According to the liberal New York Times (30 April 2009):

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates suggested on Thursday that as many as 100 detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba would end up housed on American soil.

At a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Gates said that he has asked for $50 million in a supplemental request to this year’s Pentagon budget in case a new cell block needs to be built quickly for the detainees…

In January President Obama ordered the prison closed, but his administration is still working on what to do with the detainees…

“What do we do with the 50 to 100 — probably in that ballpark — who we cannot release and cannot try?” Mr. Gates said…

 

Just for discussion, let us accept 100% of the claims by liberals and Democrats of the damage President George W. Bush inflicted on our liberties. How difficult have they been to undo? Supposedly illegal wiretaps – stopped within 100 days by the new administration. Claims of torture – stopped within 100 days. Detainees at Gitmo – soon to be released. And so on.

Now, consider what it will take to undo President Barack Obama’s damage to our liberties. He and his liberal Democrats have taken over control of banks; with the unions they will own the U.S. auto industry; they have burdened generations of Americans with debt. Even if conservatives and Republicans took total control of Congress in the next election and won the presidency in 2012, they could not undo the damage in 100 days – 100 years perhaps.

And the liberals and Democrats have just started, there is still much on their agenda and none of it will be easy to undo.

Living under tyranny as liberals and Democrats claimed about President Bush ended after eight years. Overcoming the oppression being inflicted by those same liberals and Democrats will take generations.

 

During the mythical “first 100 days” I have tried to avoid criticizing the Obama administration. Disagreeing on values and philosophy is fine, but being against just because the President is for is not productive. Yesterday’s photo-op over New York City changes that.

The flyover photo-op of NYC by a 747 being chased by F-16 fighter jets shows just how out of touch the Obama administration is with the struggle against bad people the war on terror. Clearly, they do not understand the pain and trauma the 9-11 attacks caused in the New York metropolitan area (or the two other 9-11 attacks).

A news flash for the President and his administration: 9-11 was a TERRORIST attack. It caused TERROR. People’s lives were scared forever and they are still TERRIFIED.

Being insensitive to conservative Americans – well, that is just politics.

Insensitivity to Catholics – well, that is bigoted politics.

But, being insensitive to people from all backgrounds, from all walks of life, not even thinking that such a fly-over might be a problem – that is beyond insensitive, it shows after 100 days just how out-of-touch the Obama administration is with Americans.

 

According to the Wall Street Journal:

A low-flying commercial airplane escorted by military jets Monday morning sent workers worried about a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks fleeing their offices in the New York City area.

At around 10 a.m. EDT, a Boeing 747 was seen flying low over the southern tip of Manhattan and at one point was seen circling the Goldman Sachs Tower in nearby Jersey City, N.J.

The U.S. Defense Department was conducting a "photo op" that involved deploying two F-16 fighter jets escorting the 747 in the vicinity of Lower Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty, said Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Jim Peters.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates bridges, tunnels and airports in the area, said they had no knowledge of the low-flying plane.

All I can say is: Are you kidding me? What were they thinking? Try informing the public in advance.

George Hewes was a member of the band of "Indians" that boarded the tea ships that evening. His recollection of the event was published some years later. We join his story as the group makes its way to the tea-laden ships:

"It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.

The Boston Tea Party

When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted. They divided us into three parties, for the purpose of boarding the three ships which contained the tea at the same time. The name of him who commanded the division to which I was assigned was Leonard Pitt. The names of the other commanders I never knew. We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed. The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship, appointed me boatswain, and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied, and delivered the articles; but requested me at the same time to do no damage to the ship or rigging. We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.

 

President Clinton thought we were fighting law breakers, so he tried treating terrorists as criminals. After the USA was attached on 9-11, President Bush understood we were at war. President Obama apparently thinks we are being picked on by a school bully: “North Korea broke the rules once again”. So he did what any teacher would do, he called the principal, in this case the Secretary General of the UN. President Obama wants North Korea to be made to write on the blackboard 1,000 times “We will not launch missiles.” The sad part is that the UN cannot even agree to have them do that.

So what does President Obama do when the UN finally sends a note home to Pyongyang, “Please know that little Kim Jong II has been behaving badly in the world and we would like him to stop. Thank you.” No doubt President Obama will proclaim the United States is safer because we worked with the international community to handle this crisis.

 

CEO apparent of GM, Barrack Obama, has said that the Federal government would back up warrantees on all GM and Chrysler cars. 

This must mean that Mr. Obama also intends to control the details of those warrantees. Surely, the Obama administration would not let GM and Chrysler offer warrantees without first approving the fine print. 

Imagine this: The warrantee on your 2010 GM or Chrysler car not only provides for the standard items, but includes a buy-back at purchase price if you lose your job, or perhaps a guarantee to give you 80% of the purchase price if you trade your 2010 in for a new car within five years. Remember, it is all backed by your tax dollars.

Wonder how Ford, Toyota, etc. would feel about that?

 

“He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune.” Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM, learned the hard way the truth of this idiom. GM took a huge bailout from Uncle Sam, GM apparently wanted more, and the Obama administration wanted Wagoner out. If I were the largest stockholder in GM and I was dissatisfied with Mr. Wagoner as CEO, I might want him out also. However, there is a very big difference between stockholders and the Federal government.

Stockholders first and often only priority is to make money. The same cannot be said of the Federal government – it does not need to “make money” because it can actually make money. It can also tax you and me whenever it wants to spend more. If Mr. Wagoner had that ability he would still be in charge of GM.

For a moment assume that Mr. Wagoner’s resignation is necessary to “save” GM. Now what? Does the Obama administration get to appoint the new CEO? Does it have veto power over the selection? Does anyone believe that a Federal administration, Democratic or Republican, would appoint the CEO of a major corporation without any political consideration?

Now, imagine that the new CEO of GM decides the company needs to build a new automotive assembly plant. Does the Obama administration sit idly by while the new CEO of GM decides to build the plant in Mississippi, a non-union, Republican leaning state? Hardly. Either the administration appointed CEO knows better, or one way or another is pressured to build the plant in a Democratic union state. 

How far down the corporate ladder does the Obama administration reach in directly or indirectly appointing people? How about the presidents of GM’s divisions? Vice-presidents? Managers?

Then there is the issue of product control. Will the left-wing, liberal Obama administration decide that the gas guzzling Corvette is environmentally unfriendly and thus should be discontinued?

I do not have any poll numbers, but I would guess that more Republicans and conservatives own pick-up trucks than Democrats and liberals. How long before there are no pick-up trucks?

Certainly, what is “good” for GM is good for the banks. Will Mr. Geitner now be asking for the resignation of bank CEOs?

It is about time Americans started calling the bailouts and stimulus packages what they are: socialism.

We are back to Tammany Hall politics, where those in political power can blatantly hand out jobs in return for votes.

  

Even given my strange perspective, there are some mornings I wake up in America and I feel that like Alice I am seeing the world through the looking glass. Today was one of those days.

According to the liberal New York Times: “Top federal regulators say they were taken aback when they learned that a California congresswoman who helped set up a meeting with bankers last year had family financial ties to a bank whose chief executive asked them for up to $50 million in special bailout funds. Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, requested the September meeting on behalf of executives at OneUnited, one of the nation’s largest black-owned banks. Ms. Waters’s husband, Sidney Williams, had served on the bank’s board until early last year and has owned at least $250,000 of its stock.”

I am shocked!

According to the almost as liberal NY Daily News: “President Obama said Thursday the nation's economic woes are not as dire as they seem and said his economic policies will get the country back on track. "I don't think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say…Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy…They're not as bad as we think they are now…I don't like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government's role”.

Oh, really?

Just 6 days ago according to the AP: “President Barack Obama challenged the nation Saturday to not just hang in there but rather to see the hard times as a chance to ‘discover great opportunity in the midst of great crisis.’”

$787-billion stimulus plan, $410 billion spending bill for the current fiscal year, proposed 2010 budget increases the deficit to about $1.8 trillion.

And then there is this from the Financial Times: “Jack Welch, who is regarded as the father of the “shareholder value” movement that has dominated the corporate world for more than 20 years, has said it was “a dumb idea” for executives to focus so heavily on quarterly profits and share price gains.  The former General Electric chief told the Financial Times the emphasis that executives and investors had put on shareholder value, which began gaining popularity after a speech he made in 1981, was misplaced.”

Mind boggling.

 

From The New York Times: “Mr. Obama acknowledged the anger felt by many Americans over the bailouts of banks, the automobile companies and homeowners who are in over their heads. But he made a case that all those steps were necessary, not to help the institutions or people receiving taxpayer money, but to avert deeper economic problems that would afflict everyone for years to come.”

So, I ask again: What is the upside for all those people, those 91%+ of Americans who lived within their means, who did not live “over their heads”?

If bailing out the 9% of "homeowners who are in over their heads" is necessary “to avert deeper economic problems that would afflict everyone for years to come”, why not take the money going to the 9% and instead give it to the 91% for them to spend? Spending is stimulus, right?

Again from The New York Times: “He was vague about how he intends to make health care more affordable and accessible…” and “The president waited until the last moments of his speech to address America’s relations with the world, and when he did, he struck broad themes while eschewing specific policy directives.”

Speeches only require the speaker to be vague and present broad themes. Leadership requires specific action.

Speeches, especially for a good presenter like the President are easy. Leadership, well, that is another matter.

 

President Obama 2009:

"I'm pleased to announce that this morning the Treasury Department began directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks, meaning that by April 1st, a typical family will begin taking home at least $65 more every month…"

Michelle Obama 2008 (On President Bush's tax refund):

"You're getting $600 - what can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month. The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."

 

Unfortunately in America, and especially in the liberal media, it is not what is said, but who says it.

According to the AP: “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that the debate with China over human rights, Taiwan and Tibet cannot be allowed to interfere with attempts to reach consensus on other broader issues.”

I can just image the uproar in the media if President Bush or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had said that!

 

Thanks to George Will for reminding me of the FDR lend-lease quote and President Obama’s recycling of it:

“Suppose my neighbor's home catches fire, and I have a length of garden hose. ... I don't say to him ... ‘Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15 ... ‘”
-- Franklin Roosevelt, Dec. 17, 1940

“When the town is burning, you don’t check party labels. Everybody needs to grab a hose.”
-- Barack Obama, Feb. 10, 2009

Yes, Mr. President, when the town is burning everyone needs to grab a hose. But, what happens after the fire is out and it turns out your neighbors had been playing with matches and gasoline? Do you punish them or reward them?

If you reward them, won’t they just do the same thing again?

If you do not punish them, why should they change?

While I do not want to speak for my wife, I will only comment for me when we would probably be more correct.

I (we) have been very blessed in many, many ways.

We have been offered numerous opportunities by financial institutions to take some of the equity out of our house, but:

• We did not trade-up to a mansion.
• We did not buy icon cars.
• We did not take extra vacations.
• We did not buy all kinds of electronic gadgets.
• We did not run up extraordinary balances on our credit cards.
• We did not put ourselves into debt.

In short, we did not play with matches and gasoline.

While I cannot prove it, I suspect that some millions of those Americans (not all, but many) who “need” to be bailed out:

• Did take significant equity out of their homes.
• Did buy mansions with pools.
• Did purchase other houses as investments (thank you, Flip This House).
• Did take more expensive vacations.
• Did buy more expensive status symbol cars and electronic gadgets.
• And so on.

So now they are in over their heads, or “underwater”.

Yes, we should save them.

But, once we do, what is the punishment for setting the whole town on fire?