Mr. President Elect Barack Obama
In my 89th year of life, I can safely say that since I first started to vote - I believe it was for the First term of Franklin Delano Roosevelt - until this November 5, 2008, there have been hardly a handful of Presidents truly worthy of the Office, and you I believe will be one more to add to that small group.
At my age I know not whether I shall be here to partake of another presidential election, but I am proud to say that I have cast my first, and possibly my last, presidential votes for two of the greatest, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Barack Obama - and I am confident you'll not let me down.
You have been left more problems than have been left to any President-elect since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in addition to a country that has been ideologically divided for several decades, winding up during the administration of George W. Bush of one that has revolutionized the government provided by the founding fathers. The Bush administration ignored the system of "checks and balances" provided in the Constitution, ignored statutory law, violated international law, violated the constitutional rights of American citizens, and creating what he thought was an immunity to a new statute that he signed into,law by adding a "signing statement."
My support for your candidacy came not from your brilliant oratory skills, but for the content of your chosen subject matter; from your educational background, career choices, sound judgment in your choice of advisors, and above all else your familiarity with the greatest document of democracy ever written, the Constitution of the United States of America.
I look forward to January 20, 2009, the day of your inauguration, and it is my hope that one statement you will make will be, "I, as President of the United States of America, will restore the Constitution of the United States in every facet of this government and it will once again be the Supreme Law of the Land, as stated in Article VI thereof, to wit, 'This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made pursuant thereof . . . . shall be the supreme law of the Land. . . . . ."
Your first order of business will no doubt be the setting of priorities among all that need immediate attention, and that you, at the earliest possible hour address the American people to announce those priorities and sow the American people the first it of transparency ion governance in decades, for that it is how, at the bottom can be the moving force for those who place themselves at the top.
It would be appreciated if this blog venue were kept on for those of us who support your intentions to help express them to others, and to be aware of what others are saying that may influence my support for something I might not have thought of.
Today's quote: - "The days of our years are three score years and ten; and if by reason of strength the be four score years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off and we fly away," PSALMS XC,10.
Comment - The above quote seems to contradict a religious belief that asserts that life begins at conception, for "four score years does not apparently include the nine months of gestation. There are several theories of the beginning of human life, some even scientific that will be addressed here.,Before you hold a position or belief about abortion, embryonic stem cell research or any other issue related to the creation of life, you must determine when you believe life begins. Once you find an answer to this question, everything else falls into line. But no matter the belief you arrive at, or already have, may not be the correct one, for they be many who disagree with it, and it therefore becomes a question that will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction - but then, if we are a society of different thoughts, and ideas, and thankfully we are, then whatever believe each of us may profess should not, and must not be imposed on others in a way that wold deprive them of that which they believe.
So let's look at the theories to see which of them affects, if any, your personal belief about when life begins.
Genetic View: Conception, Life begins when the sperm and the ovum are united. During fertilization, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. This process takes up to 48 hours..
Embyrological View, 14 days:. Life begins at gastrulation -- the point at which a developing embryo forms distinct layers that grow into different organs. Embryos are capable of splitting into twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in separate individuals. Gastrulation commences when the zygote, now called an embryo, implants into the uterus.
Neurological View, 6-24 weeks: Life begins when the brain produces measurable waves. Death is marked by the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life would be recognized when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. There is much disagreement about when this occurs.
Ecological View, 25-27 weeks: Life begins when the fetus can survive outside the uterus. Viability is generally determined by the sufficient maturation of the lungs. With modern medicine, a premature baby can breathe outside of the womb as early as 25 weeks after conception
Birth View, 7-9 months: Life begins at birth. When the fetus emerges and separates from the body of the mother, whether naturally or surgically, a child is born. This typically occurs at 9 months, but frequently occurs several weeks early.
Awareness View: There is a sixth view of life promoted by some philosophers. They believe that neither a fetus nor an infant is a human being because it does not possess a consciousness of itself. In the article "Abortion and Infanticide," Michael Tooley argues that abortion and infanticide are both acceptable because life does not begin until the human child gains self-awareness. This generally occurs around 18 months after birth.
St. Francis of Assisi said, "You are born, your live and you die." So that from his point of religiosity, you do not live until you are born, which is life as described in the "Birth View" above. So he, too, disagreed with the church's current position that life begins at conception. A farmer plants a seed in the ground, but it is not a plant until it sprouts from the soil.
None of the above has changed my views regarding the beginning of human life, and it is my belief as an American citizen, and a self-considered constitutionalist that the First Amendment prohibits the making of any laws "respecting an establishment of religion" which any law or Court decision to reverse the Decision in Roe vs. Wade would violate the Fourth Amendment as an invasion of privacy. The First Amendment also prohibits the government from enacting laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But one's freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs does not infer a right to impose those beliefs on others. To do so is, in plain language, Un-American.. How dull a world this wold be if everyone thought alike, It would be as, though we were nothing more than robots. There would not have been a Mozart, a Salvatore Dali, a Maimonides, a Jesus, a Moses, a Pavarotti. As the French would say, "Vive le diffiierance!"
Today's quote: -"My rule of life has been never to harass the public with fendings and provings of personal slanders . . . I have ever trusted to the justice and consideration of my fellow citizens, and have no reason to repent it, or to change my course." THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1824.
At two rallies in Western Pennsylvania, Palin referenced at the top of her remarks a 2001 public radio interview with Obama that surfaced this week, in which Obama discussed the role of the courts in the civil rights movement. "There he was talking about the need for quote 'redistributive change,'" Palin said on the campus of Shippensburg University Tuesday night. “Sen. Obama said that he regretted that the Supreme Court hadn't been more radical. And he described the Court's refusal to take up the issues of redistribution of wealth as a tragedy. And he said he also regretted that the Supreme Court didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers there in the Constitution” Obama had, in fact, argued the opposite in the 2001 interview, saying that the civil rights movement had become too focused on making change through the judicial system, rather than from the ground up through community organizations. Lying, distortion, misrepresentation, dishonesty and character assassination appears to become a “party-line” for Republicans, their hunger for complete and dictatorial power has become so great under Bush and Cheney. But it is now time to end the destructive revolution and to restore a constitutional democracy to these United States of America.
Palin , using McCain’s words said, "Obama says that he wants to spread the wealth," stirring boos from the crowd. "In other words he thinks that it's your job to earn the wealth and it's his job to spread it." Restoring a former tax rate on the wealthiest 1% of the nation, and reducing the tax Rate of 95% of working Americans, is not a “sharing of wealth” but a return to then tax policies of this country since the income tax was introduced in 1933, taxation proportionate to your ability to pay. The Obama plan puts more money into the hand s of people who spend it, not into the hands of those who play with it for their own selfish ends.
Referencing the interview, Palin said, "So you have to ask, is this a suggestion that's he’d want to re-write the founding document of our great nation to accomplish his goals. And what does that say about his ideas on future Supreme Court justices?" What it says is that of you are going to comment on the Constitution, you had better study it, and even more importantly, understand it. Palin may start by reading Article V of the Constitution, and after she understands the workings of that paragraph, she might go to Article II, section 2, where it plainly provides the methods for the appointment of federal judges and Justice of the Supreme Court. And if Gov. Palin were concerned about the Constitution, how could she have supported the presidency of George W. Bush, who violated the Constitution more times than all the 42 Presidents preceding him combined. Ms. Palin has proven herself to be a total, self-serving fraud.
"Let me remind Barack Obama of something else. When judges don’t confiscate your property and your hard-earned -- all of your hard-earned money and then re-distribute that, he may call that a tragedy. But I call it fairness and adherence to our U.S. Constitution," Palin added later in her remarks. Obama described one of the "tragedies of the civil rights movement" was that "the civil rights movement became so court-focused". Once again, Palin exhibits her ability to distort, or her inability to understand the English language. What Obama had said was, "I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still suffer from that.". With regard to “economic redistribution” Obama said, “I’m not optimistic about bringing about redistributive change through the courts, The institution isn’t structured that way.” Obama's 2001 interview made no mention of judges confiscating property. The Palin campaign did not provide clarification on what Palin was referring to with the remark.
Palin said the 2001 interview revealed Obama's "real ideology" and that his goal to "spread your wealth around" would only spread "scarcity and poverty and bureaucracy" and would stifle the country's entrepreneurial spirit. She asked those in the crowd to support the Republican ticket to preserve the "uniquely American system that our founding fathers created." If Gov. Palin were concerned about the “spreading of wealth” why doesn’t she account for the fact that during the past eight year, the Bush administration. The redistribution of wealth went from the middle class to the wealthy, while the numbers on the poverty class rose dramatically.
I find Sarah Palin a disgrace to the American political process, and that also is my opinion of the man who picked her to be his running mate, and who is “so proud” of her performance. But then, McCain supported the lies and distortions of George W. Bush for eight years - he’s “become accustomed to their charms” (My fair lady)
A “tax increase of ten times the size recommended by the president would still not begin to equate the sacrifice of our courageous young men fighting and dying in the swamps and jungles of Vietnam with Americans who are enjoying income and prosperity greater than they have ever known.” – Sen. Russell Long, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee during the Vietnam War
“Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.” – Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, March, 2003*
Even after weighing the often-overlooked history of U.S. resistance to wartime taxation, Thorndike, Bank, and Stark find no historical precedent for the billions of dollars in tax cuts secured by President George W. Bush while the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue.
“Like the events of December 7, 1941, the attacks of September 11 triggered a strong ‘rally ’round the flag’ effect as Americans readied themselves for the sacrifices of war. Unlike Pearl Harbor, however, there was virtually no talk in the wake of the September 11 attacks of a need to increase taxes in order to mobilize for war,” the tax historians write.
Just as earlier leaders appealed to Americans' sense of patriotism to raise taxes, some politicians used the same tack to argue for cutting them during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. One commentator quoted in the book wrote in an April 2003 op-ed “by keeping tax rates too high and ‘sacrificing’ economic growth, we don’t help the war effort, we hinder it; we don’t get more revenue, we get less.”
Earlier generations may have witnessed debates over the right form and magnitude of tax increases for fighting wars abroad, but so solid a rejection of the increases, the authors conclude, is truly unprecedented in American history. War and Taxes considers whether the absence of a military draft, political acceptance of budget deficits, or declining concerns over inflation are behind this generation’s wartime tax cuts. Whatever the political and economic conditions that make these tax cuts acceptable to lawmakers, the book’s authors are clear: “the Bush-era tax cuts … plainly constitute an extraordinary episode in the history of American war finance.”
Steven Bank is a professor of law and vice dean at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, where Kirk Stark is a professor of law. Joseph J. Thorndike is the director of the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts and a scholar in residence at the University of Virginia.
The reality of U.S. troops killing and dying for Iraqi oil hit U.S. public consciousness hard on June 19, 2008 when it was announced that the occupied government of Iraq intended to award no-bid oil service contracts to ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and Total. These are companies wo for the past two years have been making record quarterly profits as well as having received huge subsidies from the U.. S. government, but which have contributed noting toward the costs of this war. "They" have already "won the war". one that the American people will never win, one for which their children and grandchildren will be paying throughout their lives. This is the corruption of a corporatocracy where the lobby own the legislative bodies and the corporate CEO's own the elected officials and justices. Corporate control of government is as close to fascism a country can go without adopting the name. Under George W. Bush, and his fist six years in Congress where he had a majority in both houses of Congress, and a majority on the Supreme Court- most of whom were ideologues, this country was not far from being totalitarian. It was George W. Bush who- most of whom were ideologues saaiud- most of whom were ideologues in December, 2000 George W. Bush said that things would be easier if he "was a dictator," - and he was for xix long years.
John McCain, and a few other wealthy and greedy Americans, who think moa about themselves than of their country have been unwilling to pay for the wars we are currently engaged in, and will leave to future generations, not yet born, to bear the burden. This seems the only "right to life" they're entitled to, one of debt and more debt. The wealthiest one percent in this country have no worries about paying medical bills, purchasing prescriptions, buying new cars and paying inflated prices for the groceries, but because they amount to only 1% of the population, American car manufacturers are going belly-up, retail stores are closing, restaurants are hurting and the entire economy is in decline - because one percent of the population cannot support all the industries of this country, nor do they want to - but the greed for those extra few thousand dollars of tax cuts, they are now suffering in the stock market - a result of their support for an administration that favored the special interests over the people's interests, deregulated, obstructed congressional oversight , appointed unqualified heads of government agencies, which failed to perform their responsibilities, either intentionally or because of their ineptness.
There will be no difference between a George W. Bush administation and a John S. McCain administrsation, because they are both the tools of their advisors =George W, Bush (by KARL ROVE); John S, McCain (by STEVE SCHMIDT, a Karl Rove Protege) Under John McCain, the wars will continue to be financiced by our children and grandchilkdren, and national debt will grow to higher record levels, with moneys borrowed from Communist China - and others.
Today's quote: - "There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world." - THOMAS JEFFERSON, Letter to Henry Lee, 1826.
Comment: - That quote might equally be made by Barack Obama, but certainly not by John McCain. Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) first health care plan released in 2007 was supposed to be financed by exposing health benefits to income and payroll taxes. But analysts argued that doing so would result in a massive tax increase on the middle class, so the campaign flip-flopped earlier this month and said that McCain would finance the plan by making major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid. Independent analysts estimated that the reductions "could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs." Last week, Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) presidential campaign released a television ad criticizing McCain for his proposal to pay for his health care plan with "major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid." The ad's assertion of potential benefit cuts was based on an analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), which found that in order for McCain to close his $1.3 trillion budget gap, he would have to "cut Medicare by 13 percent over 10 years" as well as slash "Medicaid spending by 13 percent over 10 years." CAPAF calculated that neither McCain's Medicare and Medicaid spending would keep pace with medical inflation growth and enrollment increases, so his proposal would require "cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both."CAPAF's analysis was based on the McCain campaign's repeated assertions that its health care plan is budget neutral. During the vice presidential debate, for instance, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) explained McCain's health care plan as being "budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything. ... But a $5,000 health care credit through our income tax that's budget neutral." The McCain campaign, which estimated that his health care tax credits will cost $3.6 trillion over the decade, initially said it would pay for the plan by taxing workers' health benefits, which are largely tax-free today. But, as CAPAF has previously argued, this would result in either a tax increase of $1,100 on the average family or a $1.3 trillion budget shortfall. Earlier this month, Holtz-Eakin told the Wall Street Journal that McCain would rely on "major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid" to fill the budget gap. Examining the consequences of McCain's newfound funding mechanism, CAPAF calculated that McCain's reduction does not keep up with medical inflation and enrollment rates and would require McCain to cut benefits, eligibility or both. Additionally, the McCain campaign has overstated the potential for pain-free Medicare and Medicaid "savings" that are not really "cuts." For instance, in July, McCain opposed cutting subsidies to insurers through Medicare Advantage, but now his campaign is wildly overstating the savings that such cuts would provide. The McCain campaign the cuts would save $1 trillion over 10 years, which is more than six times the actual projected savings of $149 billion
Speaking to the Wall Street Journal this month, Holtz-Eakin claimed that "the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid." Though Holtz-Eakin's revelation was new, it was not out of line with past statements from the McCain campaign. After its health care plan was released, the McCain campaign said that it planned to "reduce the growth in Medicare spending." McCain advisers reiterated the goal this past weekend, saying that the senator would force Congress to "control the growth" of Medicare spending. In fact, throughout his career, he has regularly supported slashing Medicare benefits and limiting eligibility. He has voted to cut, restrict or underfund Medicare at least 28 times while voting to restrict access to Medicare at least two times. In 1997, McCain voted in favor of raising the eligibility age for receiving Medicare from 65 to 67 with the change being phased in between 2003 and 2027. McCain has also voted against Medicare's future by opposing efforts to extend its solvency at least nine times.
John McCain has allowed his campaign to slip the normal bounds of political propriety. The situation has gotten so intense that we in the media have slipped our normal rules as well. Usually when a candidate tells something less than the truth, we mince words. We use euphemisms like mendacity and inaccuracy ... or, as the Associated Press put it, "McCain's claims skirt facts." But increasing numbers of otherwise sober observers, even such august institutions as the New York Times editorial board, are calling John McCain a liar. Almost every politician stretches the truth. McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth. Even after 38 million Americans heard Obama say in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he was open to offshore oil-drilling and building new nuclear-power plants, McCain flatly said in his acceptance speech that Obama opposed both. Normal political practice would be for McCain to say, "Obama says he's 'open to' offshore drilling, but he's always opposed it. How can we believe him?" This persistence in repeating demonstrably false charges is something new in presidential politics.
Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored "comprehensive" sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain's effort to remarket his economic policies was putting "lipstick on a pig" was another clearly misleading attack — an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin's lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain's assault on the "élite media" for spreading rumors about Palin's personal life — actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press — was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can't win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions. McCain's campaign has been a series of snide and demeaning ads accompanied by the daily gush of lies that have now been widely documented and exposed. The strategy is an obvious attempt to camouflage the current unpopularity of his Republican brand, the insubstantiality of his vice-presidential choice, and his agreement on most issues — especially economic matters — with an exceedingly unpopular President. McCain's latest charges, echoed by his puppet Palin, is that Obama is a "Socialist." If after all these years, 26, in the U.S. Congress McCain still does not know what "Socialism" is, he certainly is not deserving of the presidency. And if Obama positions for the Middle Class of ?America constitutes "Socialism", then McCain support of the corporate control of government a form of pure "Fascism.". Of course neither is accurate except as it relates as to whose interests the candidates represent. McCain has raised serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He has defaced his beloved military code of honor. He has run a dirty campaign. But this is not the first time he has defaced "his beloved military code." He did it when he voted against veterans; benefits; he did it when he supported an illegal and unconstitutional war in Iraq; he did it when he represented the special interests against the interests of the ?American people.
On October 19, 2008, Sen. John McCain held a telephone town hall meeting, in which “thousands” of Nevadans — according to the McCain campaign — called to listen in. Among some of the hostile, pointed, and critical questions came one from a veteran, who challenged McCain on his voting record regarding funding for the Veterans Administration and veterans’ priorities:
Q: I know you voted for lesser increases, and sometimes they were so much less, and our VA desperately needs the money. Can you tell me why you would vote for less money for the VA when there’s a war going on? McCain: Well of course I have not and I’m afraid I’ve been endorsed by the VFW in every election that I’ve been in. I have been — received the honors, the highest honor and awards from all our veterans organizations for my consistent support of them. I don’t know what you’re looking at, but the DAV, the VFW, the American Legion, all of them have given me their highest awards for my consistent support of them.
Q: I know you voted for lesser increases, and sometimes they were so much less, and our VA desperately needs the money. Can you tell me why you would vote for less money for the VA when there’s a war going on?
McCain: Well of course I have not and I’m afraid I’ve been endorsed by the VFW in every election that I’ve been in. I have been — received the honors, the highest honor and awards from all our veterans organizations for my consistent support of them. I don’t know what you’re looking at, but the DAV, the VFW, the American Legion, all of them have given me their highest awards for my consistent support of them.
McCain is either willfully lying or he is delusional about his record — and the meaning of “highest awards.” In fact, McCain has recently stood on the opposite side of all three of the groups he mentioned:
Disabled American Veterans (DAV): In a list of 36 “key votes,” shows McCain “Voted Against Us” 16 times. (Obama “Voted With Us” 17 times, and against only once.)Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW): Endorsed Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) GI Bill that McCain vigorously opposed; called McCain’s alternative GI Bill “very partisan” and said they “didn’t have much input” in its crafting. American Legion: Endorsed Webb’s GI Bill and criticized McCain’s concern about how it would affect retention, saying the bill “would encourage young men and women to join the military.”
Disabled American Veterans (DAV): In a list of 36 “key votes,” shows McCain “Voted Against Us” 16 times. (Obama “Voted With Us” 17 times, and against only once.)
American Legion: Endorsed Webb’s GI Bill and criticized McCain’s concern about how it would affect retention, saying the bill “would encourage young men and women to join the military.”
Last week, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a grade of D for his record of voting against veterans. (Obama got a B.) The Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) have noted that in its “Key Votes,” McCain “Voted Against Us” 15 times and “Voted For Us” only 8. (Obama voted for VVA 12 times, and against only once.)
Earlier this month, Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX), a leading veterans advocate, excoriated McCain in an interview with ThinkProgress: “If you look at John McCain’s record on veterans issues, it’s a failed one.” It’s a sentiment IAVA executive director Paul Rieckhoff agrees with. Noting McCain’s dismal voting record on VA funding, Rieckhoff told ThinkProgress, “If he says the VA’s not working, it’s in part because he hasn’t funded it properly.”
McCain's record on this issue is full of lies and distortions based the GOPs disingenuous philosophy of 'laissez faire' --deregulation and weakened consumer protections. McCain calls his proposed theft of Social Security --'reform' and wrote an article in which he praised banking deregulation and promised the same for the health insurance industry. Is McCain senile or just out of touch. Is he even aware that the people of the US are now 'bailing out' the Wall Street fat cats? Never mind, the GOP wants you to just keep on doing whatever makes you sick! (At age 72, I wonder, is McCain receiving his monthly Social Security checks?) There is a simple cure to the problems of Social Security - revert to its original purpose, to allow the elderly to live out their lives outside of the County poor house. Social Security should be means tested. Millionaires like McCain, Bush, Clinton, Perot have not need for it, and should not be receiving it. It was not meant to be an annuity, it was meant to be an insurance policy, like fire insurance or liability insurance. There must be a need before entitlement.
Send McCain a message, in fact, bombard his headquarters. Tell him in all caps:
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SOCIAL SECURITY BUT THE GREEDY BASTARDS ON WALL STREET AND IN WASHINGTON!
STOP LYING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY!
STOP TRYING TO MANUFACTURE A CRISIS!
STOP DEMAGOGUING THIS ISSUE!
KEEP YOUR MITTS OFF SOCIAL SECURITY!
We have had eight years of lying by the Bush administration, and McCain has issued about as many lies and distortions of the truth in his short time as Republican candidate for the presidency. Keep the liars out of office. They dishonor the country.
Today's quote: - "Bigotry's birthplace is the sinister back room of the mind where plots and schemes are hatched for the persecution and oppression of other human beings." - Bayard Ruskin.
Comment: - Race is going to be the key factor in 2008 US Presidential Elections between Democratic candidate Barack Obama, an Illinois senator who is African American, and his Republican opponent, John McCain, a white senator from Arizona. Race will be a determinative issue for a significant numbers of voters in the campaign, despite the fact that a majority of Americans now dislike President George W. Bush’s policies and the fact that the policies and values of John McCain and his vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, are almost identical to those of Bush.
The current economic crises is the worst in the recent history. Obama should be a shoo-in as the probable winner in coming elections. The only reason that may cause his defeat is racism. In many opinion polls, a majority of the elder white voters overwhelmingly reject Obama, even if many of them are unhappy with Bush. Indeed, one-third of Democrats have at various times told pollsters that they will not vote for a black candidate and a recent Associated Press/Yahoo News poll suggested that his race is costing Obama at least six percentage points in the polls. Many Americans today are uncomfortable in openly announcing their own racial bias, yet according to a latest Gallup poll, 7 percent of white voters say Obama’s race makes them less likely to vote for him, which is much less than the previous polls where this ratio rotates round 30 percent but here comes the “Bradley effect” one should never forget as Obama is also leading in the opinion polls like Tom Bradley. The Bradley effect was first noted during the 1982 governor’s race in California, when Tom Bradley, the then African-American mayor of Los Angeles, lost the race to his white opponent despite leading in pre-election polls throughout the campaign. Similar results appeared in 1989, when David Dinkins ran for mayor of New York City and Douglas Wilder sought election as governor of Virginia. Is that what John McCain is counting ion when he says, in regard to Obama's lead, "We got them right where we want them." Is this McCain's method of playing the "race card"? This racism is covert, only implied at through code words. The media, particularly the increasingly popular conservative media, is particularly important here. A July cover of the New Yorker magazine showed a cartoon of Obama wearing a turban and his wife, Michelle, holding a gun. Obama said the cover could encourage misconceptions about him. The magazine said the cover was intended as satire.
There have been a number of developments that speak about the possibility of a turning-point election that can bring the first African American black president in the White house:
The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Would that John McCain, or Sarah Palin, had the character of Barack Obama instead of the name-calling, lying and disgraceful ads produced with their approval. They disgrace America, they disgrace Republicans, and they disgrace the religions they advocate for their actions and words are not :"Christian", but might even be labeled blasphemy according to the reported lifestyle of Jesus Christ.
We don't need a "black" President and we don't needmed a "white" President, we need a brilliant President and there is only one candidate that fits that description. It is Barack Obama. After eight years of the lying administration of George W. Bush, we do not need another couple of liars like McCain and Palin for another four. They disgrace American politics, and make it dirtier than it has ever before been. I urge that you tell all you know that it is time to end the racial divide in this country, end the bigotry, open or hidden, and renew the democracy sought by our founding fathers.
Many years ago, Al Jolson performed a song entitled "Sonny Boy". I think the following parody is befitting of the time and the man:
When there are grey skies I don't mind the grey skies.You’ll make them blue, OBAMA.Friends may forsake us, let them all forsake us.You’ll pull us thru, OBAMA.You're sent from heaven and I know your worth.You’ll make a heaven for us right here on the earth.When you take office, promise you won't stray, for,We will be behind you OBAMA.
CORPORATE HEADS ABOUT TO ROLL
By Maureen Dowd
(Published in the Albany Times Union on Oct. 19, 2008)
It is the best of times, it is the worst of times. The best of times because W's long Reign of terror is about to end The worst of times because, well, you know why. In this season of darkness, as Charles Dickens described an earlier mob scene, I'm feeling as vengeful and bloodthirsty as Madame Defarge sharpening her knitting needles at the guillotine.
I even felt a little thrill go up my leg, as Chris Matthews would put it, when I heard that the Lehman Brothers CEO, Richard Fuld, got punched in the company gym after it was announced that the firm was going under.
I can't wait to see the tumbrels rumble up and down Wall Street picking up the heedless and greedy financial aristocracy that plundered and sundered free-market capitalism.
Just when we thought executives of AIG, the insurance giant bailed out by taxpayers for $123 billion, had been shamed into stopping their post-bailout Marie Antoinette spa treatments, luxury sports suites, Vegas and California posh resort retreats, we were dumbfounded to learn that some AIG execs were cavorting at a lavish shooting party at a British country manor.
London's News of the World sent undercover reporters to hunt down the feckless financiers on their $86,000 partridge hunt.
The paper reported that the AIG revelers stayed at Plumber Manor and spent $17,500 for food and rooms. The private jet to get there cost another $17,500, and the limos added up to $8,000 more.
In an astonishing let-them-eat-cake moment, the AIG big shot Sebastian Preil held court at the bar and told an undercover reporter, "The recession will go on until about 2011, but the shooting was great today, and we are relaxing fine."
There were at least three New Yorkers bagging birds — Jeffrey Malkovsky, a senior director at AIG's Manhattan office, Hilary James, the general manager of the Bristol Plaza Hotel, and her friend, John Roberts, an AIG adviser.
Who are these looters of our loot? The New York Times should follow up the excellent Portraits of Grief it did after 9/11 with Portraits of Greed.
Payback doesn't have to go as far as the French Revolution. The grifters shafting us don't have to shed blood, but they do have to give the money back. As far as these self-serving corporate con men and short-selling traders are concerned, off with their headsets.
John McCain wasted his last-chance debate on Wednesday by trying to stir up faux class rage against Barack Obama with Joe the Unvetted Plumber instead of tapping into the real class rage the country feels over bailing out ungrateful financiers who gambled away the life savings of working people.
'Tis a far, far better thing that New York's attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, did when he demanded that AIG's former executives who were trying to abscond with many millions surrender the swag. He set a good example for the feds, who slapped Fuld in the face with a subpoena.
Cuomo got AIG to instantly reverse itself and cancel 160 conferences and other events that would have cost more than $8 million, as well as give up information on compensation to determine whether they were fitting. (How could they be?)
"We stopped a $10 million severance payment to Stephen Bensinger, the chief financial officer," Cuomo told me Friday. "Just look at the words chief financial officer. There's a phenomenon when senior management sees the corporation deteriorating and they concoct a version of looting the company to take care of themselves."
Even Cuomo, who has been locked in battle with AIG for a long time, was stunned when he learned of the British hunting folly.
"That was our partridge hunting trip," he said. "The partridge paid the ultimate price, but the taxpayer came close."
He is using a state "claw back" law, which he says allows him to recover contracts and rescind payments if there was unjust compensation.
Great. Now can he find the $123 billion lost by AIG?
Let's hope that if Barack Obama becomes president, the first thing he does is keep his promise to make the junketeers come to Washington (preferably by bus or carpooling) and write the U.S. Treasury a check, after which he will fire them on the spot.
Heads must roll.
Maureen Dowd writes for The New York Times.
Today's quote: - "They are greedy dogs which can never have enough." - ISAIAH LVI, 11, cir. 700 B.C.
Comment: - When Exxon-Mobil can have six successive quarters of record profits, each exceeding TEN BILLION DOLLARS, and its Chief Executive Officer is compensated in excess of $12 Billion per year, one wonders why the Bush administration and John McCain are concerned about raising taxes on these "greedy dogs". No human being needs $12 Billion dollars a year on which to live very well, and that goes for people in any and every industry. A baseball player can make $25 Million a year, while a scientist earns only a small fraction of that. A TV news anchor is paid multi-millions per year, but a school teacher has difficult making ends meet and usually has to spend his./her own money for adequate classroom supplies.. Actors and actresses are paid millions to lead their profligate lifestyles, but nurses and care-givers, fireman, policemen and the men and women of our armed forces, who risk their lives every day suffer from the "Rodney Dangerfield syndrome" - they get no respect. Our senior citizen who have worked most of their adult lives and contributed to a Social Security system, and more importantly to the society of this country called the United States of America, being abused by their government in the costs of their medications, so that the profits of record profit-making pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare insurance companies profits are not only guaranteed, but subsidized. But today is the oil industry's day, and their search for new ways to screw the American people
Oil prices dropped below $70 a barrel for the first time in 14 months Thursday, prompting the OPEC cartel to call for an emergency meeting next week to establish some stability in prices that have plummeted recently after rising for months. Oil prices have tumbled by nearly $40 a barrel in just three weeks as indications grow that demand for energy will slow along with weakening economies around the world. As recently as July, oil was trading at a record of $145 a barrel.
The decline in oil prices could provide a form of stimulus to the economy as consumers pay less to fill up their tanks. If oil prices stay at current levels, consumers would have $250 billion more, over a year, to save or spend elsewhere, according to Lawrence Goldstein, an energy economist. Some analysts expect oil prices to keep declining, perhaps to as low as $50 a barrel in coming months. Americans will probably see lower energy bills this winter, as gasoline and heating oil futures also dropped sharply on Thursday. Gasoline prices now average $3.08 a gallon, down from a summer peak of $4.11 a gallon, according to AAA.
The decline in oil prices came after a government report showed domestic crude oil stockpiles rose more than expected as Americans use less oil, in part because they are driving less. In the last month, domestic oil demand has fallen to its lowest level since June 1999, at 18.6 million barrels a day, according to the Energy Department.
Natural gas prices have also tumbled since their summer peak of $13.58 per thousand cubic feet. On Thursday, natural gas futures rose 19 cents, to $6.81, after a report showed that stockpiles rose less than expected.
While consumers may have reason to cheer the falling oil prices after such a sharp run-up, the wild roller coaster of volatility is a nightmare for oil producers and petroleum executives who say they need more stability to plan long-term projects to develop new sources of oil. If they cannot be confident that they will get a stable return on their investment, they may hold back. That in turn could set the stage for possible shortages of oil and higher prices when global demand picks up again.
The sharp drop-off has forced OPEC’s hand. The cartel said just last week that it would meet in mid-November, after the United States elections. But on Thursday, it rescheduled its emergency session for next Friday, Oct. 24. The cartel’s producers, which control 40 percent of global exports, could curb their output by about a million barrels a day to try to stem the drop in prices, according to analysts. It is unclear what price range for oil the cartel wants to establish. But the meeting “sends a clear signal that OPEC is concerned about the speed with which oil prices are slipping away from a preferred price of around $80 a barrel,” said Lawrence Eagles, an oil analyst at JPMorgan. If OPEC countries are concerned about the recent drop in prices, and demand, can you imagine the effect upon them were the United States to develop and market alternate sources of energy, ending the dominance of third world dictatorships of the sources of energy. Nothing is a better deterrent to future terrorism than removing the ability of the oil producing nations' ability to fund it, and the bring about the end of Islamic fundamentalist Jihadists.
Iran’s oil minister, Gholamhossein Nozari, told reporters in Tehran on Tuesday, “I think the low price is a real damage to the future of production.” From its inception, the oil industry has gone through countless cycles, with oil companies cutting investments when prices fell. The price collapse of the 1980s forced companies to slash investments and prompted a wave of large mergers through the industry. But this retrenchment left the world scrambling for oil when demand from Asian and Latin American economies soared. Concerns that this pattern might be repeated were mentioned frequently during an industry conference in Venice last weekend, where oil executives said they worried that a prolonged recession, tighter credit and lower energy consumption would mean slower growth in energy supplies in coming years. What effect would the development of alternate fuel sources have, if their concerns of a recession are so great?
The credit freeze has already forced some projects to be scaled back, some energy analysts and executives said. “This is a real test,” said Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, in an interview at the conference. “Some people will be overstretched, and there will be some delays in some projects.” Over the last decade, growth in oil consumption has outpaced the ability of producers to meet that demand with more production. Many experts have predicted a new squeeze within the next five years that could once again propel oil prices over $100 a barrel. The drop in prices has already created problems for oil producers. Iran and Venezuela both need oil prices at $95 a barrel to balance their national budgets, Russia needs $70 and Saudi Arabia needs $55 a barrel, according to Deutsche Bank estimates. Algeria’s oil minister, Chakib Khelil, said on Thursday that the “ideal” price for crude oil was $70 to $90 a barrel. In Russia, which is not part of OPEC, the drop in prices is threatening the country’s ability to increase production. The Russian government has reportedly agreed to allocate $9 billion to its four major producers — Lukoil, Gazprom, Rosneft and TNK-BP — to help them cope with investment needs amid the credit crisis. In the United States, Chesapeake Energy, a gas producer, has recently indicated it will reduce its capital investments over the next few years in response to falling prices.
Global oil demand is undeniably slowing down, particularly in developed nations. Japanese oil consumption tumbled by 12 percent in August over the same month a year ago, while in the United States, demand fell by 8 percent in September. Consumption is still growing in developing nations, but at a slower pace than in recent years. The International Energy Agency expects global oil demand to grow by just 400,000 barrels a day this year, to 86.5 million barrels a day. The agency, which had been revising downward its predictions all year, forecast growth of 2 million barrels a day for 2008 when the year started.
The two-day energy meetings last week were held in private in the baroque setting of the island of San Giorgio Maggiore, home to a 10th-century Benedictine monastery. In many conversations with senior executives outside of the conference meetings, they voiced concerns about their industry becoming increasingly vulnerable to a slowing economy. “We pretty much know where supplies are going to come from in future years, but today the biggest uncertainty is demand,” said Christophe de Margerie, chief executive of Total, the French oil company.
Some executives, though, are still holding out hope that Asian economies may weather the economic storm and help the global economy recover faster. Lower oil prices could also make it harder for some companies to survive on their own, leading to a new wave of mergers and acquisitions. “This new environment is not all doom and gloom,” said Mr. van der Veer, of Shell. “It can also provide some opportunities. Certain assets may become available.”
Analysts doubt a production cut by OPEC, which investors view as increasingly likely, would do much to suspend oil's free fall. OPEC's decision last month to cut production by 520,000 barrels a day hardly made a dent in oil prices. The market has already priced in another 500,000 barrel production cut. They believe several OPEC members, particularly Venezuela and Iran, budgeted their national spending based on oil at much higher levels, meaning they'll face substantial revenue shortfalls as prices come down. If they (OPEC) comes in and cut production and oil falls to $60, they're going to look like they've lost control. Weighing on prices, Thursday was the expiration of November oil contract options at the end of the day, a trading cycle that often increases volatility.
Speculators are driving oil prices artificially high is a claim that gets more interesting in light of oil's recent fall below $115. But maybe we're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Suppose that major suppliers in the oil industry are these manipulative speculators.
It is possile to rig prices:
If you were an oil supplier? Controlling the supply — as in the 1973 OPEC embargo — has become less effective with more sources of oil worldwide. And oil suppliers clearly cannot raise prices by controlling demand in the physical oil market; ultimately, they need to sell their oil, not buy it. However, with the market inefficiencies that are exposed here, oil suppliers can regain the upper hand by artificially inflating demand using a different market. Time mechanism, we must take is a glimpse into the future — the futures market, that is. The oil companies have been making record quarterly profits for the past six quarters! Prices can be rigged. Hoe does one account for the fact that on a day when oil was priced at $145. a barrel, that increase was immediately reflected in the days increase in gasoline retail prices, which wire at an average of $4.10 per gallon. Now the price per barrel is less than $70. per barrel, a decrease since the high of $1.45 of 52%, but the retail price of a gallon of gasoline ha been reduced, not to $2.10 (52%), but to $3.16 per gallon, a reduction of 23%. Is a congressional "oversight" investigation needed? What do you think.?
The American market system, purportedly a free market despite its flaws and gross inefficiencies, has opened this vulnerability. The oil suppliers may tighten the noose, but we tied it around our throats long ago. Hiding behind the wall of anonymity, the perpetrators profit and achieve their own ends, bringing down America in the process.
Is economics so wrong in applying its supply-demand theory that we might confuse corrupt manipulation with fair pricing? There's motive, opportunity, and greed at play.. Let us stop wasting time and start making oil the history of the past.
Today's quote: - "A politician thinks of the next election, a statesman, of the next generation." - James Freeman Clarke.
Comment: - The debates are over and we have learned, if little else, that Barack Obama is a Statesman and John McCain, a politician. In this chaotic world of wars, hate, and financial collapse, the United States of America needs a President who is the Statesman, not the politician.Yesterday, after the Dow Jones suffered the worst one-day point drop since 1987 -- falling 733 points or nearly 8 percent -- Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ) met for their third and final presidential debate. The same day, Commerce Department figures showed that consumer purchases "fell 1.2 percent in September, extending the decline to three straight months, the first time that's happened since comparable records began in 1992." Searching for a "game-changer" this week, McCain announced new economic policies that he touted as being aimed toward the middle class but in fact largely focus their benefits on the wealthy. Once again, McCain failed to mention the "middle class" a single time during the entire 90-minute debate, though he did reference Joe the Plumber 20 times.'Halfway through the debate, McCain declared, "I am not President Bush. ... I'm going to give a new direction to this economy in this country." His campaign was "delighted" by the statement -- but it's less clear whether Americans will buy it. An LA Times poll released Tuesday found that a majority of Americans believe McCain would continue Bush's policies, a finding consistent with numerous other surveys. And with good reason: McCain has voted with Bush over 90 percent of the time, scoring a clean 100 percent Bush voting record in 2008. McCain himself declared in 2005, "The fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush." On everything from tax breaks for the wealthy to a bellicose foreign policy to torture to executive power, it's clear McCain represents a third Bush term.One of the most striking moments of the debate occurred during the discussion of abortion. McCain's party adopted an extreme position on abortion in its platform this year, refusing to allow for exceptions to an abortion ban even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. During the debate, McCain belittled procedure bans that grant exemptions for the "health of the mother," mocking the phrase by framing it with air quotation marks. "'Health of the mother.' You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything," McCain said. "Tonight, John McCain showed he doesn't care about women's health when he described protecting 'the health of the woman' as 'extreme,'" said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "He blatantly showed that he doesn't trust women to decide what is in the best interest of their own health." McCain even has the audacity to label the "pro-choice" movement as the "pro-abortion movement" a gross misrepresentation, as have been most of McCain's assertions.Yesterday, McCain promised an "across-the-board spending freeze." However, in the past weeks his campaign has made exceptions for defense, veterans programs, entitlement programs, worker retraining, and "a special carve-out for spending on science." The exception-riddled spending freeze proposal is reminiscent of McCain's dramatic promise to abolish earmark projects. When it was pointed out that aid to Israel and funding for military housing were included in his tally as earmarks, McCain assured he would spare those programs. In the end, McCain could not identify a single earmark he would cut. A spending freeze would entail large per capita cuts in everything from education to the FBI and federal prisons to national parks, highway and bridge repair, food stamps, to name a few. Along with having a deleterious impact on people who rely on these programs, the cuts would cause economic growth to contract at a time when the country is in need of a second stimulus to forestall the risk of a deep recession. Others may be afraid to mention it, but at age 88 I am not afraid to say that McCain has shown signs of advanced senility and an inability to make a decision that lasts more than several days.This was the only debate in which the candidates spoke at length about the Supreme Court, an important topic considering the next president is likely to appoint at least two new justices. McCain vowed not to impose "a litmus test" to determine his nominees, but also emphasized he would name those "who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution" and who would not be "legislating from the bench." These are code phrases for the conservative wing of his party. As CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted, McCain "is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement." Indeed, the evangelical leader Gary Bauer said in 2005 that despite McCain's litmus test claims, "McCain, in private, assured me he would appoint pro-life judges." Many important principles hang in the balance of just one justice; a McCain Court with only one or two new appointees could overturn abortion rights, ignore privacy rights, refuse habeas corpus to terror detainees, end affirmative action, and ban gay marriage. McCain also reaffirmed his opposition to equal pay for equal work, defending his refusal to join a law making it easier to file suit for discriminatory pay by calling the law "a trial lawyer's dream." He has justified his opposition to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by claiming women just need "the education and job training." In fact as The American Prospect's Dana Goldstein pointed out, "Women account for 56 percent of the undergraduate student population and 59 percent of the graduate school population. Across all age groups, over half of all the people in the United States with a bachelor's degree or master's degree are women." It would have done McCain well had he studied the Constitution of the United States before centering the debates. There is not one Justice on the United States Supreme Court who has not at one time or another attempted legislating a decision. Justice Scalia is one of the most flagrant legislator on the Court, to the extent of his violating Article II, Paragraph Second that empowers the States to set the conditions for the election of the electors of the President and Vice president, in choosing in 2001 to "appoint" George W. Bush as President of the United States., or in the many times his opinions were determined, not upon the Constitution, but on the Federalist Papers, none of which were ever incorporated into the Constitution.
