The Union News.: 1/4/10

1/4/10

Meet Obama Executive Order 12425

Global Warmists Gone Wild ... or ... What?

Related video:

Last Tuesday (12-26-09), before the Elite Media picked up on it, we published a report a report that President Obama had quietly signed an executive order giving INTERPOL diplomatic immunity to operate inside the United States. In so doing he permits them to to function outside the constraints of American law and our consitution.

Our Elizabeth Sauls asked: "Why does INTERPOL need immunity?

We now have an explanation from the White House. New York Times says the White House contends that "nothing has changed." It says that the reason for the change in Executive Order 12425, that INTERPOL has no "police force" that goes out and arrests individuals. And a spokesperson for the Department of Justice says that the INTERPOL office housed in the DOJ routinely responds to Freedom of Information Act Request. LaTonya Miller said: "We've been really concerned about all the misinformation that has been out there on the blogs."

We are not convinced by Team Obama's explanation. We suspect we will be hearing more about his as the truth comes out. If "nothing has changed" since the original order was issued, other than the opening of an office in New York, then why did the Bush Administration "sit" on the proposal for four years and then the Obama Administration pulled it out just now? An INTERPOL spokesperson said "it only applies to the New York office." But that is not true. That is obvious on the face of document.

So the question remains: Why was this amendment to Executive Order 12425 "needed'"? If it changed "nothing" why bother?

(from beaufortobserver.net)

Fundamental Transformation Exposed!

Had a Merry Crisis, now on to Happy New Fears

Update: Rebuilding the Middle Class

Ignore who Obama got his ideas from

One of the best articles we’ve had at FrontPage in the past few weeks was John Perazzo’s “The Communists Behind Obama’s Healthcare Goals.”

I thought the piece was particularly important because it explained in important ways how Old Left communists had influenced today’s “progressive” leaders, the Democratic Party, and President Barack Obama himself.
It demonstrated that to point out the neo-communist nature of the Left is not just some nasty, partisan slur. It’s a legitimate understanding based on indisputable facts.

(from newsrealblog.com)

Bonus links:
• Summary of Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'
• More Saul Alinsky stories: here
• 'Rules for Radicals' at amazon.com

Senate smacks down Obamunist labor thug

Lurch to the center an 'In Your Face' to Obama

The nomination of union attorney Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been rejected by the full US Senate, which last week returned the nomination to President Obama for reconsideration after failing to act on it before the close of the legislative session. By unanimous consent agreement on December 24, the Senate waived a standing rule that all nominations upon which no actions are taken before the Senate adjourns are essentially rejected, so that all pending nominations will remain in status quo notwithstanding adjournment. However, Becker was among seven Obama nominees who were deemed "exceptions" to this agreement.
'Don't think we aren't keeping score, brother.'
Becker, a former law school professor and attorney for both the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and AFL-CIO, was formally nominated by the President in July, but his nomination has met with fierce resistance by the business community and Republican lawmakers. The US Chamber of Commerce, in a July 24 letter, urged the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee to hold a hearing on the nominee, citing concerns over Becker's "out of the mainstream" views on the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as well as concerns that his SEIU ties would "lead him to advance 'card check' organizing through administrative action by the NLRB, regardless of what Congress does" with the Employee Free Choice Act. Other employer groups and industry associations have opposed Becker's nomination as well.

(from hr.cch.com)

Related video: Meet Craig Becker, AFL-CIO Obamunist

Obama sets unlimited taxpayer losses

Brings fundamental change to the U.S.

Taxpayer losses from supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will top $400 billion, according to Peter Wallison, a former general counsel at the Treasury who is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
“The situation is they are losing gobs of money, up to $400 billion in mortgages,” Wallison said in a Bloomberg Television interview. The Treasury Department recognized last week that losses will be more than $400 billion when it raised its limit on federal support for the two government-sponsored enterprises, he said.
The U.S. seized the two mortgage financiers in 2008 as the government struggled to prevent a meltdown of the financial system. The debt of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks grew an average of $184 billion annually from 1998 to 2008, helping fuel a bubble that drove home prices up by 107 percent between 2000 and mid-2006, according to the S&P/Case- Shiller home-price index.
The Treasury said on Dec. 24 it would provide an unlimited amount of assistance to the companies as needed for the next three years to alleviate market concern that the government lifeline for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the largest source of money for U.S. home loans, could lapse or be exhausted.