®2010 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
By Daniel Kruger and Cordell Eddings - Nov 6, 2010
Treasury two- and five-year note yields dropped to records after the Federal Reserve said it would buy an additional $600 billion of U.S. debt to keep borrowing costs low and sustain the economic recovery.
U.S. debt yields rose yesterday after the government’s payrolls report showed employers added more jobs in October than analysts forecast. The 30-year bond yield rose this week to a four-month high as the Fed said it would buy fewer longer-term securities than many investors anticipated. The Treasury will auction $72 billion in notes and bonds next week.
“People’s heads are spinning after this week,” said John Fath, a principal at BTG Pactual in New York. “The market’s affirming what the Fed is trying to accomplish. The market’s saying the Fed will be successful.”
The yield on the 5-year note decreased this week eight basis points, or 0.08 percentage point, to 1.09 percent, according to BGCantor Market Data. The price of the 1.25 percent security maturing in October 2015 rose 3/8, or $3.75 per $1,000 face amount, to 100 25/32.
The 5-year note yield fell to a record low of 1.0148 percent on Nov. 4, a day after the Fed announced additional debt purchases. The 30-year bond yield increased 14 basis points to 4.12 percent after advancing yesterday to 4.16 percent, the highest level since June 22. The extra yield investors demand to hold 30-year bonds compared with 5-year notes rose to a record 3.08 percentage points.
Benchmark Note
The yield on the benchmark 10-year note dropped seven basis points to 2.53 percent in the biggest weekly decrease since the five days ended Oct. 8. The 2-year note yield gained three basis points to 0.37 percent after falling on Nov. 4 to the all-time low of 0.3118 percent.
Fed policy makers said following their Nov. 2-3 meeting that the central bank will expand asset purchases at a pace of about $75 billion a month through June to reduce unemployment and avoid deflation.
Resuming large-scale asset purchases should boost economic growth through lower borrowing costs and higher stock prices, and concern the strategy will lead to significant increases in inflation is “overstated,” Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke wrote this week in an opinion piece in the Washington Post.
“You’ve got deflation risks that are going to stay with us for several years,” Dominic Konstam, global head of interest- rates research in New York at Deutsche Bank AG, said yesterday in a Bloomberg Television interview on “Surveillance Midday” with Tom Keene.
Yields on 5-year notes will fall to 0.5 percent and 10-year yields will reach 2 percent, according to Konstam, whose firm is one of the 18 primary dealers that trade with the Fed.
Inflation Outlook
The difference between yields on 30-year bonds and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, a gauge of trader expectations for consumer prices over the life of the debt known as the break-even rate, was 2.59 percentage points yesterday after rising on Nov. 3 to 2.74 percentage points, the highest level since May 2008.
China, the biggest foreign holder of U.S. debt with $868.4 billion of Treasuries at the end of August, said the Fed needs to explain this week’s decision to purchase bonds to pump money into the economy or risk undermining the global recovery.
“Many countries are worried about the impact of the policy on their economies,” Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai said at a press briefing in Beijing yesterday. “It would be appropriate for someone to step forward and give us an explanation. Otherwise international confidence in the recovery and growth of the global economy might be hurt.”
Government Auctions
The U.S. government will sell $32 billion of three-year notes, $24 billion of 10-year debt and $16 billion of 30-year bonds next week. A $10 billion sale of 10-year TIPS on Nov. 4 drew a record-low yield of 0.409 percent.
yield on the five-year note increased yesterday for the first time in seven days as the Labor Department reported that employers added 151,000 jobs last month after a revised decrease of 41,000 in September. The median forecast of 83 economists in a Bloomberg News survey was for 60,000 more jobs. The unemployment rate stayed at 9.6 percent.
“With these employment statistics looking a little better, it’s not a good time to be betting on continuous declines in interest rates,” said Anthony Crescenzi, a bond strategist at Newport Beach, California-based Pacific Investment Management Co., in a Bloomberg Radio interview.
Government debt yields will remain lower until there’s more evidence that the U.S. economic recovery is gaining momentum, according to other investors.
“We will need to see much higher numbers of job growth to put any real dent in the employment picture, and we are clearly not there yet,” said Larry Milstein, managing director of government and agency debt trading in New York at R.W. Pressprich & Co., a fixed-income broker and dealer for institutional investors. “It’s important to note that the Fed is still in the picture.”
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Obama Admits Losing Sight of Leadership Role
© 2010 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
Friday, November 5, 2010 08:17 PM
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama admitted in an interview aired Friday that he focused on policies but failed to rally people behind those initiatives, leading to Republicans' big gains in congressional elections this week.
"We were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation," Obama said in an excerpt from a CBS "60 Minutes" interview to be broadcast Sunday.
Republicans describe their Tuesday midterm elections win, in which they took control of the House and gained seats in the Senate, as a repudiation of the healthcare reform law and economic stimulus programs that dominated Obama's first two years in office.
But the president told CBS he would seek to mend his ways in the run-up to his own re-election campaign in 2012.
"It's a matter of persuading people, and giving them confidence, and bringing them together, and setting a tone and making an argument that people can understand," Obama said.
"We haven't always been successful at that and I take personal responsibility for that. And it's something that I've got to examine carefully as I go forward."
Obama said he didn't do a good enough job explaining the need for government spending on bank and auto bailouts and the economic stimulus package.
"People looked at that and they said, "Boy, this feels as if there's a huge expansion of government," Obama said.
"What I didn't effectively, I think, drive home, because we were in such a rush to get this stuff done, is that we were ... taking these steps not because of some theory that we wanted to expand government. It was because we had an emergency situation and we wanted to make sure the economy didn't go off a cliff."
Obama at a news conference Wednesday said he had lost touch with voters who delivered a "shellacking" to him and his Democrats.
Friday, November 5, 2010 08:17 PM
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama admitted in an interview aired Friday that he focused on policies but failed to rally people behind those initiatives, leading to Republicans' big gains in congressional elections this week.
"We were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation," Obama said in an excerpt from a CBS "60 Minutes" interview to be broadcast Sunday.
Republicans describe their Tuesday midterm elections win, in which they took control of the House and gained seats in the Senate, as a repudiation of the healthcare reform law and economic stimulus programs that dominated Obama's first two years in office.
But the president told CBS he would seek to mend his ways in the run-up to his own re-election campaign in 2012.
"It's a matter of persuading people, and giving them confidence, and bringing them together, and setting a tone and making an argument that people can understand," Obama said.
"We haven't always been successful at that and I take personal responsibility for that. And it's something that I've got to examine carefully as I go forward."
Obama said he didn't do a good enough job explaining the need for government spending on bank and auto bailouts and the economic stimulus package.
"People looked at that and they said, "Boy, this feels as if there's a huge expansion of government," Obama said.
"What I didn't effectively, I think, drive home, because we were in such a rush to get this stuff done, is that we were ... taking these steps not because of some theory that we wanted to expand government. It was because we had an emergency situation and we wanted to make sure the economy didn't go off a cliff."
Obama at a news conference Wednesday said he had lost touch with voters who delivered a "shellacking" to him and his Democrats.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Ed Gillespie: GOP Gains 'Huge' in State-Level Battles
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 01:15 PM
Stunning Republican gains in governorships and state legislatures on Election Night will change the political map for a decade and will greatly complicate President Barack Obama's path to re-election in 2012, top Republicans tell Newsmax.
Tuesday's Democratic reversals at the state-level Tuesday were nothing short of stunning. Pre-election, Democrats controlled 26 governorships to the Republicans' 24. After the election, Democrats controlled just 15 statehouses, while Republicans controlled 28.
Post-election, Republicans now control both legislative chambers in 26 states. That's up from 15 before the election.
Winners in six other statehouse races remain undetermined. Also, the incoming governor in Rhode Island is former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who left the Republican Party in 2007 and won his election as an independent.
Ed Gillespie, the former White House counselor to former President George W. Bush, who now serves as chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee, tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview that the GOP surge on the state level comes at a critical time due to the looming redistricting battles that will follow the 2010 Census.
"We had a huge night on the state house and state senate front," Gillespie tells Newsmax. "Along the Great Lakes, Alabama, Maine, Washington state. Probably 17 chambers so far have switched hands from Democratic to Republican.
"I think there are more that are going to come in, as there are some votes still being counted out there in those state house and state senate seats," he said. "And that's going to have a big impact on redistricting, which will have a big impact on the composition of Congress for a decade."
After census results are tabulated, House seats are added to states with significant population gains, and taken away from states without growing populations in a constitutional process known as apportionment. Perhaps more importantly, governors and state legislatures redraw the physical boundaries of the congressional districts within which candidates run. Which neighborhoods are included within each district can have a tremendous impact on whether Republicans or Democrats have the advantage.
In Gillespie's exclusive Newsmax interview, he cited the looming battle in New York state as an example.
"In New York state last night, we had a net gain of five U.S. House of Representatives," Gillespie said. "We're trying to win the New York state senate. It's going to be very, very close.
"If we can win the New York State Senate, or even tie it for that matter, those five freshman Republicans who just elected last night won't be immediately carved out of their seats through the redistricting process. So the state house and chambers are very, very important in terms of redistricting," Gillespie says.
History shows Gillespie is right about the importance of winning state-level elections in years that end in zero. After the 1990 Census, the GOP gained between 25 and 30 seats because of redistricting. Without those seats, Republicans never would have grabbed control of the House in 1994, Fox News political commentator Karl Rove has estimated.
After the 2000 Census, the pattern repeated itself. The GOP controlled many governorships and state legislatures that year when the districts were redrawn. And in the next two election cycles, an estimated 25 Democrats lost their seats, in part at least because of the altered demographics in their new districts.
Across the nation, Republicans gained well over 500 state legislative seats, according to the Republican State Leadership Committee. That dwarfs the 472-seat GOP state-level gain in the wave of 1994. Before the election, Democrats controlled 60 of the country's state legislative chambers (states generally model their legislatures after the bicameral nature of the federal House and Senate). Now, Democrats control 40 chambers, Republicans control 55, and one is evenly divided (Oregon).
Moreover, the GOP sweep was as notable for its depth as it was for its reach. Other state-level gains made Tuesday promise to give Republicans a deep bench of political prospects for years to come:
Republicans won 16 of 30 state attorney general races, taking six of those from Democrats. The race in California is outstanding.
In races for lieutenant governor, the GOP won 10 of 12 contests. Three of those took seats from Democrats.
Republicans grabbed 17 of 26 secretary of state races, a net gain of six over Democrats. They include the key 2012 states of Ohio, Iowa, Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, and Colorado.
Beyond redistricting, the major gains on the state level will make President Obama's re-election bid much more difficult. Secretary of state officials play a strategic role in elections — Democrats still blame former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's 2004 recount in the Bush-Kerry presidential race for sending George W. Bush back to the White House. And states that turn to Republican governors are more likely to vote Republican in the subsequent presidential race.
As Haley Barbour, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, recently told Newsmax: "Of course, the governors elected this year will be governing in 2012, when we have our next presidential election. So it is a very important year."
Gillespie insists, however, that there is another reason beyond politics that the state-level landslide for Republicans matters: Those newly elected officials will have a direct impact on voters' lives.
"They're very important in terms of people's quality of life in their state," he tells Newsmax. "You know, having a Republican with the gavel for the tax writing committee in the state is just as important as having a Republican with the gavel in a tax-writing committee in Congress. Because people's state taxes don't need to go up any more than they are, in fact they should go down in most instances."
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 01:15 PM
Stunning Republican gains in governorships and state legislatures on Election Night will change the political map for a decade and will greatly complicate President Barack Obama's path to re-election in 2012, top Republicans tell Newsmax.
Tuesday's Democratic reversals at the state-level Tuesday were nothing short of stunning. Pre-election, Democrats controlled 26 governorships to the Republicans' 24. After the election, Democrats controlled just 15 statehouses, while Republicans controlled 28.
Post-election, Republicans now control both legislative chambers in 26 states. That's up from 15 before the election.
Winners in six other statehouse races remain undetermined. Also, the incoming governor in Rhode Island is former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who left the Republican Party in 2007 and won his election as an independent.
Ed Gillespie, the former White House counselor to former President George W. Bush, who now serves as chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee, tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview that the GOP surge on the state level comes at a critical time due to the looming redistricting battles that will follow the 2010 Census.
"We had a huge night on the state house and state senate front," Gillespie tells Newsmax. "Along the Great Lakes, Alabama, Maine, Washington state. Probably 17 chambers so far have switched hands from Democratic to Republican.
"I think there are more that are going to come in, as there are some votes still being counted out there in those state house and state senate seats," he said. "And that's going to have a big impact on redistricting, which will have a big impact on the composition of Congress for a decade."
After census results are tabulated, House seats are added to states with significant population gains, and taken away from states without growing populations in a constitutional process known as apportionment. Perhaps more importantly, governors and state legislatures redraw the physical boundaries of the congressional districts within which candidates run. Which neighborhoods are included within each district can have a tremendous impact on whether Republicans or Democrats have the advantage.
In Gillespie's exclusive Newsmax interview, he cited the looming battle in New York state as an example.
"In New York state last night, we had a net gain of five U.S. House of Representatives," Gillespie said. "We're trying to win the New York state senate. It's going to be very, very close.
"If we can win the New York State Senate, or even tie it for that matter, those five freshman Republicans who just elected last night won't be immediately carved out of their seats through the redistricting process. So the state house and chambers are very, very important in terms of redistricting," Gillespie says.
History shows Gillespie is right about the importance of winning state-level elections in years that end in zero. After the 1990 Census, the GOP gained between 25 and 30 seats because of redistricting. Without those seats, Republicans never would have grabbed control of the House in 1994, Fox News political commentator Karl Rove has estimated.
After the 2000 Census, the pattern repeated itself. The GOP controlled many governorships and state legislatures that year when the districts were redrawn. And in the next two election cycles, an estimated 25 Democrats lost their seats, in part at least because of the altered demographics in their new districts.
Across the nation, Republicans gained well over 500 state legislative seats, according to the Republican State Leadership Committee. That dwarfs the 472-seat GOP state-level gain in the wave of 1994. Before the election, Democrats controlled 60 of the country's state legislative chambers (states generally model their legislatures after the bicameral nature of the federal House and Senate). Now, Democrats control 40 chambers, Republicans control 55, and one is evenly divided (Oregon).
Moreover, the GOP sweep was as notable for its depth as it was for its reach. Other state-level gains made Tuesday promise to give Republicans a deep bench of political prospects for years to come:
Republicans won 16 of 30 state attorney general races, taking six of those from Democrats. The race in California is outstanding.
In races for lieutenant governor, the GOP won 10 of 12 contests. Three of those took seats from Democrats.
Republicans grabbed 17 of 26 secretary of state races, a net gain of six over Democrats. They include the key 2012 states of Ohio, Iowa, Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, and Colorado.
Beyond redistricting, the major gains on the state level will make President Obama's re-election bid much more difficult. Secretary of state officials play a strategic role in elections — Democrats still blame former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's 2004 recount in the Bush-Kerry presidential race for sending George W. Bush back to the White House. And states that turn to Republican governors are more likely to vote Republican in the subsequent presidential race.
As Haley Barbour, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, recently told Newsmax: "Of course, the governors elected this year will be governing in 2012, when we have our next presidential election. So it is a very important year."
Gillespie insists, however, that there is another reason beyond politics that the state-level landslide for Republicans matters: Those newly elected officials will have a direct impact on voters' lives.
"They're very important in terms of people's quality of life in their state," he tells Newsmax. "You know, having a Republican with the gavel for the tax writing committee in the state is just as important as having a Republican with the gavel in a tax-writing committee in Congress. Because people's state taxes don't need to go up any more than they are, in fact they should go down in most instances."
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
IT'S CRUNCH TIME ! ! ! !
TO ALL MY BLOG READERS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE ! ! !
TO MY BLOG REAGERS AROUND THE WORLD.....THANK YOU FOR READING MY BLOG ! ! ! !
P.S. THANKS TO MY FELLOW AMERICANS FOR READING MY BLOGS ! ! !
PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE ! ! !
TO MY BLOG REAGERS AROUND THE WORLD.....THANK YOU FOR READING MY BLOG ! ! ! !
P.S. THANKS TO MY FELLOW AMERICANS FOR READING MY BLOGS ! ! !
Top 10 Reasons Why Conservatives Must Vote Today!
Written By: Gary DeMar, Brandon Vallorani 11-1-2010 Categorized in: Constitution, Economics, Education, Ethics, Family, Government, Immigration, Media, Politics
VOTE. VOTE. VOTE. And If you need any reasons why you should vote, vote, vote, here are our top ten reasons…
10. Send Harry Reid back to the posse in Nevada!
9. Remove Dictator Pelosi from her throne as Speaker!
8. Send a message to all our representatives: Listen to the people, or you’re out!
7. Repeal the Stimulus Package!
6. Repeal Obamacare!
5. Repeal everything these thieving Marxists and socialists have been doing!
4. Rescue our economy!
3. Free the job-creators!
2. Free our children and grandchildren!
1. Finally, as Sarah Palin would say, to enrage the “corrupt bastards” in the news media!
VOTE. VOTE. VOTE. And If you need any reasons why you should vote, vote, vote, here are our top ten reasons…
10. Send Harry Reid back to the posse in Nevada!
9. Remove Dictator Pelosi from her throne as Speaker!
8. Send a message to all our representatives: Listen to the people, or you’re out!
7. Repeal the Stimulus Package!
6. Repeal Obamacare!
5. Repeal everything these thieving Marxists and socialists have been doing!
4. Rescue our economy!
3. Free the job-creators!
2. Free our children and grandchildren!
1. Finally, as Sarah Palin would say, to enrage the “corrupt bastards” in the news media!
Let's Crush the Socialist Democrats--Vote! Vote! Vote!
Written By: Admin Post 11-1-2010 Categorized in: Politics
Dr. Steven F. Hotze
Tuesday, November 2nd is the last day to vote. This is our final push. The Democrat turnout is surging. You know that the Democrats oppose Voter ID because they want the living and the dead, citizens and non citizen illegal immigrants, registered and unregistered voters all to vote for Democrats.
The only way to offset this is by making sure that you, your family members, friends and associates all turn out in huge numbers to vote for the Republican slate. Please call them and make sure that they vote.
Our ancestors came here because they hated the “top down” European political system. They believed in individual liberty, free enterprise and the opportunity that America offered. They were God fearing people.
The Democrats want us to give up our liberty for womb to tomb security provided by the “almighty” state.
Those who exchange liberty for security will have neither.
Let’s deliver a crushing blow to the Democrats.
Vote for free enterprise, individual responsibility and liberty, and family values.
Vote the straight Republican ticket. Then check your voting machine to make sure that it shows you voting for each Republican.
Houston residents – I recommend that you vote NO on all three propositions on the ballot, especially NO on Proposition 1 which is dramatically increase property taxes and give the city politicians a huge new source of revenue to grow city government.
Vote and make sure that you get your family members, friends and associates to vote as well!
Dr. Steven F. Hotze
Tuesday, November 2nd is the last day to vote. This is our final push. The Democrat turnout is surging. You know that the Democrats oppose Voter ID because they want the living and the dead, citizens and non citizen illegal immigrants, registered and unregistered voters all to vote for Democrats.
The only way to offset this is by making sure that you, your family members, friends and associates all turn out in huge numbers to vote for the Republican slate. Please call them and make sure that they vote.
Our ancestors came here because they hated the “top down” European political system. They believed in individual liberty, free enterprise and the opportunity that America offered. They were God fearing people.
The Democrats want us to give up our liberty for womb to tomb security provided by the “almighty” state.
Those who exchange liberty for security will have neither.
Let’s deliver a crushing blow to the Democrats.
Vote for free enterprise, individual responsibility and liberty, and family values.
Vote the straight Republican ticket. Then check your voting machine to make sure that it shows you voting for each Republican.
Houston residents – I recommend that you vote NO on all three propositions on the ballot, especially NO on Proposition 1 which is dramatically increase property taxes and give the city politicians a huge new source of revenue to grow city government.
Vote and make sure that you get your family members, friends and associates to vote as well!
Monday, November 1, 2010
T'was the Night before Mid-term Elections - 2010
Written by Bob Yeager, 11.01.10
T'was the night before Mid-Tem Elections,
when all through the House ( and Senate, )
all the Democrats were scurrng, like scared litte mice.
The Earmarks were hung in the Chamber with care, in hopes that the lobbyist soon would be there.
The Liberals were nestled all snug in their cots, while visions on massive tax increases danced in their heads.
While Nancy Pelosi in her Kerchief, And Harry Reid in his Cap, Had just settled their brains for a long Democratic nap.
When out on the capitol lawn there arose such a clatter,
Harry and Nancy sprang from there seperate beds to see what was rhe matter. Away to the window they flew like a flash' tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.
The moon on the breast of the new fallen snow, gave the lusture to the Republicans waiting below. When what to Harry's wondering eyes should appear, but a Candy Apple Red SUV with John Boehner, and an army of his closest colleges.
Jim DeMint, Christine O,Donnell, Carly Fiorina, Sharron Angle, Pat Toomey, John Thume, Dino Rossi, Marco Rubio, Rob Portman, and Joe Miller.
With the soon to be House Majoriety Leader, and 10 Senators-To-Be, They set course on ther capitol the Heroes they be.
As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly, when they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky.
So up to the Capitol, the heroes they flew, with an SUV full of Tax cuts and Obama Reform to settle the storm.
The new Republican leaders were ready to debate, instead they laid the countries gifts at the Democrats fate..
After their work was done they gathered in John's SUV.
Harry and Nancy didn't know whay to think.
But they heard them exclaim as the drove out of sight.
Happy Eleection Day 2010, we,re gonna make things RIGHT ! ! !
P.S. : PLEASE GO OUT AND VOTE! THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION DAY IN OUR COUNTRIES HISTORY !
IT COULD MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAKING UP WEDNESDAY IN A FREE SOCIETY OR A SOCIALIST SOCIETY....IT'S YOUR CHOICE ! ! !
THANKS,
BOB Y.
T'was the night before Mid-Tem Elections,
when all through the House ( and Senate, )
all the Democrats were scurrng, like scared litte mice.
The Earmarks were hung in the Chamber with care, in hopes that the lobbyist soon would be there.
The Liberals were nestled all snug in their cots, while visions on massive tax increases danced in their heads.
While Nancy Pelosi in her Kerchief, And Harry Reid in his Cap, Had just settled their brains for a long Democratic nap.
When out on the capitol lawn there arose such a clatter,
Harry and Nancy sprang from there seperate beds to see what was rhe matter. Away to the window they flew like a flash' tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.
The moon on the breast of the new fallen snow, gave the lusture to the Republicans waiting below. When what to Harry's wondering eyes should appear, but a Candy Apple Red SUV with John Boehner, and an army of his closest colleges.
Jim DeMint, Christine O,Donnell, Carly Fiorina, Sharron Angle, Pat Toomey, John Thume, Dino Rossi, Marco Rubio, Rob Portman, and Joe Miller.
With the soon to be House Majoriety Leader, and 10 Senators-To-Be, They set course on ther capitol the Heroes they be.
As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly, when they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky.
So up to the Capitol, the heroes they flew, with an SUV full of Tax cuts and Obama Reform to settle the storm.
The new Republican leaders were ready to debate, instead they laid the countries gifts at the Democrats fate..
After their work was done they gathered in John's SUV.
Harry and Nancy didn't know whay to think.
But they heard them exclaim as the drove out of sight.
Happy Eleection Day 2010, we,re gonna make things RIGHT ! ! !
P.S. : PLEASE GO OUT AND VOTE! THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION DAY IN OUR COUNTRIES HISTORY !
IT COULD MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAKING UP WEDNESDAY IN A FREE SOCIETY OR A SOCIALIST SOCIETY....IT'S YOUR CHOICE ! ! !
THANKS,
BOB Y.
Palin: Alaska Reporters 'Corrupt Bastards'
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, 31 Oct 2010 07:51 PM Article Font Size
In some of her harshest language yet, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin blasted journalists covering Joe Miller’s Alaska Senate campaign, calling them "bastards" and suggesting that the initials CBS stand for "Corrupt Bastards Club."
She also accused reporters of a specific Alaska CBS affiliate of actively plotting to bring Miller down.
Palin base her allegations on a snippet of audio they leaked to Andrew Breitbart's website Big Government. The audio is weak, but what can be heard sounds like KTVA reporters explaining how to turn a story into a sensation: specifically, jesting about finding a child molester who's voting Republican and tarring Miller by association.
The conversation took place after one of the reporters left a message for a Miller spokesperson, but accidentally failed to hang up.
Palin took to Twitter and Fox News Sunday to gin up outrage.
"Corrupt bastards. CBS/media plot against Joe Miller before our Anchorage rally Thurs Kinda'what I've put up w for 2 yrs http://bit.ly/cmbzMr," she exclaimed on Twitter. Corrupt Bastards Club. RT "@BigJournalism: CBS Affiliate KTVA Reporters Taped Conspiring Against Joe Miller Campaign http://bit.ly/ac6Mxz"
Sunday, 31 Oct 2010 07:51 PM Article Font Size
In some of her harshest language yet, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin blasted journalists covering Joe Miller’s Alaska Senate campaign, calling them "bastards" and suggesting that the initials CBS stand for "Corrupt Bastards Club."
She also accused reporters of a specific Alaska CBS affiliate of actively plotting to bring Miller down.
Palin base her allegations on a snippet of audio they leaked to Andrew Breitbart's website Big Government. The audio is weak, but what can be heard sounds like KTVA reporters explaining how to turn a story into a sensation: specifically, jesting about finding a child molester who's voting Republican and tarring Miller by association.
The conversation took place after one of the reporters left a message for a Miller spokesperson, but accidentally failed to hang up.
Palin took to Twitter and Fox News Sunday to gin up outrage.
"Corrupt bastards. CBS/media plot against Joe Miller before our Anchorage rally Thurs Kinda'what I've put up w for 2 yrs http://bit.ly/cmbzMr," she exclaimed on Twitter. Corrupt Bastards Club. RT "@BigJournalism: CBS Affiliate KTVA Reporters Taped Conspiring Against Joe Miller Campaign http://bit.ly/ac6Mxz"
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Court allows use of fake Social Security Number
LAW OF THE LAND
Posted: October 28, 2010
8:46 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The Colorado Supreme Court has reversed the conviction of a man who admitted using someone else's Social Security number to obtain a loan, concluding that the defendant wasn't really trying to assume a false identity.
The opinion was written by Michael Bender, who was joined by Mary Mullarkey, Gregory Hobbs and Alex Martinez. A strongly worded dissent by Nathan Coats was joined by Nancy Rice and Allison Eid.
The case involved Felix Montes-Rodriguez, who was convicted of criminal impersonation for using another person's Social Security number on a loan application at an automobile dealership.
The ID Theft Center warns on its website, "A dishonest person who has your Social Security number can use it to get other personal information about you. Identity thieves can use your number and your good credit to apply for more credit in your name. Then, they use the credit cards and do not pay the bills. You may not find out that someone is using your number until you are turned down for credit or you begin to get calls from unknown creditors demanding payment for items you never bought."
Center Executiver Director Jay Foley said the court was overlooking the fact that there may be a multitude of people with the same name. The Social Security number is supposed to be the distinguishing characteristic.
"By supply either a fraudulent Social Security number or somebody else's, I am, in fact, identifying myself as somebody other than who I am," he said.
He said it was alarming that such a result would be coming from a state Supreme Court.
The Social Security Administration suggests that while it cannot fix problems from thieves using stolen Social Security numbers, consumers must pay attention to the possible problems.
"An identity thief might also use your Social Security number to file a tax return in order to receive a refund. If the thief files the tax return before you do, the IRS will believe you already filed and received your refund if eligible. If your Social Security number is stolen, another individual may use it to get a job. That person's employer would report income earned to the IRS using your Social Security number, making it appear that you did not report all of your income on your tax return."
Bankrate.com suggests, "The more people who see it, the more susceptible you are to identity theft, where you are victimized by someone fraudulently using your name and credit report to steal money."
In the Colorado case, the court's slim majority concluded that criminal impersonation is "when one assumes a false identity or a false capacity with the intent to unlawfully gain a benefit."
While Montes-Rodriguez "admitted to using the false Social Security number … he argued that he did not assume a false identity or capacity under the statute because he applied for the loan using his proper name, birth date, address and other identifying information."
L-R, Front: Gregory J.Hobbs, Jr., Mary Mullarkey, Alex J. Martinez. Back: Nathan B. Coats, Michael L. Bender, Nancy E. Rice, Allison Eid
A jury had convicted him and a lower appeals court affirmed the result.
But Bender explained the facts of the case: Montes-Rodriguez used another person's Social Security number because the car dealership required a number to check credit-worthiness before approving a loan. The court did not explain why Montes-Rodriguez did not use his own number, or whether he even had one.
But the opinion notes the defendant "impliedly asserted his power or fitness to obtain the loan, and his ability to work legally in this country, and thereby repay it."
"Although Montes-Rodriguez may have lacked the practical capacity to obtain a loan through Hajek Chevrolet because they could not check his credit without a Social Security number, he did not lack the legal capacity to obtain a loan," Bender wrote.
He ordered a judgment of acquittal entered.
Coats, Rice and Eid, however, noted that the majority was "slicing, dicing, parsing, distinguishing, and generally over-analyzing one short and relatively self-explanatory phrase."
"The defendant's deliberate misrepresentation of the single most unique and important piece of identifying data for credit-transaction purposes [is] precisely the kind of conduct meant to be proscribed as criminal," the dissent said.
"By claiming another person's Social Security number in a credit transaction, as the defendant did in this case, a person necessarily identifies himself as the person with the credit history associated with that number," the opinion said.
"Where the nature of the transaction is such that a false Social Security number is not merely incidental but is rather the single piece of identifying data upon which the fraud in question depends, it cannot be assessed as merely 'one of many pieces of identifying information," warned the dissent.
"For the purposes of the fraudulent transaction at issue, it is clearly the assumption of a false or fictitious identity."
Posted: October 28, 2010
8:46 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The Colorado Supreme Court has reversed the conviction of a man who admitted using someone else's Social Security number to obtain a loan, concluding that the defendant wasn't really trying to assume a false identity.
The opinion was written by Michael Bender, who was joined by Mary Mullarkey, Gregory Hobbs and Alex Martinez. A strongly worded dissent by Nathan Coats was joined by Nancy Rice and Allison Eid.
The case involved Felix Montes-Rodriguez, who was convicted of criminal impersonation for using another person's Social Security number on a loan application at an automobile dealership.
The ID Theft Center warns on its website, "A dishonest person who has your Social Security number can use it to get other personal information about you. Identity thieves can use your number and your good credit to apply for more credit in your name. Then, they use the credit cards and do not pay the bills. You may not find out that someone is using your number until you are turned down for credit or you begin to get calls from unknown creditors demanding payment for items you never bought."
Center Executiver Director Jay Foley said the court was overlooking the fact that there may be a multitude of people with the same name. The Social Security number is supposed to be the distinguishing characteristic.
"By supply either a fraudulent Social Security number or somebody else's, I am, in fact, identifying myself as somebody other than who I am," he said.
He said it was alarming that such a result would be coming from a state Supreme Court.
The Social Security Administration suggests that while it cannot fix problems from thieves using stolen Social Security numbers, consumers must pay attention to the possible problems.
"An identity thief might also use your Social Security number to file a tax return in order to receive a refund. If the thief files the tax return before you do, the IRS will believe you already filed and received your refund if eligible. If your Social Security number is stolen, another individual may use it to get a job. That person's employer would report income earned to the IRS using your Social Security number, making it appear that you did not report all of your income on your tax return."
Bankrate.com suggests, "The more people who see it, the more susceptible you are to identity theft, where you are victimized by someone fraudulently using your name and credit report to steal money."
In the Colorado case, the court's slim majority concluded that criminal impersonation is "when one assumes a false identity or a false capacity with the intent to unlawfully gain a benefit."
While Montes-Rodriguez "admitted to using the false Social Security number … he argued that he did not assume a false identity or capacity under the statute because he applied for the loan using his proper name, birth date, address and other identifying information."
L-R, Front: Gregory J.Hobbs, Jr., Mary Mullarkey, Alex J. Martinez. Back: Nathan B. Coats, Michael L. Bender, Nancy E. Rice, Allison Eid
A jury had convicted him and a lower appeals court affirmed the result.
But Bender explained the facts of the case: Montes-Rodriguez used another person's Social Security number because the car dealership required a number to check credit-worthiness before approving a loan. The court did not explain why Montes-Rodriguez did not use his own number, or whether he even had one.
But the opinion notes the defendant "impliedly asserted his power or fitness to obtain the loan, and his ability to work legally in this country, and thereby repay it."
"Although Montes-Rodriguez may have lacked the practical capacity to obtain a loan through Hajek Chevrolet because they could not check his credit without a Social Security number, he did not lack the legal capacity to obtain a loan," Bender wrote.
He ordered a judgment of acquittal entered.
Coats, Rice and Eid, however, noted that the majority was "slicing, dicing, parsing, distinguishing, and generally over-analyzing one short and relatively self-explanatory phrase."
"The defendant's deliberate misrepresentation of the single most unique and important piece of identifying data for credit-transaction purposes [is] precisely the kind of conduct meant to be proscribed as criminal," the dissent said.
"By claiming another person's Social Security number in a credit transaction, as the defendant did in this case, a person necessarily identifies himself as the person with the credit history associated with that number," the opinion said.
"Where the nature of the transaction is such that a false Social Security number is not merely incidental but is rather the single piece of identifying data upon which the fraud in question depends, it cannot be assessed as merely 'one of many pieces of identifying information," warned the dissent.
"For the purposes of the fraudulent transaction at issue, it is clearly the assumption of a false or fictitious identity."
Friday, October 29, 2010
SOMETHING IN THE AIR, Palin has last laugh on PBS host, Kos......;
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Posted: October 21, 2010
12:35 am Eastern
By Art Moore
Blogger Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos and PBS host Gwen Ifill could barely contain themselves when they came across an apparent elementary historical-knowledge gaffe by tea party favorite Sarah Palin, but it turns out the left-leaning commentators were the ones with egg on their faces.
Moulitsas – a major power-broker in the Democratic Party's left-wing base – dashed off a message to his thousands of followers through the Internet social network Twitter after Palin told tea party activists in Nevada, "Don't party like it's 1773 yet," reported the blogger who uses the pen name Cuffy Meigs.
Get Joseph Farah's "The Tea Party Manifesto: A Vision for an American Rebirth" autographed at WND's Superstore
Moulitsas sneered, "She's so smart."
Ifill wrote: "Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! Ummm."
Others mocked Palin with comments such as "uhhh" and "[expletive] happened in 1773?"
Palin presumably knows the U.S. was born in 1776. But what Moulitsas and his crew didn't recall was that 1773 was the year of the Boston Tea Party, the inspiration for the grass roots movement that is threatening to sweep the Democratic Party from power in Congress next month.
Palin eventually responded with a tweet of her own on the matter: "Gwen Ifill, et al... Really? Silly."
Meigs pointed out that it's clear from video of the speech that Palin was referring to the Boston Tea Party.
Markos Moulitsas, founder and main author of Daily K
As WND reported in 2008, Ifill, host of the PBS program "Washington Week," moderated a vice-presidential candidate debate between Palin and Joseph Biden amid concerns her book, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," gave her a financial stake in the election's outcome.
Moulitsas has influenced the Democratic Party through his blog and annual conference, the YearlyKos.
WND reported that at a forum of leading Democratic presidential candidates at Moulitsas' 2007 conference, the moderator refused to let a man in military uniform speak and demanded he identify himself.
The military man, according to a witness, "stood up to argue that the surge was working and cutting down on Iraqi casualties." But the moderator, according to the American Spectator's Ezra Klein, "largely freaked out" and when "other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they 'stand down.'"
Posted: October 21, 2010
12:35 am Eastern
By Art Moore
Blogger Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos and PBS host Gwen Ifill could barely contain themselves when they came across an apparent elementary historical-knowledge gaffe by tea party favorite Sarah Palin, but it turns out the left-leaning commentators were the ones with egg on their faces.
Moulitsas – a major power-broker in the Democratic Party's left-wing base – dashed off a message to his thousands of followers through the Internet social network Twitter after Palin told tea party activists in Nevada, "Don't party like it's 1773 yet," reported the blogger who uses the pen name Cuffy Meigs.
Get Joseph Farah's "The Tea Party Manifesto: A Vision for an American Rebirth" autographed at WND's Superstore
Moulitsas sneered, "She's so smart."
Ifill wrote: "Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! Ummm."
Others mocked Palin with comments such as "uhhh" and "[expletive] happened in 1773?"
Palin presumably knows the U.S. was born in 1776. But what Moulitsas and his crew didn't recall was that 1773 was the year of the Boston Tea Party, the inspiration for the grass roots movement that is threatening to sweep the Democratic Party from power in Congress next month.
Palin eventually responded with a tweet of her own on the matter: "Gwen Ifill, et al... Really? Silly."
Meigs pointed out that it's clear from video of the speech that Palin was referring to the Boston Tea Party.
Markos Moulitsas, founder and main author of Daily K
As WND reported in 2008, Ifill, host of the PBS program "Washington Week," moderated a vice-presidential candidate debate between Palin and Joseph Biden amid concerns her book, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," gave her a financial stake in the election's outcome.
Moulitsas has influenced the Democratic Party through his blog and annual conference, the YearlyKos.
WND reported that at a forum of leading Democratic presidential candidates at Moulitsas' 2007 conference, the moderator refused to let a man in military uniform speak and demanded he identify himself.
The military man, according to a witness, "stood up to argue that the surge was working and cutting down on Iraqi casualties." But the moderator, according to the American Spectator's Ezra Klein, "largely freaked out" and when "other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they 'stand down.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)