“Millionaires and billionaires,” President Obama says derisively, must make more “sacrifices” and live by the same rules the rest of America lives by. But there are seven little words that will never appear on the White House teleprompter: “And that means you, too, George Soros.”
For all his (and his wife’s) bashing of greedy Wall Street hedge-fund managers, Obama has shown nothing but love to the world’s most famous hedge-fund mogul. The feeling is mutual and deep(-pocketed).
Soros and his family shelled out $250,000 for Obama’s inauguration, $60,000 in direct campaign contributions and untold millions more to liberal activist groups pushing the White House agenda. While the class warrior-in-chief assails conniving financiers who exploit loopholes and corporate titans who imperil the planet, he lets the Soros exemptions to his attack-the-rich rules slide like butter on a hot plate.
This week, for example, Soros announced he was “quitting” the hedge-fund industry. The headlines emphasized his decision to return about $750 million to outside investors (a drop in his $30 billion bucket of personal wealth). He’s reconstituting the business that landed him on Forbes magazine’s “wealthiest people” list as a “family” interest. But the move has “self-serving politics” written all over it.
Over the past year, Soros provided coveted support for Obama and the Democrats’ Byzantine financial “reforms” under the sweeping Dodd-Frank law. He preached to financial publications around the world about the need for increased regulatory controls over his industry. And in November 2008, while paying obligatory lip service to concerns about going too far, he submitted a statement to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that recommended: “The entire regulatory framework needs to be reconsidered, and hedge funds need to be regulated within that framework.”
Frameworks for thee, but not for he, however.
Under Title IV of Dodd-Frank, hedge funds were required to abide by new registration and reporting requirements in an attempt to better police systemic risk (not that the feckless Securities and Exchange Commission has ever been able to fulfill that mission). To evade the regulations, Soros and other firms have used a recently passed rule allowing so-called family offices to shield themselves from both registration and disclosure rules that would have subjected Soros Inc. to a new “Financial Stability Oversight Council.”
Somehow, in touting its one-year anniversary last week, there was nary a peep about the myriad loopholes and de facto waivers being granted to Obama’s powerful benefactors whose names start with “S” and end in “-oros.”
GOP Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama called Soros’ hypocrisy out, telling Reuters this week: “It appears that Mr. Soros talked up financial reform only to sell it short. Don’t be surprised to see his fellow Wall Street financiers follow suit.”
This comes on top of the Obama administration’s $2 billion offering in 2009 to Brazilian state-owned offshore oil-drilling company Petrobras — in which Soros and his management company own an $811 million stake.
Offshore drilling for they, but not for the rest of the USA. Membership in the self-exempting progressive billionaires’ club has its privileges.
A showdown with Democrats to raise the debt ceiling turned into a Republican rebellion Thursday night that forced House Speaker John Boehner to abruptly pull his legislation from the floor to court his own caucus for votes.
Republicans and freshmen Tea Party members filed into the speaker’s office for last-minute arm-twisting, but many left saying they still planned to vote no, some making their way to the chapel to pray.
Rep. Hal Rogers (R.-Ky.), the powerful Appropriations Committee chairman, was reportedly seen ushering the lawmakers into Boehner’s office.
Rep. Louis Gohmert (R.-Tex.) said afterward he was a “bloody, beaten down no.”
Other Republican lawmakers who remained no votes after meeting with Boehner include Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Jeff Duncan and Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina.
Earlier in the day, Boehner said at a press conference that his compromise was the best deal for Republicans.
“The bill is not perfect, I never said it was perfect, no one in my caucus thinks it’s perfect,” Boehner said.
This is the second plan in as many weeks House Republicans have sent to the Senate to avoid default. With the Aug. 2 deadline approaching, Democrats have not put their own plan on the floor for a vote. Neither has Obama offered a plan for action.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid kept his caucus on standby, declaring that within minutes of House passage, he intended to bring up Boehner’s Budget Control Act of 2011 and defeat the measure.
The legislation would reduce the deficit by $917 billion over 10 years, while allowing a short-term rise in the deficit ceiling of $900 billion. It would cap discretionary spending and create a bipartisan congressional committee to recommend future spending cuts.
The measure also requires both Houses to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution by the end of the year. The House was planning to vote on the amendment Friday.
During the debate Thursday, Democrats called Boehner’s bill “a sham,” “abusive,” “slash-and-burn politics,” “radical,” a “manufactured crisis,” and one that will bring “historical hardship” and “poverty,” and kill millions of jobs.
“What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.).
“We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today,” Pelosi said.
Rob Andrews (D.-N.J.) called the bill a “user’s guide as to how to cut Social Security and Medicare.”
Rep. David Dreier (R.-Calif.), chairman of the House Rules Committee, said no such items are in the bill.
“I’ve gone through it, and I just don’t see it,” Dreier said. “There are in fact exemptions in this bill to make sure Social Security and Medicare are not touched. Those saying this measure will bring about those cuts are mischaracterizing the bill and have not read it,” Dreier said.
Republicans said Democrats were trying to scare Americans into giving Congress “another blank check.”
“A manufactured crisis? Who went on television to scare senior citizens that their Social Security might be in doubt? President Obama,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R.-Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee.
James Lankford (R.-Okla.) said the bill is a bipartisan, middle-ground compromise.
“It’s not the draconian monster that has been described,” Lankford said.
Dreier said the debt ceiling has been raised 75 times since 1962 without debate, policy changes, or any strings attached. “That approach is precisely the fundamental problem,” Dreier said.
A battle that initially pitched Republicans against the Obama White House degenerated this week into an inner-party squabble between Tea Party freshman holding our for tougher cuts and Boehner, who brokered the compromise.
According to the National Journal, Republicans intending to vote no include Todd Akin of Missouri, Justin Amash of Michigan, Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Paul Broun of Georgia, Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, Trent Franks of Arizona, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, Tom Graves of Georgia, Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Connie Mack of Florida, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Ron Paul of Texas, Dennis Ross of Florida, Steve Southerland of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Joe Walsh of Illinois and Joe Wilson of South Carolina.
Republicans leaning no include Jeff Flake of Arizona, Steve King of Iowa and David Schweikert of Arizona.
Discontent spread to the blogosphere and talk radio, where conservative organizations such as Heritage Action and Club for Growth lobbied against Boehner’s plan.
Republicans did make some inroads in the debate process—taxes were off the table and the Senate Democrats’ plan agreed that trillions of dollars in spending cuts are needed.
“Even more shocking is the fact that Democrat leaders and the President himself have endorsed every feature of this legislation except one: And that’s the fact that it doesn’t allow the President to avoid another national debate about spending and debt until after the next presidential election,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.).
“This assurance is the only thing the President and Senate Democrats are holding out for right now,” McConnell said.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed Executive Order #11-161 on creating the Commission on Jobs for Floridians with Disabilities.
Ah, so!, as the Japanese say, Robert Mulhere is a lobbyist/consultant and owns Mulhere & Associates LLC, a Collier County lobbying firm. Yet, Mulhere actually works for the Collier County Economic Development Council (EDC) as Chairman, which also means he’s a government official. Coming back to government, any business, like Arthrex, Inc., has no choice but to somehow get around government to do business. With Mulhere’s credentials any business could decide to get his help. Ah, so!, Mulhere is on the side of business against another government official, Commissioner Hiller. By Mulhere’s claim, not only does Commissioner Hiller misrepresent growth in Jim Coletta’s District 5, which includes Ave Maria, but also Commissioner Hiller misrepresents her own District 2. The two potential growth spots for Arthrex happen to be in both Districts 2 and 5.
Mulhere’s hypothesis is negative. There is no reason why Hiller would misrepresent her District and Commissioner Jim Coletta’s District 5, including Ave Maria, precisely because there isn’t any reason to do so.
One should go over Commissioner Hiller’s credentials to remind:
- Republican; not a RINO, contrary to the ideas of the Collier County Commission (CCC)
- Conservative; something really new to the CCC – a lady on fire for conservatism
- Fiscally Responsible; she said she would be so, and she is
- Attorney; the only attorney on the CCC
- Public Accountant; that would assist the Commissioners to account for their decisions on taxpayers’ money
Mulhere has his own conflicting situation: a lobbyist and government official at the same time on the same issue. Now, Mulhere has to deal with Hiller’s claim according to the Naples Daily News (NDN).
Hiller said her arguments against Arthrex receiving the incentives were misrepresented in an attempt to impugn her integrity.
Hiller was the only dissenting vote 4 – 1 against Arthrex receiving the incentives, yet it appears to be the only vote that unsettles the lobbyists and business. Impugning a Commissioner’s integrity is a serious issue, but the underlying problem is that Mulhere and Arthrex certainly realize that any growth either in District 2 or 5 will be very carefully scrutinized accounting-wise, and they’re afraid of that risk. Fear may encourage these men and women to move in the direction to somehow unseat Commissioner Hiller. Would that fearful action be a conservative move in the climate of correcting corruption in Collier County?
EDC Executive Director Tammie Nemecek first tried to get Jackson Laboratory to come to Ave Maria, Collier County, Florida, which did not work. Now, she wants Arthrex to grow into Ave Maria, which may not work. Then, she wants Commissioner Hiller to admit that she’s politically stopping Jim Coletta from receiving benefit if Arthrex receives incentives for growing in Ave Maria. One can answer easily that Jim Coletta will benefit unconditionally and politically. But that’s not the reason Commissioner Hiller voted solely against in a 4 -1 vote. Commissioner voted against according to her judgment as a Commissioner in Collier County because of potentially unnecessary costs to the taxpayers of Collier County and hypothetically corrupt accounting practices by the Commission in her view.
One respects Arthrex, Inc., and President Reinhold Schmieding for leading an outstanding company. One also thinks that it would be better to keep the government corruption to a minimum.
Robert Mulhere has many other nightmares to confront. According to an NDN commenter, one nightmare is:
Prior to becoming a consultant, Bob [Robert Mulhere] worked as chief planner for Collier County. He was instrumental in establishing the Rural Lands Stewardship Area [RLSA] program in Eastern Collier County. [Author’s Note: The RLSA comprises all of the Ave Maria and Ave Maria District project in Florida.]
Simply, there are too many conflicts of interest for Robert Mulhere, as he makes a good living.
The New York Times wasted no time in jumping to conclusions about Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who staged two deadly attacks in Oslo last weekend, claiming in the first two paragraphs of one story that he was a “gun-loving,” “right-wing,” “fundamentalist Christian,” opposed to “multiculturalism.”
It may as well have thrown in “Fox News-watching” and “global warming skeptic.”
This was a big departure from the Times’ conclusion-resisting coverage of the Fort Hood shooting suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Despite reports that Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he gunned down his fellow soldiers at a military medical facility in 2009, only one of seven Times articles on Hasan so much as mentioned that he was a Muslim.
Of course, that story ran one year after Hasan’s arrest, so by then, I suppose, the cat was out of the bag.
In fact, however, Americans who jumped to conclusions about Hasan were right and New York Times reporters who jumped to conclusions about Breivik were wrong.
True, in one lone entry on Breivik’s gaseous 1,500-page manifesto, “2083: A European Declaration of Independence,” he calls himself “Christian.” But unfortunately he also uses a great number of other words to describe himself, and these other words make clear that he does not mean “Christian” as most Americans understand the term. (Incidentally, he also cites The New York Times more than a half-dozen times.)
Had anyone at the Times actually read Breivik’s manifesto, they would have seen that he uses the word “Christian” as a handy moniker to mean “European, non-Islamic” — not a religious Christian or even a vague monotheist. In fact, at several points in his manifesto, Breivik stresses that he has a beef with Christians for their soft-heartedness. (I suppose that’s why the Times is never worried about a “Christian backlash.”)
A casual perusal of Breivik’s manifesto clearly shows that he uses the word “Christian” similarly to the way some Jewish New Yorkers use it to mean “non-Jewish.” In this usage, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O’Hair are “Christians.”
I told a Jewish gal trying to set me up with one of her friends once that he had to be Christian, and she exclaimed that she had the perfect guy: a secular Muslim atheist. (This was the least-popular option on the ’60s board game Dream Date, by the way).
Breivik is very clear that you don’t even have to believe in God to join his movement, saying in a self-interview:
Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?
A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus.
He goes on to say that a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” is “everything we DO NOT want,” and a “secular European society” is “what we DO want.”
“It is enough,” Breivik says, “that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist.” That statement doesn’t even make sense in America.
At the one and only meeting of Breivik’s “Knights Templar” in London in 2002, there were nine attendees, three of whom he describes as “Christian atheists” and one as a “Christian agnostic.” (Another dozen people mistook it for a Renaissance Faire and were turned away.)
Breivik clearly explains that his “Knights Templar” is “not a religious organization but rather a Christian ‘culturalist’ military order.” He even calls on the “European Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu community” to join his fight against “the Islamization of Europe.”
He doesn’t believe in Christianity or want anyone else to, but apparently supports celebrating Christmas simply to annoy Muslims.
Breivik says he is “not an excessively religious man,” brags that he is “first and foremost a man of logic,” calls himself “economically liberal” and reveres Darwinism.
But Times reporters had their “Eureka!” moment as soon as they heard Breivik used the word “Christian” someplace to identify himself. No one at the Times bothered to read Breivik’s manifesto to see that he doesn’t use the term the way the rest of us do. That might have interfered with the paper’s obsessive Christian-bashing.
Other famous killers dubbed conservative Christians by the Times include Timothy McVeigh and Jared Loughner.
McVeigh was a pot-smoking atheist who said, “Science is my religion.”
Similarly, Breivik says in his manifesto that “it is essential that science take an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings” –- a statement that would be incomprehensible to all the real scientists, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, Planck, Einstein and Pauli, all of whom believed the whole purpose of science was to understand God.
The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, was lyingly described by the Times as a pro-life fanatic. Not only did more honest news outlets, such as ABC News, report exactly the opposite — for example, how Loughner alarmed his classmates by laughing about an aborted baby in class — but Loughner’s friends described him as “left wing,” “a political radical,” “quite liberal” and “a pothead.” Another said Loughner’s mother was Jewish.
The only reason Timothy McVeigh has gone down in history as a right-wing Christian and Jared Loughner has not — despite herculean efforts by much of the mainstream media to convince us otherwise — is that by January 2011 when Loughner went on his murder spree, conservatives had enough media outlets to reveal the truth.
As explained in the smash best-seller “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,” the liberal rule is: Any criminal act committed by a white man with a gun is a right-wing, Christian conspiracy, whereas any criminal act committed by a nonwhite is the government violating someone’s civil liberties.
It’s too bad Breivik wasn’t a Muslim extremist open about his Jihadist views, because I hear the Army is looking for a new psychiatrist down at Fort Hood.
The Naples Daily News reported a shooting as follows:
The three men accused of the armed-home invasion robbery, Fidel Abel Marrero-Rodriguez, 27; Pedro Louis Herrera, 25; and Yadier Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 27, are also facing a charge of impersonating a law enforcement officer.
Actually, four men intruded the family home of Ronald Bracey (69) who lives on 6735 N. Everglades Blvd., Naples, FL 34120. These men impersonated police officers at about 7:15 AM on July 26th. One of the men pointed a weapon at the head of his wife. Bracey’s one daughter was also in the dwelling. After Bracey managed to retreive his weapon, there was a shootout inside his home. Bracey managed to fire one round into the shoulder of one of the assailants, and all the assailants ran out and into the nearby woods. The Collier County Sheriff’s Office deputies captured three of the men, and one is still missing.