Congress buys 3 private jets for themselves ?
what is this bullshit in Washington ?
By Michael Schwanke and Chris Durden (WICHITA, Kan.)
Less than a year after lawmakers in Congress criticized automakers,
the House approves nearly $200 million for Gulfstream jets to fly government officials and members of Congress.
"I don't know how I go back to my constituents and say the auto industry has changed. If they own
private jets which are not only expensive to own expensive to operate and
expensive to fly here rather than to have flown commercial." Congressman Brad Sherman
(D-CA) said back in November.
Now, members of Congress may be the ones on the "hot seat" after the House of Representatives
overwhelmingly approved the purchase of three, $65 million Gulfstream 550 jets.
They are top of the line and two of them will be used by members of Congress,
military brass and top government officials.
"I thought this is supremely hypocritical for them to do that," says Wichita resident
Robert Gruenloh who contacted us after reading the story.
"I just basically hit the ceiling because our industry around here
is hurting because in part what some of the remarks members of congress made about corporate aircraft."
The jets are part of a Defense Appropriation Bill for the Air Force.
Officials with the Air Force say it only needed one jet.
It's reported the funding for the jets was pushed by two members of the Appropriations Committee,
Democrat Sanford Bishop and Republican Jack Kingston.
Both are from Georgia, where the Gulfstream is made.
"The corporate guys were doing it with shareholder money and Congress is doing it with taxpayer money and that doesn't seem right to me," says Gruenloh.
Eyewitness News contacted Congressman Todd Tiahrt who is on the Appropriations Committee.
He was with family and unavailable for an interview, but he has strongly opposed
comments by members of Congress about corporate jet usage.
http://www.kansascw.com/Global/story.asp?S=10855866
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Rep Waxman: Congress win not have to join government healthcare !
Rep Waxman: Congress win not have to join government Obama health care !
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You're Just Not Worth It
ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You're Just Not Worth It
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 29, 2009 at 7:32 am
The debate over Barack Obama's health care plan continues. Senators are trying to cut deals and members of the House of Representatives are doing the same. Democrats are trying to push through a massive government plan that will cost Americans billions and billions of dollars all because Obama wants to take power away from the people and put it in the hands of government.
Throughout this debate, the voices of seniors have been strangely and disturbingly silent. Do they not know the details of ObamaCare? Are they so enamored with this "nice, young man" that they don't even look at what the plan has to offer? ObamaCare has a strong message for seniors, and it is one they shouldn't ignore: If you are old in America, then don't get sick... you're not worth the cost.
In a recent update by The Heritage Foundation, seniors can read for themselves some of the results of ObamaCare on their daily lives.
First, seniors would face an increasing risk of losing their doctor. With cuts to Medicare reimbursements, more and more physicians are no longer taking Medicare patients. ObamaCare makes it worse: "Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients."
Obama's plan also places a disincentive on people to become physicians as his "public" option "could decrease the annual net income of hospitals by $36 billion, while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion."
Then there is the worry that seniors will lose their coverage. As noted in The Heritage Foundation's report, "22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. These health plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coordinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. President Obama has proposed killing this program entirely."
And, of course, there is the issue that Obama and the liberal Democrats want seniors and all Americans to ignore: the rationing of health care. Under Obama's plan, there will be a new government bureaucracy known as a "federal health board." The purpose of this board is to determine whether various procedures and tests are deemed necessary in the eyes of the federal government. That notion is truly scary.
Obama supporter and infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing: "The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated." Conservatives in Congress have given Obamacare supporters every opportunity to disavow government-rationed health care, but Obamacare supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed. Make no mistake, Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy by denying treatments to the old and sick.
As noted in a story by the Associated Press, a group of senators is actually working to squeeze more money out of Medicare. "Under the plan, an independent commission would be empowered to recommend changes in Medicare annually, to take effect automatically unless Congress enacted an alternative."
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=1776
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 29, 2009 at 7:32 am
The debate over Barack Obama's health care plan continues. Senators are trying to cut deals and members of the House of Representatives are doing the same. Democrats are trying to push through a massive government plan that will cost Americans billions and billions of dollars all because Obama wants to take power away from the people and put it in the hands of government.
Throughout this debate, the voices of seniors have been strangely and disturbingly silent. Do they not know the details of ObamaCare? Are they so enamored with this "nice, young man" that they don't even look at what the plan has to offer? ObamaCare has a strong message for seniors, and it is one they shouldn't ignore: If you are old in America, then don't get sick... you're not worth the cost.
In a recent update by The Heritage Foundation, seniors can read for themselves some of the results of ObamaCare on their daily lives.
First, seniors would face an increasing risk of losing their doctor. With cuts to Medicare reimbursements, more and more physicians are no longer taking Medicare patients. ObamaCare makes it worse: "Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients."
Obama's plan also places a disincentive on people to become physicians as his "public" option "could decrease the annual net income of hospitals by $36 billion, while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion."
Then there is the worry that seniors will lose their coverage. As noted in The Heritage Foundation's report, "22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. These health plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coordinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. President Obama has proposed killing this program entirely."
And, of course, there is the issue that Obama and the liberal Democrats want seniors and all Americans to ignore: the rationing of health care. Under Obama's plan, there will be a new government bureaucracy known as a "federal health board." The purpose of this board is to determine whether various procedures and tests are deemed necessary in the eyes of the federal government. That notion is truly scary.
Obama supporter and infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing: "The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated." Conservatives in Congress have given Obamacare supporters every opportunity to disavow government-rationed health care, but Obamacare supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed. Make no mistake, Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy by denying treatments to the old and sick.
As noted in a story by the Associated Press, a group of senators is actually working to squeeze more money out of Medicare. "Under the plan, an independent commission would be empowered to recommend changes in Medicare annually, to take effect automatically unless Congress enacted an alternative."
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=1776
how about using one state as a pilot for any federal healthcare program ?
how about using one state as a pilot for any federal healthcare program ?
note not Massachussetts senatorKennedy's home state.(bad example, what not to do).
state could selected by a lottery, then fine tune program after the first
year
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
note not Massachussetts senatorKennedy's home state.(bad example, what not to do).
state could selected by a lottery, then fine tune program after the first
year
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
Look to Massachusetts state healthcare as a prototype
Look to Massachusetts state healthcare as a prototype, Senator Kennedy home state, quality is declining, costs are rising ?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
how about medical malpractice reform or do the trial lawyers own Obama?
how about medical malpractice reform or do the trial lawyers own Obama?
this could reduce healthcare costs and reduce the defensive medical that this
generates.
This could be a simple bill, not a overwhelming 100-2000 page document.
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
this could reduce healthcare costs and reduce the defensive medical that this
generates.
This could be a simple bill, not a overwhelming 100-2000 page document.
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
URGENT ACTION NEEDED ON HEALTH CARE
URGENT ACTION NEEDED ON HEALTH CARE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on July 17, 2009
In two weeks, Obama's health care plan is likely to become law, ending medicine as we know it in the United States! Unless we can stop him, our own personal access to medical care will be attenuated (no matter if we can pay for it ourselves) and we will all be subject to bureaucratic rationing.
Seeing his popularity draining away rapidly, President Obama has cynically decided to ram through the complex health care legislation in two weeks, without debate or amendment. He is going to give up the attempt to win sixty votes in the Senate and will use the budget reconciliation procedure - which is only used for budget bills - to push it through with fifty votes.
His plan would:
• Force employers either to offer health insurance to their employees or pay a tax of 8% of their payrolls. This would apply to all with payrolls of $250,000 a year or more (basically every business)
• Reduce medical fees to the Medicare Schedule Plus 5%, driving doctors out of the profession and increasing the need for rationing.
• Raise taxes on all making more than $250,000 a year ($350,000 for a couple) with a surcharge. Rates will go as high as 45%.
• Set up a government owned health care plan to compete with private plans. Getting a subsidy, it will soon put the private plans out of business and we will have a single payer Canadian style system.
In Catastrophe, we enumerate the disaster of the Canadian health care system. A cancer death rate 16% higher than in the US. A colon cancer rate 25% higher due to waits for colonoscopies and a death rate once afflicted that is 41% as opposed to 32% in the US. An eight week wait for cancer radiation therapy.
We are organizing a media campaign to target swing state Senators to delay or kill the Obama bill. We will concentrate on:
Montana - Baucus and Tester
North Dakota - Dorgan and Conrad
South Dakota - Johnson
Nebraska - Nelson
Arkansas - Pryor and Lincoln
Louisiana - Landrieu
North Carolina - Hagan
Indiana - Bayh
Connecticut - Lieberman
Maine - Snow and Collins
The text of the ad will be:
"How can Obama care for fifty million new people without more doctors? By cutting access to care for the elderly. End Medicare as we know it. The government decides who gets hip, knee, or heart surgery. Eight month wait for colonoscopies. In Canada, an eight week wait for cancer radiation. Say no to Obama's plan. Write Senator Evan Bayh today so you can still see your doctor tomorrow."
On Monday or Tuesday, we will e mail you info on how to donate to our campaign. We need to raise $4 million in one week to impact this vote. With those funds, we can saturate these states and send the moderate Democrats scurrying for cover. But we need your quick response.
The stakes have never been higher.
Thank you.
Milton Friedman: Obama Policies Will Destroy Our Nation
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/free_mischief.cfm?PROMO_CODE=82C4-1
Is Obama a Socialist?
http://news1.newsmax.com/obama_socialist2/?PROMO_CODE=82C6-1
Take Action; Be Prepared. Go Here for Your FREE Emergency Radio
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/radio_free.cfm?PROMO_CODE=82C5-1
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on July 17, 2009
In two weeks, Obama's health care plan is likely to become law, ending medicine as we know it in the United States! Unless we can stop him, our own personal access to medical care will be attenuated (no matter if we can pay for it ourselves) and we will all be subject to bureaucratic rationing.
Seeing his popularity draining away rapidly, President Obama has cynically decided to ram through the complex health care legislation in two weeks, without debate or amendment. He is going to give up the attempt to win sixty votes in the Senate and will use the budget reconciliation procedure - which is only used for budget bills - to push it through with fifty votes.
His plan would:
• Force employers either to offer health insurance to their employees or pay a tax of 8% of their payrolls. This would apply to all with payrolls of $250,000 a year or more (basically every business)
• Reduce medical fees to the Medicare Schedule Plus 5%, driving doctors out of the profession and increasing the need for rationing.
• Raise taxes on all making more than $250,000 a year ($350,000 for a couple) with a surcharge. Rates will go as high as 45%.
• Set up a government owned health care plan to compete with private plans. Getting a subsidy, it will soon put the private plans out of business and we will have a single payer Canadian style system.
In Catastrophe, we enumerate the disaster of the Canadian health care system. A cancer death rate 16% higher than in the US. A colon cancer rate 25% higher due to waits for colonoscopies and a death rate once afflicted that is 41% as opposed to 32% in the US. An eight week wait for cancer radiation therapy.
We are organizing a media campaign to target swing state Senators to delay or kill the Obama bill. We will concentrate on:
Montana - Baucus and Tester
North Dakota - Dorgan and Conrad
South Dakota - Johnson
Nebraska - Nelson
Arkansas - Pryor and Lincoln
Louisiana - Landrieu
North Carolina - Hagan
Indiana - Bayh
Connecticut - Lieberman
Maine - Snow and Collins
The text of the ad will be:
"How can Obama care for fifty million new people without more doctors? By cutting access to care for the elderly. End Medicare as we know it. The government decides who gets hip, knee, or heart surgery. Eight month wait for colonoscopies. In Canada, an eight week wait for cancer radiation. Say no to Obama's plan. Write Senator Evan Bayh today so you can still see your doctor tomorrow."
On Monday or Tuesday, we will e mail you info on how to donate to our campaign. We need to raise $4 million in one week to impact this vote. With those funds, we can saturate these states and send the moderate Democrats scurrying for cover. But we need your quick response.
The stakes have never been higher.
Thank you.
Milton Friedman: Obama Policies Will Destroy Our Nation
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/free_mischief.cfm?PROMO_CODE=82C4-1
Is Obama a Socialist?
http://news1.newsmax.com/obama_socialist2/?PROMO_CODE=82C6-1
Take Action; Be Prepared. Go Here for Your FREE Emergency Radio
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/radio_free.cfm?PROMO_CODE=82C5-1
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
House Democrats now want healthcare for illegals ?
House Democrats now want healthcare for illegals ?
House Committee Rejects Closing Health Coverage Loophole for Illegal Aliens
During consideration of the health care reform bill (H.R. 3200), the House Ways & Means Committee rejected an amendment that would have helped ensure illegal aliens would not receive taxpayer-funded health care benefits.
The amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV), would have required the government to verify that enrollees in the "public plan" and applicants for "affordability credits" are not illegal aliens.
Eligibility verification would have been determined by using existing databases — the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.
(Congressional Quarterly, July 16, 2009; See also FAIR's Press Release, July 22, 2009). The Heller amendment would have addressed many of the same concerns that FAIR raised last week about whether illegal aliens would be able to receive taxpayer-funded health care benefits. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 20, 2009).
Speaking in support of his amendment, Congressman Heller stated: "Requiring citizenship
verification for enrollment would ensure only citizens and legal residents receive taxpayer funded healthcare." (Representative Heller's Press Release, July 16, 2009).
Opponents suggested that Heller's amendment was unnecessary because Section 246 of the bill
states: "Nothing … shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." (Legislative Text, Section 246).
Critics of this language correctly point out that:
(1) Section 246 only applies to affordability credits, which are the subsidies to
help people pay for enrolling in a private health insurance plan, but will not prevent
illegal aliens from enrolling in the government-run, taxpayer financed public option health plan; and (2)
with respect to enrollment in private health insurance plans, Section 246 does not contain any meaningful verification procedures to ensure that illegal aliens do not receive subsidies paid for by American taxpayers. Accordingly, although the bill contains a provision limiting eligibility for
the affordability credit to those legally present, it is limited in scope and
virtually meaningless in effect. Unfortunately, despite the merits of the Heller Amendment, the House Ways and Means Committee rejected it on a party-line vote, with 15 Republicans supporting
and 26 Democrats opposing the amendment. (For a list of the members opposing the Heller Amendment, see FAIR's Action Alert).
This may be exactly what the illegal alien lobby is looking for.
In late June, the National Council of La Raza issued a statement demanding that Congress give illegal aliens taxpayer-funded health care under this bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, June 22, 2009). This week, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) also urged Speaker Pelosi to ensure that illegal aliens
are covered by the health care reform bill. (Roll Call, July 24, 2009). According to a CHC member, the organization's leaders are not asking Speaker Pelosi to "specifically spell something out"
in the bill, but instead to seek to ensure that the bill does not actually prohibit illegal
aliens from receiving benefits. "We're pushing to include everyone in the health care bill. Everyone," the CHC member who asked not to be identified said. "Sometimes if you don't say something, something happens." (Id.).
The health care legislation is now expected to move to the House Energy and Commerce
Committee before it moves to the full House of Representatives.
www.fairus.org
see more news at
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21085&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1
House Committee Rejects Closing Health Coverage Loophole for Illegal Aliens
During consideration of the health care reform bill (H.R. 3200), the House Ways & Means Committee rejected an amendment that would have helped ensure illegal aliens would not receive taxpayer-funded health care benefits.
The amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV), would have required the government to verify that enrollees in the "public plan" and applicants for "affordability credits" are not illegal aliens.
Eligibility verification would have been determined by using existing databases — the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.
(Congressional Quarterly, July 16, 2009; See also FAIR's Press Release, July 22, 2009). The Heller amendment would have addressed many of the same concerns that FAIR raised last week about whether illegal aliens would be able to receive taxpayer-funded health care benefits. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 20, 2009).
Speaking in support of his amendment, Congressman Heller stated: "Requiring citizenship
verification for enrollment would ensure only citizens and legal residents receive taxpayer funded healthcare." (Representative Heller's Press Release, July 16, 2009).
Opponents suggested that Heller's amendment was unnecessary because Section 246 of the bill
states: "Nothing … shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." (Legislative Text, Section 246).
Critics of this language correctly point out that:
(1) Section 246 only applies to affordability credits, which are the subsidies to
help people pay for enrolling in a private health insurance plan, but will not prevent
illegal aliens from enrolling in the government-run, taxpayer financed public option health plan; and (2)
with respect to enrollment in private health insurance plans, Section 246 does not contain any meaningful verification procedures to ensure that illegal aliens do not receive subsidies paid for by American taxpayers. Accordingly, although the bill contains a provision limiting eligibility for
the affordability credit to those legally present, it is limited in scope and
virtually meaningless in effect. Unfortunately, despite the merits of the Heller Amendment, the House Ways and Means Committee rejected it on a party-line vote, with 15 Republicans supporting
and 26 Democrats opposing the amendment. (For a list of the members opposing the Heller Amendment, see FAIR's Action Alert).
This may be exactly what the illegal alien lobby is looking for.
In late June, the National Council of La Raza issued a statement demanding that Congress give illegal aliens taxpayer-funded health care under this bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, June 22, 2009). This week, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) also urged Speaker Pelosi to ensure that illegal aliens
are covered by the health care reform bill. (Roll Call, July 24, 2009). According to a CHC member, the organization's leaders are not asking Speaker Pelosi to "specifically spell something out"
in the bill, but instead to seek to ensure that the bill does not actually prohibit illegal
aliens from receiving benefits. "We're pushing to include everyone in the health care bill. Everyone," the CHC member who asked not to be identified said. "Sometimes if you don't say something, something happens." (Id.).
The health care legislation is now expected to move to the House Energy and Commerce
Committee before it moves to the full House of Representatives.
www.fairus.org
see more news at
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21085&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1
Monday, July 27, 2009
Senator Chris Dodd did get sweetheart VIP mortgage discounts
Senator Dodd did get sweetheart VIP mortgage discounts
He is now rewriting your your healthcare program
Dodd was told deals were sweetened.
WASHINGTON – Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were
told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's
largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.
Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn't know they were
getting unique deals from Countrywide Financial Corp., the company that went on to lose billions
of dollars on home loans to credit-strapped borrowers. Dodd still maintains he got
no preferential treatment.
Dodd got two Countrywide mortgages in 2003, refinancing his home in Connecticut and
another residence in Washington. Conrad's two Countrywide mortgages in 2004 were
for a beach house in Delaware and an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck in his home state of North Dakota.
Robert Feinberg, who worked in Countrywide's VIP section, told congressional investigators
last month that the two senators were made aware that "who you know is basically
how you're coming in here."
"You don't say 'no' to the VIP," Feinberg told Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.
The next day, Feinberg testified before the Senate Ethics Committee, an indication the panel
is actively investigating two of the chamber's more powerful members:
• Dodd heads the Banking Committee and is a major player in two big areas: solving the housing foreclosure and financial crises and putting together an overhaul of the U.S. health care system. A five-term senator, he is in a tough fight for re-election in 2010, partly because of the controversy over his mortgages.
• Conrad chairs the Budget Committee. He, too, shares an important role in the health care debate, as well as on legislation to curb global warming.
Both senators were VIP borrowers in the program known as "friends of Angelo."
Angelo Mozilo was chief executive of Countrywide, which played a big part in the foreclosure
crisis triggered by defaults on subprime loans. The Calabasas, Calif.-based company was bought
last July by Bank of America Corp. for about $2.5 billion.
Mozilo has been charged with civil fraud and illegal insider trading by the Securities and
Exchange Commission. He denies any wrongdoing.
Asked by a House Oversight investigator if Conrad, the North Dakota senator, "was aware that he was getting preferential treatment?" Feinberg answered: "Yes, he was aware."
Referring to Dodd, the investigator asked:
"And do you know if during the course of your communications" with the senator or his wife
"that you ever had an opportunity to share with them if they were getting special VIP treatment?"
"Yes, yes," Feinberg replied.
Bryan DeAngelis, Dodd's spokesman, said Feinberg has repeatedly made allegations of special treatment
that were not true.
"As the Dodds have said from the beginning, they did not seek or expect any special rates or terms
on their loans and they never received any. They were never offered special or sweetheart deals
and if anyone had made such an offer, they would have severed that relationship immediately."
DeAngelis also repeated Dodd's statements from last February that an independent report
showed the terms received by the senator and his wife were widely available at the time.
Conrad's spokesman, Chris Gaddie, said Monday that the senator "never asked for, expected
or was aware of loans on any preferential terms" and has "worked overtime to set the record straight."
"He went with Countrywide simply because they already had his financial information," Gaddie
said. He added that a Countrywide official had told Conrad that "it is not unusual for them
to make exceptions for good customers if they could sell the loan in the secondary market.
We now know that they did sell the apartment building loan in the secondary market."
The ethics committee determines whether senators violated standards of conduct. The outcome
of the investigation could hinge on whether the mortgage violated strict limits on gifts to
lawmakers or ran afoul of other Senate rules. The committee typically just issues a report.
It could recommend a censure vote by the Senate, but that is rare.
Feinberg could face criminal prosecution if shown to have made false statements. He was questioned
closely by three of the ethics committee's six senators: Democratic Chairman Barbara Boxer of California; the panel's senior Republican, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and Republican Jim Risch of Idaho, according to Elana Goldstein, one of Feinberg's attorneys who accompanied him to both closed-door committee appearances.
The ethics questioning was intense at times, and Boxer asked the bulk of the questions,
Goldstein said. When Feinberg described a conversation he had with Dodd, Boxer demanded
to know how he remembered it. Feinberg said he recalled Dodd saying he had to leave to make a speech.
Boxer asked whether Dodd and Conrad received VIP treatment because they were senators. Feinberg said that was not the case; they received breaks as other influential people in Countrywide's "friends of Angelo" VIP program.
Isakson, a one-time real estate executive, asked more detailed questions about the mortgage agreements' terms.
Countrywide VIPs, Feinberg told the committees, received discounts on rates, fees and points. Dodd received a break when Countrywide counted both his Connecticut and Washington homes as primary owner-occupied residences — a fiction, according to Feinberg. Conrad received a type of commercial loan that he was told Countrywide didn't offer.
"The simple fact that Angelo Mozilo and other high-ranking executives at Countrywide were personally making sure Mr. Feinberg handled their loans right, is proof in itself that the senators knew they were getting sweetheart deals," said Feinberg's principal attorney, Anthony Salerno.
Two internal Countrywide documents in Dodd's case and one in Conrad's appear to contradict their statements about what they knew about their VIP loans.
At his Feb. 2 news conference, Dodd said he knew he was in a VIP program but insisted he was told by Countrywide, "It was nothing more than enhanced customer service ... being able to get a person on the phone instead of an automated operator."
He insisted he didn't receive special treatment. However, the assertion was at odds with two Countrywide documents entitled "Loan Policy Analysis" that Dodd allowed reporters to review the same day.
The documents had separate columns: one showing points "actl chrgd" Dodd — zero; and a second column showing "policy" was to charge .250 points on one loan and .375 points on the other. Another heading on the documents said "reasons for override." A notation under that heading identified a Countrywide section that approved the policy change for Dodd.
Mortgage points, sometimes called loan origination fees, are upfront fees based on a percentage of the loan. Each point is equal to 1 percent of the loan. The higher the points the lower the interest rate.
Dodd said he obtained the Countrywide documents in 2008, to learn details of his mortgages.
In Conrad's case, an e-mail from Feinberg to Mozilo indicates Feinberg informed Conrad that Countrywide had a residential loan limit of a four-unit building. Conrad sought to finance an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck that he had bought from his brothers.
"I did advise him I would check with you first since our maximum is 4 units," Feinberg said in an April 23, 2004, internal e-mail to Mozilo.
Mozilo responded the same day that Feinberg should speak to another Countrywide executive and "see if he can make an exception due to the fact that the borrower is a senator."
Feinberg said in his deposition with House Oversight investigators last month that exceptions for the type of loan Conrad received were not allowed for borrowers outside the VIP system.
"If there was a regular customer calling, and of course you say, 'No, we're a residential lender. We cannot provide you with that service,'" Feinberg said.
Feinberg also told House investigators that Countrywide counted both of Dodd's homes as primary residences.
"He was allowed to do both of those as owner-occupied, which is not allowed. You can only have one owner-occupied property. You can't live in two properties at the same time," he said.
Normally, Feinberg said, a second home could require more equity and could have a higher mortgage rate.
Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight Committee, had his investigators question Feinberg as part of a broader investigation into Countrywide's VIP program.
Other names that have surfaced as "friends" of Mozilo include James Johnson, a former head of Fannie Mae who later stepped down as an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and Franklin Raines, who also headed Fannie Mae. Still other "friends" included retired athletes, a judge, a congressional aide and a newspaper executive.
Conrad initially said in June 2008, "If they did me a favor, they did it without my knowledge and without my requesting it."
The next day, Conrad changed course after reviewing documents showing he got special treatment, and said he was donating $10,500 to charity and refinancing the loan on the apartment building with another lender. He also said then it appeared Countrywide had waived 1 point at closing on the beach house.
Gaddie said Feinberg has previously made statements to the news media that Countrywide waived 1 point without the senator's knowledge.
Feinberg testified that VIPs usually were not told exactly how many points were being waived, but it was made clear to them that they were getting discounts.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_go_co/us_senators_mortgages
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer
He is now rewriting your your healthcare program
Dodd was told deals were sweetened.
WASHINGTON – Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were
told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's
largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.
Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn't know they were
getting unique deals from Countrywide Financial Corp., the company that went on to lose billions
of dollars on home loans to credit-strapped borrowers. Dodd still maintains he got
no preferential treatment.
Dodd got two Countrywide mortgages in 2003, refinancing his home in Connecticut and
another residence in Washington. Conrad's two Countrywide mortgages in 2004 were
for a beach house in Delaware and an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck in his home state of North Dakota.
Robert Feinberg, who worked in Countrywide's VIP section, told congressional investigators
last month that the two senators were made aware that "who you know is basically
how you're coming in here."
"You don't say 'no' to the VIP," Feinberg told Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.
The next day, Feinberg testified before the Senate Ethics Committee, an indication the panel
is actively investigating two of the chamber's more powerful members:
• Dodd heads the Banking Committee and is a major player in two big areas: solving the housing foreclosure and financial crises and putting together an overhaul of the U.S. health care system. A five-term senator, he is in a tough fight for re-election in 2010, partly because of the controversy over his mortgages.
• Conrad chairs the Budget Committee. He, too, shares an important role in the health care debate, as well as on legislation to curb global warming.
Both senators were VIP borrowers in the program known as "friends of Angelo."
Angelo Mozilo was chief executive of Countrywide, which played a big part in the foreclosure
crisis triggered by defaults on subprime loans. The Calabasas, Calif.-based company was bought
last July by Bank of America Corp. for about $2.5 billion.
Mozilo has been charged with civil fraud and illegal insider trading by the Securities and
Exchange Commission. He denies any wrongdoing.
Asked by a House Oversight investigator if Conrad, the North Dakota senator, "was aware that he was getting preferential treatment?" Feinberg answered: "Yes, he was aware."
Referring to Dodd, the investigator asked:
"And do you know if during the course of your communications" with the senator or his wife
"that you ever had an opportunity to share with them if they were getting special VIP treatment?"
"Yes, yes," Feinberg replied.
Bryan DeAngelis, Dodd's spokesman, said Feinberg has repeatedly made allegations of special treatment
that were not true.
"As the Dodds have said from the beginning, they did not seek or expect any special rates or terms
on their loans and they never received any. They were never offered special or sweetheart deals
and if anyone had made such an offer, they would have severed that relationship immediately."
DeAngelis also repeated Dodd's statements from last February that an independent report
showed the terms received by the senator and his wife were widely available at the time.
Conrad's spokesman, Chris Gaddie, said Monday that the senator "never asked for, expected
or was aware of loans on any preferential terms" and has "worked overtime to set the record straight."
"He went with Countrywide simply because they already had his financial information," Gaddie
said. He added that a Countrywide official had told Conrad that "it is not unusual for them
to make exceptions for good customers if they could sell the loan in the secondary market.
We now know that they did sell the apartment building loan in the secondary market."
The ethics committee determines whether senators violated standards of conduct. The outcome
of the investigation could hinge on whether the mortgage violated strict limits on gifts to
lawmakers or ran afoul of other Senate rules. The committee typically just issues a report.
It could recommend a censure vote by the Senate, but that is rare.
Feinberg could face criminal prosecution if shown to have made false statements. He was questioned
closely by three of the ethics committee's six senators: Democratic Chairman Barbara Boxer of California; the panel's senior Republican, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and Republican Jim Risch of Idaho, according to Elana Goldstein, one of Feinberg's attorneys who accompanied him to both closed-door committee appearances.
The ethics questioning was intense at times, and Boxer asked the bulk of the questions,
Goldstein said. When Feinberg described a conversation he had with Dodd, Boxer demanded
to know how he remembered it. Feinberg said he recalled Dodd saying he had to leave to make a speech.
Boxer asked whether Dodd and Conrad received VIP treatment because they were senators. Feinberg said that was not the case; they received breaks as other influential people in Countrywide's "friends of Angelo" VIP program.
Isakson, a one-time real estate executive, asked more detailed questions about the mortgage agreements' terms.
Countrywide VIPs, Feinberg told the committees, received discounts on rates, fees and points. Dodd received a break when Countrywide counted both his Connecticut and Washington homes as primary owner-occupied residences — a fiction, according to Feinberg. Conrad received a type of commercial loan that he was told Countrywide didn't offer.
"The simple fact that Angelo Mozilo and other high-ranking executives at Countrywide were personally making sure Mr. Feinberg handled their loans right, is proof in itself that the senators knew they were getting sweetheart deals," said Feinberg's principal attorney, Anthony Salerno.
Two internal Countrywide documents in Dodd's case and one in Conrad's appear to contradict their statements about what they knew about their VIP loans.
At his Feb. 2 news conference, Dodd said he knew he was in a VIP program but insisted he was told by Countrywide, "It was nothing more than enhanced customer service ... being able to get a person on the phone instead of an automated operator."
He insisted he didn't receive special treatment. However, the assertion was at odds with two Countrywide documents entitled "Loan Policy Analysis" that Dodd allowed reporters to review the same day.
The documents had separate columns: one showing points "actl chrgd" Dodd — zero; and a second column showing "policy" was to charge .250 points on one loan and .375 points on the other. Another heading on the documents said "reasons for override." A notation under that heading identified a Countrywide section that approved the policy change for Dodd.
Mortgage points, sometimes called loan origination fees, are upfront fees based on a percentage of the loan. Each point is equal to 1 percent of the loan. The higher the points the lower the interest rate.
