Obama Stops Citigroup’s Rip-off of the Taxpayers

This is a picture of the inside of the new $50 million corporate jet Citigroup was planning to purchase with our tax dollars. Citigroup caved under pressure from President Obama and decided to abandon this planned purchase. I would normally oppose government applying that kind of pressure to influence corporate decision-making if it was only the stockholders money the company was spending. When it is public money, it is our business. I have said I would support President Obama when he deserves it. He deserves it for stopping this outrage. BadgalsRadio did a good job covering this story. To see more pics of the luxurious French-build jet Citigroup almost purchased and read more about it visit BadgalsRadio.

Top Stories

Is Rush a Buffoon?

There is a good post today over at Tampa Pirate. Tampa Pirate writes that he used to be a fan of Rush but got over it. Me too.

Tampa writes, “today he defends Merrill Lynch as they beg for money on one hand while redecorating an executive office for over $2 million. I am a believer in Capitalism, but not the expense of the American taxpayer.” I could not have said it better. Read the full essay: Rush is a Buffoon.

Top Stories

The American Conservative Union

Dear Rod,

Tuesday the 44th President of the United States took office.

An inauguration is always a time for our nation to reflect, to gain a sense of resolve and to move forward. With all of the issues facing our nation it is easy to lose sight of the things we hold dear and the positions we know will make American safer, stronger and more prosperous in the future.

With the election and inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama it now falls to us - you and us together at the ACU - to become "the loyal opposition."

As the nation's oldest, largest and most powerful grassroots conservative organization, ACU will stand ready to support the President when appropriate and to justly oppose him when we know that it is in the best interest of the country.

President Obama comes to the office with one of the most liberal voting records from his brief time in the Senate. Since his election he has begun to soften his stances and has shown a willingness to listen and even to bend ever so slightly on the stands he took while campaigning. Now that he is in office, we will begin to have a clearer picture on exactly how he and his administration will govern.

As our work with the new Congress and this new administration begins, we need your help here now to support ACU. We must first hold the President's feet to the fire. We must be ready to fight.

While being respectful, it is going to be critical to separate the rhetoric from the reality in the new Obama administration.

Throughout his campaign, now President Barack Obama said that he would limit the influence of lobbyists. ABC News reported, "As recently as the end of 2007, Mr. Obama was pledging that no lobbyists would "work" in his White House." In a New Hampshire campaign speech in June of 2007, he said, "in the last six years, our leaders have thrown open the doors of Congress and the White House to an army of Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play - a game played on a field that's no longer level, but rigged to always favor their own narrow agendas."

However, shortly after his election who did he turn to? He appointed John Podesta - President Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff - as the Co-Chairman of his transition team. This is the same John Podesta who on his own biography states he co-founded one of the most powerful Democrat-leaning lobbying firms in the nation with his brother Tony. The firm, Podesta Associates, Inc., is now one of the most highly paid influence peddling firms in Washington.

His rhetoric does not match the reality.Less than two weeks ago, Obama acknowledged violating this campaign pledge by selecting a lobbyist who has worked for defense contractors to become our nation's next Deputy Secretary of Defense, a post that oversees defense contracts.

And, Vice President Joe Biden's Chief of Staff? He is Ron Klain a lobbyist for Fannie Mae until 2004. Yes, the same Fannie Mae who helped propel our nation into our current mortgage and financial crisis.

As the "Loyal Opposition" working for you, ACU wants to send a message to President Obama that we will be watching. We want to help ensure the media and the public knows when the President's rhetoric doesn't match the reality. We need your help to get it done. Please click here, now, to help with these critical efforts.

Even more disturbing than these incidences, is the string of ethical challenges the President's designated cabinet team has faced before he even took the oath of office.

In a campaign speech, President Obama said, "I will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in history to make the White House the people's house." The result:
His Democrat Governor of his home State of Illinois is the now impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich. (ABC News noted, "Sen. Obama backed Blagojevich [for Governor] even though there were serious questions at the time about Blago's hiring practices.") Who is going to be Obama's Senior White House Advisor? David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist who was previously a campaign strategist for Blagojevich.

President Obama's choice for Secretary of Commerce was New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson - a holdover from President Clinton's regime. He had his nomination withdrawn because he is facing a Federal investigation for a pay-to-play scandal over allegations he pressured officials to award state contracts to political campaign contributors.

Obama's choice for Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner has admitted that he failed to pay more than $40,000 in taxes over several years. Maybe the Obama transition team forgot that the IRS is part of the Department of Treasury. Maybe they just didn't believe that a Treasury Secretary who is supposed to oversee the IRS should understand the tax rules or pay his own taxes?

Obama's choice for Attorney General - a position that serves as one of our nation's top independent law enforcement officials - is former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder. It was Holder who recommended the now infamous Clinton pardons of fugitive financier Marc Rich and of the Puerto Rican domestic terrorists who committed bank robbery and were linked by the FBI to more than 130 bombings and six slayings. When Holder was brought before Congress to explain his actions back then, he sidestepped the questions. Now, he is to help oversee law enforcement, including the FBI?

Additionally, his choice of Senator Clinton for Secretary of State has raised eyebrows over her husband's acceptance of large sums from foreign entities for his foundation. And, Obama's choice for Secretary of Transportation has close ties with an Illinois lobbyist who has been linked to the Blagojevich scandal.

There are only 12 cabinet positions in our nation's government. Twelve key policy posts - and five of Obama's choices have had ethical concerns raised before he even took the oath of office. Someone must watch the actions of the Obama administration and bring those actions to light.

We must be vigilant. We must fight for what is right. If we do not, America's greatness may be swept into history.

Who will stand up to make sure that Obama's decisions match his rhetoric? Who will fight for what we believe in? The ACU, with your help.

Who will fight to make sure that there is a watchful eye on Obama's decisions and policies? The ACU, with your help.

Who will be your voice to ensure the American people know what is really happening in Washington? Your ACU, with your help, here, now.

It is clearly an important time for our nation. We face enemies at home and abroad. We face uncertainty. But one thing is clear. The ACU will still be here, fighting for you, for policies that make our nation stronger - not weaker - with your help, here, now.

Please help us fight to shine the light on the Obama administration and to stand up for what is right.

Thank you for your continued support of the ACU.

Sincerely,

David A. Keene
Chairman of the Board


Dennis E. Whitfield
Executive Vice President

P.S. Help us send a message that Obama's rhetoric on ethics and lobbyist influence should match his record. Help us hold the new Administration accountable in the days to come. Help us fight for you, here, now.


Dear David,

I am with you. I am pleased that Obama has moderated some of the positions he took during the campaign. I have been pleased with his pragmatic and moderate tone. However, I think we must wait and see how he governs.

I am disappointed that Obama could not find twelve people untainted by corruption and conflict of interest to comprise his cabinet. I was truly hopeful he would usher in a era of honest government.

I agree we need strong organizations to be vigilant and keep a watchful eye on the Obama administration.

There is much that the Obama administration wants to do that makes me fear for the future of our nation. With the administration and both houses of Congress controlled by the same party we need a strong loyal opposition now more than ever and we need strong citizen activist organizations like the ACU. I am sending $25 at this time and will continue to contribute from time to time as long as I agree with the work of the ACU. I hope the ACU will support Obama when he is right but vigorously oppose him when he is wrong. I am publishing your letter in my little blog and hope others will take this opportunity to also support the ACU. All they have to do to contribute is click one of the highlighted, underlined portion of the text in your letter and complete the form and use a credit card to contribute. It is quick and easy.

Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

Rod Williams

Top Stories

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity denounce George Will and David Brooks

Last night I was watching Sean Hannity interview Rush Limbaugh and it all became clear. The conservative movement is badly splintered. On one side you have the likes of Charles Krauthammer, George Will and David Brooks and on the other side you have the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. I will identify them as the “thinking-conservatives” and the “peasants-with-pitchforks-conservatives.” The pitchfork conservatives label this division as between “so called conservatives” and “genuine conservatives.”

I really hate that we have this division. A movement that is in the minority does not need to be split in two. I would not have wanted to verbalize this division. I would prefer to ignore it. But Limbaugh laid down the gauntlet. He apparently wants to read out of the movement anyone who is not a ditto head. Below are excepts from the Hannity-Limbaugh interview (link):

HANNITY: What about all these — these so-called conservatives that met with Obama? Were you invited to that dinner?

LIMBAUGH: No, I wasn't. I wasn't.

(LAUGHTER)

HANNITY: I wasn't invited either.

LIMBAUGH: No. The blueprint is there. Let me — here's what's going on in the Republican Party. And it's really not new. These people that we're talking about, the northeastern blue blood Rockefeller Country Club types, they didn't even like Reagan. They — Reagan was an embarrassment. They believe that he was the dunce, an amiable dunce.

But what it's about, Sean, is abortion. These northeastern moderate liberal Republican types all have wives. I know this is going to sound pedantic and simplistic. But I have experienced it and this is how I know it. These guys that we are talking — they are big-money people. They are contributors, donors, fundraisers, they are just embarrassed to be in the same party with people in the (sigh) of who are pro (laugh) and they go to NASCAR races and that's — that's at the heart of this.

They go to the convention, the Republican convention with these people they think are hicks and hay seeds. 24 million of them without whom they couldn't win. So it really is about that. They won't say so publicly. But it — and it's not just that. But that's a large part of it, the Obama — it's a great — if you have time for me to analyze.

HANNITY: We have plenty of time.

LIMBAUGH: Does anybody, anybody with even half a brain really believe that Barack Obama went to dinner with a bunch of conservatives to have his mind changed?

HANNITY: Good point.

LIMBAUGH: If he did, there are some genuine conservatives he could have talked to. He could have invited us. He could have gone to Human Events. He could have gone to some people at the Heritage Foundation. He doesn't want his mind changed. He is co-opting these people. He's bringing them in. He wants the establishment media inside the beltway, punditry and so- called journalism, to be afraid to criticize him. I mean if he's broken bread with them and he's made them feel good about themselves, and given them an inside view of exactly who he is, it's going to be very difficult for these people to criticize him. I don't think for a minute that he cared to have his mind changed.

Pardon me, but I am greatly offended. Brooks and Will are “so called conservatives?” They are the bright lights of the movement! As far as I can determine, both George Will and David Brooks were Reagan enthusiast. Both are pro-life. The difference is that Brooks and Will analyze issues and make rational arguments; Hannity and Limbaugh rant and play to peoples prejudices. Brooks and Will appeal to the intellect; Hannity and Limbaugh appeal to the gut.

Now, I will admit that I do see a certain class or regional division within the Republican Party as well as within American society in general. I have often felt that there is a certain segment of society that looked down their nose at those of us from the South or Middle America. I myself am not a NASCAR fan, but I know what Rush means. I am a son of the South. I am a Tennessean and proud of it. I love country music. Thank God I’m a country boy! Just because I talk slow does not mean I’m dumb.

This southern inferiority complex or regional chauvinism or class resentment however is not the basis of the division within the movement. It is not about NASCAR or accents or style. I am a southern boy with an accent who likes country music so I am not a “northeastern moderate liberal Republican.” I certainly am not a “blue blood Rockefeller Country Club” Republican. If there is a Will-Brooks vs. Hannity-Limbaugh division within the conservative movement it is not a regional or class division but a division between those who think and those who simply emote.

It this is the division that Hannity and Limbaugh want to force upon the conservative movement then I would much rather identify myself with the George Will- David Brooks branch of the conservative movement than the Hannity-Limbaugh branch of the movement. I refuse to accept their labels however. We should not let the peasants-with-pitchforks hijack the movement of Buckley, Brooks and Will and claim the mantel of Reagan. We conservatives who read and think should not accept the label of “so-called conservatives.”

Top Stories

Guess who’s coming to dinner? Some "so-called conservatives."

These are the columnists who recently had dinner with Barack Omaba at the home of George Will. These are the people that Hannity and Limbaugh referred to as “so called conservatives.”


David Brooks: Brooks served as an editorial writer and film reviewer for the Washington Times, a reporter and later op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal, a senior editor at The Weekly Standard from its inception, a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Atlantic Monthly, and a commentator on NPR. He is now a columnist for The New York Times and commentator on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.


George Will: George Will is a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper columnist and author and Washington Post columnist. Will served as an editor for the conservative magazine National Review from 1972 to 1978. He joined the Washington Post Writers Group in 1979, writing a syndicated twice-weekly column, which became widely circulated among newspapers across the country. In 1976, he became a contributing editor for Newsweek, writing a biweekly backpage column. He is a regualar panelist on This Week. He also was a teacher at Harvard University.


Charles Krauthammer: He is a Pulitzer Prize -winning syndicated columnist and, a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and The New Republic. Krauthammer appears regularly as a commentator on Fox News and as a weekly panelist on Inside Washington.


Peggy Noonan: She is an author of seven books on politics, religion and culture, a weekly columnist for The Wall Street Journal, and was a primary speech writer and Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan.


Larry Kudlow: He is a supply-side economist, television personality, and newspaper columnist. He is the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company. As a syndicated columnist, his articles appear in numerous U.S. newspapers and web sites.


Bill Kristol: Kristol is the founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard, a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel, and a conservative op-ed columnist for the New York Times.


These educated and accomplished people are all solid conservatives. They are scholars, thinkers, theorist and are wise men and women. They are the best and the brightest the conservative movement has to offer. Although many of Rush’s listeners may not be familiar with them, every conservative who can read knows these luminaries of the conservative movement. I would trust their judgement over that of Hannity and Limbaugh any day of the week. Do you suppose Hannity and Limbaugh are simply jealous because deep down they know that are nothing but loud-mouthed entertainers and don’t deserve to be in the same room with these people? Hannity and Limbaugh are not worthy of shining the shoes of the likes of these people.

Top Stories

President Obama attacks Rush Limbaugh

Yesterday President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill that they needed to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh if they wanted to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. (link to New York Post story)

I am sure this made Rush Limbaugh’s day. Rush will have a field day with this attack. It enhances his prestige and will energize his audience. Rush couldn't have paid for better advertising. I would think President Obama would be better off to simply ignore Limbaugh and relegate him to the fringe. Was this a harmless off-the-cuff remark or is there a strategy behind making Limbaugh the image of his opposition? I just got through saying I was a Will-Brooks conservative, not a Hannity-Limbaugh conservative, and now Obama is driving me back into the Limbaugh camp.

Years ago I used to make a point to listen to Rush if I was free to do so at the time he was on. I was a Rush fan. Over time, I grew tired of Rush and stopped listening. At times I found myself annoyed by him. Some his more outrageous episodes such as the attack on Michael J. Fox and his hypocritical drug use and his often-faulty logic and his mean-spirited humor caused me to loose any respect for him I may have had. I lost all desire to listen. Now, I am anxious to see how Rush responds to this attack so I will try to tune-in.

In addition to finding this attack on Rush interesting, I seem to recall something about Obama going to be the post-partisan President. Dismissing those who have legitimate questions about the proposed trillion-dollar stimulus package as followers of Rush Limbaugh does not sound like a guy who is trying to build bridges and change the way things are done in Washington. I think I am beginning to understand what Obama meant when he spoke about ending partisanship in Washington. I think he meant that if you didn’t agree with some of his policies you were to keep your mouth shut and roll over and play dead. Obama has only been President for two days and the warm and fuzzy is starting to fade.

Top Stories

Engish-only Fails!

Yesterday the voters of Nashville rejected the English-only charter amendment. The opponents of the proposed charter amendment won a lopsided victory by defeating the measure with almost a 10,000 vote margin. 41,752 people voted against the measure and 32,144 voted for it. That and one other proposed charter amendment were the only things on the ballot. Turn-out was considered high for an election where no candidates were running for office.

The opponents of the measure included many Nashville public figures and institutions included the Governor, the Mayor, Chamber of Commerce, prominent business leaders, nine College Presidents, religious leaders, The Tennessean and various others. The only prominent people publicly identified with the proponents of the Amendment was the sponsor, Councilman Eric Crafton and local conservative radio talk show host Phil Valentine. Despite the lopsided public opposition their was a fear that the silent majority would defeat the establishment and the measure would pass. Many proponents of the bill viewed this measure as a way to make a statement about the problem of illegal immigration. Had the measure passed, Nashville would have been the largest city to ever pass such measure.

I am relieved that Nashville defeated this proposed amendment. It was unnecessary and was bad public policy. Had the measure passed, no one knew for certain what the impact would have been. It would have saved the city of Nashville almost no money since most translation services provided to residents of the city are paid for by Federal funds and are required or are provided by bi-lingual employees who are already on the payroll. The city has recruited bi-lingual policemen. Many feared the measure would prohibit a policemen who speaks Spanish from talking to another person in Spanish. Signs at the airport in other languages may have been illegal. School official may not have been permitted to send messages home with children in the language of the parents of the child. No doubt their would have been numerous expensive legal challenges to the measure. The Chamber feared it would hinder tourism and business recruitment. I think if it had prevailed it would have presented Nashville in a very bad light. I am glad that decency and common sense prevailed and this divisive measure was defeated.

Top Stories

Today I am voting "No" on English-only

To learn more about the issue, contribute, or get a yard sign visit Nashville for All of Us.

Top Stories

Nashville's English-Only Charter Amendment ...

is unnecessary, legally irresponsible, and bad public policy.

By Nathan Moore

The “English only” charter amendment is bad, not because the Metropolitan government doesn't need to be speaking in English (it already is), but because it is completely unnecessary. The primary advocates, many of whom I have known for years, are pursuing bad government policy with reckless abandon and it is shameful. The call for a special election, which would cost the taxpayers somewhere in the ballpark of $350,000 for an unnecessary, legally irresponsible amendment, is absurd. The money Metro would be spending could just as well go to more accessible English as a second language classes, which would go further toward solving the perceived linguistic problems of our city than this silly amendment.

As Davidson County Republican Party chairman Tom Lawless noted in The Tennessean today, “What is the great immediacy of this?”. He is certainly right - there is no immediacy, especially not in the case of this poorly contrived law.

I tend to look for the best in people, and will give most the benefit of many doubts, but I truly cannot figure out what positive is being accomplished with this amendment. The state of the law will not change. The only outcome will be that costs to Metro will go up in the form of litigation from certain constitutional challenges.

There is no language crisis in our city. Immigrants are not “holding out” on us, refusing to speak in anything but their native tongues. No one comes to America (and more specifically, Nashville), not wanting to learn English. There is not some underground society on Nolensville Road that has pledged to speak Spanish or die.

But what does need to die is the English-Only charter amendment. It is giving conservatives in Metro an awful reputation, one that many of us do not deserve and strenuously resent. I strongly oppose the English-Only charter amendment and urge its backers to rethink their reasons for supporting it. Surely we can focus on something that would actually make Metro better, leaving the coarsely developed aura of this irrational xenophobia in the gutter where it truly belongs.

Comment
Nathan Moore is a Nashville attorney, conservative activist, former Davidson County Young Republican Chairman and blogs at MoreThoughs. I had the pleasure of hearing him debate the proposed Nashville English-only charter amendment that is on the ballot to be decided January 22. Nathan debated Councilman Eric Crafton, the author of the bill, at today’s First Tuesday Group, a monthly Republican gathering. I concur with the arguments made by Nathan and the opponents of the bill.

Top Stories

The Inauguration

The Obama inauguration speech just concluded. It was inspirational and motivational. He set the perfect tone. I did not think the speech itself was a great speech, but a good speech. He did not sugar coat the problems we face but offered hope. He recalled our past challenges and our greatness and told us that we can overcome the current problems and that there are more great days ahead. He applauded the American sprit and our achievements. Any criticism of the Bush administration was very subtle. He appeared as a practical, reassuring, strong figure who loves this nation.

I was pleased that he extended a hand of peace to our enemies but vowed that we would defeat those who practice terrorism. His comment, “We will defeat you” was worthy of a cheer. His saying that we will not apologize for our way of life was another great line. I was pleased that he said we would defend our country without compromising our values.

One of the most poignant parts of his speech was when he said that in 60 years we went from a time when his father could not be seated in a restaurant to today when a person of color is being sworn in as President. That is a reason to take pride in our nation. We have changed for the better. His election is symbolic that we have lived up to the ideas our nation has long professsed.

I thought the whole events of the day and the ceremony and the music and the prayer and the speech were reassuring and up-lifting. To see the Bushs receive the Obamas for a short receptions somehow stuck me as an ordinary event yet an important symbol of the American civility of politics. We may disagree with our political advisories but we can interact and be polite and pleasant. To witness the amiable, peaceful transfer of power is something we take for granted, but we should realize that is not the way things are done in much of the world and for much of world history. We are truly blessed to live in America.

I will have differences with the party in power and hope the Obama administration fails to achieve some of their objectives. However, Obama is my President. Today, I feel nothing but goodwill toward the new administration and I have pride in my nation. God Bless Obama and the United States of America.

Top Stories

I am starting to feel warm and fuzzy.

I am watching Hardball and it was reported that tonight Barack Obama will be hosting a dinner honoring John McCain. What? Not only that, apparently when interviewing potential top tier foreign policy advisors he asked them to fill out a questionnaire and then asked John McCain to help judge the answers. Last week Obama attended a dinner at George Will’s house where David Brooks and other conservative commentators were in attendance. This is unreal. I was amassed that he selected Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. And then, Rick Warren was selected to say the official prayer asking God’s blessing on the new administration. His economic advisors include people with whom Wall Street are comfortable. He has equivocated and backtracked on some of his campaign promises. People I respect and admire say they think Obama is pragmatic and reasonable. Maybe he really meant it when he talked about bringing a new climate of nonpartisanship to Washington. Maybe he is the right man at the right time for our nation. I am starting to feel all warm and fuzzy.

Top Stories

Obama's Costly Inauguration!

People are being evicted from their homes, unemployment is up, the stock market is down, we have homeless on the streets and the inauguration of President Barack Obama is going to cost $150 million!

And, I really don't care. Spend it! Party hard! Celebrate!

This money could be used to feed the homeless or fight aids and help people make their house payment. Yea, but we also need to party. Anyway most of the money is from private donors. If they were not spending it on this big party they probably wouldn't be spending it. We have no claim to the money of rich Democrats who are spending their own money.

That portion of the money that is spend by the city of D.C or the State of Virginia is an investment in tourism. Any government of a tourist destination spends public funds on safety. It is a public investment. That money spend by the Federal government I don't begrudge. We need to spend funds for ceremonial operations of government. Why do we have all of those military bands? This is their chance to play.

Anyway, this spending is an economic stimulus with a multiplier effect probably greater than the multiplier effect of the public funds that Congress will soon appropriate. Florist, hairdressers, hotels, restaurants, cab drivers, waiters, chefs, souvenir vendors, designers of ball gowns and many, many more will earn income from the event. So a big party is good economic activity.

I just want to point out that the inauguration is by far the most costly in history costing $150 million in the worst of economic times since the great depression. The Bush inauguration in 2005, by comparison, cost about $70 million which was then the most costly to date. Many Democrats were critical of the cost of the Bush inauguration. When Reagan was inaugurated, Mrs. Reagan was severely criticized for wearing a $10,000 gown to one of the balls. I promise not to criticize the cost of Michelle's gown.

If you are a Democrat, ask yourself if you would be complaining about this expensive party if the shoe was on the other foot. In today's economic hard times, if John McCain had been elected and it was the Republican team spending this kind of money on a party, what would you be saying? I know it is hard to believe, but their will be another Republican inauguration someday. So, if you are not bitching about the cost of this party, don't bitch when it is our turn.

I know it is a hopeless quest to try to get sanctimonious hypocritical liberals to see their contradictions, but I like to try.

Top Stories