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.

Olbermann: 'Reagan's Dead and He Was a Lousy President'..Call This Moron.

On Wednesday's Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann responded to an Ohio Republican quoting Ronald Reagan by mocking Reagan as "dead," and calling him a "lousy President." After reading a quote from Warren, County, Ohio commissioner Mike Kilburn proclaiming his intention not to use any of the federal stimulus money on his county, as he quoted Reagan's famous line that "government is the problem," Olbermann shot back: "Uh, Commissioner Kilburn, Reagan's dead and he was a lousy President."

The MSNBC host also slammed moderate Democratic Senator Ben Nelson as the day's "Worst Person in the World" because the Nebraska Democrat dared to lump him and fellow liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow in with conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, as Nelson charged that both conservative and liberal talk show hosts spread misinformation to their audience.

Olbermann, who has a history of repeating incorrect or distorted information on his show, and who also once depicted an image of Rush Limbaugh as a target of gunfire, charged that Limbaugh "supports racism and encourages violence," and that FNC's Glenn Beck "makes up stuff," as the MSNBC host indignantly complained: "Thanks for the opportunity to tell you you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I am fed up with this equating of what we do here to circus performers like Limbaugh and the Fox crowd. We don't make up stuff like Beck does, we don't stalk people like O'Reilly does, we don't support racism and encourage violence like Limbaugh does, we don't recite talking points like Hannity does."

[This item, by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth, was posted Thursday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Referring to his recent criticism -- from the left -- of President Obama for announcing his administration would not try to prosecute CIA interrogators who used waterboarding against terrorists, Olbermann claimed that his show does not really have a left-wing slant: "Rachel caught you out to lunch on the stimulus, and she called you on it, and I slammed a Democratic President last week. We believe first, Senator, in right and wrong over here, not right and left. Let me know when you start believing in something besides re-election."

From the April 22 "Worst Person in the World" segment:

KEITH OLBERMANN: But first, time for Countdown's number two story, "Worst Persons in the World." The bronze goes to Mike Kilburn, county commissioner of Warren County, Ohio. You remember Warren County? Part of the still unexplained terror threat lockdown on election night 2004. The commissioners there are rejecting $373,000 in stimulus money for three new buses and vans meant to get the county's rural residents to health care and educational opportunities. Kilburn said, "I'll let Warren County go broke before taking any of Obama's filthy money. I'm tired of paying for people who don't have. As Reagan said, government is not the answer, it's the problem." Uh, Commissioner Kilburn, Reagan's dead and he was a lousy President.

Dick Cheney: Obama’s Acting Like a Weak President

Former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed the Obama administration Monday night for what he described as a disturbing tendency to criticize America abroad and embrace avowed enemies like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez while not praising the nation’s success in the war against terrorism.

As an example, Cheney revealed that he had pressed for the release of documents that would show how the Bush administration’s allegedly harsh interrogation techniques had thwarted major terrorist attacks. Instead, President Barack Obama only ordered the release of memos detailing the controversial techniques, not the results.

Cheney made the statements in a two-part interview with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity. The first part was broadcast Monday night; the second will be broadcast Tuesday night at 9 p.m.

“What I find disturbing is the extent to which he has gone to Europe, for example, and seemed to apologize profusely in Europe, and then to Mexico, and apologize there, and so forth,” Cheney told Hannity.

“And I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they're dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America's interests.”

“The United States provides most of the leadership in the world… I don’t think we have much to apologize for.”

Cheney also said that:

# the release of CIA memos detailing interrogation techniques was a “little bit disturbing” because the administration hadn’t released documents detailing how those techniques were successful in thwarting terrorism.

# the Bush administration’s policy of ignoring Chavez and other leftist leaders like Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua was more effective than embracing a dialogue with them. That only serves to validate their anti-democratic tendencies at home.

# Obama’s habit of traveling abroad – to Europe and Mexico – and apologizing “profusely” for American actions signal weakness to friends and foes alike.

# criticizing the previous administration is nothing new, and is to be expected from a new president. “We did it. I'm sure the Obama administration is not the first one ever to do that.”

Cheney told Hannity that he had “formally asked” for the declassification of documents he says would “lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.”

# he had no substantive policy discussions with Vice President Joe Biden, who never asked Cheney for his insight on policy. They only met once after the election.

Cheney explained the Bush administration's interrogation methods in terms of the situation after 9/11. The Bush administration knew little about al-Qaida, and had to quickly get up to speed with much of New York City already in ruins.

“One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort,” the former vice president said. “And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.”

“I formally asked that they be declassified now,” Cheney said. “I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.”

“And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”

The handshake between Obama and Chavez was not good because it only serves to undermine the cause of democratic oppositions in countries like Venezuela, where the Chavez regime has moved to crush dissent.

“You have millions of people all across South America who are watching how we respond,” Cheney said. “And if they see an American president sort of cozying up to somebody like Daniel Ortega or Chavez, I think it's not helpful. I think it sort of sets the wrong standard.”

“I've seen Hugo Chavez in operation before, and Daniel Ortega down in Nicaragua,” Cheney said. “These are people who operate in our hemisphere, but who don't believe in and aren't supportive of basic fundamental principles and policies that most of us in this hemisphere adhere to.”

“Basically, the position we took in the Bush administration was to ignore it. I think that was the right thing to do.”

One of the biggest temptations for a new administration is to focus on being liked rather than respected, Cheney said.

“The United States provides most of the leadership in the world. We have for a long time. And I don't think we've got much to apologize for. You can have a debate about that. But the bottom line is that, you know, when you go to Europe and deal with our European friends and allies, some things they do very well, some things they don't.”

“Sometimes it's important that a president speak directly and forthrightly to our European friends. And you don't get there if you're so busy apologizing for past U.S. behavior.”

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Vehicle Searches

their

Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Vehicle Searches
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Staff, Associated Press

Washington (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.

The court's 5-4 decision puts new limits on the ability of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect.

Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that warrantless searches still may be conducted if a car's passenger compartment is within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence of a crime will be found.

"When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant," Stevens said.

Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent, complained that the decision upsets police practice that has developed since the court first authorized warrantless searches immediately following an arrest.

"There are cases in which it is unclear whether an arrestee could retrieve a weapon or evidence," Alito said.

Even more confusing, he said, is asking police to determine whether the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. "What this rule permits in a variety of situations is entirely unclear," Alito said.

The decision backs an Arizona high court ruling in favor of Rodney Joseph Gant, who was handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car and under police supervision when Tucson, Ariz., police officers searched his car. They found cocaine and drug paraphernalia.

The trial court said the evidence could be used against Gant, but Arizona appeals courts overturned the convictions because the officers already had secured the scene and thus faced no threat to safety or concern about evidence being preserved.

The state and the Bush administration complained that ruling would impose a "dangerous and unworkable test" that would complicate the daily lives of law enforcement officers.

The justices divided in an unusual fashion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, David Souter and Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy were in dissent along with Alito.

Minuteman Founder to Challenge McCain for Senate Seat in 2010 GOP Primary

Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer


(CNSNews.com) – Chris Simcox, founder of the pro-border enforcement group the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, will announce on Wednesday his plans to challenge Sen. John McCain in the Arizona Republican Senate primary in 2010.

Simcox, who spoke with CNSNews.com on Tuesday, said he has voted for McCain – the GOP presidential nominee in 2008 – in the past despite his many concerns about McCain’s politically moderate leanings.

“I had no choice” but to vote for McCain in the past, Simcox told CNSNews.com. “This is what this campaign is about, to give conservatives in the state an alternative to John McCain. … John McCain has been wrong about immigration. He has been wrong on border security, and he has attacked our First Amendment rights with campaign finance reform. He has acted like a big government bully.”

After losing the presidential race to Barack Obama last fall, McCain announced in December he would run for reelection to the Senate in 2010.

Among several issues McCain has faced criticism for from conservatives has been his sponsorship of legislation to establish a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, allowing them to stay in the United States if they learn English and pay back taxes. Opponents of these measures, such as Simcox, call the proposals “amnesty.”

Illegal immigration has been a major issue in Arizona where the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps was founded in 2005 as a citizens group to help patrol the southern border in lieu of federal support.

Its mission statement reads: “It is the mission of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps to see the borders and coastal boundaries of the United States secured against the unlawful and unauthorized entry of all individuals, contraband, and foreign military. We will employ all means of civil protest, demonstration, and political lobbying to accomplish this goal.”

“There is one simple solution, and that is to deploy our troops to the border,” Simcox told CNSNews.com, but Simcox stressed that he did not want to be pigeon-holed as a single issue candidate.

As a former school teacher, he said he would be campaigning for education reform. Further, he said he supported doing away with obstacles to more energy resources.

Simcox noted that, as an incumbent and former presidential nominee, McCain has a clear fundraising advantage. Simcox also said that his campaign “is starting off with nothing.”

“I have a state base in Arizona, and I am nationally known, so that will help in fundraising,” Simcox said. “We have grassroots and foot soldiers and many, many people in the state.”

It is unusual for incumbent senators to be defeated in primaries. However, it has happened in recent years. Most notably in 2006, millionaire businessman Ned Lamont defeated Sen. Joe Lieberman in a Connecticut Democratic primary. However, Lieberman kept his seat by running as an independent.

The loser of the Arizona primary will not have that option, said Arizona Assistant Secretary of State Jim Drake.

“We have a law that says if you ran in the primary election and failed to be nominated, then you cannot file in the general,” Drake told CNSNews.com.

In another example, in 2002, U.S. Rep. John Sununu beat U.S. Sen. Bob Smith in a New Hampshire Republican primary. Then-U.S. Rep. Pat Tooney came close to beating Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Senate GOP primary in 2004, but lost. Toomey, no longer a member of Congress, is reportedly going to challenge Specter again this year.

Leah Geach, a spokeswoman for McCain’s Senate office, did not respond to inquiries for this story.

Obama Welcomes America-Bashing

Obama Welcomes America-Bashing
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By L. Brent Bozell III

Of all the bizarre fictions that the media have spread about Barack Obama, the strangest is that’s he non-ideological. The supreme purveyor of this fantasy is Obama himself.

During his trip to Tobago to meet with Latin American leaders, the president claimed “we can make progress when we're willing to break free from some of the stale debates and old ideologies.” That’s a pretty funny sentence when your foreign policy reeks of Jimmy Carter, fermented since 1977.

In a room stuffed with Marxist crackpots like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, Obama came not to lecture, but to charm. America’s just one country among many, and he was “inclined to listen and not just talk.”

There were no “junior partners” in the Americas, just partners. He came not to defend America, but to calmly hear it trashed, and win people over with his charisma. Obama believes in his charisma far more than he believes in America.

“I didn’t come here to debate the past,” Obama declared. “I came here to deal with the future.” He explicitly claimed his own biracial skin displayed a new openness on America’s part: “As has already been noted, and I think my presence here indicates, the United States has changed over time.”

Now there’s a powerful defense of your country, President Obama.

Obama’s so egotistical he thinks America has two historical eras, Before Obama and the Glorious Now.

After sitting through a 50-minute diatribe from that communist thug Daniel Ortega, who ranted that America had unleashed a century of expansionist aggression, Obama’s response wasn’t national, just personal: “I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

Apparently, that sorry act of aggression was John F. Kennedy’s failed Bay of Pigs attempt to rid Cuba of Fidel Castro.

Few corrected Obama’s mistake – that lost battle occurred a few months before the world was transformed by his birth. The president was asked later what he thought about Ortega's speech, and he said, "It was 50 minutes long. That's what I thought."

There’s another powerful way to defend your country, President Obama.

Obama was just as non-confrontational with that other thug Chavez, who pressed him with a copy of a book-length anti-American diatribe called “The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of Pillage of a Continent.”

Its author, Eduardo Galeano, typically described America under President Bush as a terrorist war machine in a 2006 Pacifica Radio interview: “This $2,600 million spent each day to kill other people, this machine of killing peoples, devouring the world resources, eating the world resources each day. So this is a terrorist structure indeed, and we are in danger, so President Bush is right, I think. We are suffering a terrorist menace.”

But when Chavez handed him Galeano’s thirty-year-old communist diatribe, Obama could only say "I think it was, it was a nice gesture to give me a book. I'm a reader." Being obsessed with himself, Obama also said he should have given Chavez his books. He added that Chavez’s harsh rhetoric didn’t mean they couldn’t engage in civil dialogue.

There’s only one thing wrong with that sentiment: it’s not civil dialogue for Chavez to demand that Obama read about how his country is bleeding the Americas to death.

Yet one more powerful – oh, never mind.

American reporters saw this as a glorious moment. Time’s Tim Padgett said the hate-America gift was appropriate, because Obama “proved at the Trinidad summit to be the first U.S. President to get it.” Obama “gets” the America-haters.

But how would he respond to the charge that Franklin Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor Policy” or John Kennedy’s “Alliance for Progress” was just more imperialistic aggression? Is it simply inappropriate to defend American presidents, even when they’re Democrats? The “evil empire” narrative must always be listened to with respect – and without rebuttal?

Only Obama deserves respect, apparently. Padgett thought the Latin leftists should show respect by reading the president’s own masterful books in order to admire his “common-sense, post-ideological political philosophy.”

To glimpse at the warped worldview of our media elite, look no further than a news “analysis” by Steven Hurst of the Associated Press, who compared Obama favorably to ... Mikhail Gorbachev.

Apparently, like Gorbachev, Obama presides over a corrupt and crumbling empire: “During his short – by Soviet standards – tenure, he scrambled incessantly to shed the ideological entanglements that were leading the communist empire toward ruin. But Obama is outpacing even Gorbachev.”

The leftist media look at Obama and see themselves. There are no “ideological entanglements.” They’re just out to make the world a better place, insisting that America needs to shrink itself into a smaller, quieter, less “judgmental” partner, and do so while the Western hemisphere goes off a left-wing cliff.

Hugo Chavez Says Venezuelan Socialism Has Begun To Reach U.S. Under Obama

Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Edwin Mora

(CNSNews.com) - Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.

“I am coming back from Trinidad and Tobago, from the Americas Summit where, without a doubt, the position that Venezuela and its government has always defended, especially starting 10 years ago, of resistance, dignity, sovereignty and independence has obtained in Port of Spain, one of the biggest victories of our history,” Chavez said.

“It would seem that the changes that started in Venezuela in the last decade of the 20th century have begun to reach North America,” he added.

Chavez made the comments Sunday to a crowd gathered for the 199th Commemoration of the Independence Declaration of Venezuela.

“In one year we will be celebrating 200 years of ‘April 19,’ the day that ... initiated this revolution that is underway 200 years later at the forefront of the people of our America, at the forefront of change, at the forefront of a new world, at the forefront of a new century that will construct Bolivarian socialism,” said Chavez.

“Bolivarian socialism” is the term Chavez uses to refer to his 21st century Latin American form of socialism, which he claims originates from the revolution launched by Simon Bolivar, a Venezuelan and Latin American revolutionary leader of the 19th century.

“We have assumed the commitment to direct the Bolivarian Revolution towards socialism and to contribute to the socialist path, with a new socialism; a socialism of the 21st century which is based in solidarity, in fraternity, in love, in justice, in liberty and in equality,” Chavez said in a speech in mid-2006, according to the Venezuelan government’s official Web site.

Last Friday, during the Americas Summit, Obama greeted Chavez before the first plenary summit, the first time the two presidents had met.

“I want to be your friend,” Chavez said to Obama as both of them shook hands. After the encounter, Chavez told reporters, “It was a good moment.”

At the United Nations in September 2006, Chavez referred to then-President Bush as “the devil."

The Venezuelan president has also suggested that he would “use oil” to fight U.S. influence, which he often refers to as “the imperialist power.” Venezuela is one of the world’s major oil producers.

Prior to the Americas Summit, Chavez had even attacked the Obama administration.

In January, Chavez accused the not-yet-inaugurated president of "throwing the first stone," after Obama called Chavez a "disruptive force in the region."

Chavez responded by calling Obama "ignorant" and inviting him to look over the realities of Latin America.

At their meeting last week, Chavez gave Obama a copy of the book, “The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of Pillage of a Continent,” written by Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano. The book is about alleged U.S. and European exploitation of the region.

“I think it was a nice gesture to give me a book. I’m a reader,” Obama told reporters. Obama and Chavez spoke once again--in private--during the final day of the summit. Chavez told reporters that they talked about a new era in U.S.-Venezuela relations.

“I told Obama that we have decided to appoint a new ambassador (to the U.S.),” said Chavez.

President Obama, defending himself against criticism coming from those in the U.S. who disapprove of talks with Chavez, said, “Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably one six-hundredths of the United States. They own Citgo [oil refinery and retailer].

“It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having polite conversation with Mr. Chavez, we are endangering the strategic interest of the United States,” Obama told reporters.

“You would be would be hard pressed to paint a scenario in which the U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela,” he added.

Venezuelan opposition to the Chavez administration criticized President Obama on Sunday for warming up to Chavez before demonstrating concern about Venezuela’s democracy, apporrea.org, a Venezuelan news outlet reported.

“The president’s (Chavez) authoritarianism, which grows by the day, has to be discussed,” Milos Alcalay, former Venezuelan ambassador to the U.N., who resigned in 2004 due to differences with Chavez, told aporrea.org.

The U.S. needs to talk to “the opposition, church representatives and others, who are really concerned about the democracy in Venezuela,” added Alcalay.

According to the U.S. State Department and other official government sources, the Venezuelan government has been guilty of numerous human rights violations under Chavez's rule.

“Politicization of the judiciary and official harassment of the political opposition and the media characterized the human rights situation during the year,” said the State Department's Country Report on Human Rights in Venezuela for 2008 that was released last month.

The report credits the Chavez regime with unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, discrimination based on political grounds, widespread corruption at all levels of government, official intimidation and attacks on the independent media.

“According to HRW [Human Rights Watch], ‘Government officials have removed scores of detractors from the career civil service, purged dissidents employees from the national oil company, denied citizens access to social programs based on their political opinions, and denounced critics as subversives deserving of discriminatory treatment," says the State Department report.

A recent report by the Congressional Research Service also outlined human rights concerns in Chavez's Venezuela.

“Under the populist rule of President Hugo Chavez … Venezuela has undergone enormous political changes, with a new constitution and unicameral legislature, and a new name for the country, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” states a Feb. 5, 2009 CRS report.

“U.S. officials and human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the deterioration of democratic institutions,” the report adds, “and threats to freedom of expression under President Chavez, who has survived several attempts to remove him from power.”

Last February, Venuzuelan voters approved a constitutional amendment that eliminates presidential term limits, thus allowing Chavez to run the country for an unlimited succession of 6-year terms as long as he can win a majority of the vote in a Venezuelan election.

Card Issuers Brace For Stern Warning

Obama to Press Executives to Adopt New Rules or Face Action by Congress

By Michael D. Shear and Nancy Trejos
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

President Obama will meet directly with credit card executives this week and plans to tell them to support strict measures that curb lending abuses or face the wrath of angry consumers and a determined Congress, according to banking industry officials.
This Story

*
Card Issuers Brace for Stern Warning
*
Congress Takes Aim at Credit Card Lending

The heads of the credit card divisions at 14 major banks are set to meet with the president and his top economic officials at the White House on Thursday, administration aides confirmed yesterday. They are bracing for a warning that the president will join the chorus of condemnation if they resist efforts to protect their credit card customers from unfair practices.

The high-profile meeting comes as members of Congress launch new efforts to crack down on credit card companies for such practices as arbitrarily raising interest rates on existing balances, charging late fees when enough time was not given between the billing and due dates, and charging interest on debt that was paid on time.
ad_icon

Lawmakers in the House plan to begin work tomorrow on a bill that would codify new Federal Reserve regulations aimed at curbing those practices. A separate bill in the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), would go even further, prohibiting companies from applying a variety of charges. The measure includes capping over-limit fees at one per billing period, allowing no interest charges on fees and no fees to make a payment. The legislation also would prevent companies from raising interest rates at any time for any reason and limit aggressive marketing by card issuers aimed at borrowers under 21.

Industry sources said the president will tell the executives on Thursday that he wants to go further than the House bill without specifically endorsing all of the provisions of Dodd's bill. Administration officials confirmed that the president will push for stronger rules in some areas than those proposed in the legislation but is "broadly supportive" of the bills working their way through Congress.

Obama has been calling for new regulation of credit card lending since the campaign trail. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner endorsed curbs on the credit card companies in remarks several weeks ago.

White House aides declined to discuss the specific agenda for Thursday's meeting. A senior White House official described it as an "outreach meeting" and said "any assumption that we would invite representatives in to simply stomp our feet and lecture about what they must do or else is simply inaccurate."

Press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday that administration officials will make clear to the executives that Obama would like them to take action voluntarily but that he supports legislation to force restrictions on their lending practices if they refuse.

"The administration and, I think, the public in general would be happy if some of the practices that they and others find offensive are ended -- would be a good step in the right direction. That I don't doubt," Gibbs told reporters.

He added that the White House will not be shy about "pursuing a course through Congress that would provide fairness and transparency to this process."

White House officials are hoping to avoid a repeat of the situation that followed disclosure of the multimillion-dollar bonuses at insurance giant American International Group, when a public outcry led to congressional action that Obama felt went too far. In that case, Obama initially expressed his outrage about the bonuses, but later was forced to ratchet back his rhetoric to keep lawmakers from taking actions that might threaten the government's efforts to bail out the banks.

Gibbs made clear yesterday that Obama shares the public's frustration -- and even anger -- about credit cards. Asked whether the president is angry at the practices of credit card companies that have received government lifelines, Gibbs said the emotions are directed more broadly.

"Well, I don't think the anger just is for bailed-out companies," he said. "I mean, there are companies that aren't getting money from the federal government that are involved in practices where people see their credit card rate skyrocket unbeknownst to them or contained in paragraph 14 of some very small writing at the very end of a credit card contract."

Representatives of some credit card companies have been tight-lipped about what they expect at the meeting.

"We hope there to be a useful dialogue about the state of the economy, the ability of lenders to make loans in this challenging environment, and the potential negative impact that further policy initiatives may have on the provision of credit to consumers and small businesses," said Kenneth J. Clayton, senior vice president and general counsel of the American Bankers Association Card Policy Council.

Card issuers argue that the restrictions imposed by the Fed already will reduce the availability of credit, particularly to marginal customers, and will force them to hike interest rates. They say additional limits will only heighten both trends at a time when the government is trying to increase lending.

"We're decreasing the availability and increasing cost when we want to be moving in the opposite direction," said Scott Talbott of the Financial Services Roundtable.

But members of Congress hailed the White House's involvement.

"I welcome President Obama's support for our efforts to crack down on abusive and predatory credit card practices," Dodd said. "We will only fully recover from this economic crisis when we put an end to the abusive practices that continue to drive so many Americans deeper and deeper into debt."

Consumer advocates said the White House's support could add momentum to congressional efforts to crack down on the industry.

"Many families who have been hit by unjustified and financially destabilizing credit card interest rate increases recently are asking why their taxes are supporting these practices," said Travis Plunkett, legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America. "The White House could be decisive in prodding Congress to enact a proposal that curbs a wider array of abusive practices than the Federal Reserve rule and takes effect more quickly."

Staff writer Binyamin Appelbaum contributed to this report.

Civil Rights: 'Use 'em Or Lose 'em'

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WND columnist Janet Porter is warning Americans if they want to keep their civil rights, they'd better be using them right now.

Porter in her newest column took on the issue of the recent "extremist" report from the Department of Homeland Security.

The federal agency's report is called "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

It already has generated a lawsuit by talk radio host Michael Savage and multiple calls for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to be removed.

According to the federal government, characteristics of members of the suspect group of people include those who:

* Oppose restrictions on firearms

* Oppose lax immigration

* Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs

* Oppose continuation of free trade agreements

* Oppose same-sex marriage

* Has paraonia of foreign regimes

* Fear Communist regimes

* Oppose one world government

* Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world

* Is upset with the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

Porter wrote, "The only way we can keep our freedoms is if we'll use them – now."

"One thing's for sure – we aren't going to stand by while they profile good, law-abiding citizens as terrorists and take away constitutional freedoms," she wrote.

"Therefore, we, the law-abiding citizens of America, demand:

1. "The resignation or removal of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano for her partisan political profiling of veterans and conservatives and her abuse of power.

2. "An apology from President Barack Obama to ALL Americans for his administration's call for domestic spying.

3. "The immediate retraction of the "Rightwing Extremism" report for labeling law-abiding citizens as "terrorists" because of their political views."

"If you'd like to help sound the alarm before you're monitored as a potential terrorist, please help. Go to www.f2a.org and click the first blinking alert to fight "hate crimes" and click the link to www.NoPoliticalProfiling.com to help us place a newspaper ad and sign the petition to fight the new definition of "terrorist," she said.

"DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has labeled law-abiding citizens as 'right-wing extremists' and potential 'terrorists' … and has instructed state and local law enforcement to monitor, investigate and 'report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI,'" she wrote.

Under the DHS plan, she said, among those who would be listed as terrorists would be:

1. George Washington (military veteran and gun owner)
2. Mother Teresa (pro-life)
3. Ronald Reagan (pro-life and staunch advocate for less government), and
4. The pope (supports life and traditional marriage)