The Truth Tracker

“Tracking The Truth, Because the Mainstream Media Won’t”

Archive for the ‘Government Control’ Category

Not so Fast with ObamaCare!!

leave a comment »

Via(WSJ Opinion)

ObamaCare Isn’t Inevitable

By KARL ROVE

While still good, President Barack Obama’s political health is deteriorating, threatened by what he thought would be balm — his ambitious plan for a government takeover of health care.

Mr. Obama remains slightly more popular than most presidents have been in their opening months. But his job approval rating has drifted down to 60% in the RealClearPolitics.com average. His disapproval numbers have nearly doubled to 33%.

More troubling to Team Obama is the growing gap between the president’s approval rating and declining support for major items on his policy agenda. Independents are increasingly joining Republicans in opposition to administration initiatives that range from reviving the economy to closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo.

Things will likely get worse in the coming months as the congressional stage comes to be dominated by health care. A new poll by Resurgent Republic (a nonprofit, right-of-center education organization whose creation I helped spur), reveals some of the president’s challenges. By a 60%-to-31% margin, Americans prefer getting their health coverage through private insurance rather than the federal government.

Mr. Obama’s record-setting spending binge has also made Americans more sensitive to deficits and higher taxes. Thirty-nine percent said they supported “a health-care plan that raises taxes in order to provide health insurance to all Americans,” while 52% preferred “a plan that does not provide health insurance to all Americans but keeps taxes at current levels.” By a 58%-to-37% margin, American prefer reforming health care “without raising taxes or increasing the deficit” to government investing “new resources to make sure it is done right.”

This is why Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus blanched when committee staffers priced his — which is also the Obama administration’s — draft legislation at a cool $1.6 trillion over the next decade.

The federal government will release an update on the deficit in mid-July, which will likely increase the public’s fear of deficit spending. The current fiscal year’s $1.8 trillion deficit is likely to grow significantly.

There is some good news in the Resurgent Republic poll for Mr. Obama if he can sell his plan as shifting power from “insurance bureaucrats to consumers.” Resurgent’s poll found that Americans favor that by 57% to 38%.

But to argue, as Mr. Obama does, that a government-run health-care plan can control costs better than a market-based system is a mistake. This argument is belied by Medicare’s experience. A study published by the Pacific Research Institute finds that since 1970 Medicare’s costs have risen 34% a year faster than the rest of health care.

Mr. Obama’s trashing of American health care as “a broken system” that must be brought “into the 21st century” doesn’t resonate with most Americans. They are happy about their health care, doctor and hospital. Resurgent’s poll found that 83% of Americans are very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of care they and their families receive.

Nearly everyone agrees that some reforms are needed. But it is also vital to protect areas of excellence and innovation. Stanford University professor Scott Atlas points out that from 1998 to 2002 nearly twice as many new drugs were launched in the U.S. as in Europe. According the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry Report, some 2,900 new drugs are now being researched here. America’s five top hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country, according to Mr. Atlas. And a McKinsey Co. study reports that 40% of all medical travelers come to the United States for medical treatment.

Transforming health care into a government-run system would be difficult to do under any circumstances. Americans are still wary about big government. Health-care reform also always sounds better in the abstract. Public resistance rises once liberals are forced to release the details of their plans.

Meanwhile, the $787 billion stimulus package has not provided the economic kick Mr. Obama promised. The $410 billion Omnibus spending bill the president signed in March and his $3.5 trillion budget plan for next year are also adding to the river of red ink.

Health-care reform was said to be “inevitable” a few months ago. Today, its prospects are less certain, even to Democrats. The issue may even turn out to be a millstone for the party.

Americans are increasingly concerned about the cost — in money and personal freedom — of Mr. Obama’s nanny-state initiatives. To strengthen the emerging coalition of independents and Republicans, the GOP must fight Mr. Obama’s agenda with reasoned arguments and attractive alternatives. Health care may actually be an issue that helps resurrect the GOP.

God Bless,
The Truth Tracker
Jason R. Bootie

Written by truthtracker

June 25, 2009 at 8:01 AM

GOP-Owned Chrysler Dealerships on the Chopping Block?

leave a comment »

Via(Doug Ross)

Closing Chrysler’s Dealerships: The Reader’s Digest Version

The drones   liberals   progressives are seething. They’re sobbing hysterically at websites like Fred Silber’s 435.com.

Their issue? They’re trying to figure how to justify the closings of GOP-owned dealerships while ignoring the Democrat bigwigs who have just captured major new territories.

“Hey, it’s all statisticulus,” they say, “and you wingnuts can’t possibly figure out our vector arithmetic and such!”

Perhaps Frank at 432.com could consider the following:

Item 1: Using the list of all 789 dealerships to be closed, WND found that owners contributed $450,000 to GOP presidential candidates; $7,970 to Sen. Hillary Clinton; $2,200 to John Edwards and $450 to Barack Obama. For the “progressives” out there, that’s a 1000-to-1 ratio of GOP-to-Obama donations for closed dealerships.

Item 2: Dealership conglomerate RLJ is owned by Democrat bigwigs Mack McLarty and Robert Johnson. RLJ magically happened to keep all six (6) of their dealerships while its competitors were shuttered. McLarty is a former Clinton chief-of-staff and Robert Johnson (founder of BET) is a major Democrat fundraiser.

Continue reading here:

Chrysler Dealership Campaign Donation Information has been researched and reported by Joey Smith!  Check out the great job he has been doing!

God Bless,
The Truth Tracker
Jason R. Bootie

Harrisburg Tea Party in the Rain!!

leave a comment »

Well even on a rainy day I went to a Tax Day Tea Party in Harrisburg, PA.  There were an estimated 2,000 plus folks who attended. The Tea Party was put together by The CommonWealth Foundation.  Below are a few pictures I took.

harrisburg-tea-party-capitol-steps

A sign-held-by-5yr-old at the Tea Party with his mother!

A sign-held-by-5yr-old at the Tea Party with his mother!

even-in-the-rain-4-15-09

cry-to-god-sign-tea-party-4-15-09

Well even being cold and rainy.  I had a good time and met some realnice folks who were there for the same reason as I.  Tired of the taxation from BOTH parties and tired of the GROWING GOVERNMENT!!

Let’s keep it up folks.  “We the People”, can make a difference, but we must believe in ourselves and put our Gov. to the test.

God Bless,
The Truth Tracker
Jason R. Bootie

How the tea parties could change American politics.

with 2 comments

I went to a Tea Party did YOU?

Tax Day Becomes Protest Day

Today American taxpayers in more than 300 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies — dubbed “tea parties” — to protest higher taxes and out-of-control government spending. There is no political party behind these rallies, no grand right-wing conspiracy, not even a 501(c) group like MoveOn.org.

So who’s behind the Tax Day tea parties? Ordinary folks who are using the power of the Internet to organize. For a number of years, techno-geeks have been organizing “flash crowds” — groups of people, coordinated by text or cellphone, who converge on a particular location and then do something silly, like the pillow fights that popped up in 50 cities earlier this month. This is part of a general phenomenon dubbed “Smart Mobs” by Howard Rheingold, author of a book by the same title, in which modern communications and social-networking technologies allow quick coordination among large numbers of people who don’t know each other.

God Bless,
The Truth Tracker
Jason R. Bootie

What Happened to Saving JOBS??

leave a comment »

Via(The Boston Globe)

US weapons cuts could put N.E. jobs in jeopardy

WASHINGTON – Defense contractors, high-tech firms, and manufacturing plants are bracing for thousands of potential layoffs across New England resulting from the Obama administration’s plans to cancel or delay key weapons programs, according to company officials, union representatives, and members of Congress.

A metal works plant in North Grafton, Mass., that shapes titanium for use in the Air Force’s F-22 fighter jet stands to lose as much as one-fifth of its workforce if production is halted, while more than 2,000 jobs could be lost at divisions of United Technologies in Connecticut that build the jet’s engine and electrical power systems, officials say.

More than 2,000 employees at Raytheon Co. facilities in Tewksbury, Andover, and Portsmouth, R.I., are working on the combat and radar systems for the Navy’s Zumwalt class destroyer, another program widely expected to be cut. Many workers could lose their jobs or be transferred out of the area if construction of the warship is halted, according to the officials.

And firms large and small – including General Dynamics in Taunton and iRobot in Bedford – are keeping a close eye on the fate of the Army’s set of next-generation ground combat vehicles, which rely on a host of computer systems and communications developed in the Bay State, but are also on the chopping block.

“All the major programs that are being discussed would have a Massachusetts or New England impact,” said a Senate aide who is tracking the budget deliberations to gauge how they might effect the region’s economy, which is already struggling in the deepening recession.

The Obama administration is about to unveil a Pentagon spending plan that officials say will slash weapons programs identified as either too costly or not meeting the urgent needs of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates stayed behind in Washington, even with President Obama attending a NATO summit starting today in France, to iron out the final details of what he calls a “strategic reshaping” of the Pentagon’s investment strategy.

Gates’s office has said that jobs will not be a factor in the Defense Department’s deliberations.

“It’s not the responsibility of this building to worry about the economic impact of budgetary decisions,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters recently. “It’s the responsibility of the secretary and this building to provide recommendations to the president about what’s in the best interest of our national security.”

But the economic impact of the cuts – especially at a time when the job market is already under strain – is clearly on the minds of company executives, workers, and their elected representatives in Washington. Yesterday, the Labor Department reported initial claims for unemployment insurance rose last week to 669,000 nationwide, the most in more than 26 years.

Continued…

God Bless,
The Truth Tracker
Jason R. Bootie

No Proof Guns are from U.S.!!

with 2 comments

How can Secretary Of State Clinton claim that the U.S. is mostly or even partially to blame for Mexico’s Drug War if there is no proof been presented by Mexico if the first place?  This is just a stunt to try and past legislation that will hurt Gun Rights in the U.S. and will do NOTHING to keep the guns out of the drug cartels.

Where the blame for Mexico’s illegal guns problem really lies

By Jeff Riley

In his article “Mexico’s drug violence is hard on Arizona”, Washington Post columnist George Will is one of the latest columnists to repeat the myth that American gun stores along the border are the main source for Mexico’s drug cartels.

Mr. Will is late to the party and misinformed.

This meme started appearing as far back as the summer of 2008 when the Los Angeles Times started publishing a continuing series of stories titled “Mexico under Siege”.

Time and time again the U.S. is blamed for our “lax” gun laws that supposedly allow guns and money to flow south into Mexico, while drugs and human smugglers flow north into the U.S.

It’s almost like a coordinated effort exists among the Brady Center, anti-gun news agencies, and the Obama administration to drum up negative press consisting of half-truths, distortions, and downright lies.

Some of the wildest accusations are that Arizona gun stores were supplying fully automatic weapons (assault rifles or even machine guns), grenades, and rocket-propelled grenades! All of which is blatantly false and unsubstantiated.

All this came to a head when U.S. Attorney Eric Holder floated the idea that it was time to revive the now-defunct Clinton Gun Ban which expired in 2004. From MSNBC:

The attorney general also suggested that re-instituting a U.S. ban on the sale of assault weapons would help reduce the bloodshed in Mexico, where last year 6,000 people were killed in drug-related violence…U.S. officials have a responsibility to make sure Mexican police “are not fighting substantial numbers of weapons, or fighting against AK-47s or other similar kinds of weapons that have been flowing to Mexico,” Holder said.

Now we see George Will is repeating the meme:

But although almost all the cartels’ weapons come from the United States, the cartels are generating upward of $15 billion annually from drugs, human trafficking and extortion.

Nowhere does Will mention that the Mexican authorities have yet to provide serial numbers or trace data proving that most of these weapons originated from the U.S.

Of the 6,600 gun dealers who operate along the 2000 mile border only one (X-Caliber Guns) is singled out by Will as being suspected of selling firearms to straw purchasers, who then illegally sell or smuggle weapons across the border.

Ironically, the same morning Will’s column appeared in the Columbus Dispatch, The Arizona Republic reported:

State prosecutors suffered a public setback in efforts to combat border violence Wednesday when a judge dismissed high-profile charges against a Phoenix gun dealer accused of arming Mexican cartels.

The case against George Iknadosian, owner of X-Caliber Guns, had been covered on national TV broadcasts and in stories by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

But in mid-trial, all 21 counts were dismissed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Gottsfield, who decided he had found a flaw in the government’s case.

Gottsfield dismissed jurors and granted acquittal in response to a so-called Rule 20 motion sought by Baker. Under Arizona law, Rule 20 holds that a case must be thrown out if the state’s evidence is inadequate for conviction.

“There is no proof whatsoever that any prohibited (firearm) possessor ended up with the firearms,” he said.

Now the truth is staring to come out, and it seems that even the L.A. Times is starting to understand where the problem really lies. From “Drug cartels’ new weaponry means war”:

Traffickers have escalated their arms race, acquiring military-grade weapons, including hand grenades, grenade launchers, armor-piercing munitions and antitank rockets with firepower far beyond the assault rifles and pistols that have dominated their arsenals.

Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi auto-matic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

The proliferation of heavier armaments points to a menacing new stage in the Mexican government’s 2-year-old war against drug organizations, which are evolving into a more militarized force prepared to take on Mexican army troops, deployed by the thousands, as well as to attack each other.

These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. (emphasis added)

Incredulously some think that restricting the rights of American gun owners due to Mexico’s inability to control its own criminals is a perfectly rational response.

Flush with cash, drug cartels are going to be able to get any kind of weapons they desire and restricting the ownership of legally owned firearms in the U.S. is not going to even slow them down. Consider the fact the Columbian drug runners have been utilizing submarines of their own manufacture to smuggle drugs. Each one of these subs is estimated to cost $1 million to manufacture. How can they afford this? In 2007 when the first sub was captured, it was carrying 5 tons of cocaine worth an estimated $350 million.

While George’s column is not explicitly anti-gun, and is more focused on the violence that illegal drugs is bringing to Arizona’s citizens, he does repeat inaccurate information that unfairly demonizes gun dealers along the border. Fortunately Americans aren’t buying into the lie that we are the source of Mexico’s problems. Last week, 65 Democratic legislators have sent a letter to the Attorney General advising him that they will not support a renewed “Assault Weapons” ban and chastise him for trying to use Mexico’s problems as a pretext for restricting American’s rights.

I would suggest that if the Adminstration is that worried about violence and drugs spilling accross the borders into the U.S. they should do something really constructive……like build a fence along the whole border and hire more Border Patrol agents.

Jeff Riley is a Southwest Ohio volunteer for Buckeye Firearms Association.

Here is another article that was well written and has some great information, and comments about why we can’t just believe everything we are being fed about the cartels getting the deadly weapons from the U.S.

Mexican Drug Cartels: Where Are They Getting Their Weapons?

By  Timothy V.

God Bless,
The Truth Tracker
Jason R. Bootie

Moving Back To Uncle Sam’s Plantation!!

leave a comment »

Via(WND)

Moving back to Uncle Sam’s plantation

By Star Parker

Six years ago, I wrote a book called “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.” I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas. A poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation’s poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems – the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools and broken black families.

Through God’s grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Democrat president. A few years after enactment, welfare roles were down 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, “Thank you, Suh.”

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short-term economic stimulus.

“This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending – it’s a strategy for America’s long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education.”

Perhaps more incredibly, Mr. Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place “with unprecedented transparency and accountability.”

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 – The War on Poverty – which, President Johnson said, “… does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.”

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out of wedlock births.

It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

God Bless,
The Truth Tracker
Jason R. Bootie

Dear AIG: I QUIT!!!

with 3 comments

(Op-Ed NYT)

Dear AIG: I QUIT

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

God Bless,
The Truth Tracker
Jason R. Bootie

Pilots Will No Longer be Armed!

with one comment

Via(NewsMax)

Obama Wants to Disarm U.S. Pilots

By: David A. Patten

The Obama administration is taking steps quietly to shut down the program that qualifies commercial airline pilots to carry firearms in jetliner cockpits in order to ward off another 9/11-type attack.

The administration recently diverted $2 million from a program to train and certify pilots to carry firearms safely while on duty. Instead, it is using the money to hire additional field inspectors to help discipline pilots who step out of line, according to a report in Tuesday’s Washington Times.

A Times editorial condemned the Obama administration’s action, calling it “completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots.”

Since Obama took office, the approval process for certifying pilots to carry firearms has ground to a halt, the newspaper reports. Pilots are afraid to speak out about the behind-the-scenes maneuverings, for fear of retaliation, according to the newspaper.  No cases have been reported in which pilots have brandished a weapon inappropriately or otherwise abused their eligibility to carry firearms.

About 12,000 pilots have been authorized to carry handguns while flying aircraft as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Program. Congress authorized the program in a 310-to-113 vote following the 9/11 attacks to help prevent terrorists from turning jetliners into flying bombs that could be used to attack key sites like the White House, the Pentagon, or Capitol Hill.

Paul Valone, a Second Amendment advocate who directs Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC.org), is calling for citizens to contract their congressional representatives to protest the administration’s anti-gun priorities.

Pilots are already required to pay for their own room and board during training, and use paid leave for the time they’re off the job. Every six months, the program requires them to be requalified for firearm use.

Valone writes on Examiner.com: “While bureaucrats . . . may have attempted to hamstring the program with burdensome requirements, training instructors and the Federal Air Marshals who now oversee the program routinely thank the FFDOs for their professionalism and dedication in protecting the nation’s air commerce against terrorism.”

Valone says the Obama administration is “dismantling yet another layer of defense against terrorism and defying the will of the American people.”

Since coming to power, the Obama administration has undertaken a series of moves that signal a major de-emphasis of programs enacted to keep America’s homeland safe from terrorist attack:

Continue story here:

God Bless,
The Truth Tracker
Jason R. Bootie

The Real AIG Cover Up by the WH!

with one comment

Via(IBDedit0rials)

Stimulating AIG

Government: The administration that is expressing outrage over the AIG bonuses knew about them in advance. They were protected by Sen. Chris Dodd’s amendment to the stimulus package.

Perhaps if the White House had spent less time worrying about Rush Limbaugh and more time watching the bailout money, it wouldn’t have been caught flat-footed voicing faux outrage about the $165 million in bonuses to AIG execs that they now want back and Sen. Chris Dodd wants to tax out of existence.

President Obama was informed about the $165 million in bonuses due employees of the American Insurance Group the day before they were paid out last week, the White House said late Tuesday.

“In the last six months AIG has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury,” Obama said after allegedly hearing about it for the first time. “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”

Well, they justify it by saying they had the administration’s permission. The New York Times reports that AIG executives said they never would have proceeded with the bonus payments before getting approval from the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

“We would never make any important business decisions without discussing them with our government managers and owners,” one AIG executive is quoted as saying.

The $165 million in bonuses were not the first bonuses to be paid. According to the Times report, Treasury and Fed officials said they knew AIG had paid $55 million in bonuses in December.

As Larry Kudlow notes in his column on the next page, “the Obama administration — including the president, Treasury man Tim Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers — knew all about them many months ago. They were undoubtedly informed of this during the White House transition.”

The fact is, these bonuses were made legal by the $787 billion stimulus bill that President Obama promoted and signed. A provision, now known as the “Dodd Amendment,” was inserted into the bill by the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd, D-Conn. It exempts from any restrictions bonuses contractually obligated before Feb. 11 of this year.

Dodd admits inserting an amendment, but without the language that exempts the AIG bonuses. “I can’t point a finger at someone who was responsible for putting those dates in,” Dodd told Fox Business. “I can tell you this much: When my language left the senate, it did not include it. When it came back, it did.”

So who exempted AIG in the stimulus bill? “Because of negotiations with the Treasury Department and the bill conferees, several modifications were made,” Dodd spokesperson Kate Szostak said cryptically in a response to Fox Business.

Negotiations with Treasury? What did Timothy Geithner know about this and when did he know it? If Dodd didn’t exempt AIG from bonus restrictions in the stimulus, who did?

Coincidentally, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,000, according to opensecrets.org.  Also coincidentally, one of the largest offices of AIG Financial Products, the division that concocted the goofy financial instruments that doomed AIG, is situated in Connecticut.

The second-largest AIG recipient, at $101,232, was the “choked up with anger” President Obama.  If AIG gives back the bonuses, will the president give back these and other campaign contributions from troubled institutions?

Maybe President Obama can answer these and other questions when he appears on Jay Leno Thursday night. Then again, maybe not.

Oh but where has almost half the bailout money to AIG gone?

Goldman Sachs, and guess where else “European banks”.

God Bless,
The Truth Tracker
Jason R. Bootie