Danke and Merci!

Aug 12, 6:20 AM (ET) By MARCY GORDON
WASHINGTON (AP) - The $700 billion U.S. bailout program launched in response to the global economic meltdown had a far greater impact overseas than other countries' financial rescue plans did on the U.S., according to a new report from a congressional watchdog.
Billions of dollars in U.S. rescue funds wound up in big banks in France, Germany and other nations. That was probably inevitable because of the structure of the Treasury Department's program, the Congressional Oversight Panel says in a new report issued Thursday.
The U.S. program aimed to stabilize the financial system by injecting money into as many banks as possible, including those with substantial operations overseas. Most other countries, by contrast, focused their efforts more narrowly on banks in their nations that usually lacked major U.S. operations.
But the report says that if the U.S. had gotten more data on which foreign banks would benefit the most, the government might have been able to ask those countries to share some of the cost.
"There were no data about where this money was going," panel chair Elizabeth Warren said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday. "The American people have a right to know where the money went."
An example: Major French and German banks were among the biggest beneficiaries of the U.S. rescue of American International Group Inc., yet the American government shouldered the entire $70 billion risk of pumping capital into the crippled insurance titan. The report compares that with the $35 billion that France spent on its overall financial rescue program and the $133 billion that Germany spent.
Much of the $182 billion in federal aid to AIG - the biggest of the government rescues - went to meet the company's obligations to its Wall Street trading partners on credit default swaps, a form of insurance against default of securities. The partners included French banks Societe Generale, which received $11.9 billion in AIG money, and BNP Paribas, which got $4.9 billion, and Germany's Deutsche Bank, $11.8 billion.
Of the 87 banks and financial entities that indirectly benefited from the U.S. aid to AIG, 43 are foreign, according to the report. In addition to France and Germany, they include banks based in Canada, Britain and Switzerland.
In addition to AIG, many of the U.S. banks and automakers that received billions in bailout aid derive a large proportion of their revenue from operations outside the U.S., the report noted.
The watchdog panel was created by Congress to oversee the Treasury Department rescue program that came in at the peak of the financial crisis in the fall of 2008. It has said it's unclear whether U.S. taxpayers will ever fully recoup the cost of the AIG bailout. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that taxpayers will lose $36 billion.

Now we know where the real money is.

Is Bloomberg a total idiot?

NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended the decision of the City Landmarks Commission to allow the building of the mosque to go forward by saying, "Of course, it is fair to ask the organisers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation – and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam."

In contrast to Mr. Bloomberg's opinion, the Koran says, "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you" (Sura 9, Repentance, verse 123). And, "Fight against such as those to whom the scriptures were given as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day …. (ibid., verse 29). And, "Kill them [the unbelievers] wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage (Sura 2, The Cow, verse 191). And, "The unbelievers are your sworn enemies (Sura 4, Women, verse 102). And, "Those who follow Him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" (Sura 48, Victory, verse 48). And, "Allah loves those who fight for His cause in ranks as firm as a mighty edifice" (Sura 41, Battle Array, verse 4). And, "I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. (Sura 8, The Accessions, verse 12)

Sestak running against Sestak

Headline in our local paper on August 3 says, Sustak faults Democrat policies. I love this. Senatorial candidate Joe Sestak is now running against his own party. As a matter of fact, since he has been a Democratic member of the House of Representatives for the last 31/2 years, he seems to be running against himself. If he is so concerned about the failure of Democrats to
"change politics despite promises to do so, and deal with the national debt," why hasn't he been crying out for change for the past 3 years? And if he is really concerned about the "looming Medicare and Social Security insolvencies" and believes they "will demand higher taxes on the wealthy and fewer corporate tax breaks," why hasn't he been demanding that his fellow Democrats inact these changes? The reason is obvious. Sestak now knows that in order to have any chance of getting elected, he has to run against Washington. Even though he has been a part of Washington, he has to posture himself as though he hasn't. He has to become as much like Pat Toomey as he possibly can.

A Democrat, Trashing Affirmative Action?

I don't often read Democrat propaganda in the op-ed pages of the newspapers. However, a piece in today's Wall Street Journal by Virginia Senator James Webb stopped me in my tracks. I thought it was a giant misprint or a mistake. Webb writes that "diversity policies have marginalized many white workers." He talks about the Old South, saying that the vast majority of whites didn't own slaves. He concludes, "Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end. . . . Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners." What?! In the age of Obama? All the current regime does is pick winners and losers. Opportunity? That's just a code-word for oppression and an obstacle to equality of outcomes. Webb's piece obviously runs counter to the entire communist agenda that has this country in its grip. According to the current regime, America is a bad nation, which has a lot to be ashamed of and to apologize for. It was founded by white slave-owners. Everybody who is not white is to be preferred, in all respects. White people have been privileged for too long, and it's now payback time. This is the whole Obama philosophy and world view.

So how in the name of Joe Biden can a Democrat U.S. Senator, in a state that went for Obama in the 2008 election, and who is not up for re-election until 2012, so directly challenge one of the central tenets of Obama and his fellow communist revolutionaries? I'm at a loss. Is some mighty challenger emerging already to take on Webb? Does anybody have any ideas?

Check out the Webb piece.

Freedom of "worship"?

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - The change in language was barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term "freedom of worship" by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion. This shift happened between the President's speech in Cairo where he showcased America's freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term "freedom of worship." From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.

A purposeful change in language could mean a much narrower view of the right to religious freedom. Does this change of language indicate a change of policy? As Catholics, this is an area where we must remain vigilant. These small changes can be used to change our perception of rights and freedoms.

In her article for "First Things" magazine, Ashley Samelson, International Programs Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stated, "To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don't go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet "freedom of worship" would protect none of these acts of faith."

Deja vu all over again!

Writes Walter E. Williams: The Great Depression did not end until after WWII. Why it lasted so long went unanswered until Harold L. Cole, professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Lee E. Ohanian, professor of economics at UCLA, published their research project "How Government Prolonged the Depression" in the Journal of Political Economy (August 2004). Professor Cole explained, "The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes. Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened." Professors Cole and Ohanian argue that FDR's economic policies added at least seven years to the depression.

No Islamic terrorists around here!?

On May 26, John Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America." In another speech he said: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."

Now let me get this straight: the people we are fighting in Afghanistan and the people who attacked us in New York, Washington, and Fort Hood were not all devout Muslims who define jihad as Islam's struggle to take over the world and rid it of against all non-muslims (Islam's historical goal from the start). And they are not using terror as their primary weapon. And they are not fighting us for ideological reasons at all, but because...uh, why exactly are they fighting us? If it's not because they believe they are obeying the Koran, then why is it?

Mr. Brennan is either dangeroiusly naive or he is actually working to advance our enemy's cause.

Unmitigated claptrap!

President Obama recently told Politico: “Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much. Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”

This is unmitigated claptrap. Is it not possible that people may want the president to step up and show leadership in an area of legitimate federal interest while simultaneously wanting him to cease his efforts to control matters that are beyond his constitutional mandate? To assert that believing B is hypocritical because you did not believe A is disingenuous and deceptive. This is the kind of rhetoric that's designed to appeal to simple-minded partisans. Anyone with half a brain ought to be able to see through this untenable and patently illogical assertion.

Put old people in prison

Here's an idea for AARP to start promoting: Let's put all senior citizens in prision and the criminals in nursing homes. This way the seniors would have access to showers, hobbies, and walks; they would receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and medical treatment, wheel chairs, and they'd receive money instead of paying it out. They would have constant video monitoring, so they could be helped instantly if they fell or needed assistance. Bedding would be washed twice a week, and all clothing would be ironed and returned to them. A guard would check on them every 20 minutes and bring their meals and snacks to their cell. They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose. They would have access to a library, weight room, spiritual counselling, pool, and education, simple clothing, shoes, slippers, and PJs. In addition, legal aid would be free on request. There would be a private, secure room for all, with an outdoor exercise yard. Each senior could have a PC, TV, radio, and daily phone calls. There would be a board of directors to hear complaints, and the guards would have a code of conduct that would be strictly adhered to.

The criminals, on the other hand, would get cold food and be continually left alone unsupervised. Lights would be off at 8 pm and showers provided once a week. They would live in a tiny room, pay $5000.00 a month, and have no hope of ever getting out.