Monday, July 22, 2013

Detroit has filed for Bankruptcy. Among the opposition’s arguments against an organized restructuring of the city’s debt, are constitutional worries, pension concerns, and President Barack Obama’s reputation. (Or, “street cred” if you prefer.) A Michigan judge, in a stunning display of impartiality and balance, said the bankruptcy should be withdrawn in part because it failed to honor “the (United States) president, who took (Detroit’s auto companies) out of bankruptcy.” I’ll give you a moment to catch your breath and re-read that last sentence.

Most lawyers that have involved themselves in any number of bankruptcy cases would be quick to tell you that stroking the ego of the US President is rarely a prerequisite for filing. But, Judge Rosemary Aquilina ordered the bankruptcy be withdrawn because it failed to do just that. Oh, she also mentioned that the Michigan constitution disallowed any sort of pension fund restructuring. More on that in a minute.

Making the claim that President Obama saved the Auto Industry is like saying Neville Chamberlin saved Britain. At last check, the Treasury Department would have to sell roughly 190 million shares at nearly $90 per share for taxpayers to break even on Obama’s attempt at venture capitalism. GM is trading around $36 a share. Additionally, President Obama’s unprecedented insertion of the Executive Branch into bankruptcy proceedings for the auto giant came with a rarely reported $45 billion in write offs. (The book value was roughly $18 billion.) All of this says nothing to the fact that senior investors and preferred stock holders were pushed aside so that the United Auto Workers union could bear as little loss as possible. The President’s first attempt at running anything within the private sector cost the US taxpaying public a great handful of money.

Judge Aquilina’s argument, aside from her concern for our President’s reputation, is rooted in a provision in the Michigan Constitution that limits changes to pension plans. The Michigan constitution does, in fact, place restrictions on when, or if, pension plans can be resolved. However, Governor Rick Snyder has indicated that to the extent pension plans are funded, they will not be touched. Pension plans that are underfunded, however, will be examined in public by the bankruptcy court so that the city’s obligations can be resolved.

The larger question is “what are the alternatives?” While it would be nice to make sure everyone from bond holders to retired policeman get the full amount due, such an outcome is not possible with Detroit’s current revenues. This seems, to most untrained eyes, the exact reason bankruptcy courts were formed. Detroit’s obligations outweigh its ability to raise capital. And, while the Judge might be wary of a major city filing for bankruptcy, she would certainly do well to keep her personal adoration for the president out of the conversation.

Furthermore, the judge should be reprimanded for her accidental irony: President Obama, his bailout, his ideology, and similar liberal policies are exactly what Detroit has been living with for decades.

Detroit is the consequence of every progressive initiative President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the far left Democrats have pushed. Far from failing to “honor” the President, Detroit’s current circumstances are all that are left for Detroit citizens to honor liberalism. The once great Motor City, shines now as a beaming example of how Democrat ideas ultimately come to an end.

As for the court case? The Judge might have raised a constitutional objection to the bankruptcy that could be effective in certain courts (although we’ll leave that decision to a hopefully less biased judge). However, her argument is profoundly diminished by her apparent concern for Obama’s legacy. Detroit – as she clearly is unaware – is already the legacy of the left. 

Lies, damn lies, and America’s astonishingly partisan, corrupt media.

Shawn Mitchell/ Townhall Columnist
The disgracefully slanted coverage of the trial of George Zimmerman is only the latest, prominent example of liberal media bias. Since the 2012 presidential election, America’s national media hasn’t let up. It’s pushing harder on its pro-liberal Democrat and anti-conservative Republican slant.

Consider Obamacare.

In recent days, organized labor turned harshly and vocally against the so called “Affordable Care Act.” Three leaders of America’s largest unions, including Jimmy Hoffa, wrote a jaw-dropping letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Excerpts of their arguments sound like a Republican opposition brief:

“When you and the President sought oursupport for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat.

Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

“We have been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision. Now this vision has come back to haunt us.”

“Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios.”

“The law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week.

 Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits”

“As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies.”

“On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”

Days later, the Laborers International Union of North America (“International of North America?

Gee, do they consider themselves American? But I digress) followed up with a letter to President Obama, warning of “the destructive consequences” of Obamacare if it weren’t drastically modified.

Scathing criticisms of the president’s signature achievement from bulwarks of the liberal Democratic establishment should register high on America’s political Richter scale. Instead, they’re practically tree-fall in an empty forest, because the corrupt broadcast networks aren’t reporting them. Consider if America’s biggest business leaders had delivered comparable blasts at the economic policies of Presidents Bush, Bush, or Reagan. The network amplifiers would have blown their fuses, prolongedly.

The deception reaches deep into new media, as well. This weekend, AOL News informed its millions of viewers that Republicans are “still attacking Obamacare.” Yes, Republicans like Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters. The kids online don’t have a clue.

From Big Labor’s pains to the IRS’s depredations, the media con game shifts from silence to farce.

Congressional hearings last week revealed the scheme to target conservative groups was directed out of the Office of the IRS Chief Counsel. The Chief Counsel is one of only two agency employees who are appointed by Barack Obama! That bombshell might do more damage than all the explosions in “White House Down,” Hollywood’s flop valentine to Obama.

But it’s not the story from our leading talking heads, who, if they deigned to cover the story at all, either mocked Republicans’ clumsy questioning, or gave heroic, spotlight treatment to Ranking Member and Court-Distractor Elijah Cummings’ idiotic queries whether any witness had discovered a murder weapon with the president’s fingerprints on it, or something like that.

The script is universal and firm: Play stories that help Democrats hard, thoroughly, repeatedly. Stories that help Republicans, if they can’t be ignored, should be delivered quietly and, especially if they hurt the president, for no more than two news cycles at most.

Thus, a recent study by Obama’s own Justice Department concluding that gun control laws are ineffective in reducing gun violence likely will never cross the silky lips of Brian Williams.

An EPA study that failed to link fracking—hydraulic fracturing—with environmental contamination will not see the broadcast big screen.

Coverage of abortion must emphasize that pro-life is extreme and pro-choice is reasonable. You will never hear the network big-hairs try to pin down Democratic politicians on extreme positions or defying public opinion on things like late term abortion, partial birth abortion, parental consent, or many other vulnerabilities of the NARAL Democrats. It’s not in the script.

No, they’ll stalk and bait and quiz pro-life Republicans, eagerly hunting the next gaffe that can go big time.

The cynical, despicable thing about all this is that even though the public knows it’s being played by cosmopolitan liberals, the game still works. Average  Americans might not trust the media further than Barack Obama can throw a game-opening pitch, but the networks still set the agenda and control the subject.

Partisans of right and left seek their favored outlets. But the consciousness of the non-political middle is shaped by the legacy media, and the legacy media is a corrupt PR arm for the Democratic Party.

Image: Boehner: Immigration Debate 'Not About Me'

Boehner: Immigration Debate 'Not About Me'


House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner refused on Sunday to say whether a comprehensive immigration overhaul should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, declaring that the House debate is "not about me."

Boehner, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," dodged repeated attempts to get him to spell out his personal views on a path to citizenship for up to 11 million illegal immigrants now in the United States, a major point of contention between the House and the Democratic-led Senate.

"It's not about me, it's not about what I want," said Boehner, an Ohio Republican. "This about allowing the House to work its will."

The Senate has passed a sweeping, bipartisan immigration bill that includes a pathway to citizenship, which Republican opponents have called an "amnesty" that would reward lawbreakers and attract more illegal immigrants.

Boehner said taking a personal stand on the issue would make it harder for him to find consensus on immigration in the House.

"If I come out and say, 'I'm for this and I'm for that,' all I'm doing is making my job harder," Boehner said. "My job in this process is to facilitate a discussion and to facilitate a process."

Boehner said the sweeping Senate bill would not pass the House and reiterated that the House would tackle the issue in smaller "chunks" that would include stricter provisions on border protection.

"We want to deal with this in chunks, chunks that the members can deal with and grapple with, and frankly chunks that the American people can get their arms around," he said.

With polls showing public approval of Congress at near record lows, Boehner was asked how he felt to have presided over the least productive and one of the least popular Congresses.

"We should not be judged by how many new laws we create. We ought to be judged on how many laws we repeal," Boehner said.

Republicans have made repeal of President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul one of the party's top priorities.

'Stand Your Ground' discussions...fronts against the Second Amendment
By: Diane Sori

Because the ‘Gang of Black Racists’ (you know who they are) and the ‘small but vocal black militant minority’ did NOT get the verdict they wanted in the George Zimmerman case, charter member Jesse Jackson is now calling for a total economic boycott of Florida if we don’t get rid of our ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws. I call that blackmail and that is an arrestable offense as blackmail encompasses more than just the extortion of money, it also means to try and force or coerce someone into a particular action or to force someone to make a particular statement.

And that's just what Jackson is doing by demanding that Florida repeal ‘Stand Your Ground’ or else…he’s blackmailing the state…just wonder if he’ll pull this blackmail on the other 22 states that have some form of ‘Stand Your Ground’ in place.

Thankfully, our Governor Rick Scott (finally he did something right) did NOT agree to a special legislative session to consider “The Trayvon Martin Civil Rights Act,” an act which includes an end to police profiling and the repeal of our ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws…laws put on the books in 2005. This action was demanded by the group Dream Defenders, an activist group that has literally ‘occupied’ Governor Scott’s office since last Tuesday.

And in the other 22 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia) with ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws there does NOT appear to be any intention by their state legislatures to repeal or change the laws already on the books…laws which simply eliminate a person’s so-called ‘duty’ to retreat in the face of a serious physical threat. In fact, some states are actually trying to add some form of ‘Stand Your Ground’ to their state’s laws because their residents are demanding it as crime statistics increase.

And certain statistics do increase with ‘Stand Your Ground’ but with a caveat. Since the law was enacted here in Florida, justifiable homicides have increased from a yearly average of 13.2 between 2001 and 2005 to an average of 42 between 2006 and 2012, including a record 66 in 2012, according to figures recently released by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. But…and this is very important…if ‘Stand Your Ground’ was NOT in place those justifiable homicides would have instead resulted in the MURDERS of those who now became the survivors of violent crime…became survivors because of ‘Stand Your Ground’.

And, whether Obama and crew like it or NOT in states with ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws public consensus is towards greater gun rights NOT lesser gun rights. And the states that have ‘castle doctrine’ laws…the right to defend one’s self with deadly force in the home…want to expand those laws to apply to businesses as well.

Now add into Jackson’s bloviations the bloviations of AG Eric Holder, who said last week at an NAACP convention in Orlando that ‘Stand your Ground’ “senselessly expands the concept of self-defense and increases the possibility of deadly confrontations” and you just know where his allegiances lie for Eric Holder does NOT get that self-defense in any form is just the act of defending one’s person when physically attacked…and that means the use of deadly force is allowed if need arises. He doesn’t get that it’s either the assailant who survives or the intended victim who survives, and I sure hope it’s the intended victim who survives…but I’m NOT sure Holder and his ilk wish the same.

As Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action says, “self-defense is not a concept, it’s a fundamental human right,” and how right he is.

In fact, even according to the Holy Bible it is NOT murder to defend oneself or one’s loved ones or property, for self-defense is a God-given right that God allows and encourages. In the Scriptures, while God does NOT outwardly encourage people to be either ‘hawks’ or ‘doves’ per se, when dealing with self-defense God just asks that they be reasonable. For example, Genesis 9:5-6 states, “…Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed...” which some Biblical scholars interpret to mean that self-defense is indeed allowed, and the Zimmerman case fits these words perfectly for Trayvon Martin pounded George Zimmerman’s head into the pavement drawing blood allowing Zimmerman to draw Trayvon's blood in self-defense.

And Proverbs 25:26 states that “A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.” And wouldn’t he (Zimmerman) be faltering before the wicked (Trayvon because he was anything but the sweet innocent child the media purported him to be) if he chose to be unarmed and unable to resist the assault threatening his life.

So simply put, ‘Stand Your Ground’ is in reality people defending their own lives when the police are NOT around to do so…and that is a very good thing as ‘We the People’ will NOT allow ourselves to be victims anymore…at least in 22 states we won’t. Nor will we allow ourselves to be dictated to by 13% of the population (blacks make up but 13% of America’s population and the ‘small but vocal militant black minority’ make up but a small percentage of that 13%) who expect the other 87% to cater to and bend to their will simply because they do NOT like a verdict reached according to the rule of law, and because they refuse to accept the fact that 93% of the murders of young black men are committed NOT by white men but are committed by other young black men themselves.

But NO matter if one looks at ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws in secular terms, statistical terms, or in religious terms, the bottom line remains that the ‘Gang of Black Racists’ and the ‘small but vocal militant black minority’ who are pushing this unwanted national debate over ‘Stand Your Ground’ is NOT doing so because of ‘Stand Your Ground’ as written, but is doing so to push their leftist agenda of taking our guns away as Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s ultimate political goal is the repealing of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

And that is something ‘We the People’ will most assuredly NOT sit idly by and let happen.

Here's another article of interest on this subject: