Chrysler Deal Highlights The Democrats' Culture Of Corrpution

You may get tired of hearing this, but it needs to be repeated over and over and over. Back in 2006, the Democrats campaigned on a Republican culture of corruption. Their claim was that they would bring back transparancy and fairness to Washington D.C.

Well, the Dems lied to us. They are more immersed in a culture of corrpution than the Republicans ever were, even more than they claimed the Republicans were. Now, we can see that this culture of corruption extends all the way to Barack Obama and the White House.

The Chrysler bankruptcy deal was supposed to sail through with no problems and Fiat would be the new majority owner at the end. But, the Obama administration didn't count on a group of Indiana pension funds looking critically at the deal and finding out what was really going on.

This whole deal with Chrysler was about paying off union supporters at the expense of Joe and Jane Average American.

From the Dow Jones Newswires:

Fiat would initially own 20% of the new company, though it would have the option of increasing its stake to as much as 51%. A United Auto Workers health-care trust would initially get a 55% stake, while the U.S. and Canada, which are lending Chrysler $4.9 billion during the bankruptcy, would own 8% and 2%, respectively. Senior lenders owed $6.9 billion would receive $2 billion, giving them a recovery of about 29 cents on the dollar. The Indiana funds own about $42 million of the senior debt. The UAW's health-care trust has an unsecured claim against Chrysler for about $10.5 billion. In addition to the equity stake in Chrysler that the trust, an unsecured creditor, would receive, it would also get a $4.5 billion note under the plan.

In other words, the UAW, a junior creditor, would be given preference over the Indiana pension funds, part of the senior lenders group. This is why the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the sale, to look at the legality of this situation.

Giving junior lenders preference over senior lenders is wrong. This is clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to pay off their leftist union supporters through the sale of Chrysler and screw over hard-wroking Americans in the process.

(BTW, didn't Obama promise to get the automakers back on their feet? Why is he now so hot about selling them off?)

The concept of fairness and the due process clause in the Constitution dictate that senior lenders must be tended to first and junior lenders after that. Obama is trying to turn that around. In other words, he is changing the rules in mid-stream so that his supporters get the greater benefit at the expense of everyone else.

The Democrats' culture of corruption now adds to Nancy Pelosi, Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, William Jefferson and Todd Blagovich the name of Barack Obama.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pension Funds Ask High Court To Delay Chrysler Sale
Mark H. Anderson
Dow Jones Newswire via Wall Street Journal
June 8, 2009

And another good analysis can be found on-line here:

Don't Like the Game? Change the Rules
Glenn Beck
Fox News
June 8, 2009

Global Warming? Not So Fast, Skeptics Say At Meeting

Here is more evidence that the big media outlets like the Washington Post and the alphabet networks do not cover the news in an objective and balanced way. On Tuesday, June 3, 2009, the 3rd Annual International Conference on Climate Change took place but not one single major news outlet covered it. Why? Because this conference was based on real science and would have shown evidence against the political agenda espoused by networks like CNN and NBC.

From Scott Harper of the Virginia-Pilot:

"We are seldom heard in the policy debate," said Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. "If you open your newspaper, turn on your TV set, you're likely to see global warming alarmism, and nothing else." Bast labeled as "popular delusion" the current conventional wisdom on the issue - that man-made emissions, notably carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating up the planet, causing sea levels to rise and is increasing the ferocity of storms and drought. As such, the conference represents a lingering - and still powerful - sentiment that global warming is not such a big deal after all. Instead, attendees argued, the slow and slight increase in air, water and atmospheric temperatures during much of the 20th century is part of a natural cycle of the Earth's unpredictable, roller-coaster weather patterns.

How unpredicatable are the earth's weather patterns? So much so that the global warming alarmist people have gotten their own predictions wrong. The earth has been in a cooling trend since 2003.

More:

Bast acknowledged that the conference was hurriedly organized, and moved from New York City to Washington, to counteract proposals from President Barack Obama for a "cap-and-trade" program aimed at fighting global warming by drastically limiting carbon emissions. Bast and others described the proposed programs as a complete waste of money, with potentially crippling consequences for the economy, and without any attainable goals. "How do you control the weather?" asked Bob Carter, an Australian scholar from James Cook University. "For us to assume we can somehow control nature and regulate weather patterns, when we cannot even predict them correctly, is patently absurd."

And this:

[S]cientist after scientist at the conference pointed out flaws and shortcomings in the calculations of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations sponsored group), especially its reliance on computer models to make forecasts. One researcher, Roy Spencer, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted that the IPCC did not adequately calculate how clouds play a major role in ground temperatures. When there are few clouds in the sky, temperatures typically are warmer, Spencer said, and when it is cloudy outside, conditions typically are cooler. Is it possible then, Spencer asked, that decreasing clouds in recent decades caused the warmings recorded on Earth? Spencer said he asked the IPCC about this and was surprised to learn that the organization had not researched this point and had assumed that cloud cover does not change over time but is fairly consistent. The two revelations sparked more wry laughter from the audience. "If a 1 percent change in cloudiness could trigger global warming, or global cooling, wouldn't you think that'd be a pretty important thing to nail down?" Spencer asked. "They have never gone there."

How interesting it would have been to see this covered on the Today Show or Good Morning America or some other news broadcast. But that would have meant doing damage to the leftist political agenda, even if it meant bringing some truth to an issue that many people seem to be completely ignorant of.

But, where global warming alramists are politicians (or scientists trying to win research grants) the skeptics are mostly scientists objectively looking at the data:

William "Skip" Stiles, a Norfolk environmentalist, was working as a congressional aide back then, and he remembers the committee hearings, the charges and countercharges of bias and flawed science. "I will agree that these models are only as good as the data that goes into them," Stiles said. "But when you think of all the shots these folks have had at this, and all the years of research by the IPCC - we're talking 25 years! - you have to think we've reached some fairly solid conclusions that global warming is real and we, as humans, are playing a major role in it." Carl Hershner, a researcher and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who has tracked sea level rise in Virginia for years, expressed similar thoughts. "One thing about science is that you never get rid of all the naysayers," Hershner said. He described the IPCC as "an extremely conservative group" that "constantly looks at achieving consensus, and updates its findings regularly."

Let's get the politicians out of the debate and let the scientists discuss the full spectrum of data.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Global Warming? Not So Fast, Skeptics Say At Meeting
Scott Harper
Virginia Pilot
June 6, 2009

DPRK (North Korean) Communists Hold American Journalists; Threaten A Kangaroo Court

Communists don't change. From Stalin to Mao to the current leadership of DPRK (Pronounced Dee-Perk), it has always been the same: Sustain a reign of terror, even if it means trying and convicting innocent people. Evidence and transparency are irrelevent, just make arrests and start tossing people in prison.

According to the late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his epic work The Gulag Archipelago, that is how communists work. North Korea hasn't changed one little bit along those lines.

From the Associated Press:

North Korea announced that two U.S. journalists were about to go on trial — then came the mysterious silence. The day passed Friday with no updates of the criminal proceedings that were supposed to begin Thursday for TV reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee.

And what were these two supposed to go on trial for? Read on:

The journalists — working for former Vice President Al Gore's California-based Current TV — were arrested March 17 as they were reporting about the trafficking of women. It's unclear if they strayed into the North or were grabbed by aggressive border guards who crossed into China. Although the Americans were accused of illegally entering North Korea and unspecified "hostile acts," Pyongyong has yet to publicly announce the exact charges against them. South Korean legal experts have said a conviction for "hostility" or espionage could mean five to 10 years in a labor camp.

Given the track record of lies and distortions that make up the bulk of the history of communist regimes, I would venture to guess that aggressive border guards crossed into China. How can I make such a claim? Read the history of "justice" in DRPK:

Venezuelan poet Ali Lameda described to the human rights group Amnesty International in a written report his experience in a North Korean court that sentenced him to 20 years in a labor camp in 1967. Lameda, a member of the Venezuelan Communist Party, said he was working as a translator in Pyongyang when he was accused of spying, sabotage and infiltration — allegations he denied. No evidence, formal charges or specific allegations were presented during the one-day proceeding, he said. Instead, court officials repeatedly demanded that Lameda confess his guilt. A defense lawyer was assigned to him, but the attorney gave a long speech praising the late North Korean leader Kim Il Sung before suggesting his client be sentenced to 20 years.

No, the communists haven't changed one little bit.

Where is Barack Obama and why isn't he demanding the release of these two Americans being illegally held by DPRK? He and the Democrats are certainly vocal enough when it is the U.S. holding legitimate terrorism suspects.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

North Korea Silent About US Journalists' Trial
William Foreman, Jean H. Lee and Kwang-tae Kim
Associated press
June 5, 2009

Some Aspects Of Obama's Speech To The Muslims

Anyone who listened to Barack Obama's speech in Egypt knows exactly where he stands on issues involving the Muslim world. He is clearly for the Muslims and against us mainstream Americans.

One of his biggest whoppers was saying, "If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."

Now, why would Obama tell such a huge lie? Does he actually think that the Arab Muslims will believe that?

Debbie Schlussel has the numbers:

At one point during the Presidential campaign, Obama said that we are not a Christian nation (despite the numbers given above). He even lashed out at John McCain for saying that we are a Judeo-Christian nation. Today, Obama says we are a Muslim nation? Must be that fuzzy math that the Democrats insist on teaching in public schools. The numbers show that among nations with Muslim populations, America is ranked 34th.

Obama also went on to blame the U.S. for the problems in the Arab world and said that colonialism was the root cause. But America never had any colonies in the Arab world. So, how can we be responsible for something we didn't even get involved in?

Instead of bashing America, Obama had the opportunity to build up America's image by citing the many times when Americans came to the aid of the Muslim world. He could have talked about Kosovo, Bosnia, the aid we sent to the tsunami victims in Inodnesia and southern Thailand and a whole bunch of other examples. But, no. Instead, Obama had to show how much contempt he has for the country he is supposedly leading by trashing us on foreign soil yet again.

Obama talked about a new understanding of Islam. But where was his call for Islam to launch a new understanding of America? A man who truly had the best interests of America at heart would have done exactly that.

Obama also said, "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." Is that why Jews are not allowed in Muslims countries? Is that why Iran recently passed a law making it a capital crime to be a Christian? Is that why many Muslim nations force their women into subservient roles and require them to hide their faces? If a Muslim preached Islam on the streets here in the United States, no one would bother them. (First Amendment, you know.) But, if a Christian preached the Gospel or a Jew preached the Torah on the streets of Iran or Saudi Arabia, they'd be charged with heresy and face the death penalty. Obama must think we are really stupid if he expects us to believe that the Mohammedans are tolerent of other religions or other cultures.

Obama said that we Americans overreacted to the 9/11 attacks where 3,000 innocent people were killed by 19 Muslim terrorists. And yet he said nothing about how Arab Muslims were dancing in the streets in celebration of the success of the attacks. A rationally thinking human being would call the dancing in the streets an overreaction, but Obama, preferring to blame America first, would never come to such a logical conclusion.

In terms of extremism, Obama could have called on Saudi Arabia to stop supporting the Wahabbis, a sect that promotes hatred and violeance as a means of extending the rule of Islam. No, Obama instead preferred to blame America for the hatred that Muslims feel towards us.

Clearly, Obama wants to prop up the Mohammedan world at the expense of those of us living here in the West.

Did you vote for that last November? Whether you did or not, that is what you are getting.

You can access a very good analysis of the speech on-line here:

The Lies in Obama's Speech Exposed!
Christopher Logan
Islam In Action
June 4, 2009

Venezuela's Chavez: 'Obama More Left Wing'

And yet again I am reminded of all the Dems who stamp their feet and go into temper tantrums whenever someone refers to Barack Obama as a socialist. Then, those same Dems will insult our intelligence and say that Obama is not. Well, the Western Hemisphere's most notable socialist disagrees.

From Reuters:

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp. During one of Chavez's customary lectures on the "curse" of capitalism and the bonanzas of socialism, the Venezuelan leader made reference to GM's bankruptcy filing, which is expected to give the U.S. government a 60 percent stake in the 100-year-old former symbol of American might. "Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right."

And let's not forget:

Chavez, a vehement critic of the U.S. "empire," has toned down his rhetoric since Obama took office in January and the two men shook hands during a summit in Trinidad and Tobago in April.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Venezuela Chavez Says "Comrade" Obama More Left-Wing
Enrique Andres Pretel, Frank Jack Daniel and Jackie Frank
Reuters
June 2, 2009

Obama Administration Pushes For Illegals To Be Allowed To Vote In Georgia

Anyone still think that Obama is all about securing borders and keeping safe the integrity of the American election system?

Not after his Department of Justice declared that the state of Georgia was not allowed to verify a voter's citizenship through a verification process. What this means is that Georgia must halt citizenship checks. Thus, illegal aliens can now register to vote in Georgia.

According to Shannon McCaffrey of the Associated Press:

A three-judge federal panel in October ordered the state to seek Justice Department preclearance for the checks under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the same reason the federal agency must sign off on the new law that made Georgia only the second state after Arizona to require such proof. Georgia is one of several states that need federal approval before changing election rules because of a history of discriminatory Jim Crow-era voting practices. Secretary of State Karen Handel blasted DOJ's decision, saying it opens the floodgates for non-citizens to vote in the state. "Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy," said Handel, a Republican candidate for governor in 2010.

You can read Secretary of state Karen Holder's response here:

Barack Obama’s Department Of Justice Shows A Shocking Disregard For The Integrity Of Our Elections
June 2, 2009

Should you be concerned about this? Yes, and here is why:

Handel said that more than 2,100 people who attempted to register in Georgia still have not resolved questions regarding their citizenship. Her office's inspector general is investigating more than 30 cases of non-citizens casting ballots in Georgia elections, including the case of a Henry County non-citizen who said she registered to vote and cast ballots in 2004 and 2006. Handel said the checks were designed to follow federal guidelines to ensure the integrity of the vote and that those eligible are casting ballots.

Now, multiply that case by the thousands of illegals who could potentially register to vote in Georgia under the Obama administration's directive.

And don't think Obama doesn't know about this. I'm sure he's done the math more than once and he's knows that he can solidify his power by legalizing million of illegals and getting them to vote in favor of the Democrats' socialist programs.

After all, one of his biggest latino cheerleaders filed the original lawsuit to make this happen:

"We are pleased with this decision," said Elise Shore, Southeastern Regional Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "It vindicates our filing of the lawsuit."

Yep. Pleased times 12 to 20 million illegals.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Feds Spike Voter Citizenship Checks In Georgia
Shannon McCaffrey
Associated Press via Google
June 2, 2009

Leftist Democrat Double Standard: Sotomayer Gets A Pass On Racist Comments, Affiliations

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If it weren't for double standards, the Dems would have no standards at all. Take for example Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor and the statements she has made about race:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male ..."

Now, let's say the situation were reversed and a generic white man said, "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman..."

Would not the leftist Dems in Congress be screaming that this generic white man was a "racist" and therefore should not be considered for the highest court in the land?

Absolutely they would. So, why aren't they applying the same standard to Sotomayor?

Because the Dems are hypocrites. Ditto for any Republican who supports Sotomayor without calling her on her racist remarks.

What else has Sotomayor done that's racist?

Read this from Sean O'Donnel of the Baltimore Republican Examiner:

[W]hen firefighter Frank Ricci – the lead plaintiff in Ricci v. DeStefano – claimed racial discrimination by being denied a promotion and appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (after losing in the federal district court), Judge Sotomayor denied his claim. The Washington Post wrote that Sotomayor’s decision “was devoid of legal reasoning for affirming the decision of a lower district judge, a curious dismissal for a case that represents significant questions of law and the Constitution."

Even the left-leaning Washington Post can see the racial sentiments of Sotomayor.

More:

When Sotomayor served as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, she was a member of National Council of La Raza – the largest national Latino advocacy and civil rights group in the country. NCLR has been criticized for advocating separatist views and has been accused of encouraging illegal immigration. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has described NCLR as “a Latino KKK without the hoods or nooses.”

Any one of these situations would completely disqualify a white man. We should hold Sotomayor to the same exact standard. Anyone who does not is nothing more than an arrogant hypocrite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Is Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor Racist?
Sean O'Donnell
Baltimore Republican Examiner
June 3, 2009

An Example Of An Obama Crony: Brian Deese, Butcher Of General Motors

How did Brian Deese become such an influential voice in the Obama administration and how did he get put in charge of dismantling General Motors?

Let's look at his resume. According to Glenn Beck at Fox News:

Deese grew up in a Boston suburb, the son of a political science professor at Boston College. He moved to Vermont and attended Middlebury College, where he studied political science and also took time to host a campus radio show called "Bedknobs and Beatniks," described in one write-up as "a format of music, news, discussion and banter." He graduated college in 2000 and then it was onto a pair of non-profit think tanks: the Center for Global Development and the Center for American Progress. Eventually Deese went to Yale for a law degree, but a few credits short of graduating, he went "on leave" to work on Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, quickly becoming her top economic policy staffer.

Did you see anything in there that would even remotely qualify this guy to work in the auto industry? Neither did I. So, how did he get to where he is?

Read on:

Last summer, Deese moved to the Obama campaign as a deputy economic policy director and, just before this current gig, he served on Obama's transition team as an economic adviser.

There it is. That's it. No other reason. This is an example of pure cronyism on the part of a president who promised that such things would not happen in his administration.

Also, you should note that this same president promised to fix the auto industry in Detroit. But since he took the reigns, the auto industry has been going bankrupt faster and faster. That's why GM is being sold off by pieces and a deal to merge Chrysler with Fiat is being pushed through.

If I were the CEO of Fiat, I would be very concerned at how much influence an inept and bumbling Obama administration wields with Chrysler. So much so that I would call off the deal unless I could get a guarantee in writing that the U.S. government would stay out of my business.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Meet Brian Deese
Glenn Beck
Fox News
June 2, 2009

Playboy Goes Off The Deep End And Advocates 'Rough Sex' On Conservative Women

I know. Several of you libs out there will say that I am over-reacting to some harmless twit who happens to write for Playboy Magazine. Well, my answer to that is: Would you leftists have the same exact attitude if it were a Conservative man writing about wanting to hate**** leftist-liberal women? I doubt that anyone on the left would tolerate that for even two seconds.

Thus, leftist the double standard shines through once again.

In case you don't know what I am writing about, Playboy published an article by some idiot named Guy Cimbalo who lists the Top 10 Republican women he would like to hate****/rape.

Here is what was written in that article:

Obama promised us the dream of post-partisanship-a cuckoo land where party affiliation and factional animosity were forgotten. Turn on cable news or open any newspaper, however, and you’ll quickly discover that the dream has yet to materialize. But there is a way to reach across the aisle without letting principles fall by the wayside. We speak, naturally, of the hate f***. We may despise everything these women represent, but goddammit they’re hot. Let the healing begin.

Although Cimbalo wrote this himself, his use of the word "we" suggests that everyone at Playboy feels this hatred of these Republican women and that they believe these women should be treated roughly for their opinions.

Apparently, Playboy was so embarrased by the whole thing that they've already pulled the pages off of their website and tried to throw them into the memory hole. Too late though. You can access screenshots of those pages on-line here:

Screenshots of So Right, It's Wrong
RedState.com
Warning: Language Content!!!
June 2, 2009

And Washington Times writer Amanda Carpenter, who made the Top 10 list, has this to say:

I’m in Playboy for GOP women they’d like to “hate f***” They didn’t even get my employer right. What should I do? Mon 01 Jun 11:51 via web I’m steamed. That list is vile, insulting and WRONG on factual matters. ... The use of the word hate **** makes this list vile and completely out of line. To suggest to men that GOP women should have some kind of rough sex pushed on them because of their political beliefs is sickening. They are smearing professional women over politics and not even pretending to look at facts. They didn’t even get my employer right, but there was detailed descriptions of how I might perform in bed.

Looks like Playboy has sunk to the level of Larry Flint. Any claims of class on the part of Playboy must now be considered as chutzpuh.

Again, to all of you libs who would simply excuse this away as some sort of immature "boys will be boys" happening, I have to ask: Would you hold the same exact attitude if it were a Conservative man writing that he wanted to hate**** liberal women?

Feel free to respond.

The Ehthanol Hoax: Still Going Strong

I posted last year about how ethanol was one big hoax. You can read that blog entry here:

Big Corn And Ethanol Hoax
84rules
March 13, 2008

And you can get information about the side effects here:

Ethanol: The Side Effects
84rules
April 29, 2008

Well, ethanol is still a big hoax and the Obama adminstration thinks that you and I are still dumb enough to fall for it. From the Wall Street Journal:

The biofuels industry already receives a 45 cent tax credit for every gallon of ethanol produced, or about $3 billion a year. Meanwhile, import tariffs of 54 cents a gallon and an ad valorem tariff of four to seven cents a gallon keep out sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and the Caribbean. The federal 10% blending requirement insures a market for ethanol whether consumers want it or not -- a market Congress has mandated will double to 20.5 billion gallons in 2015.

What has happened here is that the Big Corn/Ethanol lobby has successfully conned Congress into giving them a monopoly over the ethanol industry and forced Americans to buy only from this monopoly. (Where are the trust-busters now?)

And then there are the side effects:

The Congressional Budget Office reported last month that Americans pay another surcharge for ethanol in higher food prices. CBO estimates that from April 2007 to April 2008 "the increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices." Ethanol raises food prices because millions of acres of farmland and three billion bushels of corn were diverted to ethanol from food production. Americans spend about $1.1 trillion a year on food, so in 2007 the ethanol subsidy cost families between $5.5 billion and $8.8 billion in higher grocery bills.

So, not only are you paying higher gas prices, but you are paying higher food prices as well.

But, many of you out there will say, "We're helping the environment, though!" Not so. Ethanol is having negligible effects, and in many instances, negative effects.

A second study -- by the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality -- explains that the reduction in CO2 emissions from burning ethanol are minimal and maybe negative. Making ethanol requires new land from clearing forest and grasslands that would otherwise sequester carbon emissions. "As with petroleum based fuels," the report concludes: "GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions are associated with the conversion and combustion of bio-fuels and every year they are produced GHG emissions could be released through time if new acres are needed to produce corn or other crops for biofuels." The EPA study also explores a series of alternative scenarios over 30 to 100 years. In some cases ethanol leads to a net reduction in carbon relative to using gasoline. But many other long-term scenarios observe a net increase in CO2 relative to burning fossil fuels. Ethanol produced in a "basic natural gas fired dry mill" will over a 30-year horizon produce "a 5% increase in GHG emissions compared to petroleum gasoline." When ethanol is produced with coal burning mills, the process "significantly worsens the lifecycle GHG impact of ethanol" creating 34% more greenhouse gases than gasoline does over 30 years.

And the parting shot:

As public policy, ethanol is like the joke about the baseball prospect who is a poor hitter but a bad fielder. It doesn't reduce CO2 but it does cost more. Imagine how many subsidies the Beltway would throw at ethanol if the fuel actually had any benefits.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Ethanol's Grocery Bill
Review & Outlook
Wall Street Journal
June 2, 2009