We learned from the Rod Blagojevich FBI tapes that were released last week that Roland Burris is guilty of trying to pay for the seat that he now owns even if he never did make his payment. Now we have learned that Blagojevich was actually in contact with Dick Durbin about the seat.
Rod Blagojevich floated the name of Lisa Madigan to Senator Durbin in return for federal money for his pet projects. Dick Durbin, according to two of his aides, was pleased and offered to help. Durbin also offered to get the ball rolling on a possible agreement but was told not to bother by Blagojevich, according to those same aides.
It sounds like Lisa Madigan was never a serious contender for this seat and that Blagojevich threw the name out there as a feeler to Dick Durbin to see if Durbin would be willing to work with him. It now seems like he was. If given the chance Dick Durbin would have entered the Illinois senate seat sweepstakes that Roland Burris won.
This is damning even if Durbin never was afforded the opportunity to broker a deal for the senate seat that was up for sale. This shows us a willingness to broker a deal for the seat, a willingness to join the pay to play scheme with Blagojevich. This is almost as serious as if he had indeed tried to work on a deal with the disgraced governor of Illinois because it was not Durbin who refused to play the game, it was Blagojevich who told him not to bother. The intent was there.
It Blagojevich hadn’t stopped the possible nomination of Lisa Madigan to the vacant senate seat dead in its tracks Dick Durbin would have moved forward and attempted to negotiate a deal.
These charges need to be taken as seriously as if Dick Durbin had actually been negotiating a deal for the Illinois senate seat. His intent was there as was a willingness to break the law in order to get a senator that he approved of sent to Washington.
President Obama Tells Laid Off General Motors Workers They are Sacrificing for the Future
The following statement is what the president had to say to all of those General Motors employees who will be laid off under his restructuring plan:
I will not pretend the hard times are over. Difficult days lie ahead. More jobs will be lost. More plants will close. More dealerships will shut their doors, and so will many parts suppliers.
But I want you to know that what you’re doing is making a sacrifice for the next generation — a sacrifice you may not have chose to make, but a sacrifice you were nevertheless called to make so that your children and all of our children can grow up in an America that still makes things; that still builds cars; that still strives for a better future.
The president claims that soon to be laid off General Motors employees are making a sacrifice for the future but that is not entirely accurate. One particular part of his statement sums it up, “a sacrifice you may not have chose to make, but a sacrifice you were nevertheless called to make.”
Who called upon them to make this sacrifice? The president did. The president oversaw the restructuring of GM, he ordered the dealerships closed. He ordered the plants to close, and he ordered the parts dealers to close. He decided that it was time for thousands of General Motors employees to sacrifice their jobs.
Whose future is the president asking these people to sacrifice for? It certainly isn’t for the families of those who will be laid off and trying to find a way to feed their families.
The president is trying to distance himself from what he has done by claiming that he is a “reluctant equity partner” and will not interfere in the day to day operations but the bottom line is, if you work for GM and the dealership that you work for has been ordered to close you can thank the president for that.
He has made you a sacrificial lamb.
GM CEO
The president, although he denies it, lacks the congressional, legislative, and more importantly, the constitutional authority to take over a controlling interest in General Motors and Chrysler. But that is what he did anyway. The president has seized a 60% controlling interest in the automaker. He claims that he is a “reluctant equity owner,” but if he were so reluctant he wouldn’t have done it.
For a bunch of folks who say they don’t want to be in the day-to-day operation and don’t want to manage the old Chrysler and the new Chrysler into bankruptcy, they sure seem to be doing that – telling them how much they can spend on advertising, rejecting opportunities to avoid bankruptcy for both Chrysler and GM
There were other options; GM could have filed for bankruptcy without the president getting involved and without wasting our taxpayer money. That is what should have happened but that is not what happened. The president willingly, not reluctantly, became the controlling partner of GM. To insure that the government became the controlling partner he gave GM another $30 billion even as they were claiming bankruptcy. He did this so that he could dictate what type of cars GM could manufacture. He got what he wanted. But he did it illegally regardless of his claim that he has not overstepped the constitution or congress.
But this all started before this president took office. It started with President Bush. One of his last acts in office was to ignore congress when they failed to pass legislation that would give him the authority to bailout the automakers. Once that happened, President Bush then decided to sidestep their decision and use TARP money, which was supposed to be used only to bailout financial institutions, to bailout the automakers.
President Bush left office on an extremely sour note with me by agreeing to all of these bailouts in the first place, and then when he ignored congress and unconstitutionally gave money to the auto companies our fate was sealed. The current president is now picking up where the last one left off.
Nobody will ever be able to say for sure what President Bush’s plan would have been moving forward but I would bet that he never envisioned the government actually taking over an automaker. At least I like to think that he never would have considered taking over a private company. But once the current president took over all bets were off. We now have a president that thinks only government can solve problems and his initial reaction was to seize control of the company even without the authority. The president took President Bush’s ill advised power grab to the next level; government seizure and control.
Last week 36 members of congress, including 6 Democrats asked the president in a letter to give them back the power that was unconstitutionally taken away from them. Needless to say, they were ignored. Yet they will do nothing. The Democrat controlled congress is not going to do anything that appears to go against what the popular president wants and that includes his ignoring of their authority. The authority that was given to the congress for the purpose of checks and balances.
So we now have a president who is overreaching and not only meddling in the affairs of a private company, he is also hiring and firing management of that company. He is ordering the closing of dealerships and costing Americans thousands of jobs.
This sets a precedent that can have far reaching consequences and the American people seem oblivious to what is going on here. Do the American people really think that it is okay for any president to seize control of a private company? Is that the point we have reached in this country?
When did it become acceptable for a president to grab so much power and when did congress become so impotent to stop it?
The president is calling for a quick confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor, and he is calling the controversy surrounding her racist statement nothing more than political games and politics as usual.
What I hope is that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process, and Congress, in the past.”
‘Some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record.”
We are talking about a Supreme Court appointee here– a lifetime appointment. There needs to be a “rigorous evaluation,” as the president put it, this is not something that you rush through. Examining both her record as well as her past statements is part of the process, it is not “bogging down the process” as the president also claimed. Her past statements say as much about Sotomayor as her record does. Every part of a nominee’s life is fair game is it not? Ask Justice Thomas or Robert Bork.
What the president calls political gamesmanship and ideological “brinksmanship” today, he once considered part of the process. He called both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito qualified to be on the Supreme Court but voted against both of them them. Was this not due to ideological “brinksmanship”? Was this not just more political gamesmanship?
Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito believe in a strict, originalist interpretation of the constitution; something that the president does not. He believes that the constitution is a living document ans needs to change with the times, that is why he opposed both of President Bush’s nominees. That is based on ideological “brinksmanship”, that is voting on a person’s ideology rather than their qualifications.
Now president is claiming that we are supposed to overlook ideology and vote merely on if a nominee is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. A total reversal on his position while a senator who opposed conservative judges. Funny how his opinion differs with regard to whether he agrees or disagrees with a judge’s philosophy.
You cannot have it both ways. A nomination to the Supreme Court is probably one of the most important decisions that a president can make and the process should not be taken lightly. There needs to be a full, hard hitting confirmation process. The process is designed to take time so that a candidate can be fully vetted (a process the president seems to have trouble with when it comes to cabinet appointments) before they arrive to take a seat on the highest court in the land.
Eventually Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed, she will take a seat on the Supreme Court, but before that day comes she needs to go through the ” rigorous examination” that all nominees to the Supreme Court go through. No matter how impatient the president is.
We loaned GM $50 billion so that they would survive and stay solvent yet on Monday the company is going to file for bankruptcy. What happened to the $50 billion that was supposed to bail them out and make them viable? Is there no accountability? Does anybody know where this money went? Was this money just wasted?
It has become apparent to me that the administration’s goal in giving GM our money was so that the government could control them, not save them. So while in the eyes of the taxpayers it would seem that the money loaned to GM was wasted, to the president it was money well spent. The money accomplished its goal.
GM CEO
The taxpayers have handed control of a private industry over to the government. The money was given to GM so that the government had an excuse to regulate them, the plan all along was probably to let them file for bankruptcy eventually but the government wanted to seize control first and then ease them into bankruptcy. The government will emerge with about a 75% ownership stake. Once the government has control of something, they don’t give it back.
GM should have had to do from the start what every struggling company is forced to do– file for bankruptcy on their own, its called the free market– but we were told that disaster lurked if this were to happen and that the government needed to give them a bailout. The government gave them billions of our money and they still have to file for bankruptcy, this could have been done months ago at no expense to the taxpayer and with no government interference.
It seems like $50 billion wasted to me, a major failure for this president’s economic recovery effort. The bailouts are failing and we don’t even know where our money went.
Summer jobs are going to be made available to teenagers in Massachusetts when the federal stimulus money rolls in. Hard working, studious, clean cut teenagers who are well behaved and trying to live life the right way are going to be lining up to get these jobs. They will be left waiting.
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has decided to hand out these well sought after jobs to pregnant teenagers, drug addicts, teenagers who can’t speak English, and teenage criminals instead.
Criminal offenders, teen moms, dropouts, runaways and other wayward youths will score summer jobs with federal stimulus cash as most Bay State kids desperately scramble to land coveted seasonal gigs in a tight economy.
The jobs do come with qualifications though:
- Lacking basic skills.
- Pregnant or parenting
- School dropout
- Homeless or runaway
- Court-involved or an “offender”
- An English as a Second Language learner or an immigrant
So teenagers who are trying hard at school and who are honest and trying to do things the right way will have no opportunity to secure a nice Summer job while delinquents and non-English speaking immigrants will be rewarded under the governor’s plan.
What message does this send to the children? It tells the children that if you work hard and try to play by the rules you are going to get screwed while at the same time it sends the message that you will be rewarded for bad behavior.
Children who are criminals, crackheads, and all around deadbeats and bad apples will be rewarded for their bad behavior. What incentive is their for these teenagers to try to turn their lives around when they will be given everything? If they are rewarded for bad behavior it will incentivize bad behavior while at the same time de- incentivize good behavior.
Why should teenagers in Massachusetts try to do things the right way if the government in Massachusetts dissuades them by rewarding those who are habitual lawbreakers? This plan is counter-productive to the parents in Massachusetts who are instilling the proper values in their children and it is counter-productive to the well behaved children of the state.
This is exactly what is wrong with society today.
The problem with liberals is, let me rephrase that, one of the problems with liberals is that they do not want to debate the issues openly. A perfect example of this is global warming. Al Gore has stated that the debate is over on the global warming issue even though there has never been debate on this issue. Al Gore and the rest of the enviro-alarmists have tried to silence and discredit the opposition instead of having an open and honest debate about the issue.
And here is another perfect example of the left trying to silence the opposition instead of debating an issue that is near and dear to them — free health-care for everyone. Liberal groups are pressuring NBC to stop the network from airing a 30 minute infomercial that is critical of government run health-care. The group claims that the infomercial “will be false, deceitful, and a distortion,” even though they have not seen the commercial.
It’s no surprise that they would try to block the public from seeing any information about the dangers of government-run health care,” Appell said. “This program is full of compelling first person accounts that every American should hear.”
That is a typical strategy for the left, instead of debating an issue they try to intimidate the opposition into surrender. So much for liberal tolerance and the free exchange of ideas. The only opinion that deserves to be heard is their opinion, according to them.
There must be a reason why they are afraid to let the other side voice their opinion. There must be a reason why they are afraid to debate the issue. There must be a reason why they would rather infringe on another group’s right to free speech instead of trying to prove that the opposition is wrong.
I find it stunning that there is not more outcry by the American people over the fact that the left would prefer to trample the rights of their opponents rather than have an honest an open debate on the issue of government run health-care.
The left must be afraid of what would happen if the general public realized how much free health-care will cost. They must be afraid that the working class Americans will revolt at the polls if they find out that not only will they be paying for their own health-care, they will be subsidizing the health-care of those who do not have health-care.
If the left had any balls they would allow the commercial to run and then point out what they thought the flaws were in the argument, but they know that the flaws in the argument belong to their side so they are unwilling to discuss the issue on an even playing field.
By and large the press is in the tank for the president. We all know it, it is no big secret. But the question that needs to be asked is for how long? I think that the press will eventually turn on the president as he continues to treat them with contempt and disdain. When it comes to the press, the president’s arrogance is on full display and it is only a matter of time before they get tired of him shitting on them.
The stories about the president and the press are growing. They are becoming legendary. It started with him kicking several reporters off his campaign plane while he was still a candidate, his hand selecting which reporters will be allowed to ask him questions, and it has continued to the two recent examples of the president shunning the media while releasing his own White House edition “media report” through the propaganda arm of the administration.
Judging by his past removal of reporters from his plane because the reporters did not agree with him, it should come as no surprise that today a reporter was dragged kicking and screaming away from Air Force One.
She was in the designated media area and she holds White House credentials, yet she was treated like she had committed a crime just because she wanted to hand the president a letter asking him to uphold traditional marriage. A position that this president claims to hold, by the way.
This is just another example of the president and his closely guarded image. This reporter needed to be removed because the image conscious president doesn’t want it to look like there is anyone in the world who disagrees with him. Any confrontation looks bad, even if he and the reporter hold the same position on an issue. Therefor the reporter had to be removed. Unfortunately, it didn’t go down as discreetly as the president would have hoped.
It is only a matter of time that the media turns on this president if he keeps treating them this way and I wouldn’t blame them if they did. After all, they are responsible for getting him elected in the first place, you would think that he would say thank you and at least show them a little respect.
A San Diego pastor and his wife hold regular bible studies in their home once a week. Can you imagine their surprise when they were threatened by the local authorities with fines if they continued to practice their Christian faith with friends in their own home?
It seems far-fetched but that is exactly what happened to this San Diego couple. They were told that they were in violation of county ordinances because they held bible studies in their home.
“The county asked, ‘Do you have a regular meeting in your home?’ She said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you say amen?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you pray?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you say praise the Lord?’ ‘Yes.”
It was after answering these questions that the pastor and his wife were told that they faced thousands of dollars in fines if they continued to hold bible studies in their own home. They were told that they were guilty of “unlawful use of land” and were ordered to stop their religious assembly.
Needless to say this seems like a clear violation of the first amendment to me, I cannot believe that a couple can be stopped from the free exercise of their religion in their own home with other like minded individuals who gathered to pray and study the bible.
It is totally unacceptable that San Diego thinks that they have the right to stop people from practicing their religion in their own home. How can they possible justify such an attack on the constitution? What right do these people have to tell this pastor and his wife they can no longer conduct a bible study in the privacy of their own home?
Seeing how the pastor won’t say it himself I will say it for him, to quote Ron Burgundy in Anchorman, “go fuck yourself San Diego.”
Pelosi on Global Warming: “Every Aspect of our Lives Must be Subjected to an Inventory”
Still don’t believe that global warming is all about government control?
Nancy Pelosi on global warming:
Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory
Need I write anything else on this subject? If this doesn’t open the people’s eyes up to the fact that the government is using the global warming scam to regulate behavior and control the people, nothing will.
You have been warned.
