"Crime Inc" or "The Chicago Mob's Excellent Adventure to the White House"

If you missed the Glenn Beck show this week (or believe him to be a fat, crying, rodeo clown with zero credibility so you always miss it) then you missed Monday's & Thursday's jaw dropping, stupefying, damned near death-defying expose he did on Obama's little ten trillion dollar footsie game with a hitherto innocuous CCX (Chicago Carbon Exchange) and one not so innocuous Goldman Sachs.  There are other players, notably Albert Gore. The whole pile of dough hinges on a little bill known as "Cap & Trade." Note: our entire gross domestic product is roughly fourteen trillion. If this thing goes, it will mean ten trillion.... per year.

Getting the picture how big and bad and dirty this is? Does it clean it up at all to know that the whole thing got started the day after Obama was elected Senator in 2006 and culminated with a private Oval Office meeting with Goldman Sach's poobah Blankfein about ten days before the congressional spanking they took for their oh so bad behavior? Beck was curious about the timing, too. 

And then got curiouser and curiouser...

See his Thursday show notes/video here. 

SOME incredibly talented individual put together this four page PDF of the CCX scandal.  Don't know who, but the link to the original site of the pdf is below. Someone on Twitter linked to it. WOW.

Original source of the four brilliant panels above:

http://rustlesandglimmers.wellconstructedsentence.com/C20080917223028/E20100428115053/Media/CCX%20Scandal.pdf

$10 Trillion Tale of Corruption from 2006 Chicago to Oval Office

If you missed the fuss on Monday (04.26.10) Glenn Beck kicked up about Obama's $10T footsie with G.Sachs which started literally the day he became a Senator in 2006 and led all the way to an Oval Office meeting not three weeks ago, see details here. What follows is the best & most prestigious article yet on what may bring down a President. Investors Business Daily's trail of corruption...Unexpurgated.


 Investor's Business Daily 
April 28, 2010 
The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud
Cap-And-Trade: While senators froth over Goldman Sachs and derivatives, a climate trading scheme being run out of the Chicago Climate Exchange would make Bernie Madoff blush. Its trail leads to the White House.

Lost in the recent headlines was Al Gore's appearance Monday in Denver at the annual meeting of the Council of Foundations, an association of the nation's philanthropic leaders.

"Time's running out (on climate change)," Gore told them. "We have to get our act together. You have a unique role in getting our act together."

Gore was right that foundations will play a key role in keeping the climate scam alive as evidence of outright climate fraud grows, just as they were critical in the beginning when the Joyce Foundation in 2000 and 2001 provided the seed money to start the Chicago Climate Exchange. It started trading in 2003, and what it trades is, essentially, air. More specifically perhaps, hot air.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) advertises itself as "North America's only cap-and-trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide." Barack Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002 when the CCX startup grants were issued. As president, pushing cap-and-trade is one of his highest priorities. Now isn't that special?

Few Americans have heard of either entity. The Joyce Foundation was originally the financial nest egg of a widow whose family had made millions in the now out-of-favor lumber industry.

After her death, the foundation was run by philanthropists who increasingly dedicated their giving to liberal causes, including gun control, environmentalism and school changes.

Currently, CCX members agree to a voluntary but legally binding agreement to regulate greenhouse gases.

The CCX provides the mechanism in trading the very pollution permits and carbon offsets the administration's cap-and-trade proposals would impose by government mandate.

Thanks to Fox News' Glenn Beck, we have learned a lot about CCX, not the least of which is that its founder, Richard Sandor, says he knew Obama well back in the day when the Joyce Foundation awarded money to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University, where Sandor was a research professor.

Sandor estimates that climate trading could be "a $10 trillion dollar market." It could very well be, if cap-and-trade measures like Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer are signed into law, making energy prices skyrocket, and as companies buy and sell permits to emit those six "greenhouse" gases.

So lucrative does this market appear, it attracted the attention of London-based Generation Investment Management, which purchased a stake in CCX and is now the fifth-largest shareholder.

As we noted last year, Gore is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets of dubious value that let rich polluters continue to pollute with a clear conscience.

Other founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs. In 2006, CCX received a big boost when another investor bought a 10% stake on the prospect of making a great deal of money for itself. That investor was Goldman Sachs, now under the gun for selling financial instruments it knew were doomed to fail.

The actual mechanism for trading on the exchange was purchased and patented by none other than Franklin Raines, who was CEO of Fannie Mae at the time.

Raines profited handsomely to the tune of some $90 million by buying and bundling bad mortgages that led to the collapse of the American economy. His interest in climate trading is curious until one realizes cap-and-trade would make housing costlier as well.

Amazingly, none of these facts came up at Senate hearings on Goldman Sachs' activities, which may be nothing more than Ross Perot's famous "gorilla dust," meant to distract us from the real issues.

The climate trading scheme being stitched together here will do more damage than Goldman Sachs, AIG and Fannie Mae combined. But it will bring power and money to its architects.


Link to original site of article at IBD is here.

Corruption in Oval Office

My quick summary: Literally the day after Obama became a Senator, the wheels were set in motion for Obama / CCX / Cap & Trade / G.Sachs to lead to TEN TRILLION dollars PER YEAR profit. IT'S ALL THERE. Just follow the money... Glenn Beck's Monday 4.26.10 show drew a straight *factual* line from 2006 Chicago all the way to the White House. A President steering public policy for profit is an abuse of power...an impeachable offense.

Wednesday Morning Update: Pajamas Media (I know, I know... ) did some work on this a few days before Beck aired his Monday show. Link here.

Tuesday Evening Update: Human Events has a backgrounder from 2007 w/info on CCX & more here. A website I was unfamiliar with until just moments ago seems to have a good list of links to help source this. I have not verified them, but it's the first site I've found w/a LIST attempting to do that! American Parchment

Tuesday morning update: Barbara Hollingsworth at Washington Examiner was one of Beck's sources for his show and the article he references is here. Canada Free Press, Financial Times of London (Exhuastive, extensive coverage w/excellent pop-up search matrix) and 2 Examiner.com articles here & here(different from the one mentioned above) have supporting reporting other foreign press CONFIRM. 

PLEASE NOTE: Examiner.com's articles are the most "consumer friendly." Hollingsworth's is most on point. You might want to start with those two, then CFP. FT is only for waaaay serious junkies. That's some heavy, heavy reading... ;)

UNEXPURGATED Text from Beck's Monday evening expose below. 

Glenn Beck: Why Goldman Is Willing to Take the Heat

April 27, 2010 - 3:48 ET

Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

Faith, hope and charity: We used to seek God's blessings on the country, we used to pursue maximum freedom to solve problems and we'd rely on one another in times of need.

Now we're being pushed towards what progressives have always found hope in: Dependency on regulations and administrations. Average Americans find that approach to be red tape. Our Founding Fathers found it to be slavery.

So it kind shocks me when there's no outcry to news stories like this one reported in the Financial Times over the weekend: The "U.S. is preparing to pivot from domestic regulatory reform to push for a tough new international capital regime."

Excuse me?

We're talking about the foundation of international financial regulations and global governing. It's a trial balloon being floated out there and I guess it was a success because the response was complete and total silence.

Is it just me who thinks this is a bad idea? Am I alone? I guess so, because even Republicans are OK with this one. How could that happen? Easy: It's those evil, greedy Sith lord Wall Street executives! Like the ones at Goldman Sachs, who are appearing before the almighty Senate Tuesday to get grilled by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (sounds scary) about their so-called attempts to manipulate and profit off the crash of the housing market.

They'll get chewed out and made an example of by people like Chris Dodd, who joined in the chorus of Goldman haters on "Meet the Press" on Sunday:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

SEN. CHRIS DODD, D-CONN.: Here we are, 17 months after someone broke into our house in effect and robbed us... and we still haven't changed the locks on the doors.

LARRY SUMMERS, WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC ADVISER: These off-balance sheet, nontransparent vehicles with what people call implicit guarantees, invite these kinds of problems.

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY, R-ALA.: We have to end once and for all the casino atmosphere on Wall Street, where they're gambling, basically, on synthetic ideas and so forth — with somebody else's money.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

You're right, Chris: You have to change those locks. But the other thing to make sure of is that the people you are calling to change the locks aren't the same ones who were involved with the robbery in the first place.

Yes, Dodd and his buddies will chew out Goldman, but if they are the root of all evil, why do these people all still work in the administration?

• William C. Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; was a partner and managing director at Goldman

• Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; spent 18 years at Goldman

• Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Tim Geithner; former Goldman lobbyist

• Philip Murphy; nominated for ambassador to Germany; former Goldman executive

• Diana Farrell; deputy director of the National Economic Council; formerly with Goldman

• Emil Michael; White House fellow; former investment banker with Goldman

There's just a few. And if Goldman really are the bad guys, we have bigger problems than just regulation, because we have to talk about global warming as well.

I got a tip from a watchdog — and by the way, if you are new to the program and don't know what a watchdog is, that's you. We've got millions of watchdogs e-mailing in tips and stories big and small and we welcome every single one of them. We get to as many as we can and even report on some of them, like this one about the Chicago Climate Exchange.

In case you didn't know the Chicago Climate Exchange existed — it does and it started trading in 2003. It's billed as: "North America's only cap-and-trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide." Members agree to a voluntary but legally binding agreement to "meet annual Green House Gas emission reduction targets."

What's cap-and-trade? A scheme designed to transfer wealth from the companies that have to the companies that have not through the regulation of invisible gases. Remember, it was ENRON who lobbied heavily for this type of system, because they knew how to swindle a profit out of it.

Environmentalists like Obama want this system because it will make prices skyrocket and people will be forced to use less energy. But I don't want to put words in his mouth, I'll let him say it:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANIDATE BARACK OBAMA: Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Got it? So the main beneficiaries will be big corporations and proponents of the redistribution of wealth. You are the loser here because you pay more for energy. But you can feel good because you saved the planet.

Uh-huh.

Not to mention, other places — like Europe — who have tried to implement green initiatives (like Spain) and then base markets on it are suffering the consequences. Because, as Time unwittingly described the creation of Chicago Climate Exchange, it "creates something out of nothing." There is no value behind the market; it's like Pets.com except now its solar panels.

So who would want to create something like this?

In 2000 and 2001, Chicago Climate Exchange received start-up grants from the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation is like the George Soros' TIDES Foundation. In fact, it's actually bigger than TIDES and even funds TIDES. Think of it as a place where uber-rich and powerful liberals like to dump their money into, so the cash can be spread around to their pet projects without a direct link.

The Joyce Foundation supports such luminaries as John Ayers (William Ayers' brother).

There was one influential member on the board of the Joyce Foundation at the time the Chicago Climate Exchange got its seed money; someone instrumental in steering the funds towards the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange. They were on the board from 1994-2002. The founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Richard Sandor, said that he "knew (this person) well," which is perhaps how the money was awarded to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where Sandor was a research professor. I'll get back to that person in a minute.

Sandor saw big things in a climate exchange market. How big?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLOOMBERG REPORTER: So how big do you think this market could be?

RICHARD SANDOR, CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE: I think it's a $10 trillion a year market.

REPORTER: Say that again?

SANDOR: $10 trillion a year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

A $10 trillion a year market? That's a lot to go around. In comparison, the value of U.S. company shares on major U.S. and foreign stock exchanges equities market was $15 trillion in 2009. There's a lot of money riding on this climate legislation. But remember: It's all about saving the Earth.

London-based Generation Investment Management sees the earning potential as well. That's why they purchased a stake in Chicago Climate Exchange and are the fifth largest shareholder. The cofounder of the London-based firm? Former Vice President Al Gore. I say cofounder because some of the other founders include David Blood (former Goldman executive), Mark Ferguson (Goldman) and Peter Harris (Goldman).

In 2006, the Chicago Climate Exchange got a nice boost of confidence when an investor stepped to the plate and ponied up to purchase 10 percent of the combined company. Cofounder of the Chicago Exchange said the investment was big and welcome news. The investor? Goldman Sachs.

Oh and I almost forgot: The person at the beginning of it all? The one on the board of the Joyce Foundation that secured the initial funding for this project? Barack Obama.

This is so weird. It's almost like those our government says are responsible for the financial collapse are the ones directly involved in the "solutions." So much for "changing the locks," Chris.

OK, now let's look at this. What you have is a structure. This is the building: the Exchange. You've got the structure, all the players.

So what are we missing? Well, we're missing the bill and the technology to make it happen; the machinery to make it happen.

You are trading air; it's hard to keep track of air. The good news is, the bill is being worked on by Republicans and Democrats. That's cap-and-trade.

The machinery, the device? A patent for such a device was worked on by CO2e.com CEO Carlton Bartels. Shortly after he filed for the patent on his system to trade residential carbon credits, he was killed in the 9/11 attacks. Bartels wife then shopped the idea around and was able to find a buyer. The buyer ended up being a guy who wasn't really a good guy, he committed massive accounting fraud and manipulated earnings in his company in order to make huge bonuses.

That person was Franklin Raines, who just happened to be the CEO of Fannie Mae at the time. The patent was eventually approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 — coincidentally the day after Democrats took control of Congress. Thanks to Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner for pointing this out to us.

So now, Fannie Mae, who is congressionally mandated to "make housing more affordable," is poised to reap billions on a system that has nothing to do with housing except for that it would make housing costs go up.

That's great.

Remember when Fannie purchased risky mortgages from banks, bundled them together and sold to investors as mortgage-backed securities? And then the housing market was absolutely destroyed? Well, former Fannie VP Scott Lesmes was responsible for that bundling.

Well, here's the good news: Not only will this new carbon trading "system" try the exact same bundling method (except with air); they are using the exact same guy: Scott Lesmes.

But, please, don't worry. The only ones involved in this are the corrupt Franklin Raines, Mr. redistribution of wealth Barack Obama, and all the people who the House and Senate are currently saying are the bad guys. Other than that, this should work out great.

It's almost like Goldman is willing to take a little heat now, in order to get a little piece of the $10 trillion green pie later. I challenge the media: Will anyone pick this story up? Will anyone question this and the timing of it all?

All of a sudden illegal immigration has leap-frogged global warming? Is it because Goldman has to take hits to get the global government structure done? And then they get the payoff? Or will you continue to say oh, he's crazy and not talk about the facts.

— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics

Woodward & Bernstein... and Beck!

What Glenn Beck revealed tonight will end Barry's presidency. If it doesn't, it means the fourth estate has died, and thus, the Republic has died. WOW.  Transcript below from tonight's show.


Why Goldman Is Willing to Take the Heat
Monday , April 26, 2010

By Glenn Beck

Faith, hope and charity: We used to seek God's blessings on the country, we used to pursue maximum freedom to solve problems and we'd rely on one another in times of need.

Now we're being pushed towards what progressives have always found hope in: Dependency on regulations and administrations. Average Americans find that approach to be red tape. Our Founding Fathers found it to be slavery.

So it kind shocks me when there's no outcry to news stories like this one reported in the Financial Times over the weekend: The "U.S. is preparing to pivot from domestic regulatory reform to push for a tough new international capital regime."

Excuse me?

We're talking about the foundation of international financial regulations and global governing. It's a trial balloon being floated out there and I guess it was a success because the response was complete and total silence.

Is it just me who thinks this is a bad idea? Am I alone? I guess so, because even Republicans are OK with this one. How could that happen? Easy: It's those evil, greedy Sith lord Wall Street executives! Like the ones at Goldman Sachs, who are appearing before the almighty Senate Tuesday to get grilled by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (sounds scary) about their so-called attempts to manipulate and profit off the crash of the housing market.

They'll get chewed out and made an example of by people like Chris Dodd, who joined in the chorus of Goldman haters on "Meet the Press" on Sunday:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

SEN. CHRIS DODD, D-CONN.: Here we are, 17 months after someone broke into our house in effect and robbed us... and we still haven't changed the locks on the doors.

LARRY SUMMERS, WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC ADVISER: These off-balance sheet, nontransparent vehicles with what people call implicit guarantees, invite these kinds of problems.

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY, R-ALA.: We have to end once and for all the casino atmosphere on Wall Street, where they're gambling, basically, on synthetic ideas and so forth — with somebody else's money.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

You're right, Chris: You have to change those locks. But the other thing to make sure of is that the people you are calling to change the locks aren't the same ones who were involved with the robbery in the first place.

Yes, Dodd and his buddies will chew out Goldman, but if they are the root of all evil, why do these people all still work in the administration?

• William C. Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; was a partner and managing director at Goldman

• Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; spent 18 years at Goldman

• Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Tim Geithner; former Goldman lobbyist

• Philip Murphy; nominated for ambassador to Germany; former Goldman executive

• Diana Farrell; deputy director of the National Economic Council; formerly with Goldman

• Emil Michael; White House fellow; former investment banker with Goldman

There's just a few. And if Goldman really are the bad guys, we have bigger problems than just regulation, because we have to talk about global warming as well.

I got a tip from a watchdog — and by the way, if you are new to the program and don't know what a watchdog is, that's you. We've got millions of watchdogs e-mailing in tips and stories big and small and we welcome every single one of them. We get to as many as we can and even report on some of them, like this one about the Chicago Climate Exchange.

In case you didn't know the Chicago Climate Exchange existed — it does and it started trading in 2003. It's billed as: "North America's only cap-and-trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide." Members agree to a voluntary but legally binding agreement to "meet annual Green House Gas emission reduction targets."

What's cap-and-trade? A scheme designed to transfer wealth from the companies that have to the companies that have not through the regulation of invisible gases. Remember, it was ENRON who lobbied heavily for this type of system, because they knew how to swindle a profit out of it.

Environmentalists like Obama want this system because it will make prices skyrocket and people will be forced to use less energy. But I don't want to put words in his mouth, I'll let him say it:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANIDATE BARACK OBAMA: Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Got it? So the main beneficiaries will be big corporations and proponents of the redistribution of wealth. You are the loser here because you pay more for energy. But you can feel good because you saved the planet.

Uh-huh.

Not to mention, other places — like Europe — who have tried to implement green initiatives (like Spain) and then base markets on it are suffering the consequences. Because, as Time unwittingly described the creation of Chicago Climate Exchange, it "creates something out of nothing." There is no value behind the market; it's like Pets.com except now its solar panels.

So who would want to create something like this?

In 2000 and 2001, Chicago Climate Exchange received start-up grants from the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation is like the George Soros' TIDES Foundation. In fact, it's actually bigger than TIDES and even funds TIDES. Think of it as a place where uber-rich and powerful liberals like to dump their money into, so the cash can be spread around to their pet projects without a direct link.

The Joyce Foundation supports such luminaries as John Ayers (William Ayers' brother).

There was one influential member on the board of the Joyce Foundation at the time the Chicago Climate Exchange got its seed money; someone instrumental in steering the funds towards the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange. They were on the board from 1994-2002. The founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Richard Sandor, said that he "knew (this person) well," which is perhaps how the money was awarded to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where Sandor was a research professor. I'll get back to that person in a minute.

Sandor saw big things in a climate exchange market. How big?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLOOMBERG REPORTER: So how big do you think this market could be?

RICHARD SANDOR, CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE: I think it's a $10 trillion a year market.

REPORTER: Say that again?

SANDOR: $10 trillion a year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

A $10 trillion a year market? That's a lot to go around. In comparison, the value of U.S. company shares on major U.S. and foreign stock exchanges equities market was $15 trillion in 2009. There's a lot of money riding on this climate legislation. But remember: It's all about saving the Earth.

London-based Generation Investment Management sees the earning potential as well. That's why they purchased a stake in Chicago Climate Exchange and are the fifth largest shareholder. The cofounder of the London-based firm? Former Vice President Al Gore. I say cofounder because some of the other founders include David Blood (former Goldman executive), Mark Ferguson (Goldman) and Peter Harris (Goldman).

In 2006, the Chicago Climate Exchange got a nice boost of confidence when an investor stepped to the plate and ponied up to purchase 10 percent of the combined company. Cofounder of the Chicago Exchange said the investment was big and welcome news. The investor? Goldman Sachs.

Oh and I almost forgot: The person at the beginning of it all? The one on the board of the Joyce Foundation that secured the initial funding for this project? Barack Obama.

This is so weird. It's almost like those our government says are responsible for the financial collapse are the ones directly involved in the "solutions." So much for "changing the locks," Chris.

OK, now let's look at this. What you have is a structure. This is the building: the Exchange. You've got the structure, all the players.

So what are we missing? Well, we're missing the bill and the technology to make it happen; the machinery to make it happen.

You are trading air; it's hard to keep track of air. The good news is, the bill is being worked on by Republicans and Democrats. That's cap-and-trade.

The machinery, the device? A patent for such a device was worked on by CO2e.com CEO Carlton Bartels. Shortly after he filed for the patent on his system to trade residential carbon credits, he was killed in the 9/11 attacks. Bartels wife then shopped the idea around and was able to find a buyer. The buyer ended up being a guy who wasn't really a good guy, he committed massive accounting fraud and manipulated earnings in his company in order to make huge bonuses.

That person was Franklin Raines, who just happened to be the CEO of Fannie Mae at the time. The patent was eventually approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 — coincidentally the day after Democrats took control of Congress. Thanks to Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner for pointing this out to us.

So now, Fannie Mae, who is congressionally mandated to "make housing more affordable," is poised to reap billions on a system that has nothing to do with housing except for that it would make housing costs go up.

That's great.

Remember when Fannie purchased risky mortgages from banks, bundled them together and sold to investors as mortgage-backed securities? And then the housing market was absolutely destroyed? Well, former Fannie VP Scott Lesmes was responsible for that bundling.

Well, here's the good news: Not only will this new carbon trading "system" try the exact same bundling method (except with air); they are using the exact same guy: Scott Lesmes.

But, please, don't worry. The only ones involved in this are the corrupt Franklin Raines, Mr. redistribution of wealth Barack Obama, and all the people who the House and Senate are currently saying are the bad guys. Other than that, this should work out great.

It's almost like Goldman is willing to take a little heat now, in order to get a little piece of the $10 trillion green pie later. I challenge the media: Will anyone pick this story up? Will anyone question this and the timing of it all?

All of a sudden illegal immigration has leap-frogged global warming? Is it because Goldman has to take hits to get the global government structure done? And then they get the payoff? Or will you continue to say oh, he's crazy and not talk about the facts.

— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

Obama's Private Army

Mika Gets to Be Smartest One in the Room

This is priceless. Morning Joe guest, liberal Joan Walsh, evidently having a senior moment & forgetting what all the lights & cameras are doing around her, wonders aloud who speaks for the left "like Rush," and co-host Mika, who daily supports the network's demonstrable lefty cheerleading (GE's CEO Jeffrey Immelt, which owns NBC/MSNBC is a White House advisor to the President & would assert, I'm sure that GE's ZERO tax bill for 2009 is purely co-incidental) knows the answer but for obvious reasons cannot admit it publicly: MSNBC, you dope! - LOL

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Left these Clips on Floor

Maddow Madhatters cowering under their green cotton sustainable forest beds after being propagandized into believing that Tea Party ready to commit acts of domestic terrorism like Tim McVeigh. She didn't have any proof to support those assertions but the sheeeeeeple belieeeeeeeved she did. Guess she forgot this:

Wall Street "Crisis" Next on Obama Mfg Line

Unexpurgated Article

April 15, 2010 

David Limbaugh: New Column: PARP: TARP On Steroids

There seems to be no limit to the Obamacrats' appetite for expanding federal power and for fabricating and exploiting crises, which must never be allowed "to go to waste."

They always have a rationale for plausibly denying their federal power grabs. But like Obama's other big agenda items, the financial overhaul bill currently in the Senate is exactly that..

Most Americans instinctively didn't like TARP -- the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program. Even those who believed it was a necessary evil to avert financial catastrophe regarded the use of government funds to bail out companies as distasteful. They considered the government's subsequent assumption of control over TARP companies as even more distasteful.

But at least they were told it would be "temporary." Just as Obama said, "I don't want to run auto companies," he said he didn't want to run banks. Right.

Apparently learning the wrong lesson from the public's outrage at their shoving through Obamacare against the people's will, Obamacrats have adopted the same model to push through their financial overhaul plan, which Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner boastfully describes as "the strongest financial reforms since those that followed the Great Depression." Have you noticed with these statists that everything has to be dramatic -- the "greatest crisis," the "most comprehensive health care plan," the "strongest financial reforms"? Believe me; we believe you. We get it. You don't like the America we like, and you want to radically change it.

Obama has fully embraced the bill, the essential blueprint for which he laid out last June with portentous language signaling that he was going to treat this problem, too, as a crisis that needs urgent and Draconian measures. Geithner said: "The damage of the crisis was just too acute. We are trying to move very, very quickly while the memory of the crisis is still in the forefront of people's memory."

True to form, Obamacrats pushed this 1,300-page bill through committee in a 21-minute partisan markup. The bill's principal sponsor, Sen. Chris Dodd, warned Republicans that if they resist the bill, they'll suffer the same fate they did on the health care bill, which the National Legal and Policy Center's Carl Horowitz aptly paraphrased as, "Get in our way, and we'll mow you down." (If you watched the news this week, you might have seen how they've already savaged Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for daring to oppose the bill.)

The White House is also adopting the same divisive strategy it used in promoting Obamacare. It has picked scapegoats to vilify, "big Wall Street banks" (you will recall Obama has called them "fat-cat bankers"), and pitted them against the American people, saying they want to preserve the "status quo." Jen Psaki explicitly framed the debate in those terms on the increasingly partisan White House blog. Check it out: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/13/false-criticisms-obscure-clear-choices.

Initially, even many Democrats were skeptical, such as Rep. Brad Sherman, who called the plan "TARP on steroids" and told Geithner, "You've got permanent, unlimited bailout authority." "Permanent," to be sure, which is why Horowitz dubbed the bill "PARP."

Among the Republicans' concerns about the plan is that it would create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with autonomous rule-making authority and the power to examine firms with $10 billion in assets. The bill would also create a new $50 billion fund to be used to "restructure" firms in emergency financial predicaments. According to Heritage Foundation expert David C. John, the bill would give the government "open-ended" power to "exercise discretion" based on "unspecified factors" to determine whether firms represent a "systemic risk." Think about that. A vast new bureaucracy subject to political pressures, not the bankruptcy courts, would be making these vital decisions without clearly defined standards. We musn't saddle the rule-makers with rules.

Imagine the temptation a statist-run administration would have under such broad authority to step in and break up firms on its whim or take control of them and inject them with funds subsidized by a punitive tax -- with the Orwellian label "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" -- on big banks. The banks will foot the bill simply because the Obamacrats believe that profitable concerns should be punished for their surplus values. Just more "spreading the wealth around."

John argues the bill would incentivize banks to make unsound loans because it would remove the checks and balances creditors normally provide by, for example, demanding higher interest rates on loans from highly leveraged institutions. If the banks were not allowed to fail, the creditors would be more willing to lend to them. Wasn't it "uncreditworthy" loans mandated by do-gooder Democratic policies that largely led to the financial meltdown in the first place?

Be on notice: Rapacious Obamacrats are hellbent on shoving this bill through. Even at the risk of being mowed down, we must vigorously oppose it.

KGB Expert 25 Years Ago Describing TODAY

KGB expert TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO describing EXACTLY what's going on RIGHT NOW. Opening theme goofy but don't that throw you. After that it's just the KGB guy talking with video & images of today. WOW.

Internships? Obama says it's SLAVERY & Wants it STOPPED

This is just such a wrong-headed idea it's hard to know where to begin. Obama want's to trash the college internship system. College internships are pretty simple: Student pays the college for it just like a regular course, business gets some free grunt help, and students to do the thing that is the hardest for a kid with no relevant experience to do: get in the front door to prove themselves good workers! There's no question it's a win-win for everyone, so leave it to a liberal to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Obama's wrapping this in the guise of saving these kids from so called un-educational tasks or making room for the unemployed and that's total and utter cr*p. These are not jobs that would otherwise be filled, so the unemployment angle is scratched.  It's because they are fetch & carry jobs that they would not be salaried but to suggest that that work is useless to a student misses the point entirely!  It's the tangential experience that matters: the knowledge of the inner workings of the industry and more precious than gold, the opportunity to be a good doobie and get some phone numbers of people who will at the very least recommend you and at most hire you!


Note: I witnessed the intern programs for twenty years in Philadelphia, San Francisco and Boston in the radio stations I broadcast on.  Every single one of these kids was the envy of all their college friends because they got inside the front door of a radio station. Maybe internships at accounting firms won't be so highly prized, but I would imagine that any kid able to get in any door in any industry recognizes that the one thing a wet behind the ears college senior wants more than anything is a chance to prove themselves in the industry of their choice and the internship program is that chance.


Molly Henneberg - FOXNews.com - April 17, 2010
Obama Administration Considers Cracking Down on Unpaid Internships


The Labor Department says most times it's illegal for millions of students to spend a summer, semester or year learning the inside of a private sector industry for school credit – but no pay.


The Obama administration is planning to crack down on companies that don't pay interns.


The Labor Department says most times it's illegal for millions of students to spend a summer, semester or year learning the inside of a private sector industry often for school credit – but no pay.


Unpaid internships are considered legal only if they are truly structured educational experiences for the benefit of the intern rather than the company and offer no promise of a job after the internship ends.


Labor lawyers argue that businesses need to review what they ask interns to do.


"If they're performing administrative tasks, clerical tasks, answering phones, getting copies – things that would otherwise displace a regular employee, then the Department of Labor may find that to be more looking like an employee than an intern," said Kara Maciel, a labor attorney at Epstein, Becker and Green, adding that those internships should be paid.


But business lobby groups note the economy is so tight, companies may have to cut back on or eliminate intern hiring if they have to be paid – especially small businesses – causing students to miss valuable opportunities that bolster their resumes.


"They will likely not be able to pay for it," said Barbara Lang, vice president and chief executive of the DC Chamber of Commerce. "Unless government is going to provide some subsidy along with these requirements, they won't be able to provide these experiences anymore."


Supporters say the law should be enforced and companies should not get free labor. They also want to level the playing field between interns who can afford to work for free and those who can't.


"If you can't have an unpaid internship because you need to work, you're poor, or your family just doesn't have the means, you're cut out and that's wrong," said Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.


Eisenbrey says the law does not apply to nonprofit organizations or the federal government. But Rep. Darrell Issa thinks it should.


The California Republican sent a letter to the White House asking for "a listing of the number of unpaid interns and volunteers at the White House… along with a short description of their duties."


He believes the White House should live up to its own standard.


"If the government can't do it, certainly it's not fair to ask the private sector to do it in this case," he said.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/17/obama-administration-considers-cracking-unpaid-internships/

My Tax Dollars went to NPR and all I got was MOCKED and now a PULITZER

The man who produced NPR's "Learn to Speak Tea Bag" won a Pulitzer today. What's wrong with that? Am I just humorless? Thin-skinned? Jealous? Not even close. Not the issue. Not by a long shot.

Late last fall NPR, National Public Radio, funded by your tax dollars launched a wholly incorrect cheap shot at Tea Party "Learn to Speak TeaBag" ("Tea bag" being a crude sexual reference). It went viral on the internet, was looped on MSNBC and reported on by Fox.  Let me be clear: I have no troubles with anybody saying anything about anybody - unless it's taxpayer dollars being used to propogandize the very Americans who fund their payroll- Then I got a problem because it is a fundamental abuse of the public trust and federal power.


It's the flip side of the same coin which resulted in Obama's book club buddy Chavez imprisoning the head of a TV station, the last standing media outlet to dare to criticize him, which if we were to produce our own little cartoon video would translate to mere fact telling. That was three weeks ago and I've not heard word one from Obama condemning that action. Not a peep from him or anyone in his administration taking up the torch of liberty like every other president before him who has witnessed such abuse. Neither, parenthetically, did "the NPR buck stops here" President Obama admonish the agency he technically oversees for the cheap shot at tax payer expense. We can only presume that because the propaganda was a net gain to him, he had no problem with using federal government dollars to produce it.


Obama's negligence, yet again, to urge a higher standard of dissent, with or without abusive use of tax dollars, is not new. His community organizing arm, OFA, enlisted the help of the tax payer funded National Endowment of the Arts to propagandize on behalf of his agenda... More on that later.


Like the Nobel, the Pulitzer has fallen into irretrievable disrepute. It's so far gone beyond merit and into pure inbred, intellectual masturbation, it's barely worth getting upset anymore...

Reid Promises Immigration Reform 'Just Like We Did Health Care Reform' -- Politics Daily

Reid Promises Immigration Reform 'Just Like We Did Health Care Reform' -- Politics Daily

Perspective Check for the Hysterical

This has been circulating around the 'net for years, but saw it again this morning. Worth a read.

To Those of You Born 1930 - 1979
TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED THE 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's & 70's!

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-base paints..

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, locks on doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had baseball caps not helmets on our heads.

As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, no booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes

Riding in the back of a pick- up truck on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and no one actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter and bacon. We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar. And, we weren't overweight. WHY? Because we were always outside playing...that's why!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

No one was able to reach us all day.
And, we were O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride them down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times,we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's and X-boxes. There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones, no personal computers, no internet and no chat rooms, WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever.

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.

If YOU are one of them, CONGRATULATIONS!

PERFECT Example of FACTS vs. FEEEEEELINGS

I was reminded of this clip from last August just this morning on Twitter. It's a perfect example of what happens when facts meet feelings. Michelle Malkin, discussing her 400 page book packed with example after example of how Obama hasn't met his own standard of "clean" politics is met with "But what about Bush-What about Bush-What about Bush" They are completely incapable of offering any rebuttal on the merits of the facts before them. It's all, as Malkin says, moral equivalency, which is the refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

Just ONE of the Obama Executive Orders that Should SCARE the HELL out of YOU

I remember reading about this when it happened but this is the best summary of this Executive Order I've seen.  It ought to scare the hell out of everyone.  BTW: There's mention of NORTHCOMM in this and I seem to remember some dirty dealing during the Health Care debate that included some maneuvering regarding them. I will update as I find out.

Martial Law in America: No Longer Just a Possibility! by Gary D. Barnett (Excerpted Article Below)

February 15, 2010

Gary D. Barnett is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown, Montana.

In January of this year, President Barrack Obama, the professed “leader” of the free world, signed Executive Order 13528. This order, which establishes a“Council of Governors,” these appointed directly by the president, is for the expressed purpose of building a national/domestic police partnership. The opening statement of this order reads:

“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property”

This executive order was issued for one purpose only, and that is to build a “legal” partnership between the federal government’s national military force and the domestic police state so that they become one and the same. But in reality, this “partnership” would be controlled by the executive branch of the federal government; this being the most dangerous kind of fascism. Nothing could be more treacherous or more of a threat to liberty than for one man, the president of this now “United State,” to have the power to control and use in domestic matters the entire federal military, the National Guard, the Reserves, the Coast Guard and all state police organizations. This would effectively give the president the power to establish Martial Law over the entire country at any given time of his choosing.

One reading of Section 2 of this order which outlines the functions should be enough to scare the living daylights out of even the most strident supporter of government. It says:

Sec. 2.  Functions.

The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such views, information, or advice shall concern:

(a)	matters involving the National Guard of the various States;
(b)	homeland defense;
(c)	civil support;
(d)	synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and
(e)	other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

Besides the fact that virtually every major agency of force, both federal and domestic, is listed here, the one standout is the inclusion of the United States Northern Command or “NORTHCOM.” On October 1st, 2008, the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, an elite combat squad returning from Iraq, became the first active-duty military unit to be dedicated and deployed for domestic duties. They are under direct control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of NORTHCOM. In addition, 20,000 more federal troops are to be added before 2011. Of course, this violates the Posse Comitatus Act and the original Insurrection Act; those two acts that forbid the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement, but since when has the constitution or written law ever stopped this out-of-control government from doing as it pleases? Any restriction on the use of federal troops in domestic affairs however, has now basically been rendered moot. That is due to new wording in the Insurrection Act that allows for federal intervention in cases of “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.” This is simply an open-ended invitation for the feds to be able to implement Martial Law any time and any place and for any reason they choose.

If any of you out there think of this as some sort of conspiracy theory, you may be exactly right. The government does seem to be conspiring to gain the power to control by military force the citizenry of this country. It seems very clear to me, and there is a voluminous amount of evidence to support the conclusion that a government conspiracy is in fact already in place.With the changes I’ve listed above and the new executive order signed by Obama on January 11th, 2010, the stage is set for the federal government to take over this country, and by force, should “we the people” get out of line. Considering the horrible economic situation we’re in, the high and growing rate of unemployment, the constant increase of brutality by the police, the unwarranted searches and seizures, the nearly complete loss of civil liberties and continuous wars, could anyone honestly believe that a state of Martial Law is not only possible but probable?

Every move we make is monitored. Every call we make can be traced. Every email we send can be captured. Every financial transaction we do is data-based. We can’t travel even in our own country without being strip-searched and abused by the cretins at TSA. And if the government decides for no reason at all to label us as “enemy combatants,” they can throw us in prison and torture or kill us without even the benefit of trial. So why would anyone think that this government could not and would not take the next step in its progression of control? That next step is Martial Law, and once implemented might turn out to be the final step in ending our history of freedom!

Blaming Others For Differences In Performance - Investors.com

Blaming Others For Differences In Performance - Investors.com

When Children Sit at the Grown Up Table & Mouth Off

This was BEAUTIFUL. I happened to see it live and the total, utter humiliation Zsa-Zsa er Arianna Hufington suffered at the hands of Rudy Guiliani & Joe Scarborough was damn near "political porn" as a favorite local radio host might describe it!  These insufferably smug, intellectually moribund, and thoroughly corrupt Progressives are utterly unused to being challenged by anyone.  Just witness the look of astonishment on Zsa-Zsa's face.... then recline like a cat in a warm sunny window.  This is a rare moment of truth on MSNBC. Luxuriate in it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rudy Giuliani and Joe Scarborough Humiliate Arianna Huffington

Arianna Huffington stuck her foot in her mouth during Tuesday's "Morning Joe" on MSNBC, and ended up being totally humiliated by host Joe Scarborough and guests Rudy Giuliani and Mort Zuckerman.

As the subject of Florida's Senate race was broached, Huffington decided to attack the former Mayor of New York City rather than address the qualifications of Republican candidates Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio.

"Your judgment in people has not been stellar -- Bernard Kerik, anybody, so the fact that you're supporting Rubio now, I don't know exactly how seriously we should take it," irrelevantly spouted the liberal publisher.

Marvelously, some of the gentlemen on the panel didn't appreciate the cheap shot including Giuliani himself who finally said, "I come on here just to talk about Marco Rubio, you're attacking me on Bernie Kerik, you're attacking me on how I ran my presidential race. I imagine you're going to attack me on what I did in the Little League when I was a child"


PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT:

RUDY GIULIANI: Arianna, I'm also, I'm also responsible largely for the turnaround of New York City. I took over, I took over a city that had 2,000 murders a year, I left a city with four or 500 hundred murders a year. I took over a city with 1.1 million people on welfare, I left a city with 500,000 people on welfare. I took over a city with a $2.3 million deficit, I left a city with a $3 million surplus. I hired a lot of good people to do that...It's just a cheap shot.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: That's a cheap shot!...I want to stop. I want to stop right now. I want to talk also about Bernie Kerik for a second. I know no one else will agree with me. This is just me talking and nobody else. Bernie Kerik did a hell of a job also keeping New York City safe. Two, it's an unpopular thing to say, Bernie Kerik made mistakes, a lot of people make mistakes. I was glad Bernie Kerik was standing behind Rudy Giuliani September 11. And the bottom line is Arianna, if Rudy Giuliani did not run for President of the United States, Bernie Kerik would be walking the streets today, because the second Rudy Giuliani started running for President of the United States, the long knifes came out and they started searching everybody's record and they found somebody who had made some bad mistakes. [...]

MORT ZUCKERMAN: If there is one thing that the mayor deserves a lot of credit for is that he turned around the living conditions of New York by really reinforcing law and order, and particularly backing the police, and doing what he, a fundamental transformation of life in this city.

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: That's not either, or. You are not judging the mayor's entire history. We're talking about something very important, something very specific. And we're talking also about this knee-jerk attempt to criticize the administration on everything, especially the position of the president on terrorism from a man who said you don't know if waterboarding is torture. I don't know if you still hold that position.

GIULIANI: Well, first of all, we have a perfect right to talk all about that, but you're comment about Bernie Kerik was totally irrelevant to it and just a cheap shot. [...]

SCARBOROUGH: Can I ask also how we got from Marco Rubio to waterboarding, Arianna? That is a wild (?), you have taken this conversation and hijacked it.Exactly, and that's what liberal media elites like Huffington do in these situations. The discussion was Crist versus Rubio, and Huffington instead wanted to just tar the record of someone backing one of the candidates:

HUFFINGTON: It's all about what the mayor stands for. What the man stands for means that we can look at who he supports from that perspective. This is a man...

SCARBOROUGH: Do you want to take waterboarding as the issue you embrace, because I know a guy sitting in the United States Senate now that said it polled pretty damn well in Massachusetts.

HUFFINGTON: What does this have to do with anything?

SCARBOROUGH: It has everything to do with everything. You're saying that his position on waterboarding disqualifies him to endorse a guy in Florida, and I'm telling you if waterboarding is popular in Massachusetts, it's probably pretty popular in my home state of Florida.

HUFFINGTON: So what? So it doesn't disqualify him from supporting anybody he wants. It means that I don't have to take his support particularly seriously. That's all I'm saying.

SCARBOROUGH: I don't think he gives a damn whether you support his candidate or not because you're not going to support him anyway, right?

HUFFINGTON: I'm not saying whether I'm going to support his candidate. I'm saying we're having a conversation about whether who he supports makes a difference.

SCARBOROUGH: It does in Florida.

HUFFINGTON: I mean, this is a man who also spent $50 million in the presidential race and got one delegate.

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. Arianna, I've got to say this. Just stop. If we're going to do this, Arianna, I, understand, we're going to talk about your race in California.

HUFFINGTON: I never, I mean, my...

SCARBOROUGH: You ran for governor of California, and it was a complete flop. I still want to hear your ideas, and I don't always go back to your failures here or your failures there. But for some reason, you're doing it with Giuliani. And I, by the way, I would be defending somebody on the Left if someone on the Right was doing the same thing to them.

GIULIANI: The reality is you criticized the Tea Party movement and the right-wingers for getting terribly personal and terribly irrelevant and racist, and you're the worst offender. I mean, I come on here just to talk about Marco Rubio, you're attacking me on Bernie Kerik, you're attacking me on how I ran my presidential race. I imagine you're going to attack me on what I did in the Little League when I was a child. I mean, this is an over the top, emotional reaction as opposed to an intellectual discussion of whether Rubio or Crist would be the better senator.

Exactly, and this is what Huffington and her ilk do whenever they're on the same set as someone on the Right.

Fortunately, much as what occurred when she tried to take on [0] Fox News's Roger Ailes in January, she ended up being soundly humiliated.

Nice job, gentlemen. Bravo!

Source URL:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/04/06/giuliani-scarborough-and-zuckerman-humiliate-arianna-huffington