Quote

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

OK. This Isn't Right.

I'm no expert on military law, but it seems to me this guy is walking a fine line between insubordination, threatening to refuse to obey an order from his superior officer, and actually being disobedient.

And I'm not sure if he's bluffing.

In any case, he'd do well to take a moment and reflect upon the oath he took when he became a United States Army officer:
Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders
By Bob Unruh, World Net Daily

A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.

"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.

Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so." [link]
It's not clear whether Easterling has refused a direct order or he's simply threatening to. In any case, he should reread the oath he took when appointed to the rank of 2nd Lieutenant. It reads:
"I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959)
Is he "faithfully discharging the duties of his office"? I think not.

Tread softly, pal. this is serious stuff.

* His is a specious argument anyway. Obama was duly sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. If he doesn't accept it, he should take it up with the courts.

Take It To The Next Level

The boys over at the Roanoke Times are upset with banks for making money off the backs of the unemployed:
Banks profit on the unemployed
editorial

Banks earn no sympathy these days. Their greedy practices contributed to the collapse of the economy, and they received massive federal taxpayer bailouts that appear to have been spent on bonuses and acquisitions rather than increased lending.

Here's another reason to look unkindly upon banks: They're gouging the unemployed. [link]
To avoid losing you to boredom, I'll make it short. Banks are charging fees when the unemployed go to withdraw employment compensation funds provided by the state, funds that were deposited at the bank of the person's choosing.* They, being non-profit organizations, should do it gratis.

Apparently.**

All well and good.

But will this same Roanoke Times, as a show of consistency,*** write up another editorial that denounces the federal government for seizing a portion of those same state-issued unemployment funds, considering them taxable gross income?****

- - -

* Uh, they left out one tiny - but critical - part of the story. It's only out-of-network transactions that are billed. You're funds are warehoused at BB&T? You can stand there and withdraw from the ATM all day, without a fee being charged. At BB&T. They might have mentioned that.

** Didn't this same Roanoke Times come out in favor of the federal bailout of America's banks that are going bust? Is going bust now a proper course of action?

*** That'll be the day.

**** I'll hold my breath.

Hanging By a Thread

Investor's Business Daily (see "'Buy American,' But Only Our Debt?") explains the irony of Democrats (and too many Republicans) in Washington routinely trashing the Chinese for stealing American jobs and destroying the U.S. economy while, at the same time, begging the same Chinese to continue bailing out the self-destructing U.S. government:

It must have been quite a spectacle to see the new secretary of state come hat in hand to Beijing over the weekend, asking the Chinese to step up financing of the trillion-dollar U.S. stimulus package through the purchase U.S. Treasuries.

So far, everything China has done that makes them able to buy U.S. bonds in large quantities has been demonized.

As Clinton coaxes China to buy more, Democrats back home, including U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have blasted China ...

We've got news for Democrats and other protectionists: What China does to compete in the global economy enables our Congress to finance its own wasteful pork projects and wealth redistribution. It's called Treasury bond buying.

The Chinese, who have done so much since their economic opening in 1978, aren't just a top trading partner, they're also the chief financier of the U.S. deficit. Today, they hold more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds and agency debt.

When the Chinese sell Americans their lawn mowers, microwave ovens, skis and designer purses, they don't bury their earnings in coffee cans. They put that cash into U.S. Treasury bonds. [link]

Number one U.S. debt financier. Number one U.S. nemesis.

Vanquished without a shot being fired?

Whew!

Boy, I'm glad this is finally settled. We now - finally - have a nominee to fill the head position in one of the bloated government bureaucracies that has no good reason to exist:
Official Says Ex-Governor Is New Commerce Choice
By Peter Baker, New York Times

Washington — President Obama has settled on former Gov. Gary Locke of Washington as his latest pick for commerce secretary, a White House official said Monday, as he tries a third time to fill a cabinet position that has bedeviled his administration.

The official, who spoke on ... [blah blah blah] [link]
It doesn't matter.

I don't care.

Get The Idea It Ain't Working?

The various federal stimuli and bailouts were supposed to produce economic recovery. Instead, they're producing more requests for stimuli and bailouts:
U.S. Pressed to Add Billions to Bailouts
By Edmund L. Andrews, Andrew Ross Sorkin, and Mary Williams Walsh, New York Times

The government faced mounting pressure on Monday to put billions more in some of the nation’s biggest banks, two of the biggest automakers and the biggest insurance company, despite the billions it has already committed to rescuing them.

The government’s boldest rescue to date, its $150 billion commitment for the insurance giant American International Group, is foundering.

Separately, the Obama administration confirmed it was in discussions to aid Citigroup, the recipient of $45 billion so far ...

... General Motors and Chrysler ...

... major banks ... [link]
Down the rat hole ...

He Doesn't Get It

Poll: 3 out of 4 Americans are scared about state of the country

U.S. to give $900 million in aid to Gaza

Got A Plan B, There, Barack?

As the Obama government switches gears and will now concentrate on creating some kind of system to blunt what it perceives to be a growing carbon emissions problem, a problem that is leading - so they think - to "global warming," with many analysts believing that his experts will settle on some kind of "cap-and-trade" scheme that will target "polluters" and will make their "polluting" very costly, the Europeans are finding that a similar program that they had established several years ago to be an unmitigated disaster.

You listening, Barry?
A collapsing carbon market makes mega-pollution cheap
By Julian Golver, The Guardian

Set up to price pollution out of existence, carbon trading is pricing it back in. Europe's carbon markets are in collapse.

[A]t stake is what was supposed to be a central lever in the world's effort to turn back climate change. Intended to price fossil fuels out of the market, the system is instead turning them into the rational economic choice.

That there exists something called carbon trading is about all that most people know. A few know, too, that Europe has created carbon exchanges, and traders who buy and sell. Few but the professionals, however, know that this market is now failing in its purpose: to edge up the cost of emitting CO2. [link]
The reason for the monumental collapse? Well, besides it being destined to fail because of its inherent weaknesses, it has government involved. Always a bad idea:

A lot of the blame lies with governments that signed up to carbon trading as a neat idea, but then indulged polluters with luxurious quantities of permits. The excuse was that growth would soon see them bumping against the ceiling.

Instead, exchanges are in meltdown: a tonne of carbon has dropped to about €8, down from last year's summer peak of €31 and far below the €30-€45 range at which renewables can compete with fossil fuels.

As our government begins the process of launching a similar scheme ...