May Was An Interesting Month

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” — James Madison, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention — 1788

This may was an interesting month if you were a news and current events junkie. It was filled with political scandals in involving the State Department, Justice Department, and the IRS. These scandals centered on names such as: Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, and even Barack Obama.

The following are a few items that pertain to these scandals along with a few that took a back seat.

Assad tells Lebanese media Syria has received Russian missile shipment:

President Bashar Al-Assad said the Syrian army holds "the balance of power" in the country's conflict, and that Syria has received the first shipment of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles from Russia. Assad spoke with Hezbollah-linked Al Manar TV in an interview set to be broadcast on Thursday and reported on by Lebanese newspaper al-Akhbar. There is no evidence yet that the missiles have arrived, and some military analysts believe it is a bluff. Assad claimed that the Syrian army has "scored major victories against armed rebels on the ground" and admitted to collaborating with Hezbollah. Israel has expressed concerns over the Russian weapons delivery and has threatened to prevent the advanced missile defense system from reaching the Syrian government. Assad said, "The Syrian government will not stand in the way of any Syrian groups that want to wage a war of resistance to liberate the Golan." Israel took much of Syria's Golan Heights in the 1967 war. Meanwhile, Iran hosted an international conference on Wednesday in Tehran on Syria, working to gain a greater role in diplomatic efforts. The conference wasn't expected to yield any policy decisions, but it attempted to show support for Iran's inclusion in the international Syria debate as the country pushes for inclusion at peace talks that Russia and the United States are hoping to hold in Geneva in June. On Thursday, Syria's main opposition coalition announced it won't participate in negotiations in Geneva, with a spokesman for the group stating an "international conference on a political solution to the situation in Syria has no meaning in light of the massacres that are taking place." The United Nations Human Rights Council overwhelmingly passed a resolution Wednesday calling for the cessation of violence in the strategic Syrian town of Qusayr and condemning the use of ballistic missiles and other heavy weapons by the Syrian regime and pro-government forces in Qusayr. (Hat Tip to Foreign Policy Magazine)

Keep Your Eye on Oman:

"Oman's diplomatic value underscores how its locational advantages are amplified by its political ones. In Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said, Oman quite simply has the best educated and among the most enlightened leaders in the Arab world. He is an absolute ruler with sophisticated liberal values. When the Arab Spring led to sustained protests in the capital of Muscat, Sohar and other Omani cities, Qaboos deftly allowed the demonstrations to proceed, then strengthened the role of the elected Shura Council, replaced older ministers with young ones, arrested some of the protest leaders and in general maneuvered in such a way that while the authorities were heavily criticized, his own prestige and power were largely unaffected. Thus, he has emerged from the Arab Spring in a comparatively stronger position vis-a-vis other leaders in the Middle East.

Oman now finds itself in the difficult but enviable position of being able to concentrate on the ultimate challenge of modern societies: building responsive and transparent institutions that ultimately make the role of the ruler himself less paramount. Of course, this is the task of societies throughout the Middle East, but few can conduct this experiment under such advantageous conditions as Oman: A country with a deeply respected ruler who is not under political siege, and who also has access to hydrocarbon revenues for at least another decade or so." (Hat Tip to Foreign Policy Magazine.)

MSNBC Falls Below HLN in May, Rachel Maddow Hits Lows:

HLN's wall-to-wall coverage of the Jodi Arias trial has had substantial ratings legs. Surging around the time of the May 8 verdict, the network notched an extremely rare monthly victory: It topped MSNBC in total day and primetime. And with CNN posting its second consecutive month as a distant primetime runner-up to Fox News Channel, MSNBC is in a very precarious fourth place.

Averaging 539,000 viewers in primetime and 175,000 viewers in the adults 25-54 demographic, MSNBC suffered double-digit drops from last May — down a respective 20 and 19 percent. Losses were less substantial in total day, down 10 percent to an average 346,000 viewers and down 7 percent to 115,000 adults 25-54, while all other nets pulled growth in multiple categories.

The soft start for All In With Chris Hayes has not helped. Hayes, down 32 percent in total viewers from The Ed Show last May, has offered a poor lead-in for MSNBC's primetime flagship, The Rachel Maddow Show, at 9 p.m. The show delivered its lowest-rated month since it debuted in September 2008 (717,000 total viewers) and its second lowest with adults 25-54 (210,000). Maddow was topped by typical time slot victor Sean Hannity and CNN's Piers Morgan.

Winner FNC, posting modest year-to-year losses in the key demo, was still number three across all of cable in both primetime and total day. Heavily covering White House woes like the Benghazi hearings, the network averaged 1,246,000 daily viewers (up 24 percent) and 236,000 adults 25-54 (down 5 percent) for the full day. Primetime saw 17 percent growth with 1,973,000 total viewers and a 6 percent dip with 308,000 in 25-54.

CNN is in significantly better shape than it was last May when it hit 20-year lows. The network's year-to-year growth brought in a third-place 465,000 total viewers for total day and a second-place 660,000 total viewers in primetime, growth of 61 and 70 percent. CNN's demo jumps were more considerable, rising 92 percent to 161,000 adults 25-54 in total day and 97 percent to 225,000 adults 25-54 in primetime.

Total Day

• FNC: 1,246,000 total viewers, up 24 percent (236,000 in 25-54, down 5 percent)
• CNN: 465,000 total viewers, up 61 percent (161,000 in 25-54, up 92 percent)
• MSNBC: 346,000 total viewers, down 10 percent (115,000 in 25-54, down 7 percent)
• HLN: 494,000 total viewers, up 111 percent (175,000 in 25-54, up 90 percent)

Primetime

• FNC: 1,973,000 total viewers, up 17 percent (308,000 in 25-54, down 6 percent)
• CNN: 660,000 total viewers, up 70 percent (225,000 in 25-54, up 97 percent)
• MSNBC: 539,000 total viewers, down 20 percent (175,000 in 25-54, down 19 percent)
• HLN: 624,000 total viewers, up 91 percent (209,000 in 25-54, up 97 percent)

(Hat Tip to The Hollywood Reporter)

Holder Scrambled to Find Judge to Approve Rosen Subpoena After Rejected Twice; Only Fox News Reports:

Not surprisingly, there has been yet another revelation in the unfolding of the James Rosen investigation scandal. On Tuesday, it was discovered that Attorney General Eric Holder went “judge shopping” to find someone who would sign off on a subpoena of Fox News Correspondent James Rosen’s personal records. Apparently, Holder went to three different federal judges before he found one that would agree to sign the subpoena without telling Rosen or Fox News.

• Judge Alan Kay—Denied
• Judge John Facciola—Denied
• Judge Royce Lamberth—Approved

However, the only morning show coverage of this important development in this scandal was found on the Fox and Friends; no other network or cable show devoted a sentence to educate the public about this discovery.

Fox & Friends cohost Gretchen Carlson believes that this is “the most egregious part of this story thus far” because the exposure of these new facts show that Holder went to a great deal of trouble and did “a lot of deliberate work to go to three judges” in order to find one to sign the subpoena. [Listen to the audio here]

Additionally, on Tuesday afternoon news broke that the House Judiciary Committee was investigating whether or not Holder had committed perjury by lying about his involvement in the subpoenaing of Rosen’s personal emails and phone records while under oath in his Congressional hearing May 15^th. Holder claimed to have no involvement in the matter, but it was later revealed that he had personally signed off on the decision to investigate Rosen.

Fox News devoted 20 minutes of its morning show Fox  and Friends to cover this significant development in this scandal that has attempted to criminalize journalism, while two of the other three networks did not cover this story at all Wednesday morning. CBS was the only other network to report on it at all; however, they only deemed it worthy of two minutes of coverage on CBS This Morning.

These were stories that were widely available to all the news networks. They were not private and exclusive reports by Fox News to which the other networks did not have access. So why then, besides their vested corporate interest in defending their own, was Fox the only network to devote significant time to these discoveries? It was because the other networks have such strong liberal leanings.

The other news networks committed what is known as bias by omission. By devoting very little coverage to the Holder perjury story and no coverage at all to the “judge shopping” revelation, the liberal media lay bare their political tendencies

This practice is just as unacceptable as a network reporting the news with an overtly liberal spin. By failing to report news that might damage the left-wing political agenda, the mainstream media misleads its viewers into believing that such occurrences did not even take place. This practice must be eliminated from the news media in order to properly and truthfully educate the public about what is happening in their country and around the world, which is what news is supposed to do, but sadly, not what it usually does. (Hat Tip News Busters)

Teacher Punished for Telling Students about their Constitutional Rights:

An Illinois high school teacher was punished by a local school district after he warned students about the Constitutional rights before answering a school-mandated survey about emotional and at-risk behavior.

John Dryden, a social studies teacher at Batavia High School, was issued a formal reprimand and docked a day’s pay. The punishment was doled out during a closed-door school board meeting.

The controversy started when the school district directed students to complete a survey about at-risk behavior – including past drug, tobacco and alcohol usage.

“I advised my students that they had a Fifth Amendment right not incriminate themselves,” Dryden told a local newspaper. “It was not my intention for them not to take the survey.”

Batavia School Superintendent Jack Barshinger told Fox News what the teacher did was against the rules.

“The issue before the board was whether one employee had the right to mischaracterize the efforts of teachers, counselors, social workers and others and tell students in effect that the adults are not here to help but they are trying to get you to incriminate yourself,” he said.

But Dryden said several questions on the 34-page survey asked students to self-report what could potentially be criminal behavior.

“I’m not here to stir the pot,” Dryden said. “I’m just trying to protect my kids.”

Barshinger told Fox News that school rules protect students from self-incrimination.

“It is not possible for a student to incriminate himself in a school setting that would make him eligible for any police action,” he said.

And while the superintendent said students “absolutely” have constitutional rights – he said there is a caveat.

“Unfortunately, it is how they are applied in a school setting,” he said. “The Fifth Amendment – you don’t typically hear about in a school setting. That’s because the law has already been set that don’t allow students to self-incriminate.”

He also said parents and students were given the opportunity to opt-out of the survey.

Nearly 100 students, former students and colleagues turned out at the school board meeting to show their support for the embattled teacher. A Facebook petition generated nearly 6,000 signatures for the 20-year veteran teacher.

“He is able to break through student apathy like no other teacher I know,” fellow teacher Scott Bayer told a local newspaper. (Hat Tip to Todd Starnes, Fox News Radio.)

Tea Party groups file lawsuit over IRS targeting:

A Washington advocacy group filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against the IRS and top Obama administration officials on behalf of 25 Tea Party-related groups, marking the biggest lawsuit to date over the tax agency's practice of targeting conservatives for additional scrutiny.

The 29-page lawsuit named Attorney General Eric Holder, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and several IRS officials — including Lois Lerner, the division director who refused to testify before Congress last week. The suit claims the constitutional rights of 25 Tea Party and other conservative groups were violated when tax workers singled them out for a drawn-out vetting process.

The American Center for Law and Justice is arguing that the Obama administration overstepped its authority and violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act as well as the IRS' own rules and regulations.

"The whole timeline and the whole narrative that the White House has put forth does not hold up to the truth," ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow told Fox News on Wednesday.

In its suit, the ACLJ wants the government to admit wrongdoing. The suit also seeks to protect the groups from future IRS retaliation as well as compensatory and punitive monetary damages.

"The IRS and the federal government are not going to get away with this unlawful targeting of conservative groups," Sekulow said later in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "As this unconstitutional scheme continues even today, the only way to stop this flagrant and arrogant abuse of our clients' rights is to file a federal lawsuit, which we have done."

Sekulow says the suit is intended to "send a very powerful message to the IRS and the Obama administration."

Emails to the White House and IRS for comment were not immediately returned. Administration officials have said that while the additional scrutiny was inappropriate it was not partisan and therefore no laws were broken.

Allegations that the IRS had been targeting conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status date back years but a government watchdog report released this month backed up the claims. (Hat Tip to Fox News.com.)

Iran Terror 'Sleeper Cells' Are Infiltrating South America, Argentine Prosecutor Says:

Iran is "infiltrating" South America and setting up intelligence networks to carry out terrorist attacks in the region, an Argentine prosecutor said Wednesday.

The prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, has been engaged for 20 years in the effort to charge a handful of former Iranian officials with masterminding the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish center.

Nisman accused Mohsen Rabbani, Iran's former cultural attaché in Buenos Aires and a suspect in the attack that killed 85 people, of working continually over the last two decades to develop an intelligence network in Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Guyana, Surinam and Trinidad and Tobago.

"These are sleeper cells. They have activities you wouldn't imagine. Sometimes they die having never received the order to attack," Nisman said as he presented a 500-page indictment.

He said Iran has sought "to infiltrate the countries of Latin America and install secret intelligence stations with the goal of committing, fomenting and fostering acts of international terrorism in concert with its goals of exporting the revolution."

Iran no longer has an ambassador in Argentina. No one answered the phone after hours Wednesday at the Iranian Embassy in Brasilia, Brazil.

Nisman's concerns about Iran's interest in South America are seen as a viable threat from the U.S. State Department and President Barack Obama.

Obama signed the "Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act" into law last year in an effort to assess Iranian-related threats in Central and South America. Concern over Iran in South America hit a threshold in October 2011, when the Justice Department filed charges that revealed a failed plot by Iranian officials to use a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in Washington.

Iran has established six embassies in Latin America since 2005, bringing the total to 11, and has built 17 cultural centers in the Western Hemisphere.

Some analysts, like Larry Birns, director of The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, are skeptical about claims of Iranian terror infiltration in South America because of a lack of evidence. According to Birns, the 1994 attacks in Argentina are the "closest we've come" to hard evidence of Iranian meddling. Still, he said, there are real reasons for Iran to be interested in South America.

"When you are isolated and marginalized like Iran, you are basically looking for alliances," Birns said. "They go around looking for distressed nations ... and engage in negotiations, joint projects that very often are never completed."

Nisman has tried for years in vain to get Rabbani and the other suspects extradited to face trial in Argentina. Iran denies any involvement in Argentina's worst terrorist attack, but has agreed to set up a "truth commission" to facilitate Nisman's taking the suspects' testimony in Tehran. Nisman said it's not his role to comment on that accord, which has been harshly criticized by Argentine Jewish leaders.

Nisman said the attack that destroyed the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association building was no isolated incident, but "part of a much larger plot, in which the role of Rabbani was not limited to Argentina but extended as far as Guyana, as well as being responsible for coordinating these activities across all of South America."

The indictment now goes to the judge overseeing the case, Rodolfo Canicoba Corral. Nisman said he also sent copies to the countries he named, in keeping with Argentina's international agreements, so that they too can take action.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles welcomed Nisman's indictment and said its evidence shows Argentina should end its agreement with Iran for the joint commission.

"There is no question that the AMIA bombing was an action planned and carried out by Iranians and their agents. Prosecutor Nisman's expose of the Tehran regime's continent-wide tentacles must render the Iran-Argentine cooperation agreement on investigating the AMIA bombing null and void," said a statement issued by Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Dr. Shimon Samuels and Sergio Widder, senior officials at center.

Nisman said that he has compiled a huge file of evidence including reports from the region, Europe and the United States, and that Iran's involvement goes way beyond the 1994 bombing. He described a decades-long effort by Iran to lay the groundwork for future terrorist attacks, either using Iranian agents "or through their terrorist ally Hezbollah."

The indictment names eight Iranis and a Lebanese national, and Nisman urged Interpol to help arrest all of them. In addition to Rabbani, they include Iran's current defense minister, Gen. Ahmad Vahidi; former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani; former Intelligence Minister Ali Fallahian; former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, former Revolutionary Guard chief Mohsen Rezaei; former ambassador to Argentina Hadi Soleimanpour; and the Iranian Embassy's former third-ranking diplomat, Ahmad Reza Asghari.

Nisman said the indictment provides new elements that strengthen the case against Iran's top officials, and proves that Rabbani oversaw Abdul Kadir, who is now serving life in prison for a frustrated attack on New York's John F. Kennedy airport in 2007.

The accord between Iran and Argentina on the "truth commission" has yet to go into effect. The deal has been fiercely defended by the government of President Cristina Fernandez as the best means of resolving a case that has moved forward only in fits and starts in Argentina's judiciary, and been frustrated all along the way by Iran's refusal to cooperate. (Hat Tip to Fox News Latino)

Larry King Joins Russian TV Network to Host 'Mold-Breaking' Political Program:

After 56 years in broadcasting and more than 50,000 interviews across the U.S., anyone else would be considered a prime candidate for retirement, but that doesn't apply to Larry King, who will launch a “mold-breaking political talk show” in June for the Russia Today online TV network.

Perhaps failed CNN-FOX-MSNBC-Current anchor Keith Olbermann should pay attention. If no one in America will hire you, take your act international.

While the announcement on the RT website states that King will interview “both leading establishment figures and those who are not afraid to go against the grain,” some critics doubt that the interviewer will really have the freedom -- or the impact -- he used to have now that he's on a Web outlet that has been called “Putin's propaganda network.”

“I have always been passionate about government and issues that impact the public,” the interviewer said, “and I’m thrilled at the opportunity to talk politics with some of the most influential people in Washington and around the country.”

The announcement noted that “Politics With Larry King” will break new ground since he “will not shy away from causing controversy, or using his authority to give a chance to hear voices other media ignore.”

“I have interviewed every U.S. president since Nixon, and lest people forget, I helped usher Ross Perot into the national conversation during the 1992 presidential contest. I appreciate the importance of providing a platform to those with real alternative visions for our country’s future” King stated.

The network will air the new program — along with “Larry King Now,” which is broadcast four times a week and was launched on the Hulu and Ora.tv websites during July of 2012 — from RT's American studios in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles.

“Larry King has retained his trademark suspenders worn through his 25 years on CNN (he quit the news network in 2010), but has not been afraid to show a more opinionated and frank side, which he says is a must for the new media age,” the news release stated:

“Whether a president or an activist or a rock star was sitting across from him, Larry King never shied away from asking the tough questions, which makes him a terrific fit for our network,” noted Margarita Simonyar, RT’s editor-in-chief, who described her organization as the “anti-Fox News Channel.”

Jon Housman, chief executive officer of Ora.tv, added:

“We’re thrilled to bring Larry King’s insights and one-of-a-kind discussions, from celebrities to world leaders, to RT America’s television and online audiences.”

The news release also indicated that King's “return to television unleashed a torrent of reactions, both in Russia, where he widely known as an ultimate figurehead of U.S. broadcasting, and in his homeland.”

“With Larry King moving to Russia Today, is he legally obligated to change his name to Larry Czar?” asked @AlexJamesFitz.

Meanwhile, @tomgara stated that these are “dark days for Americans. China owns your bacon, Brazil owns your ketchup, Russia owns your Larry King.”

However, not everyone was excited about the news. Larry O'Connor of Breitbart.com said that the network is “the western version of Pravda” — the newspaper that was the official voice for Soviet socialism -- and has become a television home for disaffected viewers around the globe and a refuge for activists in the “Occupy” generation.

Referring to Russian president Vladimir Putin, O'Connor called RT “Putin's propaganda network,” and he stated that Putin blocked a finance ministry proposal to cut last year's funding to the channel, which was launched by the Russian government in 2005 to improve the country's image overseas.

O'Connor concluded by stating:

“King must still feel burned by CNN for escorting him out the door and replacing him with perennial ratings loser Piers Morgan, but does he really want the coda to his career to be a show on a network that is really nothing more than a propaganda organ for Vladimir Putin's government?”

Good question. And here's another: Has Larry King lost his ability to draw the big U.S. audiences he used to attract during his 25 years at CNN? I suspect we already know the answer to that question. (Hat Tip to News Busters)

CNN: Furloughed Federal Employees Will Get Unemployment Benefits, Undercutting Sequestration:

The pity party for furloughed federal employees should be toned down. A story at CNNMoney.com notes something I don't expect will be only rarely be reported anywhere else, namely that there has been a concerted and likely largely successful effort on the part of federal employee unions to ensure that as many of their members as possible will be eligible to collect unemployment benefits during their time off. I would expect that those who don't have union representation are also attempting to imitate what the unions are doing whenever and wherever possible.

It's pretty safe to say that extra spending on unemployment benefits wasn't treated as a partial offset to estimated savings resulting from sequestration. CNN Money's coverage of one instance of this kind of maneuvering makes it clear that the total dollar amounts aren't small in a federal workforce of 4.4 million.

Paraphrasing the late Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen ("A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money"): $1,100 here, $1,100 there, and pretty soon you're losing a lot of the sequestration savings you thought you were going to achieve."

I don't expect that there will be any state or federal effort to push back against this gambit. I suppose it's futile to argue that the unemployment benefits system should never have been revised to include people who are put out of work for just a few days and haven't even lost their jobs. Unfortunately, many if not most states already allow that to happen, so furloughed federal employees' benefit applications will more than likely sail through without a challenge.

As an aside, they may also skew the weekly initial jobless claims statistics upward.

An additional aside: If you're making $104K per year and you're really worried about eating if the gravy train stops for even a few days, Uncle Sam isn't the only one with a basic budgeting problem. (Hat Tip to News Busters)

Does New Image Finally Show Amelia Earhart’s Plane:

Researchers and aviation enthusiasts have long been fascinated by the mystery of what happened to Amelia Earhart’s plane and where exactly it went down as she was attempting to be the first woman to fly around the world in 1937.

Now, a new SONAR image might reveal the plane’s final resting place 76 years after the event from which the pilot was never seen again.

The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) has been working on piecing together details of what might have happened on July 2, 1937, when contact was lost with the Lockheed Electra Earhart was flying. It says the sonar image is off the coast of an uninhabited island in the southwestern Pacific republic of Kiribati.

“It’s exciting. It’s frustrating. It’s maddening. There is a sonar image in the data collected during last summer’s Niku VII expedition that could be the wreckage of Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra. It looks unlike anything else in the sonar data, it’s the right size, it’s the right shape, and it’s in the right place,” TIGARH wrote on its website of the image.

The “anomaly” in the sonar image is in a catchment area on a cliff of reef off Nikumaroro island. It appears at a depth close to 200 meters.

But does the image actually show Earhart’s aircraft?

“Opinions range from ‘almost certainly a man-made object to ‘probably geology’ but everyone who has reviewed the data agrees that the target is worthy of further investigation,” TIGHAR wrote. (Hat Tip to The Blaze)

Embarrassing Photos Surface Of Union Boss Allegedly Asleep On The Job:

A New York City union president—who rose to power campaigning to end union corruption more than a decade ago—spends much of the limited time he’s in the office asleep at his desk, according to the New York Post.

The Post published a “series of damning photos” of Mark Rosenthal apparently napping in his office chair on different days. Rosenthal told the Post he’s a victim of a “smear campaign” that’s part of a larger plan to get him replaced.

The president of Local 983 of District Council 37—the city’s largest blue-collar municipal-workers union—”often downs a huge meal, then drops into dreamland in the early afternoon,” the Post writes based on information from members of the union’s executive board.

Rosenthal, who earns $156,000 annually, “eats lunch when he arrives at work at 2 p.m. Then, like clockwork, he goes to sleep with a cup of soda on the table and the straw in it,” according to Marvin Robbins, a union vice president, quoted in the Post piece.

“Then he wakes up, looks at his watch and says, ‘I have to get out before the traffic gets bad.’ He’s usually out by 4 p.m. after being at the office two hours.”

As for Rosenthal, he defended himself, citing “12-to-14-hour days” and the effects of pain medication he has to take after falling through a McDonald’s chair last year.

“The chair broke because I’m big,” Rosenthal said.

“I’m 60 years old, so if I eat during my lunch hour and take a little medication, can’t I close my eyes?” told the Post. “Is it so outrageous?”

The union that Rosenthal heads represents 3,000 workers, the Post reports, “mostly Parks Department peace officers and maintenance workers and NYPD tow-truck operators and other traffic agents that are among the lowest-paid city workers.”

“But they still fork over $1,080 in annual union dues that help fund Rosenthal’s salary and perks.” Hat Tip to The Blaze)

UFO Enthusiasts Spot An ‘Odd Creature’ On Mars:

Looking at an image snapped by NASA’s Curiosity rover on Mars, UFO enthusiasts believe the might have spotted a rodent or a lizard — or something else with legs and a tail — among the rocks.

Posted on UFO Sightings Daily by Scott Waring, a “UFOlogist” who runs the website, the description says the “odd creature” was discovered in March by someone in Japan.

Waring went on to note that “this animal was not the first to be discovered in NASA photos but is in a long line of strange creatures.”

“Remember the last one we reported that was very similar to a squirrel?” Well this one also seems to resemble a rodent but also may be a lizard. With water existing on Mars in small amounts, its possible to find such desert animals wandering around…although very rare mind you.”

Or, Waring wonders if NASA might be “placing animals from tiny cyogenic chambers inside the rover onto the surface of Mars to conduct tests?” Click on the photo for a larger image and see if it’s a rat. (Hat Tip to The Blaze — Click to see more photos.)

A Threat To The Entire World:

A French patient infected with a deadly new respiratory virus related to SARS died Tuesday of the disease, which has killed half the people known to be infected and alarmed global health officials.

The novel coronavirus is related to SARS, which killed some 800 people in a global epidemic in 2003.

Dr. Margaret Chan, head of the World Health Organization, told CNN on Wednesday that the virus is “a threat to the entire world.”

Chan also singled out the illness in a speech on Monday in Geneva.

“We understand too little about this virus when viewed against the magnitude of its potential threat,” Chan said at the annual WHO meeting. “We do not know where the virus hides in nature. We do not know how people are getting infected. Until we answer these questions, we are empty-handed when it comes to prevention. These are alarm bells. And we must respond.”

WHO said in an update earlier this month that 20 of the 40 confirmed cases of the disease have ended in death. Most of those infected since the virus was identified last year had traveled to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Pakistan. There also have been cases in Britain and Germany.

The ministry said the Frenchman, whose illness was identified May 8 after he returned from a visit to the United Arab Emirates, died Tuesday. His hospital roommate also tested positive for the illness.

Meanwhile, the Saudi Health Ministry reported five new cases of the virus. All the patients were in their 70s or older. (Hat Tip to AP)

Majority of Americans Want Special Prosecutor To Handle IRS Scandal (Plus: Holder’s Embarrassingly-Low Approval Rating):

The public isn’t ignoring the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) most recent scandal — and it seems most Americans have strong views on the matter. In fact, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, a majority of those surveyed believe that a special prosecutor should be appointed to examine the government’s targeting of conservative groups.

Interestingly, the penchant for such an investigation crosses partisan lines. Overall, 76 percent of American voters favor the idea of a special prosecutor; this translates to 88 percent of Republicans, 78 percent of independents and — most stunningly — 63 percent of Democrats.

“There is overwhelming bipartisan support for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS,” Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a news release. “Voters apparently don’t like the idea of Attorney General Eric Holder investigating the matter himself, perhaps because they don’t exactly think highly of him.”

And his latter statement isn’t rooted in opinion or conjecture. Quinnipiac found his approval rating to be at 23 percent, with 39 percent of American voters disapproving of the attorney general’s job performance.

When it comes to the numerous scandals facing the Obama administration, it seems, at least based on this particular poll, that voters are most perturbed by the IRS scandal. While 43 percent (versus 32 percent) believe that furor over the Benghazi terror attack is “just politics,” 44 percent (versus 33 percent) see “legitimate concerns” with the Obama administration’s handling of conservative groups through the IRS.

The scandal over journalists’ phone records is also viewed as problematic by Americans, with 37 percent saying that this particular scandal raises “legitimate concerns” (24 percent disagree). Of the three, the IRS scandal is seen as the most important, however, on the whole, the vast majority of the nation believes that the economy should take precedence over investigations into these issues.

Nearly seven-in-10 Americans currently disapprove of the job that the IRS is doing. You can read more about voters’ views on the Obama administration’s scandals. Hat Tip to the Washington Post)

I could add many more examples of reports not covered in the main stream media but this post is already too long. Thanks for reading. (Click on any photo to view a larger image)

Ending Union Dominance In The Golden State

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." — Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1849.

There is no doubt that California is broke. California’s GDP once ranked 5^th in world ranking has now slipped to 9th behind Brazil. Once ranking first in average income California has fallen to 17th ($43,647 per year) behind North Dakota, ranked at 7^th.with $47,236 per year and Wyoming at 6^th with $46, 898 per year. (Connecticut ranks 1^st with $57,902 per year.) But, California has the largest budget deficit in the nation at $10 billion and this does not include the unfunded liabilities for government worker’s pensions and life-time healthcare.

Keep in mind that these numbers are for the state at large and do not include counties, cities, and school districts — and in California that number is astronomical. In fact is so bad that three major cities; San Diego; and San Jose have passed ballot measures reducing the impact of civil service workers on their budget and Stockton has declared bankruptcy.

One of the reasons California is in the mess that is in today is the tremendous amount on influence the unions have on Sacramento. The unions with the most influence are the public sector unions, teachers unions, and SEIU. Without the money and voting numbers these unions are able to bring to the polls each election California would be a red state and Jerry (“Moonbeam”) Brown would not be governor. In 2010 Brown won by more than 1.3 million votes (53.8%) and there are an estimated 900,000 SEIU members in the state, including nurses and hotel workers.