Dodd said he obtained the Countrywide documents in 2008, to learn details of his mortgages.
In Conrad's case, an e-mail from Feinberg to Mozilo indicates Feinberg informed Conrad that Countrywide had a residential loan limit of a four-unit building. Conrad sought to finance an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck that he had bought from his brothers.
"I did advise him I would check with you first since our maximum is 4 units," Feinberg said in an April 23, 2004, internal e-mail to Mozilo.
Mozilo responded the same day that Feinberg should speak to another Countrywide executive and "see if he can make an exception due to the fact that the borrower is a senator."
Feinberg said in his deposition with House Oversight investigators last month that exceptions for the type of loan Conrad received were not allowed for borrowers outside the VIP system.
"If there was a regular customer calling, and of course you say, 'No, we're a residential lender. We cannot provide you with that service,'" Feinberg said.
Feinberg also told House investigators that Countrywide counted both of Dodd's homes as primary residences.
"He was allowed to do both of those as owner-occupied, which is not allowed. You can only have one owner-occupied property. You can't live in two properties at the same time," he said.
Normally, Feinberg said, a second home could require more equity and could have a higher mortgage rate.
Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight Committee, had his investigators question Feinberg as part of a broader investigation into Countrywide's VIP program.
Other names that have surfaced as "friends" of Mozilo include James Johnson, a former head of Fannie Mae who later stepped down as an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and Franklin Raines, who also headed Fannie Mae. Still other "friends" included retired athletes, a judge, a congressional aide and a newspaper executive.
Conrad initially said in June 2008, "If they did me a favor, they did it without my knowledge and without my requesting it."
The next day, Conrad changed course after reviewing documents showing he got special treatment, and said he was donating $10,500 to charity and refinancing the loan on the apartment building with another lender. He also said then it appeared Countrywide had waived 1 point at closing on the beach house.
Gaddie said Feinberg has previously made statements to the news media that Countrywide waived 1 point without the senator's knowledge.
Feinberg testified that VIPs usually were not told exactly how many points were being waived, but it was made clear to them that they were getting discounts.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_go_co/us_senators_mortgages
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' No. 1 on
Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' No. 1 on
NY Times Best-Seller List
We are pleased to announce that Glenn Beck's new book "Common Sense," out this summer, has become a hit sensation — even hitting the #1 spot on the New York Times Bestseller list!
In "Common Sense" Glenn Beck is firing the first shot in the movement to take America back from the out-of-control liberals in Washington.
This is a must-read as Obama moves to radically transform the country.
NY Times Best-Seller List
We are pleased to announce that Glenn Beck's new book "Common Sense," out this summer, has become a hit sensation — even hitting the #1 spot on the New York Times Bestseller list!
In "Common Sense" Glenn Beck is firing the first shot in the movement to take America back from the out-of-control liberals in Washington.
This is a must-read as Obama moves to radically transform the country.
Taxpayer-Subsidized Health Care for Illegal Aliens ?
House Committee Vote Will Lead to Taxpayer-Subsidized Health Care for Illegal Aliens
Help FAIR Stop Congress from giving YOUR Tax Dollars to Illegal Aliens!
Last week, Democratic Leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled their 1,018 page health care reform bill, entitled the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" (H.R. 3200). While Congressional Leaders have repeatedly claimed that this Obama-backed health care bill will not cover illegal aliens, FAIR's analysis has shown that the legislation actually contains several loopholes that would give taxpayer-funded health insurance to illegal aliens and give illegal aliens handouts - in the form of so-called "affordability credits" to pay for health insurance!
Help FAIR Stop Congress from giving YOUR Tax Dollars to Illegal Aliens!
Last week, Democratic Leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled their 1,018 page health care reform bill, entitled the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" (H.R. 3200). While Congressional Leaders have repeatedly claimed that this Obama-backed health care bill will not cover illegal aliens, FAIR's analysis has shown that the legislation actually contains several loopholes that would give taxpayer-funded health insurance to illegal aliens and give illegal aliens handouts - in the form of so-called "affordability credits" to pay for health insurance!
can Professor Gates be charged with racial profiling ?
can Professor Gates be charged with racial profiling ?
he can be sued for his racial profiling claims ?
3 cops responsed to the call, 1 black, Latino, and one white guy.
did Gates really moon the officiers?
he can be sued for his racial profiling claims ?
3 cops responsed to the call, 1 black, Latino, and one white guy.
did Gates really moon the officiers?
Harvard law professor Gates moons police ?
Harvard law professor Gates mooned police ?
just watching Fox news with a panel of lawyers discussing the
Gates /police story.
It slipped out that Gates may have mooned the police officers,
still waiting on the audio 911 audio.
just watching Fox news with a panel of lawyers discussing the
Gates /police story.
It slipped out that Gates may have mooned the police officers,
still waiting on the audio 911 audio.
dump Harvard law professor Henry Gates ?
should Gates Harvard law professor be censured and kicked off faculty for his behavior?
Do we want this behavior from any college professor, let alone a teacher of law?
still waiting on the actual 911 tapes, rumor has it Gates was shouting about the police officer's mother, in not nice terms.
Dump Henry Louis Gates from staff ?
Do we want this behavior from any college professor, let alone a teacher of law?
still waiting on the actual 911 tapes, rumor has it Gates was shouting about the police officer's mother, in not nice terms.
Dump Henry Louis Gates from staff ?
Friday, July 24, 2009
U.S. Border Patrol agent killed Mexican border
Border agent killed in unusual violence within US
By GILLIAN FLACCUS, Associated Press Writer Gillian Flaccus, Associated Press Writer
48 mins ago
CHULA VISTA, Calif. – Federal investigators scrambled Friday to find whoever shot a U.S. Border Patrol agent in the head in an unusually violent attack within the U.S. that has left a baffling trail of evidence.
Agent Robert Rosas, a 30-year-old, married father of two young children, was killed shortly after 9 p.m. Thursday while responding alone to a suspected border incursion near Campo, a town in rugged, arid terrain in southeastern San Diego County.
He was shot in the head and multiple times in his body and was dead when backup agents arrived, said Keith Slotter, special agent in charge of the FBI's San Diego bureau.
Rosas was found outside his patrol vehicle near the border fence, with blood evidence indicating at least one suspect and possibly more had serious injuries, perhaps by gunfire.
Investigators don't yet know how many shots were fired, if Rosas fired any shots himself and how many guns were used.
"It's all possible. I can't definitively say X number of people fired or Agent Rosas got off shots or didn't. I mean, it's too early in the investigation to say that with any certainty," Slotter said.
Federal officials have expressed growing concerns that the drug cartel battles plaguing Mexico could spill into the United States with the targeting of U.S. law enforcement officials.
Slotter said there was no indication that Rosas had been specifically targeted or that he had been trying to seize drugs from the suspects when he was killed.
However, he said investigators aren't ruling out the possibility that Rosas was slain by drug smugglers or even human smugglers.
"My thoughts and condolences are with Agent Rosas' family and his fellow agents at this difficult time," said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement.
"His death is a vivid reminder that we are engaged in a serious effort to secure our border and that thousands of Border Patrol agents and other DHS employees risk their lives every single day to protect and defend our nation."
The FBI is offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of a suspect or suspects.
By GILLIAN FLACCUS, Associated Press Writer Gillian Flaccus, Associated Press Writer
48 mins ago
CHULA VISTA, Calif. – Federal investigators scrambled Friday to find whoever shot a U.S. Border Patrol agent in the head in an unusually violent attack within the U.S. that has left a baffling trail of evidence.
Agent Robert Rosas, a 30-year-old, married father of two young children, was killed shortly after 9 p.m. Thursday while responding alone to a suspected border incursion near Campo, a town in rugged, arid terrain in southeastern San Diego County.
He was shot in the head and multiple times in his body and was dead when backup agents arrived, said Keith Slotter, special agent in charge of the FBI's San Diego bureau.
Rosas was found outside his patrol vehicle near the border fence, with blood evidence indicating at least one suspect and possibly more had serious injuries, perhaps by gunfire.
Investigators don't yet know how many shots were fired, if Rosas fired any shots himself and how many guns were used.
"It's all possible. I can't definitively say X number of people fired or Agent Rosas got off shots or didn't. I mean, it's too early in the investigation to say that with any certainty," Slotter said.
Federal officials have expressed growing concerns that the drug cartel battles plaguing Mexico could spill into the United States with the targeting of U.S. law enforcement officials.
Slotter said there was no indication that Rosas had been specifically targeted or that he had been trying to seize drugs from the suspects when he was killed.
However, he said investigators aren't ruling out the possibility that Rosas was slain by drug smugglers or even human smugglers.
"My thoughts and condolences are with Agent Rosas' family and his fellow agents at this difficult time," said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement.
"His death is a vivid reminder that we are engaged in a serious effort to secure our border and that thousands of Border Patrol agents and other DHS employees risk their lives every single day to protect and defend our nation."
The FBI is offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of a suspect or suspects.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Obama blows smoke for an hour on healthcare?
Obama blows smoke for an TV hour on healthcare?
he is a smooth talker,
where's the beef?
he is a smooth talker,
where's the beef?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
HOW OBAMA'S CAP AND TRADE WILL DESTROY AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS
here a very interesting video from Dick Morris.......
HOW OBAMA'S CAP AND TRADE WILL DESTROY AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS
click here for the video
HOW OBAMA'S CAP AND TRADE WILL DESTROY AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS
click here for the video
Monday, July 20, 2009
a "Show me the money Obama rally" ?
a "Show me the money Obama rally" ?
interesting ideal
he is a smooth talking professional politician,
interesting ideal
he is a smooth talking professional politician,
Friday, July 17, 2009
did Obama missed his calling as a used car salesman ?
did Obama missed his calling as a used car salesman ?
who whispering those numbers in his ears ?
he is a smooth talker.
who whispering those numbers in his ears ?
he is a smooth talker.
Democrats exempt themselves from the government-run health care ?
Democrats exempt themselves from the government-run health care option, what's this shit?
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
see more on this exemption
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA)
http://fleming.house.gov/
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
see more on this exemption
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA)
http://fleming.house.gov/
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Government-Run Health Care? senators first?
Government-Run Health Care? You First!
The health care debate rages on, with Barack Obama and Democrats continuing to push for a government-run health care plan. Forget the good, old days when you could say, "It's a free country, isn't it?" Now, if the Democrats have their way, not only will the government be more involved in our private health decisions, but Americans will be FORCED to purchase health insurance.
What was apparent, however, from Obama's response during his health care presentation was that if his family needed urgent medical care, he would do everything he could even if it meant using health care resources not available in the plans that he wants to push on American families. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and one congressman wants to see that changed...
As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."
What a novel idea! Politicians being forced to follow the same rules that the "common folk" have to follow.
According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
So... the Democrats are pushing hard to force Americans into a left-wing form of socialized medicine, yet they are exempt from the plan. Does that seem fair? If this plan is so important, if the health care system is in such a crisis, why aren't these politicians rushing to sign up for it? Why are they exempt?
The left-wing elite love to propose grand government solutions. The government is the key to everything, right? Apparently not. When it comes to health care, the Democrats know that there are better options, and they want to keep those for themselves.
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=1717
The health care debate rages on, with Barack Obama and Democrats continuing to push for a government-run health care plan. Forget the good, old days when you could say, "It's a free country, isn't it?" Now, if the Democrats have their way, not only will the government be more involved in our private health decisions, but Americans will be FORCED to purchase health insurance.
What was apparent, however, from Obama's response during his health care presentation was that if his family needed urgent medical care, he would do everything he could even if it meant using health care resources not available in the plans that he wants to push on American families. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and one congressman wants to see that changed...
As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."
What a novel idea! Politicians being forced to follow the same rules that the "common folk" have to follow.
According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
So... the Democrats are pushing hard to force Americans into a left-wing form of socialized medicine, yet they are exempt from the plan. Does that seem fair? If this plan is so important, if the health care system is in such a crisis, why aren't these politicians rushing to sign up for it? Why are they exempt?
The left-wing elite love to propose grand government solutions. The government is the key to everything, right? Apparently not. When it comes to health care, the Democrats know that there are better options, and they want to keep those for themselves.
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=1717
Government-Run Health Care? You First!
Government-Run Health Care? You First!
The health care debate rages on, with Barack Obama and Democrats continuing to push for a government-run health care plan. Forget the good, old days when you could say, "It's a free country, isn't it?" Now, if the Democrats have their way, not only will the government be more involved in our private health decisions, but Americans will be FORCED to purchase health insurance.
What was apparent, however, from Obama's response during his health care presentation was that if his family needed urgent medical care, he would do everything he could even if it meant using health care resources not available in the plans that he wants to push on American families. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and one congressman wants to see that changed...
As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."
What a novel idea! Politicians being forced to follow the same rules that the "common folk" have to follow.
According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
So... the Democrats are pushing hard to force Americans into a left-wing form of socialized medicine, yet they are exempt from the plan. Does that seem fair? If this plan is so important, if the health care system is in such a crisis, why aren't these politicians rushing to sign up for it? Why are they exempt?
The left-wing elite love to propose grand government solutions. The government is the key to everything, right? Apparently not. When it comes to health care, the Democrats know that there are better options, and they want to keep those for themselves.
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 9, 2009 at 7:10 am
The health care debate rages on, with Barack Obama and Democrats continuing to push for a government-run health care plan. Forget the good, old days when you could say, "It's a free country, isn't it?" Now, if the Democrats have their way, not only will the government be more involved in our private health decisions, but Americans will be FORCED to purchase health insurance.
What was apparent, however, from Obama's response during his health care presentation was that if his family needed urgent medical care, he would do everything he could even if it meant using health care resources not available in the plans that he wants to push on American families. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and one congressman wants to see that changed...
As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."
What a novel idea! Politicians being forced to follow the same rules that the "common folk" have to follow.
According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
So... the Democrats are pushing hard to force Americans into a left-wing form of socialized medicine, yet they are exempt from the plan. Does that seem fair? If this plan is so important, if the health care system is in such a crisis, why aren't these politicians rushing to sign up for it? Why are they exempt?
The left-wing elite love to propose grand government solutions. The government is the key to everything, right? Apparently not. When it comes to health care, the Democrats know that there are better options, and they want to keep those for themselves.
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 9, 2009 at 7:10 am
La Raza Demands Government Health Care For Illegals
La Raza Demands Government Health Care For IllegalsFrom: Grassfire.org (alert@grassfire.net)
We've just learned that The National Council of La Raza hasissued a strong, but transparent plea to lawmakers thatuniversal health care should include illegal aliens. From their site, they are "strongly urg[ing] PresidentObama and Congress to make every effort to ensurethat health care reform reaches all communities." They also added that they aren't the slightest bit interestedin any citizenship or eligibility testing. After reading this obscene statement, I almost fell out of mychair. The audacity of this organization knows no bounds. Buteven more outrageous is the fact that unless you and I fightback against the government takeover of our health care,La Raza may actually succeed in getting their wish! That's why I want to appeal to you right now, ed. With Obama poised to take over your personal and private healthdecisions, and now La Raza standing at the ready to acceptgovernment health care for illegal aliens we must take immediateaction to ensure this kind of outrageous grab doesn't happen. Please take a moment right now to join with me and more than144,582 citizens who are staunchly opposed togovernment-run health care by clicking below and signingour petition: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 Just today, we delivered three sets of petitions to Capitol Hill,and I've already alerted my staff that I want to take 250,000more as soon as possible. Take a moment right now to sign this important petition andhelp me keep La Raza from lobbying and potentially winninghealth care for illegals. Click here to be included in our next delivery: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 Because time is so short, I'm asking ALL members of ourteam who sign this important petition to help spread theword about what is happening by forwarding this messageto 30-40 friends right now and urge sign our petitionby clicking here: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 With your help, I believe we can surpass 250,000 citizen signermark and move back to Capitol Hill next week! Thank you for standing with Grassfire. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org P.S: Say "No" to La Raza and Obamacare by alerting 30-40friends and directing them to sign our national petitionby clicking here:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556
Three Gifts for You! When you make a monthly gift to Grassfire.org by credit card,we'll send you three special gifts to show our thanks forbecoming one of the core supporters of everything we do.
Go here to find out more: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=20232&RID=16048556
We've just learned that The National Council of La Raza hasissued a strong, but transparent plea to lawmakers thatuniversal health care should include illegal aliens. From their site, they are "strongly urg[ing] PresidentObama and Congress to make every effort to ensurethat health care reform reaches all communities." They also added that they aren't the slightest bit interestedin any citizenship or eligibility testing. After reading this obscene statement, I almost fell out of mychair. The audacity of this organization knows no bounds. Buteven more outrageous is the fact that unless you and I fightback against the government takeover of our health care,La Raza may actually succeed in getting their wish! That's why I want to appeal to you right now, ed. With Obama poised to take over your personal and private healthdecisions, and now La Raza standing at the ready to acceptgovernment health care for illegal aliens we must take immediateaction to ensure this kind of outrageous grab doesn't happen. Please take a moment right now to join with me and more than144,582 citizens who are staunchly opposed togovernment-run health care by clicking below and signingour petition: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 Just today, we delivered three sets of petitions to Capitol Hill,and I've already alerted my staff that I want to take 250,000more as soon as possible. Take a moment right now to sign this important petition andhelp me keep La Raza from lobbying and potentially winninghealth care for illegals. Click here to be included in our next delivery: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 Because time is so short, I'm asking ALL members of ourteam who sign this important petition to help spread theword about what is happening by forwarding this messageto 30-40 friends right now and urge sign our petitionby clicking here: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 With your help, I believe we can surpass 250,000 citizen signermark and move back to Capitol Hill next week! Thank you for standing with Grassfire. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org P.S: Say "No" to La Raza and Obamacare by alerting 30-40friends and directing them to sign our national petitionby clicking here:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556
Three Gifts for You! When you make a monthly gift to Grassfire.org by credit card,we'll send you three special gifts to show our thanks forbecoming one of the core supporters of everything we do.
Go here to find out more: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=20232&RID=16048556
OBAMA'S SHIFTY ECONOMICS
OBAMA'S SHIFTY ECONOMICS
By DICK MORRIS
Now President Obama says in The Washington Post that he never envisioned that his stimulus package would afford quick relief to the American economy, but would do so only after it had run its two-year course. But when it was passed, Obama sang a different tune, urgently demanding its enactment to speed relief to a sagging economy. He claimed it would "create or save" 600,000 jobs. Now, even as the economy loses 450,000 jobs each month, he pretends that it is a matter of time until the stimulus kicks in.
He now justifies the stimulus package by saying it was adopted to prevent the "collapse" of the economy and the banking systems. But it was really the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), first passed under President Bush, that stopped the banks from going under. At the time of the enactment of the stimulus package, Obama never mentioned that he was counting on it to save the banks.
All these shifting justifications are designed to explain why the stimulus package has totally failed to accomplish anything. Not only has it done no good. It has done significant harm by ballooning the deficit, driving up interest rates, creating doubts about the U.S. currency and fanning inflationary fears.
But Obama has paid and will continue to pay dearly for betting on his stimulus package. Because of it, the Bush recession is becoming the Obama recession much faster than it would have had he adopted a more gradual approach to solving economic problems. By jumping in immediately, as he did, in order to increase government spending and pass eight years of Democratic dreams in one day, he made the public expect a solution.
At first, a sick patient looks forward to seeing the doctor. But when the medicine his physician gives him fails to make him better, he is likely to turn on his doctor. And then, gradually, when it dawns on him that the cure is making the disease last longer and get worse, he will really get mad at the physician. This is Obama's fate.
The stimulus package used up all the wiggle room he had to increase the budget deficit. He probably could have passed the healthcare program without a tax increase had he not already sent the deficit soaring with his massive spending. (Hillary and Bill pretended that there was no need to raise taxes to pay for their 1993 reform package and few questioned their presumption.) But now that the deficit has soared to 12 percent of the gross domestic product, everyone realizes that taxes must go up to pass healthcare "reform," making its adoption even less likely. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) has passed $550 billion of tax increases, but everyone knows that at least $1 trillion is required. And, in the current environment, Congress will not vote to add the balance to the deficit, even if Charlie wants to "charge it."
Finally, Obama has laid a trap for himself. Just as the economy is coming out of its recession -- in 2010 and 2011 -- and he begins to run for reelection, he is going to face massive inflation. The money supply has more than tripled since October of 2008 and is going up each week as the Fed buys Treasury bills and other securities to "monetize the debt" (i.e., give other people money so they can lend it back to the government and charge it interest for doing so). With each new infusion of cash, the problem of avoiding inflation becomes particularly severe. Obama could well lose the elections of 2012 because of the inflation his deficit has created.
Of course, we all know that the only way to put the inflation virus back in the test tube is to trigger a new recession, this time caused by massive increases in interest rates, as Fed Chairman Paul Volcker did in 1979. If the recession doesn't doom Obama to a single term, the inflation will. And if the inflation doesn't get him, the subsequent recession will.
The deeper he gets into his term, the more it is apparent that he threw it all away when he first took office and demanded over $1 trillion in stimulus and supplemental appropriation spending. He was doomed to lose the game right after he received the first kickoff.
OBAMA'S SHIFTY ECONOMICS
http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1548
By DICK MORRIS
Now President Obama says in The Washington Post that he never envisioned that his stimulus package would afford quick relief to the American economy, but would do so only after it had run its two-year course. But when it was passed, Obama sang a different tune, urgently demanding its enactment to speed relief to a sagging economy. He claimed it would "create or save" 600,000 jobs. Now, even as the economy loses 450,000 jobs each month, he pretends that it is a matter of time until the stimulus kicks in.
He now justifies the stimulus package by saying it was adopted to prevent the "collapse" of the economy and the banking systems. But it was really the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), first passed under President Bush, that stopped the banks from going under. At the time of the enactment of the stimulus package, Obama never mentioned that he was counting on it to save the banks.
All these shifting justifications are designed to explain why the stimulus package has totally failed to accomplish anything. Not only has it done no good. It has done significant harm by ballooning the deficit, driving up interest rates, creating doubts about the U.S. currency and fanning inflationary fears.
But Obama has paid and will continue to pay dearly for betting on his stimulus package. Because of it, the Bush recession is becoming the Obama recession much faster than it would have had he adopted a more gradual approach to solving economic problems. By jumping in immediately, as he did, in order to increase government spending and pass eight years of Democratic dreams in one day, he made the public expect a solution.
At first, a sick patient looks forward to seeing the doctor. But when the medicine his physician gives him fails to make him better, he is likely to turn on his doctor. And then, gradually, when it dawns on him that the cure is making the disease last longer and get worse, he will really get mad at the physician. This is Obama's fate.
The stimulus package used up all the wiggle room he had to increase the budget deficit. He probably could have passed the healthcare program without a tax increase had he not already sent the deficit soaring with his massive spending. (Hillary and Bill pretended that there was no need to raise taxes to pay for their 1993 reform package and few questioned their presumption.) But now that the deficit has soared to 12 percent of the gross domestic product, everyone realizes that taxes must go up to pass healthcare "reform," making its adoption even less likely. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) has passed $550 billion of tax increases, but everyone knows that at least $1 trillion is required. And, in the current environment, Congress will not vote to add the balance to the deficit, even if Charlie wants to "charge it."
Finally, Obama has laid a trap for himself. Just as the economy is coming out of its recession -- in 2010 and 2011 -- and he begins to run for reelection, he is going to face massive inflation. The money supply has more than tripled since October of 2008 and is going up each week as the Fed buys Treasury bills and other securities to "monetize the debt" (i.e., give other people money so they can lend it back to the government and charge it interest for doing so). With each new infusion of cash, the problem of avoiding inflation becomes particularly severe. Obama could well lose the elections of 2012 because of the inflation his deficit has created.
Of course, we all know that the only way to put the inflation virus back in the test tube is to trigger a new recession, this time caused by massive increases in interest rates, as Fed Chairman Paul Volcker did in 1979. If the recession doesn't doom Obama to a single term, the inflation will. And if the inflation doesn't get him, the subsequent recession will.
The deeper he gets into his term, the more it is apparent that he threw it all away when he first took office and demanded over $1 trillion in stimulus and supplemental appropriation spending. He was doomed to lose the game right after he received the first kickoff.
OBAMA'S SHIFTY ECONOMICS
http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1548
The Ten Commandments According to Obama ?
The Ten Commandments According to Obama
After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of “Ten Commandments.” They’re certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.
I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE
III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE
IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE
V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE
VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE
VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE
IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE
X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE
© 2009 The Patriot Update. Feel free to circulate this article, but please link / give credit to The Patriot Update.
http://patriotupdate.com/home/exclusive/13
After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of “Ten Commandments.” They’re certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.
I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE
III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE
IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE
V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE
VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE
VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE
IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE
X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE
© 2009 The Patriot Update. Feel free to circulate this article, but please link / give credit to The Patriot Update.
http://patriotupdate.com/home/exclusive/13
should congress and staff be required to join any Obama health plan?
should congress and staff be required to join any Obama health plan?
they would be required to give up thier existing plans and then
join the "reformed" Obama health plan?
they would be required to give up thier existing plans and then
join the "reformed" Obama health plan?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
1st step on health reform ?
1st step on health reform ?
Health reform is overwhelming, how about breaking it into smaller pieces, 1st step may be computerizing paperwork this year.
Maybe using tax credits/ rebates to encourage.
Health reform is overwhelming, how about breaking it into smaller pieces, 1st step may be computerizing paperwork this year.
Maybe using tax credits/ rebates to encourage.
OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS DROP
OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS DROP
By DICK MORRIS EILEEN MCGANN
President Obama has crossed the red line in his dropping approval rating.
The percentage of Americans who strongly or somewhat approve of how he is doing his job has fallen to 51 percent in the latest Rasmussen polling -- the lowest ever. Because Obama got 52 percent of the vote in the presidential race, defeating McCain by 52-47, the fact that his approval has dropped below his vote share indicates that he is actually shedding real support for the first time.
Until this drop, all Obama was doing was losing McCain voters. Now he is losing his own. It didn't really matter whether people who voted for McCain approved of the job Obama was doing. They were never part of his base. But now voters who pulled the lever for Obama have started to tell pollsters that they disapprove of his job performance. As he wades deeper into the healthcare reform battle, raises taxes to pay for it and pushes cap-and-trade legislation, the drop is likely to be even sharper and much, much steeper.
In our new book, Catastrophe, we highlight the reasons why Obama's popularity will drop and why he will lose the congressional elections of 2010.
Click here to order a copy of CATASTROPHE now!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
By DICK MORRIS EILEEN MCGANN
President Obama has crossed the red line in his dropping approval rating.
The percentage of Americans who strongly or somewhat approve of how he is doing his job has fallen to 51 percent in the latest Rasmussen polling -- the lowest ever. Because Obama got 52 percent of the vote in the presidential race, defeating McCain by 52-47, the fact that his approval has dropped below his vote share indicates that he is actually shedding real support for the first time.
Until this drop, all Obama was doing was losing McCain voters. Now he is losing his own. It didn't really matter whether people who voted for McCain approved of the job Obama was doing. They were never part of his base. But now voters who pulled the lever for Obama have started to tell pollsters that they disapprove of his job performance. As he wades deeper into the healthcare reform battle, raises taxes to pay for it and pushes cap-and-trade legislation, the drop is likely to be even sharper and much, much steeper.
In our new book, Catastrophe, we highlight the reasons why Obama's popularity will drop and why he will lose the congressional elections of 2010.
Click here to order a copy of CATASTROPHE now!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
DickMorris: OBAMA'S BROKEN TAX PROMISES
OBAMA'S BROKEN TAX PROMISES
Dear Friend,
In this video commentary, I discuss Obama's broken tax promises.
To access the video - Go Here Now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC4pK5AKS48
(If the link is not active, please copy and paste it into the "Address" field of your web browser)
Please forward this email to any friends or family who may be interested in viewing my video commentary!
Thanks for watching,
Dick
CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back
Click here to order a copy of CATASTROPHE now!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
To view all of Dick's videos on YouTube, Go Here Now.
http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmorrisreports
Click Here To Browse Dick's New Book Catastrophe
http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061771040&WT.mc_id=AUTHWEB_CATAS_BROWSE_062609
Dear Friend,
In this video commentary, I discuss Obama's broken tax promises.
To access the video - Go Here Now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC4pK5AKS48
(If the link is not active, please copy and paste it into the "Address" field of your web browser)
Please forward this email to any friends or family who may be interested in viewing my video commentary!
Thanks for watching,
Dick
CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back
Click here to order a copy of CATASTROPHE now!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
To view all of Dick's videos on YouTube, Go Here Now.
http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmorrisreports
Click Here To Browse Dick's New Book Catastrophe
http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061771040&WT.mc_id=AUTHWEB_CATAS_BROWSE_062609
Minuteman Rally - "Our Democracy Is Upside Down"
Minuteman Rally - "Our Democracy Is Upside Down"
Minuteman Protest
VICTORVILLE • Horns honked and fingers waved from traffic on Bear Valley Road on Saturday night.
The Minuteman Project protest at the intersection of Bear Valley and Hesperia roads drew both supportive and angry reactions regarding the topic of illegal immigration.
“Our democracy is upside down,” said Raymond Herrera, a national rally spokesman for the Minuteman Project, who organized the rally. “We are taking this country, this democracy, back one step at a time. We beckon the American people of the High Desert to join.”
Over 30 protesters from the Minuteman Project filled the northeast corner of the intersection, while the northwest corner hosted a smaller group of people supporting immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The two groups crossed paths, and created some heated debate, but no violence or problems occurred.
“We’re American citizens out here today just stating we want our government to take action to help the American worker,” said Robin Vidston of the Minuteman Project. “We have 14 million unemployed workers in America. We’re saying to the public, ‘hire Americans.’ We’re asking people to support businesses where Americans are hired.”
Herrera earlier reported he organized the local protest after opponents of a rally at Rep. Jerry Lewis’ office challenged him to bring the message to the High Desert.
Herrera will also be bringing the same message to an upcoming Victorville City Council meeting.
James Quigg can be reached at jquigg@VVDailyPress.com.
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/minuteman-13277-protest-victorville.html
July 12, 2009 - 5:20 PM
JAMES QUIGG Staff Writer
Minuteman Protest
VICTORVILLE • Horns honked and fingers waved from traffic on Bear Valley Road on Saturday night.
The Minuteman Project protest at the intersection of Bear Valley and Hesperia roads drew both supportive and angry reactions regarding the topic of illegal immigration.
“Our democracy is upside down,” said Raymond Herrera, a national rally spokesman for the Minuteman Project, who organized the rally. “We are taking this country, this democracy, back one step at a time. We beckon the American people of the High Desert to join.”
Over 30 protesters from the Minuteman Project filled the northeast corner of the intersection, while the northwest corner hosted a smaller group of people supporting immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The two groups crossed paths, and created some heated debate, but no violence or problems occurred.
“We’re American citizens out here today just stating we want our government to take action to help the American worker,” said Robin Vidston of the Minuteman Project. “We have 14 million unemployed workers in America. We’re saying to the public, ‘hire Americans.’ We’re asking people to support businesses where Americans are hired.”
Herrera earlier reported he organized the local protest after opponents of a rally at Rep. Jerry Lewis’ office challenged him to bring the message to the High Desert.
Herrera will also be bringing the same message to an upcoming Victorville City Council meeting.
James Quigg can be reached at jquigg@VVDailyPress.com.
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/minuteman-13277-protest-victorville.html
July 12, 2009 - 5:20 PM
JAMES QUIGG Staff Writer
Sunday, July 12, 2009
why doesn't Obama talk about the high cost of medical malpractice
why doesn't Obama talk about the high cost of medical malpractice insurance?
medical malpractice insurance
President Obama never mentions this expensive cost in health care,
do you think the trail lawyer lobby bought him?
medical malpractice insurance
President Obama never mentions this expensive cost in health care,
do you think the trail lawyer lobby bought him?
Friday, June 26, 2009
see how your congress voted on the Climate bill/Cap and tax bill
see how your congress voted on the Climate bill/Cap and tax bill
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
see voting record at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-477
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
see voting record at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-477
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?'
- The Loft - http://www.gopusa.com/theloft -
Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?
An election was held in Iran, and now people are dying. They are dying in the name of freedom -- protesting what they feel is a rigged election. Since the protests began, the Iranian government has been resorting to violence in order to stop the momentum of progress.
While people are dying in the streets of Iran, Barack Obama and his team have been calling the situation a "vigorous debate." Are you kidding me? A vigorous debate was held between Lincoln and Douglas. A vigorous debate is what you have between Michigan and Ohio State fans. People are dying! And yet, Obama will still not send a clear message to the people of Iran that America is on their side.
The White House has been quite obvious in its lack of direct condemnation of the Iranian government, despite the fact that innocent civilians, who are standing up for the most basic "American" values of freedom and democracy, are dying at the hands of a government crackdown.
During a June 19 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had this exchange with a reporter:
Q He said he was troubled by violence. He didn't say they shouldn't do it or directly criticize them for doing it.
MR. GIBBS: That's not the way I read it. I think when the --
Q I have the --
MR. GIBBS: I have the same transcript right here. I think when the President sits in the Oval Office and says he's: deeply troubled by what I've seen on television, and the American people are rightly troubled by that; I think when the President discusses as he did with President Lee that something has happened in Iran, where there's a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past, and there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see greater democracy -- I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not be suppressed.
I think the language in the resolution is very consistent with the language that the President has used.
Q It makes direct criticism of the government, which he has not done.
MR. GIBBS: We can quibble on this. I think the President has been clear in standing up for the universal principles and deploring violence.
In other words, Barack Obama is "troubled by violence," but he does not have the fortitude to tell the Iranian government to stop.
In that same briefing, the following exchange occurred:
Q Robert, continuing on that theme, what is the White House and the President's reaction to the supreme leader of Iran warning to protestors to stop protesting and calling on -- saying that leaders will be held responsible for bloodshed?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed that also on Monday, that he believes, as we have said throughout the week and as I've said throughout the week, those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that -- to do that without fear of violence; that that is an important universal principle that should be upheld. And I think he strongly supports that.
Q So would he criticize or condemn this particular statement from the supreme leader?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been clear on what he believes: that he believes strongly that people should have their voices heard, that clearly there is, as he said on Tuesday, a ferment in Iran that is bringing about change.
Direct answer to the question... NO! The president will not condemn the statement because he wants to have it both ways. By doing so, he sends a clear message to the Iranian people that he is not in their corner. This is a demoralizing blow to a nation that is yearning for freedom.
On June 13, the White House described the Iranian elections this way:
Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.
And here is what Obama said yesterday:
And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran, you know, may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.
More "great debate" type of non-answers! The next part was even worse:
QUESTION: So should there be consequences for what's happened so far?
MR. OBAMA: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously, internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone, not only for Iran's future, but also its relationship to other countries.
What in the world does that mean. Obama rarely talks about America... it's always the "international community." And who cares about "bearing witness." Many countries bore witness to the early actions of Hitler and did nothing! Obama talks about "shaping the tone" while Iranians are dying. I'm not talking about going to war with Iran, but the Iranian people need to believe that America is firmly on their side. Do you think they believe that?
Posted By Bobby Eberle June 2009
Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?
An election was held in Iran, and now people are dying. They are dying in the name of freedom -- protesting what they feel is a rigged election. Since the protests began, the Iranian government has been resorting to violence in order to stop the momentum of progress.
While people are dying in the streets of Iran, Barack Obama and his team have been calling the situation a "vigorous debate." Are you kidding me? A vigorous debate was held between Lincoln and Douglas. A vigorous debate is what you have between Michigan and Ohio State fans. People are dying! And yet, Obama will still not send a clear message to the people of Iran that America is on their side.
The White House has been quite obvious in its lack of direct condemnation of the Iranian government, despite the fact that innocent civilians, who are standing up for the most basic "American" values of freedom and democracy, are dying at the hands of a government crackdown.
During a June 19 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had this exchange with a reporter:
Q He said he was troubled by violence. He didn't say they shouldn't do it or directly criticize them for doing it.
MR. GIBBS: That's not the way I read it. I think when the --
Q I have the --
MR. GIBBS: I have the same transcript right here. I think when the President sits in the Oval Office and says he's: deeply troubled by what I've seen on television, and the American people are rightly troubled by that; I think when the President discusses as he did with President Lee that something has happened in Iran, where there's a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past, and there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see greater democracy -- I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not be suppressed.
I think the language in the resolution is very consistent with the language that the President has used.
Q It makes direct criticism of the government, which he has not done.
MR. GIBBS: We can quibble on this. I think the President has been clear in standing up for the universal principles and deploring violence.
In other words, Barack Obama is "troubled by violence," but he does not have the fortitude to tell the Iranian government to stop.
In that same briefing, the following exchange occurred:
Q Robert, continuing on that theme, what is the White House and the President's reaction to the supreme leader of Iran warning to protestors to stop protesting and calling on -- saying that leaders will be held responsible for bloodshed?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed that also on Monday, that he believes, as we have said throughout the week and as I've said throughout the week, those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that -- to do that without fear of violence; that that is an important universal principle that should be upheld. And I think he strongly supports that.
Q So would he criticize or condemn this particular statement from the supreme leader?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been clear on what he believes: that he believes strongly that people should have their voices heard, that clearly there is, as he said on Tuesday, a ferment in Iran that is bringing about change.
Direct answer to the question... NO! The president will not condemn the statement because he wants to have it both ways. By doing so, he sends a clear message to the Iranian people that he is not in their corner. This is a demoralizing blow to a nation that is yearning for freedom.
On June 13, the White House described the Iranian elections this way:
Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.
And here is what Obama said yesterday:
And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran, you know, may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.
More "great debate" type of non-answers! The next part was even worse:
QUESTION: So should there be consequences for what's happened so far?
MR. OBAMA: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously, internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone, not only for Iran's future, but also its relationship to other countries.
What in the world does that mean. Obama rarely talks about America... it's always the "international community." And who cares about "bearing witness." Many countries bore witness to the early actions of Hitler and did nothing! Obama talks about "shaping the tone" while Iranians are dying. I'm not talking about going to war with Iran, but the Iranian people need to believe that America is firmly on their side. Do you think they believe that?
Posted By Bobby Eberle June 2009
CANADIAN HEALTH CARE: COMING SOON TO THE USA?
Dear Friends,
In our new book, Catastrophe, we spell out exactly how the Obama health care proposals will lead to a Canadian style socialized medicine -- and we explain the consequences.
* A 16% higher cancer death rate in Canada
* An eight week wait for radiation therapy for cancer patients
* 42% of Canadians die of colon cancer vs. 31% in the US
* Cutbacks in diagnostic testing
* The best meds for chemo therapy are not available
* No way out of the system; you can't even pay for services yourself
Why is health care so bad north of the border? Because there are too few doctors to treat everybody and cost savings -- which slice medical incomes -- drive doctors out of the profession. When Obama calls for a 21% cut in Medicare fees to physicians and a $2500 cut in health costs per capita, that is exactly the kind of downward spiral in medical care quality he will bring to the United States. By making too few doctors cover too many patients, he will cut the quality of care to everybody.
As Obama's proposals make their way through Congress, it is vital that we all get up to speed on what is happening in Canada, so we can stop it from happening here. It is through word of mouth that we need to spread the information to undermine public support for the changes Obama would bring.
That's why we wrote Catastrophe. That's why we hope you read it!
Thanks,
Dick
CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back
Click here to order a signed copy of CATASTROPHE while supplies last!
http://www.dickmorris.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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!
THANK YOU!
In our new book, Catastrophe, we spell out exactly how the Obama health care proposals will lead to a Canadian style socialized medicine -- and we explain the consequences.
* A 16% higher cancer death rate in Canada
* An eight week wait for radiation therapy for cancer patients
* 42% of Canadians die of colon cancer vs. 31% in the US
* Cutbacks in diagnostic testing
* The best meds for chemo therapy are not available
* No way out of the system; you can't even pay for services yourself
Why is health care so bad north of the border? Because there are too few doctors to treat everybody and cost savings -- which slice medical incomes -- drive doctors out of the profession. When Obama calls for a 21% cut in Medicare fees to physicians and a $2500 cut in health costs per capita, that is exactly the kind of downward spiral in medical care quality he will bring to the United States. By making too few doctors cover too many patients, he will cut the quality of care to everybody.
As Obama's proposals make their way through Congress, it is vital that we all get up to speed on what is happening in Canada, so we can stop it from happening here. It is through word of mouth that we need to spread the information to undermine public support for the changes Obama would bring.
That's why we wrote Catastrophe. That's why we hope you read it!
Thanks,
Dick
CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back
Click here to order a signed copy of CATASTROPHE while supplies last!
http://www.dickmorris.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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!
THANK YOU!
Senator CHRIS DODD'S OTHER PROBLEM
Senator CHRIS DODD'S OTHER PROBLEM
Sen. Chris Dodd, the dubious Democrat from the Nutmeg State, told a recent interviewer that it was "offensive" that the media would suggest that his wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, has potential conflicts of interest because she sits on the boards of four pharmaceutical firms.
With Sen. Ted Kennedy ailing, Dodd is the Democratic point man for upcoming health-care legislation.
Of course, this is the 21st century. Spouses of powerful pols have their own -- often quite successful -- careers.
Of course, everybody knows that Mrs. Dodd received no special consideration because of her powerful spouse -- because Sen. Dodd says so.
That's the same Chris Dodd who "just happened" to get sweetheart mortgage loans as a "Friend of [Countrywide Financial founder] Angelo [Mozilo]" -- a relationship that is the subject of a Senate Ethics Committee probe.
That's the same Dodd who "just happened" to buy out a friend's share of an Irish cottage for well below what should have been the appraised value.
Only after a public-interest group raised questions did the Dodds finally have the cottage re-appraised -- whereupon the property's value jumped to $660,000, from between $100,001 and $250,000 just last year.
How about that: In the midst of a worldwide recession, his vacation home doubles in value in just one year -- as property values across Ireland plunged 40 percent.
Dodd says "there's no reason" for his wife to step down from her various boards -- an ethics lawyer gave a clean bill of health on potential conflicts of interest. He further complains that raising these questions is "offensive" because the husbands of female members of Congress don't face the same scrutiny. Really?
Dodd could talk to former Senator -- now Secretary of State --
Hillary Clinton about the conflict-of-interest questions she faced,
thanks to her husband's business practices.
Nobody's picking on Chris Dodd. Not that he doesn't deserve it.
Sen. Chris Dodd, the dubious Democrat from the Nutmeg State, told a recent interviewer that it was "offensive" that the media would suggest that his wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, has potential conflicts of interest because she sits on the boards of four pharmaceutical firms.
With Sen. Ted Kennedy ailing, Dodd is the Democratic point man for upcoming health-care legislation.
Of course, this is the 21st century. Spouses of powerful pols have their own -- often quite successful -- careers.
Of course, everybody knows that Mrs. Dodd received no special consideration because of her powerful spouse -- because Sen. Dodd says so.
That's the same Chris Dodd who "just happened" to get sweetheart mortgage loans as a "Friend of [Countrywide Financial founder] Angelo [Mozilo]" -- a relationship that is the subject of a Senate Ethics Committee probe.
That's the same Dodd who "just happened" to buy out a friend's share of an Irish cottage for well below what should have been the appraised value.
Only after a public-interest group raised questions did the Dodds finally have the cottage re-appraised -- whereupon the property's value jumped to $660,000, from between $100,001 and $250,000 just last year.
How about that: In the midst of a worldwide recession, his vacation home doubles in value in just one year -- as property values across Ireland plunged 40 percent.
Dodd says "there's no reason" for his wife to step down from her various boards -- an ethics lawyer gave a clean bill of health on potential conflicts of interest. He further complains that raising these questions is "offensive" because the husbands of female members of Congress don't face the same scrutiny. Really?
Dodd could talk to former Senator -- now Secretary of State --
Hillary Clinton about the conflict-of-interest questions she faced,
thanks to her husband's business practices.
Nobody's picking on Chris Dodd. Not that he doesn't deserve it.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens
La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens
On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.
La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."
La Raza President and CEO Janet MurguÃa used the statement to emphasize that "everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health coverage they need." While the statement does not reference illegal immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009).
Specific research has shown that many illegal aliens lack health insurance and represent a disproportionate share of the United States' uninsured population. The Pew Hispanic Center's recent report, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, found that 59% of illegal aliens in the United States had no form of health insurance in 2007, and that 45% of illegal alien children were also without health coverage in 2007. It also found that even the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens were insured at the low rate of 25%, and that there was a significant disparity between the volume of uninsured illegal aliens and the volume of uninsured U.S. citizens and other legal residents. (Pew Hispanic Center Report, April 14, 2009).
Pew's information has support in federal statistics: data collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Census Bureau for the same time frame show that approximately 33.2% of the foreign-born population in the United States (a category which does not differentiate between newly naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and illegal aliens) were uninsured in 2007, and that almost 10 million foreign-born non-citizens lacked health insurance in 2007. (DHS Fact Sheet, February 2009).
(For more information on how illegal immigration is financially impacting the U.S. health care system, see FAIR's Legislative Updates for April 13, 2009, and April 20, 2009).
On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.
La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."
La Raza President and CEO Janet MurguÃa used the statement to emphasize that "everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health coverage they need." While the statement does not reference illegal immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009).
Specific research has shown that many illegal aliens lack health insurance and represent a disproportionate share of the United States' uninsured population. The Pew Hispanic Center's recent report, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, found that 59% of illegal aliens in the United States had no form of health insurance in 2007, and that 45% of illegal alien children were also without health coverage in 2007. It also found that even the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens were insured at the low rate of 25%, and that there was a significant disparity between the volume of uninsured illegal aliens and the volume of uninsured U.S. citizens and other legal residents. (Pew Hispanic Center Report, April 14, 2009).
Pew's information has support in federal statistics: data collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Census Bureau for the same time frame show that approximately 33.2% of the foreign-born population in the United States (a category which does not differentiate between newly naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and illegal aliens) were uninsured in 2007, and that almost 10 million foreign-born non-citizens lacked health insurance in 2007. (DHS Fact Sheet, February 2009).
(For more information on how illegal immigration is financially impacting the U.S. health care system, see FAIR's Legislative Updates for April 13, 2009, and April 20, 2009).
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Obama audacity of speed, any regrets on giving him the federal Mastercard?
Obama audacity of speed, any regrets on giving him the federal Mastercard?
Friday, June 19, 2009
Al Sharpton: a train wreck, a plane crash waiting to happen?
Al Sharpton: a train wreck, a plane crash waiting to happen?
Sharpton Fined $285K by FEC as Result of NLPC Complaint
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000 for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Al Sharpton and his group, the National Action Network (NAN), have been fined $285,000 by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for violating a host of election laws during Sharpton’s 2004 presidential campaign
during which he received 2% of the Democratic primary vote.
NLPC, which filed Complaints against Sharpton on February 2, 2004 and February 6, 2004, was notified of the FEC action last week and made it public today. As NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm was quoted in the
New York Post [1] today:
We are pleased that the FEC has ruled on our Complaint and found that Sharpton ran
an “off the books’ presidential campaign.
Previously, the FEC ordered Sharpton to return $100,000 in taxpayer matching funds,
and denied him an additional $79,000 for which he qualified, for the 2004 campaign.
Also previously, Sharpton was fined $5,500 for late filing of disclosure documents reports
as a result of a separate Complaint filed by NLPC on April 18, 2003.
The February 2, 2004 Complaint cited information that Sharpton may have visited over 100 cities related to his presidential campaign in 2002 and 2003. This extensive political travel was not reflected anywhere in Sharpton’s FEC filings. NLPC alleged that NAN might have
underwritten this travel with large undisclosed gifts from unnamed donors.
The $285,000 fine is actually a civil penalty under a conciliation agreement between Sharpton and his groups and the FEC. According to the agreement:
…Sharpton 2004 kept poor records of its activities and expenditures,
which often resulted in NAN or other entities paying for travel expenses incurred by the campaign.
It was the practice to charge all travel expenses to Sharpton’s American Express charge card.
The card was then paid using multiple accounts owned by Sharpton, NAN and/or the Committee.
The agreement describes $509,188 in campaign-related expenses on Sharpton’s American Express card. His campaign committee paid $121,996, leaving $387,192 in illegal payments from other sources,
including $65,000 from “unknown sources.”
Sharpton claimed to the FEC that records related to these activities were destroyed in a fire.
This was the second time a mysterious fire at NAN headquarters had been cited by Sharpton.
In 1997, just after Sharpton promised to open the financial records of NAN,
he alleged they had been destroyed.
The February 6, 2004 Complaint included information first reported by Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice on January 24, 2004 in an article titled “Sleeping With the GOP” [2]
that detailed efforts by Republican consultant Roger Stone to qualify Sharpton for federal matching funds.
Although the FEC found “reason to believe” that Stone violated election law,
it exercised its “prosecutorial discretion” and took no action against Stone.
The FEC also found that fast food mogul named La-Van Hawkins, who is now incarcerated, made excessive in-kind contributions to Sharpton by hosting a fundraiser at his Atlanta home in 2003.
According to Ebony magazine, Hawkins had his private jet pick Sharpton up in New York, and swing by Detroit to pick up his personal chef. Fresh crab cakes and carved beef tenderloins were washed down by $200 bottles of Cristal champagne, According to Ebony, “Hawkins worked the crowd,
at times talking business and world politics with guests, at other times, seeming to ‘shake down’ guests for donations.”
In April 2005, more information about Sharpton’s relationship with Hawkins emerged during an unrelated corruption investigation centered in Philadelphia. Local Democratic fundraiser
Ronald A. White and Hawkins reportedly were wiretapped having a conversation in which Hawkins expressed suspicions that Sharpton had failed to report money they had raised for his campaign.
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000
for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported
only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Hawkins had every reason to be grateful to Sharpton, who called for a boycott of Burger King after Hawkins
sued Burger King for $1.9 billion in 2001. Hawkins, already an owner of 23 Burger Kings,
alleged the company reneged on a promise to let him open 225 more in order to increase
the number of minority-owned franchises. Ironically, Jesse Jackson sided with Burger King,
which had been a financial supporter of Rainbow/PUSH for twenty years.
see more info at
http://nlpc.org/stories/2009/04/19/sharpton-fined-285k-fec-result-nlpc-complaint
http://www.nlpc.org/sites/default/files/SharptonFEC2-2-04.pdf see orginal complaint.
Click here to download a 28-page pdf of the conciliation agreement and related documents. [3]
Click here to download a 11-page pdf of NLPC's February 2, 2004 FEC Complaint. [4]
Click here to download a 9-page pdf of NLPC's February 6, 2004 FEC Complaint. [5]
By NLPC Staff
Al Sharpton
Sharpton Fined $285K by FEC as Result of NLPC Complaint
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000 for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Al Sharpton and his group, the National Action Network (NAN), have been fined $285,000 by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for violating a host of election laws during Sharpton’s 2004 presidential campaign
during which he received 2% of the Democratic primary vote.
NLPC, which filed Complaints against Sharpton on February 2, 2004 and February 6, 2004, was notified of the FEC action last week and made it public today. As NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm was quoted in the
New York Post [1] today:
We are pleased that the FEC has ruled on our Complaint and found that Sharpton ran
an “off the books’ presidential campaign.
Previously, the FEC ordered Sharpton to return $100,000 in taxpayer matching funds,
and denied him an additional $79,000 for which he qualified, for the 2004 campaign.
Also previously, Sharpton was fined $5,500 for late filing of disclosure documents reports
as a result of a separate Complaint filed by NLPC on April 18, 2003.
The February 2, 2004 Complaint cited information that Sharpton may have visited over 100 cities related to his presidential campaign in 2002 and 2003. This extensive political travel was not reflected anywhere in Sharpton’s FEC filings. NLPC alleged that NAN might have
underwritten this travel with large undisclosed gifts from unnamed donors.
The $285,000 fine is actually a civil penalty under a conciliation agreement between Sharpton and his groups and the FEC. According to the agreement:
…Sharpton 2004 kept poor records of its activities and expenditures,
which often resulted in NAN or other entities paying for travel expenses incurred by the campaign.
It was the practice to charge all travel expenses to Sharpton’s American Express charge card.
The card was then paid using multiple accounts owned by Sharpton, NAN and/or the Committee.
The agreement describes $509,188 in campaign-related expenses on Sharpton’s American Express card. His campaign committee paid $121,996, leaving $387,192 in illegal payments from other sources,
including $65,000 from “unknown sources.”
Sharpton claimed to the FEC that records related to these activities were destroyed in a fire.
This was the second time a mysterious fire at NAN headquarters had been cited by Sharpton.
In 1997, just after Sharpton promised to open the financial records of NAN,
he alleged they had been destroyed.
The February 6, 2004 Complaint included information first reported by Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice on January 24, 2004 in an article titled “Sleeping With the GOP” [2]
that detailed efforts by Republican consultant Roger Stone to qualify Sharpton for federal matching funds.
Although the FEC found “reason to believe” that Stone violated election law,
it exercised its “prosecutorial discretion” and took no action against Stone.
The FEC also found that fast food mogul named La-Van Hawkins, who is now incarcerated, made excessive in-kind contributions to Sharpton by hosting a fundraiser at his Atlanta home in 2003.
According to Ebony magazine, Hawkins had his private jet pick Sharpton up in New York, and swing by Detroit to pick up his personal chef. Fresh crab cakes and carved beef tenderloins were washed down by $200 bottles of Cristal champagne, According to Ebony, “Hawkins worked the crowd,
at times talking business and world politics with guests, at other times, seeming to ‘shake down’ guests for donations.”
In April 2005, more information about Sharpton’s relationship with Hawkins emerged during an unrelated corruption investigation centered in Philadelphia. Local Democratic fundraiser
Ronald A. White and Hawkins reportedly were wiretapped having a conversation in which Hawkins expressed suspicions that Sharpton had failed to report money they had raised for his campaign.
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000
for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported
only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Hawkins had every reason to be grateful to Sharpton, who called for a boycott of Burger King after Hawkins
sued Burger King for $1.9 billion in 2001. Hawkins, already an owner of 23 Burger Kings,
alleged the company reneged on a promise to let him open 225 more in order to increase
the number of minority-owned franchises. Ironically, Jesse Jackson sided with Burger King,
which had been a financial supporter of Rainbow/PUSH for twenty years.
see more info at
http://nlpc.org/stories/2009/04/19/sharpton-fined-285k-fec-result-nlpc-complaint
http://www.nlpc.org/sites/default/files/SharptonFEC2-2-04.pdf see orginal complaint.
Click here to download a 28-page pdf of the conciliation agreement and related documents. [3]
Click here to download a 11-page pdf of NLPC's February 2, 2004 FEC Complaint. [4]
Click here to download a 9-page pdf of NLPC's February 6, 2004 FEC Complaint. [5]
By NLPC Staff
Al Sharpton
Healthcare, something for nothing from Obama? doesn't smell right to me
Healthcare, something for nothing from Obama? doesn't smell right to me
something for nothing from Obama?
something for nothing from Obama?
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Young Con rap song
Young Con rap song
Young Conservatives rap song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8
as seen on Bill o'Reilly show
Young Conservatives rap song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8
as seen on Bill o'Reilly show
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Obama puts a 31-year-old in charge Charge of Dismantling G.M.
Obama puts a 31-year-old college dropout in charge of dismantling G.M.
The 31-Year-Old in Charge of Dismantling G.M.
WASHINGTON — It is not every 31-year-old who, in a first government job, finds himself dismantling General Motors and rewriting the rules of American capitalism.
But that, in short, is the job description for Brian Deese, a not-quite graduate of Yale Law School who had never set foot in an automotive assembly plant until he took on his nearly unseen role in remaking the American automotive industry.
By DAVID E. SANGER
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
is Nancy Pelosi is well beyond menopause?
is Nancy Pelosi is well beyond menopause?
or it may be she getting senile.
or it may be she getting senile.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Morris: STICK TO YOUR GUNS, REPUBLICANS
RESISTING O'S WORLD - STICK TO YOUR GUNS, REPUBLICANS
By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN
Gen. Colin Powell is wrong to say that the Republican Party must move to the center: Now is not the time to try for triangulation.
This is a time for the party to stand firm on its principles until this nation again comes around to the GOP's way of thinking. This process will be driven by the consequences of President Obama's program.
The challenge brought by Obama is no longer just theoretical: He means to pass the ultimate leftist agenda and has the votes to do so.
As a result, our nation will be unrecognizable well before the 2010 elections. Business will march to a beat drummed in Washington. The top producers will be hounded by confiscatory taxation. A majority will pay nothing or receive government welfare. Our health-care system will be destroyed. Illegal immigrants will be well on their way to citizenship.
Obama's brave new world will be the subject of the 2010 elections. We believe that his Congress will be swept from power as a result.
We think that inflation will join a lingering recession -- giving us recess-flation -- and that high unemployment will continue. Voters will recognize the damage to their health care as bureaucrats weigh in to prevent them from getting the care they need. Our security and defense failures may well have cost us Pakistan, and the nightmare of a nuclear-armed terrorist state may have already come true (even before Iran).
All America will be watching the Obama fallout, and Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative -- a strong voice for reversal of the harm the president will have inflicted -- if they are to benefit from this catastrophe.
If the GOP is seen as a moderate force, a party just looking to split the difference, voters will cynically conclude that there is no distinction between the parties.
There is a season for triangulation and a season for confrontation. When America faces a new challenge -- such as what the financial crisis now poses -- we look to the left and right for new answers. We want the debate to rage. Those who seek to paper over are ignored. Such was the fate of the first President Bush in 1992 and of Sen. John McCain in 2008.
But once the debate has raged and the alternatives have been fleshed out, voters want a consensus, a Hegelian synthesis, on how to move in a new direction. They want to extract the best from each alternative and combine them. This is triangulation (a term coined by Dick).
To ignore the demand for synthesis and insist on continuing the debate is to suffer the fate of Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 and Sen. John Kerry in 2004.
This process -- polarization, debate, synthesis and action -- is how America has always moved ahead. We are not Japan; we use the debate to see the options. And we are not Italy or France; we come to conclusions and act upon them, eventually leaving the debate far behind.
Now another great debate has been born. The thesis is democratic socialism. The antithesis is free-market capitalism.
The Obama Democrats have posed the challenge. It's up to the Republicans to fight along these lines. Compromise is not an option, yet.
At some point, the synthesis will set in. But now is the time for clear alternatives and sharp disagreement. Only later can we hope to extract America from the leftist clutches into which it has fallen.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN
Gen. Colin Powell is wrong to say that the Republican Party must move to the center: Now is not the time to try for triangulation.
This is a time for the party to stand firm on its principles until this nation again comes around to the GOP's way of thinking. This process will be driven by the consequences of President Obama's program.
The challenge brought by Obama is no longer just theoretical: He means to pass the ultimate leftist agenda and has the votes to do so.
As a result, our nation will be unrecognizable well before the 2010 elections. Business will march to a beat drummed in Washington. The top producers will be hounded by confiscatory taxation. A majority will pay nothing or receive government welfare. Our health-care system will be destroyed. Illegal immigrants will be well on their way to citizenship.
Obama's brave new world will be the subject of the 2010 elections. We believe that his Congress will be swept from power as a result.
We think that inflation will join a lingering recession -- giving us recess-flation -- and that high unemployment will continue. Voters will recognize the damage to their health care as bureaucrats weigh in to prevent them from getting the care they need. Our security and defense failures may well have cost us Pakistan, and the nightmare of a nuclear-armed terrorist state may have already come true (even before Iran).
All America will be watching the Obama fallout, and Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative -- a strong voice for reversal of the harm the president will have inflicted -- if they are to benefit from this catastrophe.
If the GOP is seen as a moderate force, a party just looking to split the difference, voters will cynically conclude that there is no distinction between the parties.
There is a season for triangulation and a season for confrontation. When America faces a new challenge -- such as what the financial crisis now poses -- we look to the left and right for new answers. We want the debate to rage. Those who seek to paper over are ignored. Such was the fate of the first President Bush in 1992 and of Sen. John McCain in 2008.
But once the debate has raged and the alternatives have been fleshed out, voters want a consensus, a Hegelian synthesis, on how to move in a new direction. They want to extract the best from each alternative and combine them. This is triangulation (a term coined by Dick).
To ignore the demand for synthesis and insist on continuing the debate is to suffer the fate of Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 and Sen. John Kerry in 2004.
This process -- polarization, debate, synthesis and action -- is how America has always moved ahead. We are not Japan; we use the debate to see the options. And we are not Italy or France; we come to conclusions and act upon them, eventually leaving the debate far behind.
Now another great debate has been born. The thesis is democratic socialism. The antithesis is free-market capitalism.
The Obama Democrats have posed the challenge. It's up to the Republicans to fight along these lines. Compromise is not an option, yet.
