Riot Police Called Out Against Senior Citizen Tea Party

So, we can't secure the border but we can call out the SWAT team against unarmed grandparents? Who is the numb-nuts at the Secret Service that decided to squander taxpayer money this way? I think that person should have the cost of this ridiculous use of law enforcement assets taken out of their paycheck.



You can see more photos and video and read about this idiocy here:

TEAM OBAMA CALLS IN SWAT TEAM ON TEA PARTY PATRIOTS!
Gateway Pundit
April 28, 2010

Democrats Admit Companies Were Right To Claim Obamacare Would Make Costs Higher Rather Than Lower

Now, before you start thinking this is some sort of right-wing Tea Party claim, look at the source:

Inquiry Says Health Care Charges Were Proper
Robert Pear
New York Times
April 26, 2010

Yes, you read that right. The New York Times. Hardly a bastion of right-wing thought.

Here is what Mr. Pear wrote:

When major companies declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings, Democrats were skeptical. But after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results. ... Within days after President Obama signed the law on March 23, companies filed reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying the tax change would have a material adverse effect on their earnings. The White House suggested that companies were exaggerating the effects of the tax change. The commerce secretary, Gary F. Locke, said the companies were being “premature and irresponsible” in taking such write-downs.

"Irresonsible?" This from a hard-core leftist administration that is squandering our grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's futures as we speak?

Well, it turns out that the companies were right and the Dems were wrong:

In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, “The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April.” Moreover, it said, “these one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules.” The committee staff said this view was confirmed by independent experts at the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the American Academy of Actuaries.

Didn't the Dems promise that Obamacare would make health care less expensive? This law is only going to make it more expensive and less accessible. Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak (both Democrats) were going to hold hearing on the claims these companies made until the two learned that the claims were well-founded. Those hearings have now been cancelled.

Fatal Flaws Of The Wall Street Bailout Bill

The Dems are at it again and this time they have to complicity of several Republicans. The current financial reform bill before the Senate (S. 3217) is supposed to make bailouts and financial crises a thing of the past. Unfortunately, it will do the exact opposite.

Writing for the Heritage Foundation, James L. Gattuso notes the following flaws:

Creates a protected class of “too big to fail” firms. Section 113 of the bill establishes a “Financial Stability Oversight Council,” charged with identifying firms that would “pose a threat to the financial security of the United States if they encounter “material financial distress.” These firms would be subject to enhanced regulation. However, such a designation would also signal to the marketplace that these firms are too important to be allowed to fail and, perversely, allow them to take on undue risk. As American Enterprise Institute scholar Peter Wallison wrote, “Designating large non-bank financial companies as too big to fail will be like creating Fannies and Freddies in every area of the economy.”[1] Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The bill, in Section 203(b), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds is “in danger of default” and whose failure would have “serious adverse effects on financial stability.” This determination is subject to review in the courts only on a “substantial evidence” standard of review, meaning that the seizure must be upheld if the government produces any evidence in favor of its action. This makes reversal extremely difficult. Creates permanent bailout authority. Section 204 of the bill authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to “make available … funds for the orderly liquidation of [a] covered financial institution.” Although no funds could be provided to compensate a firm’s shareholders, the firm’s other creditors would be eligible for a cash bailout. The situation is much like the scheme implemented for AIG in 2008, in which the largest beneficiaries were not stockholders but rather other creditors, such as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs[2]—hardly a model to be emulated. Establishes a $50 billion fund to pay for bailouts. Funding for bailouts is to come from a $50 billion “Orderly Resolution Fund” created within the U.S. Treasury in Section 210(n)(1), funded by taxes on financial firms. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ultimate cost of bank taxes will fall on the customers, employees, and investors of each firm.[3] Opens a “line of credit” to the Treasury for additional government funding. Under Section 210(n)(9), the FDIC is effectively granted a line of credit to the Treasury Department that is secured by the value of failing firms in its control, providing another taxpayer financial support. Authorizes regulators to guarantee the debt of solvent banks. Bailout authority is not limited to debt of failing institutions. Under Section 1155, the FDIC is authorized to guarantee the debt of “solvent depository institutions” if regulators declare that a liquidity crisis (“event”) exists. Limits financial choices of American consumers. The bill contains a new “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection” with broad powers to limit what financial products and services can be offered to consumers. The intended purpose is to protect consumers from unfair practices. But the effect would be to reduce available choices, even in cases where a consumer fully understands and accepts the costs and risks. For many consumers, this will make credit more expensive and harder to get.[4] Undermines safety and soundness regulation. The proposed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would nominally be part of the Federal Reserve System, but it would have substantial autonomy. Decisions of the new bureau would not be subject to approval by the Fed. New rules could be stopped only through a cumbersome, after-the-fact review process involving a council of all the major regulatory agencies. This could impede efforts of economic (or “safety and soundness”) regulators to ensure the financial stability of regulated firms, as the new, independent “consumer” regulator would establish rules that conflict with that goal. Enriches trial lawyers by authorizing consumer regulators to ban arbitration agreements. Section 1028 specifically authorizes the new consumer regulatory agency to ban arbitration agreements between consumers and financial firms. By reducing the use of streamlined dispute resolution procedures, more consumers and businesses would be forced to pay the costs of litigation—to the benefit of trial lawyers. Subjects firms to hundreds of varying state and local rules. Section 1044 limits pre-emption of state and local rules, subjecting banks and their customers to confusing, costly, and inconsistent red tape imposed by regulators in jurisdictions across the country. Subjects non-financial firms to financial regulation. Regulation under this legislation would extend far beyond banks. Many firms largely outside the financial industry would find themselves caught in the regulatory net. Section 102(B)(ii) of the bill defines a “nonbank financial company”” as a company “substantially engaged in activities … that are financial in nature.” The phrase “financial in nature” is defined in existing law quite broadly. According to former Treasury official Gregory Zerzan, it includes things such as “holding assets of others in trust, investing in securities … or even leasing real estate and offering certain consulting services.”[5] As a result, a broad swath of private industry may find itself ensnared in the financial regulatory net. As Zerzan explains: “An airplane manufacturer that holds customer down payments for future delivery, a large home improvement chain that invests its profits as part of a plan to increase revenues, and an energy firm that makes markets in derivatives are all engaged in ‘financial activities’ and potentially subject to systemic risk regulation.” Imposes one-size-fits-all reform in derivative markets. The bill would subject derivatives now traded over-the-counter by banks and other financial institutions to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and/or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It would require most derivative contracts to be settled through a clearinghouse rather than directly between the parties. Yet derivatives are already increasingly being traded on clearinghouses thanks to private efforts coordinated by the New York Fed.[6] The Senate’s bill, however, would require virtually all derivatives to be so traded. Applying such ill-designed blanket regulation would make financial derivatives more costly, more difficult to customize, and, consequently, less widely used—which would increase overall risk in the economy.[7] Allows activist groups to use the corporate governance process for issues unrelated to the corporation or its shareholders. Section 972 of the bill authorizes the SEC to require firms to allow shareholders to nominate directors in proxy statement. Such proxy access turns corporate board elections from a process designed to ensure that each board has a good mix of skills and experience into a popularity contest where the long-term interests of the stockholders become secondary to political agendas or corporate raiders. The process can also be used by labor unions, politicians who manage public pension funds, and others to force corporations to respond to pet social or political causes. Does nothing to address problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two government-sponsored housing giants helped fuel the housing bubble. When it popped, taxpayers—because of an implicit guarantee by the U.S. Treasury—found themselves on the hook for some $125 billion in bailout money. Not only has little of this amount been paid back, but the Treasury Department recently eliminated the cap on how much more Fannie and Freddie can receive. Yet the bill does nothing to resolve the problem or reform these government-run enterprises.

Contact your Senators today and oppose what is turning out to be yet another piece of ignorant legislation that the idiots in Washington are imagining will somehow be good for us.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senator Dodd’s Regulation Plan: 14 Fatal Flaws
James Gattuso
Heritage.org
April 22, 2010

Jason Levin: The Man Behind The "Crash The Tea Party" Movement

Study the following picture:



This person is Jason Levin. His goal in life is to crash the Tea Party movement and incite racial incidents in an attempt to damage the image of the Tea Parties. He started the following website:

Crash The Tea Parties

At this website, you will read the following:

HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! ... Whenever possible, we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities ...

In other words, they will be fabricating racial slurs and other such falsehoods while pretending to be Tea Party activists. Also note that the people in this group claim to be Democrats. (Nevermind the fact that at least 40% of Tea Party members are Democrats or Independents.)

So, the next time you here about an alleged (and completely unsupported charge) of racism in the Tea Parties, remember to first ask if Jason Levin is responsible for it.

Also, here is something interesting to note. After Levin created this website, he tried to hide his tracks by changing the registry information. Here is what he tried to pass off:

Registrant:
Ben Franklin
3 chestnut lane
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19115
United States

Here is the true registry info:

Domain ID:D158773927-LROR
Domain Name:CRASHTHETEAPARTY.ORG
Created On:03-Apr-2010 22:52:43 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Registrant ID:CR45137659
Registrant Name:Jason Levin
Registrant Street1:8575 SW Birch Street
Registrant City:Portland
Registrant State/Province:Oregon
Registrant Postal Code:97223
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.5039366588
Registrant Email:xenex11@gmail.com
Admin ID:CR45137663
Admin Name:Jason Levin
Tech ID:CR45137661
Name Server:NS2.IPOWER.COM
Name Server:NS1.IPOWER.COM


How many Democrats out there will claim to be proud of such a pathetic display of lies and deceptions as Jason Levin has shown?

You can also check out the following link to see a self-description of Jason Levin and some pictures of others who may try to help him in his infiltration:

Intelius Search: Jason Levin

Does The U.S. Need To Split?

Back on May 9, 2009, I posted the following:

New State Sovereignty Movement Mobilizing
84rules
May 9, 2009

I'm sure that most people who read that blog entry dismissed it as nothing worth noting.

Now flash forward to April 5, 2010 and we read the following from economist Dr. Walter Williams:

Ten years ago I asked the following question in a column titled "It's Time To Part Company": "If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?" The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

If those words don't sound ominous to you or you don't see how they tie into a "State Sovereignty Movement" then you are clearly not listening nor are you taking note of what is happening right here in your own nation.

More:

There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways. ... Americans who wish to live free have several options. We can submit to those who have constitutional contempt and want to run our lives. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights. We can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating.

I don't see how this could be any more clear. We may very well be witnessing the laying of foundations upon which many states will finally say "Enough!" to the Socialists who currently control Congress and the White House. The Union might very well be dissolved once again, only this time, those who seek to be free of Washington D.C. will be seeking greater freedom for the people rather than trying to keep people dependent on the government.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Does The U.S. Need To Split Along Political Lines?
Dr. Walter Williams
Investors.com
April 4, 2010

Iran Laughing At Obama's Nuclear Retaliation Policy

The announcements made yesterday were beyond belief. Obama has actually come out and said that he will not retaliate against anyone who uses chemical or biological weapons against American citiziens. Whatever happened to the man who claimed that he had "no patience or tolerance" for those who would attack innocent civilians?

Now, the Iranians are laughing at us. From the Associated Press via Google:

Iran's hard-line president has ridiculed President Barack Obama's new strategy aimed at reducing the likelihood of nuclear conflict. Obama on Tuesday announced new rules constraining the use of America's nuclear arsenal, vowing not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them. However, Iran and North Korea were not included in that pledge because they do not cooperate with other countries on nonproliferation standards. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressing thousands in northwestern Iran on Wednesday, likened Obama to a "cowboy" and called him an inexperienced newcomer who follows the will of Israel. Ahmadinejad said the U.S. president "can't do a damn thing."

Weren't countries like Iran supposed to start liking us after Obama got elected? Seems like the rhetoric coming out of Tehran is worse than it ever was under George W. Bush.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Iran Ridcules Obama's Nuclear Strategy
Associated Press via Google
April 7, 2010

Eloi! Eloi! Lama sabachthani!

Do you understand the meaning and significance of this post's title?