The Finger from Gettlefinger and the Obamanation, Government Motors 'Bankruptcy'

I awoke this Sunday morning earlier than expected so I put on some coffee and picked up the paper outside. I noticed that this morning the cool temperatures, fog, and dew that are benefits of living on the coast were on full display. It felt good to take a few deep, controlled breaths and enjoy the calm of an early dominicus.

The coffee maker was percolating in the background, emitting little wisps of aroma - soon I would come out of a deep Saturday slumber, ready to take the day. So I pour myself a cup and enjoy a bit of nature's legal-drug, Investor's Business Daily in hand. While scanning the business pages, I decide to turn on the boob tube. ABC it seems was the last channel that was on late last night, I went to bed early, my late-night t.v. watcher wife was to join me in slumber hours later.

As it were, ABC news, Sunday morning edition, turns to their headline story - General Motors impending 'bankruptcy.'. The reporter says that GM is taking the plunge on Monday. The ABC bobblehead is well-kept - perfect hair, teeth, smile; very smart talking of such things. Details on the bankruptcy not forthright, the sad story of a Union worker of 30 years past on full display. Such a sad, sorrowful story that this man might lose 50% of his pension due to "Union concessions." A real face on the 'news,' a Mr. Smith Public shall we say.

I awake from a bobblehead, Ken-doll info-man haze while reading Larry Kudlow's piece here in my paper, titled "Little Green Cars." Again, GM is going bankrupt on Monday. Yet how can they even call it a bankruptcy when the American taxpayer will effectively own 70% of the company and the Feds are calling the terms? Is the caffeine inducing my critical-thought synapses? As Kudlow points out, will it be renamed Government Motors? Points to ponder as a taxpayer and someone that favors free-minds and capitalism vs command and control of industry, eventual freedom suppression that comes with such command and control, and bureaucratic entanglement by pols such as Chief Obamanation. A man,(and administration), who ostensibly has not the experience in business to run a neighborhood corner lemonade-stand and is motivated by redistributionist, William Ayers type Chicago-thuggery.

Points -

1. $20 billion of TARP dollars already in GM, another $50 billion on it's way. TARP dollars never intended to 'bail-out' car companies. Big government rule-changing at it's finest.



2. Taxpayers won't see their dollars returned as the pols are promising until the company hits 14 million in car sales. The current sales? 9 million. Ostensibly, we will never 'see our money back.' I would bet my life savings on it.
   


3. Pols using their new power to force the greenie agenda on GM and thereby the taxpayer, UAW huckster mafioso chief Ron Gettelfinger has expressed that Obamanation greenie cars will be manufactured only in high union-cost US facilities, not in competitive overseas plants, therefore taxpayers could be forced to prop up unprofitable production into perpetuity.



4. Socialization of unprofitable businesses spells doom for American capitalism, they should have been allowed to go bankrupt without government intrusion, thank you Bush administration for kicking the can down the road, thus giving us this.



5. Feds agreement to 'back up GM warranties', endless taxpayer liability as such.



6. Reminiscent of crony-capitalism in countries such as Russia, in bankruptcy, bondholders get a smidgen of control and slice of the pie while the Union, (UAW), due to cronyism, gets a far bigger stake Likewise the Federal government. Read a real-life story of a GM bondholder named Jim Modica here at New Conservative Generation. Real-life stories like this ignored by the press because they are only interested in the plight of the Leftist Union mentality.



7. Government intervention, secret or not, in closing GM dealerships in the future may hinge on cronyism and political interests. Case in point, recent stories in a similar vein re: Chrysler dealerships. Check here, here, and here for stories that confirm this. Hat tip to Eric at Libertarian Republican for leading on the Chrysler dealership closing cronyism story.

Did I miss anything? Feel free to add your thoughts in the comment section and I will take good points from the readers and update this post with them. Free Market RIP.

Update 1 :

In a note to the Left Coast Rebel, Conservative Generation offered up the following -

On the UAW -
"People incorrectly assume the UAW and the workers are one and the same. They are not. The UAW gets dues, part of the worker's salary in exchange for the UAW to represent them in labor decisions. In this deal the job bank is gone, some of their sick/vacation time, and new employees start at competitive vs. inflated salaries. Also, in moving the pension into GM stock, (completely undiversified...much like Enron), the pension funds are both less valuable and riskier. As noted by the paper you read the autoworkers actually gave up quite a lot here. Who sold them out? The UAW of course. The UAW will lose some union due funds because of the plants that are shutting down, but they also get to run Chrysler and GM. Before they only were representing workers, but now they get to do that plus they get the keys to the company."

Bondholders -

"Chrysler's were left high and dry and so were GM's unsecured bondholders. GM's secured bonds holders were actually fully paid off. At least from what I've read. Obama didn't have a choice on this one though. He was able to strong arm almost all of Chrysler's bondholders, because a majority of them were accepting TARP funds. The unsecured bondholders were also left high and dry. The dealers clearly lost big."

On the automaker pensions -

"Now remember how the pensions are not safe or secure in GM and Chrysler stock? I wonder if any of the pension money would have been left over had Obama and the UAW not needed a reason to let the UAW own part of the company. One has to wonder what options were truly available? Why not let the employees own the stock individually? Why use their pensions specifically and why stock and not whatever they want? The pension funds are managed by the UAW and therefore by moving the pension funds into company stock, the UAW (not the employees) get a major share of the company."

