Just Smoke and Mirrors

My fellow citizens, I wish to implore you; do not be distracted by the most recent “scandal” being paraded in front of you during the past week. It is just a “smoke and mirrors” tactic to keep your attention focused on something other than what’s really going on.

The $165 million in AIG retention bonuses is such a small amount of money compared to the trillions doled out in the form of bailouts and stimulus. It pales in comparison to the $3.8 billion in bonuses Bear Sterns paid out to its executives at the end of 2008. It means very little when compared to the millions in anticipated retention bonuses to be shelled out (at taxpayers expense) to federally funded Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae executives who are largely responsible for the housing market collapse. It means nothing!!

The feigned self-righteous indignation being leveled at AIG and its bonus recipients is a ploy to keep you distracted. It’s just an act for your benefit. The government is playing a shell game and many Americans are losing track of the ball. Don’t fall for it!

In reference to the AIG bonuses, President Obama stated on Monday, “Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”

We could say the same about congressional members who are getting automatic pay raises. Are their pay raises warranted? Aren't we, the American taxpayers, keeping them afloat...even with their absolute incompetence?

There’s a mob mentality building which is willing, once again, to allow the federal government to violate the constitution in the name of fairness. Cooler heads must prevail. We must look beyond what the government and the mainstream media are telling us. We must avoid becoming sheep, easily led astray, and educate ourselves. We must stand up and say enough is enough!

As I said before, the real scandal is not the AIG bonuses. Here’s why:

First, the AIG bonuses were protected in the $787 billion stimulus bill that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid pushed through congress in February. Remember? The stimulus bill was crucial to our nation’s survival…it was an emergency…it had to be passed immediately without anyone having the chance to read it. Within twenty-four hours of the house and senate versions being merged and tweaked it was passed by congress (thanks to three turn coat RINOs). Four days later, the president signed it into law.

Hmm…do you think if congress and the American people would have had those four days to review what was actually in the final bill, it would have been blocked until the AIG bonuses and a lot of other unnecessary pet projects were eliminated? Of course! That’s why no one was given the necessary time to read it first.

According to Newsmax.com, it was Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd "...who inserted language — known as the Dodd amendment — in the $787 billion stimulus bill that allowed all bonuses awarded before February 11, 2009, to be paid to AIG executives. That very amendment, which is now law, is now the chief hurdle to government officials who want to recover that money.

The amendment was meant to restrict executive pay for bailed-out banks, but it also included the exception for 'contractually obligated bonuses agreed on or before Feb. 11, 2009.'"

So what's the problem? These executives had a contract and their bonuses were part of that contract. I think the law is pretty cut and dry...unless you wan to score politcal points by inflaming an uniformed electorate.

Second, the real scandal is not the AIG bonuses; it’s the fact that the federal government used AIG as a clearing house to funnel billions in bailout dollars to foreign and domestic entities, so that they wouldn’t have to make an accounting to the American taxpayers.

Of AIG's $173 billion bailout monies $44 billion went to American entities while $62 billion went to overseas entities. Some of these recipients and their amounts received were:

• $13 billion to Goldman Sachs
• $7 billion to Merrill Lynch
• $5 billion to Bank of America
• $13 billion to banks in the United Kingdom
• $17 billion to banks in Germany
• $19 billion to banks in France
• $5 billion to banks in Switzerland
  

Wow...as an American taxpayer...what concerns you more; the fulfilling of $165 million in legally binding contracts that were protected by a law passed in February or $106 billion of taxpayer dollars being funneled to foreign and domestic entities in secret?

Third, on Wednesday, while the administration and the mainstream media were ramping up their rhetoric to whip the American taxpayers into a frenzy over the AIG bonuses, the Fed ramped up its printing of more dollars to the astronomical amount of one trillion greenbacks. Why? So that the Fed can start buying up its own Treasury Bonds and mortgage debt.

According to Bloomberg.com, "Fed policy makers said yesterday they plan to buy up to $300 billion of U.S. government bonds and step up purchases of mortgage bonds, expanding the central bank’s balance sheet by as much as $1.15 trillion. The extra supply of dollars threatens to overwhelm investors just as the budget deficit swells."

What's more important, $165 million in contractually obligated bonuses which were protect by congress and the Obama administration to begin with or the destruction of the U.S. dollar?

Finally, in an effort to correct their own incompetence, the Los Angeles Times reported that, "...the House of Representatives on Thursday passed a bill to recoup the lion's share of the $165 million in bonuses paid to executives of American International Group Inc...

...The House tax measure, hurriedly drawn up on the orders of the Democratic leadership, imposes a 90% levy on those who were paid executive bonuses if their families earned more than $250,000 annually and if their firms, such as AIG, received more than $5 billion in federal bailout funds. It passed by more than a two-thirds majority, 328 to 93."

In a desperate attempt to prove their for the little guy, the House of Representatives took no thought of trampling on the Contitution and using the U.S. Tax Code to target a specific group of people. Doesn't this scare anyone? Doesn't this cause an alarm to go off in your head? If they can try and do this to a small group of people they deem as evil capitalists and the bane of society, what will they try next? Guns? Freedom of Religion? Freedom of Speech? These are all rights that they have talked about limiting. Will they?

Many Americans were angry with President Bush for what they perceived as his administration’s trampling on constitutional rights in the name of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Well, by the looks of it, we better hang on to our hats because, it appears, the actions of the current administration are going to be far worse in the name of fairness.

The Real AIG Scandal

The real AIG scandal is not the $165 million paid out in bonuses. Who cares! $165 million is only one-tenth of one percent of the total $173 billion they received in government bailout money.

The REAL AIG scandal is the fact that the federal government used AIG as a means to pass bailout money on to other entities, both domestic and overseas, without having to disclose this fact to the American people.

Watch this Glenn Beck clip from the March 18, 2009 show to get the real story behind the real AIG scandal and what led up to it.

Teleprompter Dependency Not Such a Good Idea?

For the past eight years we kept hearing what an idiot President George W. Bush was. He was ridiculed relentlessly because he didn’t speak proper English at times and he mispronounced words on occasion. He was constantly called a babbling buffoon or a bumbling idiot.

Of course, it didn’t help that he was being covered by a mainstream media that was secretly rooting for him to bumble so they could plaster his faults on the front page of the newspapers, in prime time news broadcasts and on late night comedy shows just to humiliate him.

I will admit that there were times when President Bush spoke that I wished he hadn’t. There were times when I would just cringe and shake my head. But at least, with all his human faults on display, he was real and he never let the public ridicule destroy him or his resolve to stay true to his beliefs.

Skip forward to today. We now have President Obama who is being touted as a great orator. At times he is even compared to President Ronald Reagan, one of our nation’s greatest orators. The mainstream media fawns over how well he speaks and how intelligent he appears. What they don’t tell you or spend any time covering is the fact that he relies very heavily on a teleprompter. He says very little without it being written out for him before hand and scrolled on a screen for him to read. I can bet if President Bush had used a teleprompter more often, not just for “State of the Union Addresses” and other formal speeches, he would have been just as well spoken or sounded just as intelligent.

The teleprompter has served President Obama very well. It has kept him from appearing like a stuttering boob, which happened often on the campaign trail…that is until last night during the St. Patrick’s Day celebration at the White House.

In case you missed it…which you probably did if you rely on the mainstream media for your information…President Obama’s teleprompter was very cruel to him and the Prime Minister of Ireland.

According to Sky News, "Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into an address in Washington when he realized it all sounded a bit too familiar.

It was. He was repeating the speech President Barack Obama had just read from the same teleprompter.

Mr. Cowen stopped, turned to the president and said: 'That's your speech.'

A laughing Mr. Obama returned to the podium to take over but it seems the script had finally been switched and the US president ended up thanking himself for inviting everyone to the party."

Can you imagine the heyday the mainstream media would have had if this had happened to President Bush? This incident would have been the main conversation topic around water coolers nation wide and he would have been the butt of every joke on late night television… like the shoe throwing incident or the time the poor guy threw up at a state dinner given in his honor by the Japanese Prime Minister. But, alas, this embarrassing situation happened to the mainstream media’s wonder boy so nothing has been said...at least not in American papers...but European papers are having fun with it.

I can bet there’s one more unemployed member of society standing in the unemployment line today and one more job to be filled by an inept Obama Administration.

Teleprompter anyone?

What's Up With the Rush Limbaugh Obsession?

I can’t remember ever seeing anything like the current media circus and the Obama Administration's obsession with Rush Limbaugh. What is up with that?

Rush Limbaugh is NOT the new leader of the Republican Party…Michael Steele is.

Rush Limbaugh is NOT the voice of the Republican Party or the conservative movement anymore than Alan Colmes or Keith Olbermann are the voices of the Democrat Party or the liberal movement.

Rush Limbaugh, like me, is just a concerned citizen who believes strongly in the founding principles of this country. But, unlike me, he has a microphone that reaches millions of Americans daily.

If some Republican members of Congress and Rush Limbaugh are saying the same things, it just means that they share the same beliefs. It does not mean that they are taking their cues from him anymore than he is taking his cues from them.

A lot has been made over what Rush says and how he says it and much of what he says gets taken out of context in order to inflame people against him. Why? Does't the First Amendment which,"prohibits the United States Congress from making laws...that...infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press...", give him the right to speak freely? Yes...it does!

This whole obsession is ridiculous. It’s time for this current administration to grow up. Are they still in high school? If they would exert as much energy putting together a consistent message then maybe, just maybe, the American people wouldn’t feel like the new president and his administration are in a constant state of chaos.

Keep Our Children Safe...Put an End to Fun

Okay, America…it’s time to end all fun for our children. It’s time to get rid of all playgrounds, amusement parks, Chuck E. Cheese's, McDonald play lands, swimming pools, etc. While we’re at it, we had better eliminate all bikes, skateboards, roller skates, basketball courts, backyard swings, trampolines, and tree houses. Oh, and we should also put railings around all of their beds to keep them from falling out of bed or getting seriously hurt while jumping on their beds. We should also put bars on all upstairs windows to keep them from falling out of them.

It’s time to leave our children indoors surrounded by soft padded furniture and carpeted floors. It’s also time to keep them from going anywhere or doing anything without adult supervision.

Let's face it, today's children are too fragile and must be protected from all injuries. We can not have them playing in areas where they might actually fall and scrape a knee or where they might get hurt because another child could fall on them. They also seem to lack the common sense necessary to make good decisions. We must protect our children from themselves.

Does this sound asinine to you? I hope so!

This idea is about as asinine as a mother who took her daughter to a Chuck E. Cheese's in Oak Lawn, Illinois three years ago and is now suing that establishment because another child fell on her daughter while she was playing on the slide. It’s Chuck E. Cheese’s fault because they did not have extra staff supervising the play area? Isn’t that the parent’s job?

It’s about as asinine as parents threatening to sue the Six Flags Over Georgia amusement park after their teenage son climbed over not one, but two chain link fences and got into a restricted area. He then got beheaded by a Batman roller coaster ride as he went underneath it. Is it the amusement park’s fault because they did not have security guarding every inch of the ride area? The two fences and multiple signs saying "Danger Zone/Do Not Enter/Authorized Personnel Only” weren't warning enough?

It’s about as asinine as a mother suing her apartment management company because she left her four-year old daughter alone in an upstairs apartment bedroom with an open window and her daughter fell out, landing on the pavement below. It’s the management company’s fault because they did not tell her that another child had previously fallen out of a window in another one of their buildings? It’s the management company’s fault because they didn’t tell her that her daughter could fall out of an open window? Isn’t it her fault for leaving her daughter alone, unsupervised, near an open window?

It’s about as asinine as parents suing a Chicago Metra commuter train company and the Union Pacific Railroad company because their daughter was struck and killed by a commuter train while she was using the train tracks as a shortcut to get to school. It’s the railroad company’s fault for not keeping the fence in good repair and for not posting warning signs along the track warning that it is dangerous to walk on the tracks? Shouldn’t the parents have taught that concept to their daughter?

Hmmmm…on second thought maybe some parts of the idea are not so asinine after all. It might be important to not only protect our children from themselves and others, but to protect our society from their parents, subsequent lawsuits and greedy trial lawyers.

Letter to the Editor

This is a copy of the Letter to the Editor that I sent to my hometown paper for the March 4th edition. It was in response to a letter posted in the February 25th edition of the paper, which was written in response to my letter in the February 18th edition.

The respondent listed a whole host of accusations leveled against the Bush Administration. She wrote, "What follows is just a few of the mud-encrusted slime the Bush Administration has pulled on the American people.

Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq; misrepresentation of Iraq as a security threat as part of a justification for a war of aggression; lying to the American people and members of Congress regarding WMDs; misspending funds to secretly begin a war of aggression; invading Iraq in violation of the requirements of HJ Res 114; invading Iraq absent a declaration of war; failing to provide soldiers with body armor and vehicle armor; falsifying accounts of U.S. troop deaths and injuries for political purposes; outing secret agent Valeria Plame Wilson; providing immunity from prosecution for criminal contractors in Iraq; imprisoning children; creating secret laws; spying on American citizens without a court ordered warrant in violation of the law and the fourth amendment; using telecommunication companies to create an illegal and unconstitutional database of the private communication of American citizens; using signing statements with intent to violate the law; failing to comply with congressional subpoenas and instructing former employees not to comply; conspiracy to violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and repeatedly ignoring high-level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in the U.S. PRIOR to 9/11."

In response, I wrote the following letter:

That’s better! It’s easier to discuss the issues when there are specific things to discuss, rather than open ended generalizations.

There is nothing new on that laundry list of accusations against the Bush Administration; and none of them have been discovered since President Bush left office. They were all made over the past seven years.

I do not pretend to understand all of the accusations leveled against the Bush Administration for the actions they took in the fight against terrorism, nor do I necessarily believe all of their actions were justified. But what I do believe is that they did what they felt was necessary to protect the American people and to fight an enemy that does not value human life as we do; an enemy that will stop at nothing to achieve their heinous goal.

If we can all be honest with ourselves and each other, we should be able to admit that President Bush’s presidency took a drastic turn on September 11, 2001. He did not come into office planning to send young American soldiers to war. But he probably knew that as the president, it might be his unfortunate duty one day. President Bush did not ask for the fight that was brought to our shores that fateful morning, but when called upon, he responded.

There is not enough space in this section of the paper for me to address each accusation on that list. Perhaps I will address them at a later date or maybe I’ll just consign my responses to my blog. However, I will take the time to address the two issues that I am tired of hearing put forth by the left.

Were there or weren’t there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and was Saddam Hussein a serious threat? It’s really too bad President Bush didn’t have access to a crystal ball so that he could have had those questions answered prior to sending our troops into Iraq. Unfortunately he didn’t.

Hind sight is 20/20 and it has given President Bush’s detractors the opportunity to conveniently forget what they said about Iraq’s WMD program and the seriousness of the Iraqi threat leading up to the war.

Much of the world believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was a serious threat. It is well known that Saddam Hussein used lethal gas against the Kurdish town of Halabja on March 16, 1988; killing thousands of innocent people…his own people.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1441, which offered Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations"; was adopted unanimously by the UNSC on November 8, 2002. This same opportunity had been set forth by the UNSC in Resolution 660 (1990), Resolution 661 (1990), Resolution 678 (1990), Resolution 686 (1991), Resolution 687 (1991), Resolution 688 (1991), Resolution 986 (1995), and Resolution 1284 (1999).

Under the terms stated in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002), “Iraq was in material breach of the cease fire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments…"

Tell me, did President Bush’s supposed “secret propaganda campaign” influence the U.N.? Did his influence extend to the intelligence agencies of other countries around the world? I am of the opinion that it was the other way around. I think that the U.N.’s overwhelming belief that Iraq had WMDs; combined with Saddam Hussein’s constant saber rattling and refusal to comply with U.N. resolution after resolution, contributed strongly to Bush’s belief in that fact.

In our own government, many high ranking Democrats believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat dating back to the Clinton years and just prior to the war. Here are just a few examples:

“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas. And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.” (President Clinton, remarks to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, 2 /17/98)

“Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq...Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.” (Text of Clinton statement on Iraq attack, Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)

What? President Clinton attacked Iraq, even though they never attacked us? Say it isn’t so! I don’t remember there being any outrage or public outcry…was there?

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." (Representative Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998)

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." (Letter to President Bush, signed by Senator Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001)

Who misrepresented Iraq as a security threat and who lied to who? Is it possible that members of Congress lied to Bush? I guess the slogan, "Graham Lied, People Died" just didn't have the same ring to it.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." (Senator Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002)

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." (Senator Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002)

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime....He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction....So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...." (Senator John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003)

“If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me.” (Senator John Kerry; “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd” by Ronald Brownstein; Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

It’s hard to take the self-righteous indignation displayed by all these Democrats against the Bush Administration when they themselves made a case against Iraq. If WMDs had been found, they would have been patting themselves on the back and telling us that Bush couldn’t have done it without their support. But, since no WMDs were discovered, they have found it very easy and convenient to say that he did it without their support and no one bats an eye.

George Piro, an FBI Agent who interrogated Saddam Hussein for seven months, related in a “Sixty Minutes” program on January 27, 2008 that Hussein got rid of his WMDs in the 1990s. He refused to prove that he no longer had WMDs because he feared revealing Iraq's weakness to its real enemy, Iran, and he believed that the perception of WMDs would maintain his prestige at home. He also believed that the worst that President George W. Bush would do to him was to drop some bombs, the way President Clinton had done in 1998.

In addition, according to Piro, Saddam had told him that he had planned on restarting his WMD program in all phases--"chemical, biological and nuclear"--within a year after the lifting of U.N. sanctions. His plan was set back, but not eliminated, by the 9/11 attacks and the reactions to them.

There is evidence that Iraq had WMDs and some materials used in their construction were found in bunkers. We also know that Hussein was not afraid to use them...he had done it before. Where Iraq's WMDs are now is any body’s guess. Some speculate that they were moved to Syria or to Pakistan. We may never know what really happened to them.

I am thankful I only have to protect my little plot of land in Clatskanie. Thankfully, I am not responsible for protecting the lives of over 300 million Americans. I don’t have to wake up every morning to intelligence briefings that would terrify the faint of heart nor lay down at night hoping I did everything I could to protect this nation and its people. I don’t have to be concerned day in and day out with where or when the next attack on America might strike and how many people it might kill. I don’t have to worry about sending young men and women into harms way and then feeling responsible when their lives are tragically taken on a battlefield far from home. That weight was on the shoulders of George W. Bush, now it rests on the shoulders of President Obama. Let’s see how he handles it.