Intelligence Report: Pelosi Briefed On Use of Interrogation Tactics In Sept. ’02

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

The meeting is described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”

EITs stand for “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a classification of special interrogation tactics that includes waterboarding.

Pelosi, D-Calif., sharply disputed suggestions last month that she had been told about waterboarding having taken place.

“In that or any other briefing . . . we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used," Pelosi said at a news conference in April. "What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel . . . opinions that they could be used, but not that they would."

Brendan Daly, a Pelosi spokesman, said Pelosi’s recollection of the meeting is different than the way it is described in the report from the DNI’s office.

“The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used,” Daly said.

Daly pointed out that the report backs up Pelosi’s contention that she was briefed only once on “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Her name does not appear elsewhere in the report.

"As this document shows, the speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002," Daly said.

At the briefing, Pelosi did not formally register objections to the interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration. President Obama has said he considers such techniques to be "torture."

According to the interrogation memos released last month by the Obama administration, Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.

UPDATE: The report also details dozens of other meetings with members of Congress -- though not with Pelosi present -- where the use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques was described.

The Senate intelligence committee’s chairman and ranking member, Bob Graham and Richard Shelby, were given a briefing similar to the one with Pelosi and Goss on Sept. 27, 2002, according to the report.

On Feb. 4, 2003, a briefing on “enhanced interrogation techniques” for Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., revealed that interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri were taped.

In addition, that briefing “described in considerable details” the techniques used, including “how the water board was used.”

A similar briefing the following day included Goss and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who by that time had become the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, when Pelosi moved on to become minority leader.

The report is accompanied by a letter from CIA Director Leon Panetta to intelligence committee leaders that describes the way it was compiled: “This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents [memorandums for the record] completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.”

Glenn Beck Throws ACORN Spokesman Out Of Studio

By: Kevin Mooney
Examiner Investigative Reporter
05/06/09 5:48 PM


ACORN National Spokesman Scott Levenson was ejected from a Fox News studio Wednesday following an off-camera altercation with host Glenn Beck that involved racially charged comments, as they were described by Beck.

“I threw him out of the studio, get the hell out of my studio,” Beck told viewers he said after Levenson accused him of being “afraid of black people.”

Beck told listeners after the break that Levenson was expelled from the studio after he accused the host of being racist. Levenson appeared on the “Glenn Beck” show to respond to criminal charges filed against ACORN employees in Nevada on Monday. The non-profit organization, formally known as the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now, is under investigation nationwide for voter fraud in at least 12 different states.

In his exchange with Beck, the ACORN spokesman insisted that individual employees were responsible for the violations but not the national organization. Beck was not persuaded by this defense and persisted in his questioning.

Beck described the off-camera altercation to viewers and asked off-camera assistants to verify what was said during the break. This description to television viewers is as follows.

Who thinks that he told me…That I, what was it I thought that he said that I hate black people. How many here thought that he said that, as soon as the cameras went off…you thought… I was afraid of black people. That’s actually what he said to me…let’s just take it...because actually better than just I hate black people.

I’m standing here and he gets up and I say you sir, you and your organization are bad for America. And says, I’ll use yours...you’re just afraid of black people. I threw him out of the studio – get the hell out of my studio.

And then he went off... he went off.

ACORN did release a statement on the criminal indictments in Nevada that was critical of state officials.

This recent attack by the Nevada Secretary of State and Attorney General is the latest in an ongoing assault designed to blame the victim and prioritize media grandstanding above the pursuit of justice.

From the time ACORN first suspected that some of its employees had tried to defraud ACORN by turning in bogus forms, ACORN repeatedly called its suspicions to the attention of election officials and requested that they investigate immediately.

Our policy all along has been to pay workers at an hourly rate and to not pay employees based on any bonus or incentive program. When it was discovered that an employee was offering bonuses linked to superior performance, that employee was ordered to stop immediately.

It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State can't distinguish the victim from the villain.

Obama Tries to Stop Union Disclosure

By ELAINE L. CHAO

Fifty years ago, Congress passed the landmark Landrum-Griffin Act to protect rank-and-file union members from malfeasance by union leaders. Senate hearings had uncovered serious corruption and other unethical practices inside the labor movement, and a bipartisan coalition emerged to shine the light of disclosure on union practices.

Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress and in the executive branch have often attempted to undercut that law's financial reporting and disclosure requirements. Prior to reforms adopted in the George W. Bush administration, for example, one union could get away with reporting a $62 million expenditure as nothing more than "contributions, gifts, and grants to local affiliates" -- with no further explanation. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is already showing that it wants to return to this nontransparent standard of financial disclosure.

Within days of the inauguration, the new leadership at the Labor Department moved to delay implementing a regulation finalized in January that would have shed much needed light on how union managers compensate themselves with union dues. The regulation required disclosure of receipts for expenditures and for the purchase and sale of union assets -- disclosures that would help deter embezzlement. The administration has since moved even more aggressively, initiating proceedings to rescind this rule and others promulgated when I was secretary of labor.

The Labor Department's Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS), created to enforce the 1959 law, also recently announced that it would not enforce compliance with the conflict-of-interest disclosure form (the "LM-30" form) that was revised in 2007. Labor's Web site states that "it would not be a good use of resources."

Instead, union managers will be able to file decades-old, less enlightening disclosure forms while the department considers whether to "revise" (i.e., gut) the current disclosure requirements. But what could be a better use of department resources than enforcing the laws under its jurisdiction?

From 2001-2008, the Labor Department secured more than 1,000 union fraud-related indictments and 929 convictions. This enforcement record was accomplished even though the enforcement office accounts for less than 0.1% of the department's budget. OLMS is the lone federal agency with the job of protecting worker interests in how their unions are managed. The last Congress increased President Bush's budget request for the Labor Department by $956 million even as it targeted OLMS for a budget cut.

This repeats the pattern we saw during the last Democratic administration. Under President Bill Clinton, staffing decreased more than 40%. The number of compliance audits dropped no less than 75% from fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 2000. I would expect the current Congress to once again slash the OLMS budget, with the administration's blessing.

Union membership peaked in the 1950s, when more than one-third of American workers belonged to a union. Today, just 7.6% of American private-sector workers belong to a union. A Rasmussen Research survey conducted in March found that 81% of nonunion members do not want to belong to a union.

The response by union leaders and their Democratic allies to declining union membership is the Employee Free Choice Act. To increase unionization, it would deprive workers of private balloting in organizing elections, and it would substitute a signature-card process that would expose workers to coercion. The bill would also deny workers the right to ratify, or not ratify, labor contracts drafted by government arbitrators when negotiations in newly unionized workplaces exceed the bill's rigid timetable.

The Obama administration likes to say that it is "pro-worker." But something is amiss when its labor priorities are forcing unionization and labor contracts on American workplaces, and denying union members information on how their dues money is spent.

Ms. Chao was secretary of labor from 2001 to 2009 and is now a fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

White House Puts UAW Ahead of Property Rights

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
05/05/09 7:11 PM


Last Friday, the day after Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, I drove past the company’s headquarters on Interstate 75 in Auburn Hills, Mich.

As I glanced at the pentagram logo I felt myself tearing up a little bit. Anyone who grew up in the Detroit area, as I did, can’t help but be sad to see a once great company fail.

But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning. “One of my clients,” Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.”

Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.

ACORN Got $53 Million In Federal Funds Since 94, Now Eligible For Up To $8 Billion More

This is not suprizing!..The Congress of this country and past and present presidents have allowed OUR tax dollars to be paid out to a rogue criminal organization who has been convicted of voter fraud and is currently under indictment for voter fraud...Where in the hell is the OUTRAGE over this???
This is also the same organization Obama worked for and claimed he did not!

By: Kevin Mooney
Examiner Columnist | 5/6/09 4:32 AM

At least $53 million in federal funds have gone to ACORN activists since 1994, and the controversial group could get up to $8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen states.

The economic stimulus bill enacted in February contains $3 billion that the non-profit activist group known more formally as the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now could receive, and 2010 federal budget contains another $5.5 billion that could also find its way into the group’s coffers.

An Examiner review of federal spending data found that ACORN has received at least $53 million in federal money since 1994. A downloadable spreadsheet of the $53 million is posted on washingtonexaminer.com.

Scott Levenson, ACORN's national spokesman, said "we have received no significant federal funding." When asked by The Examiner about the $53 million, Levenson said: "If you listen to some of the Republicans who are going to get a billion dollars from the stimulus package, I'm still waiting for my share. Their claims are overinflated, this is a gimmick and an attempt to demonize ACORN."

At least one lawmaker, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-MN, wants to stop the flow of tax dollars to ACORN, but House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-MA, stands in her way.

Frank plans to strip out an anti-ACORN provision Bachman succeeded in inserting in the proposed Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act that could be voted on by the House today or Thursday.

Bahmann’s amendment was unanimously approved by Frank’s committee in a voice vote last week. It would block organizations that have been indicted for voter registration or vote fraud from receiving housing counseling grants and legal assistance grants.

The Bachman prohibition would apply only to the proposed mortgage reform legislation, and would not change ACORN’s ability to receive funds under either the stimulus program or 2010 budget.

Frank said his panel’s approval of the Bachman amendment was a mistake and that he had not carefully reviewed its language when he previously voted yes.

“I did not read it carefully, and it was in the last minute that the amendment was accepted,” Frank said. “It is a deeply flawed amendment and I am opposed to it. Banning people from possible participation in government programs based on an indictment is a violation of the basic principles of due process.”

Frank plans to offer another amendment to the bill on the House floor that would allow non-profits that have been indicted to receive grants under the legislation so long as they have not been convicted.

Bachmann said Frank’s amendment would “eviscerate the meaning” of her original amendment.

“I am disturbed by how cavalierly Washington spends the taxpayers’ money,” Bachmann told The Examiner. “The new charges brought against ACORN this week in Nevada reaffirm my concern about giving taxpayer dollars to organizations that are repeatedly under criminal indictment. Last week, I asked: Whose side are we on, the taxpayer's or ACORN's?”

Non-profit groups like ACORN can apply for $2 billion in funds set aside for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes under the $800 billion economic stimulus bill passed earlier this year.

An additional $1 billion in Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) are included in the stimulus bill. ACORN and other non-profit advocacy groups could receive through federally funded housing programs administered by state and local governments.

“ACORN is not normally eligible to apply directly for CDBG funds but may apply to the states and local government units that are CDBG recipients,” Matthew Vadum, a senior analyst and editor with Capital Research Center (CRC), said. “This opens the way for ACORN to receive billions more in taxpayer money.”

In addition to the $3 billion available in the stimulus package, the proposed $47.5 billion Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) budget provides $1 billion for an affordable housing trust fund and $4.5 billion in CDBG funds that could be funneled to ACORN indirectly.

“This means $8.5 billion is on the table this year for ACORN and other left-wing advocacy groups,” Vadum said. “ACORN won’t get all of the money but any tax dollars going to a criminal enterprise like this is just wrong.”

Kevin Mooney is an Examiner staff writer on the commentary staff.

Dodd Calls for Prosecuting Bush Officials

Lets look at who is talking here...Chris Dodd..One of the most corrupt morons in congress...who is in the pockets of every company he has come in contact with and he is calling for prosecutions??

I think Dodd needs a few readers to call his office and let him know how much of a hypocrit and liar he is!..Only a democrat would have the audacity to do this.

By: Jim Meyers

Sen. Christopher Dodd is pushing ahead with a call for prosecuting Bush administration officials over the use of waterboarding terrorist detainees.

The Connecticut Democrat told home-state bloggers over the weekend that the Obama administration's release of memos detailing interrogation techniques used on detainees creates a "moral imperative" for a congressional investigation — or a criminal probe that could involve former Vice President Dick Cheney's staff, Politico.com reported.

When asked if a probe should go "as high as Cheney's office," Dodd replied: "You gotta go where you gotta go."

Dodd cited his father's experience as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Attorney Thomas Joseph Dodd, who was later elected to the Senate, held a leading position on the Allied prosecution team in 1945 and 1946.

Referring to the Nazi defendants, Dodd said "even these thugs got a lawyer; even these thugs got a trial."

He added: "In a sense, not to prosecute people or pursue them when these acts have occurred is . . . to invite it again in some future administration."

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that an internal Justice Department inquiry had found that Bush administration lawyers who authorized harsh interrogations committed no crimes warranting prosecution.

Hostile Bloggers Facing Fines, Jail?

Proposal 'comes close to making it federal offense to log onto Internet'

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A new proposal in Congress is threatening fines and jail time for what it calls "cyberbullying" – communications that include e-mails and text messages that "cause substantial emotional distress."

The vague generalities are included in H.R. 1966 by California Democrat Linda Sanchez and about a dozen co-sponsors.

But it already is being condemned as unconstitutional, unrealistic and probably ineffectual.

At Wired.com, in a report labeled "Threat Level," writer David Kravets criticized the plan to demand "up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to 'coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress.'"

"Instead of prison, perhaps we should say gulag," he wrote.

Such limits never would pass First Amendment muster, "unless the U.S. Constitution was altered without us knowing," he wrote. "So Sanchez, and the 14 other lawmakers who signed on to the proposal are grandstanding to show the public they care about children and are opposed to cyberbullying."

The plan is labeled the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, after the 13-year-old Meier, whose suicide last year reportedly was prompted by a woman who utilized the MySpace social networking site to send the teen critical messages.

The defendant in the case, Lori Drew, was accused under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

"Sanchez's bill goes way beyond cyberbullying and comes close to making it a federal offense to log onto the Internet or use the telephone," Kravets wrote. "The methods of communication where hostile speech is banned include e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones and text messages."

"We can't say what we think of Sanchez's proposal," he said. "Doing so would clearly get us two years in solitary confinement."

Wrote a contributor to the Wired forum page, "If passed, this legislation could be easily abused with the effect of criminalizing all criticism. You probably [couldn't] even criticize the legislation itself because it would cause Sen. Sanchez emotional distress or possibly be considered a form of intimidation."

The bill, which has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, states, "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

It states: "Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance
, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide."

Obama And Homeland Security Think Little Of The American People

This video is not suprizing at all...This is what Obama and his thugs think of most of americans!
I wonder if Obama knows what most americans think of him?..Let me touch on that for just a bit.


Lets see..Obama and his thugs in his cabinet and most of congress are:

1. Criminals
2. Socialists
3. Traitors
4. Unsurpers Of Our Constitution ( See Number 1
5. Terrorist sympathizers ( See Number 3
6. Thugs
7. Tax Cheats
8. Liars
9. Corrupt
10. Leftwing Extremists

Look at this video and see for yourself what he thinks of americans

Stop Islam In The West

BELOW ARE THE FIRST PAGES OF WHAT IS GOING TO BE A MONTHLY MAGAZINE IS ABOUT 70 PAGES... LET ME KNOW IF YOU WISH TO SEE THE REST IF THE HTML DIDN'T WORK.

IT IS UNBELIEVABLE TO THINK THAT PUBLISHING MUHAMMAD CARTOONS GOT PEOPLE KILLED, EMBASSIES BURNT, AND RIOTS BROKE ALL OVER EUROPE!! BUT THIS DOESN'T CAUSE ANY OUTRAGE???


Pass this bulletin and tell your friends to add us!




ACT! For America


STOP THE ISLAMIZATION OF THE WEST!


-------------------
THE FIRST 20 PAGES OUT OF 70 - LET ME KNOW IF YOU WANT THE REMAINING 50








































HERE IS THE REST....

Rec On .. Publish at Scribd or explore others: Magazines & Newspape Reports ..







ACT! For America



PLEASE REPOST!



Glossy Internet Magazine Targets Americans for Jihad Training

It's been likened to Al Qaeda's "Vanity Fair," a new English-language Internet magazine called "Jihad Recollections" that focuses on the terrorist group, its founder, Usama Bin Laden, and how to commit jihad. It also predicts the demise of the United States.

“This is designed for Americans,” says noted terrorism expert Steven Emerson, founder of the Investigative Project on Terrorism in Washington, D.C., and author of the book "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us."

“It’s not for Brits, not for Germans, not for jihadists in the Middle East. It’s designed for Americans and it’s designed to get them to convert to Islam or to carry out jihad acts of terror,” he said.

“What started off as some angry kids in their basement has transformed over the past several years into a robust Al Qaeda propaganda outlet right here in our backyard,” says Jarret Brachman, an Al Qaeda specialist and author of the new book, “Global Jihadism.”

Brachman says “it raises the bar for pro-Al Qaeda propaganda in English. Its presentation is flashier than any English language Al Qaeda propaganda that we’ve seen to date.” He also says “the publication shows how deeply embedded in the global Al Qaeda movement its editors are.”

It is not clear what connection, if any, the magazine has to Al Qaeda or its followers. It is published by the “Al Fursan Media Foundation,” but FOX News could not find such an organization or a way to contact them for comment.

Yet “Jihad Recollections” certainly highlights the terrorist group and the goals of Islamic jihad in a sophisticated and graphically slick presentation similar to any high quality Web site.

The magazine includes the speeches and writings of Bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Articles range from “Four Practical Steps to Expand the Global Jihad,” to “The Science Behind Night Vision Technology” and “Principles of Guerrilla Warfare.”

“The magazine is quite startling,” said Emerson. It is “a veritable manual on how to carry out terrorism. It’s quite shocking, and the question is whether it violates the law or not.”

The first issue says of the 9/11 attacks, that “the strategy was genius.” It calls America “one of the most atrocious and egotistical regimes to date,” and it accuses the United States of spreading corruption in Islamic countries through its embassies. “How can we expect from America any good?” it asks. “We only expect from it every evil and corruption.”

“Jihad Recollections” appears to prepare followers to engage in jihad. One section teaches aspiring jihadists how to stay in shape by doing exercise without weights. Articles with photographs of men dressed in white robes with their faces covered encourage them to exercise at home and stay away from American gyms because “they are full of music, semi-naked women, free mixing.” It warns of the dangers of “showing off” during a workout and even observes that protein shakes are too expensive and not worth the money.

For those who thought the election of Barack Obama as president would assuage the militant world, the magazine makes it quite clear that is not the case.

“To the Muslims who voted for Obama and were optimistic that he would make a positive change ... nothing will change except things can only get worse,” the magazine proclaims. “Only Allah knows how much worse it will get.”

The magazine criticizes the Obama economic stimulus plan, calling it “flawed,” and ridicules the president as “Mr. Yes We Can,” whose policies will “continue to loot all the hardworking Americans wealth.”

It even includes the views of some prominent critics of the president’s polices, such as former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, now an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, and veteran Tennessee Rep. Zach Wamp, the ranking Republican on the House Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. Such references clearly indicate an awareness of American political discourse similar to the nation’s political policy magazines.

In fact, “Jihad Recollections” proclaims: “It is the first of its kind as it is geared towards the English speaking Muslims who are interested in gaining heights in their religious, political, economical, social, technological, strategic, historical, biographical and health awareness.”

The writing may be a bit flamboyant, and while it boasts that “The U.S. grows weaker every day,” there is no explicit call for violence against the country or against Americans. Emerson thinks the publication is “pushing the envelope of the First Amendment” by reporting on jihad issues, and he says it indicates that the Internet is being used as “one of the major sources for radicalization.”

“Thousands of people have accessed these pro-Al Qaeda websites,” notes Brachman. He says “this new journal is receiving more and more praise from within the English-language jihadist movement. The fact is that their movement is growing — their popularity is growing.”

More than 5,000 people have viewed “Jihad Recollections” and 11 people list it as one of their “favorites.” Who are its readers? And do they adhere to the jihad philosophy?

Whoever is behind “Jihad Recollections” has a strange mix of opinion with one focus: seemingly to spread the message of Islamic jihad at the expense of Americans. That such a publication is accessible at all speaks to the freedoms we enjoy in our country while, experts say, also serving as a warning of the danger that Islamic militants and radicals pose to our nation.

FOX News' Maryam Sepehri contributed to this report.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518611,00.html

Bernanke: Economy Should Grow Again Later In 2009..He Doesn"t Have A Clue

Read this story below here and tell me if this is not double talk!
This is the chairman of the federal reserve talking here...He does not have a clue as to what he is talking about or what he is doing....The federal reserve has got to go...Write..email..and call your congressmen and senators and tell them to end the FED!


Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Tuesday that the economy should pull out of a recession and start growing again later this year.

But in prepared testimony to Congress' Joint Economic Committee, Bernanke warned that even after a recovery gets under way, economic activity is likely to be subpar. That means businesses will stay cautious about hiring, driving up the nation's unemployment rate and causing "further sizable job losses" in the coming months, he said.

The recession, which started in December 2007, already has snatched a net total 5.1 million jobs.

The unemployment rate "could remain high for a time,

even after economic growth resumes," Bernanke said.

Even with all the cautionary notes, the Fed chief offered a far less dour assessment of the economy.

"We continue to expect economic activity to bottom out, then to turn up later this year," he told lawmakers.

Recent data suggest the recession may be loosening its firm grip on the country, Bernanke said.

"The pace of contraction may be slowing," he said. It was similar to an observation the Fed made last week in deciding not to take any additional steps to shore up the economy.
..
The housing market, which has been in a slump for three years, has shown some signs of bottoming, he said. Consumer spending, which collapsed in the second half of last year, came back to life in the first quarter.

In the months ahead, consumer spending should be lifted by tax cuts contained in President Barack Obama's larger $787 billion stimulus package. Still, rising unemployment, sinking home values and cracked nest eggs will still weigh on consumers willingness to spend freely, Bernanke said.

Obama to Secured Creditors: Drop Dead..Obama Working For The UAW

By Bill Frezza

Are you following the disembowelment of Chrysler’s secured creditors with an eye not just toward what it means for the moribund car company but for what it could do to the very concept of secured debt? Has it dawned on you what the consequences will be if the President gets his way and consideration is given to creditors not according to contracts, rules, and established legal precedents but according to which group is most politically favored? And do you believe the President advanced the cause of economic recovery by publicly excoriating “speculators” who once hoped to profit by lending money against hard assets to an ailing company?

Profit? There’s no profit to incentivize risk taking in this country, only sacrifice!

Law? There’s no law to protect the politically unfavored in this country, only derision!

According to U.S. bankruptcy code, secured creditors - that is lenders who have a contractual security interest or claim to specific collateral - have to be paid before unsecured creditors. Unsecured creditors' claims are prioritized according to explicit rules defined by law. With the exception of short-term payments approved by a bankruptcy judge to keep a company running during the reorganization process, each priority level has a right to be paid in full before creditors with the next lowest priority get a dime. That is why secured debt can be had at a lower interest rate than unsecured debt. In fact, that is why troubled companies have any ability at all to raise money. Credit flows because everyone knows the rules of the game, even in bankruptcy.

Well, at least they used to.

The system is not supposed to deliver equal outcomes or demand equal sacrifice. If it did money could only be borrowed at the highest rates of interest, if at all. Under the law, payment priorities can only be modified if all debtors agree. The ability to hold out and force a company into bankruptcy court is baked into the price of a loan or the discount at which bonds trade.

In Chrysler’s case the TARP-backed lenders – that is, banks-too-big-to-fail now living on the dole – chose to kowtow to the executive branch. What they “sacrificed” was the economic interests of their shareholders in favor of the political interests of their management. The non TARP-backed lenders, in this case a handful of hedge funds trying to protect the pension funds, university endowments, and insurance companies that invested in them, balked at getting lower consideration for their secured debt than the UAW is getting for its unsecured obligations. Hence, a trip to court and a tongue lashing by the president.

Forget about the law for a moment. Forget about right and wrong. This exercise should be getting easier now that pragmatism is the basis of government policy, right? So think for a moment only about the pragmatic consequences of the administration’s reorganization plan.

Why would anyone lend money to heavily unionized companies knowing that if things went wrong, the president and his men could trash their security interests by executive decree, hold them up to public vilification, and subject them to future retribution by regulators?

Why would anyone buy the shares of TARP-backed banks or invest alongside them knowing that their executives have proven their willingness to sacrifice shareholders’ interests and throw co-investors under the bus any time the president snaps his fingers?

Why would foreigners buy the distressed debt of American companies knowing that this debt cannot be secured by law but only by political clout?

How is the Federal Government supposed to unwind its ownership in the growing number of companies it has nationalized if prospective buyers know that should things ever take a turn for the worse, Uncle Sam will be back demanding extralegal “sacrifice” in the name of “saving” jobs?

How is private credit supposed to “start flowing again” if the United States of America morphs into a caudillo-run kleptocracy whose explicit policy is to “empower the workers,” chasing ever higher poll numbers by demonizing the very people whose job it is to provide credit?

The fate of Chrysler and its workers pale in comparison to the wrecking ball that would be taken to economic order if bankruptcy judge Arthur Gonzalez approves the administration’s plan to give Chrysler’s secured creditors the shaft. And what prize will we-the-people get in return? A doomed third-rate car company majority owned by its militant union run by Italian management building congressionally designed “green” cars no one wants to buy financed by taxpayers into perpetuity because no private investor in their right mind will touch the company with a ten foot pole. Is this supposed to be economic policy or comic opera?

How many more billions do you think will be flushed down this rat hole before the fat lady is allowed to sing?

Schumer Promises Sweeping Immigration Law

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer is predicting that sweeping immigration reform will become law before the year is over.

Schumer, a Democrat and chairman of the Senate's immigration subcommittee, spoke at the New York Daily News/Citizenship Now! headquarters. He said he expected Senate hearings to lead to a major change in U.S. policy, the Daily News reported.

"I believe that this year, we can pass comprehensive, strong, fair immigration reform," Schumer said.

Schumer's comments came on the heels of President Barack Obama saying America can't continue with a "broken" immigration system.

Obama has stated that he supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes an eventual path to citizenship for millions of foreigners illegally in the United States. During his presidential campaign, he promised to make the issue a "top priority" during his first year in office.

Last week, Obama said immigration reform is necessary because the current system is "not good for American workers. It's dangerous for Mexican would-be workers who are trying to cross a dangerous border. It is putting a strain on border communities … And it keeps those undocumented workers in the shadows, which means they can be exploited at the same time as they're depressing U.S. wages."

Obama said his administration would first work to secure America's borders before trying to reform U.S. immigration policy.

"If the American people don't feel like you can secure the borders, then it's hard to strike a deal that would get people out of the shadows and on a pathway to citizenship who are already here, because the attitude of the average American is going to be, well, you're just going to have hundreds of thousands of more coming in each year," he said.

"On the other hand, showing that there is a more thoughtful approach than just raids of a handful of workers as opposed to, for example, taking seriously the violation of companies that sometimes are actively recruiting these workers to come in. That's again something we can start doing administratively."

White House "Directly Threatened" Perella Weinberg Over Chrysler..Extortion At It's Best

The White House threatened to use the White House press corps to besmirch the reputation of one of the financial firms that holds Chrysler debt, according to a prominent New York bankruptcy lawyer. If true, the explosive charge shows that the White House was willing to go much further than is widely known to have its way in the attempt to restructure the Detriot automaker.

"One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight...That was Perella Weinberg," Tom Lauria, the head of the bankrutpcy department for top New York City lawfirm White & Case, told a WJR 760 radio host.

Perella Weinberg had been one of the firms that was resisting the Obama administration's plans for restructuring, alongside Stairway Capital and Oppenheimer Funds. The group had argued that their position as senior creditors gave them legal rights to be paid in full before junior creditors were paid. They had put forth a counter-offer under which they would have received far less than the face-value of the debt they held, but more than the Obama adminstration had proposed. This compromise deal was rejected by the administration, and the holdouts were characterized by the president himself as unwilling to make sacrifices for the common good.

After intense political pressure, Perella Weinberg defected from the dissenters and agreed to the administrations plans. The majority of senior creditors, including several large banks such as JP Morgan Chase, had already agreed to the plan. Some critics charge that the administration used its leverage as the provider of TARP funds to force banks to comply. Lauria's charges suggest that the administration had to get even rougher with financial firms that haven't taken bailout money.

The suggestion that the adminsitration would direct the White House press corps, composed of newspaper reports and other journalists who cover the Whtie House, to ruin the reputation of holdouts is sure to raise the ire of people who prize media independence. It's not clear whether this was an idle threat or whether the White House believes it exercises this level of control over the journalists asigned to cover it. It harkens back to the dirty tricks tactics of past administrations, and suggest a cavalier attitude toward the exercise of political power to control the actions of private citizens.

One test of whether the White House press corps is as compliant as the White House seems to believe will be how they handle Lauria's charge. The story has not yet been picked up by the traditional media. The blog Zero Hedge, a new but well-read financial blog, picked up the story and posted a downloadable excerpt from the radio interview. (You can download the clip below.)

The charge also undermines a key administration claim about the Chrysler restructing plan. It has insisted that the plan was reasonable, and held up the fact that the majority of senior creditors approved it as eveidence of this reasonableness. If the approvals were obtained through threats, however, theyt would indicate nothing more than a fear of crossing the administration.