Contract Law and the government intervention eventually blowing-up -

"They're trying to avoid having to liquidate these companies. By ignoring contract law, there is the possibility that a bondholder/dealer might sue and they have. If they win, there is potential that the current bankruptcy plan will get thrown out and the company may have to liquidate. There would have been no reason to liquidate if contract law had been followed. It's a reckless move in my opinion and for little payoff." I may add here as well that this issue may even go to the Supreme Court. As is the case with many of the Obamanation's tactics, constitutionally extracurricular activities are present and bountiful.

Thanks to Conservative Generation for the great points and additional insight into this matter. He has a great background in economics/finance and the quality of his blog here represents this. This man knows his subject matter!

Update 2 : Rasmussen reports today here that only 21% of the public supports the bailout/70% ownership situation, Obamanation, are you listening?

Update 3 : Reader Devrim posted a great link here that shows how similiar the GM/Chrysler situation is to the British auto manufacturing sector of the 1960 - you must read this.

White House Censoring Critisism of Stimulus Spending

Could I or fellow blogger brethren be in their sights? Right on the heels of yesterday's post on stimulus dollars not reaching the worse off states and areas, we have news that the White House may be on to this simple fact. Their answer to stimulus-spending critics? Shut 'em up. According to Norman Eisen, the Special Council to the President on Ethics and Government Reform, the White House is geared to unleash Gestapo-like tactics to confront nay-sayers head-on.

Taken from Whitehouse.gov here, Mr Eisen in his own words -"Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.
First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program."

I am suspecting the same spirtit of Gestapo, strong arm tactics that I outlined being used by Barney Frank and Maxine Waters et. al. this week regarding the letter from the Committee on Financial Services to William Frey of Greenwich Financial here. The same action by the White House is not far-fetched in my opinion, they are simply following a successful template. Note the terms - "we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program."

Necessary to deny 1st amendment rights under 'unique circumstances of the stimulus program'? And they are brazen enough to even put this up on the White House website? This stinks to high-heaven. Where is the ACLU on stuff like this? Liberal civil libertarians that decried similar Bush administration antics? What is going on behind the scenes that we don't even have a chance to read about? Will the press even follow this? Read the Whitehouse.gov link while you can, before the White House cronies take it off.

Shocker - Stimulus Dollars Not Reaching Worse-off States

Story in USA Today here pointing out the fact that individual states in the US that have the highest unmeployment and have been hit the hardest by the recession have recieved the fewest stimulus contracts and dollars. The reason? Plain old-fashioned government inefficiency. Remember after the election when the Obamanation proclaimed literally that "failure to act on an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into a long-lasting recession that might prove irreversible"?

From the USA Today article -

"In Michigan, for example — where years of economic tumult and a collapsing domestic auto industry have produced the nation's worst unemployment rate — federal agencies have spent about $2 million on stimulus contracts, or 21 cents per person. In Oregon, where unemployment is almost as high, they have spent $2.12 per capita, far less than the nationwide average of nearly $13."

Remember when the facts started to come out on the stimulus plan's spending timeframe of the $787 billion? The fact that many of the 'infrastructure' dollars wouldn't be spent for years? And the above from USA Today is a surprise? Have we gone mad? Remember, no one in Congress even had time to read the bill, much less forecast or study forecasts as to when the dollars would reach projects and constituents.

Again from the USA Today - "The $787 billion recovery package was intended to help turn around the economy using federal money to create jobs, especially in places where the recession has taken the most severe toll. Most of that money goes directly to states to pay for work such as highway repairs, but federal agencies also will spend billions of dollars to do everything from fixing runways and improving national forests to cleaning up nuclear waste."

Remember folks, when it comes to liberalism/progressivism/socialism/statism that it's not the result that matters, it's the intention. And liberals will never be held accountable for the results of their actions because they care. And that's all that counts in media, academia, and the left in the populace.

USA Today again - "The first waves of that money flowed unevenly in large part because some federal agencies have moved more swiftly than others to sign contracts for projects funded by the stimulus.... Obama said Wednesday that the stimulus had created or saved 150,000 jobs in its first 100 days. Overall, however, the economy shed more than 1.2 million jobs in March and April, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics."

We were made to feel that in pure Messianic immaculate economic conception mentality that the Obamanation's stimulus social spending bill that no one read would defy the law of economics. That He would transcend the typically prehistorically-slow grinding gears of our bloated bureaucracies and that all would rise to His occasion. Alas it is not true. And the Obamanation believes that the stimulus has created 150,000 jobs? And in the same period of time the US economy has lost close to 1.5 millions jobs? That's incredible! Wait, why doesn't that add up to me? How can an economy both lose 1.5 million jobs, yet 'create' 150,000? Really? I'm sorry here but anyone with 2nd grade math skills can see past this. Remember too folks that many of the Obamanation's FDR lustings will actually prolong the recession that we are in. They have the great potential of skewing market forces and creating a further malaise. Everything that the administration and Democrats are proposing from socialized health care to global-warming tax schemes are anathema to job creation. We need a flourishing private sector with low regulatory hindrances and a general faith that our government won't change the rules at the last second. We need Reagan, we have his Nemesis......

New Black Panther Party Apologists are Political Appointees in Justice Department?

For readers not familiar with the 'New' Black Panther party or if you are remotely so, it could be summed up as an extremist black separatist group in the US. From Wikipedia here -

"The New Black Panther Party (NBPP), whose formal name is the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, is a U.S.-based black power organization founded in Dallas, Texas in 1989. The NBPP attracted many breakaway members of the Nation of Islam when former Nation of Islam minister and spokesman Khalid Abdul Muhammad, infamous for his virulent anti-Semitism and racism, became the national chairman of the group from the late 1990s until his death in 2001. The NBPP is currently led by Malik Abdul Shabazz, who is also known for anti-Semitic propaganda, racism and extremist hate speech."

Sound like a friendly neighborhood organization? Citizens with a lemonade stand on the corner? I'm perusing their website here and I'm picking up a violent, eclectic mix of black KKKism, Marxism and Maoism, (referred to as ethnic nationalism), topped off with Jew-hatred. They even claim that Marx based his ideology on indigenous African tribes (?!?!). Think of it as Jeremiah Wright with black swazikas, berets, and bazookas. I also found on Wikipedia here that the infinitely eminent 'greasy-hair' Al Sharpton appeared and spoke at a NBPP march in 1998. This particular 'rally', whereby several speakers called for the extermination of whites in South Africa ended with in a clash with law enforcement. Yes folks, the same Al Sharpton that you see in the MSM flapping his lips, was at this event. Remember that the next time you see him in the media, that he even has a voice in the main stream press is preposterous and shows what we are up against in the country.

Now that we have some background information on the NBPP, I turn to today's Washington Times and an exclusive story here. Titled "Career Lawyers Overruled on Voting Case." What 'voting case' is that you ask? It's simple. On January 7, 2009 the US Justice Department filed a civil suit against the NBPP and three of it's members relating to voter intimidation and the brandishing of a weapon,(one of the men) at at Philadelphia polling location. The suit sought an injunction against the men based on the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, (baton), racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

Career Lawyers, (non-politically appointed), had been working on the case for months and even had obtained an affidavit from a 1960's civil rights activist that had witnessed the 3 men at the pol. They had obtained an injunction that prohibited the man who brandished the weapon from doing so again. They were on the verge of securing sanctions against the other 2 men and the court had already entered the default judgement phase the men last month......

Then 'poof' out of thin air, the lawsuit was dropped, minus an order against the man with the weapon. When asked as to why this had happened, Justice spokesman Alejondro Miyar offered, "Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law," and that the department was ''committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her right to vote."

On the heels of these suspicious events the Washington Times did some digging. They found that Justice was seeking judgement and penalties as recently as May 5 and ended this only 10 days later. Anonymous sources at Justice told that Times that political superiors had abruptly overruled them. Speculation is that Obamanation-appointees sensed pressure and halted the investigation and upcoming judgement from the Justice Department.

Which would all be fine and dandy, if it weren't for a pesky little video that showed up on Youtube right after the election. Shot by a college student with a camera phone, it shows. NBPP chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson at the entrance to the voting location. The same 3 men under investigation as outlined above, and the same that refused to appear in court over a 5 month period. Remember, all charges except a slap on the wrist to the man with the baton were dropped, including failure to appear. Watch the video and judge for yourself. Would you or I be able to get away with this type of activity?

Being that the concrete evidence of cronyism is speculative here, I must say that this entire thing stinks to high-heaven. I can only imagine the Justice Department outcome of this case had it been Republicans/Libertarians/anyone caucasian at a polling place pulling this type of shenanigan. Or even a few tea party protester types. And imagine the amount of MSM press coverage that would have been thrown at this. And yet, not a 'peep' from the State-sponsored press outlets.....

Hat tip goes to Libertarian Advocate, a great new blog.....drop by and support him.

Update : Musings of a Vast Right-winger has a great post up today (June 1) that cleary shows that Jerry Jackson, one of the individuals described above was an official Democrat poll watcher. The Watcher's Certificate was just found and Musings has it! Click here for his story.

Congressional Use of Strong-Arm, Gestapo Tactics

Back in October 2008, the New York Times wrote up an article here about hedge funds and managers that were at odds with what Congress was proposing in regards to privately held and securitized mortgages. Two funds in particular - Greenwich Financial and Braddock Financial, held postitions in securities backed by mortgage companies to be affected and were arguing that Congress could not change the terms of contracts of those mortgages, thereby hurting their investments in said securities. Greenwich and Braddock thought that Congress had no authority to bypass contract law. I agree.

Now I know that the concept of the hedge-fund business on main street seems convoluted - most people don't either know much about/don't approve of hedge funds. Visualize back-room meetings, cigar-smoke-laden air, fat white -guy fat-cats sitting around and conspiring against us 'little-guys'. That's the media-created picture of the hedge fund business. It couldn't be farther from the truth. Hedge funds are simply pooled resources of a variety of investment classes whereby only high-net-worth individuals, pensions and corporations can apply. It is typically a high risk/reward type investment, a mutual fund with less restrictions for investors in the higher economic strata.