At some point, the synthesis will set in. But now is the time for clear alternatives and sharp disagreement. Only later can we hope to extract America from the leftist clutches into which it has fallen.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Mexican Drug Lord Orders Deadly Force
Mexican Drug Lord Orders Deadly Force
The reputed head of Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel has instructed his army of associates to use deadly force if necessary to protect their increasingly contested trafficking operations, even against U.S. law enforcement, according to authorities here and in Washington.
The threatened offensive by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted man, was described by U.S. officials as being highly unusual, given that his associates have avoided violent confrontations with American law enforcement officers, and have kept their blood feuds with fellow traffickers largely south of the border.
Guzman is believed to have delivered the message personally in early March, during a three-day gathering of his associates in Sonoita, a small Mexican town just a few miles south of the Arizona border, according to U.S. intelligence bulletins sent to several state and federal law enforcement officials.
The reputed head of Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel has instructed his army of associates to use deadly force if necessary to protect their increasingly contested trafficking operations, even against U.S. law enforcement, according to authorities here and in Washington.
The threatened offensive by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted man, was described by U.S. officials as being highly unusual, given that his associates have avoided violent confrontations with American law enforcement officers, and have kept their blood feuds with fellow traffickers largely south of the border.
Guzman is believed to have delivered the message personally in early March, during a three-day gathering of his associates in Sonoita, a small Mexican town just a few miles south of the Arizona border, according to U.S. intelligence bulletins sent to several state and federal law enforcement officials.
Monday, May 04, 2009
anyone seen DHS Janet Napolitano newest girlfriend ?
anyone seen DHS Janet Napolitano newest girlfriend ?
I heard she a hottie..........................
I heard she a hottie..........................
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Obama leaves the barn door open for Mexican border jumpers?
Obama leaves the barn door open for border jumpers?
Friday, May 01, 2009
importing swine ? Mexican nationals attempting to cut through border fence
importing swine ? Mexican nationals attempting to cut through border fence
Chance border visit surprises Mexican nationals attempting to cut through border fence
Traveling with three international media correspondents during one of his routine trips to survey the progress of the international border fence being erected along the California-Mexico border, Minuteman Project president Jim Gilchrist observed four Mexican nationals setting up what appeared to be a gasoline-powered metal cutting machine last week.
“The group was apparently preparing to cut through the old, unreinforced border fence in Campo, California ,” Gilchrist said.
Britt Craig of the Campo Minutemen organization, who routinely accompanies Gilchrist on the fence surveys, summoned nearby U.S. Border Patrol agents who said they would set up an observation point for that area of the fence. One agent surmised that the group was going to cut a hole in the fence large enough to drive a vehicle through laden with either illegal aliens or drugs, or both.
The Mexicans, in their early twenties or younger, retreated back into Mexico about 100 yards to a cluster of boulders, leaving the machinery under a tree about 30 feet from the border fence. There were large plastic bags stacked against one of the boulders. Gilchrist said none of the men appeared to be armed.
http://www.minutemanproject.com
Chance border visit surprises Mexican nationals attempting to cut through border fence
Traveling with three international media correspondents during one of his routine trips to survey the progress of the international border fence being erected along the California-Mexico border, Minuteman Project president Jim Gilchrist observed four Mexican nationals setting up what appeared to be a gasoline-powered metal cutting machine last week.
“The group was apparently preparing to cut through the old, unreinforced border fence in Campo, California ,” Gilchrist said.
Britt Craig of the Campo Minutemen organization, who routinely accompanies Gilchrist on the fence surveys, summoned nearby U.S. Border Patrol agents who said they would set up an observation point for that area of the fence. One agent surmised that the group was going to cut a hole in the fence large enough to drive a vehicle through laden with either illegal aliens or drugs, or both.
The Mexicans, in their early twenties or younger, retreated back into Mexico about 100 yards to a cluster of boulders, leaving the machinery under a tree about 30 feet from the border fence. There were large plastic bags stacked against one of the boulders. Gilchrist said none of the men appeared to be armed.
http://www.minutemanproject.com
Thursday, April 30, 2009
anyone watching the Mexican border for more swine cases ?
anyone watching the Mexican border for more swine cases ?
looks like border security would be nice to have now.
looks like border security would be nice to have now.
150K jobs saved? more chocolate covered Obama bullshir
150K job saved? more chocolate covered Obama bullshir
Friday, April 24, 2009
info on Chris Simcox, Arizona senate canidate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia....
Chris Simcox (born 1961) is the American co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) and the project's main spokesperson. He was formerly a kindergarten teacher at the Wildwood School in Los Angeles, California, where he taught for thirteen years. [1]
In October 2002, Simcox issued a public call to arms, inviting readers of his newspaper, the Tombstone Tumbleweed, to join a "Citizens Border Patrol Militia" whose function, Simcox said, would be to "shame the government into doing its job" of controlling the United States's border with Mexico.
He founded Civil Homeland Defense, a group which patrolled the border, and within the next two and a half years sought to assist the United States Border Patrol.
Simcox's practice of reporting illegal immigrants attempting to enter the country illegally has been controversial, and questions concerning its legality have been raised. When the Civil Homeland Defense was first formed, Simcox's opponents claimed that it is illegal for a normal citizen who is in no way affiliated with law enforcement to detain people in the United States. Simcox claimed at that time that these detentions were justified under a "citizen's arrest" policy.[2] Since the inception of the MCDC, however, their "Standard Operating Procedure" (SOP) states that "Minutemen Observe, Report, Record, and Direct Border Patrol or other appropriate emergency or law enforcement agencies to suspected Illegal Aliens or Illegal Activities."[3]
In December 2004, Simcox teamed with James Gilchrist to organize the Minuteman Project, which brought nationwide attention to the southern border. While some have accused the Minuteman members of being vigilantes, supporters claim that there has never been a case of a member of The Minuteman Project physically harming anyone.
Simcox was interviewed for the 2005 independent documentary Wetback: The Undocumented Documentary. Simcox also appeared in a 2006 documentary by Joseph Matthew and Dan DeVivo called "Crossing Arizona," and a 2007 documentary by Chris Burgard called "Border".
On April 21, 2006, Simcox sent a message to President George W. Bush asking him to send National Guard troops to guard the border or the "Minutemen" would begin construction of a wall along the border, built on private property.
Simcox has stated he does not receive a salary from Minutemen, and earns income via honoraria and fees received for speaking engagements. He claims to have sold his life story for a film that will soon go into production. [4]
Simcox is stepping down from MCDC to challenge in the 2010 Republican primary the renomination of U.S. Senator John S. McCain, III, of Arizona, the party's 2008 presidential nominee.[5]
[edit] References
^ Wagner, Dennis (2006-05-25). "Minuteman's goal: To shame feds into action". http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-24-minuteman-goals_x.htm.
^ Max Blumenthal, "Vigilante injustice", Salon, May 22, 2005. Accessed January 13, 2008.
^ "Standard Operating Procedure for Minuteman Civil Defense Corps", retrieved January 13, 2008.
^ Seper, Jerry (2006-07-20). "Minutemen not watching over funds". http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060719-091346-2988r.htm.
^ Smith, Ben (2009-04-21). "McCain Facing 2010 Primary". http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/McCain_facing_2010_primary.html?showall.
[edit] External links
Border - Documentary film featuring Chris Simcox
The Right Perspective podcast interview
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Simcox"
Chris Simcox (born 1961) is the American co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) and the project's main spokesperson. He was formerly a kindergarten teacher at the Wildwood School in Los Angeles, California, where he taught for thirteen years. [1]
In October 2002, Simcox issued a public call to arms, inviting readers of his newspaper, the Tombstone Tumbleweed, to join a "Citizens Border Patrol Militia" whose function, Simcox said, would be to "shame the government into doing its job" of controlling the United States's border with Mexico.
He founded Civil Homeland Defense, a group which patrolled the border, and within the next two and a half years sought to assist the United States Border Patrol.
Simcox's practice of reporting illegal immigrants attempting to enter the country illegally has been controversial, and questions concerning its legality have been raised. When the Civil Homeland Defense was first formed, Simcox's opponents claimed that it is illegal for a normal citizen who is in no way affiliated with law enforcement to detain people in the United States. Simcox claimed at that time that these detentions were justified under a "citizen's arrest" policy.[2] Since the inception of the MCDC, however, their "Standard Operating Procedure" (SOP) states that "Minutemen Observe, Report, Record, and Direct Border Patrol or other appropriate emergency or law enforcement agencies to suspected Illegal Aliens or Illegal Activities."[3]
In December 2004, Simcox teamed with James Gilchrist to organize the Minuteman Project, which brought nationwide attention to the southern border. While some have accused the Minuteman members of being vigilantes, supporters claim that there has never been a case of a member of The Minuteman Project physically harming anyone.
Simcox was interviewed for the 2005 independent documentary Wetback: The Undocumented Documentary. Simcox also appeared in a 2006 documentary by Joseph Matthew and Dan DeVivo called "Crossing Arizona," and a 2007 documentary by Chris Burgard called "Border".
On April 21, 2006, Simcox sent a message to President George W. Bush asking him to send National Guard troops to guard the border or the "Minutemen" would begin construction of a wall along the border, built on private property.
Simcox has stated he does not receive a salary from Minutemen, and earns income via honoraria and fees received for speaking engagements. He claims to have sold his life story for a film that will soon go into production. [4]
Simcox is stepping down from MCDC to challenge in the 2010 Republican primary the renomination of U.S. Senator John S. McCain, III, of Arizona, the party's 2008 presidential nominee.[5]
[edit] References
^ Wagner, Dennis (2006-05-25). "Minuteman's goal: To shame feds into action". http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-24-minuteman-goals_x.htm.
^ Max Blumenthal, "Vigilante injustice", Salon, May 22, 2005. Accessed January 13, 2008.
^ "Standard Operating Procedure for Minuteman Civil Defense Corps", retrieved January 13, 2008.
^ Seper, Jerry (2006-07-20). "Minutemen not watching over funds". http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060719-091346-2988r.htm.
^ Smith, Ben (2009-04-21). "McCain Facing 2010 Primary". http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/McCain_facing_2010_primary.html?showall.
[edit] External links
Border - Documentary film featuring Chris Simcox
The Right Perspective podcast interview
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Simcox"
Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby gets a $25 Billion sweetheart deal?
Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby gets a $25 Billion sweetheart deal?
Senator's husband's firm cashes in on crisis
can he be charged with insider trading ?
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation
to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties
at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein
first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties
that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
Read the rate list for the FDIC contract from CB Richard Ellis,
the firm Sen. Feinstein's husband heads as board chairman. (downloads 4-page pdf)
Read the correspondence between Sen. Feinstein and FDIC chairman Sheila Bair
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
The FDIC contract "highlights the problem of a senator with a spouse
who has extensive business interests that intersect frequently with the federal government," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Even if there is no actual conflict of interest, it often has the appearance of a conflict."
A 'very sweet deal'?
Real estate specialists also question the government's generosity in the CBRE contract.
The firm, known for its commercial real estate services, is to be paid monthly maintenance fees for each foreclosed property it handles, as well as commissions and incentives. The total compensation can range from 8 percent of the sales price on many residential properties to 30 percent for properties worth $25,000 or less. A smaller firm also won a slice of the work with similar terms, records show.
Most real estate agents earn no more than 6 percent on residential, even on foreclosed properties, and
CBRE doesn't have as much experience in foreclosure sales as other firms, the experts said.
"From everything I know about it, it is a very sweet deal and went to somebody
who is less than qualified in dealing with foreclosed residential properties.
Their expertise is in commercial real estate," said Cynthia Kenner, a Colorado
real estate agent who specializes in selling bank-owned residential properties
and last year helped sell more than 600 foreclosed properties.
"There are companies that are more experienced in selling such properties than CB Richard Ellis," she added.
see source at ...........
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/
by Chuck Neubauer (Contact)
this has also been reported on by Glen Beck tv show and the Bill O'Reilly Factor
Richard Blum,Chuck Neubauer ,CB Richard Ellis,Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator's husband's firm cashes in on crisis
can he be charged with insider trading ?
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation
to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties
at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein
first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties
that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
Read the rate list for the FDIC contract from CB Richard Ellis,
the firm Sen. Feinstein's husband heads as board chairman. (downloads 4-page pdf)
Read the correspondence between Sen. Feinstein and FDIC chairman Sheila Bair
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
The FDIC contract "highlights the problem of a senator with a spouse
who has extensive business interests that intersect frequently with the federal government," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Even if there is no actual conflict of interest, it often has the appearance of a conflict."
A 'very sweet deal'?
Real estate specialists also question the government's generosity in the CBRE contract.
The firm, known for its commercial real estate services, is to be paid monthly maintenance fees for each foreclosed property it handles, as well as commissions and incentives. The total compensation can range from 8 percent of the sales price on many residential properties to 30 percent for properties worth $25,000 or less. A smaller firm also won a slice of the work with similar terms, records show.
Most real estate agents earn no more than 6 percent on residential, even on foreclosed properties, and
CBRE doesn't have as much experience in foreclosure sales as other firms, the experts said.
"From everything I know about it, it is a very sweet deal and went to somebody
who is less than qualified in dealing with foreclosed residential properties.
Their expertise is in commercial real estate," said Cynthia Kenner, a Colorado
real estate agent who specializes in selling bank-owned residential properties
and last year helped sell more than 600 foreclosed properties.
"There are companies that are more experienced in selling such properties than CB Richard Ellis," she added.
see source at ...........
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/
by Chuck Neubauer (Contact)
this has also been reported on by Glen Beck tv show and the Bill O'Reilly Factor
Richard Blum,Chuck Neubauer ,CB Richard Ellis,Senator Dianne Feinstein
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Chris Simcox vs Mccain in 2010 senate primary
Minuteman founder to run for Senate against McCain
PHOENIX --The founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is expected to announce his intentions to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona next year.
Chris Simcox is expected to make the announcement Wednesday. He already has a Web site promoting his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2010.
Simcox says on the site he represents conservative values and will always put the United States first.
Neither Simcox nor a McCain spokeswoman responded to calls for comment. McCain will be seeking his fifth term to the Senate.
Simcox's Web site says the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps patrols the U.S. southern border and reports illegal immigrants to authorities.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/21/minuteman_founder_to_run_for_senate_against_mccain/
PHOENIX --The founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is expected to announce his intentions to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona next year.
Chris Simcox is expected to make the announcement Wednesday. He already has a Web site promoting his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2010.
Simcox says on the site he represents conservative values and will always put the United States first.
Neither Simcox nor a McCain spokeswoman responded to calls for comment. McCain will be seeking his fifth term to the Senate.
Simcox's Web site says the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps patrols the U.S. southern border and reports illegal immigrants to authorities.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/21/minuteman_founder_to_run_for_senate_against_mccain/
looks like Mccain will have a real challenger for his 2010 senate
looks like Mccain will have a real challenger for his 2010 senate seat, new blood would be refreshing
www.mccainalert.com
www.mccainalert.com
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Texas considering secession ?
Democrats: Texas gov should disavow secession talk
AUSTIN, Texas – In a state that once was its own nation, a Republican governor who talked about secession without completely dismissing the idea has Democratic lawmakers in an uproar.
Gov. Rick Perry, in comments following an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday, never did advocate Texas breaking away from the United States but suggested that Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to leave the union. That was enough to feed opinions for and against secession on Web sites, cable TV and talk radio across the nation.
At the Texas Capitol on Thursday, Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, joined by several fellow Texas House Democrats, said some people associate talk of secession with racial division and the Civil War and that Perry should disavow any notion of seceding.
"Talk of secession is an attack on our country. It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement," Dunnam said at a news conference.
State Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, said that by not rejecting the possibility of secession out of hand, Perry "is taking a step down a very dangerous and divisive path encouraged by the fringe of Texas politics."
The Democrats are proposing a House resolution expressing "complete and total disagreement with any fringe element advocating the 'secession' of Texas or any other state from our one and indivisible Union."
Perry emphasized Thursday that he is not advocating secession but understands why Americans may have those feelings because of frustration with Washington, D.C. He said it's fine to express the thought. He offered no apology and did not back away from his earlier comments.
Perry's remarks Wednesday were in response to a question from The Associated Press as he walked away from the Austin rally, where some in the audience had shouted "Secede!" during his speech. The governor said he didn't think Texas should secede despite some chatter about it on the Internet and his name being associated with the idea.
"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot," Perry said Wednesday.
A day later, Perry said he found the fascination with the remark interesting.
"I refer people back to my statement and I got a charge out of it," he said. "I was kind of thinking that maybe the same people that hadn't been reading the Constitution right were reading that article and they got the wrong impression about what I said. Clearly I stated that we have a great union. Texas is part of a great union. And I see no reason for that to change."
Texas was a republic from 1836, when it declared independence from Mexico, to 1845, when it became a U.S. state.
Perry has been speaking out against the federal government lately over federal economic stimulus spending. He's also in a tough race for re-election against a fellow Republican, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom he is trying to portray as a Washington insider.
Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle criticized Dunnam, saying he was "trying to distract from the fact that yesterday thousands of Texans, including many in his own district, expressed their extreme displeasure at Washington's rampant taxation, big spending and bloated government."
Dunnam suggested Perry is positioning himself for his political future.
"We all knew he wanted to be president. I just didn't know it was president of the Republic of Texas," he said to chuckles from onlookers.
By KELLEY SHANNON,
Associated Press Writer
AUSTIN, Texas – In a state that once was its own nation, a Republican governor who talked about secession without completely dismissing the idea has Democratic lawmakers in an uproar.
Gov. Rick Perry, in comments following an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday, never did advocate Texas breaking away from the United States but suggested that Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to leave the union. That was enough to feed opinions for and against secession on Web sites, cable TV and talk radio across the nation.
At the Texas Capitol on Thursday, Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, joined by several fellow Texas House Democrats, said some people associate talk of secession with racial division and the Civil War and that Perry should disavow any notion of seceding.
"Talk of secession is an attack on our country. It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement," Dunnam said at a news conference.
State Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, said that by not rejecting the possibility of secession out of hand, Perry "is taking a step down a very dangerous and divisive path encouraged by the fringe of Texas politics."
The Democrats are proposing a House resolution expressing "complete and total disagreement with any fringe element advocating the 'secession' of Texas or any other state from our one and indivisible Union."
Perry emphasized Thursday that he is not advocating secession but understands why Americans may have those feelings because of frustration with Washington, D.C. He said it's fine to express the thought. He offered no apology and did not back away from his earlier comments.
Perry's remarks Wednesday were in response to a question from The Associated Press as he walked away from the Austin rally, where some in the audience had shouted "Secede!" during his speech. The governor said he didn't think Texas should secede despite some chatter about it on the Internet and his name being associated with the idea.
"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot," Perry said Wednesday.
A day later, Perry said he found the fascination with the remark interesting.
"I refer people back to my statement and I got a charge out of it," he said. "I was kind of thinking that maybe the same people that hadn't been reading the Constitution right were reading that article and they got the wrong impression about what I said. Clearly I stated that we have a great union. Texas is part of a great union. And I see no reason for that to change."
Texas was a republic from 1836, when it declared independence from Mexico, to 1845, when it became a U.S. state.
Perry has been speaking out against the federal government lately over federal economic stimulus spending. He's also in a tough race for re-election against a fellow Republican, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom he is trying to portray as a Washington insider.
Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle criticized Dunnam, saying he was "trying to distract from the fact that yesterday thousands of Texans, including many in his own district, expressed their extreme displeasure at Washington's rampant taxation, big spending and bloated government."
Dunnam suggested Perry is positioning himself for his political future.
"We all knew he wanted to be president. I just didn't know it was president of the Republic of Texas," he said to chuckles from onlookers.
By KELLEY SHANNON,
Associated Press Writer
Saturday, April 04, 2009
OBAMA, GM: YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT
OBAMA, GM: YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT
By DICK MORRIS
GM, now renamed Government Motors, has a new CEO:
President Barack Obama.
By replacing the head of the company and demanding a restructuring of its board in return for further TARP aid, Obama has taken upon himself the responsibility for the future of the company. As Gen. Colin Powell said when Bush was considering invading Iraq and toppling the Saddam Hussein government there: "If you break it, you own it." Now it is Obama's company.
This move will backfire big time! The auto giant is very, very unlikely to be saved by this current TARP infusion. Doubtless it will need more in the near term. But the resentment now focused on the management of the company will then turn to Obama. Having demanded a replacement of the management, it is he who will be held responsible for the company's future.
And each time GM asks for more money, Obama will face a choice: take personal responsibility for laying off 100,000 auto workers or anteing up the additional cash. By inserting himself so deeply into the management of the company, Obama makes himself central to its future. If Obama lets the company fail, having already extended credit, he will have all of Michigan on his case. If he keeps coming up with more and more tax money, he will earn the contempt of the voters.
Socialism has its price. By taking over the management of a company, you become the determinant of its fate in the public's mind.
Obama does not seem to realize that government takeover is the beginning, not the end, of the problem. He should have stuck with being president and left making cars to others.
And, as the new CEO of General Motors, what will his policy be on corporate compensation? Will the public tolerate his letting his new company pay salaries sufficient to attract the talent necessary to salvaging the firm? Or will he have to rely on a bunch of kids right out of school, willing to work for one or two hundred thousand a year, for the company's salvation?
When it comes to the hard work of cutting retiree health benefits, reducing salaries, laying off workers and closing plants, is Obama willing to resist calls for his intervention? Is he up for taking the blame for all the "heartless" measures GM will have to take to salvage its future? He has put himself squarely in a position to pay a steep political price for his assumption of power at GM.
Most troubling is the sense that Obama cannot have thought this through. He can't have planned this. President Clinton used to say at strategy meetings that we needed to think three or four moves ahead and not just "kick the can down the road." Obama is clearly not following his predecessor's advice. He realized GM needed money. He knew the public would have a fit if he gave it. So he decided that he would appease his electorate by exacting blood from the company's management and directors by using his guillotine on some of its old gray heads.
But, had he thought before he acted, he would have realized that it would have been far better to have criticized GM from a distance even as he extended more money -- rather than to, in effect, take over the company.
The president's protestations that the government does not want to own a car company are quite beside the point. It's his now, and he better figure out what to do with it.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2009. REPRINTS WITH PERMISSION ONLY***
By DICK MORRIS
GM, now renamed Government Motors, has a new CEO:
President Barack Obama.
By replacing the head of the company and demanding a restructuring of its board in return for further TARP aid, Obama has taken upon himself the responsibility for the future of the company. As Gen. Colin Powell said when Bush was considering invading Iraq and toppling the Saddam Hussein government there: "If you break it, you own it." Now it is Obama's company.
This move will backfire big time! The auto giant is very, very unlikely to be saved by this current TARP infusion. Doubtless it will need more in the near term. But the resentment now focused on the management of the company will then turn to Obama. Having demanded a replacement of the management, it is he who will be held responsible for the company's future.
And each time GM asks for more money, Obama will face a choice: take personal responsibility for laying off 100,000 auto workers or anteing up the additional cash. By inserting himself so deeply into the management of the company, Obama makes himself central to its future. If Obama lets the company fail, having already extended credit, he will have all of Michigan on his case. If he keeps coming up with more and more tax money, he will earn the contempt of the voters.
Socialism has its price. By taking over the management of a company, you become the determinant of its fate in the public's mind.
Obama does not seem to realize that government takeover is the beginning, not the end, of the problem. He should have stuck with being president and left making cars to others.
And, as the new CEO of General Motors, what will his policy be on corporate compensation? Will the public tolerate his letting his new company pay salaries sufficient to attract the talent necessary to salvaging the firm? Or will he have to rely on a bunch of kids right out of school, willing to work for one or two hundred thousand a year, for the company's salvation?
When it comes to the hard work of cutting retiree health benefits, reducing salaries, laying off workers and closing plants, is Obama willing to resist calls for his intervention? Is he up for taking the blame for all the "heartless" measures GM will have to take to salvage its future? He has put himself squarely in a position to pay a steep political price for his assumption of power at GM.
Most troubling is the sense that Obama cannot have thought this through. He can't have planned this. President Clinton used to say at strategy meetings that we needed to think three or four moves ahead and not just "kick the can down the road." Obama is clearly not following his predecessor's advice. He realized GM needed money. He knew the public would have a fit if he gave it. So he decided that he would appease his electorate by exacting blood from the company's management and directors by using his guillotine on some of its old gray heads.
But, had he thought before he acted, he would have realized that it would have been far better to have criticized GM from a distance even as he extended more money -- rather than to, in effect, take over the company.
The president's protestations that the government does not want to own a car company are quite beside the point. It's his now, and he better figure out what to do with it.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2009. REPRINTS WITH PERMISSION ONLY***
Friday, April 03, 2009
The Coming Depressflation and YOUR Money
The Coming "Depressflation"...And YOUR Money
Dear Fellow American,
Have you ever heard of a "depressflation"?
No surprise if you haven't. It's a term I coined myself, to describe the imminent -- and inevitable -- result of the Democrats' plans for "rescuing" the economy.
Think 1970s-style "stagflation" but much, much worse: massive inflation, even hyperinflation, together with Depression-like economic stagnation. A depressflation.
Why is this inevitable? Because with a bi-partisan consensus that deficits are vital in fighting the crisis (or easing the pain) there is no constraint on Obama and his party. The sky is the limit on spending, to the tune of a trillion-plus dollars over the next two years alone.
And there are only two ways to pay for it: (1) printing more money, which causes inflation, and (2) hiking taxes, which kills investment, businesses and jobs.
Then the question will be: When will we realize that government intervention is magnifying, not solving the problems that caused the crisis? When will the patience of the public with Obama's remedies run out?
My guess is that it won't be until 2012 -- or after.
In the meantime, however, there are ways to protect yourself and your family from the coming "depressflation."
It's crucial to understand: Hard times for America does not necessarily mean hard times for you. As a very wise investment expert of my acquaintance, Nicholas Vardy, likes to say, "No matter what the state of financial markets, there is always a strategy out there that can make you money."
The key, Vardy explains, is to recognize opportunities wherever they may be and, more importantly, detach yourself from old investment themes that no longer work.
Vardy himself, an American based in London, is a master at crafting such cutting-edge investment strategies -- which he then passes on to subscribers to his Global Stock Investor investment newsletter.
So, for instance, back in mid-2007 Vardy was months ahead of the curve in spotting the coming boom in "soft" (agricultural) commodities -- recommending stocks like Canadian fertilizer giant Potash, which shot up quickly in price before coming back down to earth, by which time his subscribers had safely banked profits of 82% in just over three months time.
And that's nothing compared to the magic Vardy performed for his subscribers during these past few months, now on record as some of the worst in Wall Street history.
Consider this: Since October 2008, which wiped out close to $7 trillion in shareholder wealth, Vardy's Global Stock Investor portfolio's open positions are up as much as 11%.
Compared to the 7% decline in the Dow during the same time, that's incredible.
How does Nicholas Vardy do it? If I knew, I'd be in his business, not mine. But I'm sure those countless hours he spends sharing investment ideas with Europe's top money managers has something to do with it -- not to mention his graduate degrees from Stanford and Harvard.
Don't get me wrong: Nicholas Vardy is no elitist snob. Though he makes his "real" money managing money for a few wealthy clients, he also likes to "spread the wealth" -- not through higher taxes (sorry, Obama), but by helping people like you and me make profitable investments.
Full disclosure: I receive a percentage of each subscription sold, but even if I didn't, I'd want you to know about this amazing service. Nicholas' advice is rock solid. If you check into it, you'll thank me later.
Let's face it, the next few years will be tough ones for America. But, to repeat, they don't have to be tough ones for you -- if you find and follow sound investment advice like the brilliant investment strategies in Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor. I urge you to give it a try.
Dear Fellow American,
Have you ever heard of a "depressflation"?
No surprise if you haven't. It's a term I coined myself, to describe the imminent -- and inevitable -- result of the Democrats' plans for "rescuing" the economy.
Think 1970s-style "stagflation" but much, much worse: massive inflation, even hyperinflation, together with Depression-like economic stagnation. A depressflation.
Why is this inevitable? Because with a bi-partisan consensus that deficits are vital in fighting the crisis (or easing the pain) there is no constraint on Obama and his party. The sky is the limit on spending, to the tune of a trillion-plus dollars over the next two years alone.
And there are only two ways to pay for it: (1) printing more money, which causes inflation, and (2) hiking taxes, which kills investment, businesses and jobs.
Then the question will be: When will we realize that government intervention is magnifying, not solving the problems that caused the crisis? When will the patience of the public with Obama's remedies run out?
My guess is that it won't be until 2012 -- or after.
In the meantime, however, there are ways to protect yourself and your family from the coming "depressflation."
It's crucial to understand: Hard times for America does not necessarily mean hard times for you. As a very wise investment expert of my acquaintance, Nicholas Vardy, likes to say, "No matter what the state of financial markets, there is always a strategy out there that can make you money."
The key, Vardy explains, is to recognize opportunities wherever they may be and, more importantly, detach yourself from old investment themes that no longer work.
Vardy himself, an American based in London, is a master at crafting such cutting-edge investment strategies -- which he then passes on to subscribers to his Global Stock Investor investment newsletter.
So, for instance, back in mid-2007 Vardy was months ahead of the curve in spotting the coming boom in "soft" (agricultural) commodities -- recommending stocks like Canadian fertilizer giant Potash, which shot up quickly in price before coming back down to earth, by which time his subscribers had safely banked profits of 82% in just over three months time.
And that's nothing compared to the magic Vardy performed for his subscribers during these past few months, now on record as some of the worst in Wall Street history.
Consider this: Since October 2008, which wiped out close to $7 trillion in shareholder wealth, Vardy's Global Stock Investor portfolio's open positions are up as much as 11%.
Compared to the 7% decline in the Dow during the same time, that's incredible.
How does Nicholas Vardy do it? If I knew, I'd be in his business, not mine. But I'm sure those countless hours he spends sharing investment ideas with Europe's top money managers has something to do with it -- not to mention his graduate degrees from Stanford and Harvard.
Don't get me wrong: Nicholas Vardy is no elitist snob. Though he makes his "real" money managing money for a few wealthy clients, he also likes to "spread the wealth" -- not through higher taxes (sorry, Obama), but by helping people like you and me make profitable investments.
Full disclosure: I receive a percentage of each subscription sold, but even if I didn't, I'd want you to know about this amazing service. Nicholas' advice is rock solid. If you check into it, you'll thank me later.
Let's face it, the next few years will be tough ones for America. But, to repeat, they don't have to be tough ones for you -- if you find and follow sound investment advice like the brilliant investment strategies in Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor. I urge you to give it a try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)