Hillary Clinton signed the UN Small Arms Treaty on behalf of President Obama, but what does it really mean. The U.N. claims that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year, an inordinate number of which are the result of internal civil strife within individual nations. The solution proposed by transnationalists to keep rebels from getting guns is to make the global pool of weapons smaller through government action.
But there is an ever more stunning element to consider, the US government for example has caused more deaths than rebels. In Iraq alone the American Military has caused the death of at least 655,000 civilians; In Afghanistan in excess of 5,000; In Vietnam 316,000; and the Second World War, 45,000,000;
A vowed purpose of the UN Treaty; According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to "prevent, combat and eradicate" various classes of guns to undermine the alleged” illicit trade in small arms." Such a plan whether or not based on a valid concept would of necessity lead to confiscation of personal firearms.
But what about the safeguards against confiscation embedded in the US Constitution?
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution had a devout purpose; it was passed at a time when the new nation had an inherent distrust of government. This single Amendment was added to insure that the Federal Government, instituted for the colonies, would remain limited and as an assurance for the people that they would remain free. Weapons in the form of arms were the means allocated for that purpose.
Since the adoption of the Constitution there have been forces at work behind the scenes, intent to take control of America, however before they can achieve this monumental goal they had to eliminate what has been described as the most important safeguard for America, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This right has been under attack for scores of generations.
This UN Treaty signed now by the US represents a dangerous disregard for the safety and freedom of everybody. First of all, it mischaracterizes all insurgencies as bad. As U.S. history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it. Our founding fathers were insurgents, and they laid the foundation and framework for what remains of our democracy.
That threat, the ability to over throw despotic governments, is why authoritarian regimes such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone endorsed gun control. Without weapons, the citizens become slaves to a government master, this is not what America stands for, but it is a road we transverse today.
Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that the 15 worst regimes during the 20th century killed 151 million of their own citizens, this amounts to 1.5 million victims per year. Even if all 300,000 annual deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small-arms trade (which they cannot), governments are a bigger threat to their citizens than their neighbors.
The problem and real concern: American gun owners today are besieged by a government that fears for its own existence. Hillary Clinton on Behalf of President Obama signed the UN Small arms treaty, believing that the treaty effectively placed the right to keep and bear arms outside of the protective gambit of the second Amendments sweeping protection. Their view is historically invalid. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution.
The Constitution provides that they are "the supreme law of the land." That has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to give treaties the same status as federal law, not as the constitution.
Treaties are made under powers delegated to the President and Congress by the Constitution, such powers cannot overrule the Constitution from where that power emanates.
That is as long as we have a valid court system, which unfortunately has been placed in question by the Bush appointees.
See: Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 2 Pet. 253 (1829), a treaty must "be regarded in courts...as equivalent to an act of the legislature" page 254
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) No treaty "can confer power on the Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." page 16
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Congress gives themselves a raise while denying one for SS recipients.
Congress and a double Standard:
It appears that congress is still stuck in that childhood ego, the ME syndrome. They make sure to take care of themselves in more ways than one, but as for the rest of us, it appears we are mere peasants, or as the attitude permeates around Washington, “let them eat cake” So it’s little wonder congress has an overall rating of only 22%, and the majority of Americans want to remove the existing congress of and start anew next term. Both the republicans and democrats have one agenda, it’s called the ME agenda, ME first, and it’s all about ME, a syndrome that most of us outgrow with age, but unfortunately politicians never seem to grow up.
The base salary for US Congressmen is $174,000 plus benefits, plus official expenses (such as for staff, travel, office equipment supplies, totaling around $1.5 million per year
The current salary (2010) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.
Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (2010)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.
Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400
House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500 (Nancy Pelosi)
A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it. They accepted it!
There is no reason they are paid any sum in excess of the $3,000 they were paid in 1855, they receive much more from speaking engagements, and outright graft.
It seems the more they are paid the worst they become as legislatures.
A backlash appears to be growing all across the country. But it is not based on their attitude about us their constituents. Instead it is a broad based dissent about the Democratic Party, which has given the impression of a wishy washy party, that even though they held control over both houses they were still unable to get their act together, that is except to give themselves more money.
Republican candidates now hold a 10-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, June 13. That ties the GOP's largest ever lead, first reached in April, since it first edged ahead of the Democrats a year ago.
While solid majorities of Democrats and Republicans support the candidates of their own party, the plurality (47%) of voters not affiliated with either major party prefer the Republican candidate, while 19% like the Democrat. These findings have remained fairly consistent for months now.
However what would be best for the country; remove them all and start over.
It appears that congress is still stuck in that childhood ego, the ME syndrome. They make sure to take care of themselves in more ways than one, but as for the rest of us, it appears we are mere peasants, or as the attitude permeates around Washington, “let them eat cake” So it’s little wonder congress has an overall rating of only 22%, and the majority of Americans want to remove the existing congress of and start anew next term. Both the republicans and democrats have one agenda, it’s called the ME agenda, ME first, and it’s all about ME, a syndrome that most of us outgrow with age, but unfortunately politicians never seem to grow up.
The base salary for US Congressmen is $174,000 plus benefits, plus official expenses (such as for staff, travel, office equipment supplies, totaling around $1.5 million per year
The current salary (2010) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.
- Members are free to turn down pay increase and some choose to do so.
- In a complex system of calculations, administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.
- During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.
- From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.
Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (2010)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.
Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400
House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500 (Nancy Pelosi)
A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it. They accepted it!
There is no reason they are paid any sum in excess of the $3,000 they were paid in 1855, they receive much more from speaking engagements, and outright graft.
It seems the more they are paid the worst they become as legislatures.
A backlash appears to be growing all across the country. But it is not based on their attitude about us their constituents. Instead it is a broad based dissent about the Democratic Party, which has given the impression of a wishy washy party, that even though they held control over both houses they were still unable to get their act together, that is except to give themselves more money.
Republican candidates now hold a 10-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, June 13. That ties the GOP's largest ever lead, first reached in April, since it first edged ahead of the Democrats a year ago.
While solid majorities of Democrats and Republicans support the candidates of their own party, the plurality (47%) of voters not affiliated with either major party prefer the Republican candidate, while 19% like the Democrat. These findings have remained fairly consistent for months now.
However what would be best for the country; remove them all and start over.
Monday, June 14, 2010
“The New Trend: Default On Your Mortgage And Stay In Your House”
I read Reuters Blogger Felix Salmon’s article entitled “The New Trend: Default On Your Mortgage And Stay In Your House” my comments follow!
I was truly amazed at the comments from his readers who simply don’t get it, and it is frightening to say the least about the level of unawareness that prevails among our culture.
As I stated in a similar article: “Living rent free and loving it”
“The Obama administration was more intent to save the banks, and did so against the very interest of the American family. Why do I say this, the government came to the rescue of the very culprit that caused the problem, (the Banks) with an astonishing $787 bn., and the insurance carrier that was allowing the foreclosures to continue, AIG with an additional $180bn.
“AIG was the guarantor of the Derivatives that paid the banks when a borrower defaulted. By providing AIG some 180 Billion dollars, the government not only allowed the banks to continue foreclosing on American borrowers, but promoted it, because when a default was reported to AIG, they paid the full amount of the loss, thanks to Timothy Geithner. If AIG would have been allowed to collapse, or paid to Wall Street insiders 25 cents on the dollar there would have been NO incentive to foreclose in the volume the banks pursued.
“Now another scenario presents itself in retrospect, the main problem facing borrowers today is the high interest rates, and over valuations of their property. In short most borrowers are under water, in some areas, like Nevada, this state of mortgage reality is as much as 80%. If the administration and indeed congress gave a rats hair about America rather that their beneficiaries, they would have made the money available to borrowers to pay to the banks for a loan modification and principal reduction. If they had Washington Mutual would still be around, as would Indymac. What congress in their ignorance have done, is to guarantee that the too big to fail got even larger.
“But they didn’t have the American public’s interest on their mind did they? And bank failures and consolidation is ongoing. If they had both the Banks and the public interest on their compass they would have been bailed out simultaneously, and then there would have been no depression. A much lower level of foreclosures, and sanity would have prevailed.
“As it now stands, millions of homes have already been foreclosed and millions more are waiting in the wings, the unemployment level is a real 63million representing 40% of the workforce. The economy is trudging along on one foot as those who have stopped making mortgage payments are actually, bless them, spending their money buying things they had put off to make instead their overpriced mortgage, and 30,000 good people are filing bankruptcy each and every week.
Now something to think about: what value did America have invested in Wall Street? And what advantage did America receive from Wall Street being bailed out for a second time?
And everyone knows it will happen again!”
Anyone who really believes that the public was wrong and the banks were the good guys, should read all the information that has been developed about the Banks and the FRAUD they perpetuated on an “unsuspecting” Public, the banks knew these loans would never be repaid, and they didn’t care as they sold these loans as securities and took out default insurance, think “CDS” consumers basically uneducated to the intricate mortgage loan documents relied on their bank or mortgage company, and a lot of seniors also did. And they were conned!
Countrywide and several other banks have already been sued by the Attorneys General of several states over “Fraudulent intent” and they are making modifications with principal reductions under court orders.
The Banks failed to explain the ramifications on such loans as option arms where the borrower only qualified for a payment less than his interest and the difference was added back increasing the principal of the loan. The Banks didn’t care as they planned this bubble to continue indefinitely and were looking already to a refinance where they made additional points.
For those who still side with the banks, try studying the history of banking, it has always been laden with unscrupulous individuals; perhaps it will enlighten you, or perhaps not!
I was truly amazed at the comments from his readers who simply don’t get it, and it is frightening to say the least about the level of unawareness that prevails among our culture.
As I stated in a similar article: “Living rent free and loving it”
“The Obama administration was more intent to save the banks, and did so against the very interest of the American family. Why do I say this, the government came to the rescue of the very culprit that caused the problem, (the Banks) with an astonishing $787 bn., and the insurance carrier that was allowing the foreclosures to continue, AIG with an additional $180bn.
“AIG was the guarantor of the Derivatives that paid the banks when a borrower defaulted. By providing AIG some 180 Billion dollars, the government not only allowed the banks to continue foreclosing on American borrowers, but promoted it, because when a default was reported to AIG, they paid the full amount of the loss, thanks to Timothy Geithner. If AIG would have been allowed to collapse, or paid to Wall Street insiders 25 cents on the dollar there would have been NO incentive to foreclose in the volume the banks pursued.
“Now another scenario presents itself in retrospect, the main problem facing borrowers today is the high interest rates, and over valuations of their property. In short most borrowers are under water, in some areas, like Nevada, this state of mortgage reality is as much as 80%. If the administration and indeed congress gave a rats hair about America rather that their beneficiaries, they would have made the money available to borrowers to pay to the banks for a loan modification and principal reduction. If they had Washington Mutual would still be around, as would Indymac. What congress in their ignorance have done, is to guarantee that the too big to fail got even larger.
“But they didn’t have the American public’s interest on their mind did they? And bank failures and consolidation is ongoing. If they had both the Banks and the public interest on their compass they would have been bailed out simultaneously, and then there would have been no depression. A much lower level of foreclosures, and sanity would have prevailed.
“As it now stands, millions of homes have already been foreclosed and millions more are waiting in the wings, the unemployment level is a real 63million representing 40% of the workforce. The economy is trudging along on one foot as those who have stopped making mortgage payments are actually, bless them, spending their money buying things they had put off to make instead their overpriced mortgage, and 30,000 good people are filing bankruptcy each and every week.
Now something to think about: what value did America have invested in Wall Street? And what advantage did America receive from Wall Street being bailed out for a second time?
And everyone knows it will happen again!”
Anyone who really believes that the public was wrong and the banks were the good guys, should read all the information that has been developed about the Banks and the FRAUD they perpetuated on an “unsuspecting” Public, the banks knew these loans would never be repaid, and they didn’t care as they sold these loans as securities and took out default insurance, think “CDS” consumers basically uneducated to the intricate mortgage loan documents relied on their bank or mortgage company, and a lot of seniors also did. And they were conned!
Countrywide and several other banks have already been sued by the Attorneys General of several states over “Fraudulent intent” and they are making modifications with principal reductions under court orders.
The Banks failed to explain the ramifications on such loans as option arms where the borrower only qualified for a payment less than his interest and the difference was added back increasing the principal of the loan. The Banks didn’t care as they planned this bubble to continue indefinitely and were looking already to a refinance where they made additional points.
For those who still side with the banks, try studying the history of banking, it has always been laden with unscrupulous individuals; perhaps it will enlighten you, or perhaps not!
Phil Angelides
Phil Angelides, crisis commission investigation, is centered on the cause of the financial crisis but in simple terms it boils down to one word “GREED”
Phil Angelides, chairs the panel, that opened the hearing into the credit rating agencies shortcomings, his first comments were critical of Moody's for bestowing thousands of high ratings on risky debt that later became unhinged.
The shortcomings of the Wall Street insiders and the rating agencies come down to this simply but understated term, Profits. Ratings were hyped in order to meet Wall Street’s primary motivation and objective, profits and more profits. Investors were the catalyst by which those profits were obtained and as such ratings had to be exploited to draw them in.
But unfortunately Greed is not legislate-able, nor is it a crime unless it involves fraud, and in the case of the financial crisis fraud may have been a big participant.
Eric Kolchinsky one time manager of Moody's Investors Service unit, the division that rated subprime collateralized debt obligations (CDO) is now a "whistleblower" he has testified about being intimidated by management to provide high ratings for these inferior debt obligations. In a prepared comment, former Moody's derivatives vice president Mark Froeba supporting Kolchinsky, said “management used intimidation to create a docile population of analysts afraid to upset investment bankers and ready to cooperate to the maximum extent possible."
Moody's Corp, McGraw-Hill Cos' Standard & Poor's and Fimalac SA's Fitch Ratings have been widely faulted for fueling the crisis by assigning unreasonably high ratings for too long, and then downgrading them too fast. The commission is looking into just how close to the Investment banks these ratings agencies really were.
There have been several class action lawsuits filed against the rating agencies over the financial collapse and their roll in investor related losses. Credit raters are now trying to fend off lawsuits including fraud claims brought by their own shareholders.
Many financial companies, including banks and lenders, have been sued following the housing market bust; but the cases against ratings agencies may be among the most closely watched.
That's because the three biggest agencies Moody's Corp , McGraw-Hill Cos Inc's Standard & Poor's division and Fitch Ratings, part of Fimalac SA, have drawn fire from politicians and investors for awarding top marks to subprime-linked securities that later disintegrated. They've also been criticized as being too close to issuers who foot the bill for their ratings.
Phil Angelides, chairs the panel, that opened the hearing into the credit rating agencies shortcomings, his first comments were critical of Moody's for bestowing thousands of high ratings on risky debt that later became unhinged.
The shortcomings of the Wall Street insiders and the rating agencies come down to this simply but understated term, Profits. Ratings were hyped in order to meet Wall Street’s primary motivation and objective, profits and more profits. Investors were the catalyst by which those profits were obtained and as such ratings had to be exploited to draw them in.
But unfortunately Greed is not legislate-able, nor is it a crime unless it involves fraud, and in the case of the financial crisis fraud may have been a big participant.
Eric Kolchinsky one time manager of Moody's Investors Service unit, the division that rated subprime collateralized debt obligations (CDO) is now a "whistleblower" he has testified about being intimidated by management to provide high ratings for these inferior debt obligations. In a prepared comment, former Moody's derivatives vice president Mark Froeba supporting Kolchinsky, said “management used intimidation to create a docile population of analysts afraid to upset investment bankers and ready to cooperate to the maximum extent possible."
Moody's Corp, McGraw-Hill Cos' Standard & Poor's and Fimalac SA's Fitch Ratings have been widely faulted for fueling the crisis by assigning unreasonably high ratings for too long, and then downgrading them too fast. The commission is looking into just how close to the Investment banks these ratings agencies really were.
There have been several class action lawsuits filed against the rating agencies over the financial collapse and their roll in investor related losses. Credit raters are now trying to fend off lawsuits including fraud claims brought by their own shareholders.
Many financial companies, including banks and lenders, have been sued following the housing market bust; but the cases against ratings agencies may be among the most closely watched.
That's because the three biggest agencies Moody's Corp , McGraw-Hill Cos Inc's Standard & Poor's division and Fitch Ratings, part of Fimalac SA, have drawn fire from politicians and investors for awarding top marks to subprime-linked securities that later disintegrated. They've also been criticized as being too close to issuers who foot the bill for their ratings.
Politicians and Bribery, go hand in hand
Arizona : In 1991 a scandal resulting from the government sting known as AzScam exposed the sewer of corruption and blind ambition that remains Arizona politics even today, but its not just Arizona , this sewer of corruption and blind ambition is part and parcel of the American political system; it’s really how Washington works at its best.
Joseph Stedino working with the Phoenix District Attorney's office set up Operation "Desert Sting." Stedino, an ex-Mafia crony and Las Vegas talk show host, became Tony Vincent, a flashy, free spending Mafia capo looking to ensure the passage of a bill to legalize gambling in Arizona . As word of Vincent's willingness to buy votes spread among Arizona politicians, they eagerly lined up to have him grease their palms. Some he bought for as little as $600. Others, like Representative Don Kenney, the conservative Mormon chairman of the Arizona House Judiciary Committee, exacted over $50,000 in bribes. Over seventeen months, Vincent doled out a total of more than $300,000 in bribes, while police and prosecutors recorded it all on tape, ensuring that this sting would be one of the most successful ever.
Ultimately, twenty legislators, lobbyists, and political insiders would be indicted as a result of Desert Sting.
But what did they do that was so different than what goes on every day in Washington ?
Capital Hill: In 2007 and 2008, charges were filed against several well-connected Washington D.C. lobbyists, including counts of conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion, most of them related to work performed for Native American-owned casinos.
In the center of the scandal were former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his colleagues. Former Ohio Republican congressman Robert W. Ney was sentenced to 30 months in prison for receiving gifts in exchange for deals with Abramoff.
Lobbying is a form of bribery that is promoted by the US Congress, this form of selling their votes is to obtain financial support, it goes on every day yet we don’t complain or insist it stop.
It’s called K Street : a line of sparkling office blocks and fancy restaurants north of the White House. It is the heart of the lobbying industry in Washington DC , servicing clients and politicians from all over America and one of the most powerful stretches of tarmac in the world.
It also might be said to be one of the most corrupt: how corrupt was revealed when the Abramoff scandal exploded through the halls of power exposing the ugly role of lobbying in US politics and threatened to bring down some of the biggest names in public life.
The Abramoff scandal had put a rare spotlight on the entire lobbying system and some of the most powerful men in Washington began running for cover. They stretched from President George Bush himself, to top Republican officials, to the heads of think tanks, to senior congressmen from both parties.
Some, including Bush, began giving back money they got from him or donating it to charity. It was a far cry from when Abramoff would wine and dine clients at top restaurants, take them on golfing trips to Scotland or give them tickets to sporting events.
But the fact remains that Abramoff was one man. The real story is that he represents how much of Washington works. That system is fuelled by two things: money and lobbyists, and they are both related. 'Make no mistake: Abramoff was a crook. But crooks like Abramoff can only flourish in an environment where lobbyists and their clients offer lawmakers campaign contributions and gifts,' There are over 30,000 Lobbyists in Washington they outnumber federal elected officials 60 to one. And their money is still sough after daily.
Selling votes is how Washington works, it’s always that back room deal, a hand shake and a roll of bills wrapped with a rubber band. This is the reason America has been for sale, and is often sold cheaper that we would believe, sometime its just an apartment with free rent, or tickets to a ball game, or financial support for an office, but there is always that expectation that the money or trip or tickets just bought that individual. And that expectation has always been warranted.
Joseph Stedino working with the Phoenix District Attorney's office set up Operation "Desert Sting." Stedino, an ex-Mafia crony and Las Vegas talk show host, became Tony Vincent, a flashy, free spending Mafia capo looking to ensure the passage of a bill to legalize gambling in Arizona . As word of Vincent's willingness to buy votes spread among Arizona politicians, they eagerly lined up to have him grease their palms. Some he bought for as little as $600. Others, like Representative Don Kenney, the conservative Mormon chairman of the Arizona House Judiciary Committee, exacted over $50,000 in bribes. Over seventeen months, Vincent doled out a total of more than $300,000 in bribes, while police and prosecutors recorded it all on tape, ensuring that this sting would be one of the most successful ever.
Ultimately, twenty legislators, lobbyists, and political insiders would be indicted as a result of Desert Sting.
But what did they do that was so different than what goes on every day in Washington ?
Capital Hill: In 2007 and 2008, charges were filed against several well-connected Washington D.C. lobbyists, including counts of conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion, most of them related to work performed for Native American-owned casinos.
In the center of the scandal were former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his colleagues. Former Ohio Republican congressman Robert W. Ney was sentenced to 30 months in prison for receiving gifts in exchange for deals with Abramoff.
Lobbying is a form of bribery that is promoted by the US Congress, this form of selling their votes is to obtain financial support, it goes on every day yet we don’t complain or insist it stop.
It’s called K Street : a line of sparkling office blocks and fancy restaurants north of the White House. It is the heart of the lobbying industry in Washington DC , servicing clients and politicians from all over America and one of the most powerful stretches of tarmac in the world.
It also might be said to be one of the most corrupt: how corrupt was revealed when the Abramoff scandal exploded through the halls of power exposing the ugly role of lobbying in US politics and threatened to bring down some of the biggest names in public life.
The Abramoff scandal had put a rare spotlight on the entire lobbying system and some of the most powerful men in Washington began running for cover. They stretched from President George Bush himself, to top Republican officials, to the heads of think tanks, to senior congressmen from both parties.
Some, including Bush, began giving back money they got from him or donating it to charity. It was a far cry from when Abramoff would wine and dine clients at top restaurants, take them on golfing trips to Scotland or give them tickets to sporting events.
But the fact remains that Abramoff was one man. The real story is that he represents how much of Washington works. That system is fuelled by two things: money and lobbyists, and they are both related. 'Make no mistake: Abramoff was a crook. But crooks like Abramoff can only flourish in an environment where lobbyists and their clients offer lawmakers campaign contributions and gifts,' There are over 30,000 Lobbyists in Washington they outnumber federal elected officials 60 to one. And their money is still sough after daily.
Selling votes is how Washington works, it’s always that back room deal, a hand shake and a roll of bills wrapped with a rubber band. This is the reason America has been for sale, and is often sold cheaper that we would believe, sometime its just an apartment with free rent, or tickets to a ball game, or financial support for an office, but there is always that expectation that the money or trip or tickets just bought that individual. And that expectation has always been warranted.
Economics 101 why America can’t get out of this depression
Economists are touting the great strides consumers are making in paying down their debt, but in prompting this illusion they have tuned to the wrong channel.
The real reason many Americans’ went into debt was because their wages didn't keep up with the costs of goods and services. The median wage (adjusted for inflation) dropped between 2001 and 2007, the last purported economic expansion. And that was one of the primary reasons America began borrowing the equity out of their homes, in many cases it was to be able to make the payments and retain some semblance of a purchasing power.
A recession had already begun in 2000, and by September 11, the economy came to an abrupt stand still. What brought us out of that bog was the ability to draw on our own assets. That is what actually maintained the appearance of a robust economy, but that was an appearance only!
As the bubble began to burst, most of the borrowers; that class between poverty and abundance all but threw in the towel
The common wisdom today among Wall Street’s elite is that excessive debt-financed spending was one of the causes of the recent recession; to the contrary, that was what brought America out of the last recession. It was when the ability of borrowers to refinance their assets in order to maintain the economy fell apart that we dropped right back into the fan.
So now Americans out of work and living with much less income from working fewer hours have no choice but to cut back their debt load and perhaps this is why millions have either stopping making their mortgage payments, and in some cases actually filed for bankruptcy.
Consumer spending is 70 percent of the economy. Since consumers had until the financial collapse traditionally lived with their credit cards outstretched, it helps explain why so few jobs are being created, aside from the fact that everything has been outsourced; and it explains why we can't escape the gravitational pull of this Depression without far more government spending. However should government continue to spend like a drunken sailor it will inevitable crush the US economy even further, it seems to be an impasse we are disaster-prone either way we go.
It's also a bad prophecy for the future.
The real reason many Americans’ went into debt was because their wages didn't keep up with the costs of goods and services. The median wage (adjusted for inflation) dropped between 2001 and 2007, the last purported economic expansion. And that was one of the primary reasons America began borrowing the equity out of their homes, in many cases it was to be able to make the payments and retain some semblance of a purchasing power.
A recession had already begun in 2000, and by September 11, the economy came to an abrupt stand still. What brought us out of that bog was the ability to draw on our own assets. That is what actually maintained the appearance of a robust economy, but that was an appearance only!
As the bubble began to burst, most of the borrowers; that class between poverty and abundance all but threw in the towel
The common wisdom today among Wall Street’s elite is that excessive debt-financed spending was one of the causes of the recent recession; to the contrary, that was what brought America out of the last recession. It was when the ability of borrowers to refinance their assets in order to maintain the economy fell apart that we dropped right back into the fan.
So now Americans out of work and living with much less income from working fewer hours have no choice but to cut back their debt load and perhaps this is why millions have either stopping making their mortgage payments, and in some cases actually filed for bankruptcy.
Consumer spending is 70 percent of the economy. Since consumers had until the financial collapse traditionally lived with their credit cards outstretched, it helps explain why so few jobs are being created, aside from the fact that everything has been outsourced; and it explains why we can't escape the gravitational pull of this Depression without far more government spending. However should government continue to spend like a drunken sailor it will inevitable crush the US economy even further, it seems to be an impasse we are disaster-prone either way we go.
It's also a bad prophecy for the future.
Friday, June 11, 2010
BP, the CIA, Whistle Blowers, the Alaska Pipeline, and political payoffs, make for a toxic mix.
BP who was involved in the free rent for political elitist Rahm Emanuel, has a history of “negligence” which is now primed to cause more than the deepwater horizon catastrophe, it has expanded to the Alaska pipeline, again!
BP owns the controlling interest in the trans-Alaska pipeline, and Tuesday it ruptured spilling over 100,000 gallons of crude. Now this is leaving us to wonder which one of BP’s projects will be next. The pipe was not properly maintained by BP, and there could be other fractured areas from the over 1000 miles the pipe line stretches also stressed and primed to burst.
As it now turns out, BP’s management of the trans-Alaska pipeline is more illusionary than real. It's corroded, it's undermanned and "basic maintenance" is completely lacking.
BP’s claim to fame has been to through money at politicians, and to use coercive tactics to intimidate anyone who would blow the whistle on what can only be characterized as the intentional mismanagement of their sites. Rather than actually maintain the sites, they have apparently skimped on expensive hardware, and failed to hire or pay for adequate supervision, all part of a company bottom line at the expense of us.
Most are afraid to cross swords with BP, who has a habit of hunting down and destroying the careers of those who attempt to warn of pipeline problems.
In one case, BP's CEO of Alaskan operations hired a former CIA expert to break into the home of a whistleblower, Chuck Hamel, who had complained of conditions at the pipe's tanker facility. BP tapped his phone calls with a US congressman and ran a surveillance and smear campaign against him. When caught, a US federal judge said BP's acts were "reminiscent of Nazi Germany."
On August 6 2006 questions were then raised about BP and the Alaska pipeline, and their skimping on the necessary additives.
“Did BP Purposefully Allow its Alaska Pipeline to Corrode in Order to Shut it Down and Boost Oil Prices?” until the shutdown, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield in northern Alaska produced 400,000 barrels of oil a day. Once it was shut the price of oil surged three percent. However the real issue may be are they merely skimping to save money for their bottom line or is there something more sinister going on?
Once shut down, North America’s largest oilfield remained shut for several months. BP closed the oilfield “allegedly” after discovering what it described as "unexpectedly severe corrosion" of the oil pipeline. Questions were then raised about whether BP purposely allowed the pipeline to become corroded as longtime oil industry watchdog, Chuck Hamel stated that BP had been warned and ignored those warnings.
It began even prior to 2004 but in 2004 Chuck Hamel warned BP about corrosion problems.
In 2004 he wrote a letter to the BP Board of Directors that said workers at Prudhoe Bay were concerned about safety, health and threats to the environment at the oilfield. Hamel wrote that the workers "seek to see the corrosion problem addressed and corrective action undertaken without further delay and before any of their colleagues at Prudhoe are harmed."
Since 1999 Hamel had been tracking the corrosion control program by BP for the thousands of miles of flow line that BP had. He found that they have been cutting corners, budget problems. And the first document that came to his hands from the workers was in 1999, that they were not injecting the sufficient amount of chemical inhibitors to prevent the rusting.
The pipeline is like a radiator in your car. You have to add antifreeze which has chemical components that prevent rusting. Just picture part of the months of the year you switch over to plain water. Your radiator’s going to rust. It’s not very complicated. There’s so much water in the system in the Alaska field that comes out of the ground formation with the oil and along the way it rusts the pipes unless anti corrosives are added.
BP has had a long-running series of problems, had been fined on several occasions, some very large fines for failing to properly keep up its lines, so why have we allowed them to continue in control? Who has been paid what? These are fundamental questions that lay at the doorstep of congress.
BP engineers, and BP corrosion experts, have left the company because they wouldn’t participate in BP’s look the other way corrosion program, and now we have to deal with the mess they have created.
Everyone who didn’t want to be part of it, those that didn’t, were independently coming to Hamel—he was their outlet—anonymous complaints were made through him, back to the company, and when BP didn’t do the right thing, he went public.
Chuck Hamel has had a long history watching BP, over, more than 15 years. In fact, he settled a case with BP, when they hired Wackenhut to investigate and discredit him
BP, engaged the Wackenhut Security Company, and five undercover women, and men, for surveillance of Hamel and his wife, they tried to discredit him, hidden cameras were placed in hotel rooms. Eventually all five of the ladies realized that he wasn’t the bad person BP tried to make him out to be, and they all came over to his side. 60 Minutes in a segment called them "Chucky’s Angels." When BP was discovered, they attacked him. $18 million invested by BP to destroy his credibility, including a van parked in front of his home, picking up phones conversations, and they even picked up his trash.
This was not an isolated case. Captain James Woodle, once in charge of the pipe's Valdez terminus, was blackmailed into resigning the post when he complained of disastrous conditions there. The weapon on Woodle was a file of faked evidence of marital infidelity.
And this is a company that is close to the Obama Administration and gave Obama some $77,000 for his presidential bid, and provided a rent free apartment for Rohm Emmanuel for 5 years. Who else in Washington do they control?
BP owns the controlling interest in the trans-Alaska pipeline, and Tuesday it ruptured spilling over 100,000 gallons of crude. Now this is leaving us to wonder which one of BP’s projects will be next. The pipe was not properly maintained by BP, and there could be other fractured areas from the over 1000 miles the pipe line stretches also stressed and primed to burst.
As it now turns out, BP’s management of the trans-Alaska pipeline is more illusionary than real. It's corroded, it's undermanned and "basic maintenance" is completely lacking.
BP’s claim to fame has been to through money at politicians, and to use coercive tactics to intimidate anyone who would blow the whistle on what can only be characterized as the intentional mismanagement of their sites. Rather than actually maintain the sites, they have apparently skimped on expensive hardware, and failed to hire or pay for adequate supervision, all part of a company bottom line at the expense of us.
Most are afraid to cross swords with BP, who has a habit of hunting down and destroying the careers of those who attempt to warn of pipeline problems.
In one case, BP's CEO of Alaskan operations hired a former CIA expert to break into the home of a whistleblower, Chuck Hamel, who had complained of conditions at the pipe's tanker facility. BP tapped his phone calls with a US congressman and ran a surveillance and smear campaign against him. When caught, a US federal judge said BP's acts were "reminiscent of Nazi Germany."
On August 6 2006 questions were then raised about BP and the Alaska pipeline, and their skimping on the necessary additives.
“Did BP Purposefully Allow its Alaska Pipeline to Corrode in Order to Shut it Down and Boost Oil Prices?” until the shutdown, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield in northern Alaska produced 400,000 barrels of oil a day. Once it was shut the price of oil surged three percent. However the real issue may be are they merely skimping to save money for their bottom line or is there something more sinister going on?
Once shut down, North America’s largest oilfield remained shut for several months. BP closed the oilfield “allegedly” after discovering what it described as "unexpectedly severe corrosion" of the oil pipeline. Questions were then raised about whether BP purposely allowed the pipeline to become corroded as longtime oil industry watchdog, Chuck Hamel stated that BP had been warned and ignored those warnings.
It began even prior to 2004 but in 2004 Chuck Hamel warned BP about corrosion problems.
In 2004 he wrote a letter to the BP Board of Directors that said workers at Prudhoe Bay were concerned about safety, health and threats to the environment at the oilfield. Hamel wrote that the workers "seek to see the corrosion problem addressed and corrective action undertaken without further delay and before any of their colleagues at Prudhoe are harmed."
Since 1999 Hamel had been tracking the corrosion control program by BP for the thousands of miles of flow line that BP had. He found that they have been cutting corners, budget problems. And the first document that came to his hands from the workers was in 1999, that they were not injecting the sufficient amount of chemical inhibitors to prevent the rusting.
The pipeline is like a radiator in your car. You have to add antifreeze which has chemical components that prevent rusting. Just picture part of the months of the year you switch over to plain water. Your radiator’s going to rust. It’s not very complicated. There’s so much water in the system in the Alaska field that comes out of the ground formation with the oil and along the way it rusts the pipes unless anti corrosives are added.
BP has had a long-running series of problems, had been fined on several occasions, some very large fines for failing to properly keep up its lines, so why have we allowed them to continue in control? Who has been paid what? These are fundamental questions that lay at the doorstep of congress.
BP engineers, and BP corrosion experts, have left the company because they wouldn’t participate in BP’s look the other way corrosion program, and now we have to deal with the mess they have created.
Everyone who didn’t want to be part of it, those that didn’t, were independently coming to Hamel—he was their outlet—anonymous complaints were made through him, back to the company, and when BP didn’t do the right thing, he went public.
Chuck Hamel has had a long history watching BP, over, more than 15 years. In fact, he settled a case with BP, when they hired Wackenhut to investigate and discredit him
BP, engaged the Wackenhut Security Company, and five undercover women, and men, for surveillance of Hamel and his wife, they tried to discredit him, hidden cameras were placed in hotel rooms. Eventually all five of the ladies realized that he wasn’t the bad person BP tried to make him out to be, and they all came over to his side. 60 Minutes in a segment called them "Chucky’s Angels." When BP was discovered, they attacked him. $18 million invested by BP to destroy his credibility, including a van parked in front of his home, picking up phones conversations, and they even picked up his trash.
This was not an isolated case. Captain James Woodle, once in charge of the pipe's Valdez terminus, was blackmailed into resigning the post when he complained of disastrous conditions there. The weapon on Woodle was a file of faked evidence of marital infidelity.
And this is a company that is close to the Obama Administration and gave Obama some $77,000 for his presidential bid, and provided a rent free apartment for Rohm Emmanuel for 5 years. Who else in Washington do they control?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
