My sources for this piece are: the previously cited PBS Frontline documentaries The Warning, Breaking the Bank, and Inside the Meltdown; also, a syndicated article by David Sirota, TARP on Steroids.
When Brooksley Born, the woman who formerly headed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under Clinton, proposed regulating the then obscure market of Over-the-Counter Derivatives, she essentially was shut down by Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and others in a series of private meetings and Congressional Hearings. [See The Warning.] A decade or so later, the "toxic" OTC Derivatives played a major role in the recent financial meltdown. Ms. Born, who was ridiculed in the late '90s, was vindicated in 2008-2009. Alan Greenspan, the wizard who seemingly could do no economic wrong, finally had to admit that he was totally wrong in constantly pushing for zero regulation of the Wall Street bankers. Arthur Levitt, former head of the SEC, has admitted publicly that he was wrong about Brooksley Born...and has praised her profusely. He is no longer a power in DC.
What about Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, the financial/economic titans who castigated Born during the Clinton days while relentlessly pushing for zero constraints on the Wall Street Bandits during the Clinton and Bush years...what happened to them? As you may know, they have top economic/financial posts in the Obama Administration. Prior to that, along with Hank Paulson, they were the main architects of the now infamous bank bailouts---one of the greatest heists in modern history. Geithner is now the Treasury Secretary, and Summers is again a top economic advisor to the President of the United States. WOW! What punishment for being so wrong in the past. They are still in positions where they can funnel money to their former Wall Street cronies.
Funny I should mention that. Currently there's a legislative bill known as the Financial Stability Improvement Act. Basically, it's another TARP-in-the-making (Troubled Assets Relief Program), or as Representative Brad Sherman calls it, "TARP on steroids". The bill is being pushed hard by the Obama Administration, especially by Summers and Geithner. More bailouts for Fat-Cats are coming, while the average citizen continues to be gouged by banks because those banks are rushing to beat the regulations taking effect in February. Most people with credit cards (including me) have noticed that their interest rates have skyrocketed up for no good reason.
So it would appear that there is not much "change" from the Bush years regarding OTC Derivatives (still unregulated) and the bailing out of the big, elite bankers (who contribute about equally to Repub and Dem election campaigns). Why am I not surprised.
What does surprise me, though, is the amount of chicanery that we tolerate from national politicians. Here's a thought: in the next election, vote out ALL INCUMBENTS. If things don't improve after that, then in the following election, vote out ALL INCUMBENTS. Etc. How much do we have to take before we see the need for an entirely clean slate? Someone please tell me.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
"A Fool's Game for the Masses"
It's really gratifying to see that I'm not the only one who writes about the two major political parties in this country being a fraud:
http://blog.independent.org/2009/10/12/partisan-politics-%e2%80%93-a-fools-game-for-the-masses/
I couldn't have said it better.
So, some ask, what's to be done? There are those who advocate the violent overthrow of the central government. We have that Right under the conditions expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and those conditions seem to exist presently (and for quite a number of years). I am NOT suggesting that course of action, for the simple reason that most likely it would not succeed. Peaceful revolution is a much better option.
Elsewhere on this Blog I've encouraged boycott of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, that course is problematic not because it wouldn't succeed, but rather because most likely it will never get started.
Here's another option; this one could materialize AND succeed. Pressure Congress to live up to its duty to call an Article V Convention. More than two-thirds of the State Legislatures have applied for such a Convention, but Congress has ignored its Constitutional mandate to call the Convention. http://foavc.org/
Before you buy into the completely lame excuses for Congress failing to do its duty in that regard, be sure to read this---
http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60
If the above link does not work, go to http://foavc.org/ and click on "F.A.Q", on the left side of the Home page (scroll down).
An Article V Convention seems to me to be the best available first step in bringing about a much needed, peaceful Revolution in this country. The next step would be to launch a blitz ad campaign aimed at our so-called "representatives" in DC, the purpose of which would be to make it clear that certain proposed Amendments (an Article V Convention only can propose Amendments) are the will of We the People...and if they're not ratified, heads will roll (so to speak). Although there is NO same-subject requirement in Article V, well over two-thirds of the State Legislatures already have applied for a Convention in order to propose a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress has ignored their applications.
It's time to force the DC politicos to adhere to the U.S. Constitution.
http://blog.independent.org/2009/10/12/partisan-politics-%e2%80%93-a-fools-game-for-the-masses/
I couldn't have said it better.
So, some ask, what's to be done? There are those who advocate the violent overthrow of the central government. We have that Right under the conditions expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and those conditions seem to exist presently (and for quite a number of years). I am NOT suggesting that course of action, for the simple reason that most likely it would not succeed. Peaceful revolution is a much better option.
Elsewhere on this Blog I've encouraged boycott of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, that course is problematic not because it wouldn't succeed, but rather because most likely it will never get started.
Here's another option; this one could materialize AND succeed. Pressure Congress to live up to its duty to call an Article V Convention. More than two-thirds of the State Legislatures have applied for such a Convention, but Congress has ignored its Constitutional mandate to call the Convention. http://foavc.org/
Before you buy into the completely lame excuses for Congress failing to do its duty in that regard, be sure to read this---
http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60
If the above link does not work, go to http://foavc.org/ and click on "F.A.Q", on the left side of the Home page (scroll down).
An Article V Convention seems to me to be the best available first step in bringing about a much needed, peaceful Revolution in this country. The next step would be to launch a blitz ad campaign aimed at our so-called "representatives" in DC, the purpose of which would be to make it clear that certain proposed Amendments (an Article V Convention only can propose Amendments) are the will of We the People...and if they're not ratified, heads will roll (so to speak). Although there is NO same-subject requirement in Article V, well over two-thirds of the State Legislatures already have applied for a Convention in order to propose a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress has ignored their applications.
It's time to force the DC politicos to adhere to the U.S. Constitution.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Devastating National Debt
Our national debt is somewhere in the neighborhood of eleven trillion dollars. During the reign of George W. Bush, the debt almost tripled in size. According to a PBS Frontline piece (Ten Trillion and Counting), under Obama and the Democrats, the national debt will grow at a faster rate than it did under Bush. By the end of this year, it will be almost thirteen trillion dollars.
American voters keep electing politicians---both Democrats and Republicans--- who believe in institutionalized deficit spending. Dick Cheney's view (a direct quote) was: "Deficits don't matter." Medicare Part D (drug coverage), ramrodded through by the Bush Administration and criticized as being a gift to large drug companies, is an "entitlement" law that will cost sixty billion dollars this year alone. Remember the bank bailouts, and their architect, Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson? The price tag on those was close to a trillion dollars, if I recall correctly. [Paulson, by the way, was an elite Wall Street investment banker before he was Treasury Secretary.] Essentially, we now have the nine largest banks in this country nationalized by the Fed Government; that's how Frontline's piece, Inside the Meltdown, characterizes the situation. The largest insurance company in the world, AIG (American International Group), also was nationalized---the Feds own 80% of it. It is intimately connected to banking because AIG writes policies insuring that large investment banks in the U.S. and around the world will not go bankrupt.
Under Obama we have the so-called "Recovery Stimulus Plan". I believe the initial cost is about one trillion dollars. $787 billion already has been added to the national debt. According to the OMB, this year's annual budget deficit will be $1.7 trillion, the largest annual deficit in our history. All of this doesn't even consider the cost of any health care legislation.
By 2017, the total national debt (not the annual deficit) is projected to be $21 trillion. Shortly thereafter, it will reach $23 trillion, and then will be more than the economic output of the entire country. Our largest creditor, China, already has stated that it's concerned about the economic viability of the United States. Every day the Fed Government "sells" its debt---that's government-speak for borrowing money. What happens when no one any longer comes to the "sale"?
Government has over-promised relative to "benefits". Either taxes have to be substantially increased, or promised "benefits" have to be substantially reduced...or both.
American voters keep electing politicians---both Democrats and Republicans--- who believe in institutionalized deficit spending. Dick Cheney's view (a direct quote) was: "Deficits don't matter." Medicare Part D (drug coverage), ramrodded through by the Bush Administration and criticized as being a gift to large drug companies, is an "entitlement" law that will cost sixty billion dollars this year alone. Remember the bank bailouts, and their architect, Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson? The price tag on those was close to a trillion dollars, if I recall correctly. [Paulson, by the way, was an elite Wall Street investment banker before he was Treasury Secretary.] Essentially, we now have the nine largest banks in this country nationalized by the Fed Government; that's how Frontline's piece, Inside the Meltdown, characterizes the situation. The largest insurance company in the world, AIG (American International Group), also was nationalized---the Feds own 80% of it. It is intimately connected to banking because AIG writes policies insuring that large investment banks in the U.S. and around the world will not go bankrupt.
Under Obama we have the so-called "Recovery Stimulus Plan". I believe the initial cost is about one trillion dollars. $787 billion already has been added to the national debt. According to the OMB, this year's annual budget deficit will be $1.7 trillion, the largest annual deficit in our history. All of this doesn't even consider the cost of any health care legislation.
By 2017, the total national debt (not the annual deficit) is projected to be $21 trillion. Shortly thereafter, it will reach $23 trillion, and then will be more than the economic output of the entire country. Our largest creditor, China, already has stated that it's concerned about the economic viability of the United States. Every day the Fed Government "sells" its debt---that's government-speak for borrowing money. What happens when no one any longer comes to the "sale"?
Government has over-promised relative to "benefits". Either taxes have to be substantially increased, or promised "benefits" have to be substantially reduced...or both.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
"Obama's War" in Afghanistan
PBS Frontline has an online video that is a preview of a full piece airing later this month, Obama's War. The preview is gritty, with graphic imagery and graphic language. As I watched it, it became obvious that the similarities between the Vietnam War and the Afghan War are striking.
The Viet Cong (VC) were insurgents. The Taliban are insurgents. Eventually the Vietnam War turned to "winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese". General Petraeus very recently announced his "Full Spectrum Operation", which is focused on doing the same thing relative to the Afghans. The VC largely avoided major frontal engagements with the US military; instead, they utilized sniping, ambushes, land mines, etc. The Taliban are (for the most part) doing the same thing. In Vietnam, General Westmoreland kept calling for more and more troops. The same thing (with a different General) is happening regarding Afghanistan. In Vietnam, the VC terrorized the local villagers; in Afghanistan, the Taliban are doing the same thing. The Vietnam War was long and grueling; the Afghan War is entering its NINTH year. Eventually, public opinion in the USA turned against the Vietnam War. Public opinion is finally beginning to turn against the Afghan War as well. Quite rightly, people are beginning to ask, "What is our purpose there?".
The Generals and other officers interviewed on the Frontline piece stated that our purpose in Afghanistan is now to "protect the People from the Taliban". According to those officers, that is our primary purpose. If that's the case, does anyone see this war ever ending? Another legitimate question would be: what happens when we leave the country? Or better yet, does anyone see us ever leaving Afghanistan? If we did, would not the Taliban (who unquestionably are fanatics) simply continue on in our absence?
It is my belief that the next troop increase will be substantially more than the last increase, and that the increases will continue. Essentially, we will become the Afghan Police Force, with no end in sight. On second thought, apparently we are already the Afghan Police Force.
It is long past time to get out of both Iraq AND Afghanistan. It makes no sense to believe that we can be the Police Force of the world. Even if we wanted to do that, we can't afford it.
The Viet Cong (VC) were insurgents. The Taliban are insurgents. Eventually the Vietnam War turned to "winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese". General Petraeus very recently announced his "Full Spectrum Operation", which is focused on doing the same thing relative to the Afghans. The VC largely avoided major frontal engagements with the US military; instead, they utilized sniping, ambushes, land mines, etc. The Taliban are (for the most part) doing the same thing. In Vietnam, General Westmoreland kept calling for more and more troops. The same thing (with a different General) is happening regarding Afghanistan. In Vietnam, the VC terrorized the local villagers; in Afghanistan, the Taliban are doing the same thing. The Vietnam War was long and grueling; the Afghan War is entering its NINTH year. Eventually, public opinion in the USA turned against the Vietnam War. Public opinion is finally beginning to turn against the Afghan War as well. Quite rightly, people are beginning to ask, "What is our purpose there?".
The Generals and other officers interviewed on the Frontline piece stated that our purpose in Afghanistan is now to "protect the People from the Taliban". According to those officers, that is our primary purpose. If that's the case, does anyone see this war ever ending? Another legitimate question would be: what happens when we leave the country? Or better yet, does anyone see us ever leaving Afghanistan? If we did, would not the Taliban (who unquestionably are fanatics) simply continue on in our absence?
It is my belief that the next troop increase will be substantially more than the last increase, and that the increases will continue. Essentially, we will become the Afghan Police Force, with no end in sight. On second thought, apparently we are already the Afghan Police Force.
It is long past time to get out of both Iraq AND Afghanistan. It makes no sense to believe that we can be the Police Force of the world. Even if we wanted to do that, we can't afford it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Big, Meaningless Squabble
As a Libertarian, it is often amusing to watch "Conservatives" & "Liberals" squabble. It's so meaningless---there's almost nothing left of the Republic of the United States to squabble about. It has been taken from us while well-intentioned folks argue over which side of an obsolete political spectrum is best for the country. And it has been taken from us by people who think way beyond those outdated labels---Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat.
I've mostly given up hope that Americans who believe in the Republic will ever get out of the purposefully distracting Conservative-Liberal rut. Until they do so, there is no chance whatsoever for this country to once again be a free society...the way our liberal Founders intended it to be.
Machiavelli (whose works are greatly admired by Ledeen, Pearl, Feith, & other once prominent NeoConservative strategists), Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Goebbels, and other Totalitarians all had a formula for the State being able to control the masses: give the People an Enemy (Capitalism, Communism, Hunger, Terrorism, Lack of Health Care, etc.), promote fear of that Enemy, and then take away unalienable rights in the name of Protection and Safety. Both modern-day Conservatives and Liberals do exactly that, although sometimes in completely different ways. The end result is: the State is the Master; the People are the servants.
Wake up, Amerika.
I've mostly given up hope that Americans who believe in the Republic will ever get out of the purposefully distracting Conservative-Liberal rut. Until they do so, there is no chance whatsoever for this country to once again be a free society...the way our liberal Founders intended it to be.
Machiavelli (whose works are greatly admired by Ledeen, Pearl, Feith, & other once prominent NeoConservative strategists), Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Goebbels, and other Totalitarians all had a formula for the State being able to control the masses: give the People an Enemy (Capitalism, Communism, Hunger, Terrorism, Lack of Health Care, etc.), promote fear of that Enemy, and then take away unalienable rights in the name of Protection and Safety. Both modern-day Conservatives and Liberals do exactly that, although sometimes in completely different ways. The end result is: the State is the Master; the People are the servants.
Wake up, Amerika.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Is It a Conspiracy?
Here's an email that I sent not long ago to several internet friends---
I hope you realize that the power structure I'm talking about is NOT a conspiracy. It's right out in the open. David Rockefeller described it publicly in the early '90s. It's an ever-changing bunch of super-rich Elites who happen to have mutual interests, common goals, and who work (both independently and cooperatively) to achieve a mutually desired result. The result they're after is the virtual elimination of worldwide poverty, disease, and war. According to Rockefeller, they believe that can be best achieved by virtually eliminating nations and by having regional govts run by unelected business managers, instead of by corrupt, elected politicians. Rockefeller said that the American people are now "sophisticated enough" to recognize the value of that setup. They firmly believe that they are doing good for the world. The fact that they are getting rich in the process is just a secondary benefit in their minds. Most of these people really are altruists, or at least, sincerely see themselves that way. The only organization that is common to all of them is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); and I suspect that for some of them, membership in the CFR is viewed strictly and only as a requirement to get ahead both politically and financially. The Right Wing thinks only Lefties are members. What a joke---there are just as many Right Wingers in the CFR as there are Left Wingers.
This is not the Bilderberg Conspiracy, or any similar crap. These people Rockefeller is talking about are the movers & shakers of the financial and political worlds. They are not secretive; they're well-known and well-respected. They don't even attempt to hide their support of Globalization...because they believe it is a good thing, and will be the salvation of the world. And they don't care one whit whether their "partners" are Democrats or Republicans. Those labels are no longer important to the people who actually rule this nation.
As long as folks keep focusing their energy on Right Wing v. Left Wing, the Globalization of this country will continue unabated. Eventually the USA will exist in name only. Rights as we once knew them will be history. Economic prosperity will be diverted to poorer parts of the world...even more than it already is...a lot more.
Meanwhile, my Conservative friends (who feel exactly about the Left as you do about the Right) and folks like yourself will still be bad-mouthing each other, and thinking they know who the "enemy" is...who it is that's bad for this country. It's almost comical. Any national politician with any sense at all of his/her financial & political well-being has joined the Globalization bandwagon a long time ago. Right Wing, Left Wing...it doesn't matter.
When your grandchildren are your age, most of the world will be better off economically than it is now, but your grandkids won't be if they still live in this country. That's not a Doomsday scenario...because most of the world will be better off. We currently have about 5% of the world's population, and consume almost 50% of its resources. The Rockefellers, et. al. are in the process of changing that. They're doing it openly...and no one is paying any attention. Instead, they're arguing about which faction of an outdated political spectrum is best for the USA. The whole thing is tragic.
I hope you realize that the power structure I'm talking about is NOT a conspiracy. It's right out in the open. David Rockefeller described it publicly in the early '90s. It's an ever-changing bunch of super-rich Elites who happen to have mutual interests, common goals, and who work (both independently and cooperatively) to achieve a mutually desired result. The result they're after is the virtual elimination of worldwide poverty, disease, and war. According to Rockefeller, they believe that can be best achieved by virtually eliminating nations and by having regional govts run by unelected business managers, instead of by corrupt, elected politicians. Rockefeller said that the American people are now "sophisticated enough" to recognize the value of that setup. They firmly believe that they are doing good for the world. The fact that they are getting rich in the process is just a secondary benefit in their minds. Most of these people really are altruists, or at least, sincerely see themselves that way. The only organization that is common to all of them is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); and I suspect that for some of them, membership in the CFR is viewed strictly and only as a requirement to get ahead both politically and financially. The Right Wing thinks only Lefties are members. What a joke---there are just as many Right Wingers in the CFR as there are Left Wingers.
This is not the Bilderberg Conspiracy, or any similar crap. These people Rockefeller is talking about are the movers & shakers of the financial and political worlds. They are not secretive; they're well-known and well-respected. They don't even attempt to hide their support of Globalization...because they believe it is a good thing, and will be the salvation of the world. And they don't care one whit whether their "partners" are Democrats or Republicans. Those labels are no longer important to the people who actually rule this nation.
As long as folks keep focusing their energy on Right Wing v. Left Wing, the Globalization of this country will continue unabated. Eventually the USA will exist in name only. Rights as we once knew them will be history. Economic prosperity will be diverted to poorer parts of the world...even more than it already is...a lot more.
Meanwhile, my Conservative friends (who feel exactly about the Left as you do about the Right) and folks like yourself will still be bad-mouthing each other, and thinking they know who the "enemy" is...who it is that's bad for this country. It's almost comical. Any national politician with any sense at all of his/her financial & political well-being has joined the Globalization bandwagon a long time ago. Right Wing, Left Wing...it doesn't matter.
When your grandchildren are your age, most of the world will be better off economically than it is now, but your grandkids won't be if they still live in this country. That's not a Doomsday scenario...because most of the world will be better off. We currently have about 5% of the world's population, and consume almost 50% of its resources. The Rockefellers, et. al. are in the process of changing that. They're doing it openly...and no one is paying any attention. Instead, they're arguing about which faction of an outdated political spectrum is best for the USA. The whole thing is tragic.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
"Political Correctness"
Social engineers and their unwitting dupes have been attempting to impose Political Correctness (PC) on us for quite a number of years. PC proponents, whether in the workplace, Uncle TOM (Tired Old Media), or the Government, are attempting to make conformist drones out of all of us. The reason is simple: we then will be easier to manipulate.
PC indirectly says: you have no right to be an individual if what you say or do might offend someone else's delicate sensibilities; you have no right to be blunt or rude, or to have a weird sense of humor. Well, piss on that. There is NO SUCH THING as the Right to not be offended or insulted, whether deserved or not. Sorry, social engineers, that right does not exist. If you don't like my sense of humor, or bluntness, or rudeness, or poor use of generalization, that's just too damned bad. Feel free to avoid me. If you can't avoid me, then just ignore me. But you have no right to muzzle me; I'm not infringing on your genuine rights, or on your property. It takes all kinds of people to make up this world...including those who are rude, or those with a strange sense of humor. Live with it.
[And by the way, stop jumping to conclusions---just because I make a joke about Polish people, or Irish folks, or Mexicans, or bald people, or fat people, or uptight management types, or short people, or tall people, or blondes, or rednecks, or cowboys, or Indians, or city folks, or young squirts, or old farts, or government bureaucrats, or ANYONE, does not mean that I'm anti-any of them, or that I'm an unworthy person. If you don't like it, just ignore it. If you're too psychologically weak to do that, then that's your problem, not mine. Plus, did it ever occur to anyone that one of the purposes of making an ethnic joke (as an example) is to demonstrate that those who believe the contents of the joke are idiots?! Maybe that's too subtle for some people.]
PC indirectly says: you have no right to be an individual if what you say or do might offend someone else's delicate sensibilities; you have no right to be blunt or rude, or to have a weird sense of humor. Well, piss on that. There is NO SUCH THING as the Right to not be offended or insulted, whether deserved or not. Sorry, social engineers, that right does not exist. If you don't like my sense of humor, or bluntness, or rudeness, or poor use of generalization, that's just too damned bad. Feel free to avoid me. If you can't avoid me, then just ignore me. But you have no right to muzzle me; I'm not infringing on your genuine rights, or on your property. It takes all kinds of people to make up this world...including those who are rude, or those with a strange sense of humor. Live with it.
[And by the way, stop jumping to conclusions---just because I make a joke about Polish people, or Irish folks, or Mexicans, or bald people, or fat people, or uptight management types, or short people, or tall people, or blondes, or rednecks, or cowboys, or Indians, or city folks, or young squirts, or old farts, or government bureaucrats, or ANYONE, does not mean that I'm anti-any of them, or that I'm an unworthy person. If you don't like it, just ignore it. If you're too psychologically weak to do that, then that's your problem, not mine. Plus, did it ever occur to anyone that one of the purposes of making an ethnic joke (as an example) is to demonstrate that those who believe the contents of the joke are idiots?! Maybe that's too subtle for some people.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)