Bob Hope! Best Movie Line Ever!!!

Wow, what a great line! I've played it over and over, laughing each time. I'm so easily amused.

Blogger Gets Visit from Law Enforcement after Letter to U.S. Attorney

[Editor's note: Does a complaint filed, or a letter written to a judge justify such a forceful response from law enforcement? Differing opinions such as bloggers post have long been an integral part of politics in general. Is Obama going to muzzle all dissenting opinions?]

From Phil at The Right Side of Life.

Submitted by Phil on Fri, Mar 20, 2009

After hearing from The Washington Times about one private citizen being visited by US Marshals on account of a letter that citizen wrote to Judge James Robertson, TheObamaFile is reporting the following:

Freeper RaceBannon just heard from Freeper Flightline, a personal friend and mutual acquaintance of Walt Fitzpatrick. Walt, an Annapolis graduate (1975), just got a visit from 3 to 4 Police Cruisers and one unmarked Government car from Knoxville, Tennessee. Walt was informed that his most recent column, which he filed as a criminal complaint in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Knoxville, Tennessee, was being responded to as a criminal complaint against Walter himself; that the complaint he filed was ignored and was the basis for the complaint against himself.

The criminal Complaint against Walt specifically stated that Walter’s complaint was considered a threat against the President of the United States.

Walter was interviewed by these officers in his yard and house and openly stated his belief of his criminal complaint along with his own personal documentation to defend his complaint and why he believed it to be true.

Walter was not arrested and the officers who visited his home responded by telling him the apparent threat against Obama was unfounded and they left the premises without incident.

Walter was not arrested, no search of his home was done and the officers were professional.

Again, here is the specific posting that is causing some heartburn with someone affiliated with law enforcement… (warning! lots of pics below!)

While I am sure that many of this site’s adversaries will come up with all kinds of excuses as to why this particular blogger deserves a visit from federal (or other) authorities (maybe some individuals will even come up with a personal reason for why this blogger has no right to his opinion), I would like to know the following:

Have any of the following been investigated when the White House occupant was from a different party?

• A Google search on “kill Bush“
• Identifying the folks in these pictures:
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 

No? I didn’t think so. Instead, here is what everyone is apparently being asked to do:

And, if you don’t? We’re going to send law enforcement after you, basically telling you to shut the hades up:

…and my personal favorite:

Spin, spin, spin you illegitimizers! Go for it!

-Phil

Classic Charley Reese! 545 People Responsible for America's Woes

THE 545 PEOPLE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL
OF AMERICA'S WOES

BY CHARLEY REESE

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations, the House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a Senator, a Congressman or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O'neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

This article was taken from the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper.

[Editor's note: This article was published in the mid-80s by author Charley Reese. Sometimes conservative, sometimes libertarian, sometimes democrat, but always the same Charley. This article is as relevant today as it was in the 80s. You can substitute Nancy Pelosi for Tip O'Neill, Iraq for Lebanon. Same song, 233rd verse (the United States of America is 233 years old in 2009). "We the people" are the ultimate responsible parties, because for some unknown reason we repeatedly vote them back into office.]

Obama Cuts Weapons

From: http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

Obama Cuts Weapons

The Russians and the Chinese have just both announced military buildups, and the Iranian nuclear threat was described as, "real" -- "dangerous."

Venezuela offered an island off its Caribbean coast as a support base for strategic Russian bombers. Cuba could be used to base Russian aircraft, too. North Korea threatened war.

Osama bin Laden called for a renewed jihad.

What did Obama do?

He ordered the Secretary of Defense to prepare for the most far-reaching reduction in the Pentagon's weapons portfolio since the end of the Cold War, according to aides.

Two defense officials who were not authorized to speak publicly said Robert M. Gates will announce up to a half-dozen major weapons cancellations later this month. Candidates include a new Navy destroyer, the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, and Army ground-combat vehicles, the officials said.

More cuts are planned for later this year, after a review that could lead to reductions in programs such as aircraft carriers and nuclear arms, the officials said.

He's only doing what he promised he'd do (video). Sometimes, about some things, you can take this guy's word to the bank.

AIG Gave Obama $101,332!!!

From: http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

AIG Gave Obama $101,332

Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are -- Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.

The A.I.G. Financial Products affiliate of A.I.G. gave out $136,928, the most of any AIG affiliate, in the 2008 cycle. I would note that A.I.G.’s financial products division is the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps and "misjudged" the risk.

With the anger and rage that is being exhibited against A.I.G., perhaps the bonuses Obama received from A.I.G. explain Obama's A.I.G crocodile tears.

Now that the Wall street Journal has revealed that A.I.G. paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, it's time to ask if recipients of A.I.G. "bonuses," including President Obama, will give what now ought to be taxpayer money back?

The Trip to Pakistan in 1981 outs Obama

Based upon Dr. Orly Taitz's blog: http://defendourfreedoms.us/
March 9, 2009

Well is He or Isn't He?

Paul Hollrah

It is a popular topic of discussion in political circles these days, and as the weeks pass more and more people are asking, “Is Barack Obama really a natural born citizen of the United States? Is he eligible to serve as President, or isn’t he?” If he is, then so be it. We’ll just have to grit our teeth until this long dark nightmare comes to an end…one way or another.

But what if he is not eligible? What then? Well, in that case we have a problem…a very large problem, the solution to which could tear asunder the fabric of American society.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

That’s pretty straightforward, yet, when confronted with the possibility that the man who sits in the Oval Office may be a usurper, a great many otherwise patriotic Americans can be heard to say, “What difference does it make? The election’s over; the people have spoken. Get over it!”

Well, it’s not quite as simple as all that, and the sooner we can all be satisfied that Obama is or is not a natural born citizen the better. To postpone that finding for a year or two and then find, conclusively, that Obama is not eligible to serve as president would be disastrous. Every new law and every executive order he had signed, every political appointment, every judicial appointment, every order he had given to the military, and every act and every decision of all of his appointees would immediately become null and void. How could we ever undo all of that? The American people would quickly learn that it is not much easier to undo two or three years of history than it is to undo a decade or a century. Obama must end his stubborn refusal to produce his birth certificate, his passports, his visas, and his college records. We must continue to recruit more and more Americans to insist that he do so.

To do that it is not necessary to prove that he was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii…as his paternal grandmother, a Kenyan half-brother, and a Kenyan half-sister insist…or who his natural father may have been. The proof of Obama’s failure to meet the “natural born citizen” standard is much simpler than that.

To convert a non-believer…one who insists that the Constitutional requirements must be met, but who believes that questions about Obama’s citizenship status are nothing more than sour grapes…it is only necessary to establish the facts surrounding Obama’s travel to Indonesia and Pakistan in the summer of 1981.

Although Obama fails to mention that trip in either of his memoirs…not in Dreams from My Father and not in The Audacity of Hope…he made a potentially fatal error when he mentioned the Pakistan trip during an April 6, 2008 speech in San Francisco…the same speech in which he referred to rural Pennsylvanians as “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion…” In that speech, Obama explained in an offhand manner the value of that trip, vis-à-vis his knowledge of foreign affairs, saying, “I knew what Sunni and Shia was (sic) before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”

When questioned about that trip, Obama’s campaign press secretary, Bill Burton, confirmed to the New York Times, and others, that Obama had visited Pakistan in 1981 on his return from Indonesia, traveling there with a Pakistani friend from Occidental College, Wahid Hamid. According to Burton, Obama stayed in Karachi with the family of another Pakistani friend, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo. Obama has never mentioned the Pakistan trip again.

So it is well established that Obama did travel to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981. What is not established, and what is critically important, is what passport he used during that trip. There are only three possibilities: Obama could have traveled under a U.S. passport…a passport first issued when he and his mother moved from Hawaii to Indonesia in 1967; he could have traveled under an Indonesian passport, issued following his adoption by his Indonesian stepfather; and it is conceivable that, if he was, in fact, born in Kenya in 1961, he could still have been a British subject, traveling with a British passport. So which is it?

Unfortunately for Obama, in the present circumstance, Pakistan was under martial law in 1981 and certain undesirables…Christians, Jews, and Americans…were prohibited from entering the country. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list, making a U.S. passport no more valuable than an empty chewing gum wrapper at the Karachi Port of Entry.

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.

It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities:

1. He traveled with a U.S. passport;
2. He traveled with a British passport; or
3. He traveled with an Indonesian passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he was traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he was traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, when adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people deserve to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008. The sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

Is he a “natural born” citizen, or isn’t he? It seems pretty clear from currently available evidence that he is not. If this proves to be the case he should minimize the damage to the country and follow the Nixon example; he should simply resign from office so that we can begin to clean up the mess he leaves behind.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Paul Hollrah is a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute.

“Give Us The Money Back, AIG”

From Pat Dollard's blog
March 16th, 2009 Posted By drillanwr.

Anybody else recall certain republican Congress members insisting after the first bank bailout that there was no monitoring or watch-dogging going on as to how those who received the bailout money was spending it?

BTW, AIG had these bonuses pre-planned before the bailout … Congress, if they were “smart” would have looked into that and insisted before handing over money that the bank either cease or cutback any and all bonuses. But, as usual, it’s all political theater of indignation with these clowns.

[Ed. note: My personal opinion is that the Whitehouse is floating all these "indignation" rumors because they think that's what the American Public wants to hear.]

CBS:

White House May Want AIG Money Back
Administration Investigates Ways To Retrieve Some Of The Millions AIG Used For Bonuses

The Obama administration is looking for ways to recoup at least some of the $165 million American International Group, Inc. paid out in bonuses over the weekend, despite accepting billions in government aid to stay afloat, reports CBS News correspondent Peter Maer.

The White House continues to negotiate with AIG to bring any payments in line with the government’s priorities, an administration official told CBS News.

President Barack Obama is scheduled to speak Monday morning on AIG while rolling out his plan to help small businesses. He’s expected to voice anger over the bonuses and could elaborate on administration efforts to recover some of the money, reports Maer.

The administration official said that the bonuses “long been known about inside and outside AIG. But we didn’t want to accept them.”

The White House is seeking what are described as “mechanisms” to recover money spent on bonuses, but the company insists some of the bonuses are part of legally binding contracts signed before the government’s bailout.

The administration is concerned that public reaction to the bonuses could affect the president’s overall economic agenda, reports Maer.

“It is unacceptable for Wall Street firms receiving government assistance to hand out million dollar bonuses, while hard-working Americans bear the burden of this economic crisis,” the official told CBS News.

Meanwhile, AIG disclosed Sunday that it used more than $90 billion in federal aid to pay out foreign and domestic banks, some of whom had received their own multibillion-dollar U.S. government bailouts.

Some of the biggest recipients of the AIG money were Goldman Sachs at $12.9 billion, and three European banks - France’s Societe Generale at $11.9 billion, Germany’s Deutsche Bank at $11.8 billion, and Britain’s Barclays PLC at $8.5 billion. Merrill Lynch, which also is undergoing federal scrutiny of its bonus plans, received $6.8 billion as of Dec. 31.

Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House National Economic Council, said on CBS’ Face The Nation on Sunday that the AIG bonuses were “outrageous… The whole situation at AIG is outrageous. What taxpayers are being forced to do is outrageous.”

The company, now about 80 percent owned by U.S. taxpayers, has received roughly $170 billion from the government, which feared that its collapse could cause widespread damage to banks and consumers around the globe.

In an exclusive interview aired Sunday on 60 Minutes, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke spoke with unusual candor of the frustration he felt in bailing out AIG.

“Of all the events and all of the things we’ve done in the last 18 months, the single one that makes me the angriest, that gives me the most angst, is the intervention with AIG,” Bernanke told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley.

“Here was a company that made all kinds of unconscionable bets. Then, when those bets went wrong, we had a situation where the failure of that company would have brought down the financial system,” Bernanke said.

“It makes me angry. I slammed the phone more than a few times on discussing AIG. I understand why the American people are angry. It’s absolutely unfair that taxpayer dollars are going to prop up a company that made these terrible bets, that was operating out of the sight of regulators, but which we have no choice but to stabilize, or else risk enormous impact, not just in the financial system, but on the whole U.S. economy,” he told Pelley.

The $90 billion chunk of the bailout money went to banks to cover AIG’s losses on complex mortgage investments, as well as for collateral needed for other transactions.

Other banks receiving between $1 billion and $3 billion from AIG’s securities lending unit include Citigroup Inc., Switzerland’s UBS AG and Morgan Stanley.

Municipalities in certain states, including California, Virginia and Hawaii, received a total of $12.1 billion under guaranteed investment agreements.

FOX:

Lawmakers Target AIG Over Executive Bonuses
Rep. Barney Frank says American International Group is “rewarding incompetence” by paying out millions in bonuses.

Key lawmakers are calling for the government to crack down on American International Group after learning the bailed-out insurance giant is going ahead with plans to pay $165 million dollars in bonuses to its executives.

Though AIG Chairman Edward Liddy claims his hands are contractually tied, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said Monday he’s not convinced.

“I want to look at it very carefully,” said the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. “These people may have a right to their bonuses — they don’t have a right to their jobs forever.”

Appearing on NBC’s “Today” show, Frank noted that federal government “is the 80 percent owner” of the company and has some leverage.

“Maybe it’s time to fire some people,” he said, adding that the bonuses were “rewarding incompetence.”

“Forget about the legal matter here for a second,” Frank said. “These bonuses are going to people who screwed this thing up enormously, who made terrible decisions.”

A subcommittee for Frank’s panel plans to call Liddy to testify during a hearing on Wednesday.

Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., chairman of the subcommittee, said in a statement that lawmakers would investigate the bonuses at the hearing.

“We cannot allow individuals who acted irresponsibly to reap undue benefits,” he said.

The $165 million was payable to executives by Sunday and was part of a larger total payout reportedly valued at $450 million. The company has benefited from more than $170 billion in a federal rescue.

AIG reported this month that it had lost $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history. The bulk of the payments at issue cover AIG Financial Products, the unit of the company that sold credit default swaps, the risky contracts that caused massive losses for the insurer.

It also was revealed over the weekend that American International Group Inc. used more than $90 billion in federal aid to pay out foreign and domestic banks, some of whom had received their own multibillion-dollar U.S. government bailouts.

Some of the biggest recipients of the AIG money were Goldman Sachs at $12.9 billion, and three European banks — France’s Societe Generale at $11.9 billion, Germany’s Deutsche Bank at $11.8 billion, and Britain’s Barclays PLC at $8.5 billion. Merrill Lynch, which also is undergoing federal scrutiny of its bonus plans, received $6.8 billion as of Dec. 31.

The money went to banks to cover their losses on complex mortgage investments, as well as for collateral needed for other transactions.

On ABC’s “Good Morning America” Monday, Sen. Richard Shelby said Congress must do everything it can to make sure the government money going to AIG is handled appropriately.

“We ought to explore everything that we can through the government to make sure that this money is not wasted,” the Alabama Republican said. “These people brought this on themselves. Now you’re rewarding failure. A lot of these people should be fired, not awarded bonuses. This is horrible. It’s outrageous.”

AIG has agreed to Obama administration requests to restrain future payments. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pressed the president’s case with Liddy last week.

“He stepped in and berated them, got them to reduce the bonuses following every legal means he has to do this,” said Austan Goolsbee, staff director of President Barack Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, told “FOX News Sunday.”

Lawrence Summers, a leading Obama economic adviser, said Sunday that Geithner had used all his power, “both legal and moral, to reduce the level of these bonus payments.”

In an interview that aired Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did not address the bonuses but expressed his frustration with the AIG intervention.

“It makes me angry. I slammed the phone more than a few times on discussing AIG,” Bernanke said. “It’s — it’s just absolutely — I understand why the American people are angry.”

In a letter to Geithner dated Saturday, Liddy said outside lawyers had informed the company that AIG had contractual obligations to make the bonus payments and could face lawsuits if it did not do so.