May 31, 2009
 

Custom Search

 

Obama tells

banks and corporation

how it's gonna be.

 


 
 

help fight the media
 

 

 

 

event

description
Obama Promises Jerusalem To Arabs Obama and his administration told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a meeting last week the U.S. foresees the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, according to a top PA official.

"The American administration was very friendly to the position of the PA," said Nimer Hamad, Abbas' senior political adviser.

"Abu Mazen (Abbas) heard from Obama and his administration in a very categorical way that a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is in the American national and security interest," Hamad said.

Another PA official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Obama informed Abbas he would not let Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "get in the way" of normalizing U.S. relations with the Arab and greater Muslim world.

"We were told from this new administration they will not allow a Netanyahu government to hurt their efforts of rehabilitating U.S. relations with the Arab and Islamic world, which is a high priority of Obama," the official said, speaking during a visit to Cairo.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama To Offer Personal Commitment To Muslims Obama will offer a "personal commitment" to bridge US differences with Muslims in his long-awaited speech to the Islamic world next week in Egypt, aides said.

But White House advisors said Friday that Obama would not shy away from addressing "tough issues" in the speech on Thursday at the University of Cairo which will be co-hosted by Al-Azhar University, an ancient center of Islam and learning.

"The speech will outline his personal commitment to engagement, based upon mutual interests and mutual respect," White House spokesman Robert Gibbels said.

"He will discuss how the United States and Muslim communities around the world can bridge some of the differences that have divided them.

"He will review particular issues of concern, such as violent extremism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and he will discuss new areas for partnership going forward that serve the mutual interests of our people."

"...an ancient center of Islam and learning" -- now there's a phrase that contradicts itself.
The Gangster Government Michael Barone has written previously that the Obama administration’s transfer of property from Chrysler bondholders to the United Auto Workers is "gangster government" and has noted that this will make it more difficult for unionized companies to sell bonds.  But don’t take just his word for it.  Here is Daniel Indiviglio of theatlantic.com making the same point:

Bond investors literally can't afford to lend to unionized companies because it's clear that current power in Washington will take the unions' side, despite past bankruptcy law precedents that favor senior creditors.  That means Washington's actions in pushing for these bankruptcy verdicts to come out in favor of the unions will probably hurt unionized companies in the long run.

Some enterprising business reporter should ask the CEOs of Caterpillar or UPS if they’re planning on selling any bonds lately.  These firms have unionized work forces and, so far as I know, are in strong financial shape -- not candidates for bailouts any time soon.  In fact, they’ve been cited to me as evidence for the proposition that union contracts don’t always destroy companies, as they have done, or have contributed to doing, to Chrysler and General Motors.

I’ll bet that Caterpillar and UPS aren’t going to float bonds any time soon, perhaps not as long as this administration is in office.  And if they do, they’ll have to pay higher interest than they otherwise would.

So while bailing out the UAW workers and retirees -- and by the way, how do retirees help a company make profitable cars? -- the Obama administration has hurt union members at companies like Caterpillar and UPS.
Obama Attacks Free Speech A new White House policy on permissible lobbying on economic recovery and stimulus projects has taken a decidedly anti-First Amendment turn.  It's a classic illustration of Big Government trying to control every aspect of a particular activity and in the process running up against civil liberty.

Check out this passage from a post on the White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added):

First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists.   For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process.  We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest  -- after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made.  Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits.  To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists.  If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact.

The key passage is the reference to expanding regulation from registered lobbyists to "anyone else exerting influence on the process.  We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program."

This is the Camel's nose under the tent, being poked because of special circumstances.  Let government restrict political expression -- i.e. lobbying of government officials regarding policy -- in one small, supposedly specialized area and not long after the specialized area starts expanding.  Eventually, all political expression regarding all policy will become subject to government regulation.
Hundreds Of Thousands For New York Joy Ride Flopping Aces thought we had a serious financial crisis that required everyone to sacrifice?

Yes friends, Obama and Michelle had another of their famous "date nights" Saturday.   Instead of clogging traffic in Washington, D.C. to visit a restaurant, they hopped on the Marine One helicopter to Andrews Air Force Base, jumped on Air Force One (a Gulfstream 500, not the 747) then flew up to New York City followed by TWO OTHER PLANES for staff and press (the 747 would have been cheaper).

Upon landing in New York several more helicopters, limos, vans, police, military and other staff were waiting to escort them to Blue Hill restaurant on Washington Place and later a Broadway play: "Joe Turner’s Come and Gone" at the Belasco Theater.

Imagine for a moment the "news" media reaction if President Bush had taken Laura out for a night in New York with half the Secret Service, the U.S. Military, New York’s finest and the news media tagging along at taxpayer expense?

As it is, the only criticism one could find predictably comes from the Republican National Committee whose spokesperson, Gail Gitcho commented on the hard times facing Americans and the prospect of General Motors entering bankruptcy while the Obama’s party it up.  She added: "If President Obama wants to go to the theater, isn’t the Presidential box at the Kennedy Center good enough?"

It’s bad enough that the taxpayers were left with a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars for staff, security, military and police time.  It’s also the fact that all these people had to give up their Saturday night with their families to spend it so the Obamas could cause massive traffic jams all over New York inconveniencing thousands more.

But as we have all come to expect from Obama, what happens to the little people is of no consequence to him.  After all, it’s all about him isn’t it?
Media Favors And Fears Obama Is the mainstream media lauding and giving a pass to the president because they agree with him, or because they fear him?  There is mounting evidence that it may be a bit of both.

Earlier this month, The Hollywood Reporter referred to the fear.  While discussing the fact that the networks were "seething" behind the scenes at the prime-time Obama press conferences that cost them millions, the magazine said no network official wanted to be quoted by name, "fearing repercussions from the administration."

"If the president wants to make it tough for your network, he can," said one such executive.  Another said, "Nobody wants to take on the White House, so we’ll have to tiptoe through this."

Maybe the network executives are right to fear this new president and what he can do to them or the bottom line of their companies.  The evidence is there for all to see.

While our sacred Constitution grants him no such authority, Obama has had no trouble firing the head of General Motors, rewarding union "activists" with control of Chrysler, unilaterally forcing health care executives to forego $2 trillion (with a "T) in future revenue, implicitly telling Citigroup and Bank of America that they must fire their CEO’s, and blackmail, extort, or threaten the state of California that unless it restores wage cuts to a union, he will rescind billions in already granted stimulus money.

Four months into his presidency and Obama has removed all doubt that he is the most "activist" leader of our lifetimes.  He is an activist who demonstrates his leftist leanings with almost every action and non-action.

One such non-action being his decision not to reject or correct America-bashing strongmen Hugo Chavez or Daniel Ortega at last month’s Summit of the Americas.  Why?  Because in a number of ways, Obama -- like many in the mainstream media -- empathizes with the socialist anti-capitalistic philosophy espoused by Chavez and Ortega.

While the mainstream media gushes over their chosen leader, it would behoove those not under the Obama spell to coldly and quickly look at the facts.  Obama has skillfully and repeatedly said words he thinks the nation wants to hear.  But behind the curtain, he is pushing every button and pulling every lever that will accelerate his brand of socialism down the tracks.

To my Venezuelan-born wife, Obama’s words, deeds and threats elicit memories of the leader of her former and failing country.  Presidential "activism" by Chavez has brought Venezuela to ruin, while exponentially increasing the suffering of her people.

What is most amazing in all of this is that Obama’s aides make little effort to hide his agenda.  When asked about the White House further engineering the makeup of U.S. companies, press spokesman Robert Gibbels said, "In terms of management changes, obviously in both the case of financial institutions and in the case of auto companies, the government has…weighed in on changes at the CEO level and at the board of directors level…we’ll have to wait and see what these individual tests bring."

Big media has announced its love and fear of this "activist."  Maybe it’s time for the rest of us to pay much more attention to what’s going on in this White House.

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2009
All right reserved