by BigFurHat - October 3, 2011
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Report: Fannie Mae knew of foreclosure abuses in '03
By MJ LEE | 10/4/11 6:25 AM EDT
Fannie Mae knew as far back as 2003 of improper foreclosure practices by law firms but did little to remedy the problem, according to a government report released Tuesday.
The mortgage titan was warned by a shareholder of the evidence on foreclosure abuses in 2003, the inspector general of the Federal Housing Finance Agency said in the report, according to the Associated Press. Fannie Mae hired a law firm to look into the allegations in 2005, which reported the next year that it found foreclosure attorneys in Florida “routinely filing false pleadings and affidavits.”
Officials at Fannie Mae said they informed a government official about the firm’s findings in 2006, according to the report, but the official said he doesn’t remember the conversation.
By June 2010, the FHFA had grown increasingly aware of potential foreclosure processing problems, prompting it to conduct a two-day field visit to Florida, the Wall Street Journal reports. The Agency found “documents problems were evident and law firms … were not devoting the time necessary to their cases due to Fannie Mae’s flat fee structure and volume-based processing model.”
Fannie Mae officials were informed of FHFA’s findings after the Florida visit, but the warnings didn’t put an end to the use of “robo-signing” for processing documents, resulting in banks to suspend foreclosures in fall of 2010. It also led to the investigation by all 50 state attorneys general.
The reports also shines a harsh light on potential misconduct of law firms – for example, Freddie Mac terminated a law firm that processed a large portion of its foreclosures in Florida due to foreclosure processing malpractice. But Fannie Mae refused to follow in Freddie Mac’s footsteps, saying the cost of transferring documents to a new law firm “would be substantial.”
A spokeswoman for the watchdog agency said the FHFA is “concluding our supervisory work in this area and we will direct the enterprises to take whatever action is warranted once we are done,” the Journal said.
Fannie Mae knew as far back as 2003 of improper foreclosure practices by law firms but did little to remedy the problem, according to a government report released Tuesday.
The mortgage titan was warned by a shareholder of the evidence on foreclosure abuses in 2003, the inspector general of the Federal Housing Finance Agency said in the report, according to the Associated Press. Fannie Mae hired a law firm to look into the allegations in 2005, which reported the next year that it found foreclosure attorneys in Florida “routinely filing false pleadings and affidavits.”
Officials at Fannie Mae said they informed a government official about the firm’s findings in 2006, according to the report, but the official said he doesn’t remember the conversation.
By June 2010, the FHFA had grown increasingly aware of potential foreclosure processing problems, prompting it to conduct a two-day field visit to Florida, the Wall Street Journal reports. The Agency found “documents problems were evident and law firms … were not devoting the time necessary to their cases due to Fannie Mae’s flat fee structure and volume-based processing model.”
Fannie Mae officials were informed of FHFA’s findings after the Florida visit, but the warnings didn’t put an end to the use of “robo-signing” for processing documents, resulting in banks to suspend foreclosures in fall of 2010. It also led to the investigation by all 50 state attorneys general.
The reports also shines a harsh light on potential misconduct of law firms – for example, Freddie Mac terminated a law firm that processed a large portion of its foreclosures in Florida due to foreclosure processing malpractice. But Fannie Mae refused to follow in Freddie Mac’s footsteps, saying the cost of transferring documents to a new law firm “would be substantial.”
A spokeswoman for the watchdog agency said the FHFA is “concluding our supervisory work in this area and we will direct the enterprises to take whatever action is warranted once we are done,” the Journal said.
The Obamas’ Swank Night Out
by Keith Koffler on October 2, 2011, 9:44 am
All done shopping at Target!
President and Mrs. Obama celebrated their anniversary at one of the Washington area’s most fashionable and expensive eating establishments last night, Restaurant Eve in Alexandria, Va.
True to trendy form, the restaurant tries to use products from local farms so that it doesn’t contribute to global warning by forcing the rotting corpses of animals to be flown in. From the website:
Simple acts with great consequence’ – My husband, the impassioned toque believes our responsibility extends beyond menu planning. Buzzwords like “environmental impact” or “sustainability” are guiding principles that are simply understood.
But it also bows to older American traditions, like overcharging.
As you can see from the menu, entrees costs about $40. Or you can try the tasting menu, which is pretentiously described below.
The 34-seat Chef’s Tasting Room is Chef Armstrong’s culinary showcase. Here, Armstrong features a five, seven, and nine-course prix-fixe tasting menu, priced at $120, $135, and $150 respectively. The courses are headed: Creation (palate teasers), Ocean (seafood), Earth & Sky (meats and game), Age (cheese) and Eden (desserts). The Tasting Room menu changes daily as there are many farmers markets in the area. Keeping true to the SEASON, if it be summer, highlights include Heirloom Tomato Tart with Garden Basil grown from the restaurant’s own organic garden and Butter Poached Maine Lobster with Eastern Shore Corn. Keeping true to the MISSION, the menu features delectable sustainable meat entrées such as The Hogs Head “Banger” and Polyface Farm 100% Pasture Fed Beef Ribeye.
You know, the Obamas are wealthy people. If they want to eat at places where appetizers start at $16, fine. It would be nice if they set an example during hard economic times and reined in their spending, of course, but whatever.
BUT DEFINITELY DON’T INVITE AP PHOTOGRAPHERS TO TAKE PICTURES OF YOU AT TARGET AND LECTURE ME ABOUT SHARED SACRIFICE AND THEN GO SPEND $300 ON DINNER.
Otherwise, happy anniversary.
All done shopping at Target!
President and Mrs. Obama celebrated their anniversary at one of the Washington area’s most fashionable and expensive eating establishments last night, Restaurant Eve in Alexandria, Va.
True to trendy form, the restaurant tries to use products from local farms so that it doesn’t contribute to global warning by forcing the rotting corpses of animals to be flown in. From the website:
Simple acts with great consequence’ – My husband, the impassioned toque believes our responsibility extends beyond menu planning. Buzzwords like “environmental impact” or “sustainability” are guiding principles that are simply understood.
But it also bows to older American traditions, like overcharging.
As you can see from the menu, entrees costs about $40. Or you can try the tasting menu, which is pretentiously described below.
The 34-seat Chef’s Tasting Room is Chef Armstrong’s culinary showcase. Here, Armstrong features a five, seven, and nine-course prix-fixe tasting menu, priced at $120, $135, and $150 respectively. The courses are headed: Creation (palate teasers), Ocean (seafood), Earth & Sky (meats and game), Age (cheese) and Eden (desserts). The Tasting Room menu changes daily as there are many farmers markets in the area. Keeping true to the SEASON, if it be summer, highlights include Heirloom Tomato Tart with Garden Basil grown from the restaurant’s own organic garden and Butter Poached Maine Lobster with Eastern Shore Corn. Keeping true to the MISSION, the menu features delectable sustainable meat entrées such as The Hogs Head “Banger” and Polyface Farm 100% Pasture Fed Beef Ribeye.
You know, the Obamas are wealthy people. If they want to eat at places where appetizers start at $16, fine. It would be nice if they set an example during hard economic times and reined in their spending, of course, but whatever.
BUT DEFINITELY DON’T INVITE AP PHOTOGRAPHERS TO TAKE PICTURES OF YOU AT TARGET AND LECTURE ME ABOUT SHARED SACRIFICE AND THEN GO SPEND $300 ON DINNER.
Otherwise, happy anniversary.
Entitlements vs. Liberty
Posted by Chris Edwards
A reporter asked me about the rise in entitlement programs and the problems created with so many people suckling on the federal teet. I’ve reported that the federal government has more than 2,000 different subsidy programs.
Another way to track the growth of America’s subsidy culture is to look at the usage frequency of “entitlement” over time using a Google tool that shows word usage in books published in the United States.
The first chart shows the sharp rise in the use of “entitlement” in the 1970s (and a curious fall since 2000).
The second chart shows an antonym: liberty. It’s usage fell throughout the 20th century, and it plunged in the 1970s. However, a hopeful sign is the upward spike in “liberty” in the last year of the chart, which was 2008. Was that a sign of the beginning of the revolt that would become the tea party?
A reporter asked me about the rise in entitlement programs and the problems created with so many people suckling on the federal teet. I’ve reported that the federal government has more than 2,000 different subsidy programs.
Another way to track the growth of America’s subsidy culture is to look at the usage frequency of “entitlement” over time using a Google tool that shows word usage in books published in the United States.
The first chart shows the sharp rise in the use of “entitlement” in the 1970s (and a curious fall since 2000).
The second chart shows an antonym: liberty. It’s usage fell throughout the 20th century, and it plunged in the 1970s. However, a hopeful sign is the upward spike in “liberty” in the last year of the chart, which was 2008. Was that a sign of the beginning of the revolt that would become the tea party?
ERIC HOLDER LIED UNDER OATH!… Documents Confirm the Obama AG Knew of Fast & Furious in 2010 (Video)
ERIC HOLDER LIED UNDER OATH!… Documents Confirm the Obama AG Knew of Fast & Furious in 2010 (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, October 3, 2011, 6:27 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER LIED UNDER OATH—
This is a FOX News Breaking Story Tonight.
The Attorney General lied under oath about Fast and Furious.
Pundit Press has more.
FOX News is reporting that Holder was personally identified as being informed of the plan at least twice. One report, from 2010, states that Holder was informed of the plan. This new information premiered just minutes ago on Fox’s Special Report with Bret Baier.
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, October 3, 2011, 6:27 PM
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER LIED UNDER OATH—
This is a FOX News Breaking Story Tonight.
The Attorney General lied under oath about Fast and Furious.
Pundit Press has more.
FOX News is reporting that Holder was personally identified as being informed of the plan at least twice. One report, from 2010, states that Holder was informed of the plan. This new information premiered just minutes ago on Fox’s Special Report with Bret Baier.
Solyndra Expands into Energygate
by Keith Koffler on October 1, 2011, 10:58 am
It now appears that the Energy Department was something of a haven for Obama fundraisers who wanted to affect policy after the election.
ABC News is reporting that several Obama fundraisers found themselves helping out around the place. Some of them had ties to green energy projects that DOE ended up supporting.
Well known already is DOE’s precipitous and calamitous decision to fund Solyndra, which was backed by Obama fundraiser George Kaiser.
Also known is that another Obama fundraiser, Stephen Spinner, was involved in advising on the Energy Department’s loan program. His wife’s law firm represented Solyndra, but the firm claims she had recused herself from work with the company.
DOE is trying to minimize Stephen Spinner’s role, while Spinner tried to maximize it, ABC reports.
Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, described Spinner as someone who had “no role” in evaluating loan applications or selecting recipients.
Spinner described his job differently. He wrote in an online bio for the Center for American Progress, the left-leaning think tank he joined after leaving the administration, that he “helped oversee the more than $100 billion of loan guarantee and direct lending authority” for the department’s green-energy loan program.
Meanwhile, yet another Obama fundraiser has popped into the mix, according to ABC.
California venture capitalist Steve Westly, who raised more than $500,000 for Obama, had Secretary Chu’s ear on green energy issues as a member of a high-level volunteer advisory panel. Mackey Dykes, who was a finance manager for the Obama campaign, was hired to be the liaison between the Energy Department and White House. Each declined interview requests.
Westly has held stakes in at least five companies that have won DOE support.
Fundraisers are often awarded by presidentis with ambassadorships and ceremonial titles. But President Obama, who talked much about eliminating money from politics and halting the “revolving door” between the private and the public sector, and so forth, appears to have placed money people in position in the government where they had a chance to . . . make more money.
Notice that Westly was the liaison between Energy and the White House. And it’s clear someone at the White House pressured OMB to reluctantly sign off on the Solyndra loan guarantee, which will cost taxpayers $500 million in the wake of Solyndra’s failure.
There is much more to come. More names will surface.
Who in the White House pressured OMB? What were this person’s ties to the Obama fundraisers?
If this were Dick Cheney energy policy, the Democrats would surely be screaming for a special prosecutor.
H/T to Doug Ross @ Journal, where I first learned of the ABC story. He has a good summary of the Energygate players.
It now appears that the Energy Department was something of a haven for Obama fundraisers who wanted to affect policy after the election.
ABC News is reporting that several Obama fundraisers found themselves helping out around the place. Some of them had ties to green energy projects that DOE ended up supporting.
Well known already is DOE’s precipitous and calamitous decision to fund Solyndra, which was backed by Obama fundraiser George Kaiser.
Also known is that another Obama fundraiser, Stephen Spinner, was involved in advising on the Energy Department’s loan program. His wife’s law firm represented Solyndra, but the firm claims she had recused herself from work with the company.
DOE is trying to minimize Stephen Spinner’s role, while Spinner tried to maximize it, ABC reports.
Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, described Spinner as someone who had “no role” in evaluating loan applications or selecting recipients.
Spinner described his job differently. He wrote in an online bio for the Center for American Progress, the left-leaning think tank he joined after leaving the administration, that he “helped oversee the more than $100 billion of loan guarantee and direct lending authority” for the department’s green-energy loan program.
Meanwhile, yet another Obama fundraiser has popped into the mix, according to ABC.
California venture capitalist Steve Westly, who raised more than $500,000 for Obama, had Secretary Chu’s ear on green energy issues as a member of a high-level volunteer advisory panel. Mackey Dykes, who was a finance manager for the Obama campaign, was hired to be the liaison between the Energy Department and White House. Each declined interview requests.
Westly has held stakes in at least five companies that have won DOE support.
Fundraisers are often awarded by presidentis with ambassadorships and ceremonial titles. But President Obama, who talked much about eliminating money from politics and halting the “revolving door” between the private and the public sector, and so forth, appears to have placed money people in position in the government where they had a chance to . . . make more money.
Notice that Westly was the liaison between Energy and the White House. And it’s clear someone at the White House pressured OMB to reluctantly sign off on the Solyndra loan guarantee, which will cost taxpayers $500 million in the wake of Solyndra’s failure.
There is much more to come. More names will surface.
Who in the White House pressured OMB? What were this person’s ties to the Obama fundraisers?
If this were Dick Cheney energy policy, the Democrats would surely be screaming for a special prosecutor.
H/T to Doug Ross @ Journal, where I first learned of the ABC story. He has a good summary of the Energygate players.
Liberal Media Claims "Occupy Wall Street" is a Left-Wing Tea Party
HORSE CRAP!
Monday, October 3, 2011
The liberal media has constantly found ways to put down the tea party movement. First there were the sexual slurs we were 'tea baggers." Then we were racists, stupid and finally we were stubborn extremists whose only wish was to close down the government and/or remove Barack Obama from office.
The media's latest slander of the Tea Party puts all of the others to shame. They are calling the left-wing "Occupy Wall Street" protests in New York a liberal tea party. Ladies and Gentlemen, I know the tea party, I have been to some of their rallies, some of the tea party leaders are friends of mine, it is with 100% certainty I can report that the only similarity between the tea party movement and the occupy wall street protests is they are both comprised of Homo Sapiens.
That doesn't stop the liberal media though. Take NBC news for example; On Saturday Night's Evening News correspondent Michelle Franzen quoted Columbia University's Dorian Warren who asserted the Wall Street protests were "a liberal version of the Tea Party." He added: "I think this could potentially carry over into the 2012 elections and get people to the polls."
On Sunday's Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne about the movement: "...your column out tomorrow talks about the equivalent Tea Party movement on the left.
Time Magazine said:
In its broadest outlines, this new outpouring of protest is driven by the same fuel that gave fire to the Tea Party: Anger at elites, a feeling of injustice, a concern about jobs, fear about the direction of the economy and a clear desire to take action. Whereas the Tea Party focused these furies on government, Occupy Wall Street focuses the fury on corporate America. It seems, quite simply, to be the left’s answer to the right’s size-of-government critique that has dominated national politics for the last two years.
