Archive for March 2009

Obama Administration “Might Consider” Defending Our Country

March 30, 2009

While North Korea is preparing to break international law by launching a missile (supposedly to put a satellite into orbit), Defense Secretary Robert Gates is saying that we’re just not prepared to do anything about it.  Addressing the possibility of shooting the missile down, Gates had this to say:

“I think if we had an aberrant missile, one that was headed for Hawaii, that looked like it was headed for Hawaii or something like that, we might consider it,” Gates said. “But I don’t think we have any plans to do anything like that at this point.”

(Source)

Well great!  It’s good to know that the Obama administration might consider shooting the missile down if it was headed for American soil.  But don’t get your hopes or anything.  I guess we’d be demanding too much of them if we expected them to do what is necessary to defend America and protect American lives.

The Global War on Terror is Over

March 24, 2009

Make way for the “Overseas Contingency Operations Against Man-Caused Disasters.”  I wish I was joking.

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review noted that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ “

(Source)

As for the second part:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

(Source)

For a presidential campaign that railed against the war in Iraq as a distraction from the war on terror, Obama’s administration sure does seem strangely intent to make us forget that there even is a war on terror going on at all.  War on terror?  What’s that?  I don’t even know what terror is.  You’re confusing me.  Stop it.

To add to it, the Obama administration will no longer use the term “enemy combatants” to describe the…well…the enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay (Source).  I guess since they plan to close it down, they want us to forget that there was ever a valid reason to hold them to begin with.  In the same Justice Department filing that announced the dropping of this term, it was also stated that those formerly known as enemy combatants could only be held if they “substantially supported Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”  Apparently they believed that the Bush administration guideline allowing detainment of those who “directly supported” these terrorist groups was too broad…  If “direct support” is too broad of a term, I cringe to think what “substantial support” could mean.  Maybe we can only detain those who detonated the bombs?  I guess we’ll have to collect the pieces of them first.

Obama and Geithner Take Responsibility…a Bit Too Late

March 19, 2009

This morning it was reported that President Obama has taken responsibility for the AIG bonus mess:

“Listen, I’ll take responsibility. I’m the president,” Obama said at a “town hall” meeting in Costa Mesa, California, where his bid to sell his economic revival policies was swamped by news coverage of the bonus fiasco for a fourth day.

“We didn’t draft these contracts. We’ve got a lot on our plate — but it is appropriate when you’re in charge to make sure that stuff doesn’t happen like this,” he added, amid outrage across the United States.

(Source)

I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt as far as how much specific information he had about all of this.  That doesn’t change the fact, however, that he signed the stimulus bill into law and should have known exactly what he was signing.  Therefore, he should have known about the “Dodd amendment” and dealt with it before it got to this point, and he seems to be acknowledging that.

Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner also took responsibility for the mess today by admitting that the Treasury Department did indeed work with Chris Dodd to add the amendment to the stimulus bill:

In an interview with CNN’s Ali Velshi, Geithner said the Treasury Department did talk to Sen. Chris Dodd about a clause he put forth that would have strictly limited executive bonuses.

The Treasury Department was concerned that legislation that would restrict contractual bonuses would not hold up to legal challenges, Geithner said.

“We expressed concern about this specific version. We wanted to make sure it was strong enough to survive legal challenge,” Geithner said.

(Source)

This confession from Geithner comes only after Senator Chris Dodd (who previously lied about his role) admitted to inserting the amendment into the stimulus bill at the urging of the Treasury Department.  Geithner still claims to have not known the full scale of the bonus issues until last week, but it’s quite clear that he foresaw a problem over a month ago when requesting that the amendment be inserted into the bill.  The fact that this issue was singled out and addressed by Treasury would seem to indicate that it was known then that bonuses would be paid, therefore the government should have begun working with AIG then to come up with a reasonable solution.

As I said in last night’s post, AIG may have indeed been contractually obligated to pay these bonuses.  Let’s assume for a moment that they were.  In that case, the “Dodd amendment” was necessary to preserve rule of law.  Had Geithner and Dodd (and any other Democrats) done their duty and publicly addressed the issue earlier, this whole ordeal probably wouldn’t have gotten so out-of-hand.  Instead, they wasted time covering it up and lying about it and let it just spin completely out of control.  By not taking responsibility earlier, they’ve given fellow Democrats the opportunity to play dumb about the law that they passed and pretend to be furious about it, contributing greatly to the unhealthy mob mentality that has taken hold.

A product of this mob mentality is the bill just passed in the House today (by about every single Democrat and sadly with significant Republican support) that would enact a retroactive 90% tax on any bonuses received since December 31,2008, by employees with family incomes of over $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in bailout money from the government (Source).  Of course, this would include the bonuses paid by AIG.  But if these bonuses were indeed part of legally-binding contracts (as Democrats apparently believed considering they passed the bill containing the “Dodd amendment”), then they have absolutely no business taking this money from them.  This is nothing but an excuse to pass socialist legislation to take money from those who they believe made too much.  I don’t like the fact that people at a horribly performing company that has received a lot of taxpayer money are getting bonuses, but if they were legally entitled to them, so be it.

Even if these contracts didn’t really obligate AIG to pay the bonuses, this is not the way to solve the problem.  The truth is that the problem was solved last week:

In a letter sent to congressional leaders, Geithner said he persuaded AIG Chief Executive Edward M. Liddy last week to scrap or cut hundreds of millions of dollars in future salaries and other compensation after determining that the bonuses already granted would be “legally difficult to prevent.”

Geithner said the company would be required to pay the $165 million from corporate operating funds as part of the final terms for a previously announced $30-billion line of credit from the government. In addition, the credit line will be reduced by the same amount.

(Source)

The Treasury has already worked out a way to recover this money!  Democrats in Congress knew this, but they saw their opportunity to pass some socialist legislation to take even more money and took advantage of this mob mentality to do so.  This really only strengthens the case that some conservatives are making that this may be a bill of attainder (one intended to punish specific individuals), which is prohibited by the Constitution.  They no longer have a noble excuse.  This bill was obviously designed with the sole purpose of punishing the receivers of the AIG bonuses.  I can only hope that this bill doesn’t get any further and that the American people will see all of this for what it really is.

Thank Democrats for the AIG Bonus Mess

March 18, 2009

[Updated 03/10/2009]

I’m sure anyone paying the least bit attention to the news has heard everyone talking about how upset they are about AIG and the bonuses they are paying.  It’s understandable…it’s upsetting enough that our government has given them bailout money three separate times.  That AIG thought it would be okay to pay undeserved bonuses with taxpayer money should make any reasonable person nauseated.  Why were they able to do this?

Fingers have been pointed at Senator Chris Dodd lately, attributing to him an amendment to a section in the February stimulus bill placing limits on executive compensations at companies that had received bailout money that exempted any contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009. Of course Dodd did what any Democrat put in this situation would do…denied responsibility:

“I can’t point a finger at someone who was responsible for putting those dates in,” Dodd told FOX.  “I can tell you this much, when my language left the senate, it did not include it. When it came back, it did.”

(Source)

Now he’s done a complete reversal and admitted to adding this amendment.  His explanation:

Dodd told FOX News that Treasury officials forced him to make the change.

“As many know, the administration was, among others, not happy with the language. They wanted some modifications to it,” he said. “They came to us, our staff, and asked for changes, and the changes at the time did not seem that obnoxious or onerous.”

(Source)

So the Obama administration pushed for this change…  But I thought Obama was supposed to be appalled by these bonuses.  Straight from Obama’s mouth:

“Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”

(Source)

Of course, it’s been confirmed that Dodd is a liar, so can we really believe that he was pressured by the administration to do this?  I can’t wait to hear what Obama has to say about this.  I will be surprised if he doesn’t try to blame it on the Bush administration like he does for all of his problems.  But regardless of what led to the amendment’s insertion into the stimulus bill, the bill was passed with the approval of just about every single Democrat in the House and Senate (and three RINOs) and signed into law by President Obama.  The Democrats put this law into place, and now they are feigning outrage about it.

Now it’s debatable whether or not AIG was actually obligated to pay these bonuses, especially considering that it appears those that received them hardly deserved them:

“A.I.G. made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing a taxpayer bailout,” Mr. Cuomo wrote in the letter. “Something is deeply wrong with this outcome.”

(Source)

James P. Tuthill, a lawyer and lecturer from the law school at the University of California at Berkley, had this to say:

Every contract has certain implied provisions and terms that are not specifically spelled out but presumed to be part of the agreement because such terms are so fundamental to a reasonable agreement between two parties. So with a payment of a bonus, it must be presumed that an implied term is the employee won’t destroy the company and shareholders for whom the employee supposedly works. If the employees’ acts have been so contrary to the interests of the shareholders, as is the case with A.I.G., then payment of the bonuses is unconscionable and the obligation can be voided.

(Source)

Others feel that the contracts must be upheld, while still others have mixed feelings on the issue.  Unfortunately, we don’t even know what these contracts said.  For all we know, they could have laid out specific performance requirements that had to be met in order for the bonuses to be paid.

Maybe this “Dodd amendment” was necessary to preserve rule of law or maybe it just provided AIG with an excuse to dole out these bonuses to undeserving employees.  Either way, this issue should have been addressed long before now.  They clearly knew that there was an issue with bonuses, so the Democrats should have at the very least stepped up and said, “look, we’re inserting this provision into the bill because of so and so and we believe it is necessary because of this.”  But, as always, they apparently just thought they could sneak it in there and no one would notice.  That didn’t work out so well, though, and now Democrats are playing dumb and shamelessly jumping into the angry mob when they’re the ones who were responsible for this being written into law to begin with.  Now it’s just a big confused mess of people pointing fingers every which direction and no one knowing what in the world is going on, and we can thank the Democrats for that.  It’s politics as usual in Washington!  Change!  You gotta love it!

Some Awesome Protest Signs

March 13, 2009

scotus_guns_t365

Yeah, too bad that guy’s head is in the way of the last word…  But if you can’t figure that one out, you probably hold the opposite political viewpoint of the guy holding the sign and it will just make you mad, so don’t worry about it.

a160_s8

Nice.  Too bad loony liberal protesters don’t feel the same way because we can’t seem to keep them occupied with jobs.

Now for misspelled protest signs:

tomany2

A protest sign from the 5th anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq.  What makes this so much more awesome is that the second person from the left is Cindy Sheehan.  I mean…I guess they have a point.  At that point in time, to many, the war had been going on for 5 years.  I don’t think that’s what they were trying to say, though.  That is pretty simple math, so I’m not sure who would be debating over that.  Perhaps people ignorant enough to parade a misspelled sign around town..fortunately for them, their math skills are at least elementary school level because they got the number right.

prop_8_protest-women

Two in one picture?!?  How lucky could you possibly get?  I hope to one day have a marrige ceremony in a churh.

34394843232327ffp64ot2336679-xroqdf23238668393ot1lsi

Classic…a Muslim that can’t spell “Muslim.”

hollykoran

This is the one that got me started looking for misspelled protest signs.  Actually, to be honest, this isn’t exactly the one.  I saw a picture of other Muslims who love their “Holly Quran.”  I’m not sure exactly what that is.  A special edition maybe?