Bottom Line: Obama and the Libs Have to Go

The posts have been few in recent weeks here at The Day After. Things have been busy at my day job, and I’ve had more than a few personal obligations to fulfil. There  just aren’t enough hours in the day. This blog is a recreational outlet for me and a nice, easy means to convey thoughts and ideas, as well as to vent frustration. Oh, the frustration.

That being said, I wanted to take a few minutes to post that in no way whatsoever have I gone soft on Obama and the liberals. I was asked recently if I had begun to embrace change and accept the fact that the liberals were here to stay. The person who asked, did so because of the sparse posting here. My answer was ” No way in hell – we have to run them out now. I’ll get back to it.”

Also there’s this. These guys, especially the ones in Washington, are up to so much lately that it’s tough to keep track of just exactly what they are doing. It’s almost like they’re bum-rushing us into socialism. So, without the benefit of unlimited free time for research, it’s difficult sometimes to decide which subject, event, or betrayal to post about. Lately it’s been what’s most important to me.

I thought about maybe taking this blog in only one direction instead of hopping around from subject to subject. My primary goals are to help shed light on the hypocisy and the corruption that Obama brought with him to D.C., and to get the Clinton machine, including Obama, out of there. Of course along the way we’ll have to address the antics of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Dodd.

So here we go…again.

AIG Employees to Return $50 Million of Bonuses

By LIZ RAPPAPORT and LIAM PLEVEN
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said late Monday that 15 of the top 20 recipients of $165 million in retention bonuses from American International Group Inc.’s Financial Products unit have agreed to give back their bonuses — amounting to in excess of $30 million in cash.

 Mr. Cuomo’s office said, in all, AIG FP employees agreed to return about $50 million in bonuses thus far.

“I applaud all the AIG employees that are returning the bonuses,” said Mr. Cuomo, though he acknowledged that, for some, returning the bonus was more a response to public outrage than atoning for a sin. He said many employees “had nothing to do with the meltdown in the financial products division,” but were trying to “do the right thing.”

Mr. Cuomo added that doesn’t intend to reveal names of people who return bonuses, but maintained he hadn’t decided whether to disclose those who keep them.

AIG said it is “deeply gratified that a vast majority of FP’s senior leadership have expressed a willingness to forsake their recent retention payments,” adding the company continues to “review the responses of our other FP employees.”

It remains to be seen whether the givebacks will be enough to help Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner put the matter behind him. He is expected to testify before Congress on Tuesday, and the bonus controversy has ensnared him as he’s tried to get his financial rescue plans off the ground.

Some people at the unit — fewer than 20 — resigned, according to a person familiar with the matter. A spokeswoman said despite a handful of resignations among senior executives, the company believes “this situation is manageable.”

Many waited until the last minute Monday before signaling their decision; emails flooded in as 5 p.m. approached, but others had yet to respond by then. One concern is potential tax implications of returning money received.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page C1

That’s right – we need that money back. The $900 million that we’re giving to Hamas, you know – the terrorists, has to come from somewhere.

Where is the outrage?

Does anyone else see what’s going on here? Our, your US government is taking legally earned money from it’s citizens while at the same time giving taxpayer funded revenue to a terrorist orginization.

When will they stop? How far will they go?

EPA Calls CO2 a Danger to Public Health

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency has sent the White House a proposed finding that carbon dioxide is a danger to public health, a step that could trigger a clampdown on emissions of so-called greenhouse gases across a wide swath of the economy.

If approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the endangerment finding could clear the way for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to control emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases believed to contribute to climate change. In effect, the government would treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The EPA submitted the proposed rule to the White House on Friday, according to federal records published Monday.

Such a finding would ratchet up pressure on Congress to enact a system that caps greenhouse gases — which trap the sun’s heat in the earth’s atmosphere — and creates a market for businesses to buy and sell the right to emit them, as President Barack Obama has proposed.

A White House representative said Monday that Mr. Obama’s “strong preference is for Congress to pass energy security legislation that includes a cap on greenhouse-gas emissions. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must review whether greenhouse-gas emissions pose a threat to public health or welfare, and this is simply the next step in what will be a long process that engages stakeholders and the public.”

The administration has proposed a cap-and-trade system that could raise $646 billion by 2019 through government auctions of emission allowances. Environmentalists want the administration to act on climate change before December, ahead of talks aimed at forging a successor to the Koyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement that commits many industrialized countries to reducing their greenhouse-gas emissions.

EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn declined to comment on the details of the endangerment proposal, saying it is “still [an] internal and deliberative” document.

But in a move that indicated the potential scope of regulation, the agency earlier this month proposed a national system for reporting carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions by major emitters. The EPA has said about 13,000 facilities, accounting for about 85% to 90% of greenhouse gases emitted in the U.S., would be covered under the proposal.

Industry officials say it will still take months, possibly even years, for the administration to finalize rules for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions.

According to an internal document presented by the EPA to White House officials earlier this month, the EPA believes the health effects of elevated greenhouse-gas levels could cause “severe heat waves…with likely increases in mortality and morbidity, especially among the elderly, young and frail.” The agency also said climate change caused by higher greenhouse-gas levels could result in more severe storms and more suffering related to “floods, storms, droughts and fires.”

Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers warn that if the EPA moves forward on regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act — instead of a measured legislative approach — it could hobble the already weak economy.

Coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and domestic industries, such as energy-intensive paper, cement, fertilizer, steel, and glass manufacturers, worry that increased cost burdens imposed by climate-change laws will put them at a severe competitive disadvantage to their international peers that aren’t bound by similar environmental rules.

Environmentalists, however, have called for the endangerment finding, and say action by Congress or the Obama administration to curb greenhouse gases is necessary to halt the ill effects of climate change.

I’ve heard this garbage before, but what  I can’t get over is the sheer arrogance of these people to think that anything we do, including taxing industry, is going to change anything. The planet Earth is 4.55 billion years old. (plus or minus about 1%). CO2 emitting life forms have been on the planet for approximately 635 million years.  And now we’re expected to believe that because the EPA says so, suddenly CO2 is a threat.

Who are the Real Bad Guys Here?

My question is this: Just who is responsible for having the Wyden-Snowe Executive-Pay provision REMOVED from the stimulus bill and why?

From The Washington Independent

2/12/09 6:58 PM

The finance industry might be floundering, it might be broke, and it might be ringing the tin cup for federal help. But don’t say Wall Street has lost its sway over lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Congress agreed on a final stimulus plan yesterday, but not before stripping out a provision forcing bailed-out banks to repay 2008 bonuses. Under the provision, sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), companies receiving funding under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) would be forced to repay Washington for any 2008 bonuses in excess of $100,000, or pay a 35-percent tax on funds not returned. Wyden is vowing to continue the push to have it passed. From his statement:

Wall Street’s clout continues unabated in Washington, despite having wrecked our economy,” said Wyden. “I am unbelievably disappointed, but I want it understood that I will be back again and again to recover for taxpayers the exorbitant Wall Street bonuses paid for with TARP money.

It wasn’t supposed to play out this way.

In the wake of reports revealing that Wall Street firms doled out billions in executive bonuses — even after they’d accepted hundreds of billions of federal dollars — lawmakers had vowed to take steps to ensure that TARP funds weren’t going straight into the pockets of the same folks who’d run the banks into the ground.

Indeed, the Senate stimulus bill included several provisions — added as amendments during the floor debate — to do just that. One provision, sponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), would have capped executive compensation at $400,000. Another, sponsored by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), would have banned bonuses for the 25 highest-paid employees of companies receiving TARP funds. The Wyden-Snowe provision was included as well, but was sliced for reasons that still aren’t clear. The removal is strange, if only because the measure was expected to save the federal government more than $3 billion.

It’s unclear if the Dodd and McCaskill amendments made the cut. Apparently, a full 27 hours after a stimulus deal was announced, lawmakers are still haggling over the details of the bill.

And we sit back and allow people like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Gary Peters, Steny Hoyer, Charles Rangel, et al openly go after the people who received their lawfully contracted bonuses by threatening to subpoena their personal information and by initiating incredible tax legislation. This  insane tax amounts to nothing more than the government stealing, yes stealing lawfully earned money. What’s next?  ( MSNBC story here)

This is outrageous.

We had better wake up and get these hypocrites out of our government while we still can.

KUHNER: Conservative disarray from The Washington Times

St. Louis Riverfront Draws Rally Against Obama Stimulus Plan

ST. LOUIS — Critics of Obama’s stimulus plan gathered beneath the Arch Friday to cheer speeches over a bullhorn and toss tea into the Mississippi River.

A few conservative activists organized and promoted the rally, with help from talk-radio hosts. Pleased with the turnout in 35-degree bluster, leaders said they had stolen a page from liberal tradition by taking to the streets with homemade signs.

“If I had known this many people would show up, I’d have charged admission,” said Bill Hennessy of Ballwin, the lead organizer. “We’ll do this every chance we get until Congress repeals the pork — or we retire them from public life.”

Hennessy estimated that more than 1,000 people showed up. There was no official count, but the crowd spilled across roughly one-fourth of the grand staircase from the Arch to Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard. Former state Sen. John Loudon, R-Chesterfield, said, “We conservatives are usually pretty pathetic at making crowds. But this one’s good.”

Hennessy said he got the idea after Rick Santelli, a CNBC market commentator in Chicago, last week called for a tea party to protest Obama’s anti-recession plan. Santelli’s comments became a YouTube hit, and similar “tea parties” were planned in other cities.

The original took place on Dec. 16, 1773, when American patriots dumped imported tea from merchant ships into Boston harbor to protest British colonial taxes.

Dana Loesch, a radio host on 97.1 FM, had talked up Friday’s rally and served as emcee. Signs waved around her included, “Pork, the new ‘Red’ meat,” and “King Barack III and the House of Lards.”

Jackie Smith, former tight end for the old St. Louis football Cardinals, said, “We are mad as hell and we need to stay mad as hell. Don’t let up.”

Megan Dunham of Maplewood brought her four daughters with some painted signs “because it’s important that the kids take part.”

She said it was her first protest. “All I’d ever done before is yell at the TV. This is exciting.”

Protest Against Sheriff’s Immigration Policy Heats Up

Reported by: Tony Arranaga
Email: tarranaga@abc15.com
Last Update: 5:34 pm

PHOENIX — Tensions rose between two large groups of protestors in downtown Phoenix on Saturday afternoon.

At issue, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s stand on immigration and his policy to detain undocumented immigrants.

A group of about 1,000 people turned out to march from Steele Indian School Park, along Central Avenue to protest Arpaio’s practices.

According to Sheriff’s Office spokesman Doug Matteson, one man was cited for carrying a concealed weapon after he made verbal threats against Arpaio. He reportedly was also carrying handcuffs and a Los Angeles police department badge.

Deputies are investigating whether the man was permitted to carry the handgun.

The route continued downtown to the Wells Fargo building where Arpaio’s offices are located. There is no word on whether the Sheriff was there.

The mostly-peaceful march suddenly turned tense, as a group of Arpaio supporters numbering in the hundreds began to shout at protestors along their route.

Phoenix police officers were posted along the route to keep the marchers safe.

“We are excited to see such a strong and peaceful showing of opposition to the wrong-headed policies of Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” Salvador Reza of Puente said in a news release after the march.  “… 5,000 marched today to make sure that the abuses that we’ve suffered under for far too long move from the local to being dealt with on the national level as well.”

Arpaio said that if the feds want to change the laws, he’s still got two state laws on the books to support his efforts to crack on undocumented immigrants.

The marchers arrived at the Sandra Day O’Connor Federal Building at about 1:30 p.m.

Look at the reporting here. Sheriff Joe is the bad guy and the illegal aliens aka undocumented immigrants are the good guys or victims. Notice it’s Sheriff Joe’s ‘policy’ they are protesting, not US immigration laws.

Now the reporter did mention that one man was arrested with a handgun, but the situation only became tense when the Sheriff’s supporters showed up. Also notice that the police were there to ‘keep the protesters safe’ .

Also, the way the numbers were reported is interesting. In the first sentence we have ‘two large groups of protestors’. Then later we have ‘group of about 1,000 people turned out to march’ and ‘ group of Arpaio supporters numbering in the hundreds’. Then finally we have ‘5,000 marched today’ . It appears that the protesters numbered from 1 to 5 thousand and the supporters numbered a few hundred, but they are described as two large groups of protesters.

The protester that we get the quote from says “… 5,000 marched today to make sure that the abuses that we’ve suffered under for far too long move from the local to being dealt with on the national level as well.” What are the ‘abuses’ he’s talking about? Surely not that the illegal aliens are abusing our nation’s healthcare, education, social security, economy, etc.. The reporter never bothers to clarify the quote. He simply prints what is said.

This is just another example of media bias and the liberal conditioning that’s taking place all around us everyday. How many people read this story and didn’t bother to question anything?