Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told the press that that she would run the most ethical and honest Congress in history.  It doesn’t seem as if it has worked out that way.  Charlie Rangel has been censured for something any other American would have gone to jail for (I am told that the reason he did not go to jail for tax evasion is that as soon as the New York Times released the information on his taxes, he contacted the IRS and paid up.)  At any rate, at least the House of Representatives acknowledged that he had done something wrong. 

Now we have the case of Maxine Waters.  This is a puzzling situation.  Obviously, she would want to get her hearing over with before the Republicans take over the House of Representatives.  That’s not being partisan–that’s just being smart.  There is so much political animosity in Washington today, I can’t blame her for wanting to get this over with while the Democrats are still in the majority.  So why the delay?

According to LibertyCentral.org, the investigation into the activities of Ms. Waters was suspended in October when investigators of the House Ethics Committee discovered a critical piece of information – an E-mail from Waters’s Chief of Staff – that had not been turned over to committee investigators.  Now according to the Washington Post, the House Ethics Committee is looking into the reasons that the House Financial Services Committee did not fully comply with the request to turn over all the documents relative to the investigation of Ms. Waters.

According to the article:

“The e-mail in question, sent by Waters chief of staff Mikael Moore, asked four aides to Frank for more information on the progress of legislation meant to rescue large banks in the 2008 financial meltdown. The top aide, who is Waters’s grandson, proposed legislative wording changes that ultimately ensured the minority-owned bank in which Waters’s husband had a financial investment, OneUnited, received federal assistance.”

I guess I am a little cynical, but I have no doubt that a large part of bailout, stimulus, and TARP money went to friends and supporters of Barack Obama.  I think all government bailout programs illustrate why we should not give any more money to Washington than we absolutely have to!  I do think that one of the things that will happen when the Republicans are sworn in in January is that a lot of the wheeling and dealing that has been going on with taxpayer money will be looked into and investigated if necessary.  It won’t be fun for anyone, but I think it is necessary.

Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported that Judicial Watch had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents from the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) relating to a series of three Medicare television ads featuring Andy Griffith.  The ads were considered misleading by a number of press outliets including FactCheck.org.

The article points out that $3,184,000 of taxpayer money was used to produce and air the advertisements in order to educate the people who depend on Medicare about the changes in Medicare as a result of Obamacare.  Unfortunately, the information given in the ads was not true!

It is also interesting that the ads were produced by someone who has in the past worked on the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore.  I’m glad they chose an objective person for the campaign!

As a percentage of the overall federal budget, $3,184,000 may not seem like a lot of money, but to spend taxpayers’ money on a publicity campaign to support legislation that is unpopular with the voters just seems wrong.  We do not have the extra money to spend right now, and the ads were not a good way to spend money at all.

I spent my teenage years in New Jersey.  Maybe that’s why I think this is hilarious.  Follow the link to YouTube and draw your own conclusions.

Investors.com posted an article on Friday about the economic ignorance surrounding the debate on extending the current tax rates. 

According to the article:

“(Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod) Brown ripped into GOP Rep. Eric Cantor, saying he “either failed English class or failed logic class or failed history class because these tax cuts for the rich that Bush did twice … resulted in very little economic growth. We saw only 1 million jobs created in the Bush years, 22 million created in the Clinton years, when we reached a balanced budget with a fairer tax system.””

This simply is not true.  The article reports:

“From 2002, the last year before the cuts, to 2007, the last year before the financial meltdown, the real economy expanded by $1.77 trillion, or 15.2%. “Very little” growth? Jobs increased by 7.77 million, business investment surged 38%, and personal net worth soared 56%.”

Tax cuts work–they stimulate economic growth.  The article also points out that giving President Clinton the credit for balancing the budget is a bit disingenuous.  The budget is controlled by Congress–not the President.  The Republican Congress is the 1990’s passed spending cuts, welfare reform,and cut capital gains taxes–that’s what balanced the budget.

The article concludes:

“If we want a strong expansion, business investment must grow. It won’t as long as Brown and his colleagues continue to believe that extending jobless benefits to boost consumption, and raising taxes on the “rich” would create economic activity.”

If we truly want to see the economy grow, we need to cut spending and taxes.  It will be interesting to see if this Congress has the nerve to do this.

CNS News reported yesterday that Army, Air Force, and Marine chiefs told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday that now is not the time to change the military policy known as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

The article reports:

“”Based on what I know about the very tough fight in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time, and finally the direct feedback from the [Pentagon] survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time,” said Gen. James Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps.

“Nevertheless, he later said, “despite the challenges … at the end of the day we are Marines. Should Congress change the law then our nation’s Marine Corps will faithfully support the law.””

Serving in the military is a privilege–it is not a right.  When you enlist, you pretty much give up most of your rights–the right to decide where you live, where you work, when you take vacation, etc.  If you can be disqualified because you have asthma, why can’t you be disqualified for being a homosexual.  In very close quarters, homosexuality can interfere with troop unity.  Wartime tends to create very close quarters.  I think to change the policy would be a mistake.

Homosexual rights are not the same as civil rights.  A gay person does have the right not to be discriminated against, but a gay person does not have the right to have more rights than other Americans.  I believe that letting gays serve openly in the military would not be a benefit to anyone and would negatively impact the effectiveness of the American military.

There is an old joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee.  The joke is that committees rarely accomplish anything good because the people on them are too busy looking for common ground.  Sometimes common ground is not the answer–leadership is!

CNBC is reporting today that the presidential commission to cut the deficit did not receive enough votes among its members to trigger congressional action.  Is anyone actually surprised by this?  The commission needed 14 votes to send its plan to Congress for legislative action.  They received 11 votes.  The article lists the actual votes.  It is interesting that Andy Stern (former president of the SEIU) and Congressman Paul Ryan both voted against the plan.  There were Republicans who voted for it and Democrats who voted against it, so this was not a party-line vote.  According the the article at CNBC, the proposed deficit-reduction plan is expected to have an impact on future budget debates.

Leadership does happen in Congress.  Although I do not agree with all of Paul Ryan’s Roadmap, I think that plan for cutting the deficit is a really good place to start.  Hopefully, in January the Republcans will respond to the message of the American voters and begin an intelligent debate on curbing spending and cutting the deficit.

I guess we just have to improve our reading between the lines skills.  When I heard President Obama say that in order to get into the spirit of cutting federal spending, he would freeze the pay of federal workers for two years, I thought that he meant that he would freeze the pay of federal workers for two years.  Since federal workers make about 30 to 40 per cent (including benefits) more than private sector workers, I thought that freezing their wages was probably a good idea.  Well, it may or may not be a good idea, but it really doesn’t matter because freezing wages isn’t really freezing wages.

The Daily Caller reported today that the President’s plan would stop the annual across-the-board cost of living adjustment (COLA) for all federal workers, it would not affect pay raise for job classification upgrades, and employees will still be eligible for step increase.

According to the United States Office of Personnel Management, new employees can expect to receive a step increase every year, mid-level employees can expect a step increase every two years.  Step increases can result in raises in amounts up to $22,672 in one year.  These raisees will happen even with the ‘pay freeze.’  Could someone please freeze my pay that way?  The article points out that the COLA freeze probably would have happened anyway, since Social Security has not seen a COLA for two years.   Obviously, union officials have opposed the freeze (such as it is).

This is another example of telling the American people something to impress them while doing exactly the opposite thing.

The Democrats in Congress are determined not to go out with a whimper–they are attempting to create as much havoc as possible on the way out!

The Hill‘s Blog Briefing Room reported yesterday that Speaker-designate John Boehner charged that Democratic leaders “undercut” conversations on extending the Bush tax cuts by scheduling a vote on the House floor for Thursday.

The Democrats have scheduled a vote on whether or not to extend only a portion of the current tax rates that expire on January 1.  They have cut off the discussion of other options.

According to the article:

“Boehner added, “I don’t know what my colleagues across the aisle didn’t hear during the election, the American people spoke pretty loudly. They said stop all the looming tax hikes and to cut spending.””

If the Republicans are capable of standing for the concept of cutting spending and lowering taxes, this is the time to do it.  If they give in here, they will lose the support of the people who elected the new Congress in November.  Hopefully, they realize this.  It is telling that there is bi-partisan support for maintaining all of the current tax rates.

The article further reports:

“Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), however, said that the bill (to keep only the current tax rate for the middle class) would be dead on arrival in the Senate.

“Forty-two Republican senators, which is all of us and an indeterminate number, significant number of Democrats, don’t think we ought to raise taxes on anybody. So regardless of what the majority forces House Republicans to do, it’s not going to go anywhere. We’re going to extend the current tax rates, we’re not going to raise taxes on anybody. The only thing we’re discussing right now is how long that extension will be,” the top-ranking GOP Senator said at the press availability following the governors-elect meeting.”

Stick to your guns, guys!

Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California, posted an article at Front Page Magazine today about the current Congressional debate over extending the current tax rates before they expire on January 1.

He comments, “The fact that this decision has been left until late in the eleventh hour, even though the expiration date has been known for years, tells us a lot about the utter irresponsibility of Congress.”

The discussion has been that we need to extend unemployment benefits rather than cut tax rates for the wealthy.  There are some problems with this statement.  Extending unemployment not only does not stimulate the economy, it slows down the process of laid-off workers finding jobs.  Statistics show that unemployed people are most likely to return to work within two weeks of the time their unemployment insurance runs out.  That is a basic statement about human nature–it’s not rocket science.  Cutting tax rates for the wealthy is not what is happening here–the actual issue is whether or not taxes will be raised on the wealthy on January 1.  No one’s taxes are being cut–the question is whether or not to raise taxes on certain Americans.  The Democrats argue that the ‘rich’ don’t need tax cuts, but the unemployed need more benefits.  The Democrats argue that extending unemployment insurance will stimulate the economy and that continuing the current tax rates will not.

Mr. Sowell concludes:

“What does that record say? It says, loud and clear, that cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues. In all four of these administrations, of both parties, so-called “tax cuts for the rich” led to increased tax revenues– with people earning high incomes paying not only a larger sum total of tax revenues, but even a higher proportion of all tax revenues.

“Most important of all, these tax rate reductions spurred economic activity, which we definitely need today.

“These are the facts. But facts do not “speak for themselves.” In terms of facts, the Republicans have the stronger case. But that doesn’t matter, unless they make the case, which they show little sign of doing.”

I hope someone begins making an effective case for keeping the current tax rates soon–the rates expire at the end of the month.

The Colorado Independent reported yesterday that recently-reelected Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet was caught on C-SPAN by an open microphone saying, “It’s all rigged. The whole conversation is rigged. The fact that we don’t get to a discussion before the break about what we’re going to do in the lame duck. It’s just rigged.”  

Evidently that kind of honesty is not intended to be heard by the American people. 

The article further reports:

“Republicans have been bolstered in their opposition by their midterm election victories and seem determined to put off all voting until the new Congress begins next year. Today Democrats face an uphill battle trying to pass an overdue unemployment insurance extension for millions of Americans, and conservative Democratic Senators like Ben Nelson are already voicing strong opposition to Democratic priority bills like the DREAM Act, which would grant citizenship based on certain military service and education achievements to illegal immigrant young people brought here by their parents and raised in the U.S.”

I have a question.  The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006.  They have had total control of Congress and the Presidency since 2008.  Why couldn’t any of these issues have been settled before now?  We have known since 2001 that the current tax rates would expire on January 1–why is this being discussed now instead of last year or earlier this year?  The answer is very simple.  The Democrats have never had the votes to pass any of the things they are in such a rush to do now.  They still do not have the votes, and they will have even fewer votes after January.

The way I see it, the role of the Republicans currently in Congress is to limit the amount of damage the Democrats can do before they have to leave office.  There is a reason that the Democrats were voted out of office.  If they continue to attempt to pass unpopular legislation during a lame-duck session, they can expect to continue to be voted out of office.

The Washington Post is reporting today that the Obama Administration will announce Wednesday afternoon that they will not allow offshore oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico or off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as part of the next five-year drilling plan, 

This move reverses the announcement made in March by the Obama Administraiton that they would open up the eastern Gulf and parts of the Atlantic to offshore oil and gas exploration.

This is not good news for America.  It pushes us further away from energy independence.  Also, as Wikileaks shows that the Saudis are funding terrorism, the banning of offshore drilling makes us more dependent on the Saudis for oil and forces us to give them more money to fund terrorism. 

This ban is also a danger to our national security.  If we cannot supply our own fuel for our military vehicles and airplanes, how in the world will we defend ourselves if we are called upon to do so at home?

We need a new President with a new Department of the Interior.  Hopefully, we will get both in 2012.

The best thing about the new Congress that will be seated in January is that they will be able to stop some of the laws President Obama is attempting to put into effect without the benefit of legislation.  One of these laws concerns the ability of the government to control the internet.

Today Big Government posted an article by Phil Kerpin about the “network neutrality” regulation.  The article reports that the Federal Communications Commission announced its agenda last night at midnight for their December 21 meeting–the FCC is going to regulate the Internet! 

According to the article:

“Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney, the socialist founder of the misnamed group Free Press, which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s press secretary.

“McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca: 

“You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

The idea here is to have the government control the internet.  Keep in mind that the internet is probably the most powerful outlet for alternative news sources.  The aim of the Obama Administration is to control the news. 

The article concludes:

“Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate floor with 30-senator petition.  It cannot be filibustered and would need just 51 votes to pass.

“Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the free-market, unregulated Internet.

“Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard left inside the executive branch won’t stand.  Congress must do what the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big government agenda.”

Government control of the internet (and thus control of the news) is the end of our democracy.  Hopefully the Republicans in Congress will have the courage to end this move quickly.

“The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” —- Stephen R. Covey

Bloomberg.com reports today that Washington-based Third Way, a Democratic-led policy group, proposed a plan that would raise the retirement age, trim or eliminate Social Security benefits for high-income retirees, limit cost-of-living increases and provide money to help young workers create private retirement accounts.

The only part of that I agree with is providing money to help young workers create private retirement accounts.  Let’s talk about trimming or eliminating Social Security benefits for high-income retirees.  Tax policy does influence behavior.  We have watched for years as senior citizens divested themselves of personal assets in order to have Medicare pay for their nursing homes.  We have seen people wait to accept jobs as unemployment benefits have been extended.  We have seen people put off marriage as the marriage tax was put into effect.  To deny people who have paid into Social Security all their lives the benefits they were promised because they were successful and planned ahead is not a good idea.  First of all, it breaks the promise made to all of us who have been paying into Social Security since we began working, second, it sends a message that if we plan for our retirement, we will be penalized, and third, it allows Congress to tell us exactly how much we are allowed to earn.  Why in the world are we even considering allowing the government to limit the amount of Social Security someone can receive because that person actually planned for their retirement?  This will ultimately be one of the government’s ‘redistribution of wealth’ plans.  Keep in mind that I posted an article in October (RightWingGranny) about Senate hearings which discussed taking over 401K plans of private citizens.  How about means testing Congressional pensions?  Or taking over the 401K plans of Congressmen?  Anyone want to comment on the likelihood of either of these things happening? 

Please be aware that if you follow the link to the source article at CNS News, you will see some very disturbing pictures.  The article is reporting on an exhibit currently at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery which features “images of an ant-covered Jesus, male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, and a painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show’s catalog as “homoerotic.””   The exhibit is titled, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” and will be there until February 13th. 

According to the article:

“The Smithsonian Institution has an annual budget of $761 million, 65 percent of which comes from the federal government, according to Linda St. Thomas, the Smithsonian’s chief spokesperson. The National Portrait Gallery itself received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2010, according to St. Thomas. It also received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal 2009, according to the museum’s annual report. The gallery’s overall funding in that year was $8 million.”

I am not opposed to free speech, but I am for respect.  An ant-covered Jesus is not appropriate at any time, much less Christmas.  Paying for this picture with American tax dollars is obscene.  Why is it that the FBI paid a visit to a pastor in Florida who was going to burn a Koran because they were afraid of the Muslim backlash, but no one cares if Christians are insulted?  Why is this not considered hate-speech?

Today’s Daily Caller posted a small section of the recent document dump from Wikileaks. 

According to the article:

“On a February trip to the Middle East, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA) told Qatari leaders that the Golan Heights should be returned to Syria, that a Palestinian capital should be established in East Jerusalem as part of the Arab-Israeli peace process, and that he was “shocked” by what he saw on a visit to Gaza”

Israel without the Golan Heights is indefensible.  To give that land to Syria is to invite an invasion.  The article points out that the discussion of the Arab-Israeli peace process took place in Qatar with Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani and the Emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa in February.  To me this seems to be a total sell-out of Israel.

I guess I have one major questions–how come all the peace demands have been made on Israel?  Where is the concern for the number of rockets that have been fired into Israeli civilian areas by Israel’s neighbors?  If John Kerry is suggesting more ‘land for peace’ deals for Israel (none of which have worked in the past), is he ignorant of the history of the Middle East or is he simply not a friend of Israel?

Yesterday’s Worcester Telegram posted an article about the voter irregularities that occurred in Worcester during the recent election.  Nick Kotsopoulos, who wrote the article, suggests that those people protesting some of the behavior at the polling places had best not hold their breath waiting for satisfaction from state election officials about their complaints. 

The article reports:

“That’s because members of the group Neighbor to Neighbor apparently did not violate state election laws by accompanying people into the voting booth and supposedly telling them how to vote; in some instances, they even actually marked their ballots for them, as some poll observers said they witnessed in affidavits filed last week with the Worcester Election Commission.”

The article further reports:

“Neighbor to Neighbor workers were also seen bringing pre-marked sample ballots to the polls that told people they brought to the polls what address to give poll workers and whom to vote for, according to the affidavits.

“Under state law, voters who need assistance can bring anyone they want into the voting booth to provide the help they need, even having that person fill out their ballot for them, if they so wish.”

It seems to me that it might be time to re-examine the current law about going into the voting booth with people or marking their ballots for them.  The article points out that some Hispanic voters claimed to need interpreters, although ballots were printed in both Spanish and English.

Today’s Washington Examiner posted an article about where campaign money came from in the last election.  The numbers are basically opposite of what we have been led to believe. 

The article reports:

“Final campaign finance figures from the Federal Election Commission have come in, and they show a very different picture from the one painted by Obama and most of the media.  The Democrats’ advantage in money from traditional PAC’s was just about 10 times the size of the Republicans’ advantage from the new Super PAC’s.”

The PAC’s in the healthcare industry gave 58 percent of their contributions to Democrats.  The drug industry spent $6.68 million in PAC money on Democrats and $5.12 million on Republicans.

The article further reported:

“Obama’s liked to pose as the scourge of Wall Street, but here again, the facts clash with Obama’s rhetoric.  Democrats outraised Republicans from the “securities and investment” industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, including a 27.2 percent advantage in PAC money from the industry.  Church Schumer was by far the top recipient.”

President Obama has continually claimed that the special interests and big business are in bed with the Republicans.  Well, the facts show that Democrats have received more money than the Republicans from special interests and big business.  I guess the facts really don’t matter if you can get away with the lie.

Tampa Bay Online reported yesterday that Republican Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn are planning to let ethanol subsidies expire at the end of this year. 

On July 10th of this year, the Director’s Blog at the Congressional Budget Office posted the following: 

“The costs to taxpayers of reducing consumption of petroleum fuels differ by biofuel. Such costs depend on the size of the tax credit for each fuel, the changes in federal revenues that result from the difference in the excise taxes collected on sales of gasoline and sales of biofuels, and the amount of biofuels that would have been produced if the credits had not been available. The costs to taxpayers of using a biofuel to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon are $1.78 for ethanol and $3.00 for cellulosic ethanol. The cost of reducing an equivalent amount of diesel fuel (that is, a quantity having the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline) using biodiesel is $2.55, based on the tax policy in place through last year.”

The bottom line here is that ethanol has cost us a tremendous amount of money as both taxpayers and consumers and has not worked.  Ethanol has also increased the cost of corn and thus the cost of food around the world. 

The bottom line of the Congressional Budget Office report:

“In the future, the scheduled rise in mandated volumes would require the production of biofuels in amounts that are probably beyond what the market would produce even if the effects of the tax credits were included.”

The bottom line here is simple–we tried, we failed, let’s move on.  The free market has always been the best way to develop new technology.  Profit is a powerful motive.  We have wasted years funding a program that would have died a natural death had the government not funded it.  It is time to let the program die and for the government to stop meddling in free markets!

The Hill reported on Friday that Homeland Security appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement.  A website called Torrentfreak.com lists the websites that have been shut down. 

The Hill reports:

“ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell bootleg goods, such as fake designer handbags.

“The sites are replaced with a note from the government: “This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations.””

Is this the same ICE that is not securing our borders and not sending illegal aliens who commit crimes home?  This is just wrong.  It seems to me that these websites would not even be under the jurisdiction of ICE or Homeland Security.  Where is the Interstate Commerce Committee on this?

This is disturbing.  The only good news in The Hill report:

“The effort comes as Congress considers the Combatting Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). Critics, including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) say it is too heavy-handed. He has vowed to put a formal hold on the bill.” 

The practice of shutting down websites needs to end as quickly as it began!

Fox News reported yesterday that 18 former Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) workers have admitted guilt or been convicted on varying charges of election fraud. The punishment has ranged from probation to several months of prison time.

Some of the highlights from the story:

• In Miami, seven former ACORN voter registration canvassers were convicted
• In Pennsylvania, six of seven former ACORN workers who were charged in an investigation were convicted
• In Milwaukee, three former ACORN workers have been convicted
• Kevin Clancy was sentenced to 10 months in prison for his role in submitting falsified voter registration forms before the 2008 election. Clancy will start his sentence once he finishes another sentence he is currently serving for armed robbery.
• Frank Walton pleaded guilty to submitting 54 fake voter registrations during the 2008 presidential campaign
• In Washington state, Kendra Lynn Thill was convicted in March of voter registration fraud in the 2006 midterm election
• In Nevada, a former ACORN supervisor pleaded the equivalent of a no-contest in a case alleging that canvassers were illegally paid to register voters during the 2008 campaign

As you read the above list, remember that these are convictions–not charges.  ACORN received taxpayer dollars for many years.  They have declared bankruptcy, but have reappeared under new names.  The only way to avoid a repeat of the fraud we have seen is to pay attention to any group that is doing mass voter registration drives in any area.  Some of these drives are legal and well-intended; some are not.

The Washington Times reported yesterday on the results of the recent Initial Public Offering (IPO) of General Motors stock.  The purpose of selling the stock was to begin paying back the government (and thus the American taxpayer) for the bailout of General Motors. 

The article reports:

“Thanks to a generous share of GM stock obtained in the company’s 2009 bankruptcy settlement, the United Auto Workers is well on its way to recouping the billions of dollars GM owed it — putting it far ahead of taxpayers who have recouped only about 30 percent of their investment and further still ahead of investors in the old GM who have received nothing.”

The article further points out:

“For taxpayers to break even, by contrast, the stock would have to rise to at least $52 and by some estimates as high as $103 — levels that would take years to achieve.”

Aside from the fact that backruptcy laws were not followed so that unions could be rewarded for their support of Democrats in 2008, this is simply morally wrong.  The fact that the current backruptcy laws were violated is going to make investors more reluctant to invest in the future.  There were also pension funds that owned preferred stock whose rights were violated and not held up in court.  (See RightWingGranny article of May 21, 2009, for the lawsuit brought by three Indiana state pension funds for the bankruptcy law violations in the Chrysler bailout).  Either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation of elitist privileges.  The Obama Administration has caused me to wonder which of these is true.

I suspect there are other cities in America where the politics is as colorful as Chicago, but I really couldn’t name one offhand.  The current entertainment in Chicago is the race to become Mayor of the city.

When Rahm Emanuel resigned as President Obama’s Chief of Staff, political pundits told everyone that he resigned in order to run for Mayor of Chicago.  Shortly afterward, Mr. Emanuel announced that he would be running for Mayor of Chicago.  Knowing the history of elections in Chicago, we only needed to sit back and watch him get voted in.  Well, not so fast.

Hot Air reported yesterday:

“Election law attorney Burt Odelson, who also has served as an adviser to several of Emanuel’s opponents in the race, is planning to file a legal challenge with the Chicago Board of Elections as early as tomorrow arguing that Emanuel does not meet Illinois’ residency requirement for candidates running for municipal office. In an interview with The Fix, Odelson said that he is representing a group of Chicago citizens and that no campaign is involved in the challenge.”

Obviously, Rahm Emanuel has been living in Washington, D. C., since at least 2008.  He owns a house in Chicago, voted absentee ballot in Illinois, and has his car registered there.  According to Illinois law, candidates have to be a resident of the state for a year prior to the election.  Mr. Emanuel moved back to the state in October.

The article concludes:

“I have no idea how this case will end, though I suspect Emanuel will win it because, well, we’re talking about Chicago and Rahm Emanuel here. I can’t imagine there’s a judge in the city who would stand in the way of a guy who will chase you down and accost you in a shower to get what he wants. However, it could slow Emanuel down long enough for a relatively popular icon of Chicago politics with US Senate experience and the Barack Obama stamp of approval to sneak in and beat him.”

If Rahm Emanuel were military, I believe he would remain a resident regardless of where he was actually living; however, I am not sure if that rule applies to White House employees.  This could be very interesting, but I have a feeling it will be resolved quickly–after all, it is Chicago.

Yesterday’s Jerusalem Post reported that Canada will not attend the United Nations conference on racism to be held in Durban, South Africa, in September of next year.

According to the article:

“(Canada’s Immigration) Minister, Jason Kenney, said Canada has lost faith in the Durban process, a conference that began in 2001 to develop strategies to defeat racism.

“Canada is clearly committed to the fight against racism, but the Durban process commemorates an agenda that actually promotes racism rather than combats it.””

The article further points out:

“But most offensive to Canada and several other countries were speeches laced with anti-Israeli rhetoric. Canada led a boycott of Durban II in Geneva last year, where Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad railed against the Jewish state.”

What has happened to the United Nations is very simple.  A group of nations who do not support freedom or democracy has formed a very powerful bloc inside the United Nations.  Because of this, the UN’s original ideas of stopping wars, supporting human rights, and supporting freedom have been usurped by this group.  The UN has lost its original mission.  The only way to regain the UN’s original mission would be for the democracies and freedom-loving countries of the world to become more powerful within the organization than the group of dictators, thugs, and tyrants who have banned together for their own mischief.  Since that is unlikely to happen, it is time to ask the United Nations to leave New York and for the United States to stop financial support of the organization and withdraw its membership.

Cheers to Canada for being willing to take a stand!

Best Wishes For A Happy  Thanksgiving !