CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday he could nationalize private banks unless they comply with the law, adding he had “no problem with that because the banks don’t want to extend credit to the poor.”

In a broadcast from nationalized farmland in central Venezuela, he said: “To all the country’s private bankers … (I’m saying) he who slips up loses; I’ll take over the bank, whatever its size.”

“You want me to nationalize the banks?” he said during the broadcast of his weekly TV show “Alo Presidente.”

“I have no problem with that because the banks don’t want to extend credit to the poor, they don’t comply, they don’t want to comply with the bank’s purpose for existence, and that is the law.”

Chavez said the purpose of banks was not to enrich a small group of people but “should be to collect funds and savings to help aid the country’s development by making loans, extending credits for housing.”

In power for a decade, Chavez has nationalized broad swathes of the economy.

His banking nationalization threats on Sunday appeared to be broader in scope than his well-publicized warnings in recent years to nationalize Spanish-owned banks in Venezuela.

He repeatedly threatened to seize Spanish bank subsidiaries in Venezuela unless Spain’s king apologized for telling him to “shut up” in November 2007 at a regional summit where Chavez branded a recent ex-Spanish prime minister a fascist.

But the only major private bank, foreign or Venezuelan, to fall into state hands under Chavez’s rule was Spain’s Banco Santander unit Banco de Venezuela, sold to Venezuela in July for $1.05 billion.

The government’s last banking takeover was on November 20, when it seized four small banks, accounting for about 6 percent of Venezuela’s deposits.

Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez then said the move stemmed from concerns about credit portfolios, problems explaining the source of funds and failure to comply with some obligations.
For the rest of the story please go here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091129/wl_nm/us_venezuela_banks_chavez_1

Face Forward Comments:
We run a large number of stories about Chavez and there is a reason behind it.  If you look at the pattern of what he has done in Venezuela you will see a striking resemblance to what is happening in the USA.

When you say, “it could never happen here”, did you ever think the government would own GM, fine you for not having health insurance, or have a man with and Islamic name as president?  Probably not.

The thing that is so much more worrisome about the Obama Administration is that he already has the majority of the lawmakers (Democrats) supporting him.  The first step in preventing a complete takeover of our government by the left is a change in 2010.  We must vote out people that believe in big government and big spending.

Ahmadinejad to Chavez: ‘We’re going to be together until the end’

“We feel at home here and among our brothers … we’re going to be together until the end,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez during a visit to Latin America on Wednesday.”

Both leaders roundly denounced US “imperialism,” and Chavez also called Israel “a murderous arm of the Yankee empire.”

Chavez said he had just returned from an unannounced visit to Cuba, where he met with his mentor Fidel Castro as well as President Raul Castro. “They asked me to give you a hug for them,” he told Ahmadinejad.

Also during Ahmadinejad’s visit, the two leaders agreed on the inception of a direct flight route between Teheran and Caracas, according to a report by AFP.

From the Jereusalem Post:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259010985964&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Chavez and Ahmadinejad Sign Agreements, Rip U.S.

CARACAS – The presidents of Venezuela and Iran, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, respectively, continued consolidating a relationship that the former called “exemplary,” signing new accords and giving speeches defending their cooperation and criticizing the United States.

In a signing ceremony for several joint projects at Miraflores Palace, the two leaders agreed that “accusations of violence” against them were a “joke” before confirming that their cooperation was designed to “build (a good) life” for their people and denouncing Washington’s responsibility in conflicts and crisis situations around the world.

“In truth, it seems like a joke that they are accusing us of violence,” asserted Chavez, echoing the words spoken shortly before that by his Iranian counterpart.

The two men responded to U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly, who had said that he hoped that Caracas would emphasize to Ahmadinejad “the concerns that the international community has regarding his nuclear program, his presumed support for terrorism and the situation of human rights.”

The Iranian leader said that the true concern lies in “the nuclear and chemical arsenals,” as well as the repeated “threats of military invasion,” referring to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On numerous occasions during the more than three hours that the ceremony lasted, both men denounced those who “are attacking” them, a clear allusion to the United States, which they called the “Yankee empire,” and they confirmed that the cooperation of their two countries is being pursued in the “service of the people.”

At the ceremony at Miraflores, which ended about 10 p.m. on Wednesday, Chavez and Ahmadinejad presided at the signing of 12 cooperation agreements in the areas of energy, transportation and housing, among others, after holding a meeting behind closed doors for more than three hours.

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=348071&CategoryId=10717

There is no way he can grow the government without attracting more lobbyists and more political acrimony.

By FRED BARNES – WSJ

One insight distinguished Barack Obama from the other presidential candidates last year. While he lacked experience or a special grasp of issues, Mr. Obama said he uniquely understood what ails Washington, and what was causing the endless squabbling and bitter stalemate on important issues. If elected, he said he would change the way business is done in Washington, end the partisan deadlock and the ideological polarization.

“Change must come to Washington,” Mr. Obama said in a June 2008 speech. “I have consistently said when it comes to solving problems,” he told Jake Tapper of ABC News that same month, “I don’t approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective.”

Mr. Obama also decried the prominent role played by lobbyists. “Lobbyists aren’t just a part of the system in Washington, they’re part of the problem,” Mr. Obama said in a May 2008 campaign speech.

I was reminded of this last statement by a recent headline on the front page of USA Today. It read: “Health care fight swells lobbying. Number of organizations hiring firms doubles in ‘09.” The article suggested that what Mr. Obama had promised to fix had only gotten worse.

Indeed that’s the case. Washington is more partisan than ever, and more polarized. Even on a purely procedural vote to begin Senate debate on health-care reform this past Saturday, every Democrat voted one way (yes), every Republican the other (no).

With rare exception and with no objection from the president, Democrats draft bills with no input from Republicans. In return, Republicans vote in lockstep against Democratic legislation. Every House Republican voted against the stimulus, all but one against liberal health-care reform, and all but eight against cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House earlier this year.

Why has the president’s publicly expressed vision of a kinder, gentler Washington failed to materialize? I think Mr. Obama—while hardly the only person at fault—is chiefly responsible.

He might have spawned a different Washington, a less divided town with Democrats firmly in charge but Republicans actively involved. The bonus for Mr. Obama and Democrats would be higher popularity and better prospects in 2010 midterm elections. Instead, the president made three strategic mistakes—or, really, misreadings of the political landscape—and they’ve come back to haunt him and his party.

First, Mr. Obama misread the meaning of the 2008 election. It wasn’t a mandate for a liberal revolution. His victory was a personal one, not an ideological triumph of liberalism. Yet Mr. Obama, his aides and Democratic leaders in Congress have treated it as a mandate to radically change policy directions in this country. They are pushing forward one liberal initiative after another. As a result, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has dropped along with the popularity of his agenda.

Second, Mr. Obama misread his own ability to sway the public. He is a glib, cool, likeable speaker whose sentences have subjects and verbs. During the campaign, he gave dazzling speeches about hope and change that excited voters. His late-night speech at a Democratic dinner in Des Moines on Nov. 10, 2007, prior to the Iowa caucuses, convinced me he’d win the presidential nomination.

Third, Mr. Obama misread Republicans. They felt weak and vulnerable after losing two straight congressional elections and watching John McCain’s presidential bid fall flat. They were afraid to criticize the newly elected president. If he had offered them minimal concessions, many of them would have jumped aboard his policies. If that had happened, the president could have boasted of achieving bipartisan compromise on the stimulus and other policies. He let the chance slip away.

Red the entire well written article at The Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574555471947300090.html

Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.

Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated.

 ”They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth,” he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme.

“If there’s an explanation for what’s going on they can make that explanation.”

Around 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents were stolen from UEA computers by hackers last week and uploaded on to a Russian server before circulating on websites run by climate change sceptics.

Some of the correspondence indicates that the manipulation of data was widespread among global warming researchers.

One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre’s director, in 1999, reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

For the rest of this article please go here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6634282/Lord-Lawson-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-UEA-global-warming-data-manipulation.html

Face Forward Comments:

Wow, who would have thought that climate scientist would lie to us?   Do you think it had anything to do with them be threatened with research grants being cut off if the didn’t turn in the “right” data?

This is very damaging to the perpetrators of the “Global Warming Hoax”.  Rather than face the public, in a open forum, I am sure they will hide behind the news releases and a PR campaign.