Archive for the 'U.S Congress' Category

12
May
09

You Have Got To Be Kidding Me!..U.S. Will Pay $2.6 Million to Train Chinese Prostitutes to Drink Responsibly on the Job

Here are some more of OUR hard earned tax dollars being wasted on people who are not even United States Citizens!…Tell me people…How much more will the tax paying americasn really take from Washington DC corrupt politicians???

By Edwin Mora

The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAA), a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will pay $2.6 million in U.S. tax dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job.

Dr. Xiaoming Li, the researcher conducting the program, is director of the Prevention Research Center at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit.

The grant, made last November, refers to prostitutes as “female sex workers”–or FSW–and their handlers as “gatekeepers.”

“Previous studies in Asia and Africa and our own data from FSWs [female sex workers] in China suggest that the social norms and institutional policy within commercial sex venues as well as agents overseeing the FSWs (i.e., the ‘gatekeepers’, defined as persons who manage the establishments and/or sex workers) are potentially of great importance in influencing alcohol use and sexual behavior among establishment-based FSWs,” says the NIH grant abstract submitted by Dr. Li.

“Therefore, in this application, we propose to develop, implement, and evaluate a venue-based alcohol use and HIV risk reduction intervention focusing on both environmental and individual factors among venue-based FSWs in China,” says the abstract.

The research will take place in the southern Chinese province of Guangxi.

Guangxi is ranked third in HIV rate among Chna’s provinces–and is a place where the sex business is pervasive, Li said.

“The purpose of the project is to try and develop an intervention program targeting HIV risk and alcohol use,” Li told CNSNews.com. “So basically, it’s an alcohol and HIV risk reduction intervention project.”

The researcher outlined three components of the intervention program in the abstract for the project:

“(1) gatekeeper training with a focus on changing or enhancing the protective social norms and policy/practice at the establishment level; (2) FSW (female sex workers) training with a focus on the acquisition of communication skills (negotiating, limit setting) and behavioral skills (e.g., condom use skills, consistent condom use); and (3) semi-annual boosters to reinforce both social norms within establishments and individual skills,” wrote Li.

The doctor said the heart of the study involves “a community-based cluster randomized controlled trial among 100 commercial sex venues in Beihai, a costal tourist city in Guangxi.”

“We anticipate that the venue-based intervention program will be culturally appropriate, feasible, effective and sustainable in alcohol use and sexual risk reduction among FSWs,” says the NIH grant abstract.

Li said his study is being done in China rather than the U.S. because prostitution occurs with alcohol use in the United States like it does in China, Americans will be able to benefit from the project’s findings.

“We want to get some understanding of the fundamental role of alcohol use and HIV risk,” he said. “We use the population in China as our targeted population to look at the basic issues. I think the findings will benefit the American people, too.”

Li said minimal research has been conducted on the link between alcohol use and prostitution as it relates to HIV.

“Alcohol has been a part of the commerce of sex for many, many years. Unfortunately, both global-wise (and) in the United States, very few researchers are looking at the complex issue of the inter play between alcohol and the commerce of sex,” he told CNSNews.com.

The grant is one of several “international initiatives” sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Ralph Hingson, director of epidemiology and prevention research at NIAA, told CNSNews.com, “There are many Americans who travel to China each year and they should be made aware of the HIV problem.”

Hingson said that Americans will be able to apply the studies findings to the American situation because 1.2 million Americans are currently living with HIV.

Li’s research includes exploration, development, implementation and evaluation. Currently, the project stands at the exploration stage, which the doctor expects to last 18 months.

“The first phase is kind of an exploratory study just trying to get a good understanding of the phenomena in the population of female sex workers in China. The second phase is the program development,” the professor told CNSNews.com.

Phase two will be based on the first year of the study and on “field observations,” he added. The third phase will be the implementation and evaluation of the program.

“Prostitution is illegal in China but it exists in China,” Li told CNSNews.com, “but the Chinese government and the society’s attitude towards prostitution is complicated.”

According to Li, there may be as many as 10 million female prostitutes in China with the majority raging from teenagers to those in their 20s.

“We see a lot of governmental initiatives in China, like 100 percent condom distribution promotion programs, so they deliver condoms in those (prostitution) venues,” he added.

“The global literature indicates an important role of alcohol use in facilitating HIV/AIDS transmission risk in commercial sex venues where elevated alcohol use/abuse and sexual risk behaviors frequently co-occur,” Li wrote when introducing the project last November.

“We expect that the intervention will improve protective normative beliefs and institutional support regarding alcohol use and HIV protection,” he added.

The NIH proposal hypothesizes that the program will decrease “problem drinking and alcohol-related sexual risk” among prostitutes that participate.

“We hypothesize that the venue-based intervention will change and enhance the protective social norms and institutional policies at the establishment level and such enhancement, accompanied by individual skill training among FSWs, will demonstrate a sustainable effect within commercial sex establishments in decreasing problem drinking and alcohol-related sexual risk, increasing consistent and correct condom use, and reducing rates of HIV/STD infection among FSWs,” says the NIH abstract.

07
May
09

Dodd Calls for Prosecuting Bush Officials

Lets look at who is talking here…Chris Dodd..One of the most corrupt morons in congress…who is in the pockets of every company he has come in contact with and he is calling for prosecutions?? I think Dodd needs a few readers to call his office and let him know how much of a hypocrit and liar he is!..Only a democrat would have the audacity to do this.

By: Jim Meyers Sen. Christopher Dodd is pushing ahead with a call for prosecuting Bush administration officials over the use of waterboarding terrorist detainees. The Connecticut Democrat told home-state bloggers over the weekend that the Obama administration’s release of memos detailing interrogation techniques used on detainees creates a “moral imperative” for a congressional investigation — or a criminal probe that could involve former Vice President Dick Cheney’s staff, Politico.com reported. When asked if a probe should go “as high as Cheney’s office,” Dodd replied: “You gotta go where you gotta go.” Dodd cited his father’s experience as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Attorney Thomas Joseph Dodd, who was later elected to the Senate, held a leading position on the Allied prosecution team in 1945 and 1946. Referring to the Nazi defendants, Dodd said “even these thugs got a lawyer; even these thugs got a trial.” He added: “In a sense, not to prosecute people or pursue them when these acts have occurred is . . . to invite it again in some future administration.” The New York Times reported on Tuesday that an internal Justice Department inquiry had found that Bush administration lawyers who authorized harsh interrogations committed no crimes warranting prosecution.

07
May
09

Hostile Bloggers Facing Fines, Jail?

Proposal ‘comes close to making it federal offense to log onto Internet’

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A new proposal in Congress is threatening fines and jail time for what it calls “cyberbullying” – communications that include e-mails and text messages that “cause substantial emotional distress.”

The vague generalities are included in H.R. 1966 by California Democrat Linda Sanchez and about a dozen co-sponsors.

But it already is being condemned as unconstitutional, unrealistic and probably ineffectual.

At Wired.com, in a report labeled “Threat Level,” writer David Kravets criticized the plan to demand “up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to ‘coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress.'”

“Instead of prison, perhaps we should say gulag,” he wrote.

Such limits never would pass First Amendment muster, “unless the U.S. Constitution was altered without us knowing,” he wrote. “So Sanchez, and the 14 other lawmakers who signed on to the proposal are grandstanding to show the public they care about children and are opposed to cyberbullying.”

The plan is labeled the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, after the 13-year-old Meier, whose suicide last year reportedly was prompted by a woman who utilized the MySpace social networking site to send the teen critical messages.

The defendant in the case, Lori Drew, was accused under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

“Sanchez’s bill goes way beyond cyberbullying and comes close to making it a federal offense to log onto the Internet or use the telephone,” Kravets wrote. “The methods of communication where hostile speech is banned include e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones and text messages.”

“We can’t say what we think of Sanchez’s proposal,” he said. “Doing so would clearly get us two years in solitary confinement.”

Wrote a contributor to the Wired forum page, “If passed, this legislation could be easily abused with the effect of criminalizing all criticism. You probably [couldn’t] even criticize the legislation itself because it would cause Sen. Sanchez emotional distress or possibly be considered a form of intimidation.”

The bill, which has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, states, “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

It states: “Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance
, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.”

06
May
09

Obama and his homeland security think of most americans

This video is not suprizing at all…This is what Obama and his thugs think of most of americans!
I wonder if Obama knows what most americans think of him?..Let me touch on that for just a bit.

Lets see..Obama and his thugs in his cabinet and most of congress are:

1. Criminals
2. Socialists
3. Traitors
4. Unsurpers Of Our Constitution ( See Number 1
5. Terrorist sympathizers ( See Number 3
6. Thugs
7. Tax Cheats
8. Liars
9. Corrupt
10. Leftwing Extremists

Look at this video and see for yourself what he thinks of americans

04
May
09

Schumer Promises Sweeping Immigration Law…More Corruption

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer is predicting that sweeping immigration reform will become law before the year is over.

Schumer, a Democrat and chairman of the Senate’s immigration subcommittee, spoke at the New York Daily News/Citizenship Now! headquarters. He said he expected Senate hearings to lead to a major change in U.S. policy, the Daily News reported.

