Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is Back!

"Easy Button" Hillary Clinton once claimed that there was a 'vast right wing conspiracy' out to get her husband, Bill Clinton. They were supposedly behind all of the problems that plagued Clinton's presidency. If he did not do enough all by himself.

Now Cruella De Pelosi is poised to make a similar claim but she is kinda off base. Pelosi is claiming that the CIA lied to her. That they and the Bush administration misled congress about what was happening to the detainees. She insists that the C.I.A. release the memos of the briefings knowing that they cannot possibly do that. Looks like Cruella is between a rock and a water board. One thing is certain Pelosi has pulled a page from the Obama method of operation; blame Bush!

The very people we are to entrust our intelligence and secrecy to, along with stern congressional oversight are liars! Puhleaze! Pelosi knows that she has made a major error in judgement and condemnation and now the reverse bells are ringing like a dump truck while backing up as she tries to remember or make up from memory what fits her story. Ms. Pelosi I find that you are lying!

The only thing now is when do we get to the truth. When will documents surface that indicate that she did know and was briefed on water boarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques. I'll wait. In the meantime Cruella wants us to believe that the 'vast right wing conspiracy' is back!

You can bet the farm on this. She will ride under the Obama bus in the end. He cannot come to her defense. He has already flip flopped on releasing photos of detainees and not because of what it will do to the safety of our troops but somehow, somewhere there is another potentially damaging outcome if they were released. So, Ms. Pelosi take your seat underneath the Obama bus and feel the rubber meet your face. You are on your own! This may cost you your Speaker's position.

Just remember if you live in a glass house don't throw stones!

These are my words! Please post yours!

Flaunting Success in "These Tough Economic Times"

"It's great to have nice homes! It's great to have a private jet! Anyone that tells you that having your own private jet isn't great is lying to you." Oprah Winfrey

The queen of daytime talk has more viewers than all competitors. Looked up to by hundreds of millions of people around the world. Revered as a television diva. Creator of best selling authors. Charitable giver of gifts and money. Career builder for regular contributors (Dr.'s Phil and Oz)! Millionaire creator! But cannot read the memos published by her boy, B-Rock.

Maybe Oprah didn't get the memo from B-Rock concerning flaunting your wealth and success. He has assailed success and wealth as a bad thing from the campaign trail and from the White House. But the other Big O, Oprah, flaunted her success and wealth at the graduation ceremony of Duke University.

Under this current administration it is against American values to have wealth because others are less fortunate. Obama told corporate leaders that they should not be getting in their corporate jets and going down to Las Vegas or to the Super Bowl. But Oprah says it is great to have your own private jet and nice homes and now Obama is heading to Vegas on his corporate jet to stump for political donations for Harry Reid. I guess it is o.k. to go to Vegas on jets now because B-Rock says so!

Has Oprah broken with Obama on his assaults on wealth and class warfare. Probably not. She may have just had a mental lapse as to what the talking points are suppose to be. Or is it that Oprah is getting ready to give away a few jets on an upcoming episode. She has already given away cars so jets and yachts are the next level. She even helped KFC give away millions of free meals last week in one of the biggest chicken runs ever!

Marketers know that Oprah has the Midas Touch when it comes to public opinion and perception. If you want your book to sell, your product to sell or your idea to become mainstream, get it in front of Oprah and her producers and have it lauded on her program. Presto, chango, abracadabra....instant success. Even for frauds like James Frey and Herman Rosenblat.

Now I have no axe to grind with Oprah. I actually like her even though I don't like her politics. I just thought that it is odd that she would get off the plantation with Obama and his assault on wealth and success. I guess if you support him its o.k. to have wealth. And if you don't your wealth came by way of greed and corruption not by hard work and determination and you are not entitled to it.

I want to be in the audience when Oprah gives away a jet or a nice home!

These are my words! Please post yours!

Obama To Decide Who Is Too Big To Fail!

We heard during the financial meltdown in September 2008 that some companies were too big to fail. Among these companies were many of our banking institutions and later our automotive manufacturers. But I am still perplexed as to what is the measure to determine which companies are too big and which ones should fail. More importantly why should the government get to choose which companies are to be saved and which ones go away.

I bring this up because our president,B-Rock Obama, listening to his now to be known incompetent economic advisers, has decided that the Federal Reserve should be the policer of which companies are to be saved. And we have those out there who do not think that this president harbors a socialist agenda.

The Fed was created and chartered to prevent banking panics, regulate the money supply and to supervise and regulate some banking practices in the U.S. not to act as a governmental bureaucracy to decide which industries and companies get to survive. We already see how government has been able to chose those industries thus far.

First we said that the Big Three automakers could not fail. They could not be allowed to go into bankruptcy. Too many jobs are in jeopardy. They must have a financial bailout even though all these companies really wanted was a government backed loan. Many business pundits and politicians openly discussed a controlled bankruptcy for Chrysler and General Motors but the government determined that they were "too big to fail" and bailed them out any way. Fast forward four months into the Obama reign and Chrysler was forced to file for bankruptcy protection even though they were "too big to fail."

Gone are the $8 billion that was already given to Chrysler. Now because General Motors has not come up with a viable business plan they too are being told to plan for a bankruptcy filing. Now the taxpayers will be on the hook for $15.4 billion that GM has received. But the Fed is being proposed as the group who will decide going forward which companies will get federal dollars for their survival even in the face of some of the obvious things that should occur when a company is not able to meet its obligations. Bankruptcy.

Americans should be outraged that Obama is proposing more of this sort of government interference in American business. Government, not George Bush, was the reason for the financial problems we currently have. The bureaucrats (government) that were charged with regulating and watch-dogging these institutions were not able to perform. The government, not George Bush, was heavily involved in the mortgage crisis. The government, not George Bush, is just "too big to fail" at its responsibilities yet B-Rock expects this same government to decide who the winners and losers are. Some say that we had a lack of oversight and regulations under George Bush.

I know that it has become popular to blame George Bush for our current economic crisis and everything that is bad or deteriorating in this country even though millions of Americans successfully prospered under the first 6 years of Bush. But for the current president to propose "more of the same government" oversight will only lead to industries that are politically connected being allowed to survive, i.e. newspapers! Bureaucrats only create bureaucracy not efficiency. By the time the Fed were to figure out that a company was in dire straits it would take 5 months to come up with a plan to save them only to tell them to file for bankruptcy two months later.

The government is not suppose to chose winners and losers. It is not suppose to determine when a company goes into receivership or bankruptcy. It is not suppose to be above the law and decide which creditors of a failed company gets paid first. It is not to be a representative or stockholder in a company. The government should be a caretaker of our tax dollars. We have too quickly become a country of government interference. The tide must recede and it must recede now.

These are my words! Please post yours!

Press 1 For English!

Now we know why we have multiple languages on the phone systems in this country. When off the teleprompter, our esteemed President has a tough time speaking Spanish.

Yesterday he wanted to celebrate Cinco de Mayo early but called it Cinco de Cuatro. Which in English is five of four. Advice from the peanut gallery B-Rock, no habla espanol! It was his attempt to say that they were celebrating the Mexican holiday early but once again when there is no teleprompter, pop goes the weasle and the weasle went POP!

However, no late night comedy routines on this screw up. I guess the writers wore themselves out on all the material that George W. Bush gave them. Now the stand up guys can't get any good jokes on Obama even though he keeps giving them plenty of umms and aahhs to work with. Remember that during the campaign he visited 57 states and he doesn't speak Austrian.

Just a few words! Please post yours!

Is Obama Above The Law?

Liberals have said over and over that former President George W. Bush acted above and beyond the scope of law. Being mindful that they have yet to say what laws Mr. Bush may have violated. But along comes the rock star president, B-Rock Obama and his band of merry men and laws just don't seem to matter. The point I am speaking to is the recent filing of bankruptcy of Chrysler, LLC. I wrote about the government allowing both Chrysler and General Motors to ease into bankruptcy in November. Back then it was said that these companies were too big to fail. I guess it depends on too big for whom! The taxpayers would have been on the hook for a lot less if they had gone into bankruptcy then instead of five months later. Now comes our president to tell us that it's gonna be o.k. because I have everything under control.

B-Rock has decided that it is in the best interest of everyone that he be able to spin the bankruptcy laws to once again choose winners and losers. I wonder what sort of law he studied, practiced and taught in his lifetime. He has decided that equity holders in this bankruptcy should get preference over secured creditors or bond holders. The bankruptcy laws already have a pecking order with regards to who gets paid first and it ain't the U.A.W. The bond holders are the first since they have secured debt. That debt is secured by the assets of the company. Stock holders have to get in line as their debt is unsecured. They were pledged nothing in return for their investment yet the bond holders were.

These bond holders were demagogue by B-Rock for not agreeing to accept about 5 cent for every dollar they are owed which is close to $7 billion. They would fair better in bankruptcy since they are the creditors that would receive any monies from the filing first. They could possibly get somewhere nearer to 40 cents or more on the dollar for their debt. Which chance would you take?

This is an attempt to prop up the United Auto Workers who in this scenario will be the largest shareholder in Chrysler with 55%. FIAT will be at 35% and the Federal Government at 8%. So the union would be deciding how to manage the company. Something about inmates and taking over asylums comes to mind here.

With the federal government involved you can bet there will be no more Chrysler 300's, Dodge Challengers or Dodge Chargers. We will see more lower horse powered 'green' cars. Cars that the American people have decided that at this time they do not want. Hybrids had a peak during last summers gasoline price spike but have seen even lower demands since gasoline prices stabilized.


Yet B-Rock said this, "While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not. In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none. Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting. I don’t stand with them. I stand with Chrysler’s employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler’s management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don’t stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices."

These investment firms and hedge funds could not be deterred because they recognize that they have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors to not sign onto a deal that would result in a huge loss to their portfolios. You may think that you have no interest in this filing and are not a bond holder but if you have a pension or retirement fund that may invest with one of these investment firms then you may have some financial exposure to this. If your investment firm decided to agree to these kinds of terms with the Obama administration then they could be certainly sued by their investors for failing to protect the investors from this huge loss in value. Your pension fund managers would be all over this loss because it would affect how much value your pension itself maintained.

These investment firms were also non TARP recipients and could not be bullied by the prospect of being blackmailed by Obama's Automotive Task Force. I say good for them. This bankruptcy filing is not their fault and for Obama to think he can dictate what happens in bankruptcy court rises to being 'above the law.' Bankruptcy law is already written and is followed by a federal judge who does not have to deal with the wranglings of politicians since they were not elected but appointed.

Since B-Rock once lectured as a professor at the University of Chicago, he should know that. But since his professional resume is thin it is possible that he spent this time writing books in preparation for running for president some day. Not studying or practicing law.

Finally when did we elect Obama as the CEO of Chrysler or any other corporation? I thought that Robert Nardelli should have been the one announcing the Fiat partnership along with the bankruptcy filing. But B-Rock, never one to be upstaged, took the reins and announced it to the American people. I don't recall George W. Bush announcing the United Airlines, US Airways, Northwest Airlines or the Delta Airlines filings. Shoot I don't remember him trying to tell those companies what to produce and how to run their business.

President Obama has blurred the line between the public sector and the private sector. If he wants to run a business then start with the one the federal government has owned for decades and continues to lose money; AMTRAK! Build that entity into a successful organization then just maybe many Americans will be willing to listen to you about running Chrysler, General Motors, or even America.

These are my words! Please post yours!