"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
(Thomas Jefferson)

Friday, April 30, 2010

Paul Ryan Disputes GM Repayment Claims: "It's Time to Put an End to Crony Capitalism"

Cong Paul Ryan in this video is presenting to the American public the real truth about GM claims that it has paid back the Federal Government in full. Their advertisements are not factual as Cong Ryan points out.

Call us naive but we don't think it is payback when it is a "transfer of $6.7 billion from one taxpayer-funded bailout account to another" and don't understand some media members are lauding GM. How many more times will GM pay back the Government in full according to their media arm by shifting money from one account to another?

Transcript: You may have read reports from the Obama Administration or seen ads on TV claiming that General Motors has fully paid back what it owes you the American taxpayer.

These claims struck me as odd and misleading. The federal government still owns over 60% of this auto company. This so-called repayment is actually a transfer of $6.7 billion from one taxpayer-funded bailout account to another.

As this is your money, I think you deserve some clarity on this shell game. My colleagues Congressmen Jeb Hensarling, Scott Garrett and I have asked Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to provide an updated, accurate, and honest account of the taxpayer money that is still propping up General Motors.

If anyone is owed a clear and honest explanation it is those hit hardest by the downturn in the auto industry, including those I serve in Janesville, Kenosha, Oak Creek and the surrounding communities in Southern Wisconsin.

It is time to put an end to the crony capitalism in Washington.

Holder Subpoenas NYT Reporter Over CIA Book

If this doesn't send a chill up your spine, nothing will. Reporters have gone to jail to keep from revealing sources and yet this Attorney General is has issued a subpoena for this reporter to give up his sources.

From the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ):

The SPJ Code of Ethics says our members believe “public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.” Anonymous sources are sometimes necessary in ferreting out vital information on the operation of our governments, and the integrity of the profession and its mission in informing the public are jeopardized when journalists don’t honor their promises of confidentiality to those sources. The Society believes anonymity should not be bestowed lightly, that sources’ motives must always be questioned before granting anonymity and that the public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability. Although we deplore the overreliance on anonymous sources, we nevertheless stand with those principled professionals who refuse to abandon their promises of confidentiality to their sources when the government applies pressure.
Source: SPJ
The SPJ is now supporting Shield Laws in every state to protect journalists and are also pushing for a national Shield Law. It shouldn't be necessary. Why should journalists be subjected to prison for refusing to reveal the names of anonymous sources when sometimes it is extremely necessary to protect their identity for a variety of reasons while the information still needs to be made public.

Obvious to us that this Administration could care less about the "Freedom of the Press" guaranteed in the Constitution or protecting anonymous sources.

Holder Subpoenas NYT Reporter Over CIA Book

The Obama administration is seeking to compel a writer to testify about his confidential sources for a 2006 book about the Central Intelligence Agency, a rare step that was authorized by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

The author, James Risen, who is a reporter for The New York Times, received a subpoena on Monday requiring him to provide documents and to testify May 4 before a grand jury in Alexandria, Va., about his sources for a chapter of his book, “State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration.”

The chapter largely focuses on problems with a covert C.I.A. effort to disrupt alleged Iranian nuclear weapons research. Mr. Risen referred questions to his lawyer, Joel Kurtzberg, a partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel L.L.P., who said that Mr. Risen would not comply with the demand and would ask a judge to quash the subpoena. “He intends to honor his commitment of confidentiality to his source or sources,” Mr. Kurtzberg said. “We intend to fight this subpoena.”
Excerpt Read More at Fox News

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Breaking News: Charlie Crist to run as a No Party Candidate for US Senate frrom FL

Less than 30 days ago, these comments were made:

Quote of the day
"To put these rumors to rest once and for all, as we have said countless times before, Gov. Crist is running for the United States Senate as a Republican. He will not run as an Independent or as a No Party Affiliation.

"The governor is proud of his conservative credentials and stands firmly behind the principles of limited government and more personal freedom, the bedrock values of the Republican Party. He is proud to be a member of the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

"This should completely and utterly put to rest any of the unfounded rumors coming from the Rubio campaign that Gov. Crist would run as anything other than the Republican that he is."

Eric Eikenberg, Charlie Crist's campaign manager. April 8, 2010

Now today, 29 April 2010, which is 21 days later to be exact, Charlie Crist is doing exactly what the Rubio campaign said he was going to do -- leave the Republican Party where he is way behind in the polls to run No-Party. Have no clue what the difference between No Party and Independent is. You could say he was standing on principle but Crist has no principles as Mark Thornberry of the American Specatator explained in the sidebar of this site.

Crist is all about Crist and will stick his finger in the wind to see which way it is blowing and the group that praises him the most like teachers will get his support.

Crist was late to his Press Announcement but what is new?

Crist was elected as a Republican Governor, and we want to know why he is allowed to stay as Governor to campaign at taxpayer expense. His security detail will be with him at the events even though he has chosen to leave the GOP. The Republican Party of Florida has not changed their stance on issues, it is Crist who played up to Obama and Democrats who is finally outing himself as a liberal.

Now we have to hear how he is a man of the people when he lives in a $4M+ condo on an exclusive island off Miami-Dade County. Not going to fly this time!

His campaign has released they are going to pro-rate the return of contributions which we have never heard of before. He should give 100% of the contribution back if requested by the donor.

Obama at the AZ Border!

Is this one reason why he supports amnesty for illegals? Thanks to Lucianne.com for the graphic.

Charlie Crist to run for FL Senate seat as No Party -- Contacted White House for Support!

These two articles were posted on our sister site, Voices from the Heartland as we have been supporting Marco Rubio for the FL US Senate seat from day one. We supported Crist during the 2006 general election but supported his challenger Tom Gallagher in the primary. We knew that Crist was not conservative no matter how much he tried to convince people he was in 2006 and was a dirty campaigner for the way he treated his fellow Republican Gallagher.

This afternoon around 5:00 p.m. (edt) Crist will make the announcement in St. Petersberg he is running as no party in time to make all the local news in Florida so now the whole state can see they have a Governor they elected as a Republican who is officially no party. The Governor's Association needs to kick him out immediately upon his going No Party. Now the General Election campaign starts at 5:00 tonight against Meeks and Crist. Crist should have run as a Democrat after trying to contact the White House.

From Voices from the Heartland:

We have heard of dumb moves by politicians but this might just rank at the top of the list. Any Republican still considering voting for Crist will never vote for him now. Don't imagine most Florida independents will vote for him either. Maybe he should have used his wife as his consultant for this important decision since she comes from NJ/NY and changes are that she is a liberal Democrat because her advice to call the White House sure sounds like that. No Republican consultant would even think of telling him that, but then he has none left.

Wanting to Obama to back him over the Democrat Meeks shows total desperation and tells us that Marco Rubio will be the next Senator from FL. All of us need to give whatever we can and help in any way possible to ensure a Rubio win!

Crist learns the value of reciprocity in Obama WH
APRIL 29, 2010

A year ago, when Barack Obama needed some bipartisan cover for the Porkulus package that got written without any Republican input, he headed down to Florida and got Charlie Crist to appear on stage to give him a boost. Now, Charlie Crist wants to dump the GOP and run as an independent, with an announcement expected later today, and he needs a big boost to get taken seriously by Sunshine State voters. According to Marc Ambinder, Crist tried calling his friends in the Obama White House — who refused to take his call:

Here first: Charlie Crist, soon to be independent Senate candidate from Florida, tried to reach White House chief of staff Emanuel through intermediates. WH refuses to take the call. Dems plan big talent/money blitz for Kendrick Meek. BTW: Obama’s approval rating in FL is in high 40s, per internal Dem polling.
Excerpt: Read more at hotair.com


It is about time that Senator Cornyn at NRSC laid out the facts -- never should have endorsed Crist as many of us wrote to tell him. Don't get involved in an open, contested primary -- simple as that. Cannot believe Cornyn said his endorsement as Chair of NRSC didn't help Crist so why did he do it. Crist was already starting to feel the heat of the race when Greer, the former disgraced FL GOP Chair, was twisting arms for endorsements for Crist. It was payback for Crist naming him as the GOP Chair.

Cannot believe Cornyn gave him $10,000 from his PAC. Love it that Crist will have to refund the money. Crist has no choice but to refund any money he has received to run for Senate. This is going to be going on for some time with requests for refunds flooding Charlie Crist.

Club for Growth will be contacting donors like they did for Specter where they were about to get $1.2M refunded. Maybe Crist should have listened to Specter who this week said he could probably have done more good as a Republican than switching. Seems he doesn't like being a Democrat.

GOP Senator: Crist 'irreparably' damaging himself as Independent
By Sean J. Miller - 04/29/10 10:47 AM ET

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is “irreparably” damaging himself by choosing to run as an Independent for the Senate, according to the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Crist, a Florida Republican, is expected to withdraw from the race for the GOP Senate nomination and announce his Independent candidacy during a press conference Thursday evening in St. Petersburg.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Thursday that Republicans encouraged Crist to either stay in the GOP primary or drop out and run again in 2012 against Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).

“Staying in the primary and dropping out and running in ’12 are preferable, much more preferable, than running as Independent,” Cornyn said Thursday at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

“His future electoral prospects are irreparably damaged by his deciding now to run as an Independent.”

Cornyn admitted he hasn’t been able to speak with the governor directly about his decision. “I’ve played a lot of phone tag with him,” Cornyn said. “I’ve sort of given up out of frustration.

“But I know that message has been communicated, both by my staff and by other people close to the governor,” Cornyn said. “He’s a smart guy he can see what his choices are.”

Should the governor switch his party affiliation, “it will end our support and we will throw our support enthusiastically behind the Republican nominee, Marco Rubio,” Cornyn said.

Cornyn wouldn’t quantify the amount of money Crist would have to refund if he launches an Independent bid. But he did say he would request Crist return the $10,000 his leadership PAC donated.

After Crist’s announcement, the primary is effectively over and Cornyn said the committee’s focus will turn to the Democrat in the race, Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.).
“Once we get by this drama of today, it’s going to be in essence a general election campaign and people are going to begin focusing on Kendrick Meek. A guy who voted for half-a-trillion-dollar cuts in Medicare, which Florida’s senior population may take a dim view of,” Cornyn said.

Cornyn said he initially tried to recruit former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) to run for Senate before moving to recruit Crist.

“When Jeb Bush told me he wasn’t going to run, I looked around for the most popular Republican in the state, and it was pretty clear who that was,” he said.

“At the time we made the endorsement, Gov. Crist was one of the most popular governors in America. It’s been a breathtaking change of circumstance to see him now contemplating this course.”

Cornyn admitted the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s endorsement of Crist didn’t help his campaign.

“In this political environment, it’s not necessarily helpful for candidates running in states to have the national party chairman endorse them,” Cornyn noted. “That’s been a learning experience.”

Source: The Hill

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Credibility Gap of Washington DC Democrats

April 27, 2010 — House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) delivered the following remarks on the House floor today on the growing credibility gap of Washington Democrats, citing the recent Obama Administration report from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) that confirms President Obamas new health care law will increase costs for Americans as just another reason why they cant be trusted:

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a growing credibility gap here in Washington. Democrats are saying one thing and doing something else. It started with the trillion-dollar stimulus plan that was rushed through with promises that it would create jobs immediately and keep unemployment below eight percent. Today, unemployment is near 10 percent and Americans are still asking, where are the jobs? Americans were also promised a war on deficits, but all thats happened is we piled more debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids.

Then, we have the trillion-dollar government takeover of health care that was forced through with promises that it would lower cost. But turns out, the new law will actually increase costs for taxpayers and patients. This comes from analysis from the Presidents administration, their Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS). CMS determined that the new law will increase what the nation spends on health care over the next 10 years by $311 billion. The President claimed that this government takeover of health care was the single most important thing that we can do to address our deficits. But now it turns out, its just going to make matters worse.

Just think about that credibility gap when you see the Majority insist on rushing through a job-killing regulatory bill with promises that will end Wall Street bailouts. The bill doesnt end Wall Street bailouts, it makes them permanent and institutionalizes too big to fail. This bill doesnt get the government out of the private sector it creates a politburo style of regulators who can seize any business and do almost anything they want to do with it. And the bill doesnt address the real reasons for the financial meltdown; it gives a free ride to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government mortgage companies that started this crisis. Americans were promised a new Washington. Instead its just more of the same: more spending, more government, and more empty promises.

I think its time we start listening to the American people. Lets work together on commonsense solutions to end the bailouts, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and hold Wall Street accountable. Lets work together to repeal the government takeover of health care and replace it with commonsense reforms that will lower the cost of health care. Lets work to ban earmarks and stop out-of-control spending. And most importantly, lets work on commonsense solutions that will help small businesses create the kind of jobs that Americans are looking for.

You Tube Video of this speech below:

NOTE: We knew the financial bill was bad but after watching Senator Boehner's speech on the floor of the House, it is worse then bad. Everyone needs to look at the following from Republican Leader Boehner which will send chills up your spine:

This bill doesnt get the government out of the private sector it creates a politburo style of regulators who can seize any business and do almost anything they want to do with it. And the bill doesnt address the real reasons for the financial meltdown; it gives a free ride to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government mortgage companies that started this crisis. Americans were promised a new Washington. Instead its just more of the same: more spending, more government, and more empty promises.
Just how far left are the people in charge in the Senate and the House. The move toward Socialism by this group is no longer a supposition -- it is happening before our eyes. What have this group of Democrats done that we don't know about?

Mike Pence: "The Truth Landed With a Thud Last Week"

Pence: "The Truth Landed With A Thud Last Thursday" "The president and Congressional Democrats passed a health care law without any idea how to pay for it."

Washington, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, delivered the following remarks today on the House floor regarding a report released last week from the president's own administration, which says that ObamaCare actually raises health care costs:

"After months of debate and assurances that their government takeover of health care would actually result in lowering the cost of health care for Americans, the truth landed with a thud last Thursday.

"A new report from the Obama Administration's own Medicare agency confirms what we have known all along. The president and Congressional Democrats passed a health care law without any idea how to pay for it.

"They promised to lower the cost of health care but instead ObamaCare will send those costs soaring by $311 billion. Again, this is from their own analysts within the administration. The same report says in the same way the Democrats set out to pay for the bill are ‘unsustainable' and some of the methods they use to control costs are ‘negligible.'

"The reality is we need to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with the kind of health care reform that will lower the cost of health care without growing the size of government. And House Republicans are determined to be on the side of the American people until we do just that."

Note: To view this speech, see below.

NOTE: We are not shocked that the Democrats passed the Obamacare bill with no idea how to pay for it and it was going to cost much more then they predicted. Since Pelosi admitted they needed to pass the bill to know what was in the bill, it kind of told all of us we were in for surprise after surprise as the details came out.

Jed Babbin: Inside the Obama Doctrine for American decline

This article by Jed Babbin gives the facts on the Obama Doctrine for American decline which sends chills up your spine. Find it hard to fathom that Obama lectures and scolds leaders of foreign countries when they don't do what he says. He apologizes because the United State is a dominant power as he doesn't want us to be. What kind of warped thinking is that?

Obama systematically is trying to destroy the the dominance of the United States. His actions since that fateful day in January 2009 when he took the oath of office, have been to dis our allies and be overly friendly with our enemies. Between Obama and Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, strutting around the World, our allies have to wonder what happened to the United States as they both are selling us out to dictators, Muslims, Socialist, and Communist.

The lapdog media has spent countless hours defending Obama and his Administration but even now some members of the media are finally removing their rose colored glasses as they are witnessing what is happening. Maybe they are finally concerned about the part of the Constitution that guarantees Freedom of the Press. They need to think long and hard about what they have done to protect Obama and this Administration and ask themselves if it was all worth the price of turning their back on journalistic integrity. Maybe they have decided they don't like being dissed by Obama and Gibbs, his puppet, posing as the Press Secretary who gets nasty or laughs when a reporter wants facts instead of spin.

This is about the security of the United States and time the American people who voted this unknown into the highest office also take off their rose colored glasses and realize the man in the White House is not acting in the best interest of the security of the United States and its citizens.

The people who understand National Security and what is at stake are coming out more and more against Obama and members of his Administration. It is time We The People listen carefully to what they are telling us because it is in our best interest to make sure that on November 2nd, 2010, we elect the people to Congress to fight against what is being done to our national security by Obama and members of his Administration including the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

This article gives the details of what Obama is doing and it is frankly scary that this man with his background was elected President.

Jed Babbin: Inside the Obama Doctrine for American decline
By: Jed Babbin
OpEd Contributor
April 27, 2010

Every world leader's foreign policy goals comprise what the press and historians label his "doctrine." What is the Obama Doctrine?

At the end of the recent nuclear summit, Obama spoke of nuclear proliferation and the Middle East, saying, "It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because, whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower. And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them."

The Obama Doctrine seeks to avoid the burden of the latter by reducing America from the former.

Obama's utopian goal is a world without nuclear weapons. And though U.S. lives are being spent to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, Obama said last year that the war in Afghanistan isn't about victory:

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur." (Hirohito didn't walk the deck of the USS Missouri, his ministers did.)

Obama acts in disregard of historical fact and fails to pursue America's best interests. In too many instances, he has chosen to cower, in others contravening every principle America has stood for since July 4, 1776.

Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to the Islamic states' position that, until Israelis and Palestinians are at peace, there can be no peace anywhere else in the Middle East. Obama now hopes that, if he can force Israel to agree to the creation of a Palestinian state, an Arab coalition will help him pressure Iran to give up its nuclear program.

But with the exceptions of Jordan under King Hussein and Egypt under Sadat, the Arab states have never recognized Israel's right to exist. The fact that the Palestinians have never renounced terrorism and continue to insist that Israel has no right to exist makes peace impossible until they do.

Nevertheless, Obama seeks to force Israel to cease settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank and agree to an independent Palestinian state. When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House in March, he was treated as if he were a rebellious teenager.

When Netanyahu tried to explain why he wouldn't agree to a cessation of settlements, Obama walked out on Netanyahu to eat dinner, telling him to advise Obama if he had changed his mind. Netanyahu left without having been accorded the diplomatic courtesies Obama grants America's enemies.

If Obama wanted to generate an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, he would insist that the Arabs and the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist as a precondition to negotiations. But he won't, because he has decided Israel is the obstacle to peace.

Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai is no Thomas Jefferson, and Obama is no Henry Kissinger. Kissinger used back-channel private communications to considerable success. Obama is a public scold.

At the outset of the Afghanistan troop surge, Obama set a date for the beginning of the end of the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan: July 2011. Obama must know his political deadline is unattainable, but he continues to insist on it.

When Obama visited Karzai in March, he ripped the Afghan president for corruption and for failing to match America's military effort with rapid political progress. And then leaked all of that to the press.

Nationalist Karzai replied in belligerent speeches, condemning the foreign presence in Afghanistan, even threatening at one point to join the Taliban.

Excerpt: Read More at Washington Examiner

A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona

This is one of the best written articles we have seen on the recently passed and signed immigration law in Arizona. Before getting to the article by Byron York, we want to share the history of the Oklahoma immigration bill to show what happens to states passing tough immigration bills.

Oklahoma had similar threats made against the state after passing a tough immigration bill and actually had two parts of the law overturned dealing with employers and identification after the National Chamber of Commerce filed suit against the state with other groups. Tells you something about the National Chamber of Commerce and it is not good when you look at the list of cases from the Chamber's lawsuits. Is the National Chamber of Commerce going to join in filing a lawsuit against Arizona next? They led in filing the lawsuit against the Oklahoma Immigration Bill so we would expect them to be in the forefront of the suit against Arizona.

The 10th Court of Appeals Decision was issued on Feb 2, 2010. The Oklahoma Attorney General asked for the full Court to hear the case but was turned down on April 19, 2010.

This is now back at the District Court level according to the Tulsa World article for the District Judge to make a decision on a permanent injunction for mandatory use of E-Verify. With the ruling the temporary injunction on this part was lifted. The two provisions that were overturned of the 2007 state law are described in the Tulsa World article:

The decision concluded the 1986 federal Immigration Reform and Control Act preempts two provisions in the 2007 state law.

Those provisions prohibit firing workers legally in the country while retaining workers illegally in the United States, and require businesses working with contractors to obtain documentation that workers are legally in the country or, without documentation, withhold taxes at the top rate.
The Attorney General of Oklahoma who is now running for Oklahoma Governor has to make the decision whether to appeal to the Supreme Court but there has been no word about an appeal. Frankly we don't expect any appeal with his Democrat primary election looming.

Oklahoma Legislature passed a bill raising the cost of wire transfers of money last year and now the Mexican Congress has threatened a Trade War with Oklahoma. What does that tell you about the support of Mexican illegals in this Country by their Government? The bill was passed to cut down the wiring of money by illegals and for drug deals. The raise in the wire transfer fee does not apply to wire transfers where banks are used. Because of the raise in fees, the Mexican Government now wants to boycott Oklahoma products coming into Mexico?

If the Mexican Government has threatened a Trade War against Oklahoma over raising wire transfer fees, what are they going to threaten Arizona with after the passage of their immigration bill?

Instead of the Obama Administration worrying about an immigration bill in Arizona they should be questioning the Mexican President about his support of illegals in this Country. The Mexican Government is doing zero, zip, nada to stem the flow of their citizens into the United State illegally. That would required Obama and his Administration to take a stand against illegals which we don't believe will ever happen as he panders for votes.

We wish the Governor of Arizona good luck in defending this immigration bill. It is time American citizens stood with the Governor against the groups that are attacking this bill, and the people who protested with violence after the bill was passed. Read the description of the bill from Byron York and then tell us why people are so up in arms.

A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona
April 26, 2010

The chattering class is aghast at Arizona's new immigration law. "Harkens back to apartheid," says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. "Shameful," says the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. "Terrible…an invitation to abuse," says the New York Times' David Brooks.

For his part, President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama has ordered the Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."

Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."

The bottom line is, it's a good law, sensibly written and rigorously focused -- no matter what the critics say.

Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on www.ExaminerPolitics.com

Read more at the Washington Examiner

Monday, April 26, 2010

Frank Gaffney: Arsenal of Roguery

We believe the last paragraph of Frank Gaffney's article today may be the one that hits home the most as some voters for Obama begin to wake up to the Hope and Change they elected. The idea we are dissing our allies and playing up to our enemies under the Obama Doctrine is not going over well. The article is wake up call for all Americans as to what is happening in the real world not some made up world of Obama where we all join hands and sing kumbyya. His world doesn't exist but the real world filled with danger from the Russians is reality.

History will show that the metastasizing danger of the Russian arsenal for roguery's world-wide operations has been greatly compounded - if not fundamentally enabled - by the assiduous application of the Obama Doctrine: "Embolden our enemies. Undermine our allies. Diminish our country." If the latter doctrine is not swiftly corrected, and the former not effectively thwarted, America and the rest of the Free World may soon find themselves confronting threats even greater than those at large when first we rose to the challenge of being the indispensable arsenal for democracy.
Do you trust this man?

We certainly don't. Anyone thinking the former KGB Putin is not calling the shots in Russia needs to face reality and that includes Obama and his cronies who believe they have pushed the reset button with Russia. The seem to think that Putin will listen when he has to be laughing at Obama and Hillary for being so naive. He has both of their numbers. Look at Putin's eyes in this picture and tell us they are not cold and threatening.

Arsenal of Roguery
Center for Security Policy Apr 26, 2010
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Sixty years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced to the nation in one of his famous "fireside chats" that America must be "the great arsenal of democracy." It was a visionary and, at the time, controversial declaration that a nation dead-set against becoming entangled in the war then-consuming Europe must nonetheless help arm democratic nations fighting for their survival. This initiative proved critical to Britain's defense in the run-up to Pearl Harbor, at which point the United States became decisively not just the Free World's armory, but its savior.

Today, we find another country putting its formidable military-industrial complex in the service of others around the globe. The arsenal is Russia's, the recipients are virtually without exception the world's most dangerous enemies of freedom. This practice is making a mockery of President Obama's much-touted "reset" of relations with the Kremlin - including, notably, the new, bilateral START Treaty. It also increases exponentially the dangers associated with his policy of "engaging" rogue states, a practice that is simply affording them time to buy ever-more-advanced and -deadly weapons from Moscow.

Consider just a few examples of the Arsenal for Roguery at work, and its implications for our security, and that of what's left of the Free World:

Even as the President continues to claim that the Russians are willing to be more helpful in getting tougher UN sanctions on Iran, the Kremlin is allowing the nuclear reactor it previously sold Tehran to be brought on line. It is pledging to complete the transfer of advanced S-300 air defense systems, which will greatly complicate - if not effectively preclude -- aerial attacks by the Israelis or U.S. forces aimed at destroying that facility and others associated with the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Russia is also selling the S-300 to Syria. This is important because the Syrians have justly been put on notice by Israel that they would be subjected to retaliatory strikes in the event Russian-designed (and perhaps -supplied?) Scud missiles transferred recently by Damascus to Hezbollah in Lebanon are used against the Jewish state. Such Russian protection may embolden Syria to believe that it can unleash with impunity death and destruction on Israel (perhaps by using Scud-delivered biological or chemical weapons) via its terrorist proxies - and Iran's.

The Russians have also been marketing to international customers a family of deadly sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles with air-, surface- and submarine-launched variants. These Brahmos rocket/ramjet missiles were jointly developed with the Indians and can fly at up to 2.5 times the speed of sound. The proliferation of such missiles constitutes a serious threat to American naval and other vessels given the difficulties of defending against a weapon with these flight characteristics.

Then, there is the up-to-$5 billion in arms sales that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin claims to have concluded with our hemisphere's most dangerous dictator, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. What exactly is on offer is unclear. But the purchase reportedly includes T-72 tanks and S-300 missiles. This comes on top of Chavez's earlier acquisitions of 100,000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles, helicopters, fighter jets and submarines. Evidently, a Russian nuclear reactor is also being promised.
But, not to worry. According to the Associated Press, Putin declared during his most recent sales visit to Caracas earlier this month: "Our objective is to make the world more democratic, make it balanced and multi-polar. The cooperation between Russia and Venezuela in this context has special importance." Feel better?

Excerpt: Read more at Center for Security Policy
We definitely do not feel better under the Obama Doctrine. In fact, we believe Obama is making the world more dangerous with his playing up to the Russians and Chavez and refusing to take a hard line stand on Iran while he goes after Israel with attacks when he talks.

The Palestine Peace Distraction

Why is Obama so intent on demanding what Israel needs to do to make peace with the Palestinians? The suicide bombers who are going into Israel to kill Jewish people come from the radical terrorists groups of the Palestinians. Yet, Obama wants the Israeli's to make all the concessions? Obama has zero right to tell the Israeli's where they can and cannot build. Israel is not a protectorate of the United States but an independent country.

How can Obama possibly think he can demand peace between Israel and the Palestinians and it is going to happen? It is naive to think a peace settlement dictated by Obama would last. We also have yet to figure out why Obama thinks a settlement to the Israel and Palestine impasse would have a broad reaching affect in the Middle East so all the Middle Eastern countries would have no more problems.

Richard Haas, who is an expert on the Middle East, has a timely editorial this morning in the Wall Street Journal that looks into how a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine might not bring the peace dividend to the Middle East that Obama touts.
APRIL 26, 2010
The Palestine Peace Distraction
Announcing a comprehensive plan now—one that is all but certain to fail—risks discrediting good ideas, breeding frustration in the Arab world, and diluting America's reputation for getting things done.


President Obama recently said it was a "vital national security interest of the United States" to resolve the Middle East conflict. Last month, David Petraeus, the general who leads U.S. Central Command, testified before Congress that "enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests." He went on to say that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples . . . and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world."

To be sure, peace between Israelis and Palestinians would be of real value. It would constitute a major foreign-policy accomplishment for the United States. It would help ensure Israel's survival as a democratic, secure, prosperous, Jewish state. It would reduce Palestinian and Arab alienation, a source of anti-Americanism and radicalism. And it would dilute the appeal of Iran and its clients.

But it is easy to exaggerate how central the Israel-Palestinian issue is and how much the U.S. pays for the current state of affairs. There are times one could be forgiven for thinking that solving the Palestinian problem would take care of every global challenge from climate change to the flu. But would it? The short answer is no. It matters, but both less and in a different way than people tend to think.

Take Iraq, the biggest American investment in the Greater Middle East over the past decade. That country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are divided over the composition of the new government, how to share oil revenues, and where to draw the border between the Kurdish and Arab areas. The emergence of a Palestinian state would not affect any of these power struggles.
Soon to surpass Iraq as the largest U.S. involvement in the region is Afghanistan. Here the U.S. finds itself working against, as much as with, a weak and corrupt president who frustrates American efforts to build up a government that is both willing and able to take on the Taliban. Again, the emergence of a Palestinian state would have no effect on prospects for U.S. policy in Afghanistan or on Afghanistan itself.

What about Iran? The greatest concern is Iran's push for nuclear weapons. But what motivates this pursuit is less a desire to offset Israel's nuclear weapons than a fear of conventional military attack by the U.S. Iran's nuclear bid is also closely tied to its desire for regional primacy. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians would not weaken Iran's nuclear aspirations. It could even reinforce them. Iran and the groups it backs (notably Hamas and Hezbollah) would be sidelined by the region's embrace of a Palestinian state and acceptance of Israel, perhaps causing Tehran to look to nuclear weapons to compensate for its loss of standing and influence.

Excerpt: Read More at Wall Street Journal
Members of Obama's own party are beginning to question openly his attacks on Israel in speeches. The liberal Senator from New York, Chuck Shumer, didn't mince words in going after Obama yesterday on his verbal attacks on Israel.
Sen. Chuck Schumer takes new shot at President Obama's tactics on Israel
BY Simone Weichselbaum

Monday, April 26th 2010, 4:00 AM

Sen. Chuck Schumer threw another punch Sunday in his verbal bout with the White House over Israeli expansion into Palestinian East Jerusalem.
The staunch supporter of Israel says President Obama shouldn't have scolded Israel for approving 1,600 new Jewish housing units in the Arab half of the divided city.

"What we disagree on is tactics," said Schumer about President Obama.

"When the United States sets out conditions on Israel, the Palestinians then say we don't want to come to the table, [thinking] the United States is doing our negotiation for us."

The building project has stalled "indirect" talks with the Israelis and the Palestinians led by U.S. special envoy George Mitchell.

Palestinian officials have said they would join the negotiations only if Israel halts all settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Schumer first voiced his anger at the Obama administration for siding with the Palestinians during a radio show on Jewish affairs on Thursday.

"You have to show Israel that it's not going to be forced to do things it doesn't want to do and can't do," Schumer told host Nachum Segal.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs shot back a statement at the senator the next day.

"We don't agree with what Sen. Schumer said in those remarks," Gibbs said.

Read more: New York Daily News
Is the real answer that Obama deep down wants Israel destroyed in favor of the Muslim countries that surround the State of Israel? That is the way it is beginning to look. Recently Obama had Prime Minister Netanyayu come to the White House for a short time and then Obama leaves to go to the family quarters. No honors to the head of a foreign state, no pictures, nothing except being scolded by Obama. Yet, Obama bows to the King of Saudi Arabia. What does that say about Obama? Think everyone by now has pretty much put 2+2 together after witnessing Obama's words and actions against Israel versus his actions and words for the Arab world have come to the conclusion that Obama is NO friend of Israel.

Over 400 members of Congress (78 Senators and 333 House Members) signed a letter to Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, protesting the words and actions against Israel by the Obama Administration.

It doesn't seem to matter to Obama what members of Congress think as he carries on his mission which looks to be to destroy Israel and be hailed by his Middle Eastern 'brothers' throughout the Arab world. He is sadly mistaken if he thinks destroying Israel is going to bring peace to that region. There was no peace before Israel was established in 1947.

If this is an example of Hope and Change touted by Obama, then it seems to be Obama is siding with the Arab countries against Israel which is a reversal of long time ties the United States has had with Israel since 1947 when State of Israel was founded. The vast majority of American people stand with one of our closest allies Israel against any and all attempts by Obama to destroy Israel as a strong country including Obama not selling more military weapons systems to Israel to protect themselves.

Cafe Hayek: The anti-market narrative of the crisis

The Government bails out banks they consider 'too big to fail' so what incentive do those large banks have to conduct business using sound financial principles instead of speculating? Zero, zip, nada incentive. Why should these bankers be worried about spending borrowed money on various financial ventures many of which have lost large amounts of money as all they have to do is run to Uncle Sam for bailout money?

This is a cycle that needs to stop. Someone is making money off of all of these unwise investments and it is not the taxpayer -- we are the ones footing the bill for their unwise investments.

We are still waiting for the first Democrat to stand up and call out the banks on their investment 'strategy' which keeps failing. All we get are we have to do more to save the banks. Why give more money when they have already wasted the last handout on more unwise investments?

We have Republicans speaking out like Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa wanting to know the details from this non-transparent administration. In the House Cong Steven King (R-IA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) are speaking out along with others but the voices are not loud enough for the mainstream media to pay attention as they continue to defend anything this Administration does. What have members of the media received in return for their lapdog coverage of Obama and the Dems?

We believe this one sentence from Cong Steve King says it best:

We must act to bring long-term stability to the financial markets. I believe in personal responsibility and the free market, not government bailouts.
As Democrats try to paint Republicans as unwilling to get on-board the Dodd financial bill, once against they are not telling the truth. Republicans know something has to be done but are objecting to a bill just thrown together by Dodd and his lobbyist friends. It is amazing how many former Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street people are in this Administration and yet Obama goes to New York City to chew out Wall Street. Is it collusion where Wall Street knows Obama will give a speech against them but it will be all talk and no substance? Time will tell as we see the details emerge of the Dodd bill!

The anti-market narrative of the crisis

Posted: 25 Apr 2010 08:19 PM PDT

Louis Uchitelle reviews 13 Bankers by Simon Johnson and James Kwak in the New York Times Book Review and nicely summarizes what has become a mainstream view of the crisis:
To put it bluntly, as this book does: the efficient-market hypothesis does not work. It never has. Markets are not self-­correcting. Left to their own devices, bankers at the biggest institutions can’t seem to stop themselves from speculating with borrowed money until they inevitably crash the system.

Those poor impulsive bankers. They can’t seem to stop themselves and that’s how we know that markets aren’t self-correcting. Ignore the weird (and common) conflating of the efficient market hypothesis and market stability. Let’s just look at market stability and the idea of leaving bankers to their own devices. That’s supposed to mean “unregulated.” Ignore the fact that financial markets are regulated in all kinds of ways.

Just focus on that phrase “can’t seem to stop themselves.” They just keep driving the financial vehicles off the cliff using all that borrowed money. Does the fact that the government often reimburses the lenders in the name of preserving financial stablity have something to do with bankers’ inability to stop themselves?

Does the quest for complete stability have something to do with the failure to achieve stability?

Read more at Cafe Hayek

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Violent Pro Illegal Immgration Protest in Arizona

Arizona passes a tough immigration bill and people in this country ILLEGALLY go on a rampage of violence. Something is very wrong with that picture. They should be arrested and deported. They have no right to rally or be violent when they shouldn't be here in the first place. Coming to America illegally should mean you do not have rights that citizens and people in this Country legally are entitled.,

Guess they were afraid to riot in Oklahoma when we passed our tough immigration bill. Illegals fled Oklahoma which tells us that AZ has not only a lot more illegals than most places but for years they had a Governor, Janet Napolitano, who turned her head and didn't see the problems caused by illegals. Unfortunately she is now the head of Homeland Security and not answering the request for help from the States along the border to stem the stream of illegals escaping the drug wars of Mexico.

There is no way the Tea Party people would ever act like this -- they are conservatives who will yell and scream at a rally but violence is not their nature. Yet, people like Clinton are talking about them being prone to violence.

Where is Clinton and others condemning people who are in this country illegals for committing violence. They shouldn't even be here, but should be back in their home Country.

From Flopping Aces: Violent Pro Illegal Immigration Protest in Arizona

Posted by: Mike's America

Where is Bill Clinton?

This ain’t no Tea Party!

Really, where is Bill Clinton? Wasn’t he lecturing us just a week ago that protests could lead to violence? Where are all the media talking heads who echoed Clinton’s absurd attempt to link the Tea Partiers to violence? Yet, here’s a riot started by protesters against the new law in Arizona to toughen up enforcement on illegal immigration in Phoenix on April 23. Bottles were hurled at police and threats of violence that make even the rowdiest Tea Party look like a church picnic.
You’ll see the bottles thrown here, striking police officers who try to usher a lone anti-illegal immigration protester from the scene for his own safety:

The scene from overhead clearly shows a fusillade of bottles being thrown at the Police:

Once again, violent agitators of the left take to the streets breaking our laws and the silence from Democrats who condemn peaceful protests by Tea Partiers is stunning!

Source: Flopping Aces

Grassley: GM Didn't Really Pay U.S. Back

The lack of transparency and the hiding of facts is more then just annoying, it is downright wrong. GM makes a huge announcement the mainstream media (MSM) covers in glowing terms that they paid back the Government for their loans in full. Then the facts are brought out by Senator Grassley (R-IA) and we hear crickets chirping out of the MSM.

Turns out that according to Senator Grassley that GM repaid their TARP loans using other TARP money. To us that means GM used tax dollars to pay back their loans not profits from selling their cars. If we have to choose between Senator Grassley and what he has discovered and what GM is saying, we will stand with Sen Grassley any day of the week. We wouldn't trust GM executives if they told us the sky was blue because we would go check.

Where is the transparency that Obama and the Democrats keep touting. Maybe they have a separate definition for the word transparent then everyone else. For those Democrats who don't understand the meaning of transparent, we are happy to provide the Webster's dictionary meaning:

a. free from pretense or deceit: frank b. easily detected or seen through : obvious c. readily understood d. characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices- Synonym - see clear

It is perfectly clear to the vast majority of Americans that the Democrats have no intention of making this a transparent administration and congress as they continue their back door deals. Now Government Motors has joined in being less than honest on where their money came from to pay back the loan.

We do have one question. If they took TARP funds from one account to pay another account, don't they still owe the loans? Or is that too complicated for the Treasury Secretary to answer? We are waiting to hear the answer back to Senator Grassley.

Grassley: GM Didn't Really Pay U.S. Back

Friday, 23 Apr 2010 11:18 PM

A Republican senator is questioning General Motors’ claim that it has repaid its taxpayer-funded loans in full.

Sen. Chuck Grassley is asking Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to justify those claims.

According to the Iowa Republican, GM has repaid its TARP (taxpayer-funded bailout) loans using other TARP funds.

The automaker – which is 61 percent owned by the U.S. and 12 percent owned by Canada -- announced on Wednesday that it has fully repaid the $6.7-billion in loans it received from the U.S. and Canadian governments.

“GM is able to repay the taxpayers in full, with interest, ahead of schedule, because more customers are buying vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu and Buick LaCrosse we build here in Fairfax,” said GM Chairman Ed Whitacre during a visit to an auto plant in Fairfax, Kansas on Wednesday.

But as the Associated Press reported, GM received a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. The U.S. considered $6.7 billion of the $52 billion as a loan.

In fact, GM still owes $45.3 billion to the U.S. and $8.1 billion to Canada, money it received in exchange for shares in the company. GM said it hopes to repay those amounts with an eventual public stock offering, the AP reported.

“It looks like [GM’s] announcement is really just an elaborate TARP money shuffle,” Grassley said in an April 22 letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner. “The repayment dollars haven’t come from GM selling cars but, instead, from a TARP account at the Treasury Department.”

Grassley pointed to the most recent quarterly report from Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP.

Barofsky testified before the Senate Finance Committee this week that the funds GM used to repay its TARP debt are not coming from GM earnings.

“Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments,” Grassley said. The senator noted that according to Barafsky's testimony, "Treasury had supervisory authority over GM’s use of these TARP escrow funds."

Grassley questioned whether the Treasury Department is being straightforward with taxpayers about its management of the $700-billion taxpayer-funded bailout programGrassley has been an outspoken critic about the lack of transparency with how TARP funds have been used. Last fall, he cosponsored legislation to end the program.

Source: CNSNews.com

Republican Governor's Association Ad

We Will Remember from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

NOTE: If it doesn't start the first time, hit the pause, and hit play again.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Government Releases New Numbers on Obamacare Showing Costs Will Skyrocket

Every Republican in the House and Senate should be wearing large buttons with the words "I Told You So!" Democrats didn't even bother to read their own bill and now we discover they were using phony numbers which we suspected all along. The truth is dripping out slowly.

Breaking News from NY Times: Goldman Sachs Messages Show it Thrived as Economy Fell

We will be following this closely and hope to have more news on this as the day goes forward. The American people are getting closer to learning the 'real' truth about Goldman Sachs. After the truth comes out, every person in this Administration with ties to Goldman Sachs needs to resign and Obama needs to return his almost $1M in campaign contributions. Members of Congress also need to return contributions to Goldman Sachs or more appropriately give the money to charity so it does some good.

The New York Times Breaking News
Sat, April 24, 2010 -- 9:52 AM ET

Goldman Sachs Messages Show It Thrived as Economy Fell

In late 2007 as the mortgage crisis gained momentum and many banks were suffering losses, Goldman Sachs executives traded e-mail messages saying that they were making "some serious money" betting against the housing markets.

The e-mails, released Saturday morning by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, appear to contradict some of Goldman's previous statements that left the impression that the firm lost money on mortgage-related investments.

In the e-mails, Lloyd C. Blankfein, the bank's chief executive, acknowledged in November of 2007 that the firm indeed had lost money initially. But it later recovered from those losses by making negative bets, known as shortpositions, enabling it to profit as housing prices fell and homeowners defaulted on their mortgages. "Of course we didn't dodge the mortgage mess," he wrote. "We lost money, then made more than we lost because of shorts."

Read More:New York Times

Friday, April 23, 2010

Pence: President's Own Analysts Conclude Obamacare Is A Fiscal Disaster Washington, DC

What are Obama voters thinking about Hope and Change today? Not much according to polls. If you are a senior citizen and voted for Obama because AARP told you he was the best candidate, then you should think about quitting AARP since they sold you out to Obama. The non-partisan AARP is worse then ever with the new leadership that is in Obama's hip pocket.

We are reminded of the song by Toby Keith, "How do you like me now?" More and more voters who voted for Obama are saying they made a mistake. When the media refuses to vet an inexperienced Presidential candidate like Obama, this what you get for your vote for Hope and Change -- disaster. Guess to some disaster was better then being called a racist for not supporting the inexperienced Obama.

Pence: President's Own Analysts Conclude Obamacare Is A Fiscal Disaster Washington, DC
04/23/10 -U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, issued the following statement today in response to a new analysis by the Obama Administration of its own recently passed health care law:

"This new report from the President's own Medicare agency confirms what we've known all along: The President and Congressional Democrats passed a health care law without any way to pay for it. They promised lower costs, but instead ObamaCare will lead to increased costs, decreased quality of care and more taxes on the middle class.

"Speaker Pelosi famously warned Americans that Congress would have to pass ObamaCare for people to find out what was in it. The American people already knew that it would be a fiscal disaster. These government reports are merely the confirmation.

"We need to repeal ObamaCare and start over with real reform that gives the American people more choices, not more government."

Highlights of the report:

National health care expenditures will increase by $311 billion.

Health care increases to 21% of GDP by 2019.

ObamaCare spends more than $828 billion for health care coverage. (CMS didn't analyze all the tax increases, such as HSAs, FSAs, increasing the AGI threshold, etc.)

The government will spend $410 billion to expand Medicaid.

Medicaid enrollment increases by 20 million new beneficiaries.
18 million people will be uninsured (excluding 5 million illegal immigrants).
Uninsured and those employers who don't offer coverage will pay $120 billion in taxes.

50% of seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage plans.

Some of the Medicare cost-control mechanisms may not be sustainable.

Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) will run a deficit in 15 years.

The $5 billion for High Risk Pools is not enough.

Doctors may drop out of Medicare because of the changes in Medicare reimbursement rates.

Medicare "savings" may be difficult to achieve.

SEC staff watch porn as economy crashed

Why wasn't the accountant fired instead of receiving a 14-day suspension. A senior attorney agreed to resign after spending 8 hours a day searching porn and downloading it on any device available after he filled up his hard drive.

We want to know why all SEC employees that were found to have searched for porn on a Government computer were not fired. Why did the Attorney General's office not get involved and terminate every last employee searching for porn on the taxpayer's dollar while using a Government computer? These senior people and others started spending more time on porn then on their job while Bush was President but then they continued after Obama took over. Why have they all not been fired? This is clear cut case for dismissal of all involved.

SEC needs a thorough investigation from top to bottom. Did they file civil charges against Goldman-Sachs to cover up their extreme lack of ethics? What else have they been doing on the taxpayers dollars? SEC needs a clean sweep as it is obvious the senior people were not doing their job. Who hired these people is what we would like to know.

Chalk another one up for the Obama Justice Department twiddling their thumbs and not telling the SEC to fire these people who violated their oath of office.

This is disgusting and revolting that we are paying such high salaries and some of them at SEC were spending their time looking at porn.

It took two Republicans Senator Grassley (R-IA) and Cong Daryl Issa (R-CA) to bring this to light. We are hearing crickets from the Democrats once again.

SEC staff watch porn as economy crashed
Fri Apr 23 2010

Senior staffers at the Securities and Exchange Commission spent hours surfing pornographic websites on government-issued computers while they were being paid to police the financial system, an agency watchdog says.

The SEC's inspector general conducted 33 probes of employees looking at explicit images in the past five years, according to a memo obtained late on Thursday by The Associated Press.

The memo says 31 of those probes occurred in the 2 years since the financial system teetered and nearly crashed.

It was written by SEC Inspector General David Kotz in response to a request from U.S. Senator Charles Grassley.

