"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin;
"And when politicians find that honor and character matter less than buying votes and a constituency, that too will herald the end of the Constitution. When that happens we must work tirelessly to change their minds, or their occupation!" - Hoping The Blind Will See

Friday, April 30, 2010

Is Obama Making America Irrelevant?

How weak should we allow ourselves to become? This from The Heritage Foundation yesterday...

Morning Bell: The Ahmadinejad Victory Tour

Posted By Conn Carroll On April 29, 2010 @ 9:26 am In American Leadership, Protect America

[1] Yesterday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley confirmed [2] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had submitted an application for a visa to attend the United Nations nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in New York next month. Since Crowley also confirmed that Ahmadinejad is likely to be awarded the visa, the Iranian President can now look forward to witnessing first hand the failure of President Barack Obama’s Iran policy.

At first the White House believed that President Barack Obama’s sheer power of personality and persuasion would be enough to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear program. So the President gave a conciliatory speech in Cairo [3], sent a direct message to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [4], and opened up direct talks with the Iranian regime [5]. The results have been crystal clear: the Iranian regime has only accelerated its nuclear program [6], accelerated its ballistic missile program, and further crushed internal dissent, all while the Obama administration remained silent [7] as the Green Revolution was brutally crushed [8].

Now the Obama administration is seeking “crippling” sanctions on Iran through the U.N. Security Council. This is another Obama fantasy that plays right into Iran’s “cheat, retreat, and delay” [9] nuclear strategy. Whatever goodwill the Obama administration hoped to get from Russia by caving into their New START demands has not paid off [10]. With help from Turkey [11], China and now Egypt [12], Iran’s rope-a-dope [13] U.N. diplomacy will render any U.N. sanctions regime completely toothless [14].

All these Ahmadinejad victories over President Obama would not be so alarming if the Obama administration were not actively undermining our nation’s ability to deter and defend against Iranian nuclear attack. First there was President Obama’s decision to cancel missile defense installations in Eastern Europe [15]. The Obama administration claimed that their alternative system, called the Phased Adaptive Approach, could defend U.S. allies by 2020. But a recent Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report [16] warns Iran may be able to reach the United States with an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by 2015. This means President Obama has created a new “window of vulnerability” [17] for our enemies to exploit.

And then there is President Obama’s New START agreement which limits U.S. conventional, nuclear and missile defense options. Former director of the Missile Defense Agency, Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, noted in The Washington Times [18] this week: “Strangely, New START may actually rest on what Russia permits the United States to do to defend Americans and our allies from such a missile attack. This equation is both bizarre and unsafe.”

“Bizarre and unsafe” is a generous assessment of the Obama administration’s efforts to protect America from Iran’s nuclear ambitions so far. The Obama administration must change course. The United States should impose and enforce the strongest possible sanctions [14], even if doing so requires action outside of the U.N. framework, and step up public diplomacy efforts to discredit the regime’s legitimacy and offer support to opposition groups, such as the Green Movement [19]. Most importantly the Obama administration must make the commitment to create and sustain a layered missile defense system [20], designed to counter every range of Iranian missiles in all stages of flight, including those that threaten the territory of the United States and its allies. This would include scrapping New START, returning missile defense installations to Eastern Europe and fully funding missile defense. For more, see 33 Minutes [21].

Quick Hits:

•According to USA Today [22], starting in 2014 the Internal Revenue Service will become the chief enforcement agency for Obamacare.

•USA Today also reports that starting this summer Obamacare will trap about 200,000 Americans [23] in high cost insurance plans.

•A new Pew Poll [24] shows that 62% of Americans believe President Obama’s $862 billion economic stimulus has not helped the job situation.

•Business leaders and economists say [25] they have seen few results from President Obama [26]’s five-year plan [27] to double U.S. exports.

•Venezuela’s economy is set to contract by as much as 5% under Hugo Chavez’s 21st-century socialism [28] this year, while free-trade-embracing Chile is set to grow by 4%.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Army Preps for Tea Party 'Terrorists'

Once you finish this article, ask yourself why and see where that leads you...

Alexander's Essay – April 29, 2010 - The Patriot Post

A few months back, the commander in chief or our Armed Forces, that erstwhile community organizer Barack Hussein Obama, denigrated a large cross section of Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement -- those who advocate for Essential Liberty and Rule of Law.

Obama identified them as malcontents, "waving their little tea bags."

Since then, the Obama administration and their Leftmedia sycophants have endeavored to characterize Tea Party attendees as rude, radical, racist, redneck, enemies of the state.

In fact, Americans who attend Tea Party rallies are from all walks of life, as noted in the Patriot Declaration, Patriots who are peacefully and constitutionally petitioning their government for redress.

As I noted in my tax-day essay, Tea Parties are "not a call for revolution but for restoration -- a call to undertake whatever measures are dictated by prudence and necessity to restore constitutional Rule of Law."

However, Obama's words do have consequences.

This week, I was contacted by a number of military personnel, enlisted and officer ranks, who expressed concern about a military exercise underway at Ft. Knox, the U.S. Bullion Depository. As with most such exercises, the Ft. Knox alert occurred in stages, as if real time intelligence was being provided at various intervals.

The first intel advisory was issued on Friday, 23 April 2010, and identifies the terrorist threat adversaries as "Local Militia Groups / Anti-Government Protesters / TEA Party."

You read that right: "TEA Party"!

The alert states that plans for the demonstration may have been interrupted by "Federal and local law enforcement" raids on a "White Supremacists Organization," but "TEA Party organizers have stated that they will protest at the Gold Vault at a future date."

Further, the intel advisory states, "Anti-Government - Health Care Protesters have stated that they would join the TEA Party as a sign of solidarity."

In accordance with the exercise, Ft. Knox post security is placed on high alert because, "these groups are armed, have combative training and some are former Military Snipers. Some may have explosives training / experience," and "a rally at their compound / training area is scheduled."

Another intel update was issued on Monday, 26 April 2010, noting that the "rally at the Militia compound occurred," and "Viable threats ... have been made." The intel on the rally notes, "Many members were extremely agitated at what they referred to as Government intervention and over taxation in their lives. Alcohol use 'fanned the flames.' Many military grade firearms were openly carried. An ad hoc 'shoot the government agent' event was held with prizes (alcohol) given for the best shot placement."

The report states further, "Components of bomb making are reported to have been on the site. Some members have criminal records relating to explosive and weapons violations."

In response to the "immediate threat," the exercise stipulates, "local detention centers are being made ready for mass arrests." Both the "QRF I and QRF II" are placed on two hour recall, and the "5-15 CAV" was ordered to "draw weapons from holder and store in most available arms room," and "coordinate with MASA for immediate ammunition draw; have equipment readied for immediate use, i.e. vehicles staged and loaded IAW 5-15 CAV SOP; LMR's charged."

QRF refers to Quick Reaction Force. QRF I is the 16th Cavalry Regiment. QRF II is the 194th Armored Brigade.

The 26 April order gives specific instructions for the 5-15 CAV (a 16th Cavalry battalion) to have weapons, ammo, vehicles and communications at ready, and it places the other 2,200 members of the units on two-hour recall. In other words, these orders are to gear up for defending Ft. Knox against Tea Party folks and their co-conspirators who oppose nationalization of our health care sector.

Now, for almost 30 years I have participated in the development and implementation of small and large scale military exercises within the U.S. and around the world.

Such exercises are critical to the readiness of our forces, and the standard for the real time intel reports in these drills requires thinly veiled references to assets of existing or collateral threat vectors such as communist regimes such as China and real terrorist networks such as al-Qa'ida, etc.

Perhaps the writers of such exercises today should focus on response plans for, say, an Islamic terrorist who attacks a post. (See Ft. Hood / Major Nidal Malik Hasan.)

The Ft. Knox exercise is not only amateurish in its construct, but also sets an ominous political precedent.

The military officers and enlisted personnel with whom I spoke are all dedicated uniformed Patriots who are loyal, first and foremost, to their oath to "support and defend" our Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Their concerns about this exercise mirrored my own. As one put it, the exercise "misrepresents freedom loving Americans as drunken, violent racists -- the opponents of Obama's policies have been made the enemy of the U.S. Army."

They were equally concerned that command staff at Ft. Knox had signed off on this exercise, noting, "it has been issued and owned by field grade officers who lead our battalions and brigades," which is to say many Lieutenant Colonels saw this order before it was implemented.

It's not likely that Ft. Knox Commanding General James Milano or Deputy Commander Col. David Teeples, or even the regimental and brigade commanders for the 16th Cav and 194th AB, actually read the exercise scenario, but that doesn't absolve responsibility for such an egregious example of political exploitation of U.S. forces.

One officer insisted, "The American people should require greater accountability of their commissioned officers, that they abide by their oath and never allow politically motivated propaganda like this exercise on any post or base again."

Another observed, "Whether this is complacency by officers who do not see such orders as a problem, or worse, officers who recognize the problem but do not insist the orders are changed, this is a serious problem. We are discussing the training of American citizen soldiers in the use of potentially deadly force against a specific group of political dissenters. There is never a time in an officer's career in which he does not have a duty to apply critical thought to the orders he is given and asked to give. It is my opinion that any officer that has allowed these orders to persist, to reach the level of junior officers and soldiers, has demonstrated a lack of judgment or apathy towards what his duty requires of him. Either way, we should demand more of the commissioned officers, who we as a nation empower to lead our sons and daughters into battle."

Indeed, and at best, the blatant malfeasance on the part of the individuals who composed this exercise reflects poorly on the uniformed services.

The antidote to this patent misrepresentation of peaceable Patriots is to expose it with the Light of Truth. As our motto Veritas vos Liberabit affirms, the Truth shall set you Free!

(Note: To report examples of politically motivated "exercises" in either the civilian or military sectors of our federal government, please contact us -- NewsTip@PatriotPost.US)

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander

Publisher, PatriotPost.US

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!

Here's an Update!

Update from Mark Alexander – April 29, 2010

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Regarding my essay, Army Preps for Tea Party 'Terrorists', I was contacted by senior command staff at Ft. Knox this afternoon. There was a security exercise at Ft. Knox this week, but an officer in the security loop altered the scenario "in order to make it more realistic." Those alterations were described in my essay, exactly as they appeared. The command staff informed me that the alterations were not approved at the command level and that the individual who circulated the scenario through official channels will "receive appropriate counsel." I was assured that the Command staff would not have authorized such a scenario.

Obama Is A Bit Skittish! Talk About Over Reacting - Watch This!

Can you imagine how embarassed these SWAT members must be? Unbelievable!!


If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention

So Tell Me, What Exactly Is All The Fuss Really About?

Ok, you've all read or heard about the new Arizona immigration law. Here it is by the way;  http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

It has stirred up quite a controversy, but why? As I understand it, the authorities will be carrying out their daily function just as they always have. They can not stop anyone unless some form of illegal action has taken place. Illegal action such as speeding, not stopping at a red light or stop sign, etc, etc. It will work much like seat belt laws in many states - you can't be stopped for not waering one, but if you are stopped for some other infraction you can be cited for not wearing one. (Where was the ACLU on that law? Oh yeah, that one was designed to take liberties away from legal citizens, not illegal ones! Thus the deafening silence!)  At that point, just like with any other traffic stop, the police will ask for driver's license and registration, or proof of insurance. Any legal citizen knows the drill and will hand over the paperwork - "no problem officer, why was I stopped?"

Here's where it gets a little dicey. Any illegal immigrants won't have the necessary paperwork. While legal residents wouldn't be allowed to drive away (they'd have to call a cab or get picked up, or have their paperwork dropped off to them), illegal immigrants will be detained. And the harm in that is? Hmmm, I don't see a downside becuase I'm not looking to create a new voting block through amnesty!

Who else, but local police, are going to be able to enforce immigration laws? Common sense? Yeah!!

So why all the controversy? Why do the ACLU and other progressive-based organizations want to block enforcement of the Arizona immigration law? That's the $60,000.00 question. Personally? I'm all for the Arizona law, and I'm looking forward to Utah and Texas following suit. And then I'm looking for similar state legislation to sweep across most states in the nation. I feel sorry for California; I doubt they'll be one of them.

To me, this is just one of the first steps demonstrating states asserting their own rights and taking back their power from the Federal Government - just as it was intended to be. And why not? The Federal Government , regardless of which party was in office, certainly hasn't done anything to curb the illegal immigration problem over the past 30 years. So in my opinion, taking these matters into our own hands is not only justified, it is imperative!

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!! Keep The Pressure On!

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Aggregate Ratings Of Your Congressman's Voting Record

The Hill has launched a new research tool to provide insight into the ideologies and voting records of every member of Congress.

Using scores tagged to each lawmaker by 30 different advocacy organizations, The Hill has created a Lawmaker Ratings service — an easy reference where site visitors can check where elected representatives stand on different issues.

There's a separate page for each of the 100 senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives. On each, The Hill has aggregated all the advocacy organizations' scores. It means people in government and other visitors can see the track records of any member of Congress on 13 broad issues with a one-stop shop at  http://thehill.com/resources/lawmaker-ratings.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!

Surprise, Surprise! More Lies From Washington...

If You Aren't Outraged Yet, You Soon Will Be!

Is Obama Serious?

He's commissioned a group to analyze ways to reduce our debt! Is he serious?

Hmmm, let's see, isn't he the one who racked this debt up to astronomical heights? Is he serious?

And now he appoints 2/3rds of the commission - 12 out of the 18 members, 10 democrats and 8 Republicans. And he expects us to believe that the result will be a fair and unbiased look at our debt and ways to reduce it? Is he serious?

Anything that 14 members agree upon will become our next legislative battle. Let's see, he's got 12 votes in the bag, and needs to sway just two others on any "solution" he wants the commission to reach. And he wants us to believe this is an "independent" commission? Is he serious?

Can you say "here come's the VAT railroad?" Yes folks, the VAT lady is about to sing. Hold on tight to what you own, hide what you can, because Uncle Sam, that theiving relative who hangs around like gum on the sole of my shoe, is coming for a visit! We'll be lucky if there's food still in the house once he leaves...

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention. And If You Still Aren't Fighting, You're Now Part Of The Problem, Not The Solution!

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

I'm All For Profiling

Personally, I have no problem with profiling. I have no problem with gender profiling, racial profiling, or religious profiling. To me, the argument against profiling is like the argument for gun control. It's not the gun that kills people, it's the person holding the gun. Same with profiling. It's not profiling that violates someone's civil rights - it is illegal search and seizure ( or some other illegal activity) that does. Profiling has been a part of America's history from the beginning! Do you think that Americans didn't recognize and distinguish between the Apache, Iroqois, Crowe, Pawnee, Comanchee, and the dozens of other Indian tribes who roamed this land? They did it by profiling, though they didn't use that term. What about when we fought enemies in the various wars we were in? Do you think we didn't "profile" who they were so we killed the right group? If we had a security problem with tall, white blonde women do you think we should focus on short women from Japan? Or should we be looking at women from the Scandanavian countries? Come on, it's all about common sense!

It's essential for enforcing some of the immigration laws we have in this country. For instance, illegal immigrants crossing our southern border. Do any of you think that we should be concerned that tall, white women are sneaking into America from Mexico? No! We have a problem with Mexicans!!! So why wouldn't we focus our attention on that segment of the population? makes perfect sense to me!

How many of you, if there was a illegal immigration issue with people of your race or ethnicity, would have a problem being stopped to ensure you are a legal citizen? After all, it's our civil rights that are being targeted by our politicians when they allow illegal immigrants rights of legal citizens. And if you do have a problem with profiling, what is your solution for resolving the illegal immigration issue?? Shout it out, because the problem isn't getting any smaller. And don't talk to me about amnesty!

On another note, here's our government at work. Thank you el presidente!

Look nice? Appealling? Apparently they think that putting hearts and butterflies on it will make most people not realize that the rest is Arabic and probably not something we want to support. The new USPS 44-Cent Stamp celebrates a Muslim holiday. Why would we do this?

President Obama has directed the United States Postal Service to REMEMBER and HONOR the EID MUSLIM holiday season with a new commemorative 44-Cent First Class Holiday Postage Stamp. Really?

REMEMBER to adamantly & vocally BOYCOTT this stamp, when you are purchasing your stamps at the post office. All you have to say is "No thank you, I do not want that Muslim Stamp on my letters!"

To use this stamp would be a slap in the face to all those AMERICANS who died at the hands of those whom this stamp "honors."

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am Flight 103!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon !
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Military Barracks in Saudi Arabia !
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in Africa !
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on 9/11/2001 !
REMEMBER all the AMERICAN lives that were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks!

So, we're printing this stamp why?

Honor the United States of America, and the men and women who have serrved her and died for her! Reject this stamp!!!

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't paying Attention!

Posted by Picasa

Monday, April 26, 2010

More Bailouts On The Horizon?

How much more of our money does Washington want? The answer is best addressed with another question; How much are we willing to allow? It's entirely up to us!!

Morning Bell: The Fatal Flaws of the Wall Street Bailout Bill

Posted April 23rd, 2010 at 9:31am in Enterprise and Free Markets

Speaking to an audience of big business and big labor executives (including Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein, Bank of America’s Bruce Thompson and SEIU’s Andy Stern) at New York’s Cooper Union, President Barack Obama noted “the furious efforts of industry lobbyists to shape” the financial regulation bill “to their special interests.” Obama then admitted, “I am sure that many of those lobbyists work for some of you. But I am here today because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort.” Obama should have saved his breath. Wall Street and big labor lobbyists have already joined forces to make sure the current Senate legislation has become a Wall Street Bailout Bill.

Big labor’s ties to this White House are already well documented. Less known is just how close Obama administration interests align with the big firms that benefit most from the TARP bailout. The Washington Examiner reports that at Goldman Sachs, the nation’s largest investment bank, four of the five in-house lobbyists were Democratic Capitol Hill staffers — the remaining one gave $1,000 to Hillary Clinton last election. And USA Today notes that Goldman Sachs alone has given nearly $900,000 since January 2009 to congressional candidates, with 69% of that cash lining Democrat pockets. Finally, then-candidate Obama collected almost $1 million from Goldman executives and employees in 2008, more than the combined Goldman haul of every Republican running for president, Senate and the House.

So what have Wall Street lobbyists bought with their campaign cash and high priced lobbyists? A bill that gives permanent TARP-like authority to Washington regulators, thus enshrining Washington as a permanent bailout machine. Specifically, the bill:

Creates a protected class of too big to fail firms. Section 113 of the bill establishes a “Financial Stability Oversight Council,” charged with identifying firms that would “pose a threat to the financial security of the United States” if they encounter “material financial distress.” While these firms would be subject to enhanced regulation, such a designation would also signal to the marketplace that these firms are too important to be allowed to fail and, perversely, allow them to take on undue risk.

Creates permanent bailout authority. Section 204 of the bill authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to “make available … funds for the orderly liquidation of [a] covered financial institution.” Although no funds could be provided to compensate a firm’s shareholders, the firm’s other creditors would be eligible for a cash bailout. The situation is much like the bailout AIG in 2008, in which the largest beneficiaries were not stockholders but rather other creditors, such as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs.

Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The bill, in Section 203(b), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds is “in danger of default” and whose failure would have “serious adverse effects on financial stability.” This determination would be virtually irreversible in court.

Establishes a $50 billion fund to pay for bailouts. Funding for bailouts is to come from a $50 billion “Orderly Resolution Fund” created within the U.S. Treasury in Section 210(n)(1), funded by taxes on financial firms. However, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the ultimate cost of bank taxes will fall on the customers, employees and investors of each firm.

Opens a “line of credit” to the Treasury for additional government funding. Under Section 210(n)(9), the FDIC is effectively granted a line of credit to the Treasury Department that is secured by the value of failing firms in its control, providing another taxpayer financial support.

Authorizes regulators to guarantee the debt of solvent banks. Bailout authority is not limited to debt of failing institutions. Under Section 1155, the FDIC is authorized to guarantee the debt of “solvent depository institutions” if regulators declare that a liquidity crisis (“event”) exists.

Imposes one-size-fits-all reform in derivative markets. Derivatives are already increasingly being traded on clearinghouses thanks to private efforts coordinated by the New York Fed. But the Senate bill would require virtually all derivative contracts to be settled through a clearinghouse rather than directly between the parties. Applying such ill-designed blanket regulation would make financial derivatives more costly, more difficult to customize, and, consequently, less widely used—which would increase overall risk in the economy.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 64% of Americans are not confident that policymakers in Washington know what they’re doing with regards to Wall Street. They have every reason to be concerned. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) tells National Review: “From the beginning, I’ve thought that the deal Goldman Sachs got via Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on their bad bets through AIG kind of stunk. They got $13 billion from AIG last year.” DeFazio doesn’t seem to realize that the bill Obama is pushing would empower Secretary Geithner to repeat the AIG bailout ad infinitum. No need to ever go back to Congress for a new TARP. The Senate bill is a permanent TARP. Which is exactly what Goldman Sachs and the rest of their Wall Street lobbyists wanted all along.

Quick Hits:

•Expecting health insurance premiums to rise under Obamacare, Democrats are now trying to give Washington price control power over insurance rates.

•According to pension consultant Girard Miller that California state and local governments have $325 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, which he said amounts to $22,000 for every working adult in the Golden State.

•Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called President Obama’s Middle East peace strategy “counter-productive,” explaining: “If the U.S. says certain things and takes certain stands the Palestinians say, ‘Why should we negotiate?’”

•According to a new Congressional Budget Office analysis, if Obamacare is not repealed by 2016, nearly 4 million Americans – the vast majority of them middle class – will have to pay a little more than $1,000 apiece penalties per year if they don’t get government approved insurance.

•The Senate Democrats’ new federal budget would raise taxes on about 30 million people by $3,700 a year by 2012.
If You Aren't Still Fighting, You Need To Rethink Your Future...

The Next Frankenstien From Washington

Democrats in Washington, fresh from their conquest of the health industry, are now greedily eyeing another power grab on Wall Street. After all, why should they stop with just 17 percent of the economy?

At issue is legislation crafted by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Fannie Mae) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Countrywide) that would ramp up regulations of financial firms in an effort -- so Democrats claim -- to avoid a recurrence of the collapse and ensuing bailouts of 2008. The bill is scheduled for a first test vote Monday.

As The Wall Street Journal reports, "The legislation would grant the federal government the power to seize teetering financial giants and dismantle them the same way the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation now can seize failing banks. It would create a new financial consumer regulator, would boost the strength and budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] and would impose new transparency rules on the trading of derivatives, the complex financial instruments that helped bankrupt Lehman Brothers and nearly wipe out American International Group and Merrill Lynch."

On Thursday, Barack Obama, who has never held a real job, declared, "Now, there is a legitimate debate taking place about how best to ensure taxpayers are held harmless in this process. But what is not legitimate is to suggest that we're enabling or encouraging future taxpayer bailouts, as some have claimed. That may make for a good sound bite, but it's not factually accurate. In fact, the system as it stands is what led to a series of massive, costly taxpayer bailouts. Only with reform can we avoid a similar outcome in the future. A vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailouts. That's the truth."

On the contrary, Investor's Business Daily notes, "[T]he bill institutionalizes the doctrine of 'too big to fail,' a major reason why American taxpayers will be paying off the $700 billion TARP bailout fund for decades to come. Under Dodd's bill, every financial institution that might have a 'systemic' impact if it failed would be given the too-big-to-fail treatment. This is an invitation to bailouts without end."

The bailout trough would be filled with money from a new bank tax, which, in the end, would be paid by consumers.

In light of this regulatory effort, it's almost too obvious to point out the convenient timing of the SEC's mortgage-related fraud charges against financial giant Goldman Sachs -- charges leveled just as the Frank-n-Dodd monster bill was set to take the spotlight. Never let a crisis go to waste...

"The timing was perfect," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). "We're about to take up the financial regulatory reform bill. The banks are saying, 'Oh, this is totally unnecessary. We have everything worked out.' Now we find out the Securities and Exchange Commission has stepped up and charged Goldman Sachs, one of the biggest, with involvement in some trading that really turns out to be very suspicious." Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, added that the fraud charge "reinforces the need for much of what we were doing."

Naturally, the White House and the SEC deny collusion, but the SEC commissioners brought the lawsuit on a 3-2 partisan vote, signaling that evidence may be thin.

None of this is to say that Wall Street is opposed to Democrat regulation. In fact, these crony "capitalists" are lobbying (and paying) to get the field tilted in their favor. As one candid financial services lobbyist put it, "Obtaining a carve-out isn't rocket science. Just give Chairman Dodd and Chuck Schumer a s---load of money."

Obama took $994,795 from Goldman for his 2008 campaign, as well as $701,290 from Citigroup, $695,132 from JP Morgan Chase, and $514,881 from Morgan Stanley. (John McCain's biggest donor among this Big Four was Citigroup, which gave him $322,051.) Obama has numerous other ties with Goldman. Also, while Goldman lawyers negotiated with the SEC, its Chief Executive, Lloyd Blankfein, visited the White House four times.

Thus, this financial "reform" bill is like every other big government power grab in the last two years. The goal is to further the Left's agenda, and to reward Democrat constituents, who, these days, include the very Wall Street "fat cats" that Obama has been cynically denouncing. Besides, the root of all these problems was, and is, government itself, starting with the subprime mortgage mess, and the subsequent collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why are they not covered by this so-called reform?
If You Aren't Willing To Keep Fighting, You Need To Rethink Your Future! Call Your Senators And Representatives!!!

Do You Think This Is The Mission Of Politicans Today?

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823

By the way...

George Bush, Queen Elizabeth and Vladimir Putin all die and go to hell. While there, they spy a red phone and ask what the phone is for. The devil tells them it is for calling back to Earth.

Putin asks to call Russia and talks for 5 minutes. When he is finished the devil informs him that the cost is a million dollars, so Putin writes him a check.

Next Queen Elizabeth calls England and talks for 30 minutes. When she is finished the devil informs her that the cost is 6 million dollars, so she writes him a check.

Finally George Bush gets his turn and talks for 4 hours. When he is finished the devil informs him that the cost is $5.00.

When Putin hears this he goes ballistic and asks the devil why Bush got to call the USA so cheaply.

The devil smiles and replies, "Since Obama took over, the country has gone to hell, so it's a local call."

....And there you have it in a nutshell!

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!