Financial takeover bill passes; Smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court; It COVERS abortion

1) Morning Bell: The Lawyers and Lobbyists Full Employment Act Without spending a single dime, the Obama administration did more yesterday to create jobs for the U.S. economy than it has throughout its entire existence. With the single stroke of a pen, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill that set in motion 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies. Each of the 243 rule-makings will employ hundreds of banking lobbyists as they try to shape what the final actual laws will look like. And when the rules are finally written, thousands of lawyers will bill millions of hours as the richest incumbent financial firms that caused the last crisis figure out how to game the new system. Yesterday, the Washington law firm Jones Day snapped up the Securities and Exchange Commission head enforcement division lawyer, and J.P. Morgan Chase, one of the biggest U.S. banks by assets, assigned more than 100 teams to examine the legislation. University of Massachusetts political science professor Thomas Ferguson tells The Christian Science Monitor: By delegating so much to the regulators, Congress is inviting everyone interested in the outcome to make more campaign contributions, as they intervene in the regulatory process to influence the regulators. Nothing is settled. It’s a gold mine for members of Congress. So if the richest big banks, lawyers, lobbyists and Congress were the big winners yesterday, who are the losers? Small banks, entrepreneurs and you. Smaller community banks do not have the same resources that the Goldman Sachs of the world do to hire armies of lawyers and lobbyists to shape and comply with new regulations. The cost of compliance will eat up a much larger share of small bank revenue. Jim MacPhee, CEO of Kalamazoo County State Bank in Michigan and chairman of the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), told USA Today: “We weren’t part of the subprime (mortgage) meltdown. Why throw more regulations at us?” Then there is what the Dodd-Frank does not do: it does nothing to stop future government bailouts. Instead, it makes the TARP bailout system permanent. The bill’s “orderly liquidation” process empowers regulators to seize any firm they deem a threat to our financial system and liquidate them. These powers are subject to insufficient judicial review and do nothing to ensure that the firms’ creditors won’t receive 100% of their irresponsibly lent money back in future taxpayer funded bailouts. And speaking of taxpayer-funded bailouts, the bill does nothing to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose activities were instrumental to the financial crisis (emphasis mine). See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/16/morning-bell-the-lawyers-and-lobbyists-full-employment-act/ 1a) Goldman paying $550M to settle civil fraud charges WASHINGTON – Resolving a high-profile government case linked to the mortgage meltdown, Goldman Sachs & Co. has agreed to pay a record $550 million to settle civil fraud charges that it misled buyers of complex investments. The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the settlement Thursday with the Wall Street titan, just hours after Congress gave final approval to legislation imposing the stiffest restrictions on banks and Wall Street firms since the Great Depresssion. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100716/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sec_goldman 2) NAACP Takes Aim at Tea Party: Glenn Beck Transcript Relentlessly been called racist by the press, by politicians. Now, the NAACP adopted a resolution condemning the racist elements of the Tea Party. Well, I'd do that, too, if I knew where they were. The resolution initially said the NAACP would repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties and stand against the movement's attempt to push the country back to pre-Civil Rights era. They scaled it back. NAACP president Benjamin Todd Jealous wrote: "What we take issue with is the Tea Party's continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements." What statements are those? I haven't seen any. There are racists in every organization. There are racists everywhere. There are racists everywhere. There are racists in the NBA. There are racists in NASCAR. It's a human condition. They should be discredited if there are racist people in the Tea Party. They should be discredited. I will help you do it. Where are they? Stand in truth and the truth is the movement is not about race. It's reducing the size and scope of government. And gosh, it's not — it's not only me who thinks so. …LISA FRITSCH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: The NAA finds itself not aligned with the Tea Party as it should be and promoting the advancement of black people with individual thought of mind and following their own convictions. But sadly, they find themselves aligned with this radical and fanatic New Black Panther Party who is also coming out and on a mission to depict the Tea Party as racist. TEXT: "They have become a political organization for the progressives and that is a shame because so many blacks still view them as a civil rights group. Unfortunately, this is a status they abandoned a long time ago." (Jimmie Hollis, Project 21 member and tea party organizer) See: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,596803,00.html 3) Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.” And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations. …Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce. While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax. “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.” …“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: “Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.” …In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use. The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce. UNBELIEVABLE! It is difficult to know what to even say in response to this. THIS is what they plan to use to defend their case? The stealing of a farmer’s wheat grown for his own use? Well, I guess tyranny begets more tyranny. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=2&ref=politics 4) Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools (CNSNews.com) - If you want proof that President Obama's Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio). Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state. "The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable," Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday. …The conservative Family Research Council says the $160 million in taxpayer funds for Pennsylvania is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools. The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm. “For our efforts to remove the bill's abortion funding, we were called 'deceivers' by President Obama and 'liars' by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are,’ McClusky said. "This action by the Obama Administration also exposes the worthlessness of President Obama's Executive Order that supposedly would prevent federal funding of abortion, but which both sides, including Planned Parenthood, agreed was unenforceable. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69384 4b) Obama Admin Approves Second Set of Abortion Funding Under Health Care Law Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The day after revelations that the Obama administration allowed federal taxpayer funding of abortions under the new national health care law that was supposed to prevent it, new information shows President Barack Obama has authorized abortion funding in a second state. The first abortion funding had the Obama administration approve a Pennsylvania plan calling for the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions for virtually any reason through a new high risk insurance program created by the national health care law. Now, the National Right to Life Committee, which uncovered the first case of abortion funding, has dug up a second set -- in New Mexico. See: http://lifenews.com/nat6536.html 4c) More on this, from The National Review…In New Mexico, the new $37 million high-risk pool began enrolling individuals on July 1. They will start receiving benefits in August, including elective-abortion services, according to the state insurance department's website. Once a deductible is paid, 80 percent of the elective abortion is covered. Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee tells me: "HHS has been hiding most of these high-risk plans, including the plan that HHS will administer directly in 21 states. Of the four state plans we've managed to ferret out, two provided coverage of all essentially all abortions — Pennsylvania and New Mexico. This is part of a pattern, under this administration, of making 'soft' rhetorical statements on abortion policy, but consistently promoting and expanding abortion through low-visibility administrative decisions. The administration's heavy funding of groups pushing a proposed new pro-abortion constitution in Kenya is another example." See: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjRiNTU0ZjU1NmY0ZDZiZjJhY2UxYWM5N2U1YjJmZjk%3D 5) Cash crisis in NHS leaves patients lying on operating tables: Rationing in practice in The UK Women in labour have been forced to wait while epidural equipment was borrowed from other hospitals, while other patients have been denied chest drains and radiology supplies, according to doctors at South London Healthcare Trust. Minutes of a meeting between medical staff and the trust’s chief executive say “cash flow” problems at the trust which has a £50 million deficit, mean vital equipment is regularly not ordered. A separate letter sent to managers of the trust, one of the largest in the country, says consultants have been misled into carrying out operations when it was not safe to go ahead because of bed shortages. NHS watchdog the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has been asked to investigate the concerns, after eight doctors contacted their local MP. Staff at the NHS trust, which last year merged trusts running three hospitals in South London and Kent, are being asked to make major savings to tackle a worsening financial situation. Minutes of a meeting of the medical staff committee of Princess Royal University Hospital in Bromley say managers acknowledged that “crude measures” introduced to cut spending had affected clinical supplies (emphasis mine), meaning that stocks had run out when they were needed. I have visited The Netherlands several times, and been told by at least one woman who has given birth there that there is a lack of epidural procedure knowledge there. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7896737/Cash-crisis-in-NHS-leaves-patients-lying-on-operating-tables.html 6) Obama Institutes Offshore Drilling Moratorium … Again After the BP oil spill, the Obama Administration offered little excuse for instituting a moratorium on deepwater drilling regardless of the fact that it brought one of the Gulf Coast’s main industries to a sudden halt. Despite federal judge Martin Feldman’s ruling on the moratorium and despite a federal appeals court upholding that decision, the U.S. Department of Interior issued a new moratorium on deepwater drilling this afternoon. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/12/obama-institutes-offshore-drilling-moratorium-…-again 7) Sources say smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court may be inevitable According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable. Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election. The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling. As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years (emphasis mine). Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.' Apparently, the Court has had enough. The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue. First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.' Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. See: http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d9-Sources-say-smackdown-of-Obama-by-Supreme-Court-may-be-inevitable 8) Banks repossess US homes at record pace July 15 (Reuters) - Banks repossessed a record number of U.S. homes in the second quarter, but slowed new foreclosure notices to manage distressed properties on the market, real estate data company RealtyTrac said on Thursday. The root problems of job losses and wage cuts persist, making a sustained U.S. housing recovery elusive. Banks took control of 269,962 properties in the second quarter, up 5 percent from the prior quarter and a 38 percent spike from the second quarter of last year, RealtyTrac said in its midyear 2010 foreclosure report. Repossessions will likely top 1 million this year. See: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSNLLEIE69820100715 9) Obama Stole Election Against Hillary: Voter Intimidation And Fraud Gigi Gaston, a lifelong Democrat, made a documentary film about it: See: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/obama-stole-election-against-hillary-voter-intimidation-and-fraud.html And: http://www.breitbart.tv/new-documentary-charges-obama-stole-nomination-from-hillary/ 10) An Obama Administration Job for Sen. Specter? Sources tell ABC News that Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pennsylvania, has informed the White House that he would like to consider remaining in public service after his Senate term ends at the end of this session, and White House officials are keeping an open mind about possible job openings for him. Specter, who was defeated in his March primary by Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pennsylvania, is a close friend of Vice President Joe Biden and someone praised for his leadership in pushing for greater funding for the National Institutes of Health. Sources said the job discussions are far from anything other than preliminary, and were not part of any "deal" when Specter switched parties and began supporting President Obama's agenda in earnest. “Sources said.” Yeah. Right. See: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/an-obama-administration-job-for-senator-specter.html#tp 11) Obama-Supported Kenyan Constitution Forces Sharia Law Yesterday, it was reported that Barack Obama is illegally funding a pro-abortion referendum in Kenya. But, it gets worse…The Constitution Obama is supporting forces Sharia Law in the country. Obama’s radical socialist cousin Raila Odinga is Prime Minister of Kenya. Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review reported: U.S. financial and rhetorical support for this constitution has some members of Congress calling for an investigation. In a letter to inspectors general of the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Republican representatives Chris Smith of New Jersey, Darrell Issa of California, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida raised questions about American constitutional lobbying in Kenya: “The Obama Administration’s advocacy in support of Kenya’s proposed constitution may constitute a serious violation of the Siljander Amendment and, as such, may be subject to civil and criminal penalties.” …And, as if the West’s exporting of its abortion license to Kenya — a nation known for a growing, enthusiastic Catholic and other Christian presence — weren’t alarming enough, the proposed constitution would also create a legal system within a legal system — codifying the strengthening of sharia by making it apply to every Muslim Kenyan. As Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty points out, “People are subjected to these tribunals merely by virtue of what religious community they were born into, and they have no way of opting out.” See: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/obama-supported-kenyan-constitution-forces-sharia-law/ 12) Republican senator says he backs birther lawsuits WASHINGTON – Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana says he supports conservative organizations challenging President Barack Obama's citizenship in court. Vitter, who is running for re-election, made the comments at a town hall-style event in Metairie, La., on Sunday when a constituent asked what he would do about what the questioner said was Obama's "refusal to produce a valid birth certificate." See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100713/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_republican_senator_birthers 13) Israel - he who touches you touches “the apple of His eye” - The Hal Lindsey Report: On this week's edition of "The Hal Lindsey Report": Saudi Arabia has accused Iran of harboring al-Qaeda for much of the last decade. It says that in 2003, al-Qaeda launched its attacks against Westerners in Riyadh from Iran. The Saudis say Iran ordered the attacks. Since Saudi Arabia financed and sheltered al-Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks, it's significant that the Saudis are now accusing someone else of doing what they did. In the past, they've preferred to lay low and not remind the world of that connection. What's changed? The Saudis are now making this very serious accusation public for the same reason that they've leaked the rumor that they will allow Israel to use Saudi airspace to attack Iran. They want the world to take them seriously when they say that don't want Iran to be allowed to go nuclear. Most people don't understand that Saudi Arabia, most of the Persian Gulf states, and Egypt are even more afraid of a nuclear Iran than Israel is. They've passed exasperation and are headed toward desperation because they can't make President Obama understand it, either. …It's odd that the Islamist nations have chosen Gaza as the symbol of Israeli oppression, especially since Gaza is the one place totally free of Israeli occupation. Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005 -- forcibly removing every Jewish resident in a bizarre, convoluted display of 'self-ethnic-cleansing' applauded by the world. They turned over to the Palestinians all the land and infrastructure, and the former Jewish-owned farms, businesses, houses, synagogues, orchards, vineyards... all of it. The Palestinians promptly trashed everything Jewish and proceeded to turn Gaza into an armed terrorist camp. At their first opportunity, the Gazans elected Hamas to govern them. Then Hamas staged a violent coup and overthrew the ruling Palestinian National Authority. Even the Egyptians have blockaded Gaza because of the threat to Egypt posed by Hamas and other terrorist elements. All the while, Hamas functions under a 'declaration of war' against Israel and has allowed terrorists to rain down more than 6,000 rockets and missiles on Israel. So Israel blockaded Gaza to prevent the importation of materials with military applications -- not food or medicine or other items necessary for daily life. Israel also hopes the blockade will persuade Hamas to stop its aggression toward the Jewish state. It defies logic that this aggressor is seen as the 'victim' by much of the world. But then, irrational prejudice is rarely logical. See: http://www.hallindsey.com/the-hal-lindsey-report-7162010/ 14) Spies or Not, Obama Pushes “Reset” with Russia and NEW START Only days before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will conduct hearings on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (NEW START) verification, the Obama Administration has decided to abruptly terminate the scandal caused by the Russian illegal spy ring arrested in the United States. Instead of viewing espionage on its merits—an activity undermining Obama’s Russian “reset” policy and an obstacle to the proclaimed new relationship with Russia—the Administration went into an overdrive to get rid of the embarrassing headlines. The reason: ratification of the NEW START treaty, which is Administration’s top priority. That Russia is continuing to spy on the United States should not come as a surprise. As early as 2007, it was widely reported that Russian (and Chinese) spy operations were “back at Cold War levels” in the United States. Moreover, according to then-Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, in the 2007 Annual Threat Assessment to the United States, China and Russia are “among the most aggressive in collecting [intelligence] against sensitive and protected U.S. targets.” The 2010 assessment highlights Russia’s ongoing efforts. Nor was the Administration on top of this investigation. Significantly, according to an eyewitness, on the day of the arrests a senior Administration official was annoyed and surprised with the FBI spy sweep. Reportedly, so was the President. This is despite the White House spin that they were ready for this all along. Questions abound about the White House’s handling of the spy affair. After the FBI had tracked 11 “sleeper” agents for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), the Obama Administration agreed to an unprecedented swap. Unlike the Cold War, when spies did real hard time and where exchanged years after the arrest, these spies were allowed to confess and got swapped for two aging British agents, a Russian political prisoner who for 10 years denied being an American spy, and a Russian intelligence veteran who defected to the U.S. in the 1990s. This was not a good bargain for the U.S. No significant questioning of the spies took place, nor were their handlers expelled—presumably, they were allowed to quietly depart for Moscow. However, despite the fact that the Russian spy ring was handled with kid gloves—and despite the priority the Administration is putting on ratification of NEW START treaty—the Kremlin continues to perceive the U.S. as its principal foreign adversary. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/12/spies-or-not-obama-pushes-“reset”-with-russia-and-new-start 15) Castro takes questions, warns of nuclear war HAVANA – Fidel Castro is taking questions from dozens of Cuban ambassadors at the Foreign Ministry and warning them of the threat of global nuclear war, in his most overtly political public act since re-emerging from four years of near total seclusion. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100716/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_fidel_castro