Benito Mussolini speaks out on Obama's auto industry rescue plan

Well, okay, to my knowledge Mussolini never met Obama, but there is a very good chance that he would see in our president a fellow traveler. Consider the Mussolini quote embedded in this item from the WSJ's John Fund, speaking of the Obama administration's auto industry plan.

[T]he Obama White House is now clearly deep into industrial policy by forcing out General Motors chief Rick Wagoner and most of his board. Mr. Wagoner, who joined GM in 1977, agreed to leave as one of the White House's conditions for more federal aid. The moves give President Obama political cover as he contemplates just how much taxpayer money to pour into the auto industry.

But the moves also represent another step on the road to the dystopia that Ayn Rand depicted in her novel "Atlas Shrugged." Rand envisioned an America in which bureaucrats dictated terms to both management and labor as it allocated state favors. As Michael Vadum of the Capital Research Center notes, such state managerialism is a peculiarly foreign concept to America. He quotes the Italian dictator Mussolini as saying: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." That merger is now underway here, at least until Mr. Obama and his Democrats get through the next couple of elections with the help of a grateful UAW.

The mind-boggling hypocrisy of PETA

The Center for Consumer Freedom reveals that the animal-rights scolds at the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have quite a few skeletons in their closets -- or rather in the dumpsters behind their Virginia headquarters:

Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) published documents online showing that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2008. Despite years of public outrage over its euthanasia program, the animal rights group kills an average of 5.8 pets every day at its Norfolk, VA headquarters.

According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.

Despite having a $32 million budget, PETA does not operate an adoption shelter. PETA employees make no discernible effort to find homes for the thousands of pets they kill every year. Last year, the Center for Consumer Freedom petitioned Virginia’s State Veterinarian to reclassify PETA as a slaughterhouse.

The CCF press release has links to its supporting documentation.

(Via: Right Mind)

What ARE they teaching in those phishing scam schools these days?

I am Mr. Robert Dutu, and even though I know that you know that I'm trying to scam you, I am going to try to scam you anyway. Oh, you are the CEO of an anti-phishing software company? Excellent. Now, sir, I was wondering if I could have a little bit of your time so I can tell you about a remarkable business opportunity.....

New house bill would let Geithner set ALL salaries in bailed-out companies

The wise are cautious and avoid danger;
fools plunge ahead with great confidence.

The Bible, Proverbs 14:16

The assaults on the pillars of the old Republic keep coming. The inglorious death of the 90% AIG tax didn't deter the architects of our New National Order; they simply regrouped and attacked from another direction.

House Democrats have now introduced a bill that goes far beyond the scope of the AIG bill. Now, the federal government is not only claiming jurisdiction over executive compensation at companies that receive bailout funds, they're claiming jurisdiction over the compensation of all employees at these companies. Retroactively, of course.

Here's how Byron York describes it in the Washington Examiner today:

The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."

When the Soviets tried to orchestrate the minutiae of their economy, we mocked them for it, and rightly so. Central control of a nation's economy has never worked anywhere. N.E.V.E.R.

And yet, our rulers plunge forward with great confidence. Maybe it will be different this time.

Click.

Lady Liberty is on the rack, and the ratchet has just been been turned another notch. She cries out in pain, but few speak up for her. Her tormentors yawn disinterestedly. They have so much to do; why must they waste their time drawing out her death?

Okay, maybe the preceding was a little melodramatic, but I hope you get my point. It seems abundantly clear to me that our country and its institutions -- everything that made America so attractive to the immigrants of past generations -- will be unrecognizable once the Obama administration and Congress have fulfilled their dreams for us. They are destroying, not building.

Hillary: Abortion is one of the top agenda items in Obama administration's foreign policy

She actually used the euphemism "reproductive rights" instead of abortion, but everyone knows that's what she meant.

Speaking March 27 at Planned Parenthood's national conference -- in acceptance of an award named in honor of PP founder and eugenics champion Margaret Sanger -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared:

“[W]e know that Margaret Sanger's work here in the United States and certainly across our globe is not done. Here at home, there are still too many women who are denied their rights because of income, because of opposition, because of attitudes that they harbor. But around the world, too many women are denied even the opportunity to know about how to plan and space their families. They're denied the power to do anything about the most intimate of decisions.”

“I want to assure you that reproductive rights and the umbrella issue of women's rights and empowerment will be a key to the foreign policy of this Administration,” she assured as the crowd applauded.

The Obama administration -- proud participants in the culture of death.

How we observed Earth Hour

Read all about it over at our sister site, The Global Warming Heretic.

Well, I couldn't let it go by without doing something.

GOP lawmaker blames Dems for his own ignorance of Constitution

Representative Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, was happy to join the torch-and-pitchfork mob that wants to seize the bonuses that were legally paid to AIG executives. It wasn't until later that he realized that he shouldn'ta hadn'ta gone and done that. Politico, March 26:

A top Republican now has buyer's remorse about his vote last week in favor of a punitive tax increase on AIG employees.

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the top Republican on the budget committee, said Thursday he would have voted against the 90 percent tax increase if he had known that legal scholars would deem it unconstitutional.

"Now, that I know — which I didn't at the time — that this is unconstitutional, I wouldn't have voted the same way," Ryan said during a taping of C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" on Thursday — the show is set to air on Sunday.

Why did he need to hear from "legal scholars" to know that a targeted punitive tax was unconstitutional? I'm not legal scholar, but I have read the Constitution, and a plain reading of Article I, Section 9 makes it clear that Congress is prohibited from doing this kind of thing.

Ryan should have known this -- he really has no excuse. Or does he? Yes, he can blame the Democrats!

Ryan blames confusion about the constitutionality of the plan on Democrats for rushing the bill through the House.

"You rush this thing to the floor. Nobody had time to review it," Ryan said on the C-SPAN program, adding that lawmakers "got conflicting advice on it" before the vote.

It's their fault that my ignorance of the Constitution made it easy for the Dems to draw me into their mob frenzy!

While he now understands that the AIG tax bill is unconstitutional, he still thinks the AIG execs shouldn't receive their bonuses.

But the conservative still agrees with the underlying principle behind the bill.

"The message was sent that should have been sent," Ryan said. "These bonuses were completely ridiculous. They rewarded failure."

If only Congress had the power to punish every "completely ridiculous" -- but completely legal -- act done by private citizens.

Obama volunteers will be ready to fight "later, when we have an army"

I've done everything I can to read this quote in context, but every time it comes out looking sinister.

Buried within an otherwise mundane, routine article about Obama supporters working to gin up populist support for Obama's budget, Birmingham, Alabama event organizer Chris DeHaven informed the reporter:

"We're looking for supporters," said DeHaven of Hoover, one of the event's organizers. "We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army."

If someone can give me a benign interpretation of this, I'm ready to see it.

To help you out, here's more of the context of the quote:

Volunteers fanned out across the Birmingham area and Alabama Saturday to pump up enthusiasm for President Barack Obama's budget proposal in much the same way they did to win over voters during the presidential campaign.

About 30 volunteers in Birmingham canvassed shopping areas and other high-traffic locations to talk about the need for health care reform, an education overhaul and environmentally friendly energy development.

"If we don't change these three things in the next 10 to 15 years, America is over as we know it," Chris DeHaven, told the group of volunteers before they went their separate ways.

Obama's plan faces criticism from Republicans and others who say it's too expensive. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report Friday saying Obama's agenda would cause huge budget deficits, forcing the country to borrow $9.3 trillion in the next decade.

Those who gathered at Kelly Ingram Park in downtown Birmingham were urged to enlist others who share Obama's vision and to stay away from trying to convert naysayers.

"We're looking for supporters," said DeHaven of Hoover, one of the event's organizers. "We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army."

The volunteers are part of Organizing for America, the same grassroots, national network credited in large part with Obama's quick rise from obscurity to president. Birmingham and 11 other sites statewide were part of a national push this weekend by Organizing for America to trumpet Obama's spending proposal.

Dodd falls on his sword, sort of (UPDATE: Just kidding -- it's Obama's fault)

CNN's Political Ticker reports that Sen. Chris Dodd has finally admitted what was already well-known:

Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN’s Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision.

Go to the link to see the video.

Sen. Charles Grassley could not be reached for comment.


UPDATE: This just keeps getting better and better. Dodd says he did it, but he's not taking responsibility. CNN this evening:

Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.

Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face numerous lawsuits without the new language.

Dodd, a Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama administration officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and "golden parachutes" at those companies.

"The administration had expressed reservations," Dodd said. "They asked for modifications. The alternative was losing the amendment entirely."

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with adding the language, which has been used by officials at bailed-out insurance giant AIG to justify paying millions of dollars in bonuses to executives after receiving federal money.

He said Wednesday that the "grandfather clause" language "seemed like innocent modifications" at the time.

"I agreed reluctantly," Dodd said. "I was changing the amendment because others were insistent."

He agreed reluctantly, he says. Then again, just yesterday he lied about whether or not he was involved in the first place, so take that assurance with a grain of salt.

Apparently, AIG didn't pay enough protection money to the Dems in Congress

The Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets website is a treasure trove of information on where the money is flowing in politics. A glance at contributions by AIG employees yields some interesting insights.

The first chart shows overall contributions, organized by election cycle and recipients' party. Until 1992, AIG contributions favored the Republicans, but since then, each election has tipped the balance even more in the Democrats' favor. In the just-concluded cycle, Democrats reaped 69% of AIG contributions.

(Click each image to enlarge)

In congressional elections, Democrats took in over 75% of AIG contributions. Not surprising, since Democrats control both houses, and Congress holds life-or-death regulatory power over corporations like AIG.


So, which members of Congress were the greatest benefactors of AIG largesse? Some familiar names top the list, all of them senators (at the time). The top recipients were also presidential candidates at one time or another in the cycle, so they naturally drew greater attention, with Barack Obama the clear winner in contributions.


Interestingly, close behind Obama in contributions was Senator Chris Dodd. Although his presidential campaign fizzled early, he still managed to far outpace the third-place recipient (McCain). There's no reason this should be puzzling. Dodd is chairman of the powerful Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which happens to have regulatory power over corporations like AIG.

AIG's troubled Financial Products affiliate, where most of the corporation's hemorraghing has occurred, is responsible for the vast majority of employee contributions to Democrats, with that unit favoring the Dems 86%-14%. OpenSecrets doesn't detail the individual recipients of the Financial Products contributions, but simple logic dictates that Dodd was a prime beneficiary.


Perhaps Financial Products thought that it was getting its money's worth when Dodd included an amendment in the stimulus package specifically allowing companies like AIG to pay out contractually-obligated merit bonuses using bailout money.

Dodd, however, apparently felt like he had no choice but to join the dogpile of phony outrage when AIG went ahead and did what the Dodd amendment specifically authorized.

Sigh. What's this country coming to? It used to be that when businessmen bought a politician, he stayed bought.

W shows more class than O does

Politico's Mike Allen notes with approval a pledge made by former president George W. Bush at a speech in Calgary this week:

Getting two standing ovations at his first speech since leaving office, former President George W. Bush said that if President Obama wants help, “he can pick up the phone and call.” Otherwise, Bush said: “He deserves my silence.”

“There's plenty of critics in the arena,” Bush told a crowd in Calgary, Canada. “I think it's time for the ex-president to tap dance off the stage and let the current president have a go at solving the world's problems. If he wants my help and I agree with him, I'll give it.”

This stands in sharp contrast with former...

I stopped the quote midsentence to make a point. Here, since the article is about the behavior of an ex-president toward the sitting president, the logical choice is to contrast W's behavior with that of other recent ex-presidents.

W is following in the footsteps of his father, who famously refused to criticize his successor, despite their profound disagreements. So, no sharp contrast there.

Former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, however, wasted almost no opportunity to criticize W during his eight years in office. Carter was much worse than Clinton in this regard, but Clinton was by no means innocent. So, maybe this is the sharp contrast Mike Allen wants to highlight. Nope, guess again.

Perhaps he wants us to take note of the fact the President Obama is not reciprocating the love. Has there been a president in recent memory who has spent so much time criticizing his predecessor? That's certainly a sharp contrast.

But no, Mike Allen tells us what the real scandal is:

This stands in sharp contrast with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has twice hammered Obama in media interviews.

That's right. Darth Cheney can still push their buttons. Sweet.

Perhaps the former vice president could fade quietly into the mist -- as so many on the left and in the media desperately wish he would do -- if the Obama administration would stop hammering the Bush administration.

President Obama's relentless blameshifting shows what little class he and his fellow travelers have. This stands in sharp contrast with former President George W. Bush who, despite his many flaws, is an honorable man.

Attempts to recover AIG bonuses via taxation are unconstitutional

Fox News reports on one popular idea bouncing around Congress as the torch-and-pitchfork mob tries to figure out a way to punish AIG for honoring their executive compensation contracts (emphasis added):

Senate and House lawmakers on Monday night returned to the idea of imposing heavy taxes to recover the bonus money.

"You can write a tax provision targeted specifically at 98 percent of the taxable proceeds," Dodd said, adding that it wouldn't violate the terms of the AIG contracts.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney D-N.Y, the chair of the Joint Economic Committee, also called for a 100 percent tax on bonuses not related to commissions. And Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., introduced a bill to recover practically all of the money through hefty taxes.

"If (AIG CEO Edward) Liddy does nothing, we will act and will take this money back and return it to its rightful owners, the American taxpayers. We will take this money back by taxing virtually all of it," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday. "So let the recipients of these large and unseemly bonuses, be warned. If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you."

But while Dodd on Tuesday said lawmakers would continue to pursue this avenue, he added: "I don't know whether or not as a practical matter it will produce the kind of results we're looking for. We're all searching for a way to get this money back and one way or another we're going to figure out how to do it."

Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed to recover a sizeable chunk of the money.

"Remember, we, as a Congress, are not defenseless. We can also do things," the Nevada Democrat said Tuesday, announcing he has tasked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., with crafting a proposal to recover the bonuses.

Reid said Baucus "is going to make a proposal that I think will certainly send a message to you people at AIG and all others who try to benefit from the hardships the American people face ... AIG recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all their money, and that's an understatement."

Emotions are running at a fever pitch, and perhaps that's why our distinguished legislators have overlooked the simple fact that their taxation idea is unconstitutional.

One clause of Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states simply: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." That section applies to the U.S. Congress. Section 10 extends the same prohibition to the states.

An ex post facto law retroactively criminalizes an activity that was legal at the time the activity occurred. The payment of the AIG bonuses certainly was legal, seeing that the payments were specifically authorized by those now pretending to be in a lather over them.

By attempting to seize the bonuses, Congress is in effect criminalizing the payments after the fact.


Not that Congress has been too keen on following the Constitution, but will any influential politician have the guts to stand up and point this out? Or will they, seeking to save their political skins, cower in the shadows?


UPDATE: On the Free Republic post of this article, someone noted that this idea also qualifies as an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, since the proposed law in effect declares a specific group of people guilty of a crime, and punishes them without a trial.

Political hypocrites feign surprised outrage at AIG bonuses

President Obama and members of Congress say they are shocked -- shocked! -- that AIG would dare use stimulus money to pay executive bonuses.

The problem is that Congress passed, and Obama signed, the law specifically authorizing this.

From But As For Me:

Thanks to our stimulus spending bill search engine and browser, we discovered that Obama granted AIG a free legal pass to give high bonuses because of the following stipulation in Obama’s stimulus bill he personally orchestrated and signed into law:

From page H1412 of the Final Stimulus Bill, “SEC. 111. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE:

“(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.”

This amendment provides an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009, which exempts the very AIG bonuses Obama is condemning every single chance he gets. The amendment is in the final version and is law.

Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org — According to the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Dodd placed this section into the final stimulus bill, making him responsible, along with Obama, for AIG receiving these bonuses.

As we saw earlier, the Democrats may be leading the torch-and-pitchfork mob, but some Republicans are tagging along as well.

No good will come of populist demagoguery like this. Shame on them all.

This is not the Hope you're looking for

Good commentary from The Patriot Post:

Iowa senator should resign or go commit suicide

I don't normally write such dangerously provocative post titles, but I wanted to see what it felt like to express a sentiment like that. For the record, I was fully aware of the way the words would come across to the reader, and I had to work against strong inhibitions every step of the way.

That's more than could be said for Iowa's Republican Senator Charles Grassley.

AP, March 16:

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley suggested on Monday that AIG executives should take a Japanese approach toward accepting responsibility for the collapse of the insurance giant by resigning or killing themselves.

The Republican lawmaker's harsh comments came during an interview with Cedar Rapids, Iowa, radio station WMT. They echo remarks he has made in the past about corporate executives and public apologies, but went further in suggesting suicide.

"I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed," Grassley said. "But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide.

"And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."

In his favor, he was speaking off-the-cuff in a radio interview, but that does not excuse him. Public figures have a duty to consider their words before speaking. Instead, Sen. Grassley chose to join the dogpile on the AIG execs in a most undignified manner. Once the inevitable reaction occurred, he insisted (through his spokesman) that he had been misunderstood.

He has disgraced himself with his words. I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward him is if he'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide.