Chicago Republicans

Tonight, for one evening, put aside your worries and fears about national healthcare and turn your attention to the threats from the  outside of this country.  Yes, Richard A. Baehr, co founder and Chief Political Correspondent for AmericanThinker.com will be speaking on "Israel and Obama:  The Iranian Nuclear Threat and the End of the Special Relationship" tonight at 7:00 p.m. at the Evanston Public Library, 1703 Orrington Avenue.  No doubt that as we have been focused on domestic agenda items, much has been going on in Israel and Iran.  Mr.  Baehr is a nationally recognized expert on Israeli, Middle Eastern and Jewish/American issues and will be able to update and inform us about the developing relations and threats in one of the most important regions in the world.  Don't let healthcare and jobs distract you from recognizing the other threats to America as we know it and as it was intended.   This lecture is free and open to the public and the Republican Club of Evanston, co-sponsors of the event along with the Evanston Public Library, invite all  interested in a social gathering following the event at the Celtic Knot Public House, on Church Street across from the Library.  You can call the Library at 847-488-8600 if you need more information.  I hope to see you all there!

Democrat Lt. Governor Candidate Scott Lee Cohen Resigns Amid Scandal

Statement by William J. Kelly, Executive Director of Rebuild Illinois

Scotty, we hardly knew ye!

Scott Lee Cohen, the Democrat nominee for lieutenant governor never even got elected to a full term and Second City’s already working on the musical. The Democrats were so eager to get rid of him, they did everything but hold a knife to his throat.

Aside from the reports of Cohen’s abuse of his ex-wife and the accusations that he held a knife to his ex-girlfriend’s throat (prostitute or not), I don’t know why Governor Pat Quinn is complaining. He has proven this year that he doesn’t really want reform. Having Cohen on the Democratic ticket could have had some positive upsides. If Quinn was really desperate for a bridge loan, he could have just had Scotty taken him down to the pawn shop on Clark Street. How much are Abe Lincoln artifacts going for these days? I mean, at Cohen’s pawn shop, you wouldn’t get market value but still. With Illinois on the brink of insolvency, these times call for creativity.

In terms of creativity though, Scott Lee Cohen also falls short. Cohen’s a betting man. He used two million of his pawn shop proceeds to buy the lieutenant governor’s seat and won the primary with no media scrutiny. However, in terms of pioneering pay-to-play politics, Blagojevich beat him to it. It is a good thing Rod Blagojevich didn’t know Scott Lee Cohen in 2008. Blago wouldn’t have sold Obama’s seat, he probably could have pawned it instead.

Illinois needs campaign finance reform now. We need to enact laws that prevent pay-to-play politics and spending caps across the board. We need full transparency and an end to all legal loop holes that circumvent campaign finance laws. In Illinois, state Republicans have proposed HB5008 to limit campaign contributions from legislative leaders and their caucus committees and political parties. Quinn’s reform bill only made House Speaker Michael Madigan and other elites even more powerful. This law puts no monetary limit on leaders and political parties during the general election. Governor Quinn, what kind of reform is that?

Unless Pat Quinn is ready to pass a real reform bill, he may want to keep Scott Lee Cohen’s pawn shop number handy for future reference.

Summer is over and the kids are all back in school. You would think that as a conservative who, like Rush, hopes our President's policies...don't succeed, I would have been delighted by his struggles over the last couple of months. I should have been heartened by the Democrats' failure to pass their version of healthcare reform, the strong grassroots reactions at townhalls across the country from independents, not just Republicans, the Gates/Crowley fiasco where Obama instinctively claimed that police acted "stupidly"and his failed attempt to gloss it over with beer, the outcry over cap and trade, the trillion dollar deficit and the lukewarm stimulus, the furor over his many czars culminating with the resignation of radical advisor Van Jones, and finally the innocuous back to school speech forced upon him by parents across the country outraged by the lesson plan that taught us more about group think and Alinsky methodology. I don't yet feel energized by the rapidly dropping poll numbers that only Fox News seems to report, I just feel uneasy. If this last election taught me anything, it is that this Administration will manage to do the unbelievable. I don't trust the Democratic party, run by its left wing, to let Obama fail among its constituents. They will continue to bargain ith and manipulate their moderate members in order to keep this President and his agenda as the starting point for all political discussion. I just have this feeling that Obama will get away with a lot of what he wants to do in attempting to transform our government and society. Tonight, he will use linguistics to resell his health care plan, with the overall objective being to have a government plan, whether it is called an option, a single payer system, a trigger or whatever he now calls it. Remember, a rose is a rose by any other name and the morning star and the evening star are still Venus. This summer showed me that the tactic of this Administration is not to listen to the people and to work from their concerns but to start with the most liberally ideal legislation and hope it can survive a death by a thousand public outcry cuts. Keeping the public in the dark about the text of various bills, renaming various components, pooh-poohing legitimate concerns and outright denying or lying about its contents may work over time. It takes a lot of energy to disagree and dispel something and the liberal Democrats are banking on wearing down its critics, or at least making them look like angry mobsters who only seem to cry wolf. This is the source of my discontent - can independents and conservatives maintain the momentum to keep Congress and Obama honest? With a complicit liberal media, will their outcries be heard or honestly reported? Can Republicans effectively remind the public of these failures and the reveal the smokescreens or the "man behind the curtain"?

 

The important thing is that people need to feel connected to their government and their representatives and today they do not. One thing that is clear at these townhalls is that people do not trust their government. It is up to the Republicans to translate this mistrust and disconnectedness into political action. The hurdle is that most people are focused on making a living and providing for their families rather than listening to politicians and their polls. Who can we find to connect the right dots?

 

If someone other than your doctor asked you this question, you would probably be very uncomfortable or perhaps even offended.  It is considered culturally incorrect to ask or discuss a woman's weight.  A woman's weight is considered a pretty private piece of data.

Now, imagine that the federal government and endless numbers of faceless, nameless bureaucrats are managing your medical records under the new Obama health care plan.  Now, further imagine that the ACLU or some other activist legal organization, files a motion under the "Freedom of Information Act" demanding that all records of the federal government that are not considered vital to national security be opened to public view.  Well, then, we will all know who weighs what, and it will be a very short trip to the internet where anybody will be able to search the new body of federal medical records.

Don't think so?  Current law mandates that doctors maintain privacy with your medical records.  So, doctors carry a liability with your privacy.  If they violate it, they pay a penalty, so, they have a strong incentive to keep your records private.  If the federal government is paying for your health care, deciding what health care you get, and keeping your medical records so that they can determine what you are eligible for, then, what penalty do you think the federal government will agree to put on itself if it leaks some private medical information?

For example, suppose you fall in Secretary Janet A. Napolitano's list of dangerous people, like say Christians who disagree with the practice of abortion, or returning military veterans, you may be somebody who the federal government wants to watch.  And further suppose, that you are unhappy with your federal government at some level and you want to file a complaint or protest, and that your federal government is under the control of the opposite national party with which you identify.  Do you think that ambitious and emotional young bureaucrats will hesitate to snoop into your medical record to find potentially embarrassing or sensitive items to publicize and punish you with?  It has already happened on small scales with the exposure of FBI records, and on occasion, large medical databases have been compromised online, such as Eli Lilly's records of patients who were taking medication to address mental illness a few years ago.  The federal government can make all kinds of excuses and denials, but, once your medical record has been publicized, particularly if you are a public figure, you are already damaged, and then, there is no place left to go.  Witness Rush Limbaugh's records that were exposed when a liberal Democratic prosecutor decided to charge him with "Doctor shopping" to feed an addiction to Occicontin.  They were quite in a hurry to expose his use of Viagra.

Now imagine all the medical records of the USA in some massive database, and some politically active 20-somethings have access to it.

It's a pretty fat problem no matter who needs to know your body weight.

 

Tomorrow afternoon, President Obama is going to have a couple of guys over for a beer and possibly some absolution (and no, I did not mean Absolut). Many have written and commented on the President's recent gaffe regarding Sgt. Crowley's arrest of Henry Louis Gates as examples of his deep bent divisiveness, based on race and/or Democratic elitism. I see it differently. I see it as a result of the fact that Obama did not grow up as an American, with an American experience that most of us had, black and white, rich and poor, New Englander and Southerner, male and female. I see his condemnation of the Cambridge Police Department not just as an attack on presumed racial profiling (or possibly some left over bad feelings from his own Harvard days?) but a contempt for those who serve and preserve the laws and order of this country at all levels, be it local police or the military, and the class of Americans that value and promote such service.  Those of us who grew up in his generation were taught that the success and security of America depends in large part on the respect for the rule of law and those who are entrusted to protect it.

 

Let me step back for a minute. I went to grade school in the late sixties/early seventies and the years from 4^th through 8^th grade really stand out as truly formative education years. Even at the height of the Vietnam War protests, it was a time when civics and American history were taught as subjects of pride, before political correctness and apologism took over. Everyday, we said the Pledge of Allegiance, and the values of the Pledge were reinforced by the things we learned about this country's founding, growth, adaptation, expansion, spirit and willingness to fight for freedom within and beyond our borders. It was a time when we, like many other families, drove across the country to visit relatives or see sights, before air travel was easy and relatively cheap. As a result, we were taught to see America and see it for what it is, a country that is truly unique, respects the individual, encourages personal liberty and has opportunities for everyone, even if flawed. Even the mistakes and struggles of our history were taught as just that and no doubt our history has proved that we learn from our mistakes in order to better ourselves. It is this kind of experience that has made me, and many like me, patriots and proud Americans, even when I lived overseas as a teenager and in my early twenties. Obama never really had this and as a result does not comprehend what America is really all about.

 

Throughout his campaign and these early days of his Presidency, he has made comments about those Americans that make up the back bone of this country. He does not see their lives and values as the foundation of "American exceptionalism", as Rush Limbaugh puts it, but as folks who "cling to their guns and religion", or perpetuate the mistakes of bigotry or just act "stupidly". As young Americans, we were taught to respect authority and the rule of law, in order to preserve the greater freedoms afforded us under the Constitution, not just merely as a means to serve the goals of the state. We are now led by a man who believes he is first a "citizen of the world" and that the Constitution is incomplete or more of a "self-help guide" for a greedy Congress. And he apologizes for our success, forcing successful Americans to apologize for theirs through greater taxes and "spreading the wealth".

 

How different would Obama be if instead of reciting Koranic verses at an Indonesian Islamic school he had said the Pledge of Allegiance everyday? What might he have learned if he saw the miles of highway and beauty and progress our Western states have to offer or the ongoing history tragically told by all of our Civil War battle sites? American history is as much experienced as it is taught and this is the hole in Obama's education. Tomorrow afternoon may just give the President another chance to use somebody to further his political image, but I hope it offers Sgt. Crowley the chance to give our President a lesson in civics.

I have to confess, for the last two weeks I have been on a "vacation" where I have been blissfully unaware of what is going on in politics both in Washington and Chicago.  No newspapers, no radio, no television and only rare internet access.  I am amazed at how much less stress I feel not keeping track of the shenanigans of our elected representatives.  I have to believe that this is how much of the rest of the country probably lives.  And yet, in a scary way, I also am beginning to realize, as I re-enter the media world, how much goes on that I am not aware of and yet will affect me dramatically.  Yes, I am talking about this whole healthcare thing.  For once, I hope Dick Durbin is right and that nothing will be decided before the August recess.  I guess I am amazed at how quickly our President wants to get this going despite the fact that there is so much ambivalence, let alone push back from the American public.  I caught only bits and pieces of his "resell" speech and apart from trying to figure out what he was trying to say, I felt like we'd already heard his prime -time pitch before.  Is it really that hard for him to believe that Americans don't actually like what is going on?  Does he really think that Americans voted for him for his ideology and his insight into what is really good for us?  As Chicagoans, shouldn't we be frightened for the rest of the country that the key players in trying to get this healthcare nightmare passed are Rahm Emanual and David Axelrod ?  Neither of whom is known for his kindness and altruism.  In many ways I feel like Rip Van Winkle and am debating:  do I go back to sleep and hope to avoid confronting this reality or do I try to wake up and face the frightening present? 

 

One thing I have noticed is all this focus on the healthcare debate seems to have overshadowed some of the horrors happening overseas, including the kidnapping of our soldiers and the bombings in Indonesia to mention  a few.  Is there any doubt that the world seems less safe today than say, nine months ago?  Obama should relish the fact that thanks to the media and the political debate, Americans are focused on healthcare, global warming, and cap and trade rather than the rapidly destablizing world.  More than anything this tells me there is much to pay attention to in the upcoming months as gubernatorial and senate candidates emerge.  More than we realize, these folks will affect our lives, even if we are unaware of it.  It makes me think that many Americans have been blissfully sleeping while the busy political mice have been scurrying away our money, security and rights.  Rise and shine and wake up!

 

The story of the new Detroit continues to be told.  Last week, President Obama boasted that his team had achieved a wonderful success by bringing together all the parties and reaching a compromise that keeps Chrysler in business and preserves jobs.  He emphasized that all parties had ‘sacrificed' and that he stands with the people willing to make sacrifices, and does not stand with those unwilling to make sacrifices.

 

Since when does the President play the role of choosing sides in a commercial dispute?  Why isn't the role of government to merely enforce existing laws and contracts instead of negotiating and advocating on behalf of disputing parties?  By the way, those he "does not stand with" are the private equity investors who have watched their investment decline over the years.  Another word for private equity investor is owner.  The president does not stand with the owners of Chrysler.  Instead, he stands with labor.  If anyone tells you that this presidency is not about socialism, then ask them what it means when the president opposes property owners in favor of labor?  What does it mean when the federal government micromanages strategy of a private sector company in order to manipulate labor unions?

 

The drumbeat of this effort by the Obama team has been to preserve the UAW jobs and protect the sub-suppliers to Chrysler and GM.  Interestingly, there are about 700,000 UAW members currently being paid benefits, but, only about 200,000 are working in factories.  That means that more than ¾ of the UAW beneficiaries are not even working!!!  They would not LOSE a job because they are not currently HOLDING A JOB!!  This is a scam to protect and buy off the retiree vote with federal aid.  It is a transparent power grab, and the presentation to the public has been disingenuous.

 

The obvious and foolish aspect of this plan that the Obama automotive industry team crafted is its total neglect of consumer preferences.  No matter how much money the federal government pours into Chrysler, consumers tastes will not change, and consumers will not start buying Chryslers.  So far, the federal government does not have the power to force consumers to buy Chryslers instead of competitive cars.  Maybe Obama and Pelosi will suggest mandatory car buying laws next, all in the spirit of saving jobs and stimulating the economy.  I fear the endless stream of "great" ideas the Obama team seems to have.

 

So, what happens next?  After they pour the money into Chrysler, and merge with Fiat, and consumers keep buying Toyotas and Hondas because of the stubborn perception that the quality is higher in Japanese cars than Chryslers, what will the Obama administration do to protect your tax dollars?  How do we know that our tax dollars, poured into Chrysler, will be paid back?  The answer is that there is no guarantee, and the federal government is now deep into speculation.  Not only is it speculation, but, it is HIGH RISK speculation.

 

In addition, the Obama administration is apparently circumventing the bankruptcy laws.  In the case of Chrysler, some investors paid a HIGHER price for the privilege of receiving preferential treatment in the event of a bankruptcy, the holders of the secured debt.  Now, however, the Obama administration is demanding that these same investors, the ones who paid MORE for a safer position in the event of a bankruptcy, forfeit this right.  Obama is treating this Chrysler issue the way a frustrated parent would demand that two small children share the last piece of cake regardless of whose birthday it is.

 

The audacity of the Obama administration will be its undoing as he continues to pursue the most activist federal government in our history, and it backfires!  What will they do in 1 year when the consumers continue not to be interested in buying Chryslers and the balance sheet is just as bleak as it is today?  How many bailouts is his political capital worth?

 

2010 could give the answer.

 

Today, the Obama administration revealed that it is committed, apparently any way it can, to GIVE General Motors our tax dollars to preserve the GM operation and cash flow processes of this company.  GM is a business in bad need of restructuring.  It should go into chapter 11, and restructure, and if it meets market needs, it can re-emerge. If it does not meet customer requirements, generate its own positive cash flow, then, it should go away. 

 

The argument for supporting GM is that the subsuppliers and employees will be harmed if GM collapses, calamitous unemployment will ensue, and the American economy will be irreparably damaged.  If we apply some simple common sense, this cannot be the case.  Furthermore, in all the discussions of subsuppliers, I have not heard anybody detail the partitioning between US subsuppliers and Asian subsuppliers.  Remember when the Federal government gave billions to the banks, and they promptly spent billions in overseas investments, including $6B by BankAmerica to buy a Chinese bank, and AIG paid off countless foreign creditors with BILLIONS of YOUR tax dollars?  Why is our Federal government so anxious to send your dollars overseas?

 

The reality is that if GM goes entirely out of business, or survives but declines significantly, the demand for cars will not decrease. The free market does not care whether GM survives or not.  If you need a car, you will buy one, whether it is from GM or someone else.  The market has chosen NOT to buy GM cars in enough volume for GM to maintain its once dominant position in the US auto market. 

 

Worldwide, approximately 50 million cars per year need to be produced by somebody or somebodies, because the market wants them.  And that somebody needs the skills of automotive employees and the capacity of those subsuppliers.  If GM collapses, their demand on subsuppliers will simply be assumed by the surviving car makers.  GM's market share will simply shift to somebody else, and that somebody will do business with the subsuppliers that GM used to do.  To make 50 million cars, you need to make 50 million steering wheels.  If GM is liquidated, then, the competitors will increase their output to meet market demand, and ultimately 50 million steering wheels will be produced.  The only difference is that after the fall of GM, none of those steering wheels will ship to GM.  In a free market economy, GOVERNMENT should not care which of the businesses survive.  The market, the consumer with the freedom of choice, should determine which companies survive, not bureaucrats!

 

Now, the Obama administration is treading dangerously with something that is illegal for private citizens to do, but, apparently fine for the Federal government to do...manipulate free markets!  The free markets have been saying for 30 years that they do not prefer the GM brand the same way they did in the 50s and 60s.  Pouring federal dollars into GM will temporarily prop up GM, but will not change the tastes of car buyers.

 

This is a massive waste of government money and energy.  The federal government should not meddle in free markets.  GM is proposing to exchange it low value stock in exchange for debt.  Why should we, the taxpayer, be assuming high risk, bad debt, for a business that we, the American consumer market, have been embracing less and less for the past 30 years?

 

I currently enjoy owning a Chevy truck, and before that, a Ford, and before that, a Chrysler.  I have made a choice not to own Japanese cars, preferring to support the home team.  However, that is MY choice. It may not be yours, but, if you support this President's plan, he is not respecting your choice to buy the car of your choice.  If you do not prefer a GM car, too bad, Barack Obama is going to send some of your money to them anyway.  It's a lot like central planning in the old U.S.S.R.  Who needs freedom anymore?  As of today, the federal government will decide which businesses survive and which fail, based on political favoritism.  Good luck to entrepreneurs!

 

 

 

What is he thinking?

 

Recently, President Obama went to Europe, apparently more to apologize to the G20 for the arrogance and incompetence of the US in international matters, than to advocate on behalf of US interests.  Although European crowds cheered his words as a humble alternative to George Bush, who is has been frequently accused of being a cowboy with no regard for international "feelings," there is no advantage gained to Obama's participation and use of this language.  Crowds cheered, which makes Barack Obama happy, but, little was accomplished.  Furthermore, he is undermining our position in the world and providing justification for terrorists.  What better recruiting material for terrorists is there than the President of the United States claiming mistakes and arrogance?

 

The job of the President is to protect the economic and security interests of the US.  His function is much like a salesman.  It is not unusual for sales professionals to have somewhat adversarial relationships with their customers.  After all, a salesman is supposed to maximize revenues to his company, not help out customers.  If a salesman is making customers happy all the time, then, he is not getting as much out of his customers as possible.  A sales manager is always under pressure to increase pricing.  The idea that we all need foreign nations to like us is ridiculous. 

 

The people who hate us are not going to change their mind because of a few conciliatory speeches by President Obama or Hillary Clinton.  No matter who sits in the White House, the U.S. remains the richest nation on the planet with the biggest and most effective military force.  These are the reasons for the envy and fear that drive the hatred and resentment directed at the U.S. abroad.  However, Obama needs to choose his words very carefully.  He can do so much more harm than good with his speeches.  The exploitation of his speeches among the indoctrination machines within terrorist communities is particularly risky.  In addition, I find it ironic that the same President, who wants to apologize to the world for arrogance and forcefulness, also suggested in the debates that he would militarily strike Pakistan if they fail to cooperate with his idea of fighting terrorism.  So, if George Bush demands international cooperation, it is arrogant, but, when Barack Obama does it, it is wisdom!