A Republican turned Democrat friend of mine sent me a video of the Daily Show ( for which his son is a producer). The clip shows the host Jon Stewart ridiculing the Tea Party convention and Palin's hand crib notes.
I sent him this reply:
"Check this out! The brilliant Ivy Leaguer, Obama, can't pronounce corpsman correctly - even with a teleprompter. Maybe he should borrow Palin's hand - ROFL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlkK65y_-T4&feature=related
(For you intellectually superior liberal Democrats out there, the 'p' in corpsman is silent. Barack the Brilliant pronounced the 'p' three times during his speech with the teleprompter).
Speaking of serving in uniform, Obama was never a member of any uniform service (unless you count ACORN). Yet, he sends people off to war. Don't liberal Democrats have a name for people like that? Oh yeah, Chickenhawk. That's what they called Republicans who were like Obama.
So let's review:
Obama is lauded by liberal Democrats as brilliant. Yet he cannot pronounce the word corpsman correctly ( not to mention his 57 states remark and some other gaffes). But nothing was said by Stewart.
Obama sends people to war and never served in the military; liberal Democrats call that being a "chickenhawk." Still nothing said by Stewart.
Mmmm could Stewart be a hypocrite? Nah liberal Democrats are never hypocrites LOL. If you believe that I have some beachfront property in Nebraska to sell you.
No wonder Democrats are getting their clocked cleaned. ( I say this as a registered Democrat)."
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
"Birthers" Like "Truthers" are Looney
I have always believed that the idea that Barack Obama was not eligible to be president because he is not a citizen is lunacy. After spending a couple of hours yesterday arguing the merits of this with some birthers I'm now thoroughly convinced I am correct. The people who subscribe to this theory are misguided, woefully misinformed have too much leisure time and/or have some mental or emotional obsession.
The arguments they offered were:
1- Obama was really born in Hawaii in 1958. Therefore he was not a citizen because Hawaii was not a state yet.
This is patently false. Even if Obama were born in 1958 - which he clearly was not - anyone born in a US territory is a US citizen.
2- Obama has never released his birth certificate.
This is a lie. A copy of the birth certificate was posted to the internet and an official of the Hawaiian state government has verified the authenticity.
3- Numerous Birthers told me that a Supreme Court case, US v Wong Kim Ark, established the definiton of "natural born" citizen. This is important to one of the birther arguments. "Natural born" - is a term used in the Constitution of the United States as a qualification for presidential eligibility.
The birtheers assertion that US v. Wong Kim Ark is hilarious and illustrates just how misinformed and/or fanatical birthers are. Not only did this case NOT define natural born citizen, Justice Gray who wrote the majority opinion specifically stated that the Constitution doesn't define "natural born."
Birthers believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen - that he was born in Kenya. Now, even if true, from what I understand, since his mother was a US citizen and she met certain residential requirements he would still be a citizen. This is according to the US code.
However, birthers want people to believe that the US code defining citizenship is unconstitutional. The term "natural born" is the only thing that matters.
None of this is true. Obama was born in the US and Wong didn't define 'natural born.'
4- Birthers said both Obama's parents had to be US citizens for him to be a citizen.
Again this illustrates just how misinformed birthers are. It is only necessary that one parent be a citizen.
So to sum it up - "birthers" believe in a lie (Obama wasn't born in Hawaii) and can't prove what the definition of "natural born" means.
They are simply chasing moonbeams.
Now since the real issue becomes credibility let's examine who is leading the Obama is not a citizen movement and who believes he is a citizen.
You tell me who you trust.
Birthers:
1- The "Obama is not a citizen" was started by a Clinton campaign operative.
2- One of the first lawsuits filed was by a lawyer who is not only a "birther" he is a "truther" too.
So a Clinton campaign operative and a lawyer who is both "birther" and "truther" lead the birther movement.
Anti-Birthers
Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, stated in July 2009 that she saw the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
This was also the opinion of Factcheck.org, an organization of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They claim also to have seen the certificate.
American Spectator founder and editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. has written that his reporters found evidence verifying Obama's citizenship.
Snopes.com a website that debunks internet rumors has also confirmed the birth certificate.
I have personally spoken to citizenship and immigration law experts from the Federalist Society who have told me there is no question Obama is a citizen.
Scholars from the Heritage Foundation have told me the same.
Finally, these lawsuits have been thrown out of every court in the land including the Supreme Court.
Who would you believe?
The scholars, legal experts, publishers, news organizations, independent groups, government officials and judges who think Obama is a citizen and can prove it?
The campaign operatives or lawyers (including one who filed suit against Bush because he claims he caused 9-11) who say Obama is not a citizen and cannot prove it?
The arguments they offered were:
1- Obama was really born in Hawaii in 1958. Therefore he was not a citizen because Hawaii was not a state yet.
This is patently false. Even if Obama were born in 1958 - which he clearly was not - anyone born in a US territory is a US citizen.
2- Obama has never released his birth certificate.
This is a lie. A copy of the birth certificate was posted to the internet and an official of the Hawaiian state government has verified the authenticity.
3- Numerous Birthers told me that a Supreme Court case, US v Wong Kim Ark, established the definiton of "natural born" citizen. This is important to one of the birther arguments. "Natural born" - is a term used in the Constitution of the United States as a qualification for presidential eligibility.
The birtheers assertion that US v. Wong Kim Ark is hilarious and illustrates just how misinformed and/or fanatical birthers are. Not only did this case NOT define natural born citizen, Justice Gray who wrote the majority opinion specifically stated that the Constitution doesn't define "natural born."
Birthers believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen - that he was born in Kenya. Now, even if true, from what I understand, since his mother was a US citizen and she met certain residential requirements he would still be a citizen. This is according to the US code.
However, birthers want people to believe that the US code defining citizenship is unconstitutional. The term "natural born" is the only thing that matters.
None of this is true. Obama was born in the US and Wong didn't define 'natural born.'
4- Birthers said both Obama's parents had to be US citizens for him to be a citizen.
Again this illustrates just how misinformed birthers are. It is only necessary that one parent be a citizen.
So to sum it up - "birthers" believe in a lie (Obama wasn't born in Hawaii) and can't prove what the definition of "natural born" means.
They are simply chasing moonbeams.
Now since the real issue becomes credibility let's examine who is leading the Obama is not a citizen movement and who believes he is a citizen.
You tell me who you trust.
Birthers:
1- The "Obama is not a citizen" was started by a Clinton campaign operative.
2- One of the first lawsuits filed was by a lawyer who is not only a "birther" he is a "truther" too.
So a Clinton campaign operative and a lawyer who is both "birther" and "truther" lead the birther movement.
Anti-Birthers
Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, stated in July 2009 that she saw the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
This was also the opinion of Factcheck.org, an organization of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They claim also to have seen the certificate.
American Spectator founder and editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. has written that his reporters found evidence verifying Obama's citizenship.
Snopes.com a website that debunks internet rumors has also confirmed the birth certificate.
I have personally spoken to citizenship and immigration law experts from the Federalist Society who have told me there is no question Obama is a citizen.
Scholars from the Heritage Foundation have told me the same.
Finally, these lawsuits have been thrown out of every court in the land including the Supreme Court.
Who would you believe?
The scholars, legal experts, publishers, news organizations, independent groups, government officials and judges who think Obama is a citizen and can prove it?
The campaign operatives or lawyers (including one who filed suit against Bush because he claims he caused 9-11) who say Obama is not a citizen and cannot prove it?
Monday, February 1, 2010
Bonfire of the Elites
By MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE
'NOT ALL populism is bad," writes Kimberly A. Strassel in the Jan. 29 Wall Street Journal.
Presumably, the hoi polloi should be grateful for Ms. Strassel's qualified approval.
Apparently, graduating from Princeton in 1994 with a B.A. in public policy and international affairs, as Ms. Strassel did, gives you the intellectual authority to decide which political beliefs of the man on the street are legitimate.
The pronouncement by Lady Strassel is risible. Why an Ivy League education imbues you with a greater degree of righteousness than those who lack such education is not immediately apparent to anyone who doesn't have one.
The four classic Roman virtues of pietas, fides, collegio and gravitas didn't include any mention of an Ivy League degree or being a Rhodes scholar. After all, the most admired ancient Roman, Cincinnatus, was a farmer.
The habit of the intelligentsia, of both left and right, of using the word "populist" as a synonym for an angry lynch mob is wearisome. They do not so much say the word as spit it out. Or do not so much write it as scrawl it angrily.
The idea that the common man is merely a selfish, ignorant, lazy being - and therefore merely politically petulant - is the worst kind of elitism.
When did that average person become so terribly evil? Did it occur when they started acting together to demand honesty, accountability and competence - and possibly even a little empathy - from those who have economic and political power?
WHY DO THE intelligentsia react so negatively to the actions of regular folks when they demand a standard of political behavior that shouldn't have to be demanded at all?
Perhaps the intelligentsia - both left and right - need to be reminded that in this democratic-capitalist system of ours, those with economic and political power have been granted such by the hoi polloi, which Woodrow Wilson characterized as "submitting to authority."
If they don't believe this, all they need to do is go to the next G8 meeting without the security, which protects the elite from the anarchist mobs who, it sometimes seems from their rhetoric, would just as soon kill the wealthy bankers and powerful politicians as they would break a store window.
No, the courts, the police, the very books on which the law is written, are underwritten by the unstated consent provided by the common man. Without their cooperation, there is no private property, no market, no socialization and no education. There is only whatever you can take and keep by force.
Somehow, you can't imagine Wall Street bankers or journalists like Ms. Strassel obtaining or keeping much by force. No, in the absence of the cooperation of the common man, there are only Pol Pots, Stalins, Hitlers, Maos.
In most political systems, it's the strongest and best organized, not necessarily the most talented, most compassionate or most altruistic, who seize power. They are the leaders of the robber tribes.
This is not to say even democracy U.S.-style is a pure meritocracy, rewarding the most deserving. After all, entertainers and professional athletes are among the best-paid in our society.
The current idea that unless you're excessively educated, or wealthy in a certain way, you're probably too stupid to act in your own best interests, is a disgrace. The conservative and liberal elite need to remember that they govern only by consent of the people.
We defer to the elites on certain issues - repeat, certain issues - because of their specific technical qualifications and talents. But education - even a prestigious one - does not make them omniscient, or automatically endow them with common sense. We grant the elite certain powers - and we can take them back at any time.
Unfortunately, the elite keep forgetting this. Once again, Lady Strassel's column illustrates that there's very little difference between the conservative Republican elite and the liberal Democratic one.
Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the novel "A Sense of Duty," available at Barnesandnoble.com and Atlantic Bookstores. He is working on a new book about political correctness in law enforcement
'NOT ALL populism is bad," writes Kimberly A. Strassel in the Jan. 29 Wall Street Journal.
Presumably, the hoi polloi should be grateful for Ms. Strassel's qualified approval.
Apparently, graduating from Princeton in 1994 with a B.A. in public policy and international affairs, as Ms. Strassel did, gives you the intellectual authority to decide which political beliefs of the man on the street are legitimate.
The pronouncement by Lady Strassel is risible. Why an Ivy League education imbues you with a greater degree of righteousness than those who lack such education is not immediately apparent to anyone who doesn't have one.
The four classic Roman virtues of pietas, fides, collegio and gravitas didn't include any mention of an Ivy League degree or being a Rhodes scholar. After all, the most admired ancient Roman, Cincinnatus, was a farmer.
The habit of the intelligentsia, of both left and right, of using the word "populist" as a synonym for an angry lynch mob is wearisome. They do not so much say the word as spit it out. Or do not so much write it as scrawl it angrily.
The idea that the common man is merely a selfish, ignorant, lazy being - and therefore merely politically petulant - is the worst kind of elitism.
When did that average person become so terribly evil? Did it occur when they started acting together to demand honesty, accountability and competence - and possibly even a little empathy - from those who have economic and political power?
WHY DO THE intelligentsia react so negatively to the actions of regular folks when they demand a standard of political behavior that shouldn't have to be demanded at all?
Perhaps the intelligentsia - both left and right - need to be reminded that in this democratic-capitalist system of ours, those with economic and political power have been granted such by the hoi polloi, which Woodrow Wilson characterized as "submitting to authority."
If they don't believe this, all they need to do is go to the next G8 meeting without the security, which protects the elite from the anarchist mobs who, it sometimes seems from their rhetoric, would just as soon kill the wealthy bankers and powerful politicians as they would break a store window.
No, the courts, the police, the very books on which the law is written, are underwritten by the unstated consent provided by the common man. Without their cooperation, there is no private property, no market, no socialization and no education. There is only whatever you can take and keep by force.
Somehow, you can't imagine Wall Street bankers or journalists like Ms. Strassel obtaining or keeping much by force. No, in the absence of the cooperation of the common man, there are only Pol Pots, Stalins, Hitlers, Maos.
In most political systems, it's the strongest and best organized, not necessarily the most talented, most compassionate or most altruistic, who seize power. They are the leaders of the robber tribes.
This is not to say even democracy U.S.-style is a pure meritocracy, rewarding the most deserving. After all, entertainers and professional athletes are among the best-paid in our society.
The current idea that unless you're excessively educated, or wealthy in a certain way, you're probably too stupid to act in your own best interests, is a disgrace. The conservative and liberal elite need to remember that they govern only by consent of the people.
We defer to the elites on certain issues - repeat, certain issues - because of their specific technical qualifications and talents. But education - even a prestigious one - does not make them omniscient, or automatically endow them with common sense. We grant the elite certain powers - and we can take them back at any time.
Unfortunately, the elite keep forgetting this. Once again, Lady Strassel's column illustrates that there's very little difference between the conservative Republican elite and the liberal Democratic one.
Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the novel "A Sense of Duty," available at Barnesandnoble.com and Atlantic Bookstores. He is working on a new book about political correctness in law enforcement
Friday, January 29, 2010
Hearing Set for New Black Panther Case
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
The United States Commission on Civil Rights (CRC) announced that it will hold a public hearing on February 12, 2010, regarding the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Its purpose is to collect information within the jurisdiction of the Commission related particularly to the Department of Justice's actions in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) and enforcement of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
The CRC wants to know the reason the DOJ dismissed voter intimidation charges in May against members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) after they had already won a default judgment in the civil suit filed in January.
Two members of the New Black Panther Party, one armed with a nightstick, stood outside a poll on Fairmount Avenue in North Philadelphia. According to some who were present, they made racial slurs and intimidating gestures. Police were called and the two, Jerry Jackson and Minister King Samir Shabazz were questioned.
Mr. Shabazz, the person carrying the nightstick, was removed from the scene. Mr. Jackson, who is a member of the Democratic Party's 14th Ward Committee and is a credentialed poll watcher and he was allowed to remain. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office did not file criminal charges.
The incident was filmed by a University of Pennsylvania student affiliated with Electionjournal.org and Fox News Channel. The videos can be seen on youtube.com. Electionjournal.org, according to their website, is "an online community dedicated to raising public awareness of vote fraud and election irregularities.... (ABC News') Jake Tapper called Election Journal “an organic melange of media, citizenry, community and watchdog."
One of the witnesses will be Chris Hill, a Republican poll watcher. He told The Bulletin that one of the Republican poll watchers felt intimidated.
“He was inside the building and he refused to stand outside with the two New Black Panthers,” he said.
There will be other witnesses who can testify to the facts of the case. Also a video of the incident will be shown.
One person’s testimony which has been sought is that of J. Christian Adams the career Civil Rights Division prosecutor who compiled the voter intimidation case against the NBPP will testify. It is not known if Mr. Adams will testify. Allegations have been made that there were political motivations in dismissing the case. It is felt Mr. Adams could verify or disprove this.
The DOJ has taken the unusual step of instructing its people not comply with subpoenas issued by the Commission. A memo by DOJ to CRC General Counsel David Blackwood said it objects to the questions asked.
The DOJ has repeatedly refused to provide information requested about this case not only by the CRC, but by Congressman Frank Wolf ( R-Va.), as well as, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Tx.). Mr. Wolf sent a letter January 26 to Glenn Fine the DOJ Inspector General.
