Puerto Rico: a road to Dem majorities forever; Like Mexico's immigration laws better?; Gov SWAT teams in Gulf

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." --George Washington 1) Obama Pledges All-Out Response To Oil Spill …At the White House, Coast Guard Rear Adm. Sally Brice-O'Hara said, "We are being very aggressive and we are prepared for the worst case." Federal officials announced inspections would begin immediately of all oil rigs in the Gulf and subpoena powers would be used in the gathering investigation (WHAT?!?!? So now all oil companies are guilty? - emphasis and comment mine). But the priority was to support the oil company BP PLC in employing booms, skimmers, chemical dispersants and controlled burns to fight the oil surging from the seabed. See: http://www.wpxi.com/politics/23306547/detail.html 1a) Obama Announces He Will Be Sending SWAT Teams To Oil Rigs PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Earlier today, DHS Secretary Napolitano announced that this incident is of national significance and the Department of Interior has announced that they will be sending SWAT teams to the Gulf to inspect all platforms and rigs. And I have ordered the Secretaries of Interior and Homeland Security as well as Administrator Lisa Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency to visit the site on Friday to ensure that BP and the entire U.S. government is doing everything possible, not just to respond to this incident, but also to determine its cause." See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/29/obama_announces_he_will_be_sending_swat_teams_to_oil_rigs.html 2) Nationally, 60% Favor Letting Local Police Stop and Verify Immigration Status Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last week signed a new law into effect that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of voters nationwide favor such a law, while 31% are opposed. …Not surprisingly, support for the law authorizing local police to arrest illegal immigrants is a bit higher in Arizona than it is nationwide. As one of the states most impacted by illegal immigration, 70% of voters statewide favor the new law. …The new survey results are consistent with findings conducted over many years. Three-out-of-four voters believe that the federal government is not doing enough to secure the nation’s borders. In fact, 56% believe that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration. Among voters who are angry about immigration, 83% are angry at the federal government. Only 12% direct their anger at the immigrants. …Other surveys have found that 73% of voters want cops to check the immigration status of all offenders during traffic stops. Sixty-seven percent (67%) also say that if law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, they should sometimes conduct surprise raids to identify and deport those who are here illegally. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters nationwide say that those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants should be punished. By a 48% to 36% margin, voters say the same about landlords who rent to illegal immigrants. Additionally, 77% of voters nationwide oppose drivers’ licenses for undocumented immigrants. That topic tripped up Hillary Clinton in a debate during the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. See: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/nationally_60_favor_letting_local_police_stop_and_verify_immigration_status 2a) Glenn Beck: Immigration (Don’t like American immigration law? Let’s check out Mexico’s, and any other nation’s on earth, for that matter…) …Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove that they can provide for their own healthcare (emphasis mine). And that's in Mexico, sir. I don't know if you are aware of your own laws in your own country. Illegal entry into your own country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment. So is alien marriage fraud, evading deportation is a serious crime in Mexico. Illegal reentry after deportation is punishable by ten years in prison. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process in your country. And show me your papers? Well, in Mexico you better be ready just to do that. Mexico's national catalog of foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A national foreign registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population who must carry a citizens identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents in Mexico and proper identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens. So Felipe, if I may, cierra la boca. I know I butchered that. Let me translate: Shut the pie hole. And please, progressives, spare us the endless hand wringing over trying to do the job the federal government won't do. There are simple steps, three simple steps to solving this problem once and for all. Number one, secure the border. Number two, enforce the law. And then encourage legal immigration to enrich us, enhance us and renew us (emphasis mine). See: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/39742/ 2b) KOBACH: Arizona acts as Washington dithers …Myth No. 3: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people. Here again, critics of the law are failing to read it carefully. The law only kicks in when a police officer already has made a "lawful contact" with a person, such as stopping him for breaking another law. The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/28/arizona-acts-as-washington-dithers/ 2c) Stand Up and Lead, Republicans: Lawlessness Is Not Compassion RUSH: Democrats say that they're in favor of everything being fair. Let me ask this. How is it fair to legal immigrants that have taken all the necessary steps to become legal citizens for years to grant everybody legal benefits even if they aren't legal and have cheated the system? What is fair? If we're going to use fairness let's throw it right back in their face. What about any of this is fair? Isn't it funny, ladies and gentlemen? Isn't it funny how much we heard about the need to cut our health care spending? But neither Obama nor any of the Democrats ever suggested that providing health care services for millions of noncitizens was ever once mentioned as part of the problem. In fact, wouldn't part of our new era of fiscal responsibility notice how many billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on illegal aliens who are getting costly services that they are not paying for? …Guess who won't be required to have papers to prove that they have health insurance? Illegals. Illegals will continue to have access to our emergency rooms. They won't have to prove anything. They won't have to buy insurance because they're not citizens. There's no way of finding them. And if they show up needing services they're going to get it, we're gonna pay for it. We have to show our papers, we have to buy insurance; we're mandated by federal law in violation of constitution. They're not. And yet Arizona's law is Nazi-like? Where's the outrage about all of this? And, by the way, you don't have to be doing anything suspicious to get carded for your insurance papers. All you have to do is file your income tax. It doesn't even require suspicious activity. You just get carded. You are required to prove your insurance, that you have it, every year. Russia, the land idolized and admired by the American left, still requires an internal passport, did you know that? An identity document, your papers, in Russia they're still used to control the internal movement and residents of people, same thing in Ukraine. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042810/content/01125109.guest.html 2d) Idiotic Liberals Boycott Arizona Iced Tea (Made in NY) RUSH: These idiot boycotts. These bleeding heart, not-immersed-in-reality-at-all sportswriters and whoever else now suggesting the Arizona Diamondbacks be boycotted, at home and on the road, from the New York Daily News: Arizona iced tea has been boycotted. The left in this country is urging a boycott of Arizona iced tea. The only problem is it's made in New York. Arizona iced tea is actually brewed in New York. "Opponents of Arizona's new anti-immigrant law are calling for a boycott of the state's products - including the popular Arizona Iced Tea." Here's a typical letter. "'Dear Arizona: If you don't change your immigration policy, I will have to stop drinking your enjoyable brand of iced tea,' Twittered Jody Beth in Los Angeles. 'It is the drink of fascists,' wrote Travis Nichols in Chicago. Founded in Brooklyn in 1992, the firm was based in Queens before moving into a new $35 million headquarters in Nassau County last year." Arizona iced tea is not made in Arizona, and yet these idiots are boycotting it. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042810/content/01125104.guest.html 3) Playing The Puerto Rico Card Politics: Faced with losing Congress, the Democrats want to make Puerto Rico a state whether the people want it or not. The Democrats would get two new senators, new congressmen and a campaign issue. Throw in voting representation for D.C., amnesty for illegals and voting for felons, all items on the Democrats' agenda, and in their cookbook you have a recipe for Democratic majorities as far as the eye can see. It's a plan to retain control at all costs and counteract a Tea Party movement that threatens to throw their big-government liberalism on the ash heap of political history (emphasis mine). You also have the added bonus of energizing Hispanic activists all too eager with administration help to paint the GOP as racists, particularly in the light of the new Arizona law that does nothing but say that since the feds dropped the ball on border security, Arizona will pick it up and run with it. See: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531837 3a) Puerto Rico Democracy Act – Legislation Biased in Favor of Statehood The legislation provides Puerto Rico a two stage voting process and makes some non-resident Puerto Ricans eligible to vote on Puerto Rican statehood. This legislation has rigged the process in favor of making Puerto Rico the 51st state and is not a fair way to force statehood on a Commonwealth whose people may not want it. Furthermore, this may be an expensive proposition for the American people who are already on the hook for approximately $12.9 trillion in national debt. This bill attempts to rig the voting process and denies the American people a real say on the issue of whether they want to allow Puerto Rico to be granted statehood. The fact of the matter is that Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood numerous times and this bill seems to have been written in a way to fast track statehood without a majority of Puerto Ricans favoring the idea. Furthermore, the people of the United States should be allowed a vote on whether they want to admit Puerto Rico as a new state. If the people of Puerto Rico can vote, the people of the United States should have a vote. The legislation contains many questionable provisions. First, the legislation sets up a voting process rigged for success. The legislation sets up a preliminary vote and the voters are given two options. If a majority of Puerto Ricans vote in favor of changing the status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to “a different political status,” then a second vote would be scheduled to poll voters on the following three options: -“Independence: Puerto Rico should become fully independent from the United States;” -“Sovereignty in Association with the United States: Puerto Rico and the United States should form a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution;” and, -“Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of the Union.” Clearly, a plurality of the people of Puerto Rico could vote for “Statehood” without a majority of the people voting ever supporting the idea. The people of Puerto Rico have rejected statehood three times and it seems that this vote is set up to allow a simply plurality of the people to carry the day. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/27/puerto-rico-democracy-act-–-legislation-biased-in-favor-of-statehood/ 3b) Congress approves referendum on Puerto Rico future WASHINGTON – The House on Thursday approved legislation that could set in motion changes in Puerto Rico's 112-year relationship with the United States, including a transition to statehood or independence. The House bill would give the 4 million residents of the island commonwealth a two-step path to expressing how they envision their political future. It passed 223-169 and now must be considered by the Senate. Initially, eligible voters, including those born in Puerto Rico but residing in the United States, would vote on whether they wish to keep their current political status or opt for a different direction. If a majority are in favor of changing the current situation, the Puerto Rican government would be authorized to conduct a second vote and people would choose among four options: statehood, independence, the current commonwealth status or sovereignty in association with the United States. Congress would have to vote on whether Puerto Rico becomes a state. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100430/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_puerto_rico 3d) Glenn Beck: The 51st State? CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Well, there's a push to push this HR 2499. I see it as part of a four pronged plan that I see to really change the [electorate - explanation mine] environment here in the United States of America. Amnesty for people who are here illegally, voting rights for criminals and felons. They wanted D.C. voting rights, something, got this little thing called the Second Amendment got in the way. They weren't willing to put it forward, but they certainly wanted to do something I believe was unconstitutional and give Washington D.C. voting rights. And now this 2499, which is the Puerto Rico statehood bill which is being pushed by the new progressive party in Puerto Rico trying to create a federally sanctioned; that is, a U.S. sanctioned vote that they say is nonbinding but would give them the legitimacy to then come back and try to seat people in the United States congress. Translation: Giving Puerto Rico the right to become a US state is all about getting more votes for Democrats and progressives. See: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/39739/ 4) Morning Bell: The Senate’s Goldman Kabuki …The left would have us believe that the 2008 financial crisis was all the fault of greedy Wall Street bankers like those at Goldman Sachs who dared to change their investment strategy on the belief that housing prices were inflated. To protect against future financial meltdowns, the left wants to give more power to the same federal regulators who failed to recognize the systemic risk caused by the very bubble Goldman and others correctly identified (emphasis mine). In fact, one of the main reasons for yesterday’s hearing was to deflect attention away from Washington’s role in creating the 2008 financial crisis. It was the government-created and subsidized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that played leading roles in the markets at the center of the housing storm. But the left prioritized their political goals over financial reality. Rep. Barney Frank told the House Financial Services Committee: “These two entities–Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” and “[t]he more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” And the author of thevery financial reform bill currently being debated in the Senate, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) , told CNN in July of 2008: “To suggest somehow that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are in trouble is simply not accurate.” Just two months later, completely overrun by bad debt, both companies were placed in conservatorship. So unable to acknowledge the government’s role in the last crisis, not only were Fannie and Freddie not mentioned at yesterday’s hearing, they are not included in Dodd’s financial regulation bill at all. Hence the need for a villain like Goldman (emphasis mine). And what does Goldman think of the actual legislation the left is using them to pass? They are for it, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein confirmed yesterday. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/28/morning-bell-the-senates-goldman-kabuki 4a) Partisanship recedes slightly on financial bill …Within moments of the opening of debate, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama said he and other Republicans hoped to rewrite the White House-backed bill "so that it actually ends bailouts, protects consumers without jeopardizing our small community banks, and brings transparency to the world of derivatives without sacrificing economic growth and job creation." It was a none-too-subtle accusation that Democrats favor taxpayer bailouts of failing banks… …No votes were taken, and none was likely before Tuesday on the legislation, expected to take two weeks or more to complete. The House has already passed its version of the bill, and it could be months before a compromise goes to President Barack Obama for his signature. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul 5) Governor Brewer Makes Arizona First to Drop Abortion Funding in Health Care Phoenix, AZ (LifeNews.com) -- State legislators in Tennessee may have beaten their colleagues in Arizona in passing a law to allow the state to opt out of some of the abortion funding in the government-run health care bill President Barack Obama signed. But Governor Jan Brewer made Arizona officially the first to have the bill become law. As pro-life advocates in Tennessee wait for Governor Bredesen to decide if he will sign the bill there into law, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer wasted little time signing her state's version. On Saturday at the Center for Arizona Policy Family dinner before 1600 guests, Brewer signed SB 1305 to opt Arizona out of abortion coverage in any insurance exchanges created by the new federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The first-in-the-nation law further clarifies current Arizona law prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortion by prohibiting state and local governments from offering abortion insurance coverage in employee benefit plans. “Arizonans, like most Americans, do not want their tax dollars paying for elective abortions,” said Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod. “With this new law, Arizona is leading the charge to protect our right not to pay for abortions, a procedure most find morally reprehensible.” More than two dozen other states are considering similar legislation. See: http://www.lifenews.com/state5027.html 6) Obama Care imposes 3.8% tax on virtually all real estate transactions That’s right. Suppose you sell your home and walk away with a capital gain of $250,000. Under normal circumstances, you have two years to reinvest that gain in a new home to avoid any capital gains tax. But under Obama Care, you’ll owe 3.8% to the federal government, because you have income of over $250,000 for that year. Direct thank you notes to your respective Representatives or Senators, if they voted for this abomination. See: http://novarealtors.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/obama-care-imposes-3-8-tax-on-virtually-all-real-estate-transactions/ 6a) Health law’s heavy impact: 3.8% TAX ON ALL HOME SALES …Tax on Home Sales. Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are “rich” for only one day – the day they sell their house and buy a new one. See: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/mar/28/health-laws-heavy-impact/ 6b) New health care law traps some in pricey state plans About 200,000 Americans whose illnesses have kept them from getting regular health insurance will not be allowed to enroll this summer in a new lower cost federal program for people like them because they already buy pricey state-run plans. The nation's new health law creates a far cheaper insurance program opening July 1 for people with pre-exisiting medical conditions. To qualify, a person can't have had health coverage for six months. The result is it excludes people already enrolled in 35 state high risk pools offering insurance of last resort. The state pools charge high premiums — often double standard rates for healthier people in the individual market — to help cover costs. …"The unintended consequence of this important piece of legislation is we're going to effectively penalize the people who have been doing the sacrificing all along," said Holland, who likes the law's expansion of coverage. See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-04-29-health-care-law-undercuts-risk-pools_N.htm 7) Army Preps for Tea Party 'Terrorists' …This week, I was contacted by a number of civilian and military personnel (enlisted and officer ranks) who expressed concern about a military exercise scenario proposed for Ft. Knox, the U.S. Bullion Depository. (For the record, I called Ft. Knox security for an official comment and received the standard reply: "We are not authorized to discuss this exercise.") As with most such exercises, the Ft. Knox scenario outline occurred in stages, as if real time intelligence was being provided at various intervals. The first intel advisory I received was issued on Friday, 23 April 2010, and identifies the terrorist threat adversaries as "Local Militia Groups / Anti-Government Protesters / TEA Party." …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. …While the Ft. Knox exercise scenario is amateurish in its construct (meaning it appears to be composed by someone with not much experience in such matters), the fact that it made it out into official channels 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 scenario "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 it appears the 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. See: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/04/29/army-preps-for-tea-party-terrorists/ 8) Greek borrowing costs at new highs after downgrade ATHENS, Greece – Three weeks away from potential default, Greece saw its borrowing costs spiral higher once again Wednesday, a day after ratings agency Standard & Poor's downgraded the country's bonds to junk status. Stocks around the world tanked after the downgrade by S&P, which also lowered its rating on Portuguese bonds by two notches, indicating Greece's financial troubles are spreading to other eurozone countries. The interest rate gap, or spread, between Greek and benchmark German 10-year bonds spiked to 7.7 percentage points, meaning Greece would face rates of above 10 percent if it tried issuing bonds now. The higher the gap, the less confidence in Greece. Athens has called for aid from a euro45 billion joint eurozone and International Monetary Fund rescue package that would provide loans to Greece at a rate of about 5 percent. But Germany has been reluctant to release funds, saying Greece must take more austerity measures first. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_greece_financial_crisis 9) APNewsBreak: Israel halts east Jerusalem building JERUSALEM – Israel's prime minister has effectively frozen new Jewish construction in east Jerusalem, municipal officials said Monday, reflecting the need to mend a serious rift with the U.S. and get Mideast peace talks back on track. The move comes despite Benjamin Netanyahu's repeated assertion he would never halt construction in east Jerusalem and risks angering hard-liners in his government. One lawmaker from Netanyahu's Likud Party warned the governing coalition could collapse over the issue. Still, the de facto freeze appeared to offer the promise of reviving peace efforts derailed after Israel announced plans for a major Jewish housing development during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden last month. That set off the worst diplomatic dispute between the U.S. and Israel in decades — and prompted the Palestinians to call off a new round of U.S.-brokered peace talks. The quiet halting of east Jerusalem housing approvals coincides with signs that those talks are now about to start — and could help explain recent U.S. statements stressing America's close ties to Israel. …It was not clear if the halt to approvals constituted a genuine moratorium or how long it would last, and Israeli government officials would not confirm any kind of freeze. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100426/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Arizona gov signs immigration enforcement bill - "misguided" says Obama; Financial sector takeover looms

1) Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill PHOENIX – Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico. With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were "overreacting" and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling. "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation." Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others." "That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," Obama said. Fairness? You might like, EVERYONE must obey the law, not just some people? Oh, I forgot how little the rule of law means to you, Barack Hussein Obama. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_enforcement 1a) Congressman: US should fight Ariz. immigrant law PHOENIX – An Arizona congressman urged the Obama administration on Sunday not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if a tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges. U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, and civil rights activists spoke to thousands of people gathered at the state Capitol and called on President Barack Obama to fight the law, promising to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply. "We're going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we're going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law," Grijalva said. What does that mean? Overturn the Constitution? Overturn states’ rights? State Sen. Russell Pearce, the Mesa Republican who sponsored the legislation, said it's "pretty disappointing" that opponents would call on the federal government to refuse to cooperate with Arizona authorities. "It's outrageous that these people continue to support law breakers over law keepers," Pearce said Sunday. …The new law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally (So, let me get this straight. It‘s a crime to break the law. What a concept!). Immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500. Other provisions allow lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and the law makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100426/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_enforcement 2) No deal yet on financial rules as test vote looms WASHINGTON – Democrats are showing little willingness to alter financial overhaul legislation any further and are ready for a showdown vote Monday, hoping to splinter solid Republican opposition or to cast the minority party as an ally of Wall Street. Republican leaders seem prepared to take that risk — for now — if they can force Democratic concessions. The top negotiators on the sweeping bill — Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd and Republican Sen. Richard Shelby — professed to be close to a deal Sunday during a joint appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." But, as Shelby said, "inches sometimes are miles." The two lawmakers did not hold a negotiating session Sunday. The legislation, the most sweeping effort to rein in financial institutions since the Great Depression, is approaching its end game, and Republicans and Democrats alike predict it can ultimately pass with bipartisan support. But for now, Republicans are using what leverage they have in hopes of putting a bigger GOP imprint on the bill or removing Democratic provisions they perceive as government overreach. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday blocked Democrats' efforts to bring the bill up for debate, setting up a vote Monday that will require 60 votes to move ahead. McConnell and Shelby said Sunday that without a deal with Dodd, all 41 Republican senators would vote to stall the start of debate. Shelby said a deal in time for the vote was unlikely. Democrats said they were out of patience. …Both bills would create a mechanism for liquidating large firms, set up a council to detect system wide financial threats (translation, the government will not control large parts of the financial industry), and establish a consumer protection agency to police lending. The legislation also would require derivatives, blamed for helping precipitate the meltdown, to be traded in open exchanges. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100425/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul 3) Climate bill placed on hold over Senate dispute WASHINGTON – Long-awaited climate change legislation was put on hold by its authors Saturday when a dispute over immigration politics and Senate priorities threatened to unravel a bipartisan effort that took months of work. Voicing regrets, Sen. John Kerry said Saturday he is postponing the much anticipated unveiling of comprehensive energy and climate change legislation scheduled for Monday. The Massachusetts Democrat made his announcement after a key partner in drafting the bill, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (a RINO - Republican in Name Only) of South Carolina, threatened to withhold support if Senate Democratic leaders push ahead first with an immigration bill. Graham is angry that Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is considering that. Legislation to overhaul immigration laws and grant legal status to millions of long term immigrants unlawfully in the country could create problems for Republicans in the midterm elections. It's a top priority for Hispanic voters — and most Republicans are opposed. Reid's idea amounts to a "cynical political ploy," Graham asserted. So “immigration reform” is our consolation prize for delaying Cap and Destroy. Not sure which is worse. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100425/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_bill_congress 4) What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama (long but really good - by Jonah Goldberg - excerpts of it here) The assertion that Barack Obama is a socialist became a hallmark of the 2008 presidential campaign. His opponent, John McCain, used Obama’s own extemporaneous words to an Ohio plumber as Exhibit A: “When you spread the wealth around,” Obama had said, “it’s good for everybody.” That, McCain insisted, sounded “a lot like socialism,” as did Obama’s proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy and high earners for the explicit purpose of taking better care of the lower and middle classes with that redistributed money. …Fourteen months into his presidency, in March 2010, Obama succeeded in muscling through Congress a partial government takeover of the national health-care system. That legislative accomplishment followed Obama’s decision a year earlier, without congressional approval, to nationalize two of the country’s Big Three automobile companies (emphasis mine). In the intervening months, he had also imposed specific wage ceilings on employees at banks that had taken federal bailout money—the first such federal wage controls since an ill-fated experiment by Richard Nixon in 1971. Obama also made the federal government the direct provider of student loans, and did so by putting that significant change in American policy inside the larger health-care bill. In a September 2009 press conference, Obama suggested that a publicly funded health-care system might help “avoid some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs”—thus mistaking the act of making money, the foundational cornerstone of capitalism itself, with the generation of unnecessary expenses. …The Obama administration may not have planned on seizing the means of automobile production or asserting managerial control over Wall Street. But when faced with the choice, it did both. Obama did explicitly plan on imposing a massive restructuring of one-sixth of the U.S. economy through the use of state fiat—and he is beginning to do precisely that. …It was the revolutionary rabble-rouser Francois-Noël Babeuf who first asserted in 1794 that true equality would be impossible without the abolition of private property. The pursuit of private wealth was simply the means of replacing one aristocracy with another, he argued. The true promised land required abolishing such distinctions, inherited or earned. Babeuf’s “Conspiracy of Equals”—a precursor to Lenin’s revolutionary avant-garde—sought to “remove from every individual the hope of ever becoming richer, or more powerful, or more distinguished by his intelligence.” The goal, according to the Manifesto of the Equals, was the “disappearance of boundary-marks, hedges, walls, door locks, disputes, trials, thefts, murders, all crimes, courts, prisons, gallows, penalties, envy, jealousy, insatiability, pride, deception, duplicity, in short, all vices.” To fill that void, “the great principle of equality, or universal fraternity would become the sole religion of the peoples.” Say what you will about such an agenda, it is certainly not focused on empirical economic theory. …Obama is no Marxist. This is a point lost on some who like to highlight the president’s indebtedness to the ideas of the late radical Saul Alinsky, who was no Marxist either. Rather, Alinsky was a radical leftist and a proponent of “social-ism” before Blair named it. He believed that all institutions, indeed the system itself, should be bent to the needs of the underprivileged and the downtrodden in the name of social justice. Bent, not broken. Like the progressives and various Marxists, Alinsky was a proponent of radical pragmatism, using the tools available to change the existing order. This was the core of what the New York Times, in a remarkable 1913 analysis surveying Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas in the wake of his third-party campaign for president, dubbed T.R.’s “super-socialism”: “It is not the Marxian Socialism. Much that Karl Marx taught is rejected by present-day Socialists. Mr. Roosevelt achieves the redistribution of wealth in a simpler and easier way”—by soaking the rich and yoking big business to the state. “It has all the simplicity of theft and much of its impudence (emphasis mine),” the Times asserted. “The means employed are admirably adapted to the ends sought, and if the system can be made to work at all, it will go on forever.” …In this sense, Obama is a practitioner of the Third Way, the governing approach most successfully trumpeted by Blair, who claimed to have found a “third way” that rejected the false premises of both Left and Right and thereby located a “smarter” approach to expanding government. The powerful appeal of this idea lies in the fact that it sounds as if its adherents have rejected ideological dogmatism and gone beyond those “false choices.” Thus, a leader can both provide health care to 32 million people and save money, or, as Obama likes to say, “bend the cost curve down.” But in not choosing, Obama is choosing. He is choosing the path of government control, which is what the Third Way inevitably does and is intended to do. ..On the night the House of Representatives passed the health-care bill, Obama said, “This legislation will not fix everything that ails our health care system. But it moves us decisively in the right direction.” Then, speaking specifically of another vote to be taken in the Senate but also cleverly to those not yet satisfied with what had been achieved, he added, “Now, as momentous as this day is, it’s not the end of this journey.” Under Obama’s neosocialism, that journey will be endless, and no matter how far down the road toward socialism we go, he will always be there to tell the increasingly beleaguered marchers that we have only taken a “critical first step.” See: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/what-kind-of-socialist-is-barack-obama--15421 5) Abbas calls on Obama to impose Mideast peace deal RAMALLAH, West Bank – Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas called on President Barack Obama on Saturday to impose a Mideast peace deal, reflecting growing frustration with what Palestinians see as Washington's failure to wrangle concessions out of Israel's hardline government. In an unusually blunt appeal, Abbas said that if Obama believes Palestinian statehood is a vital U.S. interest, then the American leader must take forceful steps to bring it about. "Since you, Mr. President and you, the members of the American administration, believe in this, it is your duty to call for the steps in order to reach the solution and impose the solution — impose it," Abbas said in a speech to leaders of his Fatah movement. "But don't tell me it's a vital national strategic American interest ... and then not do anything," he added. Oh, Mr. Abbas. He’s done plenty already. And who do you think he is? He’s president of the United States, not king of the world (even though he thinks he is)! See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100424/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians 6) Torpedo blast likely sank warship: SKorea minister SEOUL, South Korea – An explosion caused by a torpedo likely tore apart and sank a South Korean warship near the North Korean border, Seoul's defense minister said Sunday, while declining to assign blame for the blast as suspicion increasingly falls on Pyongyang. …Soon after the disaster, Kim told lawmakers that a North Korean torpedo was one of the likely scenarios, but the government has been careful not to blame the North outright, and Pyongyang has denied its involvement. …As investigations have pointed to an external explosion as the cause of the sinking, however, suspicion of the North has grown, given the country's history of provocation and attacks on the South. The Cheonan was on a routine patrol on March 26 when the unexplained explosion split it in two in one of South Korea's worst naval disasters. Forty bodies have been recovered so far, but six crew members are still unaccounted for and are presumed dead. The site of the sinking is near where the rival Koreas fought three times since 1999, most recently a November clash that left one North Korean soldier dead and three others wounded. The two Koreas are still technically at war because their 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce, not a peace treaty. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100425/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks

Are you a seditionist?; Worldwide new taxes on banks; At least Congress, Janet Porter support Isreal

1) Democrats set showdown vote on Wall Street bill WASHINGTON – Declaring themselves short of patience, Democrats set an initial showdown vote for next Monday on legislation to clamp new regulations on the financial industry while Republicans insisted on more bargaining. President Barack Obama admonished Wall Street leaders "to join us instead of fighting us" to prevent a future national financial collapse. The test vote loomed in an election-year climate, with lawmakers ready to campaign this summer on the results of this legislation — written in reaction to the economic crisis that threw the nation into recession — as well as the hard-fought health care overhaul. "The time for stalling is over," declared Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. That drew a quick response from the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky: "I don't think bipartisanship is a waste of time." “Out of patience”. I think I’ve heard this once before. Second verse, same as the first. A little bit louder and a little bit worse. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul 1a) Is the Goldman-Sachs scandal manufactured? (updated) Reports coming in point to a scheme by President Obama to create a national scandal by having the SEC charge Goldman Sachs with fraud in order to bolster support for the sweeping financial regulatory reform bill. An article from the Washington Examiner supports the premise that the president has always been in bed with Wall Street, even though he publicly chastises the ‘fat cats' to win approval from the American people and to ram through his overreaching financial reform. From Tim Carney: Obama's fundraiser and economic adviser Warren Buffett is very long on Goldman, having bet on them in 2008 in the expectation of a bailout. Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, was a Goldman Sachs lobbyist until months before joining Team Obama. What does that add up to? Getting a hand in making the regulations… …Let's hope and pray that the forty-one Republican senators hold onto their convictions this week, and stop this egregious abuse from going further. No doubt, Obama and company will be making phone calls, office visits, and threats to every single one of them (emphasis mine). See: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/is_the_goldmansachs_scandal_ma.html 1b) Reid dodges questions on Goldman $$$ After criticizing Republican leaders yesterday for having a secret, closed-door meeting with Wall Street executives, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today faced his own questions about a fundraiser he attended this year hosted by the president of Goldman Sachs. Asked by reporters to confirm his attendance and how it played into the debate over financial regulatory reform, Reid didn't answer the question directly. Instead, he read from what appeared to be prepared remarks, touting his reform efforts. Remember that Sharron Angle is running against this thug. Go to http://www.sharronangle.com and help her beat him. See: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/20/2275442.aspx 1c) Obama Wins Through Thuggery RUSH: You know the old stand by: "It's not the nature of the evidence that matters; it's the seriousness of the charge." That's what's at play here with the Goldman Sachs business because it's apparent to a lot of people who now looked into this (from the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNBC) that they don't see any evidence here. They could not find anybody who thinks they have a case here. They couldn't find anybody who thinks they got a case (emphasis mine). But that doesn't matter because, you see: It's the seriousness of the charge, not the nature of the evidence. I find this laughable that there are people who have doubts that Obama and the White House were not involved. After all that's happened in a year (14 or 15 months, whatever it is) how can anybody have any doubts? See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042110/content/01125109.guest.html 1d) New global 'FAT' tax to rein in banks: Gordon Brown claims credit for International Monetary Fund plan to impose tough levy on biggest banks' profits and pay Tough proposals to cut the world's biggest banks down to size by taxing their profits and pay were outlined by the International Monetary Fund tonight in an attempt to spare taxpayers another massive public bailout of the financial sector. In measures more stringent than Wall Street and the City had expected, the fund called for the introduction of a twin-track approach to the three-year banking crisis that would both force firms to pay for any future support packages and raise new taxes on their profits and remuneration. The report, prepared by the Washington-based institution for the G20 group of developed and developing nations, was seized upon by Gordon Brown as evidence that his push for an international crackdown on the banking sector was gaining support. Leaked in advance of the fund's meeting this weekend, the blueprint emerged as the investment bank Goldman Sachs released better than expected first quarter revenues and admitted its bonus and pay pool had reached $5.5bn (£3.3bn) in the first three months of 2010. The anticipated study called for a financial stability contribution (FSC), which should be paid by all financial institutions, not just banks, and used to bail out weak and failing firms. It would initially be paid at a flat rate but eventually be tailored to suit institutions' size and riskiness. While banks had been braced for the FSC plan, they were caught unawares by the proposal for a financial activities tax (FAT), which would be based on the profits and the pay structure of the firms. Yeah! How dare those banks make a profit! Watch as the socialist cancer grows world-wide. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/apr/20/imf-tax-global-banks 2) Report: Health overhaul will increase nation's tab WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation. You’re kidding! Really? …But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs 3) Time’s Klein: Beck, Palin Potentially Committing Sedition against U.S. Government; Heilemann Adds Limbaugh Liberals are all too often eager to charge conservative personalities of using hyperbole to gain a political advantage, especially when it contradicts their world view - whether it's suggesting the Obama administration is taking the country down the path of socialism, fascism or any other -ism. However, it could be argued there's a different set of standards for those same people when they want to make strong charges. On NBC's April 18 "The Chris Matthews Show," Time columnist Joe Klein all but accused former GOP vice-presidential nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, along with Fox News host Glenn Beck of sedition. "I did a little bit of research just before this show - it's on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious." As Klein pointed out, the legal definition of sedition is "a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority." And, sedition has been declared a felony in Supreme Court opinions, thus making Klein's national television accusation a fairly serious one, one of which New York magazine's John Heilemann agreed with. However, Heilemann added conservative talker Rush Limbaugh to that list. See: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/04/18/time-s-klein-beck-palin-potentially-committing-sedition-against-u-s-gover 4) Enough with the VAT talk Some liberals in Congress want to pay for their massive new spending with a value-added tax, a sort of national sales tax on the price of goods at each stage of production. While popular in Europe, such a tax is a bad idea for the United States. And a significant number of lawmakers and even White House officials seem to agree. Last week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) led a brigade of 85 Senators in a vote denouncing a VAT in America. McCain's resolution accurately stated that a VAT would "cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery." Better still, McCain's floor remarks cited Heritage Foundation tax expert J.D. Foster. Not long after the Senate vote, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted that a national consumer tax "wasn't something that the president had under consideration." So far so good. But President Obama seems to be singing from a different song sheet. In an interview Wednesday, the President indicated that a value-added tax on Americans is still on the table for consideration. A VAT " is something that has worked for some countries," he said. "It's something that would be novel for the United States." President Obama has stated that his first priority is to figure out how to reduce wasteful spending and reduce the deficit, so he is willing to consider all options. But research by Heritage experts and countless economists reveals that a VAT would actually invite greater spending and economic turmoil, especially as it would be levied in addition to all other taxes (emphasis mine). See: http://www.myheritage.org/archive/email/enough-with-the-vat-talk.html 5) US Navy SEAL on Trial for Roughing Up Terrorist RUSH: This is maddening. "A US sailor testified Wednesday that he saw a SEAL punch an Iraqi prisoner suspected of masterminding the killings in 2004 of four U.S. private security contractors, as the court-martial of another member of the elite unit accused of being involved in the incident opened at a military base outside Baghdad." A Navy SEAL capturing people who had killed Americans, happened to punch one of them in the face and is being court-martialed in Baghdad, in Iraq, the scene the crime. Meanwhile, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gets a trial in the US. Our own soldiers do not. What on earth are we trying to prove here, except that we're fools who will happily turn on even our bravest men when they're carrying out their most dangerous duties, all for what? To show that we're not the mean, rotten, SOB nation Obama thinks that we have been? You know, all told here one has to say that this prosecution best represents all that is wrong with the Obama administration's prosecution of the war on terror. After all the outrageous things they've done, this is really saying something, to put a US Navy SEAL on trial for roughing up a terrorist who killed Americans, and to do so in Baghdad. See: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gz7Vp4WQ6rlbznaqmlZHlbtxrs0gD9F7CMT80 And: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042110/content/01125104.guest.html 6) What's behind the anti-Tea Party hate narrative? There's a new narrative taking hold in the wake of the recent Tea Party protests and the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing: The Tea Partiers' intense opposition to the Obama administration has led to overheated political rhetoric, which could in turn lead to violence, perhaps as devastating as Oklahoma City. Former President Clinton is the leading voice of this new narrative. In newspaper interviews, television appearances and a widely discussed speech Friday, Clinton said it's "legitimate" to draw "parallels to the time running up to Oklahoma City and a lot of the political discord that exists in our country today." "Watch your words," warned ABC News, reporting that Clinton "weighed in on the angry anti-government rhetoric, ringing out from talk radio to Tea Party rallies." …Hate groups do exist across the political spectrum, and have for a long time. But they have nothing to do with the expressions of frustration over deficits, taxes and Obamacare that we have heard at so many Tea Party gatherings. That frustration, felt by Republicans, independents and even some Democrats, is an entirely mainstream reaction to the sharply activist course the president and congressional leadership have taken. While the level of frustration is indeed a threat, it is a political threat. Ask Democrats running in this November's elections. It's important to distinguish between a political threat and a physical one. As Clinton might say, the hate accusers should watch their words. See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/What_s-behind-the-anti-Tea-Party-hate-narrative_-91552689.html 6a) Related: Bertha Lewis accuses the right of wanting to put people into internment camps. Uh…Bertha? I think you have things a bit backwards… LEWIS: You know, that's no large thing to do, to actually said I'm a socialist. As you guys know, right now we are living in a time which is going to dwarf the McCarthy era. GLENN: Stop, stop. "As you guys know," she says, "It's no small thing to say that I'm a socialist." Why? News week said we're all socialists now. Boy, does it all come together? Do you see why they're exciting, why they have fought and tried to discredit? Because they know that Americans, at this point at least, do not look fondly on socialists. That's why you've got to fight what socialism is and Marxism. You've got to fight that battle because they are know they are about to be exposed. It's only a matter of time. So she says, I know it's not easy to say those things because especially at this time, we are at a time that will dwarf the McCarthy era. We're at a time, according to Bertha Lewis, that will dwarf the McCarthy era. All right? LEWIS: It is going to dwarf the internment during World War II. GLENN: Stop. It will dwarf the internment of World War II. Let's just get our arms around that. PAT: Who is she afraid of? Who are these who is this entity that's going to come and take these people away? Nobody's in power. Nobody has the power to do that except the government. And the government are the ones who were doing all the socialist policies. See: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/39497/ 7) Arizona Sheriff Says Cops Are Being Killed by Illegal Aliens; Joins Call for U.S. Troops at Border (CNSNews.com) – Law enforcement officials from the Arizona counties hardest hit by illegal immigration say they want U.S. troops to help secure the border, to prevent the deaths of more officers at the hands of criminals who enter the country illegally. “We’ve had numerous officers that have been killed by illegal immigrants in Arizona,” Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Monday at a Capitol Hill news conference. “And that shouldn’t happen one time.” Babeu said the violence in Arizona has reached “epidemic proportions” and must be stopped. “In just one patrol area, we’ve had 64 pursuits -- failure to yield for an officer -- in one month,” Babeu said. “That’s out of control.” See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64385 8) Political Correctness instead of truth triumphs again: Army disinvites Graham to Pentagon Prayer Day WASHINGTON – Evangelist Franklin Graham's invitation to speak at a Pentagon prayer service has been rescinded because his comments about Islam were inappropriate, the Army said Thursday. Graham, the son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, in 2001 described Islam as evil. More recently, he has said he finds Islam offensive and wants Muslims to know that Jesus Christ died for their sins. …The Military Religious Freedom Foundation had raised the objection to Graham's appearance, citing his past remarks about Islam. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_day_of_prayer_military More on this… …After the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Graham said Islam "is a very evil and wicked religion." In a later op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Graham wrote that he did not believe Muslims were evil because of their faith, but "as a minister ... I believe it is my responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching (emphasis mine)." See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_on_re_us/us_day_of_prayer_military 9) Obama changes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Film, Don't Report" policy (headline from “ExJon” comment below story) Police chased reporters away from the White House and closed Lafayette Park today in response to a gay rights protest in which several service members in full uniform handcuffed themselves to the White House gate to protest "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." People who have covered the White House for years tell me that's an extremely unusual thing to do in an area that regularly features protests. A reporter can be seen in the YouTube video above calling the move "outrageous" and "ridiculous." See: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Most_transparent_White_House_ever.html?showall 10) Ariz House: Check Obama's Citizenship PHOENIX -- The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for reelection. The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote. It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president. See: http://www.kpho.com/news/23202195/detail.html 11) Obama lacks domestic, international support for key nuclear ambitions In signing a new arms treaty with Russia and hosting a major nuclear terrorism summit, President Obama has shown leadership on his pledge to move toward a world without nuclear weapons. But is anyone following? At home, Obama faces a polarized Congress and a public focused on other issues, such as the economy. Although many experts think the Senate will approve the new strategic-arms treaty with Russia, prospects are dim for ratifying another Obama priority: a global pact banning nuclear tests. Internationally, there is also a mixed picture. Obama has won kudos, and a Nobel Peace Prize, for a policy that many perceive as less belligerent than that of President George W. Bush. But George Perkovich, a prominent nuclear expert, noted in a recent report that nuclear powers such as Russia, China and France had not rallied behind the idea of moving toward global disarmament. Russia and China not rallying behind global disarmament? How shocking! Hopefully the Senate has some guts and refuses to sign the treaty. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041803110.html 12) 20,000 roses from Americans given for Remembrance Day Some 20,000 flowers donated by American Christians and Jews who were upset by the reportedly poor treatment that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu received in the White House last month will be distributed on Remembrance Day. Jerusalem florist Richard Kovler allocated the flowers on Sunday to army units, Border Police and organizations helping victims of terror, for memorial ceremonies that will be held Monday across the country. “It’s a nice gesture of friendship at a time of bereavement to let Israelis know that Americans care about them,” Kovler said. More than 2,100 dozen roses, totaling more than 25,000 flowers, were donated in a campaign led by US radio host Janet Porter’s Faith2action organization. About 6,000 flowers were distributed to Jerusalem hospitals on April 11, and one bouquet of 100 flowers was symbolically given to Netanyahu. See: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=173477 12a) Nearly 300 Congress members declare commitment to 'unbreakable' U.S.-Israel bond Nearly 300 members of Congress have signed on to a declaration reaffirming their commitment to "the unbreakable bond that exists between [U.S.] and the State of Israel", in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The letter was sent in the wake of the severe recent tensions between Israel and the U.S. over the prior's decision to construct more than 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, a project it announced during U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's visit to the region. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took advantage of his trip to the United States this week to try to mend the rift with the Obama administration, but he was greeted with cold welcome by the White House. Netanyahu also met during his visit with members of Congress, who welcomed him with significantly more warmth. See: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159159.html

Clinton blames talk radio for non-existent terrorism; Majority don't trust gov; Leftist thugs beat up Jindal's fundraiser

1) Obama: Fresh crisis without new financial rules WASHINGTON – The U.S. is destined to endure a new economic crisis that sticks taxpayers with the bill unless Congress tightens oversight of the financial industry, President Barack Obama said Saturday. The overhaul is the next major piece of legislation that Obama wants to sign into law this year, but solid GOP opposition in the Senate is jeopardizing that goal. "Every day we don't act, the same system that led to bailouts remains in place, with the exact same loopholes and the exact same liabilities," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address. "And if we don't change what led to the crisis, we'll doom ourselves to repeat it. This reminds me of Kaa, the snake in “The Jungle Book“. Just trusssst me! Look into my eyessss! I’ll sssave you from another crisis! Jusssssst give me the power. I have an idea! Let’s end bailouts! Period. The proposal also would create a council to detect threats to the financial system and set up a consumer protection agency to police people's dealings with financial institutions (emphasis mine- uh, no thank you). On Friday, Obama promised to veto the bill if it doesn't regulate the market for derivatives, which contributed to the nation's economic problems after their value plummeted during the housing crisis. But Democrats haven't agreed on how far such regulation should go, and all Senate Republicans are united against the bill. That opposition complicates Democratic efforts to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome likely GOP procedural roadblocks. Republicans contend that a provision creating a $50 billion fund for dismantling banks (emphasis mine) considered "too big to fail" would continue government bailouts of Wall Street. Obama administration officials say such a fund is unnecessary and they want Senate Democrats to remove it. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100417/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_financial_reform 1a) Teachable Moment: Market Drops on SEC Filing vs. Goldman Sachs RUSH: There's a piece of news out there that's a very teachable moment and I want to start with this. The stock market is down about 148 points in the last hour. Now, the reason the market is down is because the Securities and Exchange Commission which is a part of the regime -- this is the teachable moment -- the SEC has filed civil charges against Goldman Sachs for essentially profiting on the subprime mortgage crisis knowing full well that the housing market was gonna bubble up and crunch and they were playing both sides, profiting on both sides of it. The suit from the SEC basically shows that Goldman Sachs and others knew that the housing market was gonna crash, they kept selling these mortgage-backed securities on the one hand and then they bet against them on the other hand. They were going short. This was not the result of any unfettered capitalism, folks. This was not unfettered capitalism. This crash is the result of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and all these other liberals and their elitist buddies on Wall Street who knew what was going on in the subprime mortgage crisis, gaming the system to enrich themselves. From Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd on, they created an unsustainable mortgage situation and then other liberals enriched themselves by betting against it at Goldman Sachs, and that's what this suit is all about. Now, you might say why today? Because there's a story out there that Goldman Sachs is fully in support of the financial regulatory reform bill. My friends, here's the teachable moment. Obama wants this story out there. He wants Wall Street to be thought of as a bunch of thieves, as a bunch of creeps, as a bunch of elitists, so he can get his financial regulatory reform bill passed, and, lo and behold, what happens, the SEC, an arm of the regime, launches a civil suit against Goldman Sachs. The other teachable moment of this is that it's the government always screwing things up. This is the liberals in government working with the liberals at Goldman Sachs to profit from all this and then enrich themselves and what do they do? They blame the free market for it. They end up blaming capitalism for this. This was an inside hit job all the way. And so now Goldman is going to have to take a little pain here and be the public face of evil, mean, greedy Wall Street so that Obama can get some energy behind his financial regulatory reform bill which he desperately wants. So that's the teachable moment today. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041610/content/01125107.guest.html 2) Bill Clinton Links Talk Radio, Tea Parties to Non-Existent Terrorism RUSH: McVeigh was motivated and upset by the Waco invasion of the Branch Davidian compound. Attorney General Reno ordered tanks to be used against American citizens. McVeigh was not inspired by rhetoric. He was angered by action taken by the Clinton administration. …RUSH: That was Bill Clinton, blaming me for the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19th, 1995. Yesterday we had the tea parties, and the Drive-By Media (I'm sure to its great chagrin) is filled with stories about how festive and how peaceful and how unthreatening all of the tea parties were. The effort to infiltrate these tea parties fizzled. They have stories on that that they probably do not like having to report. And, ladies and gentlemen, it's very clear that these citizen uprisings -- genuine grassroots citizen's uprisings -- are far more powerful than an attempt to drum up fake opposition to them from the White House. Yet, Bill Clinton is back in the game, expanding that threat via this sound bite. CLINTON 2010: There was this rising movement in the early nineties that was basically not just a carefully orchestrated plot by people of extreme right-wing views but one that fell into fertile soil because there were so many people for whom the world no longer made sense. They wanted a simple, clear explanation of what was an inherently complex, mixed picture full of challenges that required not only changes in public policy, but personnel conduct and imagination about the world we were living in. So demonizing the government and the people that work for it sort of fit that -- and there were a lot of people who were in the business back then of saying that the biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our economic problems was the federal government itself. RUSH: So there you have it: Bill Clinton once again trying to rebirth his empty threat from 1995. He starts out tracing the plot that started in the eighties to "demonize government." I have a question. We have two more sound bites of the president here specifying right-wing talk radio, but I have a question: How come we're supposed to draw (on the basis of no evidence), a connection between conservatism and terrorism, conservative ideology and terrorism? Where is that connection? Yet we are told we must reject, despite tons of evidence, the connection between Islamist ideology and terrorism. So we can't call Islamist fundamentalists "terrorists." We can't even use the word. But we can have ex-presidents and current presidents running around trying to associate conservatives with nonexistent terrorism at peaceful tea parties. Somebody needs to explain this to me. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041610/content/01125108.guest.html 3) Republicans blast Obama's appellate court choice WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans fiercely criticized President Barack Obama's choice for a seat on a San Francisco-based federal appellate court Friday, in an intensifying test of his ability to install an unabashed liberal. Nominee Goodwin Liu (Loo) tried to deflect the criticism by assuring lawmakers that his personal views would "never have a role" in his opinions if confirmed to a seat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Republicans threw back at Liu his sharp criticism of two Supreme Court justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, when they were nominees. GOP senators told Liu he had no judicial experience, and said they worried he would give the government sweeping powers over Americans' lives. …Both parties in the past have tried — and sometimes did — block court nominees of the other party. Obama is slowly remaking federal appeals and lower district courts, following eight years of conservative judges picked by former President George W. Bush. He now will have a second Supreme Court pick to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Depending on Obama's pick, the Liu nomination could serve as a template for a partisan fight likely to follow over the high court nominee. …The professor and associate dean at the University of California, Berkeley, has written extensively about his liberal views on welfare and applying the Constitution (translation, CHANGING the Constitution) to changing needs of society. …Liu is nominated for the 9th Circuit, which hears appeals from lower courts in California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii and Montana. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_go_co/us_obama_judges 4) Poll: Majority lacks trust in government Nearly 80 percent of Americans say they can't and they have little faith that the massive federal bureaucracy can solve the nation's ills, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center that shows public confidence in the federal government at one of the lowest points in a half-century. The poll released Sunday illustrates the ominous situation facing President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as they struggle to maintain their comfortable congressional majorities in this fall's elections. Midterm prospects are typically tough for the party in power. Add a toxic environment like this and lots of incumbent Democrats could be out of work. The survey found that just 22 percent of those questioned say they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time and just 19 percent say they are basically content with it. Nearly half say the government negatively effects their daily lives, a sentiment that's grown over the past dozen years. This anti-government feeling has driven the tea party movement, reflected in fierce protests this past week. "The government's been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don't follow through," says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Nemacolin, Pa., who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 — the tax filing deadline. "There's too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he's certainly not helping fix it." Hello? Did you expect to get LESS government by electing Obama? See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100419/ap_on_go_ot/us_government_distrust 5) Small Business Vs. Big Government While the stock market has been buoyant over the last several weeks, small businesses, the heart of U.S. job creation, remain extremely gloomy. April's survey of the National Federation of Independent Businesses shows deep pessimism among small-business owners with the "Optimism Index" showing readings under 90 for the 18th consecutive month. The NFIB calls this trend "unprecedented in survey history" and "not the picture of an economic expansion." The roots of this pessimism lie in slow sales, uncertain access to credit, uncertainty about the economy and the impact of increasing government regulations and spending, particularly with respect to health care and finance. The survey is an important leading indicator for economic recovery. At the bottom of the 1982 recession, a net 47% of small businesses indicated they planned to hire more people, and soon after the economy turned sharply up. Currently, a net negative 8% of businesses plan to increase hiring, suggesting the economy is not yet out of the woods despite the run-up in the stock market. …The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates roughly 100 new Washington bureaucracies that in turn will write the roughly 100,000 new regulations that the laws contemplate. Think of an instant replay of the IRS, its code and all its regulations, but happening in 100 days instead of 100 years. It's enough to make a small businessman's brain explode. The crumbs thrown to small business in the form of "tax credits," according to the NFIB, are complex, and even if you do figure them out, they evaporate after two years. This is part of why small business, which is responsible for 50% of hiring in the private sector, is not anticipating doing much hiring or capital spending soon. They also have to worry about changes to the finance laws that may further restrict their access to credit products, and rules increasing the likelihood of unionization at their firms. We used to have a roughly trillion-dollar drag on the economy from the regulatory burden. It feels like it is doubling. Big companies can handle it. It creates barriers to entry and, besides, the U.S. is just another market for many. It's the small-business owner, starved for credit, watching slow sales, fast government and growing regulatory drag that is still in trouble. For the small-business owner, Washington has become the arsonist pouring gasoline on the fire he is trying to put out. Investors are urged to still be cautious before listening to the "All Clear" alerts that abound today. See: http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=530389 6) Amnesty poison pill Vast health bill for new legals On Saturday, Senate Major ity Leader Harry Reid told a Las Vegas audience: "We are going to pass comprehensive immigration reform" this year -- using the "comprehensive" buzzword that everyone knows means amnesty for the 10.8 million or more illegal aliens now in the country. But that amnesty means even more than it used to -- because Democrats this year broke with long-standing precedent to ensure that, if legalized, these aliens would immediately qualify for ObamaCare's health-insurance subsidies. Reid's remarks were just the latest in a series of pledges from Democratic leaders in Congress, as well as from President Obama, that they'll really try to pass an amnesty bill this year -- no matter how controversial. Yet the controversy should be worse than ever -- thanks to a disturbing change buried deep in the 2,400-page ObamaCare legislation: the effective end of the "public charge" doctrine. This doctrine is nearly as old as US immigration law itself. It is the rule that no alien can be allowed into the United States if he is going to become a burden on the US taxpayer upon entry -- a public charge. In 1996, Congress added teeth to the doctrine by imposing a five-year bar on legal aliens receiving federal means-tested public benefits. In other words, no feeding at the public trough until you've been supporting yourself for five years. But now Democrats have eliminated the five-year bar with respect to the new health-care benefits. The new law's authors plainly realized this wouldn't be popular. While the House health-care bill stated quite plainly that the five-year bar did not apply, the Senate version that became law did it via a torturous process that involved defining the health-care subsidy as a "tax credit" (though it's available even to people who don't pay taxes) and declaring that a lawfully present alien who's not eligible for Medicaid (because of the five-year bar) is eligible for a health-care "tax credit." Why sneak such a provision into the law, when it goes against the sound economics of the public-charge doctrine and further burdens American taxpayers? Perhaps to create a long-term constituency for ObamaCare. Barely 40 percent of the American public favors the new law. Elections this fall and in 2012 will likely slash support for it in Washington; without a constituency to fight for it, it could be doomed. And the best way to build a constituency is to extend its benefits to as many people as possible. By setting aside the public-charge doctrine and allowing newly legalized aliens to become eligible for ObamaCare immediately, the amnesty would create 10.8 million new ObamaCare constituents, dependent upon Uncle Sam for free health care. Go to http://www.sharronangle.com and help GET RID OF REID. See: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/amnesty_poison_pill_mkg0NlYeAZDCLWtwJhHnMJ 7) Brutal attack (by leftist thugs) on Republican fundraiser and boyfriend may have been politically motivated (UPDATED) Last Friday night, Allee Bautsch, the chief fundraiser for Louisiana's Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, was violently assaulted, along with her boyfriend, outside of a famed New Orleans restaurant. Reports on the incident remain murky, but a source close to Bautsch tells Yahoo! News that Bautch believes they were politically motivated and has been hospitalized for days to treat her injuries. The incident took place outside the high-end French Quarter eatery Brennan's, where the Louisiana Republican Party was holding a fundraiser to coincide with the Southern Republican Leadership Conference happening in New Orleans that weekend. According to a bulletin put out by the New Orleans Police Department, the fight began around 10:45 p.m., when a group of three to five men made "derogatory comments" of an undisclosed nature to Bautsch about her boyfriend, Joe Brown. When Brown "turned toward" the men making the remarks, he was hit by at least one of them. The report notes that Bautsch "fell to the ground and screamed" and suffered a broken leg when she "attempted to break up the altercation." …Yahoo! News spoke to a friend of Allee Bautsch who's been in communication with her since the attack. The friend, who declined to be named because the attackers are still at large, described the group who descended on Bautsch and Brown as "some weird Bobby Jindal protesters" there in opposition to the state's governor. The friend confirmed the earlier reports that Bautsch "got caught in the middle" of the altercation as she tried to break it up. Bautsch's friend also reported that she's in "loads of pain" with "rods in her leg and ankle," but that she was also "released yesterday from the hospital and is resting at her home in Baton Rouge." While details of the incident are still being fleshed out, blogger Pat Dollard claims that NOPD Public Information Officer Bob Young told him the assault "was of a political nature," and then back-tracked. Though confirming that the question of political motivation is being examined, Young denies confirming that they were and tells Poltico's Ben Smith that Dollard's account is "completely incorrect." However, eyewitnesses to the incident have variably described the assailants as appearing to be left-wing activists or anarchists. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100416/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1642 8) Federal judge rules Day of Prayer unconstitutional MADISON, Wis. – A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the government cannot call for religious action. Congress established the day in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008 arguing the day violated the separation of church and state. The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Don’t like it? Then get out of America. The National Day of Prayer in NO WAY violates what the founders intended. Here's an illustrative quote from one of the Founding Fathers: "We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." - John Adams President Barack Obama's administration has countered that the statute simply acknowledges the role of religion in the United States. Obama issued a proclamation last year but did not hold public events with religious leaders as former President George W. Bush had done. …"It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it," ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said in a statement. See: http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100415/ap_on_re_us/us_day_of_prayer_2/ 9) Iran nuclear conference urges Israel to join NPT TEHRAN, Iran – An Iranian-hosted international disarmament conference concluded Sunday with a demand that Israel join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to assure a nuclear weapons-free Middle East. The two-day conference followed closely behind a 47-nation nuclear security conference hosted by President Barack Obama in Washington last week, which excluded Iran and nuclear-armed North Korea. Washington and its allies suspect Iran's nuclear program is geared toward producing weapons, which Tehran denies. As the conference was ending Sunday, Iran staged an annual military parade where it displayed missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Wow. That is so hypocritical I don’t even know where to begin. The forum, which Iran said was attended by representatives of 60 countries, gave Tehran a platform for challenging Washington's assertion that it wants to see a world without nuclear weapons and for defending its own nuclear program. It criticized what it called a double-standard by some nuclear powers that urge disarmament while ignoring the nuclear arsenal Israel is widely believed to possess. News flash here. There is a vast difference between Israel, a peace-loving democracy, having nuclear weapons, and Iran, who believes they must wage global jihad to usher in the Apocalypse and are NOT deterred by mutually assured destruction. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100418/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran 10) EU says half of normal flights may run Monday AMSTERDAM – European air traffic could return to about 50 percent of normal levels Monday if weather forecasts confirm that skies over half the continent are emptying of the volcanic ash that has thrown global travel into chaos, the European Union said. The prospects for a return to normal air travel remained far from clear, however. Several major airlines safely tested the skies with weekend flights that did not carry passengers. Germany temporarily loosened some airspace restrictions before the EU announcement Sunday evening, allowing limited operations from some of its largest airports before closing them again Sunday evening. Other countries enforced closures on their national airspace through late Sunday, Monday or even Tuesday as meteorologists warned that the airborne ash was still unpredictable and potentially dangerous. WOW! All that pollution caused by NATURE!! I wonder how much global warming all that ash will cause! See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100418/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_iceland_volcano

Crashing the Tea Party; Opposition to health care increased after signing; Nuclear posturing

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. - Adrian Rogers Tea Parties today…Did you go? I did! 1) Tea party rally upbraids 'gangster government' WASHINGTON – Tea party protesters marked tax day Thursday with exhortations against "gangster government" … Several thousand rallied in Washington's Freedom Plaza in the shadow of the Ronald Reagan office building, capping a national protest tour launched in the dust of Nevada and finishing in the capital that inspires tea party discontent like no other place. Allied activists demonstrated from Maine to Hawaii in hundreds of lively protests, all joined in disdain for government spending and — on the April 15 federal tax filing deadline — what they see as the Washington tax grab. … Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota won roars of affirmation as she accused President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats of trying to take over health care, energy, financial services and other broad swaths of the economy. "We're on to this gangster government," she declared. "I say it's time for these little piggies to go home." See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100415/ap_on_go_ot/us_tea_party_rally 1a) EDITORIAL: Crashing the Tea Party A group named Crashtheparty.org is planning on attending Tea Party rallies around the country tomorrow pretending to be party members. The strategy is to behave outrageously on Tax Day to provide fodder for the media, which likes to portray opponents to the Obama presidency as fringe radicals. The plot is part of the typical liberal playbook to silence opposition to the left-wing agenda. The party crashers already have dropped into Tea Party meetings and rallies to stake out vulnerabilities. According to Jason Levin, head of Crashtheparty.org, the group has affiliates in 65 cities across the land. He unconvincingly claims that his group's bizarre antics will simply reflect the hidden views of Tea Partiers. "Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely," Mr. Levin told Associated Press. …For the most part, the liberal media plays along with the Democrats' disinformation campaigns. Take allegations by Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat, that he heard protesters chanting the N-word "15 times" at a March 20 protest at the U.S. Capitol. Despite dozens of video recordings of the event, there is no evidence to back up Mr. Lewis' story. Numerous videos show Tea Party members yelling "kill the bill," but none shows a single protester chanting that awful racial epithet. The lawmaker's charge is so dubious that Andrew Breitbart has offered a $100,000 reward to anyone with proof that Mr. Lewis is telling the truth. No one has stepped forward to claim the cash. This lack of verification hasn't kept the media from continuously repeating the prejudicial tale. "They can't actually debate our message, and that's their problem," explains Bob MacGuffie, an organizer for a Tea Party group with members in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey. The Democrats' desperation shows that Mr. MacGuffie is right on target. Polls show the American public is angry about the explosion of government power during the Obama presidency and Democratic control of Congress. Liberals in power don't have thoughtful responses to popular criticism, so they are trying to ostracize skeptical thought and intimidate those brave enough to stand against the bureaucratic juggernaut. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/14/crashing-the-tea-party/ 2) Opposition to President Barack Obama's health care law jumped after he signed it WASHINGTON — Opposition to President Barack Obama's health care law jumped after he signed it — a clear indication his victory could become a liability for Democrats in this fall's elections. A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds Americans oppose the health care remake 50 percent to 39 percent. Before a divided Congress finally passed the bill and Obama signed it at a jubilant White House ceremony last month, public opinion was about evenly split. Another 10 percent of Americans say they are neutral. Disapproval for Obama's handling of health care also increased from 46 percent in early March before he signed the bill, to 52 percent currently — a level not seen since last summer's angry town hall meetings. …Analysts said the level of public wariness on such a major piece of social legislation is unusual. "The surprise of this poll is that you would expect people to be more supportive of the bill now that it's the law of the land — and that's not the case," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard public health professor who follows opinion trends on health care. See: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i2BvA7d42vZVYA6HxwXp4Si6XYdgD9F3EK580 2a) 47% Say Repeal of Health Care Law Will Be Good for Economy Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters nationwide believe repeal of the recently passed health care law will be good for the economy. …From the moment it was passed, a majority of voters around the country have wanted to see the health care law repealed. See: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/april_2010/47_say_repeal_of_health_care_law_will_be_good_for_economy 2b) Canceled: Hearing That Would Have Grilled CEOs on Health Care Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has canceled a hearing intended to grill CEOs who took a charge against profits because of the health care reform bill. The cancellation came after they realized what everyone already knew - that the companies were required to do what they did because of accounting rules. Waxman and others had reacted with outrage and accused the companies of doing it - in essence, to make health care reform look bad. …House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, responded to the cancelation saying, "House Democrats canceled this hearing because they don’t want to give America's employers a forum to tell the public how President Obama’s new health care law is already hurting our economy and hampering job creation." "Chairman Waxman thought he could intimidate businesses into keeping quiet about this new job-killing health care law, but when they called his bluff by continuing to speak out, he chose to pull the plug," Boehner said in a statement. See: http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/14/canceled-hearing-that-would-have-grilled-ceos-on-health-care 3) Chris Dodd threatens to cut GOP out of financial reform talks Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd threatened Wednesday to end negotiations with Republicans on a financial regulatory reform bill if they continue to lead what he called a misinformation campaign based on Wall Street talking points. …The GOP points to the inclusion in the bill of a $50 billion fund, which is paid for by the firms and would be used to wind down a failing institution. But Republicans say it will act as a safety net for Wall Street to continue to push their businesses to the brink of collapse. …Dodd’s bill would provide the Federal Reserve with oversight of the country’s largest financial firms, and would allow the Treasury Secretary to initiate a takeover of companies that posed a systemic risk to the economy. McConnell delivered his second consecutive floor speech Wednesday in opposition to the Democratic bill. “The American taxpayer has suffered enough as a result of the financial crisis and the recession it triggered,” McConnell said. “They’ve asked us for one thing: whatever you do, they said, don’t leave open the door to endless bailouts of Wall Street banks. This bill fails at this one fundamental test.” Having Dodd in charge of financial reform is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35800.html More on this…Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner later said that the cost of taking down large failing financial institutions will be borne by big banks, not taxpayers (Oooh, communism for banks! Fantastic!). The House and Senate bills call for funds, financed by large financial institutions, to cover the costs of liquidating firms deemed too large to go through bankruptcy proceedings. Republicans have argued that the funds would not be sufficient and that taxpayers could still be on the hook to pay to deal with giant failures. They also argue that emergency loan authority by the Federal Reserve could also amount to a financial bailout. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100415/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_financial_overhaul 4) Democrats: The Party of No All that said, the Republican Party has always done better by offering positive alternatives. In Ronald Reagan's last public appearance in 1992, he said he wanted to be remembered as someone who "appealed to your greatest hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts." Mr. Reagan's brand of happy warrior conservatism combined a fundamental faith in the American people and values-based policies that kicked off the largest peacetime economic expansion in American history. Mr. Reagan was an optimist with an unflagging belief in the righteousness of the human spirit. The Democrats, by contrast, are a decidedly pessimistic party. They thrive on sowing class and ethnic divisions and promoting jealously, resentment and a sense of entitlement. For every issue on which Republicans say yes, the Democrats stand in the way. …Democrats say no to balanced budgets. They say no to lower taxes. They say no to smaller government. They say no to states' rights. They say no to gun rights. They say no to the rights of the unborn. They say no to sensible immigration laws. They say no to policies that would encourage private-sector job growth. They say no to tort reform. They say no to sensible, targeted health care reform. They say no to pro-growth environmental regulations. They say no to education reform that rewards results instead of teachers' unions. They say no to bipartisanship. They say no to moderate nominees for federal courts. They say no to ending affirmative-action handouts, preferences and quotas. They say no to welfare reform. They say no to tough laws for criminals. They say no to a strong national defense. They say no to families. They say no to faith (emphasis mine). By putting faith in government above all else, Mr. Obama's Democrats say no to American values. They say no to the American dream. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/13/the-party-of-nobama/ 5) 60 plus percent of Americans say they are Conservative Here is what Question D (3) asks of respondents: "When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be ... ?" Then the poll gives respondents six possible answers: very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, very liberal, and unsure/refused. Battleground is a bipartisan poll which prides itself on rigorous and open methodology. It has proven to be one of the most accurate of all polls in predicting the exact percentage of the vote candidates receive in general elections. …Since June 2002, the Battleground Poll has asked this same question in its demographics section, and in fifteen consecutive polls, the answer has always been the same. Americans overwhelmingly describe themselves as conservative. What does "overwhelming" mean in this context? The percentage of Americans who call themselves conservative in these polls has never been less than 58% (conservative strength was that at its lowest point through these years in December 2007, when "only" 58% of Americans described themselves as conservative.) There has been a remarkable consistency in the responses to this question. Over the course of these polls, 60.2% of Americans, on average, call themselves conservative. The results of the April 2010 Battleground Poll show that nothing has changed. Fifty-nine percent of Americans in the latest Battleground Poll call themselves conservative; two percent of Americans call themselves moderate; thirty-four percent call themselves liberal; and five percent were either unsure or refused to answer. Remove the "Unsure/Refused," and sixty-two percent of Americans are conservative. See: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/the_battleground_poll_and_the_1.html Rush’s comments on above: Sixty-two percent of the American people call themselves conservative; 2% moderate; 34% liberal. It's not a liberal country. The liberals are a minority in this country. These radical leftists are a minority, governing against the will of the people. They have to! They do not have popular support. All they've got is a popular media that makes it look like they are the norm and that everybody else is the kook and the freak and the fringe. They are the kook, the fringe, and the freaks. Make no mistake. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041510/content/01125104.guest.html 6) Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term Real personal income for Americans - excluding government payouts such as Social Security - has fallen by 3.2 percent since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. For comparison, real personal income during the first 15 months in office for President George W. Bush, who inherited a milder recession from his predecessor, dropped 0.4 percent. Income excluding government payouts increased 12.7 percent during Mr. Bush's eight years in office. "This is hardly surprising," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist and former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. "Under President Obama, only federal spending is going up; jobs, business startups, and incomes are all down. It is proof that the government can't spend its way to prosperity." According to the bureau's statistics, per capita income dropped during 2009 in 47 states, with only modest gains in the other states, West Virginia, Maine and Maryland. But most of those increases were attributed to rising income from the government, such as Medicare and unemployment benefits. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/13/personal-income-falls-32-during-obamas-15-months 7) Is Government-Subsidized News on the Way? Is the Federal Communications Commission building a case for government-subsidized news? It’s not hard to imagine that will be the outcome of the Commission’s “Future of Media” inquiry. The digital age has produced a “democratic shortfall,” according to one source cited in the inquiry’s public notice. Another scholar working on the project for the FCC has said that today’s media abundance calls for “public media entities” that will serve “as both a filter to reduce information overload and a megaphone to give voice to the unheard.” In other words, a free marketplace of ideas isn’t good enough for some. They want the government to pick winners and losers—as long as the winners express views with which they happen to agree. Care to guess which views those will be? As Randolph May of the Free State Foundation notes, the justifications for a government role in controlling content are ever shifting. Once, alleged scarcity was the reason that the FCC could impose the fairness doctrine on radio without running afoul of the First Amendment. (See, for instance, the Supreme Court’s 1969 Red Lion decision.) Now it’s not scarcity but abundance that government is supposed to fix by acting as a filter. Meanwhile, the FCC has no problem telling private industry that filtering content is a no-no. Disallowing Internet service providers from discriminating among sources or kinds of content is the intent of the Commission’s push for net neutrality. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/13/is-government-subsidized-news-on-the-way 8) Nuclear Posturing, Obama-Style WASHINGTON -- Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place. During the Cold War, we let the Russians know that if they dared use their huge conventional military advantage and invaded Western Europe, they risked massive U.S. nuclear retaliation. Goodbye Moscow. Was this credible? Would we have done it? Who knows? No one's ever been there. A nuclear posture is just that -- a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice. Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century, it held. The Soviets never invaded. We never used nukes. That's why nuclear doctrine is important. The Obama administration has just issued a new one that "includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture," said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons. Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory. Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective. …This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections (emphasis mine). Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the U.S. without fear of nuclear retaliation? The naivete is stunning. Similarly the Obama pledge to forswear development of any new nuclear warheads, indeed, to permit no replacement of aging nuclear components without the authorization of the president himself. This under the theory that our moral example will move other countries to eschew nukes. On the contrary. The last quarter-century -- the time of greatest superpower nuclear arms reduction -- is precisely when Iran and North Korea went hellbent into the development of nuclear weapons. It gets worse. The administration's Nuclear Posture Review declares U.S. determination to "continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks." The ultimate aim is to get to a blanket doctrine of no first use. …This administration seems to believe that by restricting retaliatory threats and by downplaying our reliance on nuclear weapons, it is discouraging proliferation. But the opposite is true. Since World War II, smaller countries have agreed to forgo the acquisition of deterrent forces -- nuclear, biological and chemical -- precisely because they placed their trust in the firmness, power and reliability of the American deterrent. Seeing America retreat, they will rethink. And some will arm. There is no greater spur to hyper-proliferation than the furling of the American nuclear umbrella. See: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2010/04/09/nuclear-posturing-obama-style/ 8a) Morning Bell: Obama is No Reagan on Nuclear Strategy …And this Nuclear Security Summit comes less than a week after President Barack Obama released a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and just days after he signed a New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. As many of the White House’s allies pointed out last week, President Ronald Reagan wanted a world without nuclear weapons, and he also signed an arms treaty with the Soviet Union. President Obama’s policy goals are just like President Reagan’s. So why is anyone criticizing the White House’s nuclear strategy? Because how we get to a nuke-free world matters. Reagan knew that to eliminate the need for large nuclear arsenals, you must first start to eliminate the dependence — both ours and others’ — on massive nuclear attack as the guarantor of security. That is why Reagan’s first priority was to build up U.S. conventional forces and introduce missile defense. That allowed his negotiators to approach arms control agreements from a position of strength. President Obama has done the exact opposite. He has cut our national defense, including acquisition of the F-22, removed missile defense installations in Eastern Europe, and cut missile defense development programs. His lawyer-like NPR weakens America’s deterrence credibility by broadcasting our intention not to respond in kind if we are hit by weapons of mass destruction. And his New START agreement not only clearly links our missile defense shield with Russian missile reduction, but it also limits our own conventional weapons capabilities as well. Reagan also understood how other nations viewed their own nuclear programs and recognized the limits of unilateral arms reductions. President Obama clearly does not. Russia’s nuclear and conventional weapons arsenals are declining faster than ours, due to age and funding, so of course they want to bring our levels down to theirs. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/12/morning-bell-obama-is-no-reagan-on-nuclear-strategy 9) Conservative Pediatricians Caution Schools on Gay-Affirming Policies A group of pediatricians that broke away from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is cautioning educators about the management of students experiencing same-sex attraction or exhibiting symptoms of gender confusion. The American College of Pediatricians (ACPEDS) is especially reminding school superintendents that it is not uncommon for adolescents to experience transient confusion about their sexual orientation and that most students will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. “Adolescence is a time of upheaval and impermanence,” writes ACPEDS President Dr. Tom Benton in a letter to school superintendents outlining his group’s concerns. “Adolescents experience confusion about many things, including sexual orientation and gender identity, and they are particularly vulnerable to environmental influences.” For this reason, ACPEDS says schools should not seek to develop policy which “affirms” or encourages non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion. Why is this not OBVIOUS to everyone? ……Such premature labeling, the group adds, can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks. …To make his point, Benton notes one study that was published in the official journal of the AAP in 1992 that found as many as 26 percent of 12-year-olds having reported being uncertain of their sexual orientation. Notably, only 2-3 percent of adults today identify themselves as homosexual. “Rigorous studies demonstrate that most adolescents who initially experience same-sex attraction, or are sexually confused, no longer experience such attractions by age 25,” Benton writes. Over 85 percent of students with same-sex attractions will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation, according to ACPEDS. …Furthermore, Benton notes the absence of scientific evidence that an individual is born “gay” or “transgender.” “Homosexuality is not a genetically-determined, unchangeable trait,” the ACPEDS asserts. Instead, Benton says the best available research points to multiple factors – primarily social and familial – that predispose children and adolescents to homosexual attraction and/or gender confusion (emphasis mine). See: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100408/conservative-pediatricians-advise-schools-against-gay-affirming-policies/index.html