Dong Feng 21: Chinese Carrier Killing Ballistic Missile

No one is debating that these could be perilous and dangerous times, the Chinese are no exception. This year alone they have increased their military expenditures 14.9% or 62.482 billion yuan from last year. While America is contemplating a 10% reduction, or possibly more, in its defense spending.

While we lower our defenses in hopes of garnering "peace dividends," China is looking to develop more effective weapons systems which can effectively engage the US and its forces, such as the Dong Feng-21 ballistic missile.

According to the US Naval Institute Blog, the Dong Feng is a potential carrier killer, capable of striking a target from as far away as 2000 km, or 1240 miles. Rumors about its speed are in the range of Mach 10, giving it the capability of reaching a carrier within its range in about 12 minutes.

The mere mention of this weapon is challenging conventional Naval thought on strategy. As many people know about a decade or so ago, the Navy started moving towards Littoral combat, or coastal infighting.

If you think about the current defensive layer concept of a carrier battle group and the application of its renowned AEGIS combat system a carrier appears to be safe. However, we are talking about a ballistic missile, with a speed of Mach 10, which is being used as a primary kill weapon against a carrier. No such thought has been given to this before, nor a defense against it. Or has there?

While reading about this I came across this little nugget. From Mass High Tech on March 16th, 2009.

Schafer Corp. has landed $9.8 million from the U.S. Navy, according to the U.S. Department of Defense for directed energy and electric weapon systems research and development.

Under the deal, the Chelmsford-based company will design, engineer, analyze and test high-electron laser, free-electron laser, high-power microwave, electromagnetic launch, terahertz sources and detectors, and high-energy sources related to acceleration of particles. These weapon systems could be used to detect and destroy weapons of mass destruction and the vehicles carrying them.

Work on the contract will be performed in Washington and is expected to be completed by July 2014.
This weapons race will be one of the more interesting. Right now it looks as if the Chinese have the greater edge though.
Continue reading ...

From Think Progress to Think Lies: Sloppy Falsehoods about Rep. Paul Ryan and His Budget Proposal

The Progressives over at Think Progress are turning into Think Lies. In an interview on the Bloomberg Business Channel, host Al Hunt, is questioning Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI.) on his proposed alternative budget.

Here is what Think Lies tries to imply, Rep. Paul Ryan Concedes GOP Alternative Budget Would Increase The Deficit ‘A Lot’

Though Ryan has been most critical of the deficit impact of Obama’s budget, he has been unable to assess the deficit impact of his own budget. After being repeatedly asked this weekend by Bloomberg’s Al Hunt about “how large” the deficit would be under the Republican plan, Ryan finally respond, “A lot”:

HUNT: But the Obama budget deficit is $1.4 trillion. How, roughly, how large will yours be?

RYAN: Their budget deficit is $1.8 trillion. […]

HUNT: Gimme an idea of how large yours will be?

RYAN: A lot. Let’s put it that way.

HUNT: Pardon me?

RYAN: Now I can’t give you the specific numbers because we’re still waiting for some numbers back from CBO. But clearly we don’t want to have this kind of run up of deficits and debt.

Uh, actually, no he doesn't.

Here is the video from You Tube.

The excerpt should read like this.

Hunt: Okay your budget will come out on Wednesday and you can’t provide all the details now and we know that.

Ryan: That’s right.

Hunt: But the Obama budget deficit is 1.4 trillion. Roughly, how large will yours be?

Ryan: There budget deficit is 1.8 trillion…uh…they add 9.2 trillion in deficits during their budgets. The Obama budget doubles the national debt in five and half years, and triples it in ten and half years, and imposes a 1.5 trillion dollar tax increase on this economy during a recession. (Laughing) We don’t plan on doing it that way.

Hunt: (Interrupting.) Okay, 1.4, 1.8...

Ryan (Speaking over Hunt.) We are not going to say let’s raise taxes in a recession.

Hunt: Gimme an idea of how large…

Ryan: (Not letting Hunt finish the question.) A LOT! Let’s put it that way.

Hunt: (Continuing his thought) …yours will be.

Hunt: Pardon me?

Ryan: I can’t give you the specific numbers because we are still waiting for some numbers back from CBO. But clearly, we don’t want to have this kind of run ups on deficits and debt. We’re gonna go a different direction. We are going to say, “Let’s not raise all the taxes in a recession. Especially on small businesses….
As you can see, Ryan conceded nothing on his budget proposal, especially that it would cost "A LOT." Any reasonably minded person can obviously see that Ryan anticipated Hunt's line of questioning to be about how much the Obama tax increases would cost. What Think Progress is attempting doesn't even equate to propaganda. There is no nice way to put it, they are a bunch of filthy damn liars. Not to mention they are becoming down right sloppy and pitiful.

Nevertheless, why in God's name would you even attempt to "LIE" to protect a travesty like the Obama budget by offering falsehoods about an alternative plan that might be better? Are they more interested in sheltering a man and his flawed ideas, which will doom the people of this nation to generational poverty, than protecting their own country's populace?

I don't lump all Progressives and Liberals in with this group. Most are decent Americans who simply have a far different way of looking at things than I do. However, it is their blindness that I find disturbing. They are aiding and abetting organizations like the Center for American Progress, who sponsors Think Progress, by being duped into CAP's quest to shift the paradigm of American thought through their influence on the Obama administration. And now sloppy dissemination of lies.

Of course, anyone familiar with CAP already knows that former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff, John Podesta, is one of the Center's Founders and presently its CEO. Podesta is a native born Chicagoan and is very close friend of Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. In 2003, Podesta started the Center for American Progress with funding from nefarious billionaire, George Soros, among others, in order to jump start the failing Democratic movement of the early Bush years. While not taking a direct role in the Obama administration, Podesta did co-chair his transition team.

Why is any of this important? Read the header of this blog.

(H/T memeorandum)
Continue reading ...

Mitch McConnell, the Fallacy of Bi-Partisanship, and Liberal Dupes

Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader from Kentucky, took to the Sunday morning news circuit on CNN's, State of the Union. McConnell said he was disappointed in President Obama's "lack of bipartisanship."

I am no fan of McConnell. He represents the corporatists and statists which have removed the conservative element from the GOP. However, even when someone I don't care for speaks the truth, they are speaking the truth. That deserves to be acknowledged.

From CNN-McConnell: I'm 'disappointed' in Obama's lack of bipartisanship,

CNN-“I must say I'm disappointed,” Senate Minority Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “After two months, the president has not governed in the middle as I had hoped he would. But it's not too late. He's only been in office a couple of months. Still before him are the opportunities to deal with us on a truly bipartisan basis,” the Republican told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King

McConnell also criticized the president’s $3.6 trillion budget and the ambitious agenda on education, energy, and health care which the budget seeks to implement.

“Republicans are very much in favor of dealing with [the country’s economic crisis],” McConnell said. “What we're not in favor of is going on this spending spree over the next five to 10 years and sending the bill to our grandchildren.”

Obama’s administration “is going to be the furthest to the left of any government . . . certainly in my lifetime,” McConnell also told King. “I’m not sure that’s what people voted for. I mean they were angry with President Bush. They were not happy with the economy…. Whether they intended to see America kind of turned into a Western European country as a result of an explosion of spending and debt and regulation is another matter.”

Of course, when you have the not-so-new, nutty, iconoclast memes washing up on the beaches, like a half-diseased rotting carcass, you might wonder why there is no reasonable discourse. Need an example?

From Fire Dog Lake-Mitch McConnell: Obama is Turning America into France,

FDL-It's not Glenn Beck saying this. It's the Senate Minority Leader.

“I’m not sure that’s what people voted for. I mean they were angry with President Bush. They were not happy with the economy…. Whether they intended to see America kind of turned into a Western European country as a result of an explosion of spending and debt and regulation is another matter.”

Since 64% of the country currently approves of President Obama, I would say that either (a) two-thirds of the country equates the Economic Recovery bill and increasing the upper tax margin by 4% to socialism; or (b) Mitch McConnell is an idiot who shouldn't be taken seriously
about anything.

“Republicans are very much in favor of dealing with [the country’s economic crisis],” McConnell said. “What we're not in favor of is going on this spending spree over the next five to 10 years and sending the bill to our grandchildren.”

That's true. They were only willing to do so under George W. Bush.

So America, if you don't agree you are either a basement dwelling survivalist or an idiot. Where do you fit in?

As far as the the 64% of Americans having a love affair with the President, why not try some of the more accurate polling being done around the country? It shows quite a different landscape than the wonderland these sheltered and dupable liberals live in.

(H/T memeorandum)

Continue reading ...

Shameless Obedience to Stacy McCain's Rule #2


You want shameless obedience to rule # 2, McCain? You got it, pal!

Speedo Tea Parties? (A15 Minus 16)

Stacy expresses his love of speedos and tea parties. Something you want to tell us there, McCain?

The Death of the Nude Eel

McCain's co-writer, or lackey (We still haven't figured it out yet.), Smitty, gives the new found conservative suck up props to Angel Merkel, Chancellor of the Fatherland, and Daniel Hannan, MEP, for stickin' it to the Man.

I thought American Righties were supposed to "fart in the general direction" of Euro-Trash?


Skipped Smitty's next post because Rule #5 was in full blaze underneath it! Sorry Smitty, even though I wasn't around for a young Ann Margaret, she is far more..ahem...aesthetically pleasing than Peter and Gordon.

'There are chicks just right for some kissin' . . .'

I'm with our friend and commenter on Mr. McCain's blog, Pundette, I have both a girl crush and a guy crush on the young Ms. Margaret. Classical sexiness...mmm...Ann Margaret.


No one on the net is a bigger bunch of suck ups than us McCain!! So, don't forget it.

In all seriousness, this was done tongue and cheek. Stacy's blog is pretty damn funny, witty, and a highly recommended read. Him and Smitty have singlehandedly made bloggin' fun again.

Continue reading ...

Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM, is asked by White House to resign

Rick Wagoner is resigning his post at General Motors as CEO at the request of the White House. His resignation was evidently one of the "strings" attached to the terms of the new aid package the administration is offering to the beleaguered auto manufacturer.

Here is the story from the Politico.

GM CEO resigns at Obama's behest

The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.

Wagoner’s resignation was one of the remarkable strings attached to the new aid package the administration is offering GM, based on recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, headed by the Treasury Department.

The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason.

The surprise announcement about the classically iconic American corporation is perhaps the most vivid sign yet of the tectonic change in the relationship between business and government in this era of subsidies and bailouts.

Wagoner has been CEO for 8 years and at GM for more than 30. The company has not said who will replace him. GM has received $13.4 billion in government aid, and has been seeking $16.6 billion more.

On Monday, President Obama is to unveil his plans for the auto industry, including a response to a request for additional funds by GM and Chrysler.

Industry sources had said the White House planned very tough medicine, which turned out to be an understatement. And it went to the very top. The measures to be imposed by the government will have a dramatic effect on workers, unions, suppliers, retirees and the communities where plants are located, the sources said.

GM and Chrysler have to prove their viability as a condition of a federal bailout released under former President George W. Bush, and both have asked the current administration for more money.

Obama said Friday in an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” broadcast Sunday, that the carmakers were going to have to do more.

“There's been some serious efforts to deal with a combination of long-standing problems in the auto industry,” the president told host Bob Schieffer. “What we're trying to let them know is that we want to have a successful auto industry, U.S. auto industry. We think we can have a successful U.S. auto industry. But it's got to be one that's realistically designed to weather this storm and to emerge at the other end much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is.

“And that's gonna mean a set of sacrifices from all parties involved — management, labor, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, dealers. Everybody's gonna have to come to the table and say it's important for us to take serious restructuring steps now in order to preserve a brighter future down the road."

Schieffer followed up: “But they're not there yet.”

Obama added: “They're not there yet.”

The administration calls the task force “a cabinet-level group that includes the secretaries of Transportation, Commerce, Labor and Energy. It will also include the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the EPA administrator, and the director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change. The Task Force will be led by Treasury Secretary [Tim] Geithner and [National Economic Council] Director Larry Summers.”

The panel’s chief adviser is Steven Rattner, a well-known investment banker and former New York Times reporter.

And people were worrying about the Obama Administration nationalizing businesses. What would ever make anyone worry about that?

Related Articles:

New York Times-G.M. Chief Is Said to Be Resigning in Deal With U.S.

Associated Press-GM CEO Wagoner to step down at White House request


This video is from CBS's Face the Nation. First few minutes are Obama's explaination of how the auto companies haven't done enough. Almost, but not quite. Interpretation, "We haven't gotten Rick Wagoner's head on a lance, yet." "Once we get that then you will get your money."

Watch CBS Videos Online

For the record, we oppose bailing out companies in anyway, shape, or form. Nevertheless, we oppose the federal government telling them who they can hire and fire, even more. This spiral downward does not seem to have any end in sight.

Continue reading ...

Fast-Track on Obama Budget not exactly Reconciliation.


The once black and white battlefield for Obama's monstrosity of spending and government largess has just gotten a lot more complex. House Dems have inserted in the bill the option of reconciliation. If the Senate leadership agrees with the House this could, in theory, shut down the GOP attempts to stymie the budget proposal through filibustering..

From the New York Times,

NYT-Republicans are in a tizzy because Democrats are threatening to use the budgetary procedure known as reconciliation — it reconciles policy with fiscal guidelines — to overhaul the health care system, possibly enact climate change legislation and rewrite education policy.

They have good reason to fret: If Democrats successfully invoke reconciliation, such major bills could pass by a simple majority vote, denying Republicans the filibuster, their sole remaining weapon to influence federal policy given the Democratic grip on government.

The process of reconciliation was established under Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344), as amended. Ironically it was used to force reductions in deficit spending through spending reductions or revenue increases, or a combination of the two.

Reconciliation has two steps. The first is instructions are included in the budget resolution, guiding one more committees in the House to amend the spending or revenues to meet the specifications laid out in the resolution. This creates omnibus budget reconciliation measure.

The second step is the omnibus budget reconciliation measure is considered in the House and Senate under expedited procedures. Debate time in the Senate is limited to 20 hours and must be pertinent and fitting to the resolution. This eliminates any attempts by the minority party at filibustering the bill and removes the challenge of invoking cloture.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, the Senate Democratic leaders have said they will not include reconciliation in their version of the budget.

CSM-“We’re keeping everything on the table,” said Senate majority leader Harry Reid at a briefing on Thursday.

Of course, just the mere threat of putting a reconciliation resolution in the budget proposal is telling that the Senate Democrats could possibly be facing internal opposition . Nevertheless, this fiscal Obamanation will be passed, in one form or another, probably saving just a few hundred billion versus the trillions that need to be removed.

All I can say to the Dems is, "Own it!"" The people will be waiting for 2010."

Continue reading ...

Rep. Michelle Bachmann and the Disappearing Dollar: A Conservative's Take

Personally, I am not a big devotee to the So-Con movement, however, like the sympathy I felt for President Bush for having to endure incendiary lies that were promulgated by the Far-Left, I also extend it to Social Conservatives. Right now their latest target of opportunity is Representative Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota.

The main cause of her being targeted for political termination, by Far-Left loons and apologists, was her opposition to the idea of an "international reserve currency" to replace the dollar abroad. An idea which was proposed by Chinese central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan.

Professor Donald Douglas, over at American Power, has taken note in a very observant essay, Michelle Bachman, Saving America, that there is little or no retort from noted conservative bloggers against the cave-dwelling Proglodytes and their lunatic assertions about Bachmann.

Two exceptions on the conservative side are Cornell Law Professor, William A. Jacobson, at Legal Insurrection, who offers an in-depth analysis on the Left's attacks on Bachmann, and a snarky riposte from Mark Harvey of The Snooper Report. Well, I figured this is right up our alley, so why not jump into the mix too.

The real question that remains is whether Bachmann is a dangerous conspiracy theorist occupying a high office? Or is she on point with her observations about the dangers America faces at having the dollar replaced as the international reserve currency?

Besides her congressional grilling of Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke, one of the major hangups the Left is having was Bachmann's comments on Glenn Beck's show,

Michelle Bachmann-What that means is that all of the countries of the world would have a single currency. We would give up the dollar as our currency and we would just go with a One World currency. And now for the first time, we’re seeing major countries like China, India, Russia, countries like that, calling for a one world currency and they want this discussion to occur at the G20. So I asked both the Treasury Secretary and the Federal Reserve chair if they would categorically denounce this. The reason why is because if we give up the dollar as our standard, and co-mingle the value of the dollar with the value of coinage in Zimbabwe, that dilutes our money supply. We lose country over our economy. And economic liberty is inextricably entwined with political liberty. Once you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom. And then we are no more, as an exceptional nation, as we always have been. So this is imperative.

If Mr. Xiaochuan's proposal is to be taken seriously and we allow the International Monetary Fund to use the SDR (Special Drawing Rights) the results for America could have long-range negative consequences.

From the Wall Street Journal,

WSJ-But the main problem with the SDR is that it can't be used for anything in the real world. When the IMF allocates SDRs, recipient countries exchange them for local currencies at local central banks. That money is then used to buy real assets and facilitate trade. That exchange inflates the money supply of the domestic country that's accepting the SDRs in exchange for local currency.
There are a host of other problems that exist with using the SDR's as a replacement for the dollar as the reserve currency also. As pointed out by Ambassador Terry Miller of the Heritage Foundation they range from a lack of intrinsic value, SDR usage will result in a loss of financial transparency, and will lead to new financial complexities and opportunities for corruption.

However, one of the more disturbing aspects of the SDR's is the one size fits all for the world's individual economies. Since different economies grow at different paces the value of this new reserve currency would have to regulated by one entity and that is the IMF. An organization which is highly susceptible to the economic and political influence of foreign nations.

As of now, China possesses one the largest holdings of international reserve funds- growing at $400 billion per year- and has been using this to severely undervalue its currency. Thereby gaining a severe financially competitive advantage. China's total holdings of US dollars as reserve currency now total $2 trillion.

Furthermore, China has been financing US debt and deficit spending by purchasing government and agency bonds. Their holdings of US dollars is $1.3 trillion, making China the largest owner of US bonds (debt) in the world. It is in the best interest of the United States to make financial nice-nice with the Chinese since any stoppage on purchases of debt could have disastrous effects on American financial markets and the dollar in particular.

If a new reserve standard is adopted by the IMF, the Chinese could theoretically exert pressure on the IMF to value this new meta-currency in their favor. This would allow them to make monumental economic gains and stabilize their holdings, all the while, depreciating the American economy and causing it to lose its base of power that has been gained by having the dollar set as the international standard.

Is Bachmann a lunatic? Looking at what some of the experts have to say I would say emphatically, "No!" Could she have chosen her words a little more carefully? Yes. Her only mistake was invoking the One World Currency hypothesis. Thereby giving the Far Left loons an opening to characterize her as a nutty religious zealot prophesizing the coming of the Anti-Christ.

It is apparent that devaluing her worth is more important to them than understanding the potential economic threats their country could be facing.One would think that "educated and enlightened " readers of blogs like Think Progress and Fire Dog Lake would at least have the courtesy to over look partisan hackery for the future of their country. I guess I am expecting to much from infants whose nature is woefully self-serving and short sighted.

Related Articles: Outspoken But Not Outmaneuvered, Rep. Bachmann Manages Her Candor

(Via Memeorandum)

Continue reading ...

NY-20 Congressional District Race: The In's and Out's

On March 31st, the New York 20th Congressional District is up for grabs. Scott Murphy, Glenn Falls venture capitalist and Democrat, is running against Republican Minority Leader for New York's state assembly, Jim Tedisco.

When Kristen Gillinbrand was appointed to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat this opened the door through a special election for her congressional seat.

Gillibrand's seat is widely viewed, by both parties, as the Holy Grail of 2009. One of the reasons for this is the NY-20 special election could be a preliminary look at the electoral climate for 2010. Giving both parties a solid view on which strategies might work and might not in the upcoming Congressional runs. Also, it could potentially serve a referendum against President Obama and his current economic policies if Teidsco is victorious.

Here is how the New York 20th CD sits, concerning voter demographics, as of 11/1/08; Dem-125,486 (26.27%), Rep-194,118 (41.06%), Other-156,078 (32.67%). In 2008, President Obama won the district with 167,827 votes (50.70%) versus McCain who carried 157,879 votes (47.70%).

According to the Siena Research Institute, Democrat Scott Murphy is leading State Representative and Republican, Jim Tedisco, by a margin of four points among likely voters, or 47-43%. This would mean that Murphy rallied from a four point deficit as of two weeks ago. At the time, Tedisco was leading Murphy by 45-41%.

Click on image to enlarge.

Strangely enough DNC support for Murphy has been very limited. Tim Kaine, Chairman of Democratic National Committe, kept his distance from Murphy while he visited at their headquarters. Also the DNC only contributed about five thousand dollars to assist Murphy. While the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has spent more than $373,000 on the election.

Another complaint New York Democrats have is the limited support they are receiving from the White House. President Barack Obama, on Wednesday, finally endorsed Scott Murphy for his election bid.

In contrast, the Republicans are heavily supporting James Tedisco. Michael Steele, Chairman of the RNC, has released $275,000 and the National Republican Congressional Committee has put forth $550,000 to assist Tedisco.

Continue reading ...

Democrats v. Democrats v. Republicans v. Republicans

Blue Dogs Bayh at the moon on Obama's budget proposal, drawing criticism from liberal groups and Republicans. While Republicans trying to redefine themselves as more than the party of "NO" they get caught up in some infighting of their own.

According to the Politico, Liberals are about to start chowing down on some BlueDogkabob.

Politico-As Boehner accused Blue Dog Democrats of being “lap dogs” for Obama, and Americans United for Change, the labor-backed organization that serves as the White House’s chief third-party operation, began airing ads Wednesday urging moderate Democrats in both the House and the Senate to get on board with the president’s budget. read more...

Seems the Republicans are passing on the BlueDogkabob and are choosing to eat their young.

Politico-House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) raised objections to an abbreviated alternative budget "blueprint" released today -- but were told by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) they needed to back the plan, according to several Republican sources. read more...

All of this "divide and conquer" makes me wonder when the administration is going to move in for the political kill on the budget.

Continue reading ...

Update on States' Reaffirming Their Rights and Soverignty

If you are a somewhat regular reader here then you know we have been following the topic of the states' rights movement with some interest. One of the main reasons are its historic implications, such as the number of states passing legislation on the matter, the states which are participating, and the potential Constitutional outcome.

These days, there are some very strange goings on up in the Beltway. From one of the greatest attempts at government expansion this country has seen, to DC being "open" to an international reserve currency, to a strangely worded and authoritarian bill calling for compulsory national service, it shouldn't make a person wonder why states are attempting to push back.

From the Christian Science Monitor,

CSM-There's an old joke in South Carolina: Confederate President Jefferson Davis may have surrendered at the Burt-Stark mansion in Abbeville, S.C., in 1865, but the people of state Rep. Michael Pitts's district never did.

With revolutionary die-hards behind him, Mr. Pitts has fired a warning shot across the bow of the Washington establishment. As the writer of one of 28 state "sovereignty bills" – one even calls for outright dissolution of the Union if Washington doesn't rein itself in – Pitts is at the forefront of a states' rights revival, reasserting their say on everything from stem cell research to the Second Amendment.

"Washington can be a bully, but there's evidence right now that there are people willing to resist our bully," said Pitts, by phone from the state capitol of Columbia. read more...

Earlier this month we reported that a total of twenty states had proposed some sort of legislation reaffirming their rights under the 9th or 10th amendments with regards to federal intrusions. According to the CSM there are now twenty-eight such resolutions, with four states passing the legislation and two failing. Surprisingly, New Hampshire was one of the states which was not successful in its attempt.

Even on local levels, civilians are stirring and have been taking part in sizable protests recognizing these disturbing trends taking place within the federal government. Recently, Tea Parties, referencing the Boston Tea Party, have been popping up in major cities and population centers with angry constituents protesting wanton deficit spending and gross expansion of federal powers. Most of these protests started out with only a few hundred participants, subsequently, in early March that started to change.

State legislators, as well as average people, are becoming quite angry about the intentions of the federal government and the direction it is attempting to take the country. No one seems quite sure as to whether Proglodyte leadership is trying to fix the host of problems maligning our country or are taking advantage of a crisis to promote a more nefarious agenda. The one thing that is sure is only time will tell.

Continue reading ...

Daniel Hannan: Brit MEP and Bulldog


Gordon Brown, Britain's PM has almost bankrupted the country, spending money they don't have, and hoping through power of personality that Obama can somehow overcome the recession. Well, this gentleman has a little something to say about it.

Say hello to the representative of the Conservative party from South East England, Daniel Hannan, MEP (Member of the European Parliament).

Why should you care about an obscure member of the European Union's parliament? Watch the video and you will understand.

Think of Mr. Hannan as the British version of Rick Santelli, shredding the British PM with eloquence and style. Is there anyway we can get him over here to run for office? I'll pay for postage.

(H/T to The Republican Temple for the vid.)

Continue reading ...

Bobby Jindal: At least one GOP'er has some intellectual balls.

Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA.), at a $2,500-per-plate dinner fund raiser had some words of wisdom for his neutered Republican colleagues.

