The US Report

At stake in Dubai this December: Will UN take over the Internet?

2012-05-26T17:51:17Z

View along a causeway in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. (Photo: CIA World Factbook, US Government)In December 2012 negotiators will come together in Dubai (United Arab Emirates) for the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). Participants will address the issue of a global treaty that could ultimately determine how the Internet and telecoms are regulated.

The treaty will also affect how you and I use the Internet.

The International Telecommunication Union is hosting the conference of government officials from around the world. Those officials will discuss and shape the International Telecommunications Regulations.

The ITU website describes the organization’s makeup:

“An organization based on public-private partnership since its inception, ITU currently has a membership of 193 countries and over 700 private-sector entities and academic institutions. ITU is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and has twelve regional and area offices around the world.”

Leaders of the ITU are from Mali and China. Russia was a co-founder of the organization. The Daily Caller described the ITU as a “little known UN agency.”

The U.S. State Department is supposed to appoint a lead negotiator for the December meeting.

TDC said:

“[R]ussian Prime Minister Vladmir Putin announced in June 2011 that he and his allies sought to establish international control over the Internet.”

At present TDC described the Internet model as “a voluntary multi-stakeholder process, loosely governed through various U.S.-based nongovernmental international organizations.” Putin decided the TDC would be his preferred instrument in the Internet takeover.

The U.S. Senate held a hearing on the treaty, with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) saying, “Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory framework.”

The obvious problem with the aims of the treaty is a decline in freedom around the globe. There is no universal equivalent of the U.S. First Amendment limiting government power over freedom of expression, assembly and faith as well as specifiying the right of the people to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Many Americans do not realize the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the broadest limitation on government in the world when it comes to specific individual rights.

The U.S. House will take up the issue the first week of June with a hearing scheduled for the Energy and Commerce Subcomittee on Communications and Technology.

Americans will likely not be comfortable with Russia and China running the Internet by UN proxy. Obviously personal freedoms will decline not only abroad but domestically if authoritarian regimes take over the Web. One example of the UN’s infringement on the First Amendment is Resolution 7/19 setting aside special status for a single religion.

Transparency is non-existent at the UN—an example is the Oil-for-Food scandal enabling millions of dollars to go to corrupt officials, none of whom were punished.

Related Articles at The US Report

US Congress asleep at the wheel on UN R2P, sign of mythic ‘New World Order’

China cyber attacks, authoritarianism, trade violations impede US interests say experts

While you were sleeping: Democrats open door for UN to tax Americans

Resource Site

The Internet Society Home Page

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 26, 2012)

Romney is right: Obama and the Dems are big time spenders

2012-05-25T23:26:25Z

As soon as I learned that Rex Nutting at Market Watch claimed President Barack Obama’s spending binge never happened. I started backtracking through articles I’d written about spending. I followed links to various articles in other publications.

I put a few notes on paper. Then I saw a numbers guy was onto the story as well—Political Math Blog. If you don’t read any other blog, by the way, read that one. [Links below.]

Bottom line: Obama and the Dems are big spenders.

I’ve written about Matthias Shapiro’s work at PMB before—his analysis of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s most excellent job numbers and his most engaging video on the numbers embedded in ObamaCare.

Shapiro takes Nutting’s assertions apart in a sensational infographic that even a numbers dullard like me can understand. He saved me a lot of work and he crafted an excellent rebuttal to Nutting in the infographic at PMB.

Aside from that, here are some interesting items and sources I found:

12/20/2007: Fox News reported President George W. Bush “chastised the Democratic-led Congress.” Dems lumped approximately 9.800 pork projects into a massive omnibus spending bill totaling 1,400 pages. The bill was pushed as Christmas drew near. Bush noted that Congress had approved about 11,900 earmarks during the year. Bush also noted that Dems got an extra $11 billion more in that bill than he had asked for.
1/7/2009: Then Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pressured House Dems to pass an economic recovery bill by mid-February. Total cost of the plan? $800 billion. As Pelosi did that, Obama told Americans he was going to bring “long-overdue…responsibility and accountability to Washington.” The president called budget reform “an absolute necessity.” Source: Associated Press via Cantonrep.com.
12/10/2009: Dems once again tackle the spending bill (still no budget, by the way) as Christmas approaches. The Associated Press reported lawmakers got more than 5,000 home state projects. The bill totaled more than 1,000 pages--$1.1 trillion. No Republican voted for it and 28 Dems had the cojones to oppose it.
12/17/2010: The US Report led with, “Sen. Harry Reid has ditched the Omnibus spending bill after outrage poured forth…” One outrage came in the form of a $48 billion earmark no one wanted to take credit for.
3/18/2010: Pelosi said she loved numbers—“They’re so precise.” Pelosi was elated because the CBO had downsized the numerically shape-shifting ObamaCare bill to $940 billion. What Pelosi didn’t talk about was what Congress has done since the beginning of Medicare—they didn’t include another $350 billion or more for the ‘Doc fix’ in their projections. They always do that in a bill all by itself so they don’t freak us out. (The Daily Caller)

Obviously Democrats had a tendency to do the big spending right around Christmastime when we were all shopping and drinking nog.

Obama didn’t spend all the money by himself—he had plenty of help from Dems in Congress.

Bear in mind Obama was the earmark maestro as a junior U.S. senator. Pelosi was right up there with her president. In the first year after she grabbed the gavel as speaker, she dropped $16,000 on flowers and spent 63 percent more in her first 9 months than her Republican predecessor did.

Recall Dems took Congress in November, 2006 and kept it until November, 2010. Obama left his U.S. Senate seat and took the presidency in 2008.

We still don’t have a budget, by the way. And Obama should accept that Congress always hangs the president with the spending. Time for him to man up and stop blaming someone else for his and his party’s actions. Big spenders all. Don’t let anyone tell you any different. Nutting is wrong.

Gov. Mitt Romney's criticism of Obama for big spending is justified.

Political Math Blog had fun with political healthcare bill (The US Report)

(Analysis by Kay B. Day/May 25, 2012)

Bloggers acknowledge Brett Kimberlin Day on May 25

2012-05-25T16:35:05Z

Graphic posted by National Bloggers Club marking #BrettKimberlin Day on the Web. (Graphic: National Bloggers Club)What is it about bombers and the Left?

As the 2008 presidential campaigns got underway, Bill Ayers’ name repeatedly cropped up in conservative media. Ayers was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s, a political group with a penchant for bombs. Ayers got away with whatever he did, eventually playing a key role in then-Senator Barack Obama’s propulsion into politics.

Now another bomber is making rounds in the Blogosphere, only this bomber was actually convicted. Maybe he didn’t have the political pull Ayers did. Brett Kimberlin has been selected for attention on the Web today, and his story is a strange, mesmerizing tale.

Kimberlin’s story begins in his past:

“Kimberlin was convicted as the so-called ‘Speedway Bomber,’ who terrorized the city of Speedway, Indiana, by detonating a series of explosives in early September 1978. In the worst incident, Kimberlin placed one of his bombs in a gym bag, and left it in a parking lot outside Speedway High School. Carl Delong was leaving the high school football game with his wife when he attempted to pick up the bag and it exploded. The blast tore off his lower right leg and two fingers, and embedded bomb fragments in his wife’s leg. He was hospitalized for six weeks, during which he was forced to undergo nine operations to complete the amputation of his leg, reattach two fingers, repair damage to his inner ear, and remove bomb fragments from his stomach, chest, and arm. In February 1983, he committed suicide. [Red State]”

Kimberlin was convicted and sentenced to 50 years. He’s already out and like Ayers, Kimberlin has become active in Leftist politics.

The ex-con’s politics led his path to cross with conservative bloggers. And that’s where the current political explosion began. More than one blogger, including at least one on the Left, allege Kimberlin and his supporters harass people who disagree with their politics. Bloggers also allege Kimberlin is famous for filing lawsuits against those he opposes.

Several bloggers have shared tales of oppression, with one pointing out there’s only circumstantial evidence because authorities aren’t following up on leads.

One L.A. prosecutor alleges he’s been a SWAT victim because of his blog. When someone SWATs you, you can get killed. A caller phoned the police one night claiming he’d shot his wife. The caller pretended to be the prosecutor. What happened after the call should frighten anyone. A SWAT team showed up at the prosecutor’s house.

Thus far no one’s gone to jail for the hoax, and that’s probably the worst offense of all—the failure of authorities to actively pursue and hold the culprit(s)—whomever they are—accountable.

Numerous bloggers have written about being personally attacked. One blogger, Robert Stacy “The Other” McCain alleges he’s had to go into hiding after blogging about Kimberlin.

The Red State post I cited above explains Kimberlin’s ability to attract funds from leading leftwing organizations. Kimberlin, like Ayers, has promoted his cause and as a result, just like Ayers, he’s been handsomely rewarded.

Some bloggers believe Kimberlin’s actions fall within the Anonymous umbrella, but I don’t. I see the Anon types as more purist than Kimberlin, given to truly anarchical ideals rather than fundraising schemes and formal politics aligned with current Democrat party policies. Anonymous is very passionate about freedom of expression, and that passion is at odds with Kimberlin’s approaches in my opinion.

I’ll never forget what Ayers told The New York Times in an interview published on September 11, 2001:

''I don't regret setting bombs…I feel we didn't do enough.''

Darlings of the Left—explosive in more ways than one, and eternally dedicated to silencing dissenting voices by any means available.

The fact that the U.S. Dept. of Justice hasn’t done anything to investigate says it all about the quality of that agency under the current administration.

Related/Source Links

Is Anonymous in your city? (The US Report)

Aaron Worthing's post on his Brett Kimberlin allegations (Allergic to Bull)

Friday, May 25, is ‘Everybody blog about Brett Kimberlin Day’ (Lee Stranahan)

Free speech blogburst (Michelle Malkin)

Flashback: Progressives Embrace Convicted Terrorist (Breitbart)

Life with the Weathermen (The New York Times)

Conservative blogosphere introduces Brett Kimberlin, 2012 (Breitbart)

See the personal account from iconic blogger (Ace of Spades)

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 25, 2012)

SPLC does it again with bizarre label for Tenth Amendment Center founder

2012-05-25T13:01:27Z

Michael Boldin is founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. (Photo: TAC)Late last night I decided to peek at Facebook since I haven’t had a lot of time for it these past few days.

I saw a post from one of my groups, the Tenth Amendment Center. The post said the Southern Poverty Law Center listed TAC founder Michael Boldin as one of "30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right."

Boldin and the TAC have been inducted into the SPLC “Intelligence Files”:

“Founded in 2007, the TAC is based on an expansive reading of the Tenth Amendment, which says that those ‘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.’”

That’s radical all right—straight out of those radical documents we call the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The new classification for Boldin rests partly on a claim that the TAC is “on the political far right, opposing a whole array of federal laws and regulations.”

Did the SPLC take a talking point from pundit Rachel Maddow? She brought up nullification on her TV show and naturally the TAC was mentioned. She managed to mangle the concept of nullification. I wrote a column explaining why in April, 2011. Maddow merged the concepts of secession and nullification. I explained her problems after talking to some of the people at TAC:

“In her rush to paint the nullification movement as the product of racist extremists, she leaves out some important history, such as the fact that northern states invoked the principle to oppose what they considered unconstitutional fugitive slave laws - laws that coerced northerners into acting as slave catchers and denied captured suspected slaves due process.”

The Tenth Amendment Center swings libertarian, not “radical right”, whatever that term means. In reality, “radical right” is a self-contradictory term.

The federal ban on medical marijuana, for instance, is one issue TAC has addressed in a blog post. The ban is unconstitutional of course, partly because the Supreme Court made a very lousy decision based on an interpretation of the Commerce Clause that was ridiculously expansive. What’s next—will the feds come bust me for the St. John’s Wort or the Valerian I grow in my little backyard garden?

TAC has also spoken out against the National Defense Authorization Act and ObamaCare for obvious reasons—there are serious problems with the Constitution within those acts. Both acts represent hostile intrusions on freedom, and no one who respects the Constitution will take issue with my statement.

I may not agree with TAC on every issue, but the organization has done more to advance liberty in the last decade than the SPLC. SPLC tends to put individuals and groups who disagree with big government dominance on some kind of list.

Anyone classifying Michael Boldin or the TAC as “radical right” should be topped off with a dunce cap, stand in a corner and recite the Tenth Amendment at least 100 times.

SPLC emerged in the aftermath of the big battles for civil rights. However, the organization has now become a political sister to groups like the scandal-plagued Media Matters, targeting others simply because their views are different.

There’s an excellent backgrounder on the SPLC and its money vine at Discover the Networks. Read that and you’ll see who the real radicals are.

SPLC owes Boldin an apology, not that he’s likely to lose much sleep over the insult to his work.

Boldin can certainly be comforted by the fact the SPLC is a declining voice, an irrational presence that does nothing to advance political debate. SPLC does one thing well, as Discover the Networks explains—fundraising.

The Tenth Amendment Center, however, is part of an energized movement seeking to restore the United States to a level where freedom can flourish and the supreme document placing limits on federal powers will be honored. No organization has done so much with so little to advance liberty in these troubled times. Those who understand the Tenthers know that, and Boldin and his colleagues have earned respect from many people for that reason.

What’s the best response to SPLC’s foolish position?

I plan to make another donation to TAC. SPLC has provided the best reason in the world to send this organization a donation. I don’t get anything tangible for taking that position. What I do get is helping another vital voice in the cause for freedom sustain itself, and that is in my (and your) best interests.

Tenth Amendment Center explains founders approved of judicial review of bad law (The US Report)

Tenth Amendment Center page (On Facebook)

Tenth Amendment Center (official website)

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 25, 2012)

Clinton demonstrates support for women by posing with 'famous porn stars'

2012-05-24T17:24:09Z

President Bill Clinton has enjoyed a remarkable rehabilitation gifted by Democrat-friendly media. Clinton has always been viewed by many of us as a man who enjoys the company of women. Therefore when TMZ ran a photo of Clinton with two women the website described as “famous porn stars,” my response was tepid.

Then I recalled an episode from 2010 when The Palm Beach Daily News reported:

“President Bill Clinton and Naomi Campbell are among the rich and famous who have flown aboard convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet, according to flight logs from Epstein’s private aircraft.”

Epstein is known as a wealthy money manager who also founded The Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation. In April, 2012, Epstein’s foundation announced an international conference, ‘ Coping with Future Catastrophes,’ to be “held most likely in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.”

The New York Post covered Epstein’s release from a short jail term in February, 2011. The Post also provided details on court documents showing “the victim was identified as a 14-year-old girl.”

The Palm Beach Daily News also said Attorney Alan Dershowitz flew on Epstein’s plane. Dershowitz, never one to shy from the media spotlight, was part of Epstein’s defense team.

Dershowitz has been in the news of late, vilifying a Florida state attorney who is handling the Trayvon Martin case.

Clinton has always enjoyed a diverse, sometimes eccentric assortment of friends and associates who move in the realm of the uber-wealthy.

The porn star photo probably won’t draw much attention from most media. Clinton wears his trademark smile in the photo. TMZ said one of the porn stars was in the film Farm Girls Gone Bad.

Democrats make support for women a pillar of their party platform, so Clinton may just be supporting women in a manner he’s comfortable with.

One irony missed by TMZ—the starlet on the right in the photo was wearing a blue dress.

Wikipedia has more information on Epstein, with claims linked to established media sources like The New York Times and The Daily Mail.

Related at The US Report

Clinton, Democrats, the glitterati and convicted sex offender together on planes

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 24, 2012)

Vegas high speed rail seeks $5.5 billion federal loan for $6 billion plus investment

2012-05-24T14:41:18Z

Photo: Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Govnmt.President Barack Obama has promoted high speed rail since his presidential campaign in 2008, and one project drawing attention is a 190 mile high speed rail line linking Victorville, Calif. and Las Vegas.

DesertXpress has requested a $5.5 billion federal loan, part of a total investment of approximately $6 billion. That figure is an estimate based on numerous reports in different media.

Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) is a fan of the project, but Reid is allied with a Republican politico, Sig Rogich. Greenwich Time, a Hearst publication based in Connecticut, said Rogich co-chairs Republicans for Reid, “a Nevada group with ties to the gambling industry…”

GT also said casino developer Anthony Marnell II is an investor in the project. Marnell is also a member of Republicans for Reid.

Most conservatives would probably be surprised at the label ‘Republicans for Reid.’

GT said:

“Federal records show the elder Marnell has donated at least $15,000 to political committees connected to Reid since 2010, including a $5,000 donation in May to the senator's Searchlight Leadership Fund…the company has spent at least $270,000 since 2006 lobbying at the House, Senate and federal offices.”

Bloomberg said DesertXpress Enterprises LLC wants a loan that is “about 10 times larger than the loan guarantees solar-panel maker Solyndra won from the U.S. Energy Department…” and it would be “more than three times the amount of all loans made under the Federal Railroad Administration’s construction fund.”

Such loans have a long life; they can be repaid over several decades at a low interest rate.

Company officials told Bloomberg they hoped the project, developed over an 8 year period, wouldn’t “get caught up in politics.” However, considering the company is seeking approximately $6 in taxpayer funded loans for every $1 from private investors, politics may be hard to avoid.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott turned down federal money for high speed rail in Florida because of concerns about costs to taxpayers. One California trade association executive told GT he was “suspicious” of any investor claiming a system would “pay for itself.” The Southern California Association of Governments executive said, “There is no high-speed rail system in the world that operates without subsidies.”

In his book Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer reported on members of Congress who have indirectly benefited from federal monies directed to areas where they own land. Among those members was Reid, although nothing about the Vegas rail project is noted in the book.

Canada think tank says light rail worsened Calgary’s auto dependency (The US Report)

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 24, 2012)

Panetta happy to see lobbyist Lott push for ratification of Law of the Sea Convention

2012-05-23T17:46:57Z

(Photo: U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Comm.)Excerpt from UN Convention on Law of the Sea. Revenue would be sent to a bureaucracy in Jamaica. (Snip from document at U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee) As hearings got underway on the Law of the Sea Convention on Tuesday, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the agreement. Ms. Clinton was taking the same stance her husband took during his presidency—sacrifice U.S. sovereignty based on a lot of hopes related to a document that contains as much wiggle room as a giant strip-tease joint.
Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta had thanked lobbyist Trent Lott, a former Senate Majority Leader who served as a Republican. The Daily Caller said after Panetta, a Democrat, saw Lott in an earlier committee meeting, the secretary felt “a hell of a lot better about the chances for ratification.”

Bear in mind Panetta was one of the authors of the IRCA amnesty in 1986—he felt great about that at the time. It took more than a decade for Americans to realize what a fiscal disaster that bill was. That bill also ceded portions of U.S. sovereignty, ultimately creating a border so porous that the undocumented population expanded by 400 percent between then and now. The broker of that bill was another well-known Democrat—Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.)

Panetta is one of many politicians eager to push for globalism even as the U.S. faces historic challenges because of globalism. What these politicos have done is create a global structure for the redistribution of U.S. wealth. Has that redistribution made the world a better place?

The biggest accomplishment globalism has wrought is enriching a few more dictators and lining the pockets of people those Occupy kids call the one percent.

On Tuesday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee headed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) took up the issue.

Conservative stalwart Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) noted that the countries that came aboard with the LOST agreement “are already violating the rules they ascribed to.” DeMint also pointed out the membership of countries like Sudan. Sudan is noted for human rights abuses on a grand scale.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) called attention to the bureaucratic framework of the Convention—a secretariat, a council and an assembly rolled into one giant entity. LOST amounts to a United Nations on the sea. The UN on the ground has not been beneficial to the U.S. taxpayer.

Democrats probably see a possible opportunity to get their long-desired document ratified. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) is the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Lugar just lost a primary challenge to state Treasurer Richard Mourdock who will oppose a Democrat in November.

Lugar has nothing to lose by supporting the Left on the matter of ratification.

LOST is a sellout of American resources and freedom. Any senator supporting the ratitication of LOST should be run out of office on voting day. The treaty covers anything that swims, floats or impacts the sea in any way, and that includes natural resources (Hello, enviro-thugs!) and maritime safety (pirate time). Americans can expect to see some new global taxes come our way. Democrats won’t mind. They never met a tax they didn’t like.

It doesn’t matter if you’re on welfare or running a small business, LOST will not be beneficial to Main Street.

Democrats are long on theory and very short on substance. LOST is a risk Americans should not be forced to take. As U.S. sovereignty erodes, freedom declines as well. They don’t call that agreement LOST without a good reason. If the U.S. gets a “seat at the table,” as Panetta says, “We, the people” lose in ways the Left has not even envisioned.

As for lobbyist Lott who’s getting paid to support LOST, he spoke emphatically against it when he was in the Senate. He says he’s not a hypocrite. Obviously, he’s mistaken about that as well.

The revenue collected via LOST would go to the International Seabed Authority. That bureaucracy would be located in Jamaica.

First UN, now WHO aim to tax US citizens in globalization push (The US Report)

Justice Alert: Human Rights Report pledges ICJ Avena compliance (The US Report)

Source Document: Law of the Sea (Senate Foreign Relations Committee/U.S. Government)

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 23, 2012)

Will FBI investigation of GOP donors aid Leftwing Democrat in Ohio?

2012-05-23T13:55:12Z

Ohio state treasurer Josh Mandel is in a tight race with uber-liberal Sherrod Brown for a U.S. Senate seat. [Screen snip, Mandel campaign]Ohio is inarguably a swing state for 2012, not only in the presidential race but also in congressional races.

One race drawing attention is state treasurer Josh Mandel’s attempt to unseat Sen. Sherrod Brown (D). Brown is one of the most liberal members of Congress, ranked alongside uber-liberals like Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), according to National Journal [Feb. 28, 2011].

In an unusual turn, the FBI is actually looking at some of Mandel's donors as the race progresses.

In November, 2011, it looked like Brown had no worries. Polls showed him ahead by double digits.

As Americans learned what was in the ObamaCare bill Brown enthusiastically helped shove through the side door via questionable methods, Ohio voters apparently began to take a closer look at the senator who basically told Americans the Bible talks about poverty, he’s a Lutheran and that’s basically why reform of government unions is something he does not believe in.

As an aside, I confess I’ve heard some of the same type of Leftist babble from some Lutheran clergymen.

By mid-May, Mandel had come within 6 points of Brown, and Democrats took note for obvious reasons. Brown probably didn’t even anticipate having to defend his seat very vigorously—voters have repeatedly returned him to Washington since 1993 when he began his federal career in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Enter Josh Mandel, a charismatic veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps. Easy on the eyes and youthful, Mandel is often described as a rising star in the GOP.

Now the FBI is looking at some individual donations to Mandel. The Toledo Blade is generally credited with spurring the investigation. How did the newspaper get interested in those donors in the first place?

Brown knows some wealthy donors because according to Open Secrets, he’s received $5,616,058 in “Large Individual Contributions”—about half the total contributions from individuals in the last 5 years. The top industry donating to Brown? Lawyers and law firms—typical for a Leftwing Dem. Will the FBI give Brown’s donors a go-over?

The FBI is also looking at another Republican candidate in Ohio, U.S. Rep. James Renacci, for the same reasons. That’s one too many coincidences for some political observers.

The campaigns aren’t part of any wrongdoing, by the way. They can just return the money. Consider the outcome of all those strange donations the Obama campaign ended up with in 2008.

Brown is obviously worried about the seat he may have assumed was his to take.

Meanwhile Mandel continues to wage a political battle in the swing state of Ohio. Battles are nothing new to Mandel. Here’s a lift from this veteran’s bio:

“Inspired by a strong sense of duty to country, Treasurer Mandel enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves in 2000, where he graduated first in his class from Marine Corps Boot Camp and first in his class from Marine Corps Intelligence School. His Marine Corps career spanned eight years, including two tours in Anbar Province, Iraq. During both tours he was awarded the Navy & Marine Corps Achievement Medal for "superior performance of his duties."

The Mandel team might want to start poking around in those individual donors to the Leftwing incumbent. Turnabout, after all, is fair play, and Democrats have set a precedent.

Even the Dem-friendly Washington Post had to admit something about the Obama campaign:

“The Obama campaign did not disclose nearly $2 million in donations ahead of the 2008 elections, according to an audit by the Federal Election Commission released Thursday” [April 19, 2012].

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 23, 2012)

Romney’s firm a target, but why doesn’t Obama talk about his taxpayer ‘investments’?

2012-05-22T13:07:49Z

Gov. Mitt Romney, shown here at a Jacksonville fundraiser, has been a target for Obama. The president isn't talking about his own investments. (Photo: Kay B. Day/The US Report)The major talking point for President Barack Obama and Democrats revolves around former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s work with a private equity firm. However, Obama and his team have made sizable investments. How have those worked out?

Romney’s firm attracted money from different types of investors—individuals, pension funds, endowments.

Our president, however, made investments with taxpayer dollars, and we didn’t have much of a say in how that money is directed or managed. Basically, we’ve been forced to ante up capital. If Dems get the tax increase they want, we’ll ante up even more.

Taxpayers are still on the hook for the government sponsored enterprises known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. No one has reeled these GSEs in.

What’s our return? Home values tanked and the taxpayer is still on the hook for any future government bailout. It’s harder than ever to get a mortgage loan.

Then there was the Obama-fashioned auto bailout. Todd Zywicki, professor at George Mason University, said this:

“[T]he government still stands to lose billions of dollars on its investment as well as many billions more from the preferential tax treatment of the reorganizations.”

Zywicki explains the complicated auto bailout folly in an essay.

Don’t even get me started on Cash for Clunkers. Had your car repaired lately? How about the prices for those parts?

The Obama administration also invested taxpayer money into alt-energy —Solyndra failed, burning more than $500 million taxpayer dollars. Tesla, the electric car company, got $465 million in a U.S. taxpayer-backed loan at an interest rate ranging from 0.9 percent to 3.4 percent. The company says it will start paying the loan back at the end of 2012. Cross your fingers and hope for the best.

Billions of taxpayer dollars have gone into alt-energy companies, many of them backed by big corporations and wealthy investors who either raised money for or donated directly to Democrats.* The jury is still out on how the companies will fare—making fuel from algae and nonfood substances and even mustard seed. Will taxpayers earn a return? I’d wager our utility bills won’t decrease either way.

One of Obama and the Democrats’ largest forced investments has been in the federal bureaucracy. The Obama administration expanded the number of federal employees and will expand the rolls again if ObamaCare does not stimulate a ruling in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

IRS will hire health cops to make sure policies comply with guidelines that aren’t even completely written, to make sure you purchase your policy and possibly to assess the fines many companies will opt to pay by dropping employer sponsored health insurance. Because the more than 2,000-page law is so complex and obscure, Democrats have invested more than $700 million in consultants and contractors to help states figure out the law most Dems didn’t read before passing.

Taxpayers will get no return on the expansion of the federal bureaucracy except for whatever went to Defense and/or Homeland Security. And some of the Homeland Security plans—drones over civilian areas, parts of the National Defense Authorization Act for instance—conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

As a direct result of Obama and Democrats’ policies, we are paying more for everything—food, gasoline, household utilities, home heating and a/c repair and rent.

It is a virtual certainty our health insurance premiums will go up if the Supreme Court caves to politics rather than the law. It will be a very long time before many homeowners see their equity begin to grow again.

Obama risked taxpayer money across the socio-economic spectrum—from the blue collar mechanic to the real estate agent to the CEO of a midsized corporation. We all paid.

The Wall Street Journal looked at Romney's private equity work and found that Bain turned $1.1 billion in investments into $2.5 billion in gains.

Things aren’t looking too good for taxpayers when it comes to the investments Obama and the Democrats made. All we ‘investors’ can see is red ink stretching beyond another generation. Or two.

You can see why Obama and his team don’t want to talk about their own investments.

Related/Sources

*Schweizer, Peter. Throw Them All Out. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011.

Tesla to begin repaying U.S. loans by end of 2012 (Bloomberg)

Is new $1.2 billion DOE loan another 'good bet' like Solyndra? (The US Report)

DOE loan program spends billions, falls short on fuel economy assessments (The US Report)

Foreign influence—workers in other countries nurtured at the expense of the US worker (The US Report)

Obamacare—more than $700 million already committed to contractors, consultants (The US Report)

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 22, 2012)

Climate change conference kicks off as alarmist calls for dictatorship, less humans

2012-05-21T19:59:17Z

The Heartland Institute’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7) will take place in Chicago, Illinois from Monday, May 21 to Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at the Hilton Chicago Hotel. The theme is “Real Science, Real Choices.”

This conference takes a different approach than the government funded science conferences in cities like Copehagen and Cancun.

Heartland organizers say they invite scientists and experts with “wide ranging views.”

Heartland even invited one government alarmist who circulated a phony memo to discredit experts who disagreed with him—the name of that scandal was “FakeGate.” The alarmist declined the invitation.

Al Gore probably won’t attend the Heartland Conference either. He’s too busy managing all the money he got via the Obama administration’s alt-energy policies. See Peter Schweizer’s book Throw Them All Out to learn about the political incest that guys like Gore indulge in courtesy of taxpayer dollars. They laugh all the way to the green bank. Then there’s Gore’s massage schedule—that keeps him busy too.

Another guy who probably won’t attend is a philosopher from Finland—Pentti Linkola. This guy not only sounds crazy, he looks crazy. Linkola believes Earth is doomed unless we decrease our population to 500 million or so. He believes a dictatorship is superior to democracy or a republic. Freedom impedes the management of our environment.

A post at ZeroHedge.com notes this about Linkola:

“In that sense, Linkola’s agenda is really nothing new; it is as old as humans. And I am barely scratching the surface; Linkola has called for “some trans-national body like the UN” to reduce the population “via nuclear weapons” or with “bacteriological and chemical attacks.”

If you’re interested in the Heartland Conference, the organization is doing a livestream on the Web.

Seems to me in the interest of self-preservation, those of us outside the political class might want to keep an eye on zealots like Linkola.

Did you think Democrats’ enthusiasm for abortion—even late term abortion—and birth control are all about women’s rights? You might want to study up on Leftwing enviro policy—the same policy the Obama administration and Democrat leaders promote.

Seems to me we should just elect a new president so we could at least cut off slush funds for alarmists like Gore and Linkola. Obama wanted to make Gore his climate czar, remember? Instead Obama picked John Holdren—the same guy who told us in 1971 we were going to have a New Ice Age.

Gore's director will handle Obama's self-defense film (The US Report)

Why we should demand...Rico hearings about global warming funds (The US Report)

Copenhagen sex trade puzzles Americans... (The US Report)

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 21, 2012)