March 18, 2009 -- Michelle Malkin
ALL the world's a stage, wrote Shakespeare, and in the world of Washington, the curtains have opened on the most elaborate farce of the year.
Welcome, taxpayers, to the Kabuki Theater of AIG Outrage - where DC's histrionic enablers of taxpayer-funded corporate bailouts compete for Best Performance of Hypocritical Indignation.
Over the weekend, cloaked in their finest populist costumes, the Beltway's hair-sprayed and powdered politicians and White House aides took to the airwaves to inveigh against $165 million in employee-retention payments made by the government-backed insurance giant.
The checks were mailed Friday, but the March 15 bonus deadline had been on the Capitol Hill radar screen since December.
But it wasn't until last week that the hapless court jester of the Obama administration, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, scrambled to rein in the payments.
AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy basically told him to buzz off.
Geithner, the primary architect of the original $85 billion AIG bailout last fall, "reluctantly" approved the bonuses.
And now his outraged boss has ordered him to scour every legal nook and cranny possible to get the money back.
Spare me President Obama's finger-wag. He's "outraged?" Meh.
Two weeks ago, Team Obama forked over another $30 billion for the basket-case company after it reported $61.7 billion in fourth-quarter losses.
That's on top of the first $85 billion round and the second $38 billion round under George W. Bush - both of which Obama supported. (Obama, by the way, collected more than $101,000 in AIG campaign contributions.)
Don't talk to me about how the Obama administration opposes rewarding failure. And don't talk to me about all the politicians stampeding to tax AIG's bonuses.
Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, the corporate crony who is the largest recipient of AIG donations, is now leading the charge to tax the retention payments in order to recoup the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial-products unit.
But Dodd, it turns out, was for protecting AIG's bonuses before he was against them.
Fox Business reporter Rich Edson pointed out that during the Senate porkulus negotiations last month, Dodd successfully inserted a teeny-tiny amendment that provided for an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009," which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax.
Pay no attention to what his left hand was doing. Dodd's right fist is pounding mightily, mightily for the sake of the taxpayers. The hypocritical indignation on the Hill is bipartisan.
On his Twitter page last night, Sen. John McCain huffed, "If we hadn't bailed out AIG = no bonuses for greedy execs."
Well, if the GOP presidential candidate had held fast to his opposition to such doomed corporate bailouts in the first place, maybe bailout-a-palooza wouldn't have spiraled into the gazillion-dollar mess it inevitably became.
If Washington's newfound opponents of rewarding failure want to do taxpayers a favor, how about giving back their automatic pay raises? How about returning all their AIG donations?
How about taking back all the bailout money to all the failed enterprises, from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to AIG, the automakers and the big banks? Barry? Harry? Nancy? John? Chris? Bueller? Bueller?
Exit stage left. The curtain falls.
Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
An interesting tale
A Very Interesting Tale. She called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?''Not I,' said the cow. 'Not I,' said the duck. 'Not I,' said the pig. 'Not I,' said the goose. 'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain. 'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen. 'Not I,' said the duck. 'Out of my classification,' said the pig. 'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow. 'I'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose. 'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did. At last it came time to bake the bread. 'Who will help me bake the bread?' asked the little red hen. 'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow.'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck. 'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig. 'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose. 'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.' 'Excess profits!' cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi) 'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer) 'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson) The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy). And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities. Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, 'You must not be so greedy.' 'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen. 'Exactly,' said Barack the farmer. 'That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.' And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.' But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established. Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for. EPILOGUEBill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs. Hillary got $8 million for hers. That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything. IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: 'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.' 'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.' From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to lose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years' 'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning The 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000 Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100K residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.
Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years' 'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning The 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000 Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100K residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.
Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sen. Obama, Stand and Deliver!
Frank Salvato
The recent ruling by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick dismissing the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s citizenship, brought by former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Democrat county chair Phillip Berg, presents the genesis of a Constitutional Crisis. While Barack Obama’s refusal to satisfy the citizens’ request to validate his citizenship illustrates his unbridled arrogance and that of his campaign and supporters, it also exposes the fact that politics, at the hands of political opportunists and ideologues, has usurped the legitimate execution of the supreme law of the land; the United States Constitution.
Make no mistake. I do not support Barack Obama in his quest for the presidency. I find his political ideology to embrace a one-world ideology borrowing heavily from the Marxist-Leninist dogma. But, if in fact he is a legal and naturally born citizen of the United States of America, if he thoroughly satisfies the requirements as set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, then I will defend his right to be placed on ballots across our nation. My concern is not partisan, it is constitutional.
Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution reads:
"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
In what may come as a surprise to many, the Federal Election Commission does not have authority to verify whether or not a presidential candidate has satisfied the constitutional requirements set forth for candidacy.
The FEC’s mission statement reads:
“In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.”
So, a singular question becomes self-evident; what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States?
In Marquis v. Reed, one of the eight lawsuits filed in an attempt to verify that Barack Obama is indeed eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, Steven Marquis takes a different tract than Berg. Marquis challenges the Washington State Secretary of State, Samuel Reed, to verify Obama’s eligibility.
In this lawsuit Marquis establishes:
“As we do not have a federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President...and presents a state question within this Court’s jurisdiction.”
Still, while establishing that the States, rather than the federal government, have jurisdiction over their individual election processes, it still doesn’t quest for the answer to the self-evident question of what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States? Instead, it adds to the immediacy of the question and brings to the forefront a more refined question; is there an entity that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements?
Examining the State of Illinois’ State Board of Elections Amended 2008 Candidate’s Guide, issued in May of 2008, it appears that the Illinois State Board of Elections doesn’t verify a candidate’s eligibility beyond requiring:
1) A Statement of Candidacy – This form (I use the FEC form as it encompasses everything in the Illinois form) requires each candidate to provide his name, address, party affiliation, office sought, the state and district of the contest, a designation of a principle campaign committee, the designation of other authorized committees and a declaration of intent to expend personal funds. Lastly, it requires a potential candidate to “attest” that he or she is “qualified for the office specified.” At no place in the official guide or paperwork is a birth certificate or other form of verification of natural born citizenship required.
2) A Loyalty Oath – Ironically, this is optional.
3) Receipt for filing a Statement of Economic Interests – This is not required for Federal Office or political party offices.
4) Completed Nominating Petitions – These petitions must be correctly filed out, notarized and contain a sufficient number of original signatures as set forth by the election commission.
Being familiar with the election process in Illinois, I then examined my country board of election’s requirements. Their requirements deferred to the requirements of the State of Illinois.
Again, the question remains, is there an entity – whether on a federal, state, county or municipal level – that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements set forth by the US Constitution for holding the office of President of the United States?
In Judge Surrick’s ruling, he declared that Mr. Berg “lacked standing” to bring the lawsuit to the court. He stated that the harm cited by Berg was “too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.” This ruling is a slap in the face to every citizen of the United States.
The U.S. Constitution begins with:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
It does not begin with “We the Government...” or “We the Judiciary...” and for good reason. The United States government is empowered and created by We the People; the citizens. The U.S. Constitution belongs to the people not to the government. In fact, the Constitution was created to limit government’s ability to employ tyrannical governance. It is squarely within the citizen’s purview to protect and defend the US Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. This notion is called civic responsibility and it is our duty as citizens to pro-actively defend our Charters of Freedom. It is for this reason, among but a few more, that the Constitution is written in the First Person.
Barack Obama could defuse this situation by presenting his original vaulted birth certificate, thus satisfying his obligation to the American people to provide proof he meets the requirements for holding the office of President of the United States as set forth in Article II, Section 1. But I doubt he will. He has the luxury of having partisan judicial activists – tyrants – acting on his behalf, usurping the authority of the Constitution.
But the larger more serious Constitutional Crisis remains: it would appear we have no system in place for verifying a candidate’s eligibility for holding the office of President of the United States – or any other federal or state office for that matter. We have no system, but for relying on a partisan and politically hijacked Congress, for making sure that those running for elected office satisfy the requirements as set forth by those who loved our country enough to die for its creation.
This cannot stand.
Sen. Obama, stand and deliver! Answer the demand of the American people; those you say you so want to serve. Do the honorable thing and present your citizenship to the citizenry. Should you dare to be so arrogant as to dismiss the American people by usurping the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution, you will be solely responsible for the societal divide created by your inaction. You, Sen. Obama, will be solely responsible for bringing this Constitutional Crisis to bear.
We stand on the brink of a Second Great Civil War. Let’s see just how much Sen. Obama really loves our country.
The recent ruling by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick dismissing the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s citizenship, brought by former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Democrat county chair Phillip Berg, presents the genesis of a Constitutional Crisis. While Barack Obama’s refusal to satisfy the citizens’ request to validate his citizenship illustrates his unbridled arrogance and that of his campaign and supporters, it also exposes the fact that politics, at the hands of political opportunists and ideologues, has usurped the legitimate execution of the supreme law of the land; the United States Constitution.
