Friday, May 15, 2009

Flailing In Quicksand

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Leadership: The CIA will bite back after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's wild new allegations of a cover-up on terrorist interrogations. When that truth comes out, she'll lose big. It may be the lie that ensnares her.

Read More: General Politics

Still thrashing after a week of revelations about being briefed in 2002 on waterboarding and raising no objections, Pelosi now claims the CIA lied to her, leaving her in the dark about its enhanced interrogations on the likes of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Now, aside from the fact that Pelosi thinks something's wrong with shaking as much information as possible out of a mass murderer with new plots against Americans, Pelosi's utterly false allegations are unlikely to succeed — and in fact will likely backfire.

For one thing, they're easily disproved. Congressmen attending the same intelligence briefings as Pelosi, like Sen. Joe Lieberman, say the agency did inform Congress, and briefing memos prove it.

The agency is also unlikely to appreciate Pelosi playing innocent. The CIA's a political animal now, and having endured prosecution threats for keeping America safe, it will defend itself vigorously. It will release the notes and expose Pelosi's whopper.

Republicans know this. House leaders John Boehner and Rep. Pete Hoekstra have already called for the memos' release two weeks ago and sought them again Thursday.

Pelosi says go ahead, but she can only be bluffing.

Why is she doing this? Her fast-evaporating political power. Democrats won both the presidency and the Congress she leads, but neither are, like her, a San Francisco Democrat with a far-left political base. Many Dems are showing signs of pragmatism about key issues, sometimes rethinking old positions.

None wants Gitmo terrorists walking around their districts. Most care about recovery and understand how free trade will help. They have questions about the impact of cap-and-trade on the economy. They know voters don't want to be forced into unions with card check. They wonder what health care nationalization will cost.

Pelosi's effort to say she was never briefed by the CIA on interrogations is nothing but an effort to keep the old anti-Bush craziness of her heyday alive among Democrats. That's the premise of her tawdry little lie over events that occurred nearly a decade ago — and it's happening because she is losing power.

Once Pelosi's lie is exposed, the fallout will likely widen the gulf between herself and her fellow Democrats. That opens the door to a challenge to her speakership from a political rival.

House leaders like Steny Hoyer already are making maneuvers consistent with that. If he succeeds, we may see sanity return to the Democratic Party.



March 14, 2009

Before I get into the how can we get this done, I would first like to make a statement to hopefully deflect an email box full of hate mail.

Please don't misconstrue what I'm about to say as disparaging to any of the lawyers involved in these lawsuits. I have supported all of them and their efforts. I am not an attorney. I have no training in the law, but I can read and read I have. A million words in these lawsuits; the briefs as well as supporting documentation. That's how I learn and hopefully make an informed decision. Not based on personalities, but what the law says.

Millions (not a thousand or a hundred thousand), but millions of Americans either know a lot about the Obama citizenship/birth certificate controversy or they know enough that it has raised serious questions in their mind.

Readers of this column and listeners to my radio show know that I have covered this extensively. They also know that I do not play favorites and would be fighting the same fight if McCain had allegedly been elected because McCain is also, in my opinion, constitutionally ineligible.

While some cases have received more attention than others, those receiving the most exposure have been cases filed by Phillip Berg, Dr. Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Cort Wrotnoski, Stephen Pidgeon, Mario Apuzzo and the United States Justice Foundation. Dozens have been filed at the state level; too many to list here. Many of the cases have been brought by citizens and the rest by attorneys on behalf of their clients.

We are all aware of the outcome of those docketed to the U.S. Supreme Court (Denied with no comment on merit) and those that had at least a hearing of some sort in front of a judge. The issue of whether or not Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka and so forth, is badly dividing this country. The frustration and rage is escalating. Every piece of legislation he signs into law brings the potential of lawsuits that would be never ending - possibly thousands of them. Not to mention the destructive policies Obama is shoving down our throats. However, the issue at hand is not political or racial, but a matter of constitutional law.

Thousands of citizens have been doing everything humanly possible to get the courts to hear these cases on their merits. Of course, this is more than just a political hot potato, it is a volcano that could erupt in a nasty way. That's why the courts won't touch it - what judge wants to be responsible for removing an usurper president? Do they even have the legal authority to do so? An important question.

The situation can't continue with another lawsuit filed on Monday, four on Wednesday, maybe three the following week. Then comes the endless wait while the defendants respond and the legal wrangling begins. When those fail in seven or eight weeks, a new round of lawsuits gets filed and again, months go by while the defendants answer the lawsuit and file motions that could go on for years. Leo speaks highly of Mario Apuzzo's case, Kerchner v Obama and we hope it has a successful outcome. Mr. Apuzzo's web site is here.

Obama has controlled the birth certificate issue from day one. He continues to do so. This keeps all of us wondering, filing Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits. I think even to the most staunch Obama supporter, it's obvious by now that Obama refuses to release his vault birth certificate because he has something to hide. Or, maybe not. Maybe Obama's refusal is simply to keep everyone running around chasing lawsuits. Remember, he can pull it out for release to the media anytime he wants. Timing in life is everything as they say - especially in politics.

There is also the issue of possible criminal activity by Obama and this is addressed on Orly's web site where she is petitioning Attorney General Eric Holder for a special prosecutor; click here.

What do we do to bring this to an end as quickly as possible? I believe Orly was the first to bring up the issue of Quo Warranto, but I'm not 100% certain. There is so much activity and web sites to comb through besides reading all these legal filings. In any event, there are outstanding lawsuits waiting to be processed through the system. Many state representatives, active military and veterans have signed up to become plaintiffs for a possible lawsuit being initiated by Orly. They are all listed on her web site. Orly has also sent a letter of request to AG Eric Holder to undertake a Quo Warranto, as well as a new filing with the U.S. Supreme Court; click here.

Both Orly and Leo Donofrio were guests on my radio show last week to help us understand these legal issues. In a recent column, I provided a link to Leo's three part hypothetical brief on Quo Warranto; click here. I concur that a Quo Warranto in the District Court in Washington, DC, FIRST is the best path to take, not the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you read the statute (see Leo's brief), even if AG Holder and U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor decline to proceed, there is still the opportunity to go forward. In Part 3 of Leo's legal analysis, you will see where he gives the statute and who can have standing. This has been done successfully in the past when the AG and US Attorney have failed to act. We also have to remember that this will be a jury trial. My biggest concern is that an action taken straight to the U.S. Supreme Court - especially in light of the fact that the Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, met behind closed doors with Obama - would likely be shot down and we lose. Personally, I believe on the Quo Warranto issue, the U.S. Supreme Court should be last in line.

I know the knee jerk reaction to a jury trial in the District Court in Washington, DC, because I've already had email: "You're dreaming, Devvy, if you think jurors in Washington, DC, who worship the Messiah are going to do the right thing." My response is to let the system work and do not underestimate the integrity of the American people when presented with solid facts. That statute is perfect for this issue. It is up to the AG and the U.S. Attorney to bring an action on behalf of the United States. No plaintiffs. Should they refuse, then the "third persons" or "interested persons" part kicks in and we proceed from there.

Many, many Americans have been forwarding their letters of request to Holder the past couple of weeks; Orly has been posting them to her web site. Thank you to all the people who wrote letters to Richard Durbin. Every one counts. We know that hundreds of thousands have signed petitions to the courts. If hundreds of thousands of Americans from all walks of life sent their polite requests to Holder and Taylor (including all those state legislators), something has to give. A small flame can turn into a huge fire if fanned properly.

This pdf file is my certified letter to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor. I provided a copy to Richard Durbin at the U.S. Attorney's office in Austin, Texas and U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. That pdf file also contains Leo Donofrio's letter of March 13, 2009, to U.S. Attorney Taylor. I put Leo's letter in this pdf file to help people like me. I wear glasses and sometimes reading text off a web site with color back grounds makes it difficult on my old eyes.

I hope you will join me in sending U.S. Attorney Taylor a polite request to bring a Quo Warranto action. It is completely within either Holder or Taylor's discretion. It can be one or the other or both of them. Time is of the essence and we simply must move this along to a resolution. The longer this lingers, the worst the situation will get for all of us and our republic.

Devvy on live radio: Solutions Not Politics


6:00 pm PST, 8:00 pm CST and 9:00 pm EST

Listen live:


United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor

United States Attorney's Office

555 4th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Web sites on lawsuits:

Listing of cases and actions

Dr. Orly Taitz

Leo Donofrio

Phillip Berg

Mario Apuzzo

United States Justice Foundation

Stephen Pidgeon

Free audio:

Leo Donofrio legal filings and the Wong Kim Ark case

Thursday, May 14, 2009



January 22, 2009

“It is a terrible thing when you think you got on a bandwagon and it turns out to be a garbage truck." Ernst (Putzi) Hanfstaengl*

The circus out in Washington, DC., for the unlawful swearing in of the impostor president, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro and so forth, is now over. All the gushing and slobbering over the trashy looking rag worn by the militant Michelle Obama, has faded into the night. I wonder how many of the mindless mouth pieces giving their commentary about the "wonderful, smart First Lady," know that in 1993, Michelle Obama, was ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court to stop practicing law? The faux First Lady was ordered by the court; it was not her choice. (Click here). The records are sealed by the court so we don't know why, but I am told by lawyers sending me email, it had to be something major for such drastic action.

The A-list stars from Hollywood were out in full regalia to celebrate history: the first African American president. Barack Hussein Obama aka and so forth, is the first mulatto to run for president, but he is not the 44th president. He is an usurper who has committed a horrible fraud on our nation. Someone or a number of people knew years ago that his citizenship would become an issue and began greasing the skids to pull off this fraud.

In 2004, the impostor president unlawfully ran for the U.S. Senate. Allegedly, with help from ACORN and the massive vote fraud we see every election, he won a seat in the U.S. Senate under a law that does not exist. That election was November 2004.

One year later, Sarah Herlihy, an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis gets her paper published in the Kent University Law Review on line. Herlihy claims in her paper that the citizenship requirement of the U.S. Constitution has been called "stupid and discriminating." Of course, she never tells us who makes this claim. Please note that a partner at the same law firm was one Bruce I. Ettelson, who apparently had a working relationship on finance committees for Obama and buffoon, Sen. Richard Durbin. Herlihy's paper, which shows "author approved editing" as November 23, 2005, is titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizenship Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle." You can read the paper here.

In February 2008, Democrats (and one Republican) began pushing legislation on the issue of citizenship:

"...on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).

"Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find....

"Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

"One has to wonder — what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?"

Somewhere along the way, the issue of Obama's father being a Kenyan national and under British rule (British Neutrality Act of 1948) surfaced while the new Messiah was being groomed to steal the White House. Obama is a lawyer and has spent a great deal of time around other high power lawyers. Someone along the way said, uh, we have a problem. Beginning not too long after Obama became a U.S. Senator, the thorny problem of the U.S. Constitution had to be dealt with and out comes a paper by his lawyer friend, Herlihy, which opens up the discussion. Next comes the smoke screen legislation which was really to "qualify" Obama. Of course, it didn't work, so with the help of the useful fools in the dominant media and cable news networks like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, the issue was covered up and/or ridiculed as nothing more than sore losers or conspiracy nuts.

There is a conspiracy and a cover up here, just as there is regarding all the documents and records Obama is hiding from the American people.

We know that Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., met in private with Obama on January 14, 2009. A gross conflict of interest since Roberts is deciding current cases before the court where Obama is either the defendant or the target of the litigation. Roberts' role in the unlawful swearing in of the impostor president was a sobering moment. It made me sick to my soul. The very next day, January 21, 2009, Phil Berg's second case which was heard in secrecy by the almighty Supreme Court last Friday was denied.

The next case to be heard in conference (private) is tomorrow: Lightfoot v Bowen. Dr. Orly Taitz is counsel on that one. Orly also filed a new lawsuit on Monday, January 19, 2009, in response to an Executive Order issued by George Bush, on January 16, 2009. You can read that lawsuit here; it explains the basis of the lawsuit in relationship to Bush's EO. Summons were issued; Federal District Judge David O Carter was assigned. The Case Number is: SACV09-00082DOC. Orly beat the clock with Obama's Chief of Staff, who has such a shady background (Madsen is a die hard progressive Democrat), one wonders how he could get any security clearance at all:

"White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel dispatched a memo yesterday afternoon to federal agencies and departments, directing them to stop pending rules until the new administration has time to conduct a "legal and policy review" of each one. The directive has become a first-day tradition among presidents, dating to Ronald Reagan in 1981, helping incoming administrations put their own philosophical stamp on the regulatory work that is a subtle but potent tool of presidential power. Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did the same thing."

The United States Justice Foundation has issued a subpoena duces tecum for Obama's academic and housing records from Occidental College for their lawsuit representing Alan Keyes, et al v Bowen, Obama, Biden, et al. You can view the documents here. Someone asked what will happen if Occidental comes back and says they have no records for Barack Hussein Obama? That immediately raises a red flag and the good folks at the USJF can file a new subpoena for Barry Soetoro, or petition the judge to force this guy in the White House to disclose his legal name so these lawful subpoenas can be served and processed.

There is a new petition to impeach Obama; you can view it here. I wouldn't bother signing it. God bless these folks for wanting to see justice done, but I don't believe this petition will have any impact. First, the incompetent mad woman running the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, will never let such a petition get past her skirt. And, second, while I am not a lawyer, the high crimes and misdemeanors cited, i.e., the fraud committed by Obama, was perpetrated before he was unlawfully sworn into office. Dr. Edwin Vieira explained this in a column last October: "Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4)."

Furthermore, Dr. Edwin Vieira points out in a column last December, even should all these constitutionally based lawsuits fail with the U.S. Supreme Court, the lawsuits will continue over any legislation signed by the usurper president.

Obama has pulled off this gigantic hoax. For now. Judging by my email and many columns posted the last two days, Americans are discouraged, outraged and just plain old-fashioned whizzed off. Many are saying the Constitution is dead. Edwin addressed that in a column, March 14, 2006:

"On the other side, if "the Constitution is dead", then to what authority can patriots appeal against the depredations of malign public officials and a corrupted electorate? Without the Constitution, patriots are mere dreamers or rebels whom the Establishment can condemn as crackpots or criminals. In short, if common Americans concede that "the Constitution is dead", they will surrender the high ground, the initiative, and even their own best weapon, and put themselves at their enemies' mercy. Moreover, if "the Constitution is dead", how and with what should or could patriots attempt to replace the present political apparatus that oppresses them?"

Those who birthed this republic did not cut and run even when they were bloodied and crawling on their hands and knees. We shall do no less. The pain will be great, but so was the pain of Nathan Hale when he was hung at age 21. Last April, I stood at his home up in Connecticut. It was very quiet and no one was around. I stood there thinking about the patriots of that time. I've been to Bull Run, Valley Forge, the homes of Jefferson, Andy Jackson, Madison, Washington and Gen. Robert E. Lee. Obama has been made powerful by those working to destroy this country. As the impostor president's power has grown, so too has his arrogance which will be his undoing. The day of reckoning for Obama the Impostor President will come.

What about the masses who responded to the prod and voted for Obama? It's being reported that nearly two million people showed up for the coronation two days ago. It would have been convenient to have stands along the way to fit these people for their chains of bondage. I hope you can take time over the weekend to read a document I covered on my radio show as the coronation parties were in full swing. What made millions swoon, weep, raise their hands to the heavens, declare Obama the next Messiah and go over the edge for a nobody with a closed past - besides the color of his skin?

As I told my listening audience, I am not a conspiracy freak. Frequently, I get very angry email from patriots for debunking some popular theories that don't hold water. A couple of months ago, I read this paper and as I read the 67 pages, it all came together. Untold numbers of us couldn't figure out this "Obama phenomenon" and what was causing it....until I read this explanation about conversational hypnosis. Not only did I read it, I spent six hours running down the foot notes and studying Erickson's method used and accepted in the field of psycho-analysis.

Finally, it all made sense. As a lay person not trained and with little prior understanding on this issue, all I could keep wondering is are these people all mad, desperate or did they all take the same pill? No, Obama simply used a technique of hypnosis on mass crowds and turned them into little better than melting butter. A master orator without an original thought in his head, he used his voice and hands to mesmerize.

I learned a great deal from this document. At some point the stupefaction will wear off and millions of people, except for too many black Americans who voted for one half of Obama's race (most of them forget Obama's mother was Caucasian), will begin to wonder why they voted for Obama as he blunders along and the economy worsens. Except, of course, those blinded by skin color. An incredible statement was made by a low IQ minion of Obama's which sends an ugly message:

"...while watching ABC News coverage of the inauguration with my wife over lunch, hosts Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer were joined by Donna Brazile, a Democratic African-American author, educator and political activist, who gave a humorous account of her snatching the complementary fleece blanket she found abandoned in Barack Obama’s chair after the swearing-in ceremony. Apparently she wanted a souvenir of the momentous occasion and when the opportunity arose, she took it.

"As they all laughed about it, Gibson responded playfully to her candid admission by saying: “We're going to check with the legal staff and find out if that's a felony or a misdemeanor.” Brazile then gave a stern look into the camera and said: “We have a black president – it's neither.”

Read this document:

Obama's use of hypnotic technique during his speeches

You can decide for yourself. I'm certain those who support Obama will poo-poo it away. They've got too much riding on his campaign promises. These very same people haven't done a minute of research on Obama's background, his proven communist ties and Marxist beliefs. Obama's faithful will not see or hear his slick lies because the thought of betrayal is simply too much to handle. As Judge Andrew Napolitano so accurately named his book, A Nation of Sheep, can you hear the baaa-baaa still echoing from the Washington Mall?

(My radio show airs at 6:00 pm PST, 8:00 pm CST and 9:00 pm EST. Click here to listen.)

(* Hanfstaengl was a friend of Adolph Hitler. He later worked for FDR, but returned to Germany, "a Nazi to the end." I used the quote only because it so accurately sums up how I believe many Obama supporters will feel in the not too distant future.)


1 - Michelle Obama on Court Ordered Inactive Status

2 - The real John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (Begins about 1/3rd of the way down)

3 - Obama's Communist Ties - Hawaii

4 - Obama's Communist Ties - Chicago

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Devvy belongs to no organization. E-mail is:

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Mark Sanford: Prescriptions To Fix The GOP

Guest Column: South Carolina Governor Decries "Soulless Pragmatism" Represented By Specter's Party Switch


The announcement by Arlen Specter last week that he is now a Democrat in name as well as principle has some once again asking the question, “What’s next for the GOP?” - yet if we’re going to effectively answer that question, it’s important to dispense with the notion that Senator Specter’s party switch represents some sort of setback for the conservative movement at large.

Specter first won his Senate seat in 1980, riding into D.C. on the back of the Reagan Revolution, and I’d suspect we’d find few who disagree that Reagan’s GOP of the 1980’s was more conservative than today’s iteration. To that end, I think one could reasonably argue that contrary to the storyline Specter and his allies on the left would have us believe - that it was the GOP who left Specter - the Senator’s decision was based on the simple fact that he couldn’t win a Republican primary.

What Specter’s defection really underscores is an allegiance by many to the 'Party of Incumbency' rather than to the Party they claim to represent, be it Republican or Democrat. It's this kind of soulless pragmatism that turns people off to politics and helps perpetuate a ruling class more loyal to themselves than to the people who elected them.

That same allegiance to power over principle is what has been largely responsible for devastating the Republican brand, and until more in our Party start governing like they campaign, it is my belief we will have great difficulty regaining the trust of the American electorate. With that thought in mind, I’d humbly suggest the following prescriptions for what ails the Republican Party.

First, get back to the principle of saying what you mean and meaning what you say. Voters have seen many Republicans who have campaigned on the conservative themes of lower taxes, less government and more freedom, and consistently failed to govern that way. Americans didn’t turn away from conservatism; they instead turned away from those who faked it.

Second, our loyalties need to be to ideas, not to individuals. While I do indeed believe in the importance of a big GOP tent, that tent must be built upon a shared agreement on the essentials - including expanding liberty, encouraging entrepreneurship and limiting the reach of government in people’s everyday lives.

In this regard, the tent cannot be so big as to include political franchisees who don’t act on the core tenets of conservatism - and as a consequence harm the brand and undermine others’ work on it.

Finally, we must avoid the temptation that comes with Minority status to simply be the party of "no." While it's important to argue against that with which we disagree, the American people will in the end respond to policies that make a tangible difference in their lives. Conservatives need to articulate meaningful alternatives to having the government take over a much, much larger sphere of our lives. No matter the issue, we cannot accede to the notion that conservatives don't have a solution.

In the end, Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat of course creates some short-term practical problems. On issues like the upcoming Supreme Court fight the lack of a filibuster threat will likely embolden the President to move further leftward than he otherwise may have done.

That does not however mean that the loss of Arlen Specter from the GOP is a crippling blow to conservatism, as he didn’t much have anything to do with conservatism while he called himself a Republican. Instead, the Party should take Mr. Specter’s departure as yet another opportunity to shore up our brand and to stand tall for those intrinsically conservative ideals that once defined our Party and in turn, our nation.

This column was written by Mark Sanford, the Governor of South Carolina.

Tortured Account


By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Integrity: Release of the interrogation memos was intended to tarnish the Bush administration's legacy of keeping America safe. Now, that political strategy is collapsing — and with it, Nancy Pelosi's speakership.

Read More: Global War On Terror

The tables have turned on "Memogate." House Speaker Pelosi and other congressional Democratic leaders clearly knew early on, via classified briefings, about President Bush's approval of enhanced interrogation techniques for high-level terrorist detainees. Yet she kept silent.

In an adaptation of the famous Watergate catchphrase, people have been asking, "What did the speaker know and when did she know it?" But as Pelosi's tune changes and her credibility crumbles, a new version of Nixon White House counsel John Dean's observation might be more apt: that there is a cancer growing on the speakership, and if the cancer is not removed, the speaker herself may be killed by it.

Here is the latest line of baloney we are being asked to believe: After a Pelosi aide was briefed on Feb. 4, 2003, together with House Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat Jane Harman, D-Calif., about waterboarding Abu Zubaydah, a key al-Qaida operative, Pelosi supposedly expressed support for a private protest letter Harman wrote — but she didn't ask to sign her name to the letter, sent to the CIA's general counsel, nor did she pen her own protest.

The rationale offered anonymously, apparently by a Pelosi associate, to the Politico this week was that she "didn't protest directly out of respect for 'appropriate' legislative channels." That simply doesn't ring true. The clear motivation behind the speaker's inexcusable twists and turns is: That was then and this is now.

When Pelosi and the others were briefed in 2002 and 2003, the 9/11 terrorist attacks were still fresh in the minds of Americans.

The widespread mind-set was that another attack could be just around the corner. And there were as yet no turns for the worse in Iraq for voters to be dissatisfied with.

So there was no political well from which Democrats could draw in complaining about the Bush administration's aggressive approach in fighting the global war on terror. You want to get tough with a few al-Qaida prisoners who know of future attacks? In 2002 and 2003, public sentiment was: Do it. And a politician who raised a stink would be accused of inviting new attacks.

Now, thanks to our short national attention span, a supremely effective weapon against terrorists that saved thousands of lives has turned into a political weapon, used to defame those who deserve credit for our success in fighting terrorism. Except now that very same weapon is going off in the speaker's face.

A speaker of the House seen as torturing the truth will not remain speaker for long.

Apocalypse When?


By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Entitlements: A report on Social Security and Medicare holds some grim news: Not only are the programs going bust, but they'll run out of money sooner than expected. The crisis we've been warned about for years is here.

Read More: Budget & Tax Policy

Baby boomers — that 70-million-strong population lump — begin officially retiring this year. That means the government's bill for retirees' pensions and health care has no where to go but up, for decades to come.

Everyone knew this day would come. And virtually every economist and actuary who had run the numbers could tell you, within a few years' certainty, the system was going bankrupt.

But all this seemed to happen in the distant future. Last year, both political parties virtually ignored the topic during their presidential campaigns. It became a non-issue issue.

Well, thanks to a profligate federal government, which will double the national debt to $11.5 trillion in just four years, and a recession that has weakened federal tax revenues, we can no longer ignore the problem. The day of reckoning is at hand.

The Social Security Board of Trustees reported Tuesday that costs will exceed revenues in 2016 — a full year sooner than expected just last year. And total assets — including more than 70 years of "surpluses" built up in the "trust fund" — will be completely gone by 2037 — four years earlier than in last year's report.

The deficit over the next 50 years is expected to be about 2% of taxable payrolls — up from 1.7% last year. By the way, changes in the last year alone have added $5.3 trillion in costs to the program.

Long-term, unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare top $53 trillion — about four times the size of current GDP. Taxes must either rise or benefits shrink by that amount to close that gap.

"We should be neither casual nor hysterical about the revised insolvency dates," said Michael Astrue, commissioner of Social Security. "As with the economy as a whole, the Social Security system will weather this recession."

With all due respect, a little hysteria might be the best strategy right now. Fact is, the long-term outlook is made much worse by the recession. And the problems of Social Security and Medicare are structural — requiring a massive, root-and-branch reform that Washington seems unwilling to do.

Social Security should have been reformed a long time ago. When President Bush put private accounts on the agenda in a very minor way in 2004, he was roundly criticized. Congress did nothing — on either side of the aisle.

Now we must confront the looming bankruptcy of our federal retirement system. It shouldn't be this way.

The financial meltdown and recession, we've heard repeatedly, "prove" that private accounts are a bad idea. This is flatly false.

Andrew G. Biggs, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, recently ran the numbers. On average, someone retiring this year can draw a Social Security benefit of about $15,700. If that same worker had a personal retirement account, based on historical returns in the stock market, he'd get $2,300 more than that.

That, after two of the worst stock-market downturns in history.

Funny, but the solution to our crisis looks like it's right in front of us. Private accounts would work, making our retirees richer and our economy bigger while easing the need for massive tax hikes later.

The only question is whether our leaders in Congress are brave enough and smart enough to do what's right — or whether they'll continue to fiddle as the nation's finances burn.

The Green Wind Of Destruction


By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Regulation: To say we're skeptical of the administration's claim that green jobs will bolster economic recovery is putting it mildly. It's much easier to believe that needless environmental rules will cause widespread job losses.

IBD Exclusive Series: The High Costs Of Carbon Caps

The White House has promised to create 5 million green-collar jobs over the next decade using the tax code to stimulate clean-energy programs. It's a proposal that has mass appeal, a hip idea from a cool president. Which should tell us a lot about its substance — or lack thereof.

Spain tried to green its economy and in the process lost jobs, according to Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, Spain. Alvarez, who authored a 41-page study on his country's experiment, said the U.S. should expect to lose nine jobs for every four that it creates through green stimulus programs.

That alone would be painful enough. But it's possible those job losses would be compounded by additional losses caused by regulation of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that eco-activists and politically aligned scientists claim is causing the Earth to warm.

It's unfortunate but likely that carbon emissions will eventually be restricted in this country. It could happen through a cap-and-trade bill, which isn't even vaguely understood by 76% of the public, according to a Rasmussen poll, or carbon-tax legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president. Or it could simply be regulated through rules written by unelected functionaries at the Environmental Protection Agency.

In any event, there will be painful economic consequences, including the ruin of many a livelihood. Across the next two decades, annual job losses due to restrictions on CO2 emissions will exceed 800,000 in at least two years. Losses for most years will be more than 500,000.

Taking a big hit, says the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, are manufacturers. They are especially vulnerable to CO2 emissions limits for two reasons: The manufacturing process is energy-intensive, and the demand for the goods this sector makes will fall in an era of higher energy costs.

A CO2 regulation regime would begin eating away at the manufacturing employment base in about five years. By 2029, more than 3.5 million jobs will have been lost, according to Heritage's reckoning.

The machinery industry will lose more than 57% of its jobs, while jobs in plastic and rubber production will fall 54%. Other manufacturing areas in which employment will drop precipitously are paper and paper products (36%), durable goods (28%) and textiles (27.6%).

Bear in mind that these numbers, as staggering as they are, don't count the losses that would occur if companies moved operations offshore, rather than absorb the higher energy prices.

The manufacturing sector is also expected to lose jobs in coming years due to increased productivity. Workers will be displaced as fewer are needed to keep the factories turning out goods at an equivalent or faster pace.

That's part of the market process, the gales of creative destruction, in which innovation kills off archaic jobs and replaces them with better-paying jobs that are a boost for, not a drain on, the economy. A worker who makes tires is better off than the blacksmith, and the economy in which the tire maker lives is more prosperous than the less-advanced economy of the man who makes horseshoes.

Regulation on commerce, either through rules or taxation, is a destructive wind, too. But what it destroys it does not rebuild. Carbon regulation will only increase the number of job losses that would come naturally in an important sector of the U.S. economy.

Those positions won't be replaced by openings in the renewable energy industry. While Washington is eager to force the country into green programs, the market for this industry's products remains small because of costs and inefficiencies relative to conventional energy sources.

Sucking money out of the private sector, where it could be used for investment that creates real jobs and commerce that supports existing ones, to fund a politically correct program is counterproductive.

Despite rhetoric and propaganda to the contrary, the nation will not be better off under a carbon-cap regime. What the country needs is a force in Washington to derail the global warming and climate change nonsense. There are more important issues for policymakers to deal with.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Liz Cheney: Obama Should Stop Bashing My Dad, Cherry-Picking Intelligence (Video)

Ms. Cheney says dad is protesting Obama’s anti-terror policies because he’s concerned the U.S. is less safe because of them.



49. AP

Liz Cheney is defending her dad once again.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney recently defended the Bush administration’s handling of the War on Terror and criticized the Obama administration for making the nation "less safe," i.e., releasing details of interrogation techniques used on terror suspects. Cheney’s comments have been slammed by the White House, with spokesman Robert Gibbs saying Cheney should stop regurgitating "ideas and a series of thoughts" that "the last election rejected."

But Liz Cheney, a former State Department official, said on MSNBC today that her father is speaking out of genuine concern for the country and to make sure people know what has kept the country safe for the past eight years, and that her dad is willing to make himself available to the Obama administration to talk about what worked and what didn’t.

"I think that is very much the heart of the matter and I think because of that, he feels he has an obligation to speak out," Ms. Cheney said. "My dad feels very strongly that the current administration is making us less safe … It would be the easiest thing in the world for him to just go fishing and spend time with his grandkids."

Ms. Cheney also noted that former Vice President Al Gore was critical of the Bush administration when he left office, and Obama officials and Democrats never miss an opportunity to bash Bush, so why is Cheney getting all this flack?

"Nobody is sort of saying, ‘Gosh, the Obama administration needs to keep quiet about the Bush administration,’" she added.

She also agreed that the Obama administration is cherry-picking intelligence information to release — a charge echoed by Republicans who say the White House is only releasing memos on waterboarding and other intelligence documents that suit their political purposes. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-MI, just this week called on the intelligence community to declassify documents showing what members of Congress — including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA — were told about interrogation techniques and when.

The media needs to "hold the administration’s feet to the fire on this," Ms. Cheney said. "People need to ask — when is the selective release of documents going to stop? … It’s really a dishonest game they’re playing."

Watch Ms. Cheney defend the Bush administration on "Morning Joe" below:

Conservatives for Patient Rights


Barack Obama, like a bull in a china shop, is going full steam ahead to keep all his campaign promises and do it all in one year.  Yesterday he "bluntly warned lobbyists and "special interests" not to stand in the way of efforts to rein in costs and guarantee coverage for all Americans. He said he intended to achieve those goals by the end of this year."

For the second time in as many weeks, President Obama pulled together dozens of lawmakers, community leaders and business representatives to solve a pressing issue -- this time, health care reform. 

But the president's focus-group brand of governing is starting to wear thin for some who say the sessions are more style than substance.  (Fox)

  Conservatives for Patient Rights
is a non-profit, 501 c(3) organization dedicated to educating and informing the public about the principles of patients rights and, in
doing so, advancing the debate over health care reform.
  CPR takes a look at 16 plans that have been discussed, written about or offered up as legislation. Which plans provide that the individual patient can make their own choices regarding the health care they seek? Which plans promote competition within the health care industry? Which plans are just too costly? Read about and compare the different health care plans here.

Obama Plan for a Healthy America

Creation of a public health coverage option. Creation of a National Health Insurance Exchange.

Read Plan Details

Daschle Critical — What We Can Do About The Health Care Crisis

Universal coverage through an individual mandate to purchase either public or
private health insurance. Oversight of both public and private coverage
by a Federal Health Board.

Read Plan Details

Baucus Call to Action

The Baucus plan would ensure that every individual can access affordable
coverage by creating a nationwide insurance pool called the Health
Insurance Exchange.

Read Plan Details

2009 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act H.R. 2

Publicly-funded health care coverage for low-income children.

Read Plan Details

McConnell Kids First Act S. 2152

Publicly-funded health care coverage for low-income children.

Read Plan Details

Wyden Healthy Americans Act S. 334

Universal coverage through state-administered health care exchanges.

Read Plan Details

Stark Americare Health Care Act H.R. 193

Universal coverage through expanded Medicare benefits

Read Plan Details

Conyers United States National Health Insurance Act H.R. 676

Universal coverage through a single-payer program.

Read Plan Details


Baldwin Health Care Partnership Through Creative Federalism H.R. 506

Provides grants for competing state reform efforts.

Read Plan Details


Universal coverage through individual mandate and the creation of a state health insurance exchange.

Read Plan Details

Jindal Louisiana Health First

Improve health outcomes and expand coverage through Medicaid reform.

Read Plan Details

American Benefits Council Ten Prescriptions for Reforming Health Care Quality, Cost and Coverage

Ten principles for employer-based health care reform, including an individual mandate.

Read Plan Details

Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform

Five principles for market-based reforms.

Read Plan Details

Divided We Fail Health Care Platform

Three basic principles for reform: universal access, wellness and prevention and long-term care.

Read Plan Details

Heritage Foundation Design Principles for a Patient-Centered, Consumer-Based Market

Six principles for patient-centered, consumer-driven health care reform:
individual consumers as key decision makers; individual ownership;
individual choice; wide range of available choices; price transparency;
regular opportunities to make coverage choices.

Read Plan Details

Center for Health Transformation (Gingrich) 21st Century Intelligent Healthcare Solution to a 300 Million Payer System

Focus on health information technology and electronic medical records.

Read Plan Details

Perhaps Obama might consult the Heritage Foundation or Newt Gingrich about their plans or perhaps consult the medical community and patients for their input.  Doctors don't like a system that will keep them from giving the best care to their patients.  They also do not like plans that will try to force them to perform procedures that are morally repugnant to them.  These focus groups are mostly for show.  Obama has his mind made up on what kind of government health care play he wants for Americans.

"For the most part, these kinds of things are dog-and-pony shows that are hard to associate with any concrete, substantive results," said Michael
, a health care expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation. 

"With 99.6 percent certainty, they're going to walk out of this summit wanting to do the same thing." [snip]

So what's the next topic Obama might focus group? 

"If I had to take a guess, I'd say climate change," Franc said.  (Fox)

Obama said, ""Those who seek to block any reform at all, any reform at any cost, will not prevail this time around."  Maybe, maybe not Mr. President.

What's Wrong With Competition In America's Health Care System?


By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON | Posted Monday, May 11, 2009 4:20 PM PT

The post office competes against UPS and FedEx.  Public schools compete against private ones — and should have to compete more. So what's wrong with having a "public option" for health care to compete against private insurance?

The core problem with a "public option" is simple, but it hasn't been widely recognized. In other realms, government has to provide a service to compete with private businesses.

But health insurers don't provide a service, per se. They are middlemen or financiers. They contract with others — doctors, nurses, hospitals — who provide the actual service. In such a context, genuine private-public competition is impossible.  For no one can match government's ability to dictate the prices and availability of services rendered by others.

What Option?

The "public option" is intended to be a form of Medicare for all.  President Obama and the Democratic Congress are pitching it as a way to give individuals and families a new choice. 

More often the choice will be made by employers, who will decide whether they want to keep offering private insurance to their employees. To save money, many will choose to offer only the government-run plan, which should be called the "employer option" or perhaps the "government option for employers." By any name, it's an option for employers to force employees into government-run care.

To understand why the government-run plan will be tempting for employers, one must understand the nature of the "competition" involved. Imagine the scenario in which government competes directly against private automakers. 

If Government Autoworks is vying for sales against Acme Autoworks, it actually has to make a decent product and sell it at a competitive price. If Government Autoworks makes a $20,000 car, but it's less reliable (think FedEx vs. USPS overnight), responsive or stylish than Acme's $20,000 car, it won't sell. 

Government Autoworks cannot merely declare that its $20,000 car, which costs at least as much as Acme's to make, will now be priced at $16,200. If it does, it will lose money. It could still be propped up by taxpayers, but it couldn't compete on its own.

Now take the alternative scenario of providing health insurance. There, government doesn't have to make anything. It doesn't have to deliver packages. It doesn't have to run a school. Above all, it can dictate prices at its whim. 

According to the Lewin Group, Medicare pays health care providers 81 cents on the dollar. So for a $20,000 procedure, Medicare, on average, pays $16,200. Doctors, nurses and hospitals go without the difference or pass along the costs to private insurers or individuals. So government can fix prices, at little or no cost to itself. 

That makes the "public option" a fundamentally different animal from government entities that compete (more or less) legitimately against private competition. There is no way private insurance can compete against an entity that can just wave a wand and change a price to its advantage and someone else's detriment.

But if government can lower health care costs in this way, why is that bad? Three central reasons: 

First, Medicare pays less per procedure, but it doesn't pay less. What Medicare gains per procedure, it loses in poorly coordinated care, wasteful procedures, fraudulent claims and bureaucratic waste. 

Despite paying only 81 cents on the dollar, Medicare's costs since 1970 have risen more than twice as fast as the costs of all other health care in America combined. Per patient, Medicare costs have risen 27% more than all other nationwide health care costs — 41% if you include the prescription drug benefit. 

Medicare is far more expensive than privately run care, and it's leading us toward financial disaster.

Second, a government-run system would kill any chance at real reform. The core problem with American health care is that the patients aren't the payers.

So providers and insurers don't cater to patients, and patients don't shop for value. Each element caters to whoever pays it: Providers cater to insurers (and the government); insurers cater to employers. Nobody caters to consumers. 

A vibrant free market would aggressively cater to consumers, who in turn would shop for value — thereby making health care more consumer friendly, affordable and better. We'll never get there if the government takes over the insurance business.  That will cement in place the core problem with today's system. We need a change, not another coat of cement.

Shaky Combination

Third, once government has run private insurance out of business, providers will no longer be able to shift costs to them. This will result in higher costs to taxpayers and lower wages for medical professionals, which will attract fewer people to the profession. If anyone doubts this, do they also doubt that higher pay attracts teachers? 

Lines will form, care will be rationed and a two-tiered system will emerge: The very rich will pay for the care they want — whether here or abroad — out of their own pockets. The rest of us will have plenty of time, while we stand in line, to reflect on how nice it would be to have private insurance and the personal freedom it affords.

Anderson is the former senior speechwriter for the Health and Human Services Department and a former professor of political science at the Air Force Academy.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

White House puts UAW ahead of property rights By Michael Barone



Last Friday, the day after Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, I drove past the company’s headquarters on Interstate 75 in Auburn Hills, Mich.

As I glanced at the pentagram logo I felt myself tearing up a little bit. Anyone who grew up in the Detroit area, as I did, can’t help but be sad to see a once great company fail.

But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning. “One of my clients,” Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.”

Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.

This of course is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who lended money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything. Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.

After that came a denunciation of the objecting bondholders as “speculators” by Barack Obama in his news conference last Thursday. And then death threats to bondholders from parties unknown.

The White House denied that it strong-armed Perella Weinberg. The firm issued a statement saying it decided to accept the settlement, but it pointedly did not deny that it had been threatened by the White House. Which is to say, the threat worked.

The same goes for big banks that have received billions in government Troubled Asset Relief Program money. Many of them want to give back the money, but the government won’t let them. They also voted to accept the Chrysler settlement. Nice little bank ya got there, wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.

Left-wing bloggers have been saying that the White House’s denial of making threats should be taken at face value and that Lauria’s statement is not evidence to the contrary. But that’s ridiculous. Lauria is a reputable lawyer and a contributor to Democratic candidates. He has no motive to lie. The White House does.

Think carefully about what’s happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored. In the process, it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House’s power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along.

Michigan politicians of both parties joined Obama in denouncing the holdout bondholders. They point to the sad plight of UAW retirees not getting full payment of the health care benefits the union negotiated with Chrysler. But the plight of the beneficiaries of the pension funds represented by the bondholders is sad too. Ordinarily you would expect these claims to be weighed and determined by the rule of law. But not apparently in this administration.

Obama’s attitude toward the rule of law is apparent in the words he used to describe what he is looking for in a nominee to replace Justice David Souter. He wants “someone who understands justice is not just about some abstract legal theory,” he said, but someone who has “empathy.” In other words, judges should decide cases so that the right people win, not according to the rule of law.

The Chrysler negotiations will not be the last occasion for this administration to engage in bailout favoritism and crony capitalism. There’s a May 31 deadline to come up with a settlement for General Motors. And there will be others. In the meantime, who is going to buy bonds from unionized companies if the government is going to take their money away and give it to the union? We have just seen an episode of Gangster Government. It is likely to be part of a continuing series.