The last of 3

Excellent point Titus.

The congressional oversight/approval of CIA post 9/11 is a matter of record. This is akin to the water boarding partisanship that erupted in early 09'. Pelosi loudly chimed in on bashing the Bush administration over this practice (because the hard left base was frothing at the mouth to investigate the issue now that Obama had won) only for the public to discover that she was briefed multiple times on water boarding & raised NO objections. And after Mrs. Pelosi stepped in it when stating, " ... they [CIA] lie to us all the time", trying to justify such blatant hypocrisy, I doubt any senior Democrat in Congress wants a repeat on a much larger scale such as would occur with an agency-wide Justice Department criminal investigation. I can't help but believe two things - 1.) Holder is off the Party reservation with this & 2.) he would only do so with the consent of his boss. And that's the political rub for Obama. The president is on the one hand publicly stating that investigations should NOT go forward, yet on the other he isn't stopping investigations that would be halted with one phone call from the Oval Office! He can't continue to have it both ways much longer.

None of this makes any sense except to appeal to the hard core leftists within the Party. I sincerely wish that the Republican ideological base had as much sway with its' leaders.

****

As to the subject title, the last of the triumvirate of Kennedy men most associated with American politics passed away late last night, Ted Kennedy.

Now for me to be honest about this man today (at least his post Vietnam ideology), would be in poor taste. And to do anything less would be phony. So I will simply offer my sincere condolences to the family, especially given this death is on the heels of another of that iconic family's losses.

And not to be crass (but given the Kennedy affiliation and affinity with national politics its not entirely inappropriate), but it is well known that public health care is THE issue Ted Kennedy has championed for many years & the president made no secret that of all the congressional plans he wanted Teddy's. I believe that in coming days you will see the White House slowly & very carefully ease in to "we owe it to Ted" to try & get this passed; and ironically enough, because of the Massachusetts state law I cited 2 posts ago (which Kennedy himself help effect), the president just lost his filibuster proof senate until at least January 0f 2011, and perhaps for the remainder of his presidency, so they can no longer do this along purely Party lines.

Again, I'm not being purposely crass, but I know full well that if anyone could, the Kennedy family would appreciate the immediate jump to the politics of a political icon's passing.

Just enough rope...

... that is what this Administration was given in November. Not a "mandate" from the masses, but just enough rope to hang themselves with.

Holder has reneged on his promise to NOT appoint special prosecutors to investigate the CIA and its activity since 2001. He DID appoint the prosecutor and he DID open the investigation into illegal activities spanning the entire Bush Presidency.

I feel this is the worst kind of political pandering immaginable, and that it can only lead to disaster for the Administration. Here's why:

In 2004, the CIA instituted an agency-wide investigation of itself and submitted a COMPLETE record of that investigation to Congress, where it was accepted unanimously in both Houses as complete and comprehensive, putting to rest the claims that initial CIA intelligence gathering techniques were illegal, unethical or unConstitutional. We thought...

This investigation was conducted by "non-governmental" prosecutors (meaning they weren't Bush appointees... but they must have worked for the Government at some time, or they wouldn't be prosecutors, right?) and the entire, unredacted report of their findings was submitted to Congress AGAIN in 2006 (with Nancy and Harry at the helm) where it was AGAIN accepted as proof on no illegal, unethical or unConstitutional conduct or actions by the CIA or its agents in regards to the detention of suspected terrorists. You can read it yourself HERE.

The ONLY aspect of this report that led to the prosecution (and conviction) of any wrong-doing was a CIA interrogator that was convicted of manslaughter for beating a detainee to death. This prosecution was initiated by the CIA itself... not the AGs office, not by the ACLU, not by some fringe elements of Code PINK... the CIA itself recognized criminal behavior and, with Congressional blessings in 2006, had the man arrested, tried and is doing his time.

My point is that, even if they find something WRONG in the report now, we (meaning right-thinking, rational human beings) can point to Congress and say "Why wasn't this worthy of further investigation in 2004? 2006? 2008?" What "public" good can come from releasing a report that Congress has already read and studied for more than four years? If there wasn't anything that Nancy or Harry could find "wrong" in it then... what do they hope to find wrong now?

Furthermore, I'm curious to see how the radical anti-American elements that so hate the military and intelligence services of this nation react when it is explained that no facet of CIA detention and interrogation techniques were NOT approved (or at least understood and accepted) by the majority of Congressional Committee members in BOTH houses. Not one action that hasn't been prosecuted already (as in the case mentioned above) wasn't seen as "legal" by ALL Congressional oversight and budgetary approval organs between 2002 and this very day.

Period.

How can this NOT be the same as taking a loaded shotgun, bringing it up to your shoulder and aiming at a target... only to realize that the gun is backwards and the barrel is pointing right at your face? No, this is the fruit of true, absolute partisan politics. Nothing "good" can come of this for Obama and the Left.

Ok, this one cracks me up ...

This is among the numerous examples of why politicians will forever be the butt of jokes.

On the radio today a Boston Herald reporter described a little known situation going on within Massachusetts state politics. It appears that during John Kerry's run for the presidency his senior colleague Senator Kennedy (among others) became distressed. See, were the Jr. senator to win, Mitt Romney, a Republican governor, would be in a position to fill the vacated seat, and he would most assuredly appoint a Republican. Well, perish the thought. So with the majority Democrat held state legislature Mr. Ted Kennedy was able to see that the law was amended. The new law stated that the seat would simply remain vacant until the next federal elections, which of course occur every two years. I don't know which demonstrates worse judgement - that they amended a long standing state law to suit immediate political needs or that they actually believed Kerry would win.

Flash forward a few years to August, 2009 - they now have a Democrat Governor. And Senator Kennedy is unfortunately facing the prospect of his passing away within weeks or months (say the reports out of his home state). Well, there is a problem. Right at the moment in time that President Obama has finally gotten a 60 vote majority in the Senate, and in the middle of trying to pass Senator Kennedy's chief legislative goal for years now - public health insurance - Democrats are looking at the possibility of Kennedy's senate seat sitting vacant until 2010 were he to pass away, removing any possibility of forcing health care through a filibuster should they need the partisan votes! So, Senator Kennedy and his cohorts are doing what "politicians" do ... he wrote a letter urging they change the law back. Which has even state Democrat officials looking at each other asking ..."really?"

I assert that they should simply out law the Republican Party within the state and be done with it. They can hold "red scare" style public hearings ... "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican party?"

How these people maintain a straight face when they talk is beyond me.

"Wax off"

Representative Henry Waxman (D) Wisconsin is really a rather repugnant politician. And not because he's extremely liberal, but rather because he is the quintessential Party hack. Defends anyone & anything with a (D) after its' name, and in recent years has taken on the role of his Party's thug, at least in the House. As the "subpoena king" he "investigates" any opposition with the full weight and power of the House of Representatives (he subpoenaed everyone but Karl Rove's pizza delivery driver in that rather trumped up Valerie Plaim CIA case, and there are dozens of other examples). But now I think he has crossed the line, and in a way that should cause a cold shudder to run along the spines of the members Bund and frankly ANYONE whom is oriented towards examining and discussing history ... particularly when that history revolves around the declination of a Republic. As has oft been said & as both Italy & Germany proved, democracy dies not in the dead of night, but to the sound of thunderous applause.

Yesterday Mr. Waxman, and I reiterate he is the unofficial subpoena "muscle" in the House, sent out an official "letter" to 52 health insurance companies. In it was a questionnaire. Requested, from all 52 companies, was specific information regarding the salaries and names of any and all employees earning over $500,000 per year between 2003 and 2008. Along with the cost, location, and attendance of any and all company retreats, functions and seminars.

Why?

It's naked government intimidation.

First off, if they don't respond willingly to the letter insiders are well aware he will move to subpoena and compel them to testify on live TV, on the Hill, resulting in private citizens being being forced to justify their wages under the spotlight of national television. Second, as his Party is clearly losing control of the health insurance debate they have decided upon a new tactic. They used "CEO salaries" to great effectiveness when it came to vilifying and functionally nationalizing the domestic auto industry and placing permanent federal tentacles within the financial, lending, and credit community. Now it is clear that they intend to demonize, via that same class warfare, the executives in the health insurance industry. "The only way to clamp down on the out of control CEO salaries & bonuses", they'll exclaim with their best FDR "nothing to fear" impersonation, "is to offer a public health insurance program, so the little guy will no longer be gouged." Now who was it that warned against giving into the temptation of allowing the feds to "stick it to" wealthy yet poor performing CEO's in the private sector? I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. And who warned that this will NEVER stop with capping auto or banking executive salaries? This is unambiguous, naked, government thuggery. These are the sorts of actions that 50 years into a Chavez-like socialist paradigm our heirs hear about and ask, "Didn't you see where this was heading?"

It's no body's God D*** business how much those CEO's make, nor where and how much their retreats are. And it just plain creeps me out that not only does he have the audacity to ask, but he thinks he "deserves" to know the answer.

And what further enrages me is if there is one entity in which spending has run a muck, corruption and fraud is rampant, and those with the purse strings are in desperate need of justifying their salary, IT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

I'm telling you these people are hardened to the bone neo-Marxists. And they are using the opportunity of this current economic crisis to repackage, rebrand and sell that Marxism as "fairness", "protection", and being good stewards, shepperds if you will. "All we need do," they'll claim, "is cull the herd of just these few fat cats, and let us run that sector of the economy ... then all will be better." When in truth all you have to do is scratch their surface and you'll hear them screaming, "capitalist pig!" at anyone with a savings account.

Statistical Ninjitsu

I have long wondered that myself. How does it work that we lose MORE jobs, yet the unemployment rate goes down?

And here's the problem, be it health care, the deficit, name ANY area of government that has a budget, or projects statistics (which covers them all) and the White House can simply "name" a number and call it legitimate with a straight face. The OMB is their "numbers arm" if you will. That's why the CBO is "supposed" to be the gold standard when it comes to determining cost of any given program. One might recall the disparate cost of healthcare's final price tag between the OMB & the CBO.

Now back to the Labor Department ... they released this "drop." The problem is that the drop isn't necessarily in unemployment, but rather jobless benefit claims. People that simply don't sign up for unemployment benefits once fired (or just haven't yet), or have exercised their max & kicked off, stopped looking for work all together thus don't qualify, etc, name your reason, are NOT counted in the supposed "unemployment rate." A rate that is more accurately described as the "jobless benefit rate." So, we can have an increase in jobs lost in a given month, we can even average more lost than gained, but if for any reason there are less people, say 1/10th of 1%, filing jobless benefit CLAIMS then, with a straight face, the Department of Labor announces a "drop" in unemployment.

DC would make Tony Soprano blush with the level of concocted schemes of which they are capable. And they don't even have a catchy theme song ...

Let's talk "painful"...

So, the unemployment rate nationally is reported by both the White House Press Secretary and Obama himself to have "fallen" by 1/10th of 1% in the month of July... even though there were 247,000 newly unemployed citizens in the US AND new job numbers have been shown to have fallen more than 1.5% since June.

What kind of math does one need to use to get THAT result? More people not working than working in a given month... and fewer new jobs for them to take up... and this equals lower unemployment? How?

More importantly, when is the GOP going to ask that same question?

No treasure in the treasury ...

So let me get this straight ... left of center fiscal/social programs are as eternally enduring as the soul, and permanent as Hell. Yes, that sounds about right.

And to further torture the analogy, the GOP remains in purgatory - its' fate resting in both its' own willingness to seek redemption, and the divine forgiveness of their fellow man.