Make no mistake. I do not support Barack Obama in his quest for the presidency. I find his political ideology to embrace a one-world ideology borrowing heavily from the Marxist-Leninist dogma. But, if in fact he is a legal and naturally born citizen of the United States of America, if he thoroughly satisfies the requirements as set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, then I will defend his right to be placed on ballots across our nation. My concern is not partisan, it is constitutional.
Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution reads:
"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
In what may come as a surprise to many, the Federal Election Commission does not have authority to verify whether or not a presidential candidate has satisfied the constitutional requirements set forth for candidacy.
The FEC’s mission statement reads:
“In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.”
So, a singular question becomes self-evident; what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States?
In Marquis v. Reed, one of the eight lawsuits filed in an attempt to verify that Barack Obama is indeed eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, Steven Marquis takes a different tract than Berg. Marquis challenges the Washington State Secretary of State, Samuel Reed, to verify Obama’s eligibility.
In this lawsuit Marquis establishes:
“As we do not have a federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President...and presents a state question within this Court’s jurisdiction.”
Still, while establishing that the States, rather than the federal government, have jurisdiction over their individual election processes, it still doesn’t quest for the answer to the self-evident question of what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States? Instead, it adds to the immediacy of the question and brings to the forefront a more refined question; is there an entity that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements?
Examining the State of Illinois’ State Board of Elections Amended 2008 Candidate’s Guide, issued in May of 2008, it appears that the Illinois State Board of Elections doesn’t verify a candidate’s eligibility beyond requiring:
1) A Statement of Candidacy – This form (I use the FEC form as it encompasses everything in the Illinois form) requires each candidate to provide his name, address, party affiliation, office sought, the state and district of the contest, a designation of a principle campaign committee, the designation of other authorized committees and a declaration of intent to expend personal funds. Lastly, it requires a potential candidate to “attest” that he or she is “qualified for the office specified.” At no place in the official guide or paperwork is a birth certificate or other form of verification of natural born citizenship required.
2) A Loyalty Oath – Ironically, this is optional.
3) Receipt for filing a Statement of Economic Interests – This is not required for Federal Office or political party offices.
4) Completed Nominating Petitions – These petitions must be correctly filed out, notarized and contain a sufficient number of original signatures as set forth by the election commission.
Being familiar with the election process in Illinois, I then examined my country board of election’s requirements. Their requirements deferred to the requirements of the State of Illinois.
Again, the question remains, is there an entity – whether on a federal, state, county or municipal level – that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements set forth by the US Constitution for holding the office of President of the United States?
In Judge Surrick’s ruling, he declared that Mr. Berg “lacked standing” to bring the lawsuit to the court. He stated that the harm cited by Berg was “too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.” This ruling is a slap in the face to every citizen of the United States.
The U.S. Constitution begins with:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
It does not begin with “We the Government...” or “We the Judiciary...” and for good reason. The United States government is empowered and created by We the People; the citizens. The U.S. Constitution belongs to the people not to the government. In fact, the Constitution was created to limit government’s ability to employ tyrannical governance. It is squarely within the citizen’s purview to protect and defend the US Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. This notion is called civic responsibility and it is our duty as citizens to pro-actively defend our Charters of Freedom. It is for this reason, among but a few more, that the Constitution is written in the First Person.
Barack Obama could defuse this situation by presenting his original vaulted birth certificate, thus satisfying his obligation to the American people to provide proof he meets the requirements for holding the office of President of the United States as set forth in Article II, Section 1. But I doubt he will. He has the luxury of having partisan judicial activists – tyrants – acting on his behalf, usurping the authority of the Constitution.
But the larger more serious Constitutional Crisis remains: it would appear we have no system in place for verifying a candidate’s eligibility for holding the office of President of the United States – or any other federal or state office for that matter. We have no system, but for relying on a partisan and politically hijacked Congress, for making sure that those running for elected office satisfy the requirements as set forth by those who loved our country enough to die for its creation.
This cannot stand.
Sen. Obama, stand and deliver! Answer the demand of the American people; those you say you so want to serve. Do the honorable thing and present your citizenship to the citizenry. Should you dare to be so arrogant as to dismiss the American people by usurping the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution, you will be solely responsible for the societal divide created by your inaction. You, Sen. Obama, will be solely responsible for bringing this Constitutional Crisis to bear.
We stand on the brink of a Second Great Civil War. Let’s see just how much Sen. Obama really loves our country.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
