Saturday, September 27, 2008

Panic In Wingnuttia!

Does anyone else wonder if the Gooper powers-that-be are trying to throw this election? From the Palin pick right through to the suspension of McCain's campaign, so he could fly back to D.C. and save the day, economically, when, by his own admission he doesn't know jack about economics, it is as if McCrankypants is ready to throw the fight.

He babbles strung-together talking points, straight from his stump speech, at a debate? He even uses the same jokes, and when no one laughs, it makes those of us watching cringe for him. At least he doesn't laugh maniacally, all by himself.

He says he would rather lose and election than lose a war. I've often wondered just what the hell that meant.

We all know who the real enemy of the Bush Republican party is and it ain't Al Qaeda. It's the Democrats and those godless liberals. If there's anything the last two administrations, and the congresses during that time period, have shown us, in stark clarity, it is that there is an internal war; a cold civil war of sorts (not very civil, actually) going on in this country.

It's been going on for most of my life and I turn 60 this year. Nevertheless, It seems that our cold civil war has been declared by the Republicans, loud and clear. They don't only want to beat Democrats in elections, they want to destroy them for any practical purpose. They want one party rule, not just for the foreseeable future, but forever. This means they must be far-sighted, strategic thinkers. The people who run the GOP seem to be just that. The Bush/Cheney administration has managed to make as big a mess as they did a haul for themselves and their political pals.

Maybe they figure that there is no way in hell they can win back the White House and have a malleable congress, without which they have no chance of pushing through their god-awful, murderous, thieving, pseudo-theocratic agenda. Better to make the nightmare even worse with damned near unsolvable problems and hand it to Obama and the Democrats. They can spend four years sharpening their sabers of fascism, while Obama has to break some campaign promises just to keep Americans from being sold into slavery in China or Saudi Arabia.

I'd like to see Obama win, turn members of the Bush administration over to a special prosecutor and then get on with business. We are, for all political purposes (and maybe economic) living in a failed state. It's time for a real president to call the American people out to serve their country; to build a new Democratic Republic based on the true principles of our original founders; principles so inspired, even the founders could not live up to them.

We have had the New Deal and the New Frontier. Maybe it is time for a new founding; a re-birth, as a nation. Perhaps, even in the middle of the untenable mess in which we find ourselves, it is time to return to and remember our origins.

We must also demand transparency NOW. We, the people, cannot shy away form the truth about our leaders, our nation and ourselves. We can either get honest with ourselves and with each other, or we are finished as a nation and as a people.

So, I'll vote for Obama, because I think that we will need him in the years ahead. It's going to get really rough. I want someone who is smart, honest and inspiring; someone who knows what it means to be an effective leader and has the energy to lead in a time of untold crisis. I want a person who can think in depth about issues as they are, not as we wish they were, and plot a course for change; a person who can think outside the box and create a vision for the country.

Voting for Obama is also an admission that he needs us, not merely at the ballot box, but in the trenches as America faces collapse, in just about ever way imaginable. Obama's whole candidacy seems to be about a call to action. It is a call to action that we dismiss at our own peril.

Conservatives starting to panic about Palin

Prominent conservatives are finally starting to realize that an unqualified half-term hockey mom from Alaska might not be the best choice to be a 72 year old heartbeat away from the presidency. Here’s the brutal roundup.

Kathleen Parker:

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted. Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there.

Wingnut extaordinaire K-Lo:

I’m not where my friend Kathleen Parker is — wanting her to step aside to spend more time with her family and Alaska — but that’s not a crazy suggestion.

McCain campaign insiders, via Ed Schultz:

McCain Camp insiders say Palin “clueless”

Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin. The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as “disastrous.” One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, “What are we going to do?” The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is “clueless.”

Etc., etc., etc., etc.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Friday, September 26, 2008

McCain Strategy: Blurt Out Randon Crap!

There are several reasons why Senator Obama is enjoying a double-digit lead in the "honest and trustworthy" category (47 percent to 36 percent according the new ABC News/Washington Post poll). First, Senator Obama doesn't, you know, lie to the American people every damn day. Second, Senator Obama didn't vote with the dishonest, corrupt Bush administration 90 percent of the time.

But one of the main reasons why the nation appears to be lining up against Senator McCain's insanely obvious lack of integrity could be because his very serious and mavericky campaign strategy can be described in four simple words:

Blurt Out Random Crap.

"Crap," in this context, is defined as everything from lies to weasel-words to inexplicably weird nonsense. And it seems like Senator McCain does this a lot. So much so that we can only conclude that it's intentional.

The goal: Get McCain on record saying something no matter how ridiculous. This way, he can hit the stump later and boast that he said something with regards to scary stuff in the news. I said something [that didn't make any sense and was probably a lie] and Senator Obama didn't say anything [also a lie]! My friends! And whenever he's accused of routinely blurting out random crap, Senator McCain trucks out the old punishment theorem: If Senator Obama had only agreed to the town halls, I wouldn't be selling-out the last shreds of my honor or integrity just to get elected. Can't you see? Senator Obama turned me into a hack, dammit!

First thing that pops into his head. Is it truthful? Doesn't matter. Sex education for kindergarteners, for instance. "Palin sold her jet on eBay," for instance. Does it even make sense or is it just a bunch of words strung together to form a sentence? Who cares. "President Putin of Germany," for instance. "Delivering bottled hot water to dehydrated babies," for instance.

I'll admit that the latter category is more fun to document. However, the lying is especially infuriating -- and maybe that's the idea -- piss off the liberals. But it can't be helping with independents and undecideds who are discovering quite rapidly that the mythology of "John McCain" doesn't match the real-life John McCain. The Real McCain is rapidly coming into focus for those in the middle. McRage. McLiar. McPanderer. McIncompetent. McBush. And the Obama campaign only needs to tweak these frames. After all, the McCain campaign is doing all of the heavy lifting by itself.

And as we witnessed with the Zapatero episode, as soon as Senator McCain blurts out random crap, his staff scrambles onto the stage with pronouncements and excuses so as to make it seem as if McCain meant to say what he said -- a routine which only serves to compound the farcical nature of it all.

So it comes as no surprise that the McCain-Palin strategy on the economic crisis is to -- that's right! -- blurt out random crap.

All along and without regard to the actual status of the economy, Senator McCain has blurted out the well-known talking point "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." Why? Because that's the Bush Republican position. Those exact words. And shortly after President Paulson announced his bailout plan when it appeared as if we were on the verge of a complete meltdown, Senator McCain, in the most Pavlovian sense, couldn't help himself and -- WHOOPS! -- he said it again. Why? Because that's what he always says about the economy.

When he was immediately and appropriately called out for being a doof, he blurted out that everyone in the world misunderstood him. The "fundamentals," he claimed, meant "the workers." In other words, American workers are strong. What the hell does that have to do with the status of the economy? Does it mean the workforce can lift heavy things -- like factory equipment that's being shipped to China? How does one quantify worker "strength" as an economic indicator? Even if a crazy economist somewhere includes the morale of the workforce as a fundamental of the economy, the McCain campaign clearly overlooked the reality that we've lost 1.75 million jobs this year and unemployment spiked to 6.1 percent two days after Sarah Palin's overrated acceptance speech. Not strong, McCain. Bad! But, then again, he really didn't mean "the workers" in the first place anyway.

When this failed, he blurted out something about averting the impending economic meltdown by convening a government commission, ostensibly to study the urgent crisis and perhaps issue a recommendation sometime in the future. Decisive!

When that didn't work, he called for the firing of the head of the SEC, Chris Cox, even though Phil Gramm, the author of McCain's economic plan (pre-crisis), is also responsible for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 -- a piece of legislation which, along with Reaganomics and Alan Greenspan's love of all things bubble-shaped, is directly responsible for this present mess. Phil Gramm. A man who said that the economic crisis is mostly a figment of our whiny imagination. A man who could be our next Treasury Secretary and steward of the economy. Hire him, but fire the other guy. Because that'll somehow help. Oh, Magoo.

It's worth noting that while that idea was failing, Senator McCain inexplicably called for the firing of the head of the Federal Elections Commission, Donald F. McGahn II. Poor McGahn II. Minding his own business, and suddenly McCain's on television calling him out for screwing the economic pooch.

When that failed, Senator McCain rolled out one of his most egregious lies to date, claiming that Senator Obama, of all people, has been directly responsible for the crisis. Why? Because the former CEO of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, once talked on the phone with someone associated with the Obama campaign. Like 16 months ago. And that somehow makes Raines a close economic advisor. Never mind that Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, was on the Freddie Mac payroll as recently as a couple of weeks ago.

Which leads us to Senator McCain blurting out that no-one on his staff is associated in any way with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

What's next, McCain campaign? A Mogwai ate a sandwich after midnight; morphed into a Gremlin; then caused the economic crisis? Or will it be Marty McFly's sports almanac screwing up the space-time continuum? Or will it be Reverend Wright putting a curse on the banks? Whatever is next is bound to be crazier than what's already been said.

And now -- wait. What's this? As I wrap this up, it's being reported that Senator McCain wants to delay the debates so he can focus on the economic crisis. Oh, and now he wants to suspend campaigning. If what we've seen from the senator so far is him "focusing" on the economy -- what the hell is he like when he's multitasking? What's next, McCain? Suspending the election?

So what will a McCain administration economic policy look like? From the lack of foresight and leadership we've witnessed so far, we can assume that McCain might choose a new economic policy totally at random, depending on how saucy he feels from minute to minute. "I'll have a muffin with my Egg Beaters, and replace Bernanke with that hooplehead who weedwacks the knoll." Two minutes later... "Hey Phil, we don't need the Nasdaq anymore. Kill it." Two minutes later... "My God! What have I done! Quickly -- nationalize the paintball industry! Go!"

One thing is for sure. Expecting a workable solution to this economic meltdown from a man as knee-jerk, dishonest and incomprehensible as John McCain would be an exercise in national self-destruction. He doesn't have anything real to say, and what he does say, he can't sell. He simply can't do the gig. A vote for McCain-Palin is absolutely a vote for the end of America as we know it.

Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! Go!

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Nine Dems oppose foreign bank bailout

Dan Reilly passes this along:

Nine Democratic Senators have thrown a possible wrench into the consensus bill -- a request for a ban on bailing out foreign banks.

Dianne Feinstein, Amy Klobuchar, Jim Webb, Ken Salazar, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Barbara Boxer, Blanche Lincoln and Tom Harkin sent Majority Leader Harry Reid a polite but firm five-point letter. It also calls for "clearly specified" limits on exec comp -- which may be hard to get.

"The provisions include: (1) a new regulatory structure to protect our financial system against further instability; (2) releasing of funds to the Treasury in installments to ensure proper implementation and accountability; (3) a clearly specified limit on executive compensation in rescued companies; (4) ensuring that taxpayers are protected against loss and share in any possible gains; and (5) a restriction on financial assistance to foreign banks and institutions."

....and we have this to pass along: We are telling you now that we will not participate in a scheme that does not demand accountability of everyone who has, in some way, contributed to this cataclysm. Got that!! No more! (I.U.)

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Lawmakers reach compromise deal on $700B bailout

Emerging from a two-hour negotiating session, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman said, "We are very confident that we can act expeditiously."

"I now expect that we will indeed have a plan that can pass the House, pass the Senate (and) be signed by the president," said Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah.

The bipartisan consensus on the general direction of the legislation was reported just hours before President Bush was to host presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain and congressional leaders at the White House for discussions on how to clear obstacles to the unpopular rescue plan.

"We'll want to hear from (Treasury) Secretary (Henry) Paulson, and take a look at the details. We look forward to a good discussion at the meeting this afternoon," he said.

On Wall Street, financial markets grew more upbeat as the Dow Jones industrial average at times rose more than 300 points.

Key lawmakers in Washington said at midday that few difficulties actually remained, although no details of their accord were immediately available.

"There really isn't much of a deadlock to break," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

But there were fresh signs of trouble in the House Republican Caucus. A group of GOP lawmakers circulated an alternative designed to attract private capital back into the credit markets with less government intrusion.

Under the proposal, the government would provide insurance to companies that agree to buy frozen assets, rather than purchase them directly as envisioned under the administration's plan. The firms would have to pay insurance premiums to the Treasury Department for the coverage.

"The taxpayers haven't done anything wrong," said Rep Eric Cantor, R-Va., adding that rather than require them to bear the cost of the bailout, the alternative "pretty much puts the burden on Wall Street over time."

Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader, was huddling with McCain on the rescue. Earlier, asked whether the GOP presidential nominee could corral restive Republicans to support the plan, Boehner said, "Who knows?"

And Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the only House Republican in the bargaining meeting, did not directly say he agreed with the other lawmakers who emerged describing an imminent deal.

"There was progress today," said Bachus, the senior Republican on the Financial Services panel.

Bush told the nation in a televised address Wednesday night that passage of the package his administration has proposed is urgently needed to calm the markets and restore confidence in the reeling financial system. His top spokeswoman, Dana Perino, had told reporters earlier Thursday that "significant progress" was being made.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's agreement with Democrats on limiting pay for executives of bailed out financial institutions and giving taxpayers an equity stake in the companies cleared a significant hurdle.

The core of the plan envisions the government buying up sour assets of shaky financial firms in a bid to keep them from going under and to stave off a potentially severe recession.

It was not yet clear how lawmakers had resolved lingering differences over how to phase in the eye-popping cost -- a measure demanded by Democrats and some Republicans who want stronger congressional control over the bailout -- without spooking markets. A plan to let the government take an ownership stake in troubled companies as part of the rescue, rather than just buying bad debt, also was a topic of intense negotiation.

Bush acknowledged Wednesday night that the bailout would be a "tough vote" for lawmakers. But he said failing to approve it would risk dire consequences for the economy and most Americans.

"Without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold," Bush said as he worked to resurrect the unpopular bailout package. "Our entire economy is in danger."

Obama and McCain called for a bipartisan effort to deal with the crisis, little more than five weeks before national elections in which the economy has emerged as the dominant theme.

Presidential politics intruded, nonetheless, when McCain on Wednesday asked Obama to agree to delay their first debate, scheduled for Friday, to deal with the meltdown. Obama said the debate should go ahead.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Incompetence or Machiavellian Planning:

The Bush Administration's Culpability in the Financial Crisis

by Meg White

The timing and urgency of the Bush Administration's call for action from Congress on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan to save the financial industry from collapse leaves only two possibilities. Either the White House is criminally incompetent when it comes to the economy, or our current financial status is part of a structured crisis planned as an early October surprise.

We believe that this is part of a structured financial crisis that got out of hand and unraveled too quickly. The great economic unraveling was supposed to happen early during the next administration. Our economy has been held together with bubble gum and strands of thread for several years.

Bush told friends from Texas, visiting the Bushes at the White House, that he intends to leave the next administration with little hope or resources with which to boot the status-quo and begin making long over-due changes in the governance of this country. This country and her people cannot not long endure without major transformation as a country....the grass-roots kind of transformation.

(The thing is; there is going to be change, and very soon. The difference between transformation and cataclysm is consciousness or conscious choice.)

He also told his friends, all of whom returned to Houston with concern for Junior's mental health, or lack thereof, that he was planning to leave the next administration no choice but to stay in Iraq. Sounds like a plan to bomb Iran, eh?

One thing seems sure. The financial meltdown, leaving the federal government in bankruptcy court, is not a mistake by the Bushites. Breaking the financial back of the federal treasury, in order to throw all of those "FDR/Communist 'entitlement' programs" out the window, has long been the goal of the Republican party, not just the ultra-conservative or neoconservative manifestations of it.

Both scenarios are frightening. Moreover, they lead us to the conclusion that the Bush Administration should have no hand in trying to solve this problem. (or any other problem, for that matter. I'm beginning to think that there is no bad news, no matter how bad, that the Bushites can't find a way to that event event into a gold mine for them and/or their pals on Wall Street and, often, their political supporters, plus the added joy of seeing their political rank and file opposition crash and burn. (There own rank and file, caught in the killing fields in Iraq and Afghanistan and the financial meat grinder at home, like most Americans in the poorer end of the spectrum of America's very own caste system, are just collateral damage,. unfortunate and all that, but necessary for the CAUSE.)

There's no doubt that the timing of this forced legislation is fortuitous for the Bush Administration. The passage of this proposal could be the last act of Congress before an election. Lawmakers don't want to look like they're politically stagnated right before their constituents head to the polls, making Congress more likely to go along with the plan.

More political chicken is obviously being played, right when we need bi-partisan sanity, not more D.C. games. Maybe there really is no sanity left in Washington, D.C.. How could there be? They can't even agree on what is real and what is not. Theynot only don't share any of the same opinions, which is expected, but they don't share the same facts, which is not to be expected and can be a sign of a number of things, none of which is good.

While the argument can be made that the meltdown has been approaching for months, it's been clear for weeks that government intervention was needed to stem the tide. Paulson's three-page proposal was presented to Congress a mere five days before their fall recess. The proposal came packaged with wild warnings from the White House about the dire consequences of Congress' inaction.

No bailout for Junior's wealthy pals and there will be Mushroom clouds rising over American cities. That's more or less the message.

An economic collapse is coming. It is only a matter of when, sometime between now and late January. I will be amazed if we make it until Christmas. There is really not a damn thing we can do about it.

Bailouts are not the answer. All this bailout is going to do is just what the others have done; kick the can down the road and make matters worse. As American taxpayers and voters we must be aware of what has been clear to many of us for many years now, that our opinions don't matter to the very people who are now in hysterics and screaming bloody murder that we face hells gates if we don't clean up their mess. It's called extortion. Typical of a protection racket. Forget bailouts, call the RICO squad.

Some have equated this situation to the administration's rush to war. Also, the administration's slowness to fully comprehend or react to impending financial troubles reminds many of the ignored warnings about al-Qaeda before Sept. 11, 2001.

Used car salesmen: you have to hurry, make a decision fast or all will be lost. This administration has no credibility; like the little boy who cried wolf. Of course, this time, they are really in trouble and so are the rest of us, but nothing, least of all bailouts, is going to stop this trainwreck. No more cover-ups, fix-ups (legal and otherwise) or non-answers from on high.

This administration has been running a protection racket since 9/11/01, at the very least. American minds were shocked and awed by the events of 9/11 including the anthrax attacks which followed and nothing has has been the same since. We were hammered with one "orange" alert after another, witnessed increased incidents of terrorism worldwide and, of course, Osama's top ten video hits, hitting the airwaves at the most opportune times for this administration.

It's like the cold war on steroids.

We have been continuously lied to, if not deceived, fear-mongered and whipped into sick, patriotic vengeance-seeking against people who had nothing to do with 9/11.

We have lived through the Bush/Cheney nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue, feeling powerless and hopeless to stop the massive train-wreck we saw coming. Now, our deaf government wants us to believe that while our thoughts and opinions may not be worth much, our money certainly is quite powerful. We can save the world! Of course, we are talking about money we don't have yet and may never have. (Does anyone suddenly feel richer as a result of this last week? I know I don't.)

In any case, there were plenty of people talking about the crisis before this fall. Then New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post in February that was remarkably prescient about the looming crisis, ending it with the following warning:

"When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits."

Spitzer testified before Congress on the subject the same day the piece was published. He noted that the Bush Administration actively prohibited state's attorney generals from enforcing their own laws curbing predatory lending. The federal government even went as far as to stop an investigation of discriminatory lending in Spitzer's home state.

Spitzer was not the first, and certainly not the last, to bring attention to the crisis. As far back as 2004, the FBI warned of a coming mortgage crisis. But, as the Los Angeles Times reported last month, when the FBI asked for more resources to fight mortgage fraud, the program got cuts instead.

There's no way to give credit to all the people who warned of this crisis before the meltdown. But let's take a quick look at the man that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) accused of reacting too slowly to the crisis.

On March 22, 2007, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) wrote a letter to Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke and Paulson warning of a "potential coming wave of foreclosures," urging quick action from both the government and the private sector. He concluded the letter with the following:

"There is an opportunity here to bring different interests together in the best interests of American homeowners and the American economy. Please don't let this opportunity pass us by."

Eighteen months later to the day, the government has the gall to prod Congress into acting.

Chaos Capitalism?

And McCain, right before he faulted Obama for not immediately speaking out about the economic crash last week, apparently spoke too soon. He flailed widely for a solution, even irrationally calling for the firing of Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Chris Cox. His actions this week have been denounced as "un-presidential" by conservative stalwarts such as George Will and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal.

It could be that the Bush Administration had such skewed priorities that they just didn't see the crisis until it was too big to miss. But it's also possible that they were playing the disaster capitalism game so eloquently outlined by author Naomi Klein, who leveled such a charge last week: Let things deteriorate until there is no choice about the matter, and then let government contractors swoop in and save the day at a massive profit.

Oh, they saw it coming!

They set out to cause it.

They simply misjudged the time it would take for them to be "outed," so to speak, as highly irresponsible, greedy, entitled, lustful maniacs who do not live in the same reality as any of us.

No way, no how, McCain!

One of the recurring themes for lawmakers who are analyzing the proposal on the Hill this week is that the Bush Administration has left many questions unanswered. One of the questions we think they should be asking, whether this crisis came from ignorance or a master plan is, "Why should we put you people in charge of fixing this mess?"



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

DHS Set To Use Mind-Reading Technology

As Reported by "Faux Noise":

More on America, the police state and the thought police.

Bet George Orwell is glad he's dead.

Baggage searches are SOOOOOO early-21st century. Homeland Security is now testing the next generation of security screening — a body scanner that can read your mind.

Most preventive screening looks for explosives or metals that pose a threat. But a new system called MALINTENT turns the old school approach on its head. This Orwellian-sounding machine detects the person — not the device — set to wreak havoc and terror.

MALINTENT, the brainchild of the cutting-edge Human Factors division in Homeland Security's directorate for Science and Technology, searches your body for non-verbal cues that predict whether you mean harm to your fellow passengers.

Or you could just be having a mild panic attack, because of the officious, authoritarian security deployed in airports to make us all feel safer, not necessarily be safer. Safety by harassment.

It has a series of sensors and imaging devices that read your body temperature, heart rate and respiration for unconscious tells invisible to the naked eye — signals terrorists and criminals may display in advance of an attack.

There are other mental states (not just a terrorist mind set) that can cause one's vitals to shift about. For example, I have chronic pain. When my pain level goes up for some reason, like carrying heavy luggage, so does my blood pressure. This is not at all unusual, but could be interpreted as tension due to intent to blow up a passenger jet.

But this is no polygraph test. Subjects do not get hooked up or strapped down for a careful reading; those sensors do all the work without any actual physical contact. It's like an X-ray for bad intentions.

Currently, all the sensors and equipment are packaged inside a mobile screening laboratory about the size of a trailer or large truck bed, and just last week, Homeland Security put it to a field test in Maryland, scanning 144 mostly unwitting human subjects.

While I'd love to give you the full scoop on the unusual experiment, testing is ongoing and full disclosure would compromise future tests.

Click here for an exclusive look at MALINTENT in action.

But what I can tell you is that the test subjects were average Joes living in the D.C. area who thought they were attending something like a technology expo; in order for the experiment to work effectively and to get the testing subjects to buy in, the cover story had to be convincing.

While the 144 test subjects thought they were merely passing through an entrance way, they actually passed through a series of sensors that screened them for bad intentions.

Homeland Security also selected a group of 23 attendees to be civilian "accomplices" in their test. They were each given a "disruptive device" to carry through the portal — and, unlike the other attendees, were conscious that they were on a mission.

In order to conduct these tests on human subjects, DHS had to meet rigorous safety standards to ensure the screening would not cause any physical or emotional harm.

So here's how it works. When the sensors identify that something is off, they transmit warning data to analysts, who decide whether to flag passengers for further questioning. The next step involves micro-facial scanning, which involves measuring minute muscle movements in the face for clues to mood and intention.

Homeland Security has developed a system to recognize, define and measure seven primary emotions and emotional cues that are reflected in contractions of facial muscles. MALINTENT identifies these emotions and relays the information back to a security screener almost in real-time.

This whole security array — the scanners and screeners who make up the mobile lab — is called "Future Attribute Screening Technology" — or FAST — because it is designed to get passengers through security in two to four minutes, and often faster.

If you're rushed or stressed, you may send out signals of anxiety, but FAST isn't fooled. It's already good enough to tell the difference between a harried traveler and a terrorist. Even if you sweat heavily by nature, FAST won't mistake you for a baddie.

If this is true, it is a good thing. Many of the young men and women in the employ of TSA are officious, annoying, strictly by-the-book types, who seem to be lacking in all common sense.

"If you focus on looking at the person, you don't have to worry about detecting the device itself," said Bob Burns, MALINTENT's project leader. And while there are devices out there that look at individual cues, a comprehensive screening device like this has never before been put together.

Oh really? What if a sociopathic, terrorist type wants to board an airplane. His brain is wired differently from the vast majority of people. There is no real conscious and, therefore, no anxiety. Can these machines pick up that they are a terrorist. Just entering an airport gives me the creeps, anymore. I imagine that I would be arrested om the spot, while the terrorist, with nerves of steel, will breeze right past security.

While FAST's batting average is classified, Undersecretary for Science and Technology Adm. Jay Cohen declared the experiment a "home run."

As cold and inhuman as the electric eye may be, DHS says scanners are unbiased and nonjudgmental. "It does not predict who you are and make a judgment, it only provides an assessment in situations," said Burns. "It analyzes you against baseline stats when you walk in the door, it measures reactions and variations when you approach and go through the portal."

But the testing — and the device itself — are not without their problems. This invasive scanner, which catalogues your vital signs for non-medical reasons, seems like an uninvited doctor's exam and raises many privacy issues.

But DHS says this is not Big Brother. Once you are through the FAST portal, your scrutiny is over and records aren't kept. "Your data is dumped," said Burns. "The information is not maintained — it doesn't track who you are."

DHS is now planning an even wider array of screening technology, including an eye scanner next year and pheromone-reading technology by 2010.

Wonder how much the BFEE is making off this "wonderful" technology?

The team will also be adding equipment that reads body movements, called "illustrative and emblem cues." According to Burns, this is achievable because people "move in reaction to what they are thinking, more or less based on the context of the situation."

FAST may also incorporate biological, radiological and explosive detection, but for now the primary focus is on identifying and isolating potential human threats.

And because FAST is a mobile screening laboratory, it could be set up at entrances to stadiums, malls and in airports, making it ever more difficult for terrorists to live and work among us.

Burns noted his team's goal is to "restore a sense of freedom." Once MALINTENT is rolled out in airports, it could give us a future where we can once again wander onto planes with super-sized cosmetics and all the bottles of water we can carry — and most importantly without that sense of foreboding that has haunted Americans since Sept. 11.

A sense of freedom, eh? Sorry, but it occurs to me that having a sense of freedom is not the same thing as actually being free. It is, rather, an illusion.

Allison Barrie, a security and terrorism consultant with the Commission for National Security in the 21st Century, is FOX News' security columnist.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

DHS quietly expands border search policies

Police State Alert!!

09/23/2008 @ 3:49 pm

Filed by Nick Juliano

The Department of Homeland Security quietly expanded its authorization to examine, copy and archive an array of documents and electronic files from citizens and visitors crossing US borders, according to reams of internal documents released Tuesday.

The changes implemented last year reverse a two-decade-old policy requiring border agents to have reasonable suspicion of a crime before reading documents someone is bringing into the country; probable cause was required before documents could be copied.

Those standards have been thrown out the window in favor of lenient standards that allow Customs and Border Patrol agents to read or copy essentially anything they would like from a person entering the United States. The new policies also make it easier for CBP to share documents it copies or confiscates with other law enforcement agencies.

Civil liberties advocates say the new standards raise troubling questions about protecting citizens' First Amendment rights and could lead to customs agents serving as an end-run around the Fourth Amendment by conducting searches that would be prohibited from other agencies.

"For more than 20 years, the government implicitly recognized that reading and copying the letters, diaries, and personal papers of travelers without reason would chill Americans' rights to free speech and free expression," said Shirin Sinnar, a staff attorney with the Asian Law Caucus. "But now customs officials can probe into the thoughts and lives of ordinary travelers without any suspicion at all."

Here come the thought police!

The ALC and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against DHS to obtain more than 600 pages of internal documents outlining its policies concerning document collection and interviews conducted at the border. The organizations obtained the documents this summer and published the documents Tuesday.

In an interview Tuesday, Sinar said she hoped the documents' release would spur Congress to enact clearer and stricter standards governing border searches.

The documents themselves were heavily redacted, and the organizations are continuing to appeal for fuller disclosures, she said. DHS does not reveal the procedures or equipment it uses to search electronic equipment. Such disclosures could reveal its use of the CSI Stick, which allows for the quick and easy extraction of cell phone call logs, phone books, text messages and more information.

"We don't know if customs is using that or other programs," she told Raw Story, "but I suspect that they would be."

According to an analysis of the documents (pdf) published by EFF and ALC, DHS reversed several key components of border search guidelines that were instituted in 1986 and updates to the policy made in 2000.

Where customs officers previously could only "glance at documents to see if they were merchandise," the latest policy allows officers to "review and analyze" any documents in a traveler's possession with no suspicion at all. Previous prohibitions on copying documents without a traveler's permission or probable cause also were eliminated, allowing customs to "detain documents or copies for a 'reasonable period of time to perform a thorough border search.'" (Emphasis in original.)

DHS's border search policies have come under scrutiny particularly as they relate to electronic devices and information. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has raised concerns about the government's ability to copy the contents of travelers' laptops, cell phones, digital cameras and PDAs.

"The invasion of privacy represented by a search of a laptop differs by an order of magnitude from that of a suitcase," Feingold said during a June hearing on the laptop searches. " I guarantee you this: neither the drafters of the Fourth Amendment, nor the Supreme Court when it crafted the 'border search exception,' ever dreamed that tens of thousands of Americans would cross the border every day, carrying with them the equivalent of a full library of their most personal information."

A Feingold spokesman said the senator would have no immediate comment on Tuesday's release of the documents.

DHS refused to send anyone to face questions from Feingold during the June 25 hearing. Instead the agency passed along some superficial prepared testimony from a deputy DHS commissioner in charge of customs. The testimony included some anecdotes about stopping pedophiles at the border but did little to address the privacy concerns regarding the department's extraordinary search authorities. The department also provided the committee with a copy of its border search policy.

The policy provided in June, as well as the wider cache of documents made public Tuesday makes clear that DHS has wide latitude over how and when it can share the information it collects. For example, customs agents can hand over collected documents or files if they need "technical assistance" to translate or decrypt computer files or to determine whether the documents provide reasonable suspicion of a crime.

The border search policy reads, in part:

Officers may encounter information in documents or electronic devices that is not in a foreign language or encrypted, but that nevertheless requires referral to subject matter experts to determine whether the information is relevant to the laws enforced and administered by CBP.

Once the information is in the hands of another agency, that agency can keep a copy of it "to the extent that it has the independent legal authority to do so."

Such a set-up makes it quite easy for other agencies to access copies of private documents from travelers.

"It's quite easy to say you need technical assistance," Sinnar said.

Once they see what's in those documents they can rely on that information to decide whether they have the authority to hold on to them, she added.

DHS says its expanded authority is necessary. An official justified the policy to the Washington Post, which reported on the new policies Tuesday.

DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said the updating of policies reflects an effort to be more transparent. In an e-mail, she wrote that the decision of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "to change some of the standards in its old policies reflects the realities of the post-9/11 environment, the agency's expanded mission and legal authorities, and developments in the law, including the Homeland Security Act of 2003. Although certain aspects of the policies have changed, the policies have always reflected the notion that officers have the constitutional authority to inspect information presented at the border" without requiring suspicion of a particular traveler.

Civil liberties groups like EFF and ALC, though, say too many innocent Americans are getting caught up when they try to enter the country.

Amir Khan, an IT consultant who lives in the Bay Area, says he has spent between 20 and 25 hours detained by customs agents when returning from five separate trips abroad. Khan's travels took him mostly to Europe for business and once to visit family in Pakistan.

He said a border agent demanded to examine files on his laptop and quizzed him on the books he was reading, including some religious texts.

"I asked many times, 'What can I do to resolve this?'" he told Raw Story. "They told me there's nothing I can do."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Lawsuit: Cops beat diabetic man into a coma

.....after mistaking hypoglycemia for drunkenness.

I feel an episode of agoraphobia coming on.

09/23/2008 @ 9:07 pm

Filed by Nick Cargo and David Edwards

The wife of 59-year-old Ernest Griglen, in a coma since June, has filed a federal lawsuit against two Michigan police departments, alleging that officers beat Griglen into a coma.

Pamela Griglen and attorney Arnold Reed, seeking $20 million in damages, say that officers from the Allen Park and Dearborn police departments severely beat Mr. Griglen, of Detroit, in the head and face during a June 15 traffic stop, following a chase, after mistaking a hypoglycemic episode for alcohol intoxication.

Police reports say that Griglen was being chased due to a domestic violence complaint, and described him as "combative," saying that he had fled a traffic stop and resisted arrest. The Dearborn report indicates the use of pepper spray on Griglen and cites "a black object" on Griglen's waistband. A breathalyzer test confirmed that Griglen was not under the influence of alcohol, and officers later found his insulin pump.

"The unnecessary and completely excessive force was something that was not needed," said Reed. "Doctors have indicated he will probably never wake up. What his wife is left with is everyday she sees him and stands over him and talks to him and he can't respond. No amount of money in the world can compensate her or her family for this type of injustice."

While the reports say that Griglen's injuries were "little more than a bloody nose" and a "bump on the forehead," his wife said he complained of head and leg pain, and said he couldn't see, before falling comatose. Griglen's blood sugar level was found to be dangerously low according to the hospital's test, and part of his brain was removed during emergency surgery.

"They didn't beat John Hinckley Jr. after he shot President Reagan," Reed said, "and they shouldn't have done it to Mr. Griglen, either."

Hey, cops don't beat up white guys who come from rabidly republican families and who have always supported the political career of their good friend, Poppy Bush.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

FBI probes finance giants for fraud

If the whole bloody mess collapses in a foul smelling heap of corruption, these corporate, elitist jackasses, who are responsible for this historic meltdown, would probably be safer in prison.

