ATF Hosts Its First ‘Gay Pride’ Observance

Comments Off

You have to  ask yourself……..why would the ATF do this?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), under fire for allowing U.S.-purchased guns to flow to Mexican criminals, celebrated its first gay pride event on Wednesday.

The celebration at ATF’s Washington headquarters was intended to recognize the “accomplishments and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans to ATF and the nation, and to promote awareness of the LGBT culture,” ATF said in a news release.

“ATF works to ensure sexual orientation discrimination and prejudice are not tolerated in our workplace,” said Acting Director Kenneth Melson. “ATF is an equal employment opportunity environment where effective and equitable participation is encouraged.”

The keynote speaker, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), spoke about his experiences serving as an openly gay congressman.

ATF says it has created an LGBT affinity group called “ATF Pride” with the primary goal of ensuring equal employment opportunity and enhancing development opportunities for LGBT employees at the agency.

CNS News

Barney’s PO’ed Over a Dollar

Comments Off

Never thought I’d see either in the press…an arrogant politican making a scene about a dollar discount…or the fact that it was going into his favorite gay hangout…to quote the Joker…this town needs an enema!

Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank caused a scene when he demanded a $1 senior discount on his ferry fare to Fire Island’s popular gay haunt, The Pines, last Friday. Frank was turned down by ticket clerks at the dock in Sayville because he didn’t have the required Suffolk County Senior Citizens ID. A witness reports, “Frank made such a drama over the senior rate that I contemplated offering him the dollar to cool down the situation.” Frank made news last year when he was spotted looking uncomfortable around a bevy of topless, well-built men at the Pines Annual Ascension Beach Party. Frank’s spokesperson confirmed to Page Six that his partner, James Ready, asked the ticket office for a regular ticket for himself and a senior ticket for Frank, “but was turned down because Frank didn’t have a resident ID.”

Barney Frank

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/sorry_barney_no_discount_BSco6dW9b1VTgrL7GcCFrN#ixzz0v04iSNIR

U.S. Congressional leaders agree on financial reform bill giving feds power to seize private companies

Comments Off

Although there are some good points about this bill as Steve has already posted relative to the oil speculators which need to be reigned in, I’m afraid this bill may not be completely what it appears to be on the surface, but instead is possibly another government takeover of the financial system and will determine who succeeds and who fails based not on Congress, but unelected bureaucratic appointees. When we people learn these recent “crisis” have been caused by the government, then the government moves in and says we’ll be your ‘savior’, take over and make everything ok.

“It’s a great moment. I’m proud to have been here,” said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee led the effort in the Senate. “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.” (Now where have we heard this before? Nancy …”you won’t know what’s in it until it’s passed.”…Pelosi….that’s where.)

Financial Reform Is a Disaster For Banks, Consumers

New financial services regulations will be so disastrous that Congress will need to repeal them to undo the damage they will cause, banking analyst Dick Bove said Monday.

Calling the proposal “The Anti-American Finance Act,” Bove paints a grim picture of its consequences: Millions of consumers losing their bank accounts; costly and needless bureaucracy; an onerous restriction of money growth; and reduced US competitiveness in the global financial system.

“The Congress has created legislation to solve problems that may not exist and has not created legislation to deal with real problems,” Bove, of Rochdale Securities, said in a note to clients. “The consequences will be quite negative. The bill is so bad that it is certain to be reversed in subsequent Congressional sessions.”

While the proposals have yet to take final form, the legislation calls for more stringent regulation on risk-taking and capital requirements and establishes consumer protection in ways that Bove calls actually counterproductive.

But Bove said lawmakers and policy chiefs have overreacted to the crisis and come up with a set of laws that will ultimately harm the system, the economy and consumers.

“There is no doubt in my mind that in two years, the Congress and regulators will be scrambling to figure out how to undo what they have done with this legislation,” he wrote. “Banks need to lend, so money supply can grow. Forcing bank balance sheets to shrink does nothing to aid the United States economy.”

Higher capital requirements will shrink the money supply, which in turn will trigger deflation, lower incomes, unemployment and a contracting economy, he said.

