The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

Cap & Trade Vote Or Michael Jackson?

By

Is no one immune from the ratings game?

Michael Jackson died today and while it’s certainly a momentous event in the history of pop music, is it really so newsworthy that every media outlet is now devoting hours and hours of air time to blather on about it?  Even FOX News is preempting Bill O’Reilly’s show tonight to air a hastily-patched-together special.

I find this ironic and I find it sad.  And, somehow, it’s almost like a perfect storm.  Ed McMahon died Tuesday.  This morning Farah Fawcett lost her long fight with cancer.  And by the East Coast prime time news hour Michael Jackson is unexpectedly pronounced dead in Los Angeles.

And no one can talk about anything else.

Conservatives, in particular, want to cling to their Bibles and too-often beat others over the head with their beloved book yet it is the Bible that says to “let the dead bury their dead”.  I won’t deny that the death of a pop icon is sad but am I the only one remembering that Michael Jackson was also of questionable morals?  Frankly, this is a time when there are truly important matters at hand that must be properly addressed.  The citizens of Iran are dying in their streets for fairness and freedoms, North Korea is moving nuclear weapons material across the seas and, most frightening of all, the Waxman-Markley energy bill – cap & tax – the biggest destruction of American life we have yet to see in our lifetimes – is going up in the House tomorrow for a floor vote.

I imagine that Obama and his Congressional cohorts are doing happy hula dances at tonight’s White House luau to celebrate their good fortune at this distraction.  A shindig paid for by us, by the way, but to which we, the American taxpayer, are not, of course, invited.

The Moon Is Down

By

John Steinbeck penned this small, quiet novel back in 1942.  I picked up my old, pre-publication copy at a used book sale many years ago, having finally decided to fill the classical literature void in my small library by reading the works of those esteemed writers who’d somehow been missed while growing up.

It is not much like the works of Steinbeck with which most are familiar.  His big novels of the Great Depression are somehow more accessible, yet this little book has haunted me since my first reading of it and now, as the Moon goes down over my beloved America, I decided to return to it.

I was not disappointed.  Though almost effortlessly short, the story of the relationship between conquerers and those they have conquered in what was a surprise and nearly bloodless battle, set during the time the Nazis were moving through Europe, is deceiving in its uncanny insights into human nature and the nature of war. 

Two quotes remain with me:

“That is a great mystery,” said Doctor Winter.  “That is a mystery that has disturbed rulers all over the world – how the people know.  It disturbs the invaders now, I am told, how news runs through censorships, how the truth of things fights free of control.  It is a great mystery.”

“You see, sir, nothing can change it.  You will be destroyed and driven out.”  His voice was very soft.  “The people don’t like to be conquered, sir, and so they will not be.  Free men cannot start a war, but once it is started, they can fight on in defeat. Herd men, followers of a leader, cannot do that, and so it is always the herd men who win battles and the free men who win wars.  You will find that is so, sir.”

I ponder their profound implications and then I remember that Steinbeck was an American and, despite his early, leftist leanings, I see clearly that these words, and indeed, this whole, small tome, is really the voice of the American soul.  The soul of land of the free and home of the brave, where independence is something to be celebrated with rockets’ red glare every 4th of July, intended to give succor to those upon whose own beloved soil then trod the jack-booted minions of evil.

I can’t help but see the words on the old, musty pages of this book as having a message for the current “Leader” in the White House.  Whether or not he and his Chicago political machine are yet aware of it, President Obama’s near-bloodless conquering of a free and peace-loving people has come at a price.  And in the same way as the people in Steinbeck’s fictional town came to terms with the reality of their situation, so, too, will the American soul come to terms with the forced labor that has been thrust upon Her.  The truth of things will inevitably find their way to freedom, and the free men and women of America will fight in their defeat to win the war against the progressive liberals, Democrats, and Republicans who now feel they are the conquerers.

Many Of Them Own Guns

By

And for that reason, extreme caution must be used when making arrests.  Or so claims Utah’s U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman, discussing the recent raid in Blanding in which 24 people were arrested and indicted for dealing in Native American artifacts taken illegally from public lands, some considered sacred burial sites.

Archeological thievery for personal gain has long been the stuff of which stories are made.  Indeed, Hollywood has reaped a fortune pumping out action-adventure flicks like “Raiders of the Lost Ark”.  But this story is not the stuff of which romance and adventure tales are made.  In fact, it was more like using a hammer when a flyswatter would do.  And in the same way using a hammer can create unexpected collateral damage, Blanding’s only doctor, 60-year old James Redd, was one of the people arrested and he committed suicide the next day.

This story starts in 2006.  A plain old sting set to the tune of trafficking charges set-up costs of $335,000 paid by an informant for a plethora of artifacts — sandals, blankets, pots and axes.  It used anywhere from 96-120 agents to arrest – at gunpoint and in one case breaking bones – and transport the suspects, as well as document the artifact evidence left in the homes.

While some of the suspects have been in trouble before, including 3 with drug convictions, local authorities say none have any history of violence, though one is claimed to have made statements to the informant about killing law enforcement officers who tried to stop him.

This should give all of us pause.  Like the killing of an old woman for the $20 in her pocketbook, the sheer amount of force mounted against Dr. Redd and his wife alone, for what amounts to a little less than $14,000/suspect is senseless.  “Eighteen vehicles surrounded the Redds’ house,” San Juan County Supervisor Bruce Adams said in an interview. “Do we do that with child molesters? With murderers?” He added, “I haven’t seen a piece of pottery or an artifact that’s worth a human life.”

Interior Secretary Salazar flew to Salt Lake City to brag it was the “biggest bust ever” of thieves of this kind.

The Stars Might Lie, But The Numbers Never Do (A Global Warming Review)

By

As the House begins its final sprint to rush some sort of cap & trade (tax) legislation to a floor vote this coming week (HR 2454, the Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill), it is worth taking stock of where things stand.  I received an email from an Obama supporter (who once confessed, in secret, that soon after his election they had the beginnings of “serious doubts” about his ability to do his job) that contained what I can only call a progressive’s campaign article from The Nation.  One statement summed up its whole, wordy call to arms to push forward with Obama’s fascist plans:

We also need to expand the agenda for reform. For example, if we are to make the investments vital to our future, as the president has called for, a sustained expansion of public investment is essential–and that will require a far bolder tax policy.

It goes on to blather with reassuring hubris about taxes on the “wealthy” and those evil businesses who dare provide people with private sector jobs, but because of its immediacy, this piece is going to focus on the problems with cap & trade.  And the root cause of cap & trade is the New Religion of global warming.  Now, as we’ve noted here before, the gist of implementing cap & trade as mitigation to global warming is intended to gain government and special interest control of natural resources and thereby gain power and control over American citizens once it is realized that the Earth may more likely be entering a serious cooling period.  Plainly put, it’s all about money, not science.  Science hasn’t been in this picture for decades. 

In response to my friend’s email, I sent back a link to an article that presents an overview of some initial reactions to Obama’s latest “climate report”.  A report that, it should be known, was produced by more than 30 scientists working across 13 government agencies.  A report that, according to a UK Guardian article, was:

 “finalized in late April, but Obama administration officials spent several weeks planning (its)  release, honing the language and graphics to make it accessible to non-scientists and to sharpen its core message:  America must take action on climate change.

As part of the PR surrounding the release of the report, the administration approached the San Francisco consulting firm, Resource Media, which specialises in environmental campaigning, to produce a shorter and more digestible brochure of today’s report for wider public distribution.”

Let’s pretend we have some common sense for a moment and consider this carefully.  If the report was so solid in its facts, why was there a need for the administration to spend “weeks” tweaking its message?  Why did the administration need to hire a PR firm whose sole reason d’etre is putting warm, fuzzy spins on the myth of global warming?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and comes out of Chicago (or San Francisco), it ain’t worth the pot used to hold the water to cook it in, my friends.

The truth is that the “science” upon which the administration’s “report” is based is flawed.  As in skewed.  As in downright wacked.   And with its purpose being politically-motivated and, based on previous experience, very likely deliberately missing and/or excluding key points.  Another in a series of non-partisan scientific reports was released this month by the Nongovermental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).  Here are a few pertinent excerpts.  It is important to note these scientists didn’t need to use a PR firm to translate (spin) it for you so you can understand what they are saying (emphases mine).:

“The IPCC’s key personnel and lead authors were appointed by governments, and its Summaries for Policymakers (SPM) have been subject to approval by member governments of the UN. The scientists involved with the IPCC are almost all supported by government contracts, which pay not only for their research but for their IPCC activities. Most travel to and hotel accommodations at exotic locations for the drafting authors is paid with government funds.”

“The IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (IPCCSAR, 1995) was completed in 1995 and published in 1996. Its SPM contained the memorable conclusion, “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” The SAR was again heavily criticized, this time for having undergone significant changes in the body of the report to make it ‘conform’ to the SPM—after it was finally approved by the scientists involved in writing the report. Not only was the report altered, but a key graph was also doctored to suggest a human influence. The evidence presented to support the SPM conclusion turned out to be completely spurious.

 There is voluminous materialavailable about these text changes, including a Wall StreetJournaleditorial article by Dr. Frederick Seitz (Seitz, 1996). This led to heated discussions between supporters of the IPCC and those who were aware of the altered text and graph, including an exchange of letters in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (Singer et al., 1997).”

“The Third Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC-TAR 2001) was noteworthy for its use of spurious scientific papers to back up its SPM claim of “new and stronger evidence” of anthropogenic global warming. One of these was the so-called “hockeystick” paper, an analysis of proxy data, which claimed the twentieth century was the warmest in the past 1,000 years. The paper was later found to contain basic errors in its statistical analysis(McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003, 2005; Wegman et al., 2006). The IPCC also supported a paper that claimed pre-1940 warming was of human origin and caused by greenhouse gases. This work, too, contained fundamental errors in its statistical analysis. The SEPP response to TAR was a 2002 booklet, The Kyoto Protocol is Not Backed by Science (SEPP, 2002).”

“The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC-AR4 2007) was published in 2007; the SPM of Working Group I was released in February; and the full report from this Working Group was released in May—after it had been changed, once again, to “conform” to the Summary. It is  significant that AR4 no longer makes use of the hockey-stick paper or the paper claiming pre-1940 human-caused warming.  Once again  controversy ensued, however, this time when the IPCC refused to publicly share comments submitted by peer-reviewers, then sent all the reviewers’ comments in hard copy to a library that was closed for renovation, and then finally, but only under pressure, posted them online. Inspection of those comments revealed that the authors had rejected more than half of all the reviewers’ comments in the crucial chapter attributing recent warming to human activities.

AR4 concluded that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (emphasis in the original). However, as the present report will show, it ignored available evidence against a human contribution to current warming and the substantial research of the past few years on the effects of solar activity on climate change.

Why have IPCC reports been marred by controversy and so frequently contradicted by subsequent research? Certainly its agenda to find evidence of a human role in climate change is a major reason; its organization as a government entity beholden to political agendas is another major reason; and the large professional and financial rewards that go to scientists and bureaucrats who are willing to bend scientific facts to match those agendas is yet a third major reason.

Another reason for the IPCC’s unreliability is the naive acceptance by policymakers of “peer-reviewed” literature as necessarily authoritative.It has become the case that refereeing standards for many climate change papers are inadequate, often because of the use of an “invisible college” of reviewers of like inclination to a paper’s authors (Wegman et al., 2006). Policy should be set upon a background of demonstrable science, not upon simple (and often mistaken) assertions that, because a paper was refereed, its conclusions must be accepted.”

Translation:  The IPCC is under pressure to conform to economically-motivated political interests.  In my neck of the woods, the conditions under which IPCC scientists “work” is called a conflict of interest.  Lots of folks call it the fox watching henhouse.  No matter what you call it, it is just flat-out wrong and those who would support and encourage any action taken on this kind of bad science must be viewed with nothing less than great suspicion.  For this kind of “science” is when you can rest assured that its supporters  have a vested interest in personal gain, not some lofty goal for the good of humankind. 

It was argued to me that it is merely a few rogue, “flat-earth” or “fringe”-type scientists who are running around trying to destroy Obama’s U.N.-backed (gods help us all) plans.  Nice try but, frankly, it’s as wrong as the early Darwinians believing in and perpetuating the “romantic” view of the Middle Ages being the time it became common knowledge the Earth is spherical, not flat, when they used the same “flat earth” slur against Christians.  The Darwinians gleefully stepped into a stinky “scientific belief” that was the unfortunate – and wrong – result of Washington Irving’s 1828 fictional account of Christopher Columbus’ attempt to sail to Japan in a ship too small to make such a journey.  Fact is that most of the educated world realized the Earth is a sphere by about 3 BCE and only China, despite her technological advancements, took until the 17th century to come to the same realization (and then only because of Jesuits holding high positions as astronomers at the Chinese court).

The bottom line of all this is that is is best argued that there does NOT exist a collective consensus among scientists about the effects of humans on global warming.  And because of that it is dangerous for people to rush to any actions that will have long-term soci-economic ramifications when such long-term socio-economic ramifications are harmful the the majority of Americans solely for the great gain of a few.  Some proof of the size of the disagreement about global warming that liberals simply cannot get their brain cell around can be found in “The Petition Project”.  As of the latest NIPCC report (see Appendix 4, that details the purpose and process by which signatures are collected), 31,478 American scientists have signed the following statement:

PetitionProjectForm-sm

The NIPCC report goes on to state that, “This is a remarkably strong statement of dissent from the perspective advanced by the IPCC, and it is similar to the perspective represented by the NIPCC and the current report. The fact that more than ten times as many scientists have signed it as are alleged to have “participated” in some way or another in the research, writing, and review of IPCC AR4 is very significant. These scientists, who include among their number 9,029 individuals with Ph.D.s, actually endorse the statement that appears above.”

To quote the Mary Chapin Carpenter song, “the stars might lie, but the numbers never do.”  Emails are too easy to ignore, calls and/or faxes to your House Representative (both Washington and local offices) must go out starting tomorrow to tell them that no matter what Nancy Pelosi or President Obama demand, they work for you, the American people, and must vote against H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill.  Congress must know – in no uncertain terms – that rushing to tax ALL Americans on the basis of bad science is not only stupid, but putting already struggling American lives on the line solely for the sake of a greedy few will be the final straw that will cost them their job.

A Blank Teleprompter While Iranian Citizens Die

By

As they work to stifle American freedoms through “progressive” legislation like EFCA and nationalized health care, the hypocritical U.S. Congress decided to pass  resolutions to make themselves look knowledgeable and concerned about election protests currently going on in Iran.  Almost perversely wanting to be seen as upholders of democracy, the voice of the people, and free speech, near-unanimously they condemned the Iranian government’s violence against citizen protesters. 

Ron Paul was the lone dissenting voice in the Senate, and there is certainly validity in his reasoning.  Our Founders cautioned, from the start, that we must not stick our nose where it doesn’t belong.  Particularly when we stick it into a place where a hand waits patiently, wielding a razor-sharp, double-edged sword, just itching to cut it off.

But what is happening in Iran today is not the stuff of which simple meddling is made.  What is happening is unequivocably serious, and of concern here is the reaction of the White House. 

“Deeply troubled.”

“Wait and see.”

About a “…vigorous debate….”

There is nothing in the way of “debate” when the only vigor is found in the slaughter of unarmed citizens who raise their voices in protest of their government’s actions.  (Any further questions on why it is so important we protect our 2nd Amendment rights here in America?)  But his hands-in-pockets, whistling-in-the-dark, minimizing stance can be Obama’s only way, for the truth is that when it comes to the real world he has no experience from which to calculate a move or to assess the feasibility of any recommendation of a move, whether concerning matters foreign or domestic.  Some claim he is simply keeping a cool head, and in one respect this may be true, for an Iranian revolution that ultimately overthrows the religious leaders at its helm and the resulting restructuring of the Middle East as we know it, perhaps accompanied by a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel, as well as perhaps also sucking in a spin-off confrontation between India and Pakistan, with North Korea taking advantage of the ensuing chaos to throw in its nuclear gauntlet for good measure, is exactly what Obama needs to bring the U.S. economy out of the depression he has designed.  He’s dug his tentacles into the auto industry (remember their work during WWII?) and he is doing his damndest to control the banks.  Should the worst come to pass he will gear up the American War Machine for the benefit of…exactly who?  For…exactly what?

With his silent and therefore tacit agreement of Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah Khamenei, it is not for democracy and certainly not for the benefit of America.  At least not for the America that was birthed through its own revolution some 200-odd years ago.  To find a means to go to what Obama’s mask of delicate, spread-the-wealth sensibilities can justify as a legitimate war seems to be the hidden agenda behind the acceleration of his wholesale slaughter of the American economy and his continued wide-eyed toadying to the dictators in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world; in 180-degree contrast to the way he belittles and snubs our ally, Israel.  For it is another world war that will allow Obama to raise his voice in its most soaring, fear-mongering rhetoric and so create an atmosphere that will accept, even (wrongfully) encourage his signing “emergency” executive orders to strip away our rights (guns, free speech, presidential term limits) under the guise of “national security”. 

And in the end, subject us not only to his secret ambition of being a messiah, but also a king.  A king who no longer must bow to his elders but instead may meet his Middle Eastern counterparts on the madman’s perception of equal ground.

Despots Dancing On Her Grave

By

The day the Supreme Court refused to uphold American law when asked by Chrysler bondholders – those greedy, evil teachers and working-class, tax-paying folks whose corrupt fund managers had invested their hard-earned monies in the most secure and legally-protected of Chrysler bonds – to look into the Chrysler bankruptcy is the day America, as we know and love her, died.  Now the despots in Washington are dancing on her grave.

Not only was Inspector General Gerald Walpin shamelessly, unceremoniously, and wrongfully fired for doing a proper and quite fine auditing job of watching over how OUR government is spending OUR tax dollars by giving grants to “service” organizations like AmeriCorps, but this week the International Trade Commission told its acting inspector general, Judith Gwynne (who is not subject to White House authority) that her contract would not be renewed.  After it was revealed that concerned questions had been raised about the ITC not allowing her access to information to do her job.  And let’s not forget Neil Barofsky, hired as an independent Inspector General but suddenly now considered to be on the Treasury Department’s leash.

What I want to know is  just who the hell do President Obama, all his czars, and almost every non-representing representative in Congress think they are?  Who died and conferred divinity upon them?  Who gave them the right to blatantly ignore not only the wishes of the majority of Americans but to subvert and pervert the very laws they swore to uphold and defend?

I am beyond snark.  I am beyond stunned.  I am furious.

Not only am I angry at the grasping, gaping greed that no longer scuttles, rat-like, along the shadows but instead runs roughshod with impunity in broad daylight over everything for which America once stood, I am angry at the average American citizen who is sitting there drooling in their ignorance or impotently wringing their hands.  I watch what is happening in Iran, seeing parallels to what is happening here, and I watch average Iranian citizens willing to be gunned down in their own streets to stand up for the principles of fairness.

You remember fairness, don’t you?  That simple way of conducting yourself, once closely associated with honor and integrity?  The one thing that allowed us to trust one another, and to trust those we send to Washington to oversee the general affairs of our country?   The real stimulus – of the American Revolution?

The Iranian people are willing to die for it but we Americans won’t even get up off our butts to write a letter, make a single phone call, or march en masse to protest what are equally unfair and equally dangerous actions being taken every single day by a President who looks the other way at the murder of Iranian citizens, and by a Congress who just can’t be bothered, any more than it can be bothered to read the bills it churns out as fast as the Treasury is printing money.

What’s wrong with you, America?  Since when do Iranians, or anyone else for that matter, have bigger cajones than us?  Do you look at them and figure they’ve nothing to lose so why not die trying to get something?  Don’t you understand that by doing nothing we, America, are fast ending up in exactly the same place as the citizens of Iran – under the thumb of a group of powermongering, tyranical despots – who will do anything and stop at nothing to get and keep a nation of people enslaved and under their control?

Open your eyes, America.  See the despots merrily dancing.  Why else is the President “hosting” an hour of prime time television on a national network (ABC) to talk about a financially-irresponsible national health care plan that will end up with more people NOT having health care than is the case today and not allowing even a commercial that disagrees with him?  This isn’t transparency, it’s another campaign speech full of meaningless rhetoric in order to sell Americans on paying more taxes.  (Oh yes, this will raise your taxes, bunky.)  Why aren’t you saying no?  No to ABC.  No to President Obama.

Why else are we even considering given the Federal Reserve, that Wilson-era dinosaur, little more than a black hole and even more secretive and hidden than former Vice-President Cheney’s bunker (until Biden opened his big mouth, anyway) and, along the same lines as Ben Bernacke, its current chairman, believes it caused the Great Depression so also the place to rightly lay blame for the current Wall Street meltdown, even more power to wrap the government’s strangling tentacles around the private sector?  Like Obama’s jackbooted czars, they answer to no one.  So, of course, President Obama thinks this fox should be given even freer reign inside the henhouse.

Why else is Nancy Pelosi suddenly fast-tracking Waxman’s cap & trade bill (H.R. 2454) and its inherent crushing blow to the U.S. economy to a vote next week?  Have you read this monstrosity and do you understand the impact of creating a government-controlled commodity – tradeable for cash and such trading to be managed by rancid corporations like GE – out of slapdash science perceptions of pollution and the bad science behind the liberal progressive mantra of global warming?  More importantly, have you read the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of it?  This now-derided as a conservative, low-balling group makes it clear the slim benefits to the government will come directly from tax increases and, surprise, sections of the bill allow the federal government to preempt state governments.

I was proud to the very bottom of my soul to be among the literal thousands who took part in the Tax Day Tea Party I attended.  I do not back away from the weird looks that sometimes accompany my talking about it.  Instead I chastize those who seem to think that our government servants are somehow smarter than the rest of us.  I remind them that we let them borrow our power, but it remains our right to take it back.

And, indeed, it has now become our duty to take it back.  Now.  Every day that goes by means more of our freedoms slip through our fingers.  I will not allow that to happen.  Neither should you.  It’s time to be angry.  Very, very angry.  It’s time to voice that anger and let the message be heard clearly from sea to shining sea, more loudly than the citizens of Iran raise their voices in ringing protest every night.  Ameria doesn’t need a messiah.  America doesn’t need a daddy or a nanny.  America needs Her independence and only the oldest of the most old-fashioned honorable and honest representation.  At all levels of a much smaller federal government.

What will it take, America?  Another attack on American soil?  Is the end of our nation’s history destined to come with a whimper instead of a bang?

Blood was shed to give you the right to sit there and do nothing.  How dare you let those brave, wise souls deaths end up in vain for little more than promises of bread and circuses?

The Only Explanation Is Madness

By

Like the paycheck of most hard-working, tax paying Americans these days, my leisure time (read:  writing time) seems to be shrinking equally fast.  But being busy doesn’t mean I’ve not been paying attention to what is going on, and, of course, what is going on remains wickedly troubling.

President Obama and the Democratic Congressional majority are pushing forward untenable changes at an unprecedented pace and every day it becomes more and more clear to me that nothing good is going to come out the other end.  How can it when such sweeping “change” comes at the expense of the law, as demonstrated in both the Chrysler bankruptcy and the recent firing of Inspector General Walpin for having the audacity to actually audit – and document the fraudulent use of taxpayer money – one of Obama’s friends?  And it seems to me as if every time Obama opens his mouth, Kim Jong-il shows the world his opinion of our dialogue-mongering President and belligerently fires another missile; but with American journalists in the custody of North Korea, we are hard-pressed to negotiate with the madman at the helm.

But at which side of the table does the real madman sit?  Interestingly, I came across an article that discussed whether Obama is, himself, also a madman. 

Listen to him. He’s talking in what seems to be a glossolalic deluge of issues. One plan a week, each thrown out there while we’re still digesting the previous one. He’s moving too fast for us to keep up with him. He’s talking a private language, to himself, like crazy people do, because he certainly can’t be talking to us, his strange, atrophied people, our capacity for large projects and great achievement, let alone for the participation in enlightened self-government that such projects and achievements require, something safely kept reserved for HBO historical miniseries. The muscles have gone slack, the nerve endings gone dead. He’s talking about phantoms, about ghosts, about things that aren’t really there. He’s speaking in tongues is what he’s doing.

When you consider this perspective alongside Obama’s never-ending obsession with calling out those who don’t agree with him and his deliberate lack of transparency about things that matter, it seems as if perhaps someone has finally come out and stated the truth.  To be sure, Barack Hussein Obama is no ordinary politician, let alone an ordinary American.  A product of progressive liberalism before such a thing became popular, let alone mainstream, and raised among those who would turn America inside-out in pursuit of some deeply bitter and misguided sense of “justice”, even on the best of days Obama exhibits a decided lack of maturity.  Rather like Peter Pan, he flits back and forth between the real world and Never-Never Land; deliberately unwilling to grow up but intrigued by the idea just the same.  He may be master of the teleprompter and a master of self-control, but even the best of armor has cracks and it is through those cracks we may glimpse his rage at being unable to settle down on one side or the other.

Whether his rage is the source of what could be termed his functional insanity or is merely a symptom of it is moot.  For regardless why it exists, that it exists at all it makes him a dangerous man.  As dangerous as the Islamic extremists who target America with, frankly, more than a little similarity of intent.

What Would You Do With $134 Billion?

By

That’s the question being asked of two Japanese nationals, arrested in Italy as they allegedly attempted to cross into Switzerland a few days ago.  The big red flag is that nowhere is this being reported by any American mainstream media.

Hidden inside a a suitcase were 249 $500-million U.S. Federal Reserve bonds, 10 Kennedy bonds, and “other U.S. government securities worth a billion dollars each.” 

So why were Japanese nationals carrying around such an ungodly amount of non-negotiable securities?  Particularly in denominations not available to normal financial and banking markets?

Curiouser and curiouser, as they say.

If these are counterfeit, it is headline newsworthy, for the report is that not only would this be the largest financial smuggling attempt in history, but these are the best counterfeits ever seen.

If they are real, it is even bigger news for just how did these special kind of securities get into the hands of these people?  And for what purpose would they be headed for uber-privacy-protecting Switzerland?

Of note is that should the securities turn out be genuine, Italian law would reap 40% of the confiscated amount.  In this particular case, a windfall “five times the estimated cost of rebuilding quake-devastated Abruzzi region,” and a big help to Italy in eliminating its public deficit.

Yes, indeed, curiouser and curiouser.

The Day America Died

By

No pun intended, but I used to think the day Barack Obama was elected President of the United States would prove to be one of the darkest days in American history.  Today it has come true for, truly, America has descended to a state of lawlessness.  The lives given during the American Revolution and the very best efforts of the most brilliant minds in the history of mankind to create what was once the most powerful nation in the world appear to have all been in vain. 

Today the United States Supreme Court refused to even consider the appeal made by Chrysler bondholders to block the sale of Chrysler to Fiat, an appeal made on the grounds the terms of the sale are unlawful.

The court issued a brief, unsigned opinion explaining its action. To obtain a delay, or stay, someone must show that at least four of the nine justices find that the issue raised is serious enough to warrant hearing a full appeal and that a majority of the court will conclude the lower court decision was wrong.

“The applicants have not carried that burden,” the court said.

I have watched this whole matter closely and I read the appeal sent to the Supreme Court.  The questions it raises about the legality of the actions of the United States government, of the Obama administration forcing all parties into a deal that favors junior and unsecured interests over what American law has always considered first-in-line investors during a bankruptcy proceeding, are serious allegations and by refusing to even consider them, the Supreme Court has now given the Obama administration the green light to run roughshod and at will over any and every private sector entity it so chooses to usurp for its own nefarious purposes.

If you were not frightened before, you should be very frightened now.  Personally, not only am I afraid, I am heartsick.  The housecleaning of mid-term elections in 2010 cannot come soon enough.  Somehow, those who still believe in the American dream must find a way to hold fast until real brakes can be put on the fascists who have taken over Washington.

In the meantime, it occurs to me that no matter how much of OUR money the government intends to spend to induce us to buy vehicles from either version of Government Motors (“cash for clunkers“), the best way to show disapproval for this latest Chicago mafia-style move is to buy our next vehicle from Ford.  And in every other area of our lives, to vote with our dollars in support of private businesses that are run by real grownups, not children who go crying home to daddy to bail them out when they screw up.

Chrysler Bond Holders Go To Supreme Court

By

I personally find it utterly unconscionable that the law of this land has become so subverted by the Obama administration that Chrysler bond holders have now been forced into an emergency filing with the U.S. Supreme Court:

“…a stay of the Sale Orders pending final resolution of the Indiana Pensioners’ forthcoming petition for writ of certiorari—on as expedited a schedule as the Court finds necessary—is essential to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction. Without a stay, the section 363 sale will close as soon as Monday, June 8 at 4:00 p.m., which is when the present stay issued by the Second Circuit will be lifted. Stay App. 74a (Second Circuit Mandate). Under section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 363(m)), closing the sale will essentially moot the case.

If that happens, a number of consequences will follow:

(1) The United States Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), purporting to utilize powers conferred upon it by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) established under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, 12 U.S.C. 5201 (“EESA”), will have been permitted to structure and finance the reorganization of Chrysler without any judicial review of its authority to do so (the Bankruptcy Court incorrectly disposed of the issues by deciding that Appellants lacked standing);

(2) Chrysler will have been permitted to reorganize under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq. pursuant to a transaction that was structured and financed by Treasury, without having been required to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Bankruptcy Code for doing so; and

(3) The secured claims of Chrysler’s first lien lenders (including the Indiana Pensioners) and any unsecured deficiency claims they may have if their collateral properly valued is in fact worth less than the amount they are owed, will have received materially less favorable treatment than most of Chrysler’s general unsecured creditors.

As such, absent a stay, the Court will be deprived of the opportunity to decide critical, nationally significant legal issues relating to management of the economy by the United States Government.”

At issue is the structure of Chrysler’s bankruptcy in which bondholders – by law the most secured creditors – have deliberately been given short shrift by the administration in favor of those who have unsecured interests in the company.  The Indiana State Police Pension Fund, the Indiana Teacher’s Retirement Fund and the state’s Major Moves Construction Fund stand to lose millions of dollars while the U.S. and Canadian governments and the UAW cut blithely to the front of the line and take ownership stakes in a sale of Chrysler to Fiat.

The lower courts have upheld this bizarre and unprecedented bankruptcy construct; as recently as Friday the federal appeals court in New York gave the bondholder shaft its own seal of approval.  Interestingly, and somewhat telling in these days of Pater Obama, this government-beholden court gave bondholders until Monday afternoon to persuade the Supreme Court to intervene.  Unwilling to put on its big boy panties and stand up to the Obama administration by upholding the laws that give those who take the most risk in providing funding to a business the first rights of payback during a bankruptcy, it is quite evident that the New York federal appeals court is pawning off its job.

As part of her job, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will receive the emergency filing today.  I see this as a test; a big test.  For it is the job of the Supreme Court to rule on law, and do so blindly.  There can be no “empathy” nor any partiality to political affiliations, all of which seem to be part and parcel of this Obamastein’s monster of governmental abuse of powers. 

In Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), Justice Ginsburg concurred with the dissenting Supreme Court opinion that:

What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by to day’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I find it very troubling that we must now sit and wonder if the confidence in America’s judiciary will continue to remain so shaken.