Conquer and Divide… Written By A Mom

I feel very lost, as I am sure many do. What do I do next? Which issue is the most important to me? I hope I am not alone…

There are so many issues that have come about lately that I have problems with. For instance, Cap & Trade Bill, Tarp, Stimulus, GM & Chrysler Bailouts, AIG, School Indoctrination, Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize while giving our tax money to organizations all over the world that perform abortions, the amount of Czars and the power they have, Obama dragging his feet on sending troops to Afghanistan because it may offend his radical left supporters while our children, spouses, grandchildren, etc. are being bombed and shot and wishing they had more support, just to list a few.

I saw some of Obama’s speech on TV today and felt repulsion filling in me while he spoke. I could not believe how arrogant he was. What really scared me was the fact that he so easily and quickly divided our Country; it only took 9 months. I have never seen a President or Leader that joked about and belittled the people in his Country just because they do not have the same vision as he does, ok, maybe Sadam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, and other Dictators that Americans used to believe were evil. But never a President of the United States of America while I have been alive, at least not like this one.

I personally did not vote for Obama, but know many who have. I have a very hard time talking with these people mainly because I think they know not what they have done, especially when they think he is taking us down the right path. When he took office my first thought was that “Now, maybe racism will finally come to an end” but it has gotten worse. I am a true American and was ready to support the new President, but it did not take long before I realized how dangerous of a man he was, along with his administration and supporters.

I truly feel that Obama and his administration are purposely creating explosive issue after explosive issue, believing that the average American middle class citizen will become overwhelmed with all of the chaos and eventually give up fighting the changes Obama is trying to make against our Constitutional rights. Then I realized that this is how they plan to change our Government into a Socialistic society. This thought made me realize that I could not lie down and let go, I need to do something (peaceful of course) to stop this movement.

But with all of this energy, I still feel lost, like I do not know what I can do. I have lost a business and a job as of late due to the wonderful economy that our President designed to create dependency. I have no money and am having a very hard time feeding my family. My husband was laid off for 9 months; we are in jeopardy of loosing our home. He finally found work but has to drive for 4 hours per day and works for 10-12 hrs (construction), and is exhausted when he gets home. So I do not feel I can travel around to Tea Parties as this also costs money. I need to do something from home. I want to be a part of any movement that rings true to my beliefs. I have so much time but so little money, how can I help? I would love to go to DC for the rally but just know that it is not financially possible without harming my family.

My wish is that each State group will have a leader that will divide groups up to work on individual issues that As A Mom… approves of. Organize protests, tea parties, post events for all to attend for separate issues, oversee that the groups morals are being upheld, because there are so many we need to be very worried about, but it is exhausting trying to worry about them all at once. We should also be watching for positive actions that are done and support them whole heartedly. If any one else feels the same please let me know that I am not alone! I have so many ideas and would be very glad to share and discuss them with others, and hear others points of view.

Deb F. – As a Mom…Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots – 50.000 strong in less than 3-weeks.
Manitowoc, WI

As a Mom…Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots sponsored Operation... Can You Hear Us Now and will be holding a Mom's March on Washington, D.C.

Conservative Artists are making a difference as well. People are starting to stand up – The New Counter Culture: Liberty

Can Your Hear Us Now? - Video

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross-Posted: the Daily Thought Pad

Stop Spending Our Future - The Crisis

 

Quote: "We are commiting generational theft!", John McCain

Talking about YouTube - Stop Spending Our Future - STOP

Senator Dodd's Wife Paid by AIG

Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd, who received $280,000 in campaign contributions from AIG, is now defending his wife’s involvement with the beleaguered insurance giant.

According to a report in RealClearPolitics.com, Jackie Clegg Dodd worked as an outside director from 2001 to 2004 for a Bermuda-based company affiliated with AIG — IPC Holdings Ltd.

In 2003, Clegg received $12,000 per year and an additional $1,000 for each IPC directors and committee meeting she attended, according to a proxy statement. Clegg served on the audit and investment committees during her final year on the board.

Dodd, whose Recovery Act amendment in February ratified hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives at AIG and who has been a recipient of campaign contributions from that struggling company, was quick to downplay his wife’s involvement.

“To try to connect the AIG bonuses and my wife’s service on the board of this company, which ended five years ago, is nothing more than a cheap political attack,” Dodd said.  Hmmm...

But according to the RealClearPolitics report, Clegg was a busy hands-on director, attending more than 75 percent of board and committee meetings – all while serving as the managing partner of Clegg International Consultants, LLC, which she created in 2001.

In 2001, a public offering of 15 million shares of IPC stock raised $380 million. IPC simultaneously raised more than $109 million through a private placement sale of 5.6 million shares of stock to AIG -- giving AIG a 20 percent stake in IPC.

AIG sold its shares in IPC in Aug. 2006.

IPC paid millions each year to other AIG-related companies for administrative and other services.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a major American insurance corporation based in New York City.

It suffered from a liquidity crisis after its credit ratings were downgraded. In Sept. 2008 the Federal Reserve Bank created an $85 billion credit facility to enable the company to meet its cash obligations.

In Nov. 2008 the U.S. government increased the total loan package to $152 billion. The company came under the gun following its allocation of about 165 million USD as bonuses to its executives.

By: Dave Eberhart © 2009 Newsmax

Hmmm...  Geithner who was the "engineer" of the program that allowed AIG to give out the ludicrous bonuses that have been at the forefront of news programs for more than a week has gotten away with saying he didn't know about the bonuses until a couple weeks ago and now  we find out that Senator Dodd's wife is on the AIG gravy train.  What else are we being told that just isn't so???

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power - 03.25.03

Cheap Political Theater

Death threats to executives at AIG, because of the bonuses they received, are one more sign of the utter degeneration of politics in our time.

Congressman Barney Frank has threatened to summon these executives before his committee and force them to reveal their home addresses-- which would of course put their wives and children at the mercy of whatever kooks might want to literally take a shot at them.

Whatever the political or economic issues involved, this is not the way such issues should be resolved in America. We are not yet a banana republic, though that is the direction in which some of our politicians are taking us-- especially those politicians who make a lot of noise about "compassion" and "social justice."

What makes this all the more painfully ironic is that it is precisely those members of Congress who have had the most to do with creating the risks that led to the current economic crisis who are making the most noise against others, and summoning people before their committee to be browbeaten and humiliated on nationwide television.

No one pushed harder than Congressman Barney Frank to force banks and other financial institutions to reduce their mortgage lending standards, in order to meet government-set goals for more home ownership. Those lower mortgage lending standards are at the heart of the increased riskiness of the mortgage market and of the collapse of Wall Street securities based on those risky mortgages.

Senator Christopher Dodd has played the same role in the Senate as Barney Frank played in the House of Representatives. Now both are summoning government employees and the officials of financial institutions before their committees to be lambasted in front of the media.

Dodd and Frank know that the best defense is a good offense. Both know how hard it would be to defend their own roles in the housing debacle, so they go on the offensive against others who are in no position to reply in kind, given the vindictive powers of Congress.

This political theater is in one sense cheap beyond words. In another sense, it is costly beyond words.

It is cheap because the politicians who are creating this distraction from their own role also voted for the very legislation that enabled contracted bonuses to be paid by companies like AIG that received government bailout money. If members of Congress can't be bothered to read the laws they pass, then they have no basis for whipping up lynch mob outrage against people who did read the law and acted within the law.

Just as everyone seemed to be a military expert a couple of years ago, when it was chic to say that the "surge" in Iraq would not work, so today everyone seems to be an expert on executive pay.

Whether the particular executives who received bonuses were the ones responsible for AIG's problems, or were among those who warned against those problems, is something that those of us on the outside don't know. That includes those in politics and the media who are making the loudest noise.

The politicians claim to be protecting the taxpayers' money. But having politicians trying to micro-manage any business is far more likely to make those businesses lose more money, including the taxpayers' money.

Securities based on risky mortgages are what toppled financial institutions but it was the government that made the mortgages risky in the first place, by making home-ownership statistics the holy grail, for which everything else was to be sacrificed, including commonsense standards for making home loans.

Politicians and bureaucrats micro-managing the mortgage sector of the economy is precisely how today's economic disaster began. Why anyone would think that their micro-managing the automobile industry, or executive pay across a wide sweep of other industries, is likely to make things better in the economy is a mystery.

The real point is to pander to envy and resentment against people who make a lot of money. Envy is always referred to by its political alias, "social justice." But to put the lives of the wives and children of executives at risk for the sake of Beltway grandstanding shows how low our political saviors have sunk.

By: Thomas Sowell - a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy, and writer for  Townhall.com ©Creators Syndicate

The Case for Letting AIG Fail

AIG offices in New York City - Photo by Mario Tama/Getty

There's an uproar about whether the government should let AIG fail, a debate re-energized by the latest revelation of bonus payments going to AIG's executives. In fact, there's a good case to be made that AIG should fail, and it has nothing to do with bonuses.

More Related

• AIG: Paying Taxpayers Back with Taxpayer Money
• Financial Meltdowns: How Big a Blow?
• Obama’s Challenge: Containing the AIG Bonus Outrage

The rescue of AIG is warping the banking system and unnecessarily extending the credit crisis. This misguided effort stems from a lack of transparency and some basic misconceptions about AIG's business. (Read "Obama's Challenge: Containing the AIG Bonus Outrage.")

Let's take a moment to review how AIG made money and why it's now losing so much. Most of AIG's losses have been attributed to its failing positions in credit-default swaps (CDSs). Essentially, AIG is swapping cash flows with other institutions: those banks pay AIG a small sum on a regular basis, and then under certain conditions — like mass foreclosure or corporations' defaulting on their loans — AIG pays out a large sum. In other words, AIG sold insurance; its problem is that it is paying out too much.

Of course, it's a bit more complicated than that because of the funky nature of AIG's insurance. Other types of insurance do not carry the same risks because when one claim pays out, it does not snowball. AIG's insurance on foreclosures and other defaults is not like insurance for accidents and disasters; while earthquakes in California are not correlated with earthquakes in New York, foreclosures are spiraling out of control together, fueled by a widespread recession.

Moreover, investors and banks that hold credit-default swaps do not necessarily own the tranches of mortgages and bonds that the CDSs insure. AIG may have even written multiple swaps over the same mortgages and bonds. It would be as if an insurance company had sold earthquake insurance on one house to multiple investors. When the house falls, so does AIG.

But there's a true insight into this mess if you just step back and consider the bigger picture, not just AIG. Regardless of the details of the various swap contracts, they all represent potential transfers of wealth between financial institutions. If we consolidated the entire financial sector, all these debts would effectively vanish.

Think again of the insured house. Many institutions hold insurance on the house; on the other side are insurance companies and the like making an opposite bet. If the house is destroyed, one group of institutions wins and the other group loses. Considering all institutions together, no money was truly lost — it's what economists call a zero-sum game. In good times, risk-hungry banks loved this game, but now they have become risk-averse, and the game seems to have changed. So how can many of the banks simultaneously claim enormous swap losses without a single bank claiming significant profit?

Here are two possibilities: either the vast majority of all swaps — not just AIG's — are held by investment banks, or a significant portion is held by other financial institutions like hedge funds. Suppose all swaps are held by banks. Since swaps are a zero-sum game, the banking industry as a whole cannot lose money on swaps. Then there is no need for a bailout. (See 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.)

Alternatively, if hedge funds hold significant positions, then it is possible for the banking industry as a whole to net a loss on swaps. That loss would be the hedge funds' gain. This means the bailout is ultimately saving the hedge funds.

Whichever it is, if the number of institutions involved in swap-trading were limited to those trading with AIG, then AIG is probably not too big to fail. We have to worry about chains of claims. Just because AIG dealt only with banks does not mean those banks did not rewrite similar contracts with hedge funds.

The most direct solution for the swap problem is to settle all such agreements and eliminate their uncertainty from the equation. If the payments are reversed, or the payments are stopped, or they are settled once and for all, the uncertainty will vanish.

The problem with keeping the swaps on the banks' books is that their potential payoff or loss is random, depending on the particular details of the contract and various outcomes in the world. Moreover, banks today are risk-averse and often factor worst-case scenarios into current pricing. Thus, they are far more likely to claim losses than profits on such instruments.