From the outside looking in, you have to admit that something is a little "off" in California politics. In the year 2010, while voters nationwide swept Republicans into office high and low, voters in California kept Democrats in office, with the numbers in the California House delegation remaining exactly the same. Not only did Californians re-elect far-left U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, but California voters also dusted off and voted back in as governor a relic from the 1970's, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. Californians preserved a Democrat majority in the California Senate and even added to a Democratic majority in the Assembly. And I am sure Obama will carry the golden state by the same margin.

When my wife and I arrived in California in 1962 the political climate was much different. California was a “fair and balanced” state. Pat Brown, a Democrat, was governor and the state was moving forward with water and transportation projects. People, by the thousands, were migrating to California to find opportunities for a better life and to enjoy the favorable climate.

When my wife and I arrived in California I took a job with the California Division of Highways (now Caltrans) as a surveyor and highway engineer. During my 10 year tenure with Caltrans I served under Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan and I did well, advancing in my profession and providing for my expanding family.

After 10-years I had had enough of civil service as I became disenchanted with the culture and the desire to begin my own consulting civil engineering and surveying business, which I did along with two partners. Things went well for my partners and me as we grew the business to 100 employees by 1980. Then with the election of Jimmy Carter and his disastrous economic policies and mortgage interest rising to 22% our business began a rapid decline as most of our clients were land developers and home builders. By 1982 we had declined to ten employees and one of my partners had decided to look for other opportunities. I had to look for another form to merge with.

In 1982 I was able to strike a deal with another firm suffering from the same effects of the Carter economy and for the next 22 years I served as a principal and director of our combined forms and by the time I retired we had grown to over 800 employees with offices throughout California and in Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado. I was responsible for developing business in the public and corporate sector due to my experience and knowledge in the transportation sector and my disdain for working in the land development sector of the business. My clients were now federal agencies, state and local governments, utility companies, and large A&E firms such as Bechtel and Parsons Brinkerhoff.

Jerry (Moon-Beam) Brown, Pat Brown’s son was inaugurated as the 34^th governor of the State of California on January 6, 1975 and things in California began to go downhill. There is a saying, when talking about the similarities between a father and a son that states “the apple does not fall far from the tree.” In Jerry Brown’s case the apple fell or rolled miles away. Jerry Brown was anti-transportation and pro-government. He cancelled many of the proposed freeway projects and supported something called the Dill’s Act. In 1978, he signed the "Dill’s Act," which gave California public employees the right to collective bargaining. Not only did the Dill’s act allow public employee collective bargaining it laid the foundation for an economic disaster in California, defined public employee pension programs. It also insured the dominance of the Power of the Democrat Party in California.

In normal collective bargaining, say between a private sector union and a group of employers, the union negotiates with the employer on the basis of what will be financially beneficial for both parties. This means that the union knows it cannot ask for more than the employer can afford without going out of business and ending the jobs for the union employees. This was the case in the 70’s when the auto workers kept pushing the American auto makers and the auto makers kept giving into the unions and increasing the prices of their cars. As the prices rose the door opened for foreign auto makers to move in with less expensive and more reliable cars. As the Japanese auto makers began to erode the market for the American car makers they began opening plants in the United States, and these plants were non-union shops. To this day these Japanese (now Korean and German) auto plants remain non-union and their employees have resisted all attempts by the UAW to organize them into the union.

This is not the case with public sector unions. Here the union representative negotiates with the employer in the same manner as the private sector. The one big difference is the employers are the politicians who are supported with union money, money that is coerced from the employees whether they like it or not and then donated to the same politicians that will determine their wages and benefits. It’s a closed loop.

The public service and teachers unions also pose a monopoly on the work they perform. As two examples are the teachers unions and in A&E services. The teachers unions, through their massive political donations to the Democrat Party have been able to stifle school vouchers and the establishment of charter schools where non-union teachers are hired. This has been done to the detriment of our K-12 education system.

Architect and Engineering services are a more egregious abuse of the public service unions. Federal, state, and local governments need A&E services to design and construct buildings, highways, dams, subways and other civil works. As these projects vary in intensity and number it makes no sense to for government to maintain high level of workforce. This is why these agencies will outsource his work to the private sector where they can obtain qualified professionals. State highway departments outsource and average of 50% of these services to the private sector to avoid staffing for peak levels and then maintain these civil servants for twenty-five to thirty years and paying them for doing nothing. This also greatly adds to the liabilities for defined pension programs that are breaking the budgets of state and local governments. (See the Tale of Two Cities)

California's governor Schwarzenegger commissioned a study by Stanford University, which has found that California's three public employee pension funds (The California Public Employees' Retirement System [CalPERS], California State Teachers' Retirement System [CalSTRS], and University of California Retirement System [UCRS]) lost $109.7 billion in portfolio value in one year (June '08 to June '09) and are currently in shortfall of "more than half a trillion dollars."

By law, California taxpayers are required to pay the public employees' pensions shortfalls that may occur. Local governments cannot "print money" as the federal government does to cover budget deficits.

In the State of California less than 10% of these A&E services are outsourced to the private sector. This is due to the power of the PECG (Professional Engineers in California Government), the public service union representing architects, engineers, surveyors, and mappers. Due to PECG’s money and power Caltrans is over-staffed by at least 30%-40%. The currently have a workforce of about 22,000, a workforce that should be somewhere around 14,000 or less. While this does not sound like a big deal you should consider that these 8,000 employees with be there for 25 to 30 years and then draw a defined pension and health care benefits for the remainder of their lives. Currently one-third of the Caltrans $11 billion dollar budget is devoted to salaries of civil service employees. As for the monies owed for pensions and health care you need to look at CalPERS, California’s combined pension program.

I had a very personal experience with the power of PECG in 1997 when the California Supreme Court upheld a 1990 decision by a Sacramento Superior Court, Eugene T. Gualco. The court found that since the 1986-1987 fiscal year, Caltrans has unlawfully contracted privately for engineering projects that the civil service has traditionally done;  that by hiring more civil service employees, Caltrans could have the work at issue performed in a timely manner, and that Caltrans failed to justify private contracting on a cost-effectiveness or other valid basis.

The trial court also found that Caltrans undertook private contracting as a direct result of “gubernatorial/executive branch policy against the expansion of state government,” which required Caltrans to “balance and temper” its requests for funding for additional staff by contracting with private entities, without regard to whether qualified persons were actually available for civil service employment or whether Caltrans could assimilate and train them in a timely manner. The court found insufficient evidence to support Caltrans's contentions that (1) its increased project workload involved short-term or temporary work that private contractors could perform most economically and efficiently, or (2) private contracting would allow Caltrans to perform its work in a more timely and effective manner than hiring new civil service staff.

Thus, on April 17, 1990, the court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Caltrans from (1) contracting privately for engineering and inspection services for highway projects unless the work was to be performed in compliance with the then existing criteria set forth in section 14101 and former section 14130 et seq.;  (2) entering into cooperative agreements with local entities when private entities were to perform part or all of the work;  and (3) awarding contracts to private entities for construction survey staking.

As I mentioned above I was developing a book of business with public agencies and in one court decision I had $7 million dollars in contract value wiped off my desk — work I and my firm were well qualified to perform and a lesser cost than the public sector.

This did not sit well with the California voters and in 2000 they approved Proposition 35 by 55.2% to 44.8). Prop 35 amended the California Constitution by eliminating several restrictions that had previously prevented the state government and local governments throughout the state from contracting with private entities for engineering and architectural services. Under the terms of Proposition 35, at any time that a California government agency awards a contract to a private entity, the government agency first has to go through a competitive selection process.

Still, to this day PECG fights any efforts of Caltrans to outsource more than 10% of its work. According to the American Council of Engineering Companies of California, both the bipartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) and the State Auditor have previously recommended that the state can make meaningful savings at Caltrans — money that the state could put to better use in actually rebuilding its crumbling infrastructure. The LAO, for example, has concluded that Caltrans is way overstaffed and recommended cutting Caltrans staff by 1,500 positions for a savings of approximately $200 million per year. That proposed reduction would be more than 4.5 times the size of the governor’s proposal.

The ACEC says that Caltrans management itself has also recognized that the department needs to shift more of its engineering work to the private sector in order to better manage project and personnel workload. Management last year asked to be able to contract up to 20% of its workload to the private sector instead of the 10% historically contracted out. Gov. Brown’s proposal will result in Caltrans being able to contract out just 11% of its work, according to the ACEC.

Caltrans today is actually an anomaly, says Paul Meyer, executive director at ACECC. “Nationwide, state departments of transportation use private engineering firms on average for more than 50% of their workload,” he says. DOTs realize, he adds, that with a private firm after a project is satisfactorily finished, the state has no further financial obligations, such as public employee pensions and lifetime health care.

In addition, the LAO and State Auditor have also pointed to systemic inefficiencies in Caltrans’ operations. Until addressed with meaningful reforms, these will continue to hamper the department’s ability to accurately account for project costs and limit its efficient operation, the ACECC says.

Meanwhile, the California Transportation Commission is taking up the challenge of raising public awareness with its first “Needs Report” since 1999. The 191-page report covers roads, highways, bridges, airports, seaports, railways, border crossings, and public transit infrastructure, warning that further decay and a deterioration of these transportation systems “may take many years to recover.” The reality is that, in the aftermath of the “Great Recession,” the public has lost its focus on big picture issues like the transportation system, says the CTC.

“California’s transportation system is the largest and most complex in the nation. Historical investments in freeways, roads, bridges, rail systems, airports, public transit, and other transportation infrastructure have fueled the state’s phenomenal economic growth in recent decades. But times have changed,” the CTC notes.

“Today, California’s transportation system is in jeopardy,” the report continues. “Investments to preserve transportation systems simply have not kept pace with the demands on them, and this underfunding — decade after decade – has led to the decay of one of the state’s greatest assets.”

The State Auditor recently released a lengthy, highly critical report on Caltrans’ spending on project “support” costs, which is primarily spending on Caltrans’ own employees. This spending is important. When “support” spending is too high, that takes money away from actually constructing new projects and creating new jobs.

Here are some findings along with comments:

“Caltrans exceeded their own budgets for project support on 62 percent of their projects. [Editor’s note: This is your gasoline tax money they are wasting]

The legislature's annual arbitrary imposition of a 10% cap on the use of outside consultants actually ends up reducing Caltrans' flexibility. [Note: That may be why Caltrans has hired an excessive number of full-time, long-term employees — and thereby taken on the huge liability of their long-term pension costs. The 49 other state departments of transportation know well how inflexible and expensive the Caltrans model is, and so they regularly use consultants for 50 to 60 per cent of their workload.]

Caltrans' time-reporting system lacks strong internal controls — and consequently no one really knows to what extent Caltrans’ employees are correctly charging their time to projects.

Caltrans also failed — in each of the last three fiscal years — to meet its own goal: a maximum of 32 per cent in the ratio of support costs to total project costs. That is a strong sign that Caltrans is overstaffed. [Note: Last year the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) found that Caltrans was overstaffed by at least 1,500 personnel years (PYs), the equivalent of approximately $300 million/year.]

Another problem with support costs is that Caltrans may be comparing apples to oranges. The State Auditor found that from year-to-year Caltrans fails to use a consistent method to calculate the ratio of support to total costs.

The State Auditor made a series of recommendations to address these findings, including that Caltrans should not hire permanent staff beyond its long-term need for such staff.

The report further states that the Legislature should give Caltrans the leeway to hire consultants to meet its temporary workload increases — a recommendation with which Caltrans to its credit agrees. Now it is up to the California Legislature to act on it.

The report also recommends that the state commission an independent study of the costs and benefits of using consultants. Although Caltrans was not thrilled with that idea, Caltrans does note that “consultants pay for and bring their own tools, equipment and office space to the job — all of which are cost items for the taxpayer to support staff positions. Outside consultants also take care of their own healthcare costs and pension obligations; both “big ticket” items and something the report reminds us are also not included in Caltrans’ staff cost estimates.”

To download a copy of the State Auditor's report, which was released on April 28, click here.

As Joel Kotkin writes in his excellent article in the City Journal:

“California has long been a destination for those seeking a better place to live. For most of its history, the state enacted sensible policies that created one of the wealthiest and most innovative economies in human history. California realized the American dream but better, fostering a huge middle class that, for the most part, owned their homes, sent their kids to public schools, and found meaningful work connected to the state’s amazingly diverse, innovative economy.

Recently, though, the dream has been evaporating. Between 2003 and 2007, California state and local government spending grew 31 percent, even as the state’s population grew just 5 percent. The overall tax burden as a percentage of state income, once middling among the states, has risen to the sixth-highest in the nation, says the Tax Foundation. Since 1990, according to an analysis by California Lutheran University, the state’s share of overall U.S. employment has dropped a remarkable 10 percent. When the state economy has done well, it has usually been the result of asset inflation—first during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, and then during the housing boom, which was responsible for nearly half of all jobs created earlier in this decade.

….

What went so wrong? The answer lies in a change in the nature of progressive politics in California. During the second half of the twentieth century, the state shifted from an older progressivism, which emphasized infrastructure investment and business growth, to a newer version, which views the private sector much the way the Huns viewed a city—as something to be sacked and plundered. The result is two separate California realities: a lucrative one for the wealthy and for government workers, who are largely insulated from economic decline; and a grim one for the private-sector middle and working classes, who are fleeing the state.”

Much of this malaise in California is due to the passage of the Dill’s act and the power of the public service unions.

There are 13 initiatives on the California ballot this year. I do not usually note for these ballot measures as they end up being “not as advertised” and have numerous unintended consequences. However, there is one ballot measure I will surely vote for —Proposition 32. Prop 32 goes as far as the Constitution allows by severing the money tie between special interests and career politicians by:

• Prohibiting unions and corporations from giving to candidates
• Prohibiting unions and corporations from deducting money from employee paychecks for political purposes without permission, making all political contributions truly voluntary
• Prohibiting contractors from contributing to politicians who approve their contracts

The disconnect between the demands of the unions and those of California voters is what backers of Proposition 32 hope to remedy with their proposal to end all union and corporate donations to candidates, and to end automatic union and corporate deductions in paychecks for political contributions.

If this all sounds familiar, it should. Similar California ballot measures have been proposed and have lost in the past. Both Proposition 226 in 1998 and Proposition 75 in 2005 went down to defeat, thanks to unions outspending the proponents 4 to 1 in the case of Proposition 226 and 10 to 1 in the case of Proposition 75.

So what is different this time? For one is the momentum gained from Wisconsin's battle with unions. A similar measure passed in Wisconsin under Gov. Scott Walker, and Wisconsin Republicans who favored the measure survived a recall. The knowledge that this measure may actually pass may inspire supporters to actually cast their votes for Proposition 32.

Also, unlike with prior measures, in addition to paycheck protection, Proposition 32 also prohibits corporations and unions from contributing to candidate campaigns, so this measure is more even-handed. Proposition 32 also prohibits contractors from contributing money to the politicians who will award contracts.

Another difference this time is Gloria Romero, former Democrat state senator and major supporter of Prop. 32. As California's Senate Democratic majority leader from 2001-2009, she saw first-hand the public-sector union corruption in Sacramento. "There is no other way to say it politely," she recently told the Wall Street Journal. "It's owned." Both in office and later as head of the California chapter of Democrats for Education Reform, Romero has fought for education reform in California, including the ability of parents to take their kids out of failing schools, but has butted heads with the CTA (California Teachers Association) and other public-sector unions many times. The CTA "has killed or hijacked nearly every reform bill that has popped up in the legislature," she told the Journal. CTA officials "walk around the capitol "like they're God."

Romero has been featured in a very effective ad supporting Prop. 32, in which she challenges the voter: "if you want to take back California from the special interests, if you want to get big money out of California politics, if you want elected officials to answer to the people again join me in voting yes on Proposition 32." It is almost enough to make non-Californians move to California so they can vote for Prop. 32.

Romero's ad is the only Prop. 32 ad that directly takes on the teachers' unions. Other Prop. 32 ads target the prison guards union and the large corporate campaign donors, and they are all very effective.

This time around, California also has some home-grown momentum. Earlier this summer San Diego and deep-blue San Jose, California passed ballot measures that kept union pensions from swallowing up their city budgets. In the case of San Jose, the results were not even close: 70% voted in favor of limiting union pensions. Suddenly the old union demagoguery didn't work in cities that wanted to keep their same city services along with manageable union pensions, and not raise taxes to pay for it all.

So far, Prop. 32 is still polling even with Californians. But the unions are putting up a fight. While Proposition 32 proponents have raised a meager $5 million, opponents to Prop. 32 have amassed $36 million to use in campaigning the issue, with millions more in union dues to come. That is a lot of money to pay for TV commercials with worried-looking teachers and nurses groveling before Californians, begging the citizenry not to cut their pay.

There is a saying in California: "as California goes, so goes the country." Well, admittedly, that phrase may have itself spread across the country more than actual California policies. But you have to admit that California's 1978 victory with Proposition 13 in 1978 spread some tax-cutting frenzy, culminating in tax cuts that were passed under President Reagan in 1981. It could be that passing Proposition 32 in California could be the next step in regaining control of America's states from out-of-control unions.

One of Obama’s Big Lies

“We have heard of the impious doctrine in the old world, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the new, in another shape - that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 45.

One of the main points Obama makes in his numerous and redundant campaign speeches is that he saved the American Auto industry and thousands of jobs with his bailout of General Motors. He continually talks about the jobs he saved and that GM is making cars in the United States that people are buying. This is one of his numerous big lies.

Readers with long memories may recall that Charles E. Wilson, president of General Motors and nominee for secretary of defense, got into trouble when he told a Senate committee, “What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and what’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”

That was in 1953, and Wilson was trying to make the point that General Motors was such a big company — it sold about half the cars in the U.S. back then — that its interests were inevitably aligned with those of the country as a whole.

Michael Barone, Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Times, deconstructs one of President Obama’s favorite talking points on the campaign trail in his latest column. While the president likes to take credit for “saving” General Motors and the American auto industry, Barone points out that billions of dollars later, GM may actually be worse off:

“Things are different now. General Motors’ market share in the U.S. is below 20 percent. It has gone through bankruptcy and exists now thanks to a federal bailout. But Barack Obama seems to think that it’s as closely aligned with the national interest as Wilson did.

When the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse,” Obama told a campaign event audience in Colorado earlier this month, “I said, let’s bet on America’s workers. And we got management and workers to come together, making cars better than ever, and now GM is No. 1 again and the American auto industry has come roaring back.”

His conclusion: “So now I want to say that what we did with the auto industry, we can do in manufacturing across America. Let’s make sure advanced, high-tech manufacturing jobs take root here, not in China. Let’s have them here in Colorado. And that means supporting investment here.”

Obama talks about the auto bailout frequently, since it’s one of the few things in his record that gets positive responses in the polls. But he’s probably wise to avoid probing questions, since the GM bailout is not at all the success he claims.

GM has been selling cars in the U.S. at deep discount and, while it’s making money in China — and is outsourcing operations there and elsewhere — it’s bleeding losses in Europe. It’s spending billions to ditch its Opel brand there in favor of Chevrolet, including $559 million to put the Chevy logo on Manchester United soccer team uniforms — and just fired the marketing exec who cut that deal.

It botched the launch of its new Chevrolet Malibu by starting with the green-friendly Eco version, which pleased its government shareholders, but which got lousy reviews. And it’s selling only about 10,000 electric-powered Chevy Volts a year, a puny contribution toward Obama’s goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

“GM is going from bad to worse,” reads the headline on Automotive News Editor in Chief Keith Crain’s analysis. That’s certainly true of its stock price.

The government still owns 500 million shares of GM, 26 percent of the total. It needs to sell them for $53 a share to recover its $49.5 billion bailout. But the stock price is around $20 a share, and the Treasury now estimates that the government will lose more than $25 billion if and when it sells.

That's in addition to the revenue lost when the Obama administration permitted GM to continue to deduct previous losses from current profits, even though such deductions are ordinarily wiped out in bankruptcy proceedings.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that GM is bleeding money because of decisions made by a management eager to please its political masters -- and by the terms of the bankruptcy arranged by Obama car czars Ron Bloom and Steven Rattner.

Rattner himself admitted late last year, in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, that "We should have asked the [United Auto Workers] to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay." Nonunion employees of GM spin-off Delphi lost their pensions. UAW members didn't.

The UAW got its political payoff. And GM, according to Forbes writer Louis Woodhill, is headed to bankruptcy again.”

President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again. The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market.

Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on August 15th. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.

Woodhill writes:

“Right now, the government’s GM stock is worth about 39% less than it was on November 17, 2010, when the company went public at $33.00/share. However, during the intervening time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by almost 20%, so GM shares have lost 49% of their value relative to the Dow.

It’s doubtful that the Obama administration would attempt to sell off the government’s massive position in GM while the stock price is falling. It would be too embarrassing politically. Accordingly, if GM shares continue to decline, it is likely that Obama would ride the stock down to zero.

GM is unlikely to hit the wall before the election, but, given current trends, the company could easily do so again before the end of a second Obama term.

In the 1960s, GM averaged a 48.3% share of the U.S. car and truck market. For the first 7 months of 2012, their market share was 18.0%, down from 20.0% for the same period in 2011. With a loss of market share comes a loss of relative cost-competitiveness. There is only so much market share that GM can lose before it would no longer have the resources to attempt to recover.

To help understand why GM keeps losing market share, let’s look at the saga of the Chevy Malibu.

The Malibu is GM’s entry in the automobile market’s “D-Segment”. The D-Segment comprises mid-size, popularly priced, family sedans, like the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord. The D-Segment accounted for 14.7% of the total U.S. vehicle market in 2011, and 21.3% during the first 7 months of 2012.

Because the D-Segment is the highest volume single vehicle class in the U.S., and the U.S. is GM’s home market, it is difficult to imagine how GM could survive long term unless it can profitably develop, manufacture, and market a vehicle that can hold its own in the D-Segment. This is true not only because of the revenue potential of the D-Segment, but also because of what an also-ran Malibu would say about GM’s ability to execute at this time in its history.

GM is in the process of introducing a totally redesigned 2013 Chevy Malibu. It will compete in the D-Segment with, among others, the following: the Ford Fusion (totally redesigned for 2013); the Honda Accord (totally redesigned for 2013); the Hyundai Sonata (totally redesigned for 2011); the Nissan Altima (totally redesigned for 2013); the Toyota Camry (refreshed for 2013); and the Volkswagen Passat (totally redesigned for 2012).

Automobile technology is progressing so fast that the best vehicle in a given segment is usually just the newest design in that segment. Accordingly, if a car company comes out with a new, completely redesigned vehicle, it had better be superior to the older models being offered by its competitors. If it is not, the company will spend the next five years (the usual time between major redesigns in this segment) losing market share and/or offering costly “incentives” to “move the metal”.

Woodhill Continues:

“As a company, General Motors peaked in 1965, when it commanded 50.7% of the U.S. market, and made a stunning-for-the-time $2.1 billion dollars in after-tax profits. Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 2011 dollars, GM made $12.1 billion in after-tax profits on $117.9 billion in revenue.

In 1965, Volkswagen was tiny compared to GM. It produced only 1.6 million vehicles, about 22% of GM’s 7.3 million. VW’s total revenues were only 11% of GM’s. The most powerful engine you could get in VW’s volume family car, the Beetle, had 40 horsepower. The biggest engine you could get in GM’s equivalent, the 1965 Chevy Impala, had 425 horsepower.

In the first half of 2012, Volkswagen sold almost as many vehicles as GM did, 4.6 million vs. 4.7 million. And, its total revenues were much higher, $119.2 billion vs. $75.4 billion for GM. Part of this is the result of currency exchange rates, but VW had a significantly higher operating profit margin than GM, 6.8% vs. 5.7%.

Under the leadership of Ferdinand Piech, who is kind of like a German-speaking, automobile industry version of Steve Jobs, Volkswagen is determined to become the biggest and most profitable car company in the world. And, right now, they are eating GM’s lunch.”

Woodhill concludes with a comparison between Volkswagen and General Motors of their engineering and management styles:

“One way to answer that question is to compare the 2013 Chevy Malibu against the 2012 Volkswagen Passat, as Car and Driver did. Results: VW, first out of six; GM, dead last. However, additional insight can be obtained by looking at how GM’s CEO, Dan Akerson (63), stacks up against Professor Doctor Martin Winterkorn (65), the man handpicked by Ferdinand Piech in 2007 to be his replacement as CEO of Volkswagen AG.

Akerson has an engineering degree, but he also has a Master’s Degree in Economics, and his first big job was as CFO of MCI. Akerson was CEO of General Instrument, and then of Nextel, and then of XO Communications, which went bankrupt in June 2002. He joined the private equity firm, the Carlyle Group, in 2003.

Akerson got his first job in the automobile industry when he was named CEO of GM in late 2010. Recently, he has been hiring and firing top GM executives at an alarming pace, and he is understood to be working on a major reorganization of the company. Akerson recently gave a televised speech to GM employees on the need for “integrity”.

Martin Winterkorn has a PhD in Metallurgical Engineering, and he has spent his entire career in the automotive industry. At the 2011 Frankfurt Auto Show, Winterkorn was caught on amateur video sitting in, and studying Hyundai’s newly introduced i30, a competitor to VW’s best-selling family car, the Golf. Here is an excerpt from a story about this incident published along with the video by The Truth About Cars, an auto industry blog:

“(Martin Winterkorn) pulled on the adjuster of the steering column, and heard – nothing. At Volkswagen, there is an audible (“klonk!) feedback whenever the steering column is adjusted.

Immediately, Klaus Bischoff, head of Volkswagen Brand Design was summoned. He pulled on the adjuster: No sound. “Da scheppert nix,” exclaimed Winterkorn in his heavy Bavarian accent. “There is no rattle!”

Winterkorn was livid: “How did he pull that off?” He, the blasted Korean. “BMW doesn’t know how. We don’t know how.” He, the blasted Korean, must have found out how to battle the dreaded Scheppern.

Tension is high. This could affect careers. Someone quickly explains that there had been a solution, “but it was too expensive.” That gets Winterkorn even more enraged. “Then, why does he know how?” For less money. He, the Korean. There is no answer. Hyundai has beaten Volkswagen at the Scheppern front.

Winterkorn measures the A-pillar, runs his hands over the plastic. He walks away, his entourage trots after him. Deeply in thought and very worried.”

Uh-oh. While Dan Akerson is busy rearranging the deck chairs on GM’s Titanic, Martin Winterkorn is leading VW to world domination via technical excellence.

“The game isn’t over until it’s over”, but if President Obama wins reelection, he should probably start giving some serious thought to how he is going to justify bailing out GM, and its unionized UAW workforce, yet again. And, during the current campaign, Obama might want to be a little more modest about what he actually achieved by bailing out GM the first time.”

When it comes to jobs once again Obama has failed with his GM bailout. One of Obama’s big lies was that by pouring money down the rat hole of General Motors he saved thousands of good paying jobs in the auto industry. This is pure baloney.

According to TradeReform GM producing 70% of autos outside U.S. Dan Akerson states that seven out of 10 GM automobiles are built outside the U.S. hey have 11 joint ventures with Chinese government controlled auto manufacturers. Also they are moving their R&D to China.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal General Motors is open to deepening its relationship with China's SAIC Motor Corp and could expand the collaboration beyond existing tie-ups in China and India, GM Chairman and Chief Executive Dan Akerson said in a recent interview:

“The pairing with SAIC, China's largest domestic auto maker, is critical to GM's global strategy, not just its plans in China, Mr. Akerson said. He is in Shanghai this week where the GM board is holding its first-ever monthly meeting in China, the world's largest auto market.

A far-reaching partnership with SAIC is a central part of GM's strategy to manage business in China, where conditions are increasingly challenging as global auto makers and local manufacturers jostle for market share and must contend with government regulation. On Tuesday, the two companies agreed to jointly develop a new all-electric car for the Chinese market and which could be sold around the world.”

When the federal government bails out an industry or provides tax incentives or subsidies, or when state economic development agencies do the same, there need to be terms that benefit the U.S. in terms of production and job growth. We can’t subsidize offshoring. Producing here and selling to our wealth producing consumer market need to go together. Once Obama lies about saving jobs in the auto industry.

GM, like Solyndra and other failed Obama energy programs, is not only a flawed investment for the American Taxpayer, it is a disaster. We will never get our money back and eventually GM will have to restructure itself under the rules of the free-market. Obama’s proclivity for picking winners and losers based on his devotion to his union and crony capitalist supporters is nothing short of a crime. He is stealing our money to bolster failing companies to garner votes from people who have no idea as to what he is really doing.

I am sure none of the moderators will bring this subject up in the coming presidential debates. This would focus on Obama’s miserable record and we know they don’t want to do that. After all abortion, women’s rights, free contraception, and gay marriage are much more emotional, though irrelevant, topics than how the government wastes our money.