Bailout’s ‘blank check’ enraging Republicans
November 18, 2008
Well I have a lot to say about this joke called a “bailout” …..The Republicans shouldn’t be outraged and be demanding transparency, when they gave Paulson unprecedented unlimited power without the ability of any oversight or to take them to court. ……No government official besides a wartime president has ever been given as much power over taxpayer money….”They’re appointing a financial dictator,” said Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at Americans for Tax Reform. “Congress is giving a member of the executive branch virtually unlimited power for the entire economy.”
Here’s a video with Max Kaiser, financial analyst ….you find this different from what we see on mainstream TV here in America…….Max doesn’t sugar coat our problem:
MONEYNETDAILY
Bailout’s ‘blank check’ enraging Republicans
Irate lawmakers demand Paulson show how $700 billion is spent
Posted: November 17, 2008
8:53 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
 Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. |
In a letter written to fellow legislators over the weekend, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., added his voice to a dedicated resistance still fighting against the federal government’s $700 billion bailout of the financial industry and demanding accountability for how the money is spent.
“Congress abdicated its Constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary,” Inhofe writes. “However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.”
Inhofe joins other Republicans, such as S.C. Governor Mark Sanford, who have called into question how Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has allocated the first $350 billion of the $700 billion bailout package, officially called the Troubled Asset Relief Program. (TARP)
(Here’s what the US Treasury Secretary showed Congress when they requested to see the amount of money that was sent to the banks with bailout money..the amounts paid were redacted ..)
“I firmly believe action is required by Congress,” Inhofe writes. “I plan to push for legislation that will require Secretary Paulson’s plan for the remaining $350 billion in authorized TARP funds to be ratified by an affirmative vote in the U.S. Congress.”
Gov. Sanford sent a letter of his own last week directly to Paulson, citing examples just in South Carolina of financial institutions retiring executives with multimillion-dollar “golden parachutes” in order to qualify for bailout funds and banks that don’t need the money applying for it anyway, just to remain competitive.
“The federal government, and by extension taxpayers, are being gamed,” Sanford wrote. “I think it’s dangerous over the long run the way that taxpayers are being sapped.”
“The Wall Street Journal reported last week that some $40 billion is being paid to executives of banking giants that are getting bailout payments,” wrote Sanford. “On top of that, Bloomberg reported today that the Federal Reserve is refusing to identify who is even getting $2 trillion in emergency loans.”
Now Sanford is asking his constituents – and Inhofe is asking his colleagues – to demand accountability for how the bailout funds are spent.
“In the rush to ‘do something’ about the turmoil in the credit markets, Congress has failed miserably in keeping an eye out for the taxpayers and watching for unintended consequences of this bailout,” Gov. Sanford says in a statement on his website. “To put it simply, taxpayers are getting gamed. While we continue to believe that the bailout was an incredibly bad idea in the first place, it’s being made worse by loose rules and oversight that are putting taxpayers on the hook for billions more.”
“It is just outrageous that the American people don’t know that Congress doesn’t know how much money he (Paulson) has given away to anyone,’‘ Inhofe told the Tulsa World.
“I just think we have to draw the line someplace, and the time is here,” Inhofe said.
Secretary Paulson has come under even increased criticism following last week’s announcement that he was scrapping the centerpiece of the $700 billion bailout – buying troubled mortgage-backed securities – in favor of other stimulus plans.
“My mouth is open,” Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. told a television interviewer about the announcement. “It was a very hard vote for many of us who voted for that package, and now all of a sudden we have an audible and we’re spending it on something else.”
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, told the Los Angeles Times, “When you see so many changes, you wonder if they really know what they’re doing.”
Inhofe was also quick to condemn the switch in his letter to fellow senators:
“Why did Paulson reverse course?,” Inhofe asks. “Thursday’s Los Angeles Times provides the answer. ‘Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson’s decision to abandon plans to buy troubled bank assets shows that he has come to two conclusions about what was once the chief focus of the government’s $700-billion bailout: The first is that it wouldn’t work.’”
In his announcement of the change of direction last week, the Times reported, Paulson suggested that the government’s financial bailout had entered a “time out” period as Obama prepared to take office. Paulson said Congress must work with Obama to decide during the next couple of months what role federal officials should play in the housing market.
If Inhofe is successful in persuading his colleagues, Congress will use the downtime to increase oversight on how the latter half of the bailout is spent.
“During the lame duck session, I will be taking the following actions,” Inhofe pledges to his fellow senators. “First and foremost, if Secretary Paulson submits his plan to Congress in order to access the remaining $350 billion while we are in session, a doubtful prospect, I plan to immediately introduce the disapproval resolution pursuant to Section 115 of the EESA and push for its enactment.
“I will also introduce and actively pursue enactment of legislation to do two things,” Inhofe writes. “First, it will … require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury’s plan for the remaining $350 billion, instead of the current statutory process which gives Secretary Paulson far too much latitude. Second, it will require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion.
“It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch,” Inhofe writes.
Hate Speech Laws….What’s Wrong With Them?
November 18, 2008
Since there’s some much confusion and just plain ignorance of “hate speech” laws that are being considered in Congress I thought I’d post this article so maybe people could see what “hate speech” laws would actually entail…The “hate speech” bill that Obama wants to see passed is the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act…..Here’s a taste of what it would cover should it be passed……..It would expand existing federal hate crimes laws to allow federal prosecution of violent hate crimes (we already have laws on the books to prosecute anyone for violent crimes against anyone) targeting persons on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability. The bill would also provide federal grants to help state and local law enforcement agencies prosecute hate crimes of all types, a provision that enjoys widespread support among police departments across the country.
Although the bill explicitly limits enforcement to hate crimes involving violent acts, conservative religious groups have waged a nationwide campaign claiming it would subject preachers to prosecution for condemning from the pulpit homosexuality or “cross dressing.”
Obama’s ‘Hate Bill’ Steals Right to Free Speech
 |
 |
President-elect Barack Obama prioritizes passage of the freedom-stealing Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. High-level Democrats are also eager to limit free speech in media with the Fairness Doctrine. Earlier liberals, especially during the 60s and 70s, championed unbridled freedom of speech and expression. But Obama and “new liberals” encourage the opposite: hate and bias laws which restrict and even criminalize criticism of federally protected groups such as Jews and homosexuals. (1)
Should there be limits on freedom of speech? Or do the ethical foundations of America, the Bible and the Constitution allow us to say virtually anything we want?
What is Free Speech?
Our right to free speech comes from our identity as free will beings, created in God’s image. Freedom to make moral choices is given every person at conception and is part of the eternal soul or spirit of man. The first instinct of our free will is to speak our desires and opinions. Speech naturally proceeds from the innermost thoughts of our minds and souls. Natural law also argues for freedom of speech. If animals can bark, sing, chirp at their pleasure and without restraint, shouldn’t human beings made in God’s image have at least as much right to speak? Our free speech, like our free will, is our most precious birthright from our Creator.
Yet this freedom must not be abused. In the Old Testament, God did command execution for those who abused their freedom of speech through blasphemy, advocating idolatry, or inciting rebellion. Yet He gave each person the freedom to commit those sins, if they chose.
God has authority to end verbal discord to Himself and His law whenever He pleases. He would not be God if He didn’t have that privilege. He is not required to bear with sin for any length of time, and the eternal law of a holy God is that any discord to Him must be instantly annihilated. Yet He doesn’t incinerate all sinners; even demons are given freedom to continue. God forbears, in love, to give mankind time to repent and become His friends.
In fact, God does much more than just forbear judgment. Jesus came down and died on a cross to bear our just punishment. When we trust in Christ, our Sin-bearer, He becomes our bridge of justification and reconciliation to a holy God.
When Speech Should Not Be Free
Just as there were some limits to freedom of speech for the Hebrews, so American law sets some limits. No one is allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater or to incite riot, or to libel or slander. American law does not tolerate speech that threatens public safety with “imminent harm,” and I believe speech that is blatantly corruptive should also be restricted. Scripture provides precedent for such limits, especially in the Old Testament. Young people should be legally protected from expression that is overtly pornographic, solicitous of pedophilia, sexually traumatizing or sadistically violent.
But we should not prohibit speech that is merely politically incorrect. This includes what the Anti-Defamation League decries as “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.” ADL counsels libraries and schools to block such “hate speech” from computers. (This has included the National Prayer Network’s website, <http://www.ruthtellers.org/>Truthtellers.org.) In reality, politically incorrect ideas are often true. They bear no resemblance to speech that actually traumatizes, degrades and corrupts youth.
The greatest blessing of freedom of speech is that it allows new and truthful ideas that can strengthen and morally orient the confused or misled. Despite potential abuses, free speech is a much more redeeming influence than a threat. In the area of expression, we should always err on the side of freedom rather than restriction.Is our problem today too much unbridled, unauthorized speech and discussion? Hardly. Our problem is highly concentrated power in mass media, which shuts down true discussion and non-mainstream voices. The dissenting voices that do exist are threatened by fierce efforts, primarily led by ADL, to restrict freedom with hate, bias and speech laws. ADL ceaselessly searches for a way to outlaw criticism of matters Jewish as well as homosexuality on the internet. We need much, much more total truth-telling, not less.
Big Brother Obama
Media already portrays Obama as another Martin Luther King Jr. with a dream of freedom for all. Don’t believe it. Obama’s new brand of liberalism stands for ending freedom of speech for critics of federally protected groups. Obama will attempt to pass the federal hate bill and pro-homosexual ENDA as well as “lobby reform” bills meant to cripple and penalize Christian/conservative and pro-life activist groups. He will almost certainly allow Democrats to also pass the freedom-stealing Fairness Doctrine that will run conservative media off the airwaves.
Obama wants to sweep America into hate law bondage as in Canada. Last year, a prominent Canadian hate law bureaucrat commented that Canada tolerates free speech but is not in love with it. Freedom-loving Americans must fall even more deeply in love with God and His priceless gift of free speech!
We must also act. With the Senate and House now overwhelmingly empowered to pass Orwellian legislation, lovers of freedom must be ready to protest as never before. Calls must flood the House of Representatives just as soon as the new hate bill arrives there, probably in early January.
Are the odds against freedom now insurmountable? Again and again they seemed that way over the past nine years when hate bill forces always commanded a numerical majority in Congress. But God repeatedly intervened, creating disarray in the hate bill ranks and defeating it five times.
Can we do it again? Yes! Exactly the same way we succeeded earlier.
Call first to God. Then call Washington!
1. The original 1968 federal hate law, upon which present federal hate bills greatly expand, criminalizes speech. It says that if anyone’s public speech encourages another to an act of hate-motivated violence, the original speaker can be tried as a federal hate criminal along with the active offender whom he has influenced.
Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 2a says: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
Read the full article here at American Free Press.com
OK, Let’s Really Fix the Ecomomy
November 18, 2008
I ran across this one in my email, got a laugh, and thought I’d share it with everyone! Enjoy…
Steve
I feel our government should not be immune from similar risks. I therefore am recommending the following cuts to be implemented by the next president elect.Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50. also reduce remaining staff by 25%. Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections)Some yearly monetary gains include:$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people’s staff. (estimate $1.3 Mil in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Mil in staff per each member of the Senate every year)$24,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.$7,500,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members who’s jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)Note: Congress did not hesitate to jump on a train for home this week when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.Summary of opportunity:$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members$282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff$ 59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members$ 37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members$ 7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.$ 8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings.Big business does these types of cuts all the time.I also recommend that congress be put on SOCIAL SECURITY and it would be fixed immediately !!!!!!
One last chance to fight for our Constitution
November 18, 2008
Well the founding fathers did their part….now it’s our turn to step up to the plate and force the issue on Obama’s birth certificate and his eligibility for the presidency …..it’s now or never.
1 last chance to fight for our Constitution
Former Deputy Attorney General Philip Berg filed a lawsuit addressing the citizenship status of Barack Obama before the Democratic National Convention and copied Democratic Chairman Howard Dean. It should have alerted them that there was a possible problem before they selected their nominee. But that problem was ignored. Other lawsuits filed before Nov. 4 were also ignored, placing us in what could be a constitutional crisis.
The good news is the real election hasn’t taken place yet. The Electoral College doesn’t meet until Dec. 15. That gives us less than a month to find the answers to the looming questions regarding whether Barack Obama meets the constitutional requirements for the office of president.
The courts don’t seem to be in any hurry to take up their responsibility as guardians of the Constitution, so now Congress must step in. You see, members of Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and when they vote in January to confirm (or reject) the vote of the Electoral College, they can’t very well do that unless they know for certain that the basic constitutional requirements for office have been met.
An ad running this week in the Washington Times Weekly asks three questions America needs to know: “Was Barack Obama really born in Kenya?” “Is he really a citizen of Indonesia?” And, “Does the Constitution still matter?”
As I wrote about last week, there are many reasons to doubt whether Barack Obama meets the requirements for the office of president. First, there’s that pesky tape from Sarah Obama, Barack’s grandmother, where she says, “I was in the delivery room in (Mombosa) Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.” Secondly, there’s the matter of U.S. law. If only one parent was an American citizen, as in Obama’s case, the law at the time of Obama’s birth required one parent to have been an American citizen for at least 10 years – five of which had to have happened after the age of 14. Since Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time of Obama’s birth, he would not qualify as an American citizen if his grandmother is right about him being born abroad.
Thirdly, there’s no original birth certificate – just a “certification of live birth” posted on a website experts say is forged and altered. Fourthly, there’s the issue of Indonesian citizenship, which is a prerequisite to attending school there. Add to that the fact that Obama’s stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, is listed as his father on his Indonesian school records. If he had U.S. citizenship, according to Indonesian law, he would have lost it when he attended school there or if he was adopted by his stepfather as his records indicate.
As the ad proclaims, “The Constitution matters” and is still worth defending. All we are asking is that Congress takes their oath to defend it seriously. If Obama can prove he meets the basic but essential constitutional requirements, fine, he’ll serve legally. But if he cannot provide simple proof, then he cannot. We’re not asking for the world here, just the original birth certificate that each of us delivers when getting a passport, driver’s license or Social Security card. If we can’t tell the clerk at the post office to check out the digital photo of a certificate posted online, neither should the guy running for president. Members of Congress: If you have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, now’s the time to keep it.
But I know the reasons for your hesitancy. I’ve faced them myself and have come to the conclusion that if one of our founders, Patrick Henry, could proclaim, “Give me liberty or give me death,” we can face our fears and stand for the document they penned that outlines our God-given rights to freedom. What if we asked our Founding Fathers, many of whom lost everything in the battle for our nation, if they think the Constitution is still worth defending? They already answered that question with their lives.
But what about the objections?
-
“Obama won the popular election.” So did Al Gore. But George W. Bush is still president. That’s because the Electoral College decides – and in this case, it hasn’t yet. In fact, the electors can’t fulfill their solemn oath to uphold the Constitution unless they know the candidates meet the basic constitutional requirements for office.
-
“This should have happened long before now.” That’s true, but the cases filed before Nov. 4 were ignored by the courts, and the answers to these basic questions were never answered. There is still time for those answers since the real election has not yet happened.
-
“They’ll be riots in the streets.” This objection is much like the reaction of Kenya to Obama’s candidate of choice, Raila Odinga, who incited violence and the burning of hundreds of churches (not a single mosque) when he lost the race. Obama raised a million dollars for this upstanding guy and assigned a Senate staffer to help him. To bring the violence to an end, the Kenyan government put Odinga – the guy who lost the election – in office to keep him from burning more churches. They failed the first rule of the playground: Confront the bully; don’t appease him. Threats of violence must be met with fierce resistance, not appeasement.
-
“I better not be public on this because I’ll become a target.” News flash: If you believe in life, liberty and the family, you already are a target. The henchmen are selected; the gallows for our freedoms are already being built. And the only candidate in history to never move an inch to the center during the campaign has no intentions of changing his agenda of outlawing our viewpoint with the “unfairness doctrine,” “thought crimes,” “The Employment Non Discrimination Act” the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and all the rest. As I wrote about in my book, “The Criminalization of Christianity” (which will surely come true if we don’t act now), “Never fail to do the right thing for fear that the opposition will attack you in response. The other side can and will attack you anyway, at a time of their own choosing rather than yours, regardless of whether you act.”
-
“We’ll just beat him in four years.” In four years, we won’t be able to recognize what’s left of our country. And if you think taking on this issue right now is hard, try doing it when our radio airwaves are shut down and our freedoms are stripped from us, as he has promised to do. And with Obama’s promise to pass the so-called Freedom of Choice Act as “the first thing” he does, you can say goodbye to the notion of protecting unborn children again – and goodbye to every law in all 50 states that notifies parents, keeps our tax dollars from footing the abortion bill and prevents even a single partial-birth abortion.
-
“They’ll say I’m a ‘racist’ and call it ’sour grapes.’” Our Founding Fathers faced death, we face name-calling. Right now our U.S. soldiers are being shot at for the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. If the Constitution isn’t worth undergoing some name calling, then the oath taken to defend it means nothing.
-
“Somebody else will do it.” They haven’t. And time is running out.
-
“It’s not my responsibility.” The lower court in Philadelphia threw out Phil Berg’s case (which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court) based not on the merits, but on the issue of “standing,” and pointed to the need for Congress to act. If the questions of constitutionality are not met before Congress is called upon to uphold the vote of the Electoral College, they cannot fulfill their oath and duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. If we are willing to ignore the constitutional requirements for the highest office in our land, what else are we willing to forgo? That part about free speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion?
-
“We deserve what we got.” That’s true, so did the people of Nineveh who asked, “Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?” If you’re unfamiliar with the story recorded in Jonah, God didn’t give the Ninevites what they deserved; and even though the judgment was pronounced against them, when they fasted, prayed, sought God and turned from their wicked ways, God had mercy and spared them from judgment.
-
“It’s impossible.” With God, all things are possible. Eight years ago the election was called for Al Gore, and he never took office. If God is the same today as He was yesterday, He can still split the sea, raise the dead, stop the sun and reverse the results of the popular vote if the basic requirements of the Constitution are not met in the candidate.
-
“He’s constitutionally qualified.” Great. Then it won’t be hard to prove it.
The Electoral College votes on Dec. 15 – we now have less than 30 days of freedom left. How will you spend it? Will you “safely” keep quiet about our nation’s most important document, or will you step forward to defend it?
There’s a replica of William Wallace’s sword hanging on my wall. It reminds me of his words captured in the movie “Braveheart”:
William Wallace: I am William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You’ve come to fight as freemen, and freemen you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?
Man: No … we will run … and we will live.
William Wallace: Aye. Fight and you may die. Run and you’ll live – at least a while. And, dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom!
Congress, you were elected for such a time as this. Don’t miss your moment in history to defend the Constitution you were sworn to uphold. Not extreme. Not fringe. Just constitutional. A thorough investigation must be conducted to ensure the basic constitutional requirements for the office of president have been met. It is not just your right – it is your duty. And you have less than 30 days to act. You have the freedom right now that you will never have again. You can fight to defend the Constitution of the United States, or you can run. As William Wallace asked, the question is: Will you fight?
-
Call your representative in Congress at 202-224-3121 and ask them to hold immediate congressional hearings to investigate and ensure the basic constitutional requirements for the office of president have been met.
-
Fast and pray.
-
Place the “Three Unanswered Questions” ad in newspapers across the country and post it online everywhere.
-
Donate to defend the Constitution. We’ll place more ads if you’ll help: www.f2a.org.
-
E-mail this to everyone on your list, and call on the media to report this constitutional crisis.
Steve Hilton
babybttrfly
Mike