With US forces battling foes in two countries in The War on T----- the Democrats announced today that the Pentagon budget will be slashed this year.Breitbart reported:
Senate defense committee chairman says Pentagon budget will include large, painful cuts. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said Tuesday that major program cuts will not be pushed off until the 2011 budget, but will be included when Defense Secretary Robert Gates sends his spending plan to the president later this month. Levin's comments confirmed what many contractors and military leaders have expected, but he offered no details on which programs may be axed. He said Pentagon officials have indicated they will not be able to submit the much-anticipated spending plan by April 21, as initially hoped. Democrats have millions of dollars for ACORN but won't fund the troops.Is anyone really surprised?
March 31, 2009
Kraft CEO's Pay Increase
Kraft CEO's pay rose 38% to $16 million
The chief executive of Kraft Foods Inc. (KFT), parent company of Oscar Mayer in Madison, received compensation worth $16 million in 2008, an increase of 38% from the prior year, according to calculations of data filed with regulators Tuesday.Irene Rosenfeld, 55, received a base salary of about $1.5 million in 2008, an increase of 5.6% from the previous year, according to the company's report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The bulk of her compensation came in an increase in stock options and restricted stock, much of which has lost value as the company's stock has declined in recent months.According to the filings, the Northfield, Ill.-based company's board approved raising Rosenfeld's salary in 2008 to bring it in line with other, similar companies. But the food maker said it would not raise the base salary for Rosenfeld, or any other executive, in fiscal 2009.Rosenfeld received a performance-based bonus of nearly $4.1 million last year, a 55% increase from the $2.6 million she received the prior year. The company said in its filings that she was awarded the bonus for achieving key financial targets, meeting guidance and analyst expectations and providing new product offerings that focused on growth categories with fewer, but larger, product launches.Rosenfeld's other compensation, which includes perquisites, fell more than 60% from the previous year, to $153,868. The figure includes $20,858 for personal use of the company's aircraft, car expenses worth more than $14,000 and relocation expenses worth nearly $40,000.The bulk of Rosenfeld's pay came in an increase in stock options and restricted stock. She was awarded options and stock worth about $10.3 million on the day they were granted, 43% above the $7.2 million she received in stock options and restricted stock the prior year.So what?What's the point of this AP article?Are we supposed to become an angry mob, get out the torches and pitchforks, and demand that Rosenfeld give back her 2008 raise?Are we supposed to be outraged that Rosenfeld makes more than Obama's magic $500,000 executive compensation cap?Rosenfeld is receiving no pay increase for 2009.
Kraft Foods Inc (KFT.N) will freeze the salaries of Chief Executive Irene Rosenfeld and 18 other top managers in 2009, though remaining employees will receive raises, Rosenfeld told employees on Tuesday.The decision to freeze the salaries of Rosenfeld, her executive team, regional and business unit presidents, and some other top managers, was announced as Rosenfeld asked employees to be prudent with spending during a time of economic turmoil."I did feel it was important to set the appropriate tone at the top with the extended leadership team," Rosenfeld told Reuters following the meeting.But she also wanted to assure Kraft's roughly 100,000 employees that almost all would receive raises following a year when the company posted an 18.5 percent rise in earnings per share and a 4.4 percent increase in revenue before acquisitions, divestitures and the impact of the stronger dollar."I'm quite proud of the fact that we are giving everybody increases consistent with the terrific performance that they turned in," Rosenfeld said.Giving pay increases consistent with terrific performances?Now there's a concept.It's soon to be extinct if Barack Obama has his way.
The chief executive of Kraft Foods Inc. (KFT), parent company of Oscar Mayer in Madison, received compensation worth $16 million in 2008, an increase of 38% from the prior year, according to calculations of data filed with regulators Tuesday.Irene Rosenfeld, 55, received a base salary of about $1.5 million in 2008, an increase of 5.6% from the previous year, according to the company's report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The bulk of her compensation came in an increase in stock options and restricted stock, much of which has lost value as the company's stock has declined in recent months.According to the filings, the Northfield, Ill.-based company's board approved raising Rosenfeld's salary in 2008 to bring it in line with other, similar companies. But the food maker said it would not raise the base salary for Rosenfeld, or any other executive, in fiscal 2009.Rosenfeld received a performance-based bonus of nearly $4.1 million last year, a 55% increase from the $2.6 million she received the prior year. The company said in its filings that she was awarded the bonus for achieving key financial targets, meeting guidance and analyst expectations and providing new product offerings that focused on growth categories with fewer, but larger, product launches.Rosenfeld's other compensation, which includes perquisites, fell more than 60% from the previous year, to $153,868. The figure includes $20,858 for personal use of the company's aircraft, car expenses worth more than $14,000 and relocation expenses worth nearly $40,000.The bulk of Rosenfeld's pay came in an increase in stock options and restricted stock. She was awarded options and stock worth about $10.3 million on the day they were granted, 43% above the $7.2 million she received in stock options and restricted stock the prior year.So what?What's the point of this AP article?Are we supposed to become an angry mob, get out the torches and pitchforks, and demand that Rosenfeld give back her 2008 raise?Are we supposed to be outraged that Rosenfeld makes more than Obama's magic $500,000 executive compensation cap?Rosenfeld is receiving no pay increase for 2009.
Kraft Foods Inc (KFT.N) will freeze the salaries of Chief Executive Irene Rosenfeld and 18 other top managers in 2009, though remaining employees will receive raises, Rosenfeld told employees on Tuesday.The decision to freeze the salaries of Rosenfeld, her executive team, regional and business unit presidents, and some other top managers, was announced as Rosenfeld asked employees to be prudent with spending during a time of economic turmoil."I did feel it was important to set the appropriate tone at the top with the extended leadership team," Rosenfeld told Reuters following the meeting.But she also wanted to assure Kraft's roughly 100,000 employees that almost all would receive raises following a year when the company posted an 18.5 percent rise in earnings per share and a 4.4 percent increase in revenue before acquisitions, divestitures and the impact of the stronger dollar."I'm quite proud of the fact that we are giving everybody increases consistent with the terrific performance that they turned in," Rosenfeld said.Giving pay increases consistent with terrific performances?Now there's a concept.It's soon to be extinct if Barack Obama has his way.
Obama Thinks People With Wealth Stole It
"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere."
Barack ObamaThe Audacity of HopeBarack's reaction to a racist speech by Jeremiah WrightAudio HereRush Limbaugh attacked Barack Obama today for his constant assault on America's producers.El Rushbo did not hold back.Greta Van Susteren played the video from Limbaugh's show today:Rush Limbaugh exposed the Obama plan today:
Based on what we've seen with General Motors and the banks, if he fails, America is saved. Barack Obama's policies and their failure is the only hope we've got to maintain the America of our founding. We can sit here all the all day as we have. We can rail against General Motors. There is nothing going to stop any of this. Nothing is stopping it. I can say all day long, "Gosh, I hope this fails isn't going to stop anything." Has anybody heard the Republicans say anything today about the firing of Rick Wagoner? If they have, it hasn't been reported. Republicans, as usual, are a week behind the times. They're out there rapping about the budget, which is okay, the budget needs to be rapped about, "We'll rap about it further," but the big news of the today is GM. I haven't heard a Republican, have you? I haven't seen any media who find anything the slightest bit squishy about this. When the history of this is written, people are going to say, "Where was the media? Where were the Republicans?" Where were all of the "moderate" Republicans who told us that this guy's temperament and his steadiness, and his intellect, that's why we should support him? Well, remember, it's not what Obama knows; it's what you think he knows. It's what he makes you think he knows. He doesn't know anything about the automobile business. He doesn't know how to change a tire. The automobile business needs car guys, people that love grease, get in there, manufacture these engines and cars, great designs, lines, and make people want to go out and buy these cars. Car companies have to be run by financial people today 'cause they're basically health care and retirement funds. The side business is making cars, hoping that they pay for some of it......This is a radical guy. This is a very arrogant, radical guy who is angry. Nobody will convince me otherwise. Yeah, I mean he doesn't show it. Sometimes I think I notice it. I think it flares at times. Not the anger, but he reveals that he has a bunch of chips on his shoulder, and we know his wife does, and we know Reverend Wright does. We're getting a lot of this stuff that's happening right out of Reverend Wright's sermons. There really is. And a lot of what's going to happen in education, right out of Bill Ayers' curriculum, his extremist, terrorist buddy. The best way to understand Obama, and I can't say this enough, he really believes that it's his job to return the nation's wealth to its rightful, quote, unquote, rightful owners. And that means that he believes the people who have wealth have stolen it from those who have no wealth. It's been unfairly achieved and accrued, and it's his job to take it and redistribute it. And that's what he means by sacrifice. When he talks about sacrifice, he's talking about raising your taxes, taking away your assets, and giving them to other people he thinks you stole them from who are thus more deserving. If you'll just be open to admit it, you can see it practically every day in his policy pronouncements. Related... Victor Davis Hanson also noticed Obama's narcissistic tendencies today
Barack ObamaThe Audacity of HopeBarack's reaction to a racist speech by Jeremiah WrightAudio HereRush Limbaugh attacked Barack Obama today for his constant assault on America's producers.El Rushbo did not hold back.Greta Van Susteren played the video from Limbaugh's show today:Rush Limbaugh exposed the Obama plan today:
Based on what we've seen with General Motors and the banks, if he fails, America is saved. Barack Obama's policies and their failure is the only hope we've got to maintain the America of our founding. We can sit here all the all day as we have. We can rail against General Motors. There is nothing going to stop any of this. Nothing is stopping it. I can say all day long, "Gosh, I hope this fails isn't going to stop anything." Has anybody heard the Republicans say anything today about the firing of Rick Wagoner? If they have, it hasn't been reported. Republicans, as usual, are a week behind the times. They're out there rapping about the budget, which is okay, the budget needs to be rapped about, "We'll rap about it further," but the big news of the today is GM. I haven't heard a Republican, have you? I haven't seen any media who find anything the slightest bit squishy about this. When the history of this is written, people are going to say, "Where was the media? Where were the Republicans?" Where were all of the "moderate" Republicans who told us that this guy's temperament and his steadiness, and his intellect, that's why we should support him? Well, remember, it's not what Obama knows; it's what you think he knows. It's what he makes you think he knows. He doesn't know anything about the automobile business. He doesn't know how to change a tire. The automobile business needs car guys, people that love grease, get in there, manufacture these engines and cars, great designs, lines, and make people want to go out and buy these cars. Car companies have to be run by financial people today 'cause they're basically health care and retirement funds. The side business is making cars, hoping that they pay for some of it......This is a radical guy. This is a very arrogant, radical guy who is angry. Nobody will convince me otherwise. Yeah, I mean he doesn't show it. Sometimes I think I notice it. I think it flares at times. Not the anger, but he reveals that he has a bunch of chips on his shoulder, and we know his wife does, and we know Reverend Wright does. We're getting a lot of this stuff that's happening right out of Reverend Wright's sermons. There really is. And a lot of what's going to happen in education, right out of Bill Ayers' curriculum, his extremist, terrorist buddy. The best way to understand Obama, and I can't say this enough, he really believes that it's his job to return the nation's wealth to its rightful, quote, unquote, rightful owners. And that means that he believes the people who have wealth have stolen it from those who have no wealth. It's been unfairly achieved and accrued, and it's his job to take it and redistribute it. And that's what he means by sacrifice. When he talks about sacrifice, he's talking about raising your taxes, taking away your assets, and giving them to other people he thinks you stole them from who are thus more deserving. If you'll just be open to admit it, you can see it practically every day in his policy pronouncements. Related... Victor Davis Hanson also noticed Obama's narcissistic tendencies today
Cavuto Offers Up Some Common Sense
Neil Cavuto offers up some common sense.
Before you celebrate Rick Wagoner getting his just desserts, think about who just heaved him: the government. More to the point: the president of the United States.Think about that. The leader of a country firing the leader of a business. Arguing since taxpayer dollars were involved, the leader of the country had perfect right firing the leader of the business getting those tax dollars.Just like he had the same right to force Chrysler to merge with Fiat. And U.S. companies that have operations abroad to pay dearly for it here.Justifying these Chavezian grabs for power on the notion that it is our money, misses an even greater point: It's no longer our country.Not when the government routinely rescues businesses, then can justify running those businesses, what folks get paid at those businesses, whether they get bonuses at those businesses, and even -- in the case of the GM chairman -- whether they should be removed from those businesses....I cannot believe even the most fervent Obama supporter voted for this because — hear me out on this — when those in government who have a tough enough time policing their own books, start policing others' books, what new chapters have yet to be written?Drug prices get out of whack; whack the drug companies.Gas prices move up as demand moves up; heave the gas guys out.No, this isn't about doing what is right for America. This is about destroying everything that is America.Well said.
Before you celebrate Rick Wagoner getting his just desserts, think about who just heaved him: the government. More to the point: the president of the United States.Think about that. The leader of a country firing the leader of a business. Arguing since taxpayer dollars were involved, the leader of the country had perfect right firing the leader of the business getting those tax dollars.Just like he had the same right to force Chrysler to merge with Fiat. And U.S. companies that have operations abroad to pay dearly for it here.Justifying these Chavezian grabs for power on the notion that it is our money, misses an even greater point: It's no longer our country.Not when the government routinely rescues businesses, then can justify running those businesses, what folks get paid at those businesses, whether they get bonuses at those businesses, and even -- in the case of the GM chairman -- whether they should be removed from those businesses....I cannot believe even the most fervent Obama supporter voted for this because — hear me out on this — when those in government who have a tough enough time policing their own books, start policing others' books, what new chapters have yet to be written?Drug prices get out of whack; whack the drug companies.Gas prices move up as demand moves up; heave the gas guys out.No, this isn't about doing what is right for America. This is about destroying everything that is America.Well said.
March 30, 2009
Obama Dumps GM CEO: What About The Unions?
In his Marxist zeal to squeeze the last vestige of private enterprise out of the U.S. automobile industry, President Obama has unilaterally appointed himself America’s Human Resources czar, in charge of CHANGE.
