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***
Saturday, April 04, 2009
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.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Polls Reaffirm Americans Support Immigration Enforcement
Polls Reaffirm Americans Support Immigration Enforcement
Three polls released last week by Rasmussen Reports reaffirm what true immigration reformers have known for years: the American public overwhelmingly supports enhanced border security and strengthened interior enforcement of our immigration laws. The results of these polls further undermine the arguments of amnesty advocates who claim that the American people want "comprehensive" immigration reform.
The first Rasmussen poll, released March 16th, focused on border security. According to the poll, 79% of voters support using troops on the U.S.-Mexico border to protect Americans from drug-related violence. The 79% figure marked a 21% jump in support for the use of the U.S. military along the border in just two months. Only 10% of U.S. voters oppose putting U.S. troops on the border to fight drug violence, while 11% say they are unsure. Strong support for placing U.S. troops on the border may stem from the fact that 82% of U.S. voters are concerned that Mexican drug violence will spill over into the United States, including 50% who say that they are very concerned. The poll also found that more than six in ten Americans say that the Department of Homeland Security should continue to build a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. (Rasmussen Reports, March 16, 2009). The release of the poll came just days after President Obama and other members of his administration expressed reluctance to deploy members of the National Guard to the border. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, March 16, 2009).
The second Rasmussen poll, released March 17, highlighted strong support for local law enforcement of immigration laws. According to the poll, 73% of voters say that police officers should automatically check to see if someone is in the country legally when the officer pulls that person over for a traffic violation, while only 21% disagree. Furthermore, 67% of voters say that if law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, they should conduct surprise raids to identify and deport illegal aliens. (Rasmussen Reports, March 17, 2009). The poll's findings came less than two weeks after House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) questioned the success of the 287(g) program - which allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enter into agreements to train state and local law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, March 9, 2009).
A third Rasmussen poll, released March 18, shows that nearly seven in ten voters support strict government sanctions on employers who hire illegal aliens. Only 22% say that employers should not be punished, while another 10% are not sure. Nearly half of U.S. voters support sanctions for landlords who rent or sell property to illegal aliens, while 36% are opposed to such penalties. (Rasmussen Reports, March 18, 2009). These findings came just eight days after the Senate voted to kill an amendment offered by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 1105) that would have reauthorized the E-Verify program - which prevents employers from hiring illegal aliens in the first place - through September 2014. (See FAIR's Action Alert, March 10, 2009).
Three polls released last week by Rasmussen Reports reaffirm what true immigration reformers have known for years: the American public overwhelmingly supports enhanced border security and strengthened interior enforcement of our immigration laws. The results of these polls further undermine the arguments of amnesty advocates who claim that the American people want "comprehensive" immigration reform.
The first Rasmussen poll, released March 16th, focused on border security. According to the poll, 79% of voters support using troops on the U.S.-Mexico border to protect Americans from drug-related violence. The 79% figure marked a 21% jump in support for the use of the U.S. military along the border in just two months. Only 10% of U.S. voters oppose putting U.S. troops on the border to fight drug violence, while 11% say they are unsure. Strong support for placing U.S. troops on the border may stem from the fact that 82% of U.S. voters are concerned that Mexican drug violence will spill over into the United States, including 50% who say that they are very concerned. The poll also found that more than six in ten Americans say that the Department of Homeland Security should continue to build a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. (Rasmussen Reports, March 16, 2009). The release of the poll came just days after President Obama and other members of his administration expressed reluctance to deploy members of the National Guard to the border. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, March 16, 2009).
The second Rasmussen poll, released March 17, highlighted strong support for local law enforcement of immigration laws. According to the poll, 73% of voters say that police officers should automatically check to see if someone is in the country legally when the officer pulls that person over for a traffic violation, while only 21% disagree. Furthermore, 67% of voters say that if law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, they should conduct surprise raids to identify and deport illegal aliens. (Rasmussen Reports, March 17, 2009). The poll's findings came less than two weeks after House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) questioned the success of the 287(g) program - which allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enter into agreements to train state and local law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, March 9, 2009).
A third Rasmussen poll, released March 18, shows that nearly seven in ten voters support strict government sanctions on employers who hire illegal aliens. Only 22% say that employers should not be punished, while another 10% are not sure. Nearly half of U.S. voters support sanctions for landlords who rent or sell property to illegal aliens, while 36% are opposed to such penalties. (Rasmussen Reports, March 18, 2009). These findings came just eight days after the Senate voted to kill an amendment offered by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 1105) that would have reauthorized the E-Verify program - which prevents employers from hiring illegal aliens in the first place - through September 2014. (See FAIR's Action Alert, March 10, 2009).
OBAMA'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU
OBAMA'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU
By DICK MORRIS
Does President Obama truly believe that he can castigate and condemn Wall Street on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and then secure its cooperation on the other days of the week?
Does he not understand that when he ignites a public furor over AIG bonuses and then incites Congress to pass a punitive tax, he sends shivers down the spines of every other corporate executive who makes a lot of money?
Does he seriously believe that Wall Street investors will not worry that their winnings, should they join the Treasury as partners in risky investments, would be subject to public abuse, publicity and confiscatory taxation?
Of course he realizes that his rhetoric makes it unlikely that his program will succeed. He obviously gets it that the entire concept of a public-private partnership is impossible amid a climate of waging class warfare, taxing the rich and heaping contempt on anyone who makes money. The president is quite bright and certainly understands that you cannot shake hands with your right while you launch a roundhouse with your left.
So why does Obama persist in his aggressive rhetoric? Why does he continue to treat Wall Street as something out of Dante's Inferno?
Because he's just not that into you! He doesn't really care if the public-private partnerships work out.
He sends Geithner out to announce the program because he doesn't want to make it his own. When he announces a stimulus plan or a new spending bill, it's Obama's moment before the teleprompter. But the public-private partnerships he leaves to his Treasury secretary to announce.
The most rational explanation for Obama's puzzling conduct -- sabotaging his own program by way of his own rhetoric -- is that he truly wants to be forced to nationalize the banks in pursuit of his ultimate goal of a socialist economy.
Obama has to oppose nationalization today in order to achieve it tomorrow. He has to show the country and the world that he is doing all he can to help the private sector to sort things out with government help. He must ostentatiously invite the hated demons of Wall Street to join him in rescuing the banks in order, later, to say that he did his best to avoid having to take over the banks. Only then will nationalization be an acceptable alternative -- when he has run out of other options.
Meanwhile, he makes sure the private sector won't play ball by going after their bonuses, sending an implicit message to the other executives on Wall Street that reads: Stay away.
Even when he takes over the banks, as he almost inevitably will, he is going to have to dress up the nationalization as a temporary measure forced on him by the economy and the previously unrealized depth of the problem. He will cite the example of Sweden, where the government nationalized the banks only temporarily and returned them to private hands quickly.
You can't be for nationalization. But Obama hopes to accomplish it nonetheless.
Already, in the TARP and TALF programs, we can see how eager he is to use government power to manipulate the once-private sector. Consider the mandates piling up on any financial institution that takes government funds: limits on executive pay, corporate travel and conferences; a strong Buy American recommendation; and aggressive action to get them to make consumer loans. Can affirmative action, low-income lending and diversity outreach be far behind?
If Obama can bring banks and the healthcare industry under government control, we will have de facto socialism. Is this Obama's goal? It is obviously where he is headed.
Is Obama a socialist? Rather than throw around labels, let's do the math. The best measure of whether an economy is government- or private sector-oriented is the percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) that flows through government expenditure. Before the current fiscal crisis, the major nations stacked up as shown in the chart on page 27.
Obama's stimulus package, alone, comes to about 6 percent of GDP, vaulting the United States past Japan to 40 percent on the list above. If we add in the extra spending in the supplemental appropriations bill and the likely increases for healthcare, the total government percentage will rise well past 40 percent and probably close in on the United Kingdom's 43.
That's pretty socialistic, but Obama has three more years to get us up around Germany and really ruin our economy!
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!
By DICK MORRIS
Does President Obama truly believe that he can castigate and condemn Wall Street on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and then secure its cooperation on the other days of the week?
Does he not understand that when he ignites a public furor over AIG bonuses and then incites Congress to pass a punitive tax, he sends shivers down the spines of every other corporate executive who makes a lot of money?
Does he seriously believe that Wall Street investors will not worry that their winnings, should they join the Treasury as partners in risky investments, would be subject to public abuse, publicity and confiscatory taxation?
Of course he realizes that his rhetoric makes it unlikely that his program will succeed. He obviously gets it that the entire concept of a public-private partnership is impossible amid a climate of waging class warfare, taxing the rich and heaping contempt on anyone who makes money. The president is quite bright and certainly understands that you cannot shake hands with your right while you launch a roundhouse with your left.
So why does Obama persist in his aggressive rhetoric? Why does he continue to treat Wall Street as something out of Dante's Inferno?
Because he's just not that into you! He doesn't really care if the public-private partnerships work out.
He sends Geithner out to announce the program because he doesn't want to make it his own. When he announces a stimulus plan or a new spending bill, it's Obama's moment before the teleprompter. But the public-private partnerships he leaves to his Treasury secretary to announce.
The most rational explanation for Obama's puzzling conduct -- sabotaging his own program by way of his own rhetoric -- is that he truly wants to be forced to nationalize the banks in pursuit of his ultimate goal of a socialist economy.
Obama has to oppose nationalization today in order to achieve it tomorrow. He has to show the country and the world that he is doing all he can to help the private sector to sort things out with government help. He must ostentatiously invite the hated demons of Wall Street to join him in rescuing the banks in order, later, to say that he did his best to avoid having to take over the banks. Only then will nationalization be an acceptable alternative -- when he has run out of other options.
Meanwhile, he makes sure the private sector won't play ball by going after their bonuses, sending an implicit message to the other executives on Wall Street that reads: Stay away.
Even when he takes over the banks, as he almost inevitably will, he is going to have to dress up the nationalization as a temporary measure forced on him by the economy and the previously unrealized depth of the problem. He will cite the example of Sweden, where the government nationalized the banks only temporarily and returned them to private hands quickly.
You can't be for nationalization. But Obama hopes to accomplish it nonetheless.
Already, in the TARP and TALF programs, we can see how eager he is to use government power to manipulate the once-private sector. Consider the mandates piling up on any financial institution that takes government funds: limits on executive pay, corporate travel and conferences; a strong Buy American recommendation; and aggressive action to get them to make consumer loans. Can affirmative action, low-income lending and diversity outreach be far behind?
If Obama can bring banks and the healthcare industry under government control, we will have de facto socialism. Is this Obama's goal? It is obviously where he is headed.
Is Obama a socialist? Rather than throw around labels, let's do the math. The best measure of whether an economy is government- or private sector-oriented is the percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) that flows through government expenditure. Before the current fiscal crisis, the major nations stacked up as shown in the chart on page 27.
Obama's stimulus package, alone, comes to about 6 percent of GDP, vaulting the United States past Japan to 40 percent on the list above. If we add in the extra spending in the supplemental appropriations bill and the likely increases for healthcare, the total government percentage will rise well past 40 percent and probably close in on the United Kingdom's 43.
That's pretty socialistic, but Obama has three more years to get us up around Germany and really ruin our economy!
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Dick Morris: MARK LEVIN'S TIMELY REMINDER
MARK LEVIN'S TIMELY REMINDER
By Dick Morris
In more normal times, we would not need Mark R. Levin's treatise Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. We would know which side to be on and the points in his Manifesto would be, well, manifest.
But in this day, when a socialist sits in the White House, committed to expanding what Levin calls the "soft tyranny" of government regulation to every aspect of our economic and corporate life, we all need to read and remember what Levin writes in his new book.
Levin defines, again for us, what it means to be free and in the private sector. Why do we need this reminder? Don't we all remember from the Reagan days?
But the more you read Levin's remarkable book, the more you realize how we have all been lured into socialism, how much we have already surrendered. Liberty and Tyranny makes us understand who we are, where we want to go, and what the detours we must eschew along the way are.
He begins by eloquently defining what it means to be for us to live in civil society as free people:
"...the individual in civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous - that is restrained, ethical, and honorable. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust and means and ends."
The very comprehensiveness of Levin's book reminds us of the broad offensive of the Obama Administration. It aims not simply to expand government, but to contract our freedom. Levin spells out how. Freedoms we take for granted - like being able to provide medical care for your family - are at risk in this new socialist regime we have elected.
The leading contribution of the Levin book is to define and explain "soft tyranny." It is soft tyranny that requires us to sit by passively while our ethic of cultural assimilation is replaced by a permanent enshrining of diversity. It bids we let our rights to our own property, that we have worked for and acquired, be sublimated to government power disguised as human rights. It asks that we elevate the demand for equality over that for economic initiative and the incentives which propel them. Soft tyranny wants us to wait on a global consensus to act, even when inaction leads to genocide in Bosnia, homicide in Iraq and nuclear armaments in Iran.
But there are no posters for socialism. It advances masked. Its soft tyranny is presaged by a20softer seduction as its coils tight around us. Mark Levin's book explains what the soft tyrants are trying to do and how we can fight back.
One would wish we didn't need such a book at this time. But we do!
Get Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Tyranny-Conservative-Mark-Levin/dp/1416562850
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
By Dick Morris
In more normal times, we would not need Mark R. Levin's treatise Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. We would know which side to be on and the points in his Manifesto would be, well, manifest.
But in this day, when a socialist sits in the White House, committed to expanding what Levin calls the "soft tyranny" of government regulation to every aspect of our economic and corporate life, we all need to read and remember what Levin writes in his new book.
Levin defines, again for us, what it means to be free and in the private sector. Why do we need this reminder? Don't we all remember from the Reagan days?
But the more you read Levin's remarkable book, the more you realize how we have all been lured into socialism, how much we have already surrendered. Liberty and Tyranny makes us understand who we are, where we want to go, and what the detours we must eschew along the way are.
He begins by eloquently defining what it means to be for us to live in civil society as free people:
"...the individual in civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous - that is restrained, ethical, and honorable. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust and means and ends."
The very comprehensiveness of Levin's book reminds us of the broad offensive of the Obama Administration. It aims not simply to expand government, but to contract our freedom. Levin spells out how. Freedoms we take for granted - like being able to provide medical care for your family - are at risk in this new socialist regime we have elected.
The leading contribution of the Levin book is to define and explain "soft tyranny." It is soft tyranny that requires us to sit by passively while our ethic of cultural assimilation is replaced by a permanent enshrining of diversity. It bids we let our rights to our own property, that we have worked for and acquired, be sublimated to government power disguised as human rights. It asks that we elevate the demand for equality over that for economic initiative and the incentives which propel them. Soft tyranny wants us to wait on a global consensus to act, even when inaction leads to genocide in Bosnia, homicide in Iraq and nuclear armaments in Iran.
But there are no posters for socialism. It advances masked. Its soft tyranny is presaged by a20softer seduction as its coils tight around us. Mark Levin's book explains what the soft tyrants are trying to do and how we can fight back.
One would wish we didn't need such a book at this time. But we do!
Get Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Tyranny-Conservative-Mark-Levin/dp/1416562850
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Monday, March 23, 2009
AIG gave $99K to Senator John Mccain ?
AIG gave $99K to Senator John McCain ?
looks like senator John McCain is in the top 5 recipient of cash from AIG,
will he return it.
click here to email McCain and express your opinion
looks like senator John McCain is in the top 5 recipient of cash from AIG,
will he return it.
click here to email McCain and express your opinion
Sunday, March 22, 2009
will Senator Chris Dodd get a rentention bonus in 2010 or the boot in 2010 election?
will Senator Chris Dodd get a rentention bonus in 2010 or the boot in 2010 election?
Saturday, March 21, 2009
that shithead Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut
that shithead Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut
Jay Leno even mention Chris Dodd got over $100k from AIG, this was not a joke.
Over the years, Dodd has been the top recipient of campaign contributions from AIG employees. During 2007-2008, when he ran for president, he received nearly $104,000 from AIG employees and their families, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that monitors money in politics.
Jay Leno even mention Chris Dodd got over $100k from AIG, this was not a joke.
Over the years, Dodd has been the top recipient of campaign contributions from AIG employees. During 2007-2008, when he ran for president, he received nearly $104,000 from AIG employees and their families, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that monitors money in politics.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Shithead senator Chris Dodd top recipient of campaign cash from AIG
Senator Chris Dodd getting rebates from AIG ?
Some of the worst blows came amid the furor over $165 million in bonuses American International Group Inc. paid some of its employees while receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout money.
After first denying it, Dodd admitted he agreed to a request by Treasury Department officials to dilute an executive bonus restriction in the big economic stimulus bill that Congress passed last month. The change to Dodd's amendment allowed AIG to hand out the bonuses and sparked a blame game between Dodd and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Dodd was guarded Thursday when asked about Geithner.
"This is obviously a matter that obviously should have been dealt with differently, but we are where we are," he said.
Republicans branded Dodd's reversal "astonishing and alarming" and fingered Dodd as the top recipient of campaign cash from AIG employees over the years.
Some of the worst blows came amid the furor over $165 million in bonuses American International Group Inc. paid some of its employees while receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout money.
After first denying it, Dodd admitted he agreed to a request by Treasury Department officials to dilute an executive bonus restriction in the big economic stimulus bill that Congress passed last month. The change to Dodd's amendment allowed AIG to hand out the bonuses and sparked a blame game between Dodd and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Dodd was guarded Thursday when asked about Geithner.
"This is obviously a matter that obviously should have been dealt with differently, but we are where we are," he said.
Republicans branded Dodd's reversal "astonishing and alarming" and fingered Dodd as the top recipient of campaign cash from AIG employees over the years.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
OBAMA FEELS HEAT IN POLLS
OBAMA FEELS HEAT IN POLLS
By DICK MORRIS
Published on March 17, 2009
He may not be paying much attention to the stock market, where $11 trillion of pensions, investments and 401(k)s have been destroyed, but you can be sure that President Obama is paying attention to the polls showing diminishing support for his policies.
Of course, in presidential polling, all numbers are not equally important. Obama got 52 percent of the national vote. So when his approval drops, as it has, from 65 percent on Inauguration Day to 56 percent now (according to Rasmussen), he is playing with house money. Most of those who are coming to negative conclusions about his administration didn't vote for him in the first place.
But there are ominous signs in the data.
So far, Obama's administration has been characterized by two main programs: the stimulus spending and bank bailouts. But the polls indicate problems with each pillar of his package.
The public generally approves of his stimulus proposals. CNN found that voters approved of his economic program in general by 59-40, while Pew Research discovered that they backed his stimulus program specifically by 56-35.
But the problem is that voters don't think the stimulus package will work. CNN's poll, while showing broad approval of his programs, also found that voters did not believe his economic proposals would work, by 22-64. In fact, the CBS survey data indicates that 48 percent feel that the "economy would improve without government intervention," while only 41 percent agreed that intervention was "necessary."
If voters approve of the stimulus program, even while they are pessimistic about its impact and question its necessity, they are downright hostile to the bank bailouts. CBS found that they disapproved of the bailouts by 37-53 and noted that "48 percent are mostly resentful toward Obama's policies toward banks and financial institutions." While Pew found 48-40 approval of the bailouts, it also noted that 87 percent are "bothered by the bank bailout."
So Obama has one program that is popular but won't work and another that is downright unpopular.
And his presidency is dependent on how they work out.
Clinton could sustain his presidency with small-bore initiatives. But Obama can't. Stem cell research is well and good, but it's not the central concern of the nation at the moment.
Some news organizations like to compare how Obama is doing with how other presidents fared. Specifically, at this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush was at 58 percent approval while Clinton stood at 53 percent. By that measurement, Obama's 56 percent would seem in the normal range.
But Clinton won with only 42 percent of the vote in 1992, and Bush got 49 percent. Obama, of course, won 52 percent of the vote. So here's how the vote-to-popularity ratio stacks up:
• Clinton: Vote 42%; Job Approval 53%; Difference +11%
• W. Bush: Vote 49%; Job Approval 58%; Difference + 9%
• Obama: Vote 52%; Job Approval 56%; Difference + 4%
...not very good.
And let's remember that Clinton lost control of Congress in 1994 while Bush's presidency -- heading downward -- was saved by his excellent response to Sept. 11.
But presidential popularity is not going to be the key determinant of Obama's political success or failure. The unemployment rate is going to fill the role of political harbinger. And that front is unlikely to be favorable. Despite the current reports of a false dawn -- based on ratings that, while still dropping, have slowed somewhat in their descent -- we are in for a long, hard haul in trying to turn this economy around. And Obama's vigorous pronouncements that he plans to raise taxes in two years are not going to help induce the economy's most prodigious spenders -- the wealthy -- to step up to the checkout counter.
Obama's fate is deeply linked to the economy. These days, that's like being tied to an anchor.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on March 17, 2009
He may not be paying much attention to the stock market, where $11 trillion of pensions, investments and 401(k)s have been destroyed, but you can be sure that President Obama is paying attention to the polls showing diminishing support for his policies.
Of course, in presidential polling, all numbers are not equally important. Obama got 52 percent of the national vote. So when his approval drops, as it has, from 65 percent on Inauguration Day to 56 percent now (according to Rasmussen), he is playing with house money. Most of those who are coming to negative conclusions about his administration didn't vote for him in the first place.
But there are ominous signs in the data.
So far, Obama's administration has been characterized by two main programs: the stimulus spending and bank bailouts. But the polls indicate problems with each pillar of his package.
The public generally approves of his stimulus proposals. CNN found that voters approved of his economic program in general by 59-40, while Pew Research discovered that they backed his stimulus program specifically by 56-35.
But the problem is that voters don't think the stimulus package will work. CNN's poll, while showing broad approval of his programs, also found that voters did not believe his economic proposals would work, by 22-64. In fact, the CBS survey data indicates that 48 percent feel that the "economy would improve without government intervention," while only 41 percent agreed that intervention was "necessary."
If voters approve of the stimulus program, even while they are pessimistic about its impact and question its necessity, they are downright hostile to the bank bailouts. CBS found that they disapproved of the bailouts by 37-53 and noted that "48 percent are mostly resentful toward Obama's policies toward banks and financial institutions." While Pew found 48-40 approval of the bailouts, it also noted that 87 percent are "bothered by the bank bailout."
So Obama has one program that is popular but won't work and another that is downright unpopular.
And his presidency is dependent on how they work out.
Clinton could sustain his presidency with small-bore initiatives. But Obama can't. Stem cell research is well and good, but it's not the central concern of the nation at the moment.
Some news organizations like to compare how Obama is doing with how other presidents fared. Specifically, at this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush was at 58 percent approval while Clinton stood at 53 percent. By that measurement, Obama's 56 percent would seem in the normal range.
But Clinton won with only 42 percent of the vote in 1992, and Bush got 49 percent. Obama, of course, won 52 percent of the vote. So here's how the vote-to-popularity ratio stacks up:
• Clinton: Vote 42%; Job Approval 53%; Difference +11%
• W. Bush: Vote 49%; Job Approval 58%; Difference + 9%
• Obama: Vote 52%; Job Approval 56%; Difference + 4%
...not very good.
And let's remember that Clinton lost control of Congress in 1994 while Bush's presidency -- heading downward -- was saved by his excellent response to Sept. 11.
But presidential popularity is not going to be the key determinant of Obama's political success or failure. The unemployment rate is going to fill the role of political harbinger. And that front is unlikely to be favorable. Despite the current reports of a false dawn -- based on ratings that, while still dropping, have slowed somewhat in their descent -- we are in for a long, hard haul in trying to turn this economy around. And Obama's vigorous pronouncements that he plans to raise taxes in two years are not going to help induce the economy's most prodigious spenders -- the wealthy -- to step up to the checkout counter.
Obama's fate is deeply linked to the economy. These days, that's like being tied to an anchor.
Obama's Lies -- and YOUR Money
Obama's Lies -- and YOUR Money
Dear Reader,
You know what really irritates me about liberals? (Besides the fact that they're spineless little girls in pretty dresses who can't play rough because it musses up their hair...)
They always think liberalism fixes the problem -- even when it was liberalism that caused the problem in the first place!
Case in point, the Financial Meltdown of 2008 (and counting). To hear liberals tell it, it all goes back to Ronald Reagan -- who with his seductive "B-actor" charm fooled America into thinking that by slashing taxes, regulation, and government spending we could unleash free enterprise and create a new wave of prosperity.
Sure, liberals concede, that seemed to work for, oh, the better part of three decades, but now we're paying the price for all that "greed." The solution? A return to the pre-Reagan policies of Jimmy Carter, LBJ, FDR... Speaking of which, what will victory look like in the "War on Poverty"? When are they going to produce an "exit strategy" from that quagmire?
Unfortunately, the facts -- as always when you're talking about liberal theories -- tell a different story. A story in which all the major villains, it turns out, have one thing in common: government.
That's right. From the "Community Reinvestment Act" that pressured banks into affirmative-action lending, to those "government-sponsored enterprises" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who bought up all the resulting subprime loans and repackaged them as "investment grade" securities -- the greasy thumb-prints of government were all over this fiasco from beginning to end.
But those, as I say, are facts. And facts have no place in the fantasy world of Democratic policy-makers. Nor does history -- true history, that is, as opposed to the public-school propaganda that teaches, for instance, that FDR's New Deal got us out of the Great Depression, when in reality it only deepened and prolonged it.
But the question remains: What can those of us in the fast-dwindling, Reality-Based Community do to survive financially as the Obamacrats prepare a "New New Deal" that threatens to outspend the original by about ten thousand to one?
Personally, I don't have a clue. But thank goodness I know of someone who does.
His name is Mark Skousen, Ph.D., editor of the investment newsletter Forecasts & Strategies -- and he just might be the smartest financial advisor working today.
Don't let that "Ph.D." fool you -- this is no pointy-headed leftist like Obama's economic team who seem to think that all the economy needs in order to flourish are more liberals running the economy.
Skousen, after all, launched his career by predicting during the 1980-82 recession -- and to the scornful laughter of nearly all the other so-called experts -- that "Reaganomics will work."
Boy, did he get that right. And boy, has he gotten it right ever since:
Like when he issued a "sell everything" recommendation to his Forecasts & Strategies subscribers just 41 days before the stock market crash of 1987 -- then told them to get fully invested again several weeks later, just in time for the recovery.
And when he called the Gulf War of 1990 "a turning point for U.S. stocks" -- and the Dow subsequently began a bull market that didn't end for nearly 10 years.
And when he told his subscribers in 1995 that the NASDAQ would double, and then double again -- which is exactly what it did.
And when, just weeks before the NASDAQ collapsed in 2000, he warned his subscribers that tech stocks were dangerously overvalued.
And when, in 2006 -- more than two years before the financial meltdown -- he warned subscribers that "we clearly are headed for fiscal disaster," and showed them how to protect themselves.
What's Skousen's secret? I think it begins with understanding the real laws of economics -- not the warmed-over Marxism that passes for "new thinking" to Obama's media groupies.
And here's the best thing about Mark Skousen. He knows how to make you money no matter how bad things get in the financial markets and the economy overall.
After all, he points out, the late billionaire John Templeton -- whom Money magazine called "the greatest stock-picker of the 20th century" -- began to build his vast fortune in the depths of the Great Depression.
Maybe you're not looking to be a billionaire. Maybe you're just looking to keep your head above water while the Obamacrats do their best to sink the economy. Either way, Mark Skousen can help -- and I urge you to give his Forecasts & Strategies a try.
The cost? Less than the tip on a John Edwards haircut -- in today's dollars, that is. After Obama gets done driving down the value of the dollar it wouldn't be enough to buy Governor Rod Blogojevich a haircut.
Click here to learn more.
Sincerely,
Ann Coulter
P.S. My friend Dr. Mark Skousen has just identified 6 "Obama-Proof" investments to help you survive -- and thrive -- during the presidency of "The One We Have Been Waiting For." It's all part of a FREE Investor's Dossier Dr. Skousen has prepared called "Obamanomics and Your Money."
Dear Reader,
You know what really irritates me about liberals? (Besides the fact that they're spineless little girls in pretty dresses who can't play rough because it musses up their hair...)
They always think liberalism fixes the problem -- even when it was liberalism that caused the problem in the first place!
Case in point, the Financial Meltdown of 2008 (and counting). To hear liberals tell it, it all goes back to Ronald Reagan -- who with his seductive "B-actor" charm fooled America into thinking that by slashing taxes, regulation, and government spending we could unleash free enterprise and create a new wave of prosperity.
Sure, liberals concede, that seemed to work for, oh, the better part of three decades, but now we're paying the price for all that "greed." The solution? A return to the pre-Reagan policies of Jimmy Carter, LBJ, FDR... Speaking of which, what will victory look like in the "War on Poverty"? When are they going to produce an "exit strategy" from that quagmire?
Unfortunately, the facts -- as always when you're talking about liberal theories -- tell a different story. A story in which all the major villains, it turns out, have one thing in common: government.
That's right. From the "Community Reinvestment Act" that pressured banks into affirmative-action lending, to those "government-sponsored enterprises" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who bought up all the resulting subprime loans and repackaged them as "investment grade" securities -- the greasy thumb-prints of government were all over this fiasco from beginning to end.
But those, as I say, are facts. And facts have no place in the fantasy world of Democratic policy-makers. Nor does history -- true history, that is, as opposed to the public-school propaganda that teaches, for instance, that FDR's New Deal got us out of the Great Depression, when in reality it only deepened and prolonged it.
But the question remains: What can those of us in the fast-dwindling, Reality-Based Community do to survive financially as the Obamacrats prepare a "New New Deal" that threatens to outspend the original by about ten thousand to one?
Personally, I don't have a clue. But thank goodness I know of someone who does.
His name is Mark Skousen, Ph.D., editor of the investment newsletter Forecasts & Strategies -- and he just might be the smartest financial advisor working today.
Don't let that "Ph.D." fool you -- this is no pointy-headed leftist like Obama's economic team who seem to think that all the economy needs in order to flourish are more liberals running the economy.
Skousen, after all, launched his career by predicting during the 1980-82 recession -- and to the scornful laughter of nearly all the other so-called experts -- that "Reaganomics will work."
Boy, did he get that right. And boy, has he gotten it right ever since:
Like when he issued a "sell everything" recommendation to his Forecasts & Strategies subscribers just 41 days before the stock market crash of 1987 -- then told them to get fully invested again several weeks later, just in time for the recovery.
And when he called the Gulf War of 1990 "a turning point for U.S. stocks" -- and the Dow subsequently began a bull market that didn't end for nearly 10 years.
And when he told his subscribers in 1995 that the NASDAQ would double, and then double again -- which is exactly what it did.
And when, just weeks before the NASDAQ collapsed in 2000, he warned his subscribers that tech stocks were dangerously overvalued.
And when, in 2006 -- more than two years before the financial meltdown -- he warned subscribers that "we clearly are headed for fiscal disaster," and showed them how to protect themselves.
What's Skousen's secret? I think it begins with understanding the real laws of economics -- not the warmed-over Marxism that passes for "new thinking" to Obama's media groupies.
And here's the best thing about Mark Skousen. He knows how to make you money no matter how bad things get in the financial markets and the economy overall.
After all, he points out, the late billionaire John Templeton -- whom Money magazine called "the greatest stock-picker of the 20th century" -- began to build his vast fortune in the depths of the Great Depression.
Maybe you're not looking to be a billionaire. Maybe you're just looking to keep your head above water while the Obamacrats do their best to sink the economy. Either way, Mark Skousen can help -- and I urge you to give his Forecasts & Strategies a try.
The cost? Less than the tip on a John Edwards haircut -- in today's dollars, that is. After Obama gets done driving down the value of the dollar it wouldn't be enough to buy Governor Rod Blogojevich a haircut.
Click here to learn more.
Sincerely,
Ann Coulter
P.S. My friend Dr. Mark Skousen has just identified 6 "Obama-Proof" investments to help you survive -- and thrive -- during the presidency of "The One We Have Been Waiting For." It's all part of a FREE Investor's Dossier Dr. Skousen has prepared called "Obamanomics and Your Money."
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
AIG paid $1M-plus bonuses to 73 workers
Cuomo says AIG paid $1M-plus bonuses to 73 workers
ALBANY, N.Y. – Troubled insurance giant American International Group paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, including 11 who no longer work for the company, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Tuesday.
Cuomo subpoenaed information from AIG on Monday to determine whether the payments made over the past weekend constitute fraud under state law. Contracts written last March guaranteed employees 100 percent of their 2007 bonus amounts for 2008, "despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before," Cuomo said.
President Barack Obama and Washington lawmakers have blasted AIG for paying more than $160 million in bonuses to employees of its Financial Products division, the unit primarily responsible for the meltdown that led to a federal bailout of the company, while the company has received billions in taxpayer bailout funds.
Cuomo said AIG mailed the retention bonus checks Friday.
In a letter Tuesday to Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, Cuomo outlined the bonus and contract information and asked the panel to take up the issue at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
By MICHAEL VIRTANEN, Associated Press Writer Michael Virtanen
ALBANY, N.Y. – Troubled insurance giant American International Group paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, including 11 who no longer work for the company, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Tuesday.
Cuomo subpoenaed information from AIG on Monday to determine whether the payments made over the past weekend constitute fraud under state law. Contracts written last March guaranteed employees 100 percent of their 2007 bonus amounts for 2008, "despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before," Cuomo said.
President Barack Obama and Washington lawmakers have blasted AIG for paying more than $160 million in bonuses to employees of its Financial Products division, the unit primarily responsible for the meltdown that led to a federal bailout of the company, while the company has received billions in taxpayer bailout funds.
Cuomo said AIG mailed the retention bonus checks Friday.
In a letter Tuesday to Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, Cuomo outlined the bonus and contract information and asked the panel to take up the issue at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
By MICHAEL VIRTANEN, Associated Press Writer Michael Virtanen
Monday, March 16, 2009
Ninth Circuit Upholds Arizona Illegal Alien Hiring Law
Ninth Circuit Upholds Arizona Illegal Alien Hiring Law
On Monday, March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a request to revisit a September 2008 decision by a three-judge panel that upheld an Arizona employer sanctions law that penalizes employers for hiring illegal workers. Opponents - including business interests that support illegal immigration like the Arizona Contractors Association, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the pro-illegal immigration advocacy group Chicanos Por La Causa - claimed that the Legal Arizona Workers Act violated the U.S. Constitution and federal law. These interest groups claimed that the three-judge panel had wrongly rejected their claims. In refusing to rehear the case, the Ninth Circuit effectively affirmed the panel's earlier decision, which concluded that the Arizona law did not interfere with the federal government's authority to enforce immigration laws and that it did not violate employers' rights.
(Phoenix Business Journal, March 10, 2009 and Maricopa County Attorney's Office.)
On Monday, March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a request to revisit a September 2008 decision by a three-judge panel that upheld an Arizona employer sanctions law that penalizes employers for hiring illegal workers. Opponents - including business interests that support illegal immigration like the Arizona Contractors Association, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the pro-illegal immigration advocacy group Chicanos Por La Causa - claimed that the Legal Arizona Workers Act violated the U.S. Constitution and federal law. These interest groups claimed that the three-judge panel had wrongly rejected their claims. In refusing to rehear the case, the Ninth Circuit effectively affirmed the panel's earlier decision, which concluded that the Arizona law did not interfere with the federal government's authority to enforce immigration laws and that it did not violate employers' rights.
(Phoenix Business Journal, March 10, 2009 and Maricopa County Attorney's Office.)
THE COMING "DEPRESSFLATION"...AND YOUR MONEY
THE COMING "DEPRESSFLATION"...AND YOUR MONEY
You may recall that, in one of my recent columns, I coined the term "depressflation" to describe the inevitable result of the Democrats' plans to "rescue" the economy.
A "depressflation," I explained, would be like the "stagflation" of the 1970s, only worse: massive inflation, even hyper-inflation, together with Depression-like economic stagnation.
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."
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.
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 18%.
Compared to the 16% 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.
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.
Click here to learn more.
http://www.globalstockinvestor.com/visitor.php?offer=358
Sincerely,
Dick Morris
P.S. Right now, for a limited time, you can get a full year of Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor for about the cost of a mid-priced dinner for two. Of course, with all the great investment tips you'll be getting, you'll be able to afford lots of dinners -- high-priced ones at that. Click here to learn more.
http://www.globalstockinvestor.com/visitor.php?offer=358
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
You may recall that, in one of my recent columns, I coined the term "depressflation" to describe the inevitable result of the Democrats' plans to "rescue" the economy.
A "depressflation," I explained, would be like the "stagflation" of the 1970s, only worse: massive inflation, even hyper-inflation, together with Depression-like economic stagnation.
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."
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.
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 18%.
Compared to the 16% 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.
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.
Click here to learn more.
http://www.globalstockinvestor.com/visitor.php?offer=358
Sincerely,
Dick Morris
P.S. Right now, for a limited time, you can get a full year of Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor for about the cost of a mid-priced dinner for two. Of course, with all the great investment tips you'll be getting, you'll be able to afford lots of dinners -- high-priced ones at that. Click here to learn more.
http://www.globalstockinvestor.com/visitor.php?offer=358
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Morris :does Obamaknow what he is doing?
BOGGLED BAM - CAN PRESIDENT GET JOB DONE?
By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN
The furor over the huge federal spending under President Obama - a $1.75 trillion deficit, 13 percent - obscures an even more basic question: Does he know what he is doing?
That is, does he know how to do anything other than spend?
His stimulus package, of course, took no special ability: He left the details to Democrats in Congress. But his two other major initiatives - his banking - and mortgage-relief plans - are both flawed and unlikely to solve their respective problems.
Indeed, they're so wide of the mark as to prompt questions not of Obama's ideology but of his basic competence.
The bank-bailout plan seems to be largely stillborn. Having wished that the private sector would flock to invest in toxic assets if offered the right incentives, the Treasury secretary is still hoping. Crossing his fingers seems to have replaced effective policy in his planning.
To date, no massive infusion of private-sector capital seems in view and Washington is doing little more than writing checks to prop up the failing banks. That doesn't take a genius. But the difficult task of relieving the banks of toxic assets so they can rekindle the flow of loans seems to be beyond the ability of the president and his administration.
Perhaps Obama privately isn't so concerned about the banks or the businesses that need the credit markets restored. Those are Republican interest groups, right? But he surely must want his mortgage-rescue plan to work - the homeowners facing foreclosure tend to be Democratic constituents.
But this plan, too, falls far short of the mark.
Incredibly, it excludes anyone who has lost their job and can't afford to make their payments even if they were to spend 31 percent of their income trying to do so. If you can't come close to affording your mortgage, even if only because of a (hopefully temporary) loss of employment, forget about it: Obama is not going to help you.
Nor will he help you if your mortgage exceeds your home's value. One out of five mortgages now falls into this category - and the continued fall in property values will put more and more homeowners in it. But they can expect no help from Obama's rescue plan.
Why would a liberal be so callous? Why would he leave so many out in the cold? Could it be that the administration simply can't figure out how to help these folks? That the president couldn't devise a counter to his financial advisers, who presumably wanted to exclude these folks?
It was Clinton-era Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros who urged Fannie Mae to spend 42 percent of its money buying mortgages for lower-income people and who suggested that they no longer require down payments. And it was his successor, Andrew Cuomo, who upped the ante to 50 percent of the Fannie Mae portfolio.
After Democrats inveigled people to buy homes they could not afford, how can they justify passing a plan that excludes them from assistance?
It appears that Obama is at sea when it comes to financial policy, economic-recovery planning and credit-rescue efforts. We're stuck not only with a socialist but seemingly an incompetent one.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns.
Published in the New York Post on March 16, 2009
By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN
The furor over the huge federal spending under President Obama - a $1.75 trillion deficit, 13 percent - obscures an even more basic question: Does he know what he is doing?
That is, does he know how to do anything other than spend?
His stimulus package, of course, took no special ability: He left the details to Democrats in Congress. But his two other major initiatives - his banking - and mortgage-relief plans - are both flawed and unlikely to solve their respective problems.
Indeed, they're so wide of the mark as to prompt questions not of Obama's ideology but of his basic competence.
The bank-bailout plan seems to be largely stillborn. Having wished that the private sector would flock to invest in toxic assets if offered the right incentives, the Treasury secretary is still hoping. Crossing his fingers seems to have replaced effective policy in his planning.
To date, no massive infusion of private-sector capital seems in view and Washington is doing little more than writing checks to prop up the failing banks. That doesn't take a genius. But the difficult task of relieving the banks of toxic assets so they can rekindle the flow of loans seems to be beyond the ability of the president and his administration.
Perhaps Obama privately isn't so concerned about the banks or the businesses that need the credit markets restored. Those are Republican interest groups, right? But he surely must want his mortgage-rescue plan to work - the homeowners facing foreclosure tend to be Democratic constituents.
But this plan, too, falls far short of the mark.
Incredibly, it excludes anyone who has lost their job and can't afford to make their payments even if they were to spend 31 percent of their income trying to do so. If you can't come close to affording your mortgage, even if only because of a (hopefully temporary) loss of employment, forget about it: Obama is not going to help you.
Nor will he help you if your mortgage exceeds your home's value. One out of five mortgages now falls into this category - and the continued fall in property values will put more and more homeowners in it. But they can expect no help from Obama's rescue plan.
Why would a liberal be so callous? Why would he leave so many out in the cold? Could it be that the administration simply can't figure out how to help these folks? That the president couldn't devise a counter to his financial advisers, who presumably wanted to exclude these folks?
It was Clinton-era Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros who urged Fannie Mae to spend 42 percent of its money buying mortgages for lower-income people and who suggested that they no longer require down payments. And it was his successor, Andrew Cuomo, who upped the ante to 50 percent of the Fannie Mae portfolio.
After Democrats inveigled people to buy homes they could not afford, how can they justify passing a plan that excludes them from assistance?
It appears that Obama is at sea when it comes to financial policy, economic-recovery planning and credit-rescue efforts. We're stuck not only with a socialist but seemingly an incompetent one.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns.
Published in the New York Post on March 16, 2009
Monday, March 09, 2009
E-Verify hits 100,000 employers, is your employer using it ? jobs for Americans
E-Verify hits 100,000 employers, is your employer using it ? jobs for Americans
NJ temprary Senator Mendez working against this E verify program, please email him at www.senate.gov with your opinion
E-Verify hits 100,000
The number of employers signed up to use E-Verify hits 100,000 employers. Bill Tucker reports.
see a quick video at
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/01/08/ldt.tucker.e.verify.employment.cnn?iref=videosearch
NJ temprary Senator Mendez working against this E verify program, please email him at www.senate.gov with your opinion
E-Verify hits 100,000
The number of employers signed up to use E-Verify hits 100,000 employers. Bill Tucker reports.
see a quick video at
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/01/08/ldt.tucker.e.verify.employment.cnn?iref=videosearch
Your job: Push for Tougher Enforcement Legislation
Texas, Utah Continue Push for Tougher Enforcement Legislation
On Thursday, February 26, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a legal opinion that concluded that a proposed state law that would suspend the business license of any employer that hires illegal aliens would be constitutional under federal law. The AG found that the legislation proposed in Texas - which closely mirrors an Arizona law - does not conflict with the federal government's constitutional role in immigration matters.
(Office of the Attorney General of Texas, February 26, 2009; The Dallas Morning News, February 27, 2009). The legislation is currently pending in the Texas state legislature and, if passed, would provide the state with additional enforcement measures to ensure employers are not hiring illegal aliens, but instead hire only workers who are authorized to work in the United States.
Meanwhile, on Monday, March 2, Utah lawmakers rejected a last-minute attempt by supporters of illegal immigration to delay implementation of legislation which strengthened in-state enforcement measures and barred illegal immigrants from receiving state benefits. Senate Bill 81, which is set to go into effect on July 1, 2009, includes provisions that: (1) require that public employers and state contractors use a "Status Verification System" to confirm that newly hired employees are eligible to work in the United States; (2) make it illegal for an employer to discharge U.S. citizen workers and replace them with illegal workers; (3) mandate applicants for public benefits demonstrate legal presence in the United States; and (4) empower local law enforcement to inquire about the citizenship and immigration status of arrestees.
On Thursday, February 26, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a legal opinion that concluded that a proposed state law that would suspend the business license of any employer that hires illegal aliens would be constitutional under federal law. The AG found that the legislation proposed in Texas - which closely mirrors an Arizona law - does not conflict with the federal government's constitutional role in immigration matters.
(Office of the Attorney General of Texas, February 26, 2009; The Dallas Morning News, February 27, 2009). The legislation is currently pending in the Texas state legislature and, if passed, would provide the state with additional enforcement measures to ensure employers are not hiring illegal aliens, but instead hire only workers who are authorized to work in the United States.
Meanwhile, on Monday, March 2, Utah lawmakers rejected a last-minute attempt by supporters of illegal immigration to delay implementation of legislation which strengthened in-state enforcement measures and barred illegal immigrants from receiving state benefits. Senate Bill 81, which is set to go into effect on July 1, 2009, includes provisions that: (1) require that public employers and state contractors use a "Status Verification System" to confirm that newly hired employees are eligible to work in the United States; (2) make it illegal for an employer to discharge U.S. citizen workers and replace them with illegal workers; (3) mandate applicants for public benefits demonstrate legal presence in the United States; and (4) empower local law enforcement to inquire about the citizenship and immigration status of arrestees.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Everify and the Job Creation Bill
$800 Billion Economic Stimulus and Job Creation Bill Includes
No Protections for U.S. Workers
The whirlwind legislative process that played out in the month between President Obama’s inaugural and Presidents Day resulted in the most massive government spending in history. The intent of the legislation is to jump start the sputtering economy with an infusion of borrowed cash, and to create or preserve some 4 million jobs. At the end of January, an estimated 25 million workers in the U.S. were either unemployed, involuntarily working part-time, or had given up hope of finding jobs.
While American taxpayers and future generations of Americans are being asked to take a nearly trillion dollar gamble that the stimulus bill will work as advertised, the legislation included no safeguards to ensure that the jobs created will actually be filled by legal U.S. workers. The failure to provide protections that jobs created under this program are not filled by illegal aliens was not an oversight. It was a conscious and deliberate decision of the congressional leadership and the Obama administration.
In putting together the largest government spending (and borrowing) package in the history of mankind, the House acted first. The bill approved by that body in late January included provisions that would have provided reasonable assurances that legal U.S. workers would get to fill the jobs created with taxpayer dollars. By unanimous consent, the House approved two key amendments:
A four-year reauthorization of the E-Verify program. Offered by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), this amendment would have ensured that the highly accurate program that allows employers to verify a worker’s Social Security number could continue to operate.
A requirement that employers who receive stimulus money use the E-Verify system. This amendment, authored by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), would have ensured that legal U.S. workers, not illegal aliens, would be able to fill newly created jobs.
In early February, the Senate got to work on their version of the stimulus bill. Amendments identical to the Calvert and Kingston provisions of the House bill were written by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to be added to the Senate legislation. However, these amendments were not part of the bill that the Senate passed on February 11—not because they were rejected by a vote of the full body, but because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) refused to allow them to be offered.
U.S. WORKERS DELIBERATELY SOLD OUT
The two versions of the economic stimulus package then went to a conference committee, where the many differences between them were ironed out by a handful of members of the respective bodies. For the vital worker protections provided by the Calvert and Kingston amendments to become part of the legislation signed by President Obama, all the Senate negotiators needed to do was accept the House language.
Exactly what transpired in these closed door sessions is unknown. However, congressional sources close to FAIR’s government relations staff report that the Calvert and Kingston amendments were stripped from the bill by order of the two congressional leaders, Sen. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Reports indicate that the removal of these protections for U.S. workers occurred without debate or explanation.
No Protections for U.S. Workers
The whirlwind legislative process that played out in the month between President Obama’s inaugural and Presidents Day resulted in the most massive government spending in history. The intent of the legislation is to jump start the sputtering economy with an infusion of borrowed cash, and to create or preserve some 4 million jobs. At the end of January, an estimated 25 million workers in the U.S. were either unemployed, involuntarily working part-time, or had given up hope of finding jobs.
While American taxpayers and future generations of Americans are being asked to take a nearly trillion dollar gamble that the stimulus bill will work as advertised, the legislation included no safeguards to ensure that the jobs created will actually be filled by legal U.S. workers. The failure to provide protections that jobs created under this program are not filled by illegal aliens was not an oversight. It was a conscious and deliberate decision of the congressional leadership and the Obama administration.
In putting together the largest government spending (and borrowing) package in the history of mankind, the House acted first. The bill approved by that body in late January included provisions that would have provided reasonable assurances that legal U.S. workers would get to fill the jobs created with taxpayer dollars. By unanimous consent, the House approved two key amendments:
A four-year reauthorization of the E-Verify program. Offered by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), this amendment would have ensured that the highly accurate program that allows employers to verify a worker’s Social Security number could continue to operate.
A requirement that employers who receive stimulus money use the E-Verify system. This amendment, authored by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), would have ensured that legal U.S. workers, not illegal aliens, would be able to fill newly created jobs.
In early February, the Senate got to work on their version of the stimulus bill. Amendments identical to the Calvert and Kingston provisions of the House bill were written by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to be added to the Senate legislation. However, these amendments were not part of the bill that the Senate passed on February 11—not because they were rejected by a vote of the full body, but because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) refused to allow them to be offered.
U.S. WORKERS DELIBERATELY SOLD OUT
The two versions of the economic stimulus package then went to a conference committee, where the many differences between them were ironed out by a handful of members of the respective bodies. For the vital worker protections provided by the Calvert and Kingston amendments to become part of the legislation signed by President Obama, all the Senate negotiators needed to do was accept the House language.
Exactly what transpired in these closed door sessions is unknown. However, congressional sources close to FAIR’s government relations staff report that the Calvert and Kingston amendments were stripped from the bill by order of the two congressional leaders, Sen. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Reports indicate that the removal of these protections for U.S. workers occurred without debate or explanation.
Friday, March 06, 2009
any regrets giving Obama access to the your federal Mastercard / Visa card ?
any regrets giving Obama access to the your federal Mastercard / Visa card ?
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
Thursday, March 05, 2009
does Obama have the balls to veto the porky Omnibus Spending Bill?
does Obama have the balls to veto the porky Omnibus Spending Bill?
that was a major promise he made during his campaign,
will he disappoint the people who voted for him.
that was a major promise he made during his campaign,
will he disappoint the people who voted for him.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
where does Obama put his personal millions ?
where does Obama put his personal millions ?
he has made a lot of money from his 2 autobiographies,
which I never bought, is here buying GM . Ford AIG Citcorp stocks ?
he has made a lot of money from his 2 autobiographies,
which I never bought, is here buying GM . Ford AIG Citcorp stocks ?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
First Amendment Under Fire
Senator Jim DeMint (R) South Carolina
First Amendment Under Fire
Senator. DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, said he will offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill. The Broadcaster Freedom Act prevents the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Senator DeMint will join Lou tonight.
see more at CNN Lou Dobbs site
First Amendment Under Fire
Senator. DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, said he will offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill. The Broadcaster Freedom Act prevents the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Senator DeMint will join Lou tonight.
see more at CNN Lou Dobbs site
what's this cap-and-trade policy bullshit ?
what's this cap-and-trade policy bullshit ?
sounds like Obama new taxes for all businesses, who will merely pass this cost onto the consumer.
looks like tax, walks like a tax, sounds like a tax for everyone to bear.
sounds like Obama new taxes for all businesses, who will merely pass this cost onto the consumer.
looks like tax, walks like a tax, sounds like a tax for everyone to bear.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
California Supreme Court to Hear In-State Tuition Challenge
California Supreme Court to Hear In-State Tuition Challenge
Last fall, a California Appeals Court issued a resounding ruling declaring the state’s policy of granting in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens attending state-run colleges and universities to be unconstitutional. In early January, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and resolve the matter.
The challenge to the California policy was initiated in 2005 by FAIR and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) on behalf of 80,000 U.S. citizen students who were denied the same tuition benefits the state afforded to illegal aliens. The suit, Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, contends that the California law explicitly violates a 1996 federal law which requires states that make in-state benefits available to illegal aliens to make the same benefit available to all U.S. citizens, whether residents of that state or any other state.
The Appeals Court ruling is the first to address the merits of policies that grant in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. The 84-page ruling declared emphatically that the California policy violates both the equal protection clause and privileges and immunity clause of the U.S. Constitution. Though the ruling in a state court is enforceable only in California, it sets an important legal precedent that will inevitably open the door to challenges of other state policies that grant in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens.
IRLI will continue to play a crucial role in the legal effort to clear the final hurdle of the California Supreme Court and ensure that this important judicial victory for the interests of American citizens is upheld.
Last fall, a California Appeals Court issued a resounding ruling declaring the state’s policy of granting in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens attending state-run colleges and universities to be unconstitutional. In early January, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and resolve the matter.
The challenge to the California policy was initiated in 2005 by FAIR and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) on behalf of 80,000 U.S. citizen students who were denied the same tuition benefits the state afforded to illegal aliens. The suit, Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, contends that the California law explicitly violates a 1996 federal law which requires states that make in-state benefits available to illegal aliens to make the same benefit available to all U.S. citizens, whether residents of that state or any other state.
The Appeals Court ruling is the first to address the merits of policies that grant in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. The 84-page ruling declared emphatically that the California policy violates both the equal protection clause and privileges and immunity clause of the U.S. Constitution. Though the ruling in a state court is enforceable only in California, it sets an important legal precedent that will inevitably open the door to challenges of other state policies that grant in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens.
IRLI will continue to play a crucial role in the legal effort to clear the final hurdle of the California Supreme Court and ensure that this important judicial victory for the interests of American citizens is upheld.
Foe of Immigration Enforcement Named as Secretary of Labor
Foe of Immigration Enforcement Named as Secretary of Labor
For American workers, 2008 was a disastrous year. The U.S. economy lost nearly 2 million jobs during the last four months alone, and most economists see things getting worse before they get better.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s choice to head the Department of Labor gives millions of unemployed and underemployed American workers little hope of gaining access to the 8 million jobs estimated to be held by illegal aliens or raising wages depressed by cheap foreign labor. In appointing Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) as Secretary of Labor, the president chose an implacable foe of immigration enforcement generally, and specifically enforcement in the workplace. Coupled with the selection of Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, there is little reason to expect either department to vigorously enforce laws against businesses that employ illegal aliens.
During her time in Congress, Solis supported or co-sponsored just about every effort to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and expand the number of foreign guest workers in the U.S. While a member of the California Legislature, Solis fought to provide taxpayer supported benefits and services to illegal aliens and to allow them to obtain driver’s licenses.
In Congress, Rep. Solis has co-sponsored or supported numerous bills that would have harmed American workers, including:
The AgJOBs amnesty, which would have granted green cards to virtually every illegal alien employed in some agriculture-related industry.
The 2007 STRIVE Act, which would have granted amnesty to most illegal aliens in the U.S. In addition, the bill would have allowed an additional 400,000 to 600,000 foreign guest workers to enter the U.S. labor force each year.
The DREAM Act, which would have granted green cards to illegal aliens who entered the country before age 16, and would have granted them subsidized college tuition benefits.
The Department of Labor can play a significant role in preventing the employment of illegal aliens. It is the department’s responsibility to promote “the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment…[and] helping employers find workers.”
While President Obama has embarked on an ambitious jobs creation program to deal with the unemployment crisis, millions of existing jobs could be made available to American workers by enforcing laws against employing illegal aliens. Given Secretary Solis’s long history of siding with illegal aliens, if she is confirmed by the Senate in that position, it will require strong direction from the White House to ensure that the Labor Department fulfills its stated mission.
FAIR will be reaching out to Congress and the new administration to stress the added importance, in this time of economic crisis, of vigorous enforcement against employers who rob American workers of job opportunities and seek to suppress wages. The first test of the Obama administration’s and the Congress’s commitment to protecting American jobs is likely to come in early March when the E-Verify program will need to be reauthorized. (See FAIR op-ed, page 7.)
For American workers, 2008 was a disastrous year. The U.S. economy lost nearly 2 million jobs during the last four months alone, and most economists see things getting worse before they get better.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s choice to head the Department of Labor gives millions of unemployed and underemployed American workers little hope of gaining access to the 8 million jobs estimated to be held by illegal aliens or raising wages depressed by cheap foreign labor. In appointing Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) as Secretary of Labor, the president chose an implacable foe of immigration enforcement generally, and specifically enforcement in the workplace. Coupled with the selection of Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, there is little reason to expect either department to vigorously enforce laws against businesses that employ illegal aliens.
During her time in Congress, Solis supported or co-sponsored just about every effort to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and expand the number of foreign guest workers in the U.S. While a member of the California Legislature, Solis fought to provide taxpayer supported benefits and services to illegal aliens and to allow them to obtain driver’s licenses.
In Congress, Rep. Solis has co-sponsored or supported numerous bills that would have harmed American workers, including:
The AgJOBs amnesty, which would have granted green cards to virtually every illegal alien employed in some agriculture-related industry.
The 2007 STRIVE Act, which would have granted amnesty to most illegal aliens in the U.S. In addition, the bill would have allowed an additional 400,000 to 600,000 foreign guest workers to enter the U.S. labor force each year.
The DREAM Act, which would have granted green cards to illegal aliens who entered the country before age 16, and would have granted them subsidized college tuition benefits.
The Department of Labor can play a significant role in preventing the employment of illegal aliens. It is the department’s responsibility to promote “the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment…[and] helping employers find workers.”
While President Obama has embarked on an ambitious jobs creation program to deal with the unemployment crisis, millions of existing jobs could be made available to American workers by enforcing laws against employing illegal aliens. Given Secretary Solis’s long history of siding with illegal aliens, if she is confirmed by the Senate in that position, it will require strong direction from the White House to ensure that the Labor Department fulfills its stated mission.
FAIR will be reaching out to Congress and the new administration to stress the added importance, in this time of economic crisis, of vigorous enforcement against employers who rob American workers of job opportunities and seek to suppress wages. The first test of the Obama administration’s and the Congress’s commitment to protecting American jobs is likely to come in early March when the E-Verify program will need to be reauthorized. (See FAIR op-ed, page 7.)
Obama does another flip /flop on earmarks?
Obama does another flip /flop , this time on earmarks?
latest federal budget bill currently being debated includes
over 8,600 earmarks.
what the piss?
latest federal budget bill currently being debated includes
over 8,600 earmarks.
what the piss?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
hire Americans /buy American
What is the Coalition for the Future American Worker?
The Coalition for the Future American Worker (CFAW) is an umbrella organization of professional trade groups, population/environment organizations,and immigration reform groups. CFAW was formed to represent the interests of American workers and students in the formulation of immigration policy.
CFAW believes that American workers are the best, most creative,
most productive and highly motivated in the world. Americans,
in large numbers, have responded to the challenges set forth
by the new global and technological economy.
In the space of one generation, American workers have made the transition from the industrial economy of yesterday to create the most advanced and productive economy in the world.
American workers can meet any future challenges.
CFAW believes that in the fast-paced economy of the future,
American companies must commit to providing American workers
and students with the training and opportunities they will
need to continue to contribute to America's prosperity.
http://www.americanworker.org/
The Coalition for the Future American Worker (CFAW) is an umbrella organization of professional trade groups, population/environment organizations,and immigration reform groups. CFAW was formed to represent the interests of American workers and students in the formulation of immigration policy.
CFAW believes that American workers are the best, most creative,
most productive and highly motivated in the world. Americans,
in large numbers, have responded to the challenges set forth
by the new global and technological economy.
In the space of one generation, American workers have made the transition from the industrial economy of yesterday to create the most advanced and productive economy in the world.
American workers can meet any future challenges.
CFAW believes that in the fast-paced economy of the future,
American companies must commit to providing American workers
and students with the training and opportunities they will
need to continue to contribute to America's prosperity.
http://www.americanworker.org/
Friday, February 13, 2009
buy American hire Americans sounds good to me
buy American, hire Americans sounds good to me.
just another reason we need E-verify to ensure any stimulus tax dollars are routed to Americans.
just another reason we need E-verify to ensure any stimulus tax dollars are routed to Americans.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
another Obama blunder: did Judd Gregg smell the coffee
another Obama blunder:
or did Judd Gregg wake up and smell the coffee?
just say no
or did Judd Gregg wake up and smell the coffee?
just say no
will illegals benefit from the stimulus package ?
will illegals benefit from the stimulus package ?
just another reason why we definitely need the E-verify
program to insure those tax dollars are for legal tax paying citizens.
just another reason why we definitely need the E-verify
program to insure those tax dollars are for legal tax paying citizens.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
odors coming from General Electric's Jeff Immelt ?
odors coming from General Electric's Jeff Immelt ?
why is this guy, Jeff Immelt, still on the payroll?
under his management sticok value has plummeted, yet he
still gets $20 million a year.
what am I missing ?
Bill Oreilly of Fox news is starting to look into
GE's performance and Jeff Immelt salary and perks.
Is Jeff Immelt enginerring a slow Enron meltdown for
his own profit?
Jack Welch Beats Up General Electric's Jeff Immelt. But Who's The Real Innovator?
Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on
It’s rare for an ex-ceo to publicly criticize his successor but Jack Welch leveled a harsh blast against GE’s Jeff Immelt days after the company announced a surprise drop in earnings right after Immelt promised it would meet its rich financial targets.
This is what Welch said: “Here’s the screw-up: you made a promise that you’d deliver this and you miss three weeks later,’’ Mr Welch said on GE-owned CNBC. “Jeff has a credibility issue. He’s getting his ass kicked. He apologised. Things happen fast.’’
What happened was the collapse of Bear Stearns and the meltdown in the credit markets. What happened was the sharp decline in the US economy and the beginnings of a slowdown in India and other overseas
markets that GE plays in.
why is this guy, Jeff Immelt, still on the payroll?
under his management sticok value has plummeted, yet he
still gets $20 million a year.
what am I missing ?
Bill Oreilly of Fox news is starting to look into
GE's performance and Jeff Immelt salary and perks.
Is Jeff Immelt enginerring a slow Enron meltdown for
his own profit?
Jack Welch Beats Up General Electric's Jeff Immelt. But Who's The Real Innovator?
Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on
It’s rare for an ex-ceo to publicly criticize his successor but Jack Welch leveled a harsh blast against GE’s Jeff Immelt days after the company announced a surprise drop in earnings right after Immelt promised it would meet its rich financial targets.
This is what Welch said: “Here’s the screw-up: you made a promise that you’d deliver this and you miss three weeks later,’’ Mr Welch said on GE-owned CNBC. “Jeff has a credibility issue. He’s getting his ass kicked. He apologised. Things happen fast.’’
What happened was the collapse of Bear Stearns and the meltdown in the credit markets. What happened was the sharp decline in the US economy and the beginnings of a slowdown in India and other overseas
markets that GE plays in.
County paying for 67 illegal landscape workers with your tax dollars?
here's 67 more reason why we need E-verify
County paying for 67 illegal landscape workers with your tax dollars?
Handyman Maintenance Incorporated near Lower Buckeye Road
and 19th Avenue was raided this morning.
Phoenix maintenance service faces raid in ID theft case
A search warrant is being served for a Phoenix
business that allegedly employed 67 undocumented immigrants suspected
of identity theft.
According to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, dozens of deputies and
volunteer posse are conducting the search warrant at Handyman
Maintenance Incorporated near Lower Buckeye Road
and 19th Avenue.
HMI reportedly has a multi-million dollar contract approved
by the Board of Supervisors to provide landscaping
services to several county buildings.
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/story/Phoenix-maintenance-service-faces-raid-in-ID/68GqQCdu20eIHAWwrBLniQ.cspx?rss=704
County paying for 67 illegal landscape workers with your tax dollars?
Handyman Maintenance Incorporated near Lower Buckeye Road
and 19th Avenue was raided this morning.
Phoenix maintenance service faces raid in ID theft case
A search warrant is being served for a Phoenix
business that allegedly employed 67 undocumented immigrants suspected
of identity theft.
According to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, dozens of deputies and
volunteer posse are conducting the search warrant at Handyman
Maintenance Incorporated near Lower Buckeye Road
and 19th Avenue.
HMI reportedly has a multi-million dollar contract approved
by the Board of Supervisors to provide landscaping
services to several county buildings.
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/story/Phoenix-maintenance-service-faces-raid-in-ID/68GqQCdu20eIHAWwrBLniQ.cspx?rss=704
Thursday, February 05, 2009
are Senator Reid's lobbyist sons involved in the supersizing of stimulus package ?
are Senator Reid's lobbyist sons involved in the supersizing of stimulus package ?
Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) is the Democratic floor leader, he has not
just one but three sons and a son-in-law who are lobbyists.
One of Reid’s sons, and his son-in-law, has lobbied in Washington; a second son lobbies for the same interests in Nevada; and a third son is an attorney who litigates for them in court.
Reid’s lobbyist-sons have worked to promote federal land swaps,
mining interests and the University of Nevada at Reno.
Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) is the Democratic floor leader, he has not
just one but three sons and a son-in-law who are lobbyists.
One of Reid’s sons, and his son-in-law, has lobbied in Washington; a second son lobbies for the same interests in Nevada; and a third son is an attorney who litigates for them in court.
Reid’s lobbyist-sons have worked to promote federal land swaps,
mining interests and the University of Nevada at Reno.
Democrats: Supersize my order of pork !
Democrats: Supersize my order of pork !
deferred taxes and more government already..........
deferred taxes and more government already..........
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
put the spotlite on Daschle's wife lobbying income?
put the spotlite on Daschle's wife lobbying income?
from a recent wikipedia reference
Daschle has been married to Linda Hall since 1984, one year after his marriage to his first wife, Laurie, ended in divorce.[6] Hall was acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration in the Clinton administration; she is now a Washington lobbyist. Her lobbying clients have included American Airlines, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing, Senate lobbying records show.
from a recent wikipedia reference
Daschle has been married to Linda Hall since 1984, one year after his marriage to his first wife, Laurie, ended in divorce.[6] Hall was acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration in the Clinton administration; she is now a Washington lobbyist. Her lobbying clients have included American Airlines, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing, Senate lobbying records show.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Daschle withdraws nomination, good was one of the biggest political whores/sluts in the senate
Daschle withdraws nomination, good was one of the biggest political whores/sluts in the senate
Daschle withdraws nomination
Faced with problems over back taxes and potential conflicts of interest,
Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination on Tuesday to be President
Barack Obama's Health and Human Services secretary.
"Now we must move forward," Obama said in a written statement
accepting Daschle's surprise request to be removed from
consideration. A day earlier, Obama had said he "absolutely" stood by Daschle.
Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader and a strong
backer of Obama's presidential bid, said he would have been
unable to operate "with the full faith of Congress and the American people."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/daschle_taxes
Daschle withdraws nomination
Faced with problems over back taxes and potential conflicts of interest,
Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination on Tuesday to be President
Barack Obama's Health and Human Services secretary.
"Now we must move forward," Obama said in a written statement
accepting Daschle's surprise request to be removed from
consideration. A day earlier, Obama had said he "absolutely" stood by Daschle.
Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader and a strong
backer of Obama's presidential bid, said he would have been
unable to operate "with the full faith of Congress and the American people."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/daschle_taxes
Monday, February 02, 2009
Tom Daschle charters a private jet for a caribeen vacation, tax deduction?
Tom Daschle charters a private jet for a Caribbean vacation, then claims it as a tax deduction ?
Glenn Beck , Fox news, show reporting on this Monday.
looks like SOS, same old shitheads in washington
Glenn Beck , Fox news, show reporting on this Monday.
looks like SOS, same old shitheads in washington
another Obama delinquent "tax and spend democrat, except my $$$"
another Obama delinquent "tax and spend democrat, except my $$$"
Daschle tries to apologize for failing to pay taxes
Besides most of the lobbying income is funnelled thru his wife's
lobby company, and who knows what other money is
co mingled.
see more at........
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090202/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/daschle_taxes
Daschle tries to apologize for failing to pay taxes
Besides most of the lobbying income is funnelled thru his wife's
lobby company, and who knows what other money is
co mingled.
see more at........
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090202/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/daschle_taxes
Saturday, January 31, 2009
more tax dodgers on the Obama team ? now Daschle
more tax dodgers on the Obama team ? now Daschle
Former Sen. Tom Daschle, picked by President Barack Obama to lead his health reform efforts, recently filed amended tax returns to report $128,203 in unpaid taxes and $11,964 in interest, according to a Senate document obtained by The Associated Press.
Former Sen. Tom Daschle, picked by President Barack Obama to lead his health reform efforts, recently filed amended tax returns to report $128,203 in unpaid taxes and $11,964 in interest, according to a Senate document obtained by The Associated Press.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tom Daschle forgets to report to the IRS part a $1 million in income ?
Tom Daschle forgets to report to the IRS part of a $1 million in income ?
Daschle is a limited partner and chairman of its executive advisory board. Daschle is also an independent consultant to InterMedia Advisors LLP of New York City. Hindery founded InterMedia Partners, a private equity firm, in 1988 Daschle was paid $1 million annually for his services, the committee said. Daschle's 2007 tax return did not include one of his monthly payments of $88,333.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_go_pr_wh/daschle_taxes
Daschle is a limited partner and chairman of its executive advisory board. Daschle is also an independent consultant to InterMedia Advisors LLP of New York City. Hindery founded InterMedia Partners, a private equity firm, in 1988 Daschle was paid $1 million annually for his services, the committee said. Daschle's 2007 tax return did not include one of his monthly payments of $88,333.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_go_pr_wh/daschle_taxes
has anyone seen those Senator Chris Dodd's mortgage papers ?
has anyone seen those Senator Chris Dodd's mortgage papers ?
Senator Chris Dodd is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
bailing out banks and mortgage lenders it seems he may have gotten a sweetheart deal from Countrywide on his personal real estate properties.
Rick Green a Connecticut newspaper,
friends of Angelo Countrywide
Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly of Fox news are still looking
Senator Chris Dodd is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
bailing out banks and mortgage lenders it seems he may have gotten a sweetheart deal from Countrywide on his personal real estate properties.
Rick Green a Connecticut newspaper,
friends of Angelo Countrywide
Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly of Fox news are still looking
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Citibank wants to stimulate the French airplane economy with your tax dollars?
Citibank wants to stimulate the French airplane economy with your tax dollars?
do you really want your tax dollars going to buy a luxury jet made in France ?
do you really want your tax dollars going to buy a luxury jet made in France ?
Monday, January 26, 2009
Citigroup/Citibank wants to buy a new foreign French jet ?
Your tax dollars at work...............
Citigroup/Citibank wants to buy a new foreign French jet for $45 million?
Citigroup/Citibank wants to buy a new foreign French jet for $45 million?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Dick Morris: THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY: HERE COMES SOCIALISM
THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY: HERE COMES SOCIALISM
By DICK MORRIS
2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden -- a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.
Obama will accomplish his agenda of "reform" under the rubric of "recovery." Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won't do much to shorten the downturn -- although they will make it less painful -- but they will do a great deal to change our nation.
In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover's and Roosevelt's missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)
But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.
Obama's record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit -- indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible -- Obama will do them all rather quickly.
But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.
Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.
In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders -- the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.
Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).
Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.
But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)
And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).
And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.
Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose "local" control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the "fairness doctrine" on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.
But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.
So Obama's name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.
But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.
By DICK MORRIS
2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden -- a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.
Obama will accomplish his agenda of "reform" under the rubric of "recovery." Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won't do much to shorten the downturn -- although they will make it less painful -- but they will do a great deal to change our nation.
In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover's and Roosevelt's missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)
But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.
Obama's record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit -- indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible -- Obama will do them all rather quickly.
But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.
Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.
In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders -- the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.
Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).
Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.
But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)
And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).
And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.
Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose "local" control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the "fairness doctrine" on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.
But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.
So Obama's name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.
But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.
Geithner apologizes for not paying $34K in taxes
Geithner apologizes for not paying $34K in taxes
Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner said Wednesday he was careless in failing to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes earlier this decade but declared "I have paid what I owed." He apologized to Congress.
Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee he was sorry that his past transgressions were now an issue in his confirmation at a time of deepening economic distress. He urged Congress to act quickly and forcibly to deal with the crisis. A top administration priority is to foster economic recovery and "get credit flowing again," Geithner testified.
As to his failure to pay payroll taxes from 2001 to 2004 while he worked for the International Monetary Fund, Geithner said: "These were careless mistakes. They were avoidable mistakes."
"But they were unintentional," he said.
Geithner told the panel that, for the 2001 and 2002 tax years, he had prepared his tax returns himself with a popular tax-preparation computer program.
He said that he hired an accountant to do his 2003 and 2004 taxes who also "did not catch my error."
He acknowledged signing an IMF statement saying he was aware that it was his responsibility to fully pay U.S. Social Security and Medicare taxes.
"I absolutely should have read it more carefully," he said. "I signed it in the mistaken belief I was complying with my obligations."
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the panel, noted that as Treasury secretary, Geithner would be in charge of the Internal Revenue Service and should therefore come under especially tight scrutiny on the issue of paying his personal taxes.
He suggested the danger of "sweeping the under the rug" Geithner's tax problems in a rush to get him confirmed.
"I have paid what I owed," Geithner said under grilling from Grassley. "I apologize to the committee for putting you in the position of having to spend so much time on these issues."
Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky told Geithner his failure to pay the taxes fully until just before his selection by Obama was announced was "hard to explain to my constituents who pay these taxes on a regular basis."
Although the tax disclosures provided a bump in Geithner's confirmation process, he appeared to have wide support from both parties, especially given the severity of the downturn and the nominee's past experience in the financial system.
"You will be confirmed," Pat Roberts of Kansas told Geithner. Still, the senator said, his phones were "ringing off the hook" from people in Kansas complaining about the prospects of having a Treasury secretary who was careless in tending to his own tax liabilities.
Grassley said he recognizes that many in Congress view Geithner, who worked closely with the outgoing administration on Wall Street's meltdown as head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, as "possibly the only man for the job of healing the recession before us and a very fractured economy."
"To some, he is not only the best choice, he is the only choice," said Grassley. The Republican has not announced how he will vote on the nomination and aides say he remains undecided.
Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana called Geithner's tax transgressions "disappointing mistakes," but said he believes they were innocent ones — and should not bar Geithner from serving in the administration's top economic position.
Baucus said his committee would vote on the nomination Thursday.
Geithner, who also worked in the Treasury Department under three presidents, addressed criticism over how the $700 billion financial bailout program has been spent so far by the outgoing Bush administration.
Many lawmakers have complained that most of the over $350 billion committed so far has gone mostly to the banking industry, and has done little to help individual homeowners facing foreclosure.
Geithner also said that Obama and he "share your belief that this program needs serious reform."
"This is an important program and we need to make it work," he said. "We're going to keep at it until we fix it."
He said the still-evolving Obama economic plan would include a comprehensive housing package.
"Senators, in this crisis, our financial system failed to meet its most basic obligations," Geithner said. "The system was too fragile and unstable, and because of this, the system was unfair and unjust. Individuals, families and businesses that were careful and responsible were damaged by the actions of those who were not. "
Obama last week called Geithner's tax problems an embarrassment but an "innocent mistake."
Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes from 2001 to 2004 for money he earned while he worked at the International Monetary Fund. He paid some of the taxes in 2006 after an audit discovered the discrepancy for the years 2003 and 2004. But it wasn't until two years later, days before Obama tapped him to head Treasury last November, that Geithner paid back taxes he owed for the years 2001 and 2002.
He did so after Obama's transition team found that Geithner had made the same tax mistake his first two years at the IMF as the one the IRS found he made during his last two years at the international lending agency.
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger,
WASHINGTON –
Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner said Wednesday he was careless in failing to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes earlier this decade but declared "I have paid what I owed." He apologized to Congress.
Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee he was sorry that his past transgressions were now an issue in his confirmation at a time of deepening economic distress. He urged Congress to act quickly and forcibly to deal with the crisis. A top administration priority is to foster economic recovery and "get credit flowing again," Geithner testified.
As to his failure to pay payroll taxes from 2001 to 2004 while he worked for the International Monetary Fund, Geithner said: "These were careless mistakes. They were avoidable mistakes."
"But they were unintentional," he said.
Geithner told the panel that, for the 2001 and 2002 tax years, he had prepared his tax returns himself with a popular tax-preparation computer program.
He said that he hired an accountant to do his 2003 and 2004 taxes who also "did not catch my error."
He acknowledged signing an IMF statement saying he was aware that it was his responsibility to fully pay U.S. Social Security and Medicare taxes.
"I absolutely should have read it more carefully," he said. "I signed it in the mistaken belief I was complying with my obligations."
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the panel, noted that as Treasury secretary, Geithner would be in charge of the Internal Revenue Service and should therefore come under especially tight scrutiny on the issue of paying his personal taxes.
He suggested the danger of "sweeping the under the rug" Geithner's tax problems in a rush to get him confirmed.
"I have paid what I owed," Geithner said under grilling from Grassley. "I apologize to the committee for putting you in the position of having to spend so much time on these issues."
Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky told Geithner his failure to pay the taxes fully until just before his selection by Obama was announced was "hard to explain to my constituents who pay these taxes on a regular basis."
Although the tax disclosures provided a bump in Geithner's confirmation process, he appeared to have wide support from both parties, especially given the severity of the downturn and the nominee's past experience in the financial system.
"You will be confirmed," Pat Roberts of Kansas told Geithner. Still, the senator said, his phones were "ringing off the hook" from people in Kansas complaining about the prospects of having a Treasury secretary who was careless in tending to his own tax liabilities.
Grassley said he recognizes that many in Congress view Geithner, who worked closely with the outgoing administration on Wall Street's meltdown as head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, as "possibly the only man for the job of healing the recession before us and a very fractured economy."
"To some, he is not only the best choice, he is the only choice," said Grassley. The Republican has not announced how he will vote on the nomination and aides say he remains undecided.
Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana called Geithner's tax transgressions "disappointing mistakes," but said he believes they were innocent ones — and should not bar Geithner from serving in the administration's top economic position.
Baucus said his committee would vote on the nomination Thursday.
Geithner, who also worked in the Treasury Department under three presidents, addressed criticism over how the $700 billion financial bailout program has been spent so far by the outgoing Bush administration.
Many lawmakers have complained that most of the over $350 billion committed so far has gone mostly to the banking industry, and has done little to help individual homeowners facing foreclosure.
Geithner also said that Obama and he "share your belief that this program needs serious reform."
"This is an important program and we need to make it work," he said. "We're going to keep at it until we fix it."
He said the still-evolving Obama economic plan would include a comprehensive housing package.
"Senators, in this crisis, our financial system failed to meet its most basic obligations," Geithner said. "The system was too fragile and unstable, and because of this, the system was unfair and unjust. Individuals, families and businesses that were careful and responsible were damaged by the actions of those who were not. "
Obama last week called Geithner's tax problems an embarrassment but an "innocent mistake."
Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes from 2001 to 2004 for money he earned while he worked at the International Monetary Fund. He paid some of the taxes in 2006 after an audit discovered the discrepancy for the years 2003 and 2004. But it wasn't until two years later, days before Obama tapped him to head Treasury last November, that Geithner paid back taxes he owed for the years 2001 and 2002.
He did so after Obama's transition team found that Geithner had made the same tax mistake his first two years at the IMF as the one the IRS found he made during his last two years at the international lending agency.
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger,
WASHINGTON –
Monday, January 19, 2009
Bush pardons border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean
Bush pardons border agents
January 19, 2009Subscribe to: RSS, Email
George Bush, on his last full day as U.S. president, Monday commuted sentences of two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a drug-smuggling suspect.
Bush also faced pressure to issue blanket pardons to interrogators accused of torturing terror suspects, Politico reported Monday.
The commutation means the convictions of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean remain, but they will be released this year instead of serving their 11-year and 12-year sentences, respectively, the U.S. Justice Department said in a news release.
The agents were convicted of wounding Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks in February 2005 as he allegedly ran from a truck containing 743 pounds of marijuana near Fabens, Texas. Prosecutors argued that the agents shot an unarmed and fleeing suspect and then failed to report they fired their weapons.
January 19, 2009Subscribe to: RSS, Email
George Bush, on his last full day as U.S. president, Monday commuted sentences of two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a drug-smuggling suspect.
Bush also faced pressure to issue blanket pardons to interrogators accused of torturing terror suspects, Politico reported Monday.
The commutation means the convictions of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean remain, but they will be released this year instead of serving their 11-year and 12-year sentences, respectively, the U.S. Justice Department said in a news release.
The agents were convicted of wounding Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks in February 2005 as he allegedly ran from a truck containing 743 pounds of marijuana near Fabens, Texas. Prosecutors argued that the agents shot an unarmed and fleeing suspect and then failed to report they fired their weapons.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
free health care for illegals ? your tax dollars at work
free health care for illegals ? your tax dollars at work
House passes healthcare bill that includes illegal aliens!
The House of Representatives has passed an expanded version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and made it easier for illegal aliens to access the program's benefits.
HR 2, the new version of SCHIP, weakens verification requirements. Those who enroll will be required to show only an easily forged Social Security card -- not secure documents proving U.S. citizenship. The legislation also extends benefits to non-citizen children of legal immigrants.
http://capwiz.com/caps/issues/alert/?alertid=12446501
House passes healthcare bill that includes illegal aliens!
The House of Representatives has passed an expanded version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and made it easier for illegal aliens to access the program's benefits.
HR 2, the new version of SCHIP, weakens verification requirements. Those who enroll will be required to show only an easily forged Social Security card -- not secure documents proving U.S. citizenship. The legislation also extends benefits to non-citizen children of legal immigrants.
http://capwiz.com/caps/issues/alert/?alertid=12446501
Monday, November 17, 2008
Alert: Hannity and Limbaugh to be kicked off the air
Alert: Hannity and Limbaugh to be kicked off the air
Do you believe that liberals already dominate the media?
Do you think biased coverage played a large part in the outcome of the presidential election?
If you think things were bad in that regard...
IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE ALLOW LIBERALS TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THEIR PLANS TO IMPOSE THE SO-CALLED FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AND SUCCEED IN SILENCING CONSERVATIVE TALK-RADIO HOSTS LIKE RUSH LIMBAUGH AND SEAN HANNITY AND LAURA INGRAHAM!
Do liberals actually believe that conservative opinions are pornography?
Are liberals so threatened that they're plotting and planning right now, at this very minute, to silence conservative thoughts and opinions from the public airwaves?
You be the judge.
FOX News asked Senator Chuck Schumer if liberals in Congress will try to implement the so-called Fairness Doctrine - a measure specifically designed to shut down Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and conservative talk radio.
Schumer replied indignantly:
"Do you think we should allow people to put pornography on the air? Absolutely not. Particularly on television or radio."
Huh? No, it's NOT a joke! And he didn't stop there.
Schumer nastily admonished decent Americans for some imagined hypocrisy:
"The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air.... That's not consistent."
It's almost beyond belief.
We couldn't have made it up!
Is Schumer so unhinged that he's not even capable of understanding the fundamental difference between smut and political expression?
Craig Parshall, general counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters said:
"I was stunned by Senator Schumer's suggestion that by keeping filth off the air, the federal government has somehow become empowered to take over the control of legitimate programming content of broadcasters."
But Parshall missed one very important point.
With control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, Schumer and his liberal colleagues are twisting the First Amendment's guarantees of Freedom of Speech and of the Press -- ALL TO SET THE STAGE TO SILENCE RUSH, HANNITY AND OTHERS.
If you're a liberal, you can burn the flag, put four-letter-word bumper stickers on your car, commit lewd acts on-stage, play profane rap music loudly on your car radio, produce, rent and distribute the most disgusting filth in broad daylight and on the Internet in plain view of minors and even use taxpayer dollars to depict Jesus suspended in bodily waste.
But when it comes to shutting down conservative thoughts and opinions, now that they have grabbed the reins of power, liberals are making control over the content of speech a top priority!
They're plotting and maneuvering behind the scenes to make it happen RIGHT NOW!
Peter Kirsanow writing in National Review Online tells us why this fight is URGENT:
"Imposition of some form of the Fairness Doctrine likely will be one of the Democrats' agenda items for the first 100 days of the new administration. It's important that conservatives begin working now to stop it."
Kirsanow went on:
"Waiting until Inauguration Day to get geared up is too late. By that time the Fairness Doctrine Express will be at full steam, wavering Democrats will be pressed to support the new Democratic president, weak-kneed Republicans will want to display comity, the mainstream media will not be saddened to see talk radio annihilated and much of the public will be too enraptured by Obama's Camelot inauguration to notice or care."
Kirsanow is right.
There is not a moment to lose. If we take a stand now, we can defeat this threat to our civil liberties.
If we wait, it will be too late.
Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.
We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.
We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinebeii.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
"Congress Shall Make No Law..."
You might think it's almost beyond belief, but our Founding Fathers understood and dreaded the danger we presently face.
They feared the danger to such an extent that they ratified, as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, words they thought would be our primary line of defense against the government evolving into a tyranny that would trample on the rights of the people.
To them the danger was real:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...."
It was not a fluke that the above words came first.
Our Founding Fathers knew that all of our rights flow directly from those fundamental liberties.
And they knew that once the government began eliminating our First Amendment freedoms, all of our other rights would fall like dominoes.
Despots in the modern era knew it as well.
Gaining control of the media is typically the first act of a leftist usurper.
When Castro took power in Cuba, he imprisoned journalists en masse and continued to do so throughout his regime, holding those who opposed him indefinitely without charges.
When Josef Stalin returned from exile in March of 1917 he immediately assumed control of an underground publication founded by Leon Trotsky called Pravda (which, ironically, translates as "Truth") and made it an official arm of the Soviet Communist Party. Pravda became and remained the chief propaganda arm of the Soviet Communist Party until it was shut down in 1991 by Boris Yeltsin. Subscription to Pravda was MANDATORY.
Immediately after assuming power in 1933, Adolf Hitler placed Joseph Goebbels in charge of the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. All journalists, writers, and artists were required to register with the ministry.
But this is the United States where, unfortunately, such strong-arm tactics are not necessary because liberals already control the media, EXCEPT for conservative talk radio.
Kirsanow again:
"Talk radio is the most important medium conservatives have. It's the only medium conservatives dominate. But liberals aren't content to have only NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, AP, Reuters, Newsweek, Time, the NY Times, Washington Post, Hollywood, etc. Stray conservative thoughts might escape into the population, you know."
CNSNews quoting Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland:
"The government 'has the responsibility' to make sure there are a 'variety of opportunities for people to get information,' said Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) when asked about the Fairness Doctrine at the Democratic Senatorial Committee election night party on Tuesday."
"Variety of Opportunities"... ?
Without conservative talk radio THERE IS NO "VARIETY"... period!
It's simple. No conservative talk radio means there is no voice of dissent. No voice of dissent means no free speech and no free speech means that nothing stands in the way of those in government who wish to oppress the governed.
Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.
We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.
We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinebeii.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
How It Works...
The sad truth is that liberal elites in the media and in government are totally oblivious to concepts like freedom and fairness and balance.
Their ONLY agenda is to control all debate, opinion and political discourse.
And the so-called Fairness Doctrine is their means to achieve that end.
How, you ask?
Years ago the Fairness Doctrine was simply policy at the FCC.
Bill Ruder, John F. Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of Commerce, spelled it out:
"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
Former Reagan Budget Director James Miller put it another way:
"Put yourself in the position of the broadcaster: your very existence is dependent on the FCC's renewing your license every few years. And the FCC says you must offer 'balanced' programming. What does this mean?"
To put it another way, what do you suppose stations would do if they had to provide "balance" to Rush and Hannity and Ingraham AS DICTATED BY NANCY PELOSI and Charles Schumer?
Say good-bye to conservative talk-radio.
Make no mistake, the racket you'll soon be hearing in Washington will be the ker-blam of the wrecking ball, battering down freedom of speech in America, as Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid use the so-called Fairness Doctrine to reduce the First Amendment to rubble and haul it away in dump trucks.
Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.
We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.
We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinebeii.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
It Is No Secret.
Liberals in Congress have been trying to shut-down conservative talk-radio for years.
It's the first item on their agenda!
Here's a quote from Senator James Inhofe recounting a conversation he claims he heard between Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Hillary Clinton:
"They said we've got to do something about this. These are nothing but far right-wing extremists.... There's got to be a legislative fix for this..."
Here's former Vice-President Al Gore, unable to squelch his contempt for conservative talk radio in general and Rush Limbaugh in particular:
"[T]hen immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves."
Here's Michael Ortiz, a spokesman with the Obama campaign, explaining why Barrack Obama believes the so-called Fairness Doctrine does not go far enough. Pay particular attention to the code words:
"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible, that is why Senator Obama supports media ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
Here's a quote from Senator Richard Durbin, the man who compared our brave men and women in uniform to "NAZIs," but had to begrudgingly apologize after being called on the carpet by conservative talk-radio hosts:
"It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."
Here's Senator John Kerry attempting to advance the idiotic fantasy that conservative opinion dominates the media and liberal opinions are not heard:
"I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there... one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views."
And here's Senator Dianne Feinstein equating shutting-down the opinions of the minority with fairness:
"I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness."
Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.
We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.
We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinebeii.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
Our Side Knows The Score As Well.
Here's President Bush:
"By insisting on so-called balance, [liberals] want to silence those they don't agree with. They know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas."
Here's Martha Zoller, writing for the Business & Media Institute recounting a quick Q and A with Nancy Pelosi a few months ago:
"The do-nothing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last week that she supports reviving the Fairness Doctrine... When pressed further on whether she would allow the Broadcaster Freedom Act to repeal the Fairness Doctrine permanently, Pelosi said, ' No... The interest in my caucus is the reverse.'"
Here's Cliff Kincaid with Accuracy in Media quoting the Democratic Platform; as with the statement from the Obama campaign, pay particular attention to the liberal code words:
"'We will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum,' the Democratic platform says."
And finally, David Limbaugh sums it all up:
"The left supports campaign finance reform, the Fairness Doctrine and other policies allegedly aimed at ensuring that both sides of the political argument be aired. But it's a colossal fraud. Can you imagine what would be in store for political speech in this country if liberals resumed regulatory control of the airways? I can and am horrified at the prospect; and you should be, too."
The time to act is now.
Pelosi, Schumer, Reid and other extreme-liberals in Congress will move quickly... possibly any day now.
When they're done, the First Amendment might as well read:
Congress shall endeavor to make laws disrespecting establishments of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof; abridging the freedom of speech, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble...
Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.
We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.
We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinebeii.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
The CFIF Action Alert is a service to the conservative community. If you would like to subscribe please go to www.cfif.org/signup.
Do you believe that liberals already dominate the media?
Do you think biased coverage played a large part in the outcome of the presidential election?
If you think things were bad in that regard...
IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE ALLOW LIBERALS TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THEIR PLANS TO IMPOSE THE SO-CALLED FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AND SUCCEED IN SILENCING CONSERVATIVE TALK-RADIO HOSTS LIKE RUSH LIMBAUGH AND SEAN HANNITY AND LAURA INGRAHAM!
Do liberals actually believe that conservative opinions are pornography?
Are liberals so threatened that they're plotting and planning right now, at this very minute, to silence conservative thoughts and opinions from the public airwaves?
You be the judge.
FOX News asked Senator Chuck Schumer if liberals in Congress will try to implement the so-called Fairness Doctrine - a measure specifically designed to shut down Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and conservative talk radio.
Schumer replied indignantly:
"Do you think we should allow people to put pornography on the air? Absolutely not. Particularly on television or radio."
Huh? No, it's NOT a joke! And he didn't stop there.
Schumer nastily admonished decent Americans for some imagined hypocrisy:
"The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air.... That's not consistent."
It's almost beyond belief.
We couldn't have made it up!
Is Schumer so unhinged that he's not even capable of understanding the fundamental difference between smut and political expression?
Craig Parshall, general counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters said:
"I was stunned by Senator Schumer's suggestion that by keeping filth off the air, the federal government has somehow become empowered to take over the control of legitimate programming content of broadcasters."
But Parshall missed one very important point.
With control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, Schumer and his liberal colleagues are twisting the First Amendment's guarantees of Freedom of Speech and of the Press -- ALL TO SET THE STAGE TO SILENCE RUSH, HANNITY AND OTHERS.
If you're a liberal, you can burn the flag, put four-letter-word bumper stickers on your car, commit lewd acts on-stage, play profane rap music loudly on your car radio, produce, rent and distribute the most disgusting filth in broad daylight and on the Internet in plain view of minors and even use taxpayer dollars to depict Jesus suspended in bodily waste.
But when it comes to shutting down conservative thoughts and opinions, now that they have grabbed the reins of power, liberals are making control over the content of speech a top priority!
They're plotting and maneuvering behind the scenes to make it happen RIGHT NOW!
Peter Kirsanow writing in National Review Online tells us why this fight is URGENT:
"Imposition of some form of the Fairness Doctrine likely will be one of the Democrats' agenda items for the first 100 days of the new administration. It's important that conservatives begin working now to stop it."
Kirsanow went on:
"Waiting until Inauguration Day to get geared up is too late. By that time the Fairness Doctrine Express will be at full steam, wavering Democrats will be pressed to support the new Democratic president, weak-kneed Republicans will want to display comity, the mainstream media will not be saddened to see talk radio annihilated and much of the public will be too enraptured by Obama's Camelot inauguration to notice or care."
Kirsanow is right.
There is not a moment to lose. If we take a stand now, we can defeat this threat to our civil liberties.
If we wait, it will be too late.
Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.
We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.
We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinebeii.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
"Congress Shall Make No Law..."
You might think it's almost beyond belief, but our Founding Fathers understood and dreaded the danger we presently face.
They feared the danger to such an extent that they ratified, as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, words they thought would be our primary line of defense against the government evolving into a tyranny that would trample on the rights of the people.
To them the danger was real:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...."
It was not a fluke that the above words came first.
Our Founding Fathers knew that all of our rights flow directly from those fundamental liberties.
And they knew that once the government began eliminating our First Amendment freedoms, all of our other rights would fall like dominoes.
Despots in the modern era knew it as well.
Gaining control of the media is typically the first act of a leftist usurper.
When Castro took power in Cuba, he imprisoned journalists en masse and continued to do so throughout his regime, holding those who opposed him indefinitely without charges.
When Josef Stalin returned from exile in March of 1917 he immediately assumed control of an underground publication founded by Leon Trotsky called Pravda (which, ironically, translates as "Truth") and made it an official arm of the Soviet Communist Party. Pravda became and remained the chief propaganda arm of the Soviet Communist Party until it was shut down in 1991 by Boris Yeltsin. Subscription to Pravda was MANDATORY.
Immediately after assuming power in 1933, Adolf Hitler placed Joseph Goebbels in charge of the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. All journalists, writers, and artists were required to register with the ministry.
But this is the United States where, unfortunately, such strong-arm tactics are not necessary because liberals already control the media, EXCEPT for conservative talk radio.
Kirsanow again:
"Talk radio is the most important medium conservatives have. It's the only medium conservatives dominate. But liberals aren't content to have only NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, AP, Reuters, Newsweek, Time, the NY Times, Washington Post, Hollywood, etc. Stray conservative thoughts might escape into the population, you know."
CNSNews quoting Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland:
"The government 'has the responsibility' to make sure there are a 'variety of opportunities for people to get information,' said Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) when asked about the Fairness Doctrine at the Democratic Senatorial Committee election night party on Tuesday."
"Variety of Opportunities"... ?
Without conservative talk radio THERE IS NO "VARIETY"... period!
It's simple. No conservative talk radio means there is no voice of dissent. No voice of dissent means no free speech and no free speech means that nothing stands in the way of those in government who wish to oppress the governed.
Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.
We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.
We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinebeii.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
How It Works...
The sad truth is that liberal elites in the media and in government are totally oblivious to concepts like freedom and fairness and balance.
Their ONLY agenda is to control all debate, opinion and political discourse.
And the so-called Fairness Doctrine is their means to achieve that end.
How, you ask?
Years ago the Fairness Doctrine was simply policy at the FCC.
Bill Ruder, John F. Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of Commerce, spelled it out:
"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
Former Reagan Budget Director James Miller put it another way:
"Put yourself in the position of the broadcaster: your very existence is dependent on the FCC's renewing your license every few years. And the FCC says you must offer 'balanced' programming. What does this mean?"
To put it another way, what do you suppose stations would do if they had to provide "balance" to Rush and Hannity and Ingraham AS DICTATED BY NANCY PELOSI and Charles Schumer?
Say good-bye to conservative talk-radio.
Make no mistake, the racket you'll soon be hearing in Washington will be the ker-blam of the wrecking ball, battering down freedom of speech in America, as Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid use the so-called Fairness Doctrine to reduce the First Amendment to rubble and haul it away in dump trucks.
Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.
We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.
We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinebeii.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
It Is No Secret.
Liberals in Congress have been trying to shut-down conservative talk-radio for years.
It's the first item on their agenda!
Here's a quote from Senator James Inhofe recounting a conversation he claims he heard between Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Hillary Clinton:
"They said we've got to do something about this. These are nothing but far right-wing extremists.... There's got to be a legislative fix for this..."
Here's former Vice-President Al Gore, unable to squelch his contempt for conservative talk radio in general and Rush Limbaugh in particular:
"[T]hen immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves."
Here's Michael Ortiz, a spokesman with the Obama campaign, explaining why Barrack Obama believes the so-called Fairness Doctrine does not go far enough. Pay particular attention to the code words:
"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible, that is why Senator Obama supports media ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
Here's a quote from Senator Richard Durbin, the man who compared our brave men and women in uniform to "NAZIs," but had to begrudgingly apologize after being called on the carpet by conservative talk-radio hosts:
"It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."
Here's Senator John Kerry attempting to advance the idiotic fantasy that conservative opinion dominates the media and liberal opinions are not heard:
"I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there... one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views."
And here's Senator Dianne Feinstein equating shutting-down the opinions of the minority with fairness:
"I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness."
Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.
We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.
We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinebeii.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
Our Side Knows The Score As Well.
Here's President Bush:
"By insisting on so-called balance, [liberals] want to silence those they don't agree with. They know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas."
Here's Martha Zoller, writing for the Business & Media Institute recounting a quick Q and A with Nancy Pelosi a few months ago:
"The do-nothing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last week that she supports reviving the Fairness Doctrine... When pressed further on whether she would allow the Broadcaster Freedom Act to repeal the Fairness Doctrine permanently, Pelosi said, ' No... The interest in my caucus is the reverse.'"
Here's Cliff Kincaid with Accuracy in Media quoting the Democratic Platform; as with the statement from the Obama campaign, pay particular attention to the liberal code words:
"'We will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum,' the Democratic platform says."
And finally, David Limbaugh sums it all up:
"The left supports campaign finance reform, the Fairness Doctrine and other policies allegedly aimed at ensuring that both sides of the political argument be aired. But it's a colossal fraud. Can you imagine what would be in store for political speech in this country if liberals resumed regulatory control of the airways? I can and am horrified at the prospect; and you should be, too."
The time to act is now.
Pelosi, Schumer, Reid and other extreme-liberals in Congress will move quickly... possibly any day now.
When they're done, the First Amendment might as well read:
Congress shall endeavor to make laws disrespecting establishments of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof; abridging the freedom of speech, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble...
Use the hyperlink below and bombard President George W. Bush and the Republican Members of the Senate with your Blast Faxes. Demand that they stand firm against any attempt by liberals in Congress to effectively outlaw the First Amendment.
We must act now! Liberals in Congress may try to sneak the Fairness Doctrine into legislation any day now. Liberal pundits inside the Beltway and members of the elite media are already attempting to sell conservative Senators on the notion that their only chance for political survival is to display comity. Unless they hear from you now, they WILL believe it, as they have in the past.
We can win this fight. It only takes 40 Senators to stand firm . But if patriotic Americans do not speak up, we will lose this fight for our liberties.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/unfairnessdoctrinebeii.html
AOL Members Use This Hyperlink
If the hyperlink above does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
The CFIF Action Alert is a service to the conservative community. If you would like to subscribe please go to www.cfif.org/signup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)