Monday, May 18, 2009

Obama want's to cut pennies out of spending bills...

Amazing isn't it? The man can define his way into and out of anything. The man wants to cut spending, so he proposes cutting $17B out of his new spending bill which will rack up a $1.17T deficit in 2010 alone.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUKTRE54647Y20090507
------------------------------

By Richard Cowan and Jeff Mason - Analysis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama's budget suggests $17 billion in spending cuts for fiscal year 2010, but Congress already has rejected some of those proposals and the savings do little to dent a projected $1.17 trillion deficit.

Obama on Thursday released details of the spending cuts, most of which were announced during or after the initial roll-out of his $3.5 trillion budget in February. Fiscal year 2010 begins on October 1.

Here is a look at what some of the cuts mean for deficit reduction and the chances they have of getting approval from lawmakers:

* Obama's budget calls for controversial healthcare reforms and legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, but a huge fight is already underway in Congress over both initiatives.

Republicans largely oppose a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, calling it a disguised energy tax, and some Democrats are wary of the system's effect on the economy. Obama wants to help fight climate change by capping emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, from big industries and allowing them to trade rights to pollute. Such systems are known as "cap and trade."

* Congress already has rejected Obama's proposed subsidy cuts for wealthy farmers.

* The $17 billion in proposed savings are easily lost in just the interest payments on a federal government debt that is now more than $11.2 trillion. Those interest payments are totaling hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

* Obama's cuts would be far eclipsed by the more than $94 billion in new "emergency" spending to continue paying for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars this year and to increase foreign aid and battle a possible pandemic flu.

* The U.S. budget deficit picture is worsened by the economic recession that has resulted in lower government tax receipts and huge increases in spending to try to stimulate the economy. Until a turnaround occurs, deficits are expected to continue at historically high levels.

* Budget experts believe that the only way to get deficits under control long-term is by making significant reforms to federal retirement and healthcare programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

* The details of Obama's requests come about a week after lawmakers wrapped up work on the very budget the president is now proposing. The Democratic-controlled Congress has passed a nonbinding $3.4 trillion budget plan for next year that embraces many of Obama's priorities.

(Editing by Will Dunham)

------------------------------

The bottom line is, the guy will call bigger welfare checks a tax cut, call doubling the deficit cutting it in half because it will only end up being half as big as when he quadrupled it in the first place. Lies, lies and more lies. And some poeple are dumb enough to actually believe them.

Congress sends it's kids to private school while ending D.C. vouchers... (SHOCKER!)

Well, Congress is at it again telling people that what's good for the goose isn't good enough for the gander. How? Simple. 40% of them have sent their kids to private schools because they didn't want them going to public schools. So what did they do about it? They killed the school voucher system that lets parents choose to send their kids to private schools if they want. If public schools in D.C. are so good, how come none of the Congressmen and Senators send their own kids there? Obama is sending his kids to a private school in D.C. also. Wait a second. I thought he was all for the public schools.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/06/protesters-blast-congress-axing-dc-vouchers-sending-kids-private-school/
---------------------------

Supporters of a celebrated school voucher program in Washington rallied near the mayor's office Wednesday to save the scholarships from being slashed by Congress -- nearly 40 percent of whose members send their own children to private schools.

An estimated 1,000 parents, children and community leaders attended the afternoon protest in Washington's Freedom Plaza, where they called on D.C. politicians to help preserve a federal school choice program that currently assists more than 1,700 students with scholarships worth up to $7,500.

"Several years ago many of us in this good city worked very hard to get a program going with the federal government so that children could go to the schools of their choice. This program has worked," said Kevin Chavous, a former D.C. councilman, but "right now some folks in Congress want to end this program."

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is slated to end next year because of a provision slipped into Congress' $410 billion omnibus spending bill by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., whose children attend private school.

The amendment has angered parents who say the vouchers have raised performance and rescued students from one of the country's worst public school systems.

"I saw dramatic change. The change is not even comparable to what a parent could do alone," said Ingrid Campbell, a single mother of three who has two daughters in the opportunity program.

"I'm going to have to get a part-time job" when the funds are cut off, she told FOX News Wednesday morning before the rally. "I'll do anything, anything in my power and my will to keep my two little girls in their schools."

Rally organizers blasted members of Congress for opposing vouchers but choosing private school for their own families, a choice they say is denied the poorest residents of Washington.

"Your tax dollars also go to pay the salaries of Congress, 40 percent of whom send their kids to private schools," said Joe Robert, a board member of D.C. Children First, a pro-voucher organization.

"Right now we have choices around America but we only have it for people who have some money. We don't have it for people who are struggling."

Thirty-six percent of U.S. representatives and 44 percent of the senators with school-age children have sent their kids to private schools, according to a study by the Heritage Foundation.

Just 11 percent of American schoolchildren attend private schools, according to the study.

Click here to see a breakdown of that study.

The rally, which was held just blocks from the White House, ratcheted up pressure on the Obama administration to address the axing of the program, which would remove two black scholarship students from Sidwell Friends, the private academy that President Obama's daughters attend.

Some parents wondered how Obama would explain the absence of Sarah and James Parker from Sidwell Friends next year.

"I wonder how he feels when his daughter says, 'Hey daddy, my best friend is not coming back next year.' How would that feel?" said Campbell, whose young daughter has pledged to work after school to help pay her own tuition at Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School. "Maybe he can feel what we parents are feeling right now."

Parents with children in the program have been enthusiastic supporters of the vouchers, but a government review released in March offered a less sanguine view of the scholarships.

The program improved reading but not math scores, and while parents were pleased with the increased safety at private schools, students did not report much of a change. The study included both students who used the scholarship and some who were only offered the funds.

Click here to read the report.

The rally was attended and addressed by prominent D.C. politicians, including former mayor Anthony Williams, who credited his success to an excellent education, and former mayor Marion Barry, who said he was a strong supporter of choice.

"We've got to tell Congress to fund this program and not let local people down," said Barry, who currently sits on the city council.

Barry and others pledged to push to rescue the program before it ends this year.

"We're here today to express our full support for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. We want the city council, the mayor, we want members of Congress, we want all of the decision makers to know that our kids come first," said Benjamin Chavis, co-chairman of the Hip Hop Summit Action Network.

---------------------------
The bottom line is that Congress likes to tell us one thing while doing another. Just like the National Health Care initiative. They want all of us to pay for everyone else's healthcare. They don't particularly care that it won't work or that the elderly and critically ill will be denied healthcare benefits. Why? Simple. They are on Congressional Health Care. That's right. When they are old and retired, they will have access to the best health care your tax payer dollars can buy. Proving once again that they are quite happy to cook, as long as someone else is eating the food.

New Montana Gun Law draws line in the sand...

Montana's Governor has just signed into law a provision that would make all gun sales in Montana, to Montanans by Montana companies (i.e. no interstate commerce) impervious to Federal firearms laws. In other words, no background checks, no waiting periods, no silencer bans, no restrictions on amount or type of ammunition or type of weapon or even rates of fire.

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/new_montana_gun_law_signed
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520466,00.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/10/MN4V17BCF2.DTL
------------------------

(05-10) 04:00 PDT Helena, Mont. -- Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control - and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.

The immediate effect of the law could be limited, since Montana is home to just a few specialty gun makers, known for high-end hunting rifles and replicas of Old West weapons, and because their out-of-state sales would automatically trigger federal control.

Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana's sights: a legal showdown over how far the federal government's regulatory authority extends.

"It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana," said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill.

Carrie DiPirro, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had no comment on the legislation. But the federal government has argued that it has authority under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can so easily be transported across state lines.

Guns and states' rights both play well in Montana, the birthplace of the right-wing Freemen militia and a participant in the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and '80s, during which Western states clashed with Washington over grazing and mineral extraction on federal land.

Montana's leading gun rights organization, more hard-core than the National Rifle Association, boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature over the past 25 years. And lawmakers in the Big Sky State have rebelled against federal control of everything from wetland protection to the national Real ID system.

Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped "Made in Montana." The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. They plan to find a "squeaky clean" Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing.

If the ATF tells them it's illegal, they will sue and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.

Similar measures have also been introduced in Texas and Alaska.

"I think states have got to stand up or else most of their rights are going to be buffaloed by the administration and by Congress," said Texas state Rep. Leo Berman.

Critics say exempting guns from federal laws anywhere would undermine efforts to stem gun violence everywhere.

"Guns cross state lines and they do so constantly, and this is a Sagebrush Rebellion-type effort to light some sort of fire and get something going that's pleasing to the gun nuts and that has very little actual sense," said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

In a 2005 case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the enforcement of federal laws against marijuana in California, even if the drug is for medical purposes and is grown and used within the state. The court found that since marijuana produced in California is indistinguishable from pot grown outside the state, the federal government must have the authority to regulate both to enforce national drug laws.

Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the plaintiff in the California case, said that Montana could argue that its "Made in Montana"-stamped guns are unique and sufficiently segregated as to lie outside federal regulation.

Supporters of the measure say the main purpose is not extending gun freedoms, but curbing what they regard as an oppressive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and federal overreach into such things as livestock management and education.

"Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I'd like to support that," said Montana state Rep. Joel Boniek, the bill's sponsor. "But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It's about state rights."

This article appeared on page A - 32 of the San Francisco Chronicle

------------------------


To put it simply, Montana just created the opening for the 2nd Amendment to be used the way the Founding Fathers intended for it to work. Further, the state will arrest and prosecute any Federal officials who try to arrest Montanans who buy guns made in the state that are in accordance to the law. To put it bluntly, Montana just put it's foot down on the State's Sovereignty issue and thumbed it's nose at Washington and said, "What are you going to do about it?"

The question is to see is which state is next in line to challenge Congress. My money is on Texas. Why? Because the only thing they hate worse than being second at anything, is being third.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Obama says, "Long Term Debt unsustainable"... (Really Sherlock?!?!?)

*NEWSFLASH* Obama: Long Term Debt Unsustainable.

No kidding moron! Is that why you just passed a $3.1 TRILLION Spending Plan? How about the fact that you quadrupled spending from what it was before? (The very spending you said was too much while you were campaigning.) How about that fact that you've spent more than all the rest of the Presidents in history... COMBINED!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJsSb4qtILhg&refer=worldwide
-----------------------------

By Roger Runningen and Hans Nichols

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

Two weeks ago, the president proposed $17 billion in budget cuts, with plans to eliminate or reduce 121 federal programs. Republicans ridiculed the amount, saying that it represented one-half of 1 percent of the entire budget. They noted that Obama is seeking an $81 billion increase in other spending.

Entitlement Programs

In his New Mexico appearance, the president pledged to work with Congress to shore up entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. He also said he was confident that the House and Senate would pass health-care overhaul bills by August.

“Most of what is driving us into debt is health care, so we have to drive down costs,” he said.

Obama prodded Congress to pass restrictions on credit-card issuers, saying consumers need “strong and reliable” protection from unfair practices and hidden fees.

“It’s time for reform that’s built on transparency, accountability, and mutual responsibility, values fundamental to the new foundation we seek to build for our economy,” the president said.

Obama called on Congress to send to him by May 25 a bill that would clamp down on what he says are sudden rate increases, unfair penalties and hidden fees. He also wants the measure to strengthen monitoring of credit-card companies.

House Bill

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the credit-card bill last month after adding a provision requiring banks to apply consumers’ payments to balances with the highest interest rates first. The bill also imposes limits on card interest rates and fees.

The Senate continued debating its version of the bill today. It would require credit-card companies to give 45 days’ notice before increasing an interest rate. It would prohibit retroactive rate increases on existing balances unless a consumer was 60 days late with a payment.

The president said Americans have been hooked on their credit cards and share some blame for the current system. “We have been complicit in these problems,” he said. “We have to change how we operate. These practices have only grown worse in the midst of this recession.”

The American Bankers Association, which represents card issuers, has warned lawmakers and the Obama administration against taking punitive action or setting requirements that are too stringent. Doing so, the lobby group says, would limit consumer credit and worsen a credit crunch.

Obama said that restrictions “shouldn’t diminish consumers’ access to credit.”

Uncollectible Debt

Uncollectible credit-card debt rose to 8.82 percent in February, the most in the 20 years that Moody’s Investors Service Inc. has kept records. Lawmakers have said they’re under increasing pressure from constituents to respond to rising interest rates and abrupt changes to consumers’ accounts.

Obama held a White House meeting last month with executives from the credit-card industry, including representatives from Bank of America Corp. and American Express Co. Afterward, he told reporters that credit-card issuers should be prohibited from imposing “unfair” rate increases on consumers and should offer the public credit terms that are easier to understand.

“The days of any time, any increase, anything goes -- rate hike, late fees -- that must end,” Obama said today at Rio Rancho High School. We’re going to require clarity and transparency from now on.”

He also said the steps he has taken to stimulate the economy and start the debate on overhauling the health-care system are beginning to take effect.

‘Beginning to Turn’

“We’ve got a long way to go before we put this recession behind us,” Obama said. “But we do know that the gears of our economy, our economic engine, are slowly beginning to turn.”

Taking questions from the audience, Obama repeated his stance that he wants legislation to overhaul the health-care system finished before the end of the year, saying it is vital to the economy.

Health-care costs are driving up the nation’s debt and burdening entitlement programs such as Medicare, the government- run insurance program for those 65 and older and the disabled.

The programs’ trustees reported May 13 that the Social Security trust fund will run out of assets in 2037, four years sooner than forecast, and Medicare’s hospital fund will run dry by 2017, two years earlier than predicted a year ago.

To contact the reporters on this story: Roger Runningen in Albuquerque at rrunningen@bloomberg.net; Hans Nichols in Washington at =1871 or hnichols2@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: May 14, 2009 19:40 EDT
-----------------------------

I think what he really meant to say was that he is unsustainable as President of the United States. The country will not survive him being in White House for more than 4 years. (And it may not survive his 4 years in the first place)

You know what's really interesting is that he spent all this money to avoid a "problem" that would've worked itself out in 5 years anyways according to the General Accounting office - the same amount of time that it will take to work itself out under his spending plan that cost us $3.1T!

If he has such a problem with spending levels, then why doesn't he spend less? The lying egotistical bastard has no problem blaming other people for the problems he sees with this country but of course none of it is EVER his doing - even when it's his doing. Pricks like this make me sick. Obama needs to go ASAP!

Thousands of Dead people mailed stimulus checks...

Thousands of dead people were mailed stimulus checks recently... Why? The government didn't know they were dead. Hmm... that's interesting now isn't it? They haven't paid their taxes for years, but nobody thought to check?

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/your_money/consumer/090514_Dead_People_Get_Stimulus_Checks
----------------------------

MYFOXNY.COM - This week, thousands of people are getting stimulus checks in the mail. The problem is that a lot of them are dead. A Long Island woman was shocked when she checked the mail and received a letter from the U.S. Treasury -- but it wasn't for her.

WATCH DICK BRENNAN'S REPORT (VIDEO, LEFT)

Antoniette Santopadre of Valley Stream was expecting a $250 stimulus check. But when her son finally opened it, they saw that the check was made out to her father, Romolo Romonini, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He'd been a U.S. citizen when he left for Italy in 1933, but only returned to the United Stated for a seven-month visit in 1969.

The Santopadres are not alone. The Social Security Administration, which sent out 52 million checks, says that some of those checks mistakenly went to dead people because the agency had no record of their death. That amounts to between 8,000 and 10,000 checks for millions of dollars.

The feds blame a rushed schedule, because all the checks have to be cut by June. The strange this is, some of the checks were made out to people -- like Romonini -- who were never even part of the Social Security system.

-----------------------------------

I think there's an easy explanation for all of this though. They were simply registered by ACORN to vote for Obama and these were their thank-you notes. You know how it is... In Chicago, the dead vote early and often!

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Why Rep. John Murtha is a cancer to this country and a disgrace to its taxpayers

Rep. John Murtha (D) PA has been a cancer to this country for far too long. From accusing the Haditha Marines of murder ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/ ) to writing pork into every bill that bears his name, to bringing home over $200M in taxpayer money to an airport that holds his name on it, only services 3 major flights a day, serves less than 10k people and is most famous for him flying in and out of it because it's close to his home on his way to DC.

Despite the fact that an $8M radar project has been unstaffed for 5 years and thus spinning uselessly (http://helpmejoseph.typepad.com/charlotte_front_and_cente/2009/04/more-pork-john-murtha-airport-gets-stimulus-money.html) he just secured $800k in "stimulus" money to repave the alternate runway (even though the FAA rejected it, and then decided to "reconsider" it).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/AR2009051202679.html

No, there are two more serious charges against Murtha. For which he would've been drug out in public and tarred and feathered (or worse) by our American forefathers who didn't take crap from their representatives.

1. His nephew has gained no-bid contracts from the Defense Dept.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/04/AR2009050403743_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009050502472

"The Pentagon has paid $2 million to Murtech to provide "logistics and engineering" for tests of joint dismountable reconnaissance systems, emergency tools and kits that troops can use to evaluate the environment when a release of biological or chemical agents is suspected. Robert Murtha Jr. explained that the work involves Murtech employees moving equipment to Army test locations. "


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051101695.html

"Jeff Curtis, an engineer who worked for Robert Murtha's company in 2001, contacted The Post to say that he and some co-workers did virtually no work on a project to make kits to test for biological agents. Curtis said he remains "furious" that taxpayer dollars were wasted.

"I was always thinking, 'Why is the government paying this company?' " said Curtis, 29, now doing engineering work in North Carolina. "If it's fair to have this kind of no-bid work, I'll start a company and do it for half as much. Because this company didn't do anything."

In e-mails obtained by The Post, Robert Murtha told a business partner in 2001 that there were conditions for "keeping funds flowing." Part of the federal work, he said, must be channeled to Johnstown, Pa., his uncle's hometown.

"This has been a requirement for what I do to get dollars through," Robert Murtha wrote in an e-mail to a senior company official with National Micrographic Services Imaging Inc. of Silver Spring, the lead contractor on a project to produce biological weapons test kits."


2. His nephew has brought up Murtha as a way to gain the upper hand in business dealings (i.e. bullying).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051101695.html

"Robert C. Murtha Jr. for years has made a sizable living working with companies which rely on Pentagon contracts over which his uncle, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), holds considerable sway. "

"Newly obtained documents, however, show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power in his dealings with the military. The documents add to mounting questions about Rep. Murtha, whose use of federal earmarks to help favored defense companies and his relationship with a former lobbying firm are under scrutiny by federal investigators. The congressman has used his control over Pentagon funds to build a hub of defense-related industry in his congressional district and has also won generous campaign donations from the companies."

The bottom line is that these two snakes are responsible for stealing, yes - stealing, millions of dollars from the tax payers and they need to go. By hook or by crook, they need to go.

Oh yes, let's add one more little detail to Mr. John Murtha's indictment of corruption and sleaze.

3. One of his top aides threatened to have his opponent for the PA Congressional seat court-martialed for running. Oh yes, court-martialed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/13/murtha-rival-says-aide-threatened-court-martialed/

"Bill Russell, an Iraq war veteran who served with the Army, told FOXNews.com that Murtha's chief of staff, John Hugya, made the threat on two occasions -- first to his former commanding officer and then to his face in March. "

"It's a terrible, terrible threat to make," said Russell, a Republican who lost to the Democratic powerhouse in November but plans to challenge him again in 2010. Asked if Murtha is trying to bully him out of a rematch, Russell said: "It was a direct intent to intimidate."

Russell was on active duty for a three-month period -- from April to July -- of his campaign for Congress last year. But he said he did not campaign during that period, as Hugya was suggesting, and so did not violate military code that prohibits doing so.

"I'm very comfortable with the fact that I didn't do anything wrong and there's nothing to court martial me for if they try to do it," he said. But he said Murtha's reputation as a powerbroker on Capitol Hill puts him on edge.

"When you have a threat to be made so brazenly and openly ... you've got to take it seriously," he said.

Yes, let's just try and bully members of the military from running for office. Oh, i forgot, there's one more group of individuals that Murtha is a disgrace to: The US Marine Corps. Yes, the same Marine Corps whos men he accused of intentionally and willfully murdering Iraqi civilians in Haditha. Murtha was the first Vietnam Vet to be elected to Congress. It's a shame the Viet Cong didn't get one more. I can think of a few names that should be alive and free in this great country besides Murtha - for starters, theres a whole wall of them in D.C. go pick any of those names and they would better for and respect and honor this country more than that sleazebag scumball human refuse we currently have sitting in Congress.

Guess what! Chrysler keeping $7B of OUR taxpayer money... OBAMA lied!

Chrysler won't be repaying $7B in bailout money. (thank-you John Q. Taxpayer) But you would've had to dig pretty deep into the bankruptcy documents to discover that. Here's something though, with the UAW (an unsecured creditor) getting preferential treatment over secured creditors, that $7B is essentially going STRAIGHT to the UAW via the stock equity trade that was made. How? Simple, $7B in forgiven debt is $7B that the UAW doesn't have to try and recover before they make a profit on their shares. THANKS UNCLE OBAMA!!! (Hey, $7B is nothing compared to the $140B that GE lost and is being repayed by the taxpayers - and is essentially paying Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and their nice little brother - Rachel Maddow - 's saleries! More on that later)

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news/companies/chrysler_loans/index.htm
--------------------------

An administration official confirms that a $4 billion bridge loan and $3.2 billion in bankruptcy financing won't be paid back by Chrysler following bankruptcy.

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chrysler LLC will not repay U.S. taxpayers more than $7 billion in bailout money it received earlier this year and as part of its bankruptcy filing.

This revelation was buried within Chrysler's bankruptcy filings last week and confirmed by the Obama administration Tuesday. The filings included a list of business assumptions from one of the company's key financial advisors in the bankruptcy case.

Some of the main assumptions listed by Robert Manzo of Capstone Advisory Group were that the Treasury would forgive a $4 billion bridge loan given to Chrysler in the closing days of the Bush administration, a $300 million fee on that loan, and the $3.2 billion in financing approved last week by the Obama administration to fund Chrysler's operations during bankruptcy.

An Obama administration official confirmed Tuesday that Chrysler won't be repaying the loans, though a portion of the bridge loan may be recovered by Treasury from the assets of Chrysler Financial, the former credit arm of the automaker which is essentially going out of business as part of the reorganization.

"The reality now is that the face value [of the $4 billion bridge loan] will be written off in the bankruptcy process," said the official, who added that the 8% equity stake that Treasury will be receiving as part of the company's reorganization is meant to compensate taxpayers for the lost money.

"While we do not expect a recovery of these funds, we are comfortable that in the totality of the arrangement, the Treasury and the American taxpayer are being fairly compensated," said the official.

The company filed for bankruptcy Thursday as part of a deal with the federal government, unions, some lenders and Italian automaker Fiat to keep the company from being shut down.

The Canadian government also agreed to kick in about $900 million in bankruptcy financing. According to the filings, Chrysler's advisor assumes that this loan will be forgiven as well.

The Obama administration official said that other money being made available to Chrysler, such as the $4.7 billion that will go to the company as it exits bankruptcy, will be a loan that the government expects to be paid back. In addition, that loan will be secured by company assets, unlike the previous loans to Chrysler.

According to the filing, the company's financial advisor also foresees the need for an additional $1.5 billion loan from the Treasury Department by June 30, 2010.

Lori McTavish, a spokeswoman for Chrysler, said some of the assumptions made by the company have changed since its bankruptcy filing on April 30. But she could not say specifically if the company still hoped for the additional federal loan in 2010.

"The content of the document needs to speak for itself. We are simply not in a position to comment," she said.

Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who took the lead among Senate Republicans in challenging the auto bailout last December, said he was disappointed but not surprised that Chrysler would not be paying back the money.

"I've known for sometime that with the capital structure of the company and the situation it was in, we would not be paid back," he said. "There were several secured lenders ahead of us, and they're not getting most of their money."

Major banks and hedge funds that loaned Chrysler $6.9 billion were offered only $2.25 billion to settle those loans by Treasury. While major banks accepted the offer, hedge funds rejected it, forcing the company into bankruptcy.

Typically lenders who loan bankrupt companies funds to operate during reorganization go to the front of the line on getting the money they are owed repaid. But Corker said Chrysler's dire financial situation left it no chance to even pay back the bankruptcy financing.

He said the fact that Chrysler isn't paying what is owed should be a warning that the $15.4 billion loaned to General Motors by Treasury since December, as well as any bankruptcy financing it might need, is also at risk.

"Certainly there are red flags," he said.

--------------------------
Red flags my butt! Red flags were going off the moment the Bush Administration suggested the IDEA of a bailout! Government's job is not to pick winners and losers, nor is it to take over the running of private companies. If there's one thing government has proven, it's that it is totally and COMPLETELY INEPT at EVERYTHING! The snake has spoken. The fleecing of America's taxpayers under the Obama-nation of Desolation continues. Stay tuned for more outrageous behavior. (I.e. GE and the propaganda machine at NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, etc... and cronyism/nepotism/Chicago politics that will attempt to foist nationalization of healthcare upon us - oh yes. Be prepared to be FURIOUS!)

Colin Powell says GOP should return to the center... HAH!

Colin Powell opened his big yap today and said the GOP should return to the center. The only problem with the GOP is that it's moved so far towards the center that it's no longer the GOP and is now Democrat Lite (read that Soft Statist - for you Tyranny & Liberty readers out there!).


http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/print_friendly.php?ID=cda_20090505_8843
----------------------

The Republican Party is in big trouble and needs to find a way to move back to the middle of the country, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday.

Powell said the GOP is "getting smaller and smaller" and "that's not good for the nation." He also said he hopes that emerging GOP leaders, such as House Minority Whip Cantor, will not keep repeating mantras of the far right.

"The Republican Party is in deep trouble," Powell told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington sponsored by Fortify Software Inc. The party must realize that the country has changed, he said. "Americans do want to pay taxes for services," he said. "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less."

Powell, secretary of State during the first term of former President George W. Bush, made waves last year when he came out for the Democratic presidential candidate, then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Powell described the 2008 GOP candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, as "a beloved friend" but said he told him last summer that the party had developed a reputation for being mean-spirited and driven more by social conservatism than the economic problems that Americans faced.

Powell also criticized other GOP leaders, for bowing too much to the right.

He blasted radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, saying he does not believe that Limbaugh or conservative icon Ann Coulter serve the party well. He said the party lacks a "positive" spokesperson. "I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without," Powell said.

He also said that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate last year, is "a very accomplished person" but became "a very polarizing figure." He said the polarization was created by Palin's advisers.

Powell said he does not want Republicans to turn into Democrats but rather to build a vibrant party.

On other fronts, Powell said he was concerned that the Pentagon is reportedly going to create a new command to manage military cybersecurity affairs. "I smell a bureaucratic fight taking place inside the administration," he said. "I'm always nervous when people want to create new commands because new commands create new stovepipes."

According to Obama administration officials and media reports, U.S. government information networks are being attacked by criminals and attackers working for foreign governments, namely China and Russia. Powell said creating a command might be the correct solution, but he added: "My own view is take it slow, make sure you get it right."

----------------------

"Powell said he does not want Republicans to turn into Democrats but rather to build a vibrant party."

So THAT'S why he endorsed Obama. RIIIIIIIIIGHT!


"The Republican Party is in deep trouble," Powell told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington sponsored by Fortify Software Inc. The party must realize that the country has changed, he said. "Americans do want to pay taxes for services," he said. "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less."

Yeah, so that's why THOUSANDS turned out at volunteer-run Tea Parties on April 15th. They were really FOR the taxes. Colin - YOU BIG DOPE! - the tea parties were ANTI-TAX tea parties. The WHOLE POINT was fewer taxes, not more. Not only that, but they were anti-government intrusion into their lives. They want LESS, not more government in their lives. You have it backwards you big dumb Liberal in disguise! Stop telling the people what they want. They've already SPOKEN! You just are dumb enough that you can foll them into thinking otherwise. You, like the rest of your liberal buddies, think you are important enough that people will listen to you because you know what's best for them. If I'm not mistaken, that's the reason every citizen 18 and over still has a VOTE. So that THEY can determine what's best for them.

In my opinion, the best thing the GOP could do (if they want to remain relevant) is to take HARD RIGHT, and return to conservatism with the Constitution at the very center of their values. If they return to the Constitution, the people will rally around them. Mostly because the people are ALREADY rallied around the Constitution, they're just waiting for the GOP to come to its senses, or else they will find another party to replace it. Several thousand teaparties across the country on April 15th were living proof of THAT!

Governator ask what if re: pot and legalization if it were taxed...

There are a few interesting issues that I feel need to be covered here, not the least of which is that I have never smoked, nor do I ever plan on smoking pot or any other type of smoking product. However, with that being said... (here's where it gets interesting). I'll give you the link to the story and the story first, and then go from there.

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1837124.html
--------------------

Governor asks: What if pot's legal and taxed?

Published: Wednesday, May. 6, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Wednesday, May. 6, 2009 - 1:06 pm

As California struggles to find cash, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday it's time to study whether to legalize and tax marijuana for recreational use.

The Republican governor did not support legalization – and the federal government still bans marijuana use – but advocates hailed the fact that Schwarzenegger endorsed studying a once-taboo political subject.

"Well, I think it's not time for (legalization), but I think it's time for a debate," Schwarzenegger said. "I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues, I'm always for an open debate on it. And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect did it have on those countries?"

Schwarzenegger was at a fire safety event in Davis when he answered a question about a recent Field Poll showing 56 percent of registered voters support legalizing and taxing marijuana to raise revenue for cash-strapped California. Voters in 1996 authorized marijuana for medical purposes.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has written legislation to allow the legal sale of marijuana to adults 21 years and older for recreational use. His Assembly Bill 390 would charge cannabis wholesalers initial and annual flat fees, while retailers would pay $50 per ounce to the state.

The proposal would ban cannabis near schools and prohibit smoking marijuana in public places.

Marijuana legalization would raise an estimated $1.34 billion annually in tax revenue, according to a February estimate by the Board of Equalization. That amount could be offset by a reduction in cigarette or alcohol sales if consumers use marijuana as a substitute.

Besides raising additional tax revenue, the state could save money on law enforcement costs, Ammiano believes. But he shelved the bill until next year because it remains controversial in the Capitol, according to his spokesman, Quintin Mecke.

"We're certainly in full agreement with the governor," Mecke said. "I think it's a great opportunity. I think he's also being very realistic about understanding sort of the overall context, not only economically but otherwise."

Schwarzenegger previously has shown a casual attitude toward marijuana. He was filmed smoking a joint in the 1977 film, "Pumping Iron." And he told the British version of GQ in 2007, "That is not a drug. It's a leaf." Spokesman Aaron McLear downplayed the governor's comment as a joke at the time.

Even if California were to legalize marijuana, the state would hit a roadblock with the federal government, which prohibits its use. Ammiano hopes for a shift in federal policy, but President Barack Obama said in March he doesn't think legalization is a good strategy.

Any study would find plenty of arguments, judging by responses Tuesday.

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, said he's open to a study, but he remains opposed to legalization. He warned that society could bear significant burdens. He downplayed enforcement and incarceration savings because he believes drug courts are already effective in removing low-level offenders from the system.

"Studies have shown there is impairment with marijuana use," DeVore said. "People can get paranoid, can lose some of their initiative to work, and we don't live in some idealized libertarian society where every person is responsible completely to himself. We live in a society where the cost of your poor decisions are borne by your fellow taxpayers."

But Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project said studies show alcohol has worse effects on users than marijuana in terms of addiction and long-term effects. His group believes marijuana should be regulated and taxed just like alcoholic beverages.

"There are reams of scientific data that show marijuana is less harmful than alcohol," Mirken said. "Just look at the brain of an alcoholic. In an autopsy, you wouldn't need a microscope to see the damage. Marijuana doesn't do anything like that."

Schwarzenegger said he would like to see results from Europe as part of a study.

The Austrian parliament last year authorized cultivation of medical marijuana. But Schwarzenegger talked with a police officer in his hometown of Graz and found the liberalization was not fully supported, McLear said.

"It could very well be that everyone is happy with that decision and then we could move to that," Schwarzenegger said. "If not, we shouldn't do it. But just because of raising revenues … we have to be careful not to make mistakes at the same time."

--------------------

Issues:

1. It's downright abhorrent (and I believe intrinsically evil) for a government to say something is dangerous to the people and that they should be protected from it, and then turn around and legalize it solely so that they can collect tax revenue from it. Either the people should be protected from it, or they shouldn't. Raising tax revenue from its sale should be secondary. Allowing the people to be at risk from a "dangerous" substance simply for the money that can be gained from it is irresponsible at best, and downright criminal at worst. Personally, I believe the Constitution leaves this right to the states to determine what their people can and cannot do, NOT the Federal government. (Granted this can of worms will be addressed shortly a little further down where the actual danger posed by Marijuana is brought up)

It is not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. Rather, it is the government's job to maintain an environment where we are given the widest possible latitude to determine our own success or failure while infringing the least on others' rights to do the same. For example, if I want to blow my life on drugs, that is my right. Where my right stops is when my blowing my life on drugs causes me to injure someone else in the course of using drugs or while under the influence of drugs. For example, a DUI, or committing a crime while under the influence of drugs.

2. Marijuana specifically used to be not only legal in the U.S., but mandatory by law to be grown in colonial virginia by landowners possessing at least 2000 acres, was used as currency, and was one of the largest exports of the U.S. up until the civil war. Thomas Jefferson even risked an international incident to bring particularly good hemp seed in from China (a capital offense in China at the time was the export of its prized hemp seeds).

http://www.jackherer.com/chapter01.html

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3774

What caused it's decline?
  • It is a very labor intensive plant to harvest and with the end of the civil war there was a severe shortage of cheap labor - i.e. slaves
  • The Cotton Gin was invented making Cotton a much more viable cash crop as a result (this is VERY important later)
It was outlawed for one reason: Money and the threat of massive economic losses to Big Cotton. (while I am a huge supporter of capitalism, industry, business and the free markets in general, I use the term "Big" to denote the unethical - and I believe illegal - actions undertaken by the industry)

The invention of a machine in Germany to harvest hemp more efficiently threatened to ruin not only the Cotton Industry, but also the profitability of many major companies whos owners were quite well connected politically.

http://www.jackherer.com/chapter02.html

3. Alcohol and Tobacco are far more dangerous to users and cause far more deaths (both principal and secondary) than does Marijuana. They are also far more costly to society in terms of health care and property damage. The danger argument simply does not hold water.

The Bottom Line:
Marijuana (Hemp) should be re-legalized at ONCE! If the restoration of legitimate personal liberties and freedoms weren't enough, then the massive economic boon to our economy should be.

Tree huggers and environazi's should rejoice at the millions of trees to be saved by using hemp instead of wood pulp. They should also rejoice at the millions of fewer chemicals being used in the manufacturing process and being released into the environment.

Charity groups and those concerned with economic parity in the world should be overjoyed that smaller countries could now compete on the world market with their hemp exports raising the standard of living for all of their citizens. (Imagine African countries being able to export hemp - wouldn't that go a long way to solve a lot of problems over there?)

The bottom line is that crooked deals were made via pressure (and most likely payments) to Congressmen to draft legislation (which is how all laws come about - via legislation being drafted) which would protect certain financial interests for very influential rich people at the expense of, well, the rest of humanity and the Nation itself.

Now, has your view of legalizing hemp changed? Whether it's being smoked or not, how do you outlaw a plant? Is God a criminal for creating it? Was God wrong when he made it? By the very definition of God, he cannot be either of the above. Which then leaves the issue with the Federal Government, once again passing a law to benefit the few at the expense of the many. A return to the correct Constitutional restraints of the federal government would alleviate this problem and return our nation to the prominent place it once had - and deserves to have again.

Friday, May 8, 2009

U.K. bans 16 based on beliefs... (as if we really need the Socialist States of the U.K. anyways)

The U.K. has issued a list of 16 individuals who are banned from entering the U.K. Contained on the list, well your usual mix of miscreants.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html
-------------------
"Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal, Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black and neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe are also on the list released today.

Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky, the former leaders of a violent Russian skinhead gang which committed 20 racially motivated murders, are also banned from coming to Britain. Both are currently in prison.

Making up the rest of the 16 named by the Home Office today are preachers Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Safwat Hijazi and Amir Siddique, Muslim activist Abdul Ali Musa (previously Clarence Reams), murderer and Hezbollah terrorist Samir Al Quntar and Kashmiri terror group leader Nasr Javed."

"Also named are American Baptist pastor Fred Waldron Phelps Snr and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, who have picketed the funerals of Aids victims and claimed the deaths of US soldiers are a punishment for US tolerance of homosexuality."

----------------------------------

Oh, and one Michael Savage. Yes, that's right. Michael Savage. Why? It appears that the clown the have in charge of the Home Office - Home Secretary Jacqui Smith - has decided that, "This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country," Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast.

Savage responded, "For this lunatic Jacqui Smith ... to link me up with skinheads who are killing people in Russia, to put me in league with mass murderers who kill Jews on buses, is defamation," Savage said on his show, excerpts of which were aired on BBC radio on Wednesday.

"As a result of this, I am going to sue her."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/savage-response-barred-shock-jock-vows-to-sue-1679928.html

Yes, causes inter-community tension. Kind of like millions of illegal immigrants sneaking into the country and stealing jobs and benefits from its tax paying citizens while committing hundreds of thousands of crimes against its population and then being jailed at the citizens' expense. I suppose that might cause inter-community tension. Kind of like a country being defrauded by corrupt politicians who are destroying it at the expense of those who elected them on false promises. I suppose that might cause inter-community tension too.

I have a better idea. perhaps the U.K. could concentrate on getting rid of the cancer in its midst. By that I mean the swelling muslim population that has already been responsible for acts of terror and is planning many more. The same population that wants to override U.K. law with Sharia law (a cruel set of rules that strips women and non-muslims of any rights whatsoever). Yes, perhaps the U.K. could concentrate on the log in its own eye, before trying to get the speck out of it's neighbors eye.

Certainly a country has the right to ban anyone it wants to. But it is in who it bans that tells the world who it accepts. Clearly, to ban a talk show host - who is not a gang member or a murderer or a terrorist organizer like the vast majority of the list - tells the world that if there is one thing the U.K. fears, it is the free exchange of ideas among its people. Perhaps they should mind the store b/c their people are already angry at the abysmal job the government has been doing. And if they are worried about outside voices coming in and stirring the pot with a little truth, they should be worried more about the millions of angry voices among their citiens for whome they have ruined life with taxes upon taxes upon taxes.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Congress wnats you to be responsible for oversight on all the spending of your tax money... (WHAT!?!!?)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

States rely on Federal Government for most of their money...

Well now, this is a first. The states relying on the Federal government as opposed to the Federal government relying on the states. (just goes to show how many taxes we're really paying to the IRS and via other taxes)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-04-fed-states-revenue_N.htm

Here's the problem, the Federal money comes with strings attached. (not a surprise there)

Perhaps here's the most telling part of the story:

-------------
"

States are counting on tax collections rebounding by 2012, when stimulus money starts to run out.

The early flow of stimulus money helped lift total state and local revenue by 1.6% in the first quarter compared with a year earlier despite a 2.9% drop in total tax collections. Spending rose 1.5%.

Things are getting worse for states that rely on the income tax. Reason: Unexpectedly large refund checks in March and April are going to workers who lost jobs or had wage cuts last year.

Michigan's income tax collections are down $200 million and refunds are up about $200 million — a $400 million swing. Connecticut has paid nearly $1 billion in tax refunds this year, about 20% more than expected. "These are big numbers. It's put us in a very bad situation," says Connecticut Comptroller Nancy Wyman."

------------------------------

That's right, states continue to spend even when the money isn't coming in. Here's a clue people: Spend less, save more. Isn't that what you tell your citizens? How about trying a little bit of that yourselves.

Police snooping on celebrities... (Don't worry, they'll be snooping on you soon enough)

Ok, so here's the deal. Police in Massachusetts are using their criminal records searches to find info on celebrities. No, that's not an invasion of privacy. Not at all.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/06/police_prying_into_stars_data/?s_campaign=8315

"Law enforcement personnel looked up personal information on Patriots star Tom Brady 968 times - seeking anything from his driver's license photo and home address, to whether he had purchased a gun - and auditors discovered "repeated searches and queries" on dozens of other celebrities such as Matt Damon, James Taylor, Celtics star Paul Pierce, and Red Sox owner John Henry, said two state officials familiar with the audit."

Let me point out that the little tidbit there on whether Tom Brady has purchased a gun or not, is nobody's business, police or otherwise.

It's a right guaranteed by the second amendment (unlike owning a car). Further, it's a great example of why there should be no gun owner registry. Private citizens can be targeted by the police, individuals or the government for violations of their rights based on whether or not they have a gun. Further, the second amendment was created to keep the government in check. yes, you read that right. The founding fathers put the second amendment in the Bill of Rights to guarantee (and in fact FORCE) the government to respect the rights of it's citizens. Yes, you read that correctly. the government should live in fear of it's people, not the other way around.

If anything, this story should be written the other way around. Citizens should be able to look up every detail of their public officials lives - just to make sure they aren't involved in anything shady. Of course, not that ANY government employee or representative would EVER do ANYTHING illegal or mis-use their power and authority with the government.

Arlen Spector, switches sides, gets cold shoulder...

Ok, so Arlen Spector (the traitor from PA) gleefully switched sides to save his own hide, and then finds out he wont get any seniority status in any of his committees. WAAAAAH!!!

http://www.rollcall.com/news/34648-1.html

Guess what Arlen. There's a price to pay for treachery. And you won't have any friends over there. (And you certainly don't have any over here) When your term is up and you are sent packing in glorious humility and embarrassment there's one thing to be learned from it: Payback's a - well, you know the rest.

Hey Arlen, guess you should've known better than to expct that you would be welcomed with open arms by the party that makes a living at saying one thing in public, then turning around and stabbing you in the back behind closed doors. DOH!

Obama no-show for National Day of Prayer (surprised? nah...)

So, Obama is a no-show for the National Day of Prayer.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/06/prayer-day-no-show/

Man, you would think that for a guy that swears up and down he's a Christian, he'd at least show up for the thing, right? I mean, talking to God can't be THAT big of an intrusion into his time, right? Then again, this is the same guy that swears up and down he never heard Rev. Wright say inflammatory racist remarks and then say he wouldn't repudiate the man.

