UPDATE: Dec. 15, 2008
UPDATE: Dec. 11, 2008
Since I started this rant the bailout has passed the house. It sucks! We better hope and pray the Senate has more common sense and sends EVERYONE back to the drawing board or we will be revisiting this issue early next year.
My first inclination was an emphatic NO NO NO!
I have a billion questions about this whole situation … I will not list them here since there certainly is not the time, space or bandwidth to cover it all.
After putting a bit of “Clinical Thought” to it all I have decided it is a must on some level.
There is no point in the “blame game” we need to embrace the “fix game”. I looking over the offered solutions and those promoting them it crossed my mind NOT MANY offering solutions have ever run a business.
Come to think of it most would probably fall flat on their faces in the real business world. So they are offering a business solution?
HOW SMART IS THAT?
Let me answer that for you … NOT VERY.
Add to all of that who they are “sleeping with” (lobbyist “payoff” “kickback” “campaign donations”) and we have further skewed solutions.
How about we kick “Politically Correct” aside and call a spade a spade.
That whole can of worms is another article by someone wiser than I coming soon.
Handing over billions with a CAR CZAR to oversee?
Who the heck would want that job?
It will be most interesting to see who has the real wherewithal and guts to step up to that plate.
Anyway so far what I have seen appears to be pouring TAX PAYER MONEY down a rat hole.
What is expected of this program?
Is this a warning shot across the bough of all auto workers?
Get prepared to lose your jobs in 6 mos.?
Here are the down and dirty facts … you think you can’t survive on what you make today?
Well how well are you going to survive on zilch?
If you think you can count on the government as a safety net you are sadly mistaken.
If you think you can count on your union you are equally sadly mistaken … both ARE/HAVE/WILL miserably fail you.
Keep in mind YOU ARE BOSS OF THE UNION not vice versa … make your voices heard before you are in some unemployment line while your company/union bosses are sipping mojitos in Dubai.
You want to know why the Banks got bailed out with few questions asked?
The bailers saw their own asses slipping into the great abyss.
Its called VESTED INTEREST!
NOW “Barney Baby”, “Pelosi the Shrew” Dodd and a whole slew of others are safe and can make an example.
YOU AUTO MAKERS ARE IT!
I just ran into the latest Republican Solution (below).
It would be refreshing if both sides of the isle FOR ONCE drop partisanship and hammer out a solution to help get an ICONIC industry back on its feet.
There are no better workers in the world than here in the USA there are just cheaper workers elsewhere. For those who say these American companies can not compete? The naysayers ARE DAFFED!
Perhaps a level playing field would help.
WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN), and other House GOP leaders today put forth an alternative to the $15 billion taxpayer-funded auto bailout proposed by House Democratic leaders.
The American Automotive Reorganization and Recovery Plan
Working families throughout our country are struggling to pay their bills and facing economic anxieties not seen in America for generations. Employers are finding themselves torn between staying in business and laying off people over the holidays. Nowhere are these challenges more acute than in states that are heavily dependent on auto manufacturing. It is essential that Washington address these challenges not through taxpayer-funded bailouts that prolong working families’ pain and put taxpayers’ money at risk, but by fixing problems and removing barriers that make it harder for working families to prosper.
Washington has failed this basic test with respect to the American auto industry. Republicans want to make certain that in its response to the resulting crisis, Washington does not fail American taxpayers as well. A responsible plan should do two things: it should protect taxpayers, and it should help auto workers and their families by allowing the Big Three to become competitive again. The Democrats’ plan does neither. Congress should not be stampeded into rubber-stamping a plan that guarantees failure at the taxpayers’ expense.
The Democratic Bailout proposal has three fundamental flaws:
- The only thing crazier than trusting the same management and union officials who got the Big Three into this mess to get them out is trusting a bunch of Washington politicians and bureaucrats – the very same people who ran up a $455 billion deficit last year. American auto workers and their families deserve better.
- If no private investors believe the Big Three restructuring plans are realistic enough to support with their own money, why should we put up taxpayer money? American taxpayers deserve better.
- The Big Three restructuring plan and the Democratic proposal lack accountability. There is no guarantee that once they get taxpayer money the restructuring they promise will occur. Once the taxpayers prop them up once, there will be a big incentive to keep bailing them out – keeping the industry dependent on government aid and further denying American auto workers the security of a viable industry that is back on its feet and ready to compete. American auto workers and their families deserve better.
What We Should Be Doing: The American Automotive Reorganization and Recovery Plan
On December 2, the Big Three presented to Congress their plans for restructuring. While the plans included laudable goals, too few details were provided as to how the companies will actually achieve the restructuring and the savings they have promised. In some instances new agreements to achieve the savings would not be entered into for months or perhaps years.
The Big Three must lock in the restructuring they have promised in a matter of weeks, not months or years. Congress should instead establish firm benchmarks and a tight timeline for
restructuring. Such benchmarks will include for example requiring that by March 31, 2009 each company should reach agreement whereby:
- The companies’ creditors agree to a framework to reduce each company’s indebtedness by at least 1/3.
- The UAW holds to concessions already made and further:
o Concedes the elimination of Supplemental Unemployment Benefits;
o Concedes elimination of the Jobs Bank Program;
o Agrees to either reduce company retiree health care obligations or otherwise convert a portion of such obligations into equity; and
o Agrees to reduce wages and benefits to the levels paid by non-Big Three manufacturers.
A Process for Reaching Expedited Agreement, Instead of Nationalizing America’s Auto Companies
Because of the many legal and contractual hurdles to restructuring, the companies are urged to accomplish their restructuring through the use of a pre-packaged bankruptcy or another mechanism to bring all stakeholders to the table for an agreed-upon determination of their future. It is important that these stakeholders reach reasonable compromises amongst themselves. Creating a government bureaucracy or a “car czar” to arbitrarily pass judgment on the thousands of details involved with a restructuring is akin to nationalizing the auto companies.
The Big Three may need some form of interim financing as they finalize their restructuring. In normal economic times, if their restructuring plan is considered viable, such financing should be available in the private market. Because of the current credit crisis, limited assistance may be appropriate in the form of insurance, rather than a taxpayer-funded government bailout that replaces private investment. We propose that the government provide insurance, funded by the participants with a modest FDIC-like fee, which would cover up to 50 percent of the losses of new investment in the case of default, helping to unlock immediate private investment (not unlike debtor in possession financing). Such insurance would expire on March 31, 2009. This proposal ensures that taxpayers are protected and provides a powerful incentive for the Big Three to quickly implement their restructuring plans.
Its a start so get your dead asses to work and earn the paycheck and benefits that are way to high for the amount of successful work you crank out for “we the people”.
The PDF is HERE
We can thank Bill Clinton and his antics for this precedence.
I was a little surprised it is happening so soon … before he even is sworn in?
Here is a copy of the document people are signing.
The Impeachment of Senator Barack Obama
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama is an admitted illegal drug user and
is believed to have used illegal drugs as recently as November 1999
or more recently. Mr. Obama has maintained contact with other
admitted illegal drug users.
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has maintained regular contact
with known criminals such as Antoin (Tony) Rezko and other
criminal elements in Chicago and Illinois. Mr. Obama has
conducted business with these criminals and received campaign
donations from them. Mr. Obama was compelled to return an estimated $250,000 in
donations related to Tony Rezko.
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has consistently lied about his
contact with convicted criminal Tony Rezko. The Tony Rezko
corruption trial revealed that FBI mole John Thomas helped investigators
“build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former
business partner Daniel Mahru’s Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by
Blagojevich and Obama during 2004 and 2005,” according to the February
10, 2008 Chicago Sun-Times.
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has engaged in unscrupulous business
practices, in particular with Mr. Robert Blackwell. Mr. Obama
received an $ 8,000 per month “legal retainer” from Mr. Blackwell
for a total of $112,000 and reported the income through his law firm
in a manner not unlike money laundering. Obama, along with Obama
campaign manager Dan Shomon, procured $ 320,000 in state grants
for Blackwell’s company Killerspin. Blackwell companies contributed
over $ 32,000 to the Obama campaign in 2007.
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama used the office of IL Senator to
facilitate the vote rigging in Chicago as chairman of the Illinois Senate
Health and Human Services Committee. Mr. Obama pushed legislation in Senate Bill
1332 to reduce the number of members of the Health Facilities Planning Board
from 15 to 9. Mr. Obama did conspire with Stuart Levine, Tony Rezko and
Rod Blogojevich to rig the committee and was rewarded with campaign
contributions. The new members appointed included 3 doctors who contributed to
Mr. Obama. On April 21, 2004, Stuart Levine explicitly advised Dr. Robert Weinstein,
who is now indicted, of Tony Rezko’s role in manipulating the Planning Board’s vote.
