Barrack Obama’s presidency is clearly showing that when it comes to the functions, operations and policies of governments in general, and America in particular, that Presidents do not truly run or really guide their country. His presidency also shows that Albert Einstein’s famous Insight that insanity is: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Terrorists’ are largely being motivated by U.S. Foreign policies. The officials in Washington know this, the world at large knows this, yet the same policies which have been producing hatred and justification for attacking us for decades, continues with the Obama administration.

Mostly everyone who voted for and supported Obama for president, had varying degrees of belief that it would bring a major shift from hitherto policies and direction of our country. His health care achievement is hands-down historical and much-needed. His bailout to bankers, a significantly poor move, as I noted elsewhere. Our visual perception told us that since he looks totally different from any of our preceding “White” presidents, that he would behave differently and thereby alter how we conducted governmental business. After all, everyone knows that brown-skinned people have been oppressed and abused throughout history and Obama would bring a real change from our past since he derives from this oppressed group.

Historically, America has been a kind of Closet Imperialist. The United Kingdom, driven by the British, came to your door, you knew that White Supremacy was coming because they plainly told you so. The U.S. have gone into places under the auspices of fighting the “evil” of Communism, Drugs and Terrorism. When the great evil empire of USSR fell, leaders panicked because there was nothing which threatened us, therefore, no way to galvanize Americans — i.e. dupe  us — into seeing some great threat which had to be attacked and invested in. Drugs rose quickly on the list and billions went into growing our military missions throughout the world, particularly South America, our Prison Industrial Complex and more.

It is an absolute miracle that we have not suffered additional terrorist attacks on American soil. We have managed to contain it outside since 9/11, but this should not minimize the fact that there are thousands who would commit their lives to killing us and millions who disliking what we represent. In fact many are back to hating us with a similar intensity that George Bush produced in them. When I go into the Arab world, whether in its cities or most rural regions, I’m able to directly feel the pulse of them.

In December 2008, when I visited Pakistan and other countries, the natives had a sincere hope that America’s election of a brown-skinned man to its helm, would reflect a fundamental change in its aggressive dominating nature. i.e. White Supremacy was dead.

After all, their eyes told them that the policies of the United States was perpetrated by “White” men and that others within the U.S. were just as much of a victim of these policies as those on the outside. So surely, they reasoned, an African-American president would institute policies that would cease all aggression in their part of the world and either help them to overcome their own government’s ill-treatment, or at least cease supporting them so the people could take their countries over.

Staying in Afghanistan was a clear error, increasing troops there is a horrible crime.

The United States would actually be more effective to either open up real dialog with locals, coupled with infusion of social and business building; or to send in small hit teams who can quietly go in and take out those who are a threat. More specifically, Hit Squads who operate as a surgeon with a scalpel versus demolition man with his bombs.

Frankly, the problem is that it is not Barrack Obama running the country in this regard. No president actually ever does. We like to pretend that they do, but the reality is that there are men who are completely behind the scenes who dictate what does and does not happen policy-wise. Just think, what would you do if you were in office? Mostly everyone who gets elected starts off with a similar wish list; however, once in they can no longer win their own agenda, but must push the agendas of others who are the top 1%.

The Detroit Almost-Bomber was only a single defect aware from making our X-mas a hell. But the lands he has travelled sees hell everyday through rampant poverty pretty much caused or sustained by governments supported, in varying degrees, by U.S. policies that our very own officials make. We call them terrorists’, but this is what they call us. We say they are twisted and insane, yet, it’s exactly how they perceive us. Americans who never travel out of the land do not have a proper idea just how perverted our policies are overseas. From what I see, our policies are designed to produce hatred towards us and the only real people who will be killed are us little folk. Not the officials who are catering to the 1%.

Change can only come if the majority perceive what’s actually going on and demand, in a constant sustained way, that officials reverse policies. We are doing the same things over and over against expecting a difficult result. Our foreign policies are clearly suffering from retardation and we’re going along with it….

Too bad they hit the jackpot on the nickel slots.

The entire Goldman bonus pool should be donated to small businesses, but that’s just me.

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) have been a rare small business lending success story this year — and next year, they’ll have more cash.


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Goldman Sachs’ banking titans and top congressional Democrats don’t often see eye to eye — executive pay caps, anyone? But here’s something the megabank and Capitol Hill agree on: One of the best ways to get financing to worthy small businesses is through a little-known community lending vehicle called a CDFI.

