Bipartisan Baloney

The IBD skewers any notion that the Baucus Grand Government Healthcare Takeover proposal is somehow bipartisan.

Bipartisan Baloney

Health Reform: As predicted, the Democrats are using the vote of one very liberal Republican as proof their health care takeover is "bipartisan." It's nothing of the sort. But then, we're getting used to such exaggerations.

To ensure passage even in a Congress where they have an overwhelming, veto-proof majority, the Democrats have used deceit and outright lies to make their case. Calling the Baucus health overhaul "bipartisan" simply because Republican-in-name-only Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine opted to vote for the bill is just one example.

Snowe in fact is more liberal than most of Blue Dog Democrats, some of whom have shown the wisdom to object to the nationalization of 17% of the U.S. economy.

Before Baucus, she voted for the bogus $787 billion "stimulus" package that's done nothing for our economy but promise to send our children into perpetual debtor status. So in one year, she voted to expand our deficit by a minimum $1.5 trillion in the next decade.

Bipartisan? Democrat Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut says he won't vote for the bill's passage, as it stands now. Nor will Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller. He objects to taxes on high-income health care recipients — who happen to include, believe it or not, many coal miners in his home state of West Virginia.

Doesn't that show opposition to the bill is more bipartisan?

And what about the 158 House Democrats who, like Rockefeller, won't vote for the Senate bill if it includes the 40% tax on so-called "Cadillac" health care plans — supposedly a tax on "the rich," but in reality one that will hammer the job-creating entrepreneurs in many Democratic districts.

As for Snowe and her fellow Maine Republican, Susan Collins, their possible embrace of the Baucus bill doesn't make it bipartisan either. Heck, they aren't even "moderate," as the media have described them. They're liberal. And that's not merely an opinion.

The American Conservative Union scores legislators on a number of key votes to gauge how conservative or liberal they are. Here's what the ACU had to say about its 2008 tally: "For the first time, two Republicans scored as absolutely liberal in voting."

The two? Snowe, with a score of 20%, and Collins, at 12% — more liberal even than then-Sen. Barack Obama, who scored 17%. Not surprisingly, Collins says she may also back the Baucus bill.

No, none of this is "bipartisan" in the least. But that's par for the course in this debate, where so many outright falsities masquerade as truths.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy...

This is too convenient! Could it possibly be that the DNC understood Barry's lack of constitutional qualifications and altered their own party's Official Certification of Nomination Form to accommodate fraud? It took the Canadian Press to uncover this one.

The Mistake, The Evidence, Obama is NOT a constitutional president

A hat tip to J.B Williams.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

So it's two "r's" now?

BORN IN THE USA?
Hawaii health official: Trust me
'Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen'

---

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Chiyome Fukino, director of Hawaii Department of Health

In another carefully worded statement, Hawaii's health director claimed today to have seen "original vital records" that prove "Barrack [sic] Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen."

Chiyome Fukino issued the brief statement in response to the rising chorus of concern across the country about Obama's failure to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate that would reveal the hospital in which he was born, the attending physician and other pertinent details.

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago ... "

Read the entire statement in which the president's first name was misspelled and no mention was made of the specific document reviewed. But, we should simply trust her, right? Kinda like in the spirit of Dan Rather and his forged documents?

The White House has refused to acknowledge repeated requests from WND that Obama authorize the Hawaii DOH to release all his birth records, including his original long-form birth certificate.

WND also has reported Obama has not released his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

WND also has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

In addition, the question over Obama's eligibility is being raised on billboards nationwide.

The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.


(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Aw Nuts!

So, we find out ACORN may be rancid? And they're in line to receive more than $8 billion in stimulus funding? Preposterous doesn't begin to cover it. Again, we have the Kenyan to thank for this!

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

"Carbongate" is a great term for it

Seems Congress is hellbent on foisting this Cap and Trade bill on all of us unsuspecting citizens. And, true to form, the IBD informs us that the EPA has suppressed key information regarding recent findings which would damage their agenda.

May we all rally to inform every member of the Senate to kill this legislative disaster.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Birth Certificate Issue on Limbaugh, Savage

On his nationally syndicated radio broadcast today, Rush Limbaugh mentioned Philip J. Berg's lawsuit demanding that the DNC and little Barry produce proof that he is a natural born citizen of the United States. Limbaugh said it was a story percolating on the internet. Michael Savage, of Savage Nation, went further and actually had Berg live on his show. Savage is linking the MP3 recording on his website which is available 24/7 and emailable.

Barry could have made this all go away last August by simply producing the necessary paperwork. Hhe has not. He has not because he apparently can't. He is not qualified to serve as the President of the United States of America.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_birth_certificate/2008/10/24/143882.html

What was most shocking was the admission that MI6, CIA and FBI personnel have confided with Berg that their departments KNOW little Barry was born in Kenya. But, there is literally no controlling legal authority responsible to vet a candidate. That responsibility has been left to each of the major political parties. And, for 200+ years, no one has ever been so audacious as to perpetrate such a fraud on the population of the United States of America.

Stunning for sure. As Savage posited, we may be experiencing the greatest fraud ever attempted in the history of this country. (Click on bold headline for complete story)

Short Sellers to Blame? Short Sellers?

A Violation of Public Trust
By Tim McCormack, A professional investor from Santa Barbara, CA

There is nothing wrong with Government coming to the rescue of financial institutions where mismanagement has caused risk of failure in a way that jeopardizes the stability of the entire financial system. What is wrong, and is both a violation of public trust and a display of professional incompetence, is to contribute taxpayer money in a way that enriches management and the owners of these mismanaged companies rather than the taxpayers.

Additionally, it is also a violation of public trust when government officials deliberately manipulate markets on behalf of certain market participants at the expense of others. The recent market manipulation executed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission by banning short selling of financial stocks is all the more outrageous due to that fact that it was specifically designed to enrich the very individuals who mismanaged their companies into near bankruptcy, and who are the underlying root cause of the larger systemic financial crisis by manufacturing, distributing, and inventorying toxic debt.

It is now well known that these financial firms manufactured, distributed, and inventoried near-fraudulent debt (financial widgets) at 30:1 leverage. Investors do not want these widgets at the current offer price, and if the widgets were priced and offered at a realistic market clearing price, it would likely bankrupt the vendors.

Hank Paulson (in concert with Ben Bernanke and Christopher Cox) has just orchestrated a plan that provides huge sums of taxpayer money to his old colleagues and buddies at Goldman Sachs, along with various others, including Morgan Stanley, to purchase the unwanted widgets in a manner that directly enriches the management and shareholders of these nearly bankrupt companies. Rather than demanding that taxpayers be rewarded with any profits of the rescue, as just occurred with AIG, this latest proposal appears deliberately struck to stick taxpayers with the downside, while management, creditors and shareholders of these firms instantly reap tens of billions in stock and bond appreciation.

Such actions cross the line not only into the arena of professional incompetence and negligence, but steps right up to the line where an open society stares official tyranny in the face.

These government officials could have rescued the financial system in a way aligned with their core responsibilities to the American taxpayer. If they had done so, as they did with AIG, they would deserve a pat on the back. They chose a different path. Rather than rescue the financial system in a responsible way, they have rescued their rich buddies that created the mess and left the taxpayer holding the bag. The American people deserve better.

Additionally, the same Gang of Three government officials simultaneously executed a massive market manipulation specifically designed to further enrich their Wall Street cronies — the very same individuals who mismanaged and nearly bankrupted these firms — by banning the short selling of financial stocks.

The management of these mismanaged companies — including John Mack, of Morgan Stanley, Richard Fuld, of Lehman Bros, and before them senior executives of Bear Stearns — have loudly spread rumors that the decline in their stock was caused by rumor-mongering and improper short-selling without offering an iota of evidence. Zero evidence has been presented to back up these allegations.

The market manipulation executed by Cox last week occurred without offering a single shred of evidence of the alleged improprieties. This behavior is eerily similar to the allegations of WMD in Iraq made by others in the Bush administration while absent of evidence. The administration at least went to the trouble of manufacturing evidence to support its claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Worse, was their professional incompetence in responding to the impending Lehman and AIG bankruptcies over the weekend of Sep. 13-14, and on Monday, Sep. 15. Their behavior and public announcements greatly intensified the crisis, and seriously elevated the systemic risk in global financial markets.

Some background on this issue is helpful. Financial professionals have always feared the "domino effect" of the failure of one large financial firm taking down many others through counterparty exposures. Since the failure of Bear Stearns and Northern Rock, market participants have had the clear impression that Government officials in the US and UK were not going to let this happen.

On Sept 13-15, the Gang of Three sent dramatically different signals into the market. Their abandonment of Lehman and AIG had dramatic negative consequences. At a press conference on Sep. 15, Paulson clearly said, in paraphrase, that "while the Government is concerned about the health and stability of the markets, it would not act to save these firms."

This news changed the landscape. Now, the domino effect not only seemed possible, it appeared imminent and all eyes were on the insurance giant AIG. Global stock markets reacted instantly, and rationally, as investors fled financial stocks generally, and the stocks of riskier financial firms (like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs) in particular.

Rather than pouring water on the fire, Paulson pumped gasoline in a move that will now cost the US taxpayer several hundred billion dollars more than if proper actions had been taken in a timely fashion. Yet, after the dramatic global selloff, the AIG fire was doused in government water, but the global fire had become an inferno.

Rather than admitting to this blunder and learning from it, those who committed the blunder are now attempting to divert blame and attention to short sellers. Credit should be given where credit is due. The SEC is now complicit in falsely pointing the blame for the near-demise of these financial institutions at short sellers (a convenient scapegoat) in what appears to be a blatant attempt to divert attention from:

1. The real cause of the demise of these firms: mismanagement, in applying 30:1 leverage to volatile illiquid mortgage assets that these firms manufactured, distributed, and inventoried;

2. The failure of regulatory oversight, in allowing these firms to use 30:1 leverage on collateral known to occasionally suffer 30% to 50% downside fluctuations (real estate);

3. The failure to respond properly to the fires at Lehman and AIG; and

4. The real reason for the SEC market manipulation: to artificially inflate the share prices of distressed companies in a way that enriches management and shareholders, and simultaneously strengthens the company balance sheet (the new riches coming at the direct expense of innocent market participants, at the direct expense their financial competitors who were prudent in avoiding overexposure to leveraged toxic debt, and at the expense of free market principles).

Absent evidence of wrong-doing, the SEC is complicit in spreading lies and rumors, and engaging in market manipulation on behalf of their wealthy buddies. To date, rather than asking pointed questions, the press has bought the story and is guilty of rebroadcasting it rather than questioning its validity. With no evidence of improper short selling the most rational explanation for stock price declines is that natural investors (from mutual funds, pension funds, retail investors, etc) were selling or hedging long positions due to lack of confidence in these firms, and due to the new risks that sprang into existence by the reversal of position taken by US regulators.

While the SEC says that it is opposed to market manipulation, it has just engaged in market manipulation of the highest order on behalf of John Mack at Morgan Stanley and the gang at Goldman Sachs. This market manipulation has instantly resulted in the management and owners of these two firms receiving tens of billions of upside stock profits (and hundreds of billions among the 799 financial stocks) in just two days.

The SEC should be held accountable to defend its WMD claim with evidence that was in its possession at the time it manipulated these markets. It should not be allowed to manufacture an after-the-fact witch-hunt. Key questions are: What evidence was in the hands of the SEC regarding both mismanagement and short-selling at the time that this market manipulation occurred? Also: Were government officials at the SEC, Treasury and/or the Federal Reserve (specifically Cox, Paulson, and Bernanke) speaking with market participants who would be enriched by the market manipulation just prior to the manipulation? If so, what was the nature of these communications?

When small businesses take risks that don't work out, they fail. Farmers, bakers and widget-makers are not enriched by government for their failure.

Goldman Sachs is known as one of the most opportunistic and predatory firms on the street. When Goldman identifies companies in distress it has a long history of rushing in and providing assets in return for majority equity stakes, rightly earning the upside for this risk ahead of the existing management or owners. Hank Paulson was the direct recipient of this behavior while CEO at Goldman and it is important to note that he was able to sell more than $500 million in Goldman stock, tax-free, when he accepted the job as Secretary of the Treasury. Now that Goldman is in distress (and Paulson is employed by US taxpayers), Paulson wants to hand Goldman taxpayer money without demanding a controlling equity stake from Goldman Sachs in return. Who does Paulson work for? This is not rocket science.

No private company or public company would stand for similar behavior of their directors risking shareholder assets in ways that deliberately benefited others at shareholder expense. Such behavior would be rewarded with immediate dismissal for dereliction of duty and personal lawsuits seeking damages for negligent behavior.

Rather than getting an honest explanation about what has just occurred, the American people are now being sold a story manufactured by government officials who have been complicit in this irresponsible behavior. The open question remains: Are the American people gullible enough to buy it?

(Click on bold headline for complete story)