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has engaged in lies and deception
about his past. Mr. Obama lied about his contact level with
convicted criminal Tony Rezko, the amounts and sources of
campaign contributions and encounters with the law. A complaint
has been filed with the Bar Association of Illinois alleging
that Mr. Obama did not answer truthfully all questions on the
application to the bar.
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has invoked the FOIA in Illinois
when it was politically expedient and ignored or violated the
FOIA at other times. In the Illinois Senate proceedings of
Mr. Obama, in Senate Bill 1416, pleads the importance of businesses
bidding on state contracts having improved access to FOIA data. When
later questioned about his records during his term in the IL
Senate, Mr. Obama gave evasive answers or refused to supply records.
Whereas: The First Amendment provides a right for the people “to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Precedents
exist for impeachment and expulsion of a US Senator. Senator William
Blount was impeached by the House on July 7, 1797 and expelled by
the Senate the next day.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the People, Undersigned,
being citizens of the United States and residents in the Cities and States so
indicated, HEREBY Demand that the Congress of the United States begin
immediate impeachment and/or expulsion proceedings against Senator
Addendum: Petition to Impeach Senator Obama
We were urged to add the following information about Senator Obama.
This comes under the topic of lies and deception but also falls under more
serious charges of abuse of power and possible violation of the Logan Act.
Those signing the petition prior to this addendum will be identified.
August 4, 2008
Whereas: As a US Senator, Barack Obama violated the stated intention of
his 2006 Official Government Visa to Africa by publicly propagandizing
for his cousin, Railla Odinga against the US democratic ally of Kenya.
Whereas the stated “mission” of Senator Obama’s Official Visa, according
to the Kenya Office of Public Communications, was to “nurture relations
between the Continent and the United States” he, instead, made public
protest before Kenya citizens to rally against their leadership,
invoking a need for “Change!” and accusing this US allied nation of
“corruption.” In Official Protest of Mr. Obama’s passport abuse and
misconduct, Kenya’s government cited his “extremely disturbing
statements on issues which it is clear, he was very poorly informed, and
on which he chose to lecture the Government and the people of Kenya on
how to manage our country.” Whereas, furthermore, there is no public
record of any sanctions or reprimand by the US Congress of Senator
Obama’s passport violation or campaigning on foreign soil against a US
ally, history has since recorded the broadspread destruction of Kenya’s
economy and large scale loss of life as a result of the violence
instigated by Odinga’s ODM campaign there.
You will find the petition HERE
This morning around 6 am Gov. Rod Blagojevich was handcuffed and dragged off by the FBI being charged with corruption. What kind of corruption? Well for a start trying to sell Barack Obama’s senate seat.
Speaking about the criminal complaint against Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich for corruption. “But as this is a ongoing investigation involving the governor I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the issue at this time.”
Asked what contact he’d had with the governor’s office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said “I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.”
However on November 23, 2008, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Chicago and said:
OPPS: Today we get a “sorry I misspoke” from Axelrod?
So far Obama is not dragged into the middle of this … however the same bad people seem to keep cropping up from the Obama past.
Is this another of those “he was just a guy on the block that I passed on the street” deals?
Never a dull moment.
The whole report here …
Dig Dig Dig and what does one find?
More inconsistencies in what Obama says and what he did.
I have to say “common sense” tells me if you muck around the pen with pigs you probably come out covered in slop.
If this whole situation were not so serious it could be drop dead funny.
I suppose the key question is what shakes out in the wash with Obama … is he involved, oblivious, naive or none?
At least we know the months and years before us are probably going to be very interesting indeed.
Below is a before it all hit the fan report.
By Carol Sowers
Wednesday, November 05, 2008 at 10:39 a.m.
CHICAGO, ILL. — Now that Barack Obama will be moving to the White House, his seat in the U.S. Senate representing Illinois will have to be filled.
That’s one of Obama’s first priorities today.
He’s meeting with Governor Rod Blagojevich this afternoon in Chicago to discuss it.
Illinois law states that the governor chooses that replacement.
There’s already been speculation about his selection…from Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Chicago’s south side who co-chaired Obama’s presidential campaign, to recently-retired state senate president Emil Jones, to the governor himself.
It’s likely the governor will make his decision quickly so the new senator will get some seniority before newly-elected senators take office in January.
Part of the timing depends on when Obama officially vacates his senate seat.
KHQA’s Alexis Hunt is speaking with Illinois Senator John Sullivan today about his thoughts on that replacement process, his time working with Obama in the state senate, and if there’s a chance Sullivan might play a role in the Obama administration. Watch KHQA News at 5:00, 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. tonight to hear what he has to say.
For those of you interested in wading through 78 pages of the Blagojevich complaint
Yesterday my cousin mentioned a blurb she happened to hear on TV about up and coming comments on the Obama “natural born citizen” SCOTUS ruling .. Keith Olbermann was mentioned. Since I have heard nothing on MSM (main stream media) about this issue I set my DVR to record his show.
The segment started like this:
The idea that Barack Obama is not actually a “natural born citizen” of this country is so ridiculous ….
(you can review the video for yourself below) Olbermann has set the tone so what followed was not much of a surprise.
The point that I found most interesting was a comment from David Horowitz … the comment directly below has comments that came to mind as I was listening (remember I talk to the TV).
Below that you will see the Horowitz comment intact.
“The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. ”
How about being aware that the “fringe group” is actually a “Loyal American Fringe” (and growing) concerned about the Constitution itself?
“What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil?”
WHAT DIFFERERENCE DOES IT MAKE? … that pretty much explains Horowitz’s thought process … loyalty lies not with the Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers.
What matters Mr. Horowitz is … if that person is actually a “natural born citizen” or simply a “citizen of the USA”. One qualifies as President one DOES NOT.
“Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others.”
At this point my jaw is dropping realizing Horowitz does not seem to comprehend how destructive HIS ATTITUDE toward this matter is to the Constitution.
“But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?”
How viable will the Constitution be if they DO NOT?
How viable it is without “SOMEONE” vetting the worthiness of our most high HEAD OF STATE?
” … It is not conservatism: it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent.”
It is neither. It is LOYAL AMERICA tired to the teeth of those like HOROWITZ, OLBERMANN, HUFFINGTON and a myriad of others foisting their agenda on a population who thinks they are getting nightly news rather than “self interest propaganda“.
“Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation.”
“Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election and get over it;”
NO LOYAL AMERICANS do not have to accept someone who is does not meet the specified requirements of the Constitution.
“and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and – by the ways– its Constitution.”
There is no more important business than making sure the Constitution REMAINS in tact and the highest office of our land not be usurped by someone “without credentials”
National Review Online
I am not sure if MSNBC has altered the content or context of this comment to fit their agenda since I was not able to find the original on the National Review Online site. Two things lead me to speculate on this one of them being the tone of Olbermann himself.
EDIT: It was not entact view the whole article HERE.
“The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. ….What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots? … It is not conservatism: it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution.”
National Review Online
Arianna Huffington weighs in on the issue stating “I am not a national born citizen”.
Well that was a “no brainer” since both parents are Greek and she herself was born in Athens. So the question remains does Arianna REALLY know what “natural born citizen” means?
Arianna seemed stuck on the line “whether Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen” or not”. To her that was totally unacceptable “its like saying whether the earth is flat or not”.
I found that comment an interesting analogy since we know ONE is NOT and it appears the other is NOT also.
But then it is easy to laugh off the Huffington logic as no logic at all.
Below you will find the whole video clip from the Olbermann show:
Donofrio outlines his argument concisely on his blog in a letter to ABC News:
“The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen – at birth – a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”.
Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.”
It needs to be understood that the Donofrio application to the Supreme Cournt was denied NOT REFUSED.
The Supreme Court had this issue before them since Nov. 19.
It is clear they are well aware of the issues … THEY CHOSE (for wahtever reason) TO DENY the application.
The mainstream media keeps saying the SCOTUS REFUSED to hear the case. That is being presented as fact by those who apparently are ignorant of what has occured. They DID HEAR THE ISSUE.
I leave it up to you to speculate on the why of it all.
Donofrio’s latest comment is “I am done”
Frankly I do not blame him.