Archive for March 26th, 2009

Obama Youth Brigade: Brown Shirts in the Making

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

Message to the Federal Government – Don’t Tread on Me (Click Here to Learn More)

I’ve made mention of the fact (see here and here) that the “volunteer” corp and youth brigades are exactly the method Hitler used to raise his Sturmabteilung, or otherwise known as “Brown Shirts”, because of the color of their uniforms. I continue to see massive government intrusion into our lives and more rights being eroded in the name of “saving” us from peril (economy, terrorist, etc.).

Is this the change you really voted for?

President Obama has only been in office for two months.
Now we have
HR 1388. The Bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) with 37 others. The Bill was introduced to the floor of the House of Representatives where both Republicans and Democrats voted 321-105 in favor. Next it goes to the Senate for a vote and then on to President Obama.

This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.”

Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it.

The Bill would forbid any student in the brigade to participate in “engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.” That means no church attendance or witnessing.

Again, is this what America voted for?

From the Bill:


Section 125 (42 U.S.C.
12575) is amended to read as follows:


(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

I’m not a Ron Paul fan, by the way, but he did have pretty good coverage of this bill, so I’ve given his link below.
Original Link.
Read the actual bill here.

“Dear A.I.G., I Quit!” a Letter Sent to A.I.G. CEO Liddy

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”


Jake DeSantis

Original Link.

Clinton Off-Base, U.S. Not to Blame for Mexican Drug Violence

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

Secretary of State Clinton said Wednesday in Mexico City that America’s “insatiable” demand for illegal drugs and inability to stop weapons smuggling into Mexico are partly to blame for violence along the U.S.-Mexican border. “I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility,” Clinton told reporters, adding: “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers, and civilians.”

“The problem is that you’ve got vicious gangs in Mexico. We didn’t create those gangs. They’re not made up of Americans — they’re made up of people who were born in Mexico; and it’s the Mexican government that needs to get those gangs under control,” he contends. “I don’t think it’s helpful for the Secretary of State to once again be pointing fingers at our own country when she should be putting as much pressure as possible on the Mexican government.”

Instead of pouring tax money into the coffers of the Mexican government, [Gary Bauer, the president of American Values] argues that President Obama needs secure the border by providing enough National Guard troops or Border Patrol agents to ensure the Mexican drug violence does not spill over into the U.S. and further endanger the lives of American citizens.

Original Link.

A Little Humor: “Barack Obama’s Teleprompter’s Blog”

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

A Little Less In Your Stocking

Yesterday, Big O appointed perhaps the greatest tax-policy review panel in the history of tax-policy review panels.

Publicly, we’re saying this is OMB chief Pete Orszag’s idea, but everyone here knows that it was the Big Guy’s brainstorm, because Big Guy’s hobby is tax policy.

The plan is for this panel to come up with a plan to “rebalance” the U.S. tax system, and to end “corporate welfare” as we know it. By “rebalance” we mean “raise taxes,” and by “end corporate welfare” we mean “create new taxes.”

The plan is due on Big Guy’s desk by December 4, a nice early Christmas present for America.


Hurtful Words and Point of Clarification

I was having breakfast in the Commissary this morning, and I overheard some of the Advance team talking about last night’s performance. They were impressed that Big Guy was able to say so many sentences without a “real” teleprompter. I had to run out of the room so that no one could see the tears running down my screens. Sorry … it’s been a tough week.

You see, the Obamatron is me. It’s kind of like Cinderella and Gibbsy is my Fairy Godmother who waves his magic wand and I go from two small screens to one, slick screen. Well not really, they just plugged my cables into a 52-inch flat screen, instead of the mini-LCDs that sit on the floor. Same words, just a different package. And a bigger package. But I digress.

I’m a computer after all, and when people can’t see past the gloss and the smooth lines, and thin brackets and sleek screens, not bothering to see the real me, the real guts, it hurts. I have a brain people.

This is the best way to look at it: my LCD component is to Big Boy, what the sleeveless dress is to Michelle.

“Absolute Power to Corrupt Absolutely” By Rick Saunders & Jeff Schreiber

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

Well, the Obama/Geithner kamikaze pirouette continues, and with each passing day the dance is looking more and more like something from the cutting room floor at the Bolshoi in Moscow. As in the Moscow in Russia, not Idaho.

Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner floated the spectacularly breathtaking notion to the House Financial Services Committee that the Treasury Department (a.k.a. “Toxic Tim’s Sandbox”) should be given sweeping and unprecedented–not to mention probably unconstitutional–new powers to regulate (Obamaspeak for “subjugate”) and even take over (Obamaspeak for “seize”) private financial and other businesses whose “too big to fail” size would make their collapse a perceived threat to the entire economy. With the now-expected help of TOTUS, President Obama chimed in, adding that he hopes “it doesn’t take too long to convince Congress” of the need for such expansive powers.


So what we now have, on the heels of (1) an Obama ten-year budget black hole plan which would suck the life out of the faltering economy and drive the deficit to at least $9.3 trillion with annual deficits that even Obama’s Budget Director, Peter Orszag, concedes are “not sustainable,” (2) a populist AIG bonus scandal facilitated, if not engineered, by administration officials through one of their many senatorial flacks on the Hill, Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd, and (3) an Obama-inspired “stimulus” bill that seems to be having exactly the opposite effect is a proposal for pre-nationalizing the economy. That is a characteristic of socialistic and communistic regimes and is likely NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created this Republic.

Hence what Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said in the video clip above about the “lurch” toward socialism. It was Bachmann, by the way, whose questions yesterday about constitutionality were ducked and dodged by Geithner as though he were George W. Bush facing a size 10 Iraqi loafer.

Last night, The Chosen One followed up on Geithner’s trial balloon by noting to reporters at the White House: “We are already hard at work in putting forward a detailed proposal. We will work in consultation with members of Congress. That will be just one phase of a broader regulatory framework that we’re going to have to put in place to prevent these kinds of crises from happening again.”

Quick point: whenever Obama says he will be working “in consultation with members of Congress,” he means “I will twist the arms of any Democrat who doesn’t see it my way–and don’t think I won’t use Rahm and his Taser if I have to–but I will ignore the concerns of the Republicans because [flash the megawatt smile] I won . . . and their guy didn’t.”

How quintessentially presidential. How on Earth did the Republic survive so long without this guy?

Obama’s idea of negotiation, of course, is that you come to his position and all will be well, but if you think his position will change and move closer to yours–as in “compromise” or “give”–you are probably indulging in a controlled substance. Think of the process this way — it’s akin to Nancy Pelosi’s assurance when she ascended to the position of Speaker of the House that the relationship with President Bush and her fellow congressmen would be one of “partnership, not partisanship.” Yeah, that one’s workin’ out really well, don’tcha think?

Democrat Congressman Barney “Freddie’s Fannie is Basically Sound” Frank, the committee chairman, supplemented Obama’s remarks by adding that “when nonbank [sic] major financial institutions need to be put out of their misery, we need to give somebody the authority to do what the FDIC can do with banks.” Now, a cynic might be tempted to observe that there are some things in this country that are more in need of being euthanized than “nonbank major financial institutions.” Frank even elicited from Fed Chairman Bernanke that these powers, to be effective, would likely need to extend to private institutions regardless of whether they were the recipients of federal bailout monies.

Point: when Barney Frank suggests that some sweeping new powers need to be engrafted onto Toxic Tim’s biceps “when nonbank major financial institutions need to be put out of their misery,” he is really saying that “anything we, the omniscient Democrats in Congress can do, because we run the table, to facilitate the destruction of capitalism in order to speed the redistribution of the wealth and the creation of a combo Zimbabwe/worker’s paradise here–as long as it is not homophobic–we will do.” Not that it matters to Obots like Frank, be they straight or be they gay, but the mechanism for which he seems to be groping, albeit clumsily, is not nationalization and has been around for years. It is called bankruptcy.

Ah, but bankruptcy is too slow, too uncertain and too dependent upon analysis and logic dispensed by people in that “other” inferior appendage of the government, judges schooled in bankruptcy law. Besides, to quote Obama from the opening days of his administration: “We won.”