Neither in methodology or goals is there any similarity between the tea party and this Occupy Wall Street group.
Tea Party rallies were calm protests whose attendees respected the local ordinances and cleaned up after they were done. For the most part the only people arrested at tea party rallies were the SEIU thugs sent by the administration to bust some heads. At the occupy Wall Street rally yesterday, 700 people were arrested for ignoring police instructions and blocking access to the Brooklyn Bridge.
The goals of the Tea Party were all about returning this country to what made it great, following the road map of this country's success, the Constitution, along with the the traditional American values of freedom, independence celebrating success, and personal responsibility.
The Occupy Wall Street Folks have a list of demands most of them are unconstitutional, they are the antithesis of the traditional American values. The Occupy Wall Street folks created goals that are all about tearing down institutions. They are looking to create dependency on the government, take away freedom and blame all of their problems on others. Under the Occupy Wall Street demands, no one would ever have to work hard ever again. If they had their way everyone would just be able to take more from the government's endless supply of cash. All loans will be forgiven and everyone will have a salary whether they work or not.
Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
Respecting the local laws vs. 700 arrests on one day, using the guide book that made America great the Constitution vs. ignoring what worked so well, personal responsibility vs. eliminating responsibility, a sense of independence and pride in ones accomplishments vs. allowing others to do everything for you, celebrating success vs.penalizing it, those are the basic differences between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street group.
Sorry media you are all wrong, there is absolutely no similarity between the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street protests. To imply that they are even remotely the same is pure horse crap!
Monday, October 3, 2011
The liberal media has constantly found ways to put down the tea party movement. First there were the sexual slurs we were 'tea baggers." Then we were racists, stupid and finally we were stubborn extremists whose only wish was to close down the government and/or remove Barack Obama from office.
The media's latest slander of the Tea Party puts all of the others to shame. They are calling the left-wing "Occupy Wall Street" protests in New York a liberal tea party. Ladies and Gentlemen, I know the tea party, I have been to some of their rallies, some of the tea party leaders are friends of mine, it is with 100% certainty I can report that the only similarity between the tea party movement and the occupy wall street protests is they are both comprised of Homo Sapiens.
That doesn't stop the liberal media though. Take NBC news for example; On Saturday Night's Evening News correspondent Michelle Franzen quoted Columbia University's Dorian Warren who asserted the Wall Street protests were "a liberal version of the Tea Party." He added: "I think this could potentially carry over into the 2012 elections and get people to the polls."
On Sunday's Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne about the movement: "...your column out tomorrow talks about the equivalent Tea Party movement on the left.
Time Magazine said:
In its broadest outlines, this new outpouring of protest is driven by the same fuel that gave fire to the Tea Party: Anger at elites, a feeling of injustice, a concern about jobs, fear about the direction of the economy and a clear desire to take action. Whereas the Tea Party focused these furies on government, Occupy Wall Street focuses the fury on corporate America. It seems, quite simply, to be the left’s answer to the right’s size-of-government critique that has dominated national politics for the last two years.
Neither in methodology or goals is there any similarity between the tea party and this Occupy Wall Street group.
Tea Party rallies were calm protests whose attendees respected the local ordinances and cleaned up after they were done. For the most part the only people arrested at tea party rallies were the SEIU thugs sent by the administration to bust some heads. At the occupy Wall Street rally yesterday, 700 people were arrested for ignoring police instructions and blocking access to the Brooklyn Bridge.
The goals of the Tea Party were all about returning this country to what made it great, following the road map of this country's success, the Constitution, along with the the traditional American values of freedom, independence celebrating success, and personal responsibility.
The Occupy Wall Street Folks have a list of demands most of them are unconstitutional, they are the antithesis of the traditional American values. The Occupy Wall Street folks created goals that are all about tearing down institutions. They are looking to create dependency on the government, take away freedom and blame all of their problems on others. Under the Occupy Wall Street demands, no one would ever have to work hard ever again. If they had their way everyone would just be able to take more from the government's endless supply of cash. All loans will be forgiven and everyone will have a salary whether they work or not.
Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
Respecting the local laws vs. 700 arrests on one day, using the guide book that made America great the Constitution vs. ignoring what worked so well, personal responsibility vs. eliminating responsibility, a sense of independence and pride in ones accomplishments vs. allowing others to do everything for you, celebrating success vs.penalizing it, those are the basic differences between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street group.
Sorry media you are all wrong, there is absolutely no similarity between the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street protests. To imply that they are even remotely the same is pure horse crap!
European Liquidity Update: Horrible And Getting Worse
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/04/2011 07:08 -0400
Don't expect any good news in a post that has "European Liquidity" in the headline. While Euribor-OIS up from 0.81 to 0.82%, still 7 bps below the 2.5 year record of 0.89% from September 23, 3M USD Libor grinds once again wider from 0.378% to 0.381%, 50th consecutive increase, as UBS now has the spotlight with a 9th consecutive rise in its rate from 0.411% to 0.416%. Credit Agricole continues to be troubling and widest at 0.4375%, up from 0.435%. But most disturbing is that the deposits with the ECB soared to a new multi-year high of €209 billion, up from the €200 billion yesterday which we noted. And while none of this is surprising, we had some out of leftfield news coming from Deutsche Bank which announced it had taken €250 million in Greece-related charges after it had proclaimed for months its exposure was negligible and saw no write down risk. DB also said it won't make a €10 billion profit this year as had been promised earlier. So much for "them" not lying to "us." The "us" response: DB CDS +15 at 224 bps at last check and moving wider, even as German CDS probes new record levels. At this point comparing 2011 to 2008 is no longer cool, but we will refer readers to this post from last night...
Don't expect any good news in a post that has "European Liquidity" in the headline. While Euribor-OIS up from 0.81 to 0.82%, still 7 bps below the 2.5 year record of 0.89% from September 23, 3M USD Libor grinds once again wider from 0.378% to 0.381%, 50th consecutive increase, as UBS now has the spotlight with a 9th consecutive rise in its rate from 0.411% to 0.416%. Credit Agricole continues to be troubling and widest at 0.4375%, up from 0.435%. But most disturbing is that the deposits with the ECB soared to a new multi-year high of €209 billion, up from the €200 billion yesterday which we noted. And while none of this is surprising, we had some out of leftfield news coming from Deutsche Bank which announced it had taken €250 million in Greece-related charges after it had proclaimed for months its exposure was negligible and saw no write down risk. DB also said it won't make a €10 billion profit this year as had been promised earlier. So much for "them" not lying to "us." The "us" response: DB CDS +15 at 224 bps at last check and moving wider, even as German CDS probes new record levels. At this point comparing 2011 to 2008 is no longer cool, but we will refer readers to this post from last night...
Shock Photos: Candidate Obama Appeared And Marched With New Black Panther Party in 2007
by Andrew Breitbart
New photographs obtained exclusively by BigGovernment.com reveal that Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Alabama in March 2007.
The photographs, captured from a Flickr photo-sharing account before it was scrubbed, are the latest evidence of the mainstream media’s failure to examine Obama’s extremist ties and radical roots.
In addition, the new images raise questions about the possible motives of the Obama administration in its infamous decision to drop the prosecution of the Panthers for voter intimidation.
The images, presented below, also renew doubts about the transparency of the White House’s guest logs–in particular, whether Panther National Chief Malik Zulu Shabazz is the same “Malik Shabazz” listed among the Obama administration’s early visitors.
Tomorrow, J. Christian Adams, the Department of Justice whistleblower in the New Black Panther Party case, will release his new book, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery).
The book exposes Obama administration corruption far beyond the Panther dismissal, and reveals how the institutional Left has turned the power of the DOJ into an ideological weapon.
Adams’s book also describes, in detail, the Selma march at which then-Senator Obama was joined by a group of Panthers who had come to support his candidacy.
Among those appearing with Obama was Shabazz, the Panther leader who was one of the defendants in the voter intimidation case that Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed. Also present was the Panthers’ “Minister of War,” Najee Muhammed, who had called for murdering Dekalb County, Georgia, police officers with AK-47’s and then mocking their widows in this video (7:20 – 8:29).
Injustice includes a disturbing photo of Shabazz and the Panthers marching behind Obama with raised fists in the “Black Power” salute.
There are even more photographs.
I have learned that Regnery initially received approval from a person who took pictures of the events in Selma to publish these additional photographs in Injustice.
After the photographer wrote Regnery reversing his permission to include the photographs in Injustice, the images were removed from the photographer’s Flickr account. Yet we were able to capture them before they disappeared.
The photographs show Obama sharing the same podium at the event with the Panthers.
In the first image, Shabazz stands at the podium, surrounded by uniformed Panthers, including Muhammed. In the second photograph, Obama commands the same podium.
Here are the images:
____________________________________
The First Amendment allows photographs of such enormous public importance to see the light of day. Cases, including one involving skimpy photographs of Miss Puerto Rico, have established that fair use and the First Amendment allow publication of these photos.
It is true that then-Senator Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton were also in Selma at the same event. But the Panthers explicitly came to Selma to support Obama, as Adams details in Injustice.
They spoke with Obama at the podium shown above, and departed together with Obama for the main march itself, as shown by this grainer image captured from YouTube:
Obama seems not to be reviled by the Panthers in any of the video or photographs. And Obama’s own campaign website would post an endorsement by the New Black Panther Party in March 2008. As Adams writes in Injustice:
Somehow, the fact that the future President of the United States shared a podium with leaders of the New Black Panthers, marched with them, and received a public, formal greeting from their party has vanished from the history of Obama’s campaign. Apart from [Juan] Williams’ single dispatch, no other media outlets ever reported it.
After NPR initially reported that the Panthers were present at the event with Obama, subsequent reports from Selma omitted any mention of the hate group appearing with the future President.
Had any of Obama’s opponents appeared at an event with the KKK or Aryan Nation, The New York Times would have had to double its ink buy.
Obama’s appearance does much more than expose mainstream media hypocrisy. It also exposes an association between a vile racist organization and a future President of the United States. Only the degree of association is subject to debate.
And only a few voices outside the mainstream media have continued to press the Obama administration about its past and present ties to fringe groups.
I have been calling for the White House to disclose which Malik Shabazz visited the private White House residence on July 25, 2009, two months after the DOJ voter intimidation case was dismissed. So far, the White House has refused to do so, leaving open the question of which “Malik Shabazz” appears in visitor logs released to the public.
To reiterate: nobody, including Adams, is suggesting that Obama is a secret member of the New Black Panther Party. At a minimum, however, the events in Selma expose the media double standard that has buried this story until this week.
The mainstream media should ask Obama a few questions before they rush to his defense:
What did he and Malik Zulu Shabazz say when they conversed that day–something that Shabazz has said happened?
Did the Obama campaign play any role in having the Panthers travel to support his presidential ambitions?
Who posted the Panthers’ endorsement on the Obama campaign’s website, and at whose instructions?
Who–finally–was the Malik Shabazz who visited the White House residence on July 25, 2009?
New photographs obtained exclusively by BigGovernment.com reveal that Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Alabama in March 2007.
The photographs, captured from a Flickr photo-sharing account before it was scrubbed, are the latest evidence of the mainstream media’s failure to examine Obama’s extremist ties and radical roots.
In addition, the new images raise questions about the possible motives of the Obama administration in its infamous decision to drop the prosecution of the Panthers for voter intimidation.
The images, presented below, also renew doubts about the transparency of the White House’s guest logs–in particular, whether Panther National Chief Malik Zulu Shabazz is the same “Malik Shabazz” listed among the Obama administration’s early visitors.
Tomorrow, J. Christian Adams, the Department of Justice whistleblower in the New Black Panther Party case, will release his new book, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery).
The book exposes Obama administration corruption far beyond the Panther dismissal, and reveals how the institutional Left has turned the power of the DOJ into an ideological weapon.
Adams’s book also describes, in detail, the Selma march at which then-Senator Obama was joined by a group of Panthers who had come to support his candidacy.
Among those appearing with Obama was Shabazz, the Panther leader who was one of the defendants in the voter intimidation case that Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed. Also present was the Panthers’ “Minister of War,” Najee Muhammed, who had called for murdering Dekalb County, Georgia, police officers with AK-47’s and then mocking their widows in this video (7:20 – 8:29).
Injustice includes a disturbing photo of Shabazz and the Panthers marching behind Obama with raised fists in the “Black Power” salute.
There are even more photographs.
I have learned that Regnery initially received approval from a person who took pictures of the events in Selma to publish these additional photographs in Injustice.
After the photographer wrote Regnery reversing his permission to include the photographs in Injustice, the images were removed from the photographer’s Flickr account. Yet we were able to capture them before they disappeared.
The photographs show Obama sharing the same podium at the event with the Panthers.
In the first image, Shabazz stands at the podium, surrounded by uniformed Panthers, including Muhammed. In the second photograph, Obama commands the same podium.
Here are the images:
____________________________________
The First Amendment allows photographs of such enormous public importance to see the light of day. Cases, including one involving skimpy photographs of Miss Puerto Rico, have established that fair use and the First Amendment allow publication of these photos.
It is true that then-Senator Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton were also in Selma at the same event. But the Panthers explicitly came to Selma to support Obama, as Adams details in Injustice.
They spoke with Obama at the podium shown above, and departed together with Obama for the main march itself, as shown by this grainer image captured from YouTube:
Somehow, the fact that the future President of the United States shared a podium with leaders of the New Black Panthers, marched with them, and received a public, formal greeting from their party has vanished from the history of Obama’s campaign. Apart from [Juan] Williams’ single dispatch, no other media outlets ever reported it.
After NPR initially reported that the Panthers were present at the event with Obama, subsequent reports from Selma omitted any mention of the hate group appearing with the future President.
Had any of Obama’s opponents appeared at an event with the KKK or Aryan Nation, The New York Times would have had to double its ink buy.
Obama’s appearance does much more than expose mainstream media hypocrisy. It also exposes an association between a vile racist organization and a future President of the United States. Only the degree of association is subject to debate.
And only a few voices outside the mainstream media have continued to press the Obama administration about its past and present ties to fringe groups.
I have been calling for the White House to disclose which Malik Shabazz visited the private White House residence on July 25, 2009, two months after the DOJ voter intimidation case was dismissed. So far, the White House has refused to do so, leaving open the question of which “Malik Shabazz” appears in visitor logs released to the public.
To reiterate: nobody, including Adams, is suggesting that Obama is a secret member of the New Black Panther Party. At a minimum, however, the events in Selma expose the media double standard that has buried this story until this week.
The mainstream media should ask Obama a few questions before they rush to his defense:
What did he and Malik Zulu Shabazz say when they conversed that day–something that Shabazz has said happened?
Did the Obama campaign play any role in having the Panthers travel to support his presidential ambitions?
Who posted the Panthers’ endorsement on the Obama campaign’s website, and at whose instructions?
Who–finally–was the Malik Shabazz who visited the White House residence on July 25, 2009?
The Daily Temperature Poll
10/3/11 Daily Temperature
Are there any circumstances under which you would vote to re-elect Barack Obama as president over any Republican nominee?
VOTE HERE
Are there any circumstances under which you would vote to re-elect Barack Obama as president over any Republican nominee?
VOTE HERE
Barack Obama is No Underdog. He’s a Political Loser.
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Tuesday, October 4th at 4:45AM EDT
8 Comments
Barack Obama told ABC News yesterday that he is the “underdog” in 2012. He actually raced to embrace the title George Stephanopolous threw out there for him. There was no deliberation, no pause — just an immediate “absolutely” to lay claim to the title.
First understand that the Obama wants to be the underdog because of America’s fixation with rooting for the guy behind. He sees it as a positive.
Second, understand that underdogs do not get to take campaign bus tours through swing states at taxpayer expense on buses paid for by taxpayers and also fly around in a blue and white 747 and get pretty much as much free press as he wants, including great photo ops in front of Congress talking about jobs.
Underdogs do not get that.
Incumbent Presidents get that. And incumbent Presidents do not, more than year from an election get to call themselves “underdogs,” if ever they do. When a President is a year from election, sees his popularity going down, and can’t even muster enough Democrats to vote for his jobs plan because they neither fear nor respect him, the President is not an underdog. He is a loser.
This President is a political loser. Every time he speaks the stock market goes down. Every time he acts boldly, independents attribute it to increasing political desperation without seriousness. Every time he tries to lead, his own party privately mocks him.
Jimmy Carter was no underdog and neither is Barack Obama. With the trappings of power, the brightest men in the room to advise them, and massive war chests — Obama’s is the biggest there is — he is not an underdog.
And it’s not just because he is a political loser. Americans cheer underdogs. No one is cheering Barack Obama.
Tuesday, October 4th at 4:45AM EDT
8 Comments
Barack Obama told ABC News yesterday that he is the “underdog” in 2012. He actually raced to embrace the title George Stephanopolous threw out there for him. There was no deliberation, no pause — just an immediate “absolutely” to lay claim to the title.
First understand that the Obama wants to be the underdog because of America’s fixation with rooting for the guy behind. He sees it as a positive.
Second, understand that underdogs do not get to take campaign bus tours through swing states at taxpayer expense on buses paid for by taxpayers and also fly around in a blue and white 747 and get pretty much as much free press as he wants, including great photo ops in front of Congress talking about jobs.
Underdogs do not get that.
Incumbent Presidents get that. And incumbent Presidents do not, more than year from an election get to call themselves “underdogs,” if ever they do. When a President is a year from election, sees his popularity going down, and can’t even muster enough Democrats to vote for his jobs plan because they neither fear nor respect him, the President is not an underdog. He is a loser.
This President is a political loser. Every time he speaks the stock market goes down. Every time he acts boldly, independents attribute it to increasing political desperation without seriousness. Every time he tries to lead, his own party privately mocks him.
Jimmy Carter was no underdog and neither is Barack Obama. With the trappings of power, the brightest men in the room to advise them, and massive war chests — Obama’s is the biggest there is — he is not an underdog.
And it’s not just because he is a political loser. Americans cheer underdogs. No one is cheering Barack Obama.
Monday, October 3, 2011
The Devil and Mrs. Waters
Terry Paulson
Welcome to a political tale about a night visit to Rep. Maxine Waters from the Devil of America's Future:
Maxine: Why are you here in my house!?
Devil: You promised to help the "Tea Party" go to hell.
Maxine: What?
Devil: Politicians should know by now--you can talk but you can't hide. It was quite a sound bite: "And as far as I'm concerned, the 'tea party' can go straight to hell"....blah blah blah. And then moved by the resounding applause, "I intend to help them get there!"
Maxine: That's out of context!
Devil: That last line is what got our attention. You've done a great job of creating hell on earth for responsible citizens and businesses. We appreciate your efforts, but when you said you wanted to help them get there, we take training guides seriously. I'm here to train you.
Maxine: I don't want to...
ZAP!
Maxine: Where am I?
Devil: This is hell.
Maxine: This is pretty nice! It's better than my Washington condo.
Devil: Well, you start at a higher level for all the help you've provided. But as a trainee, you only get a few hours to get a feel.
Maxine: Glad there's no flames (laughing), but I'm thirsty.... Hey, there's no water coming out of the faucet!
Devil: Could you believe global warming? Even warmer down here. We're rationing.
Maxine: Rationing?
Devil: No. Hell's plumbers are on strike. You talk about a surly bunch of strikers. We have only the worst.
Maxine: When will it be back on?
Devil: Heaven only knows! (laughing) Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Maxine: What should I drink?
Devil: Some have learned to recycle their liquid output.
Maxine: You mean Pee!
Devil: Urine. Pee. Liquid output. You pick the name. For some reason, people never seem to run out here. One of the few benefits, I guess.
Maxine: That's disgusting.
Devil: Some have used water purifiers to make it a bit more palatable.
Maxine: I suppose those stores have been on strike, too.
Devil: You're good! But there are forms you can fill out to order one. Water is scarce and the environmental protection forms here are a bit prohibitive, but you can understand that.
Maxine: What's happened now? The lights have gone out!
Devil: Rolling black outs. Those workers from hell have a way of shutting things down on a whim.
Maxine: I've got a lighter in my purse.
Devil: I wouldn't do that. This is a no fire zone and lighters and matches are prohibited....to protect the children.
Maxine: I don't see any children.
Devil: You don't see anything. It's dark, but you never know when one may show up. But there are more forms...
Maxine: Does this place have windows?
Devil: One. It lets you peek out. Let me lead you to it.
Maxine: It's light outside. It's beautiful. Can I go outside?
Devil: Of course not, that's heaven. That's how the other side lives. We've been trying to figure out how to tax them and improve our conditions here. No luck so far. But you can understand why we watch you folks down on earth. You've been more effective.
Maxine: I want to go back.
Devil: Fine. But next time, keep a water purifier in your purse when you come. Just a word to the wise.
Maxine: Where do you get them?
Devil: I saw that you can get one on Glenn Beck's website. You know, he's got all that crazy survival stuff there.
Maxine: I couldn't support his website.
Devil: Use an alias! Devils get good at disguise!
Welcome to a political tale about a night visit to Rep. Maxine Waters from the Devil of America's Future:
Maxine: Why are you here in my house!?
Devil: You promised to help the "Tea Party" go to hell.
Maxine: What?
Devil: Politicians should know by now--you can talk but you can't hide. It was quite a sound bite: "And as far as I'm concerned, the 'tea party' can go straight to hell"....blah blah blah. And then moved by the resounding applause, "I intend to help them get there!"
Maxine: That's out of context!
Devil: That last line is what got our attention. You've done a great job of creating hell on earth for responsible citizens and businesses. We appreciate your efforts, but when you said you wanted to help them get there, we take training guides seriously. I'm here to train you.
Maxine: I don't want to...
ZAP!
Maxine: Where am I?
Devil: This is hell.
Maxine: This is pretty nice! It's better than my Washington condo.
Devil: Well, you start at a higher level for all the help you've provided. But as a trainee, you only get a few hours to get a feel.
Maxine: Glad there's no flames (laughing), but I'm thirsty.... Hey, there's no water coming out of the faucet!
Devil: Could you believe global warming? Even warmer down here. We're rationing.
Maxine: Rationing?
Devil: No. Hell's plumbers are on strike. You talk about a surly bunch of strikers. We have only the worst.
Maxine: When will it be back on?
Devil: Heaven only knows! (laughing) Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Maxine: What should I drink?
Devil: Some have learned to recycle their liquid output.
Maxine: You mean Pee!
Devil: Urine. Pee. Liquid output. You pick the name. For some reason, people never seem to run out here. One of the few benefits, I guess.
Maxine: That's disgusting.
Devil: Some have used water purifiers to make it a bit more palatable.
Maxine: I suppose those stores have been on strike, too.
Devil: You're good! But there are forms you can fill out to order one. Water is scarce and the environmental protection forms here are a bit prohibitive, but you can understand that.
Maxine: What's happened now? The lights have gone out!
Devil: Rolling black outs. Those workers from hell have a way of shutting things down on a whim.
Maxine: I've got a lighter in my purse.
Devil: I wouldn't do that. This is a no fire zone and lighters and matches are prohibited....to protect the children.
Maxine: I don't see any children.
Devil: You don't see anything. It's dark, but you never know when one may show up. But there are more forms...
Maxine: Does this place have windows?
Devil: One. It lets you peek out. Let me lead you to it.
Maxine: It's light outside. It's beautiful. Can I go outside?
Devil: Of course not, that's heaven. That's how the other side lives. We've been trying to figure out how to tax them and improve our conditions here. No luck so far. But you can understand why we watch you folks down on earth. You've been more effective.
Maxine: I want to go back.
Devil: Fine. But next time, keep a water purifier in your purse when you come. Just a word to the wise.
Maxine: Where do you get them?
Devil: I saw that you can get one on Glenn Beck's website. You know, he's got all that crazy survival stuff there.
Maxine: I couldn't support his website.
Devil: Use an alias! Devils get good at disguise!
The Hypocrisy of Dopes
John Ransom
Thankfully the drama of September is over. On to the drama of October.
That means that the deadline for the Department of Energy to give away more taxpayer money to companies like Solyndra has come and gone. But the story hasn’t ended, yet.
Even as new details were emerging that showed that big donors to the Democrats got paid millions for legal work on the Solyndra deal, the DOE was rushing to cut more checks in front of the September 30th deadline. These checks will go to more bleeding-edge, bleeding-heart companies that will provide even fewer jobs for the working-class that Democrats say they care about.
On the last day of the program, the DOE approved loans totaling nine Solyndras, or $4.7 billion. That means that in six short months another 10,000 people will be losing their jobs, at the cost of $470,000 per job to the American taxpayers, thanks to the DOE loan program.
But, in fairness, that doesn’t take into account the jobs that will be saved by the administration’s actions on the loan program.
After all, somewhere out there, there are a dozen politically connected, left-leaning lawyers who bill by the hour and write checks by the party. At all costs, these jobs must be saved. For Democrats, lawyers, union executives and community organizers are the new blue collar in America.
In the meantime, leftist anarchists are protesting in Manhattan, that bastion of right-wing ideology over foreclosures, joblessness and bailouts, according to reports from Bloomberg.com.
And their cause is threatening the foundations of that other tower of right-wing thought: Los Angeles.
“The Occupy Wall Street movement, which has garnered the support of celebrities such as filmmaker Michael Moore and actress Susan Sarandon, are protesting against home foreclosures, high unemployment and the 2008 bailouts,” writes Bloomberg. “In Los Angeles, more than 100 protesters camped out in front of City Hall overnight Saturday. Occupy Wall Street organizers say they hope to see such protests spread across the country.”
Over the weekend, the protestors captured the Brooklyn Bridge, but had to give it back to police when NATO failed to follow up in support of the protestors with time-limited, scope-limited, kinetic military activity. Also, there was a text making rounds that Starbucks was offering two-for-one chai-tea mocha lattes (no foam) until 3 pm.
"In an hour or two, we'll be somewhere else protesting," said Patrick Bruner, an English major at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, who has been serving as a spokesman for the protesters according toYahoo.
Skidmore tuition runs $42,380 per year.
Ironically, Skidmore also offers a college employment service.
Memo to protestors: These services are useful in finding jobs. You can even access the site with your mobile phone. If that doesn’t work you can go here.
But before they rush out to rejoin the ranks of English majors and the work-a-day majority, perhaps they should take a civics class to learn exactly where these protests should really be taking place.
Because it’s not on Wall Street or at city hall in Los Angeles, or on the Brooklyn Bridge where the failures in the country start.
If Obama really cared about your progressive causes he wouldn’t have used the DOE program for a slush fund; he would have solved illegal immigration when he had a majority; he would have passed a healthcare bill that brought costs down; he would have closed Gitmo; he would have arrested Al Awaki; he would have declared war in Libya.
He would have kept one of the myriad of promises he made. But instead he broke them because keeping them was too inconvenient.
It’s in the White House where the hypocrisy runs the deepest.
And it’s in the White House where they are playing the progressives for a bunch of dopes.
Right on cue, progressives are playing their part.
Even an English major should be able to figure that much out.
Thankfully the drama of September is over. On to the drama of October.
That means that the deadline for the Department of Energy to give away more taxpayer money to companies like Solyndra has come and gone. But the story hasn’t ended, yet.
Even as new details were emerging that showed that big donors to the Democrats got paid millions for legal work on the Solyndra deal, the DOE was rushing to cut more checks in front of the September 30th deadline. These checks will go to more bleeding-edge, bleeding-heart companies that will provide even fewer jobs for the working-class that Democrats say they care about.
On the last day of the program, the DOE approved loans totaling nine Solyndras, or $4.7 billion. That means that in six short months another 10,000 people will be losing their jobs, at the cost of $470,000 per job to the American taxpayers, thanks to the DOE loan program.
But, in fairness, that doesn’t take into account the jobs that will be saved by the administration’s actions on the loan program.
After all, somewhere out there, there are a dozen politically connected, left-leaning lawyers who bill by the hour and write checks by the party. At all costs, these jobs must be saved. For Democrats, lawyers, union executives and community organizers are the new blue collar in America.
In the meantime, leftist anarchists are protesting in Manhattan, that bastion of right-wing ideology
And their cause is threatening the foundations of that other tower of right-wing thought: Los Angeles.
“The Occupy Wall Street movement, which has garnered the support of celebrities such as filmmaker Michael Moore and actress Susan Sarandon, are protesting against home foreclosures, high unemployment and the 2008 bailouts,” writes Bloomberg. “In Los Angeles, more than 100 protesters camped out in front of City Hall overnight Saturday. Occupy Wall Street organizers say they hope to see such protests spread across the country.”
Over the weekend, the protestors captured the Brooklyn Bridge, but had to give it back to police when NATO failed to follow up in support of the protestors with time-limited, scope-limited, kinetic military activity. Also, there was a text making rounds that Starbucks was offering two-for-one chai-tea mocha lattes (no foam) until 3 pm.
"In an hour or two, we'll be somewhere else protesting," said Patrick Bruner, an English major at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, who has been serving as a spokesman for the protesters according toYahoo.
Skidmore tuition runs $42,380 per year.
Ironically, Skidmore also offers a college employment service.
Memo to protestors: These services are useful in finding jobs. You can even access the site with your mobile phone. If that doesn’t work you can go here.
But before they rush out to rejoin the ranks of English majors and the work-a-day majority, perhaps they should take a civics class to learn exactly where these protests should really be taking place.
Because it’s not on Wall Street or at city hall in Los Angeles, or on the Brooklyn Bridge where the failures in the country start.
If Obama really cared about your progressive causes he wouldn’t have used the DOE program for a slush fund; he would have solved illegal immigration when he had a majority; he would have passed a healthcare bill that brought costs down; he would have closed Gitmo; he would have arrested Al Awaki; he would have declared war in Libya.
He would have kept one of the myriad of promises he made. But instead he broke them because keeping them was too inconvenient.
It’s in the White House where the hypocrisy runs the deepest.
And it’s in the White House where they are playing the progressives for a bunch of dopes.
Right on cue, progressives are playing their part.
Even an English major should be able to figure that much out.
Mortgage help for unemployed disappears
Tami Luhby, On Monday October 3, 2011, 5:44 am EDT
The federal government can't even give money away to help the unemployed pay their mortgage.
A $1 billion program to assist the jobless will likely end up spending only half the funds, at most, because so few people met the strict criteria.
The Housing Department, which had to approve the applications for the Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program by Friday, expects that only 10,000 to 15,000 people will qualify. That's only a small sliver of the roughly 100,000 who applied.
"No one could have anticipated how difficult the statutory requirements make it to reach homeowners," said Lemar Wooley, a HUD spokesman.
Those who make the cut are expected to receive between $35,000 and $45,000 in aid, he said.
Many had high hopes for the loan program because it was targeting a segment of delinquent homeowners not being helped by other federal initiatives, such as mortgage modifications.
Passed last year as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, it was modeled after a very successful program in Pennsylvania that has helped tens of thousands of residents since 1983.
The federal effort offered interest-free, forgivable loans to homeowners who lost at least 15% of their income because of the economy or their own medical condition. Applicants had to be at least 90 days delinquent, facing foreclosure and show that they could resume payments if they found a new job.
If they qualified, they could receive up to $50,000 or 24 months of assistance, whichever came first.
