Let The media Fail; They’re Already Failing America!
Let me try a different approach to the Media. If Media Matters picks up all the Media lawn droppings of both the Print and TV Media everyday; is there any real reason to keep any of them in business. If they had the integrity of Walter Cronkite and the courage of Edward R. Murrow; then they would be worth fight for! As long as the media is a bunch of corporate lackey pretty boys and girls reading copy written by people more clever than themselves; I say the hell with all of them. Let them go down the swirling flush drain!
Hell, I hope all the network sponsors turn all of their advertising budgets over to Google!
| |
On the March 26 edition of CNN Newsroom, congressional correspondent Brianna Keilar falsely claimed that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's proposal for Congress to pass legislation allowing the federal government to take over failing nonbank financial institutions was an "unprecedented ask" by Geithner. Similarly, during the March 24 edition of Situation Room, CNN repeatedly discussed Geithner's proposal while airing the caption "Unprecedented Request For Power; Admin. Wants to regulate non-banks." In fact, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) chairman Sheila Bair -- both Bush appointees -- previously stated that the federal government needed and should have such power.
Additionally, several CNN correspondents, anchors, and hosts have reported that Geithner had requested "unprecedented" power, but did not note Paulson's or Bair's comments.
During a November 20, 2008, speech, Paulson said that "[w]e need a mechanism, essentially an amendment of the federal bankruptcy system, for the orderly wind-down of such institutions," and that with such "wind-down authorities" as part of a "new framework," "we could achieve again the proper balance between market discipline and regulatory oversight, and no institution should be deemed to be too interconnected or too big to fail." From Paulson's remarks:
In the Blueprint for Regulatory Reform that we developed prior to this financial turmoil and released last March, and which has proven to be remarkably appropriate, we recommend a U.S. regulatory model based on objectives that better align the regulatory structure with the reasons why we regulate -- to ensure stability, safety and soundness and to protect consumers while also supporting innovation.
In our model, a market stability regulator would have authority to review any systemically important financial company, and to look for problems anywhere in the financial system in order to protect against systemic risk. Our continuing challenge has been what to do about non-depository institutions that may be too big or too interconnected to fail. We need a mechanism, essentially an amendment of the federal bankruptcy system, for the orderly wind-down of such institutions. Also, to ensure the market stability regulator can fulfill its role, large, systemically-important institutions, including hedge funds, should be required to have a charter that would permit some type of oversight.
Under a new framework, which includes market infrastructure, transparency and wind-down authorities, we could achieve again the proper balance between market discipline and regulatory oversight, and no institution should be deemed to be too interconnected or too big to fail.
Similarly, during a June 18, 2008, speech, Bair stated, "I believe that we need a special receivership process for investment banks that is outside the bankruptcy process, just as it is for commercial banks and thrifts," adding that "the FDIC's authority to act as receiver and to set up a bridge bank to maintain key functions and sell assets offers a good model." From Bair's remarks:
I believe that we need a special receivership process for investment banks that is outside the bankruptcy process, just as it is for commercial banks and thrifts. The reason goes back to the public versus private interest.
The bankruptcy process focuses on protecting creditors. When the public interest is at stake, as it would be here, we need a process to protect it. This process must achieve two central goals. First, it should minimize any public loss and impose losses first on shareholders and general creditors. Second, it must allow continuation of any systemically significant operations.
As I've previously suggested, the FDIC's authority to act as receiver and to set up a bridge bank to maintain key functions and sell assets offers a good model. A temporary bridge bank allows the government to prevent a disorderly collapse by preserving systemically significant functions. It enables losses to be imposed on market players who should be at risk, such as shareholders. It also creates the possibility of multiple bidders for the bank and its assets, which can reduce losses.
The authorities that the FDIC has are a good model, but there are still many open issues.
Bachmann Introducing Bill to Ban Use of Made-Up Global Currency
The madness continues as Michele Bachmann introduces legislation that “would bar the dollar from being replaced by any foreign currency.”
What the Chinese were proposing, of course, was to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. I would take the view that a move away from near-exclusive reliance on the dollar is probably inevitable irrespective of what we do. But whether or not you agree with me about that, this isn’t something congress can ban—it’s a decision by foreign countries about what they do with their reserves.
UPDATEIn response to an inquiry from Greg Sargent, a Bachmann spokesperson clarifies that Bachmann understands she can't legislate foreign countries' behavior and that "This legislation would ensure that the U.S. dollar remain the currency of the United States." But nobody -- not Russia not China not Tim Geithner -- has ever proposed changing this.
You see what I mean. The Media reports on this mental midget all the time and she still is in office! This half wit is so profoundly mentally challenged, that, in my opinion; she needs professional help.
And here is another documented Congressional idiot:
“Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid charged Friday that Chief Justice John Roberts tricked Congress by pretending to be a moderate while he was actually a stalwart conservative.
“Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was,” Reid said, referring to Samuel Alito, the second judge nominated by former President Bush to serve on the nation’s highest court.
“But we’re stuck with those two young men,” Reid continued. “And we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on.”
Do I hear the word stupid ringing in my ears? Moderates, Harry; how about some flaming Liberals?
Mercy Sakes Alive; Grab Your Gun, Load Your Bandelier And Prepare For The Second Alamo! Is That Rattling I Hear Loose Bullets, Screws Or A Jar Full Of Nuts?
| |
Ever since the election last November, many in the country have been involved in a huge uptake of guns and ammunition. Five months later, I am still hard pressed to find any but exotic and expensive rounds in 9MM. By their nature, gun owners tend to prepare for the worst and then make the best of the present. There is a perception among some websites that we gunnies are spoiling for a fight. The Missouri Information Analysis Center (a division of the state police) has even floated a profile for police as to what to look for in "militia types". I have been thinking about this and have decided to rejoice in our democracy. Isn't it wonderful that every two years we get a chance to reshape the leadership of our cities, our states and our federal government? We still have free and fair elections in this country, even with an occasional scandal in some individual precincts. Taken as a whole, the election process still works, and America is still a country that adheres to the processes that honor the rule of law. That said, we don't have to sit and wait for the worst to happen, such as a general ban on gun ownership or socialized businesses. We can gather together and organize a political movement to put into power the people who best reflect our values.
Many people don't think about politics except for two weeks before the general election, at which time they look up from making a life and take a quick survey of the candidates. They select the least objectionable ones, vote, and go back to work. We need to begin working right now to be really effective at encouraging and electing leaders who share our values. The primaries for both parties occur well before the general election, and that is where voters can really effect change. Even in districts with solid incumbents, if they see a primary fight forming, the sitting politician will seek out the contenders and try to find a way to co-opt their issues so that they can avoid a primary which costs them campaign money better spent on the general election, and sometimes opens wounds that make them more vulnerable against the other party's candidate. This can bring about changes in policy positions even with incumbents unlikely to be unseated. Incumbents who are not solid can be replaced with enough groundwork and a popular message, delivered by a solid candidate that conveys our values.
So what direction do gun owners want? We are not one issue voters, although clearly the readers of columns like this one have a strong self-reliance bent. There are some websites (The 912 Project andAmerican Solutions Lab) seeking to find a true consensus for the next election. The goal is to find areas of broad agreement across political lines and concentrate on them before clashing swords over the toughest bones of contention. Let's be Americans first, honor our constitution and serve the people. Live and let live just won't cut it for 2010.
On the March 27 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, co-host Trace Gallagher stated that Attorney General Eric Holder "says" reinstituting the ban on assault weapons "would help in the battle with violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, but gun advocates say that's not right." Supreme Court correspondent Shannon Bream then asserted: "Absolutely. ... [T]hey say if you go to the border, if you talk to law enforcement agents who are there, working all along both sides of the border, and immigration officials as well, and ask them about this issue, they'll say the vast majority of guns, according to them, that are in Mexico being used in some of these drug cartels are not coming from the United States." At no point did Gallagher or Bream mention that statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) contradict the anecdotal claim of these "gun advocates." ATF and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) stated in recent congressional testimony that "according to ATF's National Tracing Center, 90 percent of the weapons [in Mexico] that could be traced were determined to have originated from various sources within the U.S."
