anyone watching the Mexican border for more swine cases ?
looks like border security would be nice to have now.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
150K jobs saved? more chocolate covered Obama bullshir
150K job saved? more chocolate covered Obama bullshir
Friday, April 24, 2009
info on Chris Simcox, Arizona senate canidate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia....
Chris Simcox (born 1961) is the American co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) and the project's main spokesperson. He was formerly a kindergarten teacher at the Wildwood School in Los Angeles, California, where he taught for thirteen years. [1]
In October 2002, Simcox issued a public call to arms, inviting readers of his newspaper, the Tombstone Tumbleweed, to join a "Citizens Border Patrol Militia" whose function, Simcox said, would be to "shame the government into doing its job" of controlling the United States's border with Mexico.
He founded Civil Homeland Defense, a group which patrolled the border, and within the next two and a half years sought to assist the United States Border Patrol.
Simcox's practice of reporting illegal immigrants attempting to enter the country illegally has been controversial, and questions concerning its legality have been raised. When the Civil Homeland Defense was first formed, Simcox's opponents claimed that it is illegal for a normal citizen who is in no way affiliated with law enforcement to detain people in the United States. Simcox claimed at that time that these detentions were justified under a "citizen's arrest" policy.[2] Since the inception of the MCDC, however, their "Standard Operating Procedure" (SOP) states that "Minutemen Observe, Report, Record, and Direct Border Patrol or other appropriate emergency or law enforcement agencies to suspected Illegal Aliens or Illegal Activities."[3]
In December 2004, Simcox teamed with James Gilchrist to organize the Minuteman Project, which brought nationwide attention to the southern border. While some have accused the Minuteman members of being vigilantes, supporters claim that there has never been a case of a member of The Minuteman Project physically harming anyone.
Simcox was interviewed for the 2005 independent documentary Wetback: The Undocumented Documentary. Simcox also appeared in a 2006 documentary by Joseph Matthew and Dan DeVivo called "Crossing Arizona," and a 2007 documentary by Chris Burgard called "Border".
On April 21, 2006, Simcox sent a message to President George W. Bush asking him to send National Guard troops to guard the border or the "Minutemen" would begin construction of a wall along the border, built on private property.
Simcox has stated he does not receive a salary from Minutemen, and earns income via honoraria and fees received for speaking engagements. He claims to have sold his life story for a film that will soon go into production. [4]
Simcox is stepping down from MCDC to challenge in the 2010 Republican primary the renomination of U.S. Senator John S. McCain, III, of Arizona, the party's 2008 presidential nominee.[5]
[edit] References
^ Wagner, Dennis (2006-05-25). "Minuteman's goal: To shame feds into action". http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-24-minuteman-goals_x.htm.
^ Max Blumenthal, "Vigilante injustice", Salon, May 22, 2005. Accessed January 13, 2008.
^ "Standard Operating Procedure for Minuteman Civil Defense Corps", retrieved January 13, 2008.
^ Seper, Jerry (2006-07-20). "Minutemen not watching over funds". http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060719-091346-2988r.htm.
^ Smith, Ben (2009-04-21). "McCain Facing 2010 Primary". http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/McCain_facing_2010_primary.html?showall.
[edit] External links
Border - Documentary film featuring Chris Simcox
The Right Perspective podcast interview
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Simcox"
Chris Simcox (born 1961) is the American co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) and the project's main spokesperson. He was formerly a kindergarten teacher at the Wildwood School in Los Angeles, California, where he taught for thirteen years. [1]
In October 2002, Simcox issued a public call to arms, inviting readers of his newspaper, the Tombstone Tumbleweed, to join a "Citizens Border Patrol Militia" whose function, Simcox said, would be to "shame the government into doing its job" of controlling the United States's border with Mexico.
He founded Civil Homeland Defense, a group which patrolled the border, and within the next two and a half years sought to assist the United States Border Patrol.
Simcox's practice of reporting illegal immigrants attempting to enter the country illegally has been controversial, and questions concerning its legality have been raised. When the Civil Homeland Defense was first formed, Simcox's opponents claimed that it is illegal for a normal citizen who is in no way affiliated with law enforcement to detain people in the United States. Simcox claimed at that time that these detentions were justified under a "citizen's arrest" policy.[2] Since the inception of the MCDC, however, their "Standard Operating Procedure" (SOP) states that "Minutemen Observe, Report, Record, and Direct Border Patrol or other appropriate emergency or law enforcement agencies to suspected Illegal Aliens or Illegal Activities."[3]
In December 2004, Simcox teamed with James Gilchrist to organize the Minuteman Project, which brought nationwide attention to the southern border. While some have accused the Minuteman members of being vigilantes, supporters claim that there has never been a case of a member of The Minuteman Project physically harming anyone.
Simcox was interviewed for the 2005 independent documentary Wetback: The Undocumented Documentary. Simcox also appeared in a 2006 documentary by Joseph Matthew and Dan DeVivo called "Crossing Arizona," and a 2007 documentary by Chris Burgard called "Border".
On April 21, 2006, Simcox sent a message to President George W. Bush asking him to send National Guard troops to guard the border or the "Minutemen" would begin construction of a wall along the border, built on private property.
Simcox has stated he does not receive a salary from Minutemen, and earns income via honoraria and fees received for speaking engagements. He claims to have sold his life story for a film that will soon go into production. [4]
Simcox is stepping down from MCDC to challenge in the 2010 Republican primary the renomination of U.S. Senator John S. McCain, III, of Arizona, the party's 2008 presidential nominee.[5]
[edit] References
^ Wagner, Dennis (2006-05-25). "Minuteman's goal: To shame feds into action". http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-24-minuteman-goals_x.htm.
^ Max Blumenthal, "Vigilante injustice", Salon, May 22, 2005. Accessed January 13, 2008.
^ "Standard Operating Procedure for Minuteman Civil Defense Corps", retrieved January 13, 2008.
^ Seper, Jerry (2006-07-20). "Minutemen not watching over funds". http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060719-091346-2988r.htm.
^ Smith, Ben (2009-04-21). "McCain Facing 2010 Primary". http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/McCain_facing_2010_primary.html?showall.
[edit] External links
Border - Documentary film featuring Chris Simcox
The Right Perspective podcast interview
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Simcox"
Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby gets a $25 Billion sweetheart deal?
Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby gets a $25 Billion sweetheart deal?
Senator's husband's firm cashes in on crisis
can he be charged with insider trading ?
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation
to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties
at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein
first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties
that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
Read the rate list for the FDIC contract from CB Richard Ellis,
the firm Sen. Feinstein's husband heads as board chairman. (downloads 4-page pdf)
Read the correspondence between Sen. Feinstein and FDIC chairman Sheila Bair
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
The FDIC contract "highlights the problem of a senator with a spouse
who has extensive business interests that intersect frequently with the federal government," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Even if there is no actual conflict of interest, it often has the appearance of a conflict."
A 'very sweet deal'?
Real estate specialists also question the government's generosity in the CBRE contract.
The firm, known for its commercial real estate services, is to be paid monthly maintenance fees for each foreclosed property it handles, as well as commissions and incentives. The total compensation can range from 8 percent of the sales price on many residential properties to 30 percent for properties worth $25,000 or less. A smaller firm also won a slice of the work with similar terms, records show.
Most real estate agents earn no more than 6 percent on residential, even on foreclosed properties, and
CBRE doesn't have as much experience in foreclosure sales as other firms, the experts said.
"From everything I know about it, it is a very sweet deal and went to somebody
who is less than qualified in dealing with foreclosed residential properties.
Their expertise is in commercial real estate," said Cynthia Kenner, a Colorado
real estate agent who specializes in selling bank-owned residential properties
and last year helped sell more than 600 foreclosed properties.
"There are companies that are more experienced in selling such properties than CB Richard Ellis," she added.
see source at ...........
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/
by Chuck Neubauer (Contact)
this has also been reported on by Glen Beck tv show and the Bill O'Reilly Factor
Richard Blum,Chuck Neubauer ,CB Richard Ellis,Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator's husband's firm cashes in on crisis
can he be charged with insider trading ?
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation
to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties
at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein
first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties
that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
Read the rate list for the FDIC contract from CB Richard Ellis,
the firm Sen. Feinstein's husband heads as board chairman. (downloads 4-page pdf)
Read the correspondence between Sen. Feinstein and FDIC chairman Sheila Bair
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
The FDIC contract "highlights the problem of a senator with a spouse
who has extensive business interests that intersect frequently with the federal government," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Even if there is no actual conflict of interest, it often has the appearance of a conflict."
A 'very sweet deal'?
Real estate specialists also question the government's generosity in the CBRE contract.
The firm, known for its commercial real estate services, is to be paid monthly maintenance fees for each foreclosed property it handles, as well as commissions and incentives. The total compensation can range from 8 percent of the sales price on many residential properties to 30 percent for properties worth $25,000 or less. A smaller firm also won a slice of the work with similar terms, records show.
Most real estate agents earn no more than 6 percent on residential, even on foreclosed properties, and
CBRE doesn't have as much experience in foreclosure sales as other firms, the experts said.
"From everything I know about it, it is a very sweet deal and went to somebody
who is less than qualified in dealing with foreclosed residential properties.
Their expertise is in commercial real estate," said Cynthia Kenner, a Colorado
real estate agent who specializes in selling bank-owned residential properties
and last year helped sell more than 600 foreclosed properties.
"There are companies that are more experienced in selling such properties than CB Richard Ellis," she added.
see source at ...........
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/
by Chuck Neubauer (Contact)
this has also been reported on by Glen Beck tv show and the Bill O'Reilly Factor
Richard Blum,Chuck Neubauer ,CB Richard Ellis,Senator Dianne Feinstein
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Chris Simcox vs Mccain in 2010 senate primary
Minuteman founder to run for Senate against McCain
PHOENIX --The founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is expected to announce his intentions to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona next year.
Chris Simcox is expected to make the announcement Wednesday. He already has a Web site promoting his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2010.
Simcox says on the site he represents conservative values and will always put the United States first.
Neither Simcox nor a McCain spokeswoman responded to calls for comment. McCain will be seeking his fifth term to the Senate.
Simcox's Web site says the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps patrols the U.S. southern border and reports illegal immigrants to authorities.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/21/minuteman_founder_to_run_for_senate_against_mccain/
PHOENIX --The founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is expected to announce his intentions to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona next year.
Chris Simcox is expected to make the announcement Wednesday. He already has a Web site promoting his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2010.
Simcox says on the site he represents conservative values and will always put the United States first.
Neither Simcox nor a McCain spokeswoman responded to calls for comment. McCain will be seeking his fifth term to the Senate.
Simcox's Web site says the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps patrols the U.S. southern border and reports illegal immigrants to authorities.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/21/minuteman_founder_to_run_for_senate_against_mccain/
looks like Mccain will have a real challenger for his 2010 senate
looks like Mccain will have a real challenger for his 2010 senate seat, new blood would be refreshing
www.mccainalert.com
www.mccainalert.com
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Texas considering secession ?
Democrats: Texas gov should disavow secession talk
AUSTIN, Texas – In a state that once was its own nation, a Republican governor who talked about secession without completely dismissing the idea has Democratic lawmakers in an uproar.
Gov. Rick Perry, in comments following an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday, never did advocate Texas breaking away from the United States but suggested that Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to leave the union. That was enough to feed opinions for and against secession on Web sites, cable TV and talk radio across the nation.
At the Texas Capitol on Thursday, Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, joined by several fellow Texas House Democrats, said some people associate talk of secession with racial division and the Civil War and that Perry should disavow any notion of seceding.
"Talk of secession is an attack on our country. It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement," Dunnam said at a news conference.
State Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, said that by not rejecting the possibility of secession out of hand, Perry "is taking a step down a very dangerous and divisive path encouraged by the fringe of Texas politics."
The Democrats are proposing a House resolution expressing "complete and total disagreement with any fringe element advocating the 'secession' of Texas or any other state from our one and indivisible Union."
Perry emphasized Thursday that he is not advocating secession but understands why Americans may have those feelings because of frustration with Washington, D.C. He said it's fine to express the thought. He offered no apology and did not back away from his earlier comments.
Perry's remarks Wednesday were in response to a question from The Associated Press as he walked away from the Austin rally, where some in the audience had shouted "Secede!" during his speech. The governor said he didn't think Texas should secede despite some chatter about it on the Internet and his name being associated with the idea.
"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot," Perry said Wednesday.
A day later, Perry said he found the fascination with the remark interesting.
"I refer people back to my statement and I got a charge out of it," he said. "I was kind of thinking that maybe the same people that hadn't been reading the Constitution right were reading that article and they got the wrong impression about what I said. Clearly I stated that we have a great union. Texas is part of a great union. And I see no reason for that to change."
Texas was a republic from 1836, when it declared independence from Mexico, to 1845, when it became a U.S. state.
Perry has been speaking out against the federal government lately over federal economic stimulus spending. He's also in a tough race for re-election against a fellow Republican, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom he is trying to portray as a Washington insider.
Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle criticized Dunnam, saying he was "trying to distract from the fact that yesterday thousands of Texans, including many in his own district, expressed their extreme displeasure at Washington's rampant taxation, big spending and bloated government."
Dunnam suggested Perry is positioning himself for his political future.
"We all knew he wanted to be president. I just didn't know it was president of the Republic of Texas," he said to chuckles from onlookers.
By KELLEY SHANNON,
Associated Press Writer
AUSTIN, Texas – In a state that once was its own nation, a Republican governor who talked about secession without completely dismissing the idea has Democratic lawmakers in an uproar.
Gov. Rick Perry, in comments following an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday, never did advocate Texas breaking away from the United States but suggested that Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to leave the union. That was enough to feed opinions for and against secession on Web sites, cable TV and talk radio across the nation.
At the Texas Capitol on Thursday, Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, joined by several fellow Texas House Democrats, said some people associate talk of secession with racial division and the Civil War and that Perry should disavow any notion of seceding.
"Talk of secession is an attack on our country. It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement," Dunnam said at a news conference.
State Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, said that by not rejecting the possibility of secession out of hand, Perry "is taking a step down a very dangerous and divisive path encouraged by the fringe of Texas politics."
The Democrats are proposing a House resolution expressing "complete and total disagreement with any fringe element advocating the 'secession' of Texas or any other state from our one and indivisible Union."
Perry emphasized Thursday that he is not advocating secession but understands why Americans may have those feelings because of frustration with Washington, D.C. He said it's fine to express the thought. He offered no apology and did not back away from his earlier comments.
Perry's remarks Wednesday were in response to a question from The Associated Press as he walked away from the Austin rally, where some in the audience had shouted "Secede!" during his speech. The governor said he didn't think Texas should secede despite some chatter about it on the Internet and his name being associated with the idea.
"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot," Perry said Wednesday.
A day later, Perry said he found the fascination with the remark interesting.
"I refer people back to my statement and I got a charge out of it," he said. "I was kind of thinking that maybe the same people that hadn't been reading the Constitution right were reading that article and they got the wrong impression about what I said. Clearly I stated that we have a great union. Texas is part of a great union. And I see no reason for that to change."
Texas was a republic from 1836, when it declared independence from Mexico, to 1845, when it became a U.S. state.
Perry has been speaking out against the federal government lately over federal economic stimulus spending. He's also in a tough race for re-election against a fellow Republican, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom he is trying to portray as a Washington insider.
Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle criticized Dunnam, saying he was "trying to distract from the fact that yesterday thousands of Texans, including many in his own district, expressed their extreme displeasure at Washington's rampant taxation, big spending and bloated government."
Dunnam suggested Perry is positioning himself for his political future.
"We all knew he wanted to be president. I just didn't know it was president of the Republic of Texas," he said to chuckles from onlookers.
By KELLEY SHANNON,
Associated Press Writer
Saturday, April 04, 2009
OBAMA, GM: YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT
OBAMA, GM: YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT
By DICK MORRIS
GM, now renamed Government Motors, has a new CEO:
President Barack Obama.
By replacing the head of the company and demanding a restructuring of its board in return for further TARP aid, Obama has taken upon himself the responsibility for the future of the company. As Gen. Colin Powell said when Bush was considering invading Iraq and toppling the Saddam Hussein government there: "If you break it, you own it." Now it is Obama's company.
This move will backfire big time! The auto giant is very, very unlikely to be saved by this current TARP infusion. Doubtless it will need more in the near term. But the resentment now focused on the management of the company will then turn to Obama. Having demanded a replacement of the management, it is he who will be held responsible for the company's future.
And each time GM asks for more money, Obama will face a choice: take personal responsibility for laying off 100,000 auto workers or anteing up the additional cash. By inserting himself so deeply into the management of the company, Obama makes himself central to its future. If Obama lets the company fail, having already extended credit, he will have all of Michigan on his case. If he keeps coming up with more and more tax money, he will earn the contempt of the voters.
Socialism has its price. By taking over the management of a company, you become the determinant of its fate in the public's mind.
Obama does not seem to realize that government takeover is the beginning, not the end, of the problem. He should have stuck with being president and left making cars to others.
And, as the new CEO of General Motors, what will his policy be on corporate compensation? Will the public tolerate his letting his new company pay salaries sufficient to attract the talent necessary to salvaging the firm? Or will he have to rely on a bunch of kids right out of school, willing to work for one or two hundred thousand a year, for the company's salvation?
When it comes to the hard work of cutting retiree health benefits, reducing salaries, laying off workers and closing plants, is Obama willing to resist calls for his intervention? Is he up for taking the blame for all the "heartless" measures GM will have to take to salvage its future? He has put himself squarely in a position to pay a steep political price for his assumption of power at GM.
Most troubling is the sense that Obama cannot have thought this through. He can't have planned this. President Clinton used to say at strategy meetings that we needed to think three or four moves ahead and not just "kick the can down the road." Obama is clearly not following his predecessor's advice. He realized GM needed money. He knew the public would have a fit if he gave it. So he decided that he would appease his electorate by exacting blood from the company's management and directors by using his guillotine on some of its old gray heads.
But, had he thought before he acted, he would have realized that it would have been far better to have criticized GM from a distance even as he extended more money -- rather than to, in effect, take over the company.
The president's protestations that the government does not want to own a car company are quite beside the point. It's his now, and he better figure out what to do with it.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2009. REPRINTS WITH PERMISSION ONLY***
By DICK MORRIS
GM, now renamed Government Motors, has a new CEO:
President Barack Obama.
By replacing the head of the company and demanding a restructuring of its board in return for further TARP aid, Obama has taken upon himself the responsibility for the future of the company. As Gen. Colin Powell said when Bush was considering invading Iraq and toppling the Saddam Hussein government there: "If you break it, you own it." Now it is Obama's company.
This move will backfire big time! The auto giant is very, very unlikely to be saved by this current TARP infusion. Doubtless it will need more in the near term. But the resentment now focused on the management of the company will then turn to Obama. Having demanded a replacement of the management, it is he who will be held responsible for the company's future.
And each time GM asks for more money, Obama will face a choice: take personal responsibility for laying off 100,000 auto workers or anteing up the additional cash. By inserting himself so deeply into the management of the company, Obama makes himself central to its future. If Obama lets the company fail, having already extended credit, he will have all of Michigan on his case. If he keeps coming up with more and more tax money, he will earn the contempt of the voters.
Socialism has its price. By taking over the management of a company, you become the determinant of its fate in the public's mind.
Obama does not seem to realize that government takeover is the beginning, not the end, of the problem. He should have stuck with being president and left making cars to others.
And, as the new CEO of General Motors, what will his policy be on corporate compensation? Will the public tolerate his letting his new company pay salaries sufficient to attract the talent necessary to salvaging the firm? Or will he have to rely on a bunch of kids right out of school, willing to work for one or two hundred thousand a year, for the company's salvation?
When it comes to the hard work of cutting retiree health benefits, reducing salaries, laying off workers and closing plants, is Obama willing to resist calls for his intervention? Is he up for taking the blame for all the "heartless" measures GM will have to take to salvage its future? He has put himself squarely in a position to pay a steep political price for his assumption of power at GM.
Most troubling is the sense that Obama cannot have thought this through. He can't have planned this. President Clinton used to say at strategy meetings that we needed to think three or four moves ahead and not just "kick the can down the road." Obama is clearly not following his predecessor's advice. He realized GM needed money. He knew the public would have a fit if he gave it. So he decided that he would appease his electorate by exacting blood from the company's management and directors by using his guillotine on some of its old gray heads.
But, had he thought before he acted, he would have realized that it would have been far better to have criticized GM from a distance even as he extended more money -- rather than to, in effect, take over the company.
The president's protestations that the government does not want to own a car company are quite beside the point. It's his now, and he better figure out what to do with it.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2009. REPRINTS WITH PERMISSION ONLY***
Friday, April 03, 2009
The Coming Depressflation and YOUR Money
The Coming "Depressflation"...And YOUR Money
Dear Fellow American,
Have you ever heard of a "depressflation"?
No surprise if you haven't. It's a term I coined myself, to describe the imminent -- and inevitable -- result of the Democrats' plans for "rescuing" the economy.
Think 1970s-style "stagflation" but much, much worse: massive inflation, even hyperinflation, together with Depression-like economic stagnation. A depressflation.
Why is this inevitable? Because with a bi-partisan consensus that deficits are vital in fighting the crisis (or easing the pain) there is no constraint on Obama and his party. The sky is the limit on spending, to the tune of a trillion-plus dollars over the next two years alone.
And there are only two ways to pay for it: (1) printing more money, which causes inflation, and (2) hiking taxes, which kills investment, businesses and jobs.
Then the question will be: When will we realize that government intervention is magnifying, not solving the problems that caused the crisis? When will the patience of the public with Obama's remedies run out?
My guess is that it won't be until 2012 -- or after.
In the meantime, however, there are ways to protect yourself and your family from the coming "depressflation."
It's crucial to understand: Hard times for America does not necessarily mean hard times for you. As a very wise investment expert of my acquaintance, Nicholas Vardy, likes to say, "No matter what the state of financial markets, there is always a strategy out there that can make you money."
The key, Vardy explains, is to recognize opportunities wherever they may be and, more importantly, detach yourself from old investment themes that no longer work.
Vardy himself, an American based in London, is a master at crafting such cutting-edge investment strategies -- which he then passes on to subscribers to his Global Stock Investor investment newsletter.
So, for instance, back in mid-2007 Vardy was months ahead of the curve in spotting the coming boom in "soft" (agricultural) commodities -- recommending stocks like Canadian fertilizer giant Potash, which shot up quickly in price before coming back down to earth, by which time his subscribers had safely banked profits of 82% in just over three months time.
And that's nothing compared to the magic Vardy performed for his subscribers during these past few months, now on record as some of the worst in Wall Street history.
Consider this: Since October 2008, which wiped out close to $7 trillion in shareholder wealth, Vardy's Global Stock Investor portfolio's open positions are up as much as 11%.
Compared to the 7% decline in the Dow during the same time, that's incredible.
How does Nicholas Vardy do it? If I knew, I'd be in his business, not mine. But I'm sure those countless hours he spends sharing investment ideas with Europe's top money managers has something to do with it -- not to mention his graduate degrees from Stanford and Harvard.
Don't get me wrong: Nicholas Vardy is no elitist snob. Though he makes his "real" money managing money for a few wealthy clients, he also likes to "spread the wealth" -- not through higher taxes (sorry, Obama), but by helping people like you and me make profitable investments.
Full disclosure: I receive a percentage of each subscription sold, but even if I didn't, I'd want you to know about this amazing service. Nicholas' advice is rock solid. If you check into it, you'll thank me later.
Let's face it, the next few years will be tough ones for America. But, to repeat, they don't have to be tough ones for you -- if you find and follow sound investment advice like the brilliant investment strategies in Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor. I urge you to give it a try.
Dear Fellow American,
Have you ever heard of a "depressflation"?
No surprise if you haven't. It's a term I coined myself, to describe the imminent -- and inevitable -- result of the Democrats' plans for "rescuing" the economy.
Think 1970s-style "stagflation" but much, much worse: massive inflation, even hyperinflation, together with Depression-like economic stagnation. A depressflation.
Why is this inevitable? Because with a bi-partisan consensus that deficits are vital in fighting the crisis (or easing the pain) there is no constraint on Obama and his party. The sky is the limit on spending, to the tune of a trillion-plus dollars over the next two years alone.
And there are only two ways to pay for it: (1) printing more money, which causes inflation, and (2) hiking taxes, which kills investment, businesses and jobs.
Then the question will be: When will we realize that government intervention is magnifying, not solving the problems that caused the crisis? When will the patience of the public with Obama's remedies run out?
My guess is that it won't be until 2012 -- or after.
In the meantime, however, there are ways to protect yourself and your family from the coming "depressflation."
It's crucial to understand: Hard times for America does not necessarily mean hard times for you. As a very wise investment expert of my acquaintance, Nicholas Vardy, likes to say, "No matter what the state of financial markets, there is always a strategy out there that can make you money."
The key, Vardy explains, is to recognize opportunities wherever they may be and, more importantly, detach yourself from old investment themes that no longer work.
Vardy himself, an American based in London, is a master at crafting such cutting-edge investment strategies -- which he then passes on to subscribers to his Global Stock Investor investment newsletter.
So, for instance, back in mid-2007 Vardy was months ahead of the curve in spotting the coming boom in "soft" (agricultural) commodities -- recommending stocks like Canadian fertilizer giant Potash, which shot up quickly in price before coming back down to earth, by which time his subscribers had safely banked profits of 82% in just over three months time.
And that's nothing compared to the magic Vardy performed for his subscribers during these past few months, now on record as some of the worst in Wall Street history.
Consider this: Since October 2008, which wiped out close to $7 trillion in shareholder wealth, Vardy's Global Stock Investor portfolio's open positions are up as much as 11%.
Compared to the 7% decline in the Dow during the same time, that's incredible.
How does Nicholas Vardy do it? If I knew, I'd be in his business, not mine. But I'm sure those countless hours he spends sharing investment ideas with Europe's top money managers has something to do with it -- not to mention his graduate degrees from Stanford and Harvard.
Don't get me wrong: Nicholas Vardy is no elitist snob. Though he makes his "real" money managing money for a few wealthy clients, he also likes to "spread the wealth" -- not through higher taxes (sorry, Obama), but by helping people like you and me make profitable investments.
Full disclosure: I receive a percentage of each subscription sold, but even if I didn't, I'd want you to know about this amazing service. Nicholas' advice is rock solid. If you check into it, you'll thank me later.
Let's face it, the next few years will be tough ones for America. But, to repeat, they don't have to be tough ones for you -- if you find and follow sound investment advice like the brilliant investment strategies in Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor. I urge you to give it a try.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Obama's CAP and Tax plan, smells like trickle down taxation
Obama's CAP and Tax plan, smells like trickle down taxation
Obama's CAP and Tax plan, smells like trickle down taxation for all Americans.
Any taxes / limits placed on utilities /business will definitely passed on to all consumers. Public utilities will merely add this proposed cost on your next utility bill.
Another negative, business may look outside the USA for expansion,
rather than dealing with this energy burden problem.
when the smoke does settles, who do you think will wind up paying this indirect tax?
Obama's CAP and Tax plan, smells like trickle down taxation for all Americans.
Any taxes / limits placed on utilities /business will definitely passed on to all consumers. Public utilities will merely add this proposed cost on your next utility bill.
Another negative, business may look outside the USA for expansion,
rather than dealing with this energy burden problem.
when the smoke does settles, who do you think will wind up paying this indirect tax?
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Congress gives bonuses(your tax $$$) to thier staff
Congress gives bonuses(your tax $$$) to thier staff
Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses
By BRODY MULLINS and LOUISE RADNOFSKY
WASHINGTON -- While Congress has been flaying companies for giving out bonuses while on the government dole, lawmakers have a longstanding tradition of rewarding their own employees with extra cash -- also courtesy of taxpayers.
Capitol Hill bonuses in 2008 were among the highest in years, according to LegiStorm, an organization that tracks payroll data. The average House aide earned 17% more in the fourth quarter of the year, when the bonuses were paid, than in previous quarters, according to the data. That was the highest jump in the eight years LegiStorm has compiled payroll information.
Total end-of-year bonuses paid to congressional staffers are tiny compared with the $165 million recently showered on executives of American International Group Inc., which is being propped up by billions of dollars of U.S. government subsidies. But Capitol Hill bonuses provide a notable counterpoint to the populist rhetoric and sound bites emanating from Washington these past weeks.
Last year alone, more than 200 House lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, awarded bonuses totaling $9.1 million to more than 2,000 staff members, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of office-disbursement forms. The money comes out of taxpayer-funded office budgets, and is surplus cash that would otherwise be forfeited if not spent.
Payments ranged from a few hundred dollars to $14,000. Lawmakers, at their own discretion, gave the money to chiefs of staff, assistants, computer technicians, and more than 100 aides who earned salaries of more than $100,000 a year.
This has gone on for many years. There is no prohibition against handing out excess cash. The lawmakers say it is a nice incentive to get staff to conserve budgets, and it rewards hard work and long hours.
"Most aides could make more money elsewhere, but choose to work on Capitol Hill because they believe in public service," said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who along with other top House leaders awarded bonuses. (Senators also give bonuses, but documents showing those payments aren't yet available.) Mr. Daly said bonuses are a small perk for underpaid government employees.
Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses
By BRODY MULLINS and LOUISE RADNOFSKY
WASHINGTON -- While Congress has been flaying companies for giving out bonuses while on the government dole, lawmakers have a longstanding tradition of rewarding their own employees with extra cash -- also courtesy of taxpayers.
Capitol Hill bonuses in 2008 were among the highest in years, according to LegiStorm, an organization that tracks payroll data. The average House aide earned 17% more in the fourth quarter of the year, when the bonuses were paid, than in previous quarters, according to the data. That was the highest jump in the eight years LegiStorm has compiled payroll information.
Total end-of-year bonuses paid to congressional staffers are tiny compared with the $165 million recently showered on executives of American International Group Inc., which is being propped up by billions of dollars of U.S. government subsidies. But Capitol Hill bonuses provide a notable counterpoint to the populist rhetoric and sound bites emanating from Washington these past weeks.
Last year alone, more than 200 House lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, awarded bonuses totaling $9.1 million to more than 2,000 staff members, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of office-disbursement forms. The money comes out of taxpayer-funded office budgets, and is surplus cash that would otherwise be forfeited if not spent.
Payments ranged from a few hundred dollars to $14,000. Lawmakers, at their own discretion, gave the money to chiefs of staff, assistants, computer technicians, and more than 100 aides who earned salaries of more than $100,000 a year.
This has gone on for many years. There is no prohibition against handing out excess cash. The lawmakers say it is a nice incentive to get staff to conserve budgets, and it rewards hard work and long hours.
"Most aides could make more money elsewhere, but choose to work on Capitol Hill because they believe in public service," said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who along with other top House leaders awarded bonuses. (Senators also give bonuses, but documents showing those payments aren't yet available.) Mr. Daly said bonuses are a small perk for underpaid government employees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)