In one of the best exchanges I've seen yet between a member of the press and our president, Major Garrett from FNC (its his name, not his rank) asks Obama what took him so long to respond to the events in Iran.
Watch Obama as he tries not to get upset at the question.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Obama's infomercial failed to attract an audience
We all know that before the Health Care infomercial ran, Diane Sawyer told us that it wasn't going to be an infomercial. According to the MRC:
This is what she did during the show. She introduced the head of Aetna, an insurance agent, and 'gave' him this opportunity to be 'heard'.
That was the chance that the insurance industry was given to speak. They were asked if its right that the president needs to keep them honest. To Diane Sawyer's credit, she didn't ask him if he still beats his wife.
Jake Tapper, who seems to be the only person at ABC who still has his balls, co-wrote this article the next day:
Dr. Orrin Devinsky was the man who challenged the president. According to ABC, he told the president that 'elites' often create universal health care proposals safe in the knowledge that they would be above any restrictions or rationing caused by their programs and regulations. The good doctor asked:
As noted before, the president, sans teleprompter, struggled to answer. But he refused to make any such pledge.
How did this go over with the public? That's hard to tell, since most did not tune into the broadcast. According to Live Feed:
I think its fitting that the president was beat out by another program about someone who gives away money.
I'm heartened that my Republicans complained about this infomercial beforehand. This, according to "The Note":
In defense of ABC news, co-ordinating questions that the president wants to be asked seems to be normal with the Obama WH.
One last note; Insurance companies are being hit by the Democrats for a practice that is known as rescission. Its cutting the coverage of an insured person typically after they've incurred major medical expenses.
I hate insurance companies, and I'm loathe to defend them. However, in this case, its worth noting why the insurance companies cut the coverage. Its after they find out that the insured person has been less then complete in filling out their medical history when they applied.
Again, I hate defending insurance companies. But when I filled out my medical history, I tried to make sure I was up front as possible about everything.
When asked whether ABC should include guests from the health care industry, Sawyer, who appeared via phone, said such voices would be featured and again swore, "And I think a lot of people haven't understand fully that this is going to be a room full of widely diverse ideas in which people who actually experience the reality of front-line health care are going to get a chance to pose their challenging questions to the President."
That's what Diane said beforehand.
This is what she did during the show. She introduced the head of Aetna, an insurance agent, and 'gave' him this opportunity to be 'heard'.
“If I could, I’m going to bring in Ron Williams from Aetna, CEO of Aetna, and if I can reverse the order a little bit Mr. President, I’d like to ask a question of him and then let you comment on his answer,” Sawyer said. “Mr. Williams, Aetna, to take one, an insurance company. We hear people all over the country people see their premiums going up 119 percent in the last several years. They see the profits of the insurance companies, the billions and billions of dollars, even in a lean year. They see profits in the billions of dollars. Is the President right – that you need to be kept honest?”
That was the chance that the insurance industry was given to speak. They were asked if its right that the president needs to keep them honest. To Diane Sawyer's credit, she didn't ask him if he still beats his wife.
Jake Tapper, who seems to be the only person at ABC who still has his balls, co-wrote this article the next day:
President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people -- like the president himself -- wouldn't face.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky was the man who challenged the president. According to ABC, he told the president that 'elites' often create universal health care proposals safe in the knowledge that they would be above any restrictions or rationing caused by their programs and regulations. The good doctor asked:
if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
As noted before, the president, sans teleprompter, struggled to answer. But he refused to make any such pledge.
How did this go over with the public? That's hard to tell, since most did not tune into the broadcast. According to Live Feed:
The one-hour ABC News special "Primetime: Questions for the President: Prescription for America" (4.7 million viewers, 1.1 preliminary adults 18-49 rating) had the fewest viewers in the 10 p.m. hour "The Philanthropist" debut and a repeat of "CSI: NY" on CBS). The special tied some 8 p.m. comedy repeats as the lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network.
I think its fitting that the president was beat out by another program about someone who gives away money.
I'm heartened that my Republicans complained about this infomercial beforehand. This, according to "The Note":
The letter to ABC News, signed by 40 members of the newly formed “Media Fairness Caucus,” accuses ABC of “providing in-kind free advertising for President Obama.”
In defense of ABC news, co-ordinating questions that the president wants to be asked seems to be normal with the Obama WH.
One last note; Insurance companies are being hit by the Democrats for a practice that is known as rescission. Its cutting the coverage of an insured person typically after they've incurred major medical expenses.
I hate insurance companies, and I'm loathe to defend them. However, in this case, its worth noting why the insurance companies cut the coverage. Its after they find out that the insured person has been less then complete in filling out their medical history when they applied.
Again, I hate defending insurance companies. But when I filled out my medical history, I tried to make sure I was up front as possible about everything.
Huffington Post officially hops into Obama's pocket
The next time you read the Huffington Post, remember their 'journalism' ethics.
The Obama administration wanted a question asked by the Huffington post on Iran. So they literally asked them to find a 'good' question ahead of time.
This is how it played out at the WH Press Conference:
Ap also noted that:
This was great reporting on Politico's part. They really called out Obama on his inability to add anything to the debate with a softball question that was preplanned. Kudos to the staff at Politico for trying to keep their fellow press honest. There is a lot of ass-kissing going on between the press and this White House. I'm heartened by the courage of Politico who, no doubt, is getting yelled at by a White House press toady at this very moment.
The Obama administration wanted a question asked by the Huffington post on Iran. So they literally asked them to find a 'good' question ahead of time.
This is how it played out at the WH Press Conference:
THE PRESIDENT: Nico, I know that you, and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?
Q Yes, I did, I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online, and one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working towards?
Naturally, the rest of the press watched that exchange and their antenna went up.
Its considered unethical in journalism to ask the question that a politician actually asked you to pose. But the Huffington Post dove in anyway, and confirmed that they are a propaganda arm of this administration.
Politico noticed:
According to POLITICO's Carol Lee, The Huffington Post reporter was brought out of lower press by deputy press secretary Josh Earnest and placed just inside the barricade for reporters a few minutes before the start of the press conference.
Which makes sense. Josh would have talked to him right beforehand to see if he was on board.
According to AP, the White House confirmed that they had spoken to the Huffington Post:
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said there was nothing inappropriate in how an administration official phoned the Huffington Posts' Nico Pitney and suggested President Barack Obama might take a question from him if he came prepared with one submitted to the reporter from someone inside Iran.
Ap also noted that:
Obama replied with a familiar response, that it was too soon to know.
This was great reporting on Politico's part. They really called out Obama on his inability to add anything to the debate with a softball question that was preplanned. Kudos to the staff at Politico for trying to keep their fellow press honest. There is a lot of ass-kissing going on between the press and this White House. I'm heartened by the courage of Politico who, no doubt, is getting yelled at by a White House press toady at this very moment.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
A few articles on health care that I'm looking at
Look at the giddiness of the Dems in announcing health care in this article on Politico. Its downright spooky how anxious they are to take over such a large segment of the society and turn it into a bureaucracy.
Then read this article at AP (via Yahoo) on how the Democrats strong armed yet another industry:
What that means is that since Barack can't actually afford to give old people all of the drugs they need, he asked drug companies to offer a price break to Medicare. That price break, of course, will be passed over to consumers. It is, in effect, an invisible tax.
Here is another scary part of that article:
Note: the whole purpose of the government taking over health care was to make it cheaper. Remember?
This dichotomy is kinda reflected in a recent Pew poll:
Here is another interesting tidbit for me:
Go figure. Smarter people don't want to lose the best health care in the world, whereas dumb people want the government to control it.
Anyway, the important thing is that the government is coming for your health care. Obama wants it. Bad. And he's not going to stop until he controls it.
Then read this article at AP (via Yahoo) on how the Democrats strong armed yet another industry:
The pharmaceutical industry agreed Saturday to spend $80 billion over the next decade improving drug benefits for seniors on Medicare and defraying the cost of President Barack Obama's health care legislation, capping secretive negotiations involving key lawmakers and the White House.
What that means is that since Barack can't actually afford to give old people all of the drugs they need, he asked drug companies to offer a price break to Medicare. That price break, of course, will be passed over to consumers. It is, in effect, an invisible tax.
Here is another scary part of that article:
While none of the changes in the prescription drug program would directly lower government costs, several officials also said the industry agreed to measures that would give the Treasury more money under federal health programs. In particular, officials said drug companies would likely wind up paying pay higher rebates for certain drugs under Medicaid, the program that provides health care for the poor.
Note: the whole purpose of the government taking over health care was to make it cheaper. Remember?
This dichotomy is kinda reflected in a recent Pew poll:
Relatively few Americans believe the country as a whole is spending the right amount on health care at this point, but there is no consensus on what the problem is. Just as many Americans say we are spending too much on health care (38%) as too little (40%).
Here is another interesting tidbit for me:
People with no more than a high school education (47%) or some college (42%) are far more likely than are college graduates (31%) to favor a complete rebuilding of the health care system.
Go figure. Smarter people don't want to lose the best health care in the world, whereas dumb people want the government to control it.
Anyway, the important thing is that the government is coming for your health care. Obama wants it. Bad. And he's not going to stop until he controls it.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
More transparency
The White House is blocking access to its visitor logs:
I think its fascinating that MSNBC is, in effect, blaming Bush for Obama's position. I don't remember them ever blaming Clinton for Bush taking the same position as Clinton. But maybe that's me.
The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.
I think its fascinating that MSNBC is, in effect, blaming Bush for Obama's position. I don't remember them ever blaming Clinton for Bush taking the same position as Clinton. But maybe that's me.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
I'M one of those people resisting Universal Health Care
In a recent article on Bloomberg, the writer talks about how Universal Health Care is a hard topic for volunteers to pitch. This is the author's take on the topic:
I read through the article and noticed one thing: the writer never talked about the real opposition to health care... people like me. Its not just high powered companies that are resisting Universal Health Care. So I wrote back. I think my letter is good enough that I want to share it:
Obama is pursuing a goal that has eluded presidents of both parties for the past 60 years. He is counting on volunteers such as McArdle to help him marshal public support to overcome resistance to some aspects of his plan from hospitals, doctors and companies such as Louisville, Kentucky-based Humana Inc., the second-largest U.S. provider of government-backed health benefits.
I read through the article and noticed one thing: the writer never talked about the real opposition to health care... people like me. Its not just high powered companies that are resisting Universal Health Care. So I wrote back. I think my letter is good enough that I want to share it:
In a recent article, you wrote:
"He is counting on volunteers such as McArdle to help him marshal public support to overcome resistance to some aspects of his plan from hospitals, doctors and companies such as Louisville, Kentucky-based Humana Inc., the second-largest U.S. provider of government-backed health benefits."
You forgot to mention that the real problem; that they are trying to overcome resistance from people like myself. I know that the government will only make health care more expensive, that it will add another layer of bureaucracy to getting healthy, and that its impossible to reach the stated goals of Obama's plan. Already, the two central goals (that it will make health care affordable to everyone and be available to everyone who is not covered) have been exposed as fallacies. The current plan being floated will add 1.6 Trillion of debt and only cover 1/3rd of the uninsured.
I ask that the next time you write an article on the resistance towards universal health care, you talk to ordinary people like myself. I've been against the idea since Hillary pitched it the first time around. This president has only shown an ability to put us further into debt while creating more dependence on the government, and more pork.
I've talked to many people who support universal health care. The problem is always the same. They can't answer how adding $600 Billion (the original figure for launching universal health care) or $1 Trillion (the revised figure) or $1.6 Trillion (today's figure) is going to make health care cheaper for everyone.
I hope that you'll start asking that question too.
Skylights for a state-run liquor warehouse
That's one of many projects that the stimulus/pork program is paying for.
Does it sound ridiculous? Over-the-top?
Heck... how much do you think it would cost to put skylights into a warehouse?
$2.2 Million Dollars
The excuse? Its part of an energy saving program.
Let's do a cost-benefit analysis on that. How long do you think it would take to save 2.2 million in lighting and heating costs in a warehouse by adding skylights? More importantly: does anyone realize that light & heat are the two things that you're supposed to keep liquor away from?
But nevermind all of that. Someone thought it would be a good project, and someone is going to make 2.2 Million off of it.
This is just one of a hundred items that Senator Coburn, a Republican from OK, listed off as wasteful spending, according to this article from Yahoo.
The aritcle takes pains to explain that Coburn is a one of the most 'fiscally conservative' senators, and uses the famed term 'others' to hide that some people like pork projects:
Yes, other people do identify those projects as ideal for creating jobs: senators. The rest of us know better. Creating a park is a great thing, but its not the best way to create jobs. Once the park is made, there is no extra benifit from the park that creates jobs.
Anyway, I know that, unfortunately, nothing will happen from this. Because the people who support Barack will forgive any pork he creates, and any wasteful spending that goes on. Including, but not restricted to:
Yes, you read that right.
That uber valuable stimulus package is paying for a way for turtles to avoid getting run over on a highway, by creating a $3.4 million dollar tunnel for them. Bizarre.
Does it sound ridiculous? Over-the-top?
Heck... how much do you think it would cost to put skylights into a warehouse?
$2.2 Million Dollars
The excuse? Its part of an energy saving program.
Let's do a cost-benefit analysis on that. How long do you think it would take to save 2.2 million in lighting and heating costs in a warehouse by adding skylights? More importantly: does anyone realize that light & heat are the two things that you're supposed to keep liquor away from?
But nevermind all of that. Someone thought it would be a good project, and someone is going to make 2.2 Million off of it.
This is just one of a hundred items that Senator Coburn, a Republican from OK, listed off as wasteful spending, according to this article from Yahoo.
The aritcle takes pains to explain that Coburn is a one of the most 'fiscally conservative' senators, and uses the famed term 'others' to hide that some people like pork projects:
The list by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., includes projects others would identify as ideal for creating jobs and benefiting generations of Americans: skateboard parks, streetscapes, upgrades of park facilities, bike trails and parking garages.
Yes, other people do identify those projects as ideal for creating jobs: senators. The rest of us know better. Creating a park is a great thing, but its not the best way to create jobs. Once the park is made, there is no extra benifit from the park that creates jobs.
Anyway, I know that, unfortunately, nothing will happen from this. Because the people who support Barack will forgive any pork he creates, and any wasteful spending that goes on. Including, but not restricted to:
...a $3.4 million Florida Department of Transportation project for an "eco-passage" - an underground wildlife road crossing for turtles and other wildlife in Lake Jackson, Florida...
Yes, you read that right.
That uber valuable stimulus package is paying for a way for turtles to avoid getting run over on a highway, by creating a $3.4 million dollar tunnel for them. Bizarre.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Two Faces Of Barack
On one hand, Barack is doing everything he can to reduce our debt:
On the other hand, he's gotta borrow a bunch of money indefinitely for his health care debacle:
Yeah? Who didn't see this one coming?
I've been predicting this for like... a year.
Okay. So Barack's health care plan to save us billions starts with putting us into even more debt.
C'mon everyone. You're not that stupid.
President Barack Obama sought on Tuesday to show he was serious about improving the U.S. budget picture as he called on Congress to pass new limits on tax cuts and spending programs to avoid adding to deficits.
On the other hand, he's gotta borrow a bunch of money indefinitely for his health care debacle:
President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed budget rules that would allow Congress to borrow tens of billions of dollars and put the nation deeper in debt to jump-start the administration's emerging health care overhaul.
Yeah? Who didn't see this one coming?
I've been predicting this for like... a year.
It would carve out about $2.5 trillion worth of exemptions for Obama's priorities over the next decade. His health care reform plan also would get a green light to run big deficits in its early years. But over a decade, Congress would have to come up with money to cover those early year deficits.
Okay. So Barack's health care plan to save us billions starts with putting us into even more debt.
C'mon everyone. You're not that stupid.
The moment when your goverment officially took over a private business
Freedom is rarely lost in one big sweeping motion. It generally takes time, and a public who is asleep at the wheel.
Take this article from The Hill:
Take this article from The Hill:
Rep Barney Frank (D-Mass.) won a stay of execution on Thursday for a General Motors plant in his district that the automaker had announced it would close.
No other lawmaker has managed to halt the GM ax. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Frank oversees the government's bailout program, known as TARP. Frank's staff said the lawmaker spokes with GM CEO Fritz Henderson on Wednesday and convinced him to keep the Norton, Mass. plant open for at least 14 months.
Understand?
Barney Frank is now in the auto business. Now the government has officially interfered with what they are doing, and are dictating the terms of their business. That will work out just fine... don't you think?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Obama's threat to us: he's just getting started
Does that mean that $2 Trillion in debt in one year isn't enough for him?
Ugh.
Ugh.
And speaking of favorable press coverage
James Delingpole of the Telegraph savages the American press for their coverage of Obama:
James... I'm not sure how you feel. Could you make yourself more clear?
:)
Congratulations. Your presidential regime has managed to secure the most supine, slobbering, spineless, unquestioning media coverage since Enver Hoxha's Albania.
James... I'm not sure how you feel. Could you make yourself more clear?
:)
Obama's press coverage, the numbers
Somehow, I missed the release of this study of the media by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. It covers Obama in the first part of the administration.
Here is the highlight:
Yeah. We knew that.
I wonder if that type of coverage has any effect on his favorability ratings?
Here's a chart of Bill Clinton's favorability ratings over time.
Clinton's favorability rating dragged down to 45 percent by May 10th... a little over his first 100 days in office. Which eerily parallels his media coverage in the first 70 days.
That made me curious as to how Bush's favorabilty ratings were after 80 or so days. The theorey being that favorability ratings would lag behind coverage. I wondered if Bush's approval rating seemed to be as affected by the media coverage. But that doesn't seem to be the case. His approval rating hovered around 53 percent on May 7th. So yeah. Thus another neat theory bites the dust due to actual facts and statistics.
Here is the highlight:
During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama’s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama’s.
Yeah. We knew that.
Mr. Obama has received not only more press but also better press than his immediate predecessors. On the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news, fifty-eight percent of all evaluations of the president and his policies have been favorable, and 42 percent were unfavorable. CMPA’s previous studies of network news found that George W. Bush received only 33 percent positive evaluations by sources and reporters during the first 50 days of his administration in 2001, and Bill Clinton received only 44 percent positive evaluations during his first ten weeks (70 days) in office in 1993.
I wonder if that type of coverage has any effect on his favorability ratings?
Here's a chart of Bill Clinton's favorability ratings over time.
Clinton's favorability rating dragged down to 45 percent by May 10th... a little over his first 100 days in office. Which eerily parallels his media coverage in the first 70 days.
That made me curious as to how Bush's favorabilty ratings were after 80 or so days. The theorey being that favorability ratings would lag behind coverage. I wondered if Bush's approval rating seemed to be as affected by the media coverage. But that doesn't seem to be the case. His approval rating hovered around 53 percent on May 7th. So yeah. Thus another neat theory bites the dust due to actual facts and statistics.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Pravda: Capitalism on wane
We all knew. Its nice for them to tell us.
For those of you who don't know... Pravda is the newspaper that was best known as the mouthpiece for Russia:
Yes. I can't argue with that.
For those of you who don't know... Pravda is the newspaper that was best known as the mouthpiece for Russia:
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
Yes. I can't argue with that.
Donate to Obama, get Ambassadorship
Okay... so its not quite that easy. But close.
Bloomberg has a story about a guy who raised a bunch of cash for Obama. Guess where he's going?
Yes, just like every other crooked politician, Obama is appointing guys who gave him cash. So we're clear, its not just one guy.
Bloomberg lists off 3 others:
Bloomberg has a story about a guy who raised a bunch of cash for Obama. Guess where he's going?
Susman, 71, a retired Citigroup Inc. senior investment banker, raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and another $300,000 for his inauguration. On Wednesday, Obama nominated Susman to the post formally known as the Court of St. James.
Yes, just like every other crooked politician, Obama is appointing guys who gave him cash. So we're clear, its not just one guy.
Bloomberg lists off 3 others:
-- John Roos, chief executive officer of the Palo Alto, California-based law firm Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, to Japan. He raised more than $500,000 for Obama.
-- Charles Rivkin, chief executive officer of Wildbrain Inc., to France. Rivkin collected more than $500,000 for Obama’s campaign and $300,000 for his inauguration.
-- Laurie Fulton, a partner with Williams & Connolly LLP, to Denmark. Fulton, 59, raised $100,000 to $200,000.
My hats off to Bloomberg for doing the research on this story. Not a lot of people are covering what Obama has done wrong. But that's for my next post.
UPDATE:
Someone pointed out to me the section in the article where they talked about Republican Tim Roemer, and how 'fair' his appointment was supposed to be. This is how Tim Roemer earned his seat at Obama's table:
Roemer campaigned for Obama in 11 states throughout the year. He said he's heard the rumors that he's being considered, but up until now, he's been "entirely focused and consumed" on the campaign.
So no... he didn't just do great deeds.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Ex president Clinton copping a feel on a starlet
Fran Drescher was accompanying Bill Clinton on the stage of the Life Ball charity event (oh man, the jokes are already writing themselves). As they made their way off stage, Bill lent a helping hand.
Someone on a BBS actually tried defending Bill by saying that his hand was on the small of her back. I've dated my share of women. The small of their back has never been between their hips.
Someone on a BBS actually tried defending Bill by saying that his hand was on the small of her back. I've dated my share of women. The small of their back has never been between their hips.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Wouldn't it be weird if Obama opened up a "Dentention Center"?
Especially after he closed Gitmo?
I know. I'm being stupid now. Right....?
This was the headline from the New York Times article:
So Obama was talking to these human rights groups about the need for somewhere that you could put terrorism suspects who couldn't be tried. Like... Gitmo?
My favorite part of the story is that he was telling this to Human Rights advocates, who were presumably the biggest Obama supporters in the world. I would have loved to have seen their faces when the told them that he needed somewhere to put terrorism suspects without trials.
I kinda picture it like a scene from a poker match, where they just realized that they'd been bluffed.
Anyway, I have no doubt that they will somehow blame it on Bush.
I know. I'm being stupid now. Right....?
This was the headline from the New York Times article:
Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention PlanBuuuut, he'd still have trials. Right?
President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.
So Obama was talking to these human rights groups about the need for somewhere that you could put terrorism suspects who couldn't be tried. Like... Gitmo?
My favorite part of the story is that he was telling this to Human Rights advocates, who were presumably the biggest Obama supporters in the world. I would have loved to have seen their faces when the told them that he needed somewhere to put terrorism suspects without trials.
I kinda picture it like a scene from a poker match, where they just realized that they'd been bluffed.
Anyway, I have no doubt that they will somehow blame it on Bush.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Cheney's more popular then ever
While everyone is talking about Cheney's speech today, and while the talking heads are telling you that Cheney might be alienating people with his outspokenness, its important to know how Cheney is doing in the polls.
He's up 8 percent from the time he was in office.
He's up 8 percent from the time he was in office.
House covers up for Pelosi
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been accusing the CIA of lying to her about waterboarding.
Naturally, this is a serious charge, and the Republicans in the House decided it was worth looking into.
Of course, as soon as they suggested it, every single democrat in the house blocked it.
According to Brietbart:
The House voted 252-172 to block the measure that would have created a bipartisan congressional panel. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, sponsored the resolution.
Note that the Democrats didn't even want to look into the matter. How lame is that?
Let's be clear on this. If the Democratic members of the House really believed Pelosi, they would be insisting that we investigate why the CIA lied to her.
This is nothing short of a very scared bunch of Democrats trying to protect their power, and trying to hide the truth.
Naturally, this is a serious charge, and the Republicans in the House decided it was worth looking into.
Of course, as soon as they suggested it, every single democrat in the house blocked it.
According to Brietbart:
The House voted 252-172 to block the measure that would have created a bipartisan congressional panel. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, sponsored the resolution.
Note that the Democrats didn't even want to look into the matter. How lame is that?
Let's be clear on this. If the Democratic members of the House really believed Pelosi, they would be insisting that we investigate why the CIA lied to her.
This is nothing short of a very scared bunch of Democrats trying to protect their power, and trying to hide the truth.
Happier Than I Thought?
According to a recent study by the Pew research foundation, the secret to happiness is being old, male, and Republican.
Which would suggest that the secret to being unhappy is to be a young female democrat. But I digress.
The interesting thing is to read the comments on the LiveScience website that reports this. There are people there who are arguing that the survey isn't technically correct, but it says that because Republicans lie more. Which, to me, indicates something about the person who has come to that conclusion.
Anyway, I had a bad February and March, so my year has not been great. But when I stopped to think about it, I guess I really am happier then I "should" be. I have a positive outlook on things. I don't wait on other people to take care of me. I believe, for the most part, in myself.
I am a Republican.
Which would suggest that the secret to being unhappy is to be a young female democrat. But I digress.
The interesting thing is to read the comments on the LiveScience website that reports this. There are people there who are arguing that the survey isn't technically correct, but it says that because Republicans lie more. Which, to me, indicates something about the person who has come to that conclusion.
Anyway, I had a bad February and March, so my year has not been great. But when I stopped to think about it, I guess I really am happier then I "should" be. I have a positive outlook on things. I don't wait on other people to take care of me. I believe, for the most part, in myself.
I am a Republican.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Old News, on Cheney / Haliburton
This is actually from 2004, but its really important to make sure that everyone knows this.
Cheney has often been linked to Haliburton. FactCheck did a report on the link to see if Kerry's claims were true. In an ad for Kerry:
It says, "As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get?"
Fact check investigated it.
Here is a partial list of what they found:
A Halliburton pay statement dated Jan 2, 2001 shows just under $147,579 was paid that day as "elect defrl payou," meaning payout of salary from the company's Elective Deferral Plan. That was salary Cheney had earned in 1999, but which he had chosen previously to receive in five installments spread over five years.
Read the whole thing, because its too complex to sum up here.
But let me hit on the key points. Cheney took a deferred payment plan when he quit Halliburton. Its a way for him to spread his payments over several years to reduce his taxes. That payment wouldn't change based on Halliburton's profits.
Cheney's stock options were a different matter. He assigned them to be paid to charity.
Another words, no matter what happened to Halliburton, Cheney couldn't have personally profited from it.
So the next time that someone tells you that Cheney was shelling for Halliburton, read the Fact Check, then school them on the truth.
Cheney has often been linked to Haliburton. FactCheck did a report on the link to see if Kerry's claims were true. In an ad for Kerry:
It says, "As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get?"
Fact check investigated it.
Here is a partial list of what they found:
A Halliburton pay statement dated Jan 2, 2001 shows just under $147,579 was paid that day as "elect defrl payou," meaning payout of salary from the company's Elective Deferral Plan. That was salary Cheney had earned in 1999, but which he had chosen previously to receive in five installments spread over five years.
Read the whole thing, because its too complex to sum up here.
But let me hit on the key points. Cheney took a deferred payment plan when he quit Halliburton. Its a way for him to spread his payments over several years to reduce his taxes. That payment wouldn't change based on Halliburton's profits.
Cheney's stock options were a different matter. He assigned them to be paid to charity.
Another words, no matter what happened to Halliburton, Cheney couldn't have personally profited from it.
So the next time that someone tells you that Cheney was shelling for Halliburton, read the Fact Check, then school them on the truth.
Anderson Cooper Still Has His Mouth Full
When I read on TVNewser that Anderson Cooper had apologized for his tea bagging comment, I was heartened. I thought that maybe a good journalist had figured out that he had stepped over the line and was trying to correct a mistake.
I was wrong.
Start here, with the original comments made by Cooper:
Anderson Cooper says "Its hard to talk when you're Teabagging."
It was a dumb joke. I have to point out that MSNBC was the first organization that I heard using that term to refer to the Tea Party protestors. But other news organzations, like CNN, followed suit.
The problem with all of them is that they suggested that the Tea Party protesters were referring to themselves with this term.
I was there in Chicago. They were not.
I Googled to try to find a Tea Party organization referring to themselves with this term. Its possible that someone did, but if they did, they didn't get much news coverage.
Which brings us back to the journalists like Anderson Cooper, and his 'apology.' This is what he said, you can watch his comments here.
Pardon the fact that I can't embed it. The guy who posted it on YouTube disabled embedding. He's been very defensive of Cooper.
Anderson Cooper clearly didn't believe that he was wrong. He blamed his teabagging comments on the protesters, and said, basically, that it was their fault for not knowing what it meant.
Which would be cool if they were actually referring to themselves in that way.
I love good journalism. I abhor bad journalism.
I have a lot of problems with Anderson Cooper, but my current one is that I can't understand what he's saying with that thing in his mouth. And I mean, of course, his foot.
I was wrong.
Start here, with the original comments made by Cooper:
Anderson Cooper says "Its hard to talk when you're Teabagging."
It was a dumb joke. I have to point out that MSNBC was the first organization that I heard using that term to refer to the Tea Party protestors. But other news organzations, like CNN, followed suit.
The problem with all of them is that they suggested that the Tea Party protesters were referring to themselves with this term.
I was there in Chicago. They were not.
I Googled to try to find a Tea Party organization referring to themselves with this term. Its possible that someone did, but if they did, they didn't get much news coverage.
Which brings us back to the journalists like Anderson Cooper, and his 'apology.' This is what he said, you can watch his comments here.
Pardon the fact that I can't embed it. The guy who posted it on YouTube disabled embedding. He's been very defensive of Cooper.
Anderson Cooper clearly didn't believe that he was wrong. He blamed his teabagging comments on the protesters, and said, basically, that it was their fault for not knowing what it meant.
Which would be cool if they were actually referring to themselves in that way.
I love good journalism. I abhor bad journalism.
I have a lot of problems with Anderson Cooper, but my current one is that I can't understand what he's saying with that thing in his mouth. And I mean, of course, his foot.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
David Pflouffe's "Swiftboat" fundraising
For those of you who don't know, David Pflouffe was David Axelrod's other hand in getting Obama elected.
So its important to understand the background on Pflouffe. According to SourceWatch, David raised a record $95 million for the DCCC in 1999-2000 for democrat candidates who were running for the house.
Keep that in mind, while you read this:
Now what does it sound like he wants to do?
Let's get specific:
He wants money.
And he's willing to sell you any type of fear to get you there... even by threatening that Republicans are going to (cue spooky music) Swiftboat Health Care.
NOTE: Swiftboating is to offer a completely different opinion then what a Democrat says.
On the other hand, trying to scare people into giving you money? That's cool. Right David?
So its important to understand the background on Pflouffe. According to SourceWatch, David raised a record $95 million for the DCCC in 1999-2000 for democrat candidates who were running for the house.
Keep that in mind, while you read this:
David Plouffe, the man who ran Obama's historic and ultimately successful run for the White House, wrote in a fundraising e-mail to Obama's massive supporter e-mail list that the same operatives behind the swiftboat campaign that helped end Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) quest to unseat President George W. Bush are regrouping to target Obama's healthcare efforts.
Now what does it sound like he wants to do?
Let's get specific:
In his e-mail through Organizing for American, Obama's semi-dormant campaign operation at the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Plouffe asked supporters to donate money and organize to urge Congress to act on legislation.
He wants money.
And he's willing to sell you any type of fear to get you there... even by threatening that Republicans are going to (cue spooky music) Swiftboat Health Care.
NOTE: Swiftboating is to offer a completely different opinion then what a Democrat says.
On the other hand, trying to scare people into giving you money? That's cool. Right David?
Gore caught in an "Inconvenient Truth"
Gore never quite got over the fact that he lost the election.
To prove it, recently, he argued that Cheney had no right to criticize Obama this early in his term. Suddenly, its not right for the former VP to criticize the current president.
Gore argued that he waited 2 years to criticize Bush. But wouldn't you know, he couldn't even get that right?
The Weekly Standard, doing the kind of journalism that would sell newspapers, nails him to the wall here. One such quote:
It makes you wonder why no 'mainstream' outlet did this basic 'Google' type of research. Its not like Gore's statements are made in private. Or like its hard to find an article in USA Today.
Anyway, its all good. You can still believe what he said about the Polar Bears dying off.
To prove it, recently, he argued that Cheney had no right to criticize Obama this early in his term. Suddenly, its not right for the former VP to criticize the current president.
Gore argued that he waited 2 years to criticize Bush. But wouldn't you know, he couldn't even get that right?
The Weekly Standard, doing the kind of journalism that would sell newspapers, nails him to the wall here. One such quote:
USA Today, 4/15/2002: "Gore's speech was the emotional peak of the convention. With practiced skill, humor and a passion some delegates said they did not see during the campaign, Gore denounced virtually every element of Bush's domestic policy." (Headline -- "Gore's fiery speech raises questions of plans")
It makes you wonder why no 'mainstream' outlet did this basic 'Google' type of research. Its not like Gore's statements are made in private. Or like its hard to find an article in USA Today.
Anyway, its all good. You can still believe what he said about the Polar Bears dying off.
Victor Davis Hanson Nails Palin :)
Victor Davis Hanson is fast becoming one of my favorite columnists. Here, he writes about the first 100 days of Sarah Palin's Presidency. A sample, to get you to go there:
VDH is brutal in his writing... and if life were fair, he'd get a Pulitzer for that opinion piece. Presuming, of course, that the committee understood great satire.
IT'S THE MATH, STUPID!
“Well,” lectured Paul Krugman, again in the Times, “we were worried that they didn’t teach math at Idaho U., and now we know for sure they don’t. Is it $1.6 trillion, $1.7 trillion, or $2 trillion in red ink this year? Are we supposed to be impressed that she offers ‘fiscal sobriety’ by cutting 0.003 percent of the budget? She gives out money to those who don’t pay taxes and calls it a tax cut. And now Queen Sarah tells us that in four years she’ll ‘halve’ the deficit, as if she hasn’t borrowed another $5 trillion in the meantime.
VDH is brutal in his writing... and if life were fair, he'd get a Pulitzer for that opinion piece. Presuming, of course, that the committee understood great satire.
Fact Checking Biden
Thanks to the AP for doing the basic research. When Biden tried to recently portray an economy on the rebound, they did the number checking and printed the actual facts.
More importantly, they challenged the administration on the basis for its claims:
This has been my problem with the administration from the beginning. They will say that they 'succeeded' in creating/saving jobs, because they thought about it. And thinking, in this administration, is doing.
More importantly, they challenged the administration on the basis for its claims:
To visualize that disconnect, consider this: The administration has promised to create or save 600,000 more jobs in the next 100 days. Even if the nation loses another 5 million jobs during that span (a highly unlikely prospect) the White House could still claim success.
This has been my problem with the administration from the beginning. They will say that they 'succeeded' in creating/saving jobs, because they thought about it. And thinking, in this administration, is doing.
White House Prediction: no job growth
After nearly 2 TRILLION of spending... how much job growth do you think that the WH is predicting?
None.
No kidding.
Now let's pause and consider this for a moment. Let's say that this was Bush, not Obama, who did this. Do you think that the press would go after him for spending so much without any result until 2010?
None.
No kidding.
President Obama's chief economics forecaster said on Sunday that the country was not likely to see positive employment growth until 2010, even if the economy began to grow later this year.
Now let's pause and consider this for a moment. Let's say that this was Bush, not Obama, who did this. Do you think that the press would go after him for spending so much without any result until 2010?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
9/11 Family member on Obama
Debra is the sister of Charles F. Burlingame III - the pilot of American Airlines 77 - which was flown into the Pentagon by terrorists on 9/11.
She was invited, along with others, to meet with the president. Her passionate editorial appeared in the Wall Street Journal on May 8th. A small portion of it:
She was invited, along with others, to meet with the president. Her passionate editorial appeared in the Wall Street Journal on May 8th. A small portion of it:
Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. But the narrative about Mr. Obama's successful meeting with 9/11 and Cole families has been written, and the press has moved on.
The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.
I can't post her entire editorial, because I don't want to violate copyright. But I hope you'll go there and read it. She details what this administration has done, point by point, including a proposed release of detainees and the possibility of making them eligible for welfare support. Its absurd, but welcome to the Obama administration.
Obama popular among Muslims
According to Reuters...
I'm okay with people in the Middle-East having a bad opinion of "us." We're talking about countries that stone a woman to death simply for being seen with a man, alone. The woman gets murdered in cold blood, while the man gets... well, we're not sure. But he doesn't get stoned to death.
I find it interesting that Obama has such a positive rating by those people. You have to wonder what it is that they see.
Of those surveyed, 33 percent had a favorable view of the United States, 43 percent had a negative view, 14 percent were neutral and 10 percent said they did not know, Ipsos said.
In contrast, Obama received favorable ratings averaging 48 percent in the region as a whole.
I'm okay with people in the Middle-East having a bad opinion of "us." We're talking about countries that stone a woman to death simply for being seen with a man, alone. The woman gets murdered in cold blood, while the man gets... well, we're not sure. But he doesn't get stoned to death.
I find it interesting that Obama has such a positive rating by those people. You have to wonder what it is that they see.
Obama cuts $17 BILLION!!!
...from the deficit. Leaving it hovering at around 1.8 TRILLION.
Ugh.
President Barack Obama urged Congress to cut almost $17 billion in programs, including tax breaks for oil and gas companies, while seeking an $81 billion increase for his domestic agenda.
Ugh.
Even with the proposed cuts amounting to only about one- half of 1 percent of the total budget, Obama is confronting resistance to them in Congress and from interest groups seeking to keep alive favored programs.The good news is that Republicans are starting to listen to the Tax Protesters, and they are making loud objections to Obama's plans...
“The administration’s proposed cuts, while welcome, don’t go far enough, and they appear to be a diversionary tactic -- an effort to change the subject away from the unprecedented debt this budget heaps on future generations,” House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said in a statement.Thank you, Mr. Boehner, we appreciate it!
Monday, May 11, 2009
"New Era Of Responsibility"
That's what it actually says on the White House Home page, next to their 2010 budget.
I'm about to violate my new promise to myself, about using inappropriate language on my blog.
What the fuck?
How do you add 50 cents of debt for every dollar of spending and then have the Audacity of Spending to use the phrase "A New Era Of Responsibility" near your budget?
If that's responsible spending... what the heck does Obama think is irresponsible spending?
I'm about to violate my new promise to myself, about using inappropriate language on my blog.
What the fuck?
How do you add 50 cents of debt for every dollar of spending and then have the Audacity of Spending to use the phrase "A New Era Of Responsibility" near your budget?
If that's responsible spending... what the heck does Obama think is irresponsible spending?
"No. That's MY photo of Obama!"
Just when I think that the cultists can't go any farther, from Cincinnati.com:
There are enough photos of Obama to go around. Trust me on this. Its not worth it. No really. Its not worth it.
I'll prove it. Go here and print one out for yourself. Feel better?
C'mon people.
Marla Anderson wanted that Barack Obama picture. So much so that Wyoming police say she walked into a Grove Avenue home Friday to take it.She struggled with the owner, who called police for help.
There are enough photos of Obama to go around. Trust me on this. Its not worth it. No really. Its not worth it.
I'll prove it. Go here and print one out for yourself. Feel better?
50 cents of debt for every dollar of spending
Its almost unfathomable to me that people aren't getting this. From AP, with thanks to Andrew Taylor for putting this in terms that everyone can easily understand:
The government is currently adding 50 cents of debt for every dollar that it spends.
Let me see if I can put that into perspective.
Let's say that you make $30,000 a year.
This year, you spend $45,000. In one chunk. That's this year alone.
If you did that, and had nothing appreciable to show for your spending, what would you call yourself? Irresponsible? Reckless? Dumb?
The fact is that our deficit... not our debt, but our deficit... is 1.8 TRILLION dollars this year. Our spending? Roughly twice that.
How did we get here, folks?
By deciding that everything is a necessity for the government to get involved in.
By nodding our heads when the government says "Do you want us to buy you this?"
We got here by never having the common sense to realize that we are still going to have to pay for it.
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ear; or at least half of your current income in debt. Because that's what we are doing... today, in our government. And its going to drown this country.
We just confronted the fact that there were too many individuals buying homes that they couldn't afford.
The solution to this, by the current government?
Spending that increases the debt by 50 cents, for every dollar we spend.
That is not cool.
The government is currently adding 50 cents of debt for every dollar that it spends.
Let me see if I can put that into perspective.
Let's say that you make $30,000 a year.
This year, you spend $45,000. In one chunk. That's this year alone.
If you did that, and had nothing appreciable to show for your spending, what would you call yourself? Irresponsible? Reckless? Dumb?
The fact is that our deficit... not our debt, but our deficit... is 1.8 TRILLION dollars this year. Our spending? Roughly twice that.
How did we get here, folks?
By deciding that everything is a necessity for the government to get involved in.
By nodding our heads when the government says "Do you want us to buy you this?"
We got here by never having the common sense to realize that we are still going to have to pay for it.
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ear; or at least half of your current income in debt. Because that's what we are doing... today, in our government. And its going to drown this country.
We just confronted the fact that there were too many individuals buying homes that they couldn't afford.
The solution to this, by the current government?
Spending that increases the debt by 50 cents, for every dollar we spend.
That is not cool.
And the right is called the party of hate?
I found this courtesy of the Telegraph in the UK:
Yikes.
There is something very frightening about seeing the president laughing when a comedian refers to Rush Limbaugh as the 20th hijacker.
I have to remind myself that the Democrats are not the party of hate... that we are.
Yikes.
There is something very frightening about seeing the president laughing when a comedian refers to Rush Limbaugh as the 20th hijacker.
I have to remind myself that the Democrats are not the party of hate... that we are.
Fed 'Stress Test' wasn't?
The idea of the "stress tests", put out by the Fed, was to give a fiscal report card on the health of major banks.
Only... they let the banks 'negotiate' their financial standing. The WSJ, via Reuters:
This means that either the Treasury's initial report was completely wrong, or the Treasury department caved to pressure from the banks, and put out a report card that was not accurate.
Which is kinda how we got here in the first place.
-John
Only... they let the banks 'negotiate' their financial standing. The WSJ, via Reuters:
The Federal Reserve reduced the size of capital deficits facing several banks before releasing the results of stress tests on the financial institutions, according to a story in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday.
This means that either the Treasury's initial report was completely wrong, or the Treasury department caved to pressure from the banks, and put out a report card that was not accurate.
Which is kinda how we got here in the first place.
-John
Sunday, May 10, 2009
"Grants.gov"
While wandering around Recovery.gov, I found Grants.gov.
It shouldn't be confused with Change.gov, or any of the multitude of .gov websites that the Obama administration has branded.
But it does have one thing in common: a desire from the government to give away cash.
Grants.gov runs in a way that only the government could run.
If you were running a business, you would figure out what you needed, and then try to find businesses that could provide those items or services.
Grants.gov works the other way around.
It asks the person applying what they are going to provide in return for the money provided.
Some examples:
Recovery Act Limited Competition: High-End Instrumentation Grant Program (S10)
It then lists basic categories of 'possible' spending. Note, these seem to be just suggestions of the kind of things that the person applying for the grant COULD provide: structural and functional imaging systems, macromolecular NMR spectrometers, high-resolution mass spectrometers, cryoelectron microscopes and supercomputers.
Note; about $160 MILLION is being set aside for such mystery purchases.
Only in America do we provide money, and then ask people what they will give us for the money.
NEA Access to Artistic Excellence FY2010
You can get up to $150k for that one.
The point is, there are literally thousands of grants on those pages.
They are all offers from the government to give you money... but you have to tell them what you are using it for.
Which is like me going to the store, and telling the clerk: "I have $150. What are you going to sell me in the category of groceries."
Grants.gov is a way to make it easier for the government to give that money away.
It shouldn't be confused with Change.gov, or any of the multitude of .gov websites that the Obama administration has branded.
But it does have one thing in common: a desire from the government to give away cash.
Grants.gov runs in a way that only the government could run.
If you were running a business, you would figure out what you needed, and then try to find businesses that could provide those items or services.
Grants.gov works the other way around.
It asks the person applying what they are going to provide in return for the money provided.
Some examples:
Recovery Act Limited Competition: High-End Instrumentation Grant Program (S10)
"Purpose. The NCRR High-End Instrumentation Grant (HEI) program encourages applications from groups of NIH-supported investigators to purchase a single major item of equipment to be used for biomedical research that costs at least $600,000. The maximum award is $8,000,000."
It then lists basic categories of 'possible' spending. Note, these seem to be just suggestions of the kind of things that the person applying for the grant COULD provide: structural and functional imaging systems, macromolecular NMR spectrometers, high-resolution mass spectrometers, cryoelectron microscopes and supercomputers.
Note; about $160 MILLION is being set aside for such mystery purchases.
Only in America do we provide money, and then ask people what they will give us for the money.
NEA Access to Artistic Excellence FY2010
An organization may submit only one application through one of the following FY2010 Grants for Arts Projects categories: Access to Artistic Excellence, Challenge America: Reaching Every Community Fast-Track Review Grants, Learning in the Arts for Children and Youth.The Arts Endowment's support of a project may start on or after June 1, 2010.
You can get up to $150k for that one.
The point is, there are literally thousands of grants on those pages.
They are all offers from the government to give you money... but you have to tell them what you are using it for.
Which is like me going to the store, and telling the clerk: "I have $150. What are you going to sell me in the category of groceries."
Grants.gov is a way to make it easier for the government to give that money away.
Recovery.gov is a PR tool
Again, I need to remind everyone that when the president announced "Recovery.gov", he said that it would be a tool for us to track every last penny of spending.
What he didn't tell us was that, according to his people, they don't have the data capacity to get it up and running until October.
They also didn't tell us that Recovery.gov is a place where everyone can go to get money.
Here's an example:
I added my own emphasis in red.
This is what I hate about government: they are so completely anxious to give away my money. But its not even my money. Its the money of our kids.
And its nothing short of a crime that Obama isn't legally required to tell you that every time he comes up with another pork bill.
What he didn't tell us was that, according to his people, they don't have the data capacity to get it up and running until October.
They also didn't tell us that Recovery.gov is a place where everyone can go to get money.
Here's an example:
Want to see what kind of federal grants are available? Federal agencies offer more than 1,000 grant programs and access to approximately $400 billion in annual awards. Note that federal grants are not federal assistance or loans to individuals. Rather, organizations can search and apply for grants from 26 different federal agencies through the Grants.gov site. For grant opportunities related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, use the Find Recovery Act Opportunities option on Grants.gov.
I added my own emphasis in red.
This is what I hate about government: they are so completely anxious to give away my money. But its not even my money. Its the money of our kids.
And its nothing short of a crime that Obama isn't legally required to tell you that every time he comes up with another pork bill.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
More on Acorn
According to Review Journal.com:
Yet, people continue to argue that ACORN is blameless in all of this.
If it is, then its an 'innocent' organization that just happened to attract dozens of bad people.
A voter registration drive last year illegally required canvassers to meet quotas to keep their jobs and resulted in thousands of “garbage” registrations gumming up Clark County voter rolls, officials said Monday as they released a criminal complaint against the drive’s organizers.
Yet, people continue to argue that ACORN is blameless in all of this.
If it is, then its an 'innocent' organization that just happened to attract dozens of bad people.
Cliff Asness, on Obama's Chrysler's reorganization
Cliff Asness is a hedge fund manager. You may know that the Obama administration criticized Hedge fund managers for not going along with his plan for reorganizing Chrysler.
As one of the targets of the Obama administration, he obviously has a stake in all of this.
Cliff gave his argument on "Zero Hedge". I'm including a large portion of it, because he makes a great point:
That's all true. The president favored the United Auto Workers above the people who invested in the company. That's not fair. The company would not be there if it wasn't for investors.
As one of the targets of the Obama administration, he obviously has a stake in all of this.
Cliff gave his argument on "Zero Hedge". I'm including a large portion of it, because he makes a great point:
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.
The above is how it works in America, or how it’s supposed to work. The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through this process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler’s creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process. But, as his quotes above show, the President thought they were being unpatriotic or worse.
That's all true. The president favored the United Auto Workers above the people who invested in the company. That's not fair. The company would not be there if it wasn't for investors.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
House Democrats seek MORE money... what???
As if quadrupling the deficit in 100 days was not enough...
Pork, pork, pork pork pork.
Say it with me. Pork.
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives will seek passage in coming weeks of $94.2 billion in emergency money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other programs, including $2 billion more to prepare for an influenza pandemic.
Pork, pork, pork pork pork.
Say it with me. Pork.
"Is the media soft on Bush?"
Considering what's going on today, I thought it would be interesting to link to this story from the American Journalism Review. Its from October/November of 2003. It takes on the topic: is the media treating Bush too softly?
Hilarious.
In case you haven't been paying attention, in every press conference to date, Obama has been picking reporters from a list on his podium. Most of the time, he has to ask if they are 'there'. Its pretty sad.
But how many times have you heard Obama being called out for it?
Its not just that journalism is dead. Its that they don't even realize they are dead.
There is a giant yawning chasm out there waiting for a newspaper that will challenge the status quo.
Bush himself acknowledged the event was "scripted" when he called on CNN's John King from a predetermined list of reporters. Critics argued the press should not have succumbed so meekly to such an indignity, and some even accused the White House press corps of submitting questions for advance approval--an allegation that beat reporters vehemently denied.
Hilarious.
In case you haven't been paying attention, in every press conference to date, Obama has been picking reporters from a list on his podium. Most of the time, he has to ask if they are 'there'. Its pretty sad.
But how many times have you heard Obama being called out for it?
Its not just that journalism is dead. Its that they don't even realize they are dead.
There is a giant yawning chasm out there waiting for a newspaper that will challenge the status quo.
NY Times publisher is asked about a spiked story on ACORN
According to the Philadelphia Bulletin:
His answer?
If this is true, then Sulzberger is completely in the dark about the daily business of his newspaper.
I don't believe that is true. How about you?
New York Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger was asked about the March 30 The Bulletin report that his paper intentionally did not use information that might be deleterious to the Obama campaign.
His answer?
“He said he didn’t know anything about it and told me to give the details to his staff assistant and she would get back to me,” Mr. Gammon told the Bulletin in an email.
If this is true, then Sulzberger is completely in the dark about the daily business of his newspaper.
I don't believe that is true. How about you?
"Recovery.gov" won't/can't do its job
Remember how Obama promised to have a website up and running that would allow 'everyday citizens' to track the progress of government dollars?
How he promised that we would all be able to watch and see how our money is being spent?
Remember how he promised that we could watch every penny of "stimulus spending', so that we could alert him if money wasn't being spent wisely?
Would it surprise you to know that the government won't let us 'track every dollar' until November?
What complete bullshit that is.
Devaney says that the problem is that the board "doesn't have enough data storage capacity".
Let's presume, for a moment, that was true.
Let's presume that Devaney doesn't have a one terabyte hard drive lying around. That after spending $787 BILLION on a stimulus program, they don't have the $150 lying around to buy a terabyte hard drive to keep tract of it all.
What does that mean?
It means that currently, no one in government is keeping tract of all of the stimulus money. Because, you know, they just don't have the storage capacity to do... accounting.
Can you think of any more lame excuse then that?
Look: I knew that we would hear some kind of excuse like this. Its not like the government wants us to know where it is spending its money. But this is pretty extreme. To say that they don't have the DATA capacity?
Liars.
They are liars.
Say it with me: "Liar"
Obama? "Liar"
Devaney? "Liar"
Any Democrat who stands behind this excuse? "Liar"
Right now, the government is spending close to $800 BILLION dollars of the porkulus bill, and they can't keep tract of it?
C'mon. You and I know that is bullshit. Please call them out on it.
How he promised that we would all be able to watch and see how our money is being spent?
Remember how he promised that we could watch every penny of "stimulus spending', so that we could alert him if money wasn't being spent wisely?
Would it surprise you to know that the government won't let us 'track every dollar' until November?
"Recovery.gov now lists programs being funded by the stimulus money, but provides no details on who received the grants and contracts. Agencies won't report that data until Oct. 10, according to Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which manages the website."
What complete bullshit that is.
Devaney says that the problem is that the board "doesn't have enough data storage capacity".
Let's presume, for a moment, that was true.
Let's presume that Devaney doesn't have a one terabyte hard drive lying around. That after spending $787 BILLION on a stimulus program, they don't have the $150 lying around to buy a terabyte hard drive to keep tract of it all.
What does that mean?
It means that currently, no one in government is keeping tract of all of the stimulus money. Because, you know, they just don't have the storage capacity to do... accounting.
Can you think of any more lame excuse then that?
Look: I knew that we would hear some kind of excuse like this. Its not like the government wants us to know where it is spending its money. But this is pretty extreme. To say that they don't have the DATA capacity?
Liars.
They are liars.
Say it with me: "Liar"
Obama? "Liar"
Devaney? "Liar"
Any Democrat who stands behind this excuse? "Liar"
Right now, the government is spending close to $800 BILLION dollars of the porkulus bill, and they can't keep tract of it?
C'mon. You and I know that is bullshit. Please call them out on it.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Two more looks at Obama's first 100 days
The first one comes from "Factbox", a product of Reuters:
Obama had a speech on April 29th, a Wednesday. AP Fact Checked his speech.
I can't believe that anyone is finally doing this, but I'm just glad that someone did.
On Obama's "Stimulus" bill, they write:
* The Dow closed at 8281.22 on the last trading day before Obama took office and closed slightly lower on Friday at 8076.29. In between, it plummeted about 1,800 points to 6469.95 on March 6 before recovering. The broader S&P 500 closed at 850.12 on Jan. 16 and ended slightly up, at 866.23, on Friday.AND
Joblessness was 7.6 percent in January and had risen to 8.5 percent by March, the latest monthly figure. New unemployment claims have continued to rise in April.And most importantly:
Number of appointees with personal tax issues: at least 6How do you raise revenue in the Obama regime? Appoint more democrats into office, and make them pay their taxes.
Obama had a speech on April 29th, a Wednesday. AP Fact Checked his speech.
I can't believe that anyone is finally doing this, but I'm just glad that someone did.
On Obama's "Stimulus" bill, they write:
"...his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."
He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion."
The rest of the Fact Check is similarly great.
For those of you who didn't understand, this is what us Tax Day protesters were upset about. Thank you to Calvin Woodward. I know that Obama fans will be littering his inbox with criticisms. I want to give him credit for good journalism.
And now, how to pay for it?
According to the Hill:
No shit?
Leaders of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition stood shoulder to shoulder with House leaders on Wednesday and rallied around a $3.5 trillion budget agreement that also paves the way for an eventual pay-as-you-go law — a provision that became a prerequisite for Blue Dog support of the budget document.
Exactly how that law is going to work is still under substantial negotiation.
No shit?
Error Force One over New York
Who the fuck did this?
From the Wall Street Journal:
Their update said from Reuters said:
The New York Post had reported:
From the Wall Street Journal:
A plane circling Lower Manhattan escorted by two fighter jets is part of a “photo op,” said Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Jim Peters. The event caused some evacuations of office buildings in Lower Manhattan and Jersey City, N.J., on Monday morning.
Their update said from Reuters said:
One of President Barack Obama's official planes flanked by an Air Force fighter jet flew low over the Statue of Liberty on Monday for a photo opportunity that reminded startled New Yorkers of the September 11 attacks....
...The U.S. Air Force said the "aerial photo mission" involved an F-16 fighter jet escort and one of the Boeing 747s designated as Air Force One when the president is aboard, which he was not. Police and the Federal Aviation Administration said three aircraft were approved for the mission.
The New York Post had reported:
...Louis Caldera, director of the White House Military Office, later said he approved the mission.
"I take responsibility for that decision. While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption," he said. "I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused.
Note: the White House director of the Military Office said he approved of the mission. He did not say that he planned it.
Why is this important? Well, because unnamed"White House aides" tell us that Obama was furious when he heard about the report.
How many people think that the president doesn't know where his plane is from day to day?
John Stewart got the controversy right:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Mistakes on a Plane | ||||
| ||||
Two versions of 100 days of Obama
You can either read the fawning full-statist propaganda from the DailyKos here, or go to the critique from Scarborough and Glenn Beck here.
A sample of the Kool Aid from the Daily Kos:
A sample of the Kool Aid from the Daily Kos:
► Passes $787 BILLION Jobs-Stimulus bill.
► Signed $32.8 billion bill for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, extending health care to 4 million uninsured children. A bill vetoed various times buy Bush.
A sample from the criticism of Scarborough and Beck:
1. "Obama criticized pork barrel spending in the form of 'earmarks,' urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them...
AND
5. "The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties." -- ABC News, 4/15
The fifth one is my personal favorite, because I was there.
You'll note by looking at the DailyKos list, that they are all wet and happy that Obama is spending a lot of money and 'giving' them things. They have no clue as to where the money will come from. They don't care. They just know that, for now, they are getting something for 'free'.
They are idiots.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Obama to teleprompter operator: Go ahead, move it up
Just when I think that the teleprompter follies can't get any funnier, Obama starts giving the teleprompter operator's instructions. According to Politico:
Laying his plan for a President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Obama began to name the members of PCAST listed in his prepared remarks – before realizing he’d already introduced them, earlier in his speech.
“In addition to John – sorry, the – I just noticed I jumped the gun here,” Obama said, pausing for several seconds as he looked at the prompter. “Go ahead. Move it up. I had already introduced all you guys.”
Thursday, April 30, 2009
1992 NY Times article: Clinton Pressured Fannie Mae
Sweetness & Light deserves an internet Pulitzer for pulling this up.
This is what modern journalists should be doing... using the power of their databases to either confirm or deny claims that are given by the politicians of today.
For instance, the democratic party has been claiming that the Republicans are to blame for the lack of regulations on mortgage institutions like Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
But as this New York Times article says:
Later, it says:
Read the whole thing.
-John
This is what modern journalists should be doing... using the power of their databases to either confirm or deny claims that are given by the politicians of today.
For instance, the democratic party has been claiming that the Republicans are to blame for the lack of regulations on mortgage institutions like Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
But as this New York Times article says:
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
Later, it says:
”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
Read the whole thing.
-John
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Remember that Fidel Castro Joke?
You know... the one where the far leftie Democrats meet with Fidel?
Oh wait... its not a joke?
Oh wait... its not a joke?
In an effort to improve the relationship between Cuba and the U.S., Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.) and Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) were the first U.S. officials to meet with the 82-year-old former dictator since his intestinal surgery in July 2006.
Geitner wants to fire CEOs
Just so that its clear:
So no... I'm not over-reacting.
-John
When asked if he would leave open the option to pressure a bank CEO to resign, Geithner replied: "Of course."
So no... I'm not over-reacting.
-John
Tax Protest in Chicago, and CNN
I was at this protest in Chicago, when I heard a group of people shouting "CNN, go home!"
I didn't know what it was about. In truth, I thought it was a really bad move on their part. Its just bad PR to tell a media agency to 'go home'.
Then I saw the video on this page.
The reporter was unprofessional, and lost her shit. I don't know Susan Roesgen. I want to give her the benifit of the doubt. But when I saw this video, I understood why my fellow protesters were yelling for CNN to go home. Particularly when she started telling the protester that he should be happy because Obama was providing him with tax breaks. She didn't get what the protest was about.... at all.
Bad reporting. Fail.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Rescuing another one of his promises
Obama said that he was going to get a pound puppy, and that he was going to rescue a dog in need.
Instead, he ended up getting a pedigree pup that had lineage that traced back to the Kennedy's dog.
Go figure that for the man, whose image is everything, is picking out a pure bred dog.
Let's get this straight; there was no grey area. That pure bred dog was not going to end up in a shelter. We all know that.
If this were Bush making this type of decision, there would be a bunch of hand-wringing about how he broke his promise, and how its a shame that he can't keep one.
But this is Obama.
So there is no expectation that he's going to stay true to his word.
-John
Instead, he ended up getting a pedigree pup that had lineage that traced back to the Kennedy's dog.
Go figure that for the man, whose image is everything, is picking out a pure bred dog.
"He's in a gray area," Pacelle said of Bo. "But I will say that many animal advocates are disappointed that he (Obama) didn't go to a shelter or breed rescue group, partly because he set that expectation and because so many activists are focused on trying to reduce the number of animals euthanized at shelters, and there's no better person to make the case to the American public that you can get a great dog from a shelter than the president."
Let's get this straight; there was no grey area. That pure bred dog was not going to end up in a shelter. We all know that.
If this were Bush making this type of decision, there would be a bunch of hand-wringing about how he broke his promise, and how its a shame that he can't keep one.
But this is Obama.
So there is no expectation that he's going to stay true to his word.
-John
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Rahm Emanuel
I've blogged about Rahm before, but its a good time to remind everyone who he is.
Rahm is currently the chief of staff for Obama. Before that:
That makes him the first person I know of who has worked for both an impeached president and an impeached governor.
I'm important to remind you; when he worked for Clinton, he was appointed to the board of Freddie Mac in 2000. In 14 months, Rahm earned $320,000, or about 1/3rd of a million dollars in a little over a year.
So to me, it came as no surprise that Rahm's name came up when Blago was suspected of bribing people. I even told several people that I expected Rahm to be indicted as a person who was complicit in the scandal.
I was, however, surprised to read this headline in Politico as the indictment came down for Blagojevich:
Its time to remind everyone that Rahm worked as a campaign strategists for Blago.
Rahm was apparently looking for $2 Million for 'athletic facilities' at a school. This leads to the obvious question: how was Rahm being punished?
Unless, of course, Rahm was looking to profit somehow off of the two million dollars worth of 'athletic improvements' on one school.
But I digress.
When Blago was first indicted, Rahm ducked reporters.
The Obama administration was quick to say that they had to be quiet, because a criminal investigation was under way.
Then things got weird.
It was discovered that Rahm had spoken to Blago on a number of occasions.
I believe that Rahm had pitched a 'senate candidate' to Blago. Blago, being Blago, would have asked for something in return.
I know I have to convince some people, so let's start with the section of the criminal complaint that everyone has heard.
This is on page 68, number 104:
That's section 104 of the criminal complaint. Its the one talking point that the WH apparently pushed to the press... the fact that Rod said "Fuck them." if all they wanted to give was appreciation. But Rod was speculating about what they might say... because he kept talking about working out a deal.
That's clear from the next few notes in the criminal complaint:
From section 105:
Just so that its clear... Blago hadn't given up on the idea of a deal with the president-elect (Obama.)
The idea of a deal is kept alive from day to day. From Section 106:
Note how often the advisors are concerned that they stay one step away from the president-elect.
Like... a Chief Of Staff. From note 112 (my emphasis added in Blue):
From section 113:
Shortly after that, in early December, everything blew up in Rod's face.
The prosecutor, Fitzgerald, had to act before Blago appointed someone. In the meantime, a clear path to the president-elect was being formed... through Rahm Emmanuel.
Now you can interpret this information many ways.
Obama fans will no doubt say that even if "advisor A" spoke to the President-elect's Advisor (who would most likely be Rahm), that any quid pro quo was 'unsaid'.
I would point out that if Blago thought that his former campaign strategist Rahm would go along with such a scheme, he was probably right.
The fact is that Rahm has a lot to answer for... and I don't know why the media is not asking him about it.
Rahm has left a trail of shady dealings with shady people. I find it near impossible that he is innocent in all of this. If he was, it would be the first time that he didn't profit from dealings with a shady character.
Rahm is currently the chief of staff for Obama. Before that:
- He worked for Mayor Daley as a fund raiser.
- He worked for Bill Clinton as a campaign adviser, and was instrumental in his defense during impeachment.
- Rahm earned $320,000 working 14 months, starting in 2000, for Freddie Mac. He was appointed by Bill Clinton.
- After that, he was hired by a fund raiser for Clinton to work as an Investment banker for Wasserstein Perella. He made $16.2 million in 2 1/2 years.
- Then Rahm became a state senator. While he was doing that, he worked as a campaign strategist for Governor Blagojevich.
That makes him the first person I know of who has worked for both an impeached president and an impeached governor.
I'm important to remind you; when he worked for Clinton, he was appointed to the board of Freddie Mac in 2000. In 14 months, Rahm earned $320,000, or about 1/3rd of a million dollars in a little over a year.
So to me, it came as no surprise that Rahm's name came up when Blago was suspected of bribing people. I even told several people that I expected Rahm to be indicted as a person who was complicit in the scandal.
I was, however, surprised to read this headline in Politico as the indictment came down for Blagojevich:
Indictment suggests Rahm, brother were victims of extortion attemptRahm was a 'victim' of extortion???
Its time to remind everyone that Rahm worked as a campaign strategists for Blago.
Rahm was apparently looking for $2 Million for 'athletic facilities' at a school. This leads to the obvious question: how was Rahm being punished?
Unless, of course, Rahm was looking to profit somehow off of the two million dollars worth of 'athletic improvements' on one school.
But I digress.
When Blago was first indicted, Rahm ducked reporters.
The Obama administration was quick to say that they had to be quiet, because a criminal investigation was under way.
Then things got weird.
It was discovered that Rahm had spoken to Blago on a number of occasions.
I believe that Rahm had pitched a 'senate candidate' to Blago. Blago, being Blago, would have asked for something in return.
I know I have to convince some people, so let's start with the section of the criminal complaint that everyone has heard.
This is on page 68, number 104:
ROD BLAGOJEVICH suggested starting a 501(c)(4) organization (a non-profit organization that may engage in political activity and lobbying) and getting “his (believed to be the President-elect’s) friend Warren Buffett or some of those guys to help us on something like that.” HARRIS asked, “what, for you?” ROD BLAGOJEVICH replied, “yeah.”
[snip]
Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them.”
That's section 104 of the criminal complaint. Its the one talking point that the WH apparently pushed to the press... the fact that Rod said "Fuck them." if all they wanted to give was appreciation. But Rod was speculating about what they might say... because he kept talking about working out a deal.
That's clear from the next few notes in the criminal complaint:
From section 105:
Later on November 11, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor A.
Advisor A indicated that he will stay “on top” of getting the Senate Candidate 5 information leaked to the particular Sun Times columnist. ROD BLAGOJEVICH again raised the idea of the 501(c)(4) organization and asked whether “they” (believed be the President-elect and his associates) can get Warren Buffett and others to put $10, $12, or $15 million into the organization. Advisor A responded that “they” should be able to find a way to fund the organization.
Just so that its clear... Blago hadn't given up on the idea of a deal with the president-elect (Obama.)
The idea of a deal is kept alive from day to day. From Section 106:
ROD BLAGOJEVICH noted that the President-elect can ask Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and others for money for the organization. ROD BLAGOJEVICH states he will ask “[Senate Candidate 6]” to help fund it as well. HARRIS said that funding the 501(c)(4) would be a lot easier for the President-elect than appointing ROD BLAGOJEVICH to a position.From section 107:
On November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor B. RODFrom section 108:
BLAGOJEVICH discussed with Advisor B his idea for a 501(c)(4) organization. Advisor B stated that he likes the idea, but liked the Change to Win option better because, according to Advisor B, from the President-elect’s perspective, there would be fewer “fingerprints” on the President-elect’s involvement with Change to Win because Change to Win already has an existing stream of revenue and, therefore, “you won’t have stories in four years that they bought you off.”
The advisor said he likes the Change to Win idea better, and notes that it is more likely to happen because it is one step removed from the President-elect.
Note how often the advisors are concerned that they stay one step away from the president-elect.
Like... a Chief Of Staff. From note 112 (my emphasis added in Blue):
On November 13, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with JOHN HARRIS.Who is the President-elect's advisor? He's the same guy who was from the 5th congressional district of Illinois: Rahm.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he wanted to be able to call “[President-elect Advisor]” and tell President-elect Advisor that “this has nothing to do with anything else we’re working on but the Governor wants to put together a 501(c)(4)” and “can you guys help him. . . raise 10, 15 million.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he wanted “[President-elect Advisor] to get the word today,” and that when “he asks me for the Fifth CD thing I want it to be in his head.” (The reference to the “Fifth CD thing” is believed to relate to a seat in the United States House of Representatives from Illinois’ Fifth Congressional District. Prior intercepted phone conversations indicate that ROD BLAGOJEVICH and others were determining whether ROD BLAGOJEVICH has the power to appoint an interim replacement until a special
election for the seat can be held.).
From section 113:
Also on November 13, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor A.I hope you're following.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he wants the idea of the 501(c)(4) in President-elect Advisor’s head, but not in connection with the Senate appointment or the congressional seat. Advisor A asked whether the conversation about the 501(c)(4) with President-elect Advisor is connected with anything else. ROD BLAGOJEVICH replied that “it’s unsaid. It’s unsaid.”
Shortly after that, in early December, everything blew up in Rod's face.
The prosecutor, Fitzgerald, had to act before Blago appointed someone. In the meantime, a clear path to the president-elect was being formed... through Rahm Emmanuel.
Now you can interpret this information many ways.
Obama fans will no doubt say that even if "advisor A" spoke to the President-elect's Advisor (who would most likely be Rahm), that any quid pro quo was 'unsaid'.
I would point out that if Blago thought that his former campaign strategist Rahm would go along with such a scheme, he was probably right.
The fact is that Rahm has a lot to answer for... and I don't know why the media is not asking him about it.
Rahm has left a trail of shady dealings with shady people. I find it near impossible that he is innocent in all of this. If he was, it would be the first time that he didn't profit from dealings with a shady character.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Who is this guy, at Obama's International Press Conference?
Please take a look at the first 10 seconds of this video.
This is a screen cap taken from the video. Note the guy in the Blue shirt, pointing. I highlighted it with a circle.
When I watched this press conference, I was watching streaming Fox News coverage. (I added the circled highlight)
They cut away from the president and showed a 'front' view of this guy pointing. (Highlighted)
Then the president called on someone in the direction he was pointing to... the woman from India.
From what I saw of the guy in blue, he didn't have a press pass on. He looks American.
What I want to know is: was this guy part of the White House? Is he an aide whose job it is to let the president know who he should ask?
Or is he just some tool that happened to be there, pointing at a reporter he liked?
If you know the answer, please leave a comment.
This is a screen cap taken from the video. Note the guy in the Blue shirt, pointing. I highlighted it with a circle.
When I watched this press conference, I was watching streaming Fox News coverage. (I added the circled highlight)
They cut away from the president and showed a 'front' view of this guy pointing. (Highlighted)
Then the president called on someone in the direction he was pointing to... the woman from India.
From what I saw of the guy in blue, he didn't have a press pass on. He looks American.
What I want to know is: was this guy part of the White House? Is he an aide whose job it is to let the president know who he should ask?
Or is he just some tool that happened to be there, pointing at a reporter he liked?
If you know the answer, please leave a comment.
New Obama promise broken!
The AP gets credit for actually calling the president out on this.
The short version is this: Obama is putting out a massive tax on tobacco. Anyone who thinks about this realizes that poor people smoke too.
Obviously, this massive tax will hit the poor the hardest.
The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.
The short version is this: Obama is putting out a massive tax on tobacco. Anyone who thinks about this realizes that poor people smoke too.
Obviously, this massive tax will hit the poor the hardest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)