In this new role, President Obama will personally decide whom is, and whom is not, qualified to run General Motors which, until fairly recently, was one of the largest and most successful corporations in the world.
Mind you, we are talking about a president who has been unable to recruit a small number of people to serve in his cabinet without dredging up tax cheats, play for pay con artists, and other scalawag Democrats.
Yet, he considers himself qualified to run a major corporation? Even with no management experience and no business background to his credit?
Obama’s first act as fascist in charge was to force GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner out the door.
As reported, in part, at online.wsj.com:
“Time and time again, General Motors Corp. board of directors reaffirmed its support for Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, even as the company piled up billions of dollars in losses and begged for government loans to stay alive.
But Wagoner is now a high-profile casualty of government intervention, forced out as part of the Obama administration’s sweeping last-ditch effort to save the century-old auto giant.
Wagoner, 56, who spent 32 years with GM working all over the world, stepped down effective immediately, the company said in a statement early Monday. He was replaced as CEO by Fritz Henderson, the company’s vice chairman and chief operating officer.”
Although he was quick to wield an ax to the neck of Rick Wagoner, Obama overlooked the fact that the United Auto Workers (UAW) and union President Ron Gettelfinger are at least as responsible for the demise of General Motors, perhaps even more so.
Obama’s well publicized outrage over greed and abuse has been aimed solely at those in corporate management. But what of the greed, abuse, and fraud within labor unions?
Where is presidential outrage over the fact that some autoworkers receive the equivalent of $75 per hour in salary and benefits? Why is labor’s greed unimportant, especially when that greed is a key factor in destroying the competitiveness of American auto firms?
Might the answer have to do with donations made by labor to the Democrat party and labor’s overwhelming support for the Obama candidacy?
If you really care about saving the automobile industry President Obama, why not fire Ron Gettelfinger?
In this new role, President Obama will personally decide whom is, and whom is not, qualified to run General Motors which, until fairly recently, was one of the largest and most successful corporations in the world.
Mind you, we are talking about a president who has been unable to recruit a small number of people to serve in his cabinet without dredging up tax cheats, play for pay con artists, and other scalawag Democrats.
Yet, he considers himself qualified to run a major corporation? Even with no management experience and no business background to his credit?
Obama’s first act as fascist in charge was to force GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner out the door.
As reported, in part, at online.wsj.com:
“Time and time again, General Motors Corp. board of directors reaffirmed its support for Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, even as the company piled up billions of dollars in losses and begged for government loans to stay alive.
But Wagoner is now a high-profile casualty of government intervention, forced out as part of the Obama administration’s sweeping last-ditch effort to save the century-old auto giant.
Wagoner, 56, who spent 32 years with GM working all over the world, stepped down effective immediately, the company said in a statement early Monday. He was replaced as CEO by Fritz Henderson, the company’s vice chairman and chief operating officer.”
Although he was quick to wield an ax to the neck of Rick Wagoner, Obama overlooked the fact that the United Auto Workers (UAW) and union President Ron Gettelfinger are at least as responsible for the demise of General Motors, perhaps even more so.
Obama’s well publicized outrage over greed and abuse has been aimed solely at those in corporate management. But what of the greed, abuse, and fraud within labor unions?
Where is presidential outrage over the fact that some autoworkers receive the equivalent of $75 per hour in salary and benefits? Why is labor’s greed unimportant, especially when that greed is a key factor in destroying the competitiveness of American auto firms?
Might the answer have to do with donations made by labor to the Democrat party and labor’s overwhelming support for the Obama candidacy?
If you really care about saving the automobile industry President Obama, why not fire Ron Gettelfinger?
GM Warranties
Mark Levin has this handy number on his website. I thought I'd share it.
GM/Chrysler Warranty Hotline:202-456-1414Ask for Barack Obama or Joe Biden
GM/Chrysler Warranty Hotline:202-456-1414Ask for Barack Obama or Joe Biden
Media Letting Hillary Off Easy
Thus far, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made two diplomatic blunders during her visit to Mexico that the U.S. Old Media are shockingly uninterested in highlighting. One was a policy blunder and the other a cultural/religious one.
Clinton’s first mistake was in imagining she is still a Senator that can make pronouncements on pending laws and policy plans instead of a mere envoy of the president, a mouth piece that hasn’t the same freedom to invent policy prescriptions and laws that a Senator does. Last week, Clinton told Mexican officials that “we” — as in the U.S. government — are considering re-upping the so-called assault rifle ban because Mexico’s drug violence is “our” fault.
When asked on March 27 about plans to return to the 1994 law banning “assault weapons” (a vague and illegitimate term at best), Obama’s press secretary replied that he was unaware of “any plans” to reinstitute the ban.
Clinton obviously spoke out of turn making promises to Mexican officials that she was not authorized to make.
“Who painted it?”
The second Clinton gaffe concerned her abstruse question at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Thursday, March 26. Her question showed that Clinton was woefully uninformed about the most important feature of the church, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe enshrined there since 1531.
Catholic tradition holds that the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on a cloak belonging to Saint Juan Diego in 1531. As Monsignor Diego Monroy brought Clinton before the shrine, Clinton asked her blundering question.
After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”
Now, perhaps Clinton being so woefully ignorant of anything religious isn’t such a surprise, but for a Secretary of State to be visiting one of the most famous and important churches in the region, one holding a much beloved religious relic, without even finding her staff informing her “who painted” the image reveals a shocking lack by professionalism of both the Secretary of State and her staff.
Add this to the “button gaffe” of March 7 where Clinton’s staff failed to find out how to spell a simple word in Russian and we are seeing a Secretary of State failing in the simplest of tasks making a mockery of our “diplomatic” outreach.
Sadly, the Old Media is letting her off the hook with aplomb.
Clinton’s first mistake was in imagining she is still a Senator that can make pronouncements on pending laws and policy plans instead of a mere envoy of the president, a mouth piece that hasn’t the same freedom to invent policy prescriptions and laws that a Senator does. Last week, Clinton told Mexican officials that “we” — as in the U.S. government — are considering re-upping the so-called assault rifle ban because Mexico’s drug violence is “our” fault.
When asked on March 27 about plans to return to the 1994 law banning “assault weapons” (a vague and illegitimate term at best), Obama’s press secretary replied that he was unaware of “any plans” to reinstitute the ban.
Clinton obviously spoke out of turn making promises to Mexican officials that she was not authorized to make.
“Who painted it?”
The second Clinton gaffe concerned her abstruse question at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Thursday, March 26. Her question showed that Clinton was woefully uninformed about the most important feature of the church, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe enshrined there since 1531.
Catholic tradition holds that the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on a cloak belonging to Saint Juan Diego in 1531. As Monsignor Diego Monroy brought Clinton before the shrine, Clinton asked her blundering question.
After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”
Now, perhaps Clinton being so woefully ignorant of anything religious isn’t such a surprise, but for a Secretary of State to be visiting one of the most famous and important churches in the region, one holding a much beloved religious relic, without even finding her staff informing her “who painted” the image reveals a shocking lack by professionalism of both the Secretary of State and her staff.
Add this to the “button gaffe” of March 7 where Clinton’s staff failed to find out how to spell a simple word in Russian and we are seeing a Secretary of State failing in the simplest of tasks making a mockery of our “diplomatic” outreach.
Sadly, the Old Media is letting her off the hook with aplomb.
Obama Fires GM Head
"We think we can have a successful U.S. auto industry," President Obama said on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday. "But it's got to be one that's realistically designed to weather this storm and to emerge… much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is."
Barack Obama, the man who never held an executive position, has now decided that he has the right and the know-how to redesign the U.S. auto industry.
He has decided to seize General Motors. Obama has usurped the power of GM's stockholders.
I fear this incredible intervention of government into America's private sector won't be an isolated case. It's a harbinger.
From the Washington Post:
The Obama administration has forced the longtime head of General Motors to resign and said yesterday that it would withhold additional federal aid to the auto industry unless the ailing companies undertake changes they so far have been unwilling or unable to make.
The administration effectively rejected as untenable the business plans that GM and Chrysler had submitted to restructure their companies, saying that neither had fulfilled the terms of the federal loans the companies received in December.
The president is expected to announce today that both companies may still win additional federal aid but under stricter terms.
Chrysler, which the administration believes cannot survive as a stand-alone company, must reach an agreement to partner with the Italian automaker, Fiat, in the next 30 days to become eligible for as much as $6 billion in additional federal loans.
GM, which has shed thousands of workers since the downturn began, must devise a leaner business plan that likely will cut the company workforce and product lines even more than officials had contemplated. It has 60 days to come up with a new approach.
Moreover, GM must move forward without its chairman and chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr., who met with administration officials on Friday and has agreed to step down.
The White House's insistence that Wagoner step down is an extraordinary intervention of the federal government into the management of a private company. A senior administration official said Wagoner's resignation was required because the company needs a "clean sheet."
Oh, yeah?
"Clean sheet"?
What gives this senior administration official the right to determine that GM should dump Wagoner?
That's not a decision for Obama and his administration to make.
Obama is acting like a dictator, and not a benevolent one.
From the Wall Street Journal:
In addition to pushing out Mr. Wagoner, the administration's auto task force said GM is in the process of replacing the majority of its directors. Kent Kresa, a longtime director, will serve as interim chairman. Mr. Wagoner will be replaced as CEO by Chief Operating Officer Frederick "Fritz" Henderson.
Of course.
Wagoner isn't the only one being forced out of his job by the government. The majority of GM's directors are being forced to hit the road.
There's no limit to what the government will do. It has seized GM.
...To assure consumers reluctant to buy GM or Chrysler cars, the government plans to take the unusual step of guaranteeing all warrantees on new cars from either company. These guarantees would lapse back to the companies once they return to health.
The government is now in the business of handling new car warranties?
Good grief. That doesn't assure me in any way.
I don't trust this administration.
...Mr. Wagoner was asked to step down on Friday by Steven Rattner, the investment banker picked last month by the administration to lead the Treasury Department's auto-industry task force. Mr. Rattner broke the news to Mr. Wagoner in person at his office at Treasury, according to an administration official. Afterward, Mr. Rattner met one-on-one with Mr. Henderson, who will fill in as GM's CEO.
"On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with administration officials," Mr. Wagoner said in a statement released by GM. "In the course of that meeting, they requested that I 'step aside' as CEO of GM, and so I have."
Read Wagoner's complete statement here.
This statement on officer and board announcements is chilling.
GM is announcing the following changes in the corporate officers and the board of directors:
Rick Wagoner is stepping down as chairman and CEO, effective immediately. Wagoner, 56, was named president and CEO in 2000, and assumed the role of chairman in 2003.
Fritz Henderson, GM president and chief operating officer, will serve as CEO. Henderson, 50, was named to his current position in 2008. He was previously vice chairman and chief financial officer.
Kent Kresa, chairman emeritus, Northrop Grumman Corporation, has been named interim non-executive chairman of the board of directors. Kresa became a GM director in 2003
GM is awaiting further announcements by the President and the Task Force on Automotive Reconstruction, and we will have additional comments at that time.
GM Board of Directors statement, attributable to Kent Kresa, Chairman
“The Board has recognized for some time that the Company’s restructuring will likely cause a significant change in the stockholders of the Company and create the need for new directors with additional skills and experience. The Board intends to work to nominate a slate of directors for the next annual meeting that will include a majority of new directors taking into account the addition of new directors, retirement, and decisions by individual directors not to stand for re-election, although the specific individuals who will be nominated or choose not to run or leave the board are not yet known.”
"GM is awaiting further announcements by the President and the Task Force on Automotive Reconstruction, and we will have additional comments at that time."
Translation: GM is at the mercy of Obama and his task force.
This government takeover is frightening. I feel our freedom slipping away. I fear that the invasion of GM is just the beginning.
When Obama was elected, I had plenty of doubts and concerns. But I never thought after about two months of Obama being in office, he would be using his power to fire a private sector CEO.
He has gone too far already and he has plans to keep going.
I don't trust Obama.
The uncertainty of how much damage his policies will directly do to my family and our future is really stressful. It's taking a terrible toll.
Barack Obama, the man who never held an executive position, has now decided that he has the right and the know-how to redesign the U.S. auto industry.
He has decided to seize General Motors. Obama has usurped the power of GM's stockholders.
I fear this incredible intervention of government into America's private sector won't be an isolated case. It's a harbinger.
From the Washington Post:
The Obama administration has forced the longtime head of General Motors to resign and said yesterday that it would withhold additional federal aid to the auto industry unless the ailing companies undertake changes they so far have been unwilling or unable to make.
The administration effectively rejected as untenable the business plans that GM and Chrysler had submitted to restructure their companies, saying that neither had fulfilled the terms of the federal loans the companies received in December.
The president is expected to announce today that both companies may still win additional federal aid but under stricter terms.
Chrysler, which the administration believes cannot survive as a stand-alone company, must reach an agreement to partner with the Italian automaker, Fiat, in the next 30 days to become eligible for as much as $6 billion in additional federal loans.
GM, which has shed thousands of workers since the downturn began, must devise a leaner business plan that likely will cut the company workforce and product lines even more than officials had contemplated. It has 60 days to come up with a new approach.
Moreover, GM must move forward without its chairman and chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr., who met with administration officials on Friday and has agreed to step down.
The White House's insistence that Wagoner step down is an extraordinary intervention of the federal government into the management of a private company. A senior administration official said Wagoner's resignation was required because the company needs a "clean sheet."
Oh, yeah?
"Clean sheet"?
What gives this senior administration official the right to determine that GM should dump Wagoner?
That's not a decision for Obama and his administration to make.
Obama is acting like a dictator, and not a benevolent one.
From the Wall Street Journal:
In addition to pushing out Mr. Wagoner, the administration's auto task force said GM is in the process of replacing the majority of its directors. Kent Kresa, a longtime director, will serve as interim chairman. Mr. Wagoner will be replaced as CEO by Chief Operating Officer Frederick "Fritz" Henderson.
Of course.
Wagoner isn't the only one being forced out of his job by the government. The majority of GM's directors are being forced to hit the road.
There's no limit to what the government will do. It has seized GM.
...To assure consumers reluctant to buy GM or Chrysler cars, the government plans to take the unusual step of guaranteeing all warrantees on new cars from either company. These guarantees would lapse back to the companies once they return to health.
The government is now in the business of handling new car warranties?
Good grief. That doesn't assure me in any way.
I don't trust this administration.
...Mr. Wagoner was asked to step down on Friday by Steven Rattner, the investment banker picked last month by the administration to lead the Treasury Department's auto-industry task force. Mr. Rattner broke the news to Mr. Wagoner in person at his office at Treasury, according to an administration official. Afterward, Mr. Rattner met one-on-one with Mr. Henderson, who will fill in as GM's CEO.
"On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with administration officials," Mr. Wagoner said in a statement released by GM. "In the course of that meeting, they requested that I 'step aside' as CEO of GM, and so I have."
Read Wagoner's complete statement here.
This statement on officer and board announcements is chilling.
GM is announcing the following changes in the corporate officers and the board of directors:
Rick Wagoner is stepping down as chairman and CEO, effective immediately. Wagoner, 56, was named president and CEO in 2000, and assumed the role of chairman in 2003.
Fritz Henderson, GM president and chief operating officer, will serve as CEO. Henderson, 50, was named to his current position in 2008. He was previously vice chairman and chief financial officer.
Kent Kresa, chairman emeritus, Northrop Grumman Corporation, has been named interim non-executive chairman of the board of directors. Kresa became a GM director in 2003
GM is awaiting further announcements by the President and the Task Force on Automotive Reconstruction, and we will have additional comments at that time.
GM Board of Directors statement, attributable to Kent Kresa, Chairman
“The Board has recognized for some time that the Company’s restructuring will likely cause a significant change in the stockholders of the Company and create the need for new directors with additional skills and experience. The Board intends to work to nominate a slate of directors for the next annual meeting that will include a majority of new directors taking into account the addition of new directors, retirement, and decisions by individual directors not to stand for re-election, although the specific individuals who will be nominated or choose not to run or leave the board are not yet known.”
"GM is awaiting further announcements by the President and the Task Force on Automotive Reconstruction, and we will have additional comments at that time."
Translation: GM is at the mercy of Obama and his task force.
This government takeover is frightening. I feel our freedom slipping away. I fear that the invasion of GM is just the beginning.
When Obama was elected, I had plenty of doubts and concerns. But I never thought after about two months of Obama being in office, he would be using his power to fire a private sector CEO.
He has gone too far already and he has plans to keep going.
I don't trust Obama.
The uncertainty of how much damage his policies will directly do to my family and our future is really stressful. It's taking a terrible toll.
March 28, 2009
Obama's Townhall Participants Were All Donors
What a shocker. Dear Leader's town hall participants were ALL campaign supporters or donors.
The AP forgot to mention that the people are a members of the 11,626-person Pennsylvania for Obama page on Facebook. Some were invited to the meeting through the American Federation of Teachers union.
The WaPo reported:
President Obama has promised to change the way the government does business, but in at least one respect he is taking a page from the Bush playbook, stocking his town hall Thursday with supporters whose soft -- though far from planted -- questions provided openings to discuss his preferred message of the day.
Obama has said, "I think it's important to engage your critics ... because not only will you occasionally change their mind but, more importantly, sometimes they will change your mind," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs recounted to The Post's Lois Romano in an interview Wednesday.
But while the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008.
Of course.
The AP forgot to mention that the people are a members of the 11,626-person Pennsylvania for Obama page on Facebook. Some were invited to the meeting through the American Federation of Teachers union.
The WaPo reported:
President Obama has promised to change the way the government does business, but in at least one respect he is taking a page from the Bush playbook, stocking his town hall Thursday with supporters whose soft -- though far from planted -- questions provided openings to discuss his preferred message of the day.
Obama has said, "I think it's important to engage your critics ... because not only will you occasionally change their mind but, more importantly, sometimes they will change your mind," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs recounted to The Post's Lois Romano in an interview Wednesday.
But while the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008.
Of course.
Brazil's Leader Blames Whites For Crisis
Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Thursday blamed the global economic crisis on “white people with blue eyes” and said it was wrong that black and indigenous people should pay for white people’s mistakes.
Speaking in Brasília at a joint press conference with Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, Mr Lula da Silva told reporters: “This crisis was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.”
He added: “I do not know any black or indigenous bankers so I can only say [it is wrong] that this part of mankind which is victimised more than any other should pay for the crisis.”
Mr Brown appeared to distance himself from Mr Lula da Silva’s remarks. “I’m not going to attribute blame to any individuals,” he said.
Mr Brown was visiting Brazil as part of a five-day tour of Europe, the US and South America in preparation for the G20 summit to take place in London next Thursday. He made a joint appeal with Mr Lula da Silva for the world’s biggest economies to provide $100bn to boost global trade.
“I’m going to ask the G20 summit next week to support a global expansion of trade finance to reverse a slide in world trade,” Mr Brown said.
Mr Lula da Silva also spoke out strongly against raising trade barriers in response to the global crisis. “I compare protectionism to a drug,” he said. “Why do people use drugs? Because they are in crisis and they think the drug will help them. But its effects pass quickly.”
The two leaders’ remarks demonstrate the desire each will have to secure the other’s support during the G20 meeting.
Brazil – which has long campaigned unsuccessfully to be given a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council – will argue for a bigger voice for Brazil and other emerging nations in multilateral organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Forum, a group of central banks and national supervisory authorities established in 1999.
Brazil is one of many nations calling for increased regulation of global financial markets and greater powers for multilateral regulators.
It will also call for a resumption and conclusion of the Doha round of talks at the World Trade Organisation.
In return for supporting such initiatives, Mr Brown will expect Brazil to endorse calls for fiscal stimulus in a bid to mitigate the impact of the global crisis, such as the proposed $100bn in trade finance.
Speaking in Brasília at a joint press conference with Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, Mr Lula da Silva told reporters: “This crisis was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.”
He added: “I do not know any black or indigenous bankers so I can only say [it is wrong] that this part of mankind which is victimised more than any other should pay for the crisis.”
Mr Brown appeared to distance himself from Mr Lula da Silva’s remarks. “I’m not going to attribute blame to any individuals,” he said.
Mr Brown was visiting Brazil as part of a five-day tour of Europe, the US and South America in preparation for the G20 summit to take place in London next Thursday. He made a joint appeal with Mr Lula da Silva for the world’s biggest economies to provide $100bn to boost global trade.
“I’m going to ask the G20 summit next week to support a global expansion of trade finance to reverse a slide in world trade,” Mr Brown said.
Mr Lula da Silva also spoke out strongly against raising trade barriers in response to the global crisis. “I compare protectionism to a drug,” he said. “Why do people use drugs? Because they are in crisis and they think the drug will help them. But its effects pass quickly.”
The two leaders’ remarks demonstrate the desire each will have to secure the other’s support during the G20 meeting.
Brazil – which has long campaigned unsuccessfully to be given a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council – will argue for a bigger voice for Brazil and other emerging nations in multilateral organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Forum, a group of central banks and national supervisory authorities established in 1999.
Brazil is one of many nations calling for increased regulation of global financial markets and greater powers for multilateral regulators.
It will also call for a resumption and conclusion of the Doha round of talks at the World Trade Organisation.
In return for supporting such initiatives, Mr Brown will expect Brazil to endorse calls for fiscal stimulus in a bid to mitigate the impact of the global crisis, such as the proposed $100bn in trade finance.
Lights On At 8:30
If sanctimonious Tinseltown weenies like Edward Norton get on your nerves by demanding that you lower your standard of living for the sake of their bogus ideology, don't forget to celebrate Human Achievement Hour this evening by opening the shutters and turning on every light in the house from 8:30 to 9:30 local time.
Meanwhile, moonbats will be festering in the dark as they honor Earth Hour. Their idea is that by turning off the lights, we can send a message to our socialist rulers that we don't mind paying radically higher energy bills. If in fact you do mind, then send a different message.
You might even have a little fun by telling neighbors that your city is testing its energy grid, and needs people to turn on all their lights at 8:30.
Nothing could be more symbolic of liberalism that turning out the lights, just as nothing sums up conservatism like making sure they stay on.
Meanwhile, moonbats will be festering in the dark as they honor Earth Hour. Their idea is that by turning off the lights, we can send a message to our socialist rulers that we don't mind paying radically higher energy bills. If in fact you do mind, then send a different message.
You might even have a little fun by telling neighbors that your city is testing its energy grid, and needs people to turn on all their lights at 8:30.
Nothing could be more symbolic of liberalism that turning out the lights, just as nothing sums up conservatism like making sure they stay on.
Hillary Asks Who Painted Image Of The Virgin Of Guadalupe
After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”
...Oh.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (R in red) listens to priest Diego Monrroy in front of an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe inside the Basilica de Guadalupe in Mexico City March 26, 2009. Clinton said on Wednesday the United States and Mexico were making headway on efforts to resolve a dispute over Mexican trucks operating in the United States. (REUTERS/Henry Romero)
Imagine her surprise when she found out who the artist was.
Catholic News Agency reported:
During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and left a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” after asking who painted the famous image.
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the tilma, or cloak, of St. Juan Diego in 1531. The image has numerous unexplainable phenomena, such as the appearance on Mary’s eyes of those present in the room when the tilma was opened and the image’s lack of decay.
Our Lady of Guadalupe is a celebrated 16th-century icon of the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ. The image, also known as the Virgin of Guadalupe represents a famous Marian apparition. According to the traditional account, the image appeared miraculously on the back of a simple peasant cloak. It is perhaps Mexico's most popular religious and cultural image, and the focus of an extensive pilgrimage- Wiki.
...Oh.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (R in red) listens to priest Diego Monrroy in front of an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe inside the Basilica de Guadalupe in Mexico City March 26, 2009. Clinton said on Wednesday the United States and Mexico were making headway on efforts to resolve a dispute over Mexican trucks operating in the United States. (REUTERS/Henry Romero)
Imagine her surprise when she found out who the artist was.
Catholic News Agency reported:
During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and left a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” after asking who painted the famous image.
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the tilma, or cloak, of St. Juan Diego in 1531. The image has numerous unexplainable phenomena, such as the appearance on Mary’s eyes of those present in the room when the tilma was opened and the image’s lack of decay.
Our Lady of Guadalupe is a celebrated 16th-century icon of the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ. The image, also known as the Virgin of Guadalupe represents a famous Marian apparition. According to the traditional account, the image appeared miraculously on the back of a simple peasant cloak. It is perhaps Mexico's most popular religious and cultural image, and the focus of an extensive pilgrimage- Wiki.
Afghanistan Is Obama's War
When the lib media say it, it must be so.
Associated Press writer Ben Feller has declared that Barack Obama "owns" the war in Afghanistan.
Obama widens al-Qaida war, making it his own
Widening war in "the most dangerous place in the world," President Barack Obama launched a fresh effort Friday to defeat al-Qaida terrorists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, defending his strategy with shades of the dire language of George W. Bush.
Stirring echoes of Sept. 11 and making the war his own, Obama warned that al-Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States from secret havens in Pakistan. He said he was setting new benchmarks and sending in 4,000 more troops, hundreds of civilians and increased aid for a six-year war that has seemed to be easing in Iraq but still has no end in sight.
Obama's tough talk doesn't reflect change in U.S. Middle East policy.
Sure, he sent a message, via YouTube, to the Iranians, wishing them a "Happy New Year" and telling them to knock it off when it comes to nukes.
And Obama has declared an end to the War on Terror. Now, it's "Overseas Contingency Operation."
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has given up using the term "terrorism," preferring to say, "man-caused disasters."
That kinder, gentler approach seemed to indicate a shift toward weakness. Obama's naïveté was in full view.
It turns out that Obama and his administration were playing word games. At least that's how it seems today. Maybe tomorrow Obama and his team will flip-flop again. I'm betting on that.
"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," Obama said. "That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just."
I've heard this before. I'm sure I have. President Bush said that! Right?
Obama is a plagiarist!
The president, who declared last weekend an "exit strategy" was needed for Afghanistan, never used those words in announcing his plans on Friday. His strategy is built on an ambitious goal of boosting the Afghan army from 80,000 to 134,000 troops by 2011—and greatly increasing training by U.S. troops accompanying them—so the Afghan military can defeat Taliban insurgents and take control of the war.
That, he said, is "how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home."
There is no timetable for withdrawal, and the White House said it had no estimate yet on how many billions of dollars its plan will cost.
What?
No timetable?
No estimate on cost?
This has all the makings of a QUAGMIRE.
What now, Lefties?
Obama is sending even more troops to Afghanistan.
...Since becoming president, Obama has ordered 21,000 troops into Afghanistan, counting 17,000 combat forces who will try to quell surging violence. The Pentagon says that will put the U.S. total there at more than 60,000, the most to date. As the Iraq conflict winds down, the Afghanistan war is growing.
Taking firm control of the war that dominated Bush's presidency, Obama broke with his predecessor in significant ways but also used phrases that sounded strikingly familiar.
He described the ruthlessness of the enemy, the need to take on terrorists, the genesis of the fight. Bush often reminded the nation that terrorists were plotting to kill Americans, even as the public fear dissipated with each passing year after the 9/11 attacks.
"I remind everybody, the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan," Obama said. "Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives."
Obama is definitely plagiarizing President Bush.
I thought the Obama administration was moving away from the politics of fear.
Obama and his hacks have consistently been playing on people's fears. He did it with the economy and then he had to backtrack when people listened. Now, he's using fear to justify his escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
I wonder if Obama's faithful flock will lose faith.
Probably not.
Whatever Obama says is brilliant. Whatever Obama does is cool.
...Much of the security build up in Afghanistan this year is meant to provide security for fair, stable elections there in August.
"We've been on a path since 2006, 2007, 2008, where violence has gone up," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We add these troops, violence is going to go up in 2009 because we're engaged more. That said, we've got to have a year this year, I believe, that stems that violence."
Obama, too, warned of tough days ahead. He said al-Qaida, its allies and probably its leader, Osama bin Laden, were plotting in the Pakistani frontier.
The sad truth is more American troops will lose their lives fighting al Qaeda.
Will the lib media and the Leftist wingnuts keep count of the death toll and recognize the dreaded milestones as they did when President Bush was the Commander in Chief?
Will the anti-war activists march and hold protests in DC and all over the country?
What will CODEPINK do?
At the moment, the PINK ladies aren't happy.
Here's CODEPINK's statement on Afghanistan.
Let's Remind Obama of His Promises for Peace!
It's not just the CODEPINKIES who are troubled. Russ Feingold is critical of Obama's plans, too.
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Sen. Russ Feingold said Friday he feared that the troop buildup in Afghanistan ordered by President Barack Obama could "make the situation worse, not better."
Feingold, who was a vocal critic of the Iraq war, stopped short of expressing outright opposition to the increase in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.
But the Wisconsin Democrat said a military escalation in Afghanistan could de-stabilize neighboring Pakistan, which he termed a much bigger potential security problem for the United States than Afghanistan.
"The problem is if you do this wrong, with too much emphasis on Afghanistan and not enough on Pakistan, you may be creating greater radicalization (in the region)," Feingold, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview. "In the end, Pakistan is more dangerous than Afghanistan. . . . I do think we're kind of putting the cart before the horse."
Obama on Friday ordered 4,000 more troops into Afghanistan, in addition to the 17,000 he approved adding earlier.
"I am not convinced that makes sense. It may be counterproductive," said Feingold, referring to the possible spillover effects of the buildup on Pakistan, where militants and terrorists have occupied safe havens along the border and where violence has also been on the rise. The bloodiest attack in Pakistan occurred Friday, when a suicide bomber struck a mosque near the Afghan border, killing at least 48.
Yeah, well. The ball's in Obama's court.
I wonder how many Obama followers are disillusioned. Do they feel let down?
They may spew the White House rhetoric that nothing is Obama's fault. Obama inherited the problems. Blah, blah, blah....
The fact is no president inherits a perfect nation.
But Obama wanted the job. He won the election.
HE is choosing to escalate the war, I mean, the Overseas Contingency Operation in Afghanistan. It's all his now.
Associated Press writer Ben Feller has declared that Barack Obama "owns" the war in Afghanistan.
Obama widens al-Qaida war, making it his own
Widening war in "the most dangerous place in the world," President Barack Obama launched a fresh effort Friday to defeat al-Qaida terrorists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, defending his strategy with shades of the dire language of George W. Bush.
Stirring echoes of Sept. 11 and making the war his own, Obama warned that al-Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States from secret havens in Pakistan. He said he was setting new benchmarks and sending in 4,000 more troops, hundreds of civilians and increased aid for a six-year war that has seemed to be easing in Iraq but still has no end in sight.
Obama's tough talk doesn't reflect change in U.S. Middle East policy.
Sure, he sent a message, via YouTube, to the Iranians, wishing them a "Happy New Year" and telling them to knock it off when it comes to nukes.
And Obama has declared an end to the War on Terror. Now, it's "Overseas Contingency Operation."
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has given up using the term "terrorism," preferring to say, "man-caused disasters."
That kinder, gentler approach seemed to indicate a shift toward weakness. Obama's naïveté was in full view.
It turns out that Obama and his administration were playing word games. At least that's how it seems today. Maybe tomorrow Obama and his team will flip-flop again. I'm betting on that.
"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," Obama said. "That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just."
I've heard this before. I'm sure I have. President Bush said that! Right?
Obama is a plagiarist!
The president, who declared last weekend an "exit strategy" was needed for Afghanistan, never used those words in announcing his plans on Friday. His strategy is built on an ambitious goal of boosting the Afghan army from 80,000 to 134,000 troops by 2011—and greatly increasing training by U.S. troops accompanying them—so the Afghan military can defeat Taliban insurgents and take control of the war.
That, he said, is "how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home."
There is no timetable for withdrawal, and the White House said it had no estimate yet on how many billions of dollars its plan will cost.
What?
No timetable?
No estimate on cost?
This has all the makings of a QUAGMIRE.
What now, Lefties?
Obama is sending even more troops to Afghanistan.
...Since becoming president, Obama has ordered 21,000 troops into Afghanistan, counting 17,000 combat forces who will try to quell surging violence. The Pentagon says that will put the U.S. total there at more than 60,000, the most to date. As the Iraq conflict winds down, the Afghanistan war is growing.
Taking firm control of the war that dominated Bush's presidency, Obama broke with his predecessor in significant ways but also used phrases that sounded strikingly familiar.
He described the ruthlessness of the enemy, the need to take on terrorists, the genesis of the fight. Bush often reminded the nation that terrorists were plotting to kill Americans, even as the public fear dissipated with each passing year after the 9/11 attacks.
"I remind everybody, the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan," Obama said. "Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives."
Obama is definitely plagiarizing President Bush.
I thought the Obama administration was moving away from the politics of fear.
Obama and his hacks have consistently been playing on people's fears. He did it with the economy and then he had to backtrack when people listened. Now, he's using fear to justify his escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
I wonder if Obama's faithful flock will lose faith.
Probably not.
Whatever Obama says is brilliant. Whatever Obama does is cool.
...Much of the security build up in Afghanistan this year is meant to provide security for fair, stable elections there in August.
"We've been on a path since 2006, 2007, 2008, where violence has gone up," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We add these troops, violence is going to go up in 2009 because we're engaged more. That said, we've got to have a year this year, I believe, that stems that violence."
Obama, too, warned of tough days ahead. He said al-Qaida, its allies and probably its leader, Osama bin Laden, were plotting in the Pakistani frontier.
The sad truth is more American troops will lose their lives fighting al Qaeda.
Will the lib media and the Leftist wingnuts keep count of the death toll and recognize the dreaded milestones as they did when President Bush was the Commander in Chief?
Will the anti-war activists march and hold protests in DC and all over the country?
What will CODEPINK do?
At the moment, the PINK ladies aren't happy.
Here's CODEPINK's statement on Afghanistan.
Let's Remind Obama of His Promises for Peace!
It's not just the CODEPINKIES who are troubled. Russ Feingold is critical of Obama's plans, too.
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Sen. Russ Feingold said Friday he feared that the troop buildup in Afghanistan ordered by President Barack Obama could "make the situation worse, not better."
Feingold, who was a vocal critic of the Iraq war, stopped short of expressing outright opposition to the increase in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.
But the Wisconsin Democrat said a military escalation in Afghanistan could de-stabilize neighboring Pakistan, which he termed a much bigger potential security problem for the United States than Afghanistan.
"The problem is if you do this wrong, with too much emphasis on Afghanistan and not enough on Pakistan, you may be creating greater radicalization (in the region)," Feingold, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview. "In the end, Pakistan is more dangerous than Afghanistan. . . . I do think we're kind of putting the cart before the horse."
Obama on Friday ordered 4,000 more troops into Afghanistan, in addition to the 17,000 he approved adding earlier.
"I am not convinced that makes sense. It may be counterproductive," said Feingold, referring to the possible spillover effects of the buildup on Pakistan, where militants and terrorists have occupied safe havens along the border and where violence has also been on the rise. The bloodiest attack in Pakistan occurred Friday, when a suicide bomber struck a mosque near the Afghan border, killing at least 48.
Yeah, well. The ball's in Obama's court.
I wonder how many Obama followers are disillusioned. Do they feel let down?
They may spew the White House rhetoric that nothing is Obama's fault. Obama inherited the problems. Blah, blah, blah....
The fact is no president inherits a perfect nation.
But Obama wanted the job. He won the election.
HE is choosing to escalate the war, I mean, the Overseas Contingency Operation in Afghanistan. It's all his now.
March 27, 2009
Gitmo Detainees Might Just Get Some Hand Outs
Unreal! Not only will Gitmo grads be released inside the United States.But, Team Obama thinks they may need some welfare.The Weekly Standard Blog caught this in an AP report:
During his news conference, Blair also said the Obama administration is still wrestling with what to do with the remaining 240 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which the president has ordered closed.Some of the detainees, deemed non-threatening, may be released into the United States as free men, Blair confirmed.That would happen when they can't be returned to their home countries, because the governments either won't take them or the U.S. fears they will be abused or tortured. That is the case with 17 Uighurs (WEE'-gurz), Chinese Muslim separatists who were cleared for release from the jail long ago. The U.S. can't find a country willing to take them, and it will not turn them over to China.Blair said the former prisoners would have [to] get some sort of assistance to start their new lives in the United States.“We can't put them out on the street,” he said.Isn't there some way we can make sure they are released in DC?
During his news conference, Blair also said the Obama administration is still wrestling with what to do with the remaining 240 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which the president has ordered closed.Some of the detainees, deemed non-threatening, may be released into the United States as free men, Blair confirmed.That would happen when they can't be returned to their home countries, because the governments either won't take them or the U.S. fears they will be abused or tortured. That is the case with 17 Uighurs (WEE'-gurz), Chinese Muslim separatists who were cleared for release from the jail long ago. The U.S. can't find a country willing to take them, and it will not turn them over to China.Blair said the former prisoners would have [to] get some sort of assistance to start their new lives in the United States.“We can't put them out on the street,” he said.Isn't there some way we can make sure they are released in DC?
On Her "Gosh We're Sorry Tour" Hillary Tells Mexico It's Basically Our Fault
Mexican government officials are in the pocket of Mexican drug lords. Members of the Mexican military lend their support to Mexican drug lords. Mexican police double deal by being footsoldiers for Mexican drug lords at the same time they work for the various states. It’s all a great, corrupt mess down there.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s message to Mexico? It’s America’s fault.
And as the violence in Mexico begins to leak across the border into our southwestern states, what is Barack Obama’s idea to help? He wants to disarm our own people by raising the specter of “assault rifles,” a term that has no real meaning, and by re-instituting the “assault weapons” ban in the U.S.
So, another country’s internal corruption and internecine violence is our fault according to Obama and Clinton. And we are going to disarm ourselves in the face of foreign violence to “solve” the problem? Apparently, we are the ones the Mexicans have been waiting for, too. At least we are the ones that Mexican drug lords have been waiting for, anyway.
Naturally, the Old Media have painted this “new attitude” of American foreign policy as a relative good. McClatchy, for instance, praises Clinton’s capitulation to Mexico as a “humble” new policy, her “humility” being “served up” at every stop as she tours our southern neighbor. This new tone is an effort to reverse the problem of a “world opinion of the U.S. which sank deeply” during the Bush years, according to McClatchy.
For its part AFP says that America no longer views Mexico’s violence as the Mexican problem the Bush administration assumed it to be. We are taking “co-responsibility” for the violence as AFP quotes Mexican officials as saying.
It’s all of a piece with Obama’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” tour of the world. And what is the main offering on this tour besides a debasing of the U.S.A.? Money. And big money, too. To start with, Clinton’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” offering to Mexico is 80 million dollars in new spending as a sop to the corrupt nation. This new foreign aid is supposed to go to help Mexico buy new Blackhawk helicopters to assist the Mexican military to interdict drug cartels. But will it go to that end or will some of it end up in the hands of the very drug lords it is supposed to combat? Your guess is as good as mine.
Our government in Washington is almost bankrupt, we supposed to be in an “emergency” situation with our economy and what is Obama planning? 80 million dollars in new spending to Mexico.
Where that 80 mil would better be spent is in shoring up our border with Mexico and making sure their violence doesn’t come across the border in the first place. Let the money be spent on Americans instead of Mexicans if it must be wasted by government.
And lastly, when did Hillary Clinton realize that the role of Secretary of State included making American laws?
“I think these assault weapons, these military style weapons, don’t belong on anyone’s street,” said Clinton who pushed for the ban as a New York senator.
“During the time period from 1994 to 2004, when the ban was in effect, our police in America were able to drive crime down because they didn’t have to worry about these assault weapons getting into the hands of criminals and gang members,” the chief US diplomat said.
“So we will make the case that we need to put more teeth in the law, try to prohibit the sale outside of our borders of these guns,” Clinton said.
Someone needs to remind Her Thighness that she has NO ROLE in “making the case” that a new so-called assault weapons ban needs to be instituted. That is Congress’ and the president’s role, not hers. Her role as Secretary of State does NOT include lawmaking. She is Obama’s mouth on foreign policy, not America’s advocate for new laws, acts, or internal policy ideas.
This is what you signed on for, honey. You are not a Senator anymore. Keep out of matters in which you do not belong.
Meantime, Obama’s new policy of “we are the fault you’ve been waiting for” rolls on. Reaching out to enemies and slighting friends is a wonderful way to… I not sure what it is, actually. Besides stupid, that is.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s message to Mexico? It’s America’s fault.
And as the violence in Mexico begins to leak across the border into our southwestern states, what is Barack Obama’s idea to help? He wants to disarm our own people by raising the specter of “assault rifles,” a term that has no real meaning, and by re-instituting the “assault weapons” ban in the U.S.
So, another country’s internal corruption and internecine violence is our fault according to Obama and Clinton. And we are going to disarm ourselves in the face of foreign violence to “solve” the problem? Apparently, we are the ones the Mexicans have been waiting for, too. At least we are the ones that Mexican drug lords have been waiting for, anyway.
Naturally, the Old Media have painted this “new attitude” of American foreign policy as a relative good. McClatchy, for instance, praises Clinton’s capitulation to Mexico as a “humble” new policy, her “humility” being “served up” at every stop as she tours our southern neighbor. This new tone is an effort to reverse the problem of a “world opinion of the U.S. which sank deeply” during the Bush years, according to McClatchy.
For its part AFP says that America no longer views Mexico’s violence as the Mexican problem the Bush administration assumed it to be. We are taking “co-responsibility” for the violence as AFP quotes Mexican officials as saying.
