In unprecedented power grab, Bush seizes control of auto industry

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In an unprecedented expansion of Executive Branch power, President Bush demanded the resignation of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner on Sunday. Wagoner immediately acquiesced to the White House demand, likely persuaded by speculation that Dick Cheney was prepared to waterboard him if he refused. This morning, Mr. Bush announced a breathtaking power-grab by guaranteeing the warranty of all GM cars and demanding that GM produce even larger gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks. This comes on the heels of Henry Paulson's attempts last week to give the Treasury the power to seize any non-bank financial institution the President and the Treasury Secretary deem "too big to fail" -- in effect, giving the Bush White House the power to take control of any business they choose.

"Do these imperial constitution-shredding Bushies know no bounds to their ambition for power?", asked Paul Krugman in The New York Times. "Never before has the executive branch intruded this far into the private business dealings of citizens. This administration is violating the civil rights of its citizens right and left."

Vice President Cheney could not be reached for comment, although we think we saw him sneaking out of Mr. Wagoner's home in a black cloak with a team of killer ninjas.

XKCD on bailouts

Given what I know of Randall's political leanings, I'm pretty impressed with this little gem on xkcd recently:

http://xkcd.com/558/

Let there be Light

Tonight, at the encouragement of Hollywood celebrities and other stellar minds, we are supposed to turn out our lights and sit in the dark for an hour contemplating how we can save the planet in solidarity with everyone else sitting alone in the dark and feel good about ourselves. Instead - I'll be celebrating Human Achievement Hour as I'll be driving to and then watching some teenagers play a hockey game in an artificial ice rink in a warm building with all the lights on. And I will leave all the lights on in my home while I'm gone.

Watch the video here: http://cei.org/human-achievement-hour

And remember. The Dark Ages. They weren't good. That's why they were called "Dark." I wonder if the wizards of smart who think they have all the answers understand the irony of their "Earth Hour" darkness loving, self-importance. This charade reminds me of the celebrities who, in solidarity with the homeless in the '80s, would go downtown (cameras in tow, of course) where those poor souls lived, sit with them, eat out of cans and "share" their feelings with them to "raise awareness" and after it got a bit cold and tiresome would get themselves back to their big homes in Malibu and congratulate themselves on their "solidarity" with the homeless. All feeling and no doing. If those who participate in Earth Hour tonight actually believe in this idiocy, then they should permanently disconnect their electricity, their heat and sell their cars, their TVs, their IPods, their cell phones, their computers.. well you see where I'm going.

Will the President decry bonuses...

...at Fannie Mae?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie-plans-bonuses-of-up-to-apf-14679491.html

I doubt it.

There are no poor people in America

This is probably my most controversial opinion. Now, I don't mean it quite literally -- there are people in this country who truly live in destitution. However, that's a very small minority, and if they were bright enough to avail themselves of existing government and charitable services, they'd be fine (that's a topic for another day). What I mean is that what passes for "poor" in the USA would be unimaginably rich for a good chunk of the world. Most of the "poor" in the US have air conditioning, a car, and cable television. It seems that at least a few of them have camera phones too, judging from this wonderful Michelle-Obama-working-a-soup-kitchen photo-op:


Tell me again how I'm a heartless rich person because I don't think I should have to pay for these people's houses, education (through college, now!), and health care.

Obama's radical budget

drives the US, perhaps inexorably, towards the model of the Western European social welfare states. I'm still holding out hope that Americans don't really want 20% unemployment, a 30% lower standard of living, and federally rationed health care. Maybe they won't realize it until it's too late.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.

Bait-and-switch

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621161271234665.html

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush's decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush's eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America "cannot and will not sustain" deficits like Mr. Bush's, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he's flogging?

There is more. Mr. Obama pledged "no tax hikes on any families earning less than a quarter million dollars." What he didn't draw attention to was $600 billion in higher energy taxes he wants to impose through a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions. These taxes will hit everyone who drives, flips a light switch, or buys anything manufactured, grown or shipped.

The verdict is in

The market is down 25% year-to-date. How long will Team Obama and his sycophantic followers get away with blaming it all on George W. Bush and his failed policies of the past?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html

Rahm and Rush - Divide and Conquer

Yesterday on the CBS Sunday show, Rahm Emmanuel made the statement that Rush Limbaugh is the voice of the Republican party.

This morning, Kevin Wahl, the guest host on the Bill Bennett show answered the question, although he didn't realize he was doing it. He actually fell right into team Obama's trap. Wahl focused on the obvious - that they are trying to "demonize" Rush because they need someone to run against in 2010. Just like the demonized Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich and, of course Bush.

But I think it's more devious than that and the callers to the Bennett show as well as Wahl himself made it obvious what that reason is. Team Obama need to divide the right before there actually IS a leader of the party/movement who rises to the top. They want us fighting amongst ourselves for that position instead of galvanizing around a single man or woman who is capable of doing the job. Caller after caller dutifully answered the call - Ron Paul, Richard Shelby, Tom Coburn were all mentioned as the REAL leader.

Team Obama also know the egos of the conservative media as well as the egos of elected politicians and they are counting on those egos to try to push their way to the front of that line - "No, Rush isn't the leader, I am" or "My candidate is the leader", in other words, "Let's fight amongst ourselves."

Yes - most conservatives will defend Rush, but those who aspire to fill the vacuum of leadership will try to use this opportunity to put themselves into the top position. This is what Team Obama is counting on and I'd bet my lunch money that this is their goal. So they get two birds with one stone - attack Rush and start a playground fight amongst their enemies and sit back and watch with glee as the bloodletting begins.

The Republicans are sometimes called the stupid party (and watching Spector et. al. it's not hard to understand why) and we have all seen this kind of internecine war before.

Obama is plenty smart. Whereas Clinton attacked Rush head on (the Oklahoma City bombing), Obama is getting his enemies to do the job for him.

Their problem is that Rush is smarter. He'll likely expose their real reason and be able to use it to his advantage, all at the same time. He will use this opportunity to expand his market and I can see the ads now.

"Obama says Rush is the leader of the conservative movement - find out for yourself - today noon to 3 on WTAM!"