Guantanamo-“Close it-to Close it Not”

H/T Hot Air

Weak on the merits, but how can you not love an ad that preempts lefty cries of “fearmongering” with footage from the most ludicrously fearmongering political ad the Democrats ever ran?

The Lighter Side of Economic Disaster

Thanks Fox Nation and  the GOP ad creators.

Priceless!

“Torture” & Rhetorical One-Up-Manship

Thomas Sowell calls “childish” and “fatuous” the positions taken on “torture,” inorder to appear to be morally one-up on the other side.  Regardless of what they say, these people would actually act quite differently if their butts were at stake. According to Sowell:

There is a big difference between being ponderous and being serious. It is scary when the President of the United States is not being serious about matters of life and death, saying that there are “other ways” of getting information from terrorists.

Maybe this is a step up from the previous talking point that “torture” had not gotten any important information out of terrorists. Only after this had been shown to be a flat-out lie did Barack Obama shift his rhetoric to the lame assertion that unspecified “other ways” could have been used.

For a man whose whole life has been based on style rather than substance, on rhetoric rather than reality, perhaps nothing better could have been expected. But that the media and the public would have become so mesmerized by the Obama cult that they could not see through this to think of their own survival, or that of this nation, is truly a chilling thought.

When we look back at history, it is amazing what foolish and even childish things people said and did on the eve of a catastrophe about to consume them. In 1938, with Hitler preparing to unleash a war in which tens of millions of men, women and children would be slaughtered, the play that was the biggest hit on the Paris stage was a play about French and German reconciliation, and a French pacifist that year dedicated his book to Adolf Hitler.

If we could fight and win wars with words, our writers and poets would man the front lines with notepads and computers, however flesh and blood heroes are still our first defense and President’s are still compelled to command soldiers and protect citizen with more than words and lofty thoughts.

Thomas Sowell like Obama speaks of Winston Churchill. Sowell notes that the reason Churchill didn’t torture prisioners of war while bombs were falling on London was that these men were ordinary soldiers captured in war and covered by the Geneva convention. They also didn’t know anything that would have kept London from being bombed. Terrorists with life-saving information is another category entirely.  Sowell concludes:

The left has long confused physical parallels with moral parallels. But when a criminal shoots at a policeman and the policeman shoots back, physical equivalence is not moral equivalence. And what American intelligence agents have done to captured terrorists is not even physical equivalence.

If we have reached the point where we cannot be bothered to think beyond rhetoric or to make moral distinctions, then we have reached the point where our own survival in an increasingly dangerous world of nuclear proliferation can no longer be taken for granted.

Read Thomas Sowell here and here.

Gangster Government-The Strong Man Using Strong Arm

Gangster government on the prowl?

Michelle Malkin writes of the abusive treatment the hedge fund industry is receiving at the strong arm tactics of  Barack Obama. “He keeps taking their money. They keep getting publicly tongue-lashed.”

This week, AQR Capital Management LLC hedge fund manager Cliff Asness — at considerable risk to himself and his business — issued a striking manifesto responding to the president’s self-serving demagoguery and flagrant disregard for the rule of law. You can find Cliff’s essay and his other invaluable work at Stumbling on Truth.

Asness writes in this manifesto:

Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can.  They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing.  Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not.  The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views.  That’s how the system works.  If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could “share in the sacrifice”, you would not be happy.

….. This is America.  We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years.  When it fails it fixes itself.  Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the oval office to be scolded for disobedience by the President.

I am ready for my “personalized” tax rate now.

Michelle further writes:

Asness minced no words: “The President’s attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him…Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.”

Business as usual in the Era of Hope and Change. Perhaps demonized entrepreneurs will finally learn that when the dog you feed bites your hand, you don’t roll up your sleeve and give him your arm. You get a new dog.

Is the power grab over?  I hardly think so, nor does Examiner Editorial (Washington Examiner.) writing of another in your pocket action of the President giving UAW something they never earned nor could earn for themselves, effectively ownership of Chrysler:

True, the union doesn’t get an explicit controlling majority of the board of directors, but who needs that when you’ve got the White House guaranteeing your work and the U.S. Treasury Department making sure you never have to worry about the bottom line. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger’s place in Big Labor’s Hall of Fame is now secure. He found a sugar daddy with an endless supply of cash. So UAW members and retirees can keep right on drawing those pay and benefits so excessively generous they made it impossible for the old Chrysler to compete with Toyota and Honda.

Hans Bader of OpenMarket.org writes:

Obama effectively gave ownership of Chrysler to the United Auto Workers Union (which spent millions electing Obama), rather than taxpayers (who have spent billions to bail out Chrysler) or the institutions that lent money to Chrysler based on the legal right and expectation that they would receive its assets before the UAW union would. Veteran political commentator Michael Barone also calls it “gangster government.” The UAW will also retain “lucrative” pension and health benefits, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Just the Facts on “Green” Tax

Michelle Malkin leads with the facts as always, and an invitation to tea party activists, “Here’s your opportunity to reach across the aisle.”  Seems Henry Waxman shortcircuited debate to “ram eco-taxes through Congress.” The NRCC sent out a fact sheet pointing out the woes of the radical tax plan.  Dems in energy states fear the down-down-down side of this plan.

Michelle’s summary of the facts (H/T):

After stalling actions in Congress in the face of political pressure on the national energy tax, tempers boiled over among party leaders:

“Tensions over the direction of a sweeping climate change bill boiled over in a House Democratic leadership meeting Thursday, as Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (Calif.) lashed out at Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) for appearing to publicly downgrade the measure’s chances this year. ‘This is not helpful,’ Waxman told Van Hollen, citing reports that presented the party’s campaign chief as opposing aggressive action on the bill, sources familiar with the meeting said.” (Dennis and Newmyer, “Democrats Clash on Climate Change,” Roll Call, May 4, 2009)

Seeing one of his key campaign proposals on life-support in Congress, Obama drags Energy Committee members to the White House to resuscitate this job-killing proposal:

“Waxman declined to comment when asked if the markup would start this week, saying only that he remains committed to moving the bill by Memorial Day…. But with the climate bill in dire straits at the subcommittee level, Obama decided it was time to weigh in.” (Darren Samuelsohn, ‘We’re working out the issues,’ House Dems say after Obama climate meeting, New York Times, 5/5/09)

“President Barack Obama summoned 36 House Democrats to the White House on Tuesday to urge them to agree on climate and energy legislation that is under increasing criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.” (Dina Cappiello, “White House, House GOP Convene Meetings on Climate,” The Associated Press, 5/5/09)

Still Democrats Aren’t Willing to Support a National Energy Tax:

“But House Democrats have yet to reach a deal on key aspects of the far-reaching package, including credits to affected industries, a timetable for reaching reductions in carbon emissions and the specifics of a new mandate for renewable electricity.” (Dennis and Newmyer, “Energy Reform Limps Ahead,” Roll Call, 5/6/09)

THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF BAD POLICY:

Facing tough re-elections next year, Dems in manufacturing and energy-producing districts desperately distance themselves from the National Energy Tax:

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT): “Matheson has already been taking political shots from both sides on the bill. For example, the National Wildlife Federation ran full-page ads in the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune on Tuesday urging voters to call Matheson and ‘tell him it’s time to target climate change.’ The National Republican Congressional Committee on Monday issued a news release attacking him and questioning whether he will “support a national energy tax that could burden thousands and kill jobs.” (Davidson, “Matheson says Democrats moving too fast on climate-change bill,” Deseret News, 5/5/09)

Rep. Charles Melancon (D-LA): “At this point Melancon said he can’t support the draft because it would shut down the state’s energy coast. Melancon’s vote could have a detrimental effect on getting the measure out of committee. ‘I believe this bill would create an undue burden on families who are already paying too much in energy bills and on an industry that provides thousands of Louisianians with good jobs,’ Melancon said.” (Gerard Shields, “La. Democrats Key Figures In Federal Emissions Debate,” Baton Rouge Advocate, 5/2/09)

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): “‘What I’ve seen so far is nowhere near where it needs to be for me to support it,’ Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) told POLITICO. ‘Any way you do it, it hurts Pennsylvania, especially western Pennsylvania.’ ‘I think cap and trade is bad policy,’ said Altmire.” (Alex Isenstadt, “Cap And Trade Hits Speed Bumps,” Politico, 4/27/09)

Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH): “‘My understanding from what I’ve heard is it’s going to cause a big increase in our utility bills.’ Boccieri said the White House has been lobbying him heavily, but, ‘in its present form, cap and trade would be devastating to Ohio.’” (Robert Wang, “Boccieri Holds Telephone Town Hall Meeting,” Canton Repository, 3/25/09)

Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN): “Among coal-district Democrats like Hill, whose southeastern Indiana seat tilts conservative, reservations about a climate change bill are equally apparent. ‘I just can’t support it with the way it’s being proposed,’ said Hill, noting that 96 percent of Indiana is dependent on coal. ‘The bill in its current form is going to increase the rates for the people I represent.’” (Alex Isenstadt, “Cap And Trade Hits Speed Bumps,” Politico, 4/27/09)

Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR): “Rep. Mike Ross, Arkansas Democrat and one of the moderate members whom party leaders will have to persuade in order to secure passage, said he was concerned about the price consumers would have to pay if utilities passed along the cost of buying carbon permits to customers. ‘If you don’t like $4-a-gallon gasoline, you’re really not going to like your electric bill sometime between now and 2030,’ he said.” (Tom LoBianco, “House Lawmakers Take Stands In Hearings On Climate Change,” The Washington Times, 4/22/09)

Bully-pulpiteer – President Obama Again

Now we can see the influence of bully-pulpiteer extraordinaire, Rev. Wright, come to full bloom in his protege. Those twenty years weren’t wasted on President Obama. While allegedly abusing power with Mafia finesse, President Obama denies the coercion.  President Obama is charged with forcing compliance and threatening his (our) country men with the full weight of the White House Press Core if they do not kow tow.

Michelle Malkin reports

Over the weekend, news broke about the Obama administration’s reported threatsunion-friendly Chrysler bankruptcy plan. against an investment firm that opposed its

Tom Lauria represents a few of the non-TARP Chrysler creditors. He reported the threats on WJR radio host Frank Beckmann’s radio show in Detroit:

This isn’t the shiny new transparent politics we were promised by campaigning Obama.  If it is true, it’s the go-for-the-jugular politics of the Chicago machine; down and dirty as it can be.  But Malkin is right: “The only surprise is that anyone is surprised. The coercion cow has been out of the barn for a while now.”

Eyes and ears anyone? Abrogating contractual right appears to be coming easy to Obama.