At the very least, there should be full transparency. Any institution receiving money from the government — and ultimately from American taxpayers — should reveal its holdings. Even institutions that do not require a bailout should be more closely tracked by regulators. The government can and should monitor all transactions, even those over-the-counter.

We have focused too much on each individual bank and its possibility for failure. The economy does not need every bank to survive; it needs most. Right now, we need to know which ones. By propping up financial institutions that are subject to unknown potential losses, the government is prolonging the uncertainty about whether they will fail. This perpetuates the crisis of confidence in which banks do not trust one another enough to loan mo

By ARI J. OFFICER - Time Magazine

And then there is the whole subject of multi-national corporations that put business before Country, ideology, people or much of anything else.  AIG is the embodiment of the multi-national corporation gone wrong and all that goes with it.  The AIG fiasco should be our warning of what is wrong with companies that get to big.  AIG operates in 135 countries and insures everything from banks to movie stars... too big, too impersonal, too dangerous!  But this is a subject for another day!!!

$2 Trillion Argument - Glenn Beck Find's the Pro's and Con's From the Experts

On Thursday the Feds bought up $1.15 Trillion in Securities... They bet the farm without asking "You"

March 20, 2009 - 12:29 ET

Is the fed's 'bet the house' strategy going to be effective? If not, what happens? Glenn talked about this on TV last night and because it's such a confusing issue, he wanted to present the best arguments on both sides of the issue. Here they are:

PRO Government “Bet the House” Spending Plan arguments

• ‘Rambo Fed’ Will Buy Treasuries to Combat Crisis
  By committing to buy Treasuries and double his purchases of mortgage debt, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke signaled his determination to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression and his willingness to pump as much cash into the economy as needed to end the current crisis.
• Fed launches bold $1.2T effort to revive economy
  With the country sinking deeper into recession, the Federal Reserve launched a bold $1.2 trillion effort Wednesday to lower rates on mortgages and other consumer debt, spur spending and revive the economy.
• Fed in Bond-Buying Binge to Spur Growth
  Dramatic Plan to Purchase $300 Billion in Treasurys Causes Biggest Drop in Interest Rates Since '87; Perils of Printing Money

CON Government “Bet the House” Spending Plan arguments

• The Fed End Game
  People are rightly outraged about the AIG bonuses but the amounts involved in that are tiny compared to the size of our problems.
• Dollar Rally Crumbles as Fed Ramps Up Printing Press
  The rally that pushed the dollar to the highest levels since 2006 is in danger of crumbling as the Federal Reserve starts buying Treasuries and ramps up its purchases of mortgage debt, adding to a flood of greenbacks.
• The Fed's Futile Move
  In an effort to promote liquidity and boost the economy, the Federal Reserve announced plans to grow the money supply by another 50 percent to 60 percent.

Source:  GlennBeck.com

Bankruptcy, Not Bailout

by Newt Gingrich

"Outrage" is the word on everyone's lips to describe the fat bonuses being paid with taxpayer funds to the failed executives at AIG - and it is an outrage.
It's an outrage that the American people are being asked to pay for the bad behavior of people who should have known better, be they reckless traders on Wall Street or reckless borrowers on Main Street.

But the cure for our outrage is not merely, as President Obama is demanding, that AIG be prevented from paying its executives. The $165 million in planned bonuses - as manifestly undeserved as it is - is chicken feed compared to the $170 billion in taxpayer funds AIG has received so far.

Nor is it acceptable to ask Americans to keep throwing their tax dollars at failed companies and their leaders.

The answer is an old fashioned one: AIG should choose between receivership or bankruptcy. It should not be allowed to choose more bailouts from the taxpayer.

Restore the Rule of Law: Allow Failing Corporations to go Bankrupt

Under U.S. law, Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows a company to reorganize. Chapter 7 allows a company to dissolve itself.

The choices for AIG, as both an insurance and non-insurance company, are more complicated, but ultimately boil down to the same options. And for other companies either receiving or looking to receive a bailout from the taxpayers, the option should instead be bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy would send a needed message to U.S. investors: Don't assume the government will bail you out when you do something stupid.

And most importantly, bankruptcy would replace the rule of politicians over U.S. financial institutions with the rule of law.

Geithner Didn't Inherit the Policy of Throwing Billions at Failing Companies - He Helped Create It

Because when it comes to Washington's handling of the financial crisis, so far we've had the rule of politicians, not the rule of law.

Most prominent among the politicians in question is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

As Americans' level of outraged has risen, so has the level of finger pointing by Geithner and others for the mess we're in.

But Treasury Secretary Geithner is disingenuous at best and untruthful at worst when he says that he "inherited the worst fiscal situation in American history."

The truth is that Secretary Geithner didn't inherit the policy of throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at failing companies - he helped create it.

Even before he was Treasury Secretary - when he was still head of the New York Federal Reserve - Geithner was so deeply involved in the government's bail out of Bear Stearns, its take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and its bailout of AIG that this was the Washington Post's headline from September 19, 2008:  "In the Crucible of Crisis, Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner Forge a Committee of Three".

The first meeting of the first bailout - of Bear Stearns - was held in Geithner's office. And the first meeting of what has become a $170 billion bailout of AIG was held - where else? In Geithner's New York Fed office.

Why Not Bankruptcy for AIG? Because Wall Street Wouldn't Have Done As Well

From the outset, Geithner was central to the developing policy of having the taxpayers bail out ailing financial institutions like AIG rather then allow them to go bankrupt. And for months now, we've been told that these bailouts were necessary to avoid a wider, cataclysmic, financial meltdown.

But now it's clear that other, less noble, considerations were at play.  As the Wall Street Journal editorialized yesterday, the real outrage over the AIG bailout isn't executive bonuses, it's that billions in taxpayer funds intended for AIG have been passed through to benefit foreign banks and Wall Street behemoths like Goldman Sachs.

And as former AIG CEO Hank Greenburg testified last October, these financial institutions wouldn't have faired as well if AIG had filed for bankruptcy protection rather than do what it did, which was to negotiate a bailout with Timothy Geithner's New York Federal Reserve.

Here's how Greenburg put it:

"Although AIG stockholders could have fared better if the company had filed for bankruptcy protection, other stakeholders - like AIG's Wall Street counterparties in swaps and other transactions - would have fared worse."

For the Cost of Bailing Out AIG, Every American Household Could Have Free Electricity For a Year

So now everyone is outraged, and rightly so. But the lavish executive bonuses being paid with taxpayer funds are just the beginning of the story.

So far, the American taxpayers are on the hook for $170 billion to AIG - that's an astounding $1,224 per taxpayer.

What else could we have done with all this money?
$170 billion would pay for more than doubling the Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers.

$170 billion would pay for a four-year education at a public university for more then two million Americans.

$170 billion would cover the electricity bill of every household in America for an entire year.

When You Reward Failure, All You Get is More Failure

What Washington should learn from all this outrage is to return to the common sense that should have guided it all along: When you reward failure, all you get it more failure.

A company that needs a $170 billion taxpayer bailout is a failed company. The executives that led that company are failed executives. But instead of having to face the consequences of their failure responsibly through bankruptcy or receivership, AIG and its Wall Street "counterparties" are being rewarded for their recklessness - with our money.

Thanks to the Bush-Obama-Geithner policy of bailing out failing companies, we now have the worst of all possible scenarios: A taxpayer subsidized, government supervised private company; an unsustainable public/private hybrid that is too public to make its own decisions and too private to be responsible to the taxpayers that are keeping it alive.

Outrages like the fat cat bonuses currently dominating the headlines will only continue as long as the rule of politicians supplants the rule of law on Wall Street.

Congress should rethink this entire process. The dangers of a domino-like financial meltdown are real. But so, too, is the danger that the outrage of the American people will reach the point that we no longer trust the dire warnings - or the righteous indignation - coming from Washington.

  Your friend,

   Newt Gingrich

P.S. -- Historian William Forstchen and I have collaborated on many different works of historical fiction. I'm proud to announce that Bill has a new novel out, called One Second After. It's a fascinating and disturbing account of what America would be like in the aftermath of an electro magnetic pulse (EMP) attack. Like everything Bill does, One Second After expertly combines human drama and geopolitical reality for a fictional look at what could be an all-too-real future.