Archive for Scams

Stock Market Media Serving Up A Warm Glass of Shut The Hell Up

To the bears and those who utter any unkind word toward one Benjamin Shalom Bernanke… You see, in this snake oil market all is rosy, don’t look at the man behind the curtain, and yes the emperor DOES wear clothes. Even I made the mistake of saying the economy was slowly improving… The pervasive, “buy and hold” cheerleading going around makes your stomach ache does it not? Index investing is a great strategy because it does cut out the middle man entirely. The only trouble is, that when the markets become frothy, overvalued, and risky an index buy and hold approach will never rebalance your portfolio for you or sell overvalued assets and hold cash until better values prevail. It’s a tough time right now to be in the stock market. Thankfully for me, I’m in the wood market and the trucking market instead!

Netflix Was A Total Pump and Dump… We Think These Stocks Are Too…

Most investors are taught to assume that markets are efficient and that investment decisions are made in an honest and professional manner. In fact, none of the major finance textbooks (think CFA and MBA here) cover things like pools, pump and dumps, affinity fraud, market manipulation, marking the tape, front running, cooking the books, etc… in an in depth and exhaustive manner.

Many times, investor ignorance costs the general public dearly. At www.hedgephone.com our main goal is to help investors steer clear of investment scams and pump and dump companies. We have learned the hard way that fraud in corporate America is an ever-present, ever-persistent problem.

Netflix (NFLX) investors learned the hard way about investment pools (loose agreements between big money traders to manipulate a stock). We believe that Netlflix was indeed a massive pump and dump (whether this was criminal or simply chaotic randomness) orchestrated by management, institutional investors, the media, and other interested parties whether they were actively manipulating the stock or not.

In our view, corporate insiders decided to go for a stock bubble valuation by juicing cash flow in the short term, moving toward an internet only “revolutionary” business model, and getting Jim Cramer to relentlessly pump the stock via Mad Money. The team is confirmed by interlinking director members from TheStreet.com, Netflix, etc… and from huge insider sales near the top of the bubble. If Cramer and company liked the stock so much, why were the corporate insiders who knew the business better than anyone else dumping shares like there was no tomorrow? In my view, this was simply a case of insiders dumping into the pumping whether they believed the hype or not. As a professional investor and part time fellow journalist, I was astounded to see nothing but positive articles (except of course from other authors at Seeking Alpha….) on the company from the likes of TheFool, The Street.com, Investors.com, etc.. etc… right before the implosion. We were extremely bearish. Not that it makes us special but it means that this was predictable (if we got it right, the big money managers from Harvard Business School certainly should have!).

The onslaught of BS in the financial media led to Netflix being priced at $300 per share and for over 100X what in hind sight look to be questionable earnings because they were later erased by huge losses. While most people simply believe the action in Netflix was based on a rational, efficient markets we think the stock traded the way it did because of speculation, media hype, and some old fashion stock promotion. Many authors argued that developments within the company caused the stock crash, but we think the action of the name was more typical of a micro-cap stock promotion. The fact that thestreet.com was so positive on Netflix while sharing board of director members with Netflix seems like a pretty obvious conflict of interest to me — nothing criminal, mind you, just a little bit slick.

At Hedgephone.com, we aren’t here to tattle on people but to educate them. We are looking for the next pool ready to blow up and we don’t think Netflix was the last organized pumped up and over-hyped stock to burn the little guy… Here is a quick and dirty list of companies we are investigating currently and why we think they are more hot air than hot stock at current valuations.

Angie’s List (ANGI) — We started covering ANGI at $15.50 a share and so far this short has been a nice winner similar to our call to short Groupon at $22 a share. Angie’s List reported dismal earnings last week as the company managed to lose another $14MM in the last quarter. Sure, revenues were up big but paying for business only makes sense for start up web companies right now because there is a bubble in these names created by massive economic stimulus and mal-investment (think 1999). Without this bubble, ANGI should probably be worth around 1X sales or about $150MM — a full 80% drop from current levels. The balance sheet looks sketchy, the bottom line is blood red, and even though web traffic is up the stock looks like a great short at today’s prices.

Linkedin (LNKD) — While this is clearly a great company, the stock is not a great investment in the classic Ben Graham 1934 Security Analysis sense of the term. LinkedIn is a bubble stock trading for 900X earnings. There is no rational explanation for this other than it is a repeat of the 1990′s technology bubble. While I wouldn’t short LNKD, I do think that investors should try starting their own web company versus investing in this clearly overpriced security.

Salesforce.com (CRM) — While cloud computing is a “revolution” in innovation, we don’t think that the market valuation for CRM is a real one. In fact, we think Salesforce is another “pool” manipulated by the big guns in the trading world. We also think the current technology bubble is so important to the Federal government that fraud charges will never be levied on any of the major manipulators or bubble company executives in the future even though these crimes are clear and identifiable. You see, we have created a culture of fraud on Wall Street and Main Street loses every time. That’s just the way it is — expect Saleforce.com to “beat” earnings and ramp a little higher before ultimately blowing up sometime in the next year or two.

YELP (YELP) — Yelp is a lot like Angie’s List because it is clearly just an eyeball and mouse-click valuation. The company lacks earnings, cash flow, book value, etc… but the market loves anything with a dot com at the end of it’s name. Yelp is one of the worst investments I can remember at this price but like all internet businesses anything can happen and the company may eventually grow into this astronomical valuation.

2 CEO’s Cashing In While Their Shareholders Go Broke

Books A Million (BAMM) — Clyde Anderson recently announced his intention to buyout the outside shareholders of Books A Million for less than 50% of that firm’s tangible book value. In our view, Mr. Anderson is trying to buy a dollar for fifty cents. This is all well and good (after all I’m a value investor!), except that he is buying out his own company at a significant discount to intrinsic value and is in essence stealing $60MM of shareholder wealth from outside stockholders if you believe that the financial statements of BAMM are accurate.

In our view, this “take under” is the worst form of corporate malfeasance and corruption — corporate managers are supposed to work for their shareholder, not strictly for their own financial benefit. It would seem that Books A Million management, after assuming 13 Borders leases and aggressively moving their business forward, wants the investment community to hold the bag while management dines out at Wolinsky’s on the shareholder’s dime. “Take unders” (when management acts to depress their stock price and buy the company out on the cheap) are a big problem in the small cap value arena and show that there is no real SEC at all anymore — managers are financially raping their shareholders. There truly is no justice in the small cap value market.

READ MORE HERE: http://seekingalpha.com/article/552621-2-ceos-cashing-in-while-their-shareholders-go-broke

US Road Closures and Agenda 21

“Montezuma County Sheriff Dennis Spruell is waiting for his conscience to tell him: Should he start handing out tickets this week to U.S. Forest Service agents who are closing backcountry roads? Should he cut locks on gates that shut off access to public lands?

The fact that a county sheriff is considering such actions against the federal government is a good indication that more than a run-of-the-mill dustup over road and trail closures on public lands is erupting in the far southwest corner of the state…

In recent weeks, protesters have marched on the local Forest Service and BLM office located between Cortez and Dolores, calling Forest Service officials “government pukes.”

OREGON – (3/2/11, by Sara Foster, NewsWithViews.com) Josephine County, Oregon -When Gil Gilbertson was sworn in as Sheriff of Josephine County, a rural county in southwest Oregon, in 2007, he had 30 years of law enforcement experience behind him, both in the UnitedStates and with various military missions overseas.

So when citizens of the county began coming to him complaining of “harassment” by U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officers (LEO), he said he’d investigate their concerns, figuring he could work things out with the local ranger district. After all, as the county’s chief law enforcement officer he was in the “club” and moreover had gotten along with the “feds” — though he disagreed with their road closing policies and other efforts to keep the public off public lands which cover 68 percent of the rural county.

He contacted the local ranger district for information, but instead of answers he was bluntly told that No, they couldn’t, wouldn’t discuss anything about any complaints with him, but he could file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)… Gilbertson sent a blistering letter to the District Ranger of the Wild Rivers Ranger District in Caves Junction…‘As the CLEO [chief law enforcement officer] of this county, elected by the citizens, saddled with the expectation and responsibility to safeguard their rights, I fully intend to uphold the laws against any threat, inappropriate or unlawful actions against them…”.

UTAH – (10/6/10, San Juan Record) “Hunters in San Juan County face a number of roads that have been closed on National Forests. ‘We have been hunting this area since my dad was a kid,’ said one Blanding resident, who asked that his name not be used. ‘It seems like they have closed a thousand roads’.”

MONTANA – ( 8/26/10, Helenair.com) The Helena National Forest Service has truly been busy this summer. They have had excavators up in the forests removing roads and portions of roads for the sole purpose of making them impossible to navigate. These are not maintained Forest Service roads, yet the excuse they used was to save money in the long run by taking these roads off of their maintenance list.  The sole reason for these road closures is to prevent sportsmen from accessing hunting grounds.”

IDAHO – (6/16/11, Capitalpress.com) “A county government in Idaho has filed a legal complaint against the U.S. Forest Service over road closures that allegedly limit residents’ mobility and discourage tourists.  Valley County has asked a federal judge to declare the agency’s travel management plan for the Payette National Forest as unlawful due to violations of environmental and administrative law.

“They didn’t do it right,” said Matthew Williams, the county’s attorney.“No appeals, no hearings. They just did it.”

The road closures by the Forest Service have also been happening in California, Nevada and other states.

Former Sheriff Richard Mack, in his book “County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope” summed it up when he said “The founders of America warned us that we would lose more freedoms from gradual encroachments by those in authority than by sudden usurptions from any foreign enemy…The COUNTY SHERIFF is our nation’s LAST LINE OF DEFENSE, for the preservation and return to, fundamental and individual liberty.”

The USDA (a member of the new Rural Council and the IUCN, an organization that promotes U.N.’s Agenda 21) used your tax dollars to send David Ferrell, Director of Law Enforcement and Investigationsto Canada for the 9th Conference of the International Network for Environ­mental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE) where “… environmental compliance and en­forcement experts from over 50 coun­tries gathered to identify new actions to promote enforcementcooperation to…support the shift to sustainable devel­opment…”

On INECE’s website, it states: Agenda 21: An international mandate for building compliance and enforcement capacity as an essential element of environmental management… Agenda 21, Chapter 8, Section 8.21. Each country should develop integrated strategies to maximize compliance with its laws and regulations relating to sustainable development. Does this seem like the Forest Service might “promote enforcement” to make U.S. citizens comply with Agenda 21?  It’s important to know what the USDA is “participating” in:

“INECE is striving for a global network which starts first at local levels, networking among key institutions of government, the police, environment agencies, sectoral agencies; second among local groups and with related regional and national groups within nations; third, between governments and NGOs; fourth internationally in bilateral cooperation; fifth regionally among nations among all relevant groups; and finally, sixth, on a global scale among the various groups as needs arise and catalyzing ideas and approaches and cooperation around the globe.

The mandate for environmental compliance and enforcement was introduced as a direct result of the consensus at the International Workshop which gave the participants the confidence to move toward this very important international statement. Language in Agenda 21 empowered UN organizations to more actively support compliance and enforcement institution building activities.”

Regarding any mandate for USDA “enforcements” to close off roads, forests and public lands, remember the Tenth Amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Sheriff Mack sums this up best “…local officials have the right, the power, and the duty to stand against the far reaching incursions by our own Federal Government.”  Mack cited a Supreme Court case in which Justice Scalia wrote a ruling for the majority that stated“The Federal Government may not compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program.”

TO LEARN MORE:

OP ED: Why Republican War Mongering Is Idiotic

       Republicans just can’t stop talking smack to “our enemies” whether it’s bashing Iran, slamming Russia, provoking North Korea, or talking smack about Pakistan. Sure, these nations are a huge problem for us in terms of foreign policy on many levels, but to go out and make public threats is simply dumb.

What these idiotic statements reveal is that all of the Republican candidates need to brush up on a little book by Sun Tzu called “The Art of War.” Maybe it’s that the Republican candidates aren’t well read enough to have covered this book or the chapter on the most important factor in combat besides seeing victory happen before the battle is begun — the element of surprise!

Gone is the element of surprise for people like Ricky Santorum and Newt Gingrich if they were to win office… Iran would know that days after the inauguration Ricky and company will be dropping some pretty serious bombs on their country.

“Talking tough” to our enemies is not the opposite of appeasement it is the embodiment of idiocy in my view because it places our nation on hostile footing with rogue states, dictatorships, and fascist regimes around the globe. We don’t want to strike last if we have to go to war and we don’t need to pre-empt anything — Medvedev is actually correct in asking Romney to use ration and was wise in stating that this is not the mid 1970′s anymore.

What was most distressing to me this evening regarding the Obama open mike, was the fact that both candidates for Presidency looked pretty silly while the only person talking any sense was none other than Russian President Medvedev!