Anyway, back to the intention of the article. The most vocal opponent of congressional action a Mr. William Frey, the president of Greenwich sent out letters to banks expressing concern about the impact of the Hope for Homeowners plan (a federally subsidized loan-modification program), also stating that ''any investor in mortgage-backed securities has the right to insist that their contract be enforced." I agree as well, any branch of the government should not be able to inject themselves into a private industry and change contracts at their whim, crisis or not, good intentions or nil.

Congressional leaders caught wind of William Frey's letter and implicit intent. They didn't like it. And in current statist, strong-arm Washington style tactic, they subpoenaed him. The letter from the Committee on Financial Services to Frey was recently made available and is below -

Frey Letter from the Commitee on Financial Sevices, 2008

Note the condescending tone - "We were outraged to read....that you are actively opposing our efforts.....(we request),for you to appear at such a hearing, and if this cannot be arranged on a voluntary basis, then will pursue further steps."

The most shocking part of the letter? Can you imagine this - "to take steps so actively in opposition to what is currently in the national economic interest is deeply troubling and will clearly have serious implications...."

For me to hear the phrase, ''economic national interests", in itself is a naked exposition of a collectivist mentality. Note national collectivist stars Barney Frank and Maxine Waters' signatures.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.....

Value Added Tax Next Shoe to Drop

Story in the Washington Post here today pointing to the fact that Washington is now toying with the idea of a national sales tax also known as a value-added-tax or VAT. Apparently lawmakers in Congress have been reading books and studies on the subject. Note the above chart, White House vs. the non-partisan CBO budget deficits. Note as well that these numbers do not include Cap and Trade, the Obamanation's socialized medicine proposals, up and coming bailouts and 'stimulus' and others. The pols know these numbers too. They know that our government is broke and broken. I read in Investor's Business Daily that April federal tax revenues were some 30% less than last year.

A personal side to this - what are you doing in your household in this recession? Is your income so far this year 30% lower than last year? More? Are you increasing your debt level and consumption to make up for this downfall in your personal economics? Do you think you should? Are you pushing debt to finance your lifestyle onto your children? Or your children's children? Of course you are not. Why should our government be able to? Since when have we strayed so far from the founding principles of our country?

I digress, Senator Kent Conrad -

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform, I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

On the table? At what capped rate? At what guarantee that it wouldn't be raised to infinity on achievers. Or those that wake up early? The effect on the longevity and the competitiveness of our economy? Our prosperity?

For those not familiar with the VAT, basically it is a tax that is levied on on the transfer of goods and services, New Conservative Generation in a note to the Left Coast Rebel illuminated the concept this way -"VAT is a little different than sales tax in that it is charged per item purchased as opposed to being tacked onto the final sales price. So instead of 5% of your purchase you might pay 5 cents per item in your shopping cart. VAT taxes work much like sales taxes as far as economic loss goes, which is much higher than income taxes. The real question is how are they going to implement the VAT? Are they going to tax goods in production or at point of sale? Either way, consumers or workers will bear the cost. The tax is regressive in that it taxes number of items bought as opposed to the amount of the purchase. If you go to the grocery store, odds are there are as many items in your cart as a person with a much higher or lower income. There is also no substitution. You are taxes the same amount for 10 white mushrooms as someone with 10 truffles." Conservative Generation has a background in finance, many of the great posts on his site reflect this, hat-tip to him for the contribution, visit his site here.

As CG said, consumers feel the brunt of a VAT, along with the lower class as well. To justify this perceived injustice, (many liberals don't like the VAT as they deem it regressive), VAT advocates are pushing that the harm that it may do to the poor is negated by the fact that it may be used to pay for health care for them. You read that correctly.

Listen to this little tidbit from the Post article - "Emanuel, ( VAT proponent), argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal co payments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else."

Really folks? A new tax on every good and service would exempt most Americans from income taxes? Could this be the new version of '95% of Americans get a tax-cut' mantra? Absurd.
A deep recession, a free-fall in government revenue, a myriad of new programs and taxes coming out of Washington. The gambit is on whilst the wool is over the American citizen's eyes....

Update 1 : Fox News has a new story here on the national sales tax idea, fierce opposition against it....although a national sales tax is an inheritantly different idea, the article seems to parallel it to the VAT....the article also makes points similiar to mine in that the VAT or national sales tax idea is being floated on top of our current tax code....

The Goode Family - Animated Jab at the Liberal Mentality

Does this sound funny? Worthwhile? Offensive? If the trailers above and below are any indication, "The Goode Family" could truly be the best animated series coming to a flatscreen near you. It premieres tonight at 9 pm on ABC.

Listen to this review from the Daily News here - "Gerald and Helen Goode drive a hybrid car, eat vegan and fret over what to call their black neighbor. Helen refuses to shop at a supermarket that sells cheap bottled water because "they don't even have a mission statement."Helen also has a myopic view of her relationship with her teenage daughter, Bliss, assuming they can be BFF because the Goodes are like, you know, so totally non-judgmental." Poking fun of the most judgementalist, self-avowedly non-judgemental folks in our society? The same ones that claim to 'openmindedness' yet can't stand for the conservative/libertarian point of view? And from Hollywood you say? How can this be? I have to laugh here folks, I really do. I truly know people here in Southern California that fit this description to a 't'. They live in a complete bubble surrounded by people that think identically to them and are never challenged.

