ABUSE OF POWER? Wall Street suspects GOLDMAN charges ‘not coincidental’ to financial reform effort…

Wall Street suspects Goldman charges ‘not coincidental’ to financial reform effort

|

2:16 PM, April 16, 2010 ι By KAJA WHITEHOUSE

Wall Street is more than a little suspicious of today’s charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has accused Goldman Sachs of lying to investors about who was really behind junk mortgages securities it sold to clients.

Barclays banking analyst Roger Freeman comes right out and blasts the SEC effort as “a well-timed, and perhaps not coincidental, effort to sway some on-the-fence Republicans” to get tough on financial reform.

“Targeting GS, given the flurry of anti-Wall Street press that has centered around that firm, offers the publicity that the administration needs at this critical juncture,” Freeman says in a note to clients today.

He says Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chris Dodd has targeted a vote on the Senate bill for April 26, “and given the short span of time between now and the end of the month, we are not surprised to see the stepped up support for the bill.”

One Minute Sermon!!!

Not only is this clever and good…it’s has a great message

Youv’e got to listen fast to her.  She is very good and make sure your sound is on – then forward to all your friends.

 

This is really good , Please watch this.

One Minute Sermon!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQYJ77qa50

Red Skelton’s Pledge of Allegiance

Red Skelton’s Pledge of Allegiance
 
 
Listen carefully then pass it on to your friends

Hezbollah ready for new war

Intel report: Hezbollah ready for new war

MI6 worries situation now tailor-made for strike on Israel


Posted: April 16, 2010
8:52 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND. Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.


Hezbollah flag

 

A new report from Britain’s MI6 intelligent agency confirms the situation in the Middle East is tailor-made for Hezbollah to strike at Israel, especially since the terrorist group recently received a supply of state-of-the art missiles from Iran, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

The situation is so serious that Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition leader David Cameron both have been briefed as the nation’s general election advances. The winner soon could be facing a serious international crisis.

Historian Benny Morris has described Hezbollah as a threat to world peace, and tension has been mounting in the Gaza Strip after last month’s violent clashes in the Hamas-ruled enclave.

Already Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nazrallah, and Hamas’ Khalid Mashal have met with Iran President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in Tehrann. In the words of one MI6 intelligence officer, the meeting was “to rub their hands in glee” over the year-long rift between Israeli Prime-Minister Netanyahu and President Obama’s administration over Israel’s settlement policy in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Israel’s relations with the U.S. are rupturing at a time when the Jewish state needs every ounce of support from Washington. And now the arrival of the state-of-the-art Scuds has alarmed Washington.

The Democrats’ Orwellian Attempt to Bully Republicans and Takeover the Rest of the Economy

The Democrats’ Orwellian Attempt to Bully Republicans and Takeover the Rest of the Economy

by Capitol Confidential

Democrats’ collective fixation on Frank Luntz’s memo on Financial Reform misses the point entirely but it is very telling.

DallasTeaParty_ProtestBabe_1

The now famous Luntz memo makes strategic recommendations based on an aggregation of voters’ responses to being informed about various portions of the Dodd Blank Check Bailout bill in factual, common sense, simple language.  The public spoke and Luntz recorded it. He didn’t make up the fact that there is a $4 trillion dollar bailout in the bill. Its right there in black and white.

But what has Democrats completely possessed is that what the public said is inconvenient to their Orwellian plan to dupe America into believing that up is down, black is white and that the Dodd bill will end “too big to fail”, contains no new bailouts and will possibly save endangered animals.

Their plan is a two step process: First, use oblique language about “protecting consumers” and “ending too big to fail” to convince the public that the Dodd bill is somehow “financial reform”. Then, bully Senate Republicans into voting for Dodd’s government takeover bill by portraying them as against said “financial reform.”

So Democrats are pulling out all the stops. They have launched attacks to discredit the Luntz memo and label legitimate criticism of the Dodd bill “poppycock”.  And President Obama has engaged to reassure the public that the bill will stop bailouts.

But here in the real world, Dodd’s bill is in fact an attempt to takeover the other 5/6 of the economy left after health care and makes bailouts the official policy of the US Government.

Did small businesses cause the Financial Crisis? Of course not. Nevertheless, small businesses take a huge hit in this bill. A little noticed provision tucked into the bill is a death blow to the American Dream that will severely limit the ability of the average American to finance a start up small business.

Dodd’s bill adjusts the net worth requirements for a person to be considered an “accredited or qualified investor” by the Security and Exchange Commission.  The change would dramatically reduce the number of informal investors financing small business and start up companies across the nation.  Even the Huffington Post — a cheerleader for the Dodd bill — has recognized the dangers of this provision:  ”Meanwhile, in his zeal to regulate the monster banks of Wall Street, Senator Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee is about to kill the most vital and exciting part of the American economic miracle in all of these areas — start-ups.”

Whether it is the next eBay or the next Joe’s Hot Dog stand, the bill will dry up the ability of people to invest their own capital in a small business.  So, even though the words coming out of Democrats mouths say “reform” it sure sounds, looks and smells a lot more like “takeover”.

On bailouts and “too big to fail”, Democrats have repeatedly pointed to the $50 billion dollar fund created by new taxes and fees on banks and disingenuously said that “taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay.”  Aside from the fact that taxpayers will pay regardless when banks pass along the costs, there is a bigger omission here that puts taxpayers directly on the hook.  While the $50 billion fund is certainly in the bill, the bill also gives the Fed unlimited authority to use taxpayer money as well.

So, rather than eliminating bailouts Dodd’s bill actually gives big bank CEO’s TWO bailout funds to catch them when their risky bets don’t pay off.  Yet, Democrats continue their propaganda campaign with a straight face and repeat over and over that the Dodd bill will end “too big to fail” and contains no bailouts.

The public should not be fooled and should make sure that their senators aren’t either.

Sarah Palin: Mr. President, is a strong America a problem?

Sarah Palin: Mr. President, is a strong America a problem?

Mr. President, is a strong America a problem?
 Yesterday at 7:09am
Asked this week about his faltering efforts to advance the Middle East peace process, President Obama did something remarkable. In front of some 47 foreign leaders and hundreds of reporters from all over the world, President Obama said that “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”

Whether we like it or not? Most Americans do like it. America’s military may be one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever seen, liberating countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan and kept authoritarian powers like Russia and China in check.

It is in America’s and the world’s interests for our country to remain a dominant military superpower, but under our great country’s new leadership that dominance seems to be slipping away. President Obama has ended production of the F-22, the most advanced fighter jet this country has ever built. He’s gutted our missile defense program by eliminating shield resources in strategic places including Alaska. And he’s ended the program to build a new generation of nuclear weapons that would have ensured the reliability of our nuclear deterrent well into the future. All this is in the context of the country’s unsustainable debt that could further limit defense spending. As one defense expert recently explained:

The president is looking to eliminate the last vestiges of the Reagan-era buildup. Once the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are “ended” (not “won”), the arms control treaties signed, and defense budgets held at historic lows while social entitlements and debt service rise to near-European levels, the era of American superpower will have passed.

The truth is this: by his actions we see a president who seems to be much more comfortable with an American military that isn’t quite so dominant and who feels the need to apologize for America when he travels overseas. Could it be a lack of faith in American exceptionalism? The fact is that America and our allies are safer when we are a dominant military superpower – whether President Obama likes it or not.

– Sarah Palin

Is the First Lady a Liar—or Just a Dopey Mom?

Is the First Lady a Liar—or Just a Dopey Mom?

April 16th, 2010

BY MICHAEL WOLFF, Newser

 Really?

It’s pretty certain—make that absolutely certain—the White House is lying. Perhaps even more dispiriting, it’s Michelle Obama who’s doing it. It’s probably a feel-good, righteous, doing-the-right-thing-by-lying lie, but a whopper all the same.

“In my household, you know, we try to establish a set of guidelines and rules that make sense—no computers, phones, television during the week” for her children. Ahh, sure. She goes further: “We talk a lot with [our daughters] about the dangers of Facebook and sort of getting into that social networking kind of gossip mill or, you know, that—that comes from those activities.”

This is preposterous. An overzealous, tone-deaf parent might have tried once, blunderingly, to talk about social networking etiquette (on the basis, no doubt, of some article in Time magazine), only to be shamed and dismissed by the nearest 12-year-old—the age of the Obamas’ oldest daughter, Malia. Or, if the parent actually thinks his or her 12-year-old is taking this to heart, then the 12-year-old, product of an overt narcissist, has more problems than social networks.

As for restricted technology use, every parent has tried this for the better part of 50 years and failed.

Read More:

Here’s what happens when Obama kills the Bush tax cuts

Here’s what happens when Obama kills the Bush tax cuts

April 17th, 2010

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

 Obama is going to allow the repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts

The Tax Policy Center, a Washington based think tank, has examined the tax consequences we will have heaped on us when the Democrats allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire at the end of this year.

* Those making $75,000 who sell a stock at a profit will pay a higher capital gains tax.

*Parents who enjoy a $1,000.00 tax credit for having a child will see that benefit cut to just $500.00 next year.

*Families with incomes over $250,000 will see many itemized deductions disappear and ultimately pay more of their hard earned money. Their capital gains taxes will climb on stock dividends.

The probability that higher taxes will hit America’s hardest workers and highest earners is real because the Democrat controlled Congress will let all or most of the tax cuts passed by George Bush in 2001 and 2003 expire.

Read More:

NYT/CBS Poll: 52% Say Obama Moving America Towards Socialism

NYT/CBS Poll: 52% Say Obama Moving America Towards Socialism

April 17th, 2010

By Matt Cover, CNSNews

 

A New York Times/CBS News poll found that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, think the policies of President Barack Obama are moving the United States toward socialism.

Published April 14, the poll surveyed the political, racial, and social opinions of both the general pubic and self-described members of the tea party movement. It found that while tea party participants are generally more conservative than the broader population, they are also better educated and slightly more successful.

The poll found that almost the entirety of the tea party movement – 92 percent – shared the views of most Americans that Obama was turning the United States into a socialist country.

The poll asked respondents specifically whether the president’s policies “are moving the country more toward socialism.” Fifty-two percent answered “toward socialism” while only 38 percent answered “not toward socialism.”

A mere six percent of self-described tea party Americans answered “not toward socialism.”

Read More:

Republicans: Stop the Gimmicks

Republicans: Stop the Gimmicks

By Otis A. Glazebrook IV

The current Republican leadership proposes that America needs a “New Contract” [i].

Why?
We already have the finest social contract/compact ever devised by mankind. The historical basis of the Republican Party is to stand firm on those fundamental founding principles. That contract is the Constitution of the United States, which evolved from the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This paragraph, from The Declaration of Independence, explains that our God-given natural rights are the fundamental basis for a free republic.
Stated as simply as possible, human beings are born into a natural state with certain inalienable rights. In order to form a more perfect union, American colonists had to relinquish some of their natural liberties and rights, and they had to assume certain duties and restrictions in order to form a union. They then lived in a state of society whereby their forfeited liberties became our collective powers that were to be exercised for the common good (weal).
This established the social contract, by mutual agreement, to live and work together in harmony for the citizens’ combined benefit. The Framers defined these benefits as the citizens’ right to speak freely (particularly on political matters), their right of self-defense (militia), their right to pursue commerce (property) freely, and the careful protection of their remaining natural rights by free, fair, and regularly scheduled elections.
The U.S. Constitution was adopted directly by the people of the several states (thus remedying a major defect of the “Articles of Confederation”) by virtue of direct ratification without the filter of any legislative body. It was agreed to (ratified) as a binary choice by popular conventions, not by the several state legislatures.
This is the miracle of the United States of America.
We have no lesser authority on our Constitutional evolution than Abraham Lincoln from his First Inaugural Address:
The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union.
For the first time in human history [ii], groups of people (States) freely entered into a national agreement for governing themselves. This is the contract. Each State’s ratification is the last democratic event in its respective history.
Upon ratification the states automatically became part of a constitutional republic with certain limited powers. It is within those narrow, defined boundaries that the states agreed to stay.
The Constitution means what the Framers intended it to mean (unless properly amended as proscribed in Article V) on June 21st, 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it. That is the date the Constitution superseded the authority of the Articles of Confederation. As such, the Constitution is not a “living, breathing” instrument of nothingness. The words mean what they meant on the closing date, as they do in any contract.
The original contract with America became the law of the land on March 4, 1789. It is a perpetual contract freely entered into by our forefathers.
America’s greatest Republican, Abraham Lincoln, confirmed his view that the Constitution is in fact a contract:
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it — break it, so to speak — but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
More than 500,000 Americans gave their lives in the Civil War to preserve that proposition.
What are you going to do save it? Every breach of this contract is our (individual) responsibility.
____________________________________________________________________________
[i] – Contracts must meet five basic requirements to be valid:
  • 1. Legal Purpose – For a contract to be enforceable by law, it must be concerned with a legal purpose. The purpose must be considered a lawful pursuit.
  • 2. Certainty of Terms – The terms of the contract must be sufficiently clear to permit a court to conclude that a contractual agreement was intended and to determine from the document what the terms of the agreement were. It must be written specifically and clearly.
  • 3. Capacity – The parties must be legally competent (mental capacity), at least 18 years of age, and acting within the law.
  • 4. Mutual agreement – A contract must constitute a meeting of the minds where both sides agree to an offer (the Constitution) and an acceptance of that offer (ratification).
  • 5. Consideration – Each party to a contract receives something of value — in this case, lack of anarchy and a stable basis to pursue life, liberty, property, and happiness.
[ii] – 1780 – Massachusetts was the first state to adopt its constitution directly by the popular convention.