Someone should tell these Republican leaders that it is okay to use a “soft sell” technique with regards to diplomacy. No one likes to be talked at, and while the world is filled with horrible dictators and murderous leaders there is nothing to gain by making threats or spouting hate speech! To me, when it comes to foreign policy the President should first and foremost desire peace.

While many U.S. citizens think that Obama should not practice “appeasement” I have to cordially disagree and say that while he should get our troops out of combat right away, he is certainly not acting in peacetime — leaders should be careful not to pre-empt the enemy in warfare unless they are using this as a surprise/Trojan Horse tactic in battle. What worries me is that so many Americans are willing to go along with policies that call for more battles. This idea is fiscally, morally, and socially untenable.

By spewing war threats to foreign nations, the Republicans have doomed themselves to failure in 2012 in my view. While Obama has irked me with overspending, not bringing our troops home as promised, and essentially handing the economy over to Wall Street he is a far better actor diplomatically than Santorum or Romney. While I am still a big Ron Paul fan and supporter, I empathize with Obama’s focus on education, environmental stewardship, focus on the working man and minorities, etc…

Look, neither party right now is offering what I want which is a political system that is Libertarian yet compassionate, fiscally conservative yet flexible, socially liberal yet financially responsible, and most of all educated when it comes to economics and particularly when it comes to business management.

Each of these candidates posses one or two things I like and one or two things I dislike. In the end, I unfortunately have to side with Obama because I strongly feel that this nation cannot afford any more wars.

All of the major nations around the globe already have nuclear arms. Our job as a sovereign Democracy and world leader is to praise peace and liberty. We should denounce fascism, corporatism, unchecked monopolies, top down despotism, genocide, ignorance, arms races, citizen spies, wire tapping, censorship, warfare, and economic totalitarianism.

The U.S. is so special because we are a nation of compassionate blacksmiths hammering away at injustice to form a nation that lives by the ideals and values of our fathers and forefathers. It is the legacy of freedom, the promise of Democracy, the instincts of compassion, the call to responsibility, and the will to live by the dreams of our founders that make this nation a great place to live.

Unfortunately, the unchecked fraud and greed of the financial barrons has left this nation with little meat on its bones. The policies of Obama have not been any different economically than the policies of Bush: more spending, more money printing, and higher commodity inflation. At $7.50 an hour, Americans simply cannot afford to put food on the table for themselves and their children anymore. The “stimulus” and the “accommodation” used by our central bank is obviously making the situation worse for low income Americans and not better. To think that our nation would consider lowering corporate tax rates before considering lowering taxes on rent, fuel, or food is simply abhorrent.

In the end, we will be left with Obama vs. Romney it seems (I would have voted for Ron Paul even though I think he is wrong on many social issues) and the choice is easy. Romney has to completely change direction on spending (he needs to keep taxes high on corporations and the rich) and renounce his war mongering hate speech to win.

Then again, what do you tell a guy who thinks corporations are people and that Iran needs to be glass parking lotted along with Russia? Obama does have an election to win and Romney should have focused on Obama’s mis-steps not using this as an opportunity to spout war propoganda. In the end, both candidates look pretty bad right now and it’s a shame we can’t resurrect the Ron Paul fever that existed just a few months back in the Republican party. He seems the “realist” out of all the lot…

Schumer Trying to Use Trayvon to Take Away Gun Rights

From Kurt Nimmo, Infowars.com

Notorious gun-grabber Sen. Charles Schumer is exploiting the publicity surrounding the Trayvon Martin case to call for the feds to outlaw “Stand Your Ground” self-defense laws around the country. Schumer is an influential Democrat who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Schumer wants to the Justice Department to expand an investigation into the controversial law. More than thirty states have some form of the Castle Doctrine or the Stand Your Ground law on the books. The Castle Doctrine has its roots in English common law under the dictum that “an Englishman’s home is his castle” and the belief that deadly force may be used when a home is invaded.

“I am sending a letter to the Justice Department to ask them to expand their investigation into the general application of these ‘stand your ground’ laws, whether they actually increase, rather than decrease, violence, and whether they actually prevent law enforcement from prosecuting cases where a real crime has been committed,” Schumer said on Monday.

“Given your duty to protect the public, your unique nationwide jurisdiction to conduct an investigation, and your authority to allocate federal resources to state and local law enforcement, I believe that you are warranted and justified in conducting an investigation as to whether these ‘stand your ground laws’ are contributing to excessive uses of force and decreased prosecutions for killings throughout the United States.  I therefore urge you to commence such an investigation at the earliest possible instance,” Schumer added.

Along with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Charles Schumer is at the forefront of an effort to roll back the Second Amendment and deny citizens the right to defend themselves. He has attempted to enforce gun laws by linking the exercise of the Second Amendment to terrorism and has pushed consistently for outlawing “assault weapons.” Schumer has also worked to close down the so-called “Gun Show Loophole” that allows sales of firearms without asking permission from the Attorney General and the federal government.

Florida, where Martin was killed after he allegedly attacked Neighborhood Watch captain George Zimmerman, has refused to shut down its Stand Your Ground law. Gov. Rick Scott has remained mostly silent on the matter and the Florida Legislature’s Senate President Mike Haridopolous rejected the formation of a special committee to review the law.

Read More: www.infowars.com

Prison Is a Booming Business: More Americans In Jail Than Stalin’s Gulag

There are now more Americans in jail — 6 million — than there were in Stalin’s Gulag, reports Fareed Zakaria, in a column called “Incarceration Nation.”

And it’s not just a relative population thing.

The U.S. has 760 prisoners per 100,000 citizens.

How does that compare to other countries?

It’s 7X-10X as high:
Japan has 63 per 100,000,
Germany has 90 per 100,000
France has 96 per 100,000
South Korea has 97 per 100,000
­Britain has 153 per 100,000

And it’s also a relatively new phenomenon: In 1980, the U.S. only had 150 prisoners per 100,000 citizens.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-americans-in-jail-2012-3#ixzz1qAhIBLsv

HMMMM?????? The Contracts/Priorities Section Smells Bad

EXECUTIVE ORDER

NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws
of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950,
as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3,
United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United
States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

PART I  -  PURPOSE, POLICY, AND IMPLEMENTATION

Section 101Purpose.  This order delegates authorities
and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense
Production Act of 1950, as amended (the “Act”).

Sec. 102Policy.  The United States must have an
industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense
requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its
national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.  The
domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national
defense preparedness.  The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to
strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national
defense needs of the United States.

Sec. 103General Functions.  Executive departments and
agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national
defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and
services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:

(a)  identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including
essential military and civilian demand;

(b)  assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and
technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national
emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical
resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers,
materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

(c)  be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the
United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate
resources and production capability, including services and critical technology,
for national defense requirements;

(d)  improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial
base to support national defense requirements; and

(e)  foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for
research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components,
and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

Sec. 104Implementation.  (a)  The National Security
Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic
Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and
formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make
recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.

(b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(1)  advise the President on issues of national
defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions
delegated by this order;

(2)  provide for the central coordination of
the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under
this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this
order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and

(3)  report to the President periodically
concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.

(c)  The Defense Production Act Committee, described in
section 701 of this order, shall:

(1)  in a manner consistent with section 2(b)
of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant
to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President
for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President
for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act;
and

(2)  prepare and coordinate an annual report to
the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).

(d)  The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies,
shall:

(1)  analyze potential effects of national
emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire
production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended
preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in
national emergencies; and

(2)  perform industry analyses to assess
capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop
policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific
domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program
needs.

PART II  -  PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS

Sec. 201Priorities and Allocations Authorities.  (a)
The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C.
App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders
(other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over
performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials,
services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the
national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1)  the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food
resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources,
plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and
commercial fertilizer;

(2)  the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of
energy;

(3)  the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect
to health resources;

(4)  the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all
forms of civil transportation;

(5)  the Secretary of Defense with respect to water
resources; and

(6)  the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other
materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

(b)  The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of
this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to
prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by
which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both
emergency and non-emergency conditions.  Each Secretary shall authorize the
heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts
and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs
approved under section 202 of this order.

(c)  Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon
requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this
order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand.  In
situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources,
the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required
determination under section 202 of this order.  Such Secretary shall coordinate
with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to
prioritize on the basis of operational urgency.  In situations involving more
than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of
this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource
department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of
operational urgency.

(d)  If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the
issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President
and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland
Security and Counterterrorism.

(e)  The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make
the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b).
This finding shall be submitted for the President’s approval through the
Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to
the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.  Upon such approval,
the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the
authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the
general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the
civilian market.

Sec. 202Determinations.  Except as provided in
section 201(e) of this order, the authority delegated by section 201 of this
order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing
as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:

(a)  by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military
production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military
use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense,
space, and directly related activities;

(b)  by the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy
production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related
activities; and

(c)  by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to
all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of
Government.

Sec. 203Maximizing Domestic Energy Supplies.  The
authorities of the President under section 101(c)(1) (2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C.
App. 2071(c)(1) (2), are delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, with the
exception that the authority to make findings that materials (including
equipment), services, and facilities are critical and essential, as described in
section 101(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(2)(A), is delegated to
the Secretary of Energy.

Sec. 204Chemical and Biological Warfare.  The
authority of the President conferred by section 104(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C.
App. 2074(b), is delegated to the Secretary of Defense.  This authority may not
be further delegated by the Secretary.

PART III  -  EXPANSION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND SUPPLY

Sec. 301Loan Guarantees.  (a)  To reduce current or
projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials
essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in
procurement for the national defense, as defined in section 801(h) of this
order, is authorized pursuant to section 301 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, to
guarantee loans by private institutions.

(b)  Each guaranteeing agency is designated and authorized to:  (1) act as
fiscal agent in the making of its own guarantee contracts and in otherwise
carrying out the purposes of section 301 of the Act; and (2) contract with any
Federal Reserve Bank to assist the agency in serving as fiscal agent.

(c)  Terms and conditions of guarantees under this authority shall be
determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  The guaranteeing agency is
authorized, following such consultation, to prescribe:  (1) either specifically
or by maximum limits or otherwise, rates of interest, guarantee and commitment
fees, and other charges which may be made in connection with such guarantee
contracts; and (2) regulations governing the forms and procedures (which shall
be uniform to the extent practicable) to be utilized in connection
therewith.

Sec. 302Loans.  To reduce current or projected
shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for
the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the
national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302
of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder.  Terms and conditions
of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.

Sec. 303Additional Authorities.  (a)  To create,
maintain, protect, expand, or restore domestic industrial base capabilities
essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in
procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President
under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, to make provision for
purchases of, or commitments to purchase, an industrial resource or a critical
technology item for Government use or resale, and to make provision for the
development of production capabilities, and for the increased use of emerging
technologies in security program applications, and to enable rapid transition of
emerging technologies.

(b)  Materials acquired under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093,
that exceed the needs of the programs under the Act may be transferred to the
National Defense Stockpile, if, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense as
the National Defense Stockpile Manager, such transfers are in the public
interest.

Sec. 304Subsidy Payments.  To ensure the supply of
raw or nonprocessed materials from high cost sources, or to ensure maximum
production or supply in any area at stable prices of any materials in light of a
temporary increase in transportation cost, the head of each agency engaged in
procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President
under section 303(c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(c), to make subsidy
payments, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director
of OMB.

Sec. 305Determinations and Findings.  (a)  Pursuant
to budget authority provided by an appropriations act in advance for credit
assistance under section 301 or 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, and
consistent with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended (FCRA), 2
U.S.C. 661 et seq., the head of each agency engaged in procurement for
the national defense is delegated the authority to make the determinations set
forth in sections 301(a)(2) and 302(b)(2) of the Act, in consultation with the
Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order;
provided, that such determinations shall be made after due consideration of the
provisions of OMB Circular A 129 and the credit subsidy score for the relevant
loan or loan guarantee as approved by OMB pursuant to FCRA.

State of Political Race Twitter Style …

and a bonus…

Congressional Budget Office: This is Not Funny Anymore…

The nation’s fiscal path is “unsustainable,” and the problem “cannot be solved through minor tinkering,” the head of the Congressional Budget Office said Thursday morning.

Doug Elmendorf, best known for arbitrating the costs of various health care proposals, added his voice to a growing chorus of economic experts who predict dire consequences if political leaders don’t scale back spending, increase taxes or both — and soon.

Elmendorf noted a recent CBO report that pegged an increase in the public debt from $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion at the end of 2020 if President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget were to be implemented as written. As a percentage of gross domestic product, the debt would rise from 53 percent to 90 percent, CBO forecasted. The last time the percentage was that high was right after World War II.