Nancy Pelosi vs. the CIA

I would imagine that most of the people who follow this blog have been up on the controversy of Nancy Pelosi and the CIA. It seems the Speaker has taken the stand that she didn't know that waterboarding was part of the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) being used by the CIA in getting the other planned attacks on the USA in the wake of 9/11.

We captured a treasure-trove of Al-Qaeda's top operatives months after the attacks and some of the highest operatives even boasted that BIGGER events were to come shortly.

Many of us forget the climate of the times. If you had asked most Americans, within the first year of the attacks, "do you think we will go into 2009 without a follow-up attack in the USA" probably 85-90% would have responded "NO!"

And there was good reason for that pessimism. In fact, there were several follow-up attempts that have escaped most American's consciousness. Richard "Shoe Bomber" Reid was stopped mid-attempt, as were other plots like a multi-plane attempt to blow up planes mid-flight coming back from the UK.

Three Gitmo prisoners, two directly involved in the 9/11 plot, and another involved in the Cole bombing (remember that Clinton era attack?) were waterboarded. That's right. At one time or another, several hundred prisoners have been held at Guantanamo Bay and only THREE were considered to have such important information that it would require coercive action.

Let's leave aside whether this was "legal" or not for now. There as many positions on that these days as we have lawyers in the country (a lot).

What has been debated lately is this question: "What did Nancy know, and when did she know it?"

Beside the obvious Howard Baker-Watergate analogy here, it is important to remember that Mrs. Pelosi was NOT Speaker of the House at the time but was a key part of the Democratic house leadership. It's even more important to realize that because she was part of the opposition, it was MOST important for people like her to be briefed because the Republican leadership knew that having the support of the minority would protect them from criticism at that critical time right after the 9/11 attacks.

Again, let's remember the mood of the times. Few were questioning things like "how rough should we be on these guys?" The times right after the attacks was more like "how did this happen and why didn't we know?" And of course, most importantly, "how can we prevent this in the future?"

The CIA's EIT regimen was strongly monitored by both the Congressional Intelligence committees and the White House. I would imagine if there had been attacks, some of those who yell "torture" would be yelling "I thought you conservatives were supposed to keep us safe!"

Regardless, Pelosi has been saying, with varying emphasis and clarifications, that she was NOT briefed about the USAGE of EIT. She put an exclamation mark on it by slandering both the Bush Administration (expected) and the CIA (foolhardy) for being serial liars.

Wow. Mark Twain once said, "Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel" when referring to arguing with the press. Nancy has accused people who monitor conversations, take great notes, and perhaps even have her phone tapped!

Dumb.

To put an exclamation on this whole incident, Jim Geraghty at National Review Online sent a message to Gene Poteat, President of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. Don't think that they are not keeping in "close touch" with some of their "old buddies" in government. The present officers are part of the executive branch of the US Government. The CIA exists to serve the president. That doesn't prevent some of them from selectively leaking information to suit their own agenda if it conflicts with their ultimate boss, Barack Obama. They sure did a number on Bush, leaking all sorts of doubts about the invasion of Iraq, before and after the event.

Here is what Poteat said to Geraghty, in response:

Those CIA officers chosen to brief the Congress, and especially the intelligence committees, are very senior, experienced officers, who well know the reputation and future of the CIA, as well as their own jobs, are on the line should they be perceived as not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Such restrictions, however, do not apply to members of the Congress when they then appear before the public.

As Chris Farley said famously in Tommy Boy: "That's gonna leave a mark!"

President Obama seems more inclined to insert himself in all kinds of areas that past presidents have not. Ask former GM President Rick Wagoner!

But I don't think Obama will stop the CIA from defending itself. Nancy has made life more difficult for him lately. And she has been acting like a Queen Bee. As far as Obama is concerned, there is only one royal family in Washington.

Update: Is there a revolt against the Federal Government's abuse of power?

First the banks, then the auto industry, what area of American business is next? In the previous post, I talked about Obama's alleged bullying of investment firms who didn't want to go along with his strong-armed tactics to force acceptance of certain aspects of the Chrysler bankruptcy that would violate their fiduciary responsibility to their investors.

It's always easy to see the justification for the President's actions if you demonize financial people as "selfish, and not willing to sacrifice" like the rest of the investors. That's not an honest read on what is going on here. The others accepted his terms BECAUSE THEY HAD TO. THEY HAD ACCEPTED TARP MONEY. Some accepted because they needed it, others because they were told "take it, or else." But the hedge funds and other investment entities had followed the rules and bought Chrysler bonds expecting that the US Government would follow the law.

I'll say it right now. Barack Obama has violated his Constitutional oath. He is NOT following the law of the land. He is making his own. "I won" is his response to the financial people he "negotiated" with and now investors will pay the price. Because his goal all along was NOT to save GM or Chrysler, but to protect the United Auto Workers, who had worked hard to get him elected, and their pensioners. Now, you can expect more federal money to "bailout" GM and Chrysler over the next months and years. But only if those companies produce more unprofitable "green" cars and give up their profitable "ungreen" cars like SUVs and muscle cars.

Who died and made him king? He was elected president, but I don't see in http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html where he gets this kind of power over business. This story continues to percolate today, but it will get nowhere because his personal popularity remains high as does his fawning treatment from the star-struck press. The public is unaware of what the president is up to. So sad. Fixing this is going to be expensive.

At least some states are willing to take on the federal juggernaut. First, you had some governors who were willing to say, "thanks, but we don't like the strings attached" to some of the stimulus money. Now, aware that acquiescence will lead to subservience, Oklahoma's legislature has taken a position that it will not give up it's sovereignty to the US government. Tennessee has taken a similar action.

What are they talking about?

This is why it is SOOO important that Americans understand the rule book for this country that governs ALL men, including the president.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1790, and written by James Madison says this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As I have said often on this blog, over the last 70 years, since the American people gave unprecedented power to the federal government, FDR, and the Congress during the Great Depression, the federal government has taken powers away from the people and the states and exercised that power in the way they see fit. Here is a website formed by some who are watching this state sovereignty movement. Amity Shlaes, author of a much praised book reassessing the government's actions during the Great Depression, catalogs the jihad against those critical of Obama's power grab here.

Now you have a government in Washington completely controlled by one party. Republicans are spectators, not even allowed in certain key meetings to formulate laws, and Obama feels protected from scrutiny and criticism by the press, and thus the public. When polls ask people if they like the president, a strong majority says "yes!" When they are polled about his policies, without attaching them to him, they reject them. So why does he remain popular? BECAUSE THE MEDIA HAS KEPT THE PUBLIC IGNORANT

And you had better not attack him or them. Or they will "Palin" you...like we "Palined" Limbaugh, Joe the Plumber, Governor Sanford, Governor Jindal, and Miss California. Who said the Republicans had the monopoly on McCarthyism. Or the president will sic the White House Press Corps on you, as alleged in the Chrysler case.

So, what happens next? In a truly two-party system, with a truly "watchdog" press, this would the subject of hot debate. Instead, we will be told, "hey, we are tough on Obama, look at what we said about his wife's expensive tennis shoes!"

Meanwhile, new restrictions on banks that took TARP money is designed to keep them from paying it back, thereby staying under the federal gov'ts thumb. If you pay it back, then you can't be covered by FDIC insurance. Wait a minute! These banks paid into the federal government's FDIC fund with payment of insurance premiums! Do you think any private insurance company would be allowed to get away with that kind of bait and switch? Why should the USG be allowed to do that?!

Frankly, I don't think that the Obama administration will allow even that concession to stand. THEY DON'T WANT TO LET THE BANKS GO BACK TO FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE. They would not have been able to get the Chrysler deal go forward except they had the banks in their control. And they still have to do the SAME KIND OF DEAL with GM. You watch. So, in the end, I think they won't let them off that easily.

The internet has changed things more than even the internet-savvy left-wing blogs realize.

It won't happen, because it is a political act, but abuse of power is an impeachable offense. Obama should be very careful about going forward with his war on American capitalism.

What hath Barack wrought?

I have been quiet lately because I am working on several projects. I have two new classes for adult education this summer, and am in the early stages of my first book.

Each time something comes along, I see something that I want to blog about, but things come up...

But my background in the financial industry keeps coming back to my mind as we watch President Obama take this ship of state in a hard left turn.

He is killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

No one has EVER said that capitalism is perfect. Or even fair. My dad used to say that over and over, "no one said that life would be fair." We have a president who is trying to use fiscal and monetary policy to effect "fairness and justice." His concept is going to run the ship aground.

His latest move was to demonize Parella Weinberg, a financial group known as a "hedge fund." They also represent people. Imagine that. They invest for pension funds, teacher retirement funds, insurance companies...you know...humans.

Obama is trying to use the executive power of the US Government to bully them out of their proper financial position as first lien holders on Chrysler's debt.

Let me explain: Chrysler comes to you and says, "I need billions of dollars to build new cars."

You reply: "ok, I'm interested, but what happens if you fail and go out of business?"

Chrysler says: "We sell off the company, and you get the first dibs on what's left. It's a risk, but worth taking. And since you would be first in line, your risk is the least, so you get the lowest interest rate of any of our debtors."

You reply: "Ok. Since I would be first in line, I'll buy billions."

Suddenly, Chrysler may go bankrupt. Now, Obama doesn't want this to go to a bankruptcy court, because thay would invalidate the union contracts of Chrysler, and the UAW voted heavily for Obama. He's gonna protect them, so he forces most of the debtors to take @ 50 cents on the dollar. Especially the unions, who are far behind you and your pension funds in line.

YOU, you who had the first position, you get LESS on the dollar,(rumored to be more like 30%). After all, he has been demonizing banks and investment firms since he was inaugurated. And if you DON'T agree to this, his people tell you, "we will trash your reputation in the White House press corps." These are the people who worship Obama and will do his bidding. Heck, media people are one step above baby-killers and lawyers in public polling these days, this will make them popular!

I love how the White House denies this report.

"The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."

emphasis mine. Get it? "Can't prove it, pal. Learn to wire yourself for sound, amateur."

Meanwhile, the president goes out and says you weren't willing to "sacrifice" like everyone else was. We elected a president, not a king. This is the US Government, not Cook County, Illinois. You can't rule by intimidation. We have laws, Mr. Obama.

If you think I am making this up, read the links above. What this president is doing is chasing capital out of the country

Even Warren Buffet, who supported and voted for Obama, has warned that inflation and dollar devaluation will be the hidden tax.

Now, there is a very interesting post of a letter from a "hedge-fund" guy to the National Review. I spent enough time in the field to know that this guy is not kidding.

Money has flowed into this country since WWII because it was treated well here. Now, things are changing. All around the world, the warning signs are there for those who pay attention, and our number 1 debtor, CHINA, is paying attention. The demonization of the financial world is the mania of Barack Obama. It's like if you decided to discipline your head by tightening the noose around your neck. The head will get "taught a lesson"...and the body...well...

Here's the note...

Hey (redacted by me) — Would you like a sound bite from one of those evil hedge fund guys for Colmes' show tonight? How's this: "As a professional investor I'd have to be out of my skull to partner with this government on anything."

This administration has made it quite clear that they can't be relied upon to honor contracts or legal precedents and if I can't know what the rules are before the game starts then I'm not going to play. Hedge funds aren't like the banks … we haven't failed. We aren't beholden to the taxpayer to make our way. We have contractual and fiduciary obligation which we will honor. People pay us to make them money not to meet a political goal. So Obama had better think long and hard before he tries to bully us like he did the banks, or try to tell us that "he's the only thing between us and the pitchforks."

Also, Geithner and Obama have been saying that they plan on balancing the budget once the crisis is past. The press may believe that twaddle about how he'll do it by "making things more efficient," but we in the hedge fund industry aren't so stupid. We've looked at the numbers and know what he's planning to do. I know dozens of people who are already putting the legal structures in place to move their companies and themselves offshore and away from the grip of the tax man. These are some of the smartest most dynamic people in the world and they'll have no trouble staying ahead of the (offensive remark removed) over at the IRS.

So unless Obama wants to run out of "other people's money" a lot sooner than he expected, he had better keep some people around to pay the bills. And if he keeps demonizing the productive and saying that it's their responsibility to let him spend their money on the unproductive, then we'll all be gone. I'll be working my 14 hour days is Bahrain or Singapore, and Obama can go suck eggs. He needs the productive classes a lot more than the productive classes need him.

On the plus side, at least my [offspring] will be able to get a decent education.

And if the "smart money" leaves the country, who do you think is gonna be stuck with that huge debt payment long after Mr. "HopeIhavesomechangeleft" has left office?

Us...Mr. and Mrs. Dumbmoney...on the way to being Mr. and Mrs. Debtpayors.

You've been warned.