Read the rest of the article here.

“A Universal Doctrine of Women’s Rights” By Phyllis Chesler and Marcia Pappas

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

It is time for feminists, both women and men, of all faiths, and of no faith, to stand together for a woman’s right not to be murdered in the name of family honor. Indeed, we welcome men and women of all faiths, including Islam, to stand with us against female genital mutilation/castration, forced veiling, child marriage, arranged marriage, polygamy, and “honorcide,” and in favor of a woman’s right to live as a westerner in the West without being threatened and beaten for refusing to wear hijab, wanting to have non-Muslim friends, wear makeup, attend college, drive her own car, or end an abusive marriage. Muslim and Sikh women have been honor murdered in North America for all these alleged crimes against their religion and their culture.

Here are some specific examples of how American feminist leaders have addressed the problems of Third World women, including Muslim women, both here and abroad. While there are exceptions, most feminists seem to feel more comfortable criticizing their own government. They hesitate to criticize foreign, Third World governments, lest they be demonized as “crusaders” or “politically incorrect racists.”

In the 1980s, feminists respected Alice Walker’s brave stand against female genital cutting/mutilation. Walker, a feminist-”womanist,” focused on perpetrators who were usually women of color, in the Middle East and Africa, who were savagely mutilating their own daughters and granddaughters to render them “marriageable” for men. As an African-American legend, perhaps Walker was viewed as morally “entitled” to criticize foreign, including African, sexism. (Walker finally published her book about this, Warrior Marks, in 1993). In the 1990s, NOW national and state Presidents also spoke out against female genital cutting/mutilation.

Today, sadly something has changed. The unspoken politics of racism among the feminist intelligentsia, and among feminist philanthropists is as follows: If the victims are women of color, especially if they are Arabs, definitely if they are Palestinians, or Muslims, their suffering and their deaths matter—but only if their abusers and murderers are white, European, American, or Israeli. If dark-skinned Africans or Muslims of color gang-rape, kidnap, sexually enslave, bury alive, immolate or stone women of color, including Arabs, Palestinians, and Muslims, (in the West Bank and Gaza, in Afghanistan, Iran, Algeria, Sudan, Somalia), or if one Muslim denomination (Sunni) blows up the other, (Shiaa) in Pakistan and Iraq, it is simply not politically correct to say so. Muslim-on-Muslim crimes do not count in the same way that white European or American-on-Muslim crimes seem to matter.

This is the party line in our universities, in our mainstream media, at the United Nations and in international human rights organizations.

Why are Second and Third Wave feminists buying into this? Why are feminists sacrificing so many women to the dangerous ideology of “cultural relativism,” a belief system in which concerns about sexism are always trumped by concerns about racism? The authors are not saying that racism does not exist, that it does not matter, that it must not be addressed. We are saying that women are affected by both. And when a man or a woman seeks to objectify, abuse or murder women, they should be called out on it, no matter what their skin-color or gender may be.

Conflicting views about whether womens’ rights are universal or not seem to be surfacing in contemporary feminist circles.

Read the rest of the article here.

Pakistan Aiding Taliban Attacks in Afghanistan

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

Well so much for our ally in the war on terrorist…

The Taliban offensive in Afghanistan is aided partly by support from operatives in Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Pakistan’s support for the Taliban, coordinated by operatives inside Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, reportedly includes military supplies, money and guidance for the militant group’s leaders.

U.S. government officials said informants and surveillance provided key evidence to prove the ties between the Taliban and Pakistani spies.

Pakistani officials told the Times they had firsthand knowledge of the ties, which they denied were strengthening the insurgency.

Evidence shows ISI operatives meet regularly with Taliban commanders to discuss whether to intensify or reduce violence before the Afghan elections.

Pakistani leaders deny government ties to militant groups and the Times quoted U.S. officials as saying it was unlikely top government officials were coordinating the efforts. The middle-ranking intelligence operatives sometimes cultivate relationships without the approval of senior officials, the paper said.

President Obama has ordered an additional 17,000 troops to join the 38,000 U.S. troops already there. He is expected to announce Friday the results of his administration’s review of Afghanistan policy.

Original Link.