Tag Archives: Hugo Chavez
How lovely he cares so much! Within moments of Hugo Chavez’s passing, Barack Obama releases a statement. Yet, it’s been a little more than a month since a real American hero- Chris Kyle’s tragic death, and not a single word has been spoken! What a disgrace!
From The White House:
At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez’s passing, the United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government. As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.
The other day I happen to come across a video on the Inter-Net, on it was a man from Venezuela being interviewed. The interviewer asked the man to describe the kind of man Hugo Chavez was, the man from Venezuela went on for about a minute describing what Chavez has done in Venezuela, when he was done, the interviewer asked the man what was the difference between Chavez and Obama, the man thought for a couple of seconds, then replied, nothing.
Now for all you Liberals out there that keep calling the Right crazy for saying Obama is a Socialist, what more proof do you need. Here is a man living in a Socialist country, who knows what a Socialist is, saying there is no difference between a Socialist leader and Obama, the case should be closed. Why even in a recent interview with Chavez, he went on about how much he liked Obama and that he would vote for Obama if he could and he was sure Obama would vote for him, pretty buddy, buddy I must say.
Some of the comparisons between Obama and Chavez, according to the man who lives in Venezuela are as follows;
- Both Obama and Chavez have the same strategy of going around promising the people of the middle class on down, everything that they want, better housing, more money and a better life.
- Both Obama and Chavez plan on doing this by taking from the upper class, the people who are making the most money. “Just like Robin Hood” the man said.
- Both Obama and Chavez are waging war against the rich and the big companies, demonizing them so that the rest of the people will turn against them.
- Both Obama and Chavez want Government to take over and run health care. It seems in Venezuela they already have socialized medicine, and what does this man say about that? “You can’t find a doctor or medicine, if you go to the hospital, you can’t find anything, if you want something, you have to go out and buy it yourself.” He also went on to say, “it’s crazy, the only thing that works is private hospitals.”
- He also went on to say that, the people believe Chavez because they want the free stuff, but still, none of the promises he has made have come true. Just like Obama.
You know I have seen many videos of people who have come here from Socialist countries and they all say the same thing, they came to this country for freedom, but they see this country moving in the same direction as the countries they left. I do not understand why these people do not get a bigger platform; they know firsthand the danger signs of a country that is headed for Socialism. I can understand the left ignoring them, because the left want this country to be more like a Socialist country, but why can’t the rest of the country see the path we are going down?
Just the fact that Chavez said that he would vote for Obama if he could, should tell the American people something, after all, Chavez is a full blown socialist and he does not try to hide it. Obama is at heart a socialist, but he tries to disguise himself as a so-so capitalist, but the left knows where his sympathies are, that is why they vote for him. When a full-blown Socialist is backing Obama, bells, whistles, gongs and horns should be going off in everyone’s head, you know the old saying, “Birds of a feather, flock together.” In other words, A Socialist will always back another Socialist, that is why Chavez is backing Obama. Case closed.
This is one man’s opinion.
If you haven’t heard of Barack Obama’s newest endorsement, you’re seriously missing out! Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gave his blessing to the 44th president and he should be proud. I’m not at all insinuating that this election and the one to be held later this year in Venezuela are similar at all, but when a Latin American strongman who built his political career and government policies on class warfare rhetoric praises the president of the United States and bashes Mitt Romney, it’s certainly newsworthy.
Indeed, although the media are not trumpeting this fact, Chavez equated his race with that of the President Obama calling Mitt Romney a callous member of the capitalist elite. Of course, it should go without saying that Chavez’s program of hope and change and left that country hopelessly shortchanged. Under the Chavez regime, there’s been an increase in inflation by 27.5 percent, aggravated by a deluge of government spending. And then there’s the whole discouragement of private investment thing, which Chavez’s nationalizing of industry has tended to do.
With both chief executives championing failed economic philosophies and class envy, it would only be polite for Obama to send Chavez to a thank you note for his words of support. In the unlikely event the media actually cover this story, perhaps Romney should do so as well.
CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has signaled a preference in the U.S. presidential campaign by comparing Mitt Romney to his own challenger.
Chavez, who is up for re-election a month before U.S. President Barack Obama, has in recent weeks expressed a clear preference for the man currently in the White House.
In a campaign speech Saturday night, Chavez equated the agenda of his challenger, Henrique Capriles, with that of Romney, saying both men represent the callously selfish capitalist elite.
Chavez claims Capriles, a moderate former governor, is trying to trick Venezuelans into believing he genuinely cares about the poor, the core of Venezuelan president’s constituency.
“I believe the person to best explain the loser’s agenda isn’t Barack Obama but rather Romney, because it’s the extreme right-wing agenda that borders on the fascism of the United States,” Chavez told tens of thousands of supporters in the western city of Maracaibo.
“In the end, it’s the same project,” Chavez said, referring to Obama as “a good guy.”
News of a major crime has gripped the nation today. A heinous murder has been committed, but the murderer has been released in what has been described as a stunning miscarriage of justice. The prosecutors presented an airtight case with ample evidence to convict but the evidence was “deemed” to be irrelevant by a judge, who only a few days before had told the prosecutors that they had a slam dunk case sitting before him. As of now, no one knows what happened to change the judge’s mind so radically in only a matter of a few days. Speculation is varied, but nothing certain has been reported.
In this awful tale of deceit, conspiracy, and cold blooded murder, we find a ruthless criminal, bent on killing or enslaving an entire nation, set free without so much as a word in his defense. Prosecutors had the weapon, complete with the fingerprints of the perpetrator, present in the courtroom. Also present and testifying were numerous eye witnesses to the crime, each of which testified in gruesome detail.
Ominously not present was the defendant and his legal defense team. In an unprecedented case of arrogance, the defendant and his lawyer ignored a legal subpoena, telling the judge and the nation that the defendant was “suspending his participation in the proceedings,” when a postponement was refused on the day before the trial was to begin. Michael Jablonski, lawyer for the defendant, stated the defendant was too busy to attend the trial. Obama was busy making a campaign swing through the western states, a trip paid for by future victims of his crimes. Apparently the requirement that a defendant be allowed to face his accusers does not apply to a defendant being present in the courtroom to hear the charges brought against him. In every other case this reporter is aware of, a properly notified but absent defendant has been found “guilty in abstentia”. This case seems to be an anomaly of the most grievous kind.
The perpetrator in this case is one Barack Hussein Obama, soon-to-be dictator and President for Life of the United States of America. The victim at hand is one Constitution of the United States of America, age 235 years. The victim was forged by the blood of thousands of patriots, defended through its 235 years by the blood of thousands more, signed by leaders of a movement for freedom, and ratified by the residents of the 13 original American colonies. The death of this document is also the warrant for the imprisonment, enslavement, and death of some 230 million American citizens who no longer have the protection of their prime defender.
Despite having no arguments or documents from the defendant, the judge used a little known decision from an Indiana judge that describes a “native born citizen” to overrule two major decisions. The phrase “natural born citizen” is used in the Constitution to describe the job qualifications to serve as the president of the United States of America. The Naturalization Act of 1790, enacted by the founding fathers, and a Supreme Court case from 1875, Minor vs. Happersett (88 US 162) defined the term “natural born citizen” found in Article II Section 2 Paragraph 5 of the Constitution as “ a person born of two parents who were legal citizens at the time of said person’s birth”. The Indiana judge said anyone born within the confines of the nation is a “natural born citizen”, which flies in the face of the other cited and much more significant documents. Lawyers for the victim showed beyond a shadow of doubt that Obama’s father was a Kenyan, making him a citizen of Great Britain at the time of Obama’s birth, and therefore not a “natural born citizen” as defined by said documents.
Lawyers for the victim are astounded at the outcome, as are many of Obama’s future victims. Where the victim’s legal team and future victims go from here is still unknown at this time. It seems only God can prevent total tyranny from being foisted on the legally defenseless citizens of the United States of America. Rumors that have not been verified as of yet give much of the credit to the dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who used this same kind of operation to overthrow and enslave the people of his country.
Obama and his team of despots are elated as this means nothing can stand in the way of absolute power over the citizens of the once free and prosperous United States. It is unknown at this time exactly what Obama will do next, but his recent edict to force Christian hospitals and employers to provide sterilization and abortions on demand, in complete contradiction to the tenets of their faith, could very well be a sign of the tyranny on the horizon. Third World banana dictatorship status is expected to be bestowed upon this once great nation in the near future. Updates will be provided as they become available.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to my by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
February 3, 2012
I find myself intrigued with Ron Paul on a regular basis. The man can get up and say some of the most patriotic and sensible things in one sentence and then in the next sentence sound like he just came out of an insane asylum. Paul has great ideas when it comes to fiscal responsibility, spending, freedom, and the Federal Reserve. On the other side of the coin, though, his ideas on foreign policy leave me wondering where he left his brain, or if he has one that is properly balanced. When he speaks of fiscal issues he sounds like Ronald Reagan. When he speaks of foreign policy he sounds like Hugo Chavez and even to the left of Barack Obama.
When I hear him speak of auditing or eliminating the FED I stand up and cheer. The Federal Reserve is a non-governmental entity that is destroying our economy by printing money that has essentially no value, thereby lowering the value of the dollar and guaranteeing severe inflation in the very near future. The FED also has virtually no oversight from anyone in Congress. Paul is also correct in his assessment of federal government spending. We cannot keep spending money borrowed from China for building IHOP restaurants, studying ants in New Zealand, teaching African men how to wash their genitals after sex, and certainly can’t keep borrowing to prop up European countries.
I also agree with much of his stand on Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and the other third world hell holes Obama is involving us in. Fighting a war against Islamic terrorists is one thing but this “nation building” farce is only a boon for the military industrial complex and is not helping any aspect of our national security interests. We are wasting money and lives in a venture that will fail because it isn’t about winning a war; it is about being politically correct and propping up a puppet government. As we are leaving Iraq we see the sectarian slaughter returning.
Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been butchering each other for centuries and we are not going to stop it. Until these stone-age animals decide to live like human beings nothing we do is going to change anything. All we do is put our soldiers in the line of fire with a no-win policy that puts their lives in danger with rules of engagement that are insane.
While closing military bases all across the United States we build and expand bases throughout the world. While we are “helping Afghan police and military close their borders to invaders” we leave our own borders wide open to drug cartels and the very Islamic terrorists we are fighting in far off lands.
Ron Paul makes quite a stir when he talks about “legalizing drugs”. I don’t remember everything he has said about drugs but I do know he has some valid points here also. The “war on drugs” has been going on for 50 years and has cost taxpayers billions in wasted money. Not only have we not solved the problem of illegal drugs; this “war” has made it worse. Most of Paul’s position has more to do with leaving this issue to the states, not legalizing drugs wholesale as the story is reported. Ron Paul is a strong states’ rights advocate, as am I. It only took the politicians 14 years to see the problems caused by Prohibition and repeal the 18th Amendment. The war on drugs has been going on for 50 years with the same results we saw during Prohibition. I don’t condone legalizing all drugs but I see a colossal failure that could be handled better at the state level.
Paul has the same ideas on abortion; let the states decide how they want to handle this issue. I agree with him on this matter. If it isn’t in the Constitution the federal government has no business sticking their nose into it. Every time a person or group doesn’t get their way at the state level they run to the federal government to override the states, the place where these issues should be decided. I see abortion as murder, and see murder as a state issue not a federal one.
I hear all of the things Paul writes and says about these issues and I jump up and cheer him on. Then he begins to talk about foreign policy and I scream out in pain. Paul is just as bad as Barack Obama when it comes to blaming America for every ill in the world. I have a cousin who worked in the building demolition business years ago and I had several opportunities to see the activities involved in blowing a building up, or rather imploding them. When I hear Ron Paul talk about 9/11 being an inside job I want to choke his scrawny little neck.
The idea that the World Trade Center was taken down by internally placed explosives is ludicrous to anyone who has even a scant knowledge of building implosions. The amount of work necessary to drill into pillars, place the explosives, wire them together, and tie everything to a detonator cannot be accomplished in a building with thousands of people walking in and out all day every day. A building that size isn’t brought down on itself with a satchel charge tossed into an elevator. The idea that the Bush Administration was involved in setting up the hijackings is equally ludicrous and statements by Ron Paul and his supporters on this issue shows they are well outside the realm of sane or intelligent thought.
While Ron Paul has some very good ideas about what is needed to restore The Republic of the United States of America, he has more than enough crazy ideas to make him a danger to every person in this country. I would love to see Ron Paul be the next Treasury Secretary or Chairman of the Federal Reserve but to put this man in the White House would endanger our nation almost as much as re-electing Barack Obama.
We need a very strong leader with strong conservative values. We need someone who will articulate the conservative message and have the courage of his/her convictions. Now is not the time for waffling or being concerned about “diversity” or “inclusiveness”. The only answer to our nation’s problems is a conservative approach that relies on the Constitution that our founding fathers fought the Revolutionary War to make possible. Anything less will result in the demise of a once great nation and the rise of another Third World banana republic with a dictator such as Adolph Hitler or Hugo Chavez. Ron Paul is not the man for the job.
I submit this in the name of the most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
January 23, 2012
I have heard Barack Obama’s latest campaign tactic and it set me to thinking. Obama is going to give up the hope and change tactic and run on the premise that rich people aren’t paying their “fair share” of taxes. That brings me to some interesting questions. How much is one’s “fair share”? How much is my “fair share”? Am I paying my “fair share”, and my “fair share” of what? Who determines what a person’s “fair share” is? Who is already paying their “fair share” and who is not?
Today I heard excerpts from an interview of T. Boone Pickens on MSNBC. He said that in the last 13 years, since turning 70 years of age, he has paid over $665 million in taxes to the federal government. One of the panelists snippingly asked Pickens how much money he has made in those 13 years. I consider that information none of her business, and a non-factor in answering the questions I posed at the beginning of this article. I would think that anyone who has paid that much money in a 13 year period has paid their “fair share” of taxes. I will get back to this in a bit.
Last year (2010), my wife and I paid just over $5,000 in income taxes. When I averaged out the taxes Pickens has paid over 13 years it comes out to $51.1 million per year, on average. So, have my wife and I paid our “fair share” compared to the massive amount paid by Pickens? What about the 47% of Americans who pay no income taxes at all? How much is their “fair share”? What about those who not only don’t pay any income tax, but instead, receive the Earned Income Tax Credit? How much is their “fair share”? What about the illegal aliens who flood our emergency rooms, hospitals, and schools, yet pay not one dime in income taxes? How much is their “fair share”?
Do those who contribute nothing to the national defense deserve their “fair share” of protection from police or military forces? Do those who pay no income taxes deserve their “fair share” of use of the highways, bridges, and other infrastructure built with my tax money? Do those who pay no income taxes deserve their “fair share” of hospitals and schools that I help pay for but use very little? As a matter of fact, my children are grown, so I don’t use the schools at all; so how much of my “fair share” should go to provide schools for those paying nothing?
T. Boone Pickens makes hundreds of millions every year I am sure, but so what? I wonder how much of the resources provided by federal, state, and local governments Pickens uses. Does he receive food stamps? Uh, let me go out on a limb and say, probably not. Does he get WIC? Once again, probably not. Does he go to the emergency room every time he sneezes for free medicine? NOOOOOO, I don’t think so!!!!!!!
Does T. Boone Pickens get more protection from the local police than those who pay no taxes at all? Doubtful. Is Pickens safer from terrorists or is he provided protection that isn’t available to any other American citizen, and most illegal aliens? I would again say that this is doubtful. So, how do we determine the “fair share” of taxes between T. Boone Pickens and my wife and I?
I can say that my wife and I also do not have any government assistance. We don’t receive food stamps, earned income tax credit, WIC, subsidized housing, or any other government hand-out, nor does Pickens, I would think. So where is the discrepancy between the “fair share” paid by Pickens, the Russell household, and those who pay nothing? How does one put a scale to the governmental benefits the Pickens and Russell households don’t receive?
Now back to the MSNBC twit asking T. Boone Pickens how much money he has made over the last 13 years. Who cares how much he has made? Why does this talking head think it is her business how much money he has made? How much money has she made? I wonder if she would think her income is any of my business. How much money has she paid towards her “fair share” of government largesse?
Here we have the crux of the issue from the Marxists in the media and the Democrat Party. Here is a man who has paid hundreds of millions in taxes, has donated hundreds of millions more, of his own money, to Oklahoma State University and countless other public and private institutions. He is being pilloried by a sanctimonious nobody who probably has not spent one dime of her own money to help anyone in need.
We call this class warfare. Class warfare, to me, is just about the lowest form of “journalism” or politics there is. Obama uses this class warfare to pit us against each other while he schemes on ways to enslave all of us and take the money of the “rich” for himself and his friends. If you think any of these people care about your well-being, you might want to open your eyes and take a look around.
How did the French Revolution work out for the “poor” when all of the wealthy aristocrats got their wealth confiscated and their heads chopped off? How many Russian peasants got rich as a result of the 1917 revolution there? How many of those who bought Hitler’s class warfare lie wound up better off as a result of the Third Reich? How many Cuban peasants benefited from the Castro overthrow of Batista? Did these actions create pillars of wealth as the result of class warfare or did they create hell holes of poverty, suffering, and death?
Let me use this class warfare in another way, since the left likes this tactic so much. The Obama family has gone to Spain, on the taxpayer dime. The Obama family has gone to Martha’s Vineyard how many times, on the taxpayer dime? The Obama family has gone to Hawaii how many times, on the taxpayer dime? And aren’t they going again for a 17 day vacation? Barack and Michele went to a Broadway play, on Air Force One, at taxpayer expense. Barack and Michele travelled to Martha’s Vineyard on separate 747’s, 3 hours apart, at taxpayer expense. And to top that off, the family dog has his own Lear jet to take him to the same vacation spot a few hours later. All of this has occurred in the last 3 years.
The Obama family dog has his own Lear jet, paid for by taxpayers, and my wife and I can’t afford to drive a few hours for a weekend vacation. By the way, my cat would love her “fair share” of Lear jet travel that the first dog gets. In the 22 years my wife and I have been married we have taken 3 vacations. Has the Obama family had their “fair share” of vacations? If I tried to lists all of Obama’s vacations and golf outings in the last 3 years, this would run on for 40 pages. I think they have had their “fair share” of vacations. Shouldn’t they take a few less vacations and have some “vacation equality” to go along with their “income equality”? Shouldn’t the royal family share some of the sacrifices they always speak of We the People making?
Let’s take a look at Obamacare, the crown jewel of the administration so far. I suggest that we have some “fair share” in Obamacare. What about the 1800 exemptions given to unions and Democrat Party supporting companies. Are these unions and companies getting their “fair share” of exemptions or are they being given preferential treatment? Where is the “fair share” of exemptions for the rest of us?
In 2010, General Electric, the parent company of NBC and huge supporter of the Democrat Party, paid no corporate taxes on $5 billion in net profits. How much should GE’s “fair share” come to? Huge amounts of tax dollars were given to Wall Street by Obama and Congress in the TARP and “stimulus” bailouts. How much should their “fair share” come to? Nancy Pelosi has seen her net worth triple since she has been in congress. Her “fair share” is how much?
When you travel down the road of class warfare you find a dead end road littered with the corpses of millions who have travelled that road before you. You won’t find the corpses of the Obamas of the world, because they are the ones killing those whose corpses you see. Class warfare ends in tragedy for nations and the people who inhabit those nations. Despots throughout history have used class warfare to divide, then conquer, and then slaughter the people. These despots then take their “fair share” of the wealth and live opulent lives.
Obama and his cohorts in Congress and the media have the same fate in mind for us, We the People. Once Despot Obama’s class warfare tactic has succeeded he will turn into a real-life nightmare like those who have preceded him; Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Pol Pot, and others who have destroyed the very people they promised to help. Obama, the Democrat Party, the media, Hollywood leftists, and many in the Republican Party will divvy up the spoils while the rest of us live in abject poverty.
If you want this kind of life then support Obama and his Axis of Evil helpers. If not, search for the one who will deliver us from a fate seen by so many people before us. Dig deep into the character and actions of those Republicans who are “not as bad as Obama” and see where they will take you. New World Order globalism isn’t trademarked by the Democrat party. Republicans have a mighty big piece of the tyranny pie ready and waiting for those who don’t do due diligence before voting.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
December 8, 2011
In part 1, we detailed just how Hugo Chavez has effected the complete government takeover of the Venezuelan private sector including banks, farms, food stores, etc. His method of operation is not unlike Barack Obama’s recent onslaught upon the U.S. private sector, specifically the banks. With the passing of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill in 2010, we see that the U.S. government is closing banks through the FDIC and the Federal Reserve enhanced powers via the Dodd Frank bill, and then giving these banks to leftist crony-capitalists such as George Soros.
Part 2 – FDIC, Obama and Bernanke-Approved Bank Fraud lines pockets of Dell, Paulson and Billionaire Leftist money-manipulator, George Soros. while depleting FDIC funding,thus leaving U.S taxpayers to foot the bill.
(Keep in mind that the FDIC closed 157 banks in 2010 and the current total for 2011 now stands at 90.)
Indy Mac Bank of California closed down by Feds, then reopens as One West Bank in March 2009. Keep in mind here that this is JUST ONE Bank here, with 844 banks now listed by the FDIC as being “problematic” in their latest 2011 report. That report should be more aptly be referred to as “The Feds hit list of banks slated for hostile takeover to be given to Obama/Leftist Democrats and crony-capitalists.” First let’s review just what transpired in the Indy Mac Bank takeover and restructuring, that was made perfectly legal by the Dodd-Frank bill.
Mike Shedlock gives us a complete rundown here on just how the U.S. Government has set up the bank takeovers that allow big time leftists such as George Soros to make billions of dollars of profits while leaving the taxpayer holding the bag for billions of dollars in losses through the FDIC. This is a massive transfer of wealth that will also lead to the complete takeover of every bank in the country, if it isn’t stopped.
Meet IndyMac’s New Owners
Flashback March 20, 2009: IndyMac Bank’s new name: OneWest Bank
The sale of IndyMac Federal Bank was concluded Thursday, and the new owners wasted no time in ditching its tainted name. Starting today, IndyMac is OneWest Bank.
The Pasadena bank’s new owners, organized under OneWest Bank Group, bought the bank’s $20.7 billion in loans and other assets for $16 billion. That includes $9 billion in financing from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Federal Home Loan Bank.
The ownership group is led by Steven Mnuchin of Dune Capital Management in New York. The bank’s investors include J. Christopher Flowers,who has specialized in distressed bank purchases, and hedge fund operators George Soros and John Paulson.
On February 20, 2010, the Los Angeles Times reported OneWest bank profit: $1.6 billion:
The billionaires’ club of private financiers who took over the remains of IndyMac Bank from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. turned a profit of $1.57 billion last year on the failed mortgage lender — more than they invested less than a year ago.
Yet under the sale agreement, the federal deposit insurance fund still could lose nearly $11 billion on bad loans that the Pasadena institution made before it was sold last March and renamed OneWest Bank.
In taking over IndyMac’s assets, the investor group, led by Steven Mnuchin of Dune Capital Management, put up $1.55 billion to revitalize the bank. Other investors included hedge-fund operators George Soros and John Paulson, bank buyout expert J. Christopher Flowers and computer mogul Michael S. Dell.
OneWest’s financial results were filed with regulators Friday. Regulators and the investors declined to comment on the profit. ( Never mind asking these Obama crony-capitalists as to why they should make $1.5 billion in profits, while the FDIC [as in the taxpayers] takes $11 billion in losses)
And now we see this headline from Reuters: FDIC may borrow money from treasury. ” The borrowing could be needed to cover short-term cash-flow pressures caused by reimbursing depositors immediately after the failure of a bank, the paper said” With $12 billion dollars in losses with the closing of Indy Mac ( now One West Bank) is it any wonder the FDIC fund is broke? How are Soros, Paulson and Dell allowed to make a billion and a half dollars from the takeover of Indy Mac Bank in 2010 alone, while ignoring the losses? This is a massive transfer of wealth being manipulated by the Obama-Bernanke-Geitner-Soros consortium, where banks end up being owned by assorted leftists and crony-capitalists of the Obama regime, eerily similar to what Mr. Hugo Chavez is doing in forming his Communist collective in Venezuela. This widespread power grab in taking over banks and putting them in the hands of the likes of billionaire currency manipulators and finance fraudsters like George Soros has very deep ramifications for the public. As of right now, people who have money in FDIC insured banks have no guarantee that the money is actually in that bank, as witnessed in the Reuters article above: ” With a rise in the number of troubled banks, the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund used to repay insured deposits at failed banks has been drained.”
Need a home or business loan in the near future? It is going to be pricey, to the point of being unattainable for many Americans struggling during this Obama-recession. What if government-connected leftists like Soros have the final say in just who gets a bank loan? The Indy Mac bank debacle described above is just one example of the massive transfer of wealth and influence over our banking sector being perpetuated through the Dodd-Frank bill today. There are currently 844 banks on the problematic bank list at the FDIC. The FDIC fund is broke. Meanwhile Soros and company are making billions off of failed banks such as Indy Mac. And right now Congress is trying to stall Barack Obama’s newest czar appointee, Mr. Richard Corday. His position? Chief enforcer of the Dodd-Frank financial bureaucracy! 2012 just can’t get here fast enough!
“These bankers should be shown for what they really are to the public: vulgar robbers, thieves in ties, pickpockets and obstinate kleptomaniacs:” Hugo Chavez
President Chavez created new national laws not unlike the U.S. Dodd-Frank supposed financial reform law that Barack Obama signed on July21, 2010. ( along with the supposed food safety law, and Obama-care that completes the tri-fecta of taking over banks, food companies and producers, and the complete U.S. health-care system)
The Chavez’ method of operation in stealing the total private sector wealth of private sector companies and taking over their total economy was done quickly and right out in the open, whereas Barack Obama’s plans have been quietly designed and signed into law beneath the radar of the public and many under-qualified members of Congress, who either do not see the stealth takeover of the private sector by the U.S. government, or are choosing to turn their backs on the very people who elected them into power by remaining silent. Make no mistake here, the Obama and Chavez doctrines run extremely parallel and are rooted in the Marxist ideology of Socialist wealth redistribution by a plutocracy that in the end ends up in an all-powerful Communist collective. First, let’s look at what Mr. Chavez has done in Venezuela.
Chavez’s government well knows ( in his own mind) that the dollar-blinded rich in Venezuela must be defeated politically. A democratic economy is essential, and as private ownership fails to meet the needs of the masses, the state is taking over and formulating alternative ways of managing production and distribution. The pricing system is being moderated and social priorities are replacing market manipulation. As the global banking crisis and its scandals grew, the Venezuelan government ensured effective regulation at home. Several small private banks were taken over following revelations of bank fraud. (No fair trial, no evidence needed, just revelations) In November the main shareholder of a group of four banks, Grupo Financiero Bolivar, Ricardo Fernandez, known as a Chavez supporter, was arrested. Two of the banks were nationalised, and two were closed. The Institute in Defence of People’s Access to Goods and Services took control of four food companies owned by Ricardo Fernandez, to make sure there were no supply disruptions. Subsequently, a further three banks were nationalised and, on 11 December, Venezuela’s Superintendency of Banks closed an eighth.
Chavez declared on 10 December. “I have ordered the takeover of tuna, fish, corn processing and rice companies, as well as [the bankers’] estates and cattle … this will become wealth for the people’. He added: ‘We are confronting these problems in a coordinated manner with the whole state, and we are taking over companies that were forming a kind of network …We cannot wait until tomorrow. At the first sign, [we take] immediate action and inexorably apply the established laws and procedures.” (Just like Liberal fake democrats in the U.S. created a slew of laws with no allowed input from Republicans or we the people, Chavez and company drew up and instituted their own laws)
The Venezuelan media takeover has played a central part in Chavez’ plans: In this battle the media is central, and on 23 January RCTV and five other cable channels were temporarily taken off the air for breaking transmission laws requiring them to televise government announcements. On 14 January the state expropriated the sugar mills ‘Casta’, in the state of Tachira and the ‘La Batalla’ agricultural mill in the state of Barinas, to turn them into social property. All of this was accomplished when Hugo Chavez was given permission to rule by decree, without any input from the National Assembly: Venezuelan lawmakers loyal to President Hugo Chavez Wednesday approved a measure granting the U.S.-baiting left-wing leader authority to rule by decree for the next 18 months. Informed Americans have now come to realize that Obama and company now effectively control the mainstream media, as shown by their refusal to report on Obama’s questionable past, radical associations, and college Marxist ideology such as is thoroughly documented right here. Now we shall look into what is going on in our banking sector, as we already have been made aware of the complete takeover of our healthcare system, 2 major auto companies, the government intervention into our agriculture sector enabled by the Food Safety Bill, all done in very much the same way Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela, as shown above.
The FDIC closed 157 banks in 2010 and the current total for 2011 now stands at 90.
During trips to several small towns in our area during the past two years, my family has always ended up discussing the possible reasons as to why all of the banks now have new names. The only bank still under it’s original name is the Bank of America, along with two credit unions. Why is this? If a bank is closed, how is it that it reopens almost immediately under a new name, and just why is this happening at an alarmingly increasing rate today? I recently discovered the answers to those questions, and several other questions others may have concerning the massive numbers of bank closings since 2009, and it is pretty unsettling, to say the least.
How is the takeover of hundreds of U.S. Banks being engineered today?
In order to close a bank down, surely there must be strict laws in place to provide security against fraud to protect depositors, taxpayers who have to foot the bill under bank foreclosures under FDIC guidelines, and their investors right? Well it turns out there were protections put into place.. until the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act came along and changed the rules. First in March of 2009, the federal government starting stress testing the largest banks in the U.S. (note that this was immediately started in Obama’s first year in office) Please see The Case for Stress-Testing Community Banks*. Since this was actually the start of this method of evaluating banks, and then authorizing the FDIC to close them down, it is important to understand the role of SCAP, for Supervisory Capital Assessment Program and the subsequent evolution of the Dodd-Frank bill that now allows the federal reserve and the U. S. government to shut down any FDIC insured bank in America at any time. (Just like Chavez did, with zero input from elected officials)
The SCAP was launched in March 2009 to stress the capital of the 19 largest banks. This was a supervisory exercise to determine the capital buffers sufficient to withstand losses and sustain lending in institutions the U.S. Government deemed “systemically significant,” or “too big to fail.” While it was unlikely the rest of the banking industry would tolerate a system‐wide stress test, Federal policy was essentially leaving the rest of the industry to market forces and the normal FDIC resolution process. ( but not for long as we shall see next)
The stress test focused on the level and composition of capital for two years into the future. The test was conducted under two macroeconomic scenarios for two years forward:
o Baseline scenario based on consensus expectations as of February 2009; and
o More adverse scenario assuming a deeper and longer‐term downturn
(Ironically, this “more adverse” scenario was very close to what the U.S. Experienced).
The original SCAP program set the stage for Dodd-Frank regulations that would allow these “stress tests”, ( that actually had no proven benefit what so ever) to be injected into financial law. This marked a turning point on the thinking and attitude of the SCAP and the role stress testing could play in the banking industry.
The value of stress testing was cemented as Congress crafted regulatory reform. To ensure stress
testing became part of the fabric of bank supervision, Congress memorialized it in the following ways:
1. Federal Reserve to provide at least three different sets of conditions for firms to stress test
2. Federal Reserve to do annual stress tests on bank holding companies over 50 billion in assets
and non‐bank financial firms under Federal Reserve supervision;
3. Above firms required to do their own semi‐annual stress test; and
4. All other banks with assets greater than 10 billion required to do annual stress test.
While the legislation establishes bright lines for the size of institutions which are required to perform stress testing, the entire financial services industry should be prepared for increased expectations as financial regulators become accustomed to seeing stress testing as part of the risk management framework and an important part of the supervisory process. Increasingly, bank management will find it difficult to demonstrate sufficient risk management processes without incorporating an element of stress testing.
Take note: Community Bank Performance 2009 & 2010
The pace of bank failures increased significantly in 2009, with 140 institutions being closed. As of October 1, 2010, 129 banks have closed in 2010. That has increased to a total of 247 bank closures during 2010, and 2011. As we see billions of dollars in losses putting a huge strain on the FDIC insurance fund, just who ends up taking over these ‘closed banks’ that end up reopened almost the very same day/week that they were shut down? End Part1 In Part 2, we see just who is taking over these FIDC mandated shuttered banks, who is left paying the bill for their past debt, and just who is raking in billions of dollars from these big government manipulated bank closures.
Chavez has been out of sight for several weeks and is allegedly recovering in Cuba following a June 10, surgery. According to his closest friends and allies, Hugo Chavez is still alive and the Venezuelan president is firmly in control of the country.
His brother Adan said he had just returned from Cuba and that Hugo was recovering “satisfactorily”. Venezuela’s vice-foreign minister Temir Porras tweeted, “President Chavez is recovering well from his surgery. His enemies should stop dreaming and his friends should stop worrying”.
Some speculate that the President is simply taking a respite to recharge before the 2012 election. But, unconfirmed claims of Chavez’ current health have ranged from dealing with prostate cancer to him having died from a massive heart attack. And now his continued silence and absence have triggered a wave of concern in Venezuela over possible succession concerns.
Under the Venezuelan constitution, Vice President Jaua would become President if Chavez cannot return to power, but many argue that Chavez has become larger than life and cannot be replaced by anyone. “Chávez has made it difficult for anyone to rise to that level where they can be seen as a replacement.”, said Daniel Kerner, a Latin American analyst.
If Hugo dies or is otherwise unable to resume his Presidency, a power vacuum will undoubtedly ensue. The military, the oil industry and native Venezuelan groups may all vie for power in a Hugo-less nation.
Just when Americans are realising that Barack Hussein Obama is in fact an anti-American Socio-Marxist at heart, Mr. Obama shows us that he has deep Communist sympathies in an announcement from the UK Telegraph:
Another slap in the face for Britain: the Obama administration sides with Argentina and Venezuela in OAS declaration on the Falklands.President Obama was effusive in his praise for the Special Relationship when he visited London recently, but his administration continues to slap Britain in the face over the highly sensitive Falklands issue. Washington signed on to a “draft declaration on the question of the Malvinas Islands” passed by unanimous consent by the General Assembly of the Organisation of American States (OAS) at its meeting in San Salvador yesterday, an issue which had been heavily pushed by Argentina. In doing so, the United States sided not only with Buenos Aires, but also with a number of anti-American regimes including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua. (emphasis mine)
While many South American and Central American history experts that Socialism is indeed once again creeping into the region just south of the American border, many also agree with the theory that this is indeed Soft Communism. For many readers uninformed with the aspects of Communism, its history, and it’s true meaning, please DO NOT IGNORE that very informative link. This gives us some very deep insight into some of Barack Hussein Obama’s actions. Socialism is in fact, the basis for the injection of stealth Communism and despot dictatorships onto unsuspecting or uninformed citizens throughout world history. This is also the root anti-Americanism that now threatens America from within. Socialists/Marxists.Communists hate capitalism, the very same capitalism that has made America the freeest, greatest, most prosperous nation on earth for over 200 years!
For the doubters out there that do not see this as Obama siding with South American Communists like Hugo Chavez against our main ally in Europe as a pattern that shows Obama’s true ideology, I point you to his recent trip to Brazil, where I wrote about another Marxist Rebel, the newly installed President of Brazil:
Obama should feel right at home with the new president of Brazil, as she is an extreme form of community organizer in which she was a Rebel, a left of center politician, is a former guerrilla, who was reportedly a torture victim, and also somehow considered to have been an economist. First and foremost, she is a hand-picked Lulu President and his former chief of staff, and there is no valid reason to think this isn’t just an extension of Lulu’s rule.
There is a South and Central American pattern emerging and it is not good for America. During Obama’s trip to Brazil, the media played up the economic partnership theme and largely ignored just who the Barack Obama’s new adoring friend, the President of Brazil really is. Concerned Americans from what the Liberal media constantly calls “the right wing extremists” such as Glenn Beck and citizen writers like myself did in fact report on the Marxist Rebel, Dilma Rousseff, who was imprisoned for trying to overthrow the government of Brazil, and who has now been inserted as the new President by the previous dictator LuLu. President Rousseff also has a past that mirrors a long-time American terrorist, Weather Underground leader and Marxist, one Bill Ayers, who just like Rousseff, bombed buildings and robbed banks, while all the time calling for the overthrow of their respectvie governments. Bill Ayers is also a long-time pal and mentor of Obama, whether either of them admit it or not today. Obama’s first run for big-time political office within the U.S. Senate was announced from… Bill Ayers living room! There is an undeniable pattern developing here of proven Marxist ideology worship being proven to be the core beliefs of the President of the United States.
Secretary of State, Liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton, also sided with Ortega and Chavez, who also have direct ties to Iran, Russia, and China, in this issue in 2010, in a speech in Buenos Aires as The Heritage Foundation reported upon here:
Washington backed a similar resolution last June, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear in a joint press conference with Kirchner in Buenos Aires in March 2010 that the Obama Administration fully backs Argentina’s calls for negotiations over the Falklands, handing her Argentine counterpart a significant propaganda coup. The State Department has also insultingly referred to the islands in the past as the “Malvinas Islands,” the Argentine name for them. (emphasis mine)
Back in 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and captured 1800 British citizens. That is a lot of people considering that the population was said to be 1813 in 1980. The citizens themselves want nothing to do with Argentina, and yet the propaganda machines in the U.N. Human rights divisions along with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are slapping the U.K., the U.S. ally right in the face over this issue. What could possibly be behind this push to let Argentina take over the Falkland islands? This just might blow some Liberal minds here, along with the rest of the world that isn’t aware of the facts behind the current attempt to take over the Falkland Islands. Wait for it…. the Liberal Democratic party’s much hated big oil! That’s right, there have recently been big oil deposits discovered off the coast of the Falklands said to contain 60 Billion barrels of oil under the seabed surrounding the Falklands islands! So there we see the truth. Liberal Socialist Big-Oil hating Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are in bed with South American Despots Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega to enable them to steal the oil around the Falkland Islands! There in fact, was a signed agreement between Argentina and the U.K. all the way back in 1995 that Argentina unilaterally withdrew in 2007, once they realised how much oil was really there.
A 1995 agreement between the UK and Argentina had set the terms for exploitation of offshore resources including oil reserves as geological surveys had shown there might be up to 60 billion barrels (9.5 billion cubic metres) of oil under the sea bed surrounding the islands. However, in 2007 Argentina unilaterally withdrew from the agreement. In response, Falklands Oil and Gas Limited has signed an agreement with BHP Billiton to investigate the potential exploitation of oil reserves. Climatic conditions of the southern seas mean that exploitation will be a difficult task, though economically viable, and the continuing sovereignty dispute with Argentina is hampering progress. In February 2010, exploratory drilling for oil was begun by Desire Petroleum, but the results from the first test well were disappointing. Two months later, on 6 May 2010, Rockhopper Exploration announced that “it may have struck oil“. On Friday 17 September 2010 Rockhopper Exploration released news that a flow test of the Sea-Lion 1 discovery was a commercially viable find. In February 2011 Rockhopper Exploration commenced an appraisal programme of the Sea-Lion discovery. An update of the first appraisal drill were released on Monday 21 March 2011 indicating a significant reservoir package with a downhole mini Drill Stern Test flowing oil at better rates then the September 2010 flow test: confidence in the commerciality of the Sea Lion discovery has been increased by this first appraisal.
If you will notice the dates I have emphasised above, we see the direct correlation between the uptick in bigger oil deposit discoveries and Hillary Clinton’s announced support for Hugo Chavez to take over the Falkland islands, and then again in March of this year when Barack Obama’s administration announces adoring support for Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega’s blatant attemp to steal the oil from the citizens of the Falklands. So there we have it, Liberals that basically stopped American oil extraction and production for the past three years, in bed with Communist-Socialist South American dictators to allow them to effectively steal another country’s oil deposits! Is this what the Liberals mean when they chant, “This is what Democracy looks like ?” Some people may try to spin this escapade into saying that Obama and Hillary just want to be a “good customer” of Daniel Ortega’s and Hugo Chavez’ future oil exports, just like he announced in Brazil recently. Yet one has to wonder just how that would fit in with Obamas constant statement of reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Could it be that Obama and company are finally realising that alternative energy currently can not even supply a meager 10% of America’s energy? Maybe the Liberal eco-terrorists finally realised that the electric cars they say will save the world actually have to have oil and coal based electricity to charge them up? Where are all the liberal hypocrites demanding a moratorium on oil drilling around the Falkland Islands ? What is that I hear? Crickets.
Hugo Chávez has sent out troops to take over farms and urged the poor to occupy “unused” land in wealthy areas of Caracas, prompting a wave of squats that is rattling Venezuela’s middle class.
Chavez is taking applying a strategy similar to Mao Tse-Tung’s which involved the nationalization of banks and industry as well as the redistribution of land from wealthy landowners to the peasants. Hugo is slowly nationalizing all industry both foreign and domestic. Radio and TV stations, oil production and much more have already been nationalized and he’s threatened the entire banking sector.
The more-recent policy of allowing squatters to take land from rightful owners is a direct result of the failure of Hugo Chavez’s version of Socialism.
Under Chávez the government has built fewer than 40,000 units a year – some say only 24,000 – in contrast to previous governments, which averaged 70,000.
It shouldn’t shock any of my readers that this government is failing its people. By going deep into the play books of Lenin and Marx, Hugo Chavez has managed to thrust his country into poverty, destroy its industry and reduce housing production by almost half. Now he’s letting the people he’s made homeless steal the land that other’s had worked and saved to purchase. This move is making other industries fearful that they will be the next on to become the property of the nation of Venezuela.
Even hotels have become skittish since being asked to host those displaced by the floods. They have obliged, but some proprietors now worry they will be the next industry to be nationalised.
.. and they have every right to be nervous, Hugo’s record for taking over businesses is lengthy. This is just a smattering of what he’s expropriated:
- 2007- Chavez nationalizes telecommunications and electricity generation
- 4/2008-Chavez nationalizes steel production
- 8/2008-Chavez announces nationalization of bank
- 3/2009 – Chavez Nationalizes portions of the U.S.-based food giant Cargill
- 5/2010 – Chavez Nationalizes Private University
- 6/2010- Chavez Nationalizes 11 Oil Rigs Owned by U.S. Operator Helmerich & Payne
- 10/2010 – Chavez Nationalizes U.S. bottle manufacturer Owens-Illinois
Yesterday on August 19th Obama took advantage of the Senate’s recess to push through four people for political positions by Recess Appointment. One of the four raised a few eyebrows, and for good reason. She is Maria del Carmen Aponte and she is now our Ambassador to El Salvador. First the Official Story.
On December 9th 2009 Obama nominated her for the position, but has been unable to get her through the Senate and you will see why. She was appointed with the following announcement and bio: (Emphasis mine)
President Obama Announces Recess Appointments to Key Administration Posts. Four Appointees Have Waited an Average of 303 Days for Senate Confirmation.
WASHINGTON – President Obama announced today his intent to recess appoint four nominees to fill key administration posts that have been left vacant for an extended period of time.
“At a time when our nation faces so many pressing challenges, I urge members of the Senate to stop playing politics with our highly qualified nominees, and fulfill their responsibilities of advice and consent,” President Obama said. “Until they do, I reserve the right to act within my authority to do what is best for the American people.”
The President announced his intent to recess appoint the following nominees:
Maria del Carmen Aponte, Nominee for Chief of Mission, Republic of El Salvador
Maria del Carmen Aponte is currently an attorney and independent consultant with Aponte Consulting and serves on the Board of Directors of Oriental Financial Group. From 2001-2004, Ms. Aponte was the Executive Director of the Puerto Rican Federal Affairs Administration (PRFAA). Prior to that, she practiced law for nearly twenty years with Washington D.C. based law firms. Ms. Aponte also served as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Council of La Raza, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the University of the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Board of Rosemont College. She served as president of the Hispanic National Bar Association; the Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia; and as a member of the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission. In 1979, as a White House Fellow, Ms. Aponte was Special Assistant to United States Housing and Urban Development Secretary Moon Landrieu. Ms. Aponte has a B.A. in Political Science from Rosemont College, an M.A. in Theatre from Villanova University, and a J.D. from Temple University.
So a former Board Member of Radical La Raza (The Race) is now our Ambassador to El Salvador. Let’s take an indepth look into La Raza before we get back to Mrs Aponte. From Discover the Networks:
Founded in 1968 as the Southwest Council of La Raza, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States. It works “to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans,” who are, in its estimation, an oppressed minority that suffers much injustice and discrimination in American society. Through its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations, NCLR is active in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. To achieve its mission, NCLR conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy, “providing a Latino perspective” in the following areas:
- Advocacy and Electoral Empowerment: In an effort “to reduce poverty and discrimination and improve life opportunities for Hispanics,” NCLR works for “increased Latino participation in the political process.”
- Civil Rights and Justice: “Discrimination severely limits the economic and social opportunities available to Hispanic Americans. NCLR [seeks] to promote and protect equality of opportunity in voting, justice issues, education, employment, housing, and health care for all Americans.”
- Community and Family Wealth-Building: Lamenting the Hispanic community’s “lack of access to capital,” this program aims “to measurably increase the level of … assets” held by that demographic. Toward that end, NCLR has initiated America’s largest Hispanic Community Development Finance Institution (CDFI) to provide low-cost capital.
- Education: This program “focuses its investment in the areas of early childhood education and high-school reform, where the disparity between Latinos and other groups is greatest. NCLR [engages in] advocacy for policy outcomes that will make the nation’s public school system more responsive to the needs of Latino children.” NCLR also supports the DREAM Act, which is designed to allow illegal aliens to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents.
- Employment and Economic Opportunities: This initiative “seeks to advance the economic well-being of Latinos by focusing its program and policy work on closing the employment and skills gaps between Latinos and other Americans … [and] in increasing access to federally-funded job training services and opportunities for Latino workers.”
- Farmworkers: “NCLR conducts policy analyses and advocacy activities in this area in order to improve conditions and opportunities for the nation’s farmworkers. NCLR also works very closely with the Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc. a national advocacy group for migrant and seasonal workers [illegal aliens].”
- Health and Family Support: NCLR collaborates with a variety of organizations — state, local, and national — to promote “reform” that would give illegal immigrants full access to taxpayer-funded health care services.
- Immigration: NCLR strives “to encourage immigration policies that are fair and nondiscriminatory, to encourage family reunification, and to enact necessary reforms to the current immigration system.” In short, it favors amnesty for illegals already residing in the U.S., and open borders henceforth. In La Raza’s calculus, any restriction on the free movement of immigrants constitutes a violation of their civil rights, and any reduction in government assistance to illegal border-crossers is “a disgrace to American values.” Thus La Raza supports continued mass Mexican immigration to the United States, and hopes to achieve, by the sheer weight of numbers, the re-partition of the American Southwest as a new state called Aztlan — to be controlled by its alleged rightful owners, the people and government of Mexico. La Raza is also a sponsoring organization of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride Coalition, which seeks to secure ever-expanding rights and civil liberties protections for illegal immigrants, and policy reforms that diminish or eliminate future restrictions on immigration. At many of the “pro-immigration” rallies that NCLR members have attended in recent times, their signature slogan has been: “La Raza unida nunca sera vencida!” (“The united [Hispanic] race will never be defeated!”)
With regard to national security concerns, NCLR has strongly opposed most of the U.S. government’s post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts, alleging that they have “undermined” the rights of “noncitizen Latinos.” For example: La Raza was a signatory to a March 17, 2003 letter exhorting members of the U.S. Congress to oppose Patriot Act II on grounds that it “contain[ed] a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers … that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights”; it has endorsed the Community Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties campaign, a project that tries to influence city councils to pass resolutions to be non-compliant with the provisions of the Patriot Act; it endorsed the December 18, 2001 “Statement of Solidarity with Migrants,” which was drawn up by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and called upon the U.S. government to “end discriminatory policies passed on the basis of legal status in the wake of September 11”; and it endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
NCLR’s major policy positions also include the following:
- It supports access to driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
- It opposes the REAL ID Act, which requires that all driver’s license and photo ID applicants be able to verify they are legal residents of the United States, and that the documents they present to prove their identity are genuine. According to La Raza, this law “opens the door to widespread discrimination and civil rights violations.”
- It opposes the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act (CLEAR), which would empower state and local law-enforcement authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. La Raza argues this would “result in higher levels of racial profiling, police misconduct, and other civil rights violations.”
- It lobbies for racial and ethnic preferences (affirmative action) and set-asides in hiring, promotions, and college admissions.
- It supports bilingual education and bilingual ballots.
- It supports voting rights for illegal aliens.
- It supports stricter hate-crime laws.
- It opposes the Aviation Transportation and Security Act requiring that all airport baggage screeners be U.S. citizens.
It opposed President Bush’s signing of the “Secure Fence Act of 2006” which authorized 700 miles of new border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
As columnist Michelle Malkin reports, La Raza seeks to inculcate young people with its worldview by funding a number of charter schools that advocate ethnic separatism and anti-American, anti-white attitudes.
The organization’s current President is Janet Murquia, who worked at the White House in various capacities from 1994 to 2000, ultimately as deputy assistant to President Bill Clinton. Immediately prior to joining NCLR, she was the Executive Vice Chancellor for University Relations at the University of Kansas.
At the March 2008 “Take Back America” conference sponsored by Campaign for America’s Future (CAF), NCLR joined CAF and five additional leftist organizations in announcing plans for “the most expensive [$350 million] mobilization in history this election season.” The initiative focused on voter registration, education, and get-out-the-vote drives. Other members of the coalition included MoveOn.org, Rock the Vote, ACORN, the Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund, and the AFL-CIO.
If theres any confusion what La Raza represents heres a couple videos. First up in 2006 their President tried to defend their illegal policies regarding illegal aliens.
And next, the Radical side. Ron Gochez calling for a Communist Revolution against “Frail, racist white people” I don’t have a date for this but have heard around 2005
If you think she severed all ties to them, think again. NCLR issued a press release in honor of her appointment:
Washington, DC—NCLR (National Council of La Raza), the largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, applauds President Obama’s decision to move forward with a Recess Appointment of Maria del Carmen Aponte, as the next U.S. Chief of Mission to the Republic of El Salvador.
The Hispanic community celebrated Ms. Aponte’s nomination last December as a positive step forward in the relationship between the United States and El Salvador; she was further welcomed by informed observers on U.S.-Latin American relations along the entire political spectrum as an inspired choice. Her distinguished career in the private sector, through her law practice, and in public service at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and in heading the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, make her uniquely qualified for this distinguished honor.
In addition, Ms. Aponte has a strong history of personal and professional leadership in the U.S. Latino community, specifically through her service on the board of directors of numerous national Hispanic-serving organizations, including her election as the first female Chair of the Hispanic National Bar Association.
“Ms. Aponte’s familiarity with the Salvadoran-American community makes her a natural choice for U.S. Chief of Mission to El Salvador,” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. “The Senate’s delay in concluding her confirmation process has been unacceptable to the United State’s national interests and it is hard for us to believe, absent any evidence to the contrary, that any legitimate concerns can explain the repeated delays to which this nomination has been subjected.”
Following the approval of her nomination by the Foreign Relations Committee in April, Ms. Aponte’s confirmation vote was delayed by an anonymous “hold.” During her confirmation hearing in March, which was itself the subject of several delays, Ms. Aponte was questioned in detail by members of the Senate about a 20-years-gone romantic relationship with a Cuban national, then employed by the Cuban Interests Section. The FBI first investigated this issue in 1999, after which Ms. Aponte was granted a diplomatic security clearance and nominated for an ambassadorial position. She was again successfully vetted in 2009 by the FBI and the State Department, leading to her current nomination.
“The president’s decision to move forward with Ms. Aponte’s appointment should serve as a strong reminder to some members of the Senate that political games are never acceptable where our nation’s future is concerned,” concluded Murguía.
Now for more detail into why she was not confirmed in the Senate we turn to the Washington Post:
The most contentious of the appointments is Maria del Carmen Aponte, the administration’s pick for ambassador to El Salvador.
Senate Republicans questioned her during a March confirmation hearing about a former romantic relationship with a Cuban national connected to Cuban intelligence.
She denied any contact with Cuban intelligence officials but said she met some Cuban officials socially over the course of the relationship.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and other Republicans later placed a hold on Aponte’s nomination as they sought additional information about her background.
“The White House continued to deny senators information, despite numerous requests, and then recess appoints her to circumvent the advice and consent process. So much for transparency and accountability,” said DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton.
Ok lets add it all up. We have a former board member of a radical Communist organization that admits ties to Cuban officials but not to Cuban intelligence officials going to represent the United States in the Powder Keg of Central America where half the countries basically swear allegiance to Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez pays homage to Fidel Castro, his mentor,every chance he gets. Any tie to Castro is a direct line to Hugo Chavez. He has been buying up more tanks jet fighters and weapons then he can afford from Russia and China and in addition to his Socialist Empire has significant ties to Iran and various South American and Islamic terrorist organizations. Hugo Chavez has brought a defacto Cold War to Central & South America in his pursuit of a Socialist Empire and I fear this ambassadorial pick will play right into his hands.