In a joint prepared statement to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, William Hoover, ATF assistant director for field operations, and Anthony P. Placido, DEA assistant administrator for intelligence, testified:
The southwest border is the principal arrival zone for most illicit drugs trafficked into the U.S., as well as the predominant staging area for the subsequent distribution of these drugs throughout the U.S. Guns are an integral part of these criminal enterprises; they are the "tools of the trade." Drug traffickers routinely use firearms against each other and have used these weapons against the Mexican military, law enforcement officials, and Mexican civilians. Because firearms are not readily available in Mexico, drug traffickers have aggressively turned to the U.S. as their primary source. Firearms are routinely being transported from the U.S. into Mexico in violation of both U.S. and Mexican law. In fact, according to ATF's National Tracing Center, 90 percent of the weapons that could be traced were determined to have originated from various sources within the U.S. One thing must remain clear in any discussion of violence in Mexico, or violence practiced by Mexican traffickers operating in the U.S.: drug gangs are inherently violent, and nowhere is this more true than in Mexico, where "Wild West"-style shootouts between the criminals and the cops, and elements of opposing trafficking groups are unfortunately considered normal.
From March 27 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk with Martha and Trace:
TRACE GALLAGHER (co-host): Well, in the meantime, Attorney General Eric Holder is battling for a gun fight, because the attorney general is reconsidering instituting a ban on assault weapons. Holder suggested bringing back the ban in response to the escalating drug violence in Mexico. He says it would decrease the flow of guns from the U.S. into Mexico.
But gun rights advocates say liberal Democrats are using the war next door to push for more restrictions on guns right here in the U.S. Shannon Bream is following this live from D.C. She's on RM-232.
And Shannon, the attorney general says the ban would help in the battle with violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, but gun advocates say that's not right.
BREAM: Absolutely. They think this is kind of a smokescreen, because they say if you go to the border, if you talk to law enforcement agents who are there, working all along both sides of the border, and immigration officials as well, and ask them about this issue, they'll say the vast majority of guns, according to them, that are in Mexico being used in some of these drug cartels are not coming from the United States. So these folks say the Second Amendment is now under attack by the attorney general.
They think he is trying to reinstate this ban on assault weapons as a way of, you know, getting gun control kind of maybe under the radar, because nobody looks at what's happening in Mexico and thinks that's a positive thing. It's obviously a very tragic situation. It gets people's attention. And so, you know, reinstating the ban in that arena makes it -- to a lot of people, it makes sense.
But folks are warning, if you care about your gun rights, you need to take another look at this, a closer look, Trace.
GALLAGHER: Shannon, how is this playing out on Capitol Hill?
BREAM: Well, you know, surprisingly -- not surprisingly, Republicans have said we're going to fight this. But a little bit more surprisingly, there is very strong, very organized Democratic opposition as well. We have a letter that came from 65 Democrats on the House side to the attorney general. We've got a quote from that.
It says: "It is hard to believe the ban would be any more effective in controlling crime by well-funded international drug traffickers, who regularly use grenade launchers, anti-tank rockets, and other weapons that are not available on the civilian market in the U.S."
So they say these guns that would be banned, that's not the only thing that these guys have in their arsenal. Also another letter went out from Senators [Max] Baucus [D-MT] and [Jon] Tester [D-MT], saying they will vigorously oppose any attempt to revive this ban.
So there is definitely organized bipartisan support against this that will be motivated to fight with the attorney general is proposing, Trace.
GALLAGHER: And I guess the bottom line here, Shannon, is does the administration have the support it needs?
BREAM: You know what? It doesn't sound like it right now because even top Democratic leaders -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] and also House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] -- have come out and said, you know, we don't want to go down this path. We're not in favor of reinstating a ban here. What we need to do is enforce the gun laws that we have in effect right now.
And that's something you're hearing from people on both sides of this debate. They say the U.S. already makes it illegal for these guns to go across the border. Things have to be enforced on both sides of the border in order to make it effective. Let's do that. Let's make sure that's working before we pass an even broader law that's going to also need to be enforced. Let's start with what we have on the books now, Trace.
GALLAGHER: Shannon Bream live in D.C. Shannon, thank you.
LET’S BRIGHTEN UP THE LANDSCAPE IN CLOSING!
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment