August 16, 2011

Lucid Links (081611, Morning): Rogue Government Edition

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 8:53 am

Rogue Government I: At Pajamas Media, Patrick Richardson quotes South Carolina Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy’s assessment of Eric Holder’s role in Operation Fast and Furious/Gunwalker:

As things started to go south, I think it’s impossible to conceive he wasn’t briefed in on it.

Another grim related stat, via USA Today:

… congressional investigators estimate that … (just one of the Mexican cartels’ straw purchasers bought) at least 720 firearms, 157 of which fell into the hands of Mexican drug cartel enforcers or other criminals on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border.

… “ATF agents allowed weapons to be provided to individuals whom they knew would traffic them to members of Mexican drug-trafficking organizations,” ATF Supervisory Special Agent Peter Forcelli recently told members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.


Rogue Government II: Meanwhile, the Justice Department “is opposing a routine motion by the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry to qualify as crime victims in the eyes of the court.” The jaw-dropping reasoning:

However in this case, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke argues because the family was not “directly or proximately harmed” by the illegal purchase of the murder weapon, it does not meet the definition of “crime victim” in the Avila case. Burke claims the victim of the Avila’s gun purchases, “is not any particular person, but society in general.”

You see, Terry is dead because “society” (i.e., the nation’s Constitution) allows citizens to own guns, not because the government allowed cartels to get their hands on the weapon(s) which killed Terry.


Rogue Government III: “SEC makes S&P downgrade inquiries” (link may require sign-in) –

The Securities and Exchange Commission has asked credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s to disclose who within its ranks knew of its decision to downgrade US debt before it was announced last week, as part of a preliminary look into potential insider trading, people familiar with the matter say.

the agency is not aware of a leak from an S&P insider, nor was it aware of an aberrational trade.

In other words, it’s a fishing expedition designed to harass.

If the SEC were legitimately worried about insider trading, it would be getting a list of everyone in the White House, at the Treasury Department, and in Congress with access to information about the discussions between S&P and the government which preceded the downgrade. Betcha that’s not happening.


Rogue Government IV: Eric Holder’s hires –

  • From Hans van SpakovskyEvery Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder’s Voting Section: All sixteen new hires to the Voting Section have far-left resumes — which were only released following a Pajamas Media lawsuit.”
  • J. Christin Adams“America should be appalled at the overwhelmingly politicized backgrounds of Eric Holder’s hires in the Department of Justice Voting Section.”
  • Richard PollockEvery Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder’s Immigration Office; All five new hires to the Justice Department’s immigration office have far-left resumes …”
  • von SpakovskyEvery Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder’s Special Litigation Section; All 23 new hires to the Justice Department’s Special Litigation office have far-left resumes …”
  • Update, August 17: Every Single One: The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder’s Education Section; All 11 new hires to the Justice Department’s Education Section have far-left resumes …”

Context, from the first item listed above: “Holder’s year-long delay before producing these documents — particularly when compared to the almost-instantaneous turnaround by the Bush administration of a virtually identical request by the Boston Globe back in 2006 — also shows how deep politics now runs in the Department.”



  1. Chris Christie: Teacher’s Unions Are a “Political Thuggery Operation”
    August 16, 2011 at 5:00 am

    How did I miss this? He’s said a lot of this before. Still, it’s great to here in such stark, apolitical terms: (See Video at you tube)

    Christie won’t be running in ’12, but assuming a Republican wins the White House perhaps he would be open to accepting a cabinet position?

    See how this grabs you…Chris Christie, Secretary of Education.

    Comment by Greg — August 16, 2011 @ 10:27 am

  2. Awsome Video:
    Chris Christie – An Experiment with Tenure

    Teachers Unions need to have power taken away from them, they are an obstruction. They need to get the hell out of theway.
    I Absolutely love his arguments, wish he was in the state of ohio.
    Except, he does not support gun rights. That is a problem.

    Comment by Greg — August 16, 2011 @ 10:37 am

  3. Tom, Here are Videos of the London Riots,
    Police running away from rioters…
    Is this Coming to an American city near you.
    This is what happens when you let your right
    to bear arms be taken away as it has in the UK.
    HT John at Verum Serum – Greg

    Must See Video of the London Riots – “We Getting Our Taxes Back”

    There appears to be rioting taking place around the city. In this clip from Woolwich a man disguises himself in a hoodie so he can film some of the damage without attracting attention from the rioters. His line “London is going down” is chilling:

    I put up a post the other day about the riots in one London area called Tottenham. A man from the area had been shot by police, but police are claiming an exchange of gunfire took place which, at least in this country, would justify deadly force by the police.

    In any case, it seemed like a regional situation which was likely to die dow after one bad night. Now it seems that assumption was very, very wrong. Riots seem to have spread throughout various parts of London. Here’s video of a group of street thugs charging the police and forcing them to back away: (Video)

    n this clip from Clapham another man with a cell phone tries to interview some people who’ve been looting. Asked if she’s proud of herself, one of them responds “We’re getting our taxes back.”

    In the midst of the chaos, one elderly woman screams at the looters for their senseless destruction. Be warned the language is strong:

    Comment by Greg — August 16, 2011 @ 10:54 am

  4. Too bad YouTube wasn’t a major force in 2005 during the French riots:

    Google Video:

    Comment by Tom Blumer — August 16, 2011 @ 11:36 am

  5. Here are two great post on how Obama kills jobs by letting the big boys in the trucking industry beat the crap out of the small boys in the trucking Industry furthering industry consolidation.

    For Immediate Release from
    Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association

    EPA’s GHG rule ignores impact on small-business trucking companies
    (Grain Valley, Mo., Aug. 9, 2011) –The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) called the administration’s announcement today for greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks a flawed, one-size-fits-all rule. The new rule ignores input from small-business trucking, overlooks less expensive options to achieve EPA goals of reduced emissions, and will ultimately increase new truck costs.

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a first-ever rulemaking for new large tractor-trailer trucks that requires trucks to achieve up to approximately 20 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2018.

    “By totally ignoring the impact on small-business trucking, the EPA has demonstrated yet another example of our wretchedly broken regulatory process,” said Joe Rajkovacz, Director of Regulatory Affairs for OOIDA. “Congress should take action when they return in September to rein in the bureaucracy and push forward regulatory reform legislation that has already been introduced.”

    The Association contends the EPA made an irresponsible mistake in its regulatory analysis by excluding the impact on those who actually buy and drive large trucks and by focusing only on truck manufacturers. OOIDA says this approach will only serve to drive up the costs for the small businesses who operate an overwhelming majority of the nation’s trucking businesses. Nearly 96 percent of registered motor carriers in the U.S. operate 20 or fewer trucks.

    “They also totally overlooked the most effective fuel-savings method of all,” added Rajkovacz. “Driver training, which is responsible for 35 percent of fuel economy and which costs far less than any new technology, should have been the priority.”

    Despite scientific support for the idea of a driver’s role in fuel economy, EPA ignored the findings of the National Academy of Sciences and instead developed a rule that will cause many small businesses to keep and rebuild older equipment. In 2010, the academy found evidence that driver training offers potential fuel savings for the trucking sector that rivals the savings available from technology add-ons and mandates. The Academy called for consideration of this alternative before any regulation was developed.

    “But EPA ignored this recommendation,” said Rajkovacz. “The new rule is just another example of big moneyed interests working with government to protect their own bottom line. Instead of standing up for all motor carriers, regardless of size, the American Trucking Associations was out in front in their support of this regulation.”

    Rajkovacz added, “This rulemaking basically takes EPA’s SmartWay program and mandates participation – regardless of whether certain technologies are appropriate for a particular operation.”

    The Association believes that large motor carriers use SmartWay participation in order to get compensation from shippers for appearing “green.” As a result, this rulemaking does not represent any cost increase to them. All new trucks sold to large fleets were likely already either fully SmartWay-certified or had incorporated most of the certified technologies used under this rule. OOIDA believes that EPA is taking credit to over-sell this rulemaking based on a business activity that is already occurring within large fleets.

    “Small-business motor carriers and owner-operators don’t enjoy this same benefit and will be forced to comply on their own dime,” said Rajkovacz.

    OOIDA would like congressional appropriators to seriously consider defunding EPA’s SmartWay program because the adoption of this rulemaking makes the program obsolete and a waste of taxpayer money.

    The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is the largest national trade association representing the interests of small-business trucking professionals and professional truck drivers. The Association currently has more than 151,000 members nationwide. OOIDA was established in 1973 and is headquartered in the Greater Kansas City, Mo., area.

    Comment by Greg — August 16, 2011 @ 11:53 am

  6. Second one is from Dad 29

    The “License Required” Scam, Reworked for Trucking
    Yup. When ‘all the big boys’ love the rule, you can be sure that it stinks. Take Obozo’s new fuel standards for heavy trucks (please!!)…

    ATA’s Publicity Director, Sean McNally, says this is a great example of how regulation should work that is mutually beneficial. “All the regulations at the end of the day inure to our benefit.” He claims their association tries to stay at the cutting edge of safety and efficiency. “We couldn’t be happier that the Obama administration and the federal government have decided to move forward with this,” said McNally.

    Deborah Solomon in the WSJ says the White House secured support for the heavy-truck standard from the industry, which is backing the move. Joe Rajkovacz, the Director of Regulatory Affairs at the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) says that is not the case. He explained how his members at OOIDA will be very negatively impacted by this legislation and points out that nearly 96 percent of registered motor carriers in the U.S. operate 20 or fewer trucks.

    In other words, the little guy does the BOHICA because his Government (and his competitors) don’t want competition.

    By the way, ATA also asked for 65 MPH limit and e-governors to make it happen.


    Recall the Jimmuh Carter days? The 55 MPH limit? It was the best thing ever to happen to truck-and-trailer manufacturers. Understand that trucking is similar to a conveyor belt. If a fixed number of goods MUST move from one end to the other and the speed of the belt is reduced, that means that more items must be placed on the belt (more trucks and trailers) OR the capacity of each carrier must increase (larger GVW limits.)

    Gee! Surprise!!

    HT: Thinker

    Comment by Greg — August 16, 2011 @ 11:55 am

  7. #6, sounds like price fixing by a meddling government to me.

    Comment by dscott — August 16, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

  8. #5, consider the effect on the other players when the government meddles. Who benefits from making long haul trips more expensive by increasing the price of the big rigs? The railroads. Or haven’t you seen their commercials?

    caption under video:

    America’s short line railroads provide fuel savings and environmentally friendly shipping for small businesses and communities around the country. Short Lines provide efficient transportation services, while maintaining and protecting the environments in which they operate.

    Did you know?
    • One rail freight car can carry the equivalent of four truck loads.
    • Railroads consume almost a third less fuel than trucks per ton mile moved.
    • One rail car can carry a ton of cargo 436 miles on one gallon of fuel.
    • Railroads are working to reduce emissions of particulate matter by 90% and
    nitrogen oxide by 80%.

    Short line railroads take the equivalent of nearly 33 million truck loads off the
    highways. Diverting those truckloads from the highway saves the country over
    $1.4 billion annually in highway repair costs. Freight moved by rail also improves highway safety and congestion.

    Point of video, takes trucks OFF the road and is environmentally cleaner.

    Point of video, it creates jobs. Will there be as many replaced by re-employing the truckers who would lose their jobs? Sounds like Obama’s green jobs scam doesn’t it?

    Now might you ask why are the railroads needing to advertise their environmental benefits IF their product is sooooooo cost effective? Does it rather not sound like an industry angling for a government subsidy?

    Comment by dscott — August 16, 2011 @ 3:43 pm

  9. #8, I’ve heard the ads. They’re pointless, unless their goal is to curry favor with public sentiment and politicians in Washington. It does nothing to increase their business.

    Comment by TBlumer — August 16, 2011 @ 4:27 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.