We have, for the past eight years watched provisions of the Constitution abused, ignored and violated by the Bush administration, with the support of John S. McCain, and most especially the violations of many of the first ten Amendments - The Bill of Rights. Illegal wiretaps, supporting faith-based organizations, privacy laws and others. The President's role as "Commander in Chief is very limited. A President should be aware of the limitations placed on his office by the Constitution. Thankfully, Obama is a constitutional scholar, and hopefully we can look forward to its restoration under his stewardship.
When negotiating with the Army over the no-bid sale, Diamond had more than one advantage on other potential buyers. He held a lease on the land that would have made it difficult for the Army to find another buyer. When Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, later criticized the Army for "giving away" Fort Ord land during the 1990s, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Paul "PJ" Johnson said, "That was a very complicated realignment and closure at Ford Ord." Johnson retired later that month. But it was McCain's office, as reported earlier this year by The New York Times and The Monterey Herald, that Diamond credited with helping smooth out problems he encountered. At the time, McCain served on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The appraisal documents were obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request. Diamond and McCain's Senate office both declined to comment. The Fort Ord property in question is home to the SunBay apartments and condominiums -- an enterprise whose history dates to the 1980s savings and loan crisis. Now rented to a largely civilian population, the 297 apartments are set in attractive, Spanish-style clusters on 24 acres bordering the Bayonet and Black Horse golf courses and the Seaside Highlands development. The units were built by a private developer in the 1980s, when the Army desperately needed housing and, as a result, offered the builder a generous $1 lease on the land for 50 years. For five decades, the builder could own the structures -- not the land -- and collect market-rate rents. When the lease expired, ownership of the apartment buildings was to revert to the Pentagon. The appraisal of the buildings and land together totaled $21 million.
But when Fort Ord was dismantled in the 1990s, everything changed. It was around that time that Diamond was introduced to SunBay. His fellow Arizonan Cary Marmis -- the apartments' builder -- had been ordered to dispose of his holdings. Federal court filings show Marmis had defaulted on loans from his bank. With Marmis' real estate holdings to be sold off by the congressionally mandated Resolution Trust Corp., Diamond bid on and bought several properties that included SunBay, said Dick Fitzgerald, the onsite project manager for Diamond's developments in Fort Ord. Saying it was a private business matter, Fitzgerald declined to state how much Diamond paid for the lease and a mortgage on SunBay's buildings, but Diamond has estimated his total investment in the land and buildings at around $10 million. In a court deposition, Diamond said a deal was struck so that 10 percent of SunBay's ownership reverted to Marmis and his wife. County real estate documents confirm that Marmis' company became part owner of the apartments with Diamond.
As Fort Ord began dismantling, Diamond, as leaseholder, was interested in buying the land underneath his apartments. But in his deposition in the Bakewell case he talked of complications in the deal. With the likelihood looming that Washington would insist the Army sell off nearly all its Fort Ord acreage, the Pentagon ordered an independent appraisal of the SunBay site by the Sacramento firm Smith Denton Associates Inc. In a report dated July 15, 1996, the appraisers said the goal was to determine a range of estimates in order to better negotiate with the leaseholder, Diamond. Though the Army appeared willing to accept a discounted price, there were a number of sticking points. A February 1997 "negotiators' report" by the Army indicated Diamond's company had concerns over price, future water allocations and whether more apartments could be added to the complex.
Under oath in a taped interview as part of the Bakewell lawsuit, Diamond said McCain came to his assistance after the purchase negotiations became "bogged down." "I asked him if he could help expedite it," Diamond said. Although McCain's Senate office did not respond to questions from The Monterey Herald, earlier this year a McCain spokeswoman told The New York Times that the senator "had done nothing for Mr. Diamond that he would not do for any other Arizona citizen." Diamond, however, is no ordinary constituent. Besides being a leading developer in McCain's home state, he is a pro-Israel lobbyist in Washington, D.C., and is among the elite "innovators" group whose members have individually raised $500,000 or more for McCain's presidential bid, according to the candidate's campaign Web site. Diamond also served as national finance co-chairman for McCain's presidential exploratory committee, and in court documents he describes himself as a longtime friend of the Republican senator. Farr found it more than a little unusual an Arizona senator would become involved in a land deal in California. "This to me was just sort of out of the box," Farr said recently. "Senators don't usually mess around in other states." Diamond said McCain assigned Ann Sauer, a senior aide to McCain at the time, to the case. Sauer was well-known around the Pentagon and had previously worked as a staff member for the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sauer declined to comment for this story. Fitzgerald said Sauer set up a meeting for him with Johnson, the deputy assistant secretary of the Army. "That was the extent of her involvement to the best of my knowledge," he said. But in his deposition, Diamond said Sauer stepped in after the initial meeting and "got the thing resolved" when negotiations reached a stalemate.
Years later, he thanked her for the help "because it was taken care of," Diamond said in deposition. "In some way, she showed up and got the thing resolved, and at some time when I was in Washington I met her ... to thank her." The recently released Army documents show that after the independent appraisal was turned in, some in the Pentagon reasoned the government couldn't get full market price for the land because it was encumbered by Diamond's lease, which still had 40 years left to go. While the independent appraisers supplied estimates in the millions, the Army reappraised the land taking into consideration the lease and assuming the land and building would still be worth $21 million when the lease ran out 42 years later. Taking into consideration those factors, they figured the plot was worth less than $300,000 at the time. The premise the land and buildings would be worth $21 million some 42 years later was incorrect. Given an appreciation rate of, for example, 4 percent, the property could actually be worth several hundred million dollars in four decades.
Even so, the documents show Army officials were not eager to accept Diamond's original offer made in a draft purchase agreement. A Feb. 14, 1997 government memo states that Diamond at first offered $125,000 for the land, an offer the Army refused. "PJ" Johnson ultimately signed a memo approving the $250,000 SunBay sale in 1999. In 2001, just over two years after he bought the land, Diamond sold SunBay -- the land, the buildings and the lease -- to a Northern California developer for $28 million.
Comment: - Who is Donald R. Diamond? A longtime political patron, Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain’s current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far. At home, Mr. Diamond is sometimes referred to as “The Donald,” Arizona’s answer to Donald Trump — an outsized personality who invites public officials aboard his flotilla of yachts (the Ace, King, Jack and Queen of Diamonds), specializes in deals with the government, and unabashedly solicits support for his business interests from the recipients of his campaign contributions.
When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain's endorsement as "a close personal friend." Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, "You will find him as honorable and committed as I have." Mr. Diamond contended "I think that is what Congress people are supposed to do for constituents. When you have a big, significant businessman like myself, why wouldn't you want to help move things along? What else would they do? They waste so much time with legislation."
Mr. McCain has occasionally rebuffed Mr. Diamond’s entreaties as inappropriate, but he has also taken steps that benefited his friend’s real estate empire. Their 26-year relationship illuminates how Mr. McCain weighs requests from a benefactor against his vows, adopted after a brush with scandal two decades ago, not to intercede with government authorities on behalf of a donor or take other official action that serves no clear public interest.
In California, the McCain aide’s assistance with the Army helped Mr. Diamond complete a purchase in 1999 that he soon turned over for a $20 million profit. And Mr. McCain’s letter of recommendation reinforced Mr. Diamond’s selling point about his McCain connections as he pursued — and won in 2005 — a potentially much more lucrative deal to develop a resort hotel and luxury housing.
In Arizona, Mr. McCain has helped Mr. Diamond with matters as small as forwarding a complaint in a regulatory skirmish over the endangered pygmy owl, and as large as introducing legislation remapping public lands. In 1991 and 1994, Mr. McCain sponsored two laws sought by Mr. Diamond that resulted in providing him millions of dollars and thousands of acres in exchange for adding some of his properties to national parks. The Arizona senator co-sponsored a third similar bill now before the Senate.
A spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, Jill Hazelbaker, said the senator, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, “had done nothing for Mr. Diamond that he would not do for any other Arizona citizen.” Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain’s current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far.”
McCain is not a maverick! He’d NEVER trade off his legislative influence for something like campaign donations, no sir! "Country First." (Not the people)
Today's quote: - 'Knowledge is not knowledge until someone else knows what one knows.' - LUCILIUS, Fragment, 125 B.C.
Comment: - One of the candidates for President of the United States repeatedly tells his audiences, regardless of the subject, "I know", but nothing more.
John McCain (R-AZ) couldn’t care less what the Iraqis want. When Maliki signaled support for a timetable earlier this month, McCain rejected it. This weekend, a senior McCain aide told Marc Ambinder, “voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders.” On NBC’s Today Show today, McCain was again dismissive of Maliki, suggesting that only he knows what the Iraqis really “want”: But he tells no-one what he "knows".
Mr. McCain said, he has spent his whole life serving this country. His father was gone most of the time, doing our country’s business. He knows what it’s like to keep one’s hope going at difficult times, he says. An absentee father is hardly the experience one needs to be the President of the United States. Despite being a graduate of the United States Naval Academy (although in the bottom 1 percentile of his graduating class) McCain says, "“Everything I learned about leadership, I learned from a Chief Petty Officer.” (Oct. 7, 2008). But he never said what he had learned, and from his statements throughout the campaign, it is evident he has nor learned very much.
John McCain's startling admission that he doesn't know how many houses he owns is the latest in a series of idiotic gaffes that suggest he may be laughably out of touch. He thinks that Iraq and Pakistan share a border; he says he doesn't know a lot about economics; he only recently discovered the Internet; and he occasionally breaks into song about bombing Iran.
ome quotes of John McCain: (the lame brain):
Today's quotes (there are several):-
Comment: - The following are several links respecting the lies of George W. Bush, which have, to date, killed more than 4,177 American troops, plus non-military personnel, the deaths of some 1,273,578 Iraqi civilians, the wounding of more than 30,680 American troops and with mental wounds. to more than 300,000 American troops. Murderous lies that have been taken up by the Republican candidates for President, John McCain, and his Vice President choice Sarah Palin, both of who have disgraced American politicos by accepting the influence of Karl Rove protégé, "Bull is be the way ethead" Schmidt and rinning their campaign on the basis of character assassination and disgusting lies. If then this is their approach in dealing with other world leaders with whom they disagree,, this country may never again regain the stature it once had, when after 9/11 almost every nation in the world supported this nation, and the Bush administration, with people of the mind-set of John McCaintossed iot all with their lie and misinformation, instead of capitalizing on it. the results seven years of "f----d-up" war efforts at a cost of hundred of billions of dollars as well as the live and limbs above accounted for, over a periosd of seven years (longer than both our actions in World Wars I and II).. Read the links, about the liars who seek to succeed the biggest liar, to date, to ever hold the office, and see if you want even one more day of their lies and distortions of facts.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/09/04/palin_speech/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/08/29/obama_convention_speech/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/05/palin_bush/index.html
http://rebellenation.blogspot.com/2005_08_21_archive.html
John McCain has proven himself to be, not only as good a liar as George W,. Bush, he lacks G.W.B's stupidity to "excuse" his repeated lying, but is not smart enough to refuse to say in his lying TV ads, "I approve this message", and therefore, unlike Bush, admits to lying.. John Sidney McCain III is not running an honorable campaign. It's an unpatriotic campaign. It's a dishonest campaign. Every ad his campaign has put on the air since his convention has been untrue. The campaign is full of untruths, distortions, and lies. He knows he can't win a campaign based on the truth, so he lies to the American people to win. John Sidney McCain III is not running an honorable campaign. It's an unpatriotic campaign. It's a dishonest campaign. The surprising thing about McCain's campaign is how openly dishonest it is. Past candidates usually let outside groups do the lying (such as the Swiftboat Veterans' group in 2004). But this year the lies have been coming straight from the candidate's mouth. Here are some examples:
Now, Sarah Palin is on a "barracuda" attack upon Barack OIbama about someone who was saying things unkindly about the United States of America when Barack Obama was 6 yrs. old. This is a shameless attack, by a shameless "broad", and I call her that with the utmost disrepsect, for I cannot show respect for someone who is so willing to attempt to destroy another human being's character And she claims to be a "Christian. one who is manifesting the teachings of Christ or of his teachings " Her religious beliefs are even fraudulent, as proven by her attacks on another human, both in this campaign and in her past political ambitions in Alaska. What a disgusting human being is Sarah Palin!
ON SUBSTANCE, BARACK OBAMA WON THE DEBATE, BUT ON POINTS JOHN McCAIN CAN CLAIM VICTORY. WHILE OBAMA, IN MANY INSTANCES, COMPLIMENTED McCAN AND AGREED WITH HIM, NOT ONCE DID McCAIN HAVE A GOOD WORD FOR OBAMA, NOR MISS A CHANCE TO KNOCK HIM.
OBAMA MUST, IN THE NEXT TWO DEBATES, STOP COMPLIMENTING AND AGREEING WITH ANYTHING McCAIN SAYS, EVERY SUCH COMPLIMENT OR ACCORD ADDS TO McCAIN'S STATURE, WHICH IF NOT PROFFERED WOULD LEAVE HIM WITH VERY LITTLE. STRESS YOUR DIFFERENCES, NOT YOUR ACCORDS! STRESS McCAIN'S ERRORS, AND ONLY HIS ERRORS AND THERE HAVE BEEN 26 YEARS OF THEM.
AS A REOPUBLICAN IN 2000, I VOTED FOR JOHN McCAIN IN THE NYS REPUBICAN PRIMARIES, AND KNOWING WHAT I NOW KNOW, I WOULD HAVE BEEN A DEMOCRAT IN 2000 - BUT WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES - AND JOH McCAIN HAS MADE MORE THAN HIS SHARE, AND CONTIUES TO.
LEO DUROCHER, FORMER BASEBALL PLAYER, ONCE SAID, "NICE GUYS FINISH LAST." THIS DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO NBECOME AS NASTY AS McCAIN, JUST THAT NO LONGER HAVE TO BE THE "NICE GUY". IN THE FIRST DEBATE, NOT ONCE DID McCAIN LOOK AT YOU, EVEN WHEN YOU ADDRESSED HIM DIRECTLY. IN THE NEXT DEBATE YOU MIGHT ASK HIM, "WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO FACE ME, SENATOR?" IT'S VERY HARD TO FACE SOMEONE WHEN LYING ABOUT THEM.
PLEASE SEN. OBAMA, AMERICA NEEDS YOU, NOT AN EXTENSION OF GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE IDEOLOGUES.
John McCain has a new campaign slogan, "Country First", but he doesn't indicate which country. Is it Iraq? or Afghanistan? Iran? or Georgia? There is growing frustration with the right-wing policies that provide welfare to the rich and reward corporations while cutting programs that average families depend on. Americans distinguish between corporate success and corporate greed. They believe it is time that government sided with working and middle-class Americans.
It is time to "Put people first." We're all in this together:
If we "Put people First". the country will be first, but the converse has not been proven to be true, because the country has been controlled, with the help of John McCain by the large corporations - primarily the oil companies, the healthcare insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies, each of which receive government subsidies - approved by John McCain
President Reagan today (August 11, 1987) signed into law legislation to provide $10.8 billion for the savings and loan deposit insurance fund, even though he complained that portions of the comprehensive banking bill were ''anti-competitive and anti-consumer.'' He complained that portions of the comprehensive banking bill were ''anti-competitive and anti-consumer.'' The legislation ended a two-year effort to help the savings and loan industry, in which hundreds of insolvent institutions are losing $10 million a day for lack of Federal money to close them and pay depositors. The Competitive Equality Banking Act would allow the depleted Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, which insures deposits in 3,200 institutions, to borrow up to $10.8 billion over the next three years to close weak savings and loans or subsidize their takeover by healthier ones. The law also requires banks to clear consumers' checks more quickly, bans creation of new limited-service banks and imposes a moratorium until March 1 on granting banks authority to expand into areas such as insurance, real estate and securities underwriting.
Reagan's program of supply-side economics sought to increase economic growth through reduced taxes which would in turn create even greater tax revenue. Critics argued that his tax cuts only benefited corporations and wealthy individuals. Reagan drastically cut spending on social programs as part of his vow to balance the federal budget. In labor disputes, Reagan was decidedly antiunion. This was never more evident than in 1981 when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers. The U.S. economy continued to worsen; in 1983 the unemployment rate reached its highest point since the Great Depression at almost 11%. By the end of that year, however, oil prices began to drop, slowing the inflation rate and helping the economy to begin a recovery. Reagan' deregulated the banking, airline, and many other industries.. The deregulated economy proved extremely volatile; financial scandals were prevalent and the trade imbalance grew. Finally in 1987 the stock market crashed, falling a record 508 points in a single day.
George W. Bush's economic policies were very much like Reagan's, both supported solidly by JOHN S. McCAIN, except that where Reagan's appointments to offices of responsibility were men of substance and experience, George W. Bush's were either fellow Texans or political ass-kissers. Where it took seven years of the Reagan economics to result in the failing of banking and other industries, it took seven and a half years of George W. Bush economics, supported by JOHN S. McCAIN, to create even a greater failure. The cause, in both administrations (Reagan and Bush was deregulation, and it is one that JOHN S. McCAIN supported 100%. Deregulations created greed and chaos and a total disregard for the anti-trust laws or the effects on the general public it would have. John McCain’s affinity for supporting the deregulation of major industries puts him in league with the worlds most notorious corporate criminals. Deregulation is the tool of the super rich corporate criminal class, and John McCain is their poster child. He supported deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry. All the while accepting lavish gifts and trips on private jets from Charles Keating who would benefit directly from the legislation. This led to rampant theft of customer savings. The Savings and Loan industry then crashed costing the American taxpayers $30 Billion. McCain was indicted for corruption and Keating went to prison..
McCain followed that mess with deregulation of the energy industry. This created [chaos] in the energy markets, the Enron scandal, and cost rate payers across the country $20 billion in manipulated energy costs. Within a year all competition for gas and oil was gone and prices began rising. A sweet deal for Exxon Mobile who this year raked in more profits than any company in the history of the world, and paid their CEO $500 million in bonuses, while spending less that 2 million to develop new sources of oil from the more than 10 million acres of undeveloped US oil leases Exxon holds. That was not enough for our hero John McCain. He then supported deregulation of the Mortgage industry which led to rampant lender abuse and the current mortgage crisis. Now with the just passed bailout legislation this will cost taxpayers $150 Billion. Of course, this has since been followed directly by the collapse of the banking system and what is (so far) the biggest bailout in history, with the AIG bailout costing over 50 times more than the Chrysler bailout.
JOHN S. McCAIN is basically a stooge of the real criminals: the Charles Keatings, the Ken Lays, and the Phil Gramms of the world. McCain may be the architect of financial ruin, but his puppet masters are the looters.
The word "conservative" is defined, "Adhering to and tending to preserve the existing order of things, opposed to change; a political philosophy that favors the preservation of the status quo. and is critical of proposals of change." JOHN S. McCAIN says he is a "conservative," so when he talks of "change", he lies, because he intends to continue in that which he has supported for 26 years, the failed deregulation policies of Ronald Reagan and George W Bush. After all McCAIN took on, as his Chief Economic Advisor, Phil Gramm, the father of deregulation, and one who should be jailed for the failures and damages caused by the current financial crises.. The legacy of Ronald Reagan lives on in George W. Bush and JOHN S. McCAIN.
Today's quote: - “The test of our progress is not whether we add more more to the abundance of those who have too much; it is whether we can provide enough for those who have too little.” - FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT
Comment: The Conservative philosophy of less government, and especially of deregulation, is the prime cause of the current financial meltdown in the United States. It started long before George W, Bush and took hold in the administrations of Ronald Reagan. Democrat administrations, in power between the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations did nothing to stem the growth of deregulation, and the incompetence of the GEORGE W. Bush administration, and his incompetent appointees to positions of responsibility exacerbated the situations leading to this economic meltdown of 2008. From the reports of American Progress:The American economy has been heading in the wrong direction for seven years (more like four decades), as conservatives rewrote the rules of the market to reward corporate excess and to deprive American families of economic opportunity. (They could only rewrite the rules through deregulation, which they applied maximum effort to, ignoring anti-trust laws and other limiting legal factors.) The wave of toxic debt crashing into Wall Street is but a symptom of the broken economic fundamentals that have made good jobs, good education, and good health care harder to find for most Americans year after year. The Bush administration's exploitation economy has drilled our nation to the benefit of oil companies, multinational corporations, and billionaire speculators, leaving the next administration -- and the next generation of Americans -- with a broken economy and planet to repair. The national response to these crises must be swift and wise, stimulating a green recovery with the renewable resources of innovation, hard work, and clean energy. "Green Recovery," a new report published by the Center for American Progress from the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), explains how a $100 billion stimulus over two years would create two million new jobs in a clean energy economy, with a significant proportion in the struggling construction and manufacturing sectors. (It took almost 30 years to recover from the Reagan economic policies and deregulation, just in time for George W. Bush to reinstate them add to them and violate the laws that applied to them.
This $100 billion investment is targeted (not by the Bush administration or its ideologues) in building a green economy today: retrofitting buildings to improve energy efficiency, expending mass transit and freight rail, constructing smart electrical grid transmission systems and investing in wind power, solar power, and next-generation biofuels. The vast majority of jobs created would be in already-existing trades, from machinists to truck drivers, roofers to engineers. "The point of view of the Steelworkers is quite simple," said Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers of America (USW), introducing the report. "An energy-efficient green economy creates jobs, and creates jobs in America." "We must fundamentally change the way we produce and consume energy and dramatically reduce our dependence on oil," explained Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta. "The economic opportunities provided by such a transformation are vast, not to mention the national security benefits of reducing oil dependence and the pressing need to fight global warming." The Green Recovery program allows Congress to "spend less money than it did on the last economic stimulus package, create more jobs and help stave off catastrophe via climate change." Most of the stimulus goes directly to the private sector, with $50 billion for tax credits and $4 billion for federal loan guarantees. Approximately $46 billion in direct government spending would support public building retrofits, the expansion of mass transit, freight rail, and smart electrical grid systems. This stimulus should be part of a comprehensive low-carbon energy strategy and could be paid for with proceeds from auctions of carbon permits under a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program. As the authors of the report will testify before Congress on Thursday, the greatest benefits of investment in a green economy come to those who have been hardest hit by the pollution-based economy. PERI analyzed the green job potential for 34 states across the nation, finding that states with strong industrial sectors and low-income communities battered by outsourcing and left behind by Wall Street and Washington, can see the strongest gains. "This is an opportunity to help Americans pull themselves out of poverty by investing in the green movement," noted Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN), whose state has lost 16,000 jobs since January. "The price of oil is taking too big a bite out of working families' paychecks and eliminating too many jobs," Bruce Roy, secretary-treasurer of the Maine AFL-CIO, told the Portland Press-Herald. "Putting up a wind farm creates jobs for machinists, truck drivers, electricians and laborers. Making buildings more energy-efficient requires roofers and insulators." In the words of Michigan state representative Mark Meadows, "We have workers who are waiting to go back to work in Michigan, well over 60,000 of them who would benefit from a program like that, because they have the skill sets that are needed to make this work." Forty-three thousand jobs would be created in Missouri, already benefiting from the construction of new wind farms and biodiesel plants. Eighty-six thousand new jobs in Pennsylvania would dramatically cut unemployment. Tony Montana, a spokesman for the USW, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "That potential growth for good, family-supporting jobs when the economy is down and we see our manufacturing jobs leaving the country makes it imperative that we take a long, serious look at green investment and green energy solutions for our future and for future generations."
The impending expiration of federal renewable energy tax credits threatens thousands of American jobs. Declaring, "America needs an oil change," Rep. Markey (D-MA) fought back on the floor of the House yesterday against the conservative battle-cry of "Drill, baby, drill!" Last night, the House voted 236-189 in favor of H.R. 6899, an "all of the above" energy bill to invest in renewable energy, raise clean energy standards, and expand oil production, paid for by removing oil company tax loopholes. After a month of complaining that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had put Congress on its standard August recess without a vote on an "all of the above" bill, conservatives made repeated motions to adjourn to prevent the vote from occurring. President Bush joined the opposition, threatening to veto the legislation because it removes oil company subsidies. The fight now moves to the Senate, where conservatives have repeatedly filibustered green recovery legislation. Communities are organizing to tell Congress they are ready for green jobs now, under the leadership of a coalition led by Green For All. On Saturday, Sept. 27, the coalition will launch a national mobilization to say, "I'm ready for the green economy." Green Jobs Now is a National Day of Action that will empower everyday people to stage hundreds of grassroots events throughout the country. Van Jones, founder of Green for All and a Center for American Progress senior fellow, writes, "Right now, there are millions of people ready to work and countless jobs to be done that will strengthen our economy at home." .
No program of the Bush administration should be voted on before a new President has been elected. The new President should not be saddled with the ideologues program anymore than it has already been. There are but four months until the inauguration of a new President, and we've already had to much of the one currