Carpe Diem

Now the Gibson Guitar raids make sense – it was on the political enemies list

From IBD:

The inexplicable raid nearly two years ago on a guitar maker for using allegedly illegal wood that its competitors also used was another targeting by this administration of its political enemies.

Interestingly, one of Gibson’s leading competitors is C.F. Martin & Co. According to C.F. Martin’s catalog, several of their guitars contain “East Indian Rosewood,” which is the exact same wood in at least 10 of Gibson’s guitars. So why were they not also raided and their inventory of foreign wood seized?

Grossly underreported at the time was the fact that Gibson’s chief executive, Henry Juszkiewicz, contributed to Republican politicians. Recent donations have included $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

By contrast, Chris Martin IV, the Martin & Co. CEO, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee over the past couple of election cycles.

The Gibson Guitar raid, the IRS intimidation of Tea Party groups and the fraudulently obtained warrant naming Fox News reporter James Rosen as an “aider, abettor, co-conspirator” in stealing government secrets are but a few examples of the abuse of power by the Obama administration to intimidate those on its enemies list.

228 thoughts on “Now the Gibson Guitar raids make sense – it was on the political enemies list

  1. As a Les Paul owner, the raids on Gibson seem especially egregious. The whole episode is farcical.

    Still, the article _implies_ that a few thousand dollar donation is enough to bring down the long arm of the law.
    Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see any kind of smoking gun here.

    • Trey

      Still, the article _implies_ that a few thousand dollar donation is enough to bring down the long arm of the law.
      Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see any kind of smoking gun here.

      Why is it hard to believe that a few thousand dollar donation can bring down millions in taxpayers dollars at no cost to the bringers?

          • I have no credibility? hah ha hahahahahbahhh

            this is a site about “economics” and we’re talking about what?

            how credible is that?

          • LarryG,

            Economics is about the study of incentives. Studying the incentives of the president setting up an enemies list and using the police state to economically assault these enemies is part of the study of public choice, which in turn a part of the the study of economics.

            And yes, you have zero credibility.

          • if government was involved in shutting down ALL guitar makers for no good reason – you might have an economics issue but when it gets personalized to one POTUS even though the law involved pre-dates this administration AND you THEN ALSO LINK IT to other political issues : aka “… intimidation of Tea Party groups and the fraudulently obtained warrant naming Fox News reporter James Rosen as an “aider, abettor, co-conspirator” in stealing government secrets are but a few examples of the abuse of power by the Obama administration to intimidate those on its enemies list.”

            this is not a post about economics… but about politics..

            that’s fine – as long as you admit from the get go that it’s not about economics… as per the original claim.

            it’s about politics, … pure and simple…

          • if government was involved in shutting down ALL guitar makers for no good reason – you might have an economics issue

            This is not the only time it would be an economic issue.

            law involved pre-dates this administration

            Except there is ample evidence that Gibson broke no law and that the supporters of Obama used the same procedures related to the law, the evidence is pretty straight forward that this has nothing to do with the law, which is the point. This administration is undermining the rule of law, something very important in the study of economics.

            this is not a post about economics… but about politics..

            It’s about both. The politics directly effects the economics, and adversely, the entire point of the post: bad politics negatively impacts economics.

            it’s about politics, … pure and simple…

            … which affects the economy… pure and simple…

        • this is a site about “economics” and we’re talking about what?

          how credible is that?

          This site about whatever the host wants it to be about. We are in his house, and he sets all the rules. Are you aware of some rule that the host can only post economic comments?

          The host can also limit our discussion to whatever topic he wishes, or allow no comments at all.

          We are fortunate that Prof. Perry allows pretty open comments on pretty much any subject – as long as we use its and it’s correctly.

          You have no room to complain about this blog. Your choice is to read it or not read it, and as long as our host allows it, to post comments or not post comments.

          My God, Larry, think about it! Prof Perry even allows you to post the droolish nonsense you call comments.

          • I was just going by how the blog was billed…. exact words from the description…

            Personally, I think it totally undermines the “economics” theme when it veers into partisan or personal politics myself. From that point on you can’t really tell if the dialog is about politics or economics – and it continues when you get excepts from folks like Sowell that are overt “anti-Obama” not even thinly disguised “economics”.

            At that point, we’re no longer talking about economics, we’re into ideology.

          • If you want to control the topics discussed then start your own blog.

            At the very least have a bit of class and do not attack the host of this blog who puts alot of time and effort into posting what he feels are interesting and relevant topics.

            The attack on an American company by the federal government for no apparent reason other than a political one is an economic topic. If Gibson is shut down by partisan government action then that is an important economic issue.

            But with your level of logical reasoning I am not surprised you don’t see this.

            You should either leave and not post here again or post an apology to our host for your stupid comments.

          • it’s about politics, … pure and simple…

            Yes, it is, for Larry anyway. He’s simply full of anguish that his boyfriend is being criticized.

            Larry has attacked Bush, Palin, McCain, and the GOP in general on this very blog where I just learned only economics issues are supposed to be discussed.

          • re:

            “Yes, it is, for Larry anyway. He’s simply full of anguish that his boyfriend is being criticized.”

            no…a continuation of the demagoguing that started with his place of birth and continues…

            but I’ll say this – if it turn out there was a real enemies list (as opposed to making baseless accusations), if it turns out that way – every single person involved – right up to and including the POTUS should get their asses whacked. loses their jobs, go to prison.

            there is no tolerance for that kind of behavior no matter who.

            “Larry has attacked Bush, Palin, McCain, and the GOP in general on this very blog where I just learned only economics issues are supposed to be discussed.”

            he has in response to others… because .. the blog is not pure economics and never was – it has strong shades of politics – partisan – and personal politics.

            I agree that politics is intertwined with economics but the politics here is always from the right.. it’s the basic right wing orthodoxy – and just gets into loony tune territory when it says things like every single industrialized nation on earth – does economics wrong.

          • “there is no tolerance for that kind of behavior no matter who.”

            Oh, bullshit. This is just more of your transparently fraudulent non-partisanship you imagine makes you look all sophisticated. Obama could be caught with a dead hooker or a live boy and you’d simply puke up whatever defense Soros’ juvenile delinquents over at Media Matters instructed you to say.

          • “he has in response to others… because .. the blog is not pure economics and never was – it has strong shades of politics – partisan – and personal politics.”

            Well then you have nothing to complain about. So STFU.

          • Considered in a certain light, practically EVERY decision we make or action we take is based on “economics” in one form or another, from what time we get up in the morning, what we decide to have for breakfast (If we have anything at all.), until we decide to go to bed. It’s all based on value trade-offs, goal decisions, results predictions, etc.

            Given this, any information, thoughts, or ideas that impact our decision making processes, or help us understand things that have happened in the world, would seem to be fair game for an “Economics blog.”

            I may not always agree with Professor Perry, but I value his opinions and insights. (And those of ‘some’ of the commenters…)

            Just my two cents worth…

          • re: ” practically EVERY decision we make or action we take is based on “economics” ”

            and I totally believe that – but govt is not evil and Obama is not the face of the devil when it comes to govt and economics.

            If a case is to be made against the Lacey Act and Congress and Govt support of it over the decades – then do that but don’t use it as an excuse to accuse this particular POTUS of using the Lacey Act as part of an “enemies list” – as an “economic” topic.

          • Boo-hoo. Everyone is picking on my boyfriend. Time to poop out incoherent indignant nonsense in the comment section.

    • Trey,

      Let’s just say that you severly overestimate the going price of political power. Politicians are incredibly cheap. Two bit whores.

  2. no smoking gun… just this:

    ” Mark Perry has been best known in recent years as the creator and editor of one of the nation’s most popular economics blogs, Carpe Diem. Professor Perry has written on a daily basis since the fall of 2006 to share his thoughts, opinions and expertise on economic issues,”

    not!

    • What part of that statement is “not”?

      – Mark Perry’s identity?

      – creator and editor?

      – one of the most popular?

      – daily basis?

      – share thoughts, opinions, and expertise?

      – economic issues?

      • not” in larry g‘s case is an open admission his part of his inability to understand even the simplest ideas and concepts Mark is imparting…

    • Get lost Guy. You have absolutely no credibility. You lack even the most basic understanding of logic as you repeated prove with your nonsensical posts and stupid arguments.

      To think that you can troll this blog for years, posting meaningless drivel and then attack our host, Dr. Perry, is just downright rude. We have no need of you here so scurry on your way.

      You can’t even begin to hold a candle to Dr. Perry so your comments about his blog are further meaningless drivel.

      Just leave fool.

          • Imagine my delight when I saw him and his 100 stupid questions and 40 emoticons per day policy immigrate to the cafe.

          • Imagine my delight when I saw him and his 100 stupid questions and 40 emoticons per day policy immigrate to the cafe.

            Heh! I’m sure. I used to comment at the Cafe, and still read it, but I quit commenting when a facebook ID became necessary. I don’t trust social networks, I don’t think I need 500 friends, and if something is free, I know I’m not the customer. “Ain’t nobody got time for that!”

            I sometimes come close to changing my mind when I read some if the idiotic comments at Cafe Hayek, and feel a nearly uncontrollable need to respond, but so far I’ve resisted the temptation.

          • economics is not partisan politics. there is no “enemy list” except in the minds of the right wing echo chamber.

            Gibson has had problem that predate this administration but now… his problems are because he is on an “enemies list” and this is an ‘economic’ issue.

            right. ;-)

            nothing wrong with blathering about right wing echo chamber conspiracies – unless of course you’re claiming to be something more legitimate than you actually are.

            I note Mr. Sowell who is also highlighted here also “personalizes” his “economics” to specific people and politics of entire political parties and groups.

          • “economics is not partisan politics. there is no “enemy list” except in the minds of the right wing echo chamber.”

            wow, you really do live in a fantasy world lar.

            if you think economics are not affected by partisan politics, then you have pretty much proved the folks on this thread right.

            what, you think business and economies are not impacted by partisan politics?

            wow.

            just wow.

            when government interferes in markets, that’s economics. if they do it with the best of intentions or because they support or dislike the political views of the business owners is of no consequence in that respect.

            it’s still a policy that affects economic outcomes.

            to state that an administration that has been demonstrated to have targeted political enemies due to their views selectively went after one manufacturer who donated to opponents while ignoring the exact same behavior in others that donated to friends sounds pretty valid to me.

            it’s certainly a plausible explanation for this selective use of power.

            once more, you seem to have this weird mental disconnect where you take an invalid premise (that if it’s personal it’s not economics) and try to use to to make absurd arguments.

            at it’s core, ALL economics is personal. it’s individual choices about where to work, what to produce, and what to buy. it does not get much more personal than that.

            when you sum those choices, you get an economy.

            seriously, if there is anyone who should not be talking here, it’s you. not only do you not get to determine what subject matter other blog about, but your notions of just what economics is are absurd and inconsistent.

            so, if government gives out money for solar and wind power to political donors, is that economics? are solyndra and fisker and big subsidies for electric cars not economics?

            so why would imposing limits on a manufacturer not be economics? and if it is done selectively, how is that not even more relevant? when you start moving an economy to a patronage system, that has huge and wide reaching effects.

            you need to get a grip lar. your comments are just getting more and more foolish.

          • re: partisan politics

            politics and economics -yes

            but when you personalize it to individuals and “enemies lists”, it’s not about economics anymore.

            there is no “enemies list” – it’s a right-wing narrative to follow on the heels of other right-wing narratives against this specific POTUS – as opposed to govt policies in general that have been in place long before him.

            Like with Gibson – whose issues started before this POTUS – NOW – the reason given as to why just he has this problem and no other guitar makers (which was the case originally also) – the reason given now is that there is an “enemies” list – and it’s “economics”.

            really?

            we’ve seen this before here with many of Sowels rants against this particular POTUS – as opposed to the economic policies of the administration – AND Congress.

            we’ve seen the rants against Bernanke who does not make decisions – he carries out the votes of the Fed Governors…

            when you talk about personalities – you’re not talking about economics and when you talk about enemy lists post-facto of the original issues – you’re being disingenuous.

            all this high and mighty talk about “economics” and then we get this partisan crap…. so poorly camouflaged – it destroys all connection to “economics”.

            “real” economists don’t need “enemy lists” to explain issues. Bringing up enemy lists as an “economic” issue is just plain loony IMHO.

            The Lacy Act – which has been around a long, long time is what tripped up Mr. Gibson. He knew what the rules were – and he pushed them – unlike his competitors that chose not to.

            It’s not Mr. Obama that went after him – It was the Fish and Wildlife people – before Obama was POTUS.

          • “but when you personalize it to individuals and “enemies lists”, it’s not about economics anymore.”

            sure it is.

            wanna bet that being on an enemies list has a big effect on the economics of your business and life?

            in a state where the government rewards partisans and attacks enemies, you get a very nasty economic climate that is very, very bad for business.

          • when you talk about “enemy lists” in blogs about economics, you’re not talking about economics.

            when you lean towards one political party in your complaints about govt, you are not non-partisan.

            this blog sometimes trades in partisan politics under the guise of economics.

            there is no “enemies” list. go google it and look at the websites – they’re ALL right wing echo chamber sites except for FOX News and the Examiner which are now essentially right-wing mouthpieces.

            Gibson had trouble in the prior administration with the Fish and Wildlife people – those people worked under Bush and now work under Obama. the “enemies” charge is a continuation of other “charges” that have no basis in facts – basically wishful thinking on the part of people who are committed to figure out a way to harm this POTUS – nothing more.

            it’s just more anti-govt blather.

          • oh please larry.

            what else could one call collecting data on those with opposing political beliefs and then using that to target them with the irs etc?

            what else could one call deliberately suppressing the political speech of opponents?

            keep your head in the sand if you like, but you are just obfuscating here to try and avoid the unpleasant truth about just how crooked these guys are.

            the blather is coming from you.

            your knee jerk defense of these clowns is emotional, not rational.

    • Larry – what planet do you live on? Every move this President has made since he took office has affected the American people economically. This administration uses the Constitution to wipe their butts or line their bird cages on a daily basis. No sooner does he take office then he breaks the law by taking care of his union buddies before bond holders of GM. This administration is either grossly incompetent or lying through their teeth. With this president, his administration and the dim-witted Dems in Congress you can’t seperate economics from politics because every calculated move they make taxes or regulates or inhibits in some way our ability to create, sustain or grow a business. They are very business hostile from their partison NLRB to their purposeful rewarding of friends and benefactors and punishing of anyone who disagrees with their f***ed up vision of where they want to take the country. In essence, they have brought the corrupt, back stabbing, anything goes, the ends justify the means politics of Chicago to Washington DC and if the media did their jobs you might have a clue. I wasn’t blessed with children (not for lack of trying :) ) and I refuse to lose another nights sleep worrying about everybody else’s when half the country doesn’t give a crap. If you don’t think that future generations will suffer economicly due to the policies coming out of Washington you are delusional.

  3. Obama Skirts Rule of Law to Reward Pals, Punish Enemies
    2011 – Creators.com by Michael Barone
    === ===
    During the 2010 election cycle, Barack Obama urged Latinos not “to sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.’”
    === ===

    It does seem strange that “donations of $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn” would call down the wrath of Team Obama.

    But, consider “punish our enemies”. The competitors to a supporter are the enemies of the regime. In a practical world, something has to be worth the $35,400 in contributions given by Martin & Co.

    Big contributions buy political favors. That could easily have persuaded Team Obama to make a special case out of Gibson Guitars. This is a good working supposition, until the EPA reveals just what basis there was for punishing Gibson while ignoring Martin.

  4. Obama must be the most amazed person in the world, because, it seems, everything he’s done had the opposite effect, whether it’s the economy, health care, poor Americans, rich Americans, the Middle East, (imploding) state governments, etc.; and now the federal government.

        • I’m just calling out Prof Perry on straying from economics nd getting into partisan politics – which he does do from time to time…

          just admit that when you start talking about “enemies lists”, you’ve gone off the economics message…

          • Except the politics to which you refer directly affects the economics. As I said above: bad politics negatively affects the economics. Enemies lists are bad politics and negatively effects economics.

            Additionally, which you seem to not understand, that the political actions of politcians are the subject of public choice economists.

          • Guess what, useless troll, this is Mark Perry’s blog and he can post whatever he wants. If he wants to post make-up and fashion tips in addition to grammar rants, he can.

            The fact that you have the comprehension level of a tree stump is your problem.

          • Of course you’re unaware that the study of economics was previously known as ‘political economy’.

            As usual you carry your ignorance in front of you like a banner while inappropriately criticizing your betters.

          • “I’m just calling out Prof Perry on straying from economics nd getting into partisan politics – which he does do from time to time…”

            No you’re not, douchebag. You’re so obviously defending your boyfriend, but trying to camo it up in your usual “nonpartisan” lies.

          • You haven’t heard of Ben Bernanke as much as you’ve heard of ignorance? Good one.

  5. Gee, I thought Gibson falsified official documents, and claimed it was importing fabricated rosewood, as opposed to whole rosewood logs.

    That is our trade agreement with India–we import only fabricated rosewood. India wants to keep fabrication in India. We agreed, that is the law.

    But Gibson didn’t like that, so falsified documents and claimed to importing fabricated rosewood, when it was importing whole rosewood logs, a violation of the law.

    Is the law a bad law? Probably.

    But is it the law?

    Yes.

    Did Gibson purposefully break the law?

    Yes. And lie about it? Yes. And then launch a PR campaign? Yes!

    Now the right-wing appears to advocating a new system—we honor only those laws we agree with.

    It is called anarchy.

    Good luck with that.

    • Last time I looked, I could still drive down to the local woodworking store and buy Indian rosewood, albeit cut down to planks, other shapes, and veneer. This is how it and other “exotic” wood seems to be normally imported, not as rough logs. With logs, you’d never know what you’re buying, which would make little sense for a manufacturer. I’m guessing now, but I suspect that this “processing” may have been considered as “fabrication” as far as the Indian authorities at the dock were concerned.

    • “Now the right-wing appears to advocating a new system—we honor only those laws we agree with.”

      I openly advocate that.

      Leaving aside your facts are incorrect (Gibson did not fabricate documents/lie),the lacey Act is a stupid law, and it is being arbitrarily enforced by a corrupt and criminal administration (see Martin, above).

      Now, since we have favored political cronys of this administration receiving billions in green energy handouts, while political enemies are openly targeted in illegal raids such as this, and appearance of impropriety is addressed by having the offenders self-investigate (beyond laughable), I that it is you, as a supporter/excuse maker for these criminals which have created the current situation.

      So yes, since laws are arbitrarily enforced (in illegal ways, see Espionage Act & Fox News) I have arbitrarily decided to obey only those I agree with. Since Eric Holder & Obama are free to interpret laws to suit their needs, so am I.

      Existing laws? Good luck with that.

    • what falsified documents?

      they have signed docs from madagascar stating that no laws were broken. what was that raid on ebony about?

      and this justifies a swat team taking over a plant and forcing employees out?

      sorry, but that’s pure intimidation and political theater.

      it’s not like these guys were smuggling plutonium.

  6. re: ” but I quit commenting when a facebook ID became necessary. I don’t trust social networks, ”

    well I can see why… you do lose some measure anonymity

    sounds like a terrible burden for you to only be able to “lurk”!

  7. This argument lacks fundamental logic and is pure speculation. Correlation does not mean causation. The author offers no evidence that Gibson was targeted because of their donations to the Democrats. What about the thousands (tens of thousands?) of people who also were subjected to ridiculous overreach from the Feds in enforcing various rules and regulations? Are you claiming that only Repulicans have been targeted there too? Hardly.

    • re: only the GOP targeted?

      yes.. it does not pass the smell test at this point because the only folks who are accusing anyone of constructing and using an “enemies list” is the right wing of the GOP ….

      to take the latest thing the right wing of the GOP is venting their spleen about – and claim it’s related to “economics” is pretty transparent …. as to real motives.

    • “Juszkiewicz’ claim that his company was “inappropriately targeted” is eerily similar to the claims by Tea Party, conservative, pro-life and religious groups that they were targeted by the IRS for special scrutiny because they sought to exercise their First Amendment rights to band together in vocal opposition to the administration’s policies and the out-of-control growth of government and its power.”

      There is logic is saying that the raids on Gibson were similar to the proven targeting by the IRS of certain groups. The IRS targeting was directed at groups that they viewed were against the government.

      The raids against Gibson and not their competitor who also used the same wood seemed to have no reasonable explanation. The editors at IBD have suggested that the political affiliations of Gibson and C.F. Martin could be the reason. Given the proven other cases, this seems like a logical arguement to make.

      The authors did not claim that all overreach by the fed. government was against Rep.. You made that statement.

      • ” The authors did not claim that all overreach by the fed. government was against Rep.. You made that statement.”

        I said that the “enemies” narrative was coming from the right…and it totally is …

        this is a totally partisan issue… concocted by the right in yet another attempt to implicate him in something wrong.

        there are, at this point, no credible non-partisan reports that substantiate the claim. NONE!

        it’s reminiscent of the “fast and furious” and Benghazi “scandals” crap – no real substance.

        the right cannot countenance this POTUS. they are committed to whatever it takes to tar him whether it’s real or not.

        none of this has one whit to do with economics except in the most extreme and convoluted and partisan sense…

        Gibson was in trouble with the Feds over the Lacey Act, long there was an “enemies” list…much less this POTUS.

        so now when we talk about “economics”, it includes the mythical right-wing-created “enemies” list…

        remember Vince Foster? this is the same kind of thing.. The right these days is totally bizarre.. but I am disappointed that those who say they are interested in – non-partisan economics – are not really.

          • no apology for what is an obvious partisan attack in the name of “economics”.

        • “it’s reminiscent of the “fast and furious” and Benghazi “scandals” crap – no real substance.”

          You obviously know jack squat about either scandal, but you also left out the AP spying, the spying on Fox News, and the IRS attacks on Tea Partiers. No substance to any of that either I guess.

          The scandals keep piling up and your boyfriend’s only defense is he’s a clueless incompetent.

          • The narrative ignoramus Larry and a few others are hilariously trying to advance is that “Obama’s doing nothing different than the last guy,” and “It’s already the law.”

            Those positions are demonstrably false, in the counterexamples you just gave, as well as other administrations interpretation and use of “existing law” such as the Espionage Act (it wasn’t used, due to the broadness and 1st Amendment unconstitutionality of the law).

            My friend Coyote has a great test about political power and its use – imagine the most powerful law or rule in the hands of your worst political enemy. Now doesn’t seem so great, does it?

            Leftists are incapable of performing this thought experiment (insert obvious leftist joke here), which is why they are willfully blind to the abuses going on here, and the economic ramifications.

            We now have an administration who exercises the powers of these laws highly abusively and illegally, and we can clearly see how far down the road to fascism we’ve come, and how dangerous it is.

            The only people making excuses for them are doing so at great effort, and are accessories to and enablers of fascism.

          • blah blah blah “we now have an administration”.

            right….

            who says this? just the right wing wacko birds..

          • Many people are saying this Lar. And with very good reason.

            Larry, you’ve been obliterated on this thread by thoughtful people who see through your comically childish and bizarrely argued partisan blindness.

            Lar, you’ve graduated from GSP ™ and into the ranks of all time dumbest humans in existence.

            Fingers in your ears & head up your ass Larry.

            Good dog.

        • “I said that the “enemies” narrative was coming from the right…and it totally is …

          this is a totally partisan issue… concocted by the right in yet another attempt to implicate him in something wrong.”

          and that is an incredible stupid answer. it’s pure ad hominem.

          you are trying to say “this is not true because so and so said it”.

          that’s pure BS.

          you are trying to avoid the actual facts.

          by your logic, then we should never believe rape victims either because it’s a partisan issue. she says x, he says y, so she must be lying because she’s partisan.

          for a guy who rails against ad hominem, you sure seem to like using it when you cannot address the facts.

          hypocrite.

    • Steve, no individual incident is enough evidence to show systematic targeting, but many instances taken together is evidence beyond anecdotal. If you have evidence that there is systematic targeting of lefties by right wing administrations or that lefties are equally targeted by Democrats, show it.

      Some dude on the internet declaring “hardly” to wave away mounting evidence while demanding irrefutable proof from his opponent ain’t gonna cut it.

  8. Ron H. and Methinks,

    I’m as cynical about politics as they come. (I’m reading Llosa’s War of the End of the World. Quote: “Politics is a job for ruffians.”) I’ll grant that it’s possible Gibson got on somebody’s hit list for their donation. Maybe my comment above should have ended with the following:

    My guess is that this has less to do with politics and more to do with bureaucrats with inflated egos needing to prove their worth up the chain of command and to show the power of their mighty sword to those they oversee; think about a recent example of an agency that needed to “crucify” those in town to make an example to others.

    • Trey,

      I run a heavily regulated firm and know many people who are regulators. They have hit lists. Even when regulators need to prove the need of their existence (which is not the case here) like when the CFTC goes after firms conducting normal business when the press goes on a commodities manipulation whine-fest if petroleum price rises, the firms the CFTC decide to destroy are not randomly chosen and haven’t actually done anything wrong at all. The fact that Corzine was not criminally prosecuted for stealing money from customer accounts (an enormous crime in the BD world and for obvious reasons) is no accident either.

      You can absolutely buy politicians for a lot less than the amount of those donations. My comment isn’t born of cynicism. I speak purely from long experience.

      • methinks-

        bingo.

        this sort of cronyism has been the hallmark of this administration since day one.

        they flood money to patrons and wield brutal coercive force and threats against opponents.

        i know debt holders in the gm/chrysler BK that were flat out threatened into giving up their senior positions in the capital structure so the UAW could take more.

        they were threatened with audits without end and having all their LP’s audited every year until they pulled out of the fund.

        there is a long pattern here, and it goes right to the top. even if not every choice originates there, they sure get a wink and a nudge and this admin has led by example right from the first months in office to flout law and use the apparatus of government to shower goodies on friends and to intimidate others into compliance.

        it’s flat out chicago on the Potomac. why anyone expected anyhting different is beyond me.

        this is hardly the first administration to do such things, but it seems to be, by far, the most egregious in a long time. johnson might have been as bad and fdr was certainly worse, but these guys are right up there.

    • Trey

      You are being too kind to those in positions to wield government power. This is Chicago politics writ large – and is something at which Obama is a master. This is exactly the type of tactic he learned and used coming up through the ranks in Chicago – reward your friends and punish your enemies. It shouldn’t be surprising that this attitude pervades the administration at every level.

  9. Mark J. Perry: Now the Gibson Guitar raids make sense – it was on the political enemies list

    Any evidence to justify the declarative?

    • re: ” Any evidence to justify the declarative?”

      Evidence? We don’t need no stinking evidence because the right wing echo chamber has deemed it the truth!

      and it has very serious economic consequences therefore needs “careful” discussion to explore the implications, here on CD!

      bad bad govt. bad bad Obama!

      ;-)

      • You can’t be serious. Where do you get your news – MSNBC? Is there a chill going up your leg.
        ? The evidence is everywhere if you take off your rose colored glasses and come out from under your rock the evidence will be smacking you in the face which is what most of the people responding to this blog would like to do to you right now. I think you’re working for Barry and his hacaks and henchmen are capturing our IP addresses so they can send a swat team in to shut us down and then they can send in the IRS, FBI and NSA to finish the job. Keep it up. You’re doing a great job. Maybe you’ll be named as the next Ambassador to Libya.

        • Sorry for the misspells – I’m just so fed up with actual Americans who have no qualms or issues with the arrogance of big government and its abuse of power. They have no clue of the freedoms they so readily dismiss and the ticking debt bomb these leftists are gleefully ignoring.

        • SJM: The evidence is everywhere if you take off your rose colored glasses and come out from under your rock the evidence will be smacking you in the face which is what most of the people responding to this blog would like to do to you right now.

          In other words, you say there is evidence, but you can’t seem to point to any.

          • re: ” In other words, you say there is evidence, but you can’t seem to point to any.”

            remember, we’re talking right wing echo chamber standards.

          • remember, we’re talking right wing echo chamber standards“…

            larry g never letting an opportunity to launch an idiotic comment pass him by…

        • Um, they bought the wood on the gray market. That’s hardly an innocent mistake“…

          Says what credible source zach?

          • It’s what they attested to. From your own link, they knew that it was “illegal to harvest any species from natural forests {in Madagascar} until permitting has been resolved.” But they did it anyway.

          • It’s what they attested to. From your own link“…

            You are superbly dense fellow, that’s what Gibson did to stop the shakedown and that’s what was shown in the Gibson posting and later on air interviews with Juszkiewicz…

          • So Gibson is lying.

            In any case, it’s what the Justice Department determined. They have witness testimony and emails, so it’s not as if they have no evidence.

          • Gibson could have “agreed” a long time ago – he chose to make an issue even though he knew himself he was guilty on the facts.

            this started back before Obama

            but now the right wing echo chamber in full flower says that Obama: 1. has created an enemies list and 2. put the Gibson jerk on it.

            neither is true of course but that don’t stop the right wing idiots and their kindred souls here from spinning such idiocy.

            It’s no longer about the truth – it’s all ideology and they do what it takes to make the ideology “work”.

          • They have witness testimony and emails, so it’s not as if they have no evidence“…

            The Justice Department has no evidence, just the questionable hearsay of questionable characters in order shake down Gibson using questionable means…

            Then again you zach being a nanny stater would have no qualms regarding federal government over reach apparently…

          • Gibson probably thought that by buying sideways that they were sufficiently removed to avoid the legal implications. However, the information they received in Madagascar made that an untenable position.

          • but he KNEW the fish and game people were on his case… and he still chose to do it…

            He intended to make it an issue all along… and if you read the Q/A in his statement – you’ll see that he believes the Lacey Act is wrong and needs to be changed.

            he had multiple opportunities to shut it down and get out and do what other guitar makers were doing alternatively.

            once he thumbed his nose – it was a direct challenge to the Lacey Act and if the govt did not act – other guitar makers – and then other industries would do the same thing and if charged, claim they were be selected out because Gibson got a bye.

            If the law needs to be changed – then do it the right way – go contribute bucks to the Congress critter of choice!

          • Gibson probably thought that by buying sideways that they were sufficiently removed to avoid the legal implications“…

            So zach you really have NO clue what was actually happening but being a nanny stater you’ll continue to carry the water for the federal government in all of its constitutionally questionable actions, eh?

            Funny thing is, I was just perusing the Constitution again to make sure that there wasn’t some sort of ‘hidden‘ clause that said that it was the federal government’s job to baby sit trees in foreign lands and dang if I could find it…

          • LarryG: but he KNEW the fish and game people were on his case… and he still chose to do it…

            When did the government begin their investigation and when did Gibson become aware of it?

            LarryG: He intended to make it an issue all along…

            He was certainly a curmudgeon, and didn’t like the government interfering in his operations, especially what he considered their heavy-handed enforcement. However, that’s not atypical for search and seizures.

          • juandos: I was just perusing the Constitution again to make sure that there wasn’t some sort of ‘hidden‘ clause that said that it was the federal government’s job to baby sit trees in foreign lands and dang if I could find it…

            Turns out that the constitution allows Congress can pass laws, including laws regulating international trade. It also turns out that the constitution allows the United States to enter into binding treaties.

          • Turns out that the constitution allows Congress can pass laws“…

            Well as usual zach at best you’re only partially right…

            Still I don’t I should tutor you in basics of history and civics that you should’ve learned in high school…

          • Let’s see, they have employee testimony, emails, and an admission by Gibson.

          • juandos: Well as usual zach at best you’re only partially right…

            Are you saying the U.S. Constitution does not allow Congress to regulate commerce, or enter into binding treaties?

          • Are you saying the U.S. Constitution does not allow Congress to regulate commerce, or enter into binding treaties?“…

            Well zach it used to look good on paper but if you have been paying attention for the last 30 or so years you would’ve seen that Congress’ power to regulate commerce and to ‘advise & consent‘ on treaties has been somewhat diluted…

          • Z: “Are you saying the U.S. Constitution does not allow Congress to regulate commerce, or enter into binding treaties?

            That’s correct. Congress can’t enter into binding treaties. Some other branch has that power, with the advice and consent of the Senate. That used to mean with the concurrence of of 2/3 of the states before the states were neutered by the 16th and 17th amendments.

          • The Constitution allows the elected representatives to pass laws.

            The Constitution allows the SCOTUS to determine the Constitutional muster of the passed laws.

            We have 200 years of millions of people who agree.

            we now have some folks who don’t.

            but they are such a tiny minority of people their only complaint is “mob rule” .

            but apparently the founders of the Constitution were just fine with Mob Rule because that’s exactly how they defined SCOTUS.

            not 2/3, not 3/4 – but a majority.

            so now we’re into the territory that the SCOTUS not only “violated” the Constitution but they’ve done it for a long, long time.

            good luck with that argument.

          • Ron H: Congress can’t enter into binding treaties. Some other branch has that power, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

            Good. Then we’re in agreement. The U.S. Constitution does have a provision for the U.S. to enter into binding treaties, and for regulating commerce.

  10. Ken says: “Obama is making the FED look bad? Ever heard of a guy named Ben Bernanke?”

    You can thank Bernanke and the Fed for lower interest rates to raise borrowing and spending, and reduce saving and the cost of capital, while creating a Wealth Effect in asset markets, to further induce demand.

    If Obama and Congress got rid of $1 trillion of the $2 trillion a year in federal regulations, cut spending several hundred billion dollars, and cut taxes several hundred billion dollars, we’d be out of this depression quickly, the output gap would close, and state and federal tax revenues would rise substantially.

    Then the Fed could raise interest rates to slow the economic boom, to a sustainable rate.

  11. This would be an honest Blog Topic:

    “Why the Lacey Act is wrong and should be repealed”.

    that’s would be a much more honest and forthright treatment of the issue instead of claiming an “enemies” list.

  12. USDOJ: In 2008, an employee of Gibson participated in a trip to Madagascar, sponsored by a non-profit organization. Participants on the trip, including the Gibson employee, were told that a law passed in 2006 in Madagascar banned the harvest of ebony and the export of any ebony products that were not in finished form. They were further told by trip organizers that instrument parts, such as fingerboard blanks, would be considered unfinished and therefore illegal to export under the 2006 law. Participants also visited the facility of the exporter in Madagascar, from which Gibson’s supplier sourced its Madagascar ebony, and were informed that the wood at the facility was under seizure at that time and could not be moved.

    After the Gibson employee returned from Madagascar with this information, he conveyed the information to superiors and others at Gibson…

    Gibson received four shipments of Madagascar ebony fingerboard blanks from its supplier between October 2008 and September 2009.

    http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/August/12-enrd-976.html

      • The government apparently had emails discussing the illegality of the transactions. Combined with the wood being mislabeled, it certainly constituted strong evidence of a knowing violation of the law rather than a simple oversight.

        • Zachriel… I fear you are dealing with inconvenient facts that totally screw up a perfectly good conspiracy theory.

          bad bad.

        • Bullshit.

          DoJ was lying, and Gibson had the temerity to call them on it. If the wood was “improperly labeled,” and Gibson somehow becomes liable for 3rd party actions, don’t bitch and moan about your 14% unemployment rate.

          Regulatory horseshit like this kills business, which is why you have 14% unemployment and the worst economic recovery on record.

          DoJ filed no charges, and returned the wood, and Gibson went on sourcing wood from those same suppliers.

          It was an arbitrary and abusive action against a political enemy.

          • I don’t think Gibson got the wood back:

            ” Gibson will pay a $300,000 penalty to avoid criminal charges for importing ebony and rosewood in violation of the Lacey Act,

            The guitar maker will also have to make a “community service payment” of $50,000 to the U.S. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to promote conservation and development of tree species used in making musical instruments.

            The company also will withdraw its claims to the $262,000 worth of exotic woods seized by federal authorities, said the Department of Justice.”

            re: ” It was an arbitrary and abusive action against a political enemy.” that started under Bush?

      • LMFAO, good one, Larry!!

        Facts, as determined by a known corrupt figurehead.

        God, you’re reaching new levels of stupidity hourly now….are you on moronroids again, Lar?

    • Oooh, look, another LeftSucker.

      Here is the case, in a nutshell: DoJ claims Gibson knew the offending fretboard wood was in violation of the (idiotic) Lacey Act. Gibson says DoJ was lying, and produced documents to prove it.

      Yes, they settled – it would have cost far more to fight it (though, now that Eric Holder has a stellar record of corruption, the better option may now be to countersue)

      The wood was returned to Gibson.

      No charges have been filed.

      Again, given Eric AssHolder’s well-established record of corruption, who do you think is telling the truth here? A corrupt organization already under investigation and whose leader, already in contempt of Congress, is now being investigated for perjury

      http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/302131-house-judiciary-investigating-whether-holder-lied-under-oath

      or a business twice raided with no charges filed against it, and no other infringements, other than donating to the wrong party?

      This is a very easy question for anyone not named Zachareil or Larry Grosslymisinformed.

        • Except that Holder is about to be charged with perjury, and quite possibly obstruction in the Benghazi case.

          Settle down, Lar monkey – it takes time to comb thru a pile of evidence as large as the case against Holder.

          • they can do that? who would try the charge? what the penalty? who determines guilt

          • Double dose of moronroids, Lar?

            http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/302131-house-judiciary-investigating-whether-holder-lied-under-oath

            House Judiciary Committee could bring additional contempt charges against Holder, and in an extreme case, arrest him.

            It’s called separation of powers, Lar. Might want to look it up.

            The smart thing for Holder to do would be to resign, but since he’s a leftist, he won’t.

            Try to cut back a little, dude – you’re way over your moron limit.

          • how about a like outlining how the process works Meso?

            who would be the judge?

            who would be the prosecutor?

            who would enforce the sentence?

          • Lar, we know you’re as dumb as crap (see below), but he’s already in contempt of Congress. Even you can look that up.

            How about this Larry: you go off and screw your little propeller hat back on your very empty skull, try to avoid the stairs, which confuse you, and have your in-home male nurse re-medicate you, then figure out how your boyfriend and his BFF stepped in it so bad.

            When this doesn’t work, begin banging your head against the wall repeatedly until you see red.

          • ” This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information.”

            jesus, meso….

          • Then you should easily understand it.

            I chose that reference for that very reason….

          • you chose that section for that reason?

            :-)

            right…

            you and the right wing got bupkis guy.

            the GOP is making themselves look like idiots.

          • Holder’s in civil AND criminal contempt, Lar.

            You’re right, nothing to see there.

            How did you get this stupid? I am seriously impressed. Others are too.

            This must’ve taken years of oxygen deprivation, poor diet, sedentary lazy entitlement lifestyle, etc. to reach your current offensively ignorant status.

          • benghazi benghazi benghazi

            ya’ll are like zombies…!!!

            the living dead…

            !!!!

          • ” Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia;[9] according to the law it is the “duty” of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.
            The criminal offense of “contempt of Congress” sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.[10]
            While the law pronounces the duty of the U.S. Attorney is to impanel a grand jury for its action on the matter, some proponents of the unitary executive theory believe that the Congress cannot properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action against the Executive Branch, asserting that the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports only to the President and that compelling the U.S. Attorney amounts to compelling the President himself. ”

            geeze Meso…

          • Awesome misread, Lar:

            some proponents of the unitary executive theory believe that the Congress cannot properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action against the Executive Branch, asserting that the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports only to the President and that compelling the U.S. Attorney amounts to compelling the President himself.

            See that first word? Some.

            This would be a very novel exercise of that power, but if the AG has perjured himself (and he clearly has), and will not resign, nor his boss remove him, the House may have no other option but to pursue criminal contempt against him, and arrest him for perjury.

            The “out” for Holder in Fast & Furious was Executive privilege – there is no privilege assertion in the Rosen case, and his signature is on the docs, after he said he knew nothing about them.

            I recommend you polish up more on your weasel words, Lar – you’re going to hear lots more of them coming from your president and AG.

          • I thought they already found Holder in contempt for fast and furious…right?

            what happened?

            do you think the Sergeant at Arms has a sufficient force to go fetch Holder and imprison him (where?).

            you guys are loony tunes… Meso…

            I knew you guys were around all along but it took the internet to get you in “focus”.

            ;-)

          • LMFAO

            Larry, you were born without any awareness or sense of irony.

            The rest of the room (and a good portion of the US) is thinking the exact same of you. And you’re completely clueless….

            Spectacular ignorance, Lar.

          • He’s still in civil and criminal contempt.

            No Lar, Barry’s powerful, but he can’t make that go away. I feel your pain.

          • Correct, though not for long, looks like.

            I hear he’s taking requests, Lar. Why dontcha sneak him a quick email (might wanna ask him nicely not to wiretap you or bug your email) and give him your super-secret wish list, to make “the right” disappear?

            I bet he could do it, just for you Lar.

            And that way, you wouldn’t have to keep your fingers in your ears all the time.

            You could still keep you head up your ass, since that’s incurable for you.

          • Good Lord! Larry is such an imbecile that Mesa must feed him bits of basic information like a mama bird feeds her newborns.

          • I hear he’s taking requests, Lar. Why dontcha sneak him a quick email (might wanna ask him nicely not to wiretap you or bug your email) and give him your super-secret wish list, to make “the right” disappear?

            I bet he could do it, just for you Lar.”

            Oh – and Larry? Don’t forget to enclose that nice check along with your request. Holder will need something to tide him over until he reaches a more normal radiation level, and someone considers hiring him. As you probably don’t know, along with all the other things you don’t seem to know, Holder isn’t eligible for state unemployment benefits.

      • mesa econoguy: Here is the case, in a nutshell: DoJ claims Gibson knew the offending fretboard wood was in violation of the (idiotic) Lacey Act. Gibson says DoJ was lying, and produced documents to prove it.

        The DoJ had evidence that Gibson knowingly violated the law, including emails where the employee who had traveled there told management that the imports were in violation of the 2006 Malagasy law.

        mesa econoguy: The wood was returned to Gibson.

        USDOJ: Gibson will withdraw its claims to the wood seized in the course of the criminal investigation, including Madagascar ebony from shipments with a total invoice value of $261,844.

        mesa econoguy: No charges have been filed.

        USDOJ: Gibson has acknowledged that it failed to act on information that the Madagascar ebony it was purchasing may have violated laws

        • “The DoJ had evidence that Gibson knowingly violated the law, including emails where the employee who had traveled there told management that the imports were in violation of the 2006 Malagasy law. “

          Sure they did. Probably got them from James Rosen’s emailbox.

          USDOJ: Gibson will withdraw its claims to the wood seized in the course of the criminal investigation, including Madagascar ebony from shipments with a total invoice value of $261,844.

          As part of the settlement, Juszkiewicz said the federal government is returning goods seized during the second raid on his company. Also, Gibson is allowed to continue sourcing ebony and rosewood from India.

          http://hardwoodfloorsmag.com/editors/blog/default.aspx?id=1365

          Further,

          The Government and Gibson acknowledge and agree that certain questions and inconsistencies now exist regarding the tariff classification of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks pursuant to the Indian government’s Foreign Trade Policy. Accordingly, the Government will not undertake enforcement actions related to Gibson’s future orders, purchases, or imports of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks from India, unless and until the Government of India provides specific clarification that ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks are expressly prohibited by laws related to Indian Foreign Trade Policy. The Government agrees to provide Gibson notice of any such clarification from the Government of India in the future and a reasonable period of time (60 days or as otherwise agreed) to address the potential change in the understanding of the law as it relates to shipments received by or en route to Gibson.

          http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Gibson-Comments-on-Department-of-Justice-Settlemen.aspx

          This was an arbitrary and abusive action against a political enemy.

        • “The DoJ had evidence that Gibson knowingly violated the law, including emails where the employee who had traveled there told management that the imports were in violation of the 2006 Malagasy law. “

          Sure they did. Probably got them from James Rosen’s emailbox.

          USDOJ: Gibson will withdraw its claims to the wood seized in the course of the criminal investigation, including Madagascar ebony from shipments with a total invoice value of $261,844.

          As part of the settlement, Juszkiewicz said the federal government is returning goods seized during the second raid on his company. Also, Gibson is allowed to continue sourcing ebony and rosewood from India.

          http://hardwoodfloorsmag.com/editors/blog/default.aspx?id=1365

          • mesa econoguy: Sure they did. Probably got them from James Rosen’s emailbox.

            You can make up stories to confirm your political biases, but one of Gibson’s employees went to Madagascar, was told what they were doing was now illegal, informed others at Gibson, sent emails informing Gibson’s management, yet Gibson continued to buy the restricted wood, mislabeled the wood, and finally admitted that they had done so.

          • You can make up stories to confirm your political biases, but one of Gibson’s employees went to Madagascar, was told what they were doing was now illegal” says zach without a shred of anything credible to back that up…

          • Gibson has admitted to the existence of the trip, the emails, and the report from Madagascar.

        • Further,

          The Government and Gibson acknowledge and agree that certain questions and inconsistencies now exist regarding the tariff classification of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks pursuant to the Indian government’s Foreign Trade Policy. Accordingly, the Government will not undertake enforcement actions related to Gibson’s future orders, purchases, or imports of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks from India, unless and until the Government of India provides specific clarification that ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks are expressly prohibited by laws related to Indian Foreign Trade Policy. The Government agrees to provide Gibson notice of any such clarification from the Government of India in the future and a reasonable period of time (60 days or as otherwise agreed) to address the potential change in the understanding of the law as it relates to shipments received by or en route to Gibson.

          http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Gibson-Comments-on-Department-of-Justice-Settlemen.aspx

          This was an arbitrary and abusive action against a political enemy.

          • Not at all. The wood from Madagascar was clearly illegal. They bought it sideways hoping to avoid the restriction. They knew it was illegal, but did it anyway. That’s why they settled.

          • re: ” The documentation produced by Gibson disputed that.”

            geeze Meso.. just about every criminal ever convicted does that guy…

          • Except Eric Holder, who refuses to produce documents, and gets held in criminal contempt.

            Right Lar?

        • meso-guy – am I dumb as crap and swallow any and all propaganda spewed out by the right wing echo machine.

          meso-guy – you betcha…

          ;-)

          • Larry, you have set such I high bar for yourself on this thread, I think you may be the all-time winner – Dumbest Upright(walking) Human, or DUH.

          • meso-guy – am I dumb as crap and swallow any and all propaganda spewed out by the right wing echo machine.

            meso-guy – you betcha…boots -

          • Larry, we already know you’re as dumb as crap, there’s no need to double-post…..

          • meso-guy – am I dumb as crap and swallow any and all propaganda spewed out by the right wing echo machine.

            meso-guy – you betcha…boots and then I re-broadcast it !

            don’t confuse me with facts, BTW – we can’t allow facts to screw up perfectly good right wing conspiracy plots!

            as soon as we convict Holder of perjury on the AP issue, we’re going nail him for his role in the GIbson Guitar travesty!

            and if that don’t work – we’re going back to fast and furious…

            :-)

          • re: ” … The House on Thursday voted 255-67 to hold Mr. Holder in criminal contempt, and 258-95 to pursue a case against him in the courts.”

            … in the courts? what courts?

            who will prosecute?

            who will choose the judge?

            are you serious Meso?

            seriously?

            this is worse than Benghazi, guy

            ya’ll lurch from one conspiracy theory to another..

          • … in the courts? what courts?

            In Federal court, Larry.

            who will prosecute?

            who will choose the judge?

            Larry, you seriously need to consider what you’re suggesting. Do you really think Holder is above the law? I know HE thinks he is, but do you believe he can break any law without consequences?

            On the other side of that, do you think Congress is just a big room full of toothless blowhards who can only bluster at people without having any power to prosecute

            Why, then, would anyone ever appear before Congress to answer questions if there are no consequences for failure to do so?

            Try – try really hard to THINK, Larry. You are blowing it big-time here.

          • re: Holder above the law – Nope.

            re: Congressional GOP as toothless fools…

            yup.

            re: right wing idiots who support the GOP

            you betcha

          • re: right wing idiots who support the GOP

            you betcha

            Well ron h, seems to me that larry g is going through yet another bout of Biden syndrome

          • ” In Federal court, Larry.

            “who will prosecute?

            who will choose the judge?”

            Larry, you seriously need to consider what you’re suggesting. Do you really think Holder is above the law? I know HE thinks he is, but do you believe he can break any law without consequences?”

            I’m asking about the process and the mechanics which I assume you guys do know – and I do not.

            so can you explain how it works?

            it appears to me that at some point referrals are made to courts and prosecutors that are under the purview of Holder himself and the POTUS.

            Now if Holder and the POTUS think the whole thing is a political witch hunt to start with – how does that get resolved?

            you have separation of powers, right? so how do you find an impartial judge that is not aligned with one branch of govt or the other?

          • you have separation of powers, right? so how do you find an impartial judge that is not aligned with one branch of govt or the other?

            LOL

            If I were explaining this to anyone but you, I would expect their utter ignorance of the political system under which they had lived all their lives to be a source of extreme embarrassment, but I know it won’t bother you the least little bit.

            In addition, I would expect that same someone, who I assume attended the government schools they defend so strongly, to have acquired at least a working knowledge of the system that provided that “free” education.

            Instead, you provide living proof that perhaps those of us who condemn the public school school system as inadequate, are, after all, correct in our assessment.

            Here it is, Larry: There is a *third* branch of government – the judicial – that is theoretically separate from either of the other two, in which questions of constitutionality and law are decided. The judges you worry about are part of that 3rd branch, and theoretically at least, free of influence by the legislative and executive branches. They don’t work for Holder.

            Prosecutor? Well, a special prosecutor could be named, I suppose. Remember Watergate? Remember Dress-Stain-Gate? Look it up & let us know what you find.

            You are pointing a spotlight on the very reason why a government justice system is inferior to a private one with better incentives.

            Who’s watching the watchers?

          • re:

            ” “you have separation of powers, right? so how do you find an impartial judge that is not aligned with one branch of govt or the other?”

            LOL

            If I were explaining this to anyone but you, I would expect their utter ignorance of the political system under which they had lived all their lives to be a source of extreme embarrassment, but I know it won’t bother you the least little bit.”

            good!

            In addition, I would expect that same someone, who I assume attended the government schools they defend so strongly, to have acquired at least a working knowledge of the system that provided that “free” education.

            speaking of schools have you thought recently about DOD schools and how they work?

            “Instead, you provide living proof that perhaps those of us who condemn the public school school system as inadequate, are, after all, correct in our assessment.”

            it is what it is guy.

            “Here it is, Larry: There is a *third* branch of government – the judicial – that is theoretically separate from either of the other two, in which questions of constitutionality and law are decided. The judges you worry about are part of that 3rd branch, and theoretically at least, free of influence by the legislative and executive branches. They don’t work for Holder.”

            the judges don’t get paid by the govt?

            “Prosecutor? Well, a special prosecutor could be named, I suppose. Remember Watergate? Remember Dress-Stain-Gate? Look it up & let us know what you find.”

            who would agree to do that guy?

            “You are pointing a spotlight on the very reason why a government justice system is inferior to a private one with better incentives.

            Who’s watching the watchers?”

            good question but I ask it first…

          • good!

            speaking of schools have you thought recently about DOD schools and how they work?

            it is what it is guy.

            the judges don’t get paid by the govt?

            who would agree to do that guy?

            good question but I ask it first…”

            LOL Oh Larry, please stop. My sides are splitting. You have absolutely no understanding of anything I wrote, do you?

            …and this gem:

            the judges don’t get paid by the govt?

            You seem to be arguing that a government provided justice system is corruptible and inadequate to the task of trying those who are part of the government. If the POTUS and Holder say he’s innocent of wrongdoing, nothing more can be done.

            I thought you favored authoritative government, but now you are pointing to its failings. How ironic.

          • speaking of schools have you thought recently about DOD schools and how they work?”

            it is what it is guy.

            do you know how DOD schools work overseas?

            the judges don’t get paid by the govt?

            who would agree to do that guy?

            good question but I ask it first…”

            LOL Oh Larry, please stop. My sides are splitting. You have absolutely no understanding of anything I wrote, do you?

            only that you don’t know shit from shinola on the issue.

            “the judges don’t get paid by the govt?”

            You seem to be arguing that a government provided justice system is corruptible and inadequate to the task of trying those who are part of the government. If the POTUS and Holder say he’s innocent of wrongdoing, nothing more can be done.

            nope… who do they report to?

            I thought you favored authoritative government, but now you are pointing to its failings. How ironic.

            no. we’re talking about how you Congress prosecutes someone from the Administration.. who do the judges and prosecutors work for and report to?

            you might want to check how that worked the last time Congress found Holder in contempt.

            check it out and get back.

  13. Gibson was a warning shot to all conservative business people contemplating contributions to political causes opposing the Obama Marxists. Actions against Gibson, Vandersloot, and tea party activists everywhere definitely dried up political contributions to conservatives. It was an illegal act of intimidation. I suspect there are many others that will be exposed in the months to come.

  14. When this raid first happened, Gibson’s CEO first speculated that it was because of his political contributions. This was over two years ago. Now the mainstream is finally catching on.

    The only Gibson guitars I can play are their jumbo acoustic instruments; all the others are too small for my hands to feel comfortable on. But I will NEVER let my fingers touch a Martin instrument for the rest of my life.

    • Regulation is always applied unevenly. Regardless how regulation is sold to the public, it is ultimately a tool for the destruction of political enemies and for the care and feeding of political cronies.

      I know nothing about guitar manufacturing, but it would be interesting to see what other manufacturers had to comply with the Lacey act and if it was enforced with them. I’ve never ever seen regulation applied appropriately. There is no rule of law.

      • Methinks: I know nothing about guitar manufacturing, but it would be interesting to see what other manufacturers had to comply with the Lacey act and if it was enforced with them.

        For instance, Martin uses Malagasy Rosewood which they acquired before the ban.

        • Z: “ For instance, Martin uses Malagasy Rosewood which they acquired before the ban.

          And you know this to be true in the same way you know that Gibson broke the law?

          • Z: “ For instance, Martin uses Malagasy Rosewood which they acquired before the ban.”

            And you know this to be true in the same way you know that Gibson broke the law?

            there go those nasty facts again… lord!

            Gibson’s own employees admitted the problem right?

            and now you want “proof” that the other manufacturers managed to NOT violate the law.

            Jesus H. Keeeerist…

          • Lots of people play Martins. That’s not an answer“…

            Lots of people voted for Obama, that is the answer…

          • So, it’s because lots of people voted for Obama that Kevin Beck won’t play a Martin.

          • So, it’s because lots of people voted for Obama that Kevin Beck won’t play a Martin“…

            Why would they want to support the tools that supported the corrupt Kenyan Kommie Klown?

          • juandos: Why would they want to support the tools that supported the corrupt Kenyan Kommie Klown?

            Obama never lived in Kenya. You’ll say, of course, that some of your best friends are black.

          • juandos: Why would they want to support the tools that supported the corrupt Kenyan Kommie Klown?

            You’ll say, of course, that some of your best friends are black.

          • You’ll say, of course, that some of your best friends are black“…

            Why would I say that zach?

            Sniveling political correctness is not in the cards for me….

            I will admit that some of my heroes are black though…

  15. This is not a matter of vindictiveness but one of favoritism. Gibson broke the law and they are being called on it. The other guitar maker gave big to the Dems so they’re getting a pass.

  16. Applicable historical quotes to Larry concerning:
    LarryG | May 27, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    re: ” practically EVERY decision we make or action we take is based on “economics” ”

    and I totally believe that – but govt is not evil and Obama is not the face of the devil when it comes to govt and economics.

    “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 justifies it.” Frederic Bastiat

    “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington

    “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.” Adolf Hitler

    “Even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson

    “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Winston Churchill

    “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” Winston Churchill
    (This is my hypothesis on why Obama ditched the busts of Churchill from the White House…didn’t like these quotes. Hit too close to home…his Alinsky philosophy).

    “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
    ― James Madison, The Federalist Papers

    History has judged these quotes to be quite accurate and history will judge Barack Obama and his administration.

    “You can avoid reality but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality” Ayn Rand

    • docqbsc1972: History has judged these quotes to be quite accurate and history will judge Barack Obama and his administration.

      Heh. Except for the quotes which aren’t accurate, such as the one attributed to George Washington.

      • RE: ” Heh. Except for the quotes which aren’t accurate, such as the one attributed to George Washington.”

        Z – mere details when it comes to anti-govt rants….

      • Z: “Heh. Except for the quotes which aren’t accurate, such as the one attributed to George Washington.

        Pure obfuscation. Unable or unwilling to address the contents of the quotes, you pick on the relatively minor problem of one questionable attribution instead.

        Nice work.

        • re: ” Pure obfuscation. Unable or unwilling to address the contents of the quotes, you pick on the relatively minor problem of one questionable attribution instead.”

          a “minor” problem is a totally wrong quote?

          heh heh…

          yes indeed. it’s the “cause”.. facts are nasty bugs that need to be squashed…

          • Yip! Yip! Grrr!

            Get down little doggie, this conversation is beyond your limited level of understanding.

        • The quotes were only tangentially related to the discussion, and didn’t seem make a particular point. We were merely amused by the claim that “History has judged these quotes to be quite accurate”.

          As for “history will judge Barack Obama and his administration”, that is undeniably true.

          • –The quotes were only tangentially related to the discussion, and didn’t seem make a particular point. We were merely amused by the claim that “History has judged these quotes to be quite accurate”. –

            And amused that one of the quotes was actually mine. (Though I’ll modestly admit that I almost always turn out to be correct.) ;-)

          • The quotes were only tangentially related to the discussion, and didn’t seem make a particular point.

            That’s quite true, and of course your point about a case of uncertain attribution is only tangentially related to the veracity of the quotes themselves, no matter who actually said them.

          • The phrase was “History has judged these quotes to be quite accurate”. Not that it really matters as you agree the writer didn’t seem to be making any particular point.

          • The phrase was “History has judged these quotes to be quite accurate”. Not that it really matters as you agree the writer didn’t seem to be making any particular point.

            While the the comment doesn’t seem to be much related to the discussion on this thread, would you choose to believe that someone just decided to post several random quotes, for no particular reason, and then claim that history has judged the attributions to be quite accurate?

            You can do better than that. It’s OK to admit you were just being picky for no reason.

          • re: ” You can do better than that. It’s OK to admit you were just being picky for no reason.”

            this coming from Ron?

            Jesus…

    • re: “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 justifies it.” Frederic Bastiat”

      ,,,,es of avoiding reality” Ayn Rand

      BAD BAD GOVT!

      • I will not get into all this back and forth with you that others have done. We will obviously just have to agree to disagree and I’m leaving it at that because we are on different sides of the fence and neither one of us is going to convince the other they are wrong. I guess that’s why there’s different flavors of ice cream.

        • well.. there IS such a thing as Neapolitan Ice Cream otherwise known as a compromise of which more than a few are willing to enter into but these days others tend to assume a “take no prisoners” position.

          you can’t move forward if you can’t agree on SOMETHING AND that is the essence of governance…

          you know there is bad stuff going on when the opponents cannot themselves agree on a position.

          • Yes, Neopolitan ice cream is compromise, but it’s also not governance which is another animal. Sometimes with governance, two opponents have to agree to disagree and then try to convince others who aren’t so principled/bull-headed/set in their ways to come to their side so they can win the battle that way and defeat their opponent ie tear down the wall the other was putting up to stop them. Governance is a battle of ideas and just because you win the battle doesn’t mean you’ve won the war. In war, you obtain victory by getting the other side to surrender or killing off more of them than them killing off more of you. We’ve only done that one time and I hope it is the last time, but with humans, it could get to that point again if life and death is involved from one side’s perspective. I pray not, but if we don’t follow the rules passed onto us contained in the Constitution, then there are no rules and it becomes a whole new ballgame. If there are no rules, then that means tyranny and that equals biting, scratching, pulling hair, kicking and basically, a free for all. Not good. The very reason we’re in this mess is because we’ve left the rule book out and it’s gradually gotten to a mini-war. Unless both sides agree to observe the rules, then there are no rules. The very reason for our Constitution. It’s the foundation upon which everything else should be based. IMHO it gets back to: “You can avoid reality but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality”. Ayn Rand

          • re: Yes, Neopolitan ice cream is compromise, but it’s also not governance which is another animal. Sometimes with governance, two opponents have to agree to disagree and then try to convince others who aren’t so principled/bull-headed/set in their ways to come to their side so they can win the battle that way and defeat their opponent ie tear down the wall the other was putting up to stop them.’

            and what do you do if it is a stand-off?

            “Governance is a battle of ideas and just because you win the battle doesn’t mean you’ve won the war. In war, you obtain victory by getting the other side to surrender or killing off more of them than them killing off more of you. We’ve only done that one time and I hope it is the last time, but with humans, it could get to that point again if life and death is involved from one side’s perspective. I pray not, but if we don’t follow the rules passed onto us contained in the Constitution, then there are no rules and it becomes a whole new ballgame. If there are no rules, then that means tyranny and that equals biting, scratching, pulling hair, kicking and basically, a free for all. Not good. The very reason we’re in this mess is because we’ve left the rule book out and it’s gradually gotten to a mini-war. Unless both sides agree to observe the rules, then there are no rules. The very reason for our Constitution. It’s the foundation upon which everything else should be based. IMHO it gets back to: “You can avoid reality but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality”. Ayn Rand”

            you cannot govern without compromise.

            your choice.

            if your choice is no compromise, you lose at some point.

          • docqbsc1972

            Just a friendly warning that as you read Larry’s last comment, your assessment that it contains no substance is correct. If you continue your conversation with him you may find yourself, as many of us have done, falling down the rabbit hole where logic and reason don’t exist, where no issue is directly addressed, and where collections of incomplete thoughts pose as meaningful responses.

            Just sayin’.

          • I have gathered that. Thanks. I see it’s a spinning top of which there is no end. I have quickly come to the conclusion I have more important thinks to do with my time.

          • well.. there IS such a thing as Neapolitan Ice Cream otherwise known as a compromise…

            Are you really convinced that if some people like chocolate and some like vanilla they should not have what they really want but should instead settle for a compromise that *no one* prefers?

            What a moronic view.

            Choice is good, Larry. There is little value to a one-size-fits-all solution.

          • re: ” Are you really convinced that if some people like chocolate and some like vanilla they should not have what they really want but should instead settle for a compromise that *no one* prefers?

            What a moronic view.

            Choice is good, Larry. There is little value to a one-size-fits-all solution.”

            not one-size-fits-all but a size that enough can agree on as a compromise.

            you can’t win with “no compromise”.

            you end up gridlock.

            some people prefer that to compromise, it is apparent but the real world wants to move forward even if not totally in the way they prefer.

            the real world accepts that ideology is … well ideology not reality.

            re: down the rabbithole – yes.. that nasty idea that the real work does exist and yes you have to deal with it.

          • you can’t win with “no compromise”.

            Nonesense. When everyone gets what they want everybody wins. Vanilla for those who prefer it, chocolate for those who prefer it, and strawberry for those who prefer it. There is no need to compromise on neapolitan. What would be the point?

            Why is that difficult for you?

            you end up gridlock.

            Gridlock in government is good, Larry. That’s why the Founders created a structure with three bodies, each of which restrains the power of the others, including a bicameral legislature that further hindered concentration of power, and maintained sovereignty in “the people”.

            some people prefer that to compromise, it is apparent but the real world wants to move forward even if not totally in the way they prefer.

            What exactly does “move forward” mean to you, Larry?

            It’s not at all apparent what the real world wants. You have no idea.

            Why would people not “move forward” in the direction they prefer if it doesn’t interfere with others “moving forward?

            I want to “move forward” toward the chocolate ice cream. I don’t care for vanilla or strawberry, and a compromise on neapolitan gives me less of what i want. Do you see a problem?

          • “you can’t win with “no compromise”.”

            Nonesense. When everyone gets what they want everybody wins. Vanilla for those who prefer it, chocolate for those who prefer it, and strawberry for those who prefer it. There is no need to compromise on neapolitan. What would be the point?

            nope. nobody gets everything they wanted. everyone gives up something to go forward.

            Why is that difficult for you?
            and for you?

            “you end up gridlock.”

            “Gridlock in government is good, Larry. That’s why the Founders created a structure with three bodies, each of which restrains the power of the others, including a bicameral legislature that further hindered concentration of power, and maintained sovereignty in “the people”. ”

            perhaps…

            “some people prefer that to compromise, it is apparent but the real world wants to move forward even if not totally in the way they prefer.”

            What exactly does “move forward” mean to you, Larry?

            solve the issues that you can agree on while not letting the ones you cannot stop all agreements.

            It’s not at all apparent what the real world wants. You have no idea.

            more than you guy.

            “Why would people not “move forward” in the direction they prefer if it doesn’t interfere with others “moving forward?”

            what’s the alternative?

            I want to “move forward” toward the chocolate ice cream. I don’t care for vanilla or strawberry, and a compromise on neapolitan gives me less of what i want. Do you see a problem?

            only with you view which in the end loses.

            most people are not going to be satisfied with total gridlock.

            too many things can be agreed on to move forward on and holding everything hostage is a failed strategy.

            you will lose in the end.

          • nope. nobody gets everything they wanted. everyone gives up something to go forward.

            What does “go forward” mean? You haven’t explained that because you have no idea. It’s just something you have heard or read somewhere, and you think it sounds good.

            and for you?

            “Nyah, nyah! says Larry. “You are one too”.

            Grow up.

            perhaps…

            “Perhaps”? You have no idea what I wrote, do you Larry? You are truly amazing.

            more than you guy.

            Nyah, nyah!

            what’s the alternative?

            Since the market will provide whatever flavors of ice cream people want, the alternative is to keep government out of it, and let individual choice dictate.

            only with you view which in the end loses.

            One of those incomplete thoughts.

            most people are not going to be satisfied with total gridlock.

            You have no idea.

            too many things can be agreed on to move forward on and holding everything hostage is a failed strategy.

            Several incomplete thoughts?

            you will lose in the end.

            No, I will have chocolate ice cream. If my store is compelled to sell only neapolitan, a black market in chocolate will emerge to serve those of us who want it, and vanilla for those who prefer vanilla. People will have what they want, despite government idiocy.

          • “nope. nobody gets everything they wanted. everyone gives up something to go forward.”

            What does “go forward” mean? You haven’t explained that because you have no idea. It’s just something you have heard or read somewhere, and you think it sounds good.

            well no.. when even Cabinet appointment are not agreed to.. you got a problem.

            you talk about “repeal” of ObamaCare but you have no “replace”.

            you don’t like entitlements the way they are but no changes are agreed to unless it’s get rid of them.

            etc, etc…

            no agreement.

            “and for you?”

            “Nyah, nyah! says Larry. “You are one too”.

            oh jeeze

            Grow up.

            …to think like you? ;-)

            “perhaps…”

            “Perhaps”? You have no idea what I wrote, do you Larry? You are truly amazing.

            “more than you guy.”

            Nyah, nyah!

            “what’s the alternative?”

            Since the market will provide whatever flavors of ice cream people want, the alternative is to keep government out of it, and let individual choice dictate.

            what’s the compromise position?

            “only with you view which in the end loses.”

            One of those incomplete thoughts.

            “most people are not going to be satisfied with total gridlock.”

            You have no idea.

            “too many things can be agreed on to move forward on and holding everything hostage is a failed strategy.”

            Several incomplete thoughts?

            “you will lose in the end.”

            No, I will have chocolate ice cream. If my store is compelled to sell only neapolitan, a black market in chocolate will emerge to serve those of us who want it, and vanilla for those who prefer vanilla. People will have what they want, despite government idiocy.

            not if they are not pasteurized…and not without nutrition labels though and banned from the market if they are found to be using govt-banned ingredients.

            right?

          • Larry G: there IS such a thing as Neapolitan Ice Cream otherwise known as a compromise of which more than a few are willing to enter into but these days others tend to assume a “take no prisoners” position.

            Sorry, Neapolitan Ice Cream has been tried, but someone always scoops out all the chocolate. Oh, the humanity!

          • well no.. when even Cabinet appointment are not agreed to.. you got a problem.

            That’s supposedly part of the democratic process, Larry, If cabinet appointments were not questioned we should be very worried.

            you talk about “repeal” of ObamaCare but you have no “replace”.

            Repealing Obamacare is “moving forward”, Larry. Then, reducing government interference in, and regulation of medical treatment and delivery is more “moving forward”.

            you don’t like entitlements the way they are but no changes are agreed to unless it’s get rid of them.

            Entitlements cause more problems and unintended consequences than they solve. Reducing and eliminating them is “moving forward.

            Moving deeper into a swamp isn’t “moving forward”, moving back out of the swamp is “moving forward”.

            what’s the compromise position?

            What the?

            It’s neapolitan, Larry, we’ve been over that. Nobody is satisfied, but it is a typical government sledgehammer-to-kill-a-mosquito solution..

            not if they are not pasteurized…and not without nutrition labels though and banned from the market if they are found to be using govt-banned ingredients.

            Completely irrelevant non sequiturs, as usual. You have no idea what I wrote, do you?

            Larry, I can now get anything I’m willing to pay for, including crack cocaine, children as sex slaves, military weapons, rhino horns, and non-pasteurized chocolate ice cream, because someone will supply them for a price – but you think nutritional labeling will somehow prevent me from getting what I want? Wipe your chin – you’re drooling.

          • “well no.. when even Cabinet appointment are not agreed to.. you got a problem.”

            That’s supposedly part of the democratic process, Larry, If cabinet appointments were not questioned we should be very worried.

            then you’re fine with it as a general standard for both sides – right?

            “you talk about “repeal” of ObamaCare but you have no “replace”.”

            Repealing Obamacare is “moving forward”, Larry. Then, reducing government interference in, and regulation of medical treatment and delivery is more “moving forward”.

            you have no solutions other than libertarian idiocy of which there are no examples of in the world.

            “you don’t like entitlements the way they are but no changes are agreed to unless it’s get rid of them.”

            Entitlements cause more problems and unintended consequences than they solve. Reducing and eliminating them is “moving forward.

            all at once or a little at a time by compromise?

            Moving deeper into a swamp isn’t “moving forward”, moving back out of the swamp is “moving forward”.

            “what’s the compromise position?”

            What the?

            what do compromise on?

            It’s neapolitan, Larry, we’ve been over that. Nobody is satisfied, but it is a typical government sledgehammer-to-kill-a-mosquito solution..

            “not if they are not pasteurized…and not without nutrition labels though and banned from the market if they are found to be using govt-banned ingredients.”

            Completely irrelevant non sequiturs, as usual. You have no idea what I wrote, do you?

            reminding you that you do not have unfettered choices and that the regs on ice cream exist and are compromises.

            Larry, I can now get anything I’m willing to pay for, including crack cocaine, children as sex slaves, military weapons, rhino horns, and non-pasteurized chocolate ice cream, because someone will supply them for a price – but you think nutritional labeling will somehow prevent me from getting what I want? Wipe your chin – you’re drooling.

            you can… no question… but not in the US – not without risking prison.

          • nope. nobody gets everything they wanted.

            Why not? Are you saying that human wants are unlimited but human means are not?

            everyone gives up something to go forward.

            It sounds like “going forward”, whatever that means, isn’t a good thing at all, as it requires unnecessary sacrifice.

            Why can’t we all have the flavor ice cream we like most instead of settling for neapolitan?

      • “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 justifies it.” Frederic Bastiat”

        Larry, considering how much trouble you have understanding the relatively easy to read comments here at CD, you should probably not even consider reading Bastiat, or any of the other classical economists for that matter. Just ask someone at your location to explain what that quote actually means.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>