists.”

Well, whatever we choose to call them (I like “meanies,” because it avoids all those hateful politically incorrect words, but still says they’re mean), Obama has stopped waterboarding them and started mirandizing them.

I feel so cozy and safe under Barack Obama.  If we ever suffer a massive overseas contingency man-caused disaster, we can know that he will give a really cautiously-worded speech in retaliation.  And who would want something like THAT directed against them?

Miranda Rights for Terrorists

When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.

Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs.

If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”

That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.

The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.

Under the “global justice” initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.

Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning – so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration’s approach. “If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they’re likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future.”

But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. “When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the ‘right to remain silent,’” says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation–lawyering up.”

According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. “The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people – ‘Take the option. You want a lawyer.’”

Rogers adds: “The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he’s building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer – you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone.”

One thing is clear, though. A detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. Had Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had a lawyer, Tenet wrote, “I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people.”

Posted by Stephen F. Hayes on June 10, 2009 02:05 PM | Permalink

I liked hearing “You have the right to remain silent” from Sgt. Joe Friday on Dragnet; I HATE hearing it from Obama to a terrorist who knows the murderous plans of his terrorist buddies (Sorry: I meant to say “meanie”).

Stephen Hayes cites George Tenet because he was a CIA Director who had been appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton.  A corroborating source is fellow career intelligence professional and former CIA Director General Michael Hayden, who said, “fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those interrogations [of terrorists Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Ramzi bin al Shibh].”

What do you truly think we would have learned from these hard-core terrorist murderers if we’d given them lawyers instead of an invitation to experience some pain?  I mean, seriously, if you think that being nice to these guys in the presence of their lawyers would have yielded intelligence information, then I can paint string yellow and sell it to you as 24k gold chains.

This is amazing folly on an unimaginable scale.

The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he’s building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer – you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone.”

Can you even imagine this?

Only a couple of weeks after the FBI managed to infiltrate and interdict a domestic terrorist attack by African-American Muslims radicalized in the prison system, and only days after an African-American convert to Islam who changed his name to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad murdered an unarmed American soldier to punish the military for their “insults” to Islam.  we are putting a Gitmo terrorist (named Ahmed Ghailani) on trial in the US court system.

What in the hell is going on?  Two wildly divergent theories:

President Barack Obama has said keeping Ghailani from coming to the United States “would prevent his trial and conviction.” Taking a drastically different stance, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio labeled Tuesday’s move “the first step in the Democrats’ plan to import terrorists into America.”

But no.  We’re going to let them in under Obama.  We’re going to let them make a mockery of our court system.  We’re going to let them in to radicalize more and more of our inmates into the ways of terrorist jihad.

Obama’s new foreign policy is a disgrace.  Giving foreign terrorists captured on the battlefield miranda protections and providing them with lawyers is an insult to our warriors who hunt these killers down.