It’s all of a piece with Obama’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” tour of the world. And what is the main offering on this tour besides a debasing of the U.S.A.? Money. And big money, too. To start with, Clinton’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” offering to Mexico is 80 million dollars in new spending as a sop to the corrupt nation. This new foreign aid is supposed to go to help Mexico buy new Blackhawk helicopters to assist the Mexican military to interdict drug cartels. But will it go to that end or will some of it end up in the hands of the very drug lords it is supposed to combat? Your guess is as good as mine.
Our government in Washington is almost bankrupt, we supposed to be in an “emergency” situation with our economy and what is Obama planning? 80 million dollars in new spending to Mexico.
Where that 80 mil would better be spent is in shoring up our border with Mexico and making sure their violence doesn’t come across the border in the first place. Let the money be spent on Americans instead of Mexicans if it must be wasted by government.
And lastly, when did Hillary Clinton realize that the role of Secretary of State included making American laws?
“I think these assault weapons, these military style weapons, don’t belong on anyone’s street,” said Clinton who pushed for the ban as a New York senator.
“During the time period from 1994 to 2004, when the ban was in effect, our police in America were able to drive crime down because they didn’t have to worry about these assault weapons getting into the hands of criminals and gang members,” the chief US diplomat said.
“So we will make the case that we need to put more teeth in the law, try to prohibit the sale outside of our borders of these guns,” Clinton said.
Someone needs to remind Her Thighness that she has NO ROLE in “making the case” that a new so-called assault weapons ban needs to be instituted. That is Congress’ and the president’s role, not hers. Her role as Secretary of State does NOT include lawmaking. She is Obama’s mouth on foreign policy, not America’s advocate for new laws, acts, or internal policy ideas.
This is what you signed on for, honey. You are not a Senator anymore. Keep out of matters in which you do not belong.
Meantime, Obama’s new policy of “we are the fault you’ve been waiting for” rolls on. Reaching out to enemies and slighting friends is a wonderful way to… I not sure what it is, actually. Besides stupid, that is.
Barney's Frank And Gay Lover
Congressman Barney Frank calls Justice Antonin Scalia a 'Homophobe: The soon turning 69 year old Massachusetts Democrat & Homosexual told a gay online news agency that he hoped the Supreme Court won't ever get to hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act while Justice Scalia is on the bench. This bigoted statement from the person whose former lover was caught running a callboy sex business out of his home, and who told Americans late last year that both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were on sound financial ground. The fact is his most recent lover (1991 until 1998) was an executive in charge of key housing policies at Fannie Mae, and during those years, Frank urged looser lending standards that could enhance his lover's job and bonuses.
Are You A Militia Member?
Are You a Militia Member? According to the Obama Administration and a collection of state governments, you could be. If you're an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican (Ron Paul) member of Congress, if you possess "subversive literature", you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group. During a press conference last week in Kansas City, Mo., DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano called "fusion centers" the "centerpiece of state, local, federal intelligence-sharing" in the future. Other potential signals of militia involvement, according to the report, are possession of the Gagsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag! This is yet another sign of the Radical Left Obama & Company using government to stifle all opposition to its radical left agenda
March 26, 2009
LibNazis Pass HR 1388
ARBEIT MACHT FREI.
This is the new motto for Comrade Maobama's Administration. It must be for only fascist Nazis could pass a bill so tainted with crap and dripping with Hitler Youthism and it appears that the US Politboro on the Potomac, or maybe we should call it the US Reichstag on the Potomac, is chock full of libnazis and their RINO enablers. Take this for example:
In Section 122 of the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act of HR 1388 it reads:
NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAMS ELIGIBLE FOR PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.(a) Required National Service Corps- The recipient of a grant under section 121(a) and each Federal agency operating or supporting a national service program under section 121(b) shall, directly or through grants or subgrants to other entities, carry out or support the following national service corps, as full- or part-time corps, including during the summer months, to address unmet educational, health, veteran, or environmental needs.
Unfortunately for us, we have a House and Senate full of idiots who understand the Constitution and what is in it about as well as BJ Bubba understands about morals and what they mean. This is in a CLEAR violation of the Constitution, as is much of what Comrade Maobama is planning on doing, and thus we are bound by our Founding Father's beliefs, as codified and passed on to us, to resist it, even unto jail or worse.
Samuel Adams, the father of the Revolution wrote: "The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.""the artifices of false and designing men." Sounds like the actions of Comrade Maobama and his cohorts to me and our course is clearly laid out. If they pass this sh*t into law, then we must resist it by whatever means possible. If the school your kids attend implements this, then you homeschool. If they try to force you to do something, you simply refuse no matter the cost. But if we allow this bullsh*t to pass, to be implemented, and say nothing about it, to meekly acquiese to it, like sheep would, then we deserve every d*mn bit of what we get. The Gunny won't do any of it and he'll assist anyone else who resists it. Patrick Henry captured the American spirit best when he said, "I know not what course others may take but for me, give me liberty or give me death." The Gunny IS NO ONE'S slave and he doesn't live his life on bended knee. Again, the words of Samuel Adams spring to mind:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
The Gunny cannot think of a better quote to crown the enslavement of a population by the actions of false and designing men (and women). Americans who allow this to happen, who don't fight against it, who promote it, implement it, enforce it, etc, you are dead to those of us who resist. Indeed, consider the "largesse" of the government for those who follow this path.The Director shall provide for members of the Civilian Community Corps to receive benefits authorized by this section:Living allowance: The Director shall provide a living allowance to members of the Corps for the period during which such members are engaged in training or any activity on a Corps project. The Director shall establish the amount of the allowance at any amount not in excess of the amount equal to 100 percent of the poverty line that is applicable to a family of two (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 9902 (2) of this title.Sounds EXACTLY like an allotment given to a worker in the USSR! You're going to work as hard as they want and THEY will tell YOU what you'll receive in payment! Un-fricking-believable. If you're a good little tool, you might even get a thank you card from Princess Pelosi. The Gunny's message to the House and Senate is as my Irish relatives would say, "sod the lot of you."BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!The Liberals will let you suckle at the government teat for other bennies: While receiving training or engaging in service projects as members of the Civilian Community Corps, members may be provided the following benefits: (Did you catch the "MAY BE PROVIDED" part?)(1) Allowances for travel expenses, personal expenses, and other expenses.(2) Quarters.(3) Subsistence.(4) Transportation.(5) Equipment.(6) Clothing.(7) Recreational services and supplies.(8) Other services determined by the Director to be consistent with the purposes of the Program.So if some Obomunist needs you for two weeks in say, the South Bronx, you're going to get there on your dime and MAYBE you'll be reimbursed for it, maybe not. And your chow? Probably MRE's. The more the Gunny reads this bill, the more it sounds like a blueprint for a labor camp or a reeducation center for nasty Conservatives. And this leads to yet ANOTHER valid point. Liberals SCREAMED like little girls about Gitmo, about Abu Ghraib, about the Patriot Act, but here, they're as quiet as church mice. Why? Liberals were quiet about Ruby Ridge. Liberals were quiet about Waco. Actually, liberals CHEERED about Waco since it involved a right-wing religious group that simply wanted to be left alone. Liberals said NOTHING about Janet Reno's seizure of Elian Gonzalez and his deportation BACK to a commie hellhole. But then again, liberals are quiet about Comrade Maobama's Aunt Zietuni, living in the US illegally and on the largesse of the US taxpayers as well, when Comrae Maobama could EASILY pay for her upkeep.You know, the more the Gunny thinks about this entire issue, the more he can see the link to Hitler and Nazi Germany. Indeed, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf and told the WORLD exactly what he was going to do and he did it, causing a global war and millions of deaths. Comrade Maobama not only told us HIS plans on the campaign trail (but no one was listening because the Mystical Magical Negro (LA Times) was speaking) but his wretched wife did as well!
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."Sorry micHELLe but Comrade Maobama don't tell the Gunny a D*MN thing and he sure as f**k doesn't OWN ME OR MINE. BTW micHELLe, exactly what Constitution phrase, sentence, paragraph, portion, clause, Amendment, etc, gives Comrade Maobama the authority to require ME to WORK? To interfere in our lives? NONE!In fact, the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution strictly PROHIBTS involuntary servitude.Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.In closing, the passage of HR 1388 can be considered bad law and thus, it is our duty to resist it. The Gunny encourages EVERYONE to write, call, and/or email their Senators and demand that this gets shot down in flames. Also, take note of a companion bill, HR 1444, currently working its way through the Reichstag on the Potomac. Yet another attempt to seize our freedom, one nibble at a time.
This is the new motto for Comrade Maobama's Administration. It must be for only fascist Nazis could pass a bill so tainted with crap and dripping with Hitler Youthism and it appears that the US Politboro on the Potomac, or maybe we should call it the US Reichstag on the Potomac, is chock full of libnazis and their RINO enablers. Take this for example:
In Section 122 of the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act of HR 1388 it reads:
NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAMS ELIGIBLE FOR PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.(a) Required National Service Corps- The recipient of a grant under section 121(a) and each Federal agency operating or supporting a national service program under section 121(b) shall, directly or through grants or subgrants to other entities, carry out or support the following national service corps, as full- or part-time corps, including during the summer months, to address unmet educational, health, veteran, or environmental needs.
Unfortunately for us, we have a House and Senate full of idiots who understand the Constitution and what is in it about as well as BJ Bubba understands about morals and what they mean. This is in a CLEAR violation of the Constitution, as is much of what Comrade Maobama is planning on doing, and thus we are bound by our Founding Father's beliefs, as codified and passed on to us, to resist it, even unto jail or worse.
Samuel Adams, the father of the Revolution wrote: "The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.""the artifices of false and designing men." Sounds like the actions of Comrade Maobama and his cohorts to me and our course is clearly laid out. If they pass this sh*t into law, then we must resist it by whatever means possible. If the school your kids attend implements this, then you homeschool. If they try to force you to do something, you simply refuse no matter the cost. But if we allow this bullsh*t to pass, to be implemented, and say nothing about it, to meekly acquiese to it, like sheep would, then we deserve every d*mn bit of what we get. The Gunny won't do any of it and he'll assist anyone else who resists it. Patrick Henry captured the American spirit best when he said, "I know not what course others may take but for me, give me liberty or give me death." The Gunny IS NO ONE'S slave and he doesn't live his life on bended knee. Again, the words of Samuel Adams spring to mind:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
The Gunny cannot think of a better quote to crown the enslavement of a population by the actions of false and designing men (and women). Americans who allow this to happen, who don't fight against it, who promote it, implement it, enforce it, etc, you are dead to those of us who resist. Indeed, consider the "largesse" of the government for those who follow this path.The Director shall provide for members of the Civilian Community Corps to receive benefits authorized by this section:Living allowance: The Director shall provide a living allowance to members of the Corps for the period during which such members are engaged in training or any activity on a Corps project. The Director shall establish the amount of the allowance at any amount not in excess of the amount equal to 100 percent of the poverty line that is applicable to a family of two (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 9902 (2) of this title.Sounds EXACTLY like an allotment given to a worker in the USSR! You're going to work as hard as they want and THEY will tell YOU what you'll receive in payment! Un-fricking-believable. If you're a good little tool, you might even get a thank you card from Princess Pelosi. The Gunny's message to the House and Senate is as my Irish relatives would say, "sod the lot of you."BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!The Liberals will let you suckle at the government teat for other bennies: While receiving training or engaging in service projects as members of the Civilian Community Corps, members may be provided the following benefits: (Did you catch the "MAY BE PROVIDED" part?)(1) Allowances for travel expenses, personal expenses, and other expenses.(2) Quarters.(3) Subsistence.(4) Transportation.(5) Equipment.(6) Clothing.(7) Recreational services and supplies.(8) Other services determined by the Director to be consistent with the purposes of the Program.So if some Obomunist needs you for two weeks in say, the South Bronx, you're going to get there on your dime and MAYBE you'll be reimbursed for it, maybe not. And your chow? Probably MRE's. The more the Gunny reads this bill, the more it sounds like a blueprint for a labor camp or a reeducation center for nasty Conservatives. And this leads to yet ANOTHER valid point. Liberals SCREAMED like little girls about Gitmo, about Abu Ghraib, about the Patriot Act, but here, they're as quiet as church mice. Why? Liberals were quiet about Ruby Ridge. Liberals were quiet about Waco. Actually, liberals CHEERED about Waco since it involved a right-wing religious group that simply wanted to be left alone. Liberals said NOTHING about Janet Reno's seizure of Elian Gonzalez and his deportation BACK to a commie hellhole. But then again, liberals are quiet about Comrade Maobama's Aunt Zietuni, living in the US illegally and on the largesse of the US taxpayers as well, when Comrae Maobama could EASILY pay for her upkeep.You know, the more the Gunny thinks about this entire issue, the more he can see the link to Hitler and Nazi Germany. Indeed, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf and told the WORLD exactly what he was going to do and he did it, causing a global war and millions of deaths. Comrade Maobama not only told us HIS plans on the campaign trail (but no one was listening because the Mystical Magical Negro (LA Times) was speaking) but his wretched wife did as well!
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."Sorry micHELLe but Comrade Maobama don't tell the Gunny a D*MN thing and he sure as f**k doesn't OWN ME OR MINE. BTW micHELLe, exactly what Constitution phrase, sentence, paragraph, portion, clause, Amendment, etc, gives Comrade Maobama the authority to require ME to WORK? To interfere in our lives? NONE!In fact, the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution strictly PROHIBTS involuntary servitude.Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.In closing, the passage of HR 1388 can be considered bad law and thus, it is our duty to resist it. The Gunny encourages EVERYONE to write, call, and/or email their Senators and demand that this gets shot down in flames. Also, take note of a companion bill, HR 1444, currently working its way through the Reichstag on the Potomac. Yet another attempt to seize our freedom, one nibble at a time.
March 25, 2009
Open For Questions
The White House is Open for Questions.Mitch Stewart, Director, Organizing for America, explains:
Friend --I wanted to tell you about an exciting new feature just launched on the White House website called "Open for Questions."Here's how it works -- President Obama is inviting everyone to ask a question about the economy and to rate other questions up or down.On Thursday morning, the President will conduct an online town hall on the economy and answer some of the most popular questions live.Watch a video of the President explaining this new feature and be a part of it now."Open for Questions" is an opportunity to open up the White House to all Americans.It's an experiment designed to encourage transparency and accountability by giving you a direct line to the White House.This first round will deal with the economy. Americans deserve to know what their government is doing to get our economy back on track. But it's up to you to participate and make this experiment a success.Join the discussion now:http://whitehouse.gov/OpenForQuestionsThanks, and remember to check back Thursday to watch the President answer some of your questions live.MitchThis online town hall ruse is a perfect way to get Obama's spin and propaganda into classrooms all across America. This is no town hall. The White House selects the questions and the administration prepares the answers. It's indoctrination.
"It's an experiment designed to encourage transparency and accountability by giving you a direct line to the White House."What a load of crap!Transparency and accountability? BS.A direct line to the White House?Yeah, right. I don't have a "direct line" to the White House. "Open for Questions" is a joke. And I don't like the president of the United States utilizing YouTube as part of White House business. It's weird. Very unpresidential.
Friend --I wanted to tell you about an exciting new feature just launched on the White House website called "Open for Questions."Here's how it works -- President Obama is inviting everyone to ask a question about the economy and to rate other questions up or down.On Thursday morning, the President will conduct an online town hall on the economy and answer some of the most popular questions live.Watch a video of the President explaining this new feature and be a part of it now."Open for Questions" is an opportunity to open up the White House to all Americans.It's an experiment designed to encourage transparency and accountability by giving you a direct line to the White House.This first round will deal with the economy. Americans deserve to know what their government is doing to get our economy back on track. But it's up to you to participate and make this experiment a success.Join the discussion now:http://whitehouse.gov/OpenForQuestionsThanks, and remember to check back Thursday to watch the President answer some of your questions live.MitchThis online town hall ruse is a perfect way to get Obama's spin and propaganda into classrooms all across America. This is no town hall. The White House selects the questions and the administration prepares the answers. It's indoctrination.
"It's an experiment designed to encourage transparency and accountability by giving you a direct line to the White House."What a load of crap!Transparency and accountability? BS.A direct line to the White House?Yeah, right. I don't have a "direct line" to the White House. "Open for Questions" is a joke. And I don't like the president of the United States utilizing YouTube as part of White House business. It's weird. Very unpresidential.
Obama Isn't really Into You
Does President Obama truly believe that he can castigate and condemn Wall Street on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and then secure its cooperation on the other days of the week?Does he not understand that when he ignites a public furor over AIG bonuses and then incites Congress to pass a punitive tax, he sends shivers down the spines of every other corporate executive who makes a lot of money?Does he seriously believe that Wall Street investors will not worry that their winnings, should they join the Treasury as partners in risky investments, would be subject to public abuse, publicity and confiscatory taxation?Of course he realizes that his rhetoric makes it unlikely that his program will succeed. He obviously gets it that the entire concept of a public-private partnership is impossible amid a climate of waging class warfare, taxing the rich and heaping contempt on anyone who makes money. The president is quite bright and certainly understands that you cannot shake hands with your right while you launch a roundhouse with your left.So why does Obama persist in his aggressive rhetoric? Why does he continue to treat Wall Street as something out of Dante's Inferno?Because he's just not that into you! He doesn't really care if the public-private partnerships work out.He sends Geithner out to announce the program because he doesn't want to make it his own. When he announces a stimulus plan or a new spending bill, it's Obama's moment before the teleprompter. But the public-private partnerships he leaves to his Treasury secretary to announce.The most rational explanation for Obama's puzzling conduct -- sabotaging his own program by way of his own rhetoric -- is that he truly wants to be forced to nationalize the banks in pursuit of his ultimate goal of a socialist economy.Obama has to oppose nationalization today in order to achieve it tomorrow. He has to show the country and the world that he is doing all he can to help the private sector to sort things out with government help. He must ostentatiously invite the hated demons of Wall Street to join him in rescuing the banks in order, later, to say that he did his best to avoid having to take over the banks. Only then will nationalization be an acceptable alternative -- when he has run out of other options.Meanwhile, he makes sure the private sector won't play ball by going after their bonuses, sending an implicit message to the other executives on Wall Street that reads: Stay away.Even when he takes over the banks, as he almost inevitably will, he is going to have to dress up the nationalization as a temporary measure forced on him by the economy and the previously unrealized depth of the problem. He will cite the example of Sweden, where the government nationalized the banks only temporarily and returned them to private hands quickly.You can't be for nationalization. But Obama hopes to accomplish it nonetheless.Already, in the TARP and TALF programs, we can see how eager he is to use government power to manipulate the once-private sector. Consider the mandates piling up on any financial institution that takes government funds: limits on executive pay, corporate travel and conferences; a strong Buy American recommendation; and aggressive action to get them to make consumer loans. Can affirmative action, low-income lending and diversity outreach be far behind?If Obama can bring banks and the healthcare industry under government control, we will have de facto socialism. Is this Obama's goal? It is obviously where he is headed.Is Obama a socialist? Rather than throw around labels, let's do the math. The best measure of whether an economy is government- or private sector-oriented is the percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) that flows through government expenditure. Before the current fiscal crisis, the major nations stacked up as shown in the chart on page 27.Obama's stimulus package, alone, comes to about 6 percent of GDP, vaulting the United States past Japan to 40 percent on the list above. If we add in the extra spending in the supplemental appropriations bill and the likely increases for healthcare, the total government percentage will rise well past 40 percent and probably close in on the United Kingdom's 43.That's pretty socialistic, but Obama has three more years to get us up around Germany and really ruin our economy!
March 24, 2009
Health Insurance Carriers Don't Want Socialized Medicine; Will Phase Out Old Policies
WASHINGTON -- The health insurance industry offered Tuesday for the first time to curb its controversial practice of charging higher premiums to people with a history of medical problems.
The offer from America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is a potentially significant shift in the debate over reforming the nation's health care system to rein in costs and cover an estimated 48 million uninsured people. It was contained in a letter to key senators.
In the letter, the two insurance industry groups said their members are willing to "phase out the practice of varying premiums based on health status in the individual market" if all Americans are required to get coverage.
"The offer here is to transition away from risk rating, which is one of the things that makes life hell for real people," said health economist Len Nichols of the New America Foundation public policy center. "They have never in their history offered to give up risk rating."
Insurers are trying to head off the creation of a government insurance plan that would compete with them, something that liberals and many Democrats are pressing for. To try to win political support, the industry has already made a number of concessions. Last year, for example, insurers offered to end the practice of denying coverage to sick people. They also said they would support a national goal of restraining cost increases.
The latest offer goes beyond that.
Insurance companies now charge very high premiums to people who are trying to purchase coverage as individuals and have a history of medical problems, such as diabetes or skin cancer.
Even if such a person is offered coverage, that individual is often unable to afford the high premiums. About 7 percent of Americans buy their coverage as individuals, while more than 60 percent have job-based insurance.
"This changes everything," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the leading trade group. "When you have everyone in the system, and you can bring (financial) assistance to working families, then you can move away health status rating."
The companies left themselves several outs, however. The letter said they would still charge different premiums based on such factors as age, place of residence, family size and benefits package.
And importantly, the industry did not extend to small businesses their offer to stop charging the sick higher premiums. Small employers who offer coverage can see their premiums zoom up from one year to the next, even if just one worker or family member gets seriously ill.
Ignagni said the industry is working on separate proposals for that problem.
"We are in the process of talking with small business folks across the country," she said. "We are well on the way to proposing a series of strategies that could be implemented for them."
The offer from America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is a potentially significant shift in the debate over reforming the nation's health care system to rein in costs and cover an estimated 48 million uninsured people. It was contained in a letter to key senators.
In the letter, the two insurance industry groups said their members are willing to "phase out the practice of varying premiums based on health status in the individual market" if all Americans are required to get coverage.
"The offer here is to transition away from risk rating, which is one of the things that makes life hell for real people," said health economist Len Nichols of the New America Foundation public policy center. "They have never in their history offered to give up risk rating."
Insurers are trying to head off the creation of a government insurance plan that would compete with them, something that liberals and many Democrats are pressing for. To try to win political support, the industry has already made a number of concessions. Last year, for example, insurers offered to end the practice of denying coverage to sick people. They also said they would support a national goal of restraining cost increases.
The latest offer goes beyond that.
Insurance companies now charge very high premiums to people who are trying to purchase coverage as individuals and have a history of medical problems, such as diabetes or skin cancer.
Even if such a person is offered coverage, that individual is often unable to afford the high premiums. About 7 percent of Americans buy their coverage as individuals, while more than 60 percent have job-based insurance.
"This changes everything," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the leading trade group. "When you have everyone in the system, and you can bring (financial) assistance to working families, then you can move away health status rating."
The companies left themselves several outs, however. The letter said they would still charge different premiums based on such factors as age, place of residence, family size and benefits package.
And importantly, the industry did not extend to small businesses their offer to stop charging the sick higher premiums. Small employers who offer coverage can see their premiums zoom up from one year to the next, even if just one worker or family member gets seriously ill.
Ignagni said the industry is working on separate proposals for that problem.
"We are in the process of talking with small business folks across the country," she said. "We are well on the way to proposing a series of strategies that could be implemented for them."
Unlimited Power To Take Over Non-Bank Financial Companies???
"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"--Howard BealeI'm with Howard Beale.From the Washington Post:
The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit. WHAT THE HELL?This is America.NO, NO, NO.This is insane. I can't believe it.And this, also from the Washington Post:
"Our system permitted a scale of risk taking that has caused grave damage to the fortunes of all Americans," Geithner said in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee. " . . . We must create a new resolution authority so that the federal government has the tools it needs to unwind an institution of the size and complexity of AIG." "UNWIND."That's the term for the government seizing control of a firm.
...Appearing on television news shows this morning, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the White House wants "resolution authority to go in and be able to change contracts, be able to change the business model, unwind what doesn't work."I keep thinking of all the Dems and fringe Left nutjobs and other kooks who railed against the Bush administration for its alleged power grab, yet this "unwinding" and "seizing" crap is no big deal. The Obama administration is tyrannical. It's a power grab like we've never seen. Let me be clear: I HOPE OBAMA FAILS. I AM MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!
The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit. WHAT THE HELL?This is America.NO, NO, NO.This is insane. I can't believe it.And this, also from the Washington Post:
"Our system permitted a scale of risk taking that has caused grave damage to the fortunes of all Americans," Geithner said in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee. " . . . We must create a new resolution authority so that the federal government has the tools it needs to unwind an institution of the size and complexity of AIG." "UNWIND."That's the term for the government seizing control of a firm.
...Appearing on television news shows this morning, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the White House wants "resolution authority to go in and be able to change contracts, be able to change the business model, unwind what doesn't work."I keep thinking of all the Dems and fringe Left nutjobs and other kooks who railed against the Bush administration for its alleged power grab, yet this "unwinding" and "seizing" crap is no big deal. The Obama administration is tyrannical. It's a power grab like we've never seen. Let me be clear: I HOPE OBAMA FAILS. I AM MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!
House Passes Hitler Youth Bill
Obama promised during the campaign to create a Socialist National Civilian Security Force similar to what they have in other Marxist regimes. Yesterday, the US House took the first step in organizing Dear Leader's dream youth service corp.German youth praising Hitler.The House passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act yesterday. The bill includes language indicating young people will be forced to participate in mandatory national service programs. The bill also states that "service learning" will be a mandatory part of the youth curriculum.That doesn't sound much like "volunteerism" does it?Info Wars and Free Republic reported:
The House passed a bill yesterday which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs as fears about President Barack Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” intensify.The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, was passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate.Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency”.“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.Let the indoctrination begin.More... Kelley in Virginia adds:
"There is even a provision in the bill for uniforms."Of course.
The House passed a bill yesterday which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs as fears about President Barack Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” intensify.The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, was passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate.Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency”.“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.Let the indoctrination begin.More... Kelley in Virginia adds:
"There is even a provision in the bill for uniforms."Of course.
China Calls For U.S. To Dump Dollar
Beijing -- The Chief of the CHinese Central Bank has publicly called for the world to adopt a new "reserve currency" and to "dump" the U.S. dollar as the present reserve currency of the world.China has now joined Russia in making such calls publicly.This is the single worst possible development that could strike the USA, and fits directly into the time frame I warned about as far back as September 2007.If and when the world dumps the dollar, we will not be able to use our currency to buy much if anything from the rest of the world because the world is now viewing the Dollar as worthless.If more countries adopt the view of China and Russia, the U.S. economy will cease to exist and the U.S. Government will collapse within months.
March 23, 2009
Punch Drunk Obama
Yesterday on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Steve Kroft elicted the most insightful comments from President Obama that we’ve seen to date on the financial crisis he doesn’t want to waste.
Obama:I just want to say the only thing less popular than putting money in the banks [begins to smile] is putting…ha ha ha… money in the [continues to chortle and doesn’t finish the answer].
Kroft. Eighteen percent are in favor of it.
Obama. [Giggle]
Kroft. Seventy-six percent against.
Obama. It’s not a high number.
Kroft. You’re sitting here. And you’re laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he’s sitting there just making jokes about money?’ How do you deal with — I mean: explain … Are you punch-drunk?”
Not punch drunk. Stupid.
According to Howie Kurtz, the Obama Administration wanted this interview on 60 Minutes because they felt they were having trouble getting their message out. The fact that CBS has been a Democrat lapdog since the Nixon Administration and the demographics for 60 Minutes skews heavily to older viewers, precisely that demographic which is benefiting most from having Obama and Geithner preserving the investments they are depending on to live undoubtedly figured in the calculus somewhere. (As an aside, I think we need to stop using “calculus” when referring to any decision made by the Obama Administration as what we’ve seen so far much more resembles them pulling off their shoes and socks to deal with really big numbers.)
Kroft, who spent 90 minutes with Obama, says the president was “very, very relaxed” and seems comfortable with him after several previous interviews. “He did not seem at all concerned about what the press has been playing up as his worst week,” says Kroft, who was editing the story until 3:30 a.m. Sunday. “My own personal feeling is they sense they’re having trouble getting their message out in Washington and wanted a discussion at a more leisurely pace that went beyond a sound bite. . . . The challenge was to try to break through and get him to talk about things he hadn’t been talking about.”
To the extent they were able to get beyond the sound bites, I think we can all unite in agreeing that this was a barn burner of a success. And Kroft clearly succeeded in making Obama “very, very relaxed.”
But at a time when the world financial markets are reading utterances by the President and Secretary of the Treasury Geithner the way a fortune teller would read the entrails of a goat, Obama seems to think it is pretty funny that he has a job and a lot of people have lost theirs and that our financial system could be turned into a steaming heap of ordure by any unwise action.
Incredible. At least Nero had musical ability.
As Jeff Emanuel noted last evening:
Here’s a question: what the heck happened to the “Hope and Change” this man was supposed to bring to America with his accession to the White House? I suppose having a hearty chuckle on national television at those Americans who have lost their jobs, their incomes, and their savings in the last several months (with the bulk of the latter coming since the president’s swearing in a scant two months ago) is, in fact, a “change” from what every previous executive has done; however, something tells me rubbing America’s collective face in the current crisis isn’t exactly the brand of “change” that 53% who supported Obama voted for.
This guy has been given the benefit of the doubt by the press to an unbelievable extent. At some point the media has to begin acknowledging that Obama is way out of his depth as is his Administration. As is the case with so many mediocre intellects, they have to surround themselves with inferior mediocrities as a salve to their ego. Obama seems to have done this in a superlative fashion. Were this a one of a kind occurrence we could write it off as such but, sadly, this lack of sensitivity – or just plain common sense – is becoming the hallmark of any action by the administration.
Obama:I just want to say the only thing less popular than putting money in the banks [begins to smile] is putting…ha ha ha… money in the [continues to chortle and doesn’t finish the answer].
Kroft. Eighteen percent are in favor of it.
Obama. [Giggle]
Kroft. Seventy-six percent against.
Obama. It’s not a high number.
Kroft. You’re sitting here. And you’re laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he’s sitting there just making jokes about money?’ How do you deal with — I mean: explain … Are you punch-drunk?”
Not punch drunk. Stupid.
According to Howie Kurtz, the Obama Administration wanted this interview on 60 Minutes because they felt they were having trouble getting their message out. The fact that CBS has been a Democrat lapdog since the Nixon Administration and the demographics for 60 Minutes skews heavily to older viewers, precisely that demographic which is benefiting most from having Obama and Geithner preserving the investments they are depending on to live undoubtedly figured in the calculus somewhere. (As an aside, I think we need to stop using “calculus” when referring to any decision made by the Obama Administration as what we’ve seen so far much more resembles them pulling off their shoes and socks to deal with really big numbers.)
Kroft, who spent 90 minutes with Obama, says the president was “very, very relaxed” and seems comfortable with him after several previous interviews. “He did not seem at all concerned about what the press has been playing up as his worst week,” says Kroft, who was editing the story until 3:30 a.m. Sunday. “My own personal feeling is they sense they’re having trouble getting their message out in Washington and wanted a discussion at a more leisurely pace that went beyond a sound bite. . . . The challenge was to try to break through and get him to talk about things he hadn’t been talking about.”
To the extent they were able to get beyond the sound bites, I think we can all unite in agreeing that this was a barn burner of a success. And Kroft clearly succeeded in making Obama “very, very relaxed.”
But at a time when the world financial markets are reading utterances by the President and Secretary of the Treasury Geithner the way a fortune teller would read the entrails of a goat, Obama seems to think it is pretty funny that he has a job and a lot of people have lost theirs and that our financial system could be turned into a steaming heap of ordure by any unwise action.
Incredible. At least Nero had musical ability.
As Jeff Emanuel noted last evening:
Here’s a question: what the heck happened to the “Hope and Change” this man was supposed to bring to America with his accession to the White House? I suppose having a hearty chuckle on national television at those Americans who have lost their jobs, their incomes, and their savings in the last several months (with the bulk of the latter coming since the president’s swearing in a scant two months ago) is, in fact, a “change” from what every previous executive has done; however, something tells me rubbing America’s collective face in the current crisis isn’t exactly the brand of “change” that 53% who supported Obama voted for.
This guy has been given the benefit of the doubt by the press to an unbelievable extent. At some point the media has to begin acknowledging that Obama is way out of his depth as is his Administration. As is the case with so many mediocre intellects, they have to surround themselves with inferior mediocrities as a salve to their ego. Obama seems to have done this in a superlative fashion. Were this a one of a kind occurrence we could write it off as such but, sadly, this lack of sensitivity – or just plain common sense – is becoming the hallmark of any action by the administration.
Global Warming Hoax
WASHINGTON
– This may come as bad news for Al Gore.
The modest global warming trend has stopped – maybe even reversed itself.
And it's not just the record low temperatures experienced in much of the world this winter.
For at least the last five years, global temperatures have been falling, according to tracking performed by Roy Spencer, the climatologist formerly of NASA.
"Global warming" was going to bring more and more horrific hurricanes, climate change scientists and the politicians who subscribed to their theories said. But since 2005, only one major hurricane has struck North America.
No need to get overheated. Read "Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change" for just $4.95 today!
A new study by Florida State University researcher Ryan Maue shows worldwide cyclone activity – typhoons, as well as hurricanes – has reached at least a 30-year low.
Two more studies – one by the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Germany and another by the University of Wisconsin – predict a slowing, or even a reversal of warming, for at least the next 10 to 20 years.
The Arctic sea ice has grown more on a percentage basis this winter than it has since 1979.
The number of polar bears has risen 25 percent in the past decade. There are 15,000 of them in the Arctic now, where 10 years ago there were 12,000.
"The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling," says Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, confidently. He maintains a switch in Pacific Ocean currents "assures about three decades of global cooling. New solar data showing unusual absence of sun spots and changes in the sun’s magnetic field suggest ... the present episode of global cooling may be more severe than the cooling of 1945 to 1977."
Climatologist Joe D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise."
"The data suggest cooling not warming in Earth's future," he says.
– This may come as bad news for Al Gore.
The modest global warming trend has stopped – maybe even reversed itself.
And it's not just the record low temperatures experienced in much of the world this winter.
For at least the last five years, global temperatures have been falling, according to tracking performed by Roy Spencer, the climatologist formerly of NASA.
"Global warming" was going to bring more and more horrific hurricanes, climate change scientists and the politicians who subscribed to their theories said. But since 2005, only one major hurricane has struck North America.
No need to get overheated. Read "Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change" for just $4.95 today!
A new study by Florida State University researcher Ryan Maue shows worldwide cyclone activity – typhoons, as well as hurricanes – has reached at least a 30-year low.
Two more studies – one by the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Germany and another by the University of Wisconsin – predict a slowing, or even a reversal of warming, for at least the next 10 to 20 years.
The Arctic sea ice has grown more on a percentage basis this winter than it has since 1979.
The number of polar bears has risen 25 percent in the past decade. There are 15,000 of them in the Arctic now, where 10 years ago there were 12,000.
"The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling," says Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, confidently. He maintains a switch in Pacific Ocean currents "assures about three decades of global cooling. New solar data showing unusual absence of sun spots and changes in the sun’s magnetic field suggest ... the present episode of global cooling may be more severe than the cooling of 1945 to 1977."
Climatologist Joe D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise."
"The data suggest cooling not warming in Earth's future," he says.
Obama's School Of Economic Recovery
Now what?
Last week, the Obama administration brought us a $1 trillion Federal Reserve magic trick hatched by the David Copperfield School of Economic Recovery — printing up a trillion bucks and “pumping it into the U.S. economy”…by buying up bonds and mortgage securities…sold and backed by the government.
Today, hapless, truth-challenged tax cheat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner officially unveils another $1 trillion magic trick. Instead of letting failed banks fail, we’ll have another desperately massive and massively desperate attempt to prop them up through a “public private partnership investment program.” Eager to get the still-unfolding Bonus-gate behind them (see “Geithner Aides Worked With AIG for Months on Bonuses” and “AIG paid over $218 million in bonus payments”), Team Obama leaked details of the plan over the weekend. World stock markets were up this morning, full of audaciously blind hope.
Geithner ’s WSJ op-ed this morning lays out some of the details he failed to deliver when he first unveiled his non-plan plan a month ago:
Today, we are announcing another critical piece of our plan to increase the flow of credit and expand liquidity. Our new Public-Private Investment Program will set up funds to provide a market for the legacy loans and securities that currently burden the financial system.
The Public-Private Investment Program will purchase real-estate related loans from banks and securities from the broader markets. Banks will have the ability to sell pools of loans to dedicated funds, and investors will compete to have the ability to participate in those funds and take advantage of the financing provided by the government.
The funds established under this program will have three essential design features. First, they will use government resources in the form of capital from the Treasury, and financing from the FDIC and Federal Reserve, to mobilize capital from private investors. Second, the Public-Private Investment Program will ensure that private-sector participants share the risks alongside the taxpayer, and that the taxpayer shares in the profits from these investments. These funds will be open to investors of all types, such as pension funds, so that a broad range of Americans can participate.
Third, private-sector purchasers will establish the value of the loans and securities purchased under the program, which will protect the government from overpaying for these assets.
The new Public-Private Investment Program will initially provide financing for $500 billion with the potential to expand up to $1 trillion over time, which is a substantial share of real-estate related assets originated before the recession that are now clogging our financial system. Over time, by providing a market for these assets that does not now exist, this program will help improve asset values, increase lending capacity by banks, and reduce uncertainty about the scale of losses on bank balance sheets. The ability to sell assets to this fund will make it easier for banks to raise private capital, which will accelerate their ability to replace the capital investments provided by the Treasury.
This program to address legacy loans and securities is part of an overall strategy to resolve the crisis as quickly and effectively as possible at least cost to the taxpayer. The Public-Private Investment Program is better for the taxpayer than having the government alone directly purchase the assets from banks that are still operating and assume a larger share of the losses. Our approach shares risk with the private sector, efficiently leverages taxpayer dollars, and deploys private-sector competition to determine market prices for currently illiquid assets.
The self-delusional hope, as the NYTimes put it over the weekend (see “Toxic Asset Plan Foresees Big Subsidies for Investors”), “is that such a generous taxpayer subsidy will attract private investors into the market and accelerate the recovery of the country’s banks.”
Because, you know, the trillions of generous taxpayer subsidies we’ve already poured down the hole have worked such wonders to “accelerate the recovery.”
And because, you know, healthy investment firms will be sooooo eager to accept government funding after watching what happened to AIG.
Mike Shedlock boils it down:
This is similar in nature to fraudulent schemes that promise “what’s inside the bag is worth $1 million, unless you open the bag”.
In this case there may be a few “good bags” similar in nature to salting the mine schemes, but for the most part everyone knows what’s in the bag is toxic garbage. What really makes no sense whatsoever is why the government would risk 97% with shared “upside” instead of just buying it all.
Somehow, Geithner (and Obama by implication) believes that igniting a bidding war between hedge funds and private equity over a bag of cow manure will inspire confidence that there’s gold in the bag. Such insanity cannot possibly work, which means it won’t.
To paraphrase Obama’s favorite president, Abe Lincoln: “You can fool all of the Kool-Aid drinkers some of the time, and some of the Kool-Aid drinkers all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the Kool-Aid drinkers all of the time.”
Last week, the Obama administration brought us a $1 trillion Federal Reserve magic trick hatched by the David Copperfield School of Economic Recovery — printing up a trillion bucks and “pumping it into the U.S. economy”…by buying up bonds and mortgage securities…sold and backed by the government.
Today, hapless, truth-challenged tax cheat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner officially unveils another $1 trillion magic trick. Instead of letting failed banks fail, we’ll have another desperately massive and massively desperate attempt to prop them up through a “public private partnership investment program.” Eager to get the still-unfolding Bonus-gate behind them (see “Geithner Aides Worked With AIG for Months on Bonuses” and “AIG paid over $218 million in bonus payments”), Team Obama leaked details of the plan over the weekend. World stock markets were up this morning, full of audaciously blind hope.
Geithner ’s WSJ op-ed this morning lays out some of the details he failed to deliver when he first unveiled his non-plan plan a month ago:
Today, we are announcing another critical piece of our plan to increase the flow of credit and expand liquidity. Our new Public-Private Investment Program will set up funds to provide a market for the legacy loans and securities that currently burden the financial system.
The Public-Private Investment Program will purchase real-estate related loans from banks and securities from the broader markets. Banks will have the ability to sell pools of loans to dedicated funds, and investors will compete to have the ability to participate in those funds and take advantage of the financing provided by the government.
The funds established under this program will have three essential design features. First, they will use government resources in the form of capital from the Treasury, and financing from the FDIC and Federal Reserve, to mobilize capital from private investors. Second, the Public-Private Investment Program will ensure that private-sector participants share the risks alongside the taxpayer, and that the taxpayer shares in the profits from these investments. These funds will be open to investors of all types, such as pension funds, so that a broad range of Americans can participate.
Third, private-sector purchasers will establish the value of the loans and securities purchased under the program, which will protect the government from overpaying for these assets.
The new Public-Private Investment Program will initially provide financing for $500 billion with the potential to expand up to $1 trillion over time, which is a substantial share of real-estate related assets originated before the recession that are now clogging our financial system. Over time, by providing a market for these assets that does not now exist, this program will help improve asset values, increase lending capacity by banks, and reduce uncertainty about the scale of losses on bank balance sheets. The ability to sell assets to this fund will make it easier for banks to raise private capital, which will accelerate their ability to replace the capital investments provided by the Treasury.
This program to address legacy loans and securities is part of an overall strategy to resolve the crisis as quickly and effectively as possible at least cost to the taxpayer. The Public-Private Investment Program is better for the taxpayer than having the government alone directly purchase the assets from banks that are still operating and assume a larger share of the losses. Our approach shares risk with the private sector, efficiently leverages taxpayer dollars, and deploys private-sector competition to determine market prices for currently illiquid assets.
The self-delusional hope, as the NYTimes put it over the weekend (see “Toxic Asset Plan Foresees Big Subsidies for Investors”), “is that such a generous taxpayer subsidy will attract private investors into the market and accelerate the recovery of the country’s banks.”
Because, you know, the trillions of generous taxpayer subsidies we’ve already poured down the hole have worked such wonders to “accelerate the recovery.”
And because, you know, healthy investment firms will be sooooo eager to accept government funding after watching what happened to AIG.
Mike Shedlock boils it down:
This is similar in nature to fraudulent schemes that promise “what’s inside the bag is worth $1 million, unless you open the bag”.
In this case there may be a few “good bags” similar in nature to salting the mine schemes, but for the most part everyone knows what’s in the bag is toxic garbage. What really makes no sense whatsoever is why the government would risk 97% with shared “upside” instead of just buying it all.
Somehow, Geithner (and Obama by implication) believes that igniting a bidding war between hedge funds and private equity over a bag of cow manure will inspire confidence that there’s gold in the bag. Such insanity cannot possibly work, which means it won’t.
To paraphrase Obama’s favorite president, Abe Lincoln: “You can fool all of the Kool-Aid drinkers some of the time, and some of the Kool-Aid drinkers all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the Kool-Aid drinkers all of the time.”
DVD's Confirmed;Won't Play In England
Remember the cheesy DVD collection with which Chairman Zero insulted Britain's nearly blind Gordon Brown? It has been confirmed that it was encoded for the wrong region and can't be played on European machines.
With the Moonbat Messiah, you can't tell where the insolence leaves off and the incompetence begins. How many times were we told that this punk would mend the allegedly tattered relationships with our allies?
With the Moonbat Messiah, you can't tell where the insolence leaves off and the incompetence begins. How many times were we told that this punk would mend the allegedly tattered relationships with our allies?
The TOTUS
WTF is IT with these imbeciles? Are they TOTALLY unable to speak without a teleprompter in front of them 24/7? Are they so TOTALLY incapable of knowing their subject material enough to be able to confidently speak about it? That's what briefers are taught but then again, this is the administration of simple-minded radical children, often in the positions they are because of Affirmative Action or just outright nepotism. From Gibbs following his Master's lead as a stuttering fool to the antics of Turbo Tax Timmy Ghietner to a cabinet so full of cheats, liars, and frauds, that pathetic puppet and his team of idiots is almost laughable...almost. What makes this even funnier is that the leftist vermin made of the way Bush gave speeches but at least one, he had no teleprompter, and two, he wasn't a stuttering babbling fool.
"It is far better to remain silent, and let people think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and confirm that you are a fool!"
The Comrade Maobama team seems bound and determined to confirm this each and every day.
Someone tell Gibbs he's in so far over his head, that he could shovel the manure for a century and not see daylight!
"It is far better to remain silent, and let people think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and confirm that you are a fool!"
The Comrade Maobama team seems bound and determined to confirm this each and every day.
Someone tell Gibbs he's in so far over his head, that he could shovel the manure for a century and not see daylight!
Obama And The Crappy DVD's
Remember that crappy box O' DVDs that Obama gave to the UK Prime Minister as some form of a "special partnership"...well it turns out the DVDs don't even work across the pond. From The Telegraph (h/t Greyhawk):
Alas, when the PM settled down to begin watching them the other night, he found there was a problem.
The films only worked in DVD players made in North America and the words "wrong region" came up on his screen. Although he mournfully had to put the popcorn away, he is unlikely to jeopardise the special relationship – or "special partnership", as we are now supposed to call it – by registering a complaint.
Also, some punk staffer gave The Telegraph attitude when contacted:
A White House spokesman sniggered when I put the story to him and he was still looking into the matter when my deadline came last night.
It was reported that the Prime Minister was attempting to watch Psycho, but knowing the reliable competence of the new White House, I'm certain it was the ill-fated and atrocious 1998 remake with Vince Vaughn and not the original Hitchcok.
Alas, when the PM settled down to begin watching them the other night, he found there was a problem.
The films only worked in DVD players made in North America and the words "wrong region" came up on his screen. Although he mournfully had to put the popcorn away, he is unlikely to jeopardise the special relationship – or "special partnership", as we are now supposed to call it – by registering a complaint.
Also, some punk staffer gave The Telegraph attitude when contacted:
A White House spokesman sniggered when I put the story to him and he was still looking into the matter when my deadline came last night.
It was reported that the Prime Minister was attempting to watch Psycho, but knowing the reliable competence of the new White House, I'm certain it was the ill-fated and atrocious 1998 remake with Vince Vaughn and not the original Hitchcok.
Dumbama On 60 Minutes; Dumbass
To be honest, I am sick of Barack Obama's face.He's everywhere. He was on ESPN. He was on the Tonight Show. It's too much. It's overexposure.He was on 60 Minutes... again!It's saturation Obama, and it isn't over. He's screwing up prime time (American Idol) on Tuesday night by commandeering the air waves for a news conference. We don't need that.But back to 60 Minutes--After NCAA coverage ended, 60 Minutes was up next. It was left on in the background. I wasn't really watching Steve Kroft's intervew with Obama. I was busy doing other things, but I would listen now and then, and look at the screen now and then.I was thinking how arrogant he sounded and how smug he looked.Then came the laughing. It was so weird that even Kroft couldn't let it go unmentioned.Transcript
ON THE SUBJECT OT THE AILING AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY THE PRESIDENT SAID HE IS STILL COMMITTED TO HELPING GENERAL MOTORS AND CHRYSLER AVERT BANKRUPTCY, BUT HE SAYS THEY HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE THEY CAN REMAIN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. AND THERE ARE MAJOR POLITICAL OBSTACLES.PRESIDENT OBAMA: I just want to say that-- the only thing less popular than putting money into banks is putting money (LAUGHS) into the auto industry. So--STEVE KROFT: 18 percent are in favor.PRESIDENT OBAMA: (LAUGHS) That's--STEVE KROFT: Seventy-six percent against.PRESIDENT OBAMA: It-- it-- it's not a high number.STEVE KROFT: You're sitting here. And you're-- you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, "I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about (LAUGHTER) money--” How do you deal with-- I mean, wh-- explain -PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well--STEVE KROFT: --the mood and your laughter.PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah, I mean, there's got to be--STEVE KROFT: Are you punch drunk?PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, no. There's gotta be a little gallows humor to (LAUGHS) get you through the day. You know, sometimes my team-- talks about the fact that if-- if you had said to us a year ago that-- the least of my problems would be Iraq, which is still a pretty serious problem-- I don't think anybody would have believed it. But-- but we've got a lot on our plate. And-- a lot of difficult decisions that we're going to have to make.STEVE KROFT: Afghanistan.PRESIDENT OBAMA: Speaking of which. Yeah.Obama said he wasn't punch drunk.OK.Then why was he laughing so inappropriately?He should have said yes.Obama has a sick, twisted sense of humor.OBAMA: "There's gotta be a little gallows humor to (LAUGHS) get you through the day."Give me a break!The cameras are rolling. He's sitting there with the lights on him. This was hardly the time for Obama to be laughing.Does he need "a little gallows humor" to get him through the interview with Kroft?Did Obama forget where he was, that he wasn't a celebrity doing a guest spot with Leno?It looked absolutely terrible for Obama to laugh when discussing the country's economic crisis.But it makes perfect sense. He jokes about bowling like a Special Olympics athlete. Of course, he would laugh about the sorry state of the auto industry.Fair or not, he came across as arrogant and insensitive, thoughtless and selfish. It appears that is the real Obama, stripped of his teleprompeter. Very unbecoming.
ON THE SUBJECT OT THE AILING AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY THE PRESIDENT SAID HE IS STILL COMMITTED TO HELPING GENERAL MOTORS AND CHRYSLER AVERT BANKRUPTCY, BUT HE SAYS THEY HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE THEY CAN REMAIN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. AND THERE ARE MAJOR POLITICAL OBSTACLES.PRESIDENT OBAMA: I just want to say that-- the only thing less popular than putting money into banks is putting money (LAUGHS) into the auto industry. So--STEVE KROFT: 18 percent are in favor.PRESIDENT OBAMA: (LAUGHS) That's--STEVE KROFT: Seventy-six percent against.PRESIDENT OBAMA: It-- it-- it's not a high number.STEVE KROFT: You're sitting here. And you're-- you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, "I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about (LAUGHTER) money--” How do you deal with-- I mean, wh-- explain -PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well--STEVE KROFT: --the mood and your laughter.PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah, I mean, there's got to be--STEVE KROFT: Are you punch drunk?PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, no. There's gotta be a little gallows humor to (LAUGHS) get you through the day. You know, sometimes my team-- talks about the fact that if-- if you had said to us a year ago that-- the least of my problems would be Iraq, which is still a pretty serious problem-- I don't think anybody would have believed it. But-- but we've got a lot on our plate. And-- a lot of difficult decisions that we're going to have to make.STEVE KROFT: Afghanistan.PRESIDENT OBAMA: Speaking of which. Yeah.Obama said he wasn't punch drunk.OK.Then why was he laughing so inappropriately?He should have said yes.Obama has a sick, twisted sense of humor.OBAMA: "There's gotta be a little gallows humor to (LAUGHS) get you through the day."Give me a break!The cameras are rolling. He's sitting there with the lights on him. This was hardly the time for Obama to be laughing.Does he need "a little gallows humor" to get him through the interview with Kroft?Did Obama forget where he was, that he wasn't a celebrity doing a guest spot with Leno?It looked absolutely terrible for Obama to laugh when discussing the country's economic crisis.But it makes perfect sense. He jokes about bowling like a Special Olympics athlete. Of course, he would laugh about the sorry state of the auto industry.Fair or not, he came across as arrogant and insensitive, thoughtless and selfish. It appears that is the real Obama, stripped of his teleprompeter. Very unbecoming.
March 22, 2009
Obama And His Banking Coup
Barack Obama's plan for ALL banks isn't just overreaching. It's beyond that. It's so radical and so extreme that it's hard to believe it is what it is.
From the New York Times:
The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.
Good Lord!
ALL banks?
What right does Obama have to intervene in the operations and set compensation for executives at ALL banks?
This is insane.
Why stop at ALL banks? Why doesn't Obama set compensation rules for all industries?
Why stop at executives? Why doesn't Obama set compensation for all employees in all businesses?
Clearly, Obama is bent on destroying the private sector.
Officials said the proposal would seek a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system.
It will propose that many kinds of derivatives and other exotic financial instruments that contributed to the crisis be traded on exchanges or through clearinghouses so they are more transparent and can be more tightly regulated. And to protect consumers, it will call for federal standards for mortgage lenders beyond what the Federal Reserve adopted last year, as well as more aggressive enforcement of the mortgage rules.
Hedge funds aren't regulated. It makes sense to rein that in and have some oversight, but to swallow up the workings of ALL banks is crazy.
The administration has been considering increased oversight of executive pay for some time, but the issue was heightened in recent days as public fury over bonuses spilled into the regulatory effort.
The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could go beyond simple reporting requirements. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation.
One proposal could impose greater requirements on company boards to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to ensure that compensation was aligned with the financial interest of the company.
The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly urged regulators to adopt new rules to give shareholders a greater voice in setting executive pay for all public companies.
I can't believe this. Absolutely unbelievable.
Obama is attempting a coup.
Why should Obama get to determine compensation? That's nuts.
And Obama wants his rules to apply to financial institutions that are NOT receiving federal bailout money.
This isn't about the taxpayers and the people's money at all. Why should Obama be allowed to butt in and manage the business of the banks that are functioning without government funds?
This interference is unacceptable.
It's un-American.
This is truly disturbing: "Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies."
WHAT?
Bottom line: Obama plans to take down capitalism.
Obama's vision demands the destruction of the American dream.
It appears the American people elected a tyrant.
It makes me sick.
From the New York Times:
The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.
Good Lord!
ALL banks?
What right does Obama have to intervene in the operations and set compensation for executives at ALL banks?
This is insane.
Why stop at ALL banks? Why doesn't Obama set compensation rules for all industries?
Why stop at executives? Why doesn't Obama set compensation for all employees in all businesses?
Clearly, Obama is bent on destroying the private sector.
Officials said the proposal would seek a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system.
It will propose that many kinds of derivatives and other exotic financial instruments that contributed to the crisis be traded on exchanges or through clearinghouses so they are more transparent and can be more tightly regulated. And to protect consumers, it will call for federal standards for mortgage lenders beyond what the Federal Reserve adopted last year, as well as more aggressive enforcement of the mortgage rules.
Hedge funds aren't regulated. It makes sense to rein that in and have some oversight, but to swallow up the workings of ALL banks is crazy.
The administration has been considering increased oversight of executive pay for some time, but the issue was heightened in recent days as public fury over bonuses spilled into the regulatory effort.
The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could go beyond simple reporting requirements. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation.
One proposal could impose greater requirements on company boards to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to ensure that compensation was aligned with the financial interest of the company.
The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly urged regulators to adopt new rules to give shareholders a greater voice in setting executive pay for all public companies.
I can't believe this. Absolutely unbelievable.
Obama is attempting a coup.
Why should Obama get to determine compensation? That's nuts.
And Obama wants his rules to apply to financial institutions that are NOT receiving federal bailout money.
This isn't about the taxpayers and the people's money at all. Why should Obama be allowed to butt in and manage the business of the banks that are functioning without government funds?
This interference is unacceptable.
It's un-American.
This is truly disturbing: "Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies."
WHAT?
Bottom line: Obama plans to take down capitalism.
Obama's vision demands the destruction of the American dream.
It appears the American people elected a tyrant.
It makes me sick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