Guess they informed him his teleprompter wouldn't work in the early morning prayer service or at the Catholic prayer breakfast the next day. You know what that means. A 15 minute speech turns into an hour and a half long painful ordeal. Maybe he should just pray for God to end his painful blight of stuttering and "um-ing." Then again, that would require recognizing that the is God, which this man of political expediency, might not find so politically expedient. Besides, didn't you hear? He won.

DHS pulls "extremism dictionary"

Ok, so the Dept. of Homeland Security has pulled a dictionary containing terms for extremists.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/05/homeland-pulled-back-extremism-dictionary/?page=2

Apparently the dictionary didn't go over so well after it was released. (Imagine that!)

Poor Roger Mackin, the guy they chose to be the scapegoat this time, has been replaced. I for one would like to see a little responsibility in leadership and see old Pop-Eye Napolitano replaced. She's brutally incompetent. (Just like everyone else in the Obama Administration. - Press Secretary Robert Gibbs anyone?)

But hey, while they are busy doling out names for any and everyone that supports a political agenda, let's create a few of our own.

"Socialist" - Anyone supporting Barack Obama and his governmental strongarming of corporations and the private sector in an attempt to bring everything in the private sector under his control

"Freedom Independance Extremism" - Anyone that supports freedom from independance resulting in the government controlling any and everything

"Ethical Independance Extremism" - Any politician that supports independance from ethical constraints as a daily guide in political activities and governmental contracting practices

"Freedom of Religion Independance Extremism" - Any group advocating independance from the freedom of religion as established in the 1st Amendment. Typically any political group opposing Christianity or any mention of God, etc... Also, any person or group advocating Islam as a legitmate non-violent religion, or a religion of peace. (yeah, that 1400 year history of violence is hard to sweep under the rug)

Drug dealers mocking Obama... (hey, they didn't want to be left out of the fun either)

Ok, ok. So Obama has drug dealers mocking him now.

http://www.krgv.com/news/local/story/Drug-Dealers-Mocking-President-Obama/mWqITbFQpEi3DpFZxvYzRg.cspx

Eh, what else is new. Everyone else is making fun of his incompetence. Why shouldn't they? After all. They might get a new customer out of it. Drug user in Chief. He was apparently a satisfied customer back in the day.

Shocker! ACORN workers charged in voter registration fruad! (No... I thought Mickey Mouse was a legit citizen!)

Well, well, well... It looks like ACORN's chickens are finally coming home to roost.

ACORN nuts are being charged in voter fraud schemes in Nevada

http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/44307912.html

and in Pennsylvania.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D981H0JG3&show_article=1

In Nevada:

"Scott Levenson, an ACORN spokesman, said the group cooperated in the investigation and that charging the organization is “frightfully absurd.”

“We’re a bit appalled at the political grandstanding on the part of the attorney general’s office,” he said."

Call me crazy, but I'd call registering the Dallas Cowboys and Disney characters as well as any homeless person on a park bench political grandstanding. Then again, I guess you cna do whatever you want when you work directly for the President - er... "the people." Sorry. Not sure how that slipped out.

If it were me, I'd like to see Mr. Levenson thrown in jail for the mere audacity to try and pretend that ACORN was in the right by setting up for massive voter fraud. Nice clothes Emperor.

The bottom line:

"That means almost 40,000 of the new voters registered by ACORN didn’t vote, and of those, almost 19,000 had information on file that didn’t match what was turned in on the forms.

“That’s 48 percent of those forms that I believe are clearly fraudulent,” Lomax said."

Wow, a 48 percent fraudulent rate. I mean, hey, at least they got it right 52 percent of the time. I mean, that's what... almost kind of sort of close to a D in school. Yeah, not really.

Fed Govt. to release dog-and-pony show "stress test" results

Ok, lets be real here. No one ACTUALLY believes that the so called "Stress Test" is to help the banks. the only way someone would believe it is if they are completely and totally ignorant, or feed off the party line like a buffet that's closing in 5 minutes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/politics/04stress.html?hpw

Here's what you need to know.

1. The Stress Test is to see if the banks have "At the core of the test will be a judgment about whether each of the country’s 19 biggest banks has enough money to withstand a deep recession and, if not, how much more capital it needs to be able to lend at a healthy pace, according to regulators."

2. The regulators are the ones that determine it. (Federal regulators)

3. If they fail, "The administration is expected to make the case that the needs of the troubled banks can be met with the bailout funds that Congress has already approved."

So to re-cap. The 19 largest banks have to go through a Federal Stress Test to see if they will make it. the Federal Regulators will determine if they pass or fail. If they fail, the Federal Government will try and force them to accept bailout money and thus be under the control of the Federal Government. No, that's not a conflict of interest. Not at all.

Here's the bottom line:

-------------------------

"That would be a departure from what administration officials were saying as recently as March and evidently reflects the recent improvement in banks’ conditions.

“None of these banks are insolvent,” said a senior government official, who did not want to be identified before the public release of the test results.

The official added: “These are manageable losses.”

The stress tests are one more example of the extraordinary ways that the government is intervening in the economy, to cushion the blow from the current financial crisis and recession. Having already propped up the credit markets and the automobile industry, officials are now putting the finishing touches on an exercise with no obvious precedent."

---------------------

No. The government certainly isn't making things up as it goes for its own ends and means. Not at all. And btw, the Emperors's clothes - they're lovely. Pay no attention to what that small child in the front row is saying.

Obama strong-arms Chrysler investor into accepting bankruptcy plan

Ok, so what does it mean when an Adminstration threatens to ruin a company's reputation if it doesn't go along with their plans? Isn't that extortion? I was always under the idea that it was illegal - unless of course the Federal Government was doing it, in which case it's legal and there's not much you can do about it.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/bankruptcy-atto.html

---------------------------

White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation*

May 02, 2009 3:17 PM

A leading bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's Auto Industry Task Force, threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, that if it continued to oppose the administration's Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the White House would use the White House press corps to destroy its reputation.

The White House and a spokesperson for the investment bank in question challenged the accuracy of the story.

"The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."

Thomas Lauria, Global Practice Head of the Financial Restructuring and Insolvency Group at White & Case, told ABC News that Rattner suggested to an official of the boutique investment bank Perella Weinberg Partners that officials of the Obama White House would embarrass the firm for opposing the Obama administration plan, which President Obama announced Thursday, and which requires creditors to accept roughly 29 cents on the dollar for an estimated $6.8 billion owed by Chrysler.

Lauria first told the story, without naming Rattner, to Frank Beckmann on Detroit's WJR-AM radio.

Perella Weinberg Partners, Lauria said, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."

A Perella Weinberg Partners spokesperson told ABC News on Sunday that “The firm denies Mr. Lauria’s account of events.”* The spokesperson would not elaborate.

Perella Weinberg Partners, which owned Chrysler debt through its Xerion Fund, was one of Lauria's clients in this bankruptcy, but no longer is. The firm is led by Joseph Perella. On Thursday afternoon -- after the Wedneday deadline -- the portfolio manager for the Xerion fund decided to join the larger four creditors who are owed roughly 70% of Chrysler's debt and had already agreed to participate with the administration's plan.

Those four financial institutions - JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs -- are recipients of up to $100 billion in federal government bailout funds, though the Obama administration insists the matters were kept completely separate.

Someone familiar with the Perella Weinberg Partners' portfolio manager's thinking told ABC News that the decision to go along with the government plan "was based on an assessment of investment risk and reward and nothing else."

Lauria said his clients "are mainly fiduciaries for pension plans, college endowments, retirement plans and credit unions who invested in low yield supposedly very secure first lien debt" with Chrysler.

President Obama singled out Lauria's clients for criticism when he announced the Chrysler plan on Thursday.

"While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not," the president said. "In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none."

Lauria said the president's assertion that his clients weren't willing to make any sacrifice is false. The clients were willing to take 50 cents on the dollar from Chrysler for their debt, he said.

President Obama also said of Lauria's clients, "I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices."

"He stands my clients up as basically the reason Chrysler is going into bankruptcy," Lauria said. "He wrongly says they're not willing to make any sacrifice. And then he says he does not stand with us."

Lauria said the president saying he doesn't stand with his clients "kind of sounds like 'You're fair game.' In whatever sense. People are scared. They have gotten death treats. Some have been told people are going to come to their houses. God forbid if some nut did something, I'm just wondering how the president would feel."

The Miami area-based attorney describes himself as an independent, and says after waiting in line for six hours last November he ended up not voting in the presidential election. He donated $10,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2008 and $1,000 to then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, in 2006.

-- jpt

-----------------------------

"While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not," the president said. "In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none."

Lauria said the president's assertion that his clients weren't willing to make any sacrifice is false. The clients were willing to take 50 cents on the dollar from Chrysler for their debt, he said.

Now isn't that interesting. An "unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout." You mean like all the money that you've given to banks so far? I'd call that unjustified. And taxpayer-funded.

To make matters worse, the Govt. is putting the UAW ahead of property rights. What's this you ask? The Government putting a group that was a huge supporter of the President ahead of companies that legally have claims to property? NEVER! No Democratic politician would EVER do that! (Don't you listen to Chris Matthews? Only Republicans are guilty of corruption. The only thing Obama has ever been guilty of is sending an electric feeling up Matthews' leg!)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/White-House-puts-UAW-ahead-of-property-rights-44415057.html

"Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.

This of course is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who lended money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything. Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.

After that came a denunciation of the objecting bondholders as “speculators” by Barack Obama in his news conference last Thursday. And then death threats to bondholders from parties unknown."

Oh, well isn't that nice. "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark." I mean, it certainly doesn't appear as if a major campaign contributer is getting a massive payoff in the form of ownership of a company that they've almost killed - all at the tax payer expense. No, not at all.

Anybody else want to see these crooks get what they deserve? I know I do.

Obama wanting to trade U.S. Soverignty to the U.N.

Well now, apparently since Obama has found out that running the country is a bit harder than he thought (SURPRISE!) he wants to let the U.N. do the job for him. Well, not quite, but close enough that it should enrage you.

Let's see:

Parental Rights - Gone

Religious Freedom - Gone

State Soverignty - Gone

Mad yet?

Check it out for yourself:
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/us-sovereignty-on-swap-block-obama-negotiating-for-seat-for-us-on-un-commission/

Hey, Ho! B.O. has got to go!

NY Gov. Patterons tuning a 'blind' eye to racial discrimination?

Well now, it looks like Gov. David Patterson has learned the hard way that racial discrimination isn't just something that only whites can be guilty of. (GASP!) You mean, by definition, Whites aren't the only people capable of racism? Apparently not Mr. Patterson! Try using that brain next time.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05012009/news/regionalnews/paterson_burned_by_a_racial_fire_167078.htm

----------------------------------------------

ALBANY -- Gov. Paterson, who raised state taxes by $8 billion last month, just cost state taxpayers $300,000 more.

The state has secretly settled an embarrassing federal racial-discrimination lawsuit, The Post has learned. The suit accused Paterson, back when he was Senate minority leader in 2003, of firing a white Senate photographer in order to replace him with an African-American.

The lawsuit had been scheduled to go to trial in federal court Monday in Syracuse, with Paterson, the state's first black governor, as a key witness. The case was settled earlier in the week, although a few glitches delayed the final deal until yesterday, legislative sources said.

The settlement ends a civil-rights action first filed in 2005 by Joseph Maioriello, 56, of Schenectady, a 26-year Senate employee who originally sought $1.5 million.

He was fired from his $34,000-a-year job as a photographer two years earlier and replaced by a black employee, El-Wise Noisette. The shakeup happened after Paterson ousted then-Sen. Martin Connor (D-Brooklyn) as the minority leader.

Connor was expected to testify that Maioriello was a good photographer.

While neither Paterson nor the state admitted that Maioriello was a victim of racial discrimination, the size of the settlement means "that the state wouldn't have made out very well if it had gone to trial," said a source close to the lawsuit.

"If nothing wrong happened, why is the state paying out this kind of money?" the source asked.

Maioriello's lawyer, Anne-Jo Pennock McTague of Albany, told The Post that her client was "satisfied with the amount and the fact of a settlement."

Paterson was expected to be one of Maioriello's star witnesses in federal court if the case had gone to trial, a lawyer close to the case said.

The settlement was initially delayed when Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens), Paterson's successor and a fellow African-American, refused to give his approval.

Smith had veto power over the settlement since the suit was filed against the Senate. He was in the awkward position of either authorizing a large payment for alleged reverse discrimination or holding out for a trial, which would have forced Paterson to testify under oath.

Austin Shafran, a spokesman for Smith, said he delayed the final settlement to determine if the cost "was acceptable."

Smith was represented by lawyers from the office of state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, which had no comment.

In the lawsuit, Maioriello claimed he was told by John McPadden, then Paterson's chief of staff, that he was being fired because a number of minority senators wanted to replace him with "a minority photographer, a black photographer."

He said he was also told, "You got to remember who Sen. Paterson is. Sen. Paterson is black."

Paterson, who is legally blind, claimed in a sworn deposition that he didn't see well enough to have fired Maioriello because of his race.

A spokesman for Paterson later said the comment was "a quip, a joke."

Paterson and McPadden denied the race-bias claim.

fredric.dicker@nypost.com

----------------------------------------------------------

Yes, because of course, firing a photographer for being white when the black Senator wants a black photographer isn't racism. It's "governmental hiring discretion." Maybe this little piggy will be on his way out of NY state at the next election. After all, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Apparently New York has the animal farm it deserves.

Obama disowns his own deficit (oh, the side step boogie!)

Well now, the Teflon Reader has done it again. Saying one thing while history says differently.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090429/D97SCPI00.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------
FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape


Apr 29, 5:55 PM (ET)

By CALVIN WOODWARD



WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.

His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.

He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.


THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.

---

OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

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

---

OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

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

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

Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.

---

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

--------------------------------------

Hey, that's great and all, but the bottom line is that he's cutting the deficit in half over the next few years. (Well, after he quadrupled it, so the bottom line is that he's really just doubling it.) Man, this would all be a lot easier if he'd just be upfront about everything, but when has he ever done that? Maybe it's just not on his teleprompter. After all, he doesn't write his speeches, he just reads them.