May 5-6, 2009
May 05 03:32 Murtha's Corruption Hitting Closer to Home May 05 08:44 ACORN, Barney Frank: A Love Story? May 05 10:45 **BREAKING NEWS** Chessani Appeal Dropped May 05 15:02 The Thuggings Continue May 06 02:45 Who Gives a Rip What He Thinks? May 06 16:54 Introducing the Thug-In-Chief May 06 15:49 Blogger Conference Call Notes May 06 17:40 I LOVE Hearing That
Murtha's Corruption Hitting Closer to Home
According to this Washington Post article , John Murtha's corruption is hitting close to home. VERY CLOSE. Here's what the Washington Post is reporting:
The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.How can Robert Murtha say with a straight face that Murtech's 17 employees "provide necessary logistical support" to Pentagon testing programs when the John Murtha earmarks say it's sending $4,000,000 a year to Murtech "for a variety of warehousing and engineering services"? That's $235,000 per person per year for doing....what?
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner, Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
Robert Murtha said he is not at liberty to discuss in detail what his company does, but for four years it has subsisted on defense contracts, according to records and interviews. He said Murtech's 17 employees "provide necessary logistical support" to Pentagon testing programs that focus on detecting chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, "and that's about as far as I feel comfortable going." Giving more details could provide important clues to terrorist plotters, he said.
How can a big warehouse have no semi traffic to it? How can this warehouse's offices be almost empty?
People wrongfully complained about Haliburton's no-bid contracts. Haliburton at least did important work for the money they got. Based on the Washington Post's reporters' observations, we don't know if Murtech did anything except collect a government check for doing nothing.
Here's something that'll either have you pulling your hair out or laughing uncontrollably:
Murtha said he does not advertise being the nephew of John Murtha and considers it "unfortunate" that some will unfairly assume Murtech received its federal contracts because of his uncle's influence at the Pentagon.I won't trust young Murtha because I can't prove that he's done anything other than collect a government check.
"If we're not doing our job well, we wouldn't be doing our job," he said. "I'm successful at the work I do because of the skill sets I have...You don't know how good someone is unless you work with them."
This is suspicious:
During an unannounced visit to Murtech headquarters last week, a reporter asking to talk to the owner was waved away by an employee. "He's not here. Come back another day," said the woman who opened Murtech's security door. "Unfortunately, everybody's stepped out."This unnamed woman lied to reporters. Are Murtech employees in the habit of lying like that?
But a few minutes later, Murtha emerged and answered questions about the company. In an interview, Murtha expressed concern that publicity could be harmful to his business.
Until Murtech can prove that they're doing vital work for the Pentagon, I won't trust them. That's due mostly to Robert Murtha's actions but it's also fair to question the things that Kit Murtha, Robert's father, and John Murtha, Kit's brother, have done in the past.
This sounds familiar:
A spokesman at Murtha's office did not return calls seeking comment. The lawmaker, a former Marine, has said in the past that he is proud of his family's service to the military and the government.Some things change. Murtha's 'no comment' policy doesn't though.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has more on young Murtha's story here .
Posted Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:45 AM
No comments.
ACORN, Barney Frank: A Love Story?
Last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann wrote that, after her amendment passed preventing "organizations, or employees of organizations, that have been indicted for voter fraud from being eligible for the housing counseling grants and legal assistance grants authorized under the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act", Chairman Frank's staff approached her staff to see if they could change the language of the amendment:
Later that day, Chairman Frank said he had reservations about my amendment and would discuss them with me. His staff approached mine with specific changes he would like to make, changes which eviscerate the meaning of the amendment and were clearly not acceptable. Again, this was puzzling given that it is identical to the language Chairman Frank included in HERA just last year.This morning, news broke that says why Chairman Frank wants those changes:
Their changes include: Raising the bar from indictment to conviction to preclude an organization from getting taxpayer dollars, limiting the time the ban is in effect, and applying the standard to only senior employees. We're talking about giving tax dollars to organizations that could be mixed up in criminal actions. Are we expected to keep forking over tax dollars to these organization when they're under the cloud of suspicion of a public criminal indictment?
Here's what the Las Vegas Journal-Review is reporting :
In all, there are 26 charges of compensation for registration of voters and 13 charges of being a "principal" in the alleged crimes. An initial hearing has been set for 7:30 a.m. June 3 in Las Vegas Justice Court. "In Nevada, it is unlawful for a person to provide compensation for registering voters that is based on the total number of voters a person registers," state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said.Based on this reporting, I'd say it's likely that these charges will turn into guilty pleas, which I hope will turn into a hefty fine for ACORN. ACORN's Nevada spokesman, Scott Levenson, quickly started spinning the story:
ACORN's canvassers, she said, had to gather at least 20 voter registrations a day to keep their jobs. There also was a bonus program, known as "blackjack" or "21 plus," which rewarded employees with $5 extra per shift if they brought in 21 or more completed registrations, she said. Canvassers under pressure to keep their jobs turned in registrations with fake names and phony addresses, even, in one case, the starting lineup for the Dallas Cowboys, authorities alleged.
"These practices are clearly a violation of Nevada law," Masto said. "By structuring employment and compensation around a quota system, ACORN facilitated voter registration fraud in this state." The organization is being targeted, she added, because it shouldn't "hide behind or place blame on its employees" when the group's policies required "illegal acts in performing the job."
Scott Levenson, an ACORN spokesman, said that the group cooperated in the investigation and that charging the organization is "frightfully absurd."What's "frightfully absurd" is Mr. Levenson thinking that ACORN's policies didn't contribute to, if not directly cause, their employees' allegedly illegal activity. Had ACORN not put these policies in place, they might've had a leg to stand on. What's worse is that ACORN knew about these policies long ago AND DID NOTHING to correct their irresponsible policies.
"We're a bit appalled at the political grandstanding on the part of the attorney general's office," he said. "This individual case is truly a situation where, the organization that was most harmed is the organization that is being charged."
Now Mr. Levenson wants us to pretend that ACORN is blameless in all this? I don't think so.
Based on this post , I'd say that Rep. Bachmann hasn't backed off her original position. In fact, she's still asking the right question and fighting the right fight:
My amendment would keep organizations that are under indictment for voter fraud or other criminal activities, or that employ people indicted for such crimes, from accessing billions of your tax dollars. Groups such as ACORN are repeatedly charged with violating the law and the public trust, yet they continue to access taxpayer funds. The threshold for gaining taxpayer funding should not be so low.Whatever happened to the principle of the carrot and the stick? Based on his actions, I'd say that Chairman Frank believes in a principle best described as 'a kinder and gentler carrot and stick' policy. Thoughtful people would recognize Frank's approach as being a carrots without the stick approach.
Interestingly, the Associated Press reported Monday that Nevada authorities filed criminal charges against ACORN and two former employees for voter registration fraud.
Last week I asked: Whose side are we on: The taxpayer's or ACORN's? Chairman Frank still has the opportunity to side with taxpayers by upholding the decision of the Financial Services Committee to implement the highest standard and withhold taxpayer dollars from funding organizations when they're under the cloud of suspicion of a public criminal indictment.
Here's the answer to Rep. Bachmann's question: Chairman Frank won't side with the taxpayers. He'll side with the alleged hoodlums because they're working to help him stay in the majority. That's often referred to as an ends justifies the means strategy.
Something bigger is at stake here, though. Chairman Frank isn't the only liberal in leadership who doesn't want liberal wrongdoers punished. Speaker Pelosi is attempting to prevent an ethics investigation into several corrupt Democrats, including Military Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha:
House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), have ratcheted up the pressure on their rank-and-file members to oppose a resolution calling for an ethics committee investigation into the ties between key Democrats and a controversial defense-lobbying firm.Pelosi's lap dogs are now falling into line with her 'see no ethics violations' policies. Starting immediately, John Q. Public should expect Speaker Pelosi to actually fdo what she said she'd do, namely, to drain the swamp in Washington. Thus far, she hasn't done a thing about the swamp.
Democratic leaders have told their members they should let the ethics panel do its work and stop supporting a measure sponsored by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) that calls for an ethics probe into political donations from the now-defunct PMA Group lobbying firm and earmarks its clients received.
With Congress back in session, Democratic leaders plan to lean on their members again this week or next. The pressure appears to be working. Reps. Ron Kind (D-WI) and Tim Walz (D-MN), two of more than two dozen Democrats who supported Flake's measure in the latest vote, on April 1, are now wavering.
If John Q. Public wants Washington's swamp drained, it won't happen with this bunch of Democrats because they're too addicted to ACORN's work and Murtha's pork.
Posted Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:46 AM
No comments.
**BREAKING NEWS** Chessani Appeal Dropped
I just got the Thomas More Law Center's official statement saying that the military has dropped its appeal of an appeals court ruling. Here's the good news:
A government official has informed the Thomas More Law Center that the government will not seek to appeal the recent unanimous decision by the Navy Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) in favor of LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC.Here's the bad news:
The decision makes permanent the ruling by the trial court judge, Colonel Steven A. Folsom, USMC, dismissing the charges against LtCol Chessani, without prejudice, due to Unlawful Command Influence. The government could have sought an appeal to the civilian Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF), and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In order for the government to start the process of recharging LtCol Chessani, the Commandant, General James Conway, USMC, would have to appoint a new convening authority (the rank of General) that was not precluded by Col Folsom's ruling, which was based on Unlawful Command Influence.I'm not at all confident that Gen. Conway will do the right thing, though that's what I'm hoping for. It's time for the NCIS to admit that the persecutions of the Haditha Marines was a political witch hunt that was ignited by Tim McGirk's farcical Time Magazine article . With Lt. Col. Chessani's charges being dropped, the military's record against the Haditha heroes is 0-7, with 6 Haditha Marines having their charges dropped and one Haditha Marine getting acquitted.
Col Folsom precluded the commands of the I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF), Marine Forces Central Command (MARCENT), and General James Mattis, USMC in particular. Whoever is named the new convening authority (the new General) would have to make an independent decision on whether or not to bring new charges against LtCol Chessani. If the General did desire to bring charges, LtCol Chessani would be subject to a new Article 32 Hearing.
Let's remember what Lt. Col. Chessani was charged with. He was charged with not conducting a full investigation into the Haditha firefight. Here's what I wrote last week :
Every officer in Lt Col Chessani's chain of command, including his reviewing General approved and commended him for his actions until the publication of a Time magazine article months later charging the Marines with committing a massacre.It's impossible to logically explain how an officer can be charged with not conducting a full investigation after he and then-Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore put together a detailed PowerPoint presentation outlining what happened during the November 19, 2005 firefight.
That reason alone is enough to justify dropping the rest of the charges and letting Lt. Col. Chessani and SSgt. Wuterich live out their lives in dignity rather than waste time with another investigation.
UPDATE: Welcome Gateway Pundit Readers. We're nearing the end (hopefully) of a disgusting chapter in US military history. Who can forget John Murtha's initial accusations ? I can't forget Rep. Murtha's telling ABC's Charlie Gibson that he knew there was a cover-up somewhere because hearing him make that statement told me that he didn't know anything. After all, if you know something, shouldn't you be able to talk with specificity about the nature of the cover-up?
UPDATE II: If you want to help end this travesty of justice, consider making a contribution to the Thomas More Law Center . They've done yeoman's work defending the Haditha Marines.
Posted Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:05 PM
No comments.
The Thuggings Continue
Yesterday's news that the Obama administration had applied undue pressure on senior, secured creditors was bad enough. Now it's apparent that that was just the tip of the iceberg :
Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as "a farce," saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats. Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted , two participants in the negotiations said.It gets worse:
The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet...and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election.I've long thought that President Obama is a narcissist and a ruthless Chicago machine politician. That's why I find these accusations totally credible. Captain Ed thinks that way, too:
One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.
The story now has more than one source, and mounting testimony - albeit understandably anonymous testimony, at least at this point - that the White House tried threatening senior creditors instead of doing their job in enforcing the law. Not only do they not realize that their responsibilities do not include building business plans for private enterprises, but also don't include assuming the role of Michael Corleone and acting like organized-crime thugs. Actually, the way the White House made Obama sound, maybe Sonny Corleone is a better analogy , or perhaps Fredo.I've said that this administration has created a new cliche. In decades gone by, the cliche was "I'm with the federal government and I'm here to help you." That's since morphed into "I'm with the federal government and I'm here to make you an offer you can't refuse."
