It is precisely now that one must not despair. Now is the time for lovers of liberty to throw themselves into the national scale. You are the natural guardians of the Constitution. Now is not the time for Summer Soldiers and Sunshine Patriots; now is the time for the heirs of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Hancock, Ben Franklin, James Monroe , John Adams, John Paul Jones, Patrick Henry, Nathaniel Greene and Ethan Allen.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Federalist Papers and Obamacare
The Federalist Papers and Obamacare
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Health Care Bill
Just wanted to congratulate president Obummer, Pelosi & Reid for destroying the U.S.A.!
Thursday, March 18, 2010
EDITORIAL: Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow - Washington Times
EDITORIAL: Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow - Washington Times
The Obama administration is poised to ban offshore oil drilling on the outer continental shelf until 2012 or beyond. Meanwhile, Russia is making a bold strategic leap to begin drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. While the United States attempts to shift gears to alternative fuels to battle the purported evils of carbon emissions, Russia will erect oil derricks off the Cuban coast.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Daily Gut: Flying the American Flag in Haiti
Daily Gut: Flying the American Flag in Haiti
So as you know, many countries have set up camp to in Haiti help those recovering from the devastating earthquake. And at these camps, they are flying their flags. Only one country isn’t – and it’s the country that has done more to help Haiti – and the world in general
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
'Grassroots' Coffee Party Organizer Exposed as Obama Political Operative | NewsBusters.org
'Grassroots' Coffee Party Organizer Exposed as Obama Political Operative NewsBusters.org
It turns out that the "grassroots" organizer of the "progressive alternative" to the Tea Parties, the Coffee Party, has been exposed as an Obama political operative. If you had read the profiles of the Coffee Party founder Annabel Park (photo) in the Washington Post or New York Times you wouldn't have had a hint as to her extensive political activity in the 2008 Obama campaign.Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/03/02/grassroots-coffee-party-organizer-exposed-obama-political-operative#ixzz0h8pllzTC
It turns out that the "grassroots" organizer of the "progressive alternative" to the Tea Parties, the Coffee Party, has been exposed as an Obama political operative. If you had read the profiles of the Coffee Party founder Annabel Park (photo) in the Washington Post or New York Times you wouldn't have had a hint as to her extensive political activity in the 2008 Obama campaign.Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/03/02/grassroots-coffee-party-organizer-exposed-obama-political-operative#ixzz0h8pllzTC
DEMINT: White House land grab - Washington Times
DEMINT: White House land grab - Washington Times
A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that's essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.
Congress Is Wasting a Good Crisis
Here's another fine mess their getting us into:
By: Peter EavisWall Street Journal, 3/3/2010-- Has anyone in Congress actually explained to taxpayers how much they could be on the hook for if the banking system were to crater again?
Compromises are being struck in the Senate that could soon clear the way for the passage of financial-system-overhaul legislation. That would seem a cause for celebration, given the need for reform and the many sensible proposals in draft legislation. However, the overhaul could be undermined by parts that aim to construct enormous government backstops for banks. Indeed, if Congress gets its way, the taxpayer may soon have to stand behind some of the riskiest parts of banks' balance sheets.
Before the credit crisis, government support to the banks looked sensibly limited. Through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the taxpayer effectively guaranteed deposits up to a certain size. In theory, other bank liabilities, like bonds, interbank loans and derivatives claims, weren't backed. But when the credit crisis hit, the government rushed in to make sure all manner of bank liabilities could be repaid, including even "repo" obligations, short-term loans whose collateralized nature was supposed to make them super-safe.
Now, in the overhaul legislation, Congress effectively wants to formalize much of that emergency support. Creditors to banks could gain protection that lenders to other sectors will likely never enjoy, creating even more moral hazard. The two main proposed backstops are a program to guarantee bank debt and a $4 trillion Federal Reserve repo facility for banks to tap, both of which would be made available in shaky times.
Granted, these provisions contain features that aim to protect the government and the taxpayer. But this would be difficult in practice. The draft legislation would make it possible for the U.S. to lend to a large financial firm it had seized because it was unstable. The rationale for this is that some debts need to be honored to prevent financial contagion. But that standard could easily lead to the government once again paying out on the sort of derivatives obligations that nearly sank American International Group. As government defenders of the AIG bailout repeatedly say, those were done to prevent contagion.
What should Congress have done? First, instead of enshrining a system for backstopping liabilities like market debt, legislation should have put defined limits on it-- and forced firms that use a lot of it to hold more capital. Second, the advantageous treatment derivatives counterparties enjoy under bankruptcy law should have been reversed. These perks undermine market discipline and can increase systemic instability when a firm fails, says Harvard University law professor Mark Roe.
Congress is highly unlikely to insert such changes. In January, President Obama said he would send back an overhaul bill that doesn't contain "real reform." The backstops are reason alone to do just that.
By: Peter EavisWall Street Journal, 3/3/2010-- Has anyone in Congress actually explained to taxpayers how much they could be on the hook for if the banking system were to crater again?
Compromises are being struck in the Senate that could soon clear the way for the passage of financial-system-overhaul legislation. That would seem a cause for celebration, given the need for reform and the many sensible proposals in draft legislation. However, the overhaul could be undermined by parts that aim to construct enormous government backstops for banks. Indeed, if Congress gets its way, the taxpayer may soon have to stand behind some of the riskiest parts of banks' balance sheets.
Before the credit crisis, government support to the banks looked sensibly limited. Through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the taxpayer effectively guaranteed deposits up to a certain size. In theory, other bank liabilities, like bonds, interbank loans and derivatives claims, weren't backed. But when the credit crisis hit, the government rushed in to make sure all manner of bank liabilities could be repaid, including even "repo" obligations, short-term loans whose collateralized nature was supposed to make them super-safe.
Now, in the overhaul legislation, Congress effectively wants to formalize much of that emergency support. Creditors to banks could gain protection that lenders to other sectors will likely never enjoy, creating even more moral hazard. The two main proposed backstops are a program to guarantee bank debt and a $4 trillion Federal Reserve repo facility for banks to tap, both of which would be made available in shaky times.
Granted, these provisions contain features that aim to protect the government and the taxpayer. But this would be difficult in practice. The draft legislation would make it possible for the U.S. to lend to a large financial firm it had seized because it was unstable. The rationale for this is that some debts need to be honored to prevent financial contagion. But that standard could easily lead to the government once again paying out on the sort of derivatives obligations that nearly sank American International Group. As government defenders of the AIG bailout repeatedly say, those were done to prevent contagion.
What should Congress have done? First, instead of enshrining a system for backstopping liabilities like market debt, legislation should have put defined limits on it-- and forced firms that use a lot of it to hold more capital. Second, the advantageous treatment derivatives counterparties enjoy under bankruptcy law should have been reversed. These perks undermine market discipline and can increase systemic instability when a firm fails, says Harvard University law professor Mark Roe.
Congress is highly unlikely to insert such changes. In January, President Obama said he would send back an overhaul bill that doesn't contain "real reform." The backstops are reason alone to do just that.
Monday, March 01, 2010
California is a greater risk than Greece, warns JP Morgan chief
Mr Dimon told investors at the Wall Street bank's annual meeting that "there could be contagion" if a state the size of California, the biggest of the United States, had problems making debt repayments. "Greece itself would not be an issue for this company, nor would any other country," said Mr Dimon. "We don't really foresee the European Union coming apart." The senior banker said that JP Morgan Chase and other US rivals are largely immune from the European debt crisis, as the risks have largely been hedged.
Read the entire article here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)