The initiative quickly became a quagmire of delays and requirements, however. The rollout was postponed for months, finally launching in late June. HUD originally gave people less than six weeks to apply, but then pushed back the deadline to mid-September.
But it was the income and delinquency guidelines that prevented many seemingly eligible people from getting assistance, housing counselors say. HUD used a complicated formula that took into account monthly payments, income and arrears.
Only 34 of the 174 homeowners who came to Tierra del Sol Housing Corp. in Las Cruces, N.M., met the criteria, said Rose Garcia, the agency's executive director. Some people were turned away because they were already too far behind in their payments or because their income fell because of a family member's illness.
"This program could have made a difference to save people from being homeless," she said. "But it doesn't meet people's needs."
In Philadelphia, Michelle Lewis is waiting to see how many of the 400 applications her Northwest Counseling Service received will be approved. She fears it will be few.
One problem she ran into was that many applicants lost their jobs more than a year ago. Under HUD's rules, the circumstance that caused the delinquency had to have occurred within the past 12 months.
The Pennsylvania loan program, which ended in June because of state budget cuts, allowed for many more hardship conditions so it was able to reach more people than the federal effort, she said.
"The [HUD] guidelines were so restrictive that it knocked out a lot of otherwise eligible and worthy consumers," said Lewis, the agency's chief executive.
View this article on CNNMoney
The federal government can't even give money away to help the unemployed pay their mortgage.
A $1 billion program to assist the jobless will likely end up spending only half the funds, at most, because so few people met the strict criteria.
The Housing Department, which had to approve the applications for the Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program by Friday, expects that only 10,000 to 15,000 people will qualify. That's only a small sliver of the roughly 100,000 who applied.
"No one could have anticipated how difficult the statutory requirements make it to reach homeowners," said Lemar Wooley, a HUD spokesman.
Those who make the cut are expected to receive between $35,000 and $45,000 in aid, he said.
Many had high hopes for the loan program because it was targeting a segment of delinquent homeowners not being helped by other federal initiatives, such as mortgage modifications.
Passed last year as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, it was modeled after a very successful program in Pennsylvania that has helped tens of thousands of residents since 1983.
The federal effort offered interest-free, forgivable loans to homeowners who lost at least 15% of their income because of the economy or their own medical condition. Applicants had to be at least 90 days delinquent, facing foreclosure and show that they could resume payments if they found a new job.
If they qualified, they could receive up to $50,000 or 24 months of assistance, whichever came first.
The initiative quickly became a quagmire of delays and requirements, however. The rollout was postponed for months, finally launching in late June. HUD originally gave people less than six weeks to apply, but then pushed back the deadline to mid-September.
But it was the income and delinquency guidelines that prevented many seemingly eligible people from getting assistance, housing counselors say. HUD used a complicated formula that took into account monthly payments, income and arrears.
Only 34 of the 174 homeowners who came to Tierra del Sol Housing Corp. in Las Cruces, N.M., met the criteria, said Rose Garcia, the agency's executive director. Some people were turned away because they were already too far behind in their payments or because their income fell because of a family member's illness.
"This program could have made a difference to save people from being homeless," she said. "But it doesn't meet people's needs."
In Philadelphia, Michelle Lewis is waiting to see how many of the 400 applications her Northwest Counseling Service received will be approved. She fears it will be few.
One problem she ran into was that many applicants lost their jobs more than a year ago. Under HUD's rules, the circumstance that caused the delinquency had to have occurred within the past 12 months.
The Pennsylvania loan program, which ended in June because of state budget cuts, allowed for many more hardship conditions so it was able to reach more people than the federal effort, she said.
"The [HUD] guidelines were so restrictive that it knocked out a lot of otherwise eligible and worthy consumers," said Lewis, the agency's chief executive.
View this article on CNNMoney
Why The Federal Deficit is So Large
Bruce Bialosky
Federal entitlements, which comprise 60% of the budget, have been correctly identified as the root cause of our growing annual deficit. We certainly need to enact significant reforms of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, in order to achieve some level of fiscal integrity, there is an equally important change that we must all accept – just saying no.
This became apparent when Congress went home for their August break without an agreement on an FAA funding bill – leaving 4,000 federal employees out of work for 13 days. The center of this dispute – and a pristine illustration of how callously Congress regards our money – is the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars for construction and operation of airports so remotely located that they are, in effect, rarely used. Our Congress, far more comfortable with trading favors than budgetary discipline, continues to underwrite these pointless expenses when what we need more than ever is the ghost of Susan Powter to descend over our capital, screaming “Stop the Insanity!”
The preceding is just one example of our irrational spending habits. Here are others:
1. The Postal Service. The USPS was transformed in 1971 as an independent, self-supporting entity – which last year was underwritten to the tune of $8 billion. Congress should have dictated a balanced budget for the service years ago, but individual members demand that underutilized post offices remain open and that money-losing services are maintained. Of course, they have a franking privilege (free mailing), so it doesn’t affect them personally. If this boondoggle weren’t underwritten with OPM (other people’s money), this operation would have been either slashed or in bankruptcy years ago.
2. Defense bases. There is a legitimate debate about the cost of our defense, but unfortunately this contains too little discussion about the need to consolidate our military bases (principally because every time this topic arises, a national war breaks out). There’s no doubt that federal funds expended to support these bases inject a huge amount of money into local economies. In a time of overwhelming deficits, it’s time that Congress put the interests of the nation ahead of those of their individual districts.
Many bases could be reduced in size (or closed). Land could be sold off; excess supplies liquidated, and scrap metal exchanged for valuable dollars. Once again, this generally isn’t done because it’s OPM.
3. Underwriting illegal aliens. America has struggled with its budget for the last 30 years, with only a brief period where we weren’t racking up significant debts. And yet, somehow we’ve decided that we can provide extensive services to people who enter this country in violation of our immigration laws.
Let’s put aside for a moment the immense costs to maintain border patrol and deportation services. Why would a country that doesn’t have enough funds to cover its most basic responsibilities take on the obligation for health care and education for those who came here illegally?
We can sympathize with those people who risk their lives to come here from countries that offer them little or no opportunity. However, it is not our obligation to fund their needs – if it were, then we should also be writing monthly checks to the people of Haiti, Cambodia and Sudan. Despite massive deficits, the Obama Administration has chosen to abandon deportation efforts for illegal immigrants who are not convicted felons.
California, which has not had a balanced budget in ten years despite a legal requirement to do so, recently enacted a law to provide college financial aid to children of illegal immigrants. The bill allows access to taxpayer-funded assistance for students who came to the country before age 16, attended a California high school for at least three years, and graduated (a cartoon character could accomplish that challenge.) Ironically, this law was passed in the same session in which the legislature cut funding to the UC and Cal State systems, resulting in fee increases for American citizens of up to 40%.
4. Emergency costs. No one in their right mind would argue that our governments shouldn’t help Americans affected by a major calamity such as a hurricane, earthquake or tornado. But where does it say that we should underwrite individual losses?
Saving lives, repairing roads and railways, and providing aid to temporarily displaced citizens is a basic aspect of government. Unfortunately, a significant amount of the losses are due to individuals living or building in hazardous areas. If insurance companies won’t insure these people, why should the government step in and cover the cost?
All of these outlays have a common element: parochialism greased by OPM. If elected officials ever thought beyond their own next election and realized that not only is the money not theirs to spend, but it is money we can’t even afford, they might actually reconsider their votes.
There is always another need, but do we have to pay for all of them? Leftists are always screaming about how Republicans want to put grandma out of her house and starve children. What the GOP actually wants is for government to cut back where it is responsible to do so.
If the Super Committee looked at these areas, they could save billions of truly wasted dollars. Our new Congress has recently displayed the ability to do the right thing and cut unnecessary programs. If they did it again, America might once more discover the road to fiscal sanity.
Federal entitlements, which comprise 60% of the budget, have been correctly identified as the root cause of our growing annual deficit. We certainly need to enact significant reforms of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, in order to achieve some level of fiscal integrity, there is an equally important change that we must all accept – just saying no.
This became apparent when Congress went home for their August break without an agreement on an FAA funding bill – leaving 4,000 federal employees out of work for 13 days. The center of this dispute – and a pristine illustration of how callously Congress regards our money – is the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars for construction and operation of airports so remotely located that they are, in effect, rarely used. Our Congress, far more comfortable with trading favors than budgetary discipline, continues to underwrite these pointless expenses when what we need more than ever is the ghost of Susan Powter to descend over our capital, screaming “Stop the Insanity!”
The preceding is just one example of our irrational spending habits. Here are others:
1. The Postal Service. The USPS was transformed in 1971 as an independent, self-supporting entity – which last year was underwritten to the tune of $8 billion. Congress should have dictated a balanced budget for the service years ago, but individual members demand that underutilized post offices remain open and that money-losing services are maintained. Of course, they have a franking privilege (free mailing), so it doesn’t affect them personally. If this boondoggle weren’t underwritten with OPM (other people’s money), this operation would have been either slashed or in bankruptcy years ago.
2. Defense bases. There is a legitimate debate about the cost of our defense, but unfortunately this contains too little discussion about the need to consolidate our military bases (principally because every time this topic arises, a national war breaks out). There’s no doubt that federal funds expended to support these bases inject a huge amount of money into local economies. In a time of overwhelming deficits, it’s time that Congress put the interests of the nation ahead of those of their individual districts.
Many bases could be reduced in size (or closed). Land could be sold off; excess supplies liquidated, and scrap metal exchanged for valuable dollars. Once again, this generally isn’t done because it’s OPM.
3. Underwriting illegal aliens. America has struggled with its budget for the last 30 years, with only a brief period where we weren’t racking up significant debts. And yet, somehow we’ve decided that we can provide extensive services to people who enter this country in violation of our immigration laws.
Let’s put aside for a moment the immense costs to maintain border patrol and deportation services. Why would a country that doesn’t have enough funds to cover its most basic responsibilities take on the obligation for health care and education for those who came here illegally?
We can sympathize with those people who risk their lives to come here from countries that offer them little or no opportunity. However, it is not our obligation to fund their needs – if it were, then we should also be writing monthly checks to the people of Haiti, Cambodia and Sudan. Despite massive deficits, the Obama Administration has chosen to abandon deportation efforts for illegal immigrants who are not convicted felons.
California, which has not had a balanced budget in ten years despite a legal requirement to do so, recently enacted a law to provide college financial aid to children of illegal immigrants. The bill allows access to taxpayer-funded assistance for students who came to the country before age 16, attended a California high school for at least three years, and graduated (a cartoon character could accomplish that challenge.) Ironically, this law was passed in the same session in which the legislature cut funding to the UC and Cal State systems, resulting in fee increases for American citizens of up to 40%.
4. Emergency costs. No one in their right mind would argue that our governments shouldn’t help Americans affected by a major calamity such as a hurricane, earthquake or tornado. But where does it say that we should underwrite individual losses?
Saving lives, repairing roads and railways, and providing aid to temporarily displaced citizens is a basic aspect of government. Unfortunately, a significant amount of the losses are due to individuals living or building in hazardous areas. If insurance companies won’t insure these people, why should the government step in and cover the cost?
All of these outlays have a common element: parochialism greased by OPM. If elected officials ever thought beyond their own next election and realized that not only is the money not theirs to spend, but it is money we can’t even afford, they might actually reconsider their votes.
There is always another need, but do we have to pay for all of them? Leftists are always screaming about how Republicans want to put grandma out of her house and starve children. What the GOP actually wants is for government to cut back where it is responsible to do so.
If the Super Committee looked at these areas, they could save billions of truly wasted dollars. Our new Congress has recently displayed the ability to do the right thing and cut unnecessary programs. If they did it again, America might once more discover the road to fiscal sanity.
"A Coil of Rage" and other Obama quotes
Below are actual quotes from the President's books.
A cold rage. Can this be true?
Audacity of Hope is difficult to read due to his attitude toward citizens and everything American. A phrase he used to describe his attitude toward whites. He harbors a "COIL OF RAGE."
THIS IS THE PRESIDENT
Is anyone out there awake?
From Dreams From My Father:
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I
began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
From Dreams From My Father :
"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and
animosity against my mother's race."
From Dreams From My Father:
"There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of
herself, maybe and white."
From Dreams From My Father:
"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your
loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
From Dreams From My Father:
"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my
own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that
I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself:
the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."
From Audacity of Hope:
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in
an ugly direction."
A cold rage. Can this be true?
Audacity of Hope is difficult to read due to his attitude toward citizens and everything American. A phrase he used to describe his attitude toward whites. He harbors a "COIL OF RAGE."
THIS IS THE PRESIDENT
Is anyone out there awake?
From Dreams From My Father:
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I
began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
From Dreams From My Father :
"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and
animosity against my mother's race."
From Dreams From My Father:
"There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of
herself, maybe and white."
From Dreams From My Father:
"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your
loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
From Dreams From My Father:
"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my
own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that
I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself:
the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."
From Audacity of Hope:
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in
an ugly direction."
‘Obama Fried Chicken’
This Exists: ‘Obama Fried Chicken’ Is China’s Newest Fast Food Craze
by Frances Martel 3:46 pm, October 1st, 2011
The image of President Barack Obama as Colonel Sanders advertising a fried chicken restaurant would immediately be flagged as unacceptably racist, but that seems to be exactly what has popped up in Beijing. The Daily Mail reports that “Obama Fried Chicken,” complete with the President in suspenders and bow tie and the slogan, “We’re so cool, aren’t we?”
It is already bizarre enough (and probably some sort of copyright infringement, but that depends on what copyright laws in communist China are like) that this independent company decided the President of the United States would be their best spokesman, but it appears they aren’t alone in thinking Obama = infinite chicken profits. The actual KFC has used the President in Chinese commercials, too. The Daily Mail tries to make sense of this:
The Obama Fried Chicken could be a response to the U.S. filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization about Chinese tariffs on American chicken exports.
According to the New York Times, the tariffs affect an industry that employs about 300,000 people and range from 50 to 100 per cent, which means some Chinese importers paid as much as twice the price for American chicken.
Maybe the Chinese have something of an Obama-chicken obsession. Earlier this year in Hong Kong, an Obama lookalike was employed to advertize KFC. The restaurant’s sign was first spotted by TheShanghaiist.com and picked up by msnbc.com. [...]
Some people have complained the name plays into old racial stereotypes.
Hmm… wonder why anyone would think this plays into racial stereotypes! Best case scenario, this is a very bizarre phenomenon– the President has popped up on all sorts of kitsch before– but there are certainly some serious red flags (no pun intended) being raised by the fact that the President keeps popping up in China as an effective fried chicken salesman.
by Frances Martel 3:46 pm, October 1st, 2011
The image of President Barack Obama as Colonel Sanders advertising a fried chicken restaurant would immediately be flagged as unacceptably racist, but that seems to be exactly what has popped up in Beijing. The Daily Mail reports that “Obama Fried Chicken,” complete with the President in suspenders and bow tie and the slogan, “We’re so cool, aren’t we?”
It is already bizarre enough (and probably some sort of copyright infringement, but that depends on what copyright laws in communist China are like) that this independent company decided the President of the United States would be their best spokesman, but it appears they aren’t alone in thinking Obama = infinite chicken profits. The actual KFC has used the President in Chinese commercials, too. The Daily Mail tries to make sense of this:
The Obama Fried Chicken could be a response to the U.S. filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization about Chinese tariffs on American chicken exports.
According to the New York Times, the tariffs affect an industry that employs about 300,000 people and range from 50 to 100 per cent, which means some Chinese importers paid as much as twice the price for American chicken.
Maybe the Chinese have something of an Obama-chicken obsession. Earlier this year in Hong Kong, an Obama lookalike was employed to advertize KFC. The restaurant’s sign was first spotted by TheShanghaiist.com and picked up by msnbc.com. [...]
Some people have complained the name plays into old racial stereotypes.
Hmm… wonder why anyone would think this plays into racial stereotypes! Best case scenario, this is a very bizarre phenomenon– the President has popped up on all sorts of kitsch before– but there are certainly some serious red flags (no pun intended) being raised by the fact that the President keeps popping up in China as an effective fried chicken salesman.
Democrats Seek Deportation Relief for Gay Couples
by Audrey Hudson
09/30/2011
The partners and spouses of gays and lesbians should be recognized under the Obama administration’s new immigration policy when deportation decisions are made, say House Democrat leaders.
“The recognition of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) family ties as a positive factor is a critical step forward in identifying key family and community ties to implement common-sense immigration enforcement,” say 67 Democrats led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Jerrold Nadler of New York.
This backdoor approach to coerce the federal government into recognizing gay marriage was originally alluded to by the Homeland Security Department on Aug. 18 when it announced that government officials would be given discretion on what deportation cases they could pursue.
“We applaud the Aug. 18, 2011, announcement that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to close many low-priority immigration deportation proceedings,” the lawmakers said in a letter Tuesday to Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano.
“We especially commend DHS for stating that it will consider the family ties of lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people as a factor in determining cases that merit relief from deportation, including for gay and lesbian foreign nationals who are the spouses and partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents,” the letter said.
However, when DHS released the guidelines, there was no mention of additional considerations offered for the LGBT community.
So the lawmakers want Homeland Security and the Justice Department to direct their employees to rewrite the guidelines and make the additional allowances.
“Without specific guidance, it is unlikely that agency officers, agents and attorneys asking decisions about individual cases will be aware that LGBT family ties are a factor for consideration for exercising discretion in closing or not initiating removal proceedings,” the lawmakers said.
Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), said his organization doesn’t take positions on the gay agenda, but that its effect on the immigration system would be overwhelming.
“We feel the immigration system is already creative and chaotic enough,” Dane said, and the lawmakers' request could “overwhelm the system."
“This allows domestic partners another category that could be abused. Partnership is an easy claim, but almost impossible for the government to prove. How can you verify that someone is in an intimate relationship with the goal of a life-long commitment?” Dane said.
“At the end of the day," said Dane, "it’s an additional burden on an immigration system that is already maxed out,” Dane said.
09/30/2011
The partners and spouses of gays and lesbians should be recognized under the Obama administration’s new immigration policy when deportation decisions are made, say House Democrat leaders.
“The recognition of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) family ties as a positive factor is a critical step forward in identifying key family and community ties to implement common-sense immigration enforcement,” say 67 Democrats led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Jerrold Nadler of New York.
This backdoor approach to coerce the federal government into recognizing gay marriage was originally alluded to by the Homeland Security Department on Aug. 18 when it announced that government officials would be given discretion on what deportation cases they could pursue.
“We applaud the Aug. 18, 2011, announcement that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to close many low-priority immigration deportation proceedings,” the lawmakers said in a letter Tuesday to Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano.
“We especially commend DHS for stating that it will consider the family ties of lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people as a factor in determining cases that merit relief from deportation, including for gay and lesbian foreign nationals who are the spouses and partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents,” the letter said.
However, when DHS released the guidelines, there was no mention of additional considerations offered for the LGBT community.
So the lawmakers want Homeland Security and the Justice Department to direct their employees to rewrite the guidelines and make the additional allowances.
“Without specific guidance, it is unlikely that agency officers, agents and attorneys asking decisions about individual cases will be aware that LGBT family ties are a factor for consideration for exercising discretion in closing or not initiating removal proceedings,” the lawmakers said.
Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), said his organization doesn’t take positions on the gay agenda, but that its effect on the immigration system would be overwhelming.
“We feel the immigration system is already creative and chaotic enough,” Dane said, and the lawmakers' request could “overwhelm the system."
“This allows domestic partners another category that could be abused. Partnership is an easy claim, but almost impossible for the government to prove. How can you verify that someone is in an intimate relationship with the goal of a life-long commitment?” Dane said.
“At the end of the day," said Dane, "it’s an additional burden on an immigration system that is already maxed out,” Dane said.
Department of Justice Cuts, Reassigns 81 Immigration Prosecutors
Published October 02, 2011
Associated Press
WICHITA, Kan. -- As the first and only federal prosecutor in Kansas dedicated solely to handling criminal immigration cases, Barry Disney took a pragmatic approach to filing charges in an interior state that has become a mecca for immigrant labor drawn to its massive meatpacking plants and other food processing industries.
Limited resources were spent on the worst criminals who had been deported and then come back to the United States. Disney's first trial in federal court dealt with two illegal immigrants found speeding through Kansas with an assault rifle wedged in the back seat of a truck and loaded pistols hidden in the vehicle's speaker compartments. Agents had seized $16,000 in drug-tainted currency.
Disney's job as an assistant U.S. attorney in Kansas was created under a supplemental appropriation passed last year in the Southwest Border Security Bill, an initiative targeting criminal immigration cases and Mexican drug cartels. With the end of the federal fiscal year on Friday, the temporary funding for 81 immigration-dedicated federal prosecutors like him has also ended, Justice Department spokeswoman Jessica Smith said in Washington. Disney is one of 13 whose jobs were cut, while 68 others are being reassigned within the Justice Department.
"My frustration was that they added these positions in 2011 because they were needed; the need did not go away," Disney said.
Sixty-eight of the prosecutors will return to their old jobs and will still be able to work on Southwest Border Initiative cases, but not exclusively as they have for the past year, the Justice Department said. Justice officials have confirmed the reductions but have refused to elaborate on them.
"It is not that the U.S. attorney's office is going to ignore those crimes. It is just that they don't have someone whose sole responsibility is to do that," Disney said. "Fewer people are going to have to do more. They are dedicated to doing it. It's just going to be harder for them to do it."
Justice Department data analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University found that criminal immigration cases filed in June accounted for 52 percent of new prosecutions in the nation's federal courts.
"The Obama Administration has been pushing and pushing on immigration, so that they choose to let these people go is kind of curious," said David Burnham, co-director of the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
A TRAC analysis released earlier this year of criminal enforcement comparing the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama found that immigration prosecutions in the districts along the southwest border increased 77 percent between fiscal 2007 and 2010 under Obama. Elsewhere in the nation, criminal immigration prosecutions during that same period were up 31 percent.
Burnham said that the loss of so few prosecutors is such a small percentage of the total that it will likely have little impact on immigration enforcement.
Nationwide, the Justice Department said it has 5,000-plus assistant U.S. attorneys. But that figure includes civil attorneys who handle cases like foreclosures and forfeitures. Criminal prosecutors also must handle all the other violations of federal laws, such as wire fraud, gun and drug cases, health care fraud, along with other white-collar crimes.
For example, the U.S. attorney's office in Kansas said it has 45 assistant U.S. attorney positions, but just 33 of them handle criminal cases spread across the three federal district courts in the state. Court records show that in the four months Disney held the federal prosecutor's job, he filed more than 50 criminal immigration-related cases. He left the U.S. attorney's office in in July to take a job as assistant county prosecutor in Riley County after finding out that the funding for his federal job was not being renewed.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who follows the federal justice system, said while the loss of 81 immigration-dedicated positions may not sound like much in the overall scheme of things, it could be a serious problem in border states and some interior states like Kansas, which are grappling with a large illegal immigration problem.
"In those specific districts experiencing heavy caseloads, especially on the border, I think in terms of judicial resources and DOJ resources it could be significant, and I expect it would put pressure on the remaining people in the office," Tobias said.
Disney said his expectation when he accepted the Justice Department position was that the so-called term positions for specialized immigration prosecutors would be renewed, just as they are renewed each year for other prosecutors who are dedicated solely to handling gun or drug cases. He noted the Justice Department spent $10,000 for a four-month background investigation on him before he was hired. But he acknowledged the Justice Department, which has been under a hiring freeze since January, had a right not to renew the immigration positions.
"The reason why Kansas was awarded this position was because there was a need for it and the need is still there, but the position is not," Disney said. "They will just have to make do."
Associated Press
WICHITA, Kan. -- As the first and only federal prosecutor in Kansas dedicated solely to handling criminal immigration cases, Barry Disney took a pragmatic approach to filing charges in an interior state that has become a mecca for immigrant labor drawn to its massive meatpacking plants and other food processing industries.
Limited resources were spent on the worst criminals who had been deported and then come back to the United States. Disney's first trial in federal court dealt with two illegal immigrants found speeding through Kansas with an assault rifle wedged in the back seat of a truck and loaded pistols hidden in the vehicle's speaker compartments. Agents had seized $16,000 in drug-tainted currency.
Disney's job as an assistant U.S. attorney in Kansas was created under a supplemental appropriation passed last year in the Southwest Border Security Bill, an initiative targeting criminal immigration cases and Mexican drug cartels. With the end of the federal fiscal year on Friday, the temporary funding for 81 immigration-dedicated federal prosecutors like him has also ended, Justice Department spokeswoman Jessica Smith said in Washington. Disney is one of 13 whose jobs were cut, while 68 others are being reassigned within the Justice Department.
"My frustration was that they added these positions in 2011 because they were needed; the need did not go away," Disney said.
Sixty-eight of the prosecutors will return to their old jobs and will still be able to work on Southwest Border Initiative cases, but not exclusively as they have for the past year, the Justice Department said. Justice officials have confirmed the reductions but have refused to elaborate on them.
"It is not that the U.S. attorney's office is going to ignore those crimes. It is just that they don't have someone whose sole responsibility is to do that," Disney said. "Fewer people are going to have to do more. They are dedicated to doing it. It's just going to be harder for them to do it."
Justice Department data analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University found that criminal immigration cases filed in June accounted for 52 percent of new prosecutions in the nation's federal courts.
"The Obama Administration has been pushing and pushing on immigration, so that they choose to let these people go is kind of curious," said David Burnham, co-director of the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
A TRAC analysis released earlier this year of criminal enforcement comparing the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama found that immigration prosecutions in the districts along the southwest border increased 77 percent between fiscal 2007 and 2010 under Obama. Elsewhere in the nation, criminal immigration prosecutions during that same period were up 31 percent.
Burnham said that the loss of so few prosecutors is such a small percentage of the total that it will likely have little impact on immigration enforcement.
Nationwide, the Justice Department said it has 5,000-plus assistant U.S. attorneys. But that figure includes civil attorneys who handle cases like foreclosures and forfeitures. Criminal prosecutors also must handle all the other violations of federal laws, such as wire fraud, gun and drug cases, health care fraud, along with other white-collar crimes.
For example, the U.S. attorney's office in Kansas said it has 45 assistant U.S. attorney positions, but just 33 of them handle criminal cases spread across the three federal district courts in the state. Court records show that in the four months Disney held the federal prosecutor's job, he filed more than 50 criminal immigration-related cases. He left the U.S. attorney's office in in July to take a job as assistant county prosecutor in Riley County after finding out that the funding for his federal job was not being renewed.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who follows the federal justice system, said while the loss of 81 immigration-dedicated positions may not sound like much in the overall scheme of things, it could be a serious problem in border states and some interior states like Kansas, which are grappling with a large illegal immigration problem.
"In those specific districts experiencing heavy caseloads, especially on the border, I think in terms of judicial resources and DOJ resources it could be significant, and I expect it would put pressure on the remaining people in the office," Tobias said.
Disney said his expectation when he accepted the Justice Department position was that the so-called term positions for specialized immigration prosecutors would be renewed, just as they are renewed each year for other prosecutors who are dedicated solely to handling gun or drug cases. He noted the Justice Department spent $10,000 for a four-month background investigation on him before he was hired. But he acknowledged the Justice Department, which has been under a hiring freeze since January, had a right not to renew the immigration positions.
"The reason why Kansas was awarded this position was because there was a need for it and the need is still there, but the position is not," Disney said. "They will just have to make do."
The Radical Left Moves Against America
2 October, 2011
Creating the Excuse
The radicals who are pushing the “Days of Rage” and “Occupy Wall Street” protests are blossoming in other venues. Most of them fit the definition of “useful idiots,” but they’re too ignorant a lot to even recognize that they’re being used. This whole movement is an astro-turf operation being put on by the socialist and communist front in this country. Their leadership has seen the hand-writing on the wall, as the vast bulk of the country is unhappy with the Marxist reflexes of President Obama. What they’re attempting now is to complete the revolution, and with each passing day, the situation grows more dangerous. Whether this is a dry run, or the main event is impossible to determine, but one thing is becoming more abundantly obvious: These protests are not nearly so dangerous as the ideology that now drives and propels the protesters in their rage against capitalism.
In my youth, the so-called Cold War was the focus of the struggle between liberty and statism. When the Cold War ended, the communist elements in this country came out of the woodwork and began to push their notions safely in public. Most people viewed them as impotent kooks, but their basic ideas are attractive to some, fundamentally flawed though they may be. Examined closely, what you discover is that their ideas are a collection of platitudes, but they do not answer any of the fundamental questions confronting humanity, except in one sense: What the pleasantries of their ideology leaves hanging in ambiguity is the method by which they are to achieve their utopia, and the answer is always the same: Brutal, naked force and coercion.
In the first instance, it is common for people confused about philosophy and politics to fall into the trap of believing that all systems rely upon coercion and force. This is only true when considered in the most superficial manner, but upon closer examination, a stark truth is revealed: Freedom and tyranny apply violence or its threat under very different situations. In a system based upon liberty, violence may be used only as a response to some form of aggression. In any form of statism, violence and its perpetual threat become the sole means of maintaining order.
In liberty, it is assumed that all people have certain unalienable rights that are a precondition of their existence. These are generically the rights to life, liberty, property, and volition. In any system of liberty, it is assumed that these are the requisites of a successful life. The only way in which they are yielded is by one’s own choices. To murder or steal are to violate the rights of others, and these are methods by which to yield one’s rights. Living one’s life by one’s efforts and at one’s own expense, while avoiding the violation of the rights of others should bring no negative consequences from society. Such a system can flourish with minimal government provided its people are of a character to abide by these rules. Only the system of capitalism meets the needs of liberty.
In any form of statism, it is supposed that men have no unalienable rights, and that the interests of individuals are always superseded by the state. There is no presumption of even the right to life or property, and both are subject to immediate disposal by the state. In this way, in any such system, people are perpetually subject to the arbitrary whims of the will of the state, an invisible, indefinite monster with no limits of any kind. This sort of system appeals to the immoral because it forces them to be good according to some standard they are willing to accept because it suits them, and it suits them so well only because they suspect initially that they will never be the subject of its demands.
Infamous celebrity and potential tyrant, Roseanne Barr recently stated that a limit on wages of one-hundred million dollars ought to be the standard, and any who wouldn’t yield their wealth beyond that amount ought to be beheaded. Notice that she’s a good deal wealthier than most of us, but she doesn’t imagine ever attaining one-hundred million in wealth, so she’s willing to set the bar somewhere safely out of reach above herself. Unfortunately for her, what she doesn’t realize is that somebody lower than she on this economic ladder will naturally suggest that one million dollars is sufficient, and that she too must be subject to beheading. That person may be beheaded by yet another person who says one-hundred thousand is enough, and so on, until you get all the way down to the person who suggests that any who have anything ought to be subject to this punishment for “excessive wealth.”
Statism is an official, government-compelled race to the bottom, with coercion and violence as its sole methodology. The protesters now rising in demonstration in New York, and in Boston, and elsewhere around the country understand this quite well. Their presence isn’t aimed at any peaceful purpose, but instead to state their threats by sheer volume. They don’t even realize that they are to be used as fodder when things get out of hand. When the real violence begins, those who led them will slip out of the way, and avoid culpability and consequence leaving their dirty work to the mindless mob that believes in the tyranny of the mob. This has been the great object of everything Barack Obama has undertaken as President, and his economic policy is designed to create this environment. In order to become the greater tyrant he intends to become, he is waiting for a signal, and it’s already starting: “Make it stop.”
This is their goal. They wish to push the American people to make that appeal to government. If violence begins in earnest, the calls for the federal government to step in will escalate. This is the excuse for which Obama now waits. Many among us now watch and wonder, believing this cannot go so far as to set aside all we had known in our America. It’s your job to tell them, you who had known better, that the purpose of this spectacle is to steal their rights and all the liberty they had known. It’s time for some frank talk with our friends, family, and neighbors. It’s time to switch off the football game long enough to make this clear to people who haven’t been paying sufficient attention, lest they be drawn in too. It won’t take much to push us over the edge now, and if we are to prevent it, we must prepare them for what is coming, to save their lives along with our own. Yes, it has become as important as that. Yes, it’s time to talk with those around you, and while it may be uncomfortable at first, you may also be surprised at how well they understand. The defense of the Republic should begin belatedly now, and it must begin with you.
The radicals who are pushing the “Days of Rage” and “Occupy Wall Street” protests are blossoming in other venues. Most of them fit the definition of “useful idiots,” but they’re too ignorant a lot to even recognize that they’re being used. This whole movement is an astro-turf operation being put on by the socialist and communist front in this country. Their leadership has seen the hand-writing on the wall, as the vast bulk of the country is unhappy with the Marxist reflexes of President Obama. What they’re attempting now is to complete the revolution, and with each passing day, the situation grows more dangerous. Whether this is a dry run, or the main event is impossible to determine, but one thing is becoming more abundantly obvious: These protests are not nearly so dangerous as the ideology that now drives and propels the protesters in their rage against capitalism.
In my youth, the so-called Cold War was the focus of the struggle between liberty and statism. When the Cold War ended, the communist elements in this country came out of the woodwork and began to push their notions safely in public. Most people viewed them as impotent kooks, but their basic ideas are attractive to some, fundamentally flawed though they may be. Examined closely, what you discover is that their ideas are a collection of platitudes, but they do not answer any of the fundamental questions confronting humanity, except in one sense: What the pleasantries of their ideology leaves hanging in ambiguity is the method by which they are to achieve their utopia, and the answer is always the same: Brutal, naked force and coercion.
In the first instance, it is common for people confused about philosophy and politics to fall into the trap of believing that all systems rely upon coercion and force. This is only true when considered in the most superficial manner, but upon closer examination, a stark truth is revealed: Freedom and tyranny apply violence or its threat under very different situations. In a system based upon liberty, violence may be used only as a response to some form of aggression. In any form of statism, violence and its perpetual threat become the sole means of maintaining order.
In liberty, it is assumed that all people have certain unalienable rights that are a precondition of their existence. These are generically the rights to life, liberty, property, and volition. In any system of liberty, it is assumed that these are the requisites of a successful life. The only way in which they are yielded is by one’s own choices. To murder or steal are to violate the rights of others, and these are methods by which to yield one’s rights. Living one’s life by one’s efforts and at one’s own expense, while avoiding the violation of the rights of others should bring no negative consequences from society. Such a system can flourish with minimal government provided its people are of a character to abide by these rules. Only the system of capitalism meets the needs of liberty.
In any form of statism, it is supposed that men have no unalienable rights, and that the interests of individuals are always superseded by the state. There is no presumption of even the right to life or property, and both are subject to immediate disposal by the state. In this way, in any such system, people are perpetually subject to the arbitrary whims of the will of the state, an invisible, indefinite monster with no limits of any kind. This sort of system appeals to the immoral because it forces them to be good according to some standard they are willing to accept because it suits them, and it suits them so well only because they suspect initially that they will never be the subject of its demands.
Infamous celebrity and potential tyrant, Roseanne Barr recently stated that a limit on wages of one-hundred million dollars ought to be the standard, and any who wouldn’t yield their wealth beyond that amount ought to be beheaded. Notice that she’s a good deal wealthier than most of us, but she doesn’t imagine ever attaining one-hundred million in wealth, so she’s willing to set the bar somewhere safely out of reach above herself. Unfortunately for her, what she doesn’t realize is that somebody lower than she on this economic ladder will naturally suggest that one million dollars is sufficient, and that she too must be subject to beheading. That person may be beheaded by yet another person who says one-hundred thousand is enough, and so on, until you get all the way down to the person who suggests that any who have anything ought to be subject to this punishment for “excessive wealth.”
Statism is an official, government-compelled race to the bottom, with coercion and violence as its sole methodology. The protesters now rising in demonstration in New York, and in Boston, and elsewhere around the country understand this quite well. Their presence isn’t aimed at any peaceful purpose, but instead to state their threats by sheer volume. They don’t even realize that they are to be used as fodder when things get out of hand. When the real violence begins, those who led them will slip out of the way, and avoid culpability and consequence leaving their dirty work to the mindless mob that believes in the tyranny of the mob. This has been the great object of everything Barack Obama has undertaken as President, and his economic policy is designed to create this environment. In order to become the greater tyrant he intends to become, he is waiting for a signal, and it’s already starting: “Make it stop.”
This is their goal. They wish to push the American people to make that appeal to government. If violence begins in earnest, the calls for the federal government to step in will escalate. This is the excuse for which Obama now waits. Many among us now watch and wonder, believing this cannot go so far as to set aside all we had known in our America. It’s your job to tell them, you who had known better, that the purpose of this spectacle is to steal their rights and all the liberty they had known. It’s time for some frank talk with our friends, family, and neighbors. It’s time to switch off the football game long enough to make this clear to people who haven’t been paying sufficient attention, lest they be drawn in too. It won’t take much to push us over the edge now, and if we are to prevent it, we must prepare them for what is coming, to save their lives along with our own. Yes, it has become as important as that. Yes, it’s time to talk with those around you, and while it may be uncomfortable at first, you may also be surprised at how well they understand. The defense of the Republic should begin belatedly now, and it must begin with you.
Leon Panetta Echos Obama's Anti-Israel Disinformation Campaign
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Not every anti-Israel step the Obama administration takes is reflected by policy. For every "start negotiations with the 1949 Armistice lines" there is disinformation, a falsification of history spewed out by the administration. The latest example of this falsification of history was presented tonight by new Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
On his way to meetings with Israeli and Egyptian officials, Panetta warned that Israel is becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle East, and said Israeli leaders must restart negotiations with the Palestinians and work to restore relations with Egypt and Turkey.
In a blunt assessment made as he was traveling to Israel, Panetta said the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East makes it critical for the Israelis to find ways to communicate with other nations in the region in order to have stability.
"There's not much question in my mind that they maintain that (military) edge," Panetta told reporters traveling with him. "But the question you have to ask: Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength."
Panetta followed up by saying Israel risks eroding its own security if it does not reach out to its neighbors.
"It's pretty clear that at this dramatic time in the Middle East, when there have been so many changes, that it is not a good situation for Israel to become increasingly isolated. And that's what's happening," he said.
If Panetta was interested in the truth rather than just spewing more Obama administration anti-Israel rhetoric he would have mentioned that it was the Palestinian Authority who walked away from talks last October, even after Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu offered to indefinitely suspend building in Judea and Samaria Communities.
Or if the new Defense Secretary didn't want to look at facts a year old, maybe he could have mentioned that today Israel accepted the quartet's proposal to resume talks with the Palestinians but the Palestinians refused until Israel made concessions to stop adding to existing communities and agreed to return to the 1949 Armistice lines. In other words, give us everything we want and maybe we will talk. The quartet invitation asked for neither concession.
The Obama administration continues to do whatever it can to demonize Israel, when the truth tells a different story, it is the Palestinian Authority who walked away from talks and it is the Palestinian Authority who continues to reject returning to the table. And why should they. The United Nations may give them most of what they want without negotiating.
Not every anti-Israel step the Obama administration takes is reflected by policy. For every "start negotiations with the 1949 Armistice lines" there is disinformation, a falsification of history spewed out by the administration. The latest example of this falsification of history was presented tonight by new Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
On his way to meetings with Israeli and Egyptian officials, Panetta warned that Israel is becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle East, and said Israeli leaders must restart negotiations with the Palestinians and work to restore relations with Egypt and Turkey.
In a blunt assessment made as he was traveling to Israel, Panetta said the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East makes it critical for the Israelis to find ways to communicate with other nations in the region in order to have stability.
"There's not much question in my mind that they maintain that (military) edge," Panetta told reporters traveling with him. "But the question you have to ask: Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength."
Panetta followed up by saying Israel risks eroding its own security if it does not reach out to its neighbors.
"It's pretty clear that at this dramatic time in the Middle East, when there have been so many changes, that it is not a good situation for Israel to become increasingly isolated. And that's what's happening," he said.
If Panetta was interested in the truth rather than just spewing more Obama administration anti-Israel rhetoric he would have mentioned that it was the Palestinian Authority who walked away from talks last October, even after Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu offered to indefinitely suspend building in Judea and Samaria Communities.
Or if the new Defense Secretary didn't want to look at facts a year old, maybe he could have mentioned that today Israel accepted the quartet's proposal to resume talks with the Palestinians but the Palestinians refused until Israel made concessions to stop adding to existing communities and agreed to return to the 1949 Armistice lines. In other words, give us everything we want and maybe we will talk. The quartet invitation asked for neither concession.
The Obama administration continues to do whatever it can to demonize Israel, when the truth tells a different story, it is the Palestinian Authority who walked away from talks and it is the Palestinian Authority who continues to reject returning to the table. And why should they. The United Nations may give them most of what they want without negotiating.
ATF Death Watch 91: More Gunwalker Revelations; DOJ Considers Eliminating ATF
Posted on October 1, 2011 by Robert Farago
When you’ve got bad news, release it on Friday. The White House followed that dictum yesterday by surrendering carefully selected documents to Congressional investigators exploring the link between Operation Fast and Furious and the Obama Administration. CBS has obtained records that prove that then-ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office (and Fast and Furious coordinator) Bill Newell and then-White House National Security Staffer Kevin O’Reilly were schmoozing about F&F by phone and email. [Click here for the pdf.] The White House said the two men never discussed the fact that ATF guns were walking. Riiiiight. That’s why O’Reilly’s now in Iraq, “on assignment,” where he can’t be contacted . . .
The White House continues to withhold other documents requested by Senator Grassley and Representative Issa’s investigation into the ATF’s Fast and Furious op. Specifically, the investigators want the Newell emails that O’Reilly forwarded to Dan Restrepo (Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs) and Greg Gatjkanis (Director for Terrorist Finance and Counternarcotics, Counterterrorism Policy, National Security Staff, Executive Office of the President).
The White House claims they can’t release the forwarded emails—and a different document related to the case against the drug thug who murdered U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry—because the EOP (Executive Office of the President) has “significant confidentiality interests in its internal communications.”
We’ve reached another milestone in this scandal: the White House is claiming executive privilege; although they’re not actually using the term. Yet. [Click here for the letter to Congress from Kathryn Ruemmler, Counsel to the President.]
No doubt O’Reilly’s emails contain remarks about Newell’s reports. I suspect those comments reveal that Agent Newell was kept out of the loop on the Obama Administration’s real strategy towards Mexico. Put another way, Newell was a patsy.
This conclusion is based on Agent Newell’s gung-ho gormlessness. In one of the released documents, Newell chronicles a case against straw purchasers where he sent three ATF Agents to inspect firearms confiscated by the Mexican government. Didn’t happen. [Scroll about halfway down the aforementioned pdf to "Guns Not Viewed in Mexico."]
We are more than willing to address [Mexico's] repeated requests to hold all those involved with the trafficking in firearms accountable to the fullest extent of the law but they need to be part of the solution and not the problem. My agents desperately want to make this work because we see the damage caused by these illegal acts by “straw” purchasers and others involved in trafficking of firearms to Mexico. We want to hold them accountable under US law but it won’t take any more times of having doors slammed in their faces by the Mexicans before they give up and when that happens Mexico can stop complaining because we tried and they failed.
It has to be said: Newell could well be the most naive human on planet earth. Did the ATF Agent really think the Mexican government really cares about a relative dribble of American guns south via low-rent straw purchasers? Or that the General who frustrated his agents’ planned inspection didn’t have his own, non-procedural reasons for telling the ATF to f-off? Or was Newell trying to play O’Reilly?
I’m going with door number one. A CIA/NSA/ATF/DOJ or DHS employee that couldn’t manipulate Blind Bill Newell to do their bidding wouldn’t have held the job in the first place. If you know what I mean. Anyway, the CBS report casually mentions the existence of another ATF gunwalking operation based in Tuscon.
Also included [in the email from Newell to O'Reilly are] photographs including images of a .50 caliber rifle that Newell tells O’Reilly “was purchased in Tucson, Arizona (part of another OCDTF case).” OCDTF is a joint task force that operates under the Department of Justice and includes the US Attorneys, ATF, DEA, FBI, ICE and IRS. Fast and Furious was an OCDTF case. An administration source would not describe the Tucson OCDTF case.
However, CBS News has learned that ATF’s Phoenix office led an operation out of Tucson called “Wide Receiver.” Sources claim ATF allowed guns to “walk” in that operation, much like Fast and Furious.
So six federal agencies are in the frame, but good. We have Operation Fast and Furious (Phoenix), Operation Castaway (Tampa), Operation Wide Receiver (Tuscon) and Grenadewalker (letting a bomb-maker scoot into Mexico). If I were a suspicious man, I’d say that this forms some kind of pattern. And the number of guns “lost”to the Sinaloas (not to mention grenades) could be well above the official count of 2000. Ish.
It’s no wonder that the Department of Justice (the ATF’s boss) is contemplating the nuclear option. Yup, the DOJ’s thinking about blowing-up the ATF. Not demoting the ATF and sending it back to the IRS from whence it sprang. Deep-sixing the entire Bureau.
townhall.com reports:
Multiple sources, including sources from ATF, DOJ and Congressional offices have said there is a white paper circulating within the Department of Justice, outlining the essential elimination of ATF. According to sources, the paper outlines the firing of at least 450 ATF agents in an effort to conduct damage control as Operation Fast and Furious gets uglier and as election day 2012 gets closer.
ATF agents wouldn’t be reassigned to other positions, just simply let go. Current duties of ATF, including the enforcement of explosives and gun laws, would be transferred to other agencies, possibly the FBI and the DEA. According to a congressional source, there have been rumblings about the elimination of ATF for quite sometime, but the move would require major political capital to actually happen.
In this case “major political capital” would mean the entire Obama administration going down in ATF-related flames. For that to happen, a Congressional investigator or Special Prosecutor would have to find a smoking gun: a document and/or witness directly tying Operation Fast and Furious (and/or worse) to the White House, perhaps even the President.
Given Friday’s revelations, it seems pretty clear that Issa and Grassley either have that document/person or they’re about to have it. Newell’s mea culpa letter to investigators indicates that he’s scared s4itless of going to jail. If Newell flips, or O’Reilly (who can’t like Iraq all that much), the pyre will be lit.
In the face of all this Mexican misegos, all the president’s men would gladly cut a deal to sacrifice the ATF to preserve the Commander-in-Chief. That said, it takes two sides to make a deal. If Republicans smell, see and taste White House blood, they are not going to trade the elimination of a piddling little completely redundant anti-Second Amendment federal agency for the President’s proverbial scalp.
If it comes down to it, it’ll be Watergate all over again.
Dozens of political appointees will resign and/or face criminal charges until, eventually, President Obama gets the word “besieged” attached to his name. He’ll claim executive privilege (like Nixon), the Supreme Court will shoot that down (like Nixon), and the Prez will resign gracefully.
Despite ranks thinned by indictments, the ATF will continue disgracefully. The incoming administration will appoint a “new broom” head to “clean up” the ATF. And so the Bureau will lick its wounds and sulk—and live to skulk again.
There is, however, a genuine possibility that the Obama administration will shutter the ATF proactively, to dodge the Fast and Furious bullet.
Last week, ATF offered 400 agents buy outs to avoid budget cuts and is expecting 250-275 agents to take the offer through Voluntary Early Retirement. These buyouts come at a convenient time for the Justice Department, which can eliminate ATF, then say it’s because of budget cuts, when really, it’s to cover their tracks.
If Obama Boyz pull the plug on the ATF (from my keyboard to God’s ears), the administration will arrange generous severance payments for existing ATF agents—with iron-clad non-disclosure agreements.
The WH will put it to their pursuers: if we close the ATF now, before this excrement hits the rotating air circulation device, will you quit bugging us? And BTW, it’s a matter of national security. And yay us for saving $1.6 billion per year! Are we fiscally responsible or what?
I have a sneaking suspicion that the “the ATF must die white paper” (a.k.a., trial balloon) is the start of Brad Kozak’s prediction of a forthcoming “night of the long knives.” The other federal agencies implicated—or soon to be implicated—in Gunwalker et al. want to sacrifice the ATF to save their own skins.
The FBI is deep into this gun running thing; they protect their rep with religious fervor. The CIA doesn’t want another foreign policy f-up laid at their doorstep. Hillary’s State Department had more than a little operational familiarity with Fast and Furious. As did the DHS, DOJ, CPB, IRS, ICE, NSA, CIA, U.S. Attorney’s Office and, of course, the White House.
Now that the knives are out, the truth may out as well, as ALL of these agencies are bound to compete with each other in the finger-pointing department. All it takes is one loudmouth punk to bring down the whole house of cards.
Would the ATF’s elimination end the investigation into Gunwalker? Not at all. But the fact that the idea has even seen the light of day, indicates that the real blood-letting is about to begin.
Many members of our Armed Intelligentsia don’t believe that spiking the ATF would be a victory for gun rights. Their anti-gun goonery would simply shift to the FBI, DHS, or some other bureaucratic arm of the federal government. Better the devil you know. That sort of thing.
Not true. The ATF is deeply, culturally antithetical to the Second Amendment. They have learned nothing whatsoever from the murderous rampages at Ruby Ridge and Waco. The ATF has a long, sordid history of bureaucratic and personal corruption (i.e. making a big bust so a large number of agents can travel to a retirement party on Uncle Sam’s dime). They are jack-booted thugs.
Killing the ATF would remove the biggest thorn in the side of the American firearms industry and American gun owners. The regulations that govern lawful gun manufacture and ownership would not go away. But the ATF zealots who use those laws as a bludgeon, who seek new draconian regulations to enhance their personal and communal power, would scatter.
If you detest the idea of an endless federal jihad against individual gun rights, then ditching the ATF would be the best news since the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions.
Don’t forget it’s our government. We have the right—I would say obligation—to lop off those bits that don’t uphold their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
When you’ve got bad news, release it on Friday. The White House followed that dictum yesterday by surrendering carefully selected documents to Congressional investigators exploring the link between Operation Fast and Furious and the Obama Administration. CBS has obtained records that prove that then-ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office (and Fast and Furious coordinator) Bill Newell and then-White House National Security Staffer Kevin O’Reilly were schmoozing about F&F by phone and email. [Click here for the pdf.] The White House said the two men never discussed the fact that ATF guns were walking. Riiiiight. That’s why O’Reilly’s now in Iraq, “on assignment,” where he can’t be contacted . . .
The White House continues to withhold other documents requested by Senator Grassley and Representative Issa’s investigation into the ATF’s Fast and Furious op. Specifically, the investigators want the Newell emails that O’Reilly forwarded to Dan Restrepo (Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs) and Greg Gatjkanis (Director for Terrorist Finance and Counternarcotics, Counterterrorism Policy, National Security Staff, Executive Office of the President).
The White House claims they can’t release the forwarded emails—and a different document related to the case against the drug thug who murdered U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry—because the EOP (Executive Office of the President) has “significant confidentiality interests in its internal communications.”
We’ve reached another milestone in this scandal: the White House is claiming executive privilege; although they’re not actually using the term. Yet. [Click here for the letter to Congress from Kathryn Ruemmler, Counsel to the President.]
No doubt O’Reilly’s emails contain remarks about Newell’s reports. I suspect those comments reveal that Agent Newell was kept out of the loop on the Obama Administration’s real strategy towards Mexico. Put another way, Newell was a patsy.
This conclusion is based on Agent Newell’s gung-ho gormlessness. In one of the released documents, Newell chronicles a case against straw purchasers where he sent three ATF Agents to inspect firearms confiscated by the Mexican government. Didn’t happen. [Scroll about halfway down the aforementioned pdf to "Guns Not Viewed in Mexico."]
We are more than willing to address [Mexico's] repeated requests to hold all those involved with the trafficking in firearms accountable to the fullest extent of the law but they need to be part of the solution and not the problem. My agents desperately want to make this work because we see the damage caused by these illegal acts by “straw” purchasers and others involved in trafficking of firearms to Mexico. We want to hold them accountable under US law but it won’t take any more times of having doors slammed in their faces by the Mexicans before they give up and when that happens Mexico can stop complaining because we tried and they failed.
It has to be said: Newell could well be the most naive human on planet earth. Did the ATF Agent really think the Mexican government really cares about a relative dribble of American guns south via low-rent straw purchasers? Or that the General who frustrated his agents’ planned inspection didn’t have his own, non-procedural reasons for telling the ATF to f-off? Or was Newell trying to play O’Reilly?
I’m going with door number one. A CIA/NSA/ATF/DOJ or DHS employee that couldn’t manipulate Blind Bill Newell to do their bidding wouldn’t have held the job in the first place. If you know what I mean. Anyway, the CBS report casually mentions the existence of another ATF gunwalking operation based in Tuscon.
Also included [in the email from Newell to O'Reilly are] photographs including images of a .50 caliber rifle that Newell tells O’Reilly “was purchased in Tucson, Arizona (part of another OCDTF case).” OCDTF is a joint task force that operates under the Department of Justice and includes the US Attorneys, ATF, DEA, FBI, ICE and IRS. Fast and Furious was an OCDTF case. An administration source would not describe the Tucson OCDTF case.
However, CBS News has learned that ATF’s Phoenix office led an operation out of Tucson called “Wide Receiver.” Sources claim ATF allowed guns to “walk” in that operation, much like Fast and Furious.
So six federal agencies are in the frame, but good. We have Operation Fast and Furious (Phoenix), Operation Castaway (Tampa), Operation Wide Receiver (Tuscon) and Grenadewalker (letting a bomb-maker scoot into Mexico). If I were a suspicious man, I’d say that this forms some kind of pattern. And the number of guns “lost”to the Sinaloas (not to mention grenades) could be well above the official count of 2000. Ish.
It’s no wonder that the Department of Justice (the ATF’s boss) is contemplating the nuclear option. Yup, the DOJ’s thinking about blowing-up the ATF. Not demoting the ATF and sending it back to the IRS from whence it sprang. Deep-sixing the entire Bureau.
townhall.com reports:
Multiple sources, including sources from ATF, DOJ and Congressional offices have said there is a white paper circulating within the Department of Justice, outlining the essential elimination of ATF. According to sources, the paper outlines the firing of at least 450 ATF agents in an effort to conduct damage control as Operation Fast and Furious gets uglier and as election day 2012 gets closer.
ATF agents wouldn’t be reassigned to other positions, just simply let go. Current duties of ATF, including the enforcement of explosives and gun laws, would be transferred to other agencies, possibly the FBI and the DEA. According to a congressional source, there have been rumblings about the elimination of ATF for quite sometime, but the move would require major political capital to actually happen.
In this case “major political capital” would mean the entire Obama administration going down in ATF-related flames. For that to happen, a Congressional investigator or Special Prosecutor would have to find a smoking gun: a document and/or witness directly tying Operation Fast and Furious (and/or worse) to the White House, perhaps even the President.
Given Friday’s revelations, it seems pretty clear that Issa and Grassley either have that document/person or they’re about to have it. Newell’s mea culpa letter to investigators indicates that he’s scared s4itless of going to jail. If Newell flips, or O’Reilly (who can’t like Iraq all that much), the pyre will be lit.
In the face of all this Mexican misegos, all the president’s men would gladly cut a deal to sacrifice the ATF to preserve the Commander-in-Chief. That said, it takes two sides to make a deal. If Republicans smell, see and taste White House blood, they are not going to trade the elimination of a piddling little completely redundant anti-Second Amendment federal agency for the President’s proverbial scalp.
If it comes down to it, it’ll be Watergate all over again.
Dozens of political appointees will resign and/or face criminal charges until, eventually, President Obama gets the word “besieged” attached to his name. He’ll claim executive privilege (like Nixon), the Supreme Court will shoot that down (like Nixon), and the Prez will resign gracefully.
Despite ranks thinned by indictments, the ATF will continue disgracefully. The incoming administration will appoint a “new broom” head to “clean up” the ATF. And so the Bureau will lick its wounds and sulk—and live to skulk again.
There is, however, a genuine possibility that the Obama administration will shutter the ATF proactively, to dodge the Fast and Furious bullet.
Last week, ATF offered 400 agents buy outs to avoid budget cuts and is expecting 250-275 agents to take the offer through Voluntary Early Retirement. These buyouts come at a convenient time for the Justice Department, which can eliminate ATF, then say it’s because of budget cuts, when really, it’s to cover their tracks.
If Obama Boyz pull the plug on the ATF (from my keyboard to God’s ears), the administration will arrange generous severance payments for existing ATF agents—with iron-clad non-disclosure agreements.
The WH will put it to their pursuers: if we close the ATF now, before this excrement hits the rotating air circulation device, will you quit bugging us? And BTW, it’s a matter of national security. And yay us for saving $1.6 billion per year! Are we fiscally responsible or what?
I have a sneaking suspicion that the “the ATF must die white paper” (a.k.a., trial balloon) is the start of Brad Kozak’s prediction of a forthcoming “night of the long knives.” The other federal agencies implicated—or soon to be implicated—in Gunwalker et al. want to sacrifice the ATF to save their own skins.
The FBI is deep into this gun running thing; they protect their rep with religious fervor. The CIA doesn’t want another foreign policy f-up laid at their doorstep. Hillary’s State Department had more than a little operational familiarity with Fast and Furious. As did the DHS, DOJ, CPB, IRS, ICE, NSA, CIA, U.S. Attorney’s Office and, of course, the White House.
Now that the knives are out, the truth may out as well, as ALL of these agencies are bound to compete with each other in the finger-pointing department. All it takes is one loudmouth punk to bring down the whole house of cards.
Would the ATF’s elimination end the investigation into Gunwalker? Not at all. But the fact that the idea has even seen the light of day, indicates that the real blood-letting is about to begin.
Many members of our Armed Intelligentsia don’t believe that spiking the ATF would be a victory for gun rights. Their anti-gun goonery would simply shift to the FBI, DHS, or some other bureaucratic arm of the federal government. Better the devil you know. That sort of thing.
Not true. The ATF is deeply, culturally antithetical to the Second Amendment. They have learned nothing whatsoever from the murderous rampages at Ruby Ridge and Waco. The ATF has a long, sordid history of bureaucratic and personal corruption (i.e. making a big bust so a large number of agents can travel to a retirement party on Uncle Sam’s dime). They are jack-booted thugs.
Killing the ATF would remove the biggest thorn in the side of the American firearms industry and American gun owners. The regulations that govern lawful gun manufacture and ownership would not go away. But the ATF zealots who use those laws as a bludgeon, who seek new draconian regulations to enhance their personal and communal power, would scatter.
If you detest the idea of an endless federal jihad against individual gun rights, then ditching the ATF would be the best news since the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions.
Don’t forget it’s our government. We have the right—I would say obligation—to lop off those bits that don’t uphold their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Van Jones License to practice Law...suspended...twice!
Attorney Search
Anthony Kapel Jones - #200360
Current Status: Not eligible to practice law (Not Entitled)
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/200360
Anthony Kapel Jones - #200360
Current Status: Not eligible to practice law (Not Entitled)
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/200360
California prevents ban on male circumcision
By Mary Slosson - Reuters
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California Governor Jerry Brown announced on Sunday that he signed a bill preventing local authorities from banning the practice of male circumcision.
The bill, which takes effect immediately, comes in the wake of an effort by a San Francisco group opposed to male circumcision to enforce a city-wide ban of the practice in a November ballot measure.
That effort was struck down in late July by a California judge who said it would infringe on religious freedom. The measure was removed from the November ballot.
The measure, which garnered 12,000 signatures of support, would have made it a misdemeanor crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years old in San Francisco, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs.
A dozen petitioners sued to block the initiative at the time. A similar effort in Santa Monica, west of Los Angeles, was withdrawn.
Circumcision is a ritual obligation for infant Jewish boys and also a common rite among Muslims, who account for the largest share of circumcised men worldwide.
The move to outlaw circumcision in San Francisco raised alarm bells for Jewish groups.
In June, the Anti-Defamation League condemned a comic book created by supporters of the anti-circumcision movement that it said contained grotesque anti-Semitic imagery. The comic featured a character named "Monster Mohel" as an evil villain.
A mohel is a Jewish individual specifically trained to perform the ritual circumcision of infant boys.
Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst@yahoonews
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California Governor Jerry Brown announced on Sunday that he signed a bill preventing local authorities from banning the practice of male circumcision.
The bill, which takes effect immediately, comes in the wake of an effort by a San Francisco group opposed to male circumcision to enforce a city-wide ban of the practice in a November ballot measure.
That effort was struck down in late July by a California judge who said it would infringe on religious freedom. The measure was removed from the November ballot.
The measure, which garnered 12,000 signatures of support, would have made it a misdemeanor crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years old in San Francisco, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs.
A dozen petitioners sued to block the initiative at the time. A similar effort in Santa Monica, west of Los Angeles, was withdrawn.
Circumcision is a ritual obligation for infant Jewish boys and also a common rite among Muslims, who account for the largest share of circumcised men worldwide.
The move to outlaw circumcision in San Francisco raised alarm bells for Jewish groups.
In June, the Anti-Defamation League condemned a comic book created by supporters of the anti-circumcision movement that it said contained grotesque anti-Semitic imagery. The comic featured a character named "Monster Mohel" as an evil villain.
A mohel is a Jewish individual specifically trained to perform the ritual circumcision of infant boys.
Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst@yahoonews
Inside Obama's Populist Makeover
The president’s friends (and foes) on what prompted his lurch to the left—and whether it will work.
by Howard Kurtz October 2, 2011 10:00 AM EDT
The populist reincarnation of President Obama (/articles/2011/09/18/ron-suskind-s-confidence-men-shows-a-scared-president-obama.html) since Labor Day—with his stinging attacks on tax-coddled millionaires (/articles/2011/09/20/obama-s-deficit-reduction-tax-math-more-complicated-than-he-s-implied.html) , corporate-jet owners, and oil companies—emerged from a moment of reflection during a summer of discontent.
For months after the Democrats’ “shellacking” last November, Obama resisted bashing corporate America and the GOP as he had done so effectively as the “hope and change” orator in 2008 and as a young president who pushed through Congress an $800 billion stimulus, a universal-health-care law, and sweeping Wall Street reform.
But by the end of June, with the nation teetering near the brink of default and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (/articles/2011/06/23/eric-cantor-departure-from-biden-budget-sessions-prompted-by-obama-boehner-talks.html) walking away from negotiations over a debt deal, the president summoned his top aides for a frank assessment of how to get back on track.
Senior adviser David Plouffe told Obama it was time to “draw some lines in the sand” by launching an aggressive assault on tax breaks for corporate high fliers and hedge-fund managers.
The president was energized, saying such loopholes were “indefensible” while spending was being slashed and that “this is a public argument we can and should win.” He tested the message with reporters soon afterward.
President Obama holds his American Jobs Act as he speaks in Denver on September 27, 2011., Mandel Ngan / AFP-Getty Images
Thus began a full-throated return to Obama’s populism, which had been muffled by frustrating attempts at bipartisanship and a stop-and-start effort with Republicans and the business community that one adviser says had become a “road wreck.”
At a meeting with his staff to draw up a new jobs bill, Obama warned against playing small ball. “I do not want the first filter to be whether it can get the support of House Republicans,” he told his staff.
Obama’s revised strategy came into full focus in a fiery speech last month in which he laid out a $450 billion plan clearly aimed at generating middle-class jobs while targeting millionaires and big business for tax hikes.
That strategy may do little to break the political paralysis gripping Washington or solve the riddle of joblessness, but it has returned the president to a message and style that fits more comfortably than his long, and often awkward, courtship of corporate America and its Republican allies in Congress.
At first Obama interpreted the midterm election losses as a call from voters to engage the business world and compromise with Republicans. The election results made clear that voters—especially independents—were angry with Obama for failing to deliver the jobs he had promised. The administration responded by looking for new ways to stimulate demand and ease regulatory burdens that business executives claim are keeping them from reinvesting stockpiles of cash and hiring more workers.
Also in Newsweek
Obama met privately with CEOs at Blair House—across the street from the White House—in December 2010. He was told bluntly but politely that big business wanted fewer regulations, new tax incentives, and the resurrection of long-delayed trade agreements.
Obama soon trekked across the street again to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to make amends with a pro-business lobby that had been the object of many Democratic attacks. “Maybe we would have gotten off on a better foot if I had brought over a fruitcake when we first moved in,” Obama quipped.
By February, the president was reaching out to Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurs in a private dinner that reaffirmed the disconnect between Obama’s approach and what business titans believed was necessary for a lasting recovery.
At a white-clothed table in the California dining room of venture capitalist John Doerr, Obama dined with a dozen gurus from Silicon Valley’s hottest companies. Flanked by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg on his right and Apple’s Steve Jobs on his left, Obama was among friendly faces—Oracle’s Larry Ellison across from him, along with the chieftains of Google, Yahoo, Netflix, and Cisco—eager to offer advice on solving the maddening riddle of joblessness and economic decline.
The guests urged Obama to offer major companies that have kept overseas profits offshore a one-time tax holiday to repatriate their earnings and pay a rate well below the normal 35 percent corporate tax. The payoff, the executives argued, would come in reinvestment in capital projects, R&D, and new hiring, as well as new distributions to stockholders and investors—essentially a stimulus of private money that also would fill the U.S. Treasury with elusive tax dollars. (The firms represented in the room held more than $100 billion offshore, with Apple alone sitting on $47.6 billion.)
The president politely listened, then edged toward an objection.
“He starts to say, ‘Here are a few of the concerns I’ve heard. It didn’t create many jobs last time,’?” says one person familiar with the event, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the event was closed to the press. (Congress and the Bush administration tried a similar tax incentive in 2005.) “It wasn’t a hard sell and it wasn’t a pushback. It was a gentle discussion of each side’s talking points.”
The tone was far different from Obama’s more bombastic approach toward business in 2009. “The one time I saw him visibly angry, it was over the bank bonuses during all the bailouts,” says former White House economist Jared Bernstein. “It really rankled him.”
Bringing on former JPMorgan Chase executive Bill Daley as chief of staff last January didn’t hurt his relations with business. But one challenge remained: Obama’s Chicago confidant Valerie Jarrett had been acting as a liaison to the business community from the beginning—with few positive results. “She tells us whatever she thinks you want to hear and then there is no follow-up,” claims one business executive with frequent contact with Jarrett. “There is lots of happy talk ... but then nothing comes of it.”
AOL founder Steve Case counters that Jarrett has been “very responsive” to executives, often emailing back within minutes, but concedes progress has been slow. “The first two years the business community felt the White House team didn’t really engage in business and not enough people on the team had the kind of experience we really needed. We thought they were tone deaf,” he says.
Even some of Obama’s staunchest supporters acknowledge a perceived gap between promise and performance. They see a president who underestimated the challenge of the economic recovery and whose background as a law professor lacking real-life business experience left him unprepared to improvise on policy in a productive way.
It fell to top environmental adviser Carol Browner, for instance, to tell the president-elect early on why he couldn’t spend much more than $3 billion building a high-tech electrical grid. Browner knew all the obstacles, that local laws would have to be circumvented and permits obtained. You can’t just build power wires where you want, she explained to a frustrated Obama.
Andy Stern, who as the longtime head of the powerful SEIU union in 2008 relentlessly fought for Obama’s candidacy, sees a president who until recently tried to solve economic problems with abstract ideas rather than pragmatic solutions.
“The administration has suffered from the large macroeconomic theories of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner that look more at formula and financing than day-to-day job creation,” says Stern, an advocate of the repatriation holiday. “They thought they had done what they needed to do, and they were wrong.”
Democrats in Congress add to the indictment, charging that the president failed to sell his successes more aggressively, letting the opposition define them. “I think you need to talk about how poorly they do on message,” says House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of the president and his advisers. “They can’t see around corners; they anticipate nothing.”
In response to such criticism, former White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee says the president is contending with adversaries who are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure his failure. “Some of his opponents didn’t seem to care whether what they were advocating seemed to do grievous harm to the economy if they could get some political win out of it,” Goolsbee says.
Other defenders note that Obama inherited a financial disaster after the Wall Street meltdown. “A lot of things were done right, and we avoided an economic calamity,” says Peter Orszag, Obama’s former budget director. “One of the mistakes was to put much too little weight on the hard slog that typically follows financial slumps.”
But officials concede the administration’s frequent mantra—things could’ve been worse—isn’t exactly bumper-sticker material. “When people see really dark clouds, no matter how good a line in a speech is, you’re not going to convince them the sky is blue,” Plouffe says.
Press Secretary Jay Carney also downplays the importance of spin, saying that the president wields “the biggest megaphone there is in politics, but it doesn’t have the reach it once had” in a media world flooded with information and quickly consumed by the next crisis.
White House officials insist Obama’s agenda hasn’t changed. But he is done playing nice with the Republicans as he rallies the troops for 2012. Plouffe contends the corporate community backs Obama on some issues, and “there are a lot of business leaders who are Republicans who don’t identify with this brand of Tea Party Republicanism.”
Campaign adviser David Axelrod says Republicans have done “diabolically well” at creating “a dysfunctional political system” and blaming it on Obama. Still, the return to a harder line against big business and the wealthy could have repercussions as Democrats try to raise the money they need to win next year.
Washington sports-team owner Ted Leonsis, an Obama donor in 2008, says he now cringes at the latest “class warfare” language: “Someone needs to talk our president down off of this rhetoric about good vs. evil,” he says.
The larger question is whether the fired-up president can persuade a country that is losing patience with him and ease the only number that may matter on Election Day: 14 million unemployed.
With reporting by Daniel Stone, John Solomon, Eleanor Clift, and Lois Romano.
©2011 The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC
by Howard Kurtz October 2, 2011 10:00 AM EDT
The populist reincarnation of President Obama (/articles/2011/09/18/ron-suskind-s-confidence-men-shows-a-scared-president-obama.html) since Labor Day—with his stinging attacks on tax-coddled millionaires (/articles/2011/09/20/obama-s-deficit-reduction-tax-math-more-complicated-than-he-s-implied.html) , corporate-jet owners, and oil companies—emerged from a moment of reflection during a summer of discontent.
For months after the Democrats’ “shellacking” last November, Obama resisted bashing corporate America and the GOP as he had done so effectively as the “hope and change” orator in 2008 and as a young president who pushed through Congress an $800 billion stimulus, a universal-health-care law, and sweeping Wall Street reform.
But by the end of June, with the nation teetering near the brink of default and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (/articles/2011/06/23/eric-cantor-departure-from-biden-budget-sessions-prompted-by-obama-boehner-talks.html) walking away from negotiations over a debt deal, the president summoned his top aides for a frank assessment of how to get back on track.
Senior adviser David Plouffe told Obama it was time to “draw some lines in the sand” by launching an aggressive assault on tax breaks for corporate high fliers and hedge-fund managers.
The president was energized, saying such loopholes were “indefensible” while spending was being slashed and that “this is a public argument we can and should win.” He tested the message with reporters soon afterward.
President Obama holds his American Jobs Act as he speaks in Denver on September 27, 2011., Mandel Ngan / AFP-Getty Images
Thus began a full-throated return to Obama’s populism, which had been muffled by frustrating attempts at bipartisanship and a stop-and-start effort with Republicans and the business community that one adviser says had become a “road wreck.”
At a meeting with his staff to draw up a new jobs bill, Obama warned against playing small ball. “I do not want the first filter to be whether it can get the support of House Republicans,” he told his staff.
Obama’s revised strategy came into full focus in a fiery speech last month in which he laid out a $450 billion plan clearly aimed at generating middle-class jobs while targeting millionaires and big business for tax hikes.
That strategy may do little to break the political paralysis gripping Washington or solve the riddle of joblessness, but it has returned the president to a message and style that fits more comfortably than his long, and often awkward, courtship of corporate America and its Republican allies in Congress.
At first Obama interpreted the midterm election losses as a call from voters to engage the business world and compromise with Republicans. The election results made clear that voters—especially independents—were angry with Obama for failing to deliver the jobs he had promised. The administration responded by looking for new ways to stimulate demand and ease regulatory burdens that business executives claim are keeping them from reinvesting stockpiles of cash and hiring more workers.
Also in Newsweek
Obama met privately with CEOs at Blair House—across the street from the White House—in December 2010. He was told bluntly but politely that big business wanted fewer regulations, new tax incentives, and the resurrection of long-delayed trade agreements.
Obama soon trekked across the street again to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to make amends with a pro-business lobby that had been the object of many Democratic attacks. “Maybe we would have gotten off on a better foot if I had brought over a fruitcake when we first moved in,” Obama quipped.
By February, the president was reaching out to Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurs in a private dinner that reaffirmed the disconnect between Obama’s approach and what business titans believed was necessary for a lasting recovery.
At a white-clothed table in the California dining room of venture capitalist John Doerr, Obama dined with a dozen gurus from Silicon Valley’s hottest companies. Flanked by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg on his right and Apple’s Steve Jobs on his left, Obama was among friendly faces—Oracle’s Larry Ellison across from him, along with the chieftains of Google, Yahoo, Netflix, and Cisco—eager to offer advice on solving the maddening riddle of joblessness and economic decline.
The guests urged Obama to offer major companies that have kept overseas profits offshore a one-time tax holiday to repatriate their earnings and pay a rate well below the normal 35 percent corporate tax. The payoff, the executives argued, would come in reinvestment in capital projects, R&D, and new hiring, as well as new distributions to stockholders and investors—essentially a stimulus of private money that also would fill the U.S. Treasury with elusive tax dollars. (The firms represented in the room held more than $100 billion offshore, with Apple alone sitting on $47.6 billion.)
The president politely listened, then edged toward an objection.
“He starts to say, ‘Here are a few of the concerns I’ve heard. It didn’t create many jobs last time,’?” says one person familiar with the event, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the event was closed to the press. (Congress and the Bush administration tried a similar tax incentive in 2005.) “It wasn’t a hard sell and it wasn’t a pushback. It was a gentle discussion of each side’s talking points.”
The tone was far different from Obama’s more bombastic approach toward business in 2009. “The one time I saw him visibly angry, it was over the bank bonuses during all the bailouts,” says former White House economist Jared Bernstein. “It really rankled him.”
Bringing on former JPMorgan Chase executive Bill Daley as chief of staff last January didn’t hurt his relations with business. But one challenge remained: Obama’s Chicago confidant Valerie Jarrett had been acting as a liaison to the business community from the beginning—with few positive results. “She tells us whatever she thinks you want to hear and then there is no follow-up,” claims one business executive with frequent contact with Jarrett. “There is lots of happy talk ... but then nothing comes of it.”
AOL founder Steve Case counters that Jarrett has been “very responsive” to executives, often emailing back within minutes, but concedes progress has been slow. “The first two years the business community felt the White House team didn’t really engage in business and not enough people on the team had the kind of experience we really needed. We thought they were tone deaf,” he says.
Even some of Obama’s staunchest supporters acknowledge a perceived gap between promise and performance. They see a president who underestimated the challenge of the economic recovery and whose background as a law professor lacking real-life business experience left him unprepared to improvise on policy in a productive way.
It fell to top environmental adviser Carol Browner, for instance, to tell the president-elect early on why he couldn’t spend much more than $3 billion building a high-tech electrical grid. Browner knew all the obstacles, that local laws would have to be circumvented and permits obtained. You can’t just build power wires where you want, she explained to a frustrated Obama.
Andy Stern, who as the longtime head of the powerful SEIU union in 2008 relentlessly fought for Obama’s candidacy, sees a president who until recently tried to solve economic problems with abstract ideas rather than pragmatic solutions.
“The administration has suffered from the large macroeconomic theories of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner that look more at formula and financing than day-to-day job creation,” says Stern, an advocate of the repatriation holiday. “They thought they had done what they needed to do, and they were wrong.”
Democrats in Congress add to the indictment, charging that the president failed to sell his successes more aggressively, letting the opposition define them. “I think you need to talk about how poorly they do on message,” says House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of the president and his advisers. “They can’t see around corners; they anticipate nothing.”
In response to such criticism, former White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee says the president is contending with adversaries who are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure his failure. “Some of his opponents didn’t seem to care whether what they were advocating seemed to do grievous harm to the economy if they could get some political win out of it,” Goolsbee says.
Other defenders note that Obama inherited a financial disaster after the Wall Street meltdown. “A lot of things were done right, and we avoided an economic calamity,” says Peter Orszag, Obama’s former budget director. “One of the mistakes was to put much too little weight on the hard slog that typically follows financial slumps.”
But officials concede the administration’s frequent mantra—things could’ve been worse—isn’t exactly bumper-sticker material. “When people see really dark clouds, no matter how good a line in a speech is, you’re not going to convince them the sky is blue,” Plouffe says.
Press Secretary Jay Carney also downplays the importance of spin, saying that the president wields “the biggest megaphone there is in politics, but it doesn’t have the reach it once had” in a media world flooded with information and quickly consumed by the next crisis.
White House officials insist Obama’s agenda hasn’t changed. But he is done playing nice with the Republicans as he rallies the troops for 2012. Plouffe contends the corporate community backs Obama on some issues, and “there are a lot of business leaders who are Republicans who don’t identify with this brand of Tea Party Republicanism.”
Campaign adviser David Axelrod says Republicans have done “diabolically well” at creating “a dysfunctional political system” and blaming it on Obama. Still, the return to a harder line against big business and the wealthy could have repercussions as Democrats try to raise the money they need to win next year.
Washington sports-team owner Ted Leonsis, an Obama donor in 2008, says he now cringes at the latest “class warfare” language: “Someone needs to talk our president down off of this rhetoric about good vs. evil,” he says.
The larger question is whether the fired-up president can persuade a country that is losing patience with him and ease the only number that may matter on Election Day: 14 million unemployed.
With reporting by Daniel Stone, John Solomon, Eleanor Clift, and Lois Romano.
©2011 The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)