The Goode family applies the mantra "What would Al Gore do?" to their everyday lives. They live day to day with a clear focus of reducing their 'carbon-footprint.' They feed their lone little doggy veggies only. I assume the he is named after the Left-famed Che Guevera? Mr. Goode even separates two-ply toilet paper that his wife mistakenly bought.

Mike Judge, creator of "Beavis and Butthead" in the 1990's and the recently cancelled (after 13 seasons), "King of the Hill," is the director of the show. I love how Mike Judge describes Gerald Goode (he also does his voice on the show) as being "an administrator at a community college, he comes from a long line of over-educated academic liberals", Co-writer John Altschuler - "We always decribe Helen (Goode),as a local activist who someday dreams of being an activist, someone who knows that everyone has a right to their own opinion but she just can't stand it..."

Watch it tonight.

The Reason the GOP has been DOA - Mercatus GWB Spending Study

Charts Don't lie. A picture is worth a thousand words. Note the Total spending above and discretionary figures from Clinton (dark blue), and GWB, (light blue). Bush's spending in total dollars was nearly double that of Clinton's. Compassionate Conservatism on a chart. Click here for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and the "Spending Under President George W. Bush" study.

The chart to the right shows annual congressional pork costs. Remember earmarks are the oft-touted scourge of politics today and both parties are guilty of stuffing bills with goodies that benefit their constituents. Pork came to an all-time high under Republican control of both houses. Compassionate conservatism again, RINOistas, and a party that lost it's way.

From Newsmax - "President George Bush was the largest social spender in history, in his first term Bush increased discretionary spending 19 percent. During Bush's second term federal spending increased 49%" I may add as well that the last figure also represents the stimulus spending, bailouts, TARP, etc. But as Nick from It's Just My Opinion points out, Congress at the end of the day holds the key to spending, the President signs spending bills sent from congress. Perhaps the more accurate term in the charts and this summary above as well would be to label the spending as Congressional spending and budgets signed by GWB, Although, I add, spending always stops at the President's desk and the dust was never brushed off of Bush's veto pen......

Needless to say this is the essence to me of how the Republican party lost it's way years ago. Compassionate conservatism heralded in a new era of federal outlays that put even LBJ to shame. An ethos based on watering down Reagan and being 'realistic' was doomed to failure on many levels. Thus today you have 22% Republican registered voters in the country. Americans, including Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents know that the party became worse than Democrats on spending historically speaking, only for history to be shattered by the Obamanation. With Democrats you at least get what you see - they make no bones about it, they want to spend, tax everything that moves, and put themselves in bueracratic positions of power over rapidly increasing areas of our lives. Even to the point of today's spending debt-financed future dollars and druken tax-dollar partying to the point of putting our country's future at risk. Note chart at top of this column.

The Obamanation is emboldened by the charts at the top of this piece. He knows, along with the Democrat leadership that his only substantial opposition to remaking American society truly has no philosophical standing to support it. In many ways it explains the brevity and shocking speed at which the progressives are pushing through their goals. They believe in the empowerment of big-government to a historically unforeseen level and don't have a legitimate opposition.

As the Democrat agenda increases daily, the cries from the media-friendly GOP faithful are for the party to moderate itself, that the party is too 'right-wing' (Alren Specter), that Reagan is a long-gone fuddy-duddy. Let bygones be bygones they say. The Democrats have something in the words of Jeb Bush.

The real solution for the party? To embrace Free - Market Austrian economics, empowerment of individuals. To embrace, as Tom McClintock put forth, 3 simple concepts - Freedom, Abundance, Responsibility.

Sotomayor Supreme Court - Group Identity Takes Center Stage

I'm pouring over the news outlets this morning and the MSM here is teeming with news of the Obamanation's supreme court choice today. Nearly every source is pointing out her ancillary credentials, those being that:
a). She is hispanic
b). She is a woman


To these two points a little later. From the AP this morning - "The White House announcement ceremony was a picture of diversity, the first black president, appointing the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, joined by the Vice President who is white."

I'll let that speak for itself.


On May 9 re: Justice Souter's resignation on White House.gov here the Obamanation- "I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.
I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes." So clearly we see a theme here.


Today on the same site here, the Obamanation's overriding credentials for a Supreme nominee - "These two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our nation's highest court. And yet, these qualities alone are insufficient. We need something more. For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live." Again the theme, albeit the word 'empathy' not being used.