An SEC spokesman declined to comment on Thursday night.

The memo was first reported on Thursday evening by ABC News. It summarises findings of past inspector general probes and reports some shocking findings:

A senior attorney at the SEC's Washington headquarters spent up to eight hours a day looking at and downloading pornography. When he ran out of hard drive space, he burned the files to CDs or DVDs, which he kept in boxes around his office. He agreed to resign, an earlier watchdog report said.

An accountant was blocked more than 16,000 times in a month from visiting websites classified as "Sex" or "Pornography." Yet, he still managed to amass a collection of "very graphic" material on his hard drive by using Google images to bypass the SEC's internal filter, according to an earlier report from the inspector general. The accountant refused to testify in his defense and received a 14-day suspension.

Seventeen of the employees were "at a senior level," earning salaries of up to $US222,418 ($A239,933.12).

The number of cases jumped from two in 2007 to 16 in 2008. The cracks in the financial system emerged in mid-2007 and spread into full-blown panic by the fall of 2008.

Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said it was "disturbing that high-ranking officials within the SEC were spending more time looking at porn than taking action to help stave off the events that put our nation's economy on the brink of collapse."

He said in a statement that SEC officials "were preoccupied with other distractions" when they should have been overseeing the growing problems in the financial system.

Source: News.Ninemsn.com.au

Thursday, April 22, 2010

IndyMac Attack: Did Schumer, Paulson, Soros, and the CRL Kill the Bank and Profit From Its Collapse?

We know that Soros will do anything to make a buck, but just how crooked is Charles Schumer, Senator from New York. His fingerprints seem to be all over this along with trying to do away with filibuster rules on Senate. Who died and made him king?

Maybe the US Attorney for the Southern Region of New York should be looking into the business dealings of Chuck Schumer and Wall Street financial guru's who seems to be playing fast and lose with the rules. Yet these people are the ones writing the new laws on banking for their cronies on Wall Street?

Schumer said not to blame him for the Indy Mac collaspe but Bloomberg didn't agree according to their article:

IndyMac Seized by U.S. Regulators; Schumer Blamed for Failure
By Ari Levy and David Mildenberg

July 12 (Bloomberg) -- IndyMac Bancorp Inc. became the second- biggest federally insured financial company to be seized by U.S. regulators after a run by depositors left the California mortgage lender short on cash.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. will run a successor institution, IndyMac Federal Bank FSB, starting next week, the Office of Thrift Supervision said in an e-mail yesterday. The regulator blamed U.S. Senator Charles Schumer for creating a ``liquidity crisis'' after a letter on June 26, in which he expressed concern that the bank may fail.

Excerpt: Read More at Bloomberg

Schumer expressed concern that the bank might fail in a letter and then says he takes no responsibility. Is Schumer party to all of the shenanigans going on in the financial sector that has cost the American Taxpayers millions and most likely billions of dollars if we were ever given a complete accounting? We think Schumer is, and once again state we think he should be investigated along with Dodd. We are still having a hard time getting our hands around the fact that President Bush used the advise of Democrats like Schumer for Treasury Secretary Paulson CEO of Goldman Sachs and Bernacke for the Head of the Federal Reserve -- WHY? We didn't understand it at the time and still don't.

All we know is that there should have been a major investigation launched into all these ties that crisscross since the Congress has wasted so much of our tax dollars bailing financial entities out. Thanks to Big Government for beginning to shine the light on the truth.

IndyMac Attack: Did Schumer, Paulson, Soros, and the CRL Kill the Bank and Profit From Its Collapse?
by Andrew Mellon
April 22, 2009

At the end of 2007, hedge fund billionaire John Paulson invested $15 million in the leftist non-profit, Center for Responsible Lending, their largest single donation ever. Around the same time, Paulson and his employees contributed over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, headed, at the time, by Sen. Chuck Schumer. Roughly six months later, CRL and Sen. Schumer both launched a highly public attack on the California-based mortgage lender, Indymac. The lender failed, wiping out the investment of thousands of people. Roughly six months after that, John Paulson, in partnership with George Soros, bought up the remnants of Indymac for pennies on the dollar.

It is a drama that no longer surprises us, unfortunately. Wealthy investors use their access to elected officials and their checkbook to advocacy groups for private profit. But this story has a twist; a top executive of CRL when this deal went down, Eric Stein, is now working at the Treasury Department, heading up the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Mr. Stein will be the chief federal official designing regulations to protect consumers. Right.

This is that story.

Financial crises create opportunities. Prudent and discerning entrepreneurs who save their capital for a rainy day are able to acquire assets at firesale prices and put these assets to higher and better uses. Market forces cleanse wasteful malinvestments, innovative business models make existing ones obsolete and the economy roars forward all the stronger for it.

But while market entrepreneurs generally prosper during times of great dislocation, ultimately to the benefit of all participants in the economy, today political entrepreneurs have hijacked the economic system. The politically connected elites have used this downturn to carry out a massive wealth transfer from the people to the public and private sectors, fleecing the middle class for their own enrichment. In their hypocrisy, the long ago small businesses that grew large because of free markets have helped chain these markets through lobbying for regulations and subsidies to shield themselves from competition and their own errors.

Excerpt: Read more at Big Government

Preserving the Senate Rules

This Executive Summary from Senator John Thune (R-SD), Chairman of the US Senate Republican Policy Committee, details the extent these Democrats in control of the Senate led by Harry Reid will go to in order to pass legislation against the Rules of the Senate that are currently place. They are there for a reason but that doesn't make Obama's Democrats any difference as long as they can get their socialist agenda rammed through in the Senate like they do in the House. How do they propose to that? Permenantly change the rules of the Senate.

Any Democrat that backs this outlandish proposal needs to be defeated on November 2nd 2010, in November 2012, or November 2014 which ever date they are up for re-election. This group of 'dishonest' Democrats will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want. They could care less what their constituents in their states are saying as long as they can pass what 'they' deem is important to their constituents. They won't listen to phone calls, Town Halls, emails, faxes, or office meetings as they have the Obama agenda they are shoving down every one's throats and nothing else matters.

The idea that they want to negate the voices of the 60 million people who did not vote for Obama and the Democrats is so wrong that it defies belief.

To add to this we have a Republican Governor Charlie Crist in Florida who is throwing a temper tantrum that he is not winning the Florida GOP primary for US Senate who now wants to go Independent to run and make that a much harder seat to keep in Florida. We will keep it, but Crist belongs in the Democrat Party with his arrogance and non-regard for the State of Florida and the people who voted him as a Republican the privilege of becoming their Governor. Just like a Democrat he turns his back on the people of Florida for his own person wishes. With his going Independent, he must support the rules change like this or he wouldn't be running. He would be supporting Marco Rubio.

This may be the most important issue today in the Senate as the Obama Democrats attempt to permanently change the rules. When Republicans take back the Senate and we will, watch the Democrats squeal it is not fair if this is passed. That's how they work -- only what is good for them counts not what is good for the Country. That wasn't always the way in the Senate when we had honorable people serving. There is nothing honorable about most of today's Democrats in the Senate as they have demonstrated time and time again.

Getting more obvious by the day that Obama and his lapdog Democrat leadership have no regard for the Constitution. Obama unfortunately we can understand because he wasn't raised red, white, and blue American but Harry Reid? Obama was mentored by a Communist during his formative years and it shows. His friends have always been radicals and probably why no one at Columbia even remembers him.

This is why you vet a candidate for any office which was something the MSM did not do in the last Presidential election. Why because they would have been called racist like the rest of us that didn't support Obama because of his agenda, his lack of experience, and his associates? That race card is still getting played today, but it is not working like they want it to work. Most of us don't care what they call us today because we will continue to oppose the socialist agenda of Obama and his Democrat lapdogs in Congress.

Please call your Senators and tell them to oppose this tactic to overturn what has stood for over 200 years. There was a reason the Founding Fathers made two unequal Houses and now the Obama Democrats want to destroy that. Senator Thune is giving the facts of what the Obama Democrats are trying to do. It is now time for all of us to support him and the Republicans in the Senate to make sure this does not happen.

April 21, 2010

Preserving Senate Rules:
Guaranteeing All American Voices are Heard

Executive Summary

Not content with historically large margins and control of all three elected branches of
government, some members of the majority party now propose to gut the right to
extended debate. This right has long been the hallmark of minority power in the Senateand one that ensures bipartisan legislation that commands the wide support of the American people.

The Founders deliberately designed a system of checks and balances, one in which
minority voices play a prominent role in the political process. One aspect of this system is the unique nature of the United States Senate.

Two key features of Senate Rules are the right to amendment and the right to extended debate. Those rules help promote bipartisan and mainstream legislation, while tempering the potential excesses of one-party rule.

Frustrated by the Senate’s rules, the current majority repeatedly has used procedural tactics to limit the ability of the minority party to offer amendments or meaningfully participate in legislation. In fact, the current Majority Leader has used procedural tactics to block the minority from offering amendments more often than any Majority Leader in history.

Claims that the current minority is engaged in unprecedented obstruction cannot be
substantiated. The number of times cloture is filed or invoked is less demonstrative of obstruction than of an impatient majority bent on short-circuiting debate and eschewing bipartisan legislative solutions.

Several Senate Democrats, with apparent support from their leadership, have begun to push for a fundamental change in Senate rules. If successful, they would turn the Senate into a smaller House of Representatives, a body in which the majority party has almost limitless power.

These proposals are both unwise and lacking in historical perspective. When
Republicans gained a majority in the Senate in 1995, they voted to defend the rights of the minority party.

In parliamentary systems, like that in Great Britain, the barest of majorities can control the
government with an iron fist. Not so in the United States, where the Framers designed a system
of checks and balances to guard against the tendency of temporary majorities to overreach and
do great harm to the Republic. They accomplished this by limiting federal power and dividing
that power between the three branches—Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

Not content with these moderating structural designs, however, they went further. The Framers divided the Congress into two bodies—House and Senate—and built a Senate with features that
guaranteed that body would be less susceptible to temporary swings in public opinion: senators
would hold six-year terms, would represent an entire state rather than a single district, and would be chosen by the state legislatures (until the 17th Amendment, after which they were elected directly by the states’ citizens).

Some of today's Senate Democrats, frustrated that a majority as large as theirs still faces some
limits to its power, have begun suggesting that the rules of the Senate be changed to diminish the power of the minority and expand the powers of the current, and future, majorities. This hasty— and dangerous—proposal should be resisted, and rejected, by Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.

Senate Rules Give Voice to the Minority

In the 2008 presidential contest, 52.9 percent of Americans voted for the Democratic candidate,
while a substantial minority of 45.6 percent—almost 60 million citizens—voted for the
Republican candidate.1 The presidency, of course, is a winner-takes-all contest under the
Electoral College and Barack Obama, the Democrats’ nominee, was duly elected. The voters
also sent substantial majorities of Democrats to Congress, both in the House and the Senate.

The House of Representatives operates under bare majoritarian rules. If America were governed by only the White House and the House of Representatives, the President and his partisan allies could enact any law they fancied, with little debate. The 60 million people who preferred another course would have no choice but to sit on the sidelines, waiting patiently until the next election.

As the Founders knew, however, our country works best when all Americans participate in
guiding the ship of state. For this reason, they designed a Senate in which each state, regardless
of population, gets equal representation, offering substantial protection for minority rights.
Moreover, by giving the Senators features like six-year terms, the Framers wanted to limit the
influence of temporary swings in public sentiment, ensuring that a broad array of Americans
support legislation. The result is that the most extreme proposals of a momentary majority can
be thwarted, or moderated. Because of the Senate, what becomes law is more likely to represent a mainstream consensus.

A legendary story has it that Thomas Jefferson once asked George Washington why the Framers created a second legislative body. Washington is said to have responded by asking 1“Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” “To cool it,” responded Jefferson. “Even so,” said Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”2 Whatever the historical accuracy of this story, it has a core of truth to it. Indeed, in the words of James Madison, one of the primary authors of the Constitution: “The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom” than the House of
Representatives.3 The Senate has always served as a moderating force in our national politics.

A recent example of how the Senate can work to improve legislation is provided by the 2007
Energy Bill, H.R. 6. The bill passed by the House contained massive tax increases and onerous
federal mandates. Although the House-backed version commanded majority support in the
Senate, a determined minority opposed the bill by denying cloture and insisting on extended
debate.4 Later, after the majority moderated the bill to remove the taxes and some of the
mandates, the legislation was reconsidered and passed the Senate by a large margin, with only
eight Senators voting against it.5

The Senate performs its unique function in American politics because it follows markedly
different practices and procedures than those of the House of Representatives. In the House, the
majority holds the power to set the rules for debate and can even decide what, if any,
amendments will be considered. The majority in the House also has the power to cut off debate
at any time. By contrast, the Senate has traditionally operated under the principles of unlimited
debate and a free amendment process. Many procedural steps in the Senate effectively require
“unanimous consent,” that is, all members of the Senate must agree to proceed. An individual
Senator often has considerable power to lodge objections and have his or her say. In short, the
rules compel senators to consult each other and achieve consensus.

One-Party Rule in the 111th Congress

Congressional Democrats currently have a 76-vote majority in the House of Representatives and, until recently, had 60 seats in the Senate. These significant majorities are far greater than any enjoyed by Republicans in more than 80 years. The solid majority control of the House has already allowed for rapid passage of a wish list of Democratic priorities, including a government takeover of health care, a job killing “cap and trade” bill, and other measures.

Under the rules of the Senate, majority leadership does not have the same ability to jam bills
through without any input from the minority. That has not stopped the current Senate majority, however, from using every procedural tool at its disposal to limit, and even shut down, minority
debate and input into legislation. These maneuvers include: bypassing the committee process;
blocking floor amendments proposed by the minority; and precipitously ending debate, as well as the use of the fast-track budget reconciliation process to pass healthcare legislation.
1 http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf
2 Richard F. Fenno, Jr., The United States Senate: a Bicameral Perspective (1982), at 5.
3 James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, June 7.
4 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00
5 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00

Excerpt: Please Click Here to read more details.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Pence: Democrats Trying to Pass Permanent Bailout for Wall Street

Why should the American Taxpayer be on the hook for Wall Street failures. We do not believe in the old saying, "Too Big to Fail" -- we believe in "Survival of the Fittest." That is why these bailouts have to stop for Wall Street. Maybe they would handle the money better if they knew the Federal Government was not going to be their safety net. What a novel idea that should be tried. They succeed or fail on their own.
Pence: Democrats Trying to Pass Permanent Bailout for Wall Street
“The left hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.”

Washington, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, made the following remarks regarding Democrats’ banking regulation legislation at a House Republican leadership press conference this morning:

"The American people are tired of runaway federal spending, borrowing and bailouts. The legislation being considered by the Senate, which passed the House, is nothing but a permanent bailout and House Republicans are determined to oppose it. Last week, some Democrats said there wasn't a permanent bailout in this bill. Other Democrats, by the end of the week, said there was a permanent bailout fund in the bill. This may be one of those instances where the left hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

"The truth is, the American people are not deceived here. They see that what's being passed under the cloak of financial services reform is nothing more than making permanent the Wall Street bailouts that passed, a year and a half ago, in the form of the TARP. House Republicans are determined to bring about financial services reform that begins with ending the era of bailouts. Through bankruptcy code reform and others, protecting consumers without putting taxpayers on a permanent hook for financial institutions who act in a financially irresponsible way."