Recently I read an article stating that in compliance with the Dodd Frank regulation bill, banks are being sent out a questionnaire to determine if they are “systemically important.” Let me jump to conclusions here, and state that “systemically important” seems to be a euphemism for “too big to fail.”
I can foresee a few problems here. The first is that the whole concept is flawed. As my friend, economist Yuri Maltsev says, “There is no such thing as TBTF-Too Big Too Fail” in his discussion of the bank bailouts of the recent past. “What we really have with these institutions is TBNTF-Too Big NOT to Fail.”¬¬¬
A second problem is that “systemically important¬¬¬ may be decided politically, just as saving the auto companies was more to preserve the votes of union employees than any economic consideration. My guess is that firms “systemically important” to the Democrat Party and Obama are likely to be preferred over others.

The misnamed WI Government Accountability Board is taking up the issue of who shall be allowed to challenge recall signatures, even as this is written. It seems that Kevin Kennedy, head of GAB wants to limit the ability to challenge to those who submitted the recall signatures, and those being recalled. He wants to disallow challenges by independent people and groups, such as the Grandsons of Liberty, and We the People of the Republic who have done much to analyze the signatures. It is hard to imagine a proposal more absurd. This is like only allowing the robber and the owner of the bank to testify as to what happened during a bank robbery, and to disregard evidence presented by the police as well as eye witnesses to the robbery.

Newt is hyping himself, with some considerable help from media types as THE "not-Romney" deserving of the nomination. Yesterday a story broke about his ex-wife coming forward, telling among other things, how Newt wanted an "open marriage." Titilating to be sure, but as a number of critics point out, there are no perfect people much less candidates, and does this story really have anything to say about Newt's qualifications for office? The good news for me is that I do not have to get down in the dirt, engage in the "he said/she said" stuff. There are plenty of reasons to oppose the candidacy of Newt.

Early on in the movement, I crossed Tea Party Patriots off my list of organizations that I, as a Tea Partier could support. Why you ask? In large part, because Newt Gingrich was one of their spokesmen. I thought it a bad joke to hear Sean Hannity say so many times, "We have to hold the feet of newly elected Republican congressmen to the fire, and now, here to talk about that, is NEWT GINGRICH??????? (Emphasis added.) Newt is one of the more spectacular liars and hypocrites of our time. He pretends to be conservative, yet has little appreciation for the constitution, limited government, and invidual freedom. Newt lionizes FDR, thinks government should be involved in our economy, promoted useless "national greatness" public works projects, and got rich as a lobbyist. NOPE, not my kind of Republican. But given all that it came as no surprise when in a recent straw poll, TPP members gave Newt and Romney more than 51% of votes.

This video speaks for itself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU