Wednesday, November 30, 2011

'Most transparent administration in history' seals file on border agent murder

November 30, 2011
Thomas Lifson

The Fast and Furious scandal is causing the Obama administration to try to suppress evidence from public view. Judicial Watch reports:
The Obama Administration has abruptly sealed court records containing alarming details of how Mexican drug smugglers murdered a U.S. Border patrol agent with a gun connected to a failed federal experiment that allowed firearms to be smuggled into Mexico.
This means information will now be kept from the public as well as the media. Could this be a cover-up on the part of the "most transparent" administration in history? After all, the rifle used to kill the federal agent (Brian Terry) last December in Arizona's Peck Canyon was part of the now infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the disastrous scheme allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. (snip)
Truth is, no one will know the reason for the confiscation of public court records in this case because the judge's decision to seal it was also sealed, according to the news story. That means the public or media won't have access to any new or old evidence, filings, rulings or arguments.
Richard Nixon's ghost must be full of envy at the way the media are ignoring this scandal, which, never forget, has led to many deaths, including two federal officials.

American Thinker

Medal of Honor Recipient Sues Defense Contractor, Claims Company Sold Sniper Tech to Pakistan

Sun TzuPosted by Sun Tzu Nov 30th 2011 at 12:59 pm in Afghanistan, Military Technology, News, Soldiers, veterans

From the Wall Street Journal:

Two months ago, Dakota Meyer was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Barack Obama for his service in Afghanistan, the military’s most prestigious award. On Monday, Sgt. Meyer alleged that a defense contractor has called him mentally unstable and a problem drinker, ruining his chances for a job in the defense industry.

In legal papers filed Monday, the Marine claims that BAE Systems, where he worked earlier this year, retaliated against him after he raised objections about BAE’s alleged decision to sell high-tech sniper scopes to the Pakistani military. He says his supervisor at BAE effectively blocked his hiring by another defense contractor by making the claims about drinking and his mental condition.

Sgt. Meyer’s complaint is likely to pose a more difficult challenge for BAE, a British company with extensive U.S. operations, than a typical employment dispute. In the September White House ceremony, Sgt. Meyer was hailed for braving enemy fire as he tried to save the lives of fellow Marines who had been trapped in a Taliban ambush.

BAE said it would defend itself, but comments by BAE officials Monday made clear they don’t want to be seen as denigrating a Medal of Honor recipient. “Although we strongly disagree with his claims, which we will address through the appropriate legal process, we wish him success and good fortune in his endeavors,” said Brian J. Roehrkasse, a BAE spokesman. He declined to discuss any specifics of the suit.

Through a lawyer, Sgt. Meyer declined to comment on his suit. Representatives of the Pentagon and Marine Corps said they weren’t aware of the suit.

Read the full article here.

Big Peace

Fed Moves to Pump Dollars into European Banks

From the The Telegraph (UK):

The Bank of England and central banks in the United States, eurozone, Japan, Switzerland and Canada have launched co-ordinated global action to ease a growing credit crisis among eurozone banks.

“The purpose of these actions is to ease strains in financial markets and thereby mitigate the effects of such strains on the supply of credit to households and businesses and so help foster economic activity,” the Bank of England said in a statement.

The central banks are providing liquidity to the financial system by lowering the price on existing dollar swaps, making it easier for banks to get access to dollars.

Eurozone banks have struggled to raise dollars amid Europe’s escalating debt crisis. Many traditional sources of dollar funding, such as US money markets, are no longer willing to make short-term loans to many European banks or are asking too high a price to do so, raising the spectre of the 2008 credit crunch
Christian Schulz, of Berenberg Bank, said: “This shows that central banks across the world continue to cooperate and that the ECB, and its partners, are very aware of the funding stress that European banks are under at the moment.”

Central banks have also agreed to supply liquidity in other major currencies if needed.

Michael Hewson, market analyst at CMC Market, said: “It gives an indication that monetary authorities are prepared to do what is required to stop a freeze up in the funding markets. But, basically all they are doing here is QE (quantitative easing) on steroids. It does not deal with the underlying issues.”

Read more here.

Big Government

New Book Exposes the Effort to Introduce Radical Political Philosophy into K-12 Classrooms

MUSKEGON, Mich. – We’ve always known that teachers unions are very political organizations, and many of their more radical members are active in left-wing causes.

That’s their right, as long as they pursue their activities after school.

But more and more American K-12 teachers are bringing their politics into the classroom, brazenly acknowledging their effort to indoctrinate and recruit a new generation of radical, anti-American students.

“The long period of self-censorship among educators regarding class and labor issues may no longer hold,” wrote radical educator Rob Linne in his book Organizing the Curriculum.”

“We cannot claim to be teaching for social justice if we ignore the class warfare being waged all around us.

Bringing labor into the arena of K-12 education will undoubtedly meet political resistance, but an increasing number of educators are motivated to take up the challenge.”

That frightening approach to teaching is what motivated Education Action Group to publish a new book titled Indoctrination: How ‘Useful Idiots’ are Using Our Schools to Subvert American Exceptionalism.”

You can watch a short promotional video for the book by clicking here.

The book, authored by EAG Chief Executive Officer Kyle Olson, with assistance from staffers Ben Velderman and Steve Gunn, is available on

It explores dozens of examples of radical public school teachers and their politically active unions taking liberty with our children by teaching left-wing philosophy as fact.

It also illustrates how radical left-wing think tanks around the nation are producing and distributing special lesson plans that attack the fundamentals of American society and plant the seeds of class warfare in young minds.

In his foreword for the book, FOX News contributor and former Clinton advisor Dick Morris bemoans the fact that educators are willing to brainwash young minds before they have the ability to fully understand and judge issues on their own.

“We have become accustomed to hearing American history and politics misinterpreted by leftist university professors,” Morris writes. “But (now) we see the insidious indoctrination at the elementary and secondary levels. At least university students can think for themselves. (The book) explains how 7- and 8-year-olds are taught to embrace an atheistic, leftist philosophy virtually from the time they enter school.”
I, Tomato

The book clearly illustrates that teachers unions want to create a future class of organized labor activists or sympathizers.

A curriculum produced by the radical California Federation of Teachers is called “ Golden Lands, Working Hands.”

To reverberate with its adolescent audience, the lesson features a rap video with the lyrics, “The age of railroads meant mass transportation, but did rich men make the trains of our nation? Psych! It was the working people who laid the tracks. And see who did the work and got the job done. While lazy lone ranger was out havin’ fun.”

After the minimum wage line, the cartoon character in the video falls in the grave he just dug for himself, then a pig rises out of a pile of money bags. There is nobody in the video defending the “pig” who invested the money to build the railroads and create the jobs. That would have destroyed the whole purpose of the lesson.

Younger students are not immune from these very political “lessons.”

There is a popular story/lesson plan for young children titledI Tomato.” The main character, a tomato plant, tells readers about the loving care it received from various migrant workers, and how it was mistreated by being sprayed with pesticides.

The story gives full credit for food production to the field workers – “Juana, Dolores and Rajib; Finoy and Carlos, Connie, Lupe, Marcos and Jose Manuel – it is to them I owe my life and you owe your tomatoes.”

That’s great, but what about the investor who risked his savings to establish the farm, hire the workers and provide the necessary materials to grow the tomatoes? No mention of him. But the kids do get a union promo at the end of the story:

“Many farm workers belong to a union,” the story says. “Do you know what a union is? If you were a worker, would you want to belong to a union? How can you find out if your fruits and vegetables were picked by union workers?”

The book also discusses Chicago teacher Kati Gilson, who taught her preschoolers about her 2011 trip to Madison to protest the collective bargaining policies of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. She also taught them new words like “strike,” “collective bargaining,” and “negotiate.”
“My preschoolers understand what a protest march is and why it is important,” Gilson wrote.
“As we gear up for what looks like a big battle it is important for us to teach our children and families why we are taking a stand.”

Is this what we pay school taxes for?

What would the Black Panthers do?

Many radical teachers obviously want their students to disapprove of the United States and mistrust their government.

One chapter in the book explores the growing pattern of teachers leading elementary children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Earth, instead of America. One educator, Rosalie Tyler Paul of Maine, wrote a piece calling for everyone to reject love of country and embrace globalism.

“We can see that the nation is not the parcel most in need of our loyalty and allegiance,” Paul wrote. “The purpose and courage we need can be found better in Earth citizenship that in nationalism.”

Wayne Au, a former Seattle high school teacher, wrote about teaching his students the story of the violent Black Panthers and their Ten Point Program,” and encouraging students to develop their own lists of political priorities, based on modern issues.

One successful student wrote, “We want the mask of capitalism lifted and economic classes disbanded,” and “The enslavement of the middle of the lower classes by the bourgeoisie must end.” Au praised the student’s work for its “relentless attack on corporate America.”

Even school math lessons are not immune. One chapter of the book refers to “The Guide for Integrating Issues of Social and Economic Justice into Mathematics Curriculum,” by Jonathan Osler.

In his guide, Osler suggests giving a lesson about mathematical averages using casualty numbers from the war in Iraq. He suggests teaching probability by having students explore the probability that a police traffic stop will target a person of color. He also calls for a geometry lesson based on “environmental racism” that would require students to “determine the density of toxic waste facilities, factories, dumps, etc. in the neighborhood.”

Way to go, Mr. Osler. Instead of teaching a generation of youngsters to appreciate their nation and the freedom they have to make their lives better, you want to create an angry bunch of revolutionaries who are determined to destroy the very system that makes it possible to work for change.

As one blogger who reviewed our book wrote, “Olson shows that kids are being taught everything but what parents are sending them to school to learn. This is a solid book, but it’s shocking in what it uncovers.”

Big Government

Wisc. Election ‘Watchdog’ Assumes ALL Recall Signatures Are Valid, Will Only Verify Contested Entries

In Wisconsin, where Big Labor is circulating petitions to trigger the recall of Republican Governor Scott Walker, the state agency that monitors and administers elections is known as the G.A.B.

The ‘A’ is supposed to stand for accountability. But, in reality, not so much.

Yesterday we reported that the GAB would not comb through the petitions to disqualify duplicate signatures.

Today, we find out it is much worse than that.

[Madison, Wisc…] Duplicate signatures are not the only point of contention in the ongoing recall drives in Wisconsin. The board that oversees the state’s elections admits they will not check the validity of any of the signatures or addresses contained on the recall petitions expected to be submitted in January.

For $625,699 the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board will make sure all the blanks are properly filled out on petitions to recall Governor Scott Walker, but that’s all.

Meanwhile, news reports around the state have raised the questions about ineligible individuals signing the forms. At least one liberal group is encouraging voters to sign multiple times.

The GAB will not be checking for fraud, but will rule on challenges brought forth by the subjects of the recalls, should they find evidence of fraud.

Reid Magney, GAB spokesman, cited Section 9.10(3) of the State Statutes, under which the filing officer, ”shall determine by careful examination whether the petition on its face is sufficient.”

Administrative Rules GAB 2.05 and 2.07 expand upon the definition “facial sufficiency,” including the presumption of validity of information contained on the petition and the challenger’s burden to establish any insufficiency.

“[C]hecking addresses, verifying ages, etc., is by law the responsibility of the incumbent,” Magney said. 

“If the incumbent files a challenge that says John Smith does not live at 123 Main Street, Onalaska, then the GAB must determine whether the challenge is correct and the name should be struck.”

Magney says the burden of proving the validity of signatures will fall on Governor Walker, not those filing the recall petitions. Read more>>

So, if the legislature grants the GAB’s request for additional $600,000, up to 50 temporary workers, aided by GAB staff, will have at least a month to make sure the forms were completely (though not necessarily legally) filled out. Governor Walker and any legislator facing recall will have a whopping  ten days to verify the hundreds of thousands of signatures are valid.

That’s right. Ten days.

However, the Walker campaign could go to court to contest GAB’s finding that the petitions are sufficient or for more time or to contest the validity of the signatures.

Settle in. It’s going to be a long and bumpy ride.

Big Government

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Obama, the Dream

November 29, 2011
By William L. Gensert

Barack Obama is a dream.  In 2008, the dream was hope and change.  In 2012, it will be progress, thwarted by evil partisans and selfish greed.  As Gertrude Stein said, "there is no there there."  He needs enemies to draw attention from his lack of depth, for he is truly a mile wide and an inch deep.  He is an illusion -- always appearing to be more than he is, always, more promise than reality.  He is, and always has been, the sum projection of what others want him to be.  Barack Obama doesn't exist, except in the hearts and minds of minions and sycophants. 

Many ignore the truth, disregarding Mr. Obama's abject failure as president.  Those of us with our eyes open, though, see right through the man.  A transparent presidency is the one promise he kept, for he is the original evaporated man.  Though he seemed so substantial at first, with the passage of time, it is obvious how much less there is to him.  What we saw in the beginning was simply a projection of our own hopes and dreams.  
We saw what we wanted to see. 

Now, when he looks into our eyes, he sees what he wants to see: his own reflection, the illusion of a great man.  He needs this fantasy to define himself.  After all, who is he, if not Lincoln, or JFK, or FDR, or Reagan?  He has to be someone else; he can't be himself, because there really is no Barack Obama.

Barack Obama may be a dream, but that dream is a nightmare: class warfare sold as transcendent leadership; crony capitalism sold as green energy; forced unionization sold as a means to save the worker; control of health care to ensure his vision of what care we must have, even if that's less than what we need.  Who lives and who dies, who should prosper and who should not -- all decided by our betters, all a part of his greatness, his vision, his grand plan.

And Obama's grand plan is a redefinition of not only America, but of all things.  He redefined the very meaning of leadership by leading from behind.  Rising unemployment is now jobs "saved or created."  Warfare is an "overseas contingency operation" and the ability to attack and retreat at the same time.  Obama has redefined political oratory with the aggressive use of "I," "me," and "my."  Terrorism is now "man-caused disasters," while diplomacy is apologizing and bowing to world leaders for the sins of those lesser men who came before.  A trillion dollars has become an affordable sum.  Bipartisanship is giving the opposition the opportunity to do as they are told, and dignified debate is the demonization of anyone who disagrees.  Fair play is victory by any means.  Truth is whatever Obama says it is.  Rules are whatever he says they are.  
Merit is deserving awards for what he might do.  Humility is saying:

I think I'm a better speech writer than my speech writers, I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.  And I'll tell you right now that I'm ... a better political director than my political director.  I'm LeBron, baby.  I can play at this level.  I got game.

And in describing the sagacity of his nomination for the Presidency:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal[.]

Obama believes himself a good man.  Yet, with no depth or breadth, he is victim to the ideology he has been steeped in his entire life, a captive of his conviction that he is on the side of what is right and just.  The benevolent hand of Barack Obama has wrought more havoc upon the freedom of our nation than any enemy ever could, for while evil can wreak untold damage, it takes the truly self-righteous to destroy a nation.

Edmund Burke said that "all that is necessary for evil to triumph, is that good men to do nothing."  Yet it is also true that the greatest evil has, just as often as not, been perpetrated by good men seeking to do something.

Only a man not really there could spend a trillion dollars on failed stimulus, resulting in the loss of millions of jobs, and claim success for having saved us from depression caused by the depredations of the greedy 1%, who refuse to pay their fair share, defined as some figure in excess of the 40% of all taxes they already pay.

The politics of Barack Obama, sold as hope and change, was never more than bitterness and envy, fomented in the citizenry to disguise his pandering to crony capitalists, political backers, and rabid environmentalists.  All concealed from the public by a compliant legacy media.  His reelection campaign needs their money.  How else can finish the transformation of an unappreciative America? 

The nowhere man had no problem handing Libya to al-Qaeda, Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood, and Iraq to Iran, while doing nothing to prevent Iran from helping Syria kill thousands of its own people.  None of that is important.  Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon, a dismal economy, and high unemployment don't worry Obama; it's all George Bush's fault -- now off to Hawaii, Bali, and Australia. 

Obama is a faux intellectual, using arrogance and attitude to convey authority.  Reading fluidly from his teleprompter, he condescends in mellifluous tones to convey intellectual superiority.  He loves giving speeches, pausing frequently for applause, for he is nothing when not basking in the adulation of the masses.  He is defined only by what is said and written about him.  That is why he can't stand dissent and will go to any lengths to crush it. 

There are no policies, just generalizations.  The failed Stimulus Act was written by others and used to reward those who did the most to elect Obama.  Obamacare legislation, also written by others, is exceedingly unpopular, has cost jobs, and is predicted to hamstring the economy well into the future, while restricting health care and costing trillions of dollars.  So what?  The winners write history, and as Obama told Republicans, he won

Idealess, Obama's latest proposal, the American Jobs Act, is the same as the original stimulus, just half as large.  But this one is designed to fail legislatively, so the president can run against a do-nothing Congress. 

Obama doesn't recognize the economic disaster he has created.  He believes what he has always been told: that he is a huge success, his only mistake not communicating his greatness to the little people.  Because in reality, Americans have become too soft and too lazy to put in the time and effort necessary to understand how lucky we are to have Barack Obama, perhaps the greatest man to have ever lived.  If you don't believe me, just ask him.  He'll tell you.

American Thinker

What Are We Paying Obama For? And Can It Get Worse?

It’s simply hard to imagine this passes for a Presidency.  At what point does he become simply too much for the senses?  Sure we have had some interesting and bad Presidents before – recently in fact.  Nixon changed our view of the Presidency for the worse.  Carter was beyond ineffectual.  Bush 41 broke a huge promise. Clinton wagged his finger while lying – and a bit more than that.  But this President is truly something and it’s not just the facts that are bad – it’s his excuses and manners that make this Presidency so incredibly bad.

Let us count the ways:

A.  The Economics.

This list is well known by now – but that doesn’t mean it is highlighted by the Media as it would be of a Republican was president.
  1. Unemployment at 9% for a historically long time.  According to Obama he inherited this mess and blames President Bush and ATMs.  Yes Obama believes automation, like ATMs, is to blame – as if such automations like automobiles (accounting for nearly 20% of our economy) and computers (creating employers like EBAY and Microsoft)  are the cause of our unemployment.  Beyond that, Obama joked that he was wrong about “shovel ready” projects, created the “Saved” jobs category out of thin air, and claimed that the stimulus bill would prevent unemployment from going above 8%.  What’s missing, of course, is a plan to lower unemployment – let alone actually lower unemployment.
  2. Gas Prices.  They are currently 85% higher than when he took office.  He shut down our Gulf oil production for ideological not actual reasons and delayed a Canadian pipeline for political reasons.  When Bush 43 saw high gas prices, the Media told him to go his friends in the Middle East to ask them to raise production.  Since Obama wanted $5 gasoline all along, he has no plan to lower energy prices and the Media doesn’t harp on the issue.  Meanwhile the economy is hurt badly because of the higher costs of energy that reduce purchasing power and hurt employers everywhere.
  3. Foreclosure/Home Mortgage Crisis.  This is the one part of the economy that actually is in a crisis that is “the worst since the Great Depression” – a phrase Obama is fond of overusing.  Obama has continued the policy of bailing out the Banks for foreclosure related losses, encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts instead of reforming them and now he has sued the very Banks he bailed out because of their foreclosure practices – and no, there is no plan in sight let alone true relief.
  4. The Deficit.  It has quadrupled under Obama.  Yet he says inherited it – and rather than change it, spending has actually gone up each of this 3 years.  Obama’s solution: have other people come up with a plan – he was traveling or on vacation. When it failed, he said he knew it would fail.  So Chris Christie rightfully asks:  What are we paying Obama for?

B.  Foreign Policy.
  1. Missiles.  In his first year, Obama scrapped a missile system – thereby telling Poland that years of such work and friendship with the US are not all that important.  It also told many others the same thing.
  2. Libya.  We are not at war – just facilitating war.  What was the national security principle at stake?  The Assassination principle?  How very Nobel.
  3. Egypt.  For years Mubarak was a reliable partner that kept peace with Israel. He was kicked to the curb under Obama and Egypt has descended into chaos.
  4. Israel.  I don’t quite know how much more you can disrespect an ally.  Obama, however, managed to get caught doing what we already suspected – bad mouthing an allied leader.  If that doesn’t make you wonder what other leaders think he is doing – this combined list should.
  5. U.S. Image Abroad.  Remember when Obama said Bush ruined our image abroad?  Yet today effigies of Obama are hung or burned across the Middle East and Europe has lost faith.  Wouldn’t you think of Nobel Peace prize would buy you more credibility than that?
All of which brings us to the Presidential meter. Just how Presidential has he been?  I remember when Reagan would never take his jacket off in the Oval Office out of respect.  FDR has serious fireside chats.  Washington rode on a white horse.

As for Obama:

He just played golf with his friend who was busted in a prostitution sting.   How very Presidential.  We hear he did so out of loyalty.  Nice.

As for his other loyalties, he bought a house from a criminal to be, Tony Rezko.  Obama got a great deal to boot.  At least is suffering from a foreclosure crisis – and let us not forget that he had a proud terrorist, Bill Ayers, raise money for him.

With friends like that, it kind of makes you miss Bebe Rebozo doesn’t it?

Of course, we can’t forget the wonderful Reverend Wright – someone he was loyal enough to attend his “church” for 20 years but not loyal enough to really listen to him.

Obama doesn’t much listen to the American people either.  How else do you push ObamaCare down voters’ throats and wind up with 26 states suing and others all but nullifying the legislation?

All of which brings me to the final point:

Obama’s Miserable Consensus Building.

While some Presidents are known for courageous and tough stands that pay dividends in the years to come, most all of them are judged, at some level, by whether their coalition of supporters is larger after they take office then before.  We have already seen what the World has thought of Obama.  We know that, at home, his 2008 coalition is gone and it is not just because of the bad economy.

Obama has been picking fights with the American electorate from day one.  The Stimulus Bill cleaved off his Republican support and fostered the Tea Party – which he then vilified on the way to ObamaCare. In between, he tried to legislative enact Cap & Trade, lost and crammed that down America through the EPA.

He wanted to “prosecute” 911 enemy combatants in a New York court room and yielded only when even liberal New York said no.

Since then, Obama has engaged in class warfare over taxes in such a way as to only convince Americans he missed economics class.

In the final analysis, of President’s seeking re-election, two basic questions are asked:

(1) Is the Country better off?   and,

(2) Have you brought the Country closer together?

In fact, Obama has not and, quite frankly, it hasn’t been pretty watching it either.

Big Government

Buh-Bye-Barney: A Video Tribute to a Lying, Arrogant SOB

So Elmer Fudd Barney Frank announced yesterday that he would not be running for re-election in 2012.  His stated reason was that his district was gerrymandered, which is true.  But Frank was no longer safe in a  safe-district. Remember it took a last-minute infusion of DNCC money to save Barney Frank in 2010 and even then, his 54% of the vote was the lowest he had ever received since his first election in 1980. Frank is retiring because he is chicken, he almost lost last time, and doesn’t have the guts to try again.

In his 31+ years in the House of Representatives Frank was always there to remind people why term limits should be added to the constitution. Be it the brothel that was operated out of his house, his lover that worked for Freddie Mac which led to his unbridled support of Fannie and Freddie which helped cause the housing bubble and great recession, his progressive stances which would make the most avid socialist proud, or that unexplained arrogance (he has nothing to be arrogant about).

Today is a good day for America because Barney Frank’s days in Congress are numbered, to understand why he was so bad for the country, I put together this video “tribute.”

In the video below Frank sits in a 9/10/03 House Financial Services Committee hearing and says Fannie and Freddie are sound, and there is no housing disaster coming.
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there’s a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios.

Here Congressman Fudd Frank stood up on the floor of the House of Representatives and told America that there is undue concern about the housing market and even though prices were growing very quickly the housing market is not like the Dot.Com industry, the housing bubble will not burst.

None of it was Barney Frank’s Fault, even in 2010 the Congressman knew whose fault it was–everybody else:

Of course, that never stopped Frank from lying about his role in the collapse (is it considered perjury when you lie to Larry King?

There was of course, that one time where Barney Frank was involved in a real crime:

He didn’t get away with the lies when he spoke to Bill O’ Reilly

Frank has had his ups and downs, in fact if you listen closely you will hear the most intelligent sound Barney ever made

Barney was never more embarrassingly arrogant than his confrontation with Harvard student Joel Pollak, who followed up his victory against Frank with a race for Congress. He presently is in-house counsel at

Buh-Buh-By-Barney, if we could could only say we hardly knew you. I will miss the great copy you provided, but your retirement is good for the country so I will gladly deal with it. Now get out of here because this interview is over.

Big Government

Treasury Secretary Paulson Tipped Off Hedge Fund Manages About Looming Collapse of Fannie, Freddie

From BloombergNews:

On the morning of July 21, before the Eton Park meeting, Paulson had spoken to New York Times reporters and editors, according to his Treasury Department schedule. A Times article the next day said the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency were inspecting Fannie and Freddie’s books and cited Paulson as saying he expected their examination would give a signal of confidence to the markets.

A Different Message

At the Eton Park meeting, he sent a different message, according to a fund manager who attended. Over sandwiches and pasta salad, he delivered that information to a group of men capable of profiting from any disclosure.

Around the conference room table were a dozen or so hedge- fund managers and other Wall Street executives — at least five of them alumni of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), of which Paulson was chief executive officer and chairman from 1999 to 2006. In addition to Eton Park founder Eric Mindich, they included such boldface names as Lone Pine Capital LLC founder Stephen Mandel, Dinakar Singh of TPG-Axon Capital Management LP and Daniel Och of Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC.

After a perfunctory discussion of the market turmoil, the fund manager says, the discussion turned to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Paulson said he had erred by not punishing Bear Stearns shareholders more severely.

The secretary, then 62, went on to describe a possible scenario for placing Fannie and Freddie into “conservatorship” — a government seizure designed to allow the firms to continue operations despite heavy losses in the mortgage markets.

Stock Wipeout

Paulson explained that under this scenario, the common stock of the two government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, would be effectively wiped out. So too would the various classes of preferred stock, he said.

The fund manager says he was shocked that Paulson would furnish such specific information — to his mind, leaving little doubt that the Treasury Department would carry out the plan. The managers attending the meeting were thus given a choice opportunity to trade on that information.

There’s no evidence that they did so after the meeting; tracking firm-specific short stock sales isn’t possible using public documents.

Read more here. We reached out to Breitbart Editor Peter Schweizer, whose new book Throw Them All Out has rocked DC, for comment on Sec’y Paulson’s actions:
This sort of behavior goes on regularly. Government officials can chose to release sensitive information to who they want. As I point out in my book, this has happened with Pentagon officials talking with investment houses about defense stocks and the defense budget, and Obama Administration discussions with commodity traders over plans to release the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is crony capitalism at its worse.
Big Government

Monday, November 28, 2011

Obama's Canadian Blunder

November 28, 2011
By John Donaldson, MD

President Obama and his advisers seriously misread the effect of the delay of the Keystone XL pipeline.  The alternative Northern Gateway pipeline is not a dream, but close to a reality which can ship oil to China and expand the use of B.C. Natural Gas.

The Keystone XL proposal would build a pipeline from the tar sands of Northern Alberta through Southern Saskatchewan into Montana and south to the Texas Gulf for end use of the recovered crude oil.  Its ultimate capacity would be 900,000 barrels per day and would significantly reduce imports to the USA from OPEC nations, none of which can be considered friendly or stable, making American energy supply and prices hostage to the whims of international politics.

With a major voter support group opposing the construction of Keystone from the Canadian border to refineries on the Gulf Coast, Obama again voted "present" on the issue, delaying any decision on permitting its construction until after the next election.  The foremost vocal opponents were the environmentalists, who continue to proclaim that this pipeline poses a threat to an aquifer in Nebraska, that the tar sands oil is "dirty," and that any hydrocarbon-based energy production contributes to global warming and/or climate change.

Currently, the Keystone Phase 1 pipeline is completed and able to deliver crude from the tar sands to Patoka, IL and refineries at Wood River, IL.  A side branch delivers crude to Cushing, OK for distribution to refineries in Kansas and Oklahoma via Keystone Phase 3.  The line is capable of supplying 435,000 barrels daily.  An interactive map can be found here.  Note that if all four phases are completed, the USA would receive 1.3 million barrels per day from a stable neighbor.

It is no secret that China is energy-hungry.  Anyone who has visited China, particularly in the cooler months, can testify that they have no interest in subscribing to any of the global warming fraud.  They are pursuing energy worldwide, including via the tar sands, where they have invested around $15 billion already, mostly through their government arm PetroChina.

To get that oil to their market will require a pipeline to the Canadian West Coast, specifically Kitimat, British Columbia from a terminal near Edmonton.  Plans are well underway for Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline to build two parallel lines, an eastbound 20-inch line to bring "condensate" B.C. natural gas to the terminal to dilute the viscosity of the heavy crude, thereby facilitating transmission via the westbound 36-inch line for transshipment via supertanker to China.  Around 500,000 barrels per day will be exported and inject roughly $20 billion per year into the Canadian economy.

If the USA is center-right-leaning, Canada would be centrist in nature.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper is an Albertan and a Conservative in a country where that means about the same as a RINO in the USA.  Harper represents a Calgary West riding, the oil capital of Canada, often referred to as Houston North.  An economist professionally, he has been prime minister since 2006, the first five years walking the tightrope of minority government.  In 2011, Canadians rewarded him with a majority government in return for turning around the economy by cutting spending and government debt without gutting the social programs.  Harper did this in the face of the entire opposition to his left.

Traditionally, Canadians have welcomed politicians who conduct themselves in a nationalistic fashion and who avoid being labeled as lackeys of the USA or accusations of turning Canada into the 51st state (58th for Obama).  Pierre Elliot Trudeau was a perfect example of a politician who was essentially anti-American, while Brian Mulroney was considered part of Wall Street.

Harper, on the other hand, has pursued a Canada First policy and has led Canada to be Israel's number-one supporter with absolutely no apologies to Obama.  He has pursued policies which strengthen economic ties outside the USA-Canada relationship.  He has refused to jump on the global warming bandwagon.  Rejecting any "obligatory" sale to the U.S. in favor of China will substantially strengthen Harper politically without public fanfare.

Harper has kept control of the Northern Gateway Pipeline in federal hands.  The Liberal British Columbia premier probably welcomed the chance to dodge the issue given the province's California Lite reputation, the need for job creation, and the development of B.C. energy resources the project will bring.  The pipeline has the backing of some of the more outspoken members of the environmental lobby.

The tar sands contain about 1.7 trillion barrels of recoverable oil.  Obama has again opted out of energy independence, as he did on the Gulf development and all the other energy projects that would make U.S.-recovered hydrocarbons available domestically.  His non-decision has demonstrably treated Canada as a client-state while catering to the Green base of his own party.

Politically, the decision defies logic without a presumption of the president and his inner circle as radical leftists.  Obama killed the project in the face of support from organized labor that envisioned 20,000 construction jobs and over 100,000 spin-off jobs which are likely to be permanently lost.  The environmentalist left have nowhere else to go next November, while labor needs something to offer its unemployed members, who are the most likely voters to stray from the Democratic plantation.

Obama's message to Canada was, "Be good little children and wait until our election is over!"  His advisers certainly misread the Canadian mindset.  Harper is not going to stand around and wait for a leftist U.S. politician to determine Canadian economic development.  Canada has a valuable product to sell and a hungry Chinese economy willing to purchase it.  He has a pipeline project that is viable financially and safe environmentally ready to go to the coast.

There is talk about a new route to the USA to the west of the Nebraska aquifer, but at best this is to keep labor at bay, given the huge job loss from shelving the project.  By the time that project would be approved, Canada could build the Kitimat route and, if supertanker dock space is available, double the line to 900,000 barrels per day.

Personally, I would love to see Harper build a series of refineries and coal-fired power plants along the American border from Alberta to Ontario and ship the finished products of electricity and refined petroleum products to the USA.  That might just prove to be a great "Envirowacko-Free" outlet for the North Dakota oil and gas, as well as additional Canadian production, circumventing the EPA and other radical hindrances to American energy development by reversing the energy flow.

Dr. Donaldson is a dual citizen of Canada and the USA and practices in Florida.  He can be contacted at

American Thinker

FATCA: A Ticking Time Bomb for the Economy

November 28, 2011

Buried in an ostensible jobs bill signed by President Obama last year is a little-noticed job-destroying government regulation that threatens to trigger a massive outflow of capital from the American economy.

The U.S. economy is in bad shape.  Many want the federal government to fix it -- to end the deficits, create jobs, and get America back onto the track of growth and stability.  President Obama came to Washington with great promises: to restore international respect for the United States and to bring back the jobs.  When signing the HIRE Act of 2010 on March 18, 2010, President Obama said:
A consensus is forming that, partly because of the necessary -- and often unpopular -- measures we took over the past year, our economy is now growing again and we may soon be adding jobs instead of losing them. The jobs bill I'm signing today is intended to help accelerate that process.
Now the HIRE Act of 2010 contains a time bomb called FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), which has indeed accelerated a process.  Unfortunately that process is not job-generation, but job-destruction caused by an exodus of capital from the United States.  Investment means jobs; a departure of investment capital means job losses.  Thus, the HIRE Act is really the "FIRE Act."

FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) is the brood of FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Report).  FBAR requires that U.S. persons divulge foreign accounts to the Treasury Department, but few knew about or ever complied with it (see "When Government turns Predator").  To stanch the bleeding of U.S. capital into secret bank jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, Congress introduced FATCA into law as part of the HIRE Act.  FATCA requires that foreign financial institutions (FFIs) reveal the accounts of U.S. persons to the IRS.  The FFIs will then have to collect tax withholdings for the IRS from these clients.  If by January 1, 2014 the FFI is unwilling to reveal its U.S. clients' accounts, the IRS will impose a punitive 30% withholding on all payments to the FFIs, on dividends, interest, and gross sales of stocks, bonds, and financial derivatives.

Let's suppose that a foreign investor trades stocks on a U.S. exchange, but his broker is FATCA non-compliant.  One day he buys 10,000 shares of XYZ at $25 per share, and the next day, he takes advantage of a nice uptick of $1.00 in XYZ and sells at $26 per share.  He makes a tidy profit of $10,000.  

But because his broker is non-compliant, the IRS now withholds 30% -- not of the profit, but of the gross proceeds of the sale!  So the client now receives the sum of $260,000 minus 30%.  The foreign investor is unhappy because his $250,000 investment has become $182,000.  If he wants his money back, he must file a U.S. tax return.

No investor would accept such conditions.  Hence, an FFI must either comply with the invasive regulations of FATCA or simply abandon the U.S. markets.

After some study, FFIs have warned that the costs of FATCA compliance will be in the hundreds of millions and likely in excess of whatever taxes that the IRS could gather through its enforcement (not that the IRS cares about that!).  It is likely that many FFIs will simply choose to leave the United States, taking their clients' money with them.  In an open letter, "Farewell America," Wegelin & Co., a private Swiss bank, cited their reasons for leaving the United States: excessive regulations, tax issues, and above all, the insolvency of U.S. government.  Now add the expense of FATCA, and many other FFIs are going to follow Wegelin's lead.  American Citizens Abroad has cited Japanese and European FFIs as indicating a strong likelihood that they would pull out of the United States.

FFIs could also face privacy lawsuits from affected customers.  Canada's privacy laws, for example, may not permit banks to divulge clients' account information, for compliance is voluntary.  Thus, Canada and several other countries would probably require a change in their privacy laws before their FFIs could lawfully comply with FATCA.

FATCA's enforcement of U.S. tax globally has resulted in serious alarm and backlash.  FATCA is a clear violation of President Obama's campaign promise on July 2007:
To renew American leadership in the world, I intend to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. Needed reform of these alliances and institutions will not come by bullying other countries to ratify changes we hatch in isolation. It will come when we convince other governments and peoples that they, too, have a stake in effective partnerships.
FATCA is an attempt to impose unilaterally the collection of U.S. taxes without consideration of the laws and the rights of sovereign nations, and that makes it bullying of the worst kind.  In response, some FFIs are already turning away U.S. citizens and closing their existing accounts; their business is not worth the hassle anymore.

U.S. citizens abroad, numbering about six million, would normally be America's goodwill ambassadors.  But they have become angry because of the threat of excessive FBAR penalties.  Those who thought they could ignore FBAR now dread FATCA, which will force their FFIs to tattle on them.  An increasing number of Americans are renouncing their U.S. citizenship.  The U.S. consulates have had so many requests for renunciation that they have started arranging group sessions, like the one at the U.S. Consulate in Toronto in October.  Moreover, some Americans abroad have pulled all of their investments out of the United States and are also planning their vacations to non-U.S. destinations -- not from anger alone, but also from fear that border guards will arrest them and that a computer system will soon link the IRS to border enforcement.
Richard W. Rahn writes in the Washington Post that FATCA has already sent foreign capital fleeing.  He claims that the people running Washington are "mental midgets" unaware of how their policies affect the economy.  He estimates that FATCA will cause the departure of an estimated $14 trillion of private foreign investment, destroying as many as 10,000,000 jobs in the United States.

By signing the HIRE Act with its FATCA provisions, President Obama has bullied our allies, penalized FFIs, alienated many American citizens, and seriously jeopardized any possibility of an economic recovery.  

Apparently, Mr. Obama's ideological predisposition in favor of taxes and against wealth blinds him to a balanced approach to the economy and its problems.  FATCA's imposition on FFIs is hegemony of the worst kind.  Foreign investors are interpreting FATCA as a sign of the desperation that often precedes the imposition of capital and currency controls.  In an investment climate now dominated by fear, capital flight is inevitable.  FATCA only ensures its arrival, and it will exaggerate its effects.

American Citizens Abroad reaches the following conclusions regarding the legislation:
FATCA legislation is predicated on the faulty assumption that foreigners throughout the world with no predisposition to favor the U.S. will react positively to its attempts to convert them into unpaid IRS agents. Faced with similar investment and personnel options without the legal jeopardy and financial risks, reasonable people will choose non-U.S. alternatives. FATCA implementation will constitute a major disruption of the entire international financial world as we know it today. Reasonable persons and entities will develop effective antibodies to this perceived infection, in ways too numerous and manifold to predict. What can be predicted is that the cumulative effect of this legislation will be a major blow to U.S. economic interests and prestige.
At stake for the United States is the potential loss of trillions of dollars of investment, the opportunity for American companies and financial institutions to compete in a competitive global environment and the possibility for American citizens residing overseas to survive and thrive. In brief, the economic future of the United States.
In a time when government has caused what may be irreparable economic problems, we don't need "help" like this.  Mr. Obama, please stop helping us.

Peter W. Dunn blogs at the Righteous Investor.

American Thinker

Arab Spring Swaps Secular Despots for Islamist Ones

Dan FriedmanPosted by Dan Friedman Nov 27th 2011 at 4:29 pm in Egypt, Foreign Policy, Israel, Middle East, sharia 

The source of this op-ed is the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz. But don’t let that fool you. The writer is one of the most distinguished and erudite politicians Israel has ever produced. Perhaps that’s why he left Israeli politics years ago.

Arab Spring will just bring upon Islamist dictatorships
A wave of Islamic rule, with all it entails, is sweeping across the Arab world. It will replace secular dictatorships with Islamic ones.

By Moshe Arens

The United Nations Development Programme’s 2002 Arab Human Development Report stated that “deeply rooted shortcomings” existed in Arab countries. In other words, Arab societies were sick. According to the report, this sickness was reflected in the lack of “respect for human rights and freedoms,” the status of Arab women, and the poor state of “knowledge acquisition and its effective utilization.”

The follow-up report in 2003 stated: “True democracy is absent and desperately needed. The educational system is severely retarded; schools produce ignorant young men and women. Most of the [Arab] intellectuals] realize, even if they deny it, that most of what was said in the most recent Arab Human Development Report is true.”

So if you were thinking that the so-called Arab Spring was going to fix all that, well, you’d better think again.

It looks like the Arab Spring will be followed by an Arab Winter. On second thought, this is a development that was entirely predictable: The Islamists are going to inherit the mantle of the dictators.

Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Gadhafi in Libya were corrupt dictators who outlived their days. They all suppressed the Islamic movements in their respective countries, and were all thus on the side of the seculars in their own perverse way. The same holds true for Syria’s Bashar Assad, whose father, Hafez, killed some 20,000 people in the city of Hama in 1982, quelling a rebellion by the Moslem Brothers. Now, his son, Bashar, no less ruthless, seems to be about to go the way of Ben Ali, Mubarak and Gadhafi.

The demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt were initially led by secular groups – educated youngsters adept at using the Internet, Facebook and Twitter. In Egypt, they stood shoulder to shoulder with members of the Coptic Christian community, which constitutes 10% of the Egyptian population. Quite naturally, they called for the downfall of Mubarak to be followed by democratic elections. The motley crew in Libya that overthrew Gadhafi was supported by the democracies that make up NATO, and it is unimaginable that the bloodbath that rid the country of the “mad dog of the Middle East,” as former U.S. President Ronald Reagan called him, would not be followed by democratic elections – even under the chaotic conditions that followed Gadhafi’s downfall.

But who is going to win the elections when they take place – in Egypt, in Libya and eventually in Syria?

We already have a preview: In Tunisia, the country that had been the most secular and westernized of the Arab states, the election was won by Ennahda, the Islamic party, with the advocates of a secular Tunisia left far behind.

The western media, in an attempt to put a good face on what has clearly been a disappointing outcome, insists on calling Ennahda a “mildly Islamic party.” But the facts are there for all to see: Tunisia is coming under Islamic rule. And there is no reason to expect a different outcome in Egypt, Libya or Syria, when elections are held there.

A wave of Islamic rule, with all it entails, is sweeping across the Arab world. It will replace secular dictatorships with Islamic ones. We should have expected nothing else.

Demography has been hard at work all through the past years. For those who haven’t noticed, during the long years of totalitarian rule in the Arab states, the population that was fervently Muslim increased in numbers much faster than the secular population. Now, the veiled women far outnumber those willing to show their faces in public – to such an extent that there is no need to await the counting of the ballots after election day; the outcome of elections in the Arab countries is certain before the votes have been cast.

Observers may fool themselves into believing that the Islamic parties contesting the elections in the Arab countries are “mildly” Islamic, or “moderate” Islamists, but their leaders are neither mild nor moderate.

Clearly, expecting the basic faults that characterize Arab societies – as described in the UNDP Arab Human Development reports – to be rectified under the rule of Islamic parties is no more than a vain hope. If anything, the opposite is most likely to be true: Sharia law will prevail, with all it entails.

The toppling of the Arab dictators was inevitable; unfortunately, however, just as inevitable is what is going to follow their overthrow. It looks like it is going to be long Arab Winter.

Big Peace

Strategic Metals and American Competitiveness in the 21st Century

The importance of strategic metals to the U.S. economy came into sharp focus last November when China cut off Japan’s rare earth metals supply over a territorial dispute and Japan immediately backed down. Since then, Americans have learned that the majority of rare earth deposits are in China, accounting for 97% of world production.

China’s action against Japan also exposed a more threatening strategy in the works‐‐ to create a two-tiered price structure with China’s manufacturers receiving rare earths at significantly lower costs than the rest of the world. Prices outside China are now 20 times what they were 2 years ago and 40% higher than inside China.

Is America confronting a situation similar to the 1970s OPEC oil embargo? No, the current situation is actually far worse. Deng Xiaoping famously noted 30 years ago that “the Mideast has oil, China has rare earths”. What he didn’t say was unlike the Mideast, China also has the means to manufacture and distribute globally every product that requires rare earths, which today includes automobiles, computers, cell phones, fluorescent lights, much of our military equipment and nearly every green technology‐electric cars, wind turbines, fuel cells, solar panels, etc. This is precisely what makes the current situation so dangerous to the long term prospects for the U.S. economy and American jobs. A two‐tiered price structure could make it impossible for American manufacturers to compete with China in the 21st Century.

A constant refrain from economists and politicians is that American innovation is our way out of the current financial dilemma. Breakthrough U.S. discoveries in the past have created whole industries such as automobiles, commercial flight and computers, generating millions of jobs and national prosperity. But what if we are unable to participate in the next great American discovery simply because we can’t get the necessary raw materials at competitive prices? The millions of jobs would blossom where the materials are available.

Today, that is China.

Yes, mines are now being planned in the U.S., Australia, Canada and elsewhere to take advantage of these high prices. But even under the rosiest projections for increased world supply, China’s vast rare earth resources will allow it to continue to function as the OPEC of rare earths ‐‐ dictating high global prices while providing lower costs domestically. These non‐ Chinese mines are as likely to sell below China’s high foreign prices as Venezuela would have been to undersell high Mideast oil prices during the 1970s. It just doesn’t make good business sense.

To prevent this will require a dramatic change in the way the U.S. public thinks about strategic metals and mining. The following is a 5 Point Plan to assure the next American technological revolution results in American jobs.


The U.S. environmental movement needs to realize it is in a Catch‐22 that threatens the very future of our country AS THEY THEMSELVES ENVISION IT! Environmentalists cannot both demand a green technology future involving wind/solar energy and electric cars and simultaneously prevent the mining of the very raw materials essential to manufacture these products. It presently takes DECADES to bring a metal mine on line due to the constraints of environmental requirements. America does not have decades if it wishes to participate in the global trillion dollar Cleantech revolution that some say will pull us out of our economic doldrums. The environmental movement must immediately acknowledge this serious dilemma and aggressively support legislation to expedite mining of at least those metals essential to green energy.


America needs to get into the global competition for the few remaining strategic resources. We have been far too lax in our quest for critical minerals. Besides developing domestic sources, China has built deep financial and political ties with any country holding significant deposits, investing billions in mineral‐rich Africa alone

While the U.S. continues to treat Africa as a post‐colonial charity case, China’s much more modern view of the continent is as an important strategic opportunity. China links its good deeds in places like Africa to mining opportunities. American policymakers need to consider this in the context of our own foreign aid and bring its Africa policy into the 21st century. American capital needs to recognize the huge long-term opportunities available in competing toe‐to‐toe with the Chinese for world domination of remaining metal resources.


We need to encourage our young to pursue careers in exploration, geology and high tech metallurgy the way they now compete for positions in internet start ups and investment banking. This requires a change in our very culture e.g. less “Social Network” and “Wall Street” and more “Indiana Jones.” Presently, Americans have so little appreciation for this field that most young people view metal mining as a career choice that died with the 49ers. In stark contrast, the current leader of China, Premier Wen Jiabao, received his college degree in geology. His first job was in rare earth mining! China gets what we don’t. Can you imagine an American parent telling their child “if you want to be U.S. president someday, better study geology”?


Wall Street needs to be permitted to facilitate “bottom up” manufacturing consolidation. China plans to make electric cars cheaper than we can by making rare earths available to its automakers at or near extraction costs. In order to encourage our mining companies to keep their costs in line with Chinese domestic costs in spite of higher world prices, we are not going to simply nationalize them as China did last year. The only alternative is for U.S. mining corporations to move further down the supply chain through joint ventures and acquisitions so they realize their profits in the added value products, such as wind turbines, electric cars and fluorescent lighting, that are manufactured from rare earths. Thus, corporate profitability becomes dependent on low internal rare earth costs rather than high world metal prices artificially sustained by China. These more vertically integrated U.S. companies can then generate the many jobs that will flow from American innovations built with strategic metals. Securities laws that stifle such vertical integration should be rescinded in favor of rules that encourage this behavior. Molycorp, owner of a California rare earth mine reopening next year, has the right idea in its forward thinking “mine to magnets” strategy (electric car motor magnets require rare earths) and in its recent partnering up with Boulder Wind Power (wind generators also require rare earths).


Finally, America needs to establish a Strategic Metals Reserve similar to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve created by Congress during the oil embargo. Such a reserve would have no impact on prices during times of peace, however, much of our advanced military equipment require rare earths and an embargo such as China imposed on Japan last year would today prevent us from maintaining our defensive readiness.

Listen to an exclusive interview with Michael Silver and Dr. Leeb below:

Big Government