NO CON CON !!
BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING
TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
HELP US STOP A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!
Dear Friend,
Barack Obama and his allies are trying to change the U.S. Constitution WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT PROCESS -- in fact, they're trying to rewrite the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION -- and they're close to succeesing!
What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, which repealed the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Free Speech?
What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which repealed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Keep and Bear Arms? (A right that the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld!)
"That could never happen," you say. "No one would allow it!" Right? Well...
Did you know that there are TWO ways that our Constitution can be changed? And did you know that Pelosi, Reid and Barack Obama are using the less well-known way, without having to actually introduce amendments?
IT'S TRUE -- and WE have to stop it NOW!
One way to change the Constitution is to go through the amendment process -- a long and tedious process requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress to pass an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states to ratify it.
That means a "super-majority" of our representatives at the National and State levels would have to be in favor of the amendment -- which safeguards us from the possibility of really "bad" amendments.
BUT... there is one other way that our Constitution can be changed... and it DOES NOT require all of those elected representatives to be in favor of it. It's called a Constitutional Convention, and all that it requires is 34 states to ask Congress to call one.
In fact, right now, all that is needed is for two more states to ask for a Constitutional Convention... and the basic law of the land could be changed forever by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid!
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
Most people don't realize that Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention (a "Con Con") if two-thirds (or 34) of the states request it. We've only had one other "Con Con" in our history: the one where the original Constitution was written in 1787!
The language of Article V is mandatory: it says that Congress "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" whenever requests are received from two-thirds of the states. Note that the word "amendments" is used in the plural. These are the only instructions we have about a Constitutional Convention. There are no other rules or guidelines.
We don't know how a Constitutional Convention would be apportioned, or how the delegates would be elected. We don't know what rules the Convention would operate under. We don't know whether changes to the Constitution could be proposed by a simple majority, or would require a super majority, of those attending. We don't know if the agenda could be limited or would be wide open to any proposal.
We don't know ANYTHING about how a Con Con would work -- which means that it will come down to Congress setting the rules!
And Congress is controlled by the most radically liberal Democrats in American history! Is that who we want to be in charge of a new Constitutional Convention?
Do we want BARACK OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI, and HARRY REID to completely rewrite our most basic document of law?
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
The fact is, under the vague language of Article V, a Constitutional Convention cannot be limited. It would be wide open, and able to consider ANY change in the Constitution that was proposed!
Former U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."
The Stanford Law School Professor whose case-book is used in the majority of U.S. law schools, Gerald Gunther, said that, even if Congress tried to limit the Convention to one subject, the delegates could decide for themselves that the Convention "is entitled to set its own agenda."
This means that, even if supporters of a "Con Con" claim that the convention would only cover one issue -- whether it's a balanced budget amendment or removing the requirement that to be eligible to serve as President, one must be a "natural born citizen," or anything else -- there is NO WAY to stop the Convention from changing EVERYTHING that we hold dear in America!
Barack Obama and his far-left supporters would be able to get THEIR people appointed as delegates to the Convention, so that THEIR agendas would be the Convention's agenda, and THEIR plans for socialism in America would come to pass.
Say BYE-BYE to the First Amendment's freedom of speech -- Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity could be taken off the air.
Say BYE-BYE to the Second Amendment's right to bear arms -- a total gun ban could be the law of the land!
Say BYE-BYE to the Constitution's requirement that to serve as President a man or a woman must be a "natural born citizen"!
You KNOW that's what they'll do if given the chance -- and we're only TWO STATES AWAY from seeing a Constitutional Convention convened!
You see, Article V says that it takes a request from two-thirds of the states to force a "Con Con" -- but it doesn't say there's any time limit on getting to that total!
Thirty-two states have already issued a call for a "Con Con" over the last few decades, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
It only takes 34 states to REQUIRE a Constitutional Convention be convened!
Some states, like Georgia, Virginia, and others, have since voted to "rescind" their call for a "Con Con" -- BUT no one is sure whether those "rescission" votes are actually Constitutional...so the danger is REAL!
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
The United States Justice Foundation is launching a major campaign to STOP a "Con Con" from taking place -- WE MUST CREATE a tremendous outpouring of publicity and public scrutiny to be given to this danger, so that Barack Obama and his radical liberal allies can't "sneak this past us" without anyone noticing, until it's too late. Right now, our staff is conducting legal and historical research, and preparing legal opinions, to submit to every state legislature, if necessary, and we'll be offering to represent any state, or state legislator, in fighting the Con-Con based on those documents.
We're also going to be leading a grassroots effort to attack this issue at both the state and federal levels: At the state level, leading the charge in every state to either NOT VOTE for a "Con Con" (if they haven't voted yet) or to RESCIND their past vote in favor (if they have). And, at the federal level, we'll be mobilizing citizens across the country to contact their Representatives and Senators to DEMAND that they come out, NOW, and announce their support for a state's right to rescind, and that they won't support a call for a "Con-Con." In addition, we'll be calling on the Attorney General of the United States, and the Attorney General of each and every State that has passed a "Con-Con" resolution, to issue an official Opinion on the legality of rescission.
THIS DANGER IS REAL. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called for the exclusive purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Once the Founding Fathers assembled in Philadelphia, however, they threw out the Articles of Confederation and wrote an entirely new Constitution, and even changed the ratification procedure so they could get it adopted more easily. The 1787 Convention is the only precedent we have for a national Constitutional Convention.
There's no guarantee that all of the changes to our Constitution passed at a Constitutional Convention would need to be ratified by 34 states this time -- if a "Con Con" can change our structure of government as defined in Articles I, II, and III, of the Constitution, then it can also change the Article V requirement that three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify any changes. The Convention of 1787 reduced the number of states required to ratify a change from 100% of the states to 75%, and a Convention today could "follow their example" and reduce it further, to 66%, or 60%, or even 51%!
WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!
There's very little time to ramp this project up to FULL SPEED -- we need to raise at least $100,000 to prepare and distribute legal opinions, lobby state legislators and begin our grassroots activism campaign this coming month. let's STOP Obama, Pelosi and Reid from ripping our Constitution to shreds, and re-writing it to their own socialist goals!
Sincerely,
Gary Kreep, Executive Director
United States Justice Foundation
P.S. President Barack Obama has already expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events. Can you imagine what he and his supporters would DO to that document if given the chance to re-write it completely? Our Bill of Rights could disappear overnight!
In fact, all the way back in 2006, Obama already had his lawyers researching how someone could get around the eligibility requirements to serve as U.S. President -- these people simply don't CARE about whether we preserve the supreme law of the land!
Remember -- when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a whole new Constitution.
That's EXACTLY what Obama, Pelosi and Reid would do this time -- but this time, the result would destroy our freedoms. Please, help us STOP them. Thank you!
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
RAISE HELL WITH YOUR STATE REPS NOW !!
SCARE THEM BACK TO SANITY !
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
RECAP
> So, Let's Recap-- >
> 1. The American people elect a black president with a total of 142 days experience as a
> US Senator from the most politically corrupt state in America whose governor is
> ousted from office.
The President's first official act is to order the
> close of Gitmo and make sure terrorists civil rights are not violated. (He screwed
> up!!)
>
> 2. The U.S. Congress rushes to confirm a black Attorney General, Eric Holder, whose law firm we later found out
> represents seventeen Gitmo Terrorists. (An honest mistake?!)
>
> 3. The CIA Boss appointee, Leon Panetta, has absolutely no experience, has
> a daughter Linda, we find out, who is a true radical anti-American activist and
> a supporter of all the Anti-American regimes in the western hemisphere. (There
> were socio-economic factors involved!)
>
> 4. We got the second most corrupt American woman (Pelosi is #1) as Secretary of State; bought and paid
> for. (You can put lipstick on a pig, but it still stinks!)
>
> 5.. We got a Tax Cheat for Treasury Secretary who did not properly file his
> own taxes for 12 years. (He misspoke!)
>
> 6. A Commerce Secretary nominee who withdrew due to corruption charges. (Another honest
> mistake???)
>
> 7. A Tax cheat nominee for Chief Performance Officer who withdrew under charges. (Hmmm... another
> screw-up?)
>
> 8. A Labor Secretary nominee who withdrew under charges of unethical conduct. (Ok, maybe this person was
> just plain stupid.)
>
> 9. A Secretary HHS nominee (Daschle) who withdrew under charges of cheating on his taxes. (I'm running
> out of excuses for these idiots!!)
>
> 10. Multiple appointments of former lobbyists after an absolute campaign statement that no lobbyists would be
> appointed. (Dear God, I need a drink!)
>
> All this occurred just during the first three weeks. . . but who's counting?
>
> America is being run by the modern-day Three Stooges ; Barry, Nancy and Harry and
> they are still trying to define stimulus..."it's spending!!!"
>
> The congress passes the $800,000,000,000 (that's $800 billion) pork-loaded
> spending bill where the government gives you a smidgen of your tax dollars ($13 per
> week), making you feel so good about yourself [stimulated], that you want to
> run out to Wal-Mart and buy a new Chinese-made HDTV and go home and watch
> Telemundo!
>
> Only in America , what a country....
>
> Pray for our country. Here's the good news though - Obama took Air Force One to Denver to sign the stimulus
> package, wasting as much as 10,000 gallons of fuel OR 24 JOBS FOR ONE YEAR.
> Don't you just love this hypocrite?(This MAY have been written b4 the DATE to New York and the trip for Michele and the Kids to Paris!!)
>
> Speaking of praying, Obama has now been president for seven
> months and yet he & wife (first lady) Michelle, the
> claim to be
>
>
>
>
>
Christian family they , have not attended church since the inauguration. He must miss Reverend Wright!
In these times 'I'll keep my God, my freedom, my gun and my money. Anyone that supports this insanity can
> keep "THE CHANGE".'
> 1. The American people elect a black president with a total of 142 days experience as a
> US Senator from the most politically corrupt state in America whose governor is
> ousted from office.
The President's first official act is to order the
> close of Gitmo and make sure terrorists civil rights are not violated. (He screwed
> up!!)
>
> 2. The U.S. Congress rushes to confirm a black Attorney General, Eric Holder, whose law firm we later found out
> represents seventeen Gitmo Terrorists. (An honest mistake?!)
>
> 3. The CIA Boss appointee, Leon Panetta, has absolutely no experience, has
> a daughter Linda, we find out, who is a true radical anti-American activist and
> a supporter of all the Anti-American regimes in the western hemisphere. (There
> were socio-economic factors involved!)
>
> 4. We got the second most corrupt American woman (Pelosi is #1) as Secretary of State; bought and paid
> for. (You can put lipstick on a pig, but it still stinks!)
>
> 5.. We got a Tax Cheat for Treasury Secretary who did not properly file his
> own taxes for 12 years. (He misspoke!)
>
> 6. A Commerce Secretary nominee who withdrew due to corruption charges. (Another honest
> mistake???)
>
> 7. A Tax cheat nominee for Chief Performance Officer who withdrew under charges. (Hmmm... another
> screw-up?)
>
> 8. A Labor Secretary nominee who withdrew under charges of unethical conduct. (Ok, maybe this person was
> just plain stupid.)
>
> 9. A Secretary HHS nominee (Daschle) who withdrew under charges of cheating on his taxes. (I'm running
> out of excuses for these idiots!!)
>
> 10. Multiple appointments of former lobbyists after an absolute campaign statement that no lobbyists would be
> appointed. (Dear God, I need a drink!)
>
> All this occurred just during the first three weeks. . . but who's counting?
>
> America is being run by the modern-day Three Stooges ; Barry, Nancy and Harry and
> they are still trying to define stimulus..."it's spending!!!"
>
> The congress passes the $800,000,000,000 (that's $800 billion) pork-loaded
> spending bill where the government gives you a smidgen of your tax dollars ($13 per
> week), making you feel so good about yourself [stimulated], that you want to
> run out to Wal-Mart and buy a new Chinese-made HDTV and go home and watch
> Telemundo!
>
> Only in America , what a country....
>
> Pray for our country. Here's the good news though - Obama took Air Force One to Denver to sign the stimulus
> package, wasting as much as 10,000 gallons of fuel OR 24 JOBS FOR ONE YEAR.
> Don't you just love this hypocrite?(This MAY have been written b4 the DATE to New York and the trip for Michele and the Kids to Paris!!)
>
> Speaking of praying, Obama has now been president for seven
> months and yet he & wife (first lady) Michelle, the
> claim to be
>
>
>
>
>
Christian family they , have not attended church since the inauguration. He must miss Reverend Wright!
In these times 'I'll keep my God, my freedom, my gun and my money. Anyone that supports this insanity can
> keep "THE CHANGE".'
Friday, August 28, 2009
S.773
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
Declan McCullagh
Aug,28, 2009
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
WHEN IT COMES FROM A ROCKEFELLER, IT'S NO GOOD FOR US USELESS EATERS. GUARANTEED !
Declan McCullagh
Aug,28, 2009
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
WHEN IT COMES FROM A ROCKEFELLER, IT'S NO GOOD FOR US USELESS EATERS. GUARANTEED !
Thursday, August 27, 2009
AUDIT AND SEIZE
Racketeering 101: Bailed Out Banks Threaten Systemic Collapse If Fed Discloses Information
Zero Hedge
August 27, 2009
And so the guns come out blazing. The Clearing House Association, another name for all the banks that were bailed out over the past year with the generous contributions from all of you, dear taxpayers, are now threatening with another instance of complete systemic collapse if Bloomberg’s lawsuit is allowed to proceed unchallenged, let alone if any of the “Audit The Fed” measures are actually implemented.
As a reminder, The Clearing House Association consists of ABN Amro, Bank Of America, The Bank Of New York, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank and Wells Fargo.
In a declaration filed in the Bloomberg Case (08-CV-9595, Southern District of New York), the banks demonstrate no shame in attempting to perpetuate the status quo with regard to the Federal Reserve and demand that the wool over the eyes of the general population remain firmly planted in perpetuity.
The Clearing House submits this declaration because the Court’s Order threatens to impair the ability of our members to access emergency funds through the New York Fed’s Discount Window without suffering the severe competitive harm that public disclosure of their identity will cause.
Our members have accessed the New York Fed’s Discount Window with the understanding that the Fed will not publicly disclose information about their borrowing, especially their identity. Industry experience, including very recent and searing experience, has shown that negative rumors about a bank’s financial condition – even completely unfounded rumors – have caused competitive harm, including bank runs and failures.
Surely transparency would facilitate rumor-mongering to an unprecedented degree. After all rumors spread much easier when everyone knows the true financial condition of banks.
And here, in plain written Times New Roman, you see what racketeering by a major bank consortium looks like:
If the names of our member banks who borrow emergency funds are publicly disclosed, the likelihood that a borrowing bank’s customers, counterparties and other market participants will draw a negative inference is great. Public speculation that a financial institution is experiencing liquidity shortfalls – which would be a natural inference from having tapped emergency funds – has caused bank customers to withdraw deposits, counterparties to make collateral calls and lenders to accelerate loan repayment or refuse to make new loans. When an institution’s customers flee and its credit dries up the institution may suffer severe capital and liquidity strains leaving it in a weakened competitive position.
Pardon me if I am a broken record here, but would rumors not spread much less if there was more transparency, if investors and other financial intermediaries were fully aware of the conditions of their counterparties, if banks did not have to cover their billions in reserve losses by pretending they are viable and essentially being constant wards of the state?
The Banks’ racketeering has gone on for far too long.
And yet, it does not stop: the conclusion from the banks’ letter:
In sum, our experience differs from the factual conclusions the Court appears to have reached about the nature of competition in the banking industry:
• The competitive harm to institutions that are publicized as needing emergency funding is not “speculative,” but demonstrated by the recent multiple failures of financial institutions whenever information about their funding difficulty has been disclosed.
•The disclosure does not involve mere “embarassing publicity” but information that could result in the immediate demise of an institution.
•The disclosure would not merely “stigmatize [ ]“the institution or make it “look [ ] weak,” but goes to its very viability.
•The disclosure of accessing emergency funding is not an “inherent risk” of market participation, but an extraordinary risk in extraordinary circumstances.
•Competitors can use the disclosure to advertise or publicize that they are financial stronger because they don’t need emergency funding.
In a nutshell – the banks want their complete opacity cake and eat it too, or else, the racket goes, the transparency that will somehow promote massive rumor mongering will again destroy capitalism. In the meantime, the Ken Lewises of the world can continue touting how stable their businesses are based on optimistic future projections, while implicitly, they continue to survive merely thanks to the cash granted them by your, taxpayers.
DON'T BACK DOWN, AUDIT THE FED THEN TAX AND PENALIZE THEM FOR THEIR 96 UNTAXED YEARS OF EXISTENCE.
SEIZE THEIR FUNDS,
TAKE BACK CONTROL OF THE TREASURY !
Zero Hedge
August 27, 2009
And so the guns come out blazing. The Clearing House Association, another name for all the banks that were bailed out over the past year with the generous contributions from all of you, dear taxpayers, are now threatening with another instance of complete systemic collapse if Bloomberg’s lawsuit is allowed to proceed unchallenged, let alone if any of the “Audit The Fed” measures are actually implemented.
As a reminder, The Clearing House Association consists of ABN Amro, Bank Of America, The Bank Of New York, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank and Wells Fargo.
In a declaration filed in the Bloomberg Case (08-CV-9595, Southern District of New York), the banks demonstrate no shame in attempting to perpetuate the status quo with regard to the Federal Reserve and demand that the wool over the eyes of the general population remain firmly planted in perpetuity.
The Clearing House submits this declaration because the Court’s Order threatens to impair the ability of our members to access emergency funds through the New York Fed’s Discount Window without suffering the severe competitive harm that public disclosure of their identity will cause.
Our members have accessed the New York Fed’s Discount Window with the understanding that the Fed will not publicly disclose information about their borrowing, especially their identity. Industry experience, including very recent and searing experience, has shown that negative rumors about a bank’s financial condition – even completely unfounded rumors – have caused competitive harm, including bank runs and failures.
Surely transparency would facilitate rumor-mongering to an unprecedented degree. After all rumors spread much easier when everyone knows the true financial condition of banks.
And here, in plain written Times New Roman, you see what racketeering by a major bank consortium looks like:
If the names of our member banks who borrow emergency funds are publicly disclosed, the likelihood that a borrowing bank’s customers, counterparties and other market participants will draw a negative inference is great. Public speculation that a financial institution is experiencing liquidity shortfalls – which would be a natural inference from having tapped emergency funds – has caused bank customers to withdraw deposits, counterparties to make collateral calls and lenders to accelerate loan repayment or refuse to make new loans. When an institution’s customers flee and its credit dries up the institution may suffer severe capital and liquidity strains leaving it in a weakened competitive position.
Pardon me if I am a broken record here, but would rumors not spread much less if there was more transparency, if investors and other financial intermediaries were fully aware of the conditions of their counterparties, if banks did not have to cover their billions in reserve losses by pretending they are viable and essentially being constant wards of the state?
The Banks’ racketeering has gone on for far too long.
And yet, it does not stop: the conclusion from the banks’ letter:
In sum, our experience differs from the factual conclusions the Court appears to have reached about the nature of competition in the banking industry:
• The competitive harm to institutions that are publicized as needing emergency funding is not “speculative,” but demonstrated by the recent multiple failures of financial institutions whenever information about their funding difficulty has been disclosed.
•The disclosure does not involve mere “embarassing publicity” but information that could result in the immediate demise of an institution.
•The disclosure would not merely “stigmatize [ ]“the institution or make it “look [ ] weak,” but goes to its very viability.
•The disclosure of accessing emergency funding is not an “inherent risk” of market participation, but an extraordinary risk in extraordinary circumstances.
•Competitors can use the disclosure to advertise or publicize that they are financial stronger because they don’t need emergency funding.
In a nutshell – the banks want their complete opacity cake and eat it too, or else, the racket goes, the transparency that will somehow promote massive rumor mongering will again destroy capitalism. In the meantime, the Ken Lewises of the world can continue touting how stable their businesses are based on optimistic future projections, while implicitly, they continue to survive merely thanks to the cash granted them by your, taxpayers.
DON'T BACK DOWN, AUDIT THE FED THEN TAX AND PENALIZE THEM FOR THEIR 96 UNTAXED YEARS OF EXISTENCE.
SEIZE THEIR FUNDS,
TAKE BACK CONTROL OF THE TREASURY !
AUDIT AND SEIZE
Racketeering 101: Bailed Out Banks Threaten Systemic Collapse If Fed Discloses Information
Zero Hedge
August 27, 2009
And so the guns come out blazing. The Clearing House Association, another name for all the banks that were bailed out over the past year with the generous contributions from all of you, dear taxpayers, are now threatening with another instance of complete systemic collapse if Bloomberg’s lawsuit is allowed to proceed unchallenged, let alone if any of the “Audit The Fed” measures are actually implemented.
As a reminder, The Clearing House Association consists of ABN Amro, Bank Of America, The Bank Of New York, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank and Wells Fargo.
In a declaration filed in the Bloomberg Case (08-CV-9595, Southern District of New York), the banks demonstrate no shame in attempting to perpetuate the status quo with regard to the Federal Reserve and demand that the wool over the eyes of the general population remain firmly planted in perpetuity.
The Clearing House submits this declaration because the Court’s Order threatens to impair the ability of our members to access emergency funds through the New York Fed’s Discount Window without suffering the severe competitive harm that public disclosure of their identity will cause.
Our members have accessed the New York Fed’s Discount Window with the understanding that the Fed will not publicly disclose information about their borrowing, especially their identity. Industry experience, including very recent and searing experience, has shown that negative rumors about a bank’s financial condition – even completely unfounded rumors – have caused competitive harm, including bank runs and failures.
Surely transparency would facilitate rumor-mongering to an unprecedented degree. After all rumors spread much easier when everyone knows the true financial condition of banks.
And here, in plain written Times New Roman, you see what racketeering by a major bank consortium looks like:
If the names of our member banks who borrow emergency funds are publicly disclosed, the likelihood that a borrowing bank’s customers, counterparties and other market participants will draw a negative inference is great. Public speculation that a financial institution is experiencing liquidity shortfalls – which would be a natural inference from having tapped emergency funds – has caused bank customers to withdraw deposits, counterparties to make collateral calls and lenders to accelerate loan repayment or refuse to make new loans. When an institution’s customers flee and its credit dries up the institution may suffer severe capital and liquidity strains leaving it in a weakened competitive position.
Pardon me if I am a broken record here, but would rumors not spread much less if there was more transparency, if investors and other financial intermediaries were fully aware of the conditions of their counterparties, if banks did not have to cover their billions in reserve losses by pretending they are viable and essentially being constant wards of the state?
The Banks’ racketeering has gone on for far too long.
And yet, it does not stop: the conclusion from the banks’ letter:
In sum, our experience differs from the factual conclusions the Court appears to have reached about the nature of competition in the banking industry:
• The competitive harm to institutions that are publicized as needing emergency funding is not “speculative,” but demonstrated by the recent multiple failures of financial institutions whenever information about their funding difficulty has been disclosed.
•The disclosure does not involve mere “embarassing publicity” but information that could result in the immediate demise of an institution.
•The disclosure would not merely “stigmatize [ ]“the institution or make it “look [ ] weak,” but goes to its very viability.
•The disclosure of accessing emergency funding is not an “inherent risk” of market participation, but an extraordinary risk in extraordinary circumstances.
•Competitors can use the disclosure to advertise or publicize that they are financial stronger because they don’t need emergency funding.
In a nutshell – the banks want their complete opacity cake and eat it too, or else, the racket goes, the transparency that will somehow promote massive rumor mongering will again destroy capitalism. In the meantime, the Ken Lewises of the world can continue touting how stable their businesses are based on optimistic future projections, while implicitly, they continue to survive merely thanks to the cash granted them by your, taxpayers.
DON'T BACK DOWN, AUDIT THE FED THEN TAX AND PENALIZE THEM FOR THEIR 96 UNTAXED YEARS OF EXISTENCE.
SEIZE THEIR FUNDS,
TAKE BACK CONTROL OF THE TREASURY !
Zero Hedge
August 27, 2009
And so the guns come out blazing. The Clearing House Association, another name for all the banks that were bailed out over the past year with the generous contributions from all of you, dear taxpayers, are now threatening with another instance of complete systemic collapse if Bloomberg’s lawsuit is allowed to proceed unchallenged, let alone if any of the “Audit The Fed” measures are actually implemented.
As a reminder, The Clearing House Association consists of ABN Amro, Bank Of America, The Bank Of New York, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank and Wells Fargo.
In a declaration filed in the Bloomberg Case (08-CV-9595, Southern District of New York), the banks demonstrate no shame in attempting to perpetuate the status quo with regard to the Federal Reserve and demand that the wool over the eyes of the general population remain firmly planted in perpetuity.
The Clearing House submits this declaration because the Court’s Order threatens to impair the ability of our members to access emergency funds through the New York Fed’s Discount Window without suffering the severe competitive harm that public disclosure of their identity will cause.
Our members have accessed the New York Fed’s Discount Window with the understanding that the Fed will not publicly disclose information about their borrowing, especially their identity. Industry experience, including very recent and searing experience, has shown that negative rumors about a bank’s financial condition – even completely unfounded rumors – have caused competitive harm, including bank runs and failures.
Surely transparency would facilitate rumor-mongering to an unprecedented degree. After all rumors spread much easier when everyone knows the true financial condition of banks.
And here, in plain written Times New Roman, you see what racketeering by a major bank consortium looks like:
If the names of our member banks who borrow emergency funds are publicly disclosed, the likelihood that a borrowing bank’s customers, counterparties and other market participants will draw a negative inference is great. Public speculation that a financial institution is experiencing liquidity shortfalls – which would be a natural inference from having tapped emergency funds – has caused bank customers to withdraw deposits, counterparties to make collateral calls and lenders to accelerate loan repayment or refuse to make new loans. When an institution’s customers flee and its credit dries up the institution may suffer severe capital and liquidity strains leaving it in a weakened competitive position.
Pardon me if I am a broken record here, but would rumors not spread much less if there was more transparency, if investors and other financial intermediaries were fully aware of the conditions of their counterparties, if banks did not have to cover their billions in reserve losses by pretending they are viable and essentially being constant wards of the state?
The Banks’ racketeering has gone on for far too long.
And yet, it does not stop: the conclusion from the banks’ letter:
In sum, our experience differs from the factual conclusions the Court appears to have reached about the nature of competition in the banking industry:
• The competitive harm to institutions that are publicized as needing emergency funding is not “speculative,” but demonstrated by the recent multiple failures of financial institutions whenever information about their funding difficulty has been disclosed.
•The disclosure does not involve mere “embarassing publicity” but information that could result in the immediate demise of an institution.
•The disclosure would not merely “stigmatize [ ]“the institution or make it “look [ ] weak,” but goes to its very viability.
•The disclosure of accessing emergency funding is not an “inherent risk” of market participation, but an extraordinary risk in extraordinary circumstances.
•Competitors can use the disclosure to advertise or publicize that they are financial stronger because they don’t need emergency funding.
In a nutshell – the banks want their complete opacity cake and eat it too, or else, the racket goes, the transparency that will somehow promote massive rumor mongering will again destroy capitalism. In the meantime, the Ken Lewises of the world can continue touting how stable their businesses are based on optimistic future projections, while implicitly, they continue to survive merely thanks to the cash granted them by your, taxpayers.
DON'T BACK DOWN, AUDIT THE FED THEN TAX AND PENALIZE THEM FOR THEIR 96 UNTAXED YEARS OF EXISTENCE.
SEIZE THEIR FUNDS,
TAKE BACK CONTROL OF THE TREASURY !
AUDIT AND SEIZE
Racketeering 101: Bailed Out Banks Threaten Systemic Collapse If Fed Discloses Information
Zero Hedge
August 27, 2009
And so the guns come out blazing. The Clearing House Association, another name for all the banks that were bailed out over the past year with the generous contributions from all of you, dear taxpayers, are now threatening with another instance of complete systemic collapse if Bloomberg’s lawsuit is allowed to proceed unchallenged, let alone if any of the “Audit The Fed” measures are actually implemented.
As a reminder, The Clearing House Association consists of ABN Amro, Bank Of America, The Bank Of New York, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank and Wells Fargo.
In a declaration filed in the Bloomberg Case (08-CV-9595, Southern District of New York), the banks demonstrate no shame in attempting to perpetuate the status quo with regard to the Federal Reserve and demand that the wool over the eyes of the general population remain firmly planted in perpetuity.
The Clearing House submits this declaration because the Court’s Order threatens to impair the ability of our members to access emergency funds through the New York Fed’s Discount Window without suffering the severe competitive harm that public disclosure of their identity will cause.
Our members have accessed the New York Fed’s Discount Window with the understanding that the Fed will not publicly disclose information about their borrowing, especially their identity. Industry experience, including very recent and searing experience, has shown that negative rumors about a bank’s financial condition – even completely unfounded rumors – have caused competitive harm, including bank runs and failures.
Surely transparency would facilitate rumor-mongering to an unprecedented degree. After all rumors spread much easier when everyone knows the true financial condition of banks.