“I believe that this year, we can pass comprehensive, strong, fair immigration reform,” Schumer said.

Schumer’s comments came on the heels of President Barack Obama saying America can’t continue with a “broken” immigration system.

Obama has stated that he supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes an eventual path to citizenship for millions of foreigners illegally in the United States. During his presidential campaign, he promised to make the issue a “top priority” during his first year in office.

Last week, Obama said immigration reform is necessary because the current system is “not good for American workers. It’s dangerous for Mexican would-be workers who are trying to cross a dangerous border. It is putting a strain on border communities … And it keeps those undocumented workers in the shadows, which means they can be exploited at the same time as they’re depressing U.S. wages.”

Obama said his administration would first work to secure America’s borders before trying to reform U.S. immigration policy.

“If the American people don’t feel like you can secure the borders, then it’s hard to strike a deal that would get people out of the shadows and on a pathway to citizenship who are already here, because the attitude of the average American is going to be, well, you’re just going to have hundreds of thousands of more coming in each year,” he said.

“On the other hand, showing that there is a more thoughtful approach than just raids of a handful of workers as opposed to, for example, taking seriously the violation of companies that sometimes are actively recruiting these workers to come in. That’s again something we can start doing administratively.”

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

21
Apr
09

Civil Rights: ‘Use ’em Or Lose ’em’

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WND columnist Janet Porter is warning Americans if they want to keep their civil rights, they’d better be using them right now.

Porter in her newest column took on the issue of the recent “extremist” report from the Department of Homeland Security.

The federal agency’s report is called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

It already has generated a lawsuit by talk radio host Michael Savage and multiple calls for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to be removed.

According to the federal government, characteristics of members of the suspect group of people include those who:

* Oppose restrictions on firearms

* Oppose lax immigration

* Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs

* Oppose continuation of free trade agreements

* Oppose same-sex marriage

* Has paraonia of foreign regimes

* Fear Communist regimes

* Oppose one world government

* Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world

* Is upset with the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

Porter wrote, “The only way we can keep our freedoms is if we’ll use them – now.”

“One thing’s for sure – we aren’t going to stand by while they profile good, law-abiding citizens as terrorists and take away constitutional freedoms,” she wrote.

“Therefore, we, the law-abiding citizens of America, demand:

1. “The resignation or removal of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano for her partisan political profiling of veterans and conservatives and her abuse of power.

2. “An apology from President Barack Obama to ALL Americans for his administration’s call for domestic spying.

3. “The immediate retraction of the “Rightwing Extremism” report for labeling law-abiding citizens as “terrorists” because of their political views.”

“If you’d like to help sound the alarm before you’re monitored as a potential terrorist, please help. Go to http://www.f2a.org and click the first blinking alert to fight “hate crimes” and click the link to http://www.NoPoliticalProfiling.com to help us place a newspaper ad and sign the petition to fight the new definition of “terrorist,” she said.

“DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has labeled law-abiding citizens as ‘right-wing extremists’ and potential ‘terrorists’ … and has instructed state and local law enforcement to monitor, investigate and ‘report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI,'” she wrote.

Under the DHS plan, she said, among those who would be listed as terrorists would be:

1. George Washington (military veteran and gun owner)
2. Mother Teresa (pro-life)
3. Ronald Reagan (pro-life and staunch advocate for less government), and
4. The pope (supports life and traditional marriage)

21
Apr
09

The UGLY Truth

THE UGLY TRUTH
By Cherokee Parks:
April 21,2009

If you haven’t watched this video, please do so before continuing, as my comments will make references to the statements made in it.

As a history buff, I take exception to Ms. Garofalo stating that we have no concept of history, or the reasons behind the Boston Tea Party. It was more than just a demonstration of dissent or disgust over “taxation without representation” (even though that is currently the case with this Congress), but apparently she read a different history book than the rest of us. And to state that this entire movement is based on “hating a black man in the White House” is ludicrous at best. To further state that we will believe anything but the truth, and when confronted with the “truth” we become confused and angry and highly volatile” is purely rubbish. It is THEY who will not accept the truth, this movement is one of non-violent demonstration intended to send a message to the current administration and Congress that we are tired of big government interfering with our lives, spending two and three times what is collected in revenues annually, stripping away the rights of our states, and us, as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and flagging us as subversives, extremists, or domestic terrorists simply because we have the courage to stand up and say enough is enough!!

Why was it permissible for people like Ayers and Dorn and their associates, the Black Panthers, etc., to practice violent means in a desire to change the status quo, but we are targeted for practicing our rights of protest peacefully? Would she go so far as to call our Founding Fathers “rednecks”, racists, bigots, or “white supremacists” for their stance against an oppressive government, and the actions they took? And because our “limbic brain” (more commonly called the limbic system, a system of functionally related neural structures in the brain that are involved in emotional behavior) is larger than normal? What absolute nonsense!! While it is true that the limbic system is slightly larger in women than in men, hence they tend to be a bit more emotional, to say that the several hundred thousand people (not “literally tens of people” as she stated) who attended the TEA parties are “afflicted” somehow shows her complete misunderstanding of brain function. She is an actress (though that is questionable after seeing her performances), an “activist”, and wannabe reporter (having been rejected twice in her applications to FOX). She is NOT a doctor, a psychiatrist, a physiotherapist, or any other medical professional, so her making any factual, let alone believable, comment about what the makeup of anyone’s brain is can only be laughable at best, and is an affront to all thinking people anywhere.

Excuse me? “Teabagging rednecks”? From wikipedia, “Teabagging” is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice vaguely resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.” Is she then saying that all rednecks are gay, or that they practice dominance over other men or women? I’m sure that would come as a real surprise to the fellas I know, and their ladies as well (most of which would knock anyone flat on their butts for even suggesting such a thing)!! And all this time I thought rednecks were against open homosexuality, or laws that give anyone special favors over the rest of us!! Now, I personally don’t care if someone is gay, I just don’t want it rubbed in my face like a lot of other minority issues. If there’s a job to be done, and they can get it done, so what if they’re gay, black, Hispanic, disabled or made of green cheese and turn orange in the sunlight? As long as they follow the laws, including coming into our country legally, and don’t make a big stink about stuff that doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, who cares? So who are they to equate our frustration with all of Washingtoon (no, that’s not a typo, as our nation’s capital is more like Looney Tunes everyday) with being gay? Or, for that matter, “rightwing extremism”, or racism, bigotry or “white supremacy”?

There are many minorities who don’t like who we have as a POTUS, including many blacks, because of his socialist tendencies, so to continue stating that we all hate the fact the “a black guy is in the White House” misses the point entirely. And to state openly that those minorities, which must include women, suffer from “Stockholm syndrome” (psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed) only goes to prove that she also fails to understand the malady or psychological reflexes caused by it, or how it is implemented. Again, without proper medical training, she can only be considered to be talking out of the wrong end of her anatomy. Who is it that held these minority individuals hostage, or abused them? Who forced them to participate in the protests? Did they not attend out of a desire to exercise their freedom of speech, their right to gather, to seek redress from their government?

And Olberman’s comment, “…they weren’t near the cameras, which was bad strategy on the part of the people who were staging this at FOX.” Pleeeeaaasssse!! FOX didn’t stage anything, FOX attended to cover the protests, with Hannity even broadcasting his show from one site. The very fact that the rest of the MSM tried to ignore the fact that these protests were even being held shows their cowardice and lack of journalistic integrity, as well as their agendas. And if the minorities wanted to be near the cameras, they would have moved to a position in front of the cameras! That’s what free people do, go where they want to go, something that Olberman, Garofolo, and the rest of the ultra-left-wingers will never understand or accept!! “FOX news loves to foment this anti-intellectualism, because that’s their bread and butter. if you have a cerebral electorate, FOX News goes down the toilet, you know, very, very fast.” (Does she mean like her career?) “That’s why Roger Railes and Rupert Murdoch founded this venture, is to dis-inform (Did she mean misinform? Hmmm, lack of cerebral ability there?) and coarsen and dumb down a certain segment of the electorate.” “…as I said, the Republican-the conservative movement has now crystallized into the white power movement.” Talk about bigotry and racism! If you are a conservative, or a Republican, you are now a member of the white power movement? I’m sure that will surprise ALL of the conservative, Republican, Christian, free thinking minorities everywhere around this land, just as it surprises the majority of those Caucasians and mixed race (myself included) who fit that same mold!!

Back to the reference about us not knowing our history, or what the Boston Tea Party was all about. Over the last few months, Congress has passed spending legislation and bailed out the banks against the wishes of the majority of people in this country, that according to any number of different polls taken. If that isn’t taxation without representation, I don’t know what is, because they certainly weren’t representing those who elected them and didn’t want that legislation passed! The rest of the comments made by these two inane, self-proclaimed experts are so revolting that I won’t continue to state my objections to their very way of thinking, for to do so might actually legitimize their ideology to those who follow and support that belief. Rather, I will address the title I have chosen for this post, “The Ugly Truth”. That truth is that is you disagree with their ideology, or with the direction the current POTUS (PINO) and Congress are leading this nation, you will be branded a bigot, racist, anti-intellectual, white supremacist (or Uncle Tom or Oreo if you are black, and a dozen other similar references if you are of any other race), anti-government, subversive, domestic terrorist, Klansman, or any number of other derogatory and inflammatory slurs. And what is it that will bring down their wrath? If you believe in your First Amendment, Second Amendment, or Tenth Amendment rights (For that matter, if you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights). If you oppose another amnesty, or believe that “illegal” immigration is just that, illegal. If you are against abortion, gay marriage, higher taxes, more Federal government control, Federal interference in private industry, reaching out to enemies like Castro, Chavez, Ahmenijhad, Hezbollah, Hamas, or changing our monetary system. If you are for capitalism and against socialism, support Israel, question the “Patriot Acts”, or the “GIVE Act”, the “Serve America Act”, “TARP”, or any of the hundreds of cost-ineffective, overburdening legislation that gets passed every year by those elected to represent us. If you want a “Fair Tax”, any reasonable version of a consumption tax, or would like to see a balanced budget amendment. You don’t have to believe in all of them, just one is enough to get you labeled as a “right-wing extremist”. But if you happen to believe in more than one, you can expect to be targeted if the government finds out over the next few months. Even if you’re a Democrat, or a member of any party who openly speaks out against the same things you believe in.

How do we combat it? Stay focused. Keep to the message. Help schedule a TEA Party in your community for July 4th, or work with the organizers of those being held nearby. Encourage others to attend. Get and stay informed. Maintain a constant attitude of respect, even in the face of name callers or agitators. Be respectful at all times when attending any event intended to further our desires toward setting this nation back on the right course. Create signage that is direct and to the point, but not any more derogatory than necessary. Let’s try to have two million people participate in the next TEA Party, and five million in the one after that!! But whatever you do,

WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!

WE’RE BEING SOLD DOWN THE RIVER!!!

WE CANNOT ALLOW PEOPLE LIKE THE TWO IN THIS VIDEO TO GET THEIR WAY IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE FREE!!!
usaflagdistress

P.S. Remember how those in Congress actually voted on all the spending bills, and those bills intended to usurp our freedoms. We know they will be chanting that they didn’t support them come time for the primaries next year. We need to vote them out in favor of those who will support our ideals. It’s time to take our government back and return it to a system “of the people, by the people, and for the people”!!!

21
Apr
09

EXCLUSIVE: Senator’s Husband Cashes In On Crisis

Washington Times:
April 21,2009

Feinstein sought $25 billion for agency that awarded contract to spouse:

EXCLUSIVE:

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband’s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein’s intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn’t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments – not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) – the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman – had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum’s private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE’s stock closed Monday at $5.14.

Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum’s firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn’t even know about CBRE’s business with FDIC until after it was awarded.

Senate ethics rules state that members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as “even the appearance of a conflict of interest.” Some ethics analysts question whether Mrs. Feinstein ran afoul of the latter provision, creating the appearance that she was rewarding the agency that had just hired her husband’s firm.

“This clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest,” said Kent Cooper, a former federal regulator who specializes in government ethics and disclosures. “To maintain the people’s trust in government, it is incumbent on a legislator to take the extra steps necessary to ensure that when she introduces any legislation that it does not cause people to question her motives or the business activities of her spouse.”

Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum, a wealthy investment banker, are a power couple in both Washington and California who sat behind President Obama during his inauguration in January. Mrs. Feinstein also is mentioned as a candidate for California governor.

The FDIC contract “highlights the problem of a senator with a spouse who has extensive business interests that intersect frequently with the federal government,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). “Even if there is no actual conflict of interest, it often has the appearance of a conflict.”

A ‘very sweet deal’?

Real estate specialists also question the government’s generosity in the CBRE contract.

The firm, known for its commercial real estate services, is to be paid monthly maintenance fees for each foreclosed property it handles, as well as commissions and incentives. The total compensation can range from 8 percent of the sales price on many residential properties to 30 percent for properties worth $25,000 or less. A smaller firm also won a slice of the work with similar terms, records show.

Most real estate agents earn no more than 6 percent on residential, even on foreclosed properties, and CBRE doesn’t have as much experience in foreclosure sales as other firms, the experts said.

“From everything I know about it, it is a very sweet deal and went to somebody who is less than qualified in dealing with foreclosed residential properties. Their expertise is in commercial real estate,” said Cynthia Kenner, a Colorado real estate agent who specializes in selling bank-owned residential properties and last year helped sell more than 600 foreclosed properties.

“There are companies that are more experienced in selling such properties than CB Richard Ellis,” she added.

FDIC and Feinstein respond

The FDIC said politics was not involved in its decision, noting the contract was awarded after a six-month competition run by career staff who determined that CBRE was “deemed to be technically qualified and their fee structure fair and reasonable.” That means the competition did not mandate the contract go to the lowest bidder necessarily, officials said.

The agency said the above-market incentives were designed to encourage quick sales of the growing number of foreclosed properties the FDIC has inherited during the recession. “The longer the asset is held, the more costly it is for the FDIC, and more expenses are incurred for the assets,” the agency said in a statement to The Times.

Feinstein spokesman Gil Duran said there was no conflict of interest between Mr. Blum’s firm getting the contract and the senator’s legislation. He said she introduced the legislation because it would help prevent home mortgage foreclosures at a time when many Californians were in danger of losing their homes.

“She was not aware of the contract before she introduced the legislation,” Mr. Duran said. “There is no evidence of any relationship or conflict between this foreclosure relief bill and the contract. Senator Feinstein complies with the rules and guidelines of the Ethics Committee.”

Mr. Duran also said Mr. Blum “is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the company, nor does he have any involvement in the company’s contracting.” Mr. Blum declined through a spokesman to comment.

CBRE spokesman Robert McGrath said the firm had $5 billion in revenues last year and was “well positioned” to help the FDIC as the nation’s largest commercial real estate services company. Its pricing was at market rates after a highly competitive bid process, he said.

“We believe the FDIC will realize significant value from all the work we perform on their behalf,” he said.

The contract process

In May, the FDIC began the formal process of looking for help to manage and market its growing portfolio of foreclosed real estate acquired from failed financial institutions nationwide. It sent letters to 33 real estate firms and received proposals from 18.

In November, the FDIC signed a contract with CBRE that could be worth tens of millions of dollars or more at a time when real estate firms are scrambling for business in the distressed economy.

CBRE said it was hired to act “as a primary adviser” to the FDIC for its real estate portfolio nationwide, according to a press release announcing the contract. The firm called the FDIC a “major account.”

Mr. Blum became chairman of CBRE in 2001 and has played a major role in its corporate business strategies. He led a buyout of the company, first taking it private and then a few years later taking it public again. He runs an investment management firm called Blum Capital Partners, which controls the second largest block of publicly traded CBRE stock – 38 million shares or 14.4 percent.

Mr. Blum, whose position as chairman of CBRE is not full time, sets up partnerships through Blum Capital Partners that invests money for its clients and its owners. He reported owning more than $3 million in CBRE stock through various partnerships at the end of 2007, according to Mrs. Feinstein’s personal financial disclosure statement.

CBRE’s initial contract is for three years. The FDIC has the option to extend it for three two-year periods, records show. The contract calls for the real estate firm to be used “as needed.”

In March, the FDIC said it had assigned CBRE 507 properties for disposal, valued at $221.7 million. In March, the company already had 23 FDIC properties valued at $11 million under contract to be sold.

Over the past 16 months, 50 banks have failed and more are expected to close. As a result, nobody knows how much CBRE will be able to earn over the life of the FDIC contract.

Blum and the stock offering

The FDIC contract came at a good time for CBRE. Even though it remains the world’s largest commercial real estate services firm, it was hit hard by the economic downturn. The company saw its revenues and income slide in 2008 and its stock price tumbled from $24.50 in May to below $4 in November.

“Our third quarter results reflected the extremely challenging market conditions, which continued to deteriorate globally,” Brett White, president and chief executive officer of CBRE, said in early November.

A few days later, CBRE raised $207 million through a stock offering that sold for $3.77 a share. Mr. Blum’s investment partnerships bought 10.6 million shares at the market price of $3.77. The stock offering was announced a couple of days before the signing of the FDIC contract.

In its November prospectus for the stock sale, CBRE warned potential investors that the company could be hurt by the money problems of its clients, noting that federal regulators had recently taken over one of its “significant” clients, Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest savings and loan.

The terms of the contract

CBRE won a highly favorable contract, according to real estate experts who reviewed the terms at the request of The Times.

CBRE is to be paid under a three-tiered system with sliding rates, according to a rate proposal provided to The Times under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. For starters, CBRE gets to charge a setup fee of $450 for each residential property and $600 for each commercial property it takes over from the FDIC.

“That is highly unusual,” said Ms. Kenner, the Colorado-based foreclosure expert. She said she does not collect a separate setup fee and was expected to do such work as part of her commission.

The FDIC said: “The setup fee is for setting up the assets in the contractor’s database and the FDIC database. In the private sector, a similar fee is usually charged as an administrative fee, document preparation fee, or asset handling fee.”

Milt Shaw, senior vice president of LPS Asset Management Solutions, which manages nearly 20,000 foreclosed properties for banks and other clients, said his firm did not charge setup fees. Others in the industry also called the fee unusual.

CBRE also gets to collect a monthly administrative management fee of at least $200 for each residential and $1,600 for each commercial property in its inventory. Ms. Kenner and Mr. Shaw said fees for management services often come out of the sales commissions at closing.

But the biggest fees for CBRE will come from the sales.

CBRE charges commissions of 6 percent of the sales price on residential and 7 percent on commercial properties worth up to $1 million. It also is entitled to an incentive fee of as much as 2 percent of the sales price for properties it sells within six months. The incentives start at two percent for residential properties worth between $25,001 and $500,000 and for commercial properties worth between $25,001 and $1 million before dropping to 1.5 percent. The percentages for both the commissions and incentives become smaller as prices get higher.

Six percent commission is a standard rate for residential property in the private sector, but some experts said many buyers negotiate a lower fee.

Ms. Kenner, who deals in foreclosed residential properties, said she charges 5 percent to 6 percent, depending on the market, adding that she shares the fee with the buyer’s agent and often with the asset management company.

Mr. Shaw said incentive fees are not that frequent in the private sector, but when he sees them they are usually smaller than 2 percent and pegged for a specific market.

The FDIC defended the fees, saying they were “intended to incentivize the contractors to sell the assets as quickly as possible for the benefit of the FDIC and to protect the insurance fund.”

“The private sector normally does not have an urgency to sell assets quickly and thus do not normally have any incentive to do so,” the agency said.

Mr. Shaw disagreed and said his private sector clients – banks and loan servicers – also wanted their properties sold quickly.

CBRE has the chance to collect the largest percentage of the sales price for properties worth $25,000 or less, under a flat fee agreement far more generous than the private sector.

Under the FDIC contract, CBRE charges a $5,000 sales commission for each property and can collect an additional $2,500 incentive fee if they sell it in under six months. In other words, they can collect as much as $7,500 on the sale of a property worth $25,000 or less – which works out to a sales commission of 30 percent or more.

Ms. Kenner said she charges $2,000 to $2,500 to sell properties worth $25,000 or less. Another firm, Prescient Inc., which won a similar FDIC contract at the same time as CBRE, charges a $1,948 commission and a $485 incentive fee.

“I think it is a little egregious,” Mr. Shaw said of the CBRE compensation deal for small properties.

CBRE said its rates were market and commission money would be shared with other agents who co-listed the properties or represented the buyers.

Feinstein and the legislation

Mrs. Feinstein introduced her bill Jan. 6, seeking $25 billion from the government’s bailout fund know as the Troubled Asset Relief Program to help bankroll an FDIC proposal to systematically prevent home mortgage foreclosures by expediting loan workouts and expanding federal loan guarantees.

The proposal was a pet project of FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair, who wanted expand a program the agency had used successfully with borrowers of the failed IndyMac bank to help reduce foreclosures.

Records show Mrs. Feinstein’s public support for the Bair proposal surfaced Oct. 30 in letter to Mrs. Bair as CBRE was still competing for the FDIC contract. Mrs. Bair responded in late November pointing out that she had not been able to get the Treasury Department to adopt her program and authorize bailout funds for it, according to the correspondence released under FOIA.

Mrs. Feinstein’s legislation would have required the government to finance Mrs. Bair’s foreclosure plan.

“The FDIC estimates that roughly 2.2 million home loans, worth $444 billion, could be modified under this plan, with 1.5 million foreclosures avoided,” she said in her statement on the bill.

Her spokesman said she introduced the foreclosure relief bill not at Mrs. Bair’s request but after becoming aware from news accounts of the effect of the mortgage crisis, especially on California homeowners.

“California has one-third of all foreclosures in the nation, and the need to provide relief to struggling American families is the sole motivation for this bill,” Mr. Duran said.

FDIC spokesman Andrew Gray said the agency’s proposal got bipartisan backing.

Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, twice introduced a similar bill in the House. Both bills by Mrs. Feinstein and Mrs. Waters have been superceded by Mr. Obama’s economic stimulus plan to aid homeowners, which adopts parts of the FDIC concept.

Mr. Gray said none of the FDIC board members such as Mrs. Bair played a role in the selection of CBRE because there is a fire wall between them and contracting decisions. He said Mrs. Bair first learned of the contract by reading the newspaper.

A question of ethics

As for Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Duran said she did not learn of the contract until The Times asked her office about it in late January, even though the contract was publicly announced by the company and had been mentioned in an article in the Los Angeles Times in late November. Her spokesman said her office was not aware of the article.

Ethics analysts question whether Mrs. Feinstein had an obligation to track her husband’s business dealings with the government to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

“I find it amazing that they did not know that CB Richard Ellis had gotten the FDIC contract,” said Mr. Cooper, the ethics expert and former regulator. “Why wasn’t she or a staff person regularly watching for possible conflicts?”

Other experts said they do not think that the Senate Ethics Committee will take any action because Mrs. Feinstein’s legislation did not directly financially benefit her husband and was aimed at solving a problem affecting a broad section of America.

Robert L. Walker, a former chief Senate Ethics Committee counsel, said the Senate conflict rule is so narrow that it “almost requires a senator’s sponsorship of a private bill resulting in some personal or family benefit before a violation of the rule would be found.”

Mr. Walker added that the Senate usually relies on the senator to police against improper appearances, but the policy “assumes that a senator and his or her staff will know about and remain alert to investments and other financial ties, including family financial ties, that could be the basis of such appearance concerns.”

Mr. Duran said Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum make “an intensive effort” to maintain a wall between their financial interests.

“Her staff carefully reviews all votes,” he said. “Senator Feinstein complies with all required congressional disclosure requirements. She follows the guidance of the ethics committee and its requirements.”

Mrs. Feinstein, who declined to answer detailed question about the steps she takes to avoid conflicts, is one of the wealthiest members of Congress, mainly from Mr. Blum’s holdings. Together, they are worth at least $52.3 million, according to her 2007 personal financial disclosure forms filed with the Senate and analyzed by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors money and politics.

“When a spouse has so many business interests, it will always raise questions about how contracts are acquired or decisions made,” said Ms. Sloan, CREW’s executive director.

20
Apr
09

Gird Your Blogs

brad

Under “Cybersecurity”, Congress Will Be the Internet’s Greatest Threat!

By Brad O’Leary

Gird your blogs, because if liberals in Congress get their way, President Obama will have sole discretionary authority to shut down the Internet or critical parts of the Internet should he feel his presidency is being tested. Worse, under the guise of cybersecurity, Obama will essentially be granted the power to destroy free speech on the web.

On April 1st of this year, Senators Rockefeller, Snowe, Bayh and Nelson introduced bills S. 773 and S.778, collectively called the Cybersecurity Act, which would give President Obama dictatorial power over the Internet during a time of national crisis or emergency.

All of the bills’ sponsors voted for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that prohibited organizations and individuals from running advocacy ads against candidates 60 days in advance of a general election. Now it seems these same people have conjured up a gag order for the Internet.

According to the current drafts, under the Cyber Security Act of 2009 the President may “declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shut down of Internet traffic to and from any comprised federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network”. He may also “order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security.”

What constitutes “cybersecurity emergency” or “critical infrastructure information system or network” is left completely up to the President to define. We know that the Administration, according to Rahm Emanuel, never wants “a serious crisis to go to waste”. We also know the Administration supports the regulation of free speech on the Internet.

President Obama’s choice to lead the powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is none other than Cass Sunstein, a radical Harvard law professor and supporter of the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. According to Sunstein, “A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”

Obama campaign fundraiser and FCC Chair nominee, Julius Genachowski, is a supporter of “Net neutrality”, the first step in applying the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet.

“Net neutrality” proponents like Genachowski would have government decide what content Internet operators and network owners must provide. Incredibly, they claim this is to keep the Internet free and open to all, when in reality, their goal is to usher the heavy hands of federal regulators into the tent.

Stifling any venue where ideology competes with left-wing mainstream media has always been a goal of the left and Obama. Obama has just been more evasive in his means by supporting policies such as “net neutrality” and wobbling on the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine to talk radio. Liberal members of Congress are now set on sending America on an unconstitutional b-line away from Uncle Sam and directly to Big Brother.

The Cybersecurity Act is also includes a provision where “The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecuirty threat and vulnerability information to the Federal Government and private sector owned (emphasis mine) critical infrastructure information systems and networks.” Shelving all privacy laws including the requirement for warrants, the Secretary of Commerce “shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.” Senator Rockefeller made it clear in his statement what “relevant data” this act could include when he stated “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on.”

While we have worried about cyber attacks from Russia and China, who would have thought the greatest threat would come from members of our own Congress.

20
Apr
09

This Brave Soldier Says It All

The sentiments of this fine brave soldier are the same sentiments we are hearing from other soldiers both deployed and those who have been deployed in the past.
We all remember how the democrats in congress and the senate did not support our men and women in uniform,Even Barack Hussien Obama while in the senate did not say or do one thing in support of ourn troops.
Now all of a sudden some have done a flip,while most others still do not praise our troops at all.
This administration and congress are nothing less than traitors to our men and women in time of war and to our constitution.




Add to Technorati Favorites
May 2024
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031