Jindal laid out the battle plan as simply as he could saying, "Republicans must be ready to defy the president when they disagree with his policies." Of course, getting the GOP to follow even the simplest commands can be a greater challenge than building a pyramid.

The young Governor even sharpened Limbaugh's point making it a little more palatable, "We are now in the position of being the loyal opposition," Jindal said at a Republican congressional fundraising dinner that only by coincidence fell on the same night as Obama's news conference. "The right question to ask is not if we want the president to fail or succeed, but whether we want America to succeed."

If Jindal can escape the incompetent grasp of GOP handlers and branch off on his own, he might yet become a very formidable opponent for the Proglodyte leadership in 2012. However, if he chooses the McCain route there could be hell to pay.

Continue reading ...

Barney, can I be Frank? You are an idiot.

Well, I'm not Frank, I'm me (Thank God!), but Frank is still and idiot. The Bailout Queen throws another temper tantrum and calls Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, "a homophobe," while drenching a cameraman with spittle.

Here is the Bailout Queen's latest rant, courtesy of

I guess Barney is now tapping in to his inner GayPatriot (Good blog by the way.). He is seemingly against judicial activism when it involves social issues, how convenient. Can't wait to spark up that debate on abortion and stem cell research.

From topics like gay rights and abortion should not be in the hands of judges, he has said, calling on people to persuade their legislatures or amend the Constitution.

It amazes me how acerbic this mundane little twit will become in order to get his agenda pushed through. Characterizing anyone, including a Supreme Court Justice, as a hate-filled and irrational autocrat.

For the record, while I am no fan or proponent of gay marriage, I do recognize the meretricious nature of people like Frank. Consequently, if his brand is left to run the homosexual political agenda, issues such as gay marriage will die on the vine in the culture wars. Being remembered as nothing more than collateral damage.

Continue reading ...

The Boldness of Dopes

These days it looks like the vast right wing conspiracy, as well as the vast left wing conspiracy, are double teaming the President. The Right has it usual suspects, but a few leading the small charge on the Left might actually surprise you.

Maureen Dowd

The first is red head sewer mouth and spewer of nonsensical garbage, the infamous Maureen Dowd.

NY Times-The tableau of Michelle Obama hoisting a pitchfork on Friday with her sinewy arms and warning that the commander in chief would be commandeered into yard work left me wondering if the wrong Obama is in the Oval. read more...
It seems our dainty red head is now trying to direct her "sucking up" to the first lady rather than smooth ole Barry. I am not sure what favor she is trying garner, but I think it suffice to say I read Dowd more than Mrs. O, and that isn't very much.

Paul Krugman

Next is economic aficionado and general boob, Paul Krugman. You might remember Mr. Krugman as the man who wants you to spend your way to happiness and prosperity. Generally thinking that individual savings is bad for the collective.

As Mr Krugman states in his article, what the administration is presenting about Geithner's bank bailout plan is "clearly false." Or in stronger language, a lie.

NY Times-
Leave on one side the question of whether the Geither plan is a good idea or not. One thing is clearly false in the way it’s being presented: administration officials keep saying that there’s no subsidy involved, that investors would share in the downside. That’s just wrong. Why? read more...

Frank Rich

At the bottom of our Obama Jock Strap Brigade is lonely old Frank Rich. Not quite as popular as the other two dolts but still read enough to make our list of remorseful winners.

NY Times-A CHARMING visit with Jay Leno won’t fix it. A 90 percent tax on bankers’ bonuses won’t fix it. Firing Timothy Geithner won’t fix it. Unless and until Barack Obama addresses the full depth of Americans’ anger with his full arsenal of policy smarts and political gifts, his presidency and, worse, our economy will be paralyzed. read more...

Christopher Buckley

Finally, not really a left leaning liberal but more of a faux conservative is Chris Buckley, the son of uber-conservative icon William Buckley. You might remember when dear Chris was fawning on and on about how eloquent and intelligent Obie was and that Mr Hopey-Changey would cure all the world's woes, from Tuberculosis, to Global Warming, and then finish it up with a walk on water. Buckley is sérieusement bête.

The Daily Beast-President Obama came to office proclaiming that he aims to solve problems, not hand them on to our children. Most presidents say that sort of thing. But now we are in very dire straits, and that being the case, he will be held to account. It’s your legacy, sir, and let’s not hear any more about “inheriting the crisis.” You asked for the job. Meanwhile, let us hope that his talent for mastering a sérieux financial crisis are not on a level with the Special Olympians of Wall Street, and Congress. read more...

I hope our initiates to the Regretful Hall of Fame enjoy their tenure in its not so hallowed halls. Most probably they will not admit that they "screwed up" supporting Obama. After all, indignation is the moniker of these "intellectual giants," not humility.

Continue reading ...

The Road Kill Report (v. 8.0): Polls, polls, and more polls.


We will delve into the dreary world of polls in the hopes that we can further understand how they make the world go round.

55% of Americans Are Populist, 7% Support the Political Class

Rasmussen Retorts, has enlightened us that the majority of Americans, regardless of plurality are part of Populist class. Being the part of civilization that knows their way around a pitchfork and a torch. While the other part identify with the Political class. The one's who sneer down their long noses at the Populists, except when the Populists are coming for them with pitch forks and torches in hand. Then their demographic takes a sharp turn into what we call the Panicky Class. Usually resulting in them stepping over women and children to save their worthless hides.


Political Class Gives Geithner Good Reviews, Most Americans Disagree

Rasmussen Retorts has provided data on the first potential victim of the Populist class. It is poor ole Timmy Geithner. Fifty-three percent of the Populists are calling for his head, figuratively. However, Tim can bank on some protection from his Political class allies since 66% of them think he is doing just peachy keen. Of course the only way the Pols will protect Geithner is if he can run fast enough to get them in between him and the Populists. Can you say, "Political dead man walking?"


Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

If I had a crystal ball I think I would be seeing toilet bowls in the Prez's future. Need I say more?

Continue reading ...

Organizing for America: The Pledge Project Canvass, more Obamanoid creepiness


You think Jehovah's Witnesses are frightening? Just wait till you open your door and standing before you is a 20 something, crunchy, little Obama zombie asking you to pledge to the Great Leader and his plans.

Welcome to community organizing gone wild. I give you the Organizing for America's, The Pledge Project.

Here is Jeremy Bird, National Director of Organizing for America, and head zombie, instructing activists and volunteers, in ten easy steps, how to approach future zombies, get said zombie to sign on to the Great Leader's plans in the form of a petition, and how to collect the zombie's personal information. Creepy stuff.

When George Carlin said, "When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley," he might have thought he was making a joke, not a prediction.

Related Articles:

Christian Science Monitor-Obama redeploys his nut-roots network to push budget

Continue reading ...

Obama's $9.3 Trillion Deficit

Finally, some responsible reporting on fiscal news that matters...

First on the list is International Herald Tribune's article on the big picture expense of Obama's proposed budget. Barack Obama's budget proposals, if carried out, would produce a staggering $9.3 trillion in total deficits over the next decade, much more than the White House has predicted, the Congressional Budget Office said on Friday.

The office's estimates of deficits in the fiscal years 2010 through 2019 "exceed those anticipated by the administration by $2.3 trillion." read more...

Second on the list is Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) trying to wake people up about the future of our fiscal realities if this budget goes through.

Yahoo News-The top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee says the Obama administration is on the right course to save the nation's financial system.

But Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire also says President Barack Obama's massive budget proposal will bankrupt the country. read more...

Want to know how economically naieve our President is? Then read on. As we pointed out before, this budget proposal is unsustainable at present revenue generation levels. Taxes will have to be raised in order to sustain the size of the government the proglodytes are in favor of.

-President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.

The new Congressional Budget Office figures offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month - a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable.

In his White House run, Obama assailed the economic policies of his predecessor, but the eye-popping deficit numbers threaten to swamp his ambitious agenda of overhauling health care, exploring new energy sources and enacting scores of domestic programs.

The dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, inevitably raise the prospect that Obama and his Democratic allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends or else pare back his agenda. read more...

Obama and his crew are either economically and fiscally handicapped or they are high-balling their budget estimate for maneuvering room. With a Congress willing to rubber stamp his every whim and his incisive campaigning for his budget a safe guess is the first conclusion. Still worried about AIG?

Continue reading ...

The Modern Militia Movement: Don't want to pay ridiculous taxes? Then you might be an extremist.

Get your tin-foil hat on, watch out for black helicopters, and beware of aliens we are about to enter conspiracy theory territory. The only problem is the conspiracy theories may start becoming conspiracy realities.

A report issued on February 20th, 2009, titled "The Modern Militia Movement," which was created for the Missouri Highway Patrol, first popped up on my radar screen while reading Barbara Sowell's article over at Faultline USA.

The report was compiled and generated on behalf of the state troopers by an organization known as the Missouri Information Analysis Center. Here is their mission statement.

What is MIAC and why it is needed?

Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) provides a public safety partnership consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities that will collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence to the agencies tasked with Homeland Security responsibilities in a timely, effective, and secure manner.

MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the Missouri area. MIAC will also function as a vehicle for two-way communication between federal, state and local law enforcement community within our region.

The "report," which can be viewed online, (We cannot vouch for its authenticity. Also, it is available online via Scribd.) lumps various groups such as people identifying with with Christian ideology, sovereign citizens, tax resistors, and anti-illegal immigration supporters in with white supremacists and violent anti-abortionists.

There is also a mention on page 7 that members of militias or extremist organizations often associate with third parties and their candidates such as Bob Barr (Libertarian), Ron Paul (Republican), and Chuck Baldwin (Constitutionalist).

One of the reasons I am approaching the thumbnails of this report posted online with caution is that the source was notorious conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones of Infowars infamy. Supposedly a rouge Missouri state patrolman obtained a copy of the original report and mailed it to Jones.

Currently we could not find any government documentation substantiating the language and conclusions of the MIAC report. However, what we do know is that the report does exist and some of the wording that has been criticized can be confirmed by an AP article.

From Kansas,

Kansas new document meant to help Missouri law enforcement agencies identify militia members or domestic terrorists has drawn criticism for some of the warning signs mentioned.

The Feb. 20 report called "The Modern Militia Movement" mentions such red flags as political bumper stickers for third-party candidates, such as U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, who ran for president last year; talk of conspiracy theories, such as the plan for a superhighway linking Canada to Mexico; and possession of subversive literature.

According to officials from Missouri the interpretation of the report is being misrepresented.

From the Columbia Daily Tribune,

Columbia Daily Tribune-Lt John Holz of the Missouri State Highway Patrol said, “It’s giving the makeup of militia members and their political beliefs,” “It’s not saying that everybody who supports these candidates is involved in a militia. It’s not even saying that all militias are bad.”

If the online version of the MIAC report has not been altered and the language used is correct, then there is no denying that Missouri law enforcement is using wording that is ambiguous in nature. And their description of what a militia member might look like needs to be streamlined.

I am sure the average everyday American attending one of the Tea Parties' across the nation might agree that their classification as a domestic terrorist or militia member might be inherently wrong.

Continue reading ...

Margaret Hamburg: Obama's FDA Appointee and Stock Options


Remember during the Iraq war all anyone heard about was then Vice President Dick Cheney's conflict of interest because of his involvement with Haliburton? It seems that Obama's pick to head the FDA, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, might be suffering from the same malady.

Hamburg is the daughter of Beatrix and David Hamburg, both physicians and is a graduate of Radcliffe College. She earned her M.D. from Harvard Medical School, and completed her training at the New York Hospital/Cornell University Medical Center.

Hamburg was New York's acting health commissioner in 1991 after just one year as deputy commissioner. One year later she was given the job permanently at 36 — the youngest in New York's history.

In 1997, President Clinton selected her to be assistant secretary for policy and evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 2001, she became vice president for biological programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a foundation dedicated to reducing the threat to public safety from nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Impressive resume, however there is more.

Currently, she sits on the Board of Directors for Henry Schein Inc. a medical supply and distribution company. As noted in the LA Times, this is a position she will have to relinquish upon Senate confirmation. Something I am sure Dr. Hamburg will be more than willing to do. The only problem I see is Schein's good-bye gift to the good doctor.

From the Security Exchange Commission,

Click on image to enlarge.

Dr. Hamburg received 5,384 shares of Henry Schein Inc. on March 9th, 2009, paying $0 for them. Not an uncommon event for sitting board members to be granted stock options. Consequently though, it was announced three days later that she was President Obama's pick to become the FDA Administrator, pending Senate confirmation.

Presently, Henry Schein Inc. is trading for $ 37.27 per share according to the NASDAQ. This puts her value of stock in Schein at $200,661.61. (That's a nice little hunk of change for a parting gift.)

Why might this be a "conflict of interest?" Here is one of the departments of the Food and Drug Administration she will be managing, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. What do they do?

Wiki-The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is the branch of the United States Food and Drug Administration responsible for the premarket approval of all medical devices, as well as overseeing the manufacturing, performance and safety of these devices. read more...

Maybe a stretch maybe not, you decide. I just find it suspicious because of the timing of her "gift" from Henry Schein and what she will be doing if confirmed as FDA Administrator. I am sure there will be no retroactive Congressional mandate for Dr. Hamburg to give back her stock options. Unlike the recent order some executives of a certain global insurance company received from our illustrious legislators concerning their contractually obligated bonuses.

Photo credit to Chris Livingston / Getty and tip o'the hat to our research staff over at Phaedrus's Motorcycle Shop. Where their motto is, "We put the Zen back in your Hog."

Update: Seems we aren't the only ones taking notice of this potential conflict of interest. From the Health Care Renewal Blog, Putting a New Schein to the FDA?

Continue reading ...

CBO Analysis of President Obama's Budget Proposal 2010-2019

The Congressional Budgetary Office has just released its review of the President's budget proposal: A New Era of Responsibility. The CBO numbers show us sinking faster, at the hands of Obama's fiscal death squad, than we first thought.

Tapping into my inner Ross Perot, and my love of charts, here are some of the CBO's latest estimates.

Deficit, Gross Domestic Product, and Publicly Held Debt.

Click on image to enlarge.

Obama's original estimate had the deficit growing to $6.96 trillion from 2010-2019, a GDP of $22.86 trillion in 2019, and publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP of 67.2%, According to the Budgetary Office the deficit created by the President's budget will exceed the original estimate of
$6.96 trillion by $2.3 trillion, rising to a total of $9.27 trillion in 2019, a GDP of $20.97 trillion, and publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP of 82.4%.

Here is a graphical representation of what is being projected.

Click on image to enlarge.

The most telling feature of this is the incredible increase in spending while suffering a severe depreciation in revenue the government will be taking in. As time goes on the estimated gap continues to widen which explains the sharp up turn in publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP.

From the CBO Director's blog,

CBO-Proposed changes in tax policy would reduce revenues by an estimated $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. Proposed changes in spending programs would add $1.7 trillion (excluding debt service) to outlays over the next 10 years. Interest costs associated with greater borrowing would add another $1.0 trillion to deficits over the 2010–2019 period.

In a nut shell, the President is making good on his promise of keeping taxes low for those making under $250 thousand a year. Although, while doing this he is engaging in absurd spending that does not correspond with the amount of revenue being taken in. Since the main source of government income is tax payrolls, which are being decreased while expenditures are increasing, heavier taxation of all wage earning quintiles will be required at some point in order to make up for revenue deficits.

Fear not though. The President is engaging in high level talks-with our brightest minds-discussing the contentious problems facing all Americans.

: Just for S & G's, add whatever this handy dandy debt counter is at to the CBO prediction of $9.27 trillion and there is your future national debt, as of now. With all the new spending proposals coming down the pipe, I am sure it will get bigger.

Continue reading ...

Is Mitt Romney the established boss?

Is Mitt Romney the new boss of the GOP? I know Michael Steel is the chairman. I know that Palin still enjoys a high degree of popularity among conservatives. I'm aware that Governor Jindal of Louisiana seems to have a huge upside and promising future. But, Mitt Romney seems to possess something -- call it competence, his success, demeanor or his presidential tone and image -- it is either one of those things, or perhaps all of them, that give him a unique standing in the GOP.

Already setting the tone for 2012, back in February Mitt Romney won the CPAC straw poll for the third consecutive time. He received 20 percent of the votes followed by Governor Jindal with 14 percent. This certainly lends a high degree of interest in Romney's staying power among Republicans after losing out to McCain. Obviously, he does have a lot going for him. For example, he always makes the best of his opportunity by always looking sharp and sounding smart while on camera. He is an expert on the economy and private sector initiatives and sounds reassuring when discussing such matters. In fact he seems to relish in the opportunity to talk about it.

The conservatives that participated in CPAC's straw poll last month said that they were primarily concerned with limiting the scope of government. Seventy-four percent of straw poll participants said they want to limit the size of government, 15 percent said they are concerned with promoting traditional values, and 10 percent said they are concerned with security regardless of the cost.

Those are bread and butter issues for conservatives and most Republicans. Independents also share in parts of these desires but do so on a singularly issue basis as opposed to supporting all of them. If President Obama continues on the path that many say will definitely peak the outrage of those in support of these ideas, there may be a renewed urgency to reverse course and go with something different but as believable in 2012. President Obama has already lost most of the support from independents who supported him during the election according to Dick Morris.

So the question is, will Mitt Romney be the force of the GOP in 2012? He seems to be in prime position better than anyone else and enjoys overall approval from enough Republicans to build upon. While Romney himself is picking up the pace in travel and hiring staff and looks to be getting ready for the campaign season during the midterms in 2010, and of course, for his own campaign in 2012.

At this point, he may not have a rival and I have a strong feeling that Republicans and conservatives will have a much stronger sense of urgency in getting behind a nominee who can win. And right now, Romney looks like he can deliver.

Here is former Governor Mitt Romney on Larry King Live. Notably, he said that President Obama is learning on the fly and should focus more on presidential things. Another thought that more Americans are starting to agree with.

Larry King: Some are seeing a problem with the president doing the "Tonight Show," the first sitting president ever to do a late-evening [talk] show. Do you have a problem with it?

Mitt Romney: Well, this probably isn't the right time for it. I line up with Warren Buffett on this. I prefer to see the president focusing all of his time and energy on the economy.

King: That's what he was talking about.

Romney: He is talking about it. He's out doing a rally in California. He's posing for the cover of magazines and doing a number of things. He's putting together a health care plan, putting together a cap and trade program, a lot of things on the agenda.

And frankly, if you're doing too many things, a couple of important things can slip by. And one of them that slipped by was the AIG legislation that allowed AIG executives to get these bonuses. It was put in a specific bill.

King: Are you as angered over this AIG thing as probably 90 percent of the public?

Romney: Yes, my view is that this is really the fault of two parties. One, the members of our government that weren't paying attention, at best. That's the most favorable way to characterize it. ...

The other, of course, is the folks at AIG. And you ask yourself, why couldn't they have done what other enterprises do that get in trouble, which is people come together; they talk about the sacrifice they are going to make to try and keep the enterprise going. But these guys seemed not to be willing to do that. ...

This is a president who is learning on the fly. He's never turned anything around before. He hasn't had the experience of leading a nation or a business or a state in trouble. And the first rule I can tell him is focus, focus, focus.

King: How do you account for the fact that his popularity stays high?

Romney: I know that people recognize that this is a man who is a decent fellow. He's intelligent. He's well-intentioned. He's just not experienced in the matters that we're dealing with right now.

Continue reading ...

Budget and Bonuses


While members of Congress are stoking up public anger over the AIG bonus scandal and passing possibly unconstitutional laws to tax corporate bonuses the Central Planner-and-Chief is hitting the campaign trail to garner support for his $3.6 trillion budget proposal. Coincidence? Probably not.

All in the name of preventing "squandering of the people's money" 85 Republicans and 247 Democrats passed legislation which would tax anyone making over $250,000 who received a corporate bonus from AIG 90% on those bonuses.

Nancy Pelosi said, "We want our money back now for the taxpayers." "It isn't that complicated."

The President chimed in, "I look forward to receiving a final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated."

While the AIG situation is proceeding down the tubes at warp speed, the President is hitting the campaign trail to gain support for his budget proposal, starting in California.

At a town-hall-style meeting in Costa Mesa the President told a crowd of 1300 cult members, “What all of you know deep down — and what folks in Washington sometimes forget — is that in the end, a budget is not merely numbers on a page or a laundry list of programs,”

All of this to the tune of $3.6 trillion while Congress is trying to make a huge raucous over $165 million. Don't worry, they are here for you.

Photo Credit to Monica Almeida of The New York Times

Continue reading ...

Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog: Join the Cult, I have!


Uh-huh, when we ran our story of the century that a teleprompter was really the President, we were mocked, laughed at, and ridiculed. Well, we now have a little bit of vindication.

I give you the The Teleprompter Blog. The daily rants and opines of Barack Obama's Teleprompter, the real power in DC. HA! Told you so. :P

(H/T to Pundit and Pundette for bringing this to the world's attention and exonerating us!)

Bow to your master, the Teleprompter!!

Continue reading ...

Dodd being scapgoated by the White House?

Personally I don't give a damn about AIG spending millions on executive bonuses. Why? Because there is too much public animation being fueled by hyperbole from the White House and a complicit media. Usually, situations like this are indicative of an attempt by some system to shift attention from something that is much more consequential. And too many of us are falling for the smoke and mirrors treatment from the Obamanoids.

While perusing some of my favorite reading, I found article upon article, from Lefty publications and blogs, that I was strangely agreeing with. The general consensus is that the White House and aides were protecting Tim Geithner and Larry Summers by scapegoating Chris Dodd for the AIG's executive bonuses.

Jane Hamsher, of Firedog Lake, penned a great sequence piece documenting the Administration's attempt to make Dodd, as she calls it, the "sin-eater." Hamsher's conclusion summarizes her post best, however, I do suggest reading it in its entirety.

Firedog Lake-It's impossible to know how many of those bonuses would have been covered by Dodd's original language without examining the individual contracts. What is certain, however, is that the loophole regarding "retroactivity" which facilitated the payout of the bonuses that AIG cited in their white paper, was something that Treasury specifically lobbied for. For the "administration official" to blame Dodd in the pages of the New York Times for the payout of these bonuses, after the White House publicly fought him tooth and nail to weaken compensation limits, is completely disingenuous.

Glenn Greenwald, of Salon fame, followed suit.

Salon-There is a major push underway -- engineered by Obama's Treasury officials, enabled by a mindless media, and amplified by the right-wing press -- to blame Chris Dodd for the AIG bonus payments. That would be perfectly fine if it were true. But it's completely false, and the scheme to heap the blame on him for the AIG bonus payments is based on demonstrable falsehoods.

He also makes a point about Dodd's political vulnerability and how this might play into account with the White House's agenda of protecting Geithner and Summers.

Salon-This is working because, as the White House well knows, Dodd is very politically vulnerable. He is a major target of the Right because of his genuinely questionable involvement with various banks, including his Countrywide mortgate, and this story (fueled by the fact that Dodd is a receipient of substantial AIG campaign donations), inflames those accusations.

Where I disagree with my comrades on the Left is their assertion that Dodd is just a righteous and innocent little lamb in all of this. His is either guilty of culpability through disingenuous intentions or stupidity. If you look at Dodd's own words to the Senate and the legislation itself, it demonstrates his temerity.

The amendment bans bonuses for most highly paid executives of TARP-recipient firms: Prohibits TARP recipients from paying a bonus, retention award, or other similar incentive compensation to the 25 most highly-paid employees ``or such higher number as the Secretary of the Treasury may determine is in the public interest with respect to any TARP recipient.''

It requires a retroactive review: The Secretary of the Treasury must review bonus awards paid to executives of TARP recipients to determine whether any payments were excessive, inconsistent with the purposes of the act or the TARP or otherwise contrary to public interest and, if so, seek to negotiate with the recipient and the subject employee for appropriate reimbursement to the Government.
There has been a lot of talk about this phantom wording which appeared in his legislation sometime between February 6th-11th and unbeknown to Dodd. Supposedly it protected already existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money making sure they were honored. Conversely, his original legislation technically already accomplished this goal. Under SA 354, Dodd's amendment to H.R.1, a standard was setup in which executive bonuses to be dispensed would be regulated by Treasury. Giethner, minus legal nuances, already was the final authority on who would get what under Dodd's amendment.


(b) Standards Required.--The Secretary shall require each TARP recipient to meet appropriate standards for executive compensation and corporate governance.

As earlier pointed out by Greenwald, the next burnt offering is Dodd's lucid and sorted history of donations from AIG. In 2008, Dodd took the number two spot, receiving $103,900 from AIG, while Obama held the number one spot with $104,332.

None of this is being offered up as proof that Dodd acted alone and Treasury or Obama should be extricated from blame. I wholeheartedly agree with Hamsher and Greenwald that Dodd is being targeted by the White House for sole scapegoat status. Nevertheless, I simply don't buy the fact that he was an innocent dolt meandering around at the whim of his puppet-master, Obama. Dodd knew he was aiding and abetting Obama's agenda, he just didn't think he would get caught.

Final Note
: One other thing I didn't quite understand was Greenwald's constant admonishment of the "right wing press" for stoking these fires when it was CNN who broke the story and took the lead.

Continue reading ...

Copyright © Politics and Critical Thinking Design by BTDesigner | Blogger Theme by BTDesigner | Powered by Blogger