Saturday, May 29, 2010

Obama to snatch up to 75% of your income

May 24, 2010
Jerome Corsi
Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium online newsletter

If President Obama repeals the Bush tax cuts and imposes a 20 percent value added tax, or VAT, on the U.S., Americans may be facing tax rates where more than half of everything earned is confiscated by the federal government in the form of income taxes, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.

Add Social Security taxes and the tax burden quickly advances to more than 60 percent.

"Adding state property and income taxes to the burden, the amount government confiscates could be in the 75 percent range before Americans have a chance to vote Obama out of office in 2012," Corsi wrote. "Are Americans willing to be taxed 75 percent of every dollar earned?"

"In a five-day work week, will Americans be willing to work four days for the government?" Corsi asked.

He said as Obama moves the U.S. in the direction of becoming a European-style social welfare state, it is important to consider taxation levels typical in Europe.

Corsi noted that even high levels of taxation are not sufficient in Europe to prevent debt levels from rising to crisis proportions, as has been seen in Greece and is looming on the horizon in Portugal, Spain and Italy.

"These are the real costs of income redistribution, as taxpayers are made to bear the taxation costs of generous pension plans for government employees at all levels of government – federal, state and local – as well as funding Social Security, paying for Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare and funding welfare, including educating the children of illegal immigrants in Spanish in public schools," he wrote. "There is no limit to generosity when it comes to socialist states providing social welfare benefits to increasingly government dependent populations."

To learn more about the true costs of income redistribution, read Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, "The Obama Nation."

Homosexual Assault in the Military-Analysis of Pentagon Reports

Executive Summary

A Family Research Council analysis of publicly available documents-the Pentagon's own report on sexual assault in the military for Fiscal Year 2009, and published decisions from military courts of appeals over the last decade and a half-have shown that there is already a significant problem of homosexual misconduct in the military. This problem can only become worse if the current law is repealed and homosexuals are openly welcomed (and even granted special protections) within the military, as homosexual activists are demanding.

Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military Are Disproportionately High

Homosexual activist groups themselves have admitted that less than three percent of Americans are homosexual or bisexual.

FRC has reviewed the "case synopses" of all 1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). Our startling finding was that over eight percent (8.2%) of all military sexual assault cases were homosexual in nature. This suggests that homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are, relative to their numbers.

Lack of Privacy Leads to Sexual Assaults

FRC and other supporters of the current law have pointed out the risks involved in having servicemembers share living quarters, showers, and bathrooms with persons of the same sex who may be sexually attracted to them. This concern is borne out by many of the case synopses reported by the Pentagon. The most common type of homosexual assault is one in which the offender fondles or performs oral sex upon a sleeping victim. Assaults upon victims who are intoxicated are also common.

Many Discharges of Homosexuals are for Sexual Assault

Advocates of open homosexuality in the military often lament the fact that several thousand members of the military have been discharged under the 1993 law since its enactment. However, what they fail to note is that many of those discharges are actually for sexual assaults.

Court Records Reveal Shocking Cases of Homosexual Assault

Published decisions of military courts (available on the legal search engine Lexis) give even more detail about homosexual assaults in the military. For example:

*  36-year-old Marine Sgt. Sean D. Habian used both alcohol and homosexual pornography in the course of assaulting a 21-year-old Lance Corporal.

*  Marine Sgt. Steven G. Carlson, a military police instructor, took advantage of his position to exploit his students, inviting them to social events, plying them with alcohol, and playing games like "truth or dare" to identify who might be receptive to homosexual activity. One of his victims "testified that the appellant's acts shocked him, he froze, and was scared."

*  Homosexual activists are fond of saying that the military cannot afford to lose the specialized skills that some homosexual service members have-such as translators and linguists. Air Force Sgt. Eric P. Marcum was a Persian-Farsi linguist-but also was charged with forcible sodomy against a male Senior Airman who "testified that Appellant's actions made him scared, angry, and uncomfortable."

*  Air Force Major Rickie J. Bellanger was charged with sexually abusing two minor boys-one of whom had begun corresponding with Maj. Bellanger when he was in the fifth grade.


The military already has a serious problem with sexual assault by homosexuals. If the current law against homosexuality in the military is overturned, the problem of same-sex sexual assault in the military is sure to increase.

*  If the law is overturned and open homosexuals are welcomed into the military, the number of homosexuals in the armed forces can only increase-leading to a corresponding increase in same-sex sexual assaults.

*  Removal of the threat of discharge from the military for homosexual conduct will reduce deterrence, likely leading to more cases of sexual assault.

*  If homosexuals become a protected class within the military, victims will be afraid to report incidents of homosexual assault and commanders will be afraid to punish them, lest they be accused of "discrimination" or "homophobia."

Allowing open homosexuality in the military would do nothing to enhance the readiness or effectiveness of our armed forces. On the contrary, it would clearly damage them-in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military.

Friday, May 28, 2010

It's Friday Night -- Obamacrats Bad News Dump

May 28, 2010

Think things are out of hand yet ? Kenny S wrote, "the media went on the Memorial Day holiday about a half-hour ago. About ten minutes later, 'guess who' passed a tax increase on the per-barrel rate for oil - from 8 cents to 34 cents.

The House vote was 215 to 204.

Everything is about to go up in cost..... EVERYTHING.

Your income, if you're lucky enough to still be employed or still in business, stays the same (actually decreases due to the additional expenses for everything is about to go up in cost."

They are robbing us blind. And Obama is blaming ...............Bush for the spill. Got that?

US oil tax quadrupled to pay for spills

May 29, 2010

The US House of Representatives has voted to more than quadruple a per-barrel oil tax that fills a special trust fund to pay for damages from major spills such as the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

The measure called for raising the eight-cent-per-barrel tax to 34 cents, raising nearly $US 12 billion ($14.1 billion) dollars over 10 years for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which currently holds about $US 1.5 billion.

The legislation, which passed by a 215-204 margin, also aimed to raise the cap on per-incident trust fund expenditures from $US 1 billion to $US 5 billion.

Some analysts have warned that the price tag for the catastrophic oil spill that resulted from the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling platform run by BP could top $US 14 billion.

BP is legally responsible for all cleanup costs, but is only liable for up to $US 75 million in economic damages - a cap that vanishes if the British energy giant is found to have been negligent or engaged in wilful misconduct.

To the extent that costs above that are not covered by BP - which has vowed to pay all ‘‘legitimate’’ claims - up to $US 1 billion of the additional damages could come about of the trust fund.

The legislation approved on Friday would raise that ceiling to $US 5 billion.

The Senate was expected to pass a different version of the bill when it returns from next week’s break, meaning the two chambers would have to agree on a compromise version to send to President Barack Obama.

The House-passed measure’s main goal was to extend a series of provisions aimed at battling stubbornly high US unemployment and extend jobless benefits to late November.


Where is all the money they have already sucked out of the guts of this great nation? Where the hell is all our dough?

Signs Point to Administration Plan to Lock Up 13M Acres of Federal Land

by Brian Wilson
May 27, 2010

A leaked partial document produced by the Bureau of Land Management and obtained by Fox News suggests the Obama administration is considering a plan to lock up 13 million acres of land -- and the Department of Interior is refusing to answer questions.

First, a little background: The federal government owns about one-third of the land in the United States -- most of it in western states. For example, 84 percent of Nevada is owned by Uncle Sam.

But the government leases large parcels of federal land for all sorts of things -- grazing, mining, exploration, recreation.

Those commercial activities create jobs and tax revenue for the states. Tax revenues from commercial activity on federal lands often pays for local schools. However, with the single stroke of his pen, President Obama can use the Antiquities of Act of 1906 to turn federal land into National Monuments.

That would effectively lock up the land from any kind of private use or development.

The plan may actually be more than 13 million acres. Republican members of the House have asked for the rest of the memo, but the Department of the Interior is refusing to hand it over.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said he is worried.

"When the administration is, for lack of a better word, stiffing us -- you know that causes concern," Hastings said during a hallway interview on Capitol Hill. "We do have responsibilities to our constituents to make sure that when there is a huge change on federal lands in their area, that they are part of that process. We are afraid that that process is going to be taken away from them and that's why we're asking for these documents."

Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee were unable to garner Democratic support for a resolution requiring the Department of Interior to produce some 2,000 documents it has on this matter.

The DOI did cough up 300 e-mails that Republicans say do not reveal very much.

When contacted by Fox News, the department's press secretary hinted that the GOP request is under further review.

"This is an on-going process," Kendra Barkoff wrote. "We may supplement this response as the process is concluded."

There are those who believe these lands are precious -- and should be locked up from development. But in western states this is controversial.

Western state governors are worried that the Obama administration is going to do this quickly and quietly -- without public hearings. They want the process to be more transparent. But for now, those documents are being tightly held by the Obama Department of Interior.

"..remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself.." - Obama's new Policy Advisor

May 28, 2010
by Aaron Klein

NEW YORK – The policy director at a George Soros-funded, Marxist-founded organization calling itself Free Press has just taken a key State Department position, WND has learned.

Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott has been named a policy adviser for innovation at the State Department.

"We will miss Ben's leadership, wise counsel, and strategic brilliance – for Free Press and the overall movement for media and technology policy in the public interest," said Free Press President Josh Silver.

Free Press is a well-known advocate of government intervention in the Internet.

Scott authored a book, "The Future of Media," which was edited by the founder of Free Press, Robert W. McChesney.

McChesney is an avowed Marxist who has recommended capitalism be dismantled.

He is a professor at the University of Illinois and former editor of the Marxist journal Monthly Review.

In February 2009, McChesney wrote in a column, "In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles."

The board of Free Press has included a slew of radicals, such as Obama's former "green jobs" czar Van Jones, who resigned after it was exposed he founded a communist organization.

Last week, WND reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.

Now the group is pushing a new organization,, that advocates the downfall of "big media" and the creation of new media to "promote local ownership, amplify minority voices, support quality journalism, and bring local artists, voices and viewpoints to the airwaves."

Free Press has ties to other members of the Obama administration.

Obama's "Internet czar," Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a Free Press's May 14, 2009, "Changing Media" summit in Washington, D.C.

Crawford's pet project, OneWebNow, lists as "participating organizations" Free Press and the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.

Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition team's Federal Communications Commission Review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a George Soros-funded public interest group.

A Public Knowledge advisory board member is Timothy Wu, who is also chairman of the board for Free Press.

Like Public Knowledge, Free Press also has received funds from Soros' Open Society Institute.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Majority Now Want Health Care Do-Over

by Kim Trobee

May 24, 2010

Latest poll shows more than 60 percent of Americans unhappy with health care overhaul.

Support for repealing the Obama health care reform law has now reached 63 percent according to new numbers from Rasmussen Reports.

Weekly polling has shown most Americans opposed the reform, even during the debate, but this is the first time the number has broken 60 percent.

Gary Bauer with American Values says opposition to the law is mounting from more than just a moral perspective.

"We heard members of Congress admitting they hadn't read it," he said, "closed-door meetings with last-minute changes, offers to members of Congress that sure looked like what we would normally call bribes in order to get their vote. I think all these things together, this legislation now law, has become a symbol of everything that's wrong in Washington, D.C."

Part of the law includes controversial federal funding for school health centers.

Chuck Donovan, senior research fellow with The Heritage Foundation, said although the law forbids the centers from providing abortion services, it does not prohibit them from providing abortion referrals or prevent health providers from discussing it with students.

"So parents really aren't protected in a school-based clinic," he said.

Tom McClusky, vice president of government affairs for the Family Research Council (FRC), said the FRC opposes the funding.

"This is how groups, abortion groups like Planned Parenthood get their foot in the door of schools," he said. "They don't believe in parental consent. There's nothing allowing for parental consent."

He said the National Assembly on School Based Health Care, the major lobbying group that supports funding school health centers, strongly encourages new funding for these centers.

"That hangs in the balance right now," he said. "Congress has authorized funds, but it's not mandated they be spent, so it's something the families can influence."

Congress to Quadruple Gas Tax? HR 4213

Posted by Jared Law
May 24, 2010

So now on top of everything else, Congress may increase the FEDERAL Gas Tax (most gas taxes are state taxes, so this will make the Federal portion far and away the largest in most states, significantly increasing the cost of Gasoline & Diesel fuel for all Americans).

How many Americans do you know who will go along with yet another highway robbery? This is obscene! They spend $Trillions, commit us to TENS of $Trillions more, and our taxes are raising at a dizzying pace.

HOW CAN ANY AMERICAN REMAIN ASLEEP? The answer is to CUT SPENDING. I realize the Democrats have a vise-grip on the reins of power, but some of them HAVE to be good people! Why aren't they standing with Republicans and doing the right thing? How can ANYBODY think that ANY of this is sustainable, to use one of their favorite words?

It simply boggles the mind that ANYBODY, regardless of how high they are, how into American Idol they are, how many hours a day they spend gaming online, playing FarmVille on Facebook, or gossiping on the phone, is still asleep. Isn't 20% unemployment (26.8 Million Unemployed Americans) enough to awaken the rest of America? Well over $10 Trillion of federal debt, with $13 Trillion of debt, $55.7 Trillion of "total debt," $108.8 Trillion of unfunded liabilities, $5.6 Trillion of Government Takeovers/Bailouts, and an over 90% Debt-to-GDP ratio!?!?

Seriously, how much more 'hope & change' can we take? What will it take to wake the rest of America? Blood running in the streets? Cleared-out store shelves? Real, unavoidable hunger? The death of loved ones?

It is chilling to see how bold they're being. I realize this isn't nearly as bad as many things that have been done, and many more to come, but don't they realize that ENOUGH of us are awake to throw them out of office? Yes, I know many of them don't care, but ENOUGH of them certainly should! The only explanation is they don't fear us anymore. And that is a scary thought, indeed.

Oil spill...there's no reason to believe that the White House wants to see this fixed anytime soon. It is a crisis that cannot be wasted, from their point of view. The mask is almost off, for all to see. Those of us who already see it, and have seen it for quite some time, I hope we're all continuing to EDUCATE ourselves, INVITING our friends, neighbors, relatives, co-workers, clients/customers, church congregation members, and others, to join us, and going door-to-door in our neighborhoods to contact those we don't yet know, to spread the word and awaken all who are willing to be awakened!

Here's the story:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Responding to the massive BP oil spill, Congress is getting ready to quadruple—to 32 cents a barrel—a tax on oil used to help finance cleanups. The increase would raise nearly $11 billion over the next decade.

The tax is levied on oil produced in the U.S. or imported from foreign countries. The revenue goes to a fund managed by the Coast Guard to help pay to clean up spills in waterways, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

The tax increase is part of a larger bill that has grown into a nearly $200 billion grab bag of unfinished business that lawmakers hope to complete before Memorial Day. The key provisions are a one-year extension of about 50 popular tax breaks that expired at the end of last year, and expanded unemployment benefits, including subsidies for health insurance, through the end of the year.

The House could vote on the bill as early as Tuesday. Senate leaders hope to complete work on it before Congress goes on a weeklong break next week.

Lawmakers want to increase the current 8-cent-a-barrel tax on oil to make sure there is enough money available to respond to oil spills. At least 6 million gallons of crude have spewed into the Gulf of Mexico since a drilling rig exploded April 20 off the Louisiana coast.

President Barack Obama and congressional leaders have said they expect BP to foot the bill for the cleanup.

"Taxpayers will not pick up the tab," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday.

BP executives told Congress last week they would pay "all legitimate claims" for damages. But the government needs upfront money to respond to spills, as well as money to pay for cleanups when the responsible party is unable to pay, or is unknown. Money spent from the fund can later be recovered from the company responsible for the spill.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund has about $1.5 billion available. Under current law, only $1 billion can be spent from the fund on a single incident. The bill would increase the spending limit to $5 billion.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the tax increase was hastily put together, without adequate study, to help pay for an unrelated bill. The tax increase was unveiled Thursday, without any congressional hearings to study its impact.

Even with the tax increases, the bill is projected to add $134 billion to the federal budget deficit.

"I have seen no analysis on how this would impact energy security, how this would impact domestic production, how this would impact the overall economics in the country," said Christopher Guith, vice president of the chamber's energy institute. "There hasn't been any sort of deliberation on this."

The American Petroleum Institute has not taken a position on the tax increase, though a spokeswoman said Congress should study the ramifications before acting.

"We understand we need to have an insurance policy in order to cover people in the event of a spill," said the spokeswoman, Cathy Landry. "At the same time we need to have a vital oil and gas industry."

The bill does not address a federal law that caps liability at $75 million for economic damages beyond direct cleanup costs. Democratic Senators tried to pass a bill last week that would have increased the cap to $10 billion, but they were blocked by Republicans.

The oil industry says such a high cap would make it difficult, if not impossible, to insure oil rigs.

BP said Monday its costs for responding to the spill had grown to about $760 million.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

The Remarkable Rise of Jan Brewer (AZ)

One oddity about the Arizona illegals controversy is how little fallout, positive or negative, has touched the politician who set it off: Governor Jan Brewer.

As women have moved into the forefront of conservative politics, they have become targets for serious assaults from the left. The treatment they receive is far worse than that given male politicians of the same order, as we have clearly seen with Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Families, looks, personality, grooming -- every last element of their lives and persons becomes fodder for some of the trashiest elements of the contemporary political scene. No insult is too low, no attack too foul. The gentleman has truly become an extinct species, at least on the left side of the fence.

But nothing of the sort has happened with Jan Brewer. She has encouraged and put her signature to one of the most controversial laws in recent memory, one that has aroused open accusations of Nazism and led to boycotts, media condemnation, and lawsuits. It is a bill that is rapidly setting the grounds of debate for the upcoming midterms, and not at all in the left's favor. And yet Governor Brewer -- much to her own relief, I'm sure -- has not yet become a target in the same way as Palin and Bachmann.

At the same time, she has not received the recognition she deserves, either. Brewer is a serious conservative, and one who, unlike many careerists who talk the talk but skitter into the shadows whenever anything more concrete is required, actually is doing things, throwing down the gauntlet not only as regards illegal immigration, but also firearms rights, deficit spending, and most recently, the PC stranglehold on public education. Governor Brewer has, in a matter of weeks, gone from being the accidental governor of a second-tier state to standing as an exemplar of the activist conservative politician.

Perhaps no greater irony in a story full of ironies lies in the fact that Brewer was born in Hollywood, California in 1944. Her father, a civilian employee of the Navy who worked as a supervisor at a Nevada munitions depot, was forced to retire for health reasons due to exposure to chemicals. The family returned to California, where her father died only a year later.

Brewer moved to Arizona after her marriage to Dr. John Brewer. She became involved in politics through a route not unusual for women: concern over her children's education. Disgusted by what she saw at the school board meetings, Brewer decided to run for a seat on the board in the upcoming election. But when a legislative seat opened up, she ran for that instead, winning the election and taking office in 1983.

Brewer served as a representative for three years before moving on to the state senate, where she served from 1987 to 1996. She was Majority Whip from 1993 to 1996.

Brewer was a conservative reformer of the type that has grown common since the Reagan era, helping to craft and pass laws involving tax relief, budget reform, truth in sentencing, and charter schools. She was the sponsor for the first Living Will statute passed in the U.S.
From 1997 to 2002, Brewer served as chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and Scottsdale, is the fourth-most populous county in the country, with 3 million-plus residents (some of them are even legal). At the time, it was also one of the most ill-run. When Brewer took office, Maricopa was caught in a near-Greek debt spiral, having borrowed $165 million simply to maintain adequate cash flow. Five years later, Brewer had transformed Maricopa into one of the most financially stable counties in the country. Governing magazine went so far as to rate Maricopa as "one of the two best managed large counties in the nation."

Brewer was elected Secretary of State in 2002. She has never once enjoyed a free ride while campaigning -- all of her elections have been contested. Her major order of business on taking office was to deal with a chronic state budget deficit. She updated laws and procedures, removed outdated publication requirements, and trimmed work assignments and eliminated state overtime. Brewer was easily reelected in 2006.

In 2009 she succeeded to the governorship under Arizona's unusual succession law (the state has no lieutenant governor) after Janet Napolitano was called on to save the country from the militias. Her tenure as governor has been nothing less than spectacular. Brewer expanded firearm rights by signing a gun law allowing the carriage of unloaded guns. She repealed Napolitano's domestic partner dependents bill, which awarded gay partnerships the same privileges as married couples. Her 2011 budget cut state participation in such federally-sponsored health-care giveaway programs as S-CHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as KidsCare, a kind of kindergarten ObamaCare) and AHCCCS, (Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System) -- the state's version of Medicaid.

But Brewer's major impact involves illegal immigration. Arizona is not only a frontline state, but also the current flashpoint of the illegals crisis. Since enforcement in urban areas has improved over the past decade, illegals have been forced to attempt crossings in more remote areas, with Arizona the target of choice. Deterioration of conditions along the border, marked by shootings, assaults, theft, and vandalism, has become insupportable. The Arizona border is today's equivalent of the urban "combat zones" of the '70s and '80s, where, thanks to ideology and lack of will, crime was allowed to run rampant. Politicians on the national level -- even native son John McCain -- chose to turn their backs. But as the man said, all politics is local. The Arizona border crisis is local politics with a national impact.

Governor Brewer is the first politician to take the type of action the public has demanded. Senate Bill 1070 is no radical measure, as lefties across North America (not to mention within the U.N.) have been quick to assert. It is in large part a reinforcement of current federal immigration law. At the same time, it is not merely a ritual effort passed to placate the public -- many police and sheriff's departments in Arizona and elsewhere (at least, those not run by Joe Arpaio) have chosen to avoid trouble by ignoring illegals under the pretense that it's a federal matter. Bill 1070 assures that such departments will actually stir themselves to enforce the law.

The bill is already having a dramatic impact, despite the fact that it does not go effect until the end of July. Illegals are fleeing the state for more comfortable milieus. Politicians across the west are calling for similar legislation. The left is throwing fits, always a useful development. The messiah himself has been forced to lower his gaze from the vision of national redemption to the mundane matter of border security. The issue will be central to the midterm elections, adding even more heat to already hissing tea kettles.

Not bad for a politician that most observers considered a placeholder who would be out of office in short order.

Governor Brewer is running for a full term this fall. There's little doubt that she will get it. She is the rare politician who has seldom made a false move (apart from being an Abba fan, which we can forgive this one time. Fleetwood Mac would be a deal-breaker, though.). Even a successful effort to raise the state sales tax through Proposition 100 is excusable as a one-time means of closing the state's budget gap. Brewer has promised that the new tax will be temporary and considering her record as a fiscal hawk, there is no reason to doubt it. Much more to the point is Arizona's decision, announced last week, to join twenty other states in the lawsuit against the implementation of ObamaCare.

Feminism has backfired on the left. The heralded "Year of the Woman" (was it 1992?) was supposed to introduce a new breed of female politician that would inevitably steer the country in a progressive direction. Instead, the best and most effective female politicians have been conservative, many entering the public sphere after raising families, clear evidence that the traditional way of life is in no way as stultifying as the radfems insisted. Palin, Bachmann, and now Brewer are setting the political standard for millennial America. We are fortunate to have them.

Now if only we can get some of the males to try whatever it is they're drinking.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

US lifts sanctions against Russians linked to Iran

May 21, 2010
by Robert Burns
AP National Security Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration on Friday removed sanctions against three Russian organizations the U.S. had previously accused of assisting Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons.

Penalties against a fourth Russian entity previously accused of illicit arms sales to Syria also were lifted.

The timing of the decisions, published in Friday's Federal Register but not otherwise announced by the State Department, suggested the possibility of a link to U.S. efforts to win Russian support for a new U.N. Security Council resolution expanding sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

The State Department on Friday did not immediately respond to questions about lifting the sanctions.

Two of the entities—Dmitri Mendeleyev University of Chemical Technology and the Moscow Aviation Institute—had been sanctioned in January 1999 under a 1994 executive order authorizing such action. The order was aimed at organizations determined to have contributed to a foreign country's development or production of weapons of mass destruction or missiles capable of launching such weapons.

When the administration of former President Bill Clinton announced those sanctions, then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said the two institutions "directly support Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons."

At the time, the Russian government denied such support for Iran.

U.S. sanctions imposed in October 2008 against Russian state arms trader Rosoboronexport for alleged illicit assistance to Iran's nuclear program also were lifted by the State Department on Friday.

Rosoboronexport said at the time that it had sold only defensive weaponry to Iran.

Earlier this year, Anatoly Isaikin, head of Rosoboronexport, said Russia still considers Iran a valuable arms customer. That was a reassuring message to Tehran despite recent indications of Moscow's support for tougher Western sanctions.

Isaikin told a news conference in late January that no international agreements bar Russia from selling weapons to Tehran.

Russia signed a 2007 contract to sell the powerful S-300 air defense missiles to Tehran but so far has not delivered any. No reason has been given for the delay, but Israel and the United States strongly objected to Iran obtaining the long-range missiles, which would significantly boost the country's air defense capability.

The State Department on Friday also lifted sanctions against Tula Instrument Design Bureau in April 1999 for providing anti-tank guided missiles to Syria.

Guilty Verdict Handed Down by the Obama Columbia Jury

By Steve Cooper
The Conservative

The past few days have been very intense on all of us that took part in this very interesting event. The jury deliberated for over 3 hours until they came up with the verdict. The defendants were found guilty on all charges and there were so many, but I will basically give you all a quick review.

Mail fraud, wire fraud, Obstruction of Justice and Sedition were the main charges. I would have found Columbia University not guilty of any charges that involved them knowingly undermining the country. I just do not think they knew back in 1981 that they were taking part in a conspiracy to undermine the Government. Their silence about Obama attending Columbia University during his campaign does not meet that level of conspiracy in my opinion. I do not think that was proven, but they can appeal it if they like

Day 5

Witness Miki Booth

Miki Booth is a Hawaiian born native that is running for congress in Oklahoma, District 2. Booth held up birth certificates that were real long form birth certificates from Hawaii. She then explained the difference between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Certification of Live Birth (what Obama posted on

Booth testified that anyone could get a Certification of Live Birth, it does not prove ANYTHING. Then she discussed the birth announcements and she stated that anyone could put that in the paper if they want to notify the town about a new baby in the family.

Wayne Allyn Root

Manning discussed his phone call with Wayne Allyn Root and about the article that Root posted on the Internet . many libertarians attacked Root for even considering to testify at this trial. Also, many Columbia University Alumni contacted him as well. What are they afraid of? Root said he never saw or heard of any student named Barack Obama at Columbia University at that time that Obama claims he attended the school. Root had the same major as Barry, but still never heard of him.

Manning submitted the article as evidence.

Next, Manning described a letter that he got from a former KGB agent that was also a double agent with the CIA. The informant Mike, stated that Obama worked with the CIA for 4 years (1981-1985) in Pakistan assisting the Mujahadeen fighters during the Soviet-Afghan war.

Manning then stated that factions of the CIA and the KGB are working together to install a socialist government and that Bill Clinton, Leon Panetta, Rahm Emanuel and Obama are all in on it. This means that there has been a conspiracy for at least the past 20 years to create a super spy agency. This spy agency would blackmail and assassinate the opposition, the Republicans were targets.

This was called "The Professional System". A KGB like security force that will undermine freedom and elections in the United States, to shove this nation into a socialist state.

This KGB agent claimed that the CIA was more interested in American citizens, rather than foreign enemies. Basically he is saying that they have been compromised by the enemy.

Manning - They put out a hit on me

Pastor Manning then stated that he was informed by a disgruntled CIA agent that a hit was put on his head by the CIA. This was by an anonymous caller and it was just two days after the CIA, Homeland Security and the NYPD visited Manning's church. Manning claims that the hit was called off when the assassin refused to accept the order to kill Pastor Manning. Pastor Manning is calling for the Justice Department to investigate this alleged conspiracy to assassinate him.

Manning then claimed that the CIA Operative told him to dig into Columbia University rather than the birth certificate issue, because it was clear that Obama never attended Columbia University, because he was working with the CIA in Pakistan at the time that he was allegedly attending the University.

Pastor Manning then stated that "Columbia University did not cover their tracks well". Then he commented "If John McCain is not qualified, I know for sure that Barack Hussein Obama is not qualified for the office either."

Obama said that his father was Kenyan in his book and the debate ends right there, he is NOT a natural born citizen.

Manning also stated that Obama traveled to Pakistan with a Kenyan Passport, not a Indonesian passport that has been speculated the past 22 months.

Obama's records are not sealed by the courts, they are sealed by the CIA.

Manning then shouted, "What are you hiding Mr. Obama? The people need to ask this question. Only criminals hide themselves and Obama is the most notorious criminal that ever walked the earth."

Then Manning solemnly said, "My life was challenged by MY GOVERNMENT. Obama is a Muslim and the Church failed this nation to allow this to take place."

Pastor Manning then told the jury "If a guilty verdict is rendered today, it will rock the world. You will save this nation, save my life and the lives of YOUR CHILDREN. Every dollar that Obama has collected was under fraudulent pretenses, because he is not a natural born citizen.

The Verdict

I am sure that Pastor Manning will release an official copy in the near future of all of the charges and the verdict. The church erupted with applause and cheers after the final guilty verdict was announced. Pastor Manning was very excited and he did an excellent job with this entire trial, aided by his assistant Anthony Jones (an attorney).

Manning will most likely submit all of the evidence and the verdict to the US Attorney General and demand that they investigate, validate the decision by the jury and move forward with possible arrests. I do agree that fraud was committed, Manning proved that to the entire audience and the jury.


Video clips at Ustream

May 19, 2010

Dr. James Manning's now-famous trial of Barack Obama in Harlem, New York has ended. The jury found Obama and Columbia University guilty on all charges.

The trial, however, unveils many more questions than it provides answers.

But first, a few observations are in order about the nature of this event.

Obviously the event was a 'public' rather than a 'court' trial. No court sanctioned it. The legality of public trials apart from court sanction has not been established. While the Constitution does, indeed, maintain that the ultimate power of government rests with 'we, the people,' and while a case can be made that under the 10th amendment the people, acting under the auspices of local and state authorities, can engage in certain acts of self-governance apart from the sanction and control of the federal government, it has not been established that any local entity in Harlem granted state or local legal status to the trial [Ed. note:  See posting on the American Grand Jury and references to 5th amendment which he must not be familiar with].

In that sense the trial and the verdict have no binding legal authority.

However, should a legal authority, a court, a law enforcement agency, an Attorney-General either at the state or national level, decide that the evidence presented at the Manning trial is overwhelming enough to launch a full investigation, then ultimately the results of the trial could carry the full weight of legal authority.

Dr. Manning has stated that he intends to present the evidence and the verdict to U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder. At that point the ball will be in the 'court' of the Department of Justice. If no action is taken on the verdict, then there is not much further that can be done.

But if action is taken and an official investigation ensues, then perhaps the goal of this event will have been met. The problem is that under the present circumstances it is next to impossible for that to happen. Holder is Obama's choice and Congress is held in the grip of Obama's Party. End of story.

Serious, unanswered questions remain, however--questions that the trial did an excellent job of bringing to the surface.

These questions are as follows:

Why didn't Barack Obama have a Social Security Number issued in his name when he was first employed as a 14-year-old in Hawaii? Why was there such a long delay after his first job before an application was made for a Social Security Number? And why was he given a Connecticut Social Security Number previously used by a man born in the late 1800s, given that Obama never lived in Connecticut to begin with?

The first instance of Obama's use of the Connecticut number was when he started to work as a Community Organizer in Chicago--a very long way from Connecticut.

Further, why was Obama given a degree from Columbia University when no one in Harlem ever remembers him being there, and although witnesses have testified that he was never a student on campus? And the address given by Obama as the one that he used while a student in Harlem does not exist.

But perhaps the most telling question of all is, why did Obama use a Kenyan passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981? Wouldn't a U.S. citizen normally be given an American passport? It seems to be standard procedure--and the law--that passports are given only to citizens of the country in which they reside.

And what has the CIA got to do with all of this mess?

The fact is we may never know for sure unless somebody in authority in the government decides to investigate and discover the answers.

But one thing is for sure--Obama is an enigma, a shadow, a persona created out of the murky circumstances of his past, which is being carefully hidden. Why would it even need to be hidden?

These questions are disturbing to anyone who takes our Constitution and our way of life seriously. Our form of government, as delineated in the Constitution, is dependent upon the honesty and transparency of those who hold public office. And if a fraud is elected, a charlatan, a person who presents himself as something he is not, then the entire American system of government is in grave danger.

Better to err on the side of utmost caution than to glibly dismiss all of these questions as 'mere coincidences.' Coincidences do happen, no doubt, but this many and this often--all revolving around one man?


The Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

True powers granted by the Constitution for grand jurors - NOT reserved just for the federal courts.  Evidence is presented here as to the history and law review articles explaining this in detail.  This explanation is presented in advance of the documentation of the Rev. Manning's Columbia CIA*Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial.

by Leo C. Donofrio, J.D.

January 22, 2009

About the Author

Mr. Leo Donofrio is a semi-retired New Jersey attorney who brought a case in 2008 against the New Jersey secretary of state for allowing three legally unqualified presidential candidates to be placed on the general election ballot in that state. This case was reviewed and dismissed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and then was reviewed by all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in a private closed-door session. At least five of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices felt that this case should not be heard in a public session of the Court.

In addition to being a prominent legal scholar and essayist, Mr. Donofrio is also a nationally known chess champion, poker champion and musician.

All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.

So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.

The Constitutional power of "we the people" sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.

Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return "presentments" on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.

Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:


My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won't take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we'll see what went wrong and how to correct it.


I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."

The 5th Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :

"An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury's independent action:

'A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.' "

Back to the Creighton Law Review:

"A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."

So, it's clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won't be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court's attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:

"In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language."[88]"

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

"An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment."

No mention of "presentments" can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."

The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:

"[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

'There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.' "

That's a fascinating statement: "Retention might encourage the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation." God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.

And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, "runaway grand jury," which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in "checks and balances."

The lie couldn't be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:

"Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn't prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:

'A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.'"

What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.

By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):

"At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused." Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.

Now let me add my two cents to this argument:

Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of "presentments" (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made "illegal" in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments "illegal," although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let's look at Note 4 again:

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."

The key word is, "obsolete." Obsolete means "outmoded,", or "not in use anymore", but it does not mean "abolished" or "illegal." And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of "we the people," and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.

Let's look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:


"Finally, federal grand juries' subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor's consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system."

Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, "[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments?" The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was "obsolete." First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for "presentments", then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor do they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.

Regardless, it's irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention "presentments." Note 4 simply states that "presentments" allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become "obsolete", or outmoded, which is not to say that they were "eliminated." Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know darn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be "eliminated" from the Constitution by an administrative note.

The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of "presentments" became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:

"Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes, grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors."

The FRCP did not make it "illegal for all practical purposes." That's patently false. I don't know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician's assistant, but I can't imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a break.

But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.

But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.

Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:

"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by 'a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.' Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."

The Note 4 lie is smashed on the altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, "The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day." Take that Note 4!

Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

" '[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "

I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary new context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to "we the people," THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and "we the people? when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, " a constitutional fixture in its own right." Yes, darn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.

Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside." Id.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] "

This miraculous quote says it all, "the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.

The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the "buffer between the Government and the people."

Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kicking.

Friday, May 21, 2010

WSBTV Channel 2 in Atlanta Investigates US Border Security Part 2

Friday, May 21, 2010

Justin Farmer Reports

The scary truth about who is coming across our border.

WSBTV Channel 2 in Atlanta Investigates US Border Security Part I

Friday, May 21, 2010

Justin Farmer Reports

The scary truth about who is coming across our border.

North Carolina: Prominent moderate Muslim arrested for "willfully exporting" to Libya "equipment controlled by the U.S. government for anti-terrorism reasons"

 May 21, 2010

And Muslims in North Carolina are vigorously playing the victim card. "Popular local Muslim figure arrested on federal charges," by Yonat Shimron for the Raleigh News and Observer, May 20 (thanks to Twostellas):

RALEIGH A prominent member of the Muslim community who worked to better relations with law enforcement agencies was arrested Wednesday and charged with exporting computer equipment to Libya without a license.

Mohammed "Moe" El-Gamal of Raleigh, the president of the Muslim American Public Affairs Council, appeared today before a federal judge who agreed to release him on $1 million bail before his trial.

$1 million bail. He wasn't just sending mousepads to Tripoli.

El-Gamal's lawyer, Dan Boyce said his client would plead not guilty.

More than 40 members of the Triangle Muslim community crowded into U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge James Gates' courtroom, dismayed by the charges against El-Gamal, an Egyptian native who immigrated to Canada in 1978.

"It's not fair," said Burhan Ghanayem, a retired pharmacologist from Durham. "Are they trying to make a point that we in the Muslim community are targeted?"

In a sane world, non-Muslims would be quoted in this story, saying something like, "It's not fair. Are Muslims trying to make a point that even the moderate ones support jihad against the West?" Instead, Burhan Ghanayem claims victim status unchallenged.

Only last Friday, El-Gamal helped organize a seminar in Apex for the Muslim community with representatives of Transportation Security Administration and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. During the event, Muslims were encouraged to ask questions and share their concerns about racial profiling at airports, among other issues.

Were they encouraged to be loyal to the U.S. Government and cooperate fully with anti-terror measures? Were they encouraged to accept the U.S. Constitution and laws and make no attempt to bring Sharia provisions here?

El-Gamal, who owns a business called Applied Technology Inc, in Kenansville, is a considered by many a moderate voice within the community, eager to bridge the divides between Muslims and others in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001 and the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yet today, he stood accused of willfully exporting equipment controlled by the U.S. government for anti-terrorism reasons.

The charges date back to 2006 and 2007 and involve the shipment of less than $50,000 worth of Cisco routers and Dell storage devices, including encryption data cards.

Richard Jereski, an agent with the Office of Export Enforcement in the Department of Commerce, testified that El-Gamal lied about having a license to sell the equipment to Libya, which at that time was considered a state sponsor of terrorism.

"He explained he understood the licensing restrictions and said he had the appropriate licenses," said Jereski. "We researched our database and found no license ever issued to the defendant."

Since 1986, the United States adopted economic sanctions against Libya including a total ban on direct import and export trade, commercial contracts and travel-related activities. Since 2003, the U.S. has begun normalizing relations with the African nation after it announced its intention to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and stop sponsoring terrorism. Some trade restrictions remain.

The government is also accusing El-Gamal of lying to U.S. Department of Commerce agent about having multiple citizenships. El-Gamal is a U.S. citizen, but he also holds Canadian and Egyptian citizenships.

Local Muslims though questioned the timing of El-Gamal's arrest four years after the prosecutor said the sale took place.

They worry the case would distract them in their efforts to improve relations between their community and the government.

"We're trying to get Muslims to trust federal agencies and all of a sudden they arrest one of our active members?" asked Waleed Elhentaty, a Raleigh businessman and a member of the Muslim American Public Affairs Council. "It's weird."

Note the inversion of reality. In a sane world, the feds would be saying, "We're trying to get federal agencies to trust Muslims and all of a sudden a prominent 'moderate' Muslim is making illegal exports to Libya?" In the world we live in, however, Waleed Elhentaty takes the arrest of a Muslim for illegal activity and uses it to claim victim status for Muslims -- and no one calls him on it.

17 more states planning Ariz. 'illegal' crackdown

Posted: May 21, 2010

By Bob Unruh

In what is developing into a standoff between states and the federal government that could be bigger than gun control or even health care, 17 states have launched versions of Arizona's immigration law, even as federal officials say they may not bother to process illegal aliens caught by the states.

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, which has been trying to get officials to address the open southern border for years, warned the consequences could be dire.

"Over the last couple days, Obama and the chief of ICE have refused to honor their oaths of office," he said. "Their constitutional requirement is to enforce existing laws.

"They've told the American public to go eat cake," he said.

Tell Washington what you think about immigration by sending every member of the Senate "The No Amnesty Pledge."

His organization is assembling the list of state efforts to emulate the Arizona law, which makes it illegal under state as well as federal law to be in the state without documentation.

"Seventeen states are now filing versions of Arizona's SB 1070, which is designed to help local police enforce America's existing immigration laws," ALIPAC said in a report today.

The report said numerous national and local polls indicate 60 to 81 percent of Americans support local police enforcing immigration laws.

"Our national network of activists have been working overtime trying to help the state of Arizona and the brave Arizonans who have passed this bill," he said. "Arizona no longer stands alone and we have now documented state lawmakers filing, or announcing they will file, versions of the Arizona bill in seventeen states! We will not stop until all states are protected from invasion as required by the U.S. Constitution."

Gheen said the states where some form of immigration crackdown is under development include Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

President Obama several times has said he doesn't like the Arizona law. He's called it misguided and ordered a review by the Justice Department.

John Morton, who heads the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, said his agency might not process illegal aliens caught under state jurisdiction, the Chicago Tribune reported.

He insisted that only the federal government should respond to the problem.

"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton said.

One blogger expressed concern that "a senior Homeland Security official has openly declared that he won't be doing his job."

"Morton has sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the United States. He is not allowed to pick and choose which ones he likes and which he doesn't."

Gheen said the Arizona law and the plans it has spawned in other states is a victory for Americans. But he said those are just battles, and winning the war will require success in elections this fall.

A "comprehensive" solution to the problem will arrive when there are enough "hostile" members of Congress to tell the administration to uphold the existing immigration and border laws or the impeachments will start, he said.

"[We need to send] to Washington a hostile Congress that is going to encircle the executive branch and tell them to [follow the law] or we'll impeach all the way down to the speaker of the House," he said.

Gheen said he is alarmed over the pending release, expected sometime just before the election, of a movie called "Machete," which reportedly is the story of a Mexican uprising in the United States.

Gheen said the message in the movie reportedly is that Americans will either submit to the "rape" of their land or else.

He said he believes the project is intended to create turmoil just as the mid-term elections draw near.

"There is nothing as important right now as getting [people] fully involved with all the campaigns," he said.

ALIPAC already has helped to pass some form of immigration enforcement legislation in more than 30 states. And Gheen has developed a national reputation for defeating socially progressive plans to hand out licenses, in-state tuition and other taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens.

"It is incumbent upon our states to protect American lives, property, jobs, wages, security, and health, when the executive branch fails to honor its constitutional responsibility to do so by enforcing our existing border and immigration laws," he said.

The Arizona law, which strictly prohibits racial profiling, empowers local police to enforce immigration laws.

To monitor the growing number of states considering similar legislation, ALIPAC utilizes a public forum in which members can update the organization with news articles and other information from states where the push for an Arizona-like law is making headway.

In Arizona's neighboring state Utah, for example, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, reportedly is drafting a bill that would similarly require immigrants to carry proof of status and require law enforcement officers to check for it.

"Utah is seen as state that welcomes illegal immigrants. We almost encourage it with driving privilege cards and in-state tuition for illegals," Sandstrom told the Salt Lake Tribune. "With Arizona making the first step in this direction, Utah needs to pass a similar law or we will see a huge influx of illegals. The real issue is just establishing a rule of law in our state."

Across the country in Maryland, Baltimore's WBAL-TV reported earlier that State Delegate Patrick McDonough, R-Baltimore County, is drafting a bill identical to Arizona's. He's also planning to poll his fellow legislators before the bill is filed.

Regulatory Reform: 'Unlimited Bailouts,' income 'social justice,' says GOP Senator

Sen. Richard Shelby, Alabama Republican and the ranking Republican member of the Senate Banking Committee, gave a final speech on the Senate floor Thursday in advance of the final vote to pass a financial regulation bill, which passed later in the evening.

Here is the full text of Shelby’s speech:

“Mr. President, we are nearing the end of the Senate’s consideration of an historic piece of legislation. In response to the most significant financial crisis this country has seen in a generation, we have been engaged in a debate about the future of our financial system.

“Nearly two years ago, our economy came to a grinding halt. Credit markets shut down, business activity seized up, and world trade virtually collapsed. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes, and they saw trillions in savings wiped out.

“Mr. President, as a witness to the near collapse of our financial system and the economic devastation it has wrought, I am fully aware of the fundamental importance of the legislative effort we are soon to complete.

“Because the financial system serves as the heart of our economy, this legislation will have a profound effect on the economic future of this country. The decisions we have made will have an impact on the lives of Americans for decades to come. Furthermore, the impact of this legislation will extend far beyond our shores.

“For these reasons, we must get this right.
“In the end, we will be judged by whether we have created a more stable, durable, and competitive financial system. That judgment will not be rendered by self-congratulatory press releases, but rather by the marketplace. And, the marketplace does not give credit for good intentions.

“So, knowing that millions of Americans suffered greatly because of the financial crisis and that generations of future Americans are relying upon us to get this right, how did we go about proceeding?

Did we conduct a thorough review of every facet of the crisis? Did we look at the structure of our markets, examine the role of the regulators, and determine how the existing regulations drove certain market actions?

Did we investigate the GSE’s, examine their capital and leverage, address the inherent weaknesses in their dual and conflicting objectives of maximizing returns for private owners while serving a public housing mission?

Did we explain Bear Stearns and the causes of its collapse, along with the SEC regulatory program entrusted with its oversight? Did we collect and analyze data regarding the areas hardest hit by foreclosures?

Did we determine whether there were any specific loan types, however characterized, that led to the foreclosures? Did we take time to learn lessons from the debacle of the AIG Financial Products division, or securities lending operations, or of overheated tri-party repo activity?

Did we analyze how maturity transformation allowed the shadow banking system to, in effect, create money out of AAA rated securities? Did we analyze how activities in the shadow banking system led to an increased concentration of inherently runable activities?

Did we analyze liquidity buffers at broker dealers?

Did we wait for the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission – a creation of Congress – to deliver lessons that it learned about the financial crisis, so as to inform our deliberations?

“Mr. President, the answer to all of these questions is: No. In my view, this represents a fundamental failure of this body to do its own due diligence before we even attempt such a significant undertaking. Millions of people lost their jobs, their homes, and trillions of dollars in wealth.

“The American people expect more, and certainly deserved more from us.

“Nonetheless, Mr. President, it certainly didn’t take much investigation to know that at the heart of the crisis were massive failures in our mortgage underwriting and securitization system. Therefore, the most incredulous shortcoming of this bill is the lack of any serious attention being paid to the Government Sponsored Enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“Yesterday, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that we are not dealing with the GSEs in this bill because it’s ‘too hard.’ I have to say, Mr. President, we certainly have come a long way – in the wrong direction.

“There was a time, not too long ago, when we did things because they ARE hard and because they are worth doing. What a difference a few decades makes.

“Mr. President, it is simply a failure of will that nothing is being done to reform the GSEs, or, at the very least, cap the allowable losses. This bill has twelve titles, totaling well over 1500 pages. It has been amended dozens of times.

“Yet, the bill does nothing to affect the ongoing, unlimited bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that, to date, have cost the American taxpayer $146 billion – one of the largest bailouts in history.

“Our distinguished Chairman, the Senator from Connecticut has expressed his outrage on a number of occasions that consumers paid around $40 billion in overdraft fees in 2009. The GSEs have now cost American taxpayers over three-and-a-half times that amount – and counting. To quote my old friend, and former Majority Leader, Bob Dole: ‘where’s the outrage?’

“Perhaps what is most disappointing about the lack of attention to Fannie and Freddie is the fact that there is no end in sight. Losses continue to mount and taxpayer exposure is unlimited. For example, in a recent SEC filing, Fannie Mae reported a need for another $8.5 billion from taxpayers.

“Hard-working Americans in Alabama and throughout the Nation will be asked to pony up again and again until we do something to stop it. When will it stop? According to my Democrat friends, not yet. The best they can do for the American people in this bill is a study! That, Mr. President, is simply incredible.

“The GSEs should have been our primary focus. Instead, they were ignored and further enabled by the Administration when they raised the cap on losses in December of last year.

“In an attempt to do something, Senators McCain, Gregg and I, joined by several of our Republican colleagues, introduced an amendment that would have ended these bailouts. However, just as they prevented action to rein in Fannie and Freddie in the past, Democrats once again embraced the status quo and blocked the road to GSE reform.

“Once our amendment failed, several of my Republican colleagues and I, led by Senator Crapo, decided that if we could not end these unlimited bailouts, we would try to cap the losses and provide for a true accounting of the costs. Our amendment would have capped these bailouts at $400 billion.
“Yet, even at nearly a half of a trillion dollars, the Democrats could not bring themselves to stop the hemorrhaging at Fannie and Freddie.

“How much will the GSEs have to lose before my Democrat friends will say enough? Will a half trillion dollars be enough? Will Democrats allow reform of Fannie and Freddie before it costs the taxpayers $1 trillion? How much is too much?

“Mr. President, the supporters of this bill have argued that it will stabilize our financial sector. I am not sure, however, it can stabilize anything when it does nothing to address the two largest destabilizing forces of the crisis, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“The fact that it is costing taxpayers nearly seven billion dollars every month should be enough to convince anyone that something needs to be done, and done now. Unfortunately, the Democrats, led by the President, are telling the American people that they are going to have to pony up and wait – again.

“Mr. President, the failure to address the GSEs is the most glaring omission in this legislation. There are, however, many things that are in this bill that raise similar concerns for the future of our economy.

A major component of the bill deals with the creation of a massive new consumer bureaucracy, along with a separate Title 12 which is a liberal activist’s dream come true. Provisions in this title will compel financial institutions to provide free services to selected community groups.

“This is the exact same model that led us to the crisis in the first place, except for one distinct difference. The government bailout is built in from the beginning through the use of taxpayer guarantees.

“Mr. President, the American people are being misled.
“The authors of this bill are telling them that this legislation has been drafted to address the recent financial crisis and that it will ‘tame’ Wall Street. I am afraid that they are going to be disappointed.

“By the Democrats’ own admission, the most important facet of this legislation is the creation of a massive new consumer bureaucracy. It has been described by my Democrat friends as the ‘third rail’ of this bill.

“During our negotiations on the consumer bureaucracy, my Democrat friends were not focused on the mortgage market. Their sights were set on the rest of the economy.

“Mr. President, make no mistake, behind the veil of anti-Wall Street rhetoric is an unrelenting desire to manage every facet of commerce under the guise of consumer protection.

“They may be interested in protecting consumers, but they are more interested in managing them. All one has to do is read the academic writings of the authors of this new bureaucracy and it becomes very clear what their goals are.

“The Democrats’ new bureaucracy is an enormous reach across virtually every segment of our economy and a massive expansion of government influence in our daily financial lives.

“Mr. President, the people of America have been clear. They do not want a massively intrusive, continuously growing, and overly expansive government. They do not want a continuation of our unsustainable government promises, government spending, government deficits, and government debt.
“They saw what happened to Greece when it over-promised and overspent. And Americans do not want to leave a European fiscal legacy to their children.

“Yet, this bill does not listen to the American people. It promises massive government over-reach into even routine daily financial transactions of ordinary Americans and businesses, large and small.

“Why does the federal government need information on ‘pertinent characteristics’ – whatever that might mean – of persons covered by the new consumer bureaucracy?

“This new consumer bureaucracy will become massive, populated with thousands of bureaucrats who will create, within the new bureau, what Administration officials have referred to as a correct ‘culture’ of consumerism.

“The new consumer protection bureaucracy is funded by more than half-a-billion dollars per year, funded through an Argentina-style raid on our central bank.

“Of course, this opens the door for unlimited federal taxpayer funds for community organizers and groups like ACORN.

“Mr. President, I favor consumer protection. This new bureau, however, promises to be more abusive than protective. And by abuse, I mean that the bureau will lower the living standards of Americans.

“This new consumer bureaucracy is intended by its architects in the Treasury to begin the process of financial regulation with the intent of changing the behaviors of the American people.

“Mr. President, I have faith in the American people and their ability to make good choices. Granted, we do not always choose well. But, I believe that a poor choice freely made is far superior to a good choice made for me.

“I am afraid that the architects of this bill do not share this sentiment. Nor do they share my faith in the American people.

They view us as victims in need of their guidance. They view us as ‘fallible’ and in need of a government bureaucrat to protect us from ourselves. It is a bit ironic, however, that the sponsors of this new bureaucracy seem to believe that regulators do not share the same fallibility of ordinary Americans. Tell that to the hundreds of Bernie Madoff victims.

“Mr. President, this is the world view that is driving this bill and it should concern every American. It seems, increasingly, that the view of Democrats toward virtually all of American business is a cynical view that Americans are out to take advantage of one another. I do not share that view either.

“My presumption is that Americans are honest and hard working, and history has shown that to be true.

“Mr. President, this bill promises to slow economic growth and kill jobs because it will place onerous regulatory burdens on businesses large and small.

“It will stifle innovation in consumer financial products and reduce small business activity. It will lead to reduced consumer credit and higher costs for available credit.

“Less credit at a higher price will dampen the very small-business engines of job creation so desperately needed right now, when unemployment hovers near double digits nationally and is at 11% in my home state of Alabama.

“I cannot support legislation that threatens business conditions and the potential for job creation, especially at a time when we are crawling out of a severe recession.

“Aside from onerous new consumer regulations, another avenue through which this bill will slow economic activity is in the treatment of derivatives.

“This bill will chase risky financial trades overseas and further into the unregulated shadow banking system, thereby magnifying, not reducing, unmonitored systemic risks.

“This bill demonstrates an imprudent disregard for the economic effects of a severely misguided approach to derivatives. Given the treatment of derivatives in this bill, end users – everyone from candy bar makers to beer brewers – who rely on these financial instruments to manage their risks will face massive increases in costs.

“Because risk management will now be significantly more expensive, we can expect lower business investment which, again, means fewer jobs.

“Why are we increasing costs to ordinary end users of derivatives, such as your home heating provider or makers of candy bars?

“There seems to be an irrational desire to make all financial products of certain types ‘standard’, whether that can or should be done. Once again, the attitude seems to be: we are government and we know best.

“That attitude will almost surely lead to massive concentrations of risks in central derivatives clearinghouses. It will also, ironically, chase derivatives activities overseas and into the unregulated shadow banking system.

“Mr. President, who will back up those clearinghouses at the end of the day should market stresses prove to be severe? The Federal government and the Federal Reserve will back them up, promising even more bailouts in the future – this time for clearinghouses.

“The approach to hedge fund oversight in this bill is symptomatic of an overall careless approach to assigning regulatory responsibility. Hedge funds have not been identified as a cause of the financial crisis, but hedge funds have been identified as a potential source of systemic risk.

“However, rather than subjecting hedge funds to a systemic risk oversight regime, hedge fund advisors will be subject to a registration regime and the investor-protection oriented requirements that go along with it.

“On its face, registration sounds reasonable.

“The SEC, however, is not a systemic risk regulator, and when it tried to be one through the Consolidated Supervised Entity program, it failed. Yet, now, we are doubling down on the SEC, the very agency that failed us to begin with.

“An unfortunate consequence of the treatment of hedge funds in the bill is that investors will likely treat SEC registration as an SEC seal of approval. Fraudulent hedge fund advisors will be virtually invited to use registration as a marketing tool.

“Investor protection is an important job for the SEC, but its resources are not endless, and the SEC has been notoriously unable to inspect advisors on a regular basis.

“Limited SEC resources should not be diverted from regulated public investment companies, such as mutual funds, to the monitoring of hedge fund advisors, as the reported bill proposes to do.

“If the SEC is spending its resources in this manner, it will not be long before investors that do not meet the accredited investor threshold start demanding to be allowed to invest in hedge funds.

“It will be hard to counter the argument that they should have access to such investments when the SEC is on the case.

“Mr. President, there are dozens of problems with the Lincoln-Dodd over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives title, which I would be more than happy to document. In the interest of brevity, however, I will point out just a few of the most egregious examples:

“The Lincoln-Dodd derivatives title does not provide regulators with access to the information they need to do their job.

“The title is unworkable. In a six-month marathon rule-making session, regulators are to make massive changes in a huge market without the usual notice-and-comment that allows for broad public input.

“Neither the SEC nor the CFTC has the staff that it needs to write the rules, let alone implement them. Companies, including Main Street businesses, all across the United States will also face operational, legal, and financial challenges as they strive to come into compliance with record keeping, reporting, capital, margin, clearing, and business conduct requirements.

“Key provisions in the Lincoln-Dodd derivatives title directly contradict key provisions in other titles and current law. Section 716, for example, would preclude a clearinghouse – even one that does not clear swaps – from receiving access to the discount window. This is directly contrary to Title 8, which empowers the Federal Reserve to grant discount window access to clearinghouses.

“The proposed regulatory framework in the Lincoln-Dodd derivatives title poses new risks to the system. For-profit clearinghouses will have an incentive to clear as many swaps as possible.

“If they do not properly assess and collect margin for risks associated with these products or do not have sufficient operational capacity, an unanticipated event in the market could topple a clearinghouse and send shock waves throughout the rest of the system.
“The Lincoln-Dodd derivatives title will benefit big dealers who can shift their swaps business overseas over small dealers who cannot.

“The so-called end user exemption contained in the Lincoln-Dodd derivatives title is illusory. Main Street businesses will not be able to continue hedging their business risks as they now do.

“Many end users will find themselves subject to clearing mandates, bank-like capital requirements, and extensive dealer-like business conduct requirements. As a result, Main Street businesses will face higher costs that will ultimately be borne by consumers.

“Consumers will be paying more for everything from electricity to candy bars. The Lincoln-Dodd derivatives title will work as an anti-stimulus plan that will pull resources out of the economy, hurt growth, and slow job creation. The derivatives title has real world consequences that cannot be wished away with a few technical fixes at the margins.

“Mr. President, those are but a few of nearly one hundred flaws in the derivatives title. Yet, there is another title – Title 8 – which has received less attention than derivatives, but is equally troublesome.

“Title 8 would give a stability Council broad power to identify financial market utilities, payment, clearing, or settlement activities that it deems to be now, or likely to become, systemically important. Those entities and activities would then be subject to risk regulation by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

“This title is another example of an inappropriate delegation of Congressional responsibility to decide who should be regulated and by which regulator. The extent of delegation is left uncomfortably open, as it depends on open-ended language in which key terms are undefined.

“The definition of ‘payment, clearing, and settlement activities,’ for example, include any ‘activity carried out by 1 or more financial institutions to facilitate the completion of financial transactions.’ With definitions like this one guiding the Council, it could decide to assign any aspect of the financial market to the Fed.

“Lack of regulatory accountability contributed to the recent financial crisis. Title 8 exacerbates the problem by allowing the Council to bring the Fed into significant sectors of the financial system as a back-up regulator. If a problem arises, both the Fed and the relevant supervisory agency will have someone else to blame. And both will be able to blame Congress for its careless delegation of its own responsibilities.

“Yet another troublesome title is Title 9, which could appropriately be labeled the ‘Grab-Bag’ title, since it is a grab-bag of items on the years-old wish lists of special-interest groups.

“These items are not designed to respond to problems identified in the last crisis or likely in any crisis, and have not been considered in hearings.

“The grab bag includes puzzling items, like a provision that would create a redundant office at the SEC and another provision that requires disclosure of the ratio of the median employee’s compensation to the chief executive officer’s compensation.

“It looks to me like the way is being paved to achieve so-called ‘social justice’ in income distribution. This is another disturbing example of the government getting its nose under the private sector’s tent.

“The grab bag also includes anti-investor provisions. The proxy access provision, for example, enables special interest groups to push their agendas at the expense of the rest of the shareholders.
“It also includes a surprising self-funding provision that will give the SEC complete control over the size and allocation of its budget. Let me repeat that, Mr. President, the Democrats are going to give the SEC virtual budget autonomy from Congressional oversight after the SEC dropped the ball in the Madoff and Stanford frauds, and in the wake of the SEC’s pornography scandal.

“When the ‘grab bag’ title does attempt to address issues related to the crisis, it takes the wrong approach.

“With respect to credit rating agencies, for example, the effort to pull ratings out of the statutes and regulations is lost in a complicated new regulatory framework that only the big credit rating agencies will be able to navigate. This will stifle competition – the very thing we need to be encouraging. The failure of the ratings agencies was central to the crisis and this bill represents half-measures at best.

“The heightened liability standards, corporate governance requirements, and qualification standards for credit rating analysts will lull investors into greater apathy and discourage competition.

“With respect to securitization, rather than focus on the root cause of the housing bubble by establishing clear, tough, and fair underwriting standards, this title imposes a five percent risk-retention requirement across-the-board for securitizations.

“In combination with changes in accounting and bank capital rules, a risk retention requirement could force an entire securitization to be retained on a bank’s balance sheet for accounting and capital purposes. Securitization activity would then become economically unviable.

“This approach to securitization is a risky gamble to take at a time when our securitization markets are just starting to recover and show some signs of life.

“The whistleblower provisions are well-intentioned attempts to address the SEC’s failure during the Madoff scandal.

“However, the guaranteed massive minimum payouts and limited SEC flexibility ensure that a line of claimants will form at the SEC’s door hoping for some of the hundreds of millions in the whistleblower pot. The SEC will spend limited resources sorting through these claims that would have been better spent bringing enforcement cases.

“Title 9 devotes 250 pages to provisions that either have nothing to do with the crisis or purport to provide solutions that will not actually solve problems but, rather, promise to give rise to many new problems.
“Mr. President, this bill has been largely outsourced to Treasury officials and to regulators who have written key provisions to bolster their own power and authority.

“This bill reflects a series of deals made, not by lobbyists, but by the executive branch along with the existing financial regulators who failed to do their jobs during the last crisis.

“In negotiating key features of the bill, delays were the norm as responses to my offers or inquiries had to pass through a long and winding road of approval from Treasury, the Fed, the FDIC and on and on.

“Unfortunately, we have outsourced the writing of this legislation to the Fed, Treasury, OCC, SEC, CFTC, among other government bureaucracies.

“Let me give you an example, Mr. President. Consider the derivatives title in the bill. This title was largely authored by the CFTC. We see this manifested in numerous provisions that give the CFTC broad new authority, sometimes to the exclusion of other regulators.

“The CFTC used this bill as an opportunity to grab jurisdiction from the SEC, which was purposely excluded from the negotiating room during critical meetings.

“As a result, the derivatives title gives the CFTC regulatory authority over a wide swath of Wall Street and Main Street companies.

“The CFTC, in addition to its traditional role of overseeing the commodity futures markets, will be charged with protecting retail investors, assessing systemic risk, imposing capital requirements on manufacturing companies, regulating banks, and assessing the regulatory capability of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“This is the sort of result you get when you hand the legislative pen to the regulators.

“My Democrat colleagues like to talk about the influence of Wall Street lobbyists, but the real influence in this process has been exerted by the bureaucracies. Mr. President, I thought that one of the main objectives of this legislation was to plug regulatory gaps and streamline our financial regulatory structure?

“We still have the Fed; the FDIC; the SEC; the CFTC; and the OCC. We have also added some new letters to the alphabet soup, as with the CFPB and the OFR.

“We have also seen a complete about face with respect to the Federal Reserve.

“The process seemed to have begun with a commitment to rein in their bailout powers and take away their consumer protection authority, given the Fed’s failures.

“By contrast, this legislation actually expands the Fed’s powers.

“Mr. President, Americans see developments in Europe, where a monetary union faces a severe test and market participants are running away from the debts of profligate governments. Americans are increasingly worried that the out-of-control spending here in the U.S. and the massive expansion of government will very soon test American fiscal viability.

“An appropriate response would be to rein in the costs and breadth of runaway government spending and bureaucratic expansion. The wrong response would be the financial regulation bill before us.

“Mr. President, from legislative process to the final bill language, this bill is flawed. This bill promises more government, more costs, slower economic growth, and fewer jobs. It threatens privacy rights and fails to address crucial elements of the recent crisis. I urge my colleagues to oppose final passage of this bill.”