09/24/2008 @ 10:00 am

Filed by Agence France-Presse

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Federal Bureau of Investigation confirmed Wednesday that it is probing allegations of fraud by 24 Wall Street firms, without naming investment giants believed to be under investigation.

"The director and others have confirmed the number of investigations that we currently have, but we haven't named any of the companies," a FBI spokesman told AFP.

"The director last week indicated that there are 24 corporate fraud investigations involving the sub prime industry," he added.

US media said late Tuesday that the FBI has set its sights on investment titan Lehman Brothers, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and insurer AIG.

The wide-reaching inquiry comes as lawmakers rush to agree a 700-billion-dollar government bailout of the troubled US financial sector.

The FBI probe aims to determine whether company executives had any responsibility for the institutions' financial woes through "misinformation or material misinformation," CNN said.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said last week the bureau was probing 24 financial institutions, but gave no details other than to describe them as "large corporations" that may face allegations of misstated assets.

ABC News said the probe was "multifaceted and the net is much deeper than the major firms officials confirmed today," adding the probe had expanded from 14 major firms to 26 in less than a year.

"The FBI currently has 26 pending corporate fraud investigations involving subprime lenders," FBI spokesman Richard Kolko told ABC.

"As we have seen, this number can fluctuate over time; however, we do not discuss which companies may or may not be the subject of an investigation."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Meltdown Perpetrators Position Themselves

The Money Party (6):

Meet the new boss - Robin Hood in Reverse U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson WikiCommons

"A Cascade of Ruin"

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News

(Wash. DC) Well, they finally did it. The Money Party exposed the nauseating underbelly of first world finance. It's a cross between a Ponzi scheme and a complex math puzzle, all geared to let those in charge rake off as much money as they can, whenever they can, while they leave us out in the cold. Unfortunately, this time their greed and lack of control has the world poised for a systemic economic meltdown.

The collapse and subsequent government rescue of home mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, stock brokerage Merrill Lynch, investment bank Bear Stearns, and, an insurance company, AIG, are designed to show we're moving away from the brink of disaster to a safer place. "The system is working" to manage what Alan Greenspan is calling a once in a century event.

One thing the system might do while it's working so hard is explain why we're bailing out a stock brokerage and an insurance company? Isn't this about banks? Don't hold your breath. The corporate elite and political misanthropes who caused this are getting ready to put the final nail in the coffin of the United States economy and the livelihood of the vast majority of citizens.

If this happens, they will have achieved their goal: overshadowing nearly all of the domestic resistance to their schemes of perpetual empire and plunder with a financial meltdown that places survival and subsistence as the highest value.

The stock market rallied last Thursday indicating that some felt better. But who were those buying stocks? The same people who bought into the ridiculous schemes perpetrated by the fallen financial giants: Wall Street and the institutional investors who have the biggest stake in the market "recovery." The soon to fail financial institutions are reassuring each other that those in the tank were somehow different, deviant maybe, rather than the first in a long line of failures to come.

How did it start?

The stock frenzy was clearly over by 2001. Since Wall Street needs constant growth as a fix for its financial Jones, something had to replace tech stocks. That wasn't easy since good companies with solid products don't offer the type of immediate gratification required for those promising high returns to investors.

In a stroke of warped vision, "subprime securities" were created in 1990. Risky home mortgages called subprime loans were bundled together then sold as a premium investment representing an audacity of hype.

Adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) became easily available to hard working people struggling to buy a home, people who hadn't qualified for loans in the past. Nobody mentioned that the way the loan was structured they'd be unable to make payments in a year or two.

The funds of other hard working people who hoped to retire someday were used to purchase stocks based on these risky loans. Nobody bothered to tell them that their funds would go down the drain when those subprime loans started defaulting.

Then guru Greenspan made one of the few decipherable public statements of his career. He told home owners about that great opportunity, adjustable rate mortgages. "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage," he said. He went on, "traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home." Alan Greenspan, Feb. 23, 2004

Greenspan endorsed what was already being done and gave it the patina of a smart financial move. Lower those payments. Get that equity line and catch the Wall Street wave by purchasing stocks. We were "rocking in the free world!" Millions got rich on increased home values.

Real estate prices soared and then they did what they always do. They collapsed, in this case, with a giant thud. All that "wealth" acquired through the housing bubble vanished. Just as the economy slowed, many of those hard working people who just wanted a home were greeted with the full cost of their mortgage. Loan defaults soared and then it happened.

Those premium stocks collapsed. Record bankruptcy and default rates will do that to real estate stocks. Premium subprime real estate stocks became plain old subprime real estate stocks, which is what they were to begin with. Subprime loans vanished. The housing market stalled, then crashed, and there was no new scheme to feed the greed of the geniuses who thought up this scam.

Home value and retirement funds are taking a massive beating. It's survival of the fittest for the vast majority.

But the planners and perpetrators of the scheme are doing just fine. The current rulers decided it's time to expand socialism for the rich. In full public view, they're bailing out the people who created and pushed this crazy scheme. How many in the management chain are getting fired? Not many, it seems.

Is this just another example, outrageous as it is, of the super wealthy taking care of each other or is there something even worse lurking in the wings?

What are they hiding?

Each financial entity bailed out so far had major holdings in the very risky financial product called derivatives. Merrill Lynch even bragged about getting the "Risk Magazine" award as "Derivatives House of the Year 2007.

Warren Buffet sees derivatives as a major threat: "The derivatives genie is now well out of the bottle, and these instruments will almost certainly multiply in variety and number until some event makes their toxicity clear." He went on to describe derivatives as "weapons of mass financial destruction." These financial products were valued at $516 trillion dollars in 2007. The value of world economy was $65 trillion that same year.

Overly complex and insider oriented, derivatives are designed to "reduce risk." They are, in fact, the looming mega risk that apparently can't be discussed. If the derivatives market collapses, interlinked major financial institutions around the world are finished. The financial system will have failed.

Analyst and author Michael J. Panzer describes derivatives as clearly as possible:

"-- it is not hard to grasp the basic economics of a garden-variety derivative such as a futures contract. If the market price of wheat goes up between the time a deal is struck and the expiration of the agreement, the buyer wins and the seller loses. That is what is known as a zero-sum game. Nonetheless, whatever a farmer, to use the earlier example, might give up as a result of hedging his output is offset by the reduced uncertainty.
"But it is an altogether different story when it comes to analyzing options, or a portfolio of derivatives, especially those with lots of complicated bells and whistles. In most cases, valuation and risk assessment depend on mathematical formulas and computerized models, with many inputs derived from estimates and past data. That is all well and good if the tools are perfect and the history is complete."

Panzer goes on to point out that the history, data, and assumptions used to analyze value and risk are often sorely wanting. Hence, this pervasive financial product is a risk, in and of itself, due to questionable assumptions.

These products are sold by very aggressive financial services groups based on serene assumptions. For example, the products often don't factor in the impact of recession derivatives. David Amerman made the point in simple terms. If sellers will target home buyers who can't pay loans, we can count on bigger sellers going full tilt to get major commissions on this widely held financial product.

So the financial geniuses have created a market that has no relationship to reality, other than the reality conferred arbitrarily by banks and brokerage houses. Michael J. Panzer explains how something this detached from oversight takes hold:

"In the modern global financial system, where many participants are either unregulated or are monitored by a patchwork of country or sector-specific regulatory overseers, chances are that a derivatives-related catastrophe will see a similar lack of coordination that will produce a far more devastating outcome than if it was a purely domestic affair."

What is the real value of the derivative market? It would be helpful to know that given the reliance of our banking and financial services industry on these financial phantoms. More importantly, for our current circumstance, what happens when enough people realize that there cannot be a value commensurate to the amount claimed?

This teetering derivative market can't be bailed out. There simply isn't enough money. But our rulers think that the banks, insurance companies and stock brokerages heavily indebted and riddled with derivatives can be saved. As Ellen Brown pointed out last Thursday, save them and you stop the full exposure of the derivatives market. You avoid the risk of people finding out that their money and investments are being held by institutions willing to invest in financial products that are, at the least, highly speculative and, at the worst, pure vaporware.

The current risk has triggered the forgotten assumptions in the home mortgage derivatives market like recessions. Here's what's next. "The $62 trillion dollar credit derivatives market is 50 times the size of the subprime mortgage derivatives market, and is indeed larger than the entire global economy." David Amerman

Is it any wonder that we're faced with an economic crisis, one that encompasses the entire economic system?

The Paulson Secretariat

The White House has selected Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson to lead an economic "Charge of the Lite Brigade" to prevent a total economic meltdown. A version of the administration's rescue package is available online. What's missing? There is no requirement for "the bosses" to restrain their behavior, take a pay cut, or suffer any consequences. It might tarnish their self esteem.

But the real treat is the unfettered authority of the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, to obligate citizen debt in order to rescue incompetent banks, brokerages, and other failed institutions. Citizens will pay the bill but have no influence on Paulsen's decisions. Here are two revealing provisions from Bush-Cheney White House proposed legislation:

"Sec. 2 (a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.
"Sec. 8 Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." (Emphasis mine) White House bill,

So here's the plan in summary. You bail out those companies that caused the current crisis based on what one guy wants to do. You don't allow any review of the process of spending $700 billion. And, you let the management and key staff of these companies stay in place to do it all over again.

Tinkering with the bill to provide oversight, input, monitoring misses the point. The bailout is the wrong approach. To begin with, oversight has failed again and again in the financial markets. More importantly, it ignores the next crisis, credit default swaps, and rewards the meltdown perpetrators. Nobody tells the truth about this being the tip of the iceberg. Nobody faces any negative consequences. Most everybody stays in place.

How about somebody in authority coming clean?

When is someone in authority going to tell the truth, lay out the facts, and take responsibility for this mess? Never, unless we make that happen. The mechanisms readied for approval will be sold much like the Patriot Act; steam-rolled due to times of crisis. Those who speak out against another element of tyranny put in place will be ridiculed. Protestors will face the newly outfitted local law enforcement anti terrorism units who are more than willing to arrest anyone who disagrees with the administration, even in heavily Democratic cities like Denver, Minneapolis, and St. Paul.

The perpetrators can position all day long, taking advantage of the citizens through a quiescent White House, Congress, and judiciary.

But the truth will emerge - the country is broke and not because we don't work hard enough, make good products, and provide quality services. We're broke because the greediest people in the world couldn't contain their greed and there was nobody watching them who wasn't benefiting. Now the watchers are desperately trying to make it all go away.

There needs to be an accounting and a correction - and not by the usual suspects.

Here's one way to start with derivatives crisis in major institutions:

"If all the top 25 financial institutions were put into receivership, and (big if) if they all could be liquidated under an agreed legal framework, many of these risky contracts could be allowed to offset each other, and much of the risk eliminated."
Private correspondence, Numerian, The Agonist, Sept. 21, 2008

Permission granted to reproduce this article in whole or in part with attribution of authorship, a link to this article, and acknowledgment of any images.

For more information see:

It's the Derivatives, Stupid! Why Fannie, Freddie and AIG Had to Be Bailed Out by Ellen Brown, Sept. 18, 2008

Letter to my Senator by Numerian, The Agonist, Sept. 21, 2008

The Coming Disaster in the Derivatives Market by Michael Panzer, Nov. 9, 2005

AIG’s Dangerous Collapse & A Credit Derivatives Risk Primer by Daniel R. Ammerman, CFA, Sept. 17, 2008

LEAP/E2020 Summer 2008 Alert – July-December 2008: The world plunges into the heart of the global systemic crisis. Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin, Summer, 2008

Previously in The Money Party Series

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.