“No one who is mandating higher capital in banks is considering this,” he said. “In fact, the policymakers are united in their view that the global banking industry needs more capital. It is more likely that the taxpayer is buying a new structure that will be as unworkable as the old one,” he wrote.

As for consumers, price controls and increased regulation will force banks to charge fees for routine services, which will be cut as well.

“Millions of people will lose their bank accounts,” Bove said. “The cost of banking will go up for everyone as the banks apply monthly maintenance fees to all of their customers. Credit availability will be reduced and credit, which is available, will cost more to everyone.”

The only winners in a newly-reformed financial system may be the banks themselves, Bove told CNBC late Monday.

“They’ll get their money,” he said. “It may be a lag of six to 12 months, but they’ll get the money back that they lose as a result of this bill.”

For investors, this means limiting exposure to banks that are largely consumer-oriented. Better bets, Bove said, are the institutions serving the “commercial customer,” like Comerica.

“Those banks look extraordinarily good at the present time,” Bove said.

CNBC

The unraveling of the Tea Party racial smears

1 Comment

I just found this on a blog I read often called Another Black Conservative and she has done  a great job of what I call investigative journalism on this topic. I’ll think you’ll see this stuff never happened.

The unraveling of the Tea Party racial smears


Bit by bit and piece-by-piece, the alleged incident where Tea Party protesters hurled racial slurs at black congress members starts to unravel. What is starting to emerge is an image that the media and Democrats planned the whole thing in advanced.
Lets start with this video below by Jack Cashill at The American Thinker. It recaps the events that day and points out various oddities.

The McClatchy news story is where new clues to media collusion begin.  Jack Cashill takes a look at the timeline of the McCatchy story and finds some super human writing, editing, formatting and publishing skills.

[...]In composing it, I checked with my source on the scene, Greg Farrell, to get a timeline on the passage of the Black Caucus members from the Cannon Building to the Capitol and back.  According to Farrell, they left the Cannon Building about 2:30 PM on March 20th and returned about 3:15 PM.  He had no reason to exaggerate.

I asked because at 4:51 that same day, McClatchy reporter William Douglas posted an article on the McClatchy website with the inflammatory headline, “Tea party protesters scream ‘nigger’ at black congressman.”

In other words, Douglas, with an attributed assist from James Rosen, managed to interview representatives John Lewis, Emanuel Cleaver, and Barney Frank, compose an 800-word article, and have it edited and formatted for posting within a 90-minute window.

During that same 90 minutes, Douglas would have received and incorporated a press release from Emanuel Cleaver, making the easily disproved claim that he had “been spat upon and that Capitol Police had arrested his assailant.”[...]

In addition to the speedy publishing, the McClatchy reporter William Douglas references both the Huffington Post and Boston Globe in his article. Here is the kicker, both the Huffington Post and the Boston Globe stories were not published until AFTER the McClatchy piece.

But Douglas also had two other important sources: he referenced two additional journalists in the very same article.

Frank told the Boston Globe that the incident happened as he was walking from the Longworth office building to the Rayburn office building, both a short distance from the Capitol. Frank said the crowd consisted of a couple of hundred of people and that they referred to him as ‘homo.’ A writer for The Huffington Post said the protesters called Frank a “faggot.”

But the Huffington Post’s article, by Sam Stein, wasn’t published until 4:56pm, five minutes afterDouglas’ article was posted on the web. This mistake would seem to point to wanton collusion between the two authors as they hastily worked to market the smears. [...]
What about the Boston Globe?

It appears that the first Boston Globe article to mention the incident didn’t actually hit the website until the following day.
So let’s recap. We have Congressional Black Caucus members walking through a mob of protesters when they could have easily and safely taken the underground tunnels. Two of the Congressional Black Caucus members had video cameras in hand but no recording of the alleged racial slurs. Next we have a McClatchy reporter interviewing CBC members and publishing a story about the alleged incident in record speed. In addition the McClatchy reporter breaks the time space continuum and references sources from two articles that had yet to be published.
To date not a single video or audio of the alleged incident has yet to emerge, despite Andrew Breitbart offering a $10,000 reward [Breitbart has since upped the ante to $100,000].
Now as this whole story starts to unravel, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver seems to be backtracking on his part in the story.

From Weasel Zippers: KANSAS CITY, MO- U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver voted in favor of the controversial health care reform bill, but talk isn’t raging about how voted, but whether or not he was purposely spit on as he and other congressmen made their way to the U.S. Capitol building to cast their vote.

In video of the incident, a man is seen with his hands around his mouth and yelling at the Kansas City, Missouri, Democrat as he walked by. The footage shows Rep. Cleaver reacting to the man, and is seen a few seconds later wiping his face.

The video is not clear as to whether or not the man spit in Cleaver’s face intentionally, or if it was a matter of “say it, don’t spray it.” Rep. Cleaver never commented on the incident, but it didn’t take long before many people claimed that he was spit upon.


In an interview on Tuesday with FOX 4 News, Rep. Cleaver would not directly answer the question of whether or not he was intentionally spit upon.


“I haven’t talked about this incident on TV or anywhere, and I’ve been approached to talk about it on every national TV show,” said Rep. Cleaver in an interview with FOX 4 News. “I never, I never reported anything, never a single thing in Washington, not one thing. People assume I went somewhere, never done press conference, never done an interview on it and I’m not going to do it.”

Rest here>>>

As this story starts to look more and more like a big fat lie, I would love to know how do any of these people sleep at night?  Racism is a nasty wound in America that is never given a chance to heal. Real racists and racial hucksters are forever picking at it. Regrettably too many in the black community accept stories of racism at face value, especially when presented in the context of left vs. right. Knowing this, how completely irresponsible is it for those in the media to incite racial distrust within the black community in order to advance a political agenda? I find such actions completely evil.
I wonder how would those in the media, who push this story, feel if some young black person ended up throwing away a good chunk of their life by committing physical violence against a white tea party protester, all because he or she believed the media’s reporting?
Would these reporters despise themselves for their irresponsibility or would they simply chalk up another ruined black life as the ends justify the means?


Filibuster reform bill headed for Senate floor by Democrats

3 Comments

Well it just never stops does it. Now that the Democrats don’t have a filibuster proof Senate, they want to change the rules. Reminds me of what they did with Teddy Kennedy’s seat. Remember  in 2004 Teddy had the Massachusetts law changed so that it required a special election if a seat was vacated within 145 days, so that the then Republican governor wouldn’t be able to appoint a temporary Republican in a seat that was Democratic at the time. Then in 2009 just before his death Kennedy sent a letter to Massachusetts lawmakers and asked them to change back the law to provide for a temporary gubernatorial appointment until the special election occurs. It ends up the later didn’t happen, but my point is the Democrats are doing the same thing now with health care, cap & trade or anything else this administration comes up with to make it easier for them to pass whatever the bill is. I believe the Democrats are just continuing to shoot themselves in the foot with these type things. Don’t they ever learn?

Filibuster reform bill headed for Senate floor, faces uphill battle

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) intends in the next few weeks to introduce legislation that would take away the minoritys power to filibuster legislation.

Harkin has wanted to change the filibuster for years, but his move would come in the wake of Republican Scott Browns dramatic victory in Massachusetts. Browns victory cost Democrats their 60th vote in the Senate, and may have dealt a death blow to their hopes to move a massive healthcare overhaul. It could also limit President Barack Obamas ability to move other pieces of his agenda forward.

Harkin believes senators in recent years have abused the procedural move.

Harkins bill would still allow senators to delay legislation, but ultimately would give the majority the power to move past a filibuster with a simple majority vote.

His staff said the bill would be introduced sometime before the Senates current work period ends on Feb. 13.

Harkin argues the filibuster is being used too commonly in today’s Congress.

In a Jan. 4 letter to his colleagues, Harkin noted that filibusters were used just once per Congress in the 1950s, compared to 139 times in the last Congress.

“At issue is a fundamental principle basic to our democracy — rule of the majority as a legislative body,” Harkin wrote. “Elections should have consequences. Yet the Senate’s current rules allow for a minority as small as one to make elections meaningless.”

Speaking to The Hill, Harkin said use of the filibuster has ground the legislative process to a halt.

“While there are reasons to slow bills down and get the public aware of what’s happening, there’s no excuse for having a few people just stop everything with a filibuster,” he said.

Several liberal activists as well as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) this week have called for filibuster reform to make it easier for legislation to pass.

In the House, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) this week introduced a resolution urging the Senate to lower the filibuster threshold, adding in a statement that the legislative tactic “has begun to erode the integrity of our Democratic process.”

Under Harkin’s bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), 60 votes would still be necessary to cut off debate on an initial procedural motion. If senators failed to reach 60 votes, a second vote would be possible two days later that would require only 57 votes to cut off debate. If that also failed, a third vote two days after that would require 54 votes to end debate. A fourth vote after two more days would require just 51 votes.

Reid shot down the option in his 2008 book The Good Fight. Recalling the nuclear option debate in 2005, Reid compared lowering the filibuster threshold to opening Pandoras Box.

It was just a matter of time before a Senate leader who couldnt get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business, Reid wrote. And that, simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate A filibuster is the minoritys way of not allowing the majority to shut off debate, and without robust debate, the Senate is crippled.

TheHill.com

Something Smells In Massachusetts?

Comments Off

Barney Frank says it’s ridiculous if a Republican wins in Massachusetts that he won’t be sworn in immediately.  He even used “conspiracy theory” in his statement.  On the same day, the second story was released.  If the Democrat wins, will it take weeks?  We’ll refer back to this story after the 19th…first, from the Washington Times:

By Kerry Picket on Jan. 12, 2010

House members returned from their recess over the holidays today, and health care legislation was the number issue on the agenda.  The Senate race in Massachusetts, though, could change the dynamics of the debate, should GOP State Senator Scott Brown prevail next week. The Democrats risk losing their 60-seat filibuster proof majority with a Brown win.

However, while the special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy has yet to be decided, the Brown campaign has already charged that Massachusetts Democrats will find a way to keep Mr. Brown from being certified, should he win, before the final vote on health care legislation happens in the Senate. Fox News spoke to Mr. Brown about his concern on this issue.:

“When I heard … the machine, not only locally but nationally, is trying to manipulate the process and make sure that if I’m elected, a duly elected senator, I can’t be seated in an effort to vote on this important piece of national legislation, it made me almost sick to my stomach,” Brown said.

“Everything I’ve heard right now I don’t like very much,” said Massachusetts Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei, noting the secretary is signaling he will “drag his feet”

“That is the stupidest thing I’ve been asked in a long time. That is insane, the suggestion could only come from a demented right wing source,” erupted Representative Barney Frank (D – MA), when asked by The Washington Times about what he thought of assertions that Massachusetts Democrats would stall the certification process should Mr. Brown win. “There isn’t the slightest possibility of it happening—a way of doing it. That is conspiracy theory at its most contemptible.”AUDIO

The Boston Herald reported that, according to a source, Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin’s office wants to certify the race on Feb. 20. A spokesman for Mr. Galvin’s office explained that local election districts have to wait at least 10 days before they submit their returns, so military and overseas ballots can be tallied as well. 15 days is the maximum amount of time to submit the returns to the secretary’s office, before they go to governor’s office.

After the race is certified on the state level, the new Massachusetts Senator-elect would then have to be sworn in by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D  – NV). An aid from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office sent an email to media saying the winner of the Massachusetts race would be sworn in promptly.:

“When there is a certified winner in Massachusetts, the Senate has received appropriate papers, and the vice president is available, the successor to Kennedy/Kirk will be sworn in.”

The special election for the vacant Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat will happen on January 19.

  • And now from Glenn Johnson with AP:
  • BOSTON (AP) – Massachusetts’s top election official says it could take weeks to certify the results of the upcoming U.S. Senate special election. That delay could let President Barack Obama preserve a key 60th vote for his health care overhaul even if the Republican who has vowed to kill it wins Democrat Edward M. Kennedy’s former seat.Secretary of State William F. Galvin, citing state law, says city and town clerks must wait at least 10 days for absentee ballots to arrive before they certify the results of the Jan. 19 election. They then have five more days to file the returns with his office.

    Galvin bypassed the provision in 2007 so his fellow Democrats could gain a House vote they needed to override a veto of then-Republican President George W. Bush, but the secretary says U.S. Senate rules would preclude a similar rush today.

    The potential delay has become a rallying point for the GOP, which argues Democrats have been twisting the rules to pass the health care bill despite public opposition. It’s also prompted criticism from government watchdogs.

    “We believe that elections should be by the people and for the people, and when the people have spoken, the system ought not be politicized,” said Common Cause President Bob Edgar, a former member of Congress. “If the Republican wins, the person should be seated immediately. If the Democrat wins, the person should be seated immediately.”

    Massachusetts Democrats already changed state law last fall so the governor could appoint a fellow Democrat to fill the seat after Kennedy died in August.

    Now that interim replacement, Sen. Paul G. Kirk Jr., says he will vote for the bill if given the chance, even if Republican Scott Brown beats Democrat Martha Coakley in Tuesday’s special election to fill the seat permanently. Brown, a state senator, has pledged to vote against the bill; Coakley, the state attorney general, supports it.

    Businessman Joseph L. Kennedy, no relation to the late senator, is also mounting an independent campaign, but he has trailed badly in public opinion polls. He, too, opposes the bill.

    Kirk and Coakley represent the crucial 60th Democratic vote to prevent a filibuster of the legislation. A Brown victory would shift the chamber’s balance to 59-41—just enough for Republicans to block the legislation.

    Yet passing or stopping the bill could depend on when the new senator is seated. Obama is angling to get the bill passed before he delivers his State of the Union speech, most likely in early to mid-February.

    “Until a new senator is sworn in, Sen. Kirk is the senator,” Coakley said.

    While Galvin wrote a letter in 2007 so Democrat Niki Tsongas could assume a U.S. House seat immediately after a special election, an aide said he would not do so in the case of the upcoming Senate election.

    “The Senate requires the certificate of election, which can only be issued after this period takes place,” spokesman Brian McNiff said.

    Democrats control the Senate, and they argue there is recent precedent for withholding a seat until local officials certify an election. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his colleagues waited 238 days before seating fellow Democrat Al Franken last year after Republicans challenged his 2008 election all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

    “When there is a certified winner in Massachusetts, the Senate has received appropriate papers and the vice president is available, the successor to Kennedy/Kirk will be sworn in,” said Reid spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle.

    She said that could take “a week or more.”

    President Makes Top 10 List of Corrupt Politicians

    Comments Off

    Thanks Carl…Every one of these are exceptional choices…

    Believes He ‘can violate privacy rights of Americans’ Without Legal Consequence

    Posted: December 29, 2009
    9:14 pm Eastern

    President Obama has been named to a “Top 10″ list he’d likely be grateful to avoid: Judicial Watch’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians,” for 2009.

    “The Obama White House believes,” said the report from the organization that monitors government for corruption, and sues when it chooses, “it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability.”

    The report released yesterday said Obama joined the likes of Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; Attorney General Eric Holder; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.; and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., on the list.

    “Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to sell the president’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder,” the report said.

    “Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability,” the report said.

    “President Obama boldly proclaimed that ‘transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,’ but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires,” the organization said.

    The White House did not respond to a WND e-mail request for comment.

    Judicial Watch also cited efforts by the Obama administration to use the National Endowment of the Arts, as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program, as “propaganda machines” and use tax dollars to persuade “artists” to promote the Obama agenda.

    Further, he’s installed a long list of “czars” in the government.

    “Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions),” the report said.

    “Under the president’s bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control – through fiat and threats – large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: ‘The administration’s central activity – the political allocation of wealth and opportunity – is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.’”

    “Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors – this is Obama’s ‘ethics’ record – and we haven’t even gotten through the first year of his presidency,” Judicial Watch said.

    Chris Farrell, the chief of research for the organization, told WND the list is not just about wrongdoing – whether the actions are immoral, illegal or just fattening.

    These are issues dealing with an abuse of office, or the abuse of the public trust, he said.

    He said the Top Ten list is listed on the Judicial Watch website in alphabetical order because it is not intended to represent that one case among the “Top 10″ would be worse than others.

    “What they’ve done has broad repercussions,” he said.

    According to the report others on the list are:

    • Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who also was on the list last year for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for allegedly accepting preferential treatment for himself. In 2009, the report said, the scandals kept coming. He faced an ethics complaint this year for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his federal disclosure forms.
    • Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who might be considered one of the year’s worst offenders for admitting to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from him in exchange for his silence. “It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans,” Judicial Watch said.
    • Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is being investigated by Judicial Watch in connection with a $12 million TARP cash infusion into the Boston-based OneUnited Bank. He was the congressman who infamously in 2003 announced, “the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis.” The comments came as he worked against GOP efforts to rein in the GSEs, which later created an economic tidal wave through the economy because of their financial losses.
    • Another is Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, who admitted to failing to pay $34,000 taxes he owed on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund.
    • Attorney General Eric Holder also is on the list. His record includes obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro’s Cuba, Judicial Watch said. He also has dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party stemming from mebmers’ actions on Election Day 2008.
    • Joining the others is Illinois State Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., who was in the center of the scandal in which Blagojevich reportedly tried to sell Obama’s vacant Senate seat. “According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named ‘Senate Candidate A’ in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama’s seat.”
    • Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is named for her “sense of entitlement,” which is “at the heart of the corruption problem in Washington,” Judicial Watch said. “Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline.”
    • Also, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who “made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons.” Judicial Watch said Murtha is under investigation for his relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. That was founded by a former Murtha associate and has been his largest campaign contributor.
    • Also, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, who has been unable to explain how he forgot to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income, or how his congressional office was able to raise funds for his private Rangel Center by reportedly swapping a tax loophole for donations. Further, he’s accused of making financial donations to other members of Congress who are assigned to investigation his actions.

    Michelle Bachmann on the government takeover of the Financial Services Industry

    Comments Off

    Please listen to this video and send out to all. Send letters and call Congress reminding them that they are making themselves unnecessary to this power-hungry federal administration!!!!!

    Once it has all the power, it no longer needs Congress and they are completely expendable!Summary: Barney Frank came out end of last week ( after Congress left town ) and introduced the Bill for the Government to take over the Financial Services Industry. What does it do?

    1. Makes Bailouts permanent whereby the President no longer has to go to Congress anymore, he can go directly to the Treasure Secretary and ask for any amount of money to give to ANYONE he wants.

    2. Massive job killer3. Massive government takeover besides health care and cap and trade.Because we ALL make financial transactions it will all be controlled by government and will ration capital and the government will decide who gets it!

    They will have a 5 person Oversight Board that will oversee the entire United States Financial Industy and ACORN or an ACORN like organization will be one of those 5 people.They are voting on this in the House today, so that means we must now focus on the Senate.Bachman is begging for us to call , to melt the phone lines, to go to district office.

    To get perspective:They have calculated that in July of 2009, the government had already taken over 30% of the economy. Add Health Care at 18%, another 15% for the Financial Services Industry which is ALMOST 70% OF THE ECONOMY IN 18 MONTHS!! (That my friends is a fascist/communist country! This is not what our founding fathers gave us!)

    more about “Michelle Bachmann on the government t…“, posted with vodpod

    House Panel Approves Letting Government Pick Who Succeeds & Who Fails

    Comments Off

    If this measure doesn’t concern you, then you just don’t see what’s happening. Our federal government since Obama took office is taking over everything from Banking,insurance companies, the auto industry and maybe soon the health insurance business. To add to that they’re being given the power to split up “healthy” companies that “appear” to be a risk of getting to big to fail. Yes you heard me right! I don’t think most people understand when your federal government is picking who succeeds and who fails that is a fascist economy plain and simple.

    House Panel Approves Systemic-Risk Measure, Advancing Overhaul

    A House panel approved legislation strengthening U.S. authority to police large, complex firms that pose risks to the economy, advancing the Obama administration’s effort to overhaul U.S. financial rules.

    The House Financial Services Committee voted 31-27 today for a bill creating a council of regulators to monitor systemic risk, shifting the cost of a failure to the financial industry and giving regulators the power to break up healthy firms.

    The legislation would give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. the authority to dismantle systemically risky firms and merge two bank regulators, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    The legislation was amended by Representative Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat, to let regulators dismantle healthy, well-capitalized financial firms whose size would threaten the economy.

    The measure removes a three-decade ban on congressional audits of Federal Reserve interest-rate decisions, an amendment offered by Representative Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas who has called for the abolition of the central bank.

    Another amendment creates a fund to cover the government’s costs for unwinding a failed firm. The measure puts the FDIC in charge of the fund, to be supported by fees from companies with more than $50 billion in assets that would generate as much as $150 billion.

    The legislation is part of the Obama administration’s plan to overhaul U.S. rules governing Wall Street to prevent a repeat of last year’s financial market collapse, leading to more than $1 trillion in taxpayer bailout programs.(Which the government shouldn’t have done in the first place.)

    The committee today began debating legislation to create a national insurance regulator, the last piece of House Financial Service Committee Chairman Barney Frank’s overhaul package. Insurers are regulated by states.

    “A federal insurance office will provide national policy makers with access to the information and resources needed to respond to crises, mitigate systemic risk and help ensure a well-functioning financial system,” said Kanjorski, sponsor of the legislation.

    Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the panel would vote on the insurance legislation later today, and the full House would begin debate on the regulatory legislation on Dec. 9.

    Business Week.com

    NRB Leader Warns Congress of ENDA’s ‘Chilling’ Effect on Christian Groups

    Comments Off

    NRB Leader Warns Congress of ENDA’s ‘Chilling’ Effect on Christian Groups

    An evangelical leader representing the nation’s largest association of Christian media professionals warned lawmakers Wednesday of the devastating blow that a highly contentious bill would deal to faith-based organizations and Christian ministries if passed.

    In a testimony before Congress, Craig Parshall, senior vice-president and general counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters, said the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 (ENDA) would “impose a crippling burden on religious organizations” as it prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of “actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”

    (Here’s a short 10 minute segment from Bryan Fischer’s program “Focal Point” on American Family Radio yesterday that explains what can happen with this legislation if it is passed.)

    Though the bill purports to contain an exemption for religious groups, Parshall testified before the House Committee on Education and Labor that the language, from a legal standpoint, is a “mirage,” and would subject faith groups to “endless, expensive, and harassing litigation” where the courts would be forced to use a previous legal formula in future law suits against religious organizations – a formula that has proven ineffectual in protecting religious liberty.

    In making his case, Parshall referred to legal disputes such as Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., Leboon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Center Association, and EEOC v. Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co. – cases in which faith-based organizations had to prove that they were religious in nature, purpose, or function as it was not apparent in the services they performed.

    “What has resulted is a sad pattern of inconsistent and complex decisions which render very scant religious freedom to faith groups but which have sent a chilling pall over their activities not to mention their budgets,” Parshall said.

    In concluding his testimony, the NRB leader noted the historical roots under-girding faith-based objections to ENDA-type legislation.

    “Christian ministries that object to those sexual preferences which are in clear violation of the standards of the Bible are standing on a long and well-worn road,” he said. “Those doctrines are proscribed in both the Old and New Testaments and have endured for several thousand years. The rights to preach and practice those beliefs spring from a Bill of Rights that is two hundred and twenty years old, and in turn which reach back to hundreds of years of English common law.”

    Following Parshall’s testimony, Dr. Frank Wright, NRB’s president and CEO, pointed out the political hypocrisy in the current debate, calling ENDA a classic “bait and switch” of Washington politics.

    “[I]t purports to address discrimination, all the while visiting a pernicious viewpoint discrimination against people of deep religious conviction,” Wright noted. “In the final analysis, ENDA is an attempt to subjugate First Amendment freedoms while advancing the political orthodoxy of the liberal left.”

    Though ENDA was first introduced in 1997, bills prior to the latest had made little progress in Congress.

    This time, supporters of the bill believe that they have enough votes in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate to pass ENDA into law. President Obama has also indicated that he would be likely to sign ENDA into law.

    Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ohio) recently introduced S. 1584 in the Senate, which is a companion bill to H.R. 3017.

    ChristianPost.com

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 396 other followers