Taken together, Goldman Sachs and the federal government have earmarked more than $300 million to invest in these local financiers in 2010. Compared to Wall Street’s bailout billions, that’s pennies on the dollar, but for CDFIs it’s a jackpot. Next year’s funding pool is almost three times bigger than any they’ve ever had before.

A CDFI is a Community Development Financial Institution, a certification conferred by the Treasury Department. The program gives low-interest government loans, grants and tax credits to organizations that specialize in economically developing low-income and otherwise underserved markets.

CDFIs were a hot topic at the small business lending forum Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner convened last month to brainstorm solutions to the ongoing credit crunch small companies face. Wary of lending to firms struggling through the recession, banks slashed their small business credit this year.

That left CDFIs, which specialize in riskier loans, scrambling to pick up the slack. Funding requests surged. For the 2010 fiscal year, the CDFI Fund received applications totaling $467 million, a 97% jump from 2009.

Entrepreneur William Ortiz-Cartagena turned to the Opportunity Fund, a California CDFI, for the $10,000 loan that launched his San Francisco parking logistics company. Gentle Parking now has a staff of 12.

“It was very hard to start this company, because traditional lending institutions were just ‘no, no,’ just not even see me in the door,” Ortiz-Cartagena told attendees at the lending forum. “I couldn’t even get an appointment with a traditional institution.”
Opportunity Fund got Ortiz-Cartagena the money he needed and walked him through the steps of starting a business. “They really sit down with you and make sure that first your business plan is viable — that it can be successful — and then help you throughout the process,” he said.

The success CDFIs have had getting money out into communities through the downtown is now being rewarded. For fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated $247 million for the Treasury’s CDFI Fund, a funding level President Obama signed into law last week. That’s a giant jump from the $107 million the fund got in 2009.

Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) added more financial fuel with the “10,000 Small Businesses” initiative it launched last month. Over the next five years, Goldman Sachs will dole out $300 million to CDFIs across the U.S. A bank spokesman said $50 million of that money will be distributed through grants, with loans making up the other $250 million.

Community development financiers routinely depend on bank loans and philanthropic donations to fill their coffers, but Goldman’s cash wad is of record size. It’s the largest single-source CDFI funding pool specifically dedicated to small business financing, according to Mark Pinsky, CEO of the Opportunity Finance Network, an industry trade group.

Goldman Sachs said it chose to work through CDFIs because of their track records and community expertise.
“They have deep knowledge of local markets and relationships with the borrowers and businesses that are the least-served by the traditional banking system,” said Alicia Glen, managing director of Goldman Sachs’ Urban Investment Group.

First at bat

The first CDFI to get an infusion of Goldman capital is Seedco Financial in New York City. The organization landed a $20 million loan, which it will in turn begin lending out early next year.

Part of the money will go to create a new financing program aimed at more mature small companies. Seedco will target businesses that have been around for at least three years, generate annual revenue of $300,000, and have five or more employees.

“We believe that in the $50,000 to $250,000 — and even up to $750,000 — loan amount range, we will be able to have a more material positive impact,” said Lesia Bates Moss, president of Seedco Financial.

Targeting small but established companies serves a key goal of both Seedco and Goldman Sachs: Financing job creation.
For one small engineering firm in New York City, a recent Seedco loan is translating directly into financial salvation and two new jobs.
Founded in 2003, IAQ Systems grew steadily until the end of 2008, when the recession hit home.

“We have been hammered on the payment part,” IAQ founder and President Sai Barade said. “We were not getting paid on time, and the demand was such that we had to deliver. The ends were not meeting; there was a big gap.”

Late last year IAQ landed a contract with the New York City school system that will yield $8 million over three years. But to get that work moving, IAQ needed a loan to make payroll and cover overhead costs.

The company previously tapped bank lines of credit, but “at the end of 2008, all the banks were shrinking away from giving us any lines or loans,” Barade said.

Seedco Financial turned around a $200,000 loan within two weeks. “Seedco was very responsive,” Barade said. “They understood where we were.” The company has 10 employees now and plans to soon add two more.

It doesn’t take even $200,000 to create jobs, though. Opportunity Fund, the San Jose, Calif., lender that financed William Ortiz-Cartagena’s parking business, has an average loan size of $7,000. Its target borrower has one to five employees.

“There is this credit crunch for small businesses, and there is this reality that we need more loans to flow to small business if we are going to have a robust job creating recovery,” said Eric Weaver, Opportunity Fund’s CEO and founder.

Opportunity Fund has developed a niche lending to day care and health care providers who work out of their homes. Its interest rates typically run from 6% to 8%.

“For a very small amount of capital, you can start or expand that business,” Weaver said. “It is hard work, but it is very important work and it is real income to a family.”

SEATTLE (AP) — Shares of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac soared Monday after the Treasury Department removed limits on how much money it will spend to keep the companies operating.

Instead of an existing $400 billion cap, the Treasury Department said last week it will increase financial support according to how much each company loses in a quarter.

Shares of Fannie Mae gained 20 cents, or 19 percent, to $1.25 in afternoon trading. Freddie Mac’s shares rose 29 cents, or 23 percent, to $1.55.

In the past year, Fannie Mae’s shares have ranged from 35 cents to $2.13. Freddie Mac’s stock has traded as low as 35 cents and as high as $2.50.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide liquidity to the mortgage industry by buying home loans from lenders and selling them to investors. Together, they own or guarantee about half the nation’s mortgages, worth a total of about $5.5 trillion.

As housing prices fell and a tidal wave of adjustable-rate mortgages reset to higher rates, borrowers who found it impossible to refinance defaulted on mortgages. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae posted billions in losses before September 2008, when the government stepped in to bail them out. The takeover marked the start of a five-week meltdown in the financial sector that saw the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, frozen credit markets and a stock market plunge.

So far, taxpayers have handed over $111 billion to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Without government aid, the firms would have gone broke, leaving millions of people unable to get a mortgage.

In September 2008, as the worst of the financial crisis engulfed Wall Street, George W. Bush issued a warning: “This sucker could go down.” Around the same time, as Congress hashed out a bailout bill, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, the leading Republican negotiator of the bill, warned that “if we do not do this, the trauma, the chaos and the disruption to everyday Americans’ lives will be overwhelming, and that’s a price we can’t afford to risk paying.”

In less than a year, Wall Street was back. The five largest remaining banks are today larger, their executives and traders richer, their strategies of placing large bets with other people’s money no less bold than before the meltdown. The possibility of new regulations emanating from Congress has barely inhibited the Street’s exuberance.

But if Wall Street is back on top, the everyday lives of large numbers of Americans continue to be subject to overwhelming trauma, chaos and disruption.

It is commonplace among policymakers to fervently and sincerely believe that Wall Street’s financial health is not only a precondition for a prosperous real economy but that when the former thrives, the latter will necessarily follow. Few fictions of modern economic life are more assiduously defended than the central importance of the Street to the well-being of the rest of us, as has been proved in 2009.

Inhabitants of the real economy are dependent on the financial economy to borrow money. But their overwhelming reliance on Wall Street is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back when middle-class Americans earned enough to be able to save more of their incomes, they borrowed from one another, largely through local and regional banks. Small businesses also did.

It’s easy to understand economic policymakers being seduced by the great flows of wealth created among Wall Streeters, from whom they invariably seek advice. One of the basic assumptions of capitalism is that anyone paid huge sums of money must be very smart.

But if 2009 has proved anything, it’s that the bailout of Wall Street didn’t trickle down to Main Street. Mortgage delinquencies continue to rise. Small businesses can’t get credit. And people everywhere, it seems, are worried about losing their jobs. Wall Street is the only place where money is flowing and pay is escalating. Top executives and traders on the Street will soon be splitting about $25 billion in bonuses (despite Goldman Sachs’ decision, made with an eye toward public relations, to defer bonuses for its 30 top players).

The real locus of the problem was never the financial economy to begin with, and the bailout of Wall Street was a sideshow. The real problem was on Main Street, in the real economy. Before the crash, much of America had fallen deeply into unsustainable debt because it had no other way to maintain its standard of living. That’s because for so many years almost all the gains of economic growth had been going to a relatively small number of people at the top.

President Obama and his economic team have been telling Americans we’ll have to save more in future years, spend less and borrow less from the rest of the world, especially from China. This is necessary and inevitable, they say, in order to “rebalance” global financial flows. China has saved too much and consumed too little, while we have done the reverse.

In truth, most Americans did not spend too much in recent years, relative to the increasing size of the overall American economy. They spent too much only in relation to their declining portion of its gains. Had their portion kept up — had the people at the top of corporate America, Wall Street banks and hedge funds not taken a disproportionate share — most Americans would not have felt the necessity to borrow so much.

The year 2009 will be remembered as the year when Main Street got hit hard. Don’t expect 2010 to be much better — that is, if you live in the real economy. The administration is telling Americans that jobs will return next year, and we’ll be in a recovery. I hope they’re right. But I doubt it. Too many Americans have lost their jobs, incomes, homes and savings. That means most of us won’t have the purchasing power to buy nearly all the goods and services the economy is capable of producing. And without enough demand, the economy can’t get out of the doldrums.

As long as income and wealth keep concentrating at the top, and the great divide between America’s have-mores and have-lesses continues to widen, the Great Recession won’t end — at least not in the real economy.

Source: Cross-posted from Robert Reich’s Blog and WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.comand http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wihresourcegroup

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Celente: 2010 Is The Year of Terrorism, Economic Crash

The White House said Thursday it is removing the $400 billion US limit on the amount of money it will provide to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to keep the mortgage giants from failing.

Officials with the Treasury Department said it will be replaced with a flexible formula to ensure the companies can stand behind the billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities they sell to investors.

The headquarters of the Federal National Mortgage Association in Washington.(CBC)

The companies, with the full names of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), have received $111 billion in government infusions. In August, the administration projected the cost for their rescue would eventually total $170 billion.

While most analysts believe the companies are unlikely to use the full $400 billion, the administration decided to remove the cap to eliminate any doubts.

“The amendments to these agreements announced today should leave no uncertainty about the Treasury’s commitment to support these firms as they continue to play a vital role in the housing market during the current crisis,” Treasury said in a statement.

Treasury officials will provide an updated estimate for Fannie and Freddie losses when President Barack Obama sends his 2011 budget to Congress in February.

The U.S. government took over the two companies ? which together control half the $12 trillion U.S. housing market ? in September 2008 to shore up the mortgage industry at the peak of the financial crisis.

With files from The Associated Press

Bank bailout likely to pay offCitigroup repaying $20B in U.S. aid

Issuance of the first USSA Federal Health Insurance Cards commenced at the Old Fort Dix Army Base, now called the Dix Community Health & Control Center.

President Obama, flanked by the Congressional Medical Department Director Harry Reid and House Medical Office Director Nancy Pelosi smiled and waved to the first citizens getting their implanted bio-chips (RFIDs) and their new Health Cards.

“This is truly amazing! It only took four terms as President, well, three since there wasn’t an election in 2012, to accomplish this,” said Rahm Emanuel.

Afterward in a prepared statement, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “For the first time in this Nation’s history, we’ll be able to tell where you are at any given time and with whom you are in contact.
Uh, if you are sick, we can um, tell how to get you to the closest hospital and how to, er, protect or quarantine the other person from your disease.”

U.S. Treasury Gives Blank Check to Fannie & Freddie
On Christmas eve, while most Americans were gathering with family and friends, Tim Geithner quietly removed the $200 billion cap on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Both funds now have unlimited access to bailout funds through 2012.

Agreements the Treasury made the bankrupt funds in 2008 allow the Treasury to make amendments through the end of the year – without the consent of Congress.

Something deeper is going on because Freddie and Fannie haven’t even used the funds they already have access to.

From the Wall Street Journal:
U.S. Move to Cover Fannie, Freddie Losses Stirs Controversy
By James R. Hagerty and Jessica Holzer

The Obama administration’s decision to cover an unlimited amount of losses at the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years stirred controversy over the holiday.

The Treasury announced Thursday it was removing the caps that limited the amount of available capital to the companies to $200 billion each. 

Unlimited access to bailout funds through 2012 was “necessary for preserving the continued strength and stability of the mortgage market,” the Treasury said. Fannie and Freddie purchase or guarantee most U.S. home mortgages and have run up huge losses stemming from the worst wave of defaults since the 1930s.

“The timing of this executive order giving Fannie and Freddie a blank check is no coincidence,” said Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the House Financial Services Committee. He said the Christmas Eve announcement was designed “to prevent the general public from taking note.”

Treasury officials couldn’t be reached for comment Friday.

So far, Treasury has provided $60 billion of capital to Fannie and $51 billion to Freddie. Mahesh Swaminathan, a senior mortgage analyst at Credit Suisse in New York, said he didn’t believe Fannie and Freddie would need more than $200 billion apiece from the Treasury. But he and other analysts have said the market would find a larger commitment from the Treasury reassuring.

In exchange for the funding, the Treasury has received preferred stock in the companies paying 10% dividends. The Treasury also has warrants to acquire nearly 80% of the common shares in each firm.

The Treasury removed the cap on the size of available bailout funds by amending agreements it reached with the companies in September 2008, when the government seized control of the agencies under a legal process called conservatorship. The agreement allowed the Treasury to make amendments through the end of the year, without the consent of Congress. Changes made after Dec. 31 would likely involve a struggle with lawmakers over the terms.

Some Republicans are angry the administration is expanding the potential size of the bailout without having a plan for eventually ending the federal government’s role in the companies.

The Treasury reiterated administration plans for a “preliminary report” on the government’s future role in the mortgage market around the time the federal budget proposal is released in February.

The companies on Thursday disclosed new packages that will pay Fannie Chief Executive Officer Michael Williams and Freddie CEO Charles Haldeman Jr. as much as $6 million a year, including bonuses. The packages were approved by the Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA, which regulates the companies.

The FHFA said compensation for executive officers of the companies in 2009, on average, is down 40% from the pay levels before the conservatorship.

Under the conservatorship, top officers of Fannie and Freddie take their cues from the Treasury and regulators on all major decisions, current and former executives say. The government has made foreclosure-prevention efforts its top priority.

The pay packages for top officers are entirely in cash; company shares have been trading on the New York Stock Exchange at less than $2 apiece, and it isn’t clear when the companies will to profitability or whether common shares will have any value in the long term.

For the CEOs, annual compensation consists of a base salary of $900,000, deferred base salary of $3.1 million and incentive pay of as much as $2 million.

When Mr. Haldeman was hired by Freddie in July, the company set his base pay at $900,000 and said his additional “incentive” pay would depend on a decision by the regulator.

At Fannie, Mr. Williams was chief operating officer until he was promoted in April to CEO. As COO, his base salary was $676,000. He also had annual deferred pay of $2.3 million and a long-term incentive award of as much as $1.5 million.

Under the new packages, Fannie will pay as much as about $3.6 million annually to David M. Johnson, chief financial officer; $2.4 million to Kenneth Bacon, who heads a unit that finances apartment buildings; $2.8 million to David Benson, capital markets chief; $2.2 million to David Hisey, deputy chief financial officer; $3 million to Timothy Mayopoulos, general counsel; and $2.8 million to Kenneth Phelan, chief risk officer.

At Freddie, annual compensation will total as much as $4.5 million for Bruce Witherell, chief operating officer; $3.5 million for Ross Kari, chief financial officer; $2.8 million for Robert Bostrom, general counsel; and $2.7 million for Paul George, head of human resources.

The pay deals also drew fire. With unemployment near 10%, “to be handing out $6 million bonuses to essentially federal employees is unconscionable,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican who is a frequent critic of Fannie and Freddie.

He also criticized the administration for approving the compensation without settling on a plan to remove taxpayer supports: “To be doing that with no plan in place is just unconscionable.”

The FHFA said that Fannie and Freddie “must attract and retain the talent needed” for their vital role in the mortgage market.

Lewis Sachs, left and John Paulson, right

“The simultaneous selling of securities to customers and shorting them because they believed they were going to default is the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen,” said Sylvain R. Raynes, an expert in structured finance at R & R Consulting in New York. “When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”

Read on to find out how Goldman Sachs created and sold securities – they thought would lose money – to investors.

The Problem of Foreclosure Titles Securitized by MERS

So, I  was recently featured in a post by Karl Denninger, A Birdie On Possible Foreclosure Frauds

The comments on my discoveries in The Tickerforum Comment Zone were very interesting as well.

It was then followed up with Tying It Together: Massive, Pernicious Fraud the next day…

Now, here’s a Power Point Presentation that should be shown to anyone who has a shred of doubt that these banksters are committing  fraud.

It was put together for the Ohio Conference of Community Development by David Weichel.

From the properties of the presentation it was created April 26, 2008.

This presentation created OVER A YEAR AGO and is one of the best visual aids to understanding securitization that I have come across.

Here is the file…

4closureFraud

http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/

Wise Americans feared that a Candidate Obama turned president would attempt to take away many of our liberties.

Obama has felt free to take any liberty not expressly forbidden to him by the general public.  Don’t confuse that with the constitution, because Obama obviously doesn’t care about that.  He thinks the constitution is merely a document of “negative liberties.”

Any time citizens feared Obama would attempt to grab a specific liberty or right, he has merely lied about his intentions to placate the weak minded among us.

During the financial and automotive meltdown, Obama said he had no desire to be in the banking or automotive business.  Yet, the federal government headed by Obama owns banks and auto makers, and dictates salaries, bonuses, and more.  In the health care “debate” he claimed that illegal aliens would not be paid for, yet again he lied (thank you, Joe Wilson).  He said there would be “not one thin dime” of new taxes on 95% of Americans under his administration.  That promise/lie went the way of the do-do.  It is living in the same place as the pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per  year.

So when Obama waves his hand in an attempt to push a Jedi mind trick on us saying he has no intention of taking our guns away from us, based upon his track record of dishonesty, why should we believe him?  Simple.  We shouldn’t. Despite what he says, his record on the 2nd Amendment shows that he has no desire whatsoever to let you keep your firearms.  Let’s look at some examples.

• Opposed bill in Illinois that asserted the right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, quantifying that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession.
• Double-speak: “I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.”
• Obama lied about endorsing Illinois handgun ban
  • “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
  • Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
    • 35. Do you support state legislation to:
    • a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
    • b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
    • c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
• Elitist Obama revealed how he truly feels about mainstream America when he said “It’s not surprising they get bitter.  They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
• More Obama double-speak:
  • Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
  • A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
• 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month (if you’re not a criminal, why should it matter if you buy more than one gun per month?)
• Surprisingly, Obama votes in favor of law allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons.  Why?
  • Obama said “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done–and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“
  • However, another reason for Obama’s uncharacteristic vote soon emerged.  Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.
• Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
  • Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
  • Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
  • Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
• Voted AGAINST prohibiting civil liability actions against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.  ANOTHER BACK DOOR WAY OF CONTROLLING GUNS.

When Obama said “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns,” he forgot to add “right now.”  Obama and his henchmen like Eric Holder, along with the anti-constitution and liberty liberals in congress and the senate will continue to do all they can to EVENTUALLY take our guns away from us.  But in the meantime they will do all they can to make gun ownership and possession by law-abiding citizens as expensive and inconvenient as possible.  One of the proposals being floated by anti-gun advocates is to make all ammunition and powder for reloading such that the powder will break down and become useless after a certain period, one to two years.  There are several other such proposals outlined below.

Do you oppose ownership of guns by private citizens?  If you do, what do you think stands between you and criminals or an oppressive government?  The government and legal system have paralyzed the police to the point that they CAN’T protect us.  When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.  As for governments, remember that throughout history those who have pounded their guns and swords into plowshares have plowed for those who did not.

If you don’t fight for your constitutional rights and freedoms, who will?

Ammunition Control by the Obama Administration

by A.W.R. Hawkins
Posted 12/22/2009 ET

Without bullets, a gun is no more useful as a weapon than a rock or a hammer. Although an unloaded gun could be thrown at an intruder or a tyrant, the lack of ammunition ultimately reduces it to the status of a glorified paperweight.

And this is not lost on the nearly 100 million gun owners in America, a number of which are asking if the current shortage of bullets is the result of backdoor efforts at gun control (via ammunition control) by the Obama Administration?

The quick answer to that question is — not exactly.

In other words, the reasons behind the current shortage, as the well as the price increases on what little ammunition is available, are both governmental and nongovernmental in nature.

As for the government’s role, a prime example arose in March 2009 when the Department of Defense (DOD) suddenly changed its policy about selling old brass from spent military rounds to Georgia Arms, an ammunition manufacturer located in Winston, Georgia.

According to Curtis Shipley, President of Georgia Arms, on March 12, 2009, the DOD, which had been a longstanding source of cheap brass for the ammo manufacturer, decided that brass could only be purchased from the military if it was “mutilated.” In other words, it would not longer be possible to buy empty brass casings that Georgia Arms could then clean, quickly reload, and sell to the public at a low price.

When I spoke to Shipley, who had been accustomed to buying spent brass in increments of fifteen tons from the DOD, he said, “This portended higher prices because it required us to either mutilate perfectly good brass when we picked it up from a military base or have a DOD employee travel with us (and the brass) to verify that we did indeed mutilate it at a another site.”

Once mutilated, Georgia Arms would have had to melt the brass down, re-alloy it (casings for each caliber require a specific alloy blend that can sustain the pressures for that caliber), and then re-shape it into the proper casing for whichever caliber they were manufacturing. Said Shipley: “Such a process would add approximately $90 to the cost of one thousand rounds of 9mm ammunition right off the bat.”

Fortunately, the public outcry against this DOD maneuver was so great that the order to mutilate all brass was rescinded after just five days. However, those five days were enough to contribute to another problem the government had been causing since November 2008 – namely, fear of an all out Obama-led assault on guns and ammo.
Speaking to this fear, Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, said: “You can go to gun stores all over the country and many of them will have a picture of President Obama hanging on the wall. However, when you get up close to the picture and look at the caption on the bottom, instead of saying ‘President’ it says ‘Gun Salesman of the Year.’”

Pratt said gun owners are rightly leery of this administration. Obama supports the new California law that will require every semi-automatic pistol sold in that state to come equipped with a special firing mechanism that makes a distinctive mark – a “fingerprint” – on every bullet casing it fires. And currently, some Democrats in the House of Representatives want to take that law a step further and enact legislation that would force ammunition companies to place serial numbers on every shell casing they manufacture.

Let me just say that if you think ammunition is scarce and expensive now, wait till manufacturers have to put a serial number on every casing and maintain records containing the names, addresses, etc., of everyone who purchases such casings.

No wonder Pratt said: “None of this is about safety. Rather, it’s about finding ways to create an ammo and gun registry that will allow the government to finally figure out which son got daddy’s gun when daddy passed away.”

And while the government is doing its part to make ammunition harder to find, either directly, via episodes like the one between Georgia Arms and the DOD, or indirectly, by scaring citizens to death through anti-gun posturing that has caused a run on ammo sales, the market plays a role as well. With demand outpacing supply the market sustains higher prices for ammo under Obama than it was able to sustain for that same ammo during the presidency of a pro-gun politician like George W. Bush.

Add to this the fact that we’re now sending the majority of the lead from our recycled car batteries to China, instead of selling that lead to ammunition manufacturers who can cheaply reclaim it to make affordable bullets for their casings, and it’s no wonder consumers are scrambling to find ammunition and then paying a fortune for it when they do.

Did I fail to mention that millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition are currently being diverted to our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere right now as well? While this is understandable, it further highlights the fact that we gun owners are in a tight spot, as far as getting ammunition for our guns is concerned.

With all these variables affecting the availability of ammunition, this would be a great time to join a group like Gun Owners of America. By so doing we would assure the politicians in D.C. that if they use their offices to further deny us bullets for our guns, we will use the voting booth to deny them the very offices they now hold.

The Associated Press nails the GOP for budget hypocrisy, pointing out that a majority of Republicans voted for Bush’s reckless Medicare expansion. This story gives me an excuse to pontificate on why fans of limited government and free markets should not blindly link themselves with the Republican Party. And sometimes they should even hope Republicans lose. There is a very strong case to be made, for instance, that big-government RINOs such as Bush (on economic policy issues) are far more dangerous to economic liberty than Democrats. Not only do they expand government while in power, they create a fertile environment for Democrats, with their out-of-the-closet statism, to gain power and impose even more government.

That certainly has happened this decade. Bush’s profligacy slowed the economy and discouraged the GOP base, which (combined with unhappiness about his nation-building exercise in Iraq) helped deliver the House and Senate to Democrats in 2006 and the White House to Obama in 2008. It is quite likely, by contrast, that the GOP would control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue today if Kerry had won the 2004 election. A Kerry victory almost certainly would have enabled Republicans to hold the House and Senate in 2006. And since Kerry would have followed Bush’s big-government interventionist policies, the bailout would have occurred on his watch, making it quite likely that the GOP would have enjoyed a strong year in 2008. There may have been some damage to liberty caused by a Kerry presidency (above and beyond the damage caused by Bush), but nothing compared to the damage now being imposed by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Food for thought. If nothing else, this AP story shows that we’d be better off if politicians of both parties stayed home all year long:

Republican senators attacking the cost of a Democratic health care bill showed far different concerns six years ago, when they approved a major Medicare expansion that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits. The inconsistency — or hypocrisy, as some call it — has irked Democrats, who claim that their plan will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and cite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for support. By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates. With no new taxes or spending offsets accompanying the Medicare drug program, the cost has been added to the federal debt. …”As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt,” said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled “Republican Deficit Hypocrisy.” Bartlett said the 2003 Medicare expansion was “a pure giveaway” that cost more than this year’s Senate or House health bills will cost.

Easy credit ripoffs. Good times!

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been telling Democrats a win on the health issue will reverse the slide in public opinion, just as passage of another controversial proposal, the North American Free Trade Agreement, lifted President Bill Clinton in the polls.

-Wall Street Journal, “Democrats pin 2010 hopes on bill”

In an only slightly different context a wise person said, “It’s scary to think that people this obscenely stupid are running the country.”

First Bernanke Now Blankfein?

Even though politicians already have flushed $400 billion down the rathole, the Obama Administration has announced that it will now give unlimited amounts of our money to prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-created mortgage companies. While President Obama should be castigated for this decision, let’s not forget that this latest boondoggle is only possible because President Bush did not do the right thing and liquidate Fannie and Freddie when they collapsed last year. And, to add insult to injury, Obama’s pay czar played Santa Claus and announced that that a dozen top “executives” could divvy up $42 million of bonuses financed by you and me. Not a bad deal for a group of people that more properly should be classified as government bureaucrats. Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Post about the Administration’s latest punch in the gut for taxpayers:

The Obama administration pledged Thursday to provide unlimited financial assistance to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an eleventh-hour move that allows the government to exceed the current $400 billion cap on emergency aid without seeking permission from a bailout-weary Congress. The Christmas Eve announcement by the Treasury Department means that it can continue to run the companies, which were seized last year, as arms of the government for the rest of President Obama’s current term. But even as the administration was making this open-ended financial commitment, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disclosed that they had received approval from their federal regulator to pay $42 million in Wall Street-style compensation packages to 12 top executives for 2009. The compensation packages, including up to $6 million each to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s chief executives, come amid an ongoing public debate about lavish payments to executives at banks and other financial firms that have received taxpayer aid. But while many firms on Wall Street have repaid the assistance, there is no prospect that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will do so.

I’ll be honest – I never expected to actually be Time’s Person of the Year this year. There was a lot that happened, and I think Ben Bernanke was a nice choice. But I was a little disappointed that I didn’t even get a runner-up nod. I mean, the Chinese Workers were runners-up! Maybe I’m still a little cocky from sharing the award with the other 6.7 billion people inhabiting the planet in 2006, but I think I accomplished a lot this year. (The downside of sharing an award like this is that you can’t very well put it on your resume – you don’t stand out from the pack when everyone else shares the honor)

After all, I accomplished a lot this year. Sure, the Chinese worker helped influence the world, but where would they be if it weren’t for the American consumer (me) spending money I didn’t have in order to finance their economy? Honor where honor is due, my friends.

And, I stimulated the used-car economy by buying a used Jeep, and now I’m ensuring that those poor, struggling, multi-national oil companies can continue to stay afloat as I keep gas in my SUV.

I contributed to the stability of the airline industry by flying (once), to the textile industry by shopping for clothes, to the fast-food industry by over-eating, and to the third-world coffee farmers by drinking obscene amounts of fair-trade coffee from Starbucks.

I stayed in a hotel (once), bought new shoes (twice), and saved a bank by working on a Saturday when I was scheduled off. I’m a regular economic stimulus program, here.

So, Time editors, next year, remember me when making considerations for your Person of the Year. In 2010, I’m planning on losing weight and getting out of debt. Then I’ll buy a house. Helloooooo infamy.

There were some notable occurrences in this dismal year.

Climate Change scientists, those paragons of selfless dedication to the supreme truth, fouled their shorts. They went where no man should have gone.
What would have Capt. James Tiberius Kirk said about that!

Congress bribed one another at rates heretofore unseen and unimagined, birthing Cash for Clunkers and the non-stimulating Stimulus Bill; more bank failures with attendant foreclosures, business and personal bankruptcies are the afterbirth.

One luminous spot took place early in 2009, in the Residential quarters of the White house when Malika gave her father the prize from her après dinner snack:
Some people have all the luck!