The MIchurian Candidates

Too clever by half?

Michigan’s fake “Tea Party” operation (background here, if you need it) seems to have stumbled in its attempt to deceive voters in November.  

They, where ‘they’ means Democrats to an extent still being determined, can’t run on their own ideas and platforms so they have to be dishonest about who they are.  Fortunately, they appear less than competent at it.

From The Detroit News: GOP lawyers join in as battle of tea parties heats up

[Oakland] County [Democratic] party Chairman Mike McGuinness said operations director Jason Bauer may have crossed the line when he notarized many of the affidavits filed by 23 candidates trying to get on the November ballot as members of the newly formed Tea Party. Some of them filed in what are expected to be close congressional or state legislative races.

“May have” crossed the line?  At best he betrayed the Democrats, at worst he revealed Democrats are connected to the plot.  But it gets worse:  Many of the affidavits appear to have been notarized before the MIchurian candidates were even nominated:  Tea Party Candidate Identity Statements Could Be Invalid

The mysterious Tea Party candidates could face legal challenges because many of the candidates appear to have filled out their affidavits saying they accepted the party nomination before the convention was held, one election expert said.

Of the 20 affidavits reviewed by Michigan Capitol Confidential, all but one was signed before the reported July 24 date of the Tea Party Convention in Saginaw.

The Affidavit of Identity and Receipt of Filing has a section that asks the filer to acknowledge by checking a box that they have “certification of party nomination and certification of acceptance.”

Since candidates are nominated at the party convention, a candidate couldn’t check that box until after nominated.

If, as seems likely, the affidavits notarized by Jason Bauer are some of the same ones signed before the events being affirmed had occurred, what are the consequences for his public notary license?
 

Incompetence Update: 1:45PM
Two Michigan Tea Party Candidates Removed from Ballot Because They are Under Age 21

Partisan deception

Jason Gillman at Michigan Taxes Too Much and also at Right Michigan has almost certainly discovered the identity of one of the dezinformatsiya operatives/candidates of the false flag political cell named Michigan “Tea Party.”  The man, Jason H. Bauer, is an Oakland County Democrat party official.

There is no post on this by Mr. Gillman at either site as I write. I learned about it here. Please visit Mr. Gillman’s sites. It is his story and he deserves the traffic. Both sites linked above are included in TOC’s blogroll.

This new political party, almost certainly set up by Democrats with assistance from a Soros friendly political consulting firm in California, will be an indication on your ballot NOT to vote for the agent whose name appears opposite the false party label.

As mentioned here,  people who support tea party ideas are NOT a political party and do not aspire to be.  The people behind the Michigan Tea Party want to steal the brand while rejecting the ideals.

Despicable.

Update 12:40PM 29-July
Should have read below the fold. See also.

Too smart to say that?

Senator Jon Kyl mentions something President Obama said to him (~3:17) about why Obama won’t support secure borders:

The White House denies this, “Senator Kyl knows the president didn’t say that.” Right. It depends on what the meaning of “the” is.  The White House sub-text is: “Obama’s too smart to say that,”  but he has not justified that assumption.  

Many are buying it, nonetheless.  For example, Charles Krauthammer on Fox News tonight (I paraphrase), “The President is too clever and polished to have said that so bluntly.” A. B. Stoddard echoed the sentiment. “Obama’s too smart for that.”

Really? This is the same guy who told us our electricity rates “would necessarily skyrocket” if he were elected.  He’s the man who accused Pennsylvanians of “clinging to their guns and religion.” He told PBS WBEZ-FM in 2001 that SCOTUS was remiss becuase it never ventured into question of the redistribution of wealth (.43) :
 
He told Joe the Plumber the same thing 7 years later.  

He told us that his grandmother was a “typical white person.”

As President, Barack Obama called Cambridge, Massachusetts police stupid; on national television, from the White House and after admitting he did not have the facts.  President Obama has told us he’s looking for whose “ass to kick.”

I don’t think Obama gets a pass on Senator Kyl’s version of events because “he’s too smart to say that.” He may be smart, but he has proven he isn’t circumspect, and that he is a rabid ideologue. I’m quite sure he said something that any reasonable person would interpret exactly as has Senator Kyl.

The GAAP between Waxman’s ears

Megan McCardle, in a futile effort to explain GAAP to Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak.

…when a company experiences what accountants call “a material adverse impact” on its expected future earnings, and those changes affect an item that is already on the balance sheet, the company is required [by Federal law] to record the negative impact…

…now a bunch of companies with generous retiree drug benefits have announced that they are taking large charges to reflect the cost of the change in the tax law [occasioned by Obamacare].

Henry Waxman thinks that’s mean, and he’s summoning the heads of those companies to Washington to explain themselves. It’s not clear what they’re supposed to explain. What they did is required by GAAP. And I’ve watched congressional hearings. There’s no chance that four CEO’s are going to explain the accounting code to the fine folks in Congress; explaining how to boil water would challenge the format.

It is not the format that’s going to be challenged, it’s the formatees. They know how to turn up the heat, they just don’t comprehend that they are the ones sitting in the soup pot.

I would jump to be the first to say that there should be no subsidies from any government to any corporation; it just encourages the lobbyists, produces graft and corruption, wastes money, stifles innovation and competition, and reduces our freedom. However, when you eliminate a subsidy, you have to expect it will change the financial picture for the corporations that enjoyed the former tax regime. Getting all huffy about that would be beneath most folks. Not necessarily because most folks would be worried about public perception of their honesty, but because they wouldn’t want everyone to know they were morons.

Ask yourself why the Feds felt it incumbent upon them to subsidize benefits for retirees belonging to large unions in the first place. Ask yourself if the corporations would have granted such generous benefits without such federal subsidy. That is, ask yourself if corporations would take advantage of government interference intended to encourage opulent benefit programs at your expense.

Extreme fantasy

AT&T and other companies following SEC rules in announcing that they expect Obamacare to raise their health insurance costs have received demands from Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak to justify the numbers. They’re going to hold a hearing to get to the bottom of this. I’d prefer they’d hold a listening, but they proven they can’t do that, either.

These congressmen write in part:

The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern. They also appear to conflict with independent analyses.

These are the people who gamed the CBO to get a false cost for Obamacare, a bill of which they didn’t even know the content. They are the people responsible for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are the people responsible for the decline in sales of US Treasuries. They are congenitally incapable of balancing a budget. They praise themselves for programs like “Cash for Clunkers.” They propose to raise energy costs dramatically through the Cap & Tax bill. These are the people who bribe each other with your money. They run Ponzi schemes known as Social Security and Medicare. They live in a fantasy world, where facts are subject to their intent: “The new law is designed…” They think all they need do is reference their putative intentions. Putative, because, as they demonstrate, it isn’t about health care.

This is straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

Bad link fixed, 2:22PM