Obama suggests value-added tax may be an option

Obama suggests value-added tax may be an option

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer Wed Apr 21, 7:14 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.

Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, “I want to get a better picture of what our options are.”

After Obama adviser Paul Volcker recently raised the prospect of a value-added tax, or VAT, the Senate voted 85-13 last week for a nonbinding “sense of the Senate” resolution that calls the such a tax “a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America’s economic recovery.”

For days, White House spokesmen have said the president has not proposed and is not considering a VAT.

“I think I directly answered this the other day by saying that it wasn’t something that the president had under consideration,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly before Obama spoke with CNBC.

After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is “not considering” a VAT.

Many European countries impose a VAT, which taxes the value that is added at each stage of production of certain commodities. It could apply, for instance, to raw products delivered to a mill, the mill’s production work and so on up the line to the retailer.

In the CNBC interview, Obama said he was waiting for recommendations from a bipartisan fiscal advisory commission on ways to tackle the deficit and other problems.

When asked if he could see a potential VAT in this nation, the president said: “I know that there’s been a lot of talk around town lately about the value-added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries. It’s something that would be novel for the United States.”

“And before, you know, I start saying ‘this makes sense or that makes sense,’ I want to get a better picture of what our options are,” Obama said.

He said his first priority “is to figure out how can we reduce wasteful spending so that, you know, we have a baseline of the core services that we need and the government should provide. And then we decide how do we pay for that.”

Volcker has said taxes might have to be raised to slow the deficit’s growth. He said a value-added tax “was not as toxic an idea” as it had been in the past.

Since then, some GOP lawmakers and conservative commentators have said the Obama administration is edging toward a VAT.

Confirmed! Global warming is ‘settled’ – as a scam–’Climategate’ author unveils evidence of ‘every deception imaginable’

Confirmed! Global warming is ‘settled’ – as a scam

‘Climategate’ author unveils evidence of ‘every deception imaginable’



Posted: April 20, 2010
9:18 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

 

Al Gore’s insistence that global warming is “settled science” has been used to defend claims humanity is on the edge of destroying the world. Now author Brian Sussman, whose book “Climategate” is being released Thursday – Earth Day – agrees it’s “settled,” as a scam.

Sussman unveils in his book evidence that the move to restrict carbon-dioxide emissions, tax a multitude of energy programs and create a “Big Brother” that would limit household energy use, among other programs, is a move to give government unlimited control over people.

National Public Radio reported in 2007 how Gore took his “climate-change crusade” to Congress and said the science on the issue was “settled.” Then in 2009 the Environmental Protection Agency declared carbon dioxide and other emissions are endangering the future of the world.

Be the first to see the full documentation of how your life could be changed by climate-related laws, taxes and regulations, in “Climategate”

Sussman’s book, the newest title by WND Books, has been charting for several weeks already among Amazon’s top 10 preordered titles. It warns that believing global warming is “settled science” is a danger itself.

He writes that the now-notorious intercepted e-mails that reveal leading global-warming supporters exchanging plans to squelch critics and falsify data are just the tip of the iceberg.

If you thought the record cold winter, expanding polar ice and other factors would make global-warming supporters “chill out,” guess again, he writes.

“These people have a plan and they intend to control much more than your thermostat,” the book says.

In “Climategate,” he explains the science of the subject and how politics have taken control of the data. Further, he explains how many of the global-warming promoters are out to make a buck for themselves.

“It’s obvious to everyone that this global-warming facade is in meltdown mode,” said Joseph Farah, publisher of WND Books and founder and CEO of WorldNetDaily.com. “Now Brian’s important book comes along just in time to reveal exactly why this Big Lie was foisted on us to begin with and what we can do to stop it cold.”

Among other things, “Climategate” reveals the underlying fraud of environmentalism in America. It also depicts the myth that global warming is the consensus of the scientific community.

The book traces the origins of a “climate-scare” agenda to the “diabolical minds of Marx and Engels in the 1800s – down the ages to the global governance of the United Nations today.”

On the issue of carbon dioxide, the book points out that nature needs carbon dioxide and generates it through multiple natural processes to ensure its availability.

“Decomposing vegetation, the carcasses of dead animals, forest fires, smoldering peat bogs, volcanoes, plowed soil, weathering rocks, human utilization of fossil fuels, and even termites and crustacean shells – all exude carbon dioxide beneficial to the plant kingdom,” he writes. “And the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more content the plants become – just ask anyone who has worked in a greenhouse.

“In fact, that is a portion of the carbon-dioxide debate no one bothers to address – the plant kingdom would abound if carbon-dioxide levels were to increase in the global atmosphere,” he writes.

WND previously reported among the topics discussed in the book is whether there soon could be “Green Goon Squads” at your door, checking your energy usage.

The author explains federal legislation includes a set of regulations for energy efficiency that will be enforced “by a national, green goon squad.”

“The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of Energy to ‘enhance compliance by conducting training and education of builders and other professionals in the jurisdiction concerning the national energy-efficiency building code.’”

Sussman warns the focus is not to save energy and money.

“It’s a social-engineering scheme, designed and promoted by the federal government to change your behavior,” he said.

Pollution actually has been decreasing, significantly, he documents.

From 1980 to 2005, for example, he wrote, “Fine particulate matter declined 40 percent. Ozone levels declined 20 percent, and days per year exceeding the 8-hour ozone standard fell seventy-nine percent. Nitrogen-dioxide levels decreased 37 percent, sulfur dioxide dropped 63 percent and carbon-monoxide concentrations were reduced by 74 percent. Lead levels were lowered by 96 percent.”

Neither are temperatures rising, he documents.

Send President Obama, House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid a Constitution!

“Since 2007, global temperatures are engaged in a significant downward spiral, with government data illustrating a 1°F (.65°C) drop in temperature between 2007 and 2008 alone,” he reports.

He reports on e-mails that were hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which contain references to “hiding” information.

“The Climatic Research Unit had been regarded by many as one of the most credible atmospheric institutions in the world, but with the revelation of the e-mail exchanges, their supposed credibility was reduced to junk science,” Sussman writes.

“The e-mails reveal that the world’s leading climate scientists were working together to block Freedom of Information requests to review their data, marginalize dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, massage or delete inconvenient temperature readings. One certainly wonders, why? Especially since Al Gore has assured the world that ‘the science is settled.’”

Taking on the EPA directly, Sussman says, “Carbon dioxide only accounts for thirty-eight-thousandths of a percent of our planet’s atmosphere. It is known as a variable gas, because, like water vapor, it has historically fluctuated. And what percentage of the minuscule amount of CO2 is produced by the activities of man, including the utilization of fossil fuels? According to a thorough analysis by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a research wing of the U.S. Department of Energy, it is only 3.207 percent. All of this hoopla over an atmospheric component so minute, it is difficult to comprehend.”

What could be driving the agenda of global warming? Dollars, he suggests.

“It’s widely reported that Al Gore is worth at least $100 million, although my well-connected believes it may be closer to $500 million. Quite a success story for a guy, who, according to financial-disclosure records released just prior to his bid for the presidency, had a net worth near $2 million,” he writes.


University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit

 

Last December, the EPA signed two findings that concluded greenhouse gases in the atmosphere “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The EPA’s rulings could mean thousands of dollars in additional taxes for individual consumers.

Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-Texas, then cited the doubts about the integrity of “climate change” science in a letter and asked for an accounting of U.S. taxpayer support for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The U.S. since 1994 has given some $50 million to the panel, and contributions under President Obama now have doubled.

Sussman, formerly a highly acclaimed San Francisco meteorologist, also is the newest morning host at KSFO Radio (560 AM), the highest-rated talk show in the San Francisco Bay Area and the fourth-largest radio market in the country.

In the original scandal that spawned the name Climategate, the hacked e-mails of Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, England, and others uncovered schemes to employ “tricks” with warming trends, squelch skeptics and defame journals that published them.

Earth Day is all the evidence of deception needed, said Sussman. First celebrated in 1970 on the 100th anniversary of the birth of communist leader Vladimir Lenin, it was founded by Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis.; former Stanford student-body president Denis Hayes; and author and Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich.

“Lenin’s core political philosophy was linked at the hip with these newly fangled environmentalists who maintained that America’s government must be altered, its economy planned and regulated, and its citizens better controlled,” writes Sussman. “The environment would be the perfect tool to force these changes, and the most efficient way to gain converts would be through the public-school system – the earlier the better.”

Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., has suggested the Justice Department investigate scientists for potentially falsifying data. And the Orange County Register has posted a chart for consumers to try to keep up with all the scandals developing in the “global warming” community.

Among the scandals listed are:

  • ClimateGate: The scandal over the Climatic Research Unit e-mails from East Anglia.
  • FOIGate: In which British officials are investigating whether East Anglia scientists refused to follow that nation’s freedom-of-information law about their work.
  • ChinaGate: In which dozens of weather monitoring stations in rural China apparently have simply disappeared. This would lead to higher temperature averages since city levels frequently are warmer.
  • HimalayaGate: In which an Indian climate official admitted in January that he falsely claimed Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 to prod governments into action.
  • And PachauriGates I and II, SternGates I and II, AmazonGate (in which a claim that global warming would wipe out rain forests was exposed as a fraud), PeerReviewGate, RussianGate I and II and nearly a dozen others.

WND also reported recently when the St. Louis–based Peabody Energy, the largest private coal company in the world, petitioned the EPA to re-examine its decisions in light of the controversy over the scientists’ e-mails.

The company noted the “seriousness of the flaws” in the work.

Given the EPA’s “extensive reliance” on those reports, “the agency has no legal option but to re-examine the Endangerment Finding in light of this new information,” the petition said.

On its website, the company said the EPA’s earlier ruling “could mean regulation of hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of buildings, farms, businesses and other facilities in the U.S.”

Texas officials also have filed a lawsuit accusing the federal government of using “tainted” information to arrive at the EPA conclusion and it asks that the EPA’s decisions be set aside. Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, also filed a petition demanding the EPA reconsider its greenhouse-gas finding.

The scientific community actually is anything but unanimous on climate change.

The disunity is documented by the Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered. The effort by Art Robinson, a research professor of chemistry and cofounder of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in 1973, now lists tens of thousands of qualified scientists who endorse the following statement:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

 

Among the original e-mails hacked from East Anglia and posted online was, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

Statement on Senator McCain’s Border Enforcement

Statement on Senator McCain’s Border Enforcement

April 19, 2010

Local 2544 is the largest Border Patrol local in the United States. We represent nearly 3,000 Border Patrol agents in the Tucson Border Patrol Sector.  We police the busiest corridor in the nation, with apprehensions of illegal aliens and drugs equaling that of all the other Border Patrol Sectors combined.   

Senator John McCain announced a Border Security Plan today. Senator McCain is currently in a statistical dead heat with former House Representative JD Hayworth. Senator McCain, out of apparent frustration, is turning to border security issues to bolster his campaign. Senator McCain has been on the wrong side of border issues for many years. One must ask why he is now portraying himself as a “get tough” politician on border enforcement. McCain has represented Arizona in the Senate since 1987.

Senator McCain had the opportunity to consult with the men and women who are experts in protecting our borders before releasing his Plan, but he failed to do so.

JD Hayworth, on the other hand, has reached out to law enforcement statewide in order to gain a better understanding of the needs and difficulties law enforcement professionals face.  After reviewing Senator McCain’s plan, Mr. Hayworth immediately consulted border experts in an effort to ascertain its feasibility.  Mr. Hayworth is committed to working with the men and women of the United States Border Patrol in finding real solutions to border issues that affect Arizonans.     

Senator McCain’s record indicates he will vote against meaningful pro-enforcement legislation when push comes to shove. We want a representative who will fight for legislation that will help us in our mission to protect our borders when it really counts. Senator McCain’s campaign promises are like a mirage. He wants you to think that the blue color you see on the horizon is water, when it’s really just hot air that looks like water. We’ve had enough hot air from Senator McCain for far too many years. We want a representative who will fight to keep the citizens of Arizona safe. We have had enough of representatives who say one thing on the campaign trail and do the opposite after the campaign is over. Senator McCain has aligned himself with people such as former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, a vehement anti-Border Patrol activist. Facts are hard things to ignore, even in “campaign mode”.

When it comes to border issues, we trust the man who searches for solutions amongst those who know.  JD Hayworth is the candidate who is willing to tackle and solve the issues Arizona faces with illegal immigration and border violence. Senator McCain has had years to do something, yet he has failed us time after time. We strongly urge you to ignore Senator McCain’s campaign rhetoric.

The Crony Capitalist Threat to Our Economic Freedom

Morning Bell: The Crony Capitalist Threat to Our Economic Freedom

Posted By Conn Carroll On April 21, 2010 @ 9:48 am In Enterprise and Free Markets | No Comments

[1]

The Obama administration’s game plan for passing their financial regulatory reform plan is clear: ignore the details of their bill, demonize Wall Street, and cast conservatives as the pawns of big bankers. But as Politico [2] reports today, there’s a complication in their battle plan: “The Democratic Party is closer to corporate America — and to Wall Street in particular — than many Democrats would care to admit.”

Politico should be commended for acknowledging the left’s cozy ties with corporate America, but then they go on to write: “Some Democrats acknowledge that the legislation — and the harsh anti-Wall Street rhetoric — could cost them campaign contributions from the financial services sector in what is already shaping up to be a tough election year.” This is just flat wrong. As evidence and logic clearly demonstrate, the left’s harsh anti-business rhetoric and glee for expansive regulation is a boon to their campaign coffers. As USA Today [3] reports, Goldman Sachs alone has given nearly $900,000 since January 2009 to congressional candidates, and according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, 69% of the firm’s contributions went to Democrats while 31% went to Republicans.

In fact, Goldman is not opposed to Obama’s Wall Street Bailout Bill at all. As a Goldman official told Politico [4] Monday:  “We’re not against regulation. We’re for regulation. We partner with regulators.” This echoes reporting done by The Huffington Post on loopholes in the banking bill. HuffPo was told by a financial services lobbyist: “Obtaining a carve-out isn’t rocket science. Just give Chairman Dodd (D-CT) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) a ****load of money.” And loads of money is what Wall Street has been giving to the authors of the Wall Street Bailout Bill. The Wall Street banker at the center of Goldman’s SEC fraud complaint recently solicited money from his banker friends for Sen. Schumer [5] describing him as “one of the few members of Congress that has consistently supported the hedge fund industry.”

Sens. Dodd and Schumer are not the only ones colluding with bankers to profit from American taxpayers. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) scored $37,000 from a January fundraiser [6] that included Goldman executives. And The Washington Examiner has detailed that not only did President Barack Obama receive seven times as much money from Goldman employees as President Bush did from Enron employees [7], but then-candidate Obama’s $950,000 2008 total from Goldman executives and employees is the most a politician has raised from a single company since campaign finance reform. It’s also more than the combined Goldman haul of every Republican running for president, Senate and the House [8].

There is a term for the Obama administration’s practice of using their government power to play favorites in the private sector: crony capitalism. Former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Gerald O’Driscoll writes in The Wall Street Journal [9]:

The federal government controls 90% of housing finance. Policies to encourage home ownership remain on the books, and more have been added. Fed policies of low interest rates result in capital being misallocated across time. Low interest rates particularly impact housing because a home is a pre-eminent long-lived asset whose value is enhanced by low interest rates.

Distorted prices and interest rates no longer serve as accurate indicators of the relative importance of goods. Crony capitalism ensures the special access of protected firms and industries to capital. Businesses that stumble in the process of doing what is politically favored are bailed out. That leads to moral hazard and more bailouts in the future. And those losing money may be enabled to hide it by accounting chicanery.

It is because of these crony capitalist policies that the United States has dropped out of the exclusive club of free economies and was graded “mostly free” for the first time in the Index of Economic Freedom [10]’s 16-year history. As Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis Director Bill Beach explains [11], this has a real impact on the lives of Americans:

While the U.S. economy undoubtedly is righting itself from the most severe recession since the 1930s, it is doing so at a glacial pace. Clearly, the burden of public policies that reduce the free use of personal property and retard the unsubsidized risk taking of entrepreneurs are lengthening the recovery process. The real cost of this sluggishness are the millions of unemployed Americans who continue to wait for the return of economic spring and the millions more who hope for a better economic times. The real source of this human cost – the real driver of persistent economic want – is the erosion of our economic freedom caused by these government policies.

Quick Hits:

  • Suspecting politics in Goldman Sachs charges, [12] House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member Rep. Darrell Issa (D-CA) sent a letter to the SEC asking for any information showing coordination between regulators, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.
  • Noting that “while global CO2 emissions have continued to swell, the global temperature rise has leveled off,” Time [13] asks, “Global Warming: Why Aren’t Temperatures Even Higher?”
  • Time [14] also reports that thanks to high taxes, the number of U.S. citizens living abroad who renounced their citizenship last year more than doubled.
  • Unsatisfied with the extent Obamacare has already taken over the health care sector, Congressional Democrats have begun pushing legislation giving government regulators greater authority [15] to set insurance prices.
  • Lockheed Martin Corp. said its first-quarter earnings fell 18 percent [16] after it was hit by a big charge due to Obamacare.

Obama, Israel and the Genesis Prediction

Obama, Israel and the Genesis Prediction

Posted By Dennis Prager On April 21, 2010 @ 12:06 am In FrontPage | 13 Comments

Most observers, right or left, pro-Israel or anti-Israel, would agree that Israeli-American relations are the worst they have been in memory. Among the many indications is that only 9 percent of Jewish Israelis think President Barack Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, according to a Smith Research poll taken during the last week of March on behalf of The Jerusalem Post. Given how much Israelis love and admire (and emigrate to) America, this level of mistrust is all the more remarkable.

Commentators on the left, of course, blame Israel. For them, this is a no-brainer; blaming Israel is as natural as breathing. One just does it. Furthermore, Israel is headed by a conservative prime minister, and America is presided over by the most pro-left president in its history.

Meanwhile, commentators on the right are virtually unanimous in supporting Israel. This is not simply an anti-Obama, pro-conservative-Netanyahu reflex, however. It stems from a variety of reasons:

First, Israel is our staunchest ally. Among other things, Israel votes with us in the United Nations more often than any other country, and it provides us with uniquely important technological know-how and intelligence.

Second, conservatives’ values are closer to Israel’s values than perhaps those of any other nation. As President Harry Truman said, “Israel is the embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization.”

Third, while a rift with Israel hurts Israel, it hurts America at least as much (as we shall see) and does not make Palestinians any more likely to make peace with the Jewish state. Recall, the Palestinians unleashed mass terror against Israel after a left-leaning Israeli prime minister agreed to give the Palestinians 97 percent of the territory conquered in 1967 and 3 percent more from Israel itself. Why, then, would the Palestinians make peace with Israel now, when half of the Palestinians are governed by Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction? Because Obama humiliated the Israeli prime minister during the latter’s visit to Washington — over Israeli plans to build 1,600 apartments in Jerusalem?

Fourth, the greatest international threat today emanates from Iran, a threat that will be exponentially increased if Iran is not prevented from developing nuclear weapons. A weakened Israel means an emboldened Iran. And this frightens conservatives more than it does the world’s left and Obama.

Finally, there is a fifth reason tens of millions of Americans, many conservative commentators, support Israel and worry about America if American support for Israel wanes.

To the left in America and around the world, this reason is dangerous nonsense. But for a vast number of America’s Christians, many Jews and even many non-religious conservatives, it is deeper than any military or political reason. The reason is based on a verse in Genesis in which God, referring to the Jewish people, says to Abraham: “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.”

One need not be a Jew or Christian or even believe in God to appreciate that this verse is as accurate a prediction of the future as humanity has ever been given by the ancient world. The Jewish people have suffered longer and more horribly than any other living people. But they are still around. Their historic enemies are all gone. Those who cursed the Jews were indeed cursed.

And those who blessed the Jews were indeed blessed. The most blessed country for more than 200 years has been the United States. It has also been the most blessed place Jews have ever lived in. Is this a coincidence? Many of us think not.

Those who curse the Jews today seem to be cursed. The most benighted civilization today is the Arab world. One could make a plausible case that the Arab world’s preoccupation with Jew-hatred and destroying Israel is decisive in keeping the Arab world from progressing. The day the Arab world makes peace with the existence of the tiny Jewish state in its midst, the Arab world will begin its ascent.

The converse is what worries tens of millions of Americans: The day America begins to abandon Israel, America will begin its descent.

Israel shares America’s values, such as liberty, an independent judiciary, a free press, freedom of religion, free speech and women’s equality. The Arab and Muslim worlds have none of these. Those facts — and America’s Judeo-Christian roots — make support of Israel, no matter what the Arab and Muslim “street” feels about America, a moral lynchpin of American foreign policy.

This administration’s desire to have America liked in the Arab and Muslim worlds therefore has to mean altering that lynchpin. You cannot protect Israel and strive to be liked in the Arab and Muslim worlds at the same time. And you cannot weaken that protection without weakening America’s moral values, which form the basis of America’s greatness.

Even aside from compromising America’s moral essence, weakening American support of Israel will only strengthen the America-hating Islamists. The notion that the primitive monsters of the Taliban, Hamas, al-Qaida and the like will become pro-American — or just stop attacking America – if America weakens its support of Israel betrays an ignorance of evil that is frightening.

So there is nothing to gain — and America’s soul to lose — by weakening, or by even seeming to weaken, American support for Israel.

In 1968, Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman turned philosopher and author of the classic work “The True Believer,” wrote in The Los Angeles Times:

“The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us.”

Hoffer concluded: “I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.”

Genesis was right.

Losing Faith In Government

WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Losing Faith In Government. “Actually, it’s not hard to understand why public faith in government is at rock bottom: People lose trust when the officials either ignore the public will, or, worse, do the opposite of what they promised voters they would do. President Obama, for example, promised a ‘net spending cut’ during the 2008 presidential campaign. He has instead delivered the biggest explosion in federal spending in American history, with a result that the annual federal deficit and the national debt are now at levels nobody envisioned even a few years ago.”

Obama’s Wall Street Bill Lets Crooks Escape

Obama’s Wall Street Bill Lets Crooks Escape

April 21st, 2010

BY CLIFF KINCAID, AIM

 Barack Obama is protecting his buddy George Soros

The indictment of Goldman Sachs is as deceptive as the “financial reform” bill that President Obama and the liberals are pushing on Capitol Hill, says Zubi Diamond, author of the blockbuster book, Wizards of Wall Street. Diamond is warning legislators not to fall for the Obama Administration’s claim that the legislation somehow punishes Wall Street for bad financial practices.

Diamond, who has emerged as a major critic of the unregulated hedge fund industry, says he was not surprised that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) named hedge fund short-seller John Paulson as a key player in the Goldman Sachs scheme to defraud investors but failed to indict him.

Diamond says that Paulson is being let off the hook because he is a member of the most powerful special interest group working the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.–the Managed Funds Association (MFA). He says the major media are afraid of taking on the MFA, which calls itself “the voice of the global alternative investment industry,” because of its tremendous financial clout. 

“The SEC charges against Goldman Sachs are a ruse, a ploy, and a smokescreen to get the Dodd financial reform passed,” he said. The bill, he argues, fails to hold the multibillion dollar hedge fund short sellers accountable for their illegal market manipulations. One of these short sellers, not named in the Goldman suit, is billionaire George Soros, known as the man who “broke the Bank of England” by betting against the British pound and who was convicted of insider trading in France.

The firms of Soros and Paulson are key players in the MFA.

Read More:

Obama’s frightening new attack on the Constitution

Obama’s frightening new attack on the Constitution

April 21st, 2010

By Robert Moon, Examiner

 Obama is seeking to increase his Executive powers

Imagine how people would have reacted if President Bush had been caught trying to sneak through legislation that would have illegally given him the power to take over and destroy any financial institution he pleased, on a whim, with zero checks and balances.

That is what Democrats are quietly rushing through Congress for Obama.

It’s called H.R. 4173 and it is already through the House. If it is signed into law, Obama will literally gain the kind of terrifying, un-checked power usually reserved for fascists and Third World dictators–the power to strong-arm, intimidate and crush any business that gets in his way. There will not even be judicial oversight.

What’s that? Your company refuses to go “green?” Expect a knock at your door. Your business donated to the wrong party? You will be receiving a letter. Your company resists union takeovers? There will be consequences.

If Obama doesn’t like what your business is doing, Obama simply gets to take it over, fire the executives, sell off all its stocks, and basically burn it to the ground.

Read More:

Is Goldman Obama’s Enron? No, it’s worse

Is Goldman Obama’s Enron? No, it’s worse

April 21st, 2010

By: J.P. FREIRE, Washington Examiner

Campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers, according to numbers on OpenSecrets.org.

President Bush’s connections to Enron were well-hyped during the company’s accounting debacle that rippled through the economy. Time magazine even had an article called, “Bush’s Enron Problem.” The Associated Press ran with the headline, “Bush-backing Enron makes big money off crisis.” David Callaway wrote that Enron for Bush was worse than Whitewater for Clinton.

In 2002, the New York Times wrote: “President Bush is seeking to play down his relationship with Enron’s embattled chairman, Kenneth L. Lay. But their ties are broad and deep and go back many years, and the relationship has been beneficial to both.” But the mere $151,722.42 (inflation adjusted) in contributions from Enron-affiliated executives, employees, and PACs to Bush hardly add up to Obama’s $1,007,370.85 (inflation adjusted) from Goldman-affiliated executives and employees. That’s also not taking into account how much Goldman contributed to Obama cabinet member Hillary Clinton ($415,595.63 inflation adjusted), which was itself almost three times as much as Bush received as well.

Read More:

The costs of crossing the president

The costs of crossing the president

April 21st, 2010

By BRUCE J. SCHULMAN, Politico

 Hope and Change!  Or else…

Will the White House punish Democrats who defected on the monumental health care overhaul?

“There is not a whole lot of [President] Barack Obama and [Vice President] Joe Biden to spare on a good day,” one senior White House official told POLITICO. “We’re going to have to focus on our friends.”

As for the five House Democrats who reversed their positions to vote against the final bill, another Obama aide said, “We appreciate the people who hung with us.”

The implied political hardball has drawn protests from some legislators. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, for example, now talks about the need to help all Democrats.

But Obama’s approach is hardly novel.

Many presidents have aggressively disciplined wayward legislators: manipulating committee slots, stripping privileges, even campaigning against them in primaries.

Read More:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers