Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Sunday, September 5, 2010


One time car czar, Bret Rattner has written a book about his experiences in that role and it appears that it may expose yet another lie told by Barack Obama; I know, we all lost count a long time ago but that shouldn't diminish the noteworthiness, should it? When GM became 'Government Motors', Obama assured Americans in an exchange with Fox News's Major Garrett that his administration would not get involved with the day to day operations; they would be a non-active shareholder.

Via Verum Serum, here's that exchange:

While you're digesting that, take a look at this from the Detroit News:
Before his ouster as GM’s CEO, Fritz Henderson proposed moving GM headquarters from Detroit’s Renaissance Center to the automaker’s Tech Center in Warren, arguing it would save money, and symbolize a commitment by the company’s leadership to be more hands-on managers.

Rattner praised the idea. But a White House aide, Brian Deese, who has been heavily involved in auto policy, denounced it.

“Are you out of your mind?” Rattner quoted Deese as saying. “Think what it would do to Detroit.”

Henderson proposed donating the iconic headquarters on the Detroit River to the city. Detroit received $20 million in tax revenue from GM.
According to Rattner, the decision ultimately came down from Rahm Emanuel that GM could not move to Warren.

Sounds like meddling, doesn't it.

Big h/t to Verum Serum


The writer here is Fareed Zakaria and he is either knowingly misrepresenting the real threat to America or he is completely ignorant of it. The argument is that al Qaeda basically landed a lucky haymaker on the United States on 9/11 and that our reaction involved far too much money and resources in light of its capabilities. In making the argument, however, Zakaria actually makes the argument for those who say - myself included - we didn't identify the real threat.

Zakaria writes:
September 11 was a shock to the American psyche and the American system. As a result, we overreacted. In a crucially important Washington Post reporting project, “Top Secret America,” Dana Priest and William Arkin spent two years gathering information on how 9/11 has really changed America.

Here are some of the highlights. Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has created or reconfigured at least 263 organizations to tackle some aspect of the war on terror. The amount of money spent on intelligence has risen by 250 percent, to $75 billion (and that’s the public number, which is a gross underestimate). That’s more than the rest of the world spends put together. Thirty-three new building complexes have been built for intelligence bureaucracies alone, occupying 17 million square feet—the equivalent of 22 U.S. Capitols or three Pentagons. Five miles southeast of the White House, the largest government site in 50 years is being built—at a cost of $3.4 billion—to house the largest bureaucracy after the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs: the Department of Homeland Security, which has a workforce of 230,000 people.
I get the basis for his argument. We grew our agencies and hence, our bureaucracies to fight al Qaeda. If al Qaeda was the only threat, he'd have a point. However, al Qaeda is a member organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, which includes a slew of others - most notably, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Hamas, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) and countless others.

Zakaria also points to the examples of the ineptitude in the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day bomber to make his argument:
Such mistakes might be excusable. But the rise of this national-security state has entailed a vast expansion in the government’s powers that now touches every aspect of American life, even when seemingly unrelated to terrorism.
I have no problem with these facts as stated here by Zakaria. It's the conclusions he draws from them that are head-scratching. We declared a war on terror after 9/11. How is any agency supposed to wage war against such nebulous enemy? The United States has been fighting ghosts since 9/11 out of political correctness (cowardice) and recent attempts have been made to paint an actual face on the enemy - al Qaeda, which is part of the enemy but only a small part. It's like declaring war on a platoon or a battalion - you're left very exposed elsewhere.

h/t to Free Republic


Welcome to a manifestation of the real reason Barack Obama was so agitated, he called out the Supreme Court during a joint session of Congress for its ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC. That case was about whether corporations could contribute to non-profits that were publishing / distributing books videos for or against political candidates close to an election. At issue was the ability of Citizens United to market a documentary about Hillary Clinton. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United.

This case is slightly different in that it doesn't involve just corporations; it involves members of congress who have written a book titled, "Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders" that Democrats apparently do not want released. In this case, three Republican congressmen - Eric Cantor (VA), Paul Ryan (WI), and Kevin McCarthy (CA) - are playing the role of Citizens United.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s attorneys sent Simon & Schuster a letter Thursday, hinting that the publisher may have violated several campaign finance laws that prohibit in-kind contributions by corporations by posting on its website a promotional video for a book penned by three top House Republicans.

At issue: the publishing house’s promotion of “Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders” by Reps. Eric Cantor of Virginia, Kevin McCarthy of California and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. The DCCC’s attorneys at Perkins Coie sent the New York-based publisher a letter saying it’s improper for a corporation to host a video on its website that directs viewers to a website that solicits contributions for Republican candidates for Congress.
The book is scheduled to be released on September 14 but the way the Democrats have been acting lately, look for the DCCC to sue the publisher - Simon & Shuster - or seek an injunction to have the book withheld, pending an FEC decision. In light of the Citizens United ruling, this takes on an added smack of arrogance on the part of the Democratic leadership.

Here is the promotional video for the book. Ironic that the title is "Young Guns" because this tactic on the part of the DCCC very well could backfire by giving it free publicity. To illustrate my point, this video came out last week and I didn't post it because it didn't do much for me. Now?

Kinda likin' it.

h/t to Gateway Pundit
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive