The Sunday 'Report'-Redux; 04/17/2011

What The National Pamphleteers Don't Report; Again!
The safest bonds in the world

Commentary: Norway’s savvy investing pays off
By Brett Arends
LONDON (MarketWatch) — Is anywhere safe?
Wall Street will tell you that government bonds issued by advanced Western countries are the safest investments money can buy.  But recent events have made a mockery of that idea. If it weren’t for international rescue packages, Greece, Ireland and Portugal surely would have defaulted on their bonds.  Don’t think the trouble’s going to end there. Spain’s finances are in trouble. Italy’s net debts are 100% of its gross domestic product.  Germany’s OK and so is Switzerland. But how much of Europe’s bad debts are their banks holding? Money men here in London suspect that the German banks are the new Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. /quotes/comstock/11i!lehmq LEHMQ -2.06% , hiding massive losses in places like Spain down in the fine print.
    Elsewhere, public finances are in disarray. Japan’s debts are off the charts, more than twice the size of the economy.  America’s net national debt is just hitting 100% of GDP and is rising quickly. The country can’t even fix its own problems. Last Friday was a harbinger: The United States came within an hour of an embarrassing government shutdown. That crisis probably won’t be the last.  Yet Wall Street continues to insist that U.S. Treasury bonds are “risk-free.”  In this mess, who can you trust? If you fear a meltdown, which countries, if any, actually have safe and sound public finances?  There aren’t many.  Dollar looks more ill than thoughtNot only are yields moving against it, but debt-default fears and reserve diversification are conspiring to ensure that the dollar doesn't have an early recovery.
    According to the International Monetary Fund, only a handful of countries are really rock solid.  They include Australia and New Zealand, as well as the countries of Scandinavia — Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway.  While most developed countries have racked up huge debts, these guys have kept [....]
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-safest-bonds-in-the-world-2011-04-12?pagenumber=1

Goodbye, AmeriCorps. Hello, FoodStampCorps.

By Michelle Malkin
April 15, 2011
America, the Dependent
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2011
     So much for the new era of fiscal responsibility. The federal government’s dependency drones have been spared the chopping block. After vowing to eliminate funding for President Obama’s bloated $6 billion AmeriCorps social justice army, House Republicans retreated — and will shrink the AmeriCorps budget by a minuscule 6.7 percent.
     Politicians originally sold AmeriCorps as an alternative to big government — a program to “renew the ethic of civic responsibility and the spirit of community throughout the United States.” With bipartisan support, the program has morphed into an all-purpose progressive slush fund. Instead of reining in the national service boondoggle, Washington has turned taxpayer-subsidized helping hands into a legion of Nanny State handout helpers. Goodbye, AmeriCorps. Hello, FoodStampCorps.
     Yes, across the Internet, the feds are recruiting AmeriCorps VISTA (“Volunteers in Service to America”) workers to apply for jobs as publicists for the welfare state. Their mission: to sign up as many people to federal food stamp rolls as possible. Because, you know, the record-breaking 12 million that have been added since Obama took office is apparently not good enough.  Here’s a typical job ad in Boston: [....]
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/04/15/goodbye-americorps-hello-foodstampcorps/

News From Canada's socialist regime.
Ted Harlson
Apr 13, 2011Here is an example of what to expect if the Tea Party fails in its efforts to turn America around.
     The City of Waterloo, Canada is not too far from where you are [Author is referring to readers in the Rochester, N.Y., area]. The border hides incredibly horrible happenings just a few mere miles away.  How would you like your home invaded by municipal officials who do not have to have your permission to enter your home? How would you like a Human Rights Commission dictate the size of the room, or access you must have, how far away your building must be from another homeowner?
     The City of Waterloo is proposing these very measures in the name of "safety" of student renters, then classifying landlords with as little as one room being rented as a "business." The license fee is $3,000 dollars. A landlord can be fined up to $50,000 dollars, and if incorporated, $100,000 dollars. Ordinary homeowners will be run bankrupt.  (My question is, who will benefit from the bankruptcies and gobble up the land? Will it be the City of Waterloo building new apartments and running it themselves, or apartment owners who knows how much was paid in political donations for these changes? What ever happened to the free market? ...But not to sidetrack...) This by-law applies to residential homes, with up to three units. Larger apartments are exempt from this proposed by-law.
     I'm member of the Canadian Taxpayers Alliance. We went to the Waterloo city council meeting and we spoke before the Mayor and council. As a member of the Taxpayers Alliance, I spoke first: [....]
http://www.wesurroundrochester.com/boards/view/viewthread?thread=10701653
DoJ: Obama Can Send U.S. Troops to Do the UN’s Bidding by Decree

April 15, 2011,
by Ben Johnson
     The Justice Department has decided: it is perfectly acceptable for the president to send American troops into foreign military adventures without so much as consulting Congress, as long as he is carrying out the will of the United Nations.
     Just before Barack Obama’s speech on the budget on Wednesday, the White House revealed that American jets have continued to bomb Libya, after giving the impression this would end. Since the “hand-off,” U.S. troops have operated under NATO command. And some figures are beginning to catch on that there is no evidence the Libyan intervention prevented genocide. With the evidence piling up, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel weighed in on Obama’s war-by-decree in Libya. Although figures as diverse as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have declared the military adventure is grounds for impeachment, the OLC found that Obama acted within his “constitutional authority.” James M. Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations mentioned the report on the CFR’s blog last Friday. The OLC’s opinion states:

As we advised you prior to the commencement of military operations, we believe that, under these circumstances, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad, even without prior specific congressional approval.

     It states “a variety or national interests…alone or in combination, may justify use of military force by a President.” Among them is “maintaining the credibility of United Nations Security Council mandates” or “enforcing UNSC mandates,” citing such national mistakes as Haiti, Bosnia, and Somalia. Libya involved “the combinations of at least two national interests…preserving regional stability and supporting the UNSC’s credibility and effectiveness,” and this “provided a sufficient basis for the President’s [sic. -- government entities always capitalize their titles as though they were Oriental deities] exercise of his constitutional authority to to order the use of military force.”  This means two things: 1) Barack Obama had time to consult with the OLC, as well as the Arab League, NATO, and the United Nations Security Council before war, but not Congress; and 2) the OLC could not care less about the Founding Fathers’ interpretation of our founding document.
    Indeed, the OLC says as much in its opinion. The president’s top legal advisers state their “understanding of the President’s constitutional authority reflects not only the express assignment of powers and responsibilities to the President and congress in the Constitution, but also, as noted, the ‘historical gloss’ placed on the Constitution by two centuries of practice.”  Under this scheme, violations of the Constitution become [....]
[Blogger Note:  The information in this article has the "Soros Stench" all over it!!  Given that the Council on Foreign Relations is closely tied to the Tri-Lateral Commission; which is tied closely with Bretton Woods 'One;' which is closely tied philosophically with both George Soros and Bretton Woods 'Two!!'] 
http://floydreports.com/doj-obama-can-send-u-s-troops-to-do-the-uns-bidding-by-decree/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=332b58527d-EO_04_15_20114_15_2011&utm_medium=email

Paul Ryan’s Plan: Not “Radical” Enough

[Posted on April 15, 2011
by Guest Writer]
by Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
     Question for those of you concerned about the size of federal debts and deficits: Would you endorse a plan which would add another five or six trillion dollars to the federal debt over the next decade while increasing Uncle Sam’s annual expenditures by $1.1 trillion? If so, you’re in luck. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-WI, recently unveiled just such a plan.  Naturally, Democrats immediately denounced Ryan’s plan as “radical.” They think the increases in spending and debt should be much larger. It shows how far the goalposts have been moved in American politics that adding multi-trillion-dollars of debt is the most conservative proposal anyone in government has made. How would you like your government debt, Mr. or Ms. Citizen—gargantuan or astronomical?
     The Ryan Plan, if implemented (more on that in a moment), would cut $179 billion from President Obama’s planned spending in 2012 and another $241 billion in 2013. Why is it not “radical” to raise spending by $787 billion in one year, like Obama did in 2009, but “radical” to propose a decrease of $179 billion?  Ryan proposes to reform Medicare and Medicaid so that they don’t bankrupt the country. Why is that demonized as “war on the elderly and poor” (the phraseology of Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky), but nobody talks about waging “war on the young” by [....]
http://floydreports.com/paul-ryans-plan-not-radical-enough/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=332b58527d-EO_04_15_20114_15_2011&utm_medium=email

Will a Gillette Cause Heads to Roll in Project Gunrunner?

[Posted on April 15, 2011
by Ben Johnson]
by Doug Book
     Several months ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley began an investigation of Project Gunrunner, the disgraceful ATF program of deliberately “walking” guns across the southern border and into the waiting hands of Mexican drug cartel members.  The senator was alerted by ATF whistleblowers, who became fed up after weapons traced to the Project were found at the scene of the December 2010 killing of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.  And how has Acting ATF Director, Kenneth Melson, a vehement gun-grabber, answered Senator Grassley’s requests for information about Project Gunrunner? He has informed agents [....]
http://floydreports.com/will-a-gillette-cause-heads-to-roll-in-project-gunrunner/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=332b58527d-EO_04_15_20114_15_2011&utm_medium=email

California Republican under fire for Obama as 'ape' birther email

by GoPride.com News Staff
Sun. April 17, 2011
The story was first reported by the OC Weekly.

Orange County, Calif. — Long-time Republican Party of Orange County committeewoman Marilyn Davenport is being urged to resign after she sent a birther email depicting President Barack Obama and his parents as apes.  Davenport's email, sent to "friends" last week, shows the President's face superimposed upon a monkey's face, with the caption: "Now you know why no birth certificate." 
Davenport's position with the Orange County Republicans involves fundraising and organizing in California's 72nd Assembly district, encompassing Brea, Fullerton and Placentia. She is [....]
http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/17906841
Until Next Sunday....