Archive for President

Obama Passes Amnesty (Remember in Nov 2012)

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 16, 2011 by poorrichards2012blog

Charles Krauthammer:
Obama Passes Dream Act by EXECUTIVE ORDER….

Dream Act: Obama passes amnesty by executive order Last Friday, with no fanfare, no press coverage, and with every effort made to hide his actions from the American people, President Obama enacted the DREAM Act by executive order.


Opposed by a majority of the American people and twice defeated in Congress, the DREAM Act grants amnesty to any illegal alien residing in the United States if s/he agrees to enlist in the U.S. military or enter college.


The Obama administration me Customs Enforcement) directs I.C.E. agents now to use prosecutorial discretion with regard to enforcing immigration laws.


Director Morton says that Obama Administration policy directs
border patrol agents not to enforce immigration laws: When ICE
favorably exercises prosecutorial discretion, it essentially decides not to assert the full scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency.


You read that right. According to the Obama administration avorable enforcement means NOT enforcing the law!


According to one of the first press reports to break this important story, the new Obama policy is cut and dried: federal immigration officials do not have to deport illegal aliens if they are enrolled in any type of education program, if their family members have volunteered for U.S. military service, or even if they are pregnant or nursing.


ALSO: Just recently Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) blocked Arizona from enforcing its voter ID law. Arizona is one if not the biggest portal of illegal immigration in the nation with half a million illegal aliens coming through the state annually. Arizona’s Attorney General Tom Horne recently stated that he believed that blocking of the law facilitated massive voter fraud by illegal aliens.


Attorney General Tom Horne accused the Obama administration Tuesday of trying to thwart Arizona’s voter-ID laws in a bid to get more illegal immigrants to the polls presumably to cast ballots for the president and Democrats.


Horne acknowledged that a brief filed by the Department of Justice in a case to be heard next month by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals centers around the agencys argument that Arizona’s law requiring proof of citizenship to register is pre-empted by federal law. But Horne, a Republican, told Capitol Media Services he sees something more sinister, …. The 2012 presidential elections.

First we have amnesty passed by executive order then we have President Obama’s DOJ blocking voter ID in Arizona. What could possibly be the president’s motive? This story has the potential to bring the Obama Administration to its knees. The momentum can be on our side and just e-mailing it to others can create a critical mass. Don’t assume you have no power. You do!


MORE:
Who needs Congressional authority when you can govern like a King by executive fiat?


A new enforcement memo handed down by the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement last week has some accusing the White House of running around Congress to implement the DREAM Act and consequent amnesty for some illegal immigrants by executive fiat.


The new memo, penned by ICE Director John Morton, directs ICE agents, attorneys and directors to exercise prosecutorial discretion meaning less likelihood of deportation for illegal aliens who have been students in the U.S., who have been in the country since childhood or who have served in the American military.

Morton’s excuse for the memo, not enough resources:
Specifically, the memo argues, Because the agency is confronted with more violations than its resources can address, the agency must regularly exercise prosecutorial discretion.


Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer calls this maneuver a Constitutional crisis pointing out that it is Congresses responsibility to enact laws. This is outright lawlessness on the part of the administration*, argued syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on a discussion panel.

Whatever the politics of this, we do have a Constitution. And under it, the Legislature, the Congress enacts the laws and the executive executes them. It doesn’t make them up.

The DREAM Act was rejected by Congress, Krauthammer continued. It is now being enacted by the executive, *despite the express  will of the Congress. That is lawless. It may not be an explicit executive order; its an implicit one.   Once again, Obama thinks he is a King.


The Obama administration* IS explicitly running an end-run around
the will of people and their representative government. First Libya and now this. Whats next Mr. President?


Update: It appears John Ransom at Townhall saw this coming. John posted this on May 12th titled Crass and Cynical on Illegal Immigration The guy who rushed out to get trillions for banks, and big pharmaceuticals practically ignored the topic of immigration reform when his guys ran for Congress for two years and could have written their own version.


Indeed one of his wise-guys from Chicago, Rep Luis Gutierrez recently noted [Obama] has the power to make things better right now without the Congress having to pass any new laws.

A YES…. he can just do what he did for gays, Chicago and all of his other cronies: He can ignore enforcing the old laws he doesn’t like. Or maybe he can grant every illegal immigrant a waiver, like he did for his favorites under healthcare reform.


AGAIN: What could possibly be the president’s motive?


This story has the potential to bring the Obama Administration to its knees. The momentum can on our side and just e-mailing it to others can create a critical mass. Don’t assume you have no power. You do!

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/politics/article_0f8873ac-9157-11e0-b5be-001cc4c002e0.html


http://www.scribd.com/doc/58465866/Prosecutorial-Discretion-Morton-Second-Memo-June-17-2011

 

 

The American Crisis

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 16, 2011 by poorrichards2012blog

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER,” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

Whether the independence of the continent was declared too soon, or delayed too long, I will not now enter into as an argument; my own simple opinion is, that had it been eight months earlier, it would have been much better. We did not make a proper use of last winter, neither could we, while we were in a dependent state. However, the fault, if it were one, was all our own*; we have none to blame but ourselves. But no great deal is lost yet. All that Howe has been doing for this month past, is rather a ravage than a conquest, which the spirit of the Jerseys, a year ago, would have quickly repulsed, and which time and a little resolution will soon recover.

* The present winter is worth an age, if rightly employed; but, if lost or neglected, the whole continent will partake of the evil; and there is no punishment that man does not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful.

I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent. Neither have I so much of the infidel in me, as to suppose that He has relinquished the government of the world, and given us up to the care of devils; and as I do not, I cannot see on what grounds the king of Britain can look up to heaven for help against us: a common murderer, a highwayman, or a house-breaker, has as good a pretence as he.

‘Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. Britain has trembled like an ague at the report of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth [fifteenth] century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc. Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen, and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment! Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world. Many a disguised Tory has lately shown his head, that shall penitentially solemnize with curses the day on which Howe arrived upon the Delaware.

As I was with the troops at Fort Lee, and marched with them to the edge of Pennsylvania, I am well acquainted with many circumstances, which those who live at a distance know but little or nothing of. Our situation there was exceedingly cramped, the place being a narrow neck of land between the North River and the Hackensack. Our force was inconsiderable, being not one-fourth so great as Howe could bring against us. We had no army at hand to have relieved the garrison, had we shut ourselves up and stood on our defence. Our ammunition, light artillery, and the best part of our stores, had been removed, on the apprehension that Howe would endeavor to penetrate the Jerseys, in which case Fort Lee could be of no use to us; for it must occur to every thinking man, whether in the army or not, that these kind of field forts are only for temporary purposes, and last in use no longer than the enemy directs his force against the particular object which such forts are raised to defend. Such was our situation and condition at Fort Lee on the morning of the 20th of November, when an officer arrived with information that the enemy with 200 boats had landed about seven miles above; Major General [Nathaniel] Green, who commanded the garrison, immediately ordered them under arms, and sent express to General Washington at the town of Hackensack, distant by the way of the ferry = six miles. Our first object was to secure the bridge over the Hackensack, which laid up the river between the enemy and us, about six miles from us, and three from them. General Washington arrived in about three-quarters of an hour, and marched at the head of the troops towards the bridge, which place I expected we should have a brush for; however, they did not choose to dispute it with us, and the greatest part of our troops went over the bridge, the rest over the ferry, except some which passed at a mill on a small creek, between the bridge and the ferry, and made their way through some marshy grounds up to the town of Hackensack, and there passed the river. We brought off as much baggage as the wagons could contain, the rest was lost. The simple object was to bring off the garrison, and march them on till they could be strengthened by the Jersey or Pennsylvania militia, so as to be enabled to make a stand. We staid four days at Newark, collected our out-posts with some of the Jersey militia, and marched out twice to meet the enemy, on being informed that they were advancing, though our numbers were greatly inferior to theirs. Howe, in my little opinion, committed a great error in generalship in not throwing a body of forces off from Staten Island through Amboy, by which means he might have seized all our stores at Brunswick, and intercepted our march into Pennsylvania; but if we believe the power of hell to be limited, we must likewise believe that their agents are under some providential control.

I shall not now attempt to give all the particulars of our retreat to the Delaware; suffice it for the present to say, that both officers and men, though greatly harassed and fatigued, frequently without rest, covering, or provision, the inevitable consequences of a long retreat, bore it with a manly and martial spirit. All their wishes centred in one, which was, that the country would turn out and help them to drive the enemy back. Voltaire has remarked that King William never appeared to full advantage but in difficulties and in action; the same remark may be made on General Washington, for the character fits him. There is a natural firmness in some minds which cannot be unlocked by trifles, but which, when unlocked, discovers a cabinet of fortitude; and I reckon it among those kind of public blessings, which we do not immediately see, that God hath blessed him with uninterrupted health, and given him a mind that can even flourish upon care.

I shall conclude this paper with some miscellaneous remarks on the state of our affairs; and shall begin with asking the following question, Why is it that the enemy have left the New England provinces, and made these middle ones the seat of war? The answer is easy: New England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been tender in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. And what is a Tory? Good God! what is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.

 

But, before the line of irrecoverable separation be drawn between us, let us reason the matter together: Your conduct is an invitation to the enemy, yet not one in a thousand of you has heart enough to join him. Howe is as much deceived by you as the American cause is injured by you. He expects you will all take up arms, and flock to his standard, with muskets on your shoulders. Your opinions are of no use to him, unless you support him personally, for ’tis soldiers, and not Tories, that he wants.

I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, “Well! give me peace in my day.” Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;” and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. A man can distinguish himself between temper and principle, and I am as confident, as I am that God governs the world, that America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion. Wars, without ceasing, will break out till that period arrives, and the continent must in the end be conqueror; for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire.

America did not, nor does not want force; but she wanted a proper application of that force. Wisdom is not the purchase of a day, and it is no wonder that we should err at the first setting off. From an excess of tenderness, we were unwilling to raise an army, and trusted our cause to the temporary defence of a well-meaning militia. A summer’s experience has now taught us better; yet with those troops, while they were collected, we were able to set bounds to the progress of the enemy, and, thank God! they are again assembling. I always considered militia as the best troops in the world for a sudden exertion, but they will not do for a long campaign. Howe, it is probable, will make an attempt on this city [Philadelphia]; should he fail on this side the Delaware, he is ruined. If he succeeds, our cause is not ruined. He stakes all on his side against a part on ours; admitting he succeeds, the consequence will be, that armies from both ends of the continent will march to assist their suffering friends in the middle states; for he cannot go everywhere, it is impossible. I consider Howe as the greatest enemy the Tories have; he is bringing a war into their country, which, had it not been for him and partly for themselves, they had been clear of. Should he now be expelled, I wish with all the devotion of a Christian, that the names of Whig and Tory may never more be mentioned; but should the Tories give him encouragement to come, or assistance if he come, I as sincerely wish that our next year’s arms may expel them from the continent, and the Congress appropriate their possessions to the relief of those who have suffered in well-doing. A single successful battle next year will settle the whole. America could carry on a two years’ war by the confiscation of the property of disaffected persons, and be made happy by their expulsion. Say not that this is revenge, call it rather the soft resentment of a suffering people, who, having no object in view but the good of all, have staked their own all upon a seemingly doubtful event. Yet it is folly to argue against determined hardness; eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the tear of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice.

 Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out: I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. Say not that thousands are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the burden of the day upon Providence, but “show your faith by your works,” that God may bless you. It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to “bind me in all cases whatsoever” to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.

 There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both. Howe’s first object is, partly by threats and partly by promises, to terrify or seduce the people to deliver up their arms and receive mercy. The ministry recommended the same plan to Gage, and this is what the tories call making their peace, “a peace which passeth all understanding” indeed! A peace which would be the immediate forerunner of a worse ruin than any we have yet thought of. Ye men of Pennsylvania, do reason upon these things! Were the back counties to give up their arms, they would fall an easy prey to the Indians, who are all armed: this perhaps is what some Tories would not be sorry for. Were the home counties to deliver up their arms, they would be exposed to the resentment of the back counties who would then have it in their power to chastise their defection at pleasure. And were any one state to give up its arms, that state must be garrisoned by all Howe’s army of Britons and Hessians to preserve it from the anger of the rest. Mutual fear is the principal link in the chain of mutual love, and woe be to that state that breaks the compact. Howe is mercifully inviting you to barbarous destruction, and men must be either rogues or fools that will not see it. I dwell not upon the vapors of imagination; I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as A, B, C, hold up truth to your eyes.

 I thank God, that I fear not. I see no real cause for fear. I know our situation well, and can see the way out of it. While our army was collected, Howe dared not risk a battle; and it is no credit to him that he decamped from the White Plains, and waited a mean opportunity to ravage the defenceless Jerseys; but it is great credit to us, that, with a handful of men, we sustained an orderly retreat for near an hundred miles, brought off our ammunition, all our field pieces, the greatest part of our stores, and had four rivers to pass. None can say that our retreat was precipitate, for we were near three weeks in performing it, that the country might have time to come in. Twice we marched back to meet the enemy, and remained out till dark. The sign of fear was not seen in our camp, and had not some of the cowardly and disaffected inhabitants spread false alarms through the country, the Jerseys had never been ravaged. Once more we are again collected and collecting; our new army at both ends of the continent is recruiting fast, and we shall be able to open the next campaign with sixty thousand men, well armed and clothed. This is our situation, and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils- a ravaged country- a depopulated city- habitations without safety, and slavery without hope- our homes turned into barracks and bawdy-houses for Hessians, and a future race to provide for, whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.

 Thomas Paine
December 23, 1776.

A Taxpayer’s Response to Senator Alan Simpson

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 15, 2011 by poorrichards2012blog

Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming , Co-Chair of Obama’s deficit commission, calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared “Social Security” to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.

 

Here’s a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Wyoming … I think she is a little ticked off!  She also tells it like it is!

 

“Hey Alan, let’s get a few things straight..

 

1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole for FIFTY YEARS.

 

2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).

 

3 My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud..

 

4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission is proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.

 

5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills.  How about paying Social Security and Medicare only to the people like me and millions of other Americans who have been contributing our entire work lives?

 

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.


To add insult to injury, you label us “greedy” for calling “bullshit” on your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU.

 

1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?

 

2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?

 

3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

 

4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

 

It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the “greedy” ones. It is you and your fellow nutcases who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes. That’s right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.

 

And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a bitch .

 

Nearly 1 million American rifles banned by a stroke of Barack Obama’s pen

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 13, 2011 by poorrichards2012blog


Nearly 1 million American rifles.

Banned by a stroke of Barack Obama’s pen.

In a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama Administration quietly banned the re-importation of nearly one million American made M1 Garand and Carbine rifles.

The M1 Garand, developed in the late 1930’s, carried the United States through World War II seeing action in every major battle.

General Patton at the time called the M1 Garand “the greatest battle implement ever devised.”

The rifle is largely credited with giving American soldiers the advantage and securing victory for the allies.

During the Korean War, nearly one million of these rifles were brought to South Korea and left with the South Korean government afterward.

Now, South Korea wants to give American gun collectors the chance to get their hands on this unique piece of history.

A piece of American history that Barack Obama would like to see go down the memory hole.

That’s why I want as many Americans as possible to put themselves on record opposing this gun ban.


After World War II, the United States government sent millions of these rifles overseas to our allies and friends.

Over the past 50 years, many of the countries we lent them to returned them to America to be bought and sold by firearms collectors.

This is nothing new.

Make no mistake; these rifles were made in America, by Americans, for Americans, to defend freedom on foreign shores.

As a part of our history, they are greatly sought after by American shooters and collectors.

But according to Hillary Clinton’s State Department there is a danger they might “fall into the wrong hands.”

That they might, possibly, one day be used in a crime.

No mention of the hundreds of thousands of gun owners deprived of the opportunity to own an integral part of American history.

The State Department’s outrageous claims are nothing more than a thinly veiled ploy to distract from the real issue:

President Obama’s deep seated hatred for gun rights.

While his gun-grabbing base is giddy with praise at this back-door gun ban, law-abiding citizens across the United States are crying foul.

Let me be clear: at no time in U.S. history has the ownership of this firearm — or any part of this firearm — been illegal, restricted or banned.

Americans have collected World War II M1 Garand and Carbine rifles for decades.

Now they are sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

You can even purchase a newly manufactured model from Springfield Armory that was made just a month or two ago.

And the M1 Garand’s caliber or capacity is no more dangerous than the millions of modern firearms owned by Americans across the country today.

As you can see, there is absolutely no justification for this unconstitutional gun ban.


This is just the latest in a series of anti-gun schemes from the Obama Administration:

*** New BATFE regulations on semi-automatic rifles, requiring firearms dealers to act as an informant to anti-gun federal bureaucrats if someone buys more than one rifle;

*** The Disarming American Citizens Act (H.R. 2159 in the last Congress) letting Attorney General Eric Holder revoke the Second Amendment rights of ANY American he chooses based on pure suspicion;

*** Notorious anti-gunners appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and other senior administration positions;

That’s why it is essential that Americans like you and I take a stand against the M1 Garand gun ban!

It has been common practice since the end of World War II to re-import these American made rifles from the foreign allies they were lent to during the war.

But the Obama Administration departs radically from the American tradition.

In fact, on top of banning American citizens from owning these historic firearms, Obama’s State Department is arranging for the destruction of nearly one million of them — ironically, at a time of ballooning federal deficits.

It’s an outrage!

These firearms — truly pieces of American history — rightly belong in the hands of U.S. citizens.

Latest Cain Accuser Has Chicago Stink

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 9, 2011 by poorrichards2012blog

Sharon Bialek, a fifty year old single woman from the Chicago area, accused Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of groping her when she said she met him for dinner to ask for help in finding her job in 1997. Mr. Cain, who was president of the National Restaurant Association (NRA) at the time, is denying these allegations. His campaign sent out a statement following the press conference:

Just as the country finally begins to refocus on our crippling $15 trillion national debt and the unacceptably high unemployment rate, now activist celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred is bringing forth more false accusations against the character of Republican front-runner Herman Cain.

All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false. Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone. Fortunately the American people will not allow Mr. Cain’s bold “9-9-9 Plan”, clear foreign policy vision and plans for energy independence to be overshadowed by these bogus attacks.

Don’t trust anyone who pops up on your TV screen with the leftie wingnut, self-serving, self appointed high priestess of fabricated “women are always victims” BS: Gloria Allred!

The Issue with Romney is the Issues

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 7, 2011 by poorrichards2012blog

 

By Max Pappas

After keepings his distance from the tea party movement since its inception, the ever calculating Mitt Romney has realized he needs the tea party if he is to win his bid to be president of the United States.

Reminder to Mitt Romney: The tea party movement is not only a reaction to the big government policies of President Obama and the Democrats who ran Congress from 2006-2008.  It is also a reaction to the disappointment and frustration with big government Republicans like you, who ran the country too much like the Democrats for too many years. 

To put it another way, we support free markets, constitutionally limited government, and fiscal responsibility and we oppose politicians from both parties who do not.  

Romney does not, so we oppose him.

A few of highlights from Romney’s record showing just how unfriendly he has been over the years to the ideas the tea party holds dear (links and details further below):

  • Romney distanced himself from Reagan and Reagan’s policies
  • Romney didn’t like the Contract with America
  • Romney led the fight for and implemented health care reform almost identical to ObamaCare 
  • Romney called his beta version of ObamaCare “a model for the nation” 
  • Romney defended the individual mandate, saying, “I like mandates. The mandates work.” 
  • Romney supports cap-and-trade “on a global basis”
  • Romney worked to regulate “greenhouse gas emissions” in Massachusetts
  • Romney got Massachusetts involved in a regional climate change pact 
  • Romney supports ethanol subsidies 
  • Romney wants to increase spending “substantially” on energy research  
  • Romney opposes the Flat Tax
  • Romney refused to support the 2003 Bush tax cuts
  • Romney’s claim to not have raised taxes is called “mostly myth” by Cato Institute
  • Romney thought Obama’s stimulus would “accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery”
  • Romney supports TARP
  • Romney says there’s nothing wrong with companies asking for bailouts
  • Romney supports No Child Left Behind
  • Romney supports reappointing Ben Bernanke to chairman of the Federal Reserve 

Health Care

  • In 2006, Mitt Romney imposed a health care law on Massachusetts that served as a blueprint for ObamaCare.  NPR states that ObamaCare “was based, almost line for line, on the Massachusetts model.” [1]
  • Obama thanked Romney for RomneyCare, saying at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Boston, “Yes, we passed health care with an assist from a former Massachusetts Governor… Great idea.”[2]
  • RomneyCare, like ObamaCare, is based on an individual mandate, which Romney continues to defend. A presidential debate in 2008 featured the following exchange:[3]
  •  
    • GIBSON: But Gov. Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts — although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.
    • ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work. 
  • Romney encouraged a broader use of government forcing individuals to make government mandated purchases, saying, “Everybody in our state has to have health insurance and that’s a model which I think has some merit more generally.”[4]
  • Romney’s plan, like ObamaCare, fines those who don’t purchase insurance that is officially approved and heavily regulated through an “exchange” and subsidizes with taxpayer dollars such purchases.
  • Romney said of his plan, with its individual mandate, “exchange,” and heavy subsidies: “If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.” Obama and the Democrats agreed and did so.[5]
  • The far-left was so excited about RomneyCare that Sen. Ted Kennedy made a trip to be at the bill signing and was all smiles as he stood center stage.[6]
  • Despite his previous suggestion that RomneyCare is a “model for the nation”, he is now trying to use the excuse that it was OK because it’s a state plan and states experiment. But it’s wrong for government at any level to violate our basic right to liberty by forcing citizens to buy a product as the individual mandate does.[7]
  • RomneyCare has failed, increasing health care costs dramatically. Between 2006 and 2009, cumulative costs increased by $8,569,000,000, emergency room visits are up 7.2 percent, and premiums rose 6 percent, according to the Beacon Hill Institute.[8}
  • In the wake of RomneyCare, the Wall Street Journal says Massachusetts “is now moving to impose price controls on all hospitals, doctors and other providers.”[9]  We can expect that nationally, too, if ObamaCare isn’t repealed. 
  • The Wall Street Journal offers more on RomneyCare, which they call a “fatal flaw” for this candidate, here.

Cap-and-Trade

  • Romney supports a global cap-and-trade scheme and involved Massachusetts in a regional cap-and-trade pact.  Romney was caught on video in New Hampshire in 2008 having this exchange with a potential voter:  
  •  
    • Potential Voter: Do you support cap-and-trade?
    • Romney: I support it on a global basis[10]

 

  • Romney won praise from global warming profiteer Al Gore for saying, “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you’re seeing.”[11]
  • In 2008, Romney told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “there’s nothing wrong with dealing with global warming.”[12]
  • In 2004, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney introduced the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan to reduce greenhouse gases. The Heartland Institute finds, “Though mostly voluntary, some provisions of the plan are mandatory and will impose economic hardship on Massachusetts citizens.”[13]
  • Romney’s plan, much like the widely rejected Kyoto Protocol states its goals as 
    • SHORT-TERM: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010.
    • MEDIUM-TERM: Reduce GHG emissions 10% below 1990 levels by the year 2020. 
    • LONG-TERM: Reduce GHG emissions sufficiently to eliminate any dangerous threat to the climate; current science suggests this will require reductions as much as 75-85% below current levels.[14] 
  • Having pushed carbon regulations Obama could only dream of, Romney uttered this line, which sounds eerily like what Obama would say, “These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment… They help us accomplish our environmental goals while protecting jobs and the economy.”[15]
  • According to Sandy Liddy Bourne of the American Legislative Exchange Council, “The Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan can be compared to a slick advertisement with no price tag. It is packaged with the same doom and gloom rhetoric of the environmental activists and commits the state government to long-term contracts for renewable energy without the benefits of a free market check-and-balance system.”[16]

Ethanol

  • Romney makes no bones about it, he supports ethanol subsidies. “I support the subsidy of ethanol,” he told an Iowa voter. “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”[17]
  • Romney goes so far as to support trade barriers on ethanol.[18]
  • Romney also supports energy subsidies in general, unequivocally stating in his 2008 campaign platform a need for a “dramatic” increase in “federal spending on research, development, and demonstration projects that hold promise for diversifying our energy supply.”[19]

Taxes

  • Romney refused to support the Bush tax cuts in 2003.[20]
  • Romney strongly opposes the pro-growth Flat Tax.[21] So much so that he, as a “concerned citizen” ran a newspaper ad opposing it.[22] He said, “I’m probably not going to be recommending throwing out the code and starting over” and says the flat tax is “unfair.”[23]
  • In 2002, while Romney was running for governor, limited government activists in Massachusetts were supporting Ballot Question 1 to eliminate he state income tax. Forty five percent of the voters supported eliminating the tax, Romney opposed eliminating it.[24]
  • When Romney ran for governor in 2002, he refused to sign a no-tax pledge. “I’m not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the Commonwealth.”[25]
  • Romney enacted $432 million in fee hikes and $300 million in higher taxes as governor of Massachusetts.[26]
  • In a recent “Fiscal Policy Report Card” on governors, The Cato Institute, gave him a “C.” As far as the image Romney cultivates as “a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge,” Cato called it “mostly a myth.” As evidence, they cited the hefty fee increases and business tax hikes achieved through the closing of loopholes.
  • Romney proposed a tax shift that would have increased taxes on SUVs.[27]
  • Romney instituted a 2-cent-per-gallon increase on a special gasoline fee that takes in $60 million per year.

Spending

  • As Governor, Romney proposed a budget in 2007 that was an outrageous 8.5 percent higher than the one he proposed the year before.[28]
  • Romney, despite calls from many fiscal conservatives to keep everything on the table when looking for spending cuts, recently stated that “I’m not going to cut the defense spending.”[29]
  • Romney parroted discredited Keynesian economic thinking when he wrote in No Apology, “The ‘all-Democrat’ stimulus that was passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.”[30]
  • Romney sounds a lot like Obama when he says in an op-ed to what was surely a fawning New York Times audience,

I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today.[31]

The Wall Street Bailout

  • Romney supports the Wall Street Bailout/TARP program.  In his book No Apology he says:

Secretary [Hank] Paulson’s TARP prevented a systemic collapse of the national financial system.

It was intended to prevent a run on virtually every bank and financial institution in the country.

Had we not taken action, you could have seen a real devastation.

 

  • Romney reaffirmed this position in 2009 saying, “I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses.”[32]

 

More Mitt, More Problems

  • Romney supports federal involvement in education, long held by constitutional conservatives as a state prerogative, offering his support for the Bush-Kennedy No Child Left Behind law. In a 2008 debate, Romney stated, “I supported No Child Left Behind, still do.” [33]
  • Romney ran on raising the minimum wage and putting in place automatic increases by indexing it to inflation. [34]
  • Romney signed in to law a smoking ban.[35]
  • Romney thinks it’s OK for companies to ask for bailouts, stating in a New York Times op-ed about the auto bailout, “It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition”[36]
  • In April 2009, Romney told The Hill newspaper that: “We as Republicans misspeak when we say we don’t like regulation. We like modern, up-to-date dynamic regulation that is regularly reviewed, streamlined, modernized and effective.”[37]
  • On Neal Cavuto on January 28 2010, Romney supported the reappointment of Ben Bernanke to chairman of the Federal Reserve.[38]
  • Romney distanced himself from Reagan. During his Senate debate with Ted Kennedy Romney made it clear he was not a fan of Ronald Reagan. Kennedy said to Romney, “Under your economic program, under the program of Mr. Reagan…” to which Romney responded, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”[39]
  • Romney didn’t like the Contract with America, saying “…it is not a good idea to go into a contract like what was organized by the Republican party in Washington laying out a whole series of things which the party said these are the things we are gonna do. I think that’s a mistake.”[40]

 


[1] http://m.npr.org/news/Science/136285615

[2] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/19/obama-thanks-romney-again-for-his-role-in-passing-health-care-reform/

[3] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4091645&page=1&singlePage=true

[4] http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-05-12-republican-romney-health-care-law-obama_n.htm

[5] Ibid.

[6] http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/massachusetts_with_health_care.html

[7] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115691871093652.html

[8] http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/HCR-2011/PR-HealthCareReform2011-0627.htm

[9] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576317413439329644.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAGpLOKtQDA

[11] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57054.html

[12] http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Energy_+_Oil.htm

[13] http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15250/Massachusetts_Gov_Romney_Unveils_Climate_Protection_Plan.html

[14] http://www.newamerica.net/files/MAClimateProtPlan0504.pdf

[15] http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/21956517/12-07-2005

[16] http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15250/Massachusetts_Gov_Romney_Unveils_Climate_Protection_Plan.html

[17] http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/27/romney-hearts-ethanol-subsidies/

[18] http://www.iptv.org/iowajournal/story.cfm/143

[19] http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4237358

[20] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/154741/romney-mccain-and-taxes/byron-york#

[21] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3423.html

[22] http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/mitt_romney_is.php

[23] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3423.html

[24] http://www.jeffjacoby.com/8139/making-the-case-for-question-1

[25] Ibid.

[26] http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/11/mitts_no_tax_mirage/

[27] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/mitts_memory_lapse.html

[28] Romney’s 2006 budget http://www.mass.gov/bb/fy2006h1/06budrec/govarea/ v. Romney’s 2007 budget http://www.mass.gov/bb/fy2007h1/2007budrec/govarea/

[29] http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161489-romney-im-not-going-to-cut-the-defense-budget

[30] http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44570

[31] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

[32] http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Romney_at_CPAC.html

[33] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E26ADuXXS54&feature=related at 4:29

[34] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3407772&page=1

[35] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595071548/Romney-signs-a-ban-on-workplace-smoking.html

[36] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

[37] http://thehill.com/opinion/editorials/6536-regulatory-tide

[38] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6T–U8Ll8

[39] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

[40] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jzno_apP1Q

 

Art Laffer Brings Reality to 9-9-9 Discussion

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 25, 2011 by poorrichards2012blog

 

One of my favorite criticisms of my 9-9-9 tax reform plan is the one where people indicate they would support the plan if only we could find a way to guarantee Congress could never change the rates in the future.

They must really like the plan to ask for that. Has any other presidential candidate ever been asked to guarantee that the tax rates he proposed could never be changed?

I realize, of course, that much of this owes to the introduction of a new federal tax – the consumption tax – as part of the equation. It makes people nervous because they figure politicians can’t raise a tax that doesn’t exist. So once the consumption tax is in place, they say, 9 percent will only be the starting point for politicians to raise it and the other taxes, and 9-9-9 quickly becomes 10-10-10, 11-11-11 and who knows what else?

That’s why it’s nice to have respected economist Arthur Laffer bring a little reality to the discussion in a piece he wrote last week for the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Laffer, you might remember, was the originator of the Laffer Curve, a notion in economics that demonstrates you get diminishing returns from higher marginal tax rates because they discourage investment and economic growth. Specifically, his Laffer Curve showed that you can collect the same amount of revenue from a lower marginal rate as you can from a higher marginal rate because of the impact the rates have on the economy.

Contrary to some of what you hear in current conversation, the theory of the Laffer Curve was proven correct when Ronald Reagan cut marginal tax rates across the board in 1981, and federal revenues soared. So did deficits, of course, and that’s the part you usually hear about. But that’s because federal spending soared even more. Excessive spending, not insufficiently high tax rates, was the problem then and it’s still the problem today.

So having established Mr. Laffer’s credibility on economic and tax matters, it’s nice to see that he cuts to the chase about 9-9-9 by pointing out a couple of things.

First, for all the hand-wringing about introducing one new tax, critics seem to lose sight of the fact that we eliminate so many existing taxes that do so much damage to the economy. The payroll tax robs many people of large portions of their take-home pay. We eliminate it. The estate tax forces people to sell family businesses after their founders pass away. We get rid of that, too. The capital gains tax discourages investment – a mistake that contributes mightily to unemployment – by presuming to punish people who profit from putting their capital at risk. With 9-9-9, that comes to an end.

Even worse, the myriad of taxes in our complicated code encourages people to engage in an absurd assortment of tax-avoidance maneuvers, and to spend obscene amounts of money on tax lawyers and accountants just to help them minimize their tax burdens. Mr. Laffer estimates that for every dollar of personal and business taxes paid, another 30 cents is spent just on the expenses necessary to comply with our complicated tax code. Consider that, just in terms of federal taxes alone. If $2.3 trillion is paid in taxes, that would mean $690 billion is spend on tax lawyers, accountants and other related compliance costs – because the tax code is so complicated that people can’t figure it out for themselves, or because they’re looking for ways to manipulate their tax liability.

What could we do for the economy if we suddenly freed up that $690 billion to be used in more productive ways? What would happen if people stopped making economic decisions that have no purpose whatsoever except tax avoidance?

You know the answer.

Finally, Mr. Laffer points out how silly is the criticism that the rates could be raised in the future. They certainly would not be raised while I’m in the White House. My veto pen would see to that. But yes, future presidents and Congresses can change the tax code. That’s true of any tax, any plan or any rate that anyone ever proposes.

But I believe it would be harder for politicians to raise rates under the 9-9-9 plan than it is under the current system. That’s because, under the simplified tax code that the 9-9-9 plan achieves, everyone would know if their taxes were being raised. It would be visible and obvious, and people would feel it.

Today, I doubt most people are even fully aware of the rate they pay. With the mangled web of exemptions, deductions and progressive marginal rates, only people who study the matter intently can really be sure. Under 9-9-9, everyone will know that they pay a 9 percent income tax and a 9 percent consumption tax, and that their employers pay a 9 percent corporate tax. Thus, any proposal to raise these rates will hit home instantly, and I have no doubt such an attempt would generate a massive reaction from the populace.

One of the ways I seek to empower the people is by giving them a government whose workings they can actually understand, and 9-9-9 is the centerpiece of that effort. It’s nice to have someone with the credentials of Arthur Laffer affirm that it can, and will, work.

Sincerely,

Herman Cain

Friends of Herman Cain, Inc.
PO Box 2158
Stockbridge Georgia 30281
United States

The Coming Derivatives Crisis That Could Destroy The Entire Global Financial System

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 24, 2011 by poorrichards2012blog

 

from: theeconomiccollapseblog.com

Most people have no idea that Wall Street has become a gigantic financial casino.  The big Wall Street banks are making tens of billions of dollars a year in the derivatives market and nobody in the financial community wants the party to end.  The word “derivatives” sounds complicated and technical, but understanding them is really not that hard.  A derivative is essentially a fancy way of saying that a bet has been made.  Originally, these bets were designed to hedge risk, but today the derivatives market has mushroomed into a mountain of speculation unlike anything the world has ever seen before.  Estimates of the notional value of the worldwide derivatives market go from $600 trillion all the way up to $1.5 quadrillion.  Keep in mind that the GDP of the entire world is only somewhere in the neighborhood of $65 trillion.  The danger to the global financial system posed by derivatives is so great that Warren Buffet once called them “financial weapons of mass destruction”.  For now, the financial powers that be are trying to keep the casino rolling, but it is inevitable that at some point this entire mess is going to come crashing down.  When it does, we are going to be facing a derivatives crisis that really could destroy the entire global financial system.

Most people don’t talk much about derivatives because they simply do not understand them.

Perhaps a couple of definitions would be helpful.

The following is how a recent Bloomberg article defined derivatives….

Derivatives are financial instruments used to hedge risks or for speculation. They’re derived from stocks, bonds, loans, currencies and commodities, or linked to specific events such as changes in the weather or interest rates.

The key word there is “speculation”.  Today the folks down on Wall Street are speculating on just about anything that you can imagine.

The following is how Investopedia defines derivatives….

A security whose price is dependent upon or derived from one or more underlying assets. The derivative itself is merely a contract between two or more parties. Its value is determined by fluctuations in the underlying asset. The most common underlying assets include stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, interest rates and market indexes. Most derivatives are characterized by high leverage.

A derivative has no underlying value of its own.  A derivative is essentially a side bet.  Usually these side bets are highly leveraged.

At this point, making side bets has totally gotten out of control in the financial world.  Side bets are being made on just about anything you can possibly imagine, and the major Wall Street banks are making a ton of money from it.  This system is almost entirely unregulated and it is totally dominated by the big international banks.

Over the past couple of decades, the derivatives market has multiplied in size.  Everything is going to be fine as long as the system stays in balance.  But once it gets out of balance we could witness a string of financial crashes that no government on earth will be able to fix.

The amount of money that we are talking about is absolutely staggering.  Graham Summers of Phoenix Capital Research estimates that the notional value of the global derivatives market is $1.4 quadrillion, and in an article for Seeking Alpha he tried to put that number into perspective….

If you add up the value of every stock on the planet, the entire market capitalization would be about $36 trillion. If you do the same process for bonds, you’d get a market capitalization of roughly $72 trillion.

The notional value of the derivative market is roughly $1.4 QUADRILLION.

I realize that number sounds like something out of Looney tunes, so I’ll try to put it into perspective.

$1.4 Quadrillion is roughly:

-40 TIMES THE WORLD’S STOCK MARKET.

-10 TIMES the value of EVERY STOCK & EVERY BOND ON THE PLANET.

-23 TIMES WORLD GDP.

It is hard to fathom how much money a quadrillion is.

If you started counting right now at one dollar per second, it would take 32 million years to count to one quadrillion dollars.

Yes, the boys and girls down on Wall Street have gotten completely and totally out of control.

In an excellent article that he did on derivatives, Webster Tarpley described the pivotal role that derivatives now play in the global financial system….

Far from being some arcane or marginal activity, financial derivatives have come to represent the principal business of the financier oligarchy in Wall Street, the City of London, Frankfurt, and other money centers. A concerted effort has been made by politicians and the news media to hide and camouflage the central role played by derivative speculation in the economic disasters of recent years. Journalists and public relations types have done everything possible to avoid even mentioning derivatives, coining phrases like “toxic assets,” “exotic instruments,” and – most notably – “troubled assets,” as in Troubled Assets Relief Program or TARP, aka the monstrous $800 billion bailout of Wall Street speculators which was enacted in October 2008 with the support of Bush, Henry Paulson, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Obama Democrats.

Most people do not realize this, but derivatives were at the center of the financial crisis of 2008.

They will almost certainly be at the center of the next financial crisis as well.

For many, alarm bells went off the other day when it was revealed that Bank of America has moved a big chunk of derivatives from its failing Merrill Lynch investment banking unit to its depository arm.

So what does that mean?

An article posted on The Daily Bail the other day explained that it means that U.S. taxpayers could end up holding the bag….

This means that the investment bank’s European derivatives exposure is now backstopped by U.S. taxpayers. Bank of America didn’t get regulatory approval to do this, they just did it at the request of frightened counterparties. Now the Fed and the FDIC are fighting as to whether this was sound. The Fed wants to “give relief” to the bank holding company, which is under heavy pressure.

This is a direct transfer of risk to the taxpayer done by the bank without approval by regulators and without public input.

So did you hear about this on the news?

Probably not.

Today, the notional value of all the derivatives held by Bank of America comes to approximately $75 trillion.

JPMorgan Chase is holding derivatives with a notional value of about $79 trillion.

It is hard to even conceive of such figures.

Right now, the banks with the most exposure to derivatives are JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and HSBC Bank USA.

Morgan Stanley also has tremendous exposure to derivatives.

You may have noticed that these are some of the “too big to fail” banks.

The biggest U.S. banks continue to grow and they continue to get even more power.

Back in 2002, the top 10 U.S. banks controlled 55 percent of all U.S. banking assets.  Today, the top 10 U.S. banks control 77 percent of all U.S. banking assets.

These banks have gotten so big and so powerful that if they collapsed our entire financial system would implode.

You would have thought that we would have learned our lesson back in 2008 and would have done something about this, but instead we have allowed the “too big to bail” banks to become bigger than ever.

And they pretty much do whatever they want.

A while back, the New York Times published an article entitled “A Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trading in Derivatives”.  That article exposed the steel-fisted control that the “too big to fail” banks exert over the trading of derivatives.  Just consider the following excerpt from the article….

On the third Wednesday of every month, the nine members of an elite Wall Street society gather in Midtown Manhattan.

The men share a common goal: to protect the interests of big banks in the vast market for derivatives, one of the most profitable — and controversial — fields in finance. They also share a common secret: The details of their meetings, even their identities, have been strictly confidential.

So what institutions are represented at these meetings?

Well, according to the New York Times, the following banks are involved: JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Citigroup.

Why do those same five names seem to keep popping up time after time?

Sadly, these five banks keep pouring money into the campaigns of politicians that supported the bailouts in 2008 and that they know will bail them out again when the next financial crisis strikes.

Those that defend the wild derivatives trading that is going on today claim that Wall Street has accounted for all of the risks and they assume that the issuing banks will always be able to cover all of the derivative contracts that they write.

But that is a faulty assumption.  Just look at AIG back in 2008.  When the housing market collapsed AIG was on the wrong end of a massive number of derivative contracts and it would have gone “bust” without gigantic bailouts from the federal government.  If the bailouts of AIG had not happened, Goldman Sachs and a whole lot of other people would have been left standing there with a whole bunch of worthless paper.

It is inevitable that the same thing is going to happen again.  Except next time it may be on a much grander scale.

When “the house” goes “bust”, everybody loses.  The governments of the world could step in and try to bail everyone out, but the reality is that when the derivatives market comes totally crashing down there won’t be any government on earth with enough money to put it back together again.

A horrible derivatives crisis is coming.

It is only a matter of time.

Stay alert for any mention of the word “derivatives” or the term “derivatives crisis” in the news.  When the derivatives crisis arrives, things will start falling apart very rapidly.

 

Obama: The Affirmative Action President

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 22, 2011 by poorrichards2012blog

by Matt Patterson (columnist – Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass — held to a lower standard — because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon — affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin — that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people — conservatives included — ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth — it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn’t that all that matters these days?

Abortion . . .

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 21, 2011 by poorrichards2012blog


Dear Friends,

The abortion issue is very serious.  I believe strongly that this is true, and I believe that you do too.

Because the news media loves to make mountains out of mole hills, I want to be very clear about where I stand on abortion:

I am 100% pro-life, period.

Let me explain.  In an interview yesterday with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.

If you listen to the line of questioning, it is clear that Mr. Morgan was asking if I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion.

My answer was focused on the role of the President.  The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone.  That was the point I was trying to convey.

As to my political view on abortion…again, I am pro-life.  End of story. 

As President, I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution.  Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.

I will oppose government funding of abortion.  I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood.  I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.

Friends, please know that I appreciate all of your support.  Together, we will put America back on the right track.

Sincerely,
Herman Cain

Friends of Herman Cain, Inc.
PO Box 2158
Stockbridge Georgia 30281
United States