Commies Pass Amendment to Give ACORN Regulatory Authority Over Financial Institutions

What?  With the 2010 election looming large, you didn’t actually think the Commies were going to throw their dead-voter machine and fraudulent cash-cow, ACORN, under the bus, did you?

Democrats Vote To Give ACORN Regulatory Authority Over Financial Institutions

Republican Committee on Financial Services

Washington – During consideration of H.R. 3126, legislation to establish a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee voted to pass an amendment offered by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that will make ACORN eligible to play a role in setting regulations for financial institutions.

The Waters amendment adds to the CFPA Oversight Board 5 representatives from the fields of “consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights, representatives of depository institutions that primarily serve underserved communities, or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgages” to join Federal banking regulators in advising the Director on the consistency of proposed regulations, and strategies and policies that the Director should undertake to enforce its rules.

By making representatives of ACORN and other consumer activist organizations eligible to serve on the Oversight Board, the amendment creates a potentially enormous government sanctioned conflict of interest.  ACORN-type organizations will have an advisory role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions and benefit from other financial partnerships and arrangements.  These are the same organizations that pressured banks to make subprime mortgage loans and thus bear a major responsibility for the collapse of the housing market.

In light of recent evidence linking ACORN to possible criminal activity, Democrats took an unprecedented step today to give ACORN a potential role alongside bank regulators in overseeing financial institutions.  This is contrary to recent actions taken by the Senate and House to block federal funds to ACORN.

A recent inquiry into bank funding of ACORN activities by three House Committees found that institutions that would be regulated by the CFPA have provided millions of dollars to the organization in the form of direct donations, lines of credit, cash, and other assets over the last 15 years.

The amendment passed on a vote to 35-33. Click here to view the vote

McCain Introduces Bill to do, well…Nothing

It’s a sad day in America when the Commies have taken over and the old-timers in Washington are reduced to countering the regulatory actions of Commies via the introduction of bills which do nothing but re-affirm that which already exists in a free market system:

Sen. McCain leads charge against Net neutrality
Phoenix Business Journal – by Mike Sunnucks

U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, is leading a charge against “Net neutrality” favored by the Obama administration.

The issue comes to down to picking who oversees the flow and speed of information online — the current market-based system, or a new one that includes government rules and regulations. McCain likes the former, while President Barack Obama wants to see some government rules on Internet access.

Net neutrality would place government rules and regulations on Internet and private providers so they would not be able to restrict, favor or disfavor online information, sites and sources based on their origination points. Net neutrality fans say it will keep a level playing field and put safeguarding rules on private providers.

Critics, including those in the Internet and telecom sectors, prefer to have the marketplace govern the Internet.

McCain has introduced legislation that would restrict Net neutrality efforts and has penned a columns this week citing worries about the government regulation, taxing and restricting the Internet. The Arizona senator also is concerned about Internet taxes being born from government rules.

The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to move forward with setting Net neutrality rules. McCain wants to block that.

“This government takeover of the Internet will stifle innovation, in turn slowing our economic turnaround and further depressing an already anemic job market,” McCain said in a prepared statement. “Outside of health care, the technology industry is the nation’s fastest-growing job market. Innovation and job growth in this sector of our economy is the key to America’s future prosperity.”

Net neutrality advocates worry about private industry picking winners and losers in how information is transmitted online.

Fuel storage blast rocks Puerto Rico capital

AP Photo/Andres Leighton
I have been watching this story all day and waited for someone to tell the truth. I guess I will have to do it.

23 Oct 09, NBC 25 Connect Michigan, SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Crews struggled to contain a huge, smoky fire at fuel storage facility outside Puerto Rico’s capital Friday following an early morning explosion that knocked out windows and shook the ground in the U.S. territory.
-This was a terrorist act. Fuel storage facilities are built to stop cascading events. One burning tank rarely jumps to another unless humans lend a hand. Skipping the obvious-something did ignite one. The probability for ten more to go without first disabling safety protocols are zero.

A plume of inky black smoke loomed over the island, forcing the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration to divert plane traffic and keeping school children at home. Authorities warned that more tanks could explode before the fire is extinguished.

The cause of the explosion at the Caribbean Petroleum Corp. in the suburb of Bayamon was unknown.
-Ok, my analysis is based on deductive analysis with a massive amount of common sense, it is not proof but four days a go a massive protest was held in the same city-hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. People are once again unhappy with officials they see as self-serving, power hungry, crooks. Like most Americans Puerto Ricans have a tendency to resist oppression. A lesson could come from this. Just sayin is all…

Gov. Luis Fortuno said only one person has required treatment for smoke inhalation, and two others suffered minor injuries at the U.S. Army’s Fort Buchanan base adjacent to the fuel plant, which supplies Gulf gas stations across the island.
-Based on the size of the event the lack of casualties is amazing and an indicator that none were wanted. This was an infrastructure attack designed to send a message to an oppressive government. No not ours the Puerto Rican one.

Several drivers were also hurt when the explosion shattered glass in their cars, but firefighters said all the plant workers were safe.
-Insiders would know how to both destroy the plant and at the same time limit casualties.

Marcial Orlando Felix, the top local official for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said a special team from the mainland would investigate the blast but would have to wait until the fire is out to enter the plant.
-I would think the majority of law enforcement in Puerto Rico would be experts in drug crimes and not terrorism.

Pelosi Reinterprets the U.S. Constitution

When our commie government passes this massive power grab via the health care Trojan horse, we better rush to start legal proceedings so its constitutionality may be determined by the Supreme Court BEFORE Obama can stack the deck with another Supreme Court Justice, else all is lost…

When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: ‘Are You Serious?’
Friday, October 23, 2009

(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Currently, each of the five health care overhaul proposals being considered in Congress would command every American adult to buy health insurance. Any person defying this mandate would be required to pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

In 1994, when the health care reform plan then being advanced by President Clinton called for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studed the issue and concluded:

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question, e-mailing  written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami.

“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked the speaker’s office.

“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?” CNSNews.com asked. “If so, what is that limit?”

Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’”   The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

[Yes, this is the Commie Progressive’s reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause—their atomic bomb, as it were.  However, this “Progressive” reinterpretation only came about AFTER Franklin D. Roosevelt stacked the deck with Supreme Court Justices who were themselves “Progressives.”    That is when they started telling farmers what they could and could not grow in Wickard v. Filburn. Up until that time, the Supreme Court was very adamant that the Commerce Clause was to be sparingly applied to interstate businesses only and NOT individuals. Applying it to an individual is highly unconstitutional. ]

The release further states: “On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)—or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans—but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation.  There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.”