WAR OF PERCEPTION

The Urbanization Of Our Federal Government

With Sonia Sotomayer’s Supreme Court confirmation a “shoe-in”; social engineers have accomplished an important goal: The urbanization of the federal government.

The goal appears to be a complete overhaul of the federal government, so that it will resemble our major urban centers.

Approximately 40 years ago, our major cities began the process of handing over the reins of power to non-Whites and females. Most people believe the disintegration of our major urban centers is a natural process due to the increase in population and wear and tear.

However, no one has ever studied the linkage between non-White / female rule and urban deterioration. This is the uncomfortable truth, that no one in politics or the media appears ready to contemplate.

California’s recent financial disaster should be viewed as a direct result of 40 years of non-White rule, female rule, and illegal alien abuse of our welfare system.

With Justice Sotomayer on the Supreme Court, we have an agent of Mexico, working on behalf of the government of Mexico, for the citizens of Mexico, who violate our immigration laws when they cross the border illegally.

The urbanization of our federal government has begun; It won’t be long before we have gang-bangers on the floor of congress, flashing gang signs on CSPAN.

Non-White rule has created the biggest crime wave in our history as a nation and no one in the media bothers to report this self-evident truth.

Philadelphia, Detroit, New Orleans, Los Angeles, New York, D.C., St Louis, Houston; Every major urban center run by non-Whites and females is tantamount to a third world nation.

And now the people who destroyed America’s cities have set their sights on the federal government.

The new health care reform is the silver bullet that will put down the White middle class, once and for all.

ALL White-middle-class-working-men, should be up in arms about Obama’s health care reform bill. We will be the ones forced to pay for this public service. We will be forced to pay for it, just like social security and all the other taxes that are deducted from our paychecks, whether we use the service or not.

This is what they did in California 40 years ago, when social engineers introduced Medical. The opponents of Medical, said it would bankrupt the state. Well the state is bankrupt, and no one discusses the linkage between this health reform, the warnings from the original opponents of Medical and the financial crisis in California.

If the federal government sets up national health care, what effect do you think this will have on the Mexicans across the border? Do you think it will act as an incentive for more illegal crossings or less?

How do you think Justice Sotomayer will rule, if the constitutionality of our borders and Illegal Alien participation in our national health care system ever comes into question and reaches the Supreme Court.

How do you think a “Chief Justice” Sotomayer will rule?

And the hits keep coming…

By Peter Schaenk

　

Pope calls for a "global authority" on economy

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict called on Tuesday for a "world political authority" to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.

The pope made his call for a re-think of the way the world economy was run in a new encyclical which touched on a number of social issues but whose main connecting thread was how the current crisis has affected both rich and poor nations.

Parts of the encyclical, titled "Charity in Truth," seemed bound to upset free marketers because of its underlying rejection of unbridled capitalism and unregulated market forces, which he said had led to "thoroughly destructive" abuse of the system and "grave deviations and failures."

An encyclical is the highest form of papal writing and gives the clearest indication to the world's 1.1 billion Catholics -- and to non-Catholics -- of what the pope and the Vatican think about specific social and moral issues.

The pope said every economic decision had a moral consequence and called for "forms of redistribution" of wealth overseen by governments to help those most affected by crises.

Benedict said "there is an urgent need of a true world political authority" whose task would be "to manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result."

Such an authority would have to be "regulated by law" and "would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights."

"Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums," he said.

The United Nations, economic institutions and international finance all had to be reformed "even in the midst of a global recession," he said in the encyclical, a booklet of 141 pages.

The pope's call for a supranational body to tackle global economic woes disturbed some Catholic capitalists.

"There is a difference between coordination and mandate ... a reckless loan in the United States can and did impoverish people in Latvia. So obviously coordination is important as long as it is not mandates," said Frank Keating, CEO of the American Council of Life Insurers and former Governor of Oklahoma.

LOFTY MESSAGE

The encyclical was addressed to all Catholics and "all people of good will" and was released on the eve of the start of the G8 summit in Italy and three days before the pope is due to discuss the global downturn with U.S. President Barack Obama.

In several sections of the encyclical, Benedict made it clear he had great reservations about a totally free market.

"The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from 'influences' of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way," he said.

"In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise," he added.

Profit was useful only if it served as a means to a brighter future for all humanity.

"Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty," he said.

He said the current economic crisis was "clear proof" of "pernicious effects of sin" in the economy.

"Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity ...," he said.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had rebuked the pope earlier this year at the height of the row over a Holocaust-denying bishop, welcomed the encyclical as important encouragement for world leaders ahead of a G8 meeting in Italy.

"Pope Benedict has encouraged the state leaders to create rules so that this sort of worldwide economic crisis isn't repeated," Merkel told reporters. "I also saw this as an order to work toward a social market economy in the world."

The pope appeared to back government intervention "in correcting errors and malfunctions" in the economy, saying "one could foresee an increase in the new forms of political participation, nationally and internationally."

(Additional reporting by Daniel Bases in New York and Sabine Siebold in Berlin; Editing by Matthew Jones)

Cashing In On 'Government Sachs'

  We are so inured to tales of business corruption that even a devastating exposé in The Wall Street Journal no longer shocks us. The fact that the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank made millions off his secret purchase of Goldman Sachs stock, "in violation of Federal Reserve policy," as the WSJ put it, at a time when the N.Y. Fed was ostensibly overseeing the antics of the Wall Street firm, has barely registered a blip of outrage.

    When N.Y. Fed Chairman Stephen Friedman bought stock in the company that he once headed, and where he still serves as a director, he was already in violation of Federal Reserve policy and was hoping for a waiver to permit him to hold his existing multi-million-dollar stock stash and to remain on the Goldman board. The waiver was requested last October by Timothy Geithner, then the president of the N.Y. Fed and now Treasury secretary. Yet, without having received that waiver, Friedman went ahead in December and purchased 37,300 additional shares. With shares he added in January, after the waiver was granted, he ended up with 98,600 shares in Goldman Sachs, worth a total of $13,330,720 at the close of trading on Monday.

Friedman was in violation of the Fed's policy because, thanks in part to the urging of Geithner and the N.Y. Fed, Goldman Sachs was allowed to become a bank holding company, making it eligible for government bailout funds (an option that Geithner had denied to Goldman rival Lehman Brothers). But that shift also put Goldman under more rigorous banking regulations that required Friedman as Class C director of the N.Y. Fed, a position in which he ostensibly represents the public instead of the banks who dominate the board, to step down as a Goldman director and divest his holdings. Instead, he stayed on the Goldman board and added additional shares while waiting for the Fed waiver. Nor did he inform the Federal Reserve of his additional purchases last December, and the lawyers for the N.Y. Fed didn't know about that purchase until the WSJ raised questions in April. Friedman has made a profit of about $3 million on the additional shares.

    The significance of this conflict of interest was summarized by the lead of the WSJ story: "The Federal Reserve Bank of New York shaped Washington's response to the financial crisis late last year, which buoyed Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other Wall Street firms. Goldman received speedy approval to become a bank holding company in September and a $10 billion capital injection soon after."

    In addition to that capital injection, which at least carries some expectation of being repaid, Goldman received an additional $8.1 billion that will not have to be returned to taxpayers. This is a result of the bailout engineered by then-N.Y. Fed president Geithner of AIG, which listed Goldman as its top insured credit-swap customer. As Jerry Jordan, former president of the Fed Bank in Cleveland, told the Journal in reference to Friedman's obvious conflict of interest, "He should have resigned."

    Unfortunately, this was not the view during the reign of Geithner, who argued that Friedman needed to remain chairman of the N.Y. Fed board to find a suitable replacement for Geithner as he moved on to be secretary of the Treasury. Friedman chose a fellow former Goldman Sachs exec for the job.

    All of which calls into question the unique power of Goldman Sachs over the U.S. government, as described in another important, but largely ignored, article from The New York Times last October headlined "The Guys From 'Government Sachs.' " Their power is vast, no matter which party controls the White House. As the Times noted, two leaders of Goldman Sachs - Robert Rubin, who co-chaired Goldman with Friedman, and Henry Paulson - had become secretaries of the Treasury in the Clinton and Bush administrations, respectively.

    Under Paulson, the bailout of Wall Street was dominated by Goldman Sachs alums, and as the Times noted, "Indeed, Goldman's presence in the (Treasury) department and around the federal response to the financial bailout is so ubiquitous that other bankers and competitors have given the star-studded firm a new nickname: Government Sachs."

    That power continues unabated in the Obama administration. Geithner is a protégé of former Goldman Sachs chairman Rubin. And it was therefore not surprising when he picked Mark Patterson, a registered lobbyist for Goldman Sachs, to be his chief of staff at the Treasury Department. That appointment was made on the same day that Geithner announced new rules for limiting the influence of registered lobbyists. Need more be said?

By Robert Scheer

Worst foreclosure rates found in 4 states

WASHINGTON – The 26 U.S. cities with the worst foreclosure problems are concentrated in four states — California, Florida, Arizona and Nevada, a report released Wednesday shows.

The report on foreclosures for the first quarter by RealtyTrac Inc. said the highest foreclosure rates were found in Las Vegas, Merced, Calif. and the Cape Coral-Fort Myers area in Florida. Next on the list were the California metro areas of Stockton, Riverside, Modesto, Bakersfield and Vallejo-Fairfield.

Rounding out the top 10 were Phoenix and Port St. Lucie, Fla. Outside of the four high-foreclosure states, the worst foreclosure rates were in Boise City, Idaho (No. 27) and Greeley, Colo. (No. 29).

The number of American households threatened with losing their homes grew 24 percent in the first three months of this year and is poised to rise further as major lenders restart foreclosures after a temporary break.

Nationwide, nearly 804,000 homes received at least one foreclosure-related notice from January through March, up from about 650,000 in the same period a year earlier, RealtyTrac said last week.

The big unknown for the coming months is President Barack Obama's plan to help up to 9 million borrowers avoid foreclosure through refinanced mortgages or modified loans.

The Obama administration expects it to make a big dent in the foreclosure crisis. But it remains to be seen whether the lending industry will fully embrace the efforts, despite a promise of $75 billion in incentive payments.

Associated Press

Senate Passes Obama's Economic Recovery Plan

 Washington - President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan has passed the Senate and is on its way to difficult House-Senate negotiations.

    Just three Republicans helped pass the plan on a 61-37 vote and they're already signaling they'll play hardball to preserve more than $108 billion in spending cuts made last week in Senate dealmaking. Obama wants to restore cuts in funds for school construction jobs and help for cash-starved states.

    Those cuts are among the major differences between the $819 billion House version of Obama's plan and a Senate bill costing $838 billion. Obama has warned of a deepening economic crisis if Congress fails to act. He wants a bill completed by the weekend.

    The bill backed by the White House survived a key test vote in the Senate Monday despite strong Republican opposition, and Democratic leaders vowed to deliver legislation for President Barack Obama's signature within a few days.

    Monday's vote was 61-36, one more than the 60 needed to advance the measure toward Senate passage on Tuesday. That in turn, will set the stage for possibly contentious negotiations with the House on a final compromise on legislation the president says is desperately needed to tackle the worst economic crisis in more than a generation.

    The Senate vote occurred as the Obama administration moved ahead on another key component of its economic recovery plan. Officials said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would outline rules on Tuesday for $350 billion in bailout funds designed to help the financial industry as well as homeowners facing foreclosure.

    Monday's vote was close but scarcely in doubt once the White House and Democratic leaders agreed to trim about $100 billion on Friday.

    As a result, Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania broke ranks to cast their votes to advance the bill.

    Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., battling a brain tumor, made his first appearance in the Capitol since suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day, and he joined all other Democrats in support of the measure.

    "There is no reason we can't do this by the end of the week," said Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said he was prepared to hold the Senate in session into the Presidents Day weekend if necessary, and cautioned Republicans not to try and delay final progress.

    He said passage would mark "the first step on the long road to recovery."

    Moments before the vote, the Congressional Budget Office issued a new estimate that put the cost at $838 billion, an increase from the $827 billion figure from last week.

    "This bill has the votes to pass. We know that," conceded Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican who has spoken daily in the Senate against the legislation.

    As if to underscore its prospects for passage, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a prominent and powerful business group, issued a statement calling on the Senate to advance the measure.

    Even so, in the hours before Monday's vote, Republican opponents attacked it as too costly and unlikely to have the desired effect on the economy. "This is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

    All 36 votes in opposition were cast by Republicans.

    The two remaining versions of the legislation are relatively close in size - $838 billion in the Senate and $819 billion in the House, and are similar in many respects.

    Both include Obama's call for a tax cut for lower-income wage earners, as well as billions for unemployment benefits, food stamps, health care and other programs to help victims of the worst recession in decades. In a bow to the administration, they also include billions for development of new information technology for the health industry, and billions more to lay the groundwork for a new environmentally friendly industry that would help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

    At the same time, the differences are considerable.

    The measure nearing approval in the Senate calls for more tax cuts and less spending than the House bill, largely because it includes a $70 billion provision to protect middle-class taxpayers from falling victim to the alternative minimum tax, which was intended to make sure the very wealthy don't avoid paying taxes.

    Both houses provide for tax breaks for home buyers, but the Senate's provision is far more generous. The Senate bill also gives a tax break to purchasers of new cars.

    Both houses provide $87 billion in additional funds for the Medicaid program, which provides health care to the low income. But the House and Senate differ on the formula to be used in distributing the money, a dispute that pits states against one another rather than Republicans against Democrats.

    There are dozens of differences on spending.

    The Senate proposed $450 million for NASA for exploration, for example, $50 million less than the House. It also eliminated the House's call for money to combat a potential flu pandemic.

    On the other hand, the Senate bill calls for several billion more in spending for research at the National Institutes of Health, the result of an amendment backed last week by Specter.

Associated Press