To a Statist such as the Obamanation, moral relativism through the prism of 'diversity', 'empathy', 'compassion', etc are the key philosophical points on choosing a Supreme Court judge. The Constitution of the United States does not budge, does not bend or cater to special interest groups with redress-obsession. It does not show 'compassion' or 'empathy.' It clearly enumerates, as I have said before, those things that our government implicitly cannot do to us. And this is why our founding document is so different than any other country in world history. The activism of today's socialism and fleet from our founding principles put these restricted powers at risk every day. And thus it does not surprise me one bit to read, in the Obamanation's own words, that a Justice is to strive for some sort of ambiguous, higher-level subjective reasoning in the Court. This subjective reasoning and ethic changes from bullhorn to demagogue. It simply proves my point, in his own words above from the White House site. Liberals/progressives stand for the collective. Hence the obsession with Sotomayor's race and sex identity. Her sex and race have absolutely nothing to do with her understanding of the Constitution or philosophy and prove to me that 'diversity' is just a code word for collectivism. Our society values a mob-mentality ethic, an ethos that changes with the wind....



Update 1 : The NYT has an article here about a speech on ethnicity and sex that Sotomayer gave in 2001, Sotomayer - "“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 who hasn’t lived that life.”
If you think that this could possibly been taken out of context click here for the full text of the speech. Confimation of racecentism that I suspected earlier, I'm sure that there will be many more stories to come....

Update 2 : Newsbusters has a great story here highlighting the fact that ABC news is minimizing the 'Liberal' label for Sotomayor, yet used 'Conservative' for Alito frequently.....

Update 3 : Reason.com has a great article here laying out the framework for Sotomayor's preference for racial preferences and gun control.....

Update 4 : News coming out that sotomayor member of racist
separatist group La Raza......here.....

Memoranda of American National Heroes - 21 Gun Salute

Memorial - the origin of the word dates back to 1350 AD, from the Latin root memorialis meaning "for or containing memoranda". I am pondering our nation's Memorial dawn-to-dusk salute of our heroes, fallen and survived. Of history back to our founding, of current conflicts. The very essence and nature of our heroes - to protect that which we cherish and value more than anything - our republic, our freedoms and our country.



Reflecting back to memories of my youth vivid stories come to life. A grandfather's recollection of being trailed by a Japanese submarine while aboard an American destroyer en route to India, 1942. Depth-charge explosions against the underwater foe were no comforting slumber-aid to the man. A man of 17 years of age away from his new bride and family for 4 years. It still seemed to him like yesterday.



Or another grandfather, unable to attend overseas thus recruited to engineer the very warrior-vessels housed of steel and flesh that were sent off thousands of miles to fight. Welding-torch in hand this man, also a 'kid' by today's standards, helped fashion our fleet in Long Beach, California. Years of toil and sweat for the war-effort, it seemed to him like yesterday.



Or of the Twin-Towers falling on that fateful morning of September the 11th, 2001. Of the shocking reminder to a culture that in many ways has forgotten - our freedoms are not to be taken for granted or voted away to the bullhorn-demagogue of the day. For that as soon as we forget, they shall be gone.....

Sitting on Blisters, Living under Carter - Tom McClintock and 3 Pillars

"Elections belong to the people. It is their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters"- Abraham Lincoln.





As I said yesterday, one of my favorite GOPers is Tom McClintock. He gave this speech here to the Council for National Policy last week - one of the best that I have seen championing liberty and the fight for conservatism. This is a moving, must-read for anyone interested in advancing freedom and the limited government roots of our nation.



Does this sound like a RINO? - "Voters have swept our party from office after a failed Republican administration that abandoned conservative principles. The most left-wing president in our nation's history has taken office......his agenda includes radical intervention into energy markets highly inflationary monetary policy.....dramatically increasing overall domestic spending with deficits as far as the eye can see...."

McClintock believes we are living directly in parallel to the era of Jimmy Carter - "You remember those years. Jimmy Carter's policies brought us double digit unemployment AND double digit inflation; interest rates at 21%....just a few years later, it was morning again in America. Four years of Jimmy Carter produced eight years of Ronald Reagan, and looking back on it, that wasn't such a bad trade, was it?"

On the tide turning in America - " What we are seeing in the polls is a gradual awakening of the American people....we saw that two summers ago with the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill....we saw that just a month ago when Rick Santelli told a routine cable broadcast that he was sick and tired of being forced to pay for his neighbor's mortgage..."

On RINOs, Colin Powell, the 'Listening Tour', Megan McCain and 'Moderates',, Statists in the Republican Party - "a new chorus of hand-wringing that said we had to get over our nostalgia for Reagan...it's the same kind of hand wringing that Ulysses Grant confronted at the Battle of Wilderness....to those that say we should put the Reagan Era behind us - I have a better idea. Let's put the Bush era behind us."

On what the party stands for, of what it used to and what it should - this is my favorite part - "We stand for freedom. We stand for abundance. We stand for individual responsibility. Freedom. Abundance and Responsibility. That is our platform."

I'm coming away from this speech this Saturday morning, thoughts racing after reading this man's words again. Brilliant in it's simplicity, the platform and message that would eradicate the march of socialism, liberalism, statism and fascism today. If I were to run for office,(albeit not standing a chance), these would be my 3 pillars in the words of the Left Coast Rebel -

1. Freedom - What does this mean to me? To America? The freedom to rise each day, each morning knowing that one will retain the vast sum of one's earnings. That the central planners of either party won't confiscate earnings and property for schemes of a 'greater good', 'volunteerism', 'fairness', 'social equality', 'carbon guilt', 'redress', 'social justice'. To know that the Constitution, which clearly enumerates the many things that our government cannot do to us, won't be shredded daily and that is not 'flexible' or a 'living-breathing' document.


2. Abundance - Flowing from the concept of freedom. The basic notion that an individual is sacred and once set free enables himself and the society at large by pursuing happiness Through this pursuit he creates abundancy through unshackled entrepreneurial pursuits. Individual creativity, shackle-free dreams, liberty-induced limitless potential.



3. Responsibility - I am not my neighbor's keeper. And neither is he mine. There is no lease, levy or mortgage on my future, present or past. I am free to do as I choose under the constraints of the rule of law and the Constitution. I know full well that when I fail, I won't look to the nanny-state do-gooders for a 'bail out' or a check. Subsidization of failure creates more failure - on the corporate side, local and national government, and the individual.

Could I win on this simple platform? Or have we lost America so badly that we deserve the Obamanation?

I am Taken With Liam Neeson

Last weekend my wife and I rented the French film Taken with Liam Neeson, a generally enjoyable romp showcasing a main character-hero defying the often typical Pansy portrayal of the Hollywood hero-man.

Why do I say this? Synopsis. I won't give away too much here, but the film follows Neeson (awesome performance), as Bryan Mills, an ex-CIA member of the Special Activities Division. Familiar with SAD? If not, these guys basically perform the covert activity, paramilitary reconnaissance, intelligence gathering stuff that the CIA doesn't know about. From what I am reading, if one of the SADs is compromised, the US government denies all knowledge thereof. Cool.

So the movie starts off portraying a fairly suburban Mills running some security details and such. He's divorced. He's not particularly charming. He loves his daughter but is distanced due to a difficult ex-wife. His daughter needs permission from him to go on a trip to Europe with her girlfriend, at first he objects but eventually he reluctantly acquiesces. Upon reaching the foreign shores some very unfortunate circumstances befall the Mills daughter and friend, the story then unfolds with Bryan Mills putting all his SAD training to use - putting together the pieces of the puzzle of the kidnapping of his daughter by a Euro sex-trade outfit.

Sound exciting? Believable? Ridiculous? I would say that it is a little of all and that's a good thing. Heavy on action, turning points in the plot - this movie will have you on the edge of your seat. I won't give away any more of the story but let's just say that one of my favorite parts unfolds whilst Mills finding his daughter's assailant, a Mr Marko. He promptly kills every single one of Marko's comrades, (awesome gun fight), and then straps Marko in a chair rigged to the light circuit of the room. Mills needs intel on his daughter and Marko is not cooperating. Mills pulls the switch....this ensues several more times until Mills gets the location that he needs. Relevant to our current events in the U.S. Waterboarding is torture?

Teeming with recent enjoyment of this surprisingly good flick, I was curious as to how 'professional journalists' viewed it. I wasn't surprised when I found that most reviews were abysmal, some just average. Average? C -

Kyle Smith of the New York Post - "Taken," one of those Frenchy efforts to do an American-style chase-'em-down and shoot 'em up, comes from formerly respectful producer Luc Besson.....half a star..."Mistaken." I'm sure that this guy would have loved the movie sans the action, and replacing Neeson (Mills), with a Che Guevera wannabe type, extolling the evils of capitalism and corporations and the moral equivalence of 'freedom fighter' jihadism .... 5 stars! ..... or just imagine that the movie portrayed a young Earth Liberation Front activist kidnapped by Oil executives, daddy being a 'charming, eloquent' activist himself then confronting his daughter's Big Oil assailants and saving the day.....5 stars, spectacular!

Wrap up -

Taken -unusually good action movie portrayal of a man that sucks it up and does what he has to. Go out and rent it.

4 1/2 stars out of five....

Hasta La Vista California Bailout?

Highlight from the Reason video with Nick Gillepsie - "Just as the Terminator was programmed to fight Sarah Connor, Government is programmed to grow and grow and fight every effort to cut it back." Rep Tom McClintock - "(this is) Because government concentrates it's benefits and diffuses the costs." Later in the video McClintock goes on to explain how the Obamanation, (as I have said) is Californiaizing the nation and how disastrous that will potentially be. Heard of Tom McClintock? If you haven't Mr. McClintock had been a great state senator in CA for years and just last year narrowly defeated his Democrat opponent for a Congressional run. He's now one of the clarion voices for economic libertarianism in the House in the Republican Party. I support him wholeheartedly. I put him in the band of a few, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann and a few others. By the way, if you don't watch the entire video above, at least view the part at 3:10, the Union activist here personifies what CA is up against - millions of folks like this and a Legislature beholden....

Today's LA Times - "Washington declines to help CA, at least for now"

David Axelrod, the senior advisor to the Obamanation at the White House today - " Look, we're going to examine what we can do. What we need to do, however, is to treat states fairly and that means uniformly, whatever we do for one state, there will be other states who also will want to do that. And there's a limit to what the government can do." Sounds nice, but I am extremely skeptical. The White House pols know that this is not a popular idea in the country, I imagine that they are obfuscating the issue at this point and then they will sneak in something on a late Friday evening, eg. Federally insuring new CA state bonds.

Barney Frank disagreed with the White House talking points, (shocking) - "Their view is they need legislation (translation: bailout), and we're going to try to give it to them." This is the same Barney Frank that was a longstanding member of the Progressive Caucus, a congressional group of 77 members that has direct ties to Democratic Socialist of America. Read my writeup on this organization and other direct socialist/communist/Democrat ties here. Barney, do you think that taxpayers in other states think that CA should be bailed out? Readers, what do you think?

Today the LA Times again - "Poor would be hit hard by CA budget cuts" here. Nice propagandizing title? Equivalent concern at this 'paper' for families, businesses and entrepreneurs over the years. Of course not. Anyway the story goes on . Apparently now the Governator is planning on slashing welfare programs, state health insurance for poor people and low-income college grants. In particular he is considering dismantling CalWorks, ( a broad-based welfare program 'aiding' 500,000 families, many of which are illegal immigrants), and moth-balling Healthy Families, a socialized med system that provides medical coverage to 928,000 children and teens. I have also read that this program is wrought with corruption and serves many illegal immigrants, there are close to a million people on this! Up for grabs too is slashing 750 million from programs designed to rehabilitate inmates. Yes you read that correctly. Almost 1 billion a year for inmate rehabilitation in CA.

Tuesday's vote has apparently spread the message that the state has to find the money to balance the books, (remember, like I said before, by law CA cannot run a deficit). God forbid that our government here would need to take tough steps, trim the fat, and cut back on bureaucrat-union largess. I'd say that this is the tip of the iceberg if CA is to become functional and competitive again. Time to take the budget to the chopping block just like every family and business has had to. Or does that make too much sense?

Pew Survey on the Surge of Independents

Democrats and Republicans losing support, Independent affiliation rallying, America still a conservative nation for the most part.
At least that's how I see it according to new info at the Pew Research here.









From the article - "Both political parties have lost adherents since the election and an increasing number of Americans identify as independents. Owing to defections from the Republican Party, independents are more conservative on several key issues than in the past. Independents are more skittish than they were two years ago about expanding the social safety net and are reluctant backers of greater government involvement in the private sector. "

Interesting. The study shows that independents as a whole are far more conservative, especially on economic freedom and taxes than they have been in the past. Defections from the big-government conservatism and betrayal of Reagan ideals for the Republican Party culminating in this? I personally know many friends and family that have changed party affiliation from Repub to either Independent or Libertarian. The Republican Party lost it's way on the the most party-defining issues, taxes, big government spending, and the fiscal future of the US.

It would seem that the Obamanation agenda of taxing everything that moves, pushing untold trillions in debt onto our children and increasing the scope and oppression of the Federal government is not something that the public favors. Not so fast. As shown to the right, a majority of the public does not favor government helping the needy and going into debt to do so, and a majority thinks the Feds have too much power, although down from 2007. The glaring inconsistency? 86% of the public thinks that the government needs to make health care affordable and accessible. This is why the statist beat the drum incessantly on socialized medicine. Then in a 180 degree turn, respondents worry about the government becoming too involved in health care 46% to 54%.

Bottom line here? I think that independents are gaining ground in the electorate, if they commanded a 3rd party it would have the highest affiliation in the country. It seems that a lot of disaffected Repubs and fiscal conservatives have joined their ranks. It also seems to me that although, (with health care), there are philosophical inconsistencies, A majority of Americans are still center-right and have a negative opinion of socialism. The question is then, when will Americans revolt against the Obamanation as they did against leaders in CA on Tuesday?
Time will tell.

Dick Cheney's "He Deserves an Answer" National Security Speech - Translation

Vice President Cheney - "a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history."

Translation - "Sir, since you are President Campaigner, Community Organizer, may it be known that talking points to Cindy Sheehan won't provide defense for our shores...."

Vice President Cheney - "For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below."

Translation - "This could happen to you too, albeit the fact that the 'secret' command post is not so secret anymore....?"

Vice President Cheney - "Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people."

Translation - "Fighting terrorism is hard enough, having the Bolshevik press against us; although predictable, is an evil to overcome..."

Vice President Cheney - "Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors."

Translation - none needed....

Obamanation Cardigan Sweater National Security Speech

by the Left Coast Rebel

Obamanation - "But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values...." "(the)Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -- these are not simply words written

into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.

Translation - "Here is your bone Soros doggy, comrades in Moveon.org, nutroots, Code Pink, I know that you aren't happy with me as I seem to be retracing on Gitmo and torture but 'wink', just keep the faith..." "Remember also, that I am remaking the Constitution to ensure not just freedom, but equlality of outcome....'wink'...."

Obamanation - "My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words -- "to form a more perfect union." I've studied the Constitution as a student..."

Translation - " I believe in the equality of outcome with every fiber of my being.....'shhh'.....don't call it that word, that scares people, stick with 'progressive', it has such a nice ring to it..."

Obamanation - "But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions."

Translation - "America is no different than any other country, I apologize fellow citizens of the world, for we have sinned....'what's that shhhh, don't let them know L.A. was going to get nuked......"

Obamnation - "Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. "

Translation - " Due to active polling in the White House and my ass being handed to me by the Senate......'shhh nutroots' .....'Soros, sit down'......."