And here, in plain written Times New Roman, you see what racketeering by a major bank consortium looks like:
If the names of our member banks who borrow emergency funds are publicly disclosed, the likelihood that a borrowing bank’s customers, counterparties and other market participants will draw a negative inference is great. Public speculation that a financial institution is experiencing liquidity shortfalls – which would be a natural inference from having tapped emergency funds – has caused bank customers to withdraw deposits, counterparties to make collateral calls and lenders to accelerate loan repayment or refuse to make new loans. When an institution’s customers flee and its credit dries up the institution may suffer severe capital and liquidity strains leaving it in a weakened competitive position.
Pardon me if I am a broken record here, but would rumors not spread much less if there was more transparency, if investors and other financial intermediaries were fully aware of the conditions of their counterparties, if banks did not have to cover their billions in reserve losses by pretending they are viable and essentially being constant wards of the state?
The Banks’ racketeering has gone on for far too long.
And yet, it does not stop: the conclusion from the banks’ letter:
In sum, our experience differs from the factual conclusions the Court appears to have reached about the nature of competition in the banking industry:
• The competitive harm to institutions that are publicized as needing emergency funding is not “speculative,” but demonstrated by the recent multiple failures of financial institutions whenever information about their funding difficulty has been disclosed.
•The disclosure does not involve mere “embarassing publicity” but information that could result in the immediate demise of an institution.
•The disclosure would not merely “stigmatize [ ]“the institution or make it “look [ ] weak,” but goes to its very viability.
•The disclosure of accessing emergency funding is not an “inherent risk” of market participation, but an extraordinary risk in extraordinary circumstances.
•Competitors can use the disclosure to advertise or publicize that they are financial stronger because they don’t need emergency funding.
In a nutshell – the banks want their complete opacity cake and eat it too, or else, the racket goes, the transparency that will somehow promote massive rumor mongering will again destroy capitalism. In the meantime, the Ken Lewises of the world can continue touting how stable their businesses are based on optimistic future projections, while implicitly, they continue to survive merely thanks to the cash granted them by your, taxpayers.
DON'T BACK DOWN, AUDIT THE FED THEN TAX AND PENALIZE THEM FOR THEIR 96 UNTAXED YEARS OF EXISTENCE.
SEIZE THEIR FUNDS,
TAKE BACK CONTROL OF THE TREASURY !
Zero Hedge
August 27, 2009
And so the guns come out blazing. The Clearing House Association, another name for all the banks that were bailed out over the past year with the generous contributions from all of you, dear taxpayers, are now threatening with another instance of complete systemic collapse if Bloomberg’s lawsuit is allowed to proceed unchallenged, let alone if any of the “Audit The Fed” measures are actually implemented.
As a reminder, The Clearing House Association consists of ABN Amro, Bank Of America, The Bank Of New York, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank and Wells Fargo.
In a declaration filed in the Bloomberg Case (08-CV-9595, Southern District of New York), the banks demonstrate no shame in attempting to perpetuate the status quo with regard to the Federal Reserve and demand that the wool over the eyes of the general population remain firmly planted in perpetuity.
The Clearing House submits this declaration because the Court’s Order threatens to impair the ability of our members to access emergency funds through the New York Fed’s Discount Window without suffering the severe competitive harm that public disclosure of their identity will cause.
Our members have accessed the New York Fed’s Discount Window with the understanding that the Fed will not publicly disclose information about their borrowing, especially their identity. Industry experience, including very recent and searing experience, has shown that negative rumors about a bank’s financial condition – even completely unfounded rumors – have caused competitive harm, including bank runs and failures.
Surely transparency would facilitate rumor-mongering to an unprecedented degree. After all rumors spread much easier when everyone knows the true financial condition of banks.
And here, in plain written Times New Roman, you see what racketeering by a major bank consortium looks like:
If the names of our member banks who borrow emergency funds are publicly disclosed, the likelihood that a borrowing bank’s customers, counterparties and other market participants will draw a negative inference is great. Public speculation that a financial institution is experiencing liquidity shortfalls – which would be a natural inference from having tapped emergency funds – has caused bank customers to withdraw deposits, counterparties to make collateral calls and lenders to accelerate loan repayment or refuse to make new loans. When an institution’s customers flee and its credit dries up the institution may suffer severe capital and liquidity strains leaving it in a weakened competitive position.
Pardon me if I am a broken record here, but would rumors not spread much less if there was more transparency, if investors and other financial intermediaries were fully aware of the conditions of their counterparties, if banks did not have to cover their billions in reserve losses by pretending they are viable and essentially being constant wards of the state?
The Banks’ racketeering has gone on for far too long.
And yet, it does not stop: the conclusion from the banks’ letter:
In sum, our experience differs from the factual conclusions the Court appears to have reached about the nature of competition in the banking industry:
• The competitive harm to institutions that are publicized as needing emergency funding is not “speculative,” but demonstrated by the recent multiple failures of financial institutions whenever information about their funding difficulty has been disclosed.
•The disclosure does not involve mere “embarassing publicity” but information that could result in the immediate demise of an institution.
•The disclosure would not merely “stigmatize [ ]“the institution or make it “look [ ] weak,” but goes to its very viability.
•The disclosure of accessing emergency funding is not an “inherent risk” of market participation, but an extraordinary risk in extraordinary circumstances.
•Competitors can use the disclosure to advertise or publicize that they are financial stronger because they don’t need emergency funding.
In a nutshell – the banks want their complete opacity cake and eat it too, or else, the racket goes, the transparency that will somehow promote massive rumor mongering will again destroy capitalism. In the meantime, the Ken Lewises of the world can continue touting how stable their businesses are based on optimistic future projections, while implicitly, they continue to survive merely thanks to the cash granted them by your, taxpayers.
DON'T BACK DOWN, AUDIT THE FED THEN TAX AND PENALIZE THEM FOR THEIR 96 UNTAXED YEARS OF EXISTENCE.
SEIZE THEIR FUNDS,
TAKE BACK CONTROL OF THE TREASURY !
Monday, August 24, 2009
COMMON SENSE 2009
Common Sense 2009
Larry Flynt
The Huffington Post
August 20, 2009
The American government — which we once called our government — has been taken over by Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich. They are the ones who decide our fate. It is this group of powerful elites, the people President Franklin D. Roosevelt called “economic royalists,” who choose our elected officials — indeed, our very form of government. Both Democrats and Republicans dance to the tune of their corporate masters. In America, corporations do not control the government. In America, corporations are the government.
Here’s what Rockefeller said in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” They’re gaming us. Our country has been stolen from us.
This was never more obvious than with the Wall Street bailout, whereby the very corporations that caused the collapse of our economy were rewarded with taxpayer dollars. So arrogant, so smug were they that, without a moment’s hesitation, they took our money — yours and mine — to pay their executives multimillion-dollar bonuses, something they continue doing to this very day. They have no shame. They don’t care what you and I think about them. Henry Kissinger refers to us as “useless eaters.”
But, you say, we have elected a candidate of change. To which I respond: Do these words of President Obama sound like change?
“A culture of irresponsibility took root, from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street.”
“And a regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20th-century economic crisis — the Great Depression — was overwhelmed by the speed, scope and sophistication of a 21st-century global economy.”
This is nonsense.
The reason Wall Street was able to game the system the way it did — knowing that they would become rich at the expense of the American people (oh, yes, they most certainly knew that) — was because the financial elite had bribed our legislators to roll back the protections enacted after the Stock Market Crash of 1929.
Congress gutted the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial lending banks from investment banks, and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed for self-regulation with no oversight. The Securities and Exchange Commission subsequently revised its rules to allow for even less oversight — and we’ve all seen how well that worked out. To date, no serious legislation has been offered by the Obama administration to correct these problems.
Instead, Obama wants to increase the oversight power of the Federal Reserve. Never mind that it already had significant oversight power before our most recent economic meltdown, yet failed to take action. Never mind that the Fed is not a government agency but a cartel of private bankers that cannot be held accountable by Washington. Whatever the Fed does with these supposed new oversight powers will be behind closed doors.
Obama’s failure to act sends one message loud and clear: He cannot stand up to the powerful Wall Street interests that supplied the bulk of his campaign money for the 2008 election. Nor, for that matter, can Congress, for much the same reason.
Consider what multibillionaire banker David Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 memoirs:
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Read Rockefeller’s words again. He actually admits to working against the “best interests of the United States.”
Need more? Here’s what Rockefeller said in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” They’re gaming us. Our country has been stolen from us.
Journalist Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, notes that esteemed economist John Kenneth Galbraith laid the 1929 crash at the feet of banking giant Goldman Sachs. Taibbi goes on to say that Goldman Sachs has been behind every other economic downturn as well, including the most recent one. As if that wasn’t enough, Goldman Sachs even had a hand in pushing gas prices up to $4 a gallon.
The problem with bankers is longstanding. Here’s what one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had to say about them:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their father’s conquered.”
We all know that the first American Revolution officially began in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. Less well known is that the single strongest motivating factor for revolution was the colonists’ attempt to free themselves from the Bank of England. But how many of you know about the second revolution, referred to by historians as Shays’ Rebellion? It took place in 1786-87, and once again the banks were the cause. This time they were putting the screws to America’s farmers.
Daniel Shays was a farmer in western Massachusetts. Like many other farmers of the day, he was being driven into bankruptcy by the banks’ predatory lending practices. (Sound familiar?) Rallying other farmers to his side, Shays led his rebels in an attack on the courts and the local armory. The rebellion itself failed, but a message had been sent: The bankers (and the politicians who supported them) ultimately backed off. As Thomas Jefferson famously quipped in regard to the insurrection: “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Perhaps it’s time to consider that option once again.
I’m calling for a national strike, one designed to close the country down for a day. The intent? Real campaign-finance reform and strong restrictions on lobbying. Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics. Nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful.
Let’s set a date. No one goes to work. No one buys anything. And if that isn’t effective — if the politicians ignore us — we do it again. And again. And again.
The real war is not between the left and the right. It is between the average American and the ruling class. If we come together on this single issue, everything else will resolve itself. It’s time we took back our government from those who would make us their slaves.
GO LARRY ! ABOUT TIME YOU WOKE UP !
Larry Flynt
The Huffington Post
August 20, 2009
The American government — which we once called our government — has been taken over by Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich. They are the ones who decide our fate. It is this group of powerful elites, the people President Franklin D. Roosevelt called “economic royalists,” who choose our elected officials — indeed, our very form of government. Both Democrats and Republicans dance to the tune of their corporate masters. In America, corporations do not control the government. In America, corporations are the government.
Here’s what Rockefeller said in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” They’re gaming us. Our country has been stolen from us.
This was never more obvious than with the Wall Street bailout, whereby the very corporations that caused the collapse of our economy were rewarded with taxpayer dollars. So arrogant, so smug were they that, without a moment’s hesitation, they took our money — yours and mine — to pay their executives multimillion-dollar bonuses, something they continue doing to this very day. They have no shame. They don’t care what you and I think about them. Henry Kissinger refers to us as “useless eaters.”
But, you say, we have elected a candidate of change. To which I respond: Do these words of President Obama sound like change?
“A culture of irresponsibility took root, from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street.”
“And a regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20th-century economic crisis — the Great Depression — was overwhelmed by the speed, scope and sophistication of a 21st-century global economy.”
This is nonsense.
The reason Wall Street was able to game the system the way it did — knowing that they would become rich at the expense of the American people (oh, yes, they most certainly knew that) — was because the financial elite had bribed our legislators to roll back the protections enacted after the Stock Market Crash of 1929.
Congress gutted the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial lending banks from investment banks, and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed for self-regulation with no oversight. The Securities and Exchange Commission subsequently revised its rules to allow for even less oversight — and we’ve all seen how well that worked out. To date, no serious legislation has been offered by the Obama administration to correct these problems.
Instead, Obama wants to increase the oversight power of the Federal Reserve. Never mind that it already had significant oversight power before our most recent economic meltdown, yet failed to take action. Never mind that the Fed is not a government agency but a cartel of private bankers that cannot be held accountable by Washington. Whatever the Fed does with these supposed new oversight powers will be behind closed doors.
Obama’s failure to act sends one message loud and clear: He cannot stand up to the powerful Wall Street interests that supplied the bulk of his campaign money for the 2008 election. Nor, for that matter, can Congress, for much the same reason.
Consider what multibillionaire banker David Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 memoirs:
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Read Rockefeller’s words again. He actually admits to working against the “best interests of the United States.”
Need more? Here’s what Rockefeller said in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” They’re gaming us. Our country has been stolen from us.
Journalist Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, notes that esteemed economist John Kenneth Galbraith laid the 1929 crash at the feet of banking giant Goldman Sachs. Taibbi goes on to say that Goldman Sachs has been behind every other economic downturn as well, including the most recent one. As if that wasn’t enough, Goldman Sachs even had a hand in pushing gas prices up to $4 a gallon.
The problem with bankers is longstanding. Here’s what one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had to say about them:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their father’s conquered.”
We all know that the first American Revolution officially began in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. Less well known is that the single strongest motivating factor for revolution was the colonists’ attempt to free themselves from the Bank of England. But how many of you know about the second revolution, referred to by historians as Shays’ Rebellion? It took place in 1786-87, and once again the banks were the cause. This time they were putting the screws to America’s farmers.
Daniel Shays was a farmer in western Massachusetts. Like many other farmers of the day, he was being driven into bankruptcy by the banks’ predatory lending practices. (Sound familiar?) Rallying other farmers to his side, Shays led his rebels in an attack on the courts and the local armory. The rebellion itself failed, but a message had been sent: The bankers (and the politicians who supported them) ultimately backed off. As Thomas Jefferson famously quipped in regard to the insurrection: “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Perhaps it’s time to consider that option once again.
I’m calling for a national strike, one designed to close the country down for a day. The intent? Real campaign-finance reform and strong restrictions on lobbying. Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics. Nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful.
Let’s set a date. No one goes to work. No one buys anything. And if that isn’t effective — if the politicians ignore us — we do it again. And again. And again.
The real war is not between the left and the right. It is between the average American and the ruling class. If we come together on this single issue, everything else will resolve itself. It’s time we took back our government from those who would make us their slaves.
GO LARRY ! ABOUT TIME YOU WOKE UP !
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
NO SEMSE OF HUMOR
Florida News Report on Obama Joker “Vandalism”
Kurt Nimmo
August 11, 2009
WFTV in Florida aired a report today on Infowars Obama Joker posters glued to Post Office mailboxes. “A vocal and graphic Internet campaign attacking President Barack Obama just hit Central Florida and one of its first targets was a U.S. Post Office,” the news station reports. “Several Lake County residents called WFTV when they spotted the ‘Joker’ posters on stop signs and saw workers scraping them off the post office in Clermont.”
Many Americans no longer has the stomach for political satire and parody.
See the news report including a video on the WFTV website.
Alex Jones and Infowars have stated that Obama Joker posters should not be posted on government or private property. The posters should be posted only in legal public commons areas where other posters, fliers, handbills, etc., are posted.
WFTV claims residents and the postmaster were “deeply offended” by the posters. “I’ve been with the Postal Service for 30 years now,” he said. “I’ve never seen anything this insensitive,” said the postmaster, Willie Montgomery.
Mr. Montgomery was not specific, although it would seem he considers the satirical and critical parody of Obama to be insensitive. Montgomery and the residents of Clermont may not realize it, but political satire and parody have a long history dating back well before the author Jonathan Swift wrote his A Modest Proposal in 1729. Political cartoons were instrumental in the American Revolutionary War. Scathing political cartoons appeared in Ben Franklin’s newspaper The Pennsylvania Gazette and the Massachusetts Centinel. In the 1870s, cartoonist Thomas Nast published a series of illustrations lampooning the Tammany Ring, the Democratic Party political machine that played a major role in controlling New York City politics.
The Obama as Joker meme fits in that esteemed tradition — and may be considered “subvertisement” of a popular Hollywood movie as well — but then history is lost on a dumbed-down public all too ready to fawn and grovel at the feet of political leaders who betray them at every turn.
Indeed, the point is to “deeply offend” the sensibilities and get people to think about what Obama stands for and the people he represents.
Our rulers were shrewd when they selected Obama to be president — they understood the politically correct mechanism at work in American society, an ethic inculcated over the last three decades. It will now be considered a racist crime to criticize and parody Barack Obama. How long before this criticism and disagreement becomes a punishable crime?
BREATHING IS ALREADY TAXABLE.NEXT IS PUNISHABLE !
Kurt Nimmo
August 11, 2009
WFTV in Florida aired a report today on Infowars Obama Joker posters glued to Post Office mailboxes. “A vocal and graphic Internet campaign attacking President Barack Obama just hit Central Florida and one of its first targets was a U.S. Post Office,” the news station reports. “Several Lake County residents called WFTV when they spotted the ‘Joker’ posters on stop signs and saw workers scraping them off the post office in Clermont.”
Many Americans no longer has the stomach for political satire and parody.
See the news report including a video on the WFTV website.
Alex Jones and Infowars have stated that Obama Joker posters should not be posted on government or private property. The posters should be posted only in legal public commons areas where other posters, fliers, handbills, etc., are posted.
WFTV claims residents and the postmaster were “deeply offended” by the posters. “I’ve been with the Postal Service for 30 years now,” he said. “I’ve never seen anything this insensitive,” said the postmaster, Willie Montgomery.
Mr. Montgomery was not specific, although it would seem he considers the satirical and critical parody of Obama to be insensitive. Montgomery and the residents of Clermont may not realize it, but political satire and parody have a long history dating back well before the author Jonathan Swift wrote his A Modest Proposal in 1729. Political cartoons were instrumental in the American Revolutionary War. Scathing political cartoons appeared in Ben Franklin’s newspaper The Pennsylvania Gazette and the Massachusetts Centinel. In the 1870s, cartoonist Thomas Nast published a series of illustrations lampooning the Tammany Ring, the Democratic Party political machine that played a major role in controlling New York City politics.
The Obama as Joker meme fits in that esteemed tradition — and may be considered “subvertisement” of a popular Hollywood movie as well — but then history is lost on a dumbed-down public all too ready to fawn and grovel at the feet of political leaders who betray them at every turn.
Indeed, the point is to “deeply offend” the sensibilities and get people to think about what Obama stands for and the people he represents.
Our rulers were shrewd when they selected Obama to be president — they understood the politically correct mechanism at work in American society, an ethic inculcated over the last three decades. It will now be considered a racist crime to criticize and parody Barack Obama. How long before this criticism and disagreement becomes a punishable crime?
BREATHING IS ALREADY TAXABLE.NEXT IS PUNISHABLE !
THROW THE SCUM OUT OF POLITICS
More Congressmen Involved In Countrywide “Sweetheart” Loans Scandal
By Dolores M. Bernal
Aug 9, 2009
Tremendously under-reported this weekend was the story of how some members of Congress have been under investigation for getting “sweetheart” VIP loans from Countrywide Financial — the home mortgage company that led the pack of other financial institutions to the housing bubble last year.
The network that gets credit for doing their job is CBS News, which reported on Friday that the list of “influential” Democrats and Republicans that received VIP loans from Countrywide continues to grow. The latest congressman being investigated is Edolphus Towns, a democrat from New York.
According to CBS News:
That’s significant because Towns, a Democrat, heads the committee investigating the mortgage giant’s practices. And he personally is blocking the effort to subpoena Countrywide documents.
Republicans are also being investigated, but it seems like the biggest names of suspects come from the Democratic party. Senator Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad have been on the spotlight of the ethics probe.
The Senate’s Ethics Committee received a complaint from the watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethic in Washington (CREW), to investigate Dodd and Conrad for the “sweetheart” loans they received from Countrywide. But the committee dismissed the complaint. CREW Executive Director was outraged and issued this news release on Friday:
In response to the Senate Ethics Committee’s dismissal of CREW’s complaint against Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) for participating in a V.I.P. loan program offered by Countrywide Financial, CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated, “As is its practice, the Senate Ethics Committee has cleared the senators of any wrongdoing despite the fact that the senators participated in a program the committee found ‘offered quicker, more efficient loan processing and some discounts.
Apparently, clearing the senators was insufficient penance for the committee for having the audacity to investigate in the first place. Like a battered woman who explains she brought the beating on herself, the committee faulted itself for failing to ‘provide more guidance to the Senate community about issues surrounding mortgage negotiations.’ Over a year has passed since CREW filed its complaint and the committee became aware of this issue. Now would be a good time for the committee to start proactively providing its promised advice.
Partisan politics may be playing a role here, but Republicans maintain that the investigation is about avoiding another crisis again. Republican Congressman Darrel Issa, told CBS that:
“It’s really about what Countrywide sought to do, how vast it was, what they got for their millions of dollars in discounts and how do we make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
CBS reports that Countrywide “aggressively courted those in position to influence regulations as it made billions by giving out risky loans, then selling them to government-backed Fannie Mae. Billions of dollars worth of those loans defaulted at taxpayer expense.”
WELL, WELL, WELL,
SWEETHEART AND HOW.
DROP'EM WHERE THEY STAND AND PROSECUTE.
MADOFF CAN USE THE COMPANY !
By Dolores M. Bernal
Aug 9, 2009
Tremendously under-reported this weekend was the story of how some members of Congress have been under investigation for getting “sweetheart” VIP loans from Countrywide Financial — the home mortgage company that led the pack of other financial institutions to the housing bubble last year.
The network that gets credit for doing their job is CBS News, which reported on Friday that the list of “influential” Democrats and Republicans that received VIP loans from Countrywide continues to grow. The latest congressman being investigated is Edolphus Towns, a democrat from New York.
According to CBS News:
That’s significant because Towns, a Democrat, heads the committee investigating the mortgage giant’s practices. And he personally is blocking the effort to subpoena Countrywide documents.
Republicans are also being investigated, but it seems like the biggest names of suspects come from the Democratic party. Senator Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad have been on the spotlight of the ethics probe.
The Senate’s Ethics Committee received a complaint from the watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethic in Washington (CREW), to investigate Dodd and Conrad for the “sweetheart” loans they received from Countrywide. But the committee dismissed the complaint. CREW Executive Director was outraged and issued this news release on Friday:
In response to the Senate Ethics Committee’s dismissal of CREW’s complaint against Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) for participating in a V.I.P. loan program offered by Countrywide Financial, CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated, “As is its practice, the Senate Ethics Committee has cleared the senators of any wrongdoing despite the fact that the senators participated in a program the committee found ‘offered quicker, more efficient loan processing and some discounts.
Apparently, clearing the senators was insufficient penance for the committee for having the audacity to investigate in the first place. Like a battered woman who explains she brought the beating on herself, the committee faulted itself for failing to ‘provide more guidance to the Senate community about issues surrounding mortgage negotiations.’ Over a year has passed since CREW filed its complaint and the committee became aware of this issue. Now would be a good time for the committee to start proactively providing its promised advice.
Partisan politics may be playing a role here, but Republicans maintain that the investigation is about avoiding another crisis again. Republican Congressman Darrel Issa, told CBS that:
“It’s really about what Countrywide sought to do, how vast it was, what they got for their millions of dollars in discounts and how do we make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
CBS reports that Countrywide “aggressively courted those in position to influence regulations as it made billions by giving out risky loans, then selling them to government-backed Fannie Mae. Billions of dollars worth of those loans defaulted at taxpayer expense.”
WELL, WELL, WELL,
SWEETHEART AND HOW.
DROP'EM WHERE THEY STAND AND PROSECUTE.
MADOFF CAN USE THE COMPANY !
Monday, August 10, 2009
HANG 'EM BY THEIR BALLS
Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Are RICO Enterprises
August 09, 2009
This New York Times expose on Henry Paulson and Goldman Sachs makes one thing clear: There is now no doubt that Henry Paulson and Goldman Sachs have violate numerous federal laws. Paulson laundered several billion dollars of money to Goldman Sachs, through A.I.G. Paulson lied to Congress about the true nature of TARP. Paulson lied to Congress about his role in the Federal Reserve's decision to give over $185 billion to A.I.G.
Paulson has also violated the federal honest service statute, which makes it a felony for a government official to breach his fidicuariy obligation to taxpayers. See 18 U.S.C. 1346 ("the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.")
Paulson clearly violated his duties to American taxpayers when he transferred billions of dollars of wealth to Goldman Sachs under false pretenses; when he lied to Congress in order to obtains hundreds-of-billions of dollars in TARP funds; when he conspired with Goldman Sachs to "save" A.I.G. for Goldman's sake; and whe he lied to Congress about his role in "saving" A.I.G.
The New York Times is reporting about some of Paulson-Goldman Sachs conversations:
While Mr. Paulson spoke to many Wall Street executives during [the early days of the economic crisis], he was in very frequent contact with Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman’s chief executive, according to a copy of Mr. Paulson’s calendars acquired by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act request.
During the week of the A.I.G. bailout alone, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Blankfein spoke two dozen times, the calendars show, far more frequently than Mr. Paulson did with other Wall Street executives.
What did they talk about? We are left to draw reasonable inferences. Clearly they discussed how to launder money through A.I.G. into Goldman Sachs.
Paulson has lied repeatedly about his role in laundering money through A.I.G. He told Congres, under oath:
“I want you to know that I had no role whatsoever in any of the Fed’s decision regarding payments to any of A.I.G.’s creditors or counterparties.”
Yet FOIA requests reveal that Paulson committed perjury when he lied before Congress:
On Sept. 16, 2008, the day that the government agreed to inject billions into A.I.G., Mr. Paulson personally called Robert B. Willumstad, A.I.G.’s chief executive, and dismissed him.
Mr. Paulson’s involvement in the decision to rescue A.I.G. is also supported by an e-mail message sent by Scott G. Alvarez, general counsel at the Federal Reserve Board, to Robert Hoyt, a Treasury legal counsel, that same day.The subject of the message, acquired under the Freedom of Information Act, is “AIG Letter,” and it contains a reference to a document called “AIG.Paulson.Letter.draft2.09.16.2008.doc.” The letter itself was not released.
We need Elliot Spitzer. The New York Times has discovered corruption and federal crimes through FOIA requests - which generally only net banal evidence. It is now clear that Henry Paulson violated the federal honest services statute. He is a criminal.
If the Times was able to uncover so much corruption through Freedom of Information Act requests, imagine what a federal prosecutor could uncover with subpoenas and FBI agents. The Paulson-A.I.G. letter would most certainly be released to federal prosecutors; there'd be no choice.
As we all know, though, the Department of Justice is not interested in investigating corruption on Wall Street. Bernie Madoff spent decades cheating investors out of billions. He wasn't arrested until he called the police on himself - through his sons. When a Goldman Sachs employee allegedly stold a few lines of code from Goldman Sachs, though, the Department of Justice took less than 48 hours to make an arrest.
CRUCIFY THE DIRTY BASTARDS, MADOFF NEEDS CELLMATES NOW !!
August 09, 2009
This New York Times expose on Henry Paulson and Goldman Sachs makes one thing clear: There is now no doubt that Henry Paulson and Goldman Sachs have violate numerous federal laws. Paulson laundered several billion dollars of money to Goldman Sachs, through A.I.G. Paulson lied to Congress about the true nature of TARP. Paulson lied to Congress about his role in the Federal Reserve's decision to give over $185 billion to A.I.G.
Paulson has also violated the federal honest service statute, which makes it a felony for a government official to breach his fidicuariy obligation to taxpayers. See 18 U.S.C. 1346 ("the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.")
Paulson clearly violated his duties to American taxpayers when he transferred billions of dollars of wealth to Goldman Sachs under false pretenses; when he lied to Congress in order to obtains hundreds-of-billions of dollars in TARP funds; when he conspired with Goldman Sachs to "save" A.I.G. for Goldman's sake; and whe he lied to Congress about his role in "saving" A.I.G.
The New York Times is reporting about some of Paulson-Goldman Sachs conversations:
While Mr. Paulson spoke to many Wall Street executives during [the early days of the economic crisis], he was in very frequent contact with Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman’s chief executive, according to a copy of Mr. Paulson’s calendars acquired by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act request.
During the week of the A.I.G. bailout alone, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Blankfein spoke two dozen times, the calendars show, far more frequently than Mr. Paulson did with other Wall Street executives.
What did they talk about? We are left to draw reasonable inferences. Clearly they discussed how to launder money through A.I.G. into Goldman Sachs.
Paulson has lied repeatedly about his role in laundering money through A.I.G. He told Congres, under oath:
“I want you to know that I had no role whatsoever in any of the Fed’s decision regarding payments to any of A.I.G.’s creditors or counterparties.”
Yet FOIA requests reveal that Paulson committed perjury when he lied before Congress:
On Sept. 16, 2008, the day that the government agreed to inject billions into A.I.G., Mr. Paulson personally called Robert B. Willumstad, A.I.G.’s chief executive, and dismissed him.
Mr. Paulson’s involvement in the decision to rescue A.I.G. is also supported by an e-mail message sent by Scott G. Alvarez, general counsel at the Federal Reserve Board, to Robert Hoyt, a Treasury legal counsel, that same day.The subject of the message, acquired under the Freedom of Information Act, is “AIG Letter,” and it contains a reference to a document called “AIG.Paulson.Letter.draft2.09.16.2008.doc.” The letter itself was not released.
We need Elliot Spitzer. The New York Times has discovered corruption and federal crimes through FOIA requests - which generally only net banal evidence. It is now clear that Henry Paulson violated the federal honest services statute. He is a criminal.
If the Times was able to uncover so much corruption through Freedom of Information Act requests, imagine what a federal prosecutor could uncover with subpoenas and FBI agents. The Paulson-A.I.G. letter would most certainly be released to federal prosecutors; there'd be no choice.
As we all know, though, the Department of Justice is not interested in investigating corruption on Wall Street. Bernie Madoff spent decades cheating investors out of billions. He wasn't arrested until he called the police on himself - through his sons. When a Goldman Sachs employee allegedly stold a few lines of code from Goldman Sachs, though, the Department of Justice took less than 48 hours to make an arrest.
CRUCIFY THE DIRTY BASTARDS, MADOFF NEEDS CELLMATES NOW !!
Sunday, August 9, 2009
PELOSI SCREWS PENTAGON
Pentagon: Congressional Jets Hurt Defense
Saturday, August 8, 2009 1:06 PM
The Pentagon is criticizing the House of Representative's request to upgrade Congress' air fleet -- and charge the cost to the Defense Department.
"It forces us to take money from things we do need to fund and redirect it for things we don't need," Geoff Morrell, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, told the Wall Street Journal. "And in a time of war, we just can't afford that. The bottom line is, for everything that they appropriate for us above and beyond what we've asked for, it will, at some point require us to find money from programs we do need."
Lawmakers slipped the request into the Pentagon's proposed budget for 2010, insisting that Congress' current fleet of executive jets is old and more expensive to operate that newer, more efficient planes. They also say lawmakers use the jets only 14.5 percent of the time, compared to 44 percent usage by military members.
President Barack Obama sent Congress a Pentagon budget of $640.1 billion, which the House adjusted and scaled back to $636.3 billion. During that process, members requested $550 million to purchase eight passenger jets. Obama originally sought only $220 million to buy four planes.
THAT'S THE WAY THE BITCH OPERATES GEOFF,
WELCOME TO OUR WORLD DUMB- SHIT!
Saturday, August 8, 2009 1:06 PM
The Pentagon is criticizing the House of Representative's request to upgrade Congress' air fleet -- and charge the cost to the Defense Department.
"It forces us to take money from things we do need to fund and redirect it for things we don't need," Geoff Morrell, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, told the Wall Street Journal. "And in a time of war, we just can't afford that. The bottom line is, for everything that they appropriate for us above and beyond what we've asked for, it will, at some point require us to find money from programs we do need."
Lawmakers slipped the request into the Pentagon's proposed budget for 2010, insisting that Congress' current fleet of executive jets is old and more expensive to operate that newer, more efficient planes. They also say lawmakers use the jets only 14.5 percent of the time, compared to 44 percent usage by military members.
President Barack Obama sent Congress a Pentagon budget of $640.1 billion, which the House adjusted and scaled back to $636.3 billion. During that process, members requested $550 million to purchase eight passenger jets. Obama originally sought only $220 million to buy four planes.
THAT'S THE WAY THE BITCH OPERATES GEOFF,
WELCOME TO OUR WORLD DUMB- SHIT!
PURE EVIL !!
Palin Says Obama's Healthcare Plan Is 'Evil'
Friday, August 7, 2009 7:40 PM
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says President Obama's plan to overhaul healthcare is evil.
The former Republican vice presidential candidate posted her thoughts Friday on Facebook.
Palin says in the America she knows, people won't have to "stand in front of Obama's 'death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of healthcare."
She says such a system is "downright evil."
An e-mail sent to Palin's spokeswoman confirming authorship was not immediately returned.
Palin resigned as Alaska governor July 26. She promised to speak out on issues but has largely been silent on both Facebook and Twitter since resigning.
OF COURSE IT'S EVIL, THAT'S HIS JOB.
DESTROY AMERICA MORE THAN THE BUSH FAMILY AND CLINTON'S
Friday, August 7, 2009 7:40 PM
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says President Obama's plan to overhaul healthcare is evil.
The former Republican vice presidential candidate posted her thoughts Friday on Facebook.
Palin says in the America she knows, people won't have to "stand in front of Obama's 'death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of healthcare."
She says such a system is "downright evil."
An e-mail sent to Palin's spokeswoman confirming authorship was not immediately returned.
Palin resigned as Alaska governor July 26. She promised to speak out on issues but has largely been silent on both Facebook and Twitter since resigning.
OF COURSE IT'S EVIL, THAT'S HIS JOB.
DESTROY AMERICA MORE THAN THE BUSH FAMILY AND CLINTON'S
MORE LIES SURFACE
Obama’s Embrace of a Bush Tactic Riles Congress
CHARLIE SAVAGE
NY Times
Sunday, August 9, 2009
President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.
President George W. Bush, citing expansive theories about his constitutional powers, set off a national debate in 2006 over the propriety of signing statements — instructions to executive officials about how to interpret and put in place new laws — after he used them to assert that he could authorize officials to bypass laws like a torture ban and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements an “abuse,” and said he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties.
Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letter to Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.
WELL SON-OF-A-GUN, ACORN'S HOLY ONE IS A DEMOPUBLICAN, HOW ABOUT THAT ?
CHARLIE SAVAGE
NY Times
Sunday, August 9, 2009
President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.
President George W. Bush, citing expansive theories about his constitutional powers, set off a national debate in 2006 over the propriety of signing statements — instructions to executive officials about how to interpret and put in place new laws — after he used them to assert that he could authorize officials to bypass laws like a torture ban and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements an “abuse,” and said he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties.
Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letter to Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.
WELL SON-OF-A-GUN, ACORN'S HOLY ONE IS A DEMOPUBLICAN, HOW ABOUT THAT ?
Saturday, August 8, 2009
SCREWING THE SENIORS
Category: News and Politics
Healthcare Reform Means Less for Seniors
Monday, August 3, 2009 2:51 PM
Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
The health-reform debate on Capitol Hill is skipping over the key issue: "Universal insurance" means less care for people who have coverage now —
especially the elderly.
And the "compromises" now under way only make the problem worse.
Here's a point that's no surprise except to the "reformers": People with insurance use more healthcare.
President Barack Obama seeks to cover 50 million new people. Where are the extra doctors, nurses, and so on going to come from? Neither the administration nor anyone on the Hill has proposed anything to add to the supply of medical services even as they plan vastly to increase the demand.
The politicians are playing a Washington game — compromising on false or tangential issues while failing to address the central one.
It doesn't matter if you reduce or eliminate the mandate for employers to provide coverage, if you're still insuring more people without adding medical personnel and other resources. Same story for whether you replace the "public option" government-run plan with government-run "co-ops."
More, all the bills come up with cash to cover their huge costs by ordering
More demand; no added supply; Medicare cuts: It all adds up to rationing — lower-quality medical care for most Americans, especially for the elderly.
A doctor in Massachusetts — where an Obama-style plan is already in place — recently told us that she now has to read 60 mammograms a day in the time she once spent on 45. "It keeps me up at night," she told us, "that I might make a mistake, I am so rushed."
For the elderly, it means less care, period. A federal health board will sit in judgment of medical procedures and protocols and impose guidelines on all providers for when to withhold certain kinds of care.
For example, the drug Avastin is widely used in America to treat advanced colon cancer. But it costs $50,000 a year — so Canada's national-health system doesn't permit its use. As a result, 41 percent of colon-cancer patients in Canada die each year, as opposed to 32 percent in the United States. (Canada's average eight-month wait for colonoscopies, another result of national-health rationing, also contributes to the problem.)
Members of Congress will be home through August to test public opinion. It's up to us to give them an earful.
cuts in Medicare — cuts that Congress could reverse only by affirmative majority votes. Basically, the government will be paying doctors and providers even less to treat the elderly — at a time when countless doctors are starting to refuse new Medicare patients.
THEY STILL AEREN'T LISTENING ?
RAISE HELL TILL THEY DO!
Healthcare Reform Means Less for Seniors
Monday, August 3, 2009 2:51 PM
Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
The health-reform debate on Capitol Hill is skipping over the key issue: "Universal insurance" means less care for people who have coverage now —
especially the elderly.
And the "compromises" now under way only make the problem worse.
Here's a point that's no surprise except to the "reformers": People with insurance use more healthcare.
President Barack Obama seeks to cover 50 million new people. Where are the extra doctors, nurses, and so on going to come from? Neither the administration nor anyone on the Hill has proposed anything to add to the supply of medical services even as they plan vastly to increase the demand.
The politicians are playing a Washington game — compromising on false or tangential issues while failing to address the central one.
It doesn't matter if you reduce or eliminate the mandate for employers to provide coverage, if you're still insuring more people without adding medical personnel and other resources. Same story for whether you replace the "public option" government-run plan with government-run "co-ops."
More, all the bills come up with cash to cover their huge costs by ordering
More demand; no added supply; Medicare cuts: It all adds up to rationing — lower-quality medical care for most Americans, especially for the elderly.
A doctor in Massachusetts — where an Obama-style plan is already in place — recently told us that she now has to read 60 mammograms a day in the time she once spent on 45. "It keeps me up at night," she told us, "that I might make a mistake, I am so rushed."
For the elderly, it means less care, period. A federal health board will sit in judgment of medical procedures and protocols and impose guidelines on all providers for when to withhold certain kinds of care.
For example, the drug Avastin is widely used in America to treat advanced colon cancer. But it costs $50,000 a year — so Canada's national-health system doesn't permit its use. As a result, 41 percent of colon-cancer patients in Canada die each year, as opposed to 32 percent in the United States. (Canada's average eight-month wait for colonoscopies, another result of national-health rationing, also contributes to the problem.)
Members of Congress will be home through August to test public opinion. It's up to us to give them an earful.
cuts in Medicare — cuts that Congress could reverse only by affirmative majority votes. Basically, the government will be paying doctors and providers even less to treat the elderly — at a time when countless doctors are starting to refuse new Medicare patients.
THEY STILL AEREN'T LISTENING ?
RAISE HELL TILL THEY DO!
RECESSION ? HELL !
In 1929, the U.S. unemployment rate averaged 3%. In 1933, 25% of all American workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed,
TODAY IT IS AT 22.5% AND WILL TOP 25% BY NEXT YEAR
IF THAT ISN'T A DEPRESSION YOU WERE ASLEEP WHEN THE RECESSION WENT THROUGH !
TODAY IT IS AT 22.5% AND WILL TOP 25% BY NEXT YEAR
IF THAT ISN'T A DEPRESSION YOU WERE ASLEEP WHEN THE RECESSION WENT THROUGH !
Friday, August 7, 2009
SUMMER OF RAGE
The Start Of The Second American Revolution?
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, August 7, 2009
For a long time people have been asking why Americans are not up in arms, screaming and shouting about their fast disappearing liberties along with the continuous passage of legislation that they vehemently oppose, from the banker bailout, to the cap and trade bill, to Obamacare. Well now they are screaming and shouting – and if the momentum continues to build, this rebellion could the spark to ignite the second American revolution.
For those waiting for a “summer of rage” it has now arrived – outraged Americans across the country are exercising their first amendment rights to do the most American thing imaginable – speaking truth to power through non-violent civil disobedience.
At first the establishment left media attempted to attack the credibility of the protests by claiming that they were the work of health insurance company lobbyists – but when that fizzled after ABC News reported that there were no lobbyists present at the demonstrations, the attack dogs shifted their rhetoric to claim that the protesters were Nazis and right-wing extremists.
Meanwhile, at the same time media apologists for the administration are labeling the protesters as violent and dangerous extremists, Obama supporters are beating up Obamacare protesters while foundation-funded organizations like ACORN, MoveOn.org, the National Council of La Raza, the eugenics front Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Clintonite John Podesta’s war-mongering Center for American Progress are supporting moves to chill free speech and eliminate protesters at town hall meetings.
The only people acting like Nazi brownshirts are the White House front groups who are now calling for the police to crack heads and silence voices of dissent.
The desperation on behalf of the Obama administration and its mouthpieces in their attempts to denounce the protests is clearly evident, to the point where they are now compiling an enemies list via snitch tips sent to them via the White House website in order to try and neutralize the growing anger.
Another talking point now making the rounds is that it is uncivil and belligerent to become rowdy at town hall meetings, when in fact nothing could be more Americana, nothing could be more in spirit with the legacy of the founding fathers and the very soul of the country.
The establishment is scared to death that Americans may see beyond the scope of their partisan divisions and come together to stand up in unison against the offshore bankers and corporations that run the White House, which is why the constant politicized drumbeat that the protesters are nothing more than astroturf Republicans is constantly echoed.
In reality, for anyone who has closely tracked the evolution of this movement, the demonstrations owe their origins in an increasing sense of outrage about the multi-trillion dollar looting being carried out by the Federal Reserve in the form of the bailout, the nightmare cap and trade bill, the totalitarian health care proposals, and the general handover of American sovereignty to globalist interests through crony infrastructure sellouts and the emerging North American Union.
Although admittedly at an embryonic stage, the scenes we see unfolding across the country could be the spark that ignites the second American revolution. At the very least, the passionate, outraged and bold reaction to the Obama administration’s big government agenda is definitely a sign of things to come, and as each new totalitarian program is rolled out the resistance will only increase and get louder as momentum builds and people across the nation get in the face of the system and yell, “don’t tread on me.”
Watch a compilation of protest videos from across the country below.
Tampa, Florida
Elkhart County, Indiana
Detroit
Austin, Texas
Philadelphia
Arkansas
St Louis
Romulus, Michigan
Denver
During a demonstration Thursday evening outside a forum on aging called by U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, in Mehville, Missouri, a patriot was viciously attacked by union thugs.
Troy, Michigan
Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are “Carrying Swastikas”
Sen. Boxer: ‘Well-dressed’ protesters at Town Halls are out to ‘hurt our president’
YOUR PRESIDENT BARBIE ,
HE'S ONLY AN IMPOSTER TO US !
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, August 7, 2009
For a long time people have been asking why Americans are not up in arms, screaming and shouting about their fast disappearing liberties along with the continuous passage of legislation that they vehemently oppose, from the banker bailout, to the cap and trade bill, to Obamacare. Well now they are screaming and shouting – and if the momentum continues to build, this rebellion could the spark to ignite the second American revolution.
For those waiting for a “summer of rage” it has now arrived – outraged Americans across the country are exercising their first amendment rights to do the most American thing imaginable – speaking truth to power through non-violent civil disobedience.
At first the establishment left media attempted to attack the credibility of the protests by claiming that they were the work of health insurance company lobbyists – but when that fizzled after ABC News reported that there were no lobbyists present at the demonstrations, the attack dogs shifted their rhetoric to claim that the protesters were Nazis and right-wing extremists.
Meanwhile, at the same time media apologists for the administration are labeling the protesters as violent and dangerous extremists, Obama supporters are beating up Obamacare protesters while foundation-funded organizations like ACORN, MoveOn.org, the National Council of La Raza, the eugenics front Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Clintonite John Podesta’s war-mongering Center for American Progress are supporting moves to chill free speech and eliminate protesters at town hall meetings.
The only people acting like Nazi brownshirts are the White House front groups who are now calling for the police to crack heads and silence voices of dissent.
The desperation on behalf of the Obama administration and its mouthpieces in their attempts to denounce the protests is clearly evident, to the point where they are now compiling an enemies list via snitch tips sent to them via the White House website in order to try and neutralize the growing anger.
Another talking point now making the rounds is that it is uncivil and belligerent to become rowdy at town hall meetings, when in fact nothing could be more Americana, nothing could be more in spirit with the legacy of the founding fathers and the very soul of the country.
The establishment is scared to death that Americans may see beyond the scope of their partisan divisions and come together to stand up in unison against the offshore bankers and corporations that run the White House, which is why the constant politicized drumbeat that the protesters are nothing more than astroturf Republicans is constantly echoed.
In reality, for anyone who has closely tracked the evolution of this movement, the demonstrations owe their origins in an increasing sense of outrage about the multi-trillion dollar looting being carried out by the Federal Reserve in the form of the bailout, the nightmare cap and trade bill, the totalitarian health care proposals, and the general handover of American sovereignty to globalist interests through crony infrastructure sellouts and the emerging North American Union.
Although admittedly at an embryonic stage, the scenes we see unfolding across the country could be the spark that ignites the second American revolution. At the very least, the passionate, outraged and bold reaction to the Obama administration’s big government agenda is definitely a sign of things to come, and as each new totalitarian program is rolled out the resistance will only increase and get louder as momentum builds and people across the nation get in the face of the system and yell, “don’t tread on me.”
Watch a compilation of protest videos from across the country below.
Tampa, Florida
Elkhart County, Indiana
Detroit
Austin, Texas
Philadelphia
Arkansas
St Louis
Romulus, Michigan
Denver
During a demonstration Thursday evening outside a forum on aging called by U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, in Mehville, Missouri, a patriot was viciously attacked by union thugs.
Troy, Michigan
Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are “Carrying Swastikas”
Sen. Boxer: ‘Well-dressed’ protesters at Town Halls are out to ‘hurt our president’
YOUR PRESIDENT BARBIE ,
HE'S ONLY AN IMPOSTER TO US !
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
REAL CONVERSATION
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America . Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.. This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ' 60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream. Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude???
Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks. Let him go to Altoona ? And Johnstown , and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids.? Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ? Is it really white America 's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
We are a Christian Nation even if Obama says we are not.
This needs to be passed around
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ' 60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream. Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude???
Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks. Let him go to Altoona ? And Johnstown , and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids.? Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ? Is it really white America 's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
We are a Christian Nation even if Obama says we are not.
This needs to be passed around
Saturday, August 1, 2009
LATEST FAX TO CONGRESS
John Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock (MADE IN JAPAN ) for 6 am. While his coffeepot (MADE IN CHINA ) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (MADE IN HONG KONG )
He put on a dress shirt (MADE IN SRI LANKA ),
designer jeans (MADE IN SINGAPORE ) and tennis shoes (MADE IN KOREA) After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (MADE IN INDIA ) he sat down with his calculator (MADE IN MEXICO ) to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch (MADE IN TAIWAN )listened to the radio (MADE IN INDIA ) he got in his car (MADE IN GERMANY ) filled it with GAS (from Saudi Arabia ) and continued his search for a good paying AMERICAN JOB. At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his Computer (made in MALAYSIA ),
John decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals
(MADE IN BRAZIL ), poured himself a glass of wine
(MADE IN FRANCE ) and turned on his TV (MADE IN INDONESIA ), and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in AMERICA AND NOW HE'S HOPING HE CAN GET HELP FROM A PRESIDENT MADE IN KENYA , And you want
to control my healthcare ?
I'M NOT THAT DAMN CRAZY !
WHY ARE YOU ?
VOTE NO !!
He put on a dress shirt (MADE IN SRI LANKA ),
designer jeans (MADE IN SINGAPORE ) and tennis shoes (MADE IN KOREA) After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (MADE IN INDIA ) he sat down with his calculator (MADE IN MEXICO ) to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch (MADE IN TAIWAN )listened to the radio (MADE IN INDIA ) he got in his car (MADE IN GERMANY ) filled it with GAS (from Saudi Arabia ) and continued his search for a good paying AMERICAN JOB. At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his Computer (made in MALAYSIA ),
John decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals
(MADE IN BRAZIL ), poured himself a glass of wine
(MADE IN FRANCE ) and turned on his TV (MADE IN INDONESIA ), and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in AMERICA AND NOW HE'S HOPING HE CAN GET HELP FROM A PRESIDENT MADE IN KENYA , And you want
to control my healthcare ?
I'M NOT THAT DAMN CRAZY !
WHY ARE YOU ?
VOTE NO !!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
