We've talked about Obama's outrageous efforts to demonize Chrysler debt holders who simply wanted to enforce their legal rights or carry our their legal obligations a couple of times on this blog.

Now it turns out the Obama administration crime family may have threatened to ruin the reputation of a creditor who did not want to 'sacrifice' enough for Don Obama's liking.

One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.

If true, this is problematic on a number of levels.

First, the administration is making Nixon look like Mr. Rogers when it comes to dealing with its enemies.

Second, the supposed White House press corps seems to be considered an adjunct arm of the administration. They've gone from the Enchanted Media (tm) to The Enforcers in record time.

It's a brave new world boys and girls.

UPDATE: The best MSM reporter out there is on it. So far the most articulate White House evah! has no comment. At least this won't disappear down the blog memory hole.

Update II: Tapper now has the White House denial.

The White House said the story was false.

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

Will there be follow up?

Posted by: DrewM at 06:58 AM | Comments (211)
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

The most in over its head administration continues to realize the world is a wee bit more challenging than a campaign of just words (caution...link to NY Times).

Officials said the first public moves could come as soon as next week, perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend the Bush administration’s system to provide more legal protections for terrorism suspects.

Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr. Obama’s political allies because the troubled system became an emblem of the effort to use Guantánamo to avoid the American legal system.

Officials who work on the Guantánamo issue say administration lawyers have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies.

...“The more they look at it,” said one official, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”

You don't say?

I'm sure the JurnoList is working overtime this weekend to pump out talking points to the usual suspects about how this isn't a major backslide. When they are done with it this will be a smart and tough new policy only someone as intellectually nimble and unflappable as Obama could develop.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:43 AM | Comments (75)
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

On April 27th, comedian/propagandist Jon Stewart called Harry S Truman a war criminal for giving the order to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Stewart claimed that those cities were civilian population centers with no military value and that a warning bomb dropped over the ocean would have resulted in a quick Japanese surrender.

Bill Whittle over at Pajamas TV responds to Mr. Stewart's assertions with one of the most brilliantly assembled recitations of historical fact I have ever heard on the subject. Do yourself a favor and watch this fast paced 17 minute video. It is a definite must see!

(note: link gets you to the page but you have to select one of the "video quality" options to the left of the screen to watch it)

Posted by: Open Blog at 01:52 AM | Comments (213)
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Pardon the delayÂ…technical difficulties (something to do with our new HAL 9000 server)

(IÂ’m still working on this post and waiting on some breaking news, but thought IÂ’d go ahead and post it and just add the news if and when it breaks. Or doesnÂ’t. Or you can yak about anything else you want.)

Update: The news I was waiting on was the decision whether or not the Boston Globe was going to be shut down tonight. The NYTÂ’s deadline had been set for midnight Eastern Time, but they and the unions have decided to extend negotiations (no specified new deadline). So the flaming skull will just have to wait.

Update: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! *sigh* So it appears the union has rolled over and played dead, making concessions which will allow The Globe to continue operations, at least for now, while negotiators wrap up some final details. Guess I'd better go throw some water on that flaming skull I lit earlier.

Meanwhile, near the front entrance to the building where negotiations were taking place, a Mr. G. Reaper leaned on his scythe while smoking a cigarette. When asked what he thought of the turn of events, he shrugged and said "In the end, it matters not. They can try to put it off, but will eventually enter my cold embrace. Meanwhile, my brother-in-law invited me down to the Caymans where he's got a time-share. Might do these old bones a little good to soak up some sun. I'll monitor events from there."

For those hanging around in last nightÂ’s open thread, I promised a less cryptic explanation regarding the troll. ItÂ’s below the fold.
more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 08:23 PM | Comments (295)
Post contains 1021 words, total size 6 kb.

It seems I was quite shortsighted in my assessment that the left would be satisfied with Bush and Cheney indictments.

My bad.

The trouble with this desire for retribution isn't that it goes too far. The trouble is that it doesn't go far enough. There is another group -- a large one -- that stood by doing nothing while Americans grabbed people off the streets of foreign countries, took them to other foreign countries (because we don't allow this sort of thing in the United States!) and tortured them until they said whatever our government wanted to hear. If you're going to punish people for condoning torture, you'd better include the American citizenry itself.

Normally I wouldn't give Michael Kinsley the sweat off my balls, if you'll indulge the "I don't give a fuck about what he thinks" structure.

Notice the entire absence of the heart of the argument. We swing completely past moral equivalence into "goddammit, we TOLD you this was the most fucked up thing EVER" (because Bush is the criminal), past that even, into "now it's time for payback bitches!" No stopping at the Frank Church "we disagree" line.

No.

This goofball doesn't just ignore the whole "torture" and "who did we save" arguments. He amps it to eleven. He's quite ready to take it to the 48% who dared to question the elevation of righteousness and purity.

He's not interested in your arguments about purile crap like "legal", nor whether it was effective. Who was potentially protected or not. This argument goes way past that.

This is about your tacit or active support for a prior political regime.

It's time for punishment, for having exercised your right to live and think in a Republic.

That is a chill wind. "Shut up if you know what's good for you".

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:59 AM | Comments (167)
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

DrewM alerted me to this, expressing his doubt on the issue. After all, he reasoned, if a party-line vote in committee could block a nominee from consideration by the full Senate, how did Alito get through?

That sounds pretty convincing to me. But Legal Insurrection argues that that understanding is flawed -- at least one member of each party must give consent to put a nominee through to the whole Senate (which may be quite different from affirmatively voting for that nominee as qualified).

Arlen Specter could be reliably counted on to provide that Republican vote, but now that he's a Democrat, he can't. Leaving that duty to Lindsay Graham.

I'm not at all sure about any of this. It sounds wrong to me. But, either way, I think it's moot; Lindsay Graham or some other bipartisan d-bag will give consent in any event.

Posted by: Ace at 12:49 PM | Comments (163)
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

As many commenters pointed out (and I, lazily, never highlighted or researched), Obama's "tax cuts" are, for many, merely reductions in the taxes withheld by the government -- but you still owe them to the government when you file your taxes. Obama's "giving" you back your own money... at least for a while, until it's time to crunch your returns. At which point you discover you owe some or even all of that money he "gave" you back to the federal government.

Those who have been pounding this point can take some satisfaction in it finally getting some minor play in the media.

In the AP, of all places.

–A single worker with two jobs making $20,000 a year at each job will get a $400 boost in take-home pay at each of them, for a total of $800. That worker, however, is eligible for a maximum credit of $400, so the remaining $400 will have to be paid back at tax time — either through a smaller refund or a payment to the IRS.

The IRS recognized there could be a similar problem for married couples if both spouses work, so it adjusted the withholding tables. The fix, however, was imperfect.

– A married couple with a combined income of $50,000 is eligible for an $800 credit. However, if both spouses work and make more than $13,000, the new withholding tables give them each a $600 boost — for a total of $1,200.

There were 33 million married couples in 2008 in which both spouses worked. ThatÂ’s 55 percent of all married couples, according to the Census Bureau.

– A single college student with a part-time job making $10,000 would get a $400 boost in pay. However, if that student is claimed as a dependent on a parent’s tax return, she doesn’t qualify for the credit and would have to repay it when she files next year.

Some retirees face even bigger headaches.

Obama's giving most a tiny tax cut, plus a tiny short-term loan. Something to be grateful for, I suppose, but considerably less than advertised.

But Obama's kept this secret better than the names and faces of the CIA interrogation experts:

The Internal Revenue Service acknowledges problems with the withholding tables but has done little to warn average taxpayers.

"They need to get the Goodyear blimp out there on this," said Tom Ochsenschlager, vice president of taxation for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

For many, the new tax tables will simply mean smaller-than-expected tax refunds next year, IRS spokesman Terry Lemons said. The average refund was nearly $2,700 this year.

But taxpayers who calculate their withholding so they get only small refunds could face an unwelcome tax bill next April, said Jackie Perlman, an analyst with the Tax Institute at H&R Block.

"They are going to get a surprise," she said.

Incidentally -- this has been known for months. My commenters sure-damn knew it.

Why is the Enchanted Media (TM) so late to the table? Was it politically unsafe to mention this when Obama was ramming his "tax-cutting" Spendulus down our throats?

I guess it's safe to debate the merits of the legislation, now that it's already been passed.

The article makes it sound as if the only problem here is strictly one of accounting. In fact, there is a huge political dimension they deliberately missed as well -- this "tax cut" has been greatly, and dishonestly, oversold to the American public, which believes -- courtesy of Enchanted Media (TM) collusion -- that they actually get to keep the tax cuts Obama promised them.

This is how it works now in 2009, I suppose. The media takes a support-first, ask-questions-later view of the rules of reportorial engagement.

Hmmm... Is the AP now burying bad news on a Friday, sparing Obama from having to do so himself?

This story was posted yesterday at almost 7:00 PM at night. It's not a true Friday night release, but it is effectively released for Friday morning.

And this story could have been written any day of the last month or month and half.

It could have been written on a Monday, for example.

Instead, it's buried, to be lost in the standard news-free weekends most Americans prefer. By Monday it will officially be an "old story," and therefore worthy of no further pursuit.

Posted by: Ace at 12:14 PM | Comments (116)
Post contains 758 words, total size 5 kb.

While handing out food to the needy as part of a photo op.

While volunteering Wednesday at a D.C. food bank, the First Lady sported her usual J.Crew cardigan, a pair of utilitarian capri pants and, on her feet, a sneaky splurge: trainers that go for $540.

That's right: These sneakers - suede, with grosgrain ribbon laces and metallic pink toe caps - are made by French design house Lanvin, one of fashion's hottest labels. They come in denim and satin versions, and have been a brisk seller all spring.

They're out of stock at posh Meatpacking District boutique Jeffrey, and Barneys New York boasts a limited selection of the sneaks, which are a cult favorite among fashionistas.

Let them eat designer sneakers!

I don't give a flying fuck what she wears or how much it costs but just imagine if it were a Republican helping the needy while dressed like this.

Of course none of this matters because she the most awesomest woman evah! so shut the hell up.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:27 AM | Comments (170)
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

"This is not a principled fight," she says, probably having meant to say something else, but blundering into meaning what she actually said.

Posted by: Ace at 11:01 AM | Comments (139)
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

Wow. He's really making the most of that 56% approval rate.

Posted by: Ace at 10:26 AM | Comments (129)
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.