Such is the way it is with the Obama
I'm interested in is finding out who were the Obama administration people in the room when the threats were made. Was Timothy Geithner in the room? Was Rahm Emanuel? Certainly, it isn't unreasonable to think that senior Treasury Department people were involved in the negotiations. It definitely isn't a stretch to think that Rahm Emanuel was incapable of making that type of threat.
Unfortunately, there's no chance that Congress will lift a finger to investigate the Obama administration.
Posted Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:04 PM
Comment 1 by joseph at 05-May-09 07:45 PM
For years I was involved in politics in a 3rd World country and the tactics used by the Chicago Thugs in the White House are no different than those I saw in that arena. I am sorry to say it but the same liberals in the business world who blindly supported the narcissist Obama are now the ones facing the firing squad of socialist strong arm goons- and they deserve it.
And it will get worst. Only the cover up by the MSM is causing Americans to turn a blind eye to a 6.1% drop in GDP for the first quarter, the definate prospect of a further 2,000,000 jobs being lost by December 2009, the further decline of the automobile industry, the coming fall in house sales and all exacerbated by the horrendeous anti capitalist policies of Obama. The economic and foreign policy birds will be coming home to roost shortly and you can only hope that he damage done it not so severe and that a clear conservative champion can be identified before it is too late.
Comment 2 by eric z at 06-May-09 10:12 AM
Why do you guys suppose Bush is studiously keeping quiet, and has willingly moved far back in the public view? Bush and Paulsen - they were key TARP engineers. Cheney is the former administration person making the most noise. And not about finance.
Also, a Google search =
Presidential Task Force on Automobiles ptfoa members
yields an idea of who the presidential players at the table are; see these two returned links:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/i-dont-stand-with-those-who-held-out-when-everyone-else-is-making-sacrifices/
http://rumors.automobilemag.com/6480285/news/what-cars-do-the-presidential-task-force-members-drive/index.html
I hope that helps identify who is at the table, directly or by surrogate/delegate persons?
It looks as if it's the econ team that's pushing and playing hardball.
Any idea why Cerberus gets little mention these days? What's with the TARP and non-TARP divide? Wall Street banks get by, pension/retirement funds do not?
That sounds very GOP in priorities for Obama people; or am I wrong?
What about that Goldman-Sachs guy that got the key staff job at Treasury? Mark Patterson - he goes onto the Obama team and Pease from Frank's committee goes to Goldman Sachs to take Patterson's former job; and we ask, so who is asked to fall on the sword re Chrysler? Not the Wall Street investment banking interests; the pension funds and/or speculators left standing and now holding Chrysler bond debt.
Are animals on Animal Farm unequal, pigs walking on two legs?
Who exactly are those players????
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 06-May-09 01:27 PM
Eric, President Bush is old-school. He's been taught that presidents don't interfere with their successor, especially while their successor is busy getting their administration put together.
As for why there's a difference between TARP & non-TARP corporations, reading this will give you the proper insight:
Last but not least, the President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along. The hedge funds were singled out only because they are unpopular, not because they behaved any differently from any other ethical manager of other people's money.People aren't even being asked to fall on their swords. The secure bondholders, who by bankruptcy law are supposed to get their money first, are being thrown down on their swords by the Obama administration.
I'll have more on this later this afternoon. Suffice it to say for the time being that I think President Obama's actions aren't that different from Hugo Chavez's.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 09-May-09 12:26 PM
Hugo's not been bad for the rank and file in his nation; only the top one percent are really resentful there; the running dogs; he is popular and liked by his nation.
And Obama is different - less fluent in Spanish.
Comment 5 by eric z. at 09-May-09 12:31 PM
Sorry - I forgot to say thanks for the link.
Isn't there a great deal of flexibility in bankruptcy court, to fashion a remedy?
And it is not as if there's a cramdown for those speculators who bought Chrysler bonds near the end - the federal offer of cents on the dollar of face value is greater than the cents on the dollar of face value paid in some of those transactions.
Finally, what good would be bone-picking the assets when Fiat is ready but not wanting to be bent over? Isn't that why the bondholders tried their best to squeeze more, then backed down because bone-picking would yield less than taking a generous federal offer?
Or why else back down - quaking in the boots seems unlikely if there were more money on the table the other way. It was like the jock wanting the better contract but taking the best he can attain.
How's it different?
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 09-May-09 02:06 PM
Eric, The judicial branch is where bankruptcies should be handled. The executive branch shouldn't involved. What's worse is that President Obama threatened Chrysler with political retribution.
Eric, you know that I measure my words pretty well. Still, I don't hesitate in using the word evil in describing the President's actions.
Who Gives a Rip What He Thinks?
Colin Powell is again telling the Republicans to return to the center . What he means by that requires alot of guessing. Here's Gen. Powell's advice to the GOP:
The Republican Party is in big trouble and needs to find a way to move back to the middle of the country, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday.According to polling cited in Dick Morris' column , Gen. Powell isn't close to being right when he says that "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less." Here's what polling cited by Morris says on the subject:
Powell said the GOP is "getting smaller and smaller" and "that's not good for the nation." He also said he hopes that emerging GOP leaders, such as House Minority Whip Cantor, will not keep repeating mantras of the far right.
"The Republican Party is in deep trouble," Powell told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington sponsored by Fortify Software Inc. The party must realize that the country has changed, he said. "Americans do want to pay taxes for services," he said. "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less."
And in the Fox News poll, the very same survey that gave Obama a 62 percent approval rating and reported that 68 percent of voters are "satisfied" with his first hundred days, voters, by 50-38, supported a smaller government that offered fewer services over a larger government that provided more.I suspect that Gen. Powell is citing personal preference in saying that "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less." Furthermore, if people want "more government in their life, not less", why were the Tax Day tea parties so popular? If people want "more government in their life, not less", why were people so upset with Congress for passing the stimulus bill? Why did people flood Capital Hill's switchboards and fill senators' email inboxes telling them to vote against that pork-laden legislation?
Finally, I'd like to ask Gen. Powell to explain why "the Republican Party is in deep trouble" considering the fact that Republicans lead Democrats in the latest generic ballot question from Scott Rasmussen's polling:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% would vote for their district's Republican candidate while 38% would choose the Democrat. Thirty-one percent (31%) of conservative Democrats said they would vote for their district's Republican candidate .While he's explaining why the GOP is in deep trouble, perhaps Gen. Powell will explainwhy 31% of conservative Democrats will vote for Republicans. Therein lies the problem with Gen. Powell's opinions.
Had he said upfront that his comments were his preferences, I could listen to him and simply disagree because the facts don't fit Gen. Powell's opinion.
Here's another of Gen. Powell's musings:
He blasted radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, saying he does not believe that Limbaugh or conservative icon Ann Coulter serve the party well. He said the party lacks a "positive" spokesperson. "I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without," Powell said.That sounds like a recitation of Rahm Emanuel's talking points. What it doesn't sound like is an accurate portrayal of the facts. Gen. Powell would do well to get his information straight instead of sounding off like this.
I'd further ask Gen. Powell why he thinks that Rush Limbaugh "diminishes the party." I'd also like to ask him what type of nastiness Rush injects into the public discourse. Did Gen. Powell hear Rush eulogize Jack Kemp? Here's what Rush said about Jack Kemp :
Jack Kemp and Arthur Laffer and Reagan. Kemp made it happen, and the House version of the tax bill in Kemp-Roth. But all of a sudden, all of a sudden I'm hearing people eulogize Jack Kemp as somebody who "reached out." Jack Kemp was somebody who went beyond pure conservatism to "reach out;" as in "enterprise zones," bringing investment to inner city communities and so forth. Well, he may have done that, but he won the argument from the conservative vantage point! He didn't reach out with liberalism to the other side! He didn't become a moderate when he reached out. He attempted to attract people who were not yet fully understanding of what conservatism was, into our tent . People say, "Jack Kemp tried to build a big tent." The Reagan tax cuts were not based on a big tent.Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan understood that letting people keep more of their money helped families save for their children's college education and save for their retirement.
Gen. Powell's mistake is a mistake that's often made by John Q. Public: mistaking Republicanism with conservatism. They aren't remotely close to being the same. Republicanism is fascinated with inside-the-Beltway thinking. Conservatism isn't impressed with inside-the-Beltway thinking.
That's because inside-the-Beltway thinking often runs contrary to the Heartland's priorities. Inside-the-Beltway thinking is driven by lobbyists dividing up a growing pile of spoils, another reason why conservatism is disgusted with inside-the-Beltway thinking.
Republicans will be fine if they follow a simple path. It starts with being the party of fiscal restraint. Next, they should put together an appealing reform-oriented agenda. Finally, they should recruit people who care about the best ideals instead of recruiting a batch of next-in-line types.
If they find the next Eric Cantor, the next Tom Price or the next Mike Pence, they'll rebuild the party with solid conservatives who appeal to the biggest spectrum of voters.
That's the only true path to victory.
Posted Wednesday, May 6, 2009 2:52 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 06-May-09 08:22 AM
So, who from the Bush years do you like, Gary? The Neocons? Rice? Rove?
Where do you see the GOP going, and is there room in the GOP for Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee?
www.mikehuckabee.com/
You have expressed reservations in the past about Huckabee. Do you still feel he is inappropriately in the GOP?
Where is the national fulcrum of the GOP in your view? Rush and commentators like him? Who on the national scene do you see as a 2012 presidential option?
Reagan's dead. Goldwater's dead. Now Kemp too. Who, among the live ones, is focal?
I am not suggesting a quick comment response as much as giving it some extended thought and doing a post in the next week or two.
You have said positive things about Kasich. Who else? Up and coming "stars" to be watched?
And, back to Ron Paul, is his "revolution" the one you believe "will be blogged"?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-May-09 09:00 AM
Eric, I'll first say that I'm not even paying attention to 2012. The midterms are my primary focus right now.
Secondly, I still don't like Huckabee, though he's a witty guy. He's still an unprincipled populist economically speaking.
Third, yes there's room in the GOP for Ron Paul & Huckabee.
While Reagan & Goldwater are dead, the principles they stood for, liberty, prosperity & security, are eternal. That's why they're still relevant.
Fourth, upcoming stars are actually fairly abundant. Besides John Kasich, I'd include Gov. Palin, Gov. Jindal, Gov. Haley Barbour, Rep. Mike Pence, Rep. Eric Cantor & Rep. Paul Ryan.
Someone from that group will be the next GOP rock star.
The "revolution will be blogged" comment was created when the Orange Revolution in Ukraine started making the news. I realized at the time that we were living in historic times, with Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq & Lebanon all fighting for the freedoms that we take for granted.
Comment 3 by Reaganite Republican Resistance at 07-May-09 11:16 AM
What does Colin Powell know, anyway. He's the nominal "Republican" that endorsed Obama, then re-assured us all that he was "qualified to be Commander-in-Chief" the week before the Russians caught Obama completely asleep-at-the-wheel and nabbed the Krgyzstani air-base that we use to fly-in most of our supplies to Afghanistan.
I don't trust Powell an inch, he apparently feels guilty about promoting the Iraq war (but shouldn't) and is trying to make amends.
Powell's advice and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee at 7-11 (small). Who cares what he thinks, Obama's programs are a guaranteed fail- and that's all that matters in the end. There'll be no hiding the damage Obama is doing to the county in a year or two. I love how these critics of the GOP assume everything will just work out great with trillion dollar deficits and a pacifist foreign policy-
When their pork-n-welfare spending orgy fails to create any real economic gains -but stokes vicious inflation and crashes the dollar instead- the Democrats face a bloodbath in 2010.
Barack can kiss 2012 goodbye, no matter how hard he attacks the GOP and has the MSM plant BS stories and manufactured "scandals". His foreign policy is headed straight for an iceberg, as well.
Ironically, Powell and W did a lot of damage to the GOP brand... but Obama-Pelosi-Reid will be the ones to fix it all-up for us- already as good as done. Funny how life is.
Introducing the Thug-In-Chief
I've had it with the Obama administration's thuggish behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy. From what I've seen, President Obama's behavior isn't substantially different than what I'd expect from Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. Robert Robb's column , combined with Captain Ed's post and Powerline's post this morning, tell us that President Obama's actions are gangesterlike. Put another way, their actions are downright Nixonesque. (Yes, I'm old enough to remember Nixon's dirty tricks.) First, here's what Ed's posted today:
Of course, that's what has happened to the American taxpayer under this plan, too, although Barack Obama seems awfully quiet about it. The administration buried the fact that they don't expect repayment on any of the TARP funds granted to Chrysler, and won't even keep a position in the company for any extended period of time. The American taxpayer literally will get nothing for the billions of dollars showered on Chrysler, from which the UAW and FIAT will benefit the most. Henry Blodgett says, " Suckers !"The next piece to this puzzle is supplied by Powerline's post:
Here's a shock. When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It's not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders' contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times .Bankruptcy court was established to provide order in chaotic times. President Obama's actions threw aside orderliness, which leads to several important questions, which Mr. Robb has asked in his column:
So, why should the federal government care who it is that sells us our cars? There are two rationales offered. First, to preserve an "American" auto industry. Second, to preserve "American" jobs.Let me spell out the differences between that "Japanese manufacturer operating in Kentucky" and the "Italian car manufacturer operating in Michigan". The first difference is spelled U-A-W. The second difference is spelled U-N-I-O-N.
The proposed Chrysler restructuring gives the lie to both rationales. Under the Obama administration's proposal, Chrysler would, in essence, be given to Fiat, an Italian company, to operate.
So, how is an Italian car manufacturer operating in Michigan any more "American" than a Japanese manufacturer operating in Kentucky? And why should the federal government give a market preference, through taxpayer financing and warrantee guarantees, to Italian cars produced by American workers in Michigan over Japanese cars produced by American workers in Kentucky?
What's happened here is that President Obama threw aside well-established bankruptcy law to pay off the UAW, who, not coincidentally, supported his campaign with generous donations and armies of GOTV workers.
As disgusting as this information is, here's what's worse:
The Obama administration's proposed restructuring is more than just unjustified, however. It dangerously undermines the rule of law, as explicated so beneficially by Friedrich Hayek in his classic, "The Road to Serfdom."If President Obama got his wish, the UAW would come out of this the best, getting a huge chunk of Chrysler and getting the least amount of debt forgiven, with the federal government coming out next best. The secured bondholders, who should be at the top because of the capital they invested in Chrysler, would get back pennies on the dollar and no equity in Chrysler.
The essence of the rule of law, according to Hayek, is that what the government will do is known to all economic actors in advance. That government will not act arbitrarily in specific circumstances to favor some economic actors over others.
Chrysler has $6.9 billion in secured debt. Under the law, secured lenders have the first claim on the assets of the debtor in the event of non-payment.
The Obama administration is attempting to muscle past this law. Under its proposal, the health care trust of the auto workers' union, an unsecured creditor, would forgive 57 percent of what Chrysler owes it, and receive 55 percent of the company's equity in exchange. The federal government would forgive about a third of what it would loan Chrysler and receive 8 percent of the company's equity. Fiat would pay nothing for its 20 percent initial ownership.
Traditionally, presidents have stayed out of bankruptcies. Instead of following tradition, President Obama didn't just inject himself into the process; he threw well-established bankruptcy laws in an apparent payoff to a political ally. If we had a real congress that acted on principles, they'd be justified in opening an investigation into President Obama's actions.
Unfortunately, Pelosi's Democratic lapdogs will ignore this ethical lapse just like it's ignoring John Murtha's corruption.
Because he's acted like a thug, I'm no longer willing to trust President Obama. My rule is to trust people until they've given me a reason not to trust them. President Obama didn't give me a single reason not to trust him. He's given me a bunch of reasons not to trust him.
It's time we started working to return Nancy to her first title, that of Minority Leader Pelosi. That's the only way we can curtail this president's thuggish behavior.
Originally posted Wednesday, May 6, 2009, revised 04-Jan 9:35 PM
No comments.
Blogger Conference Call Notes
It's a bit before 3:30 CT and I'm waiting for the House GOP's blogger conference call on the economy and energy policy to start. Leader Boehner, Conference Chairman Pence and Conference Vice-Chair Cathy McMorris-Rogers are scheduled to participate.
First up was Leader Boehner. One of the first things he said was that "If you're worried about us becoming a bunch of shrinking violets, you don't have to worry. We're going on offense" with regards to an alternative energy policy. Leader Boehner then said that Chairman Pence is leading the House GOP's Energy Working Group.
After that, Chairman Pence talked about Cap and Trade. He said that they're now referring to the Markey-Waxman bill as the "National Energy Tax" bill "because that's what it is." He also said that his Energy Working Group would be hitting the road at the end of this month.
Vice-Chair McMorris-Rogers started by thanking us for our regular participation in the conference chair blogger conference calls. She then talked about how important it is to tell people that the House GOP caucus will have a comprehensive energy policy that doesn't include regressive tax increases that hit the poorest amongst us the hardest. (More on the comprehensive energy policy in a bit.) Rep. McMorris-Rogers said it was also important to know that wind and solar currently make up approximately 1 percent of our nation's electricity, compared with coal at 50 percent with nuclear adding another 20+ percent of our electrical supply.
I had the second question/comment. I started by saying I'm consistently calling Cap And Trade "a tax increase masquerading as environmental policy." I then asked if the House GOP caucus had studied how many jobs the National Energy Tax would kill. Chairman Pence pointed us to a study done by the National Association of Manufacturers.
As a follow-up, I asked if it was possible if they could livestream the Energy Working Group's hearings. Chairman Pence didn't give us a definitive yes answer but he said they'd take that under advisment before adding that "It sounds like a great idea."
The other blogger, who's name I don't recall, asked about the MIT study that says the National Energy Tax would cost families an additional $3,000+ annually. Chairman Pence said that they're aware that liberal bloggers are trying to debunk that study. He said that they'd debunked the debunking by talking with the MIT scientist that's saying the cost wasn't $3,128. Chairman Pence said he asked this scientist why he thought it would cost considerably less than the GOP's figure.
The MIT scientist said he assumed that much of the revenues would be rebated back to the consumers. This scientist said that he didn't have a problem with the $3,128 figure if they didn't rebate that money back to the people. Chairman Pence then said the Waxman-Markey bill didn't include a rebate provision in it, meaning that the figure is valid.
Vice-Chair McMorris-Rogers added that "Democrats tell us one day that they'll use the revenues for health care reform, then tell us they're planning on using it another day for tax cuts", then for something else entirely another day. (In my estimation, they're making it up as they go along in the hopes of not telling people it's a huge tax increase until it's too late.)
I got the final question of the call. I said I loved last summer's House Tea Party (I really meant oil party), especially the members touting the American Energy Act. I then asked if the AEA would be a cornerstone of the Energy Working Group's alternative energy plan.
Chairman Pence said that it would indeed be the cornerstone of their alternative energy plan before saying that it would undoubtedly get tweaked because new information has become available since last summer. He said that it's more appropriate to call it the "American Energy Act 2.0".
Before ending the call, they reminded us to frequently check the House GOP's website for new information. I think so highly of it that it's one of my permanent tabs.
Posted Wednesday, May 6, 2009 3:52 PM
Comment 1 by Randy at 06-May-09 05:38 PM
Better name for it would be the "Light Switch Tax". Many will be fooled by National Energy Tax into thinking that only the "rich" will pay it. The Dem's are trying to do everything they can to convince them of this by trying to change the terms to "cap and cash-back". Light Switch focuses it so they will see themselves paying the tax everytime they turn on a light or their air-conditioning come on. IN fact I even like the "air-conditioning tax", even better.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-May-09 05:48 PM
What part of the name National Energy Tax suggests it only "soaks the rich"? Post after post, all across the Right Blogosphere talks about the regressive nature of the tax.
I LOVE Hearing That
Check out Sean Trende's short post about the unexpected pickle Benedict Arlen finds himself in. Here's my favorite line from Sean's post:
So far, Specter's best day as a Democrat was his first day.I can't tell you how much I enjoy reading that. I enjoy reading this, too:
Well, to start with, it increasingly looks as though Specter will have a serious primary opponent. While polling shows Specter is likely to win that matchup, it means he will (i) face the risk of losing, (ii) have to raise and spend money for the primary, and (iii) probably have to tack to the left to maintain his primary lead.Prior to Sen Specter's switch, conventional wisdom was that Toomey would defeat Specter in the primary, then lose to Josh Shapiro in the general election. That's been turned on its head, especially after Joe Sestak worried out loud that Specter might not be a loyal Democrat following Specter's announcement that he'd vote against EFCA and after voting against President Obama's budget.
In announcing his intent to vote against EFCA, Sen. Specter alienated the unions, which play a major role in Democratic GOTV operations. In voting against President Obama's first budget, he's alienated the Nutroots' activists. That's not a great start to winning a general election. It's an even worse way to win a hotly contested primary.
It couldn't happen to a shiftier, less principled politician.
Posted Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:45 PM
No comments.
