Playing with the truth...

The AP had an interesting article today about Obama's press conference. Most of us on the conservative side are aware that Obama likes to play a little loose with the facts. But in a rare twist, the AP actually checked the facts and called some things into question.

From the AP, via Foxnews.com --

FACT CHECK: Obama's Job Creation, Deficit Claims Questionable - Presidential Politics Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

Obama talks a good game...

But he's about as substantive as wearing pants made of tissue paper.
Obama is giving another one of his famously dull press conferences tonight. During sweeps! The networks can't be happy about that.
Anyway, when asked about his decision to cease enhanced interrogations, he answered by talking about Churchill and Britain during World War II. Obama claimed the British had some 200 detainees, or POWs, and Winston Churchill supposedly said "We don't torture", regarding how they would be treated. This is completely false, and as he is wont to do, Obama got this nice little anecdote from, you guessed it, the always inaccurate yet reliable enough for the mainstream media liberal left wing blogosphere.
Putting aside the whole "is water boarding torture" debate, let me ask this question:
How likely is it that any of those prisoners knew Hitler's war plans? I'll tell you -- not very. The difference is in conventional warfare there is very little chance, if any, that any captured Nazi soldier would have been in a position to know what actions were coming next, where, how, why, and so forth. All those decisions would be made in secure locations far from the front lines of the battlefield.
The terrorists we captured in the war on terror were high-level targets, meaning they were knowledgeable and instrumental in Al Qaeda's efforts. They actually knew something. Comparing World War II and the War on Terror is comparing apples and oranges. Or Snickers bars and broccoli.

The Obama Doctrine: Hugging Foes, Hurting Friends

A great piece from the New York Post --

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE

USA Motors, Liabilities, and Finances, Inc., Part Two

According to reports in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, after a restructuring of the American auto industry by the Obama administration, the UAW would possess 55% control of the once great Chrysler and 39% of the once dominant General Motors.
These two companies will be controlled by the United States federal government and one of its strongest thug benefactors, the United Auto Workers union.
GM has thus far received some $15.4 billion in bailout funds from the federal government, and is requesting an additional $11.6 billion. CEO Fritz Henderson, who, incidentally, was installed by Obama after he fired Rick Wagoner, wants to repay their debt with at least half of GM's shares. That would make the United States government a majority shareholder in General Motors.
Additionally, GM would use stock to repay half the debt owed to provide health care to retirees, about $10.2 billion, giving the UAW a 39% stake in the company.
GM also plans to eliminate the Pontiac brand and cease production of Saturn vehicles by the end of this year. Also on the chopping block are 21,000 jobs by 2010 and 42% of its dealer base, approximately 500 dealers, by the end of next year. It's a bleak picture for the once great automaker which in better days controlled more than half the automobile market in the US.
Also at risk in this plan are GM's private debt holders, who have until May 26 to accept stock in exchange for the $27 billion they have invested in the company. They lose either way. If 90% of the bond-holders do not accept stock in lieu of cash, the deal will not go through and GM will likely enter bankruptcy, which could be devastating to bond holders. If they accept the stock exchange, they do so for pennies on the dollar and 10% stake in GM. Furthermore, GM may press for a similar deal in bankruptcy court anyway.
From a statement from GM Bondholders Committee's Advisers:
"We believe the offer to be a blatant disregard of fairness for the bondholders who have funded this company and amounts to using taxpayer money to show political favoritism of one creditor over another." (http://blogs.wsj.com/autoshow/2009/04/27/statement-from-gm-bondholder-commitees-advisers/)
But Henderson is not going to get into what's fair and not fair.
Obama's restructuring of the auto industry will reportedly also give the UAW majority control of Chrysler with 55% ownership of the company, as well as a board representative and regular disclosures and contributions from management, suppliers, and other affiliated interests.
In exchange for the UAW concessions involved in the restructuring, Chrysler will pay $4.59 billion into a retired worker health care trust fund, with additional payments of several hundred million over the next fifteen years.
In return, UAW concessions bring salaries and benefits down to levels closer to those paid to non-union workers at foreign automakers such as Toyota and Honda which operate manufacturing facilities in the US. The union is expected to vote to ratify these concessions Wednesday in the hopes of staving off bankruptcy, which might force the elimination of union contracts altogether.
Fiat SpA would also acquire 35% ownership and would also provide a small car and small diesel and gasoline engines, as well as possibly building a plant in the US.
The US government and private lenders would split the remaining 10% of Chrysler.
So these once great companies become government entities and tools of political power constituencies. It's very depressing, really.
In an interesting twist for the US auto industry, however, Ford has been showing some signs of life. Or, at the very least, has slowed the hemorrhaging. Ford lost less money than analysts expected for the first quarter, with a net loss of $1.4 billion. Furthermore, Ford burned through less cash, $3.7 billion, down from $5.5 billion the previous quarter. Stock prices are up a bit as well.
It should be noted that Ford did not ask for nor did they receive federal bailout money. You may also recall there was much discontent over the whole government bailout fiasco last fall. Perhaps car buyers remember that and it is influencing their purchasing decisions? It's hard to say.
At this point, after all of this government intervention, I think I would rather buy a Ford. Maybe I'm not the only one.

In honor of President Obama's first 100 days...

Courtesy of the New York Post...
100 DAYS, 100 MISTAKES

Swine flu?! Really?!

It seems people are getting really frightened that we may have a deadly flu pandemic which will kill millions on our hands. I hope that is not the case.
What puzzles me, however, is the form this flu has taken. Swine flu? How does that happen? Really? How does an illness that infects livestock and animals make the switch to humans? Is it some sort of mutation? Did a human with the flu and a sick pig get together somehow? Was it just a handshake/hoofshake or something more? Manbearpig?!
Or is it just an unfortunate lab accident? Maybe this is the work of a genocidal mad scientist, or China's new plan for world domination. The whole thing is just weird.

Obama's latest bright idea...

Earlier today New Yorkers panicked and ran for their lives as a 747 flew over New York city, in a bizarre and incredibly stupid stunt by the Obama administration. Apparently, in an attempt to score a really awesome photo op, they decided to fly right past Lady Liberty and zoom over lower Manhattan. Great idea! No, nobody's going to think it's 9/11 all over again! Yeah, go for it! It'll be totally rad! And we should totally fly a couple fighter jets past also! Yeah! Go us!
So thousands of New Yorkers evacuated buildings and ran for their lives. When Robert Gibbs, the greatest presidential press secretary in the history of the world was asked about the general chaos and fear their stunt created, in a most graceful and intelligent manner, Gibbs stuttered, mumbled, hemmed and hawed that he didn't know. You'll have to contact the White House, he said. That's pretty smooth, Bob. I thought you spoke for the White House?
Later reports said Obama was very upset with the flyover. Really? Who else would have this kind of stupid idea?! Either it was Obama's stupid idea, or some other dope in his administration came up with it, which just makes Obama look like a hack who has no control over what his cronies and henchmen do.
Wow. We're approaching the "100 Day" mark, and it's been quite a ride so far. It's like America went to Six Flags and hopped on a rollercoaster, and two seconds before the first drop, the guy in the front seat noticed all the rails were loose and some were missing. And there was a dead raccoon smeared on the track. And the ride operator was drunk. And everyone on board just ate too much funnel cake.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124084127590859371.html

Whose American Dream pays better?

Or better yet, whose American Dream is more acceptable?
Do you remember the recent uproar over bonus money paid to AIG executives? I do. They were paid bonuses that were contractually obligated to be paid.
Suddenly there was an uproar from the media, from the President, from Congress.
"This was not fair! AIG got bailout money from the fed! They paid these bonuses with taxpayer money! It's their fault we're all in this mess! Make them give it all back!"
Images were all over the media of protest groups arriving in buses to scream and shout in front of executives' homes.
Congress threatened to levy a retroactive, punitive 90% tax on these bonuses, and two-bit state attorney generals attempted to prosecute them.
Never mind that many of these executives had agreed to receive a salary of only one dollar, or that the buses were carrying ACORN activists posing as outraged citizens.
Many of these executives worked very hard, made large salaries, and took calculated risks that sometimes fail. These mechanics are all built into the system of capitalism.
This is the American Dream -- take a shot, work hard, make lots of money.
Matthew Stafford, former Georgia quarterback, signed a six-year deal with the Detroit Lions this weekend as the number one overall pick in the NFL Draft. His contract guarantees him $41.7 million. He could make as much as $78 million.
He is living his American Dream. He worked hard, took a chance on playing football for a living, and will make lots and lots of money. The Lions are excited to have him and hope he will help return the team to glory. He's a very good player, he may very well do that. Or, like many number one quarterbacks, he may fail.
As I was watching the draft, it seemed the prognosticators, commentators and experts were trying to temper expectations to an extent. Stafford can't do it all himself, they need other good players on the team around him, he'll need a couple years to become an elite player, and so forth. All good observations which really could apply to any number of the players that were drafted.
Yet, Stafford just had the biggest payday of his life, my life, your life, and millions of other people in this country. Many of the players drafted, in fact, will receive some very, very large checks.
So what happens when they fail? What happens if Matthew Stafford turns out just like many former number one quarterbacks such as Tim Couch, Ryan Leif, Andre Ware, or, heaven forbid, former Lion Joey Harrington?
If Matthew Stafford plays and the Lions still lose, does that mean buses full of ACORN employees will camp in front of his house to protest? Will the media publish his address while "journalists" and "anchors" rage about his earnings? Will Congress hold hearings and write retroactive punitive tax legislation to confiscate his first year salary? Will no-name politicians attempt to ride his temporary unpopularity to relevance?
Many players drafted this weekend will be making similar money, especially early first round picks. I'm talking millions of dollars. More than CEO money. Many of those players, however, will never even play in the NFL. Many who do play will only play for maybe a year or two, perhaps three. Many will play poorly. Ultimately, hundreds of millions of dollars will be thrown around, and only a handful of the players drafted will become great players. It happens every year, every draft.
No one can accurately predict how successful a player will ultimately be. But if Matthew Stafford struggles, he can at least take solace that all Lions fans can do is boo.

Nationalized Health Care = Eugenics?

An article in the New York Times on Wednesday suggested congressional Democrats may use the ambiguous "reconciliation" procedure to ram their "health care reform" agenda through the legislature and consequently, down the throats of the American majority which does not wish to have their experiences standing in line at the post office replicated whenever they visit the doctor. This would result in the federal government as a competitor to private health care providers and insurers. Guess who will win that battle. Perhaps the one with no budget constraints? That's right! It's the Fed. Aside from being a politically divisive issue, it's going to cost the taxpayer an arm and a leg. Figuratively, and possibly literally. And it's always nice to hear the always gentlemanly Rahm Emanuel threaten to use this measure as a weapon against balky Republicans.
There is, however, a bigger issue here. There is no question single payer health care is on Obama's agenda, and he's going to push hard for it over the next few months and years. During the campaign, which he apparently thinks hasn't ended yet, he promised to offer everyone the same ultra-inclusive health care federally elected officials enjoy. Nationalized health care is but one piece of his end-game plan.
And once again we have the issue of how to pay for it. The answer is rationing.
The theory is simple. Government bean-counters will decide which treatments are the best use of taxpayer dollars, and which patients will be best served using a cost/benefit ratio that weights the most in need patients whose survival may be more statistically likely, socially beneficial, or simply most cost effective versus those that aren't. See Canada, where patients regularly die while on waiting lists. Naturally, the older you get, the less likely you will be to receive health care.
The "stimulus" bill, in fact, includes a pretty hefty $1.1 billion provision for medical "comparative effectiveness research".
For years hospitals and medical researchers have been collecting DNA samples of newborns and using these samples for genetic research. The idea is to treat and prevent genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, and others. Most states destroy these samples after several months, but some keep these samples for years, and some keep them indefinitely. There is currently a battle in Minnesota to prevent the repeal of a Genetic Privacy Act which would make these screenings mandatory. (http://www.cchconline.org/pr/pr040809.php)
The Illinois Department of Public Health has a "Genetics and Newborn Screening" program which provides genetic counseling and purports to help you "learn what health problems you may be at increased risk for in the future and how to reduce your risks". (http://www.idph.state.il.us/HealthWellness/genetics.htm)
This may sound a little "conspiracy theory", but not only is keeping track of genetic data an excellent way to improve the genome, so to speak, it also saves time and money by preventing those who may be genetically inferior from burdening society and a health care system which is funded by taxpayers.
Furthermore, we do have the issues of taxpayer funded programs such as abortion and birth control, both of which may be considered forms of population control, depending upon your perspective.
There has been much talk in recent years of human cloning and genetic engineering, "designer babies" and so forth. I won't go so far as to suggest that an entirely new eugenics movement such as the ethnic cleansing in Nazi Germany or Bosnia and Kosovo is upon us, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the idea of collecting DNA samples from millions of American citizens and storing them indefinitely. Studying these samples may help defeat disease or illness, but at the same time such a collection may amount to another undefeatable measure of control over increasingly less free Americans.

Stimulus? What stimulus?

It's been more than two months since Obama's first signature piece of legislation, the $787 billion "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" spending program, was passed. Obama claimed that if his "stimulus" was not passed, the economy would fall off the cliff and we would all die of starvation or some such calamity.
The moon was full, economic woe was the werewolf, and Obama had a silver bullet. A very, very, very expensive silver bullet.
So a mammoth "stimulus" spending bill that nobody read was passed overnight, and what has changed? Did we turn from the cliff?
It looks like we're still right on the edge and hanging on for dear life. The newest Department of Labor jobless claims were released today, showing yet another rise in unemployment, with initial jobless claims up 27,000, to 640,000.
Furthermore, continuing jobless claims rose 93,000, to 6,137,000.
Economists generally believe an extended halt or decline in initial jobless claims, which are indicative of employer layoffs, is an indicator that a recession is nearing its end, historically within two to three months.
If you recall Obama's whirlwind "Stimulus Publicity Tour" during which he flew all over the country to drum up support for this unprecedented irresponsible spending of taxpayer money, he happened to bless the little town of Peoria, Illinois with his benevolent presence. He gave a speech at the Caterpillar plant where he promised that the CEO of Caterpillar, Jim Owens, said if the "stimulus" bill was passed he would rehire thousands of laid off employees. The problem is Jim Owens never said that.
During his visit, Obama said, “What’s happening at this company tells us a larger story about what’s happening in the American economy.”
Like most companies in the last several months, Caterpillar has lost jobs. They are on pace to shed more than 20,000 jobs.
And what about General Motors? The country's largest automaker announced yesterday it will be closing its factories for nine weeks this summer. It also seems that bankruptcy is imminent for Chrysler.
It doesn't look good.
Obama likes to fall back on his familiar refrain, blaming the "failed policies of the past eight years". Policies like a reduction in taxes, which saved the economy from collapse after 9/11? Those are failed policies? Policies such as a stimulus in the form a tax reduction that would show up in workers' paychecks in a matter of weeks?
By all accounts Obama's "stimulus" has proven to be a failure. The Government Accountability Office released reports today detailing the appropriation of the "stimulus" money for the states and its "initial implementation". (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09580.pdf)
Of the $787 billion of taxpayer money confiscated from us, our children, and our children's children for "economic stimulus", only $49 billion will be doled out to the states during fiscal year 2009. That works out to only 6.2%. Of that, 90% is targeted for healthcare, transportation, and education via the "State Fiscal Stabilization Fund".
Regarding healthcare, that means shoring up Medicaid payments. For fiscal year 2009, this makes up 64% of the total state "stimulus" funding. Furthermore, funding weighted towards creating the much-publicized "shovel-ready" jobs in transportation infrastructure is not scheduled to take full effect until 2012, when it will make up only 30% of total funding.
Even more disturbing is that while Obama was clamoring for this "stimulus" to be passed, claiming its immediate need, the majority of the "stimulus" money will not be spent until 2010 and 2011. In fact, more than twice as much will be spent in 2010 than during this year. Whereas approximately $50 billion will be spent in 2009, approximately $110 billion will be spent in 2010, and more than $60 billion in 2011.
This is dense material to be sure. But the numbers are clear. The "stimulus" is a failure. It has not stimulated the economy or created millions of jobs. But this should not surprise anyone. After all, Barack Obama doesn't believe in guns.

T-Shirts are on sale at the Banana Republic!

They have a fun catch-phrase on them as well! It says, "Caution: The Next Administration May Prosecute You"...
Obama set a very precarious precedent today when suggested his openness to prosecution of Bush administration officials for enhanced interrogation. While he claims he doesn't intend to bring criminal charges against the various CIA agents and other operatives who used these methods in the questioning of high-level terrorist operatives, he left an opening for the prosecution of the lawyers and officials who allowed for their use.
What a difference two days makes. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, made the media rounds on Sunday, claiming the administration, much like Oasis, didn't want to look back in anger.
Yet today Obama allows that some legal actions may be taken. Not by him specifically, however, lest he tarnish his messianic image. As with so many of "his" projects, such as the "stimulus" bill which Nancy Pelosi and her greedy minions wrote, he intends to keep his hands clean of this issue as well.
"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions," said Obama, "I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general, within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that."
So now these memos have been released to the public, which detail the methods and lengths to which the intelligence community may go to obtain information to protect the American people. This information is now available to our enemies. Whatever fear or trepidation terrorists may have had upon capture should be allayed, as they now know what to expect. Which, as it turns out, is not much, as Obama has stated he no longer intends to use these interrogation methods anyway. When your society routinely chops off hands for stealing, how frightening can a stern talking-to be?
Imagine this is the Super Bowl, and the kid who hands out the towels accidentally left the offensive playbook out in the hallway where the other team found it. Our team's not going to do so well.
Another concern is the precedent this sets for legal opinion. How effective can legal counsel to the President be under the fear of being criminally prosecuted by the next administration whenever they offer legal opinions regarding difficult moral or ethical choices and decisions? The decisions that were made regarding these interrogation tools were made in the immediate aftermath of one of our greatest national tragedies, a terrorist attack on our own soil. The times were perilous, the dangers were great, and the solutions were ambiguous.
We have the benefit of hindsight in viewing these issues. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair circulated a memo to employees in the intelligence community in which he wrote, "Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing... I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given."
Yet the left clamors for heads to roll. An argument commonly made by those critical of President Bush is these interrogation methods are not allowed under the Geneva Convention, which attempts to govern treatment of prisoners of war. These guidelines do not apply to Al Qaeda terrorists, however, as they are not representatives of a country or associated military apparatus.
Attorney General Eric Holder gave an interview with CNN in January 2002. He said, "One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people. It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."
These retroactive criminal prosecutions are commonly seen in South American banana republic military dictatorships, not the United States. Let's hope, for the good of our country, that he is able to make the right choice in this case.

Obama cuts spending! Be still my heart.

Our fearless leader today ordered his cabinet to cut $100 million in wasteful government spending. That's no small amount -- if you are a third world country, that is.
On the heels of his enormous $3.6 trillion dollar budget, however, it shows for what it really is. This is political stunt designed to make his ignorant voting base feel good. He likes to put on a good show for his disciples.
When asked, Obama acknowledged these spending cuts are insignificant. He answered, however, that these efforts add up. "$100 million here, $100 million there, pretty soon even in Washington it adds up to real money."
But just how do these insignificant spending cuts add up to real fiscal discipline? Let's just put these numbers into perspective. Let's consider his recent spending spree -- his $3.6 trillion dollar budget.
This is what it looks like in real numbers:

$3,600,000,000,000

Obama would need quite a few of these $100 million dollar spending cuts to add up to take some of the sting out of his bloated budget. Thirty six thousand, in fact.
If we break that down further over the next four years, it would require 9000 of these same spending cuts per year, or 25 per day, or approximately 2.75 per hour, given a nine hour work day.
Since we are comparing this fiscally responsible $100 million spending cut to this year's budget, however, let's do it one better.
Over the course of the next year, which in the spirit of generosity, given that his budget was signed several weeks ago, we will consider to be twelve months from this date, Obama would need to make nearly 99 of these same spending cuts per day, eleven per hour, or one every five and a half minutes.
It makes me think he will need to assign a special team dedicated solely to the work of cutting all of his spending. But then he will have to pay them, on the tax-payers' dime, of course, because nobody works for free in government. And this is hard work, combing through budgets and fiscal reports to find, assess, and eliminate programs and spending. How much will this cost us?
I guess I better start recalculating...

Vigilance is the price of Freedom.

America is changing right before our eyes, and it is changing quickly. Many of us, unfortunately, have been caught by surprise with all these changes. Obama promised change, and he is doing his best to change our country into something that I hope many of those who voted for him realize they do not want.
I heard a former PLO terrorist who converted to Christianity on the radio tonight. He said, "Vigilance is the price of Freedom." He is absolutely right. Where would we be if not for the brave men who fought British tyranny in the Revolution? Where would we be without the brave men who fought the Nazis?
Freedom requires vigilance. While those in power want to strip us of our freedoms in the name of equality and fairness, we must vigilantly uphold our freedoms. We may have seen the beginnings of a renewed focus on vigilance with the Tea Parties held around the country this past week. Citizens are realizing their freedoms and liberties are being usurped by power hungry demagogues, whose only "Change" is a fundamental change from a land of liberty to a bureaucratic dictatorship. Did you see all the news coverage of the Tea Parties on the networks? How about the cable news channels? Of course you didn't! They paid scant attention to our voices. What happened to our freedom of speech, and our freedom to peaceably protest? Only Fox News remembered our rights. What attention was given by the rest of these supposed "news" pushers in the mainstream liberal media was rife with sexually derogatory mockery from so-called "serious journalists". I hope we continue to see our populace fight back, not with weapons, but with our words and our voices. Our voices can drown out theirs.
Yesterday was the 234th anniversary of the original "Shot Heard Round the World", the catalyst for our American Revolution. If not for these brave men who loved and valued Liberty above even their own lives, where would we be?

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

- Samuel Adams

It's all America's fault.

"America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."
Gone are the days where America is the shining beacon of Freedom in the world. Obama will see to that. Gone are the days when America leads the world in strength, compassion, vision, creativity, and prosperity. Obama will see to that. Gone is the once Exceptional country that was so beautifully founded on the God-given rights and ideals of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Obama will see to that. In the span a a few days, Obama's disdain for the more than two hundred exceptional years of this amazing experiment in Freedom that is America was on display for all of Europe to revel in. Everything that so many American sons and daughters have fought and died for, our freedom and liberty, the Greatness of America, is gone, thanks to Obama. As his ideology dictates, America is at fault for all that is wrong in the world, from our capitalism wreaking the havoc of "economic injustice" upon the rest of the world, from our "cowboy diplomacy" causing the rest of the world to hate us and attack us and others, from our "american imperialism" destroying third world countries with pollution and poisons. No, America is no longer Exceptional, America is no longer Great. To the rest of the world, and to thunderous applause, we apologize for being America. Thanks, Obama. You traitor.

Welcome to the New World Order.

So the G20 get together wrapped up today to much fanfare from the socialist and fascists of the world. In what is bound to be under reported by mainstream press, our new messiah Barry Hussein Obama just signed away our sovereignty as a country. To sum up the incredible damage he has done to America, he essentially put us under the thumb of a likely highly corrupt worldwide financial regulatory system which creates its own rules and regulations and answers to no one but itself. Much like the UN. They will now regulate any company which may have an affect in any measure on the "systemic" health of of the world economy. The US will no longer be the ultimate authority in the US. Even more troubling than that were the discussions between the nations of fascists, socialists, communists and dictators of regulating "executive pay". So in the last few days not only have we had congressional leaders like Waxman and that crook Barney Frank proposing legislation to limit "excessive pay" with their "Pay for Performance Act of 2009", we will now have an unregulated, unscrupulous global committee regulating compensation in the United States. But it doesn't stop there. You and I are both aware that once they gain authority to regulate "executive pay", according to their vague and specious "performance" metrics, especially considering the infinite vacuum of private sector experience the majority of these people possess, there will be no stopping them. The precedent will be set. Barney Frank, the man who in July of 2008 went on TV and stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were financially sound, Tim Geithner, the head of the IRS who cannot even be bothered to pay his own taxes, or likely even comprehend what the number one trillion even means, and our messiah Barack Hussein Obama, who despite all efforts to disprove, is still considered brilliant, will decide what everyone should be paid. Is $30,000 is too much to pay a secretary? But wait! There is also a new Global Payments and Compensation Ministry that will decide on a worldwide scale what your efforts to make a living are worth. Fantastic.

USA Motors, Liabilities, and Finances, Inc.

So, apparently the fed is now in the business of building cars. That should be interesting. Obama decided to fire GM CEO Rick Wagoner on Monday, a man with more than thirty years of experience in the auto industry. I guess the only blame I would place on Wagoner is for not breaking GM's paralyzing union contracts. Other than that, how can you fault a man with so much of his life invested in one company who has essentially put the interests of actually having a business not fail over government's wishes? Sure, Barry and the fed want eco-boxes to be the vehicles of choice in this country. But nobody who actually works for a living and buys a car wants to drive a go-cart. GM builds SUVs because SUVs are what Americans want to buy. Sorry Barry, it's going to take a lot more of your fascism to force us into these tiny death traps on wheels. But, that's beside the point. Suddenly the President of these United States of America can fire a CEO of a private, non-government company. Is this Nazi Germany?! Is this Mussolini's Italy?! Not yet, at least. I don't know about you, but hearing Barry guarantee my Chevy Malibu doesn't exactly make me want to pack it up and drive out to Yellowstone for a family vacation. I'm sure it will make the trip out to one of the 57 states without incident, but I'm not keen on standing in line for four hours at the DMV to fill out my fifteen dozen "Federal Road Trip Application Permissive Forms". I can understand how Barack Obama could dream of running a car company. Look at all the glory and celebrity these car company CEOs enjoy on a daily basis. They go to Cannes, they go to the Oscars, they marry supermodels and guest star on Ellen DeGeneres's show all the time. But most importantly, they disregard sales tracking data on a regular basis and build hybrids and gas misers, and then use their aforementioned celebrity to force American citizens to buy them. You know, the typical "soccer mom" who drives eight kids to practice every afternoon, who shares the roads with single, sexy secretaries in their sedans who drive and apply their sexy makeup at the same time. She shares the roads with real estate agents who drive while typing a half dozen emails on their laptops with one hand, while conferencing with their boss on their cell phone in the other hand. Obviously soccer moms feel much more secure and safe ferrying their and other parents' children in their 3000 pound hybrid, as opposed to the 5000 pound SUV. But, alas, this is precisely why Barack Obama wants to run the car companies. Because he really does care about the children. Never mind the suffocating debt he's about to saddle yours and my great, great grandchildren with. Seriously, if I hear another person talk about how Barry inherited all this debt from Bush, I'm going to punch them. Because as we all know, when we take over a new job that was left in disarray, the obvious solution is to multiply those problems tenfold. Obviously. But that's another show...

Citizen X