Thursday, April 30, 2009


The AP has done a little fact checking. FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape shows that in fact President Obama is playing a little fast and loose with the facts.
"That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.
To be technically correct, it was not President Obama, it was Senator Obama who voted to shape the budget President Obama inherited. The AP is very specific about several of President Obama's claims.
OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years."
But the facts show otherwise, according to the AP.
Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger. [Emphasis Mine]
In addition, the AP says this about Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq.
To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.
President Obama inherited a grim Financial situation, which the AP makes clear. But ...
...[H]is 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. [Emphasis Mine]
It is, to say the least, misleading to claim "... this is George Bush's Budget." The Democrats, who were in control of Congress and therefore the Budget, decided to wait until Obama was President before sending the Bush Budget to the President. By that time it was President Obama who added the EXTRA expanded items to the budget.

Next item.
OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term."
And the facts are.
THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."
Only in selected cases does preventive care save money, and then only maybe.

And about the "Social Security" thing.
OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax."
The fact is the "Social Security" thing is not going to be fix easily. According to the AP ...
THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.

Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.

Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.
Obama has already broken several Campaign Promises. Raising taxes on 95% of the population is another one he will have to break.

Friday, April 24, 2009


Democrats control Congress. Therefore they make the rules. But are they acting in good faith, or because of a personal agenda? The latest example of the latter is indicated by the refusal to allow testimony before Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) House Energy & Commerce Committee. (Mr. Waxman is the Chairman) Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.” [Emphasis Mine]
The "Goracle" is a Rock Star with the Liberals. Yet an examination of Mr. Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, does not pass muster as a truthful documentary. Lord Christopher Monckton has successfully challenged the movie's "facts". Lord Monckton has not just challenged the movie verbally, Lord Mockton has won his challenge in the British Courts." Consequently, Lord Mockton believes he knows why his appearance to debate Mr. Gore was cancelled.
“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

“Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. [Emphasis Mine}
Rep. Waxman has previously made clear he is strongly in favor of Carbon Cap and Trade. Rep. Waxamn chooses to ignore the facts, or any debate which would show the "Goracle's" position is not supported by Scientific Facts. 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie explains the 35 errors contained in the Al Gore Movie An Inconvenient Truth. Nine of these errors were found to be significant enough for the British Court System to uphold Lord Monckton's position in Court.
A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children. [Emphasis Mine]
The question all of us need to ask Rep. Waxman is, "What is your personal agenda?". And, "Why not debate the Science Climate Change?" These are also good questions for each of us to ask our Elected Officials at all levels.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009


Senator John Kerry (D-MA) wants to bail out failing Newspapers like the Boston Globe. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
"America's newspapers are struggling to survive, and while there will be serious consequences in terms of the lives and financial security of the employees involved, including hundreds at the Globe, there will also be serious consequences for our democracy where diversity of opinion and strong debate are paramount," Mr. Kerry said.
Mr. Kerry is absolutely correct to point out that "...there will also be serious consequences for our democracy..." when the Government OWNS the paper. Just exactly how objective and unbiased can the paper dare to be when every Government Official, every Elected Official directs the paper's policy and content? Any paper that receives bailout money is no longer "Independent" or a part of the "Free Press".

This is an idea which is a waste of time and Tax Dollars (our money).
"I am committed to your fight, committed to your industry and committed to ensuring that the vital public service newspapers provide does not disappear," Mr. Kerry told the Globe employees.
If Senator Kerry "...wants to ensure the vital public service newspapers provide does not disappear...", he should subscribe rather than hold hearings (at Taxpayer expense).
Lawmakers are witnessing the crisis firsthand. Press watchdogs who once prowled Capitol Hill are disappearing, replaced by special-interest publications and foreign news organizations.
If our Government provides funds for the Newspaper industry, will not the Press be totally replaced by more special-interest publications? Good-grief what a waste of time and money. Lets get back to the Business of Government, which should be responsibility, accountability and a balanced budget.

Janet Napolitano Oh Good Grief

It would appear that the Obama Administration needs someone in HR to actually make sure appointees are somewhat qualified to hold the position for which they are nominated. In particular the US Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, seems to think the 9-11 Terrorists came into the US through Canada. The border for dummies takes Ms. Napolitano to task for her statements to that effect in a Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) interview.
In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. [Emphasis Mine]
Certainly the Current Secretary of Homeland Security should know that all the 9-11 Terrorists entered the US directly from overseas.
Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."
So she can't talk about her Knowledge of something which should have been clear and definitive knowledge (and therefore a prerequisite for intelligent interviews) as the Secretary of Homeland Security. Instead Ms. Napolitano says something which makes no sense at all. "The future is we have borders."

In previous statements, Ms. Napolitano has equated the Canadian and Mexican borders to the extant that they should both be given the same treatment. Yet the facts show that last year 5,000+ deaths related to drugs occurred along the Mexican US Border while ...
In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?
More drug related deaths along the Mexican Border Last Year than since the 2003 Iraq War Began.

In addition, a week ago the Department of Homeland Security which Ms. Napolitano heads, released a memo concerning the Terroristic Dangers of the conservative right to the American Public. This included all returning Veterans, Catholics and just about anyone else who doesn't agree with the Obama Administration as Terrorist Risks. Napolitano stands by controversial report clearly defines Ms. Napolitano's beliefs.
In her statement Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says "rightwing extremism" may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration...
Beliefs which are so confounding that even Democrats are dumbfounded.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and the "dumbfounded" House Democrat. He probably is not the only one.

Oh wait there's more. DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime quotes Ms. Napolitano as not recognizing a crime.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stunned many listeners during an appearance on CNN when she asserted that illegal immigration is really not a crime.
A crime which the Secretary of Homeland Security should take seriously. Ms. Napolitano made this statement last week on CNN. Madam Secertary wants to go after employers rather than the illegals who cross the border. Why not go after both the illegals and the employers who hire them?
The statute reads: “Any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers . . . shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.”
As the person responsible for Homeland Security, which includes Border Enforcement, shouldn't she know what the statute really says? Since when are we allowed to pick and choose which laws we wish to enforce?

Tuesday, April 21, 2009


John, Abscam unindited co-conspirator, Murtha (D-PA) is at it again. Murtha's Defense Earmarks Draw Questions is another example of the reason the Tea Parties are being held across the country. Rep. Murtha has come to exemplify the meaning of Irresponsible Politicians. He is not accountable to the people of Pennsylvania he represents. Rather he is responsible to those who contribute large sums to his re-election campaign.
As head of a powerful Defense committee, Murtha controls hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, reports CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. And he's not shy about directing money to those who give generously to his election campaigns [Emphasis Mine].
Those taxpayer dollars are our money, but it appears for Rep John Murtha our money is to be used to reward those who made cash contributions to Rep Murtha. These contributions result in Earmarks. That sounds a lot like a legal Political Bribe.
Taxpayer watchdogs may not like how it looks, but it's not against the law unless donations were required in order to receive the earmarks. Looking for evidence of wrongdoing, the FBI has recently raided offices of two other companies linked to Murtha.
Can we really be expected to believe this is the result of Responsible Government Representation?


Again, It's not a Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat or Independent thing which is the motivation behind the current Tea Parties. It is the corruption, waste, conflict of interest, irresponsible behavior of our elected officials that's behind the grassroots movement. It is the expansion of Government, the intrusion of Government and the Spending of our Tax Dollars in a reckless manner which angers those who participate.

For examples, see this previous post, and this post. Here is another example of the irresponsible actions of our officials who are elected to protect and serve US: Senator's husband cashes in on crisis
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
We need political reform, more responsibility and more accountability on the part of our elected officials. This is clearly a Conflict of Interest.
"This clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest," said Kent Cooper, a former federal regulator who specializes in government ethics and disclosures. "To maintain the people's trust in government, it is incumbent on a legislator to take the extra steps necessary to ensure that when she introduces any legislation that it does not cause people to question her motives or the business activities of her spouse."
It is time to stop the reckless spending, the waste, the corruption and the conflict of interest that is our government.

Sunday, April 19, 2009


For those on the left who don't understand the Current Tea Parties, This is what it's all about. The Conservatives, Libertarians, Rednecks, average John and Jane, and some of the Democrats are fed-up with the wasteful spending of our Money (Tax Dollars) and the ridiculous growth of Government. It is not a Democrat, Republican, Independent or Liberal thing. It is spending beyond our means. It is Pork, Earmarks and Irresponsible spending. It means the "Teabaggers" want a responsible Government. One that doesn't spend money they don't have, especially on services and projects we don't need.

Here is a prime example from the "The Washington Post". (Murtha's Earmarks Keep Airport Aloft)
The John Murtha airport sits on a windy mountain two hours east of Pittsburgh, a 650-acre expanse of smooth tarmac, spacious buildings, a helicopter hangar and a National Guard training center.

Inside the terminal on a recent weekday, four passengers lined up to board a flight, outnumbered by seven security staff members and supervisors, all suited up in gloves and uniforms to screen six pieces of luggage. For three hours that day, no commercial or private planes took off or landed. Three commercial flights leave the airport on weekdays, all bound for Dulles International Airport.

The key to the airport's gleaming facilities -- and, indeed, its continued existence -- is $200 million in federal funds in the past decade and the powerful patron who steered most of that money here. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is credited with securing at least $150 million for the airport. It was among the first in the country to win funding from this year's stimulus package: $800,000 to repave a backup runway. [Emphasis Mine]
All you need to understand is that the "TeaBaggers" are as angry as the members of the American Colonies were for the 1st Tea Party. Like then, it's about Responsible Government.

The "Boston Tea Party" took place on December 16, 1773. The American Colonies were fed up with the amount of Taxation imposed by the King and Parliament in England on a populace who had no say in the matter.

The "Current Tea Parties", most of which took place on April 15, 2009, also represent how most Americans (except the Main Stream Media, MSNBC, CNN, Liberal Democrats etc) see our current Tax Dollars being mis-spent. The current Tea Parties are the result of our political representatives are not listening to the voters they represent.

The best sign I saw at the recent "Tea Parties" said: "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID, BUT YOU CAN VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE".


Global Warming alarmists claim the melting of the polar ice caps will cause the sea to rise and cover much of the earth's land. Well they are half right, and NEEDLESSLY crying wolf.

There is some evidence to make the claim that the Arctic (North Pole) Cap is melting. However even if this happens, the sea levels will not rise significantly. The reason is simple. The Arctic Polar Cap is floating and is therefore much like adding ice to a glass of water. When it melts, the glass does not overflow.

The Antarctic (South Pole) Cap is different. Much of the Antarctic Cap is over land and therefore if it melted, flooding could take place due to higher sea levels. But there is little evidence the Antarctic Cap is shrinking. In fact the evidence does indicate the Western Edge is retreating, but the Eastern Edge is Growing. And the Eastern Edge is actually much larger than the Western Edge.

Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking confirms this fact.
Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
Actually the Antarctic Cap contains enormous amounts of the worlds water in the form of ice.
Antarctica has 90 percent of the Earth's ice and 80 percent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica.
But here is the Good News.
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades."
Consequently when you hear some Political Hack claiming that Global Warming guarantees that great parts of the Earth's Surface will soon be under water, it is a false claim. The real scientific truth is contained in this quote.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
It is an INCONVENIENT TRUTH that Al Gore and his cronies cannot base their chicken little hype of impending doom due to Sea Level Flooding on Polar Ice Cap Melting.

Is it any wonder that the "Goracle" will not debate anyone about Global Warming? Clearly the Scientific Facts are accumulating and the writing on the wall is not Nobel Prize worthy.

Saturday, April 18, 2009


The price of EVERYTHING is going to skyrocket if Representative Henry Waxamn (D-CA) succeeds. Waxman Won’t Compromise on 20% Carbon Cap in Climate Measure is all you need to read to realize how far the Left is willing to go to insure we all suffer an enormous financial disaster. Mr. Waxman wants to increase the cost of everything by drafting legislation requiring a 20% Carbon Cap across America.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said he won’t compromise on his proposed 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the next decade in the face of criticism from lawmakers who say the economy could suffer.
The economy not only could but WILL suffer needlessly. Needlessly because the Carbon Cap is designed to reduce the amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere. Man-Made CO2 is released principally by burning fossil fuels like natural gas, oil and coal.

There are severe financial consequences to this action, and will not have any significant effect on Greenhouse Gases. Lack of significant effect because CO2 accounts for ONLY 4% of the Greenhouse Gas emissions, and ONLY 2% of the CO2 is Man-Made!!! The other 2% comes from natural events, such as Volcanoes. The BIGGEST Greenhouse Gas is Water Vapor (H2O). So until Mr. Waxman figures out how to control EVAPORATION, we suffer Financial Ruin through Extremely costly additions (in the form of CO2 scrubbers) to any facility using fossil fuels.

Industry will be severely financially impacted and costs passed on to me and you for everything we make in the US. Where possible, this will ship thousands of jobs overseas due to cost. But also effected, are Electrical Generation, Schools, Hospitals, Hotels and Motels, Municipal Buildings and any other large building which burns fossil fuels. This retro-fitting or Carbon Cap purchases will cost Billions, maybe Trillions of dollars.
Critics of the bill, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, say the climate-change bill will dramatically raise energy costs, effectively levying a tax on consumers and industries.
Logic therefore says the cost will be passed on to us, while all jobs which can be sent overseas will be!!! Think of 3, 4, 5 hundred or more monthly heating bills for most of us. And the same kind of monthly bills for Electricity if this becomes law.

So who gains from this folly? China, Russia, India etc who don't have such restrictive financial burdens. Al Gore will benefit as he will make Billions of Dollars through the various Carbon Cap Trading Companies which he has founded and/or of which he owns stock. Nancy Pelosi and her husband also owns many shares of T. Boone Pickins alternative energy company.

And who looses from this folly? America, you and me through outsourcing more jobs and drastically higher cost for goods and services because of an idea based on a false premise and hype.

To add salt to this financial wound, and despite what Al Gore claims, it is not settled. There is significant and growing evidence that:
  1. CO2 is not the cause of Global Warming. (the CO2 levels have been increasing, but Global Warming has remains relatively stable for the last 8 years.
  2. When the UN held its conference in Poland this past year, 52 Climate Experts supported the idea of Man-Made Global Warming, but over 600 Climate Experts claimed that there is little evidence to Support Man-Made Global Warming.
  3. all the computer models showed as CO2 rises, so does Global Warming, but reality and actual measurement has not followed this model
  4. Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on this Global Warming issue
  5. Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" has made claims which have been proved false, but Al refuses to correct the record.

Thursday, April 16, 2009


Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) calls the "Tea Party" "despicable" and "shameful".
"It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she added. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. [Emphasis Mine]
Notice the words THIS YEAR. This year's taxes are the result of George Bush's TAX CUTS. So why is the Congresswoman complaining at this time? Could this be the reason? Congresswoman's husband pleads guilty to two felonies
The husband of an Illinois congresswoman pleaded guilty Wednesday to tax violations and bank fraud for writing rubber checks and failing to collect withholding tax from an employee. {Emphasis Mine]
So in other words, a Enormous, Grassroots Tax Protest is Despicable and Shameful, but being guilty of the Felonies of Tax Violations and Bank Fraud are not???

To be fair, the Congresswoman is not accused of any wrongdoing.

Sunday, April 12, 2009


UPDATE April 12, 2009: President Obama did affirm the use of Military Resources to rescue American Ship Captain Richard Phillips. However, the use of Military Resources is an authority the On Scene Commander already possessed. President Obama made no public statement of condemnation prior to the successful military action, and he gave no order to use or authorize active Military Action. He should have. See How the rescue happened for clarification.

When the most powerful man in the world is silent on issues of concern to his position, the world draws it's own conclusions. Is it due to weakness, uncertainty, lack of experience or fear that keeps President Obama from condemning the act of piracy? Why shouldn't President Obama make his and therefore the US position crystal clear?

Will the US stand by and let the pirates dictate to the most powerful nation in the world? If so is the US really the most powerful? The rest of the world will judge for themselves, and I believe the world will see the President as weak and ineffective.

Failure to condem, failure to even comment does not show strength.

There is no

Monday, April 6, 2009


When the country elected Obama President, did they really want an agenda of Leftist Policies pushing this country closer and closer to the European Model of Socialism? As wiser men than me have often said, "Be careful what you wish or pray for, because you just may get it!" STUART VARNEY highlights one of the ways to get to the Socialistic Model. It's called Control, and Obama Wants to Control the Banks is a good example of Governmental (Obama) control towards the Socialistic End.
I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?
According to Mr. Varney, this is a form of Class-Warfare leading to Control.
The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
Obama wants to Control the Banks to the point some paybacks HAVE BEEN REFUSED.Under the Bush Administration
Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic. [Emphasis mine]
OK, Bush started it, but as Mr. Varney states for "...purely economic reasons."

Now we have the Obama Administration acting for purely political reasons.
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics. [Emphasis mine]
I don't believe the Majority of voters who voted for Obama intended for this country to make such a LEFT TURN.

Mr. Varney goes on to correctly criticize the "Pay For Performance Act" recently passed by the House.
This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.
The examples of the extreme LEFT TURN abound. It's no longer "we the people". Rather it has become "Obama and the Democrats in Government" who "CONTROL" our destiny.

Sunday, April 5, 2009


Many are outraged at the MILLION$ paid out to Wall Street Executives. But we have a double standard where the Obama White Houe is concerned. W.H. team discloses TARP firm ties is an example of this double standard.
Lawrence Summers, a top economic adviser to President Barack Obama, pulled in more than $2.7 million in speaking fees paid by firms at the heart of the financial crisis, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America Corp. and the now-defunct Lehman Brothers. [Emphasis mine]
Read the list of Corporations from whom he received fees. Aren't these the same group of companies Congress, Obama and others claimed to be so outraged about?
Thomas E. Donilon, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, was paid $3.9 million last year by the power law firm O’Melveny & Myers to represent clients including two firms that received federal bailout funds: Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. [Emphasis mine]
More federal bailout funds paid to Obama aids! Where's the outrage?
White House Counsel Greg Craig last year earned $1.7 million in private practice representing an exiled Bolivian president, a Panamanian lawmaker wanted by the U.S. government for allegedly murdering a U.S. soldier and a tech billionaire accused of securities fraud and various sensational drug and sex crimes. [Emphasis mine]
Question - if he made $1.7 MILLION last year, how much is the White House paying him in Taxpayer (our) dollars? Where's the outrage?