He said, “I have been disappointed by your reluctance to investigate the unfounded dismissal of an important voter intimidation case, U.S. v. New Black Panther Party. As you may recall, this case was inexplicably dismissed last year -- over the ardent objections of the career attorneys overseeing the case as well as the division’s own appeal office. Despite repeated requests for information by members of Congress, the press, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to stonewall all efforts to obtain information regarding the case’s abrupt dismissal. This obstruction should be of great concern to you and merit an immediate investigation.”
Mr. Wolf will appear at the hearing, which will be held at 624 9th St., N.W. Room 540, Washington, DC 20425. It is open to the public and the media.
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
The United States Commission on Civil Rights (CRC) announced that it will hold a public hearing on February 12, 2010, regarding the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Its purpose is to collect information within the jurisdiction of the Commission related particularly to the Department of Justice's actions in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) and enforcement of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
The CRC wants to know the reason the DOJ dismissed voter intimidation charges in May against members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) after they had already won a default judgment in the civil suit filed in January.
Two members of the New Black Panther Party, one armed with a nightstick, stood outside a poll on Fairmount Avenue in North Philadelphia. According to some who were present, they made racial slurs and intimidating gestures. Police were called and the two, Jerry Jackson and Minister King Samir Shabazz were questioned.
Mr. Shabazz, the person carrying the nightstick, was removed from the scene. Mr. Jackson, who is a member of the Democratic Party's 14th Ward Committee and is a credentialed poll watcher and he was allowed to remain. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office did not file criminal charges.
The incident was filmed by a University of Pennsylvania student affiliated with Electionjournal.org and Fox News Channel. The videos can be seen on youtube.com. Electionjournal.org, according to their website, is "an online community dedicated to raising public awareness of vote fraud and election irregularities.... (ABC News') Jake Tapper called Election Journal “an organic melange of media, citizenry, community and watchdog."
One of the witnesses will be Chris Hill, a Republican poll watcher. He told The Bulletin that one of the Republican poll watchers felt intimidated.
“He was inside the building and he refused to stand outside with the two New Black Panthers,” he said.
There will be other witnesses who can testify to the facts of the case. Also a video of the incident will be shown.
One person’s testimony which has been sought is that of J. Christian Adams the career Civil Rights Division prosecutor who compiled the voter intimidation case against the NBPP will testify. It is not known if Mr. Adams will testify. Allegations have been made that there were political motivations in dismissing the case. It is felt Mr. Adams could verify or disprove this.
The DOJ has taken the unusual step of instructing its people not comply with subpoenas issued by the Commission. A memo by DOJ to CRC General Counsel David Blackwood said it objects to the questions asked.
The DOJ has repeatedly refused to provide information requested about this case not only by the CRC, but by Congressman Frank Wolf ( R-Va.), as well as, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Tx.). Mr. Wolf sent a letter January 26 to Glenn Fine the DOJ Inspector General.
He said, “I have been disappointed by your reluctance to investigate the unfounded dismissal of an important voter intimidation case, U.S. v. New Black Panther Party. As you may recall, this case was inexplicably dismissed last year -- over the ardent objections of the career attorneys overseeing the case as well as the division’s own appeal office. Despite repeated requests for information by members of Congress, the press, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to stonewall all efforts to obtain information regarding the case’s abrupt dismissal. This obstruction should be of great concern to you and merit an immediate investigation.”
Mr. Wolf will appear at the hearing, which will be held at 624 9th St., N.W. Room 540, Washington, DC 20425. It is open to the public and the media.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
1995 - Time Magazine Called Limbaugh Rejection of Bailout "Populist"
From Feb 1995 edition of Time magazine.
"The phone call reached Rush Limbaugh at his studio shortly before he went on the air at noon, but this time the person on the other end of the line was not Bob, a machinist from Dayton, Ohio, or Dorothy, a housewife from Tucson, Arizona. It was Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the second most powerful man in Washington, calling Limbaugh to lobby for Bill Clinton's $40 billion rescue package for Mexico. The 10-min. chat, which took place four weeks ago, was cordial enough but left the folk hero of the kilohertz unmoved. As Limbaugh advised his 20 million listeners last week, ``President Clinton is very decisive in giving away our money and taking away our rights.''
It was this kind of populist blast--a picture painted by Limbaughs and cartoonists across the U.S. of a President extending a hand to Wall Street and ailing foreign countries--that convinced Clinton he had to bypass Congress altogether. With the Mexican peso sliding, only $3.5 billion left in Mexican currency reserves and financial markets throughout Latin America on the brink of collapse, the President last week invoked his executive authority to grant Mexico $20 billion in loans and loan guarantees as the centerpiece of a coordinated bailout. Following Washington's lead, the International Monetary Fund agreed to provide Mexico with a further $17.8 billion, and the Swiss- based Bank for International Settlements kicked in an additional $10 billion.
By the time Clinton acted, the political paralysis in Washington had become almost as threatening as the economic trouble in Mexico. If a plan supported by the President, the Fed chairman and the heads of both houses were rebuffed, the result ``would be perceived in the rest of the world as leadership anarchy,'' in the words of Robert Hormats, the vice chairman of international operations for Goldman Sachs. For Clinton, the overriding goal was to prevent a financial crisis whose victims could have included up to 700,000 Americans holding jobs tied to exports to Mexico. In the past six weeks, U.S. manufacturers have already sharply pared their forecasts for Mexican business; Ford chairman Alex Trotman conceded last week that his company's plans to double exports to Mexico in 1995 were now just ``a pipe dream.'' Instead, the industry expects total Mexican sales to fall by one-third from last year's total of 600,000 vehicles.
In the short term, the U.S.-led rescue saved Mexico from defaulting on $26 billion of the government's Tesobonos bonds that come due this year--a disaster that would have driven the vast majority of foreign investors out of the country and much of the rest of Latin America. With the threat of default averted, the Administration argues, Mexico can begin to restore itself to health. Says Treasury Under Secretary Lawrence Summers: ``The success of Mexico's economy now rests on Mexico.''
But that's just what disturbs many critics of the bailout, who regard Mexico as a stumble-prone country that will inevitably be back for another tourniquet. ``We're bailing out a Mexican government that has mismanaged its economic affairs for as long as I've been an adult,'' says Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur, a leading opponent of the rescue plan."
"The phone call reached Rush Limbaugh at his studio shortly before he went on the air at noon, but this time the person on the other end of the line was not Bob, a machinist from Dayton, Ohio, or Dorothy, a housewife from Tucson, Arizona. It was Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the second most powerful man in Washington, calling Limbaugh to lobby for Bill Clinton's $40 billion rescue package for Mexico. The 10-min. chat, which took place four weeks ago, was cordial enough but left the folk hero of the kilohertz unmoved. As Limbaugh advised his 20 million listeners last week, ``President Clinton is very decisive in giving away our money and taking away our rights.''
It was this kind of populist blast--a picture painted by Limbaughs and cartoonists across the U.S. of a President extending a hand to Wall Street and ailing foreign countries--that convinced Clinton he had to bypass Congress altogether. With the Mexican peso sliding, only $3.5 billion left in Mexican currency reserves and financial markets throughout Latin America on the brink of collapse, the President last week invoked his executive authority to grant Mexico $20 billion in loans and loan guarantees as the centerpiece of a coordinated bailout. Following Washington's lead, the International Monetary Fund agreed to provide Mexico with a further $17.8 billion, and the Swiss- based Bank for International Settlements kicked in an additional $10 billion.
By the time Clinton acted, the political paralysis in Washington had become almost as threatening as the economic trouble in Mexico. If a plan supported by the President, the Fed chairman and the heads of both houses were rebuffed, the result ``would be perceived in the rest of the world as leadership anarchy,'' in the words of Robert Hormats, the vice chairman of international operations for Goldman Sachs. For Clinton, the overriding goal was to prevent a financial crisis whose victims could have included up to 700,000 Americans holding jobs tied to exports to Mexico. In the past six weeks, U.S. manufacturers have already sharply pared their forecasts for Mexican business; Ford chairman Alex Trotman conceded last week that his company's plans to double exports to Mexico in 1995 were now just ``a pipe dream.'' Instead, the industry expects total Mexican sales to fall by one-third from last year's total of 600,000 vehicles.
In the short term, the U.S.-led rescue saved Mexico from defaulting on $26 billion of the government's Tesobonos bonds that come due this year--a disaster that would have driven the vast majority of foreign investors out of the country and much of the rest of Latin America. With the threat of default averted, the Administration argues, Mexico can begin to restore itself to health. Says Treasury Under Secretary Lawrence Summers: ``The success of Mexico's economy now rests on Mexico.''
But that's just what disturbs many critics of the bailout, who regard Mexico as a stumble-prone country that will inevitably be back for another tourniquet. ``We're bailing out a Mexican government that has mismanaged its economic affairs for as long as I've been an adult,'' says Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur, a leading opponent of the rescue plan."
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Geithner Gets Hammered from Both Sides
Mica Calls for Resignation
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
Rep. John Mica (R.- Fla) and Rep. Steven Lynch (D.-Mass.) berated Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner during his testimony this morning before the House Oversight Committee. Mica called for his resignation.
Geithner is being questioned from both Democrats and Republicans about his relationship to Wall Street. Mica and Lynch zeroed in on the AIG bailout.
Geithner's opening statement and his responses to a sympathetic Paul Kanjorski (D.-Pa.) contained a great degree of righteous indignation. It reminded one of New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli's angry denial of wrongdoing when he was accused of corruption in office, allegations for which he was subsequently convicted.
However, Mr. Mica was not so sympathetic. He said he never wanted Geithner to be Treasury Secretary because he did not "pay his taxes."
Mica wanted Geithner to answer why they should not "ask for his resignation." He questioned Geithner's actions concerning the role of the New York Federal Reserve Bank - of which Geithner was president - in bailing out AIG.
Mica said believed that Geithner's responses " defied credulity."
Mr. Lynch said that he was convinced that Geithner did not act in the best interest of the American people. He cited that when Bear Stearns was going bankrupt the government negotiated a bailout of giving Bear Stearn shareholders " two cents on the dollar." Yet, AIG was given "one hundred cents on the dollar" and that this money was merely a " pass through" to Goldman Sachs, which was the ultimate recipient of the funds.
Geithner repeated that he acted in the best interest of the public. However, Lynch was not buying it and said that Geithner's actions were more indicative of someone working for the interest of wealthy influential people.
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
Rep. John Mica (R.- Fla) and Rep. Steven Lynch (D.-Mass.) berated Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner during his testimony this morning before the House Oversight Committee. Mica called for his resignation.
Geithner is being questioned from both Democrats and Republicans about his relationship to Wall Street. Mica and Lynch zeroed in on the AIG bailout.
Geithner's opening statement and his responses to a sympathetic Paul Kanjorski (D.-Pa.) contained a great degree of righteous indignation. It reminded one of New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli's angry denial of wrongdoing when he was accused of corruption in office, allegations for which he was subsequently convicted.
However, Mr. Mica was not so sympathetic. He said he never wanted Geithner to be Treasury Secretary because he did not "pay his taxes."
Mica wanted Geithner to answer why they should not "ask for his resignation." He questioned Geithner's actions concerning the role of the New York Federal Reserve Bank - of which Geithner was president - in bailing out AIG.
Mica said believed that Geithner's responses " defied credulity."
Mr. Lynch said that he was convinced that Geithner did not act in the best interest of the American people. He cited that when Bear Stearns was going bankrupt the government negotiated a bailout of giving Bear Stearn shareholders " two cents on the dollar." Yet, AIG was given "one hundred cents on the dollar" and that this money was merely a " pass through" to Goldman Sachs, which was the ultimate recipient of the funds.
Geithner repeated that he acted in the best interest of the public. However, Lynch was not buying it and said that Geithner's actions were more indicative of someone working for the interest of wealthy influential people.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Unequal Protection Under the Law
Obama's Opaque Justice Department
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
President Barack Hussein Obama promised a transparent government. Thus far, he has delivered an opaque one. Eric Holder's Department of Justice (DOJ) has led the way in this obscurity.
According to Congressman Frank Wolf (R.-Va.), Holder is “stonewalling” his efforts to learn why a voter intimidation case was mysteriously dropped after DOJ already won a civil suit they already filed.
This case involves alleged voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election. DOJ had already won the lawsuit filed while President Bush was still in office. Yet, mysteriously, inexplicably, the Obama DOJ dropped the case against two of the three NBPP members and the New Black Panther Party.
What bewilders many is the blatant double standard in the application of civil rights laws by DOJ. Some sources have alleged that there are those in the DOJ Civil Rights Division who do not believe in racial neutrality in enforcing civil rights laws. They feel white racism is more egregious than black racism. So while they will pursue cases involving whites, they will not against African-Americans.
Evidence of this exists by recent actions of the DOJ. Last week it monitored an election in Texas for violating minority language requirements and filed suit against a country club for alleged racial discrimination. Yet, this same DOJ refused to proceed with a voter intimidation case against African-Americans.
What is even more disconcerting is that Holder has done everything he could to avoid supplying elected officials and the US Civil Rights Commission they requested. He has consistently refused to furnish Wolf and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tx), both duly elected representatives of the people, with the information they legally seek regarding his decision for the dismissal. He has also instructed his staff to ignore lawful subpoenas from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which is also investigating this case.
This is very reminiscent of the stonewalling done by the Clinton administration during the Lewinsky investigation. This, however, is much more dire than a President of the United States committing perjury - as serious as that was.
The obfuscation committed by his Attorney General Eric Holder in this case is the most deleterious of all of those committed by the Obama administration. It is more important than not informing the public who visited the White House or who Mr. Obama consulted about banking reform.
It is because without being able to vote - nothing else really matters.
Almost one hundred fifty years ago, President Grant suspended the right of habeas corpus in South Carolina in 1871. He did so to combat the Ku Klux Klan's terrorism, a terrorism that prevented blacks form voting.
How things have changed.
Today the president gives terrorists lawyers instead of suspending habeas corpus and protects violations of the right of whites to vote .
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
President Barack Hussein Obama promised a transparent government. Thus far, he has delivered an opaque one. Eric Holder's Department of Justice (DOJ) has led the way in this obscurity.
According to Congressman Frank Wolf (R.-Va.), Holder is “stonewalling” his efforts to learn why a voter intimidation case was mysteriously dropped after DOJ already won a civil suit they already filed.
This case involves alleged voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election. DOJ had already won the lawsuit filed while President Bush was still in office. Yet, mysteriously, inexplicably, the Obama DOJ dropped the case against two of the three NBPP members and the New Black Panther Party.
What bewilders many is the blatant double standard in the application of civil rights laws by DOJ. Some sources have alleged that there are those in the DOJ Civil Rights Division who do not believe in racial neutrality in enforcing civil rights laws. They feel white racism is more egregious than black racism. So while they will pursue cases involving whites, they will not against African-Americans.
Evidence of this exists by recent actions of the DOJ. Last week it monitored an election in Texas for violating minority language requirements and filed suit against a country club for alleged racial discrimination. Yet, this same DOJ refused to proceed with a voter intimidation case against African-Americans.
What is even more disconcerting is that Holder has done everything he could to avoid supplying elected officials and the US Civil Rights Commission they requested. He has consistently refused to furnish Wolf and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tx), both duly elected representatives of the people, with the information they legally seek regarding his decision for the dismissal. He has also instructed his staff to ignore lawful subpoenas from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which is also investigating this case.
This is very reminiscent of the stonewalling done by the Clinton administration during the Lewinsky investigation. This, however, is much more dire than a President of the United States committing perjury - as serious as that was.
The obfuscation committed by his Attorney General Eric Holder in this case is the most deleterious of all of those committed by the Obama administration. It is more important than not informing the public who visited the White House or who Mr. Obama consulted about banking reform.
It is because without being able to vote - nothing else really matters.
Almost one hundred fifty years ago, President Grant suspended the right of habeas corpus in South Carolina in 1871. He did so to combat the Ku Klux Klan's terrorism, a terrorism that prevented blacks form voting.
How things have changed.
Today the president gives terrorists lawyers instead of suspending habeas corpus and protects violations of the right of whites to vote .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
