The circumstances as they have been laid out are frankly odd.  If Embraer had the superior product, why not simply allow them to win the bidding process as opposed to disqualifying Hawker?  If there was a problem with Hawker’s proposal that could disqualify them, couldn’t they at least be informed as to what it is to have the opportunity to address it in order to stay competitive in the bidding process?  Most importantly to me, am I the only one that sees red flags with a foreign company that has ties to Iran building weapons for the United States military?

I think these are legitimate questions about something that I find concerning and are worthy of being asked and answered.

However, as I’ve written about it, there are some that have reached out to me to essentially say that everything is above board and basically that there’s nothing to see here.  The evidence of this seems to be nothing more than that the people claim it to be so and are very upset that these questions are being asked.  In fact, one commenter in my last post on the subject flat out told me that the request by Hawker for clarification on the reason for their disqualification will cause American soldiers to die.

As I’ve stated in my previous articles, I could easily believe that the government had completely legitimate reasons for disqualifying Hawker.  Anything is possible.  However, there are looming questions that I think are appropriate to ask and apparently others agree with me.

Those people include member of Congress Mike Pompeo, Dan Lipinski, Glenn “GT” Thompson (PA), Lynn Westmoreland, Michael McCaul, Tom McClintock, Steve King, Adam Kinzinger, Anne Marie Buerkle, Mike Fitzpatrick, Kathy Castor, Robert Aderholt, Spencer Bachus, Christopher Murphy, Bobby Rush, Elton Gallegly, Paul Gosar, Kevin Yoder, MoBrooks, Trey Gowdy, Tim Griffin, Tim Huelskamp and Lynn Jenkins.

They are the undersigned for the following letter sent to Leon Panetta at the Pentagon:

Dear Secretary Panetta,

On December 22, 2011, the United States Air Force (USAF) awarded a $355 million contract to Sierra Nevada/Embraer for Light Air Support (LAS) aircraft to be used by the Afghan National Army Air Force. This award represents the first USAF purchase made under the LAS contract’s $950 million ceiling. Prior to the award, the USAF controversially excluded Hawker Beechcraft (HBC) from competition, creating what amounts to a sole-source contract for the Brazilian-based jet manufacturer, Embraer. We respectfully request the Department to provide Congress with a thorough explanation as to why the USAF excluded Hawker Beechcraft from the competition.

Up until the time the USAF excluded HBC, LAS was a closely fought contest between the Hawker Beechcraft Corporation’s AT-6B and Embraer’s Super Tucano. The U.S. taxpayers have already invested billions of dollars into the U.S. Air Force and Navy T-6 trainer fleets built and maintained by HBC. This investment has allowed Hawker to make a competitive LAS bidthat leverages and maximizes the existing logistics, support, and pilot training investment already made by the United States Government. HBC is a trusted supplier to the U.S. military and a valued part of many local communities.

Mr. Secretary, we believe it is important that the Air Force be abundantly transparent and forthright given that it has excluded an American company from a significant competition. We hope you recognize the importance of this situation.

Thank you for your personal attention to this matter.

During the Bush years, “no bid contracts” became a very dirty word.  Haliburton was the devil incarnate to much of the left.  I and others, defended the decision because the administration put forth explanations showing that Haliburton was uniquely positioned to handle the tasks awarded to them.

Apparently, in this situation, there is no apparent forthcoming explanation.  All I see is an eminently qualified American company losing the opportunity to bid against a foreign owned entity with strong ties to a government that has been friendly to one of our greatest enemies in the Middle East.

In the end, if Hawker Beechcraft is shown to have been woefully inadequate in their bid, I’ll happily stop asking these questions.  But remaining silent on an issue that raises red flags this high just isn’t an option.

Transparency is needed on this issue.

Follow @ben_howe

Bill Whittle narrates this excellent video from Encounter Books to help us understand the threat the Brotherhood poses.  Watch and learn.

Follow @ben_howe

This past Sunday was my second and final show for the month of January.  In it, I talk EPA, take calls, discuss the establishment, and interview Mark Daniels of Hilex Poly, a company I’ve written about before and America’s largest plastic bag manufacturer.  He helps guide me through the myths of environmental dangers related to their product.  I tried to get him to take a jab at the EPA but apparently they are nice to them.

I wish the same could be said for the coal industry.  Listen in to see what I mean.

Download audio here

Don’t forget to Subscribe in iTunes!

Follow @ben_howe

Conversation went from Ace’s desire to see an Oscar for “Best Driving Into A Wall” to Adam’s contention that our remaining presidential candidates are not the huge steaming piles of cow dung that I perceive them to be.

Also, as the title suggests, we spend an undue amount of time discussing if and when Bill Maher has ever been funny.

Download audio here

The Ben Howe Show airs Tuesday nights at 8pm & 11pm EST on FTR Radio.

The Guest:

Follow @AdamSBaldwin

The Regulars:

Follow @Ben_Howe

Follow @AceofSpadesHQ

Follow @FTR__Radio

Cross-Posted at BenHoweShow.com.

His state’s rights position plays ok with the base, but I believe it will be less than compelling to the general electorate when it comes time to decide what separates Obama & Romney on this issue.

In passing, I mentioned that Gingrich, who previously supported the mandate as well, has since determined that he was wrong and will take that to his debates with Obama should he win the nomination.  I based that on this exchange which took place in the South Carolina debate earlier this month:

For the video impaired, Santorum attacked Newt on his support of mandates and questioned his ability to truly stand up to Obama on this issue of healthcare reform, to which Newt responded:

“Of course you can. I’d say, you know, I was wrong and I figured it out.  You were wrong and you didn’t.”

Santorum quickly pointed out that after holding the position strongly for over 10 years, it may not fly in the debates.

When I witnessed this exchange, I decided that Newt had done an adequate enough job of acknowledging that he’d made a mistake and that overall, I was satisfied.

That was before I saw a video at Verum Serum.

NEWT GINGRICH CONFERENCE CALL ON THE WHITE HOUSE HEALTH REFORM INITIATIVE

The real foundation, the most important, uh, part of this is individual rights, responsibilities, and expectation of behavior.

Uh, we believe that there should be must-carry, that everyone should have health insurance, or if you’re absolute, uh, libertarian we would allow you to post a bond.  But we would not allow people to, uh, be free riders failing to ensure themselves and then showing up in the emergency room, uh, with no means of payment.   Uh, if you have, uh, must carry, then the insurance companies have told us that we can have must-issue and you will therefore have a system in which you don’t have to worry about cherry picking and maneuvering.  As we move beyond today’s press conference, this is kind of general model we’re going to be advocating…

Now as I said, I’m not surprised by the fact that he supported the mandate.  This was known before he ever announced his bid.  What I didn’t realize was that his support of it went well beyond mere theoretical and into the realm of advocacy.

This wasn’t a press conference discussing random possibilities.  This was a press conference specifically discussing the health care bill that was being debated at that moment which ultimately became the monstrosity known as Obamacare.

I can see a couple of responses from the Newt campaign.  One would be “Hey, this was May 2009.  By March 2010 when the bill passed, it was much different!”

They’d be right. It was much different by March.  It was better.  Back in May of ’09 the public option was still on the table and gov’t funded abortions were still lacking an executive order to prevent them (which of course it really doesn’t prevent but I digress).

Another would be, “Yes, he supported the mandate, but he didn’t write something incredibly similar into law like Romney did!”

Also true.  But in my mind, Gingrich may have done something equal if not worse, unless I’ve completely misunderstood what the word “advocate” means.

But enough of my theorizing, I reached out to his campaign and politely said “WHAT THE HELL???”

To their credit, they responded by pointing me in two directions.  One was to this video excerpt from Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier in which Newt & the panel were discussing one of the debate moments in November:

BRET BAIER: There was a moment in the debate where you had an exchange with Mitt Romney and you said that his Massachusetts healthcare plan was far more big government than he talks about.  Then he said ‘well we got the mandate idea from you.’ Then you said ‘well this is…you got it from Heritage and you.’  and you said ‘well yes.’  What is your stance on the mandate and … clear that up.

NEWT GINGRICH: Look, Heritage Foundation and most conservatives including me, during the period of the fight over Hillarycare, accepted the idea of a mandate.  And, gradually virtually everybody came to the conclusion that a mandate doesn’t work in part because it means more and more and more government definition of what are you mandating.  Which is exactly the point I was making the other night with Mitt.  Now, my answer to Mitt would be ‘ok, I may once have advocated, I concluded I was wrong.’  Why hasn’t he concluded he was wrong?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: In concluding you were wrong, was it on the grounds that it’s bad policy? Or that it’s unconstitutional?

GINGRICH: Well I’m not a constitutional lawyer but I believe that it is unconstitutional for the Congress to require you to buy something (crosstalk).  Because the… then the Congress could require you to do anything.

KRAUTHAMMER: So you’re saying that in principle it was a terrible idea.  Even if as policy it might work.

GINGRICH: Yes.

BAIER: And that’s a change for you?

GINGRICH: That is a change.  There’s no question.  That’s a change for the Heritage Foundation. A lot of us…in ’93 as opposed to Hillarycare thought that was the less destructive alternative.  The longer we dealt with it the more we concluded it was hopeless.

This laying out of the facts just doesn’t seem to jive with how things turned out.  Clearly Speaker Gingrich supported mandates well beyond the time that Hillarycare was being debated, and furthermore, it wasn’t simply a “we can’t think of anything else” if you listen to what he said in the ’09 video.  This was a well thought out and reasoned position that he said he not only believed had to happen but would be advocating for as the bill that would eventually become Obamacare was being debated.

Note also the question Krauthammer asked. “In concluding you were wrong, was it on the grounds that it’s bad policy? Or that it’s unconstitutional?” This is the question I’ve been saying will be asked in the generals and for which neither Newt nor Romney has a good answer.

Their objections about constitutionality and process leave room for the idea that in theory, they still like the whole idea and want states to do it. All of them. This is not going to be a compelling argument against Obamacare: “Vote for me! I’m the guy that wants 50 separate versions of Obamacare instead of just one!”

Yet continually, this question is glazed over quickly by supporters of Romney (and now potentially Gingrich) who wish to act as though screaming “FEDERALISM!!!” at the top of their lungs will somehow trump the fact that they don’t seem too far off from Obama in practice, rather just different in process.

The campaign also sent me this bit in Newt’s defense from Legal Insurrection who claims that the ’09 support of mandates was not support of the mandates that exist in the final form of Obamacare.

The blog Verum Serum claims to have found an audio recording showing that Newt Gingrich supported Obama’s federal mandate, in a post titled Gingrich Called for ObamaCare Mandate in May 2009….

Breitbart TV picked up on that theme, asserting “this is the first example of Gingrich specifically endorsing President Barack Obama’s federally mandated version which many conservatives believe is unconstitutional and Gingrich has described as “clearly unconstitutional.”

This is wrong.  I have listened to the entire audio recording, and Newt does not endorse the Obamacare mandate, in part because the speech took place before even the earliest draft of Obamacare had been proposed.

The actual discussion in the recording is nothing new, listen for yourself, it shows Newt saying what he has said before about not allowing free riders at hospitals including either having insurance or showing that you have the ability to pay.  You can like it or not, but it’s not new or news, as Verum Serum acknowledges in its post.

The recording does not support the conclusion that Newt supported Obama’s federal mandate, which uses the police powers of the state to force people to buy insurance or face penalties.

At the time of Newt’s presentation, in May 2009, the earliest versions of Obamacare had not yet been released.  Newt specifically notes that the details of what would be proposed were unknown and (at 27:00) the process was still in the “wish list press conference stage.”

I think I covered this above.  I’ll grant you that everything was theoretical at the time and not in true bill form, but we certainly knew that the public option was on the table.  And LI may be right that the mandates were not under discussion, but isn’t that worse?

After all, in 2008, Barack Obama himself made it clear he was against mandates:

As LI noted, the ultimate form of Obamacare wasn’t under discussion in May of ’09. There were rumblings that something involving mandates might be coming, sure. Even Obama mentioned the concept as early as June 2009. But the specific mandate that Gingrich discussed was one which would allow you to choose not to participate by posting a bond or paying a fee? The only person as of May 2009 that I can find really talking about that specific type of mandate was … um… Gingrich! So I can only conclude that Obama was convinced that mandates were the right answer.  By who? I guess an advocate.  Know any Newt?  Oh that’s right.  You called yourself an advocate for the mandate, so I guess that answers that question.

Now the Romney fans are piddling all over themselves with joy to catch Gingrich supporting policies that he attacks Romney for.  They think it’s just going to be curtains for his campaign that he’s on record supporting things while simultaneously trying to destroy Romney for it.

I wish I could smack them all on the head.  What the hell do you think will happen to Romney when he tries to do the same thing?

I’ve got a request in with Newt’s campaign for a more substantial response to this issue and if I get one, I’ll update this post with it.

If we’re going to have a good candidate, these issues which could mire them in the generals, must be flushed out and must be talked about.  I’ve already publicly acknowledged that my favorite candidate among the remaining 4 is Newt Gingrich.  I’ve even gone on record as saying that if we are going to lose, I’d rather lose with Newt because at least it will be an honest campaign and Newt will go down fighting harder than anyone else on that stage.

However, if he can’t provide a better and more substantive answer as to why this wouldn’t be a problem, then we are going to have trouble with a Newt nominee.

The answer here, for Newt & Romney, is to provide true analysis of the mistake.  A real answer as to what changed and what is going to be better.  We aren’t going to win if either of these two guys gets the nomination and gives the kind of half-assed answers they’ve been giving on this question.

Cross-Posted at BenHoweShow.com

I’ve been in endless debates and discussions with Romney supporters and surrogates for some time now as they paint a beautiful picture of the ultimate State’s Rights battle. They claim that Romneycare vs Obamacare isn’t about socialized medicine vs the free market. They say it’s actually the core of the Federalist struggle and that Romney will channel Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and march onto the capital steps, fulfilling the dreams and desires of tea partiers nationwide by finally standing up and saying, “Enough is enough! Let the state’s make their decisions Obama! Your days of tyranny are at an end!” And they all rejoiced.

Yet, continually when Romney is approached on this subject in the debates with fellow Republicans, he seems incapable of defending any other point and seems befuddled at the idea that there might be more than one part about Obamacare that American’s had wholly objected to. For him, it’s all about the mandate.

But it’s important to keep in mind, Mitt Romney does not object to the concept of mandates. Far from it actually.

In case you haven’t already heard it a dozen times, let me try to explain the premise of Mitt Romney’s defense of the individual mandate that exists in Massachusetts.  From his perspective, it’s a simple matter of mathematics combined with certainty of human behavior.  In Massachusetts they had a serious problem, one which has presented itself in every state in the country: people without insurance were racking up enormous hospital bills and then skipping out on the debt.  This put the state in a position where healthcare costs were continually rising in order to compensate for the loss that was generated by these “free riders.”

It’s a legitimate issue which has been something that everyone has tried to figure out how to tackle for generations.  Ron Paul’s answer to the question of people who couldn’t afford insurance nor their hospital bill seemed to be something along the lines of “screw them.”  By and large, this has been considered a bad answer so conservatives have continually looked for other solutions.

Over the years, everyone from Newt Gingrich to the Heritage Foundation (and some claim that even Santorum) has at one time or another come to the conclusion that the only answer is to force everyone to pay up ahead of time.  Either by requiring them to have insurance, forcing them onto government run insurance like medicare, or having them pay some type of annual fee if they refused to do either of those two things.  Heritage & Gingrich have both changed their position on this.  Romney has not.

As recently as 2008, the mandate question was not a hot button issue.  On the campaign trail, Romney was still touting his healthcare bill as a solution that the entire nation could use to solve this ever growing problem.  Whether his view of “nationwide solution” meant state by state or federally done is still debated to this day.

Thanks to Obamacare and the backlash from conservatives, libertarians, and independents nationwide, individual mandates moved to the front of everyone’s minds.  This would of  course be a problem for a guy who wants to run for president and also “loves mandates.”  But then a beautiful thing happened: it started to be challenged in courts across the country as a 10th amendment issue.  Eureka! This isn’t about whether or not it’s good policy! It’s about the process which brought it about and the fact that it trumped the desires of the states!  At last! An intellectual justification for how Romney could enact Romneycare, call for its nationwide implementation, and still run on a ticket that promises to repeal legislation that does this very thing.  It’s the Federalism stupid!

But there’s a problem that all of the fanatical screaming about “electability” simply won’t or can’t address.  This path may work great to convince committed conservatives that Romney is on their side, but it will not work so well in the general elections against Barack Obama and his $1 billion reelection campaign machine.

Currently when Romneycare is assaulted (mostly by primary opponents and their surrogates on the right), conservatives that support the Governor come out in droves to explain away all of the issues in ways that they think will mostly appeal to rationality and reason.  Case in point is Ms. Ann Coulter who currently believes that a vote for anyone but Mitt is a vote for Barack Obama.

The other day, David Limbaugh tweeted a statement out of frustration with Romney supporters (he’s in the Santorum camp):

Ms. Coulter, a leader in defending Romney on national television and elsewhere, replied to this concern with what I’m assuming she thought would be a satisfactory answer:

This isn’t the only example of the committed conservative’s defense of Romneycare.  For example, Ms. Coulter also retweeted Jim Pethokoukis who had tweeted one of the points of a study recently released on the effects of Romneycare:

And she’s not alone.  Today on Fox & Friends, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the Governor as well:

She twists and turns around the issue that the Fox host’s are trying to squeeze out of her and ultimately fail to do.  The issue is: beyond the 10th amendment issue, how does Mitt Romney defend his attacks on the basis of Obamacare?  Obamacare is in philosophy, execution, and in many ways application, the same as Romneycare.

With the tweets above as the example of what substantive defenses the Romney campaign will use to battle in the generals,, Ms. Coulter gives us a preview of the rationale.  And it’s all right out of the Obama playbook and talking points.  Their plan actually seems to be to take the fight to the capital by saying:

• Public health insurance didn’t crowd out employer sponsored insurance in Massachusetts
• That any mandate, be it for public schools or for car insurance, is evidence that a mandate is perfectly acceptable even when it’s a mandate related to your right to exist.
• That costs are being contained and kept down as a result of the bill and that the uninsured are now insured and the free rides are over.
• That the mandate is only a technicality because anyone can choose not to be a part of it by simply paying a fee every year.
• That the people of Massachusetts wanted healthcare reform and that a duly elected legislature passed the bill and thus it’s perfectly acceptable and reasonable.

And this is only the low hanging fruit.  Obama could easily run ads defending the tenants of Obamacare at this point and use the likes of Ann Coulter and Pam Bondi (who is actually suing the Fed over Obamacare) to make the case for them that it’s a great bill.

I would love for Mr. Coulter or Ms. Bondi to explain exactly how it is that Mitt Romney is going to get in front of millions of Americans, the majority of which couldn’t tell you the name of the Speaker of the House, and convince them that this slick, polished banker who for many will represent the very institutions that spent the last few years bankrupting the country, is totally not a hypocrite because after all, the 10th amendment and stuff.  Yes he agrees with mandates.  Yes he agrees with more bureaucracy around healthcare.  Yes he agrees with top down government solutions.  But federalism!!!

For many Americans, they will hear Democrats for 10 months defending the basics of socialized medicine and they’ll also hear Republicans for 10 months defending the basics of socialized medicine.  We’ll finally be in unison as each side tries to convince the middle that their plan was best with the only variation being one side didn’t like the process taken under by the other.  That ultimately, socialized medicine and mandates are the only viable solution and that all sides they have a chance to vote on agree.

Whether or not the entire caricature is accurate is entirely irrelevant.  The Obama campaign can and will successfully paint him as a flip flopper who is only changing his mind on the tenants of Obamacare because his banking overlords told him to.

If he’s got some other fantastic policy positions that will make up for this wide gap in electability I’m happy to hear them.  But to borrow from Mr. Gingrich, frankly, I think he’s fundamentally the wrong candidate.

Cross-Posted at BenHoweShow.com

Well…sort of. Actually believe it or not, the contest isn’t over. The final stage of the contest was to have a committee choose the ultimate winner of the contest after the votes had been cast to determine the last two contestants. In order to remedy this, they decided to give me and the other finalist, Bobby DeMuro, a chance to show our stuff this month. We are each getting two shows in the month of January.

Bobby’s first one was last week, mine is tonight.

And what a show it will be! I’ll have none other than Governor Rick Perry on my show to discuss his campaign in South Carolina. We recorded it this morning and there were some minor connection issues, but I urge you to listen in.

Joining me live around 6:15 will be South Carolina superstar Congressman Mick Mulvaney to discuss our Social Security crisis and his endorsement of Governor Perry.

I’ll also be discussing Solyndra, throwing money in holes, myths about the tax code, Climate Gate 2 and much more.

If you’re on twitter and want to shout out to me, use the hashtag #TBHS. If you want to call in, just dial 704.570.1110!

Listen to the show online here from 6-9 pm EST tonight.

An article titled, “Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?” is what has sent them into full fledged mock mode and, as best I can understand it, they believe that the Times has basically acknowledged that the truth and fact checking are not top priorities in The New York Times newsroom.

They don’t sound too terribly off from opinions expressed on the right about the Paper of Record.  Perhaps we’ve reached a point where we can all agree that this old world rag is nothing but a liberal front and about as unbiased as Dan Rather?

Not exactly.  These folks are actually upset that the newsroom isn’t inserting their opinion enough.  And it looks like the Times is interested in hearing out their complaint.

In the article, New York Times Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane, is asking readers pointedly whether or not their “hard news division” is inserting enough of their personal perspective into articles outside of the editorial section.

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.

I assume “facts” is put in quotes to indicate that they are anything but “facts,” which would leave only a handful of possibilities: they are opinions, interpretations, theories, or lies.  I further assume that such “facts” are therefore the responsibility of the “fact” giver to back up and would be subject to the counter “facts” from the Paper of Record if there is a verifiable way to disprove what is being said.

Brisbane helpfully provides some examples of the “facts” in question so that we can see what this brave new world could look like if the Times writers were to become “Truth Vigilantes” as the headline calls them:

One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information.

Interestingly, this reader seems to completely miss what a “fact” is.  In this entire excerpt there is only one fact: that Clarence Thomas is expressing what he personally did or did not understand, a perspective which he alone is capable of knowing.  If there were documents that could show something to the contrary (perhaps an email with Thomas saying “Dude, I totally knew that I had to report that) then I would agree that Liptak would be completely within journalistic standards to present that information as counter evidence.

But, let’s use this new method that the Times is playing with and the leftosphere is so intent on and see how it works out.  The following will be my attempt at rewriting the article while addressing the concerns that the reader had.

From the original article:

Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

[...]

Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible.”

As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.”

And now the “Truth Vigilante” version.  Changes in bold:

Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. What a load!11!”

[...]

Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible,” as I, the writer of this article do as well.
As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.”  Given that this expert agrees with me, I will now accept his statement as a fact and subsequently call Clarence Thomas a liar liar pants on fire.

Brisbane plays the what if game as well with another critique:

Another example: on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America,” a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the “post-truth” stage.

As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same?

If so, then perhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country, the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less:

“The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.”

This is also an interesting example.  While it perhaps would’ve been fine for a journalist to note that the word “apology” has never been uttered by President Obama in a speech about America’s position in the world (instead he just toured the world listing everything he viewed as utter American failures without ever actually saying he was sorry on our behalf), Brisbane goes on to show what the Times version of “truth vigilante” would look like. The “fact check” in this instance would’ve resulted in the writer asserting that anything hinting at an apologetic Obama, leans towards manipulation of the truth.  Brisbane asks the readers if this is what The New York Times should move to, and the left on Twitter resoundingly screamed in unison “yes!”

What the Times will do remains to be seen.  Brisbane acknowledges that being so openly interpretative would present its own problems:

Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another?

On a brighter note, we also discussed Conan the Barbarian vs Conan the Destroyer, who was really the hero in Wall Street, Oliver Stone’s penchant for beating people over the head with the point in his movies, and the importance of shooting pistols while celebrating victory.

Also cancer.

Download audio here

The Ben Howe Show airs Tuesday nights at 8pm & 11pm EST on FTR Radio.

The Ben Howe Show Regulars:

Follow @ben_howe

Follow @AceofSpadesHQ

Follow @FTR__Radio

Cross-Posted at BenHoweShow.com.

• Will Caleb endorse Barack Obama?
• Will Ben pull his microphone off and leave the show mid-conversation?
• Will Ace decide to go 3rd party?
• Will the cat knock over my coffee and spill it on my computer ending the show early?

Download audio here

Download Audio | Subscribe in iTunes

The Ben Howe Show airs Tuesday nights at 8pm & 11pm EST on FTR Radio.

Today’s Guest:

Follow @CalebHowe

The Ben Howe Show Regulars:

Follow @ben_howe

Follow @AceofSpadesHQ

Follow @FTR__Radio

Cross-Posted at BenHoweShow.com.

Embraer, a Brazilian aerospace giant which is currently under investigation for potentially making illegal payments to obtain government contracts, is essentially owned by the Brazilian government. Through their “Golden Share,” Brazil essentially has control over the company’s business operations.

According to Embraer’s website, that Golden Share provision empowers the Brazilian government with veto rights over: “Creation and/or alteration of military programs, whether or not involving the Federative Republic of Brazil;” “Development of third parties´ skills in technology for military programs;” and “Interruption of the supply of maintenance and replacement parts for military aircraft,” among other things.

But Brazil has their own explaining to do regarding their long and sordid history with the rogue country of Iran.

According to the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “In 1989, Brazil chose to sell Tucanos, Embraer’s relatively low cost and basic military aircraft, to Iran.” Currently, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Air Force operates around 40 Embraer T-27 Tucanos, according to the Washington Institute. In fact, the Iranians use the Tucano as their primary close air support aircraft.

In recent years, Brazil has continued its troubling friendship with Iran and ruthless leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Hudson Institute notes that, “Another area of tension between Brazil and the United States relates to Iran. In November 2009, President da Silva invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Brazil. In May 2010, da Silva helped broker a deal in which Iran would ship only a portion of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey for reprocessing; the rest would remain in Iranian hands, where it could be further enriched for nuclear weapon production.”

After I wrote the article, most of the pushback I received was related to whether or not the Brazilian aircraft was superior and therefore deserved the contract.  This painfully misses the point which thankfully, the U.S. government is conveniently highlighting for me.

The point of my original article, which I apparently didn’t make obvious enough, was that Embraer didn’t “win” the contract.  Hawker Beechcraft was disqualified from bidding further without explanation.  The question I had and still have, is why? Thus far responses to all inquiries have been met with the transparency we’ve come to expect from this administration: complete silence, further highlighting the reason to continue asking the question.

Not surprisingly, Hawker seems to feel the same way.

Hawker Beechcraft, which has been excluded by the U.S. Air Force from competing for a contract to supply a new light attack aircraft, is fighting mad and fighting back.

The Wichita-based manufacturer of business jets and turboprops filed suit yesterday with the Court of Federal Claims following notification that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) declined to review its protest of the Air Force decision, which was made public in November.

Hawker goes on to make the case for their product which may or may not be better than the competition.  And perhaps they do have a superior product which would of course raise further questions, but, as is the case with me, some are more curious as to the bidding process that government has mysteriously employed in this situation.

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance is one such group:

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance applauds and supports American aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft’s federal suit in response to the recent series of outrageous and perplexing actions of awarding the Light Air Support and Light Attack and Armed Reconnaissance (LAS/LAAR) aircraft to the Brazilian company Embraer. By doing this, the Administration will be shipping jobs overseas, and putting a critical defense project in the hands of a hostile, foreign government. This is all at the expense of American taxpayers.

In the contract bid to support the military’s LAS/LAAR aircraft program, our organization has already voiced its support for Hawker Beechcraft over Brazil’s Embraer to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in two separate letters here and here because of its ability to protect taxpayers and the country.

The abrupt disqualification of Hawker Beechcraft will lead to the awarding of the contract – and the ensuing revenue to American taxpayers – to a foreign company currently under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits companies from bribing foreign government officials or making other illegal payments to obtain or retain business.

The Administration’s awarding of this contract to Embraer would send billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars to Brazil that would otherwise stay in the United States. Hawker Beechcraft is right to file suit with the Court of Federal Claims to help ensure this Administration keeps defense contracting and production on American soil, where they belong.

As is Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas:

(DODGE CITY, KAN.) – Kansas Congressman Tim Huelskamp released the following statement in support of Hawker Beechcraft after it was announced that the company had filed suit following its disqualification from competition for an Air Force Light Air Support (LAS) contract. As a result of the disqualification, the only remaining bidder is believed to be Embraer, a Brazilian company. Hawker Beechcraft had protested the disqualification by requesting a review by the Government Accountability Office, but the review was denied. Hawker Beechcraft has fulfilled similar U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force contracts for T-6A/B trainer aircraft since 1996. The contracts have been fulfilled in part at the company’s Wichita, Kansas facility.

“It is simply wrong for the Obama Administration to hire a Brazilian company to handle national security when we have a qualified and competent American company that can do the job,” Congressman Huelskamp said. “With millions of Americans out of work, it makes no sense to award the work to a foreign company. Along with my colleagues in the Kansas delegation, I will continue to attempt to right this wrong in order to preserve America’s national and economic security interests.”

According to data provided by Hawker Beechcraft, the AT-6 project supports 1,400 American jobs at 181 companies in 39 states. Additionally, the company has invested more than $100 million in order to meet the Air Force’s requirements for competition.

But as I said, it’s the government that’s really making the case that there is something to investigate here.  No answer is forthcoming when asked why they would disqualify a long time vendor of the U.S. military who happens to be an American company making a potentially superior product which would create 1,400 U.S. jobs.

I’m sure they have a great reason.

Cross-Posted at BenHoweShow.com

Also, Ace asks the ultimate question: How does candidate Romney effectively attack Obamacare while sparing himself the same scrutiny?

All of this, plus more discussions of Men’s Health Magazine in today’s podcast.

Download audio here

Subscribe in iTunes

The Ben Howe Show airs Tuesday nights at 8pm & 11pm EST on FTR Radio.

Today’s Guest:

Follow @bdomenech

Subscribe to The Transom

The Ben Howe Show Regulars:

Follow @ben_howe

Follow @AceofSpadesHQ

Follow @FTR__Radio

Cross-Posted at BenHoweShow.com.

• What is truth?
• Is war sometimes the answer.  Or is it always the answer?
• Has the Tea Party lost it’s steam? Or have we all gone back to eating bon-bons on our couches while yelling at the tv?
• What does it sound like when Ace impersonates Ron Paul?
• Who killed JR?

All of this and more in the weeks podcast.  Link below.  Love it.  Share it.  Just don’t kill yourself afterwards.

Download audio here

The Ben Howe Show airs Tuesday nights at 8pm & 11pm EST on FTR Radio.

Follow @ben_howe

Follow @AceofSpadesHQ

Follow @FTR__Radio

Cross-Posted at The Ben Howe Show

But there was another part of this work that hasn’t been shown. When I sent the word out to these various politicians and policy makers that I wanted them to talk about veterans, I gave some very simple instructions: “Please be yourself, try not to do it scripted, and just basically tell me your thoughts on our troops.”

Out of those who responded, all but one sent me great videos that were about a minute and a half in length and mostly scripted. The one that sent me something different was Governor Rick Perry. His was a bit longer than a minute and a half. Eleven minutes actually. And I was so taken by how natural and patriotic he came across when he was off script and not trying to ‘zing’ another candidate that I immediately knew the footage had to be seen.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did and that, if nothing else, it will give you an insight into a man that is much more complex than the narrative being put out by his opposition.

I’ve often talked about what I think of as the “Rule of Two” when it comes to Republican candidates. This rule states that for each election year, the media requires two types of Republican candidates: an idiot and an evil guy. Which one is the presidential candidate and which one is the vice presidential candidate is irrelevant. All that matters is that both are in attendance.

Don’t believe me? Take a look back.

Nixon/Agnew: Nixon was evil, Agnew was dumb. (and then of course Ford took over and he was even dumber)

Reagan/Bush: Reagan was dumb, Bush was evil.

Bush/Quayle: Bush was (still) evil, Quayle was dumb.

Dole/Kemp: Dole was dumb, Kemp was evil.

Bush/Cheney: Bush was dumb, Cheney was evil.

McCain/Palin: McCain was evil, Palin was dumb.

Seriously, they aren’t even that original. It’s the same template every time. This time, it’s “Rick Perry is an idiot!!” How, after all this time are my ideological brethren still falling for this nonsense? How have they come to the conclusion that bad debate form is the equivalent of “can’t govern” even when all evidence shows the opposite?

When did we become a party that picks winners based on their ability to talk a good game in spite of any evidence to the contrary that they would actually govern a good game?

Why have records ceased to matter? Why are we letting the media “debate-coverage” us to death? Why are we choosing “zingers” over substance?

Rick Perry is, in my opinion, the best man for the job. Everything that I’m hearing to refute this idea boils down to the idea that he won’t win in a debate against Obama. Ok? This is how we choose leaders now? Whoever can totally argue like, the best and stuff?

Sorry. I’m not going to board the smooth talker express. I can promise you that if you put me on stage with Obama I’d rip him to smithereens in a debate. I also promise you that I’d be a terrible President. Merely expressing conservatism is not enough. You have to live it.

Rick Perry may not be the Newt Gingrich of presidential candidates, but, as silly as it may sound, I’m not interested in hiring a candidate. I’m interested in hiring a President. For me, that President is Rick Perry.

Wasn’t he going to usher in a new era and fundamentally transform the United States of America?

Turns out Barack Obama’s grand ideas and plans were little more than brainstorms.  An excellent new video from the RNC highlights this fact using his own words:

This is the quintessential example of liberal thought: intentions are more important than results.  For Obama and his Democratic brethren, this will be all they can claim to have accomplished in their bid to retain power.

Because when actions, plans & execution all fail to produce results, remind people that at least you thought about it.  That’ll put food on the table.

The summons from the president came without warning the Thursday before Labor Day. As she was driven the four blocks to the White House, Lisa P. Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, suspected that the news would not be good. What she did not see coming was a rare public rebuke the president was about to deliver by rejecting her proposal to tighten the national standard for smog.

The half-hour meeting in the Oval Office was not a negotiation; the president had decided against ratcheting up the ozone rule because of the cost and the uncertainty it would impose on industry and local governments.

The environmental movement was left asking whether or not Obama could be trusted with their green dreams.   After the dust settled, things seemed to return back to normal as the EPA moved forward on their agenda, including proposed rules like the extremely controversial (and very costly) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule.

Unfortunately for the EPA, President Obama aimed his sights on weakening that rule as well.  Someone wasn’t having it.

On Thursday, environmental blogger Frank O’Donnell reported that he had been “reliably informed” of a recent spat taking place between the EPA and the Office of Management & Budget (OMB).

According to the source, OMB is putting the screws to the EPA on the MACT rule.  Specifically, they’d like to get the EPA to be in compliance with a standard that was proposed by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) which is significantly weaker than the current rule in relation to its caps on mercury emissions among other things.

We are informed reliably that the White House Office of Management and Budget, at the behest of the coal-burning electric power industry, is now pushing the EPA to weaken its mercury pollution control requirements in its upcoming toxic pollution rule for power plants. Power companies could emit almost 20% more mercury under the dirty power industry scheme being promoted by OMB bean counters.

Apparently it’s a true story because it was further confirmed by Inside EPA/Environmental NewsStand (Paywalled) who also reported on an “informed source” telling the EPA’s secrets:

Despite the push from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), one informed source says that EPA remains dug in on its proposed 1.2 pounds per trillion British thermal unit (Btu) limit for mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and is unwilling to adopt EEI’s proposed weaker limit of 1.4 pounds per trillion Btu. Environmentalists are also vowing to fight any attempt to soften the air toxics rule’s mercury limit.

Looks like this “informed source” doesn’t want the EPA to give up so easily on destroying the economy and targeting industries.

So who is this magnanimous champion of EPA righteousness that has declared that the OMB shan’t win the day?  Personally, I think it’s Lisa Jackson.

Here’s how I see it playing out:

1. Lisa Jackson gets irritated with the OMB’s meddling in her business (ironic I know)
2. She feels that their paltry concerns about things like “economic stability and jobs” are interfering with her ability to save the planet.
3. She looks at her options and realizes that the only way to deal with this is to turn public opinion against any changes by squealing about the OMB’s plans and the EPA’s heroic defiance.
4. The only problem is, this would mean getting in trouble with her boss, since it would be his base that gets upset at his OMB for doing this.  And it’s an election year for pete’s sake!
5. But wait a second…her boss (Obama if you haven’t figured it out) had zero issue with leaving her high and dry when he pulled the rug out from under her on the Ozone Rule over the summer!  Revenge is best served cold and there’s no global warming in the forecast today baby!

From there, it was a simple matter of getting one her media/coalition liaisons at the EPA to leak the story.  The hope would be that these events would rile up the base to hold Obama’s feet to the fire so he’d back off his recent attempts to soften the impact of the MACT rule in its current incarnation in the hopes of making it less politically toxic in an election year.

Thinks she’s not up to it?  Consider this quote from the same New York Times article about the Ozone Rule debacle:

The ozone decision was jarring because it was wholly unexpected. Ms. Jackson considered resigning but soon abandoned the idea as a futile gesture.

Many of the president’s supporters remain unsettled, fearing that the ozone decision meant he was abandoning environmental issues. (emphasis mine)

This election is going to be a test for Barack Obama.  In 2008, he could run on whatever he wanted and claim whatever he wished because he had no authority to do anything at that time.  Everything was blue sky.  Now, as President, his decisions carry consequences.  He can’t say one thing and do another anymore, without expecting a reaction from the people to whom he had broken his promise.

Things aren’t going to get prettier from here.

So its come down to this moment.  RedState readers and my friends on Twitter have helped me make it through round 1 & 2 of the Next Talker contest to win my own radio show on the 50,000 watt radio juggernaut that is WBT which on clear nights can be heard in 22 states.

I am so thankful to everyone that has helped me get this far and no matter what happens next, I’ll be eternally grateful.

But, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, this ain’t over yet.  We are now in the final round of voting for the contest.  Voting has been reset (which means even if you were awesome enough to vote for me before, I need you to do so again) and the competition is stiff.

As of this writing, I sit in 3rd place (out of the final 5) behind Ladd Lesh who sports 76 votes and Bobby Demuro who has a whopping 127 votes.  I have a respectable 66 votes and need your help to take the lead.

What I’m asking is a pain in the butt, I’ll grant you that.  WBT decided to make it so people had to actually join their website in order to pick the Next Talker.  Great for preventing cheating, but certainly a roadblock to getting anyone other than family and close friends to vote for you.

However, in the last round, a great many of you did anyway.  And this time I have Michelle Malkin throwing her endorsement behind me!

Recently, WBT had me on by myself for a half hour to “show my stuff” and let others see what kind of radio show was in store.  I hope you like:

Download audio here

If you like what you hear, I hope you’ll go to the link below and press the “like” button for me.

I am so thankful to Erick Erickson and RedState.com for allowing me to use their website to draw attention to this contest.  And again, thank you to everyone who has worked with me to help make this dream come true.  Hopefully I’ll be able to thank you every night over the air waves.

CLICK HERE AND “LIKE” MY ENTRY

This is interesting to me for a handful of reasons.  The first is that a quick look at campaign donations from Otis shows that he has historically been a supporter of Democrat candidates, including Obama himself.   He gave the maximum donations ($2,400) to Democrats in his home state.  Democrats like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Ron Klein and Kendrick Meek.  Granted he supported a Republican (sort of) last year by contributing to Charlie Crist’s campaign, but that was the only one since late 2007.

In 2008 he contributed thousands of dollars on multiple occasions to the campaign of Barack Obama as well as giving over $28,000 to the “Obama Victory Fund.”  He’s even been invited to some of those high profile meet and greets that the President has from time to time, though there is little evidence that he actually listens to the people he meets with.

In fact, with the exception of Mr. Crist, Otis has been a staunch supporter of Democrats since 2008.  But, just as the CEO of BET had recognized the impediment of government on business, and just as the Caterpillar CEO changed his tune even after getting special visits from the President himself, Clarence Otis, Jr. has started to say things that do not sound too in line with the rhetoric of class warfare emanating from the White House these days.

“Businesses adding jobs” is a headline every elected official loves to read. Sadly, it’s one that’s getting harder and harder to find because of a policy and regulatory landscape that makes it increasingly difficult for businesses to see why and where creating new jobs makes sense.

That’s especially true for me and my colleagues in the restaurant industry, who find ourselves facing a plate piled high with more and more federal, state and local regulations.

Regulatory mandates flowing from federal health care reform may be the most visible, but the list also includes measures such as new mandatory paid leave provisions that require us to change the way we accommodate employees who need to take time off when they are ill and ever more unrealistic requirements regarding employee meal and rest breaks that, in California for example, force our employees to take breaks in the middle ofserving lunch or dinner.

Can he continue to support these same Democrats in upcoming elections?  That remains to be seen, but I would hope that he, along with other business leaders, might realize the futility in making pleas like this to Democrats intent on treating business as the enemy:

My plea to policymakers is simple: Before you impose another well-meaning mandate, consider the burden we already bear and engage us in conversation. Regulations are not inherently detrimental to growth. Responsible companies such as ours, that have been supportive of the president and elected officials of both parties across the country, won’t say “no” to everything and, indeed, what you might find is that we can help craft solutions that truly are better for everyone.

I also find this interesting because of the unintended consequences of liberalism.  We talk about them all the time and say that people will wake up when it is starting to hurt their pocket book.  For decades, the failures of liberalism were always masked by the unending spirit of entrepreneurism in Americans.  As liberalism worked to institutionalize itself, successful people, who might otherwise recognize the folly of an over involved government, end up under-exposed to its dangers and thus believe that these good intentions produce fruit that they quite simply do not.

But in the Obama economy, eyes are starting to open.  Young people, who were trained all their lives to look to and expect the government to care for and coddle them, have taken to the streets in what can only be described at this point as a massive and dangerous temper tantrum.  Entire industries are being assaulted by regulatory agencies like the EPA, all while President Obama continues to push an agenda that asks for more dependence, higher taxes, and more regulation.

The regulatory climate is certainly affecting more than simply the day in and day out of American business life.  It is, one hopes, affecting points of views.  It is revealing to previous skeptics, a truth which the monumental success of capitalism has held at bay for a hundred years.  That liberalism, in all its forms, is a failed ideology, destined to choke prosperity out anything it touches.

I can only hope that Clarence Otis, Jr. will now work to change that climate that he’s now realizing isn’t the answer.

Now comes the news that the gun walker scandal known as “Fast & Furious” in which thousands of guns were permitted to cross the Mexican border, ostensibly to help the ATF track the guns to “big fish,” may have actually been used as a justification for new and stricter gun laws CBS news is reporting:

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.” (emphasis mine)

The Obama manipulations to support radical change are now accessories to murder.

What’s worse, they never even stopped to consider that the very practice they were undertaking provided evidence by itself that perhaps these precautions weren’t necessary.  For instance, the gun shop owners were very concerned about the amount of guns that were being sold.

In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. “We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys,” writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, “(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items.”

Now call me crazy, but if you’re trying to get a law passed that prevents the sale of multiple weapons to a single customer but you have to force dealers to do this, doesn’t that indicate that it might not be happening?  Forcing people to do something against their better judgment so you can make the case that that very thing must be stopped is the kind of circular logic that only a radicalized Alinskyite could get behind.

In fact, the gun dealers, who these gun laws would be targeted at, showed a level of concern that seemed to be completely absent from the ATF:

Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.

“I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands…I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country.”

The ATF politely responded that “We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail.”

How’d that work out?  Not so great for Agent Brian Terry and countless victims in Mexico.

Next questions: Who knew about these plans? How early did they know them?  How did political considerations make their way into a law enforcement operation?

So far, the ATF, the DOJ, Eric Holder, and the White House are silent on the subject.  Stay tuned.

In reality, all sides are using fancy words to avoid the one word that best describes what is happening: subsidization.

Subsidies aren’t necessarily inherently bad.  There can be subsidies that work in favor of economic growth or better opportunities for the disadvantaged.  But more often than not, subsidies are used as a way to prop up industries that serve other agendas.  Like elections for instance.

Such is the case with ethanol and specifically the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) plan to allow 15% ethanol blended with gasoline (E15) to enter the marketplace..

The ethanol industry, with the blessing of Congress and the Obama Administration, is lobbying the EPA to mandate increased ethanol usage. This would be accomplished by increasing the allowable proportion of ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 15% (E10 to E15). In addition, ethanol lobbyists are pushing the administration for fleet mandates on automakers, to require a higher percentage of flex fuel vehicles (FFVs) capable of running on ethanol blends of up to 85% (E85). (emphasis mine)

So, in an effort to win the support of “Big Corn” (which is actually pretty big), the U.S. government is going to force a product on the market that no one is asking for and actually drives up the cost of food making it even more difficult for poor people the world over to get access to the most basic of foods.

In an interview with the Financial Times, General Mills, which produces Cheerios cereal, Häagen-Dazs ice-cream and other major brands, also blamed ethanol subsidies for driving up food prices. Ken Powell the company’s chief executive said the price of corn and oats was up by 30 to 40% over last year.

“We’re driving up food prices unnecessarily,” Ken Powell, chief executive of General Mills, said in the interview. “If corn prices go up, wheat goes up. It’s all linked.”

But subsidies aren’t the only reason to reject the EPA’s plan to introduce E15.  A “Dear Colleague” letter from Rep. John Sullivan (R) and Rep. Gary Peters (R) cites a new GAO report which reveals that this blend blend would actually be a danger to current cars on the road.

From the letter:

As you know, last year EPA made a premature decision to permit E15 to be used in model year (MY) 2001 and newer vehicles.  This decision was made prior to the completion of critical vehicle testing.  Vehicles on the road today are build and warranted to withstand only up to 10% of ethanol in gasoline.  E15 not only threatens to harm vehicles but also boats, snowmobiles, and small engine equipment such as lawnmowers and snow blowers.  E15 has also demonstrated harmful effects on the environment.

Read the whole letter here.  Read the GAO report on biofuels here.

So where is the EPA getting the authorization to introduce a fuel standard which may very well be harmful to the car you’re going to be driving to work in tomorrow?  From those pesky Clean Air and Clean Water Acts which seem to grant them unlimited authority to regulate whatever they want and ignore any concerns raised by independent studies.

Reps. Sullivan and Peters have introduced amendment to HR 2584 (Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012) with the following important language:

No funds made available by this Act may be used to implement – (1) the decision of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency entitled “Partial Grant and Partial Denial of Clean Air Act Waiver Application Submitted by Growth Energy To Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent” published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 68093 et seq.); or (2) the decision of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency entitled “Partial Grant of Clean Air Act Waiver Application Submitted by Growth Energy to Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent” published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 4662 et seq.).

That’s legislative speak for “Mr. President, you can’t use any part of this to pay for your green dreams of screwing up our ‘gas guzzlers’ by recklessly introducing untested new standards just so you can send as much money as possible from the tax payer to voting blocks in corn states.  Now stop screwing around in the market and figure out how to get your lame Democrat colleagues in the Congress to propose a budget for once in the 950+ since you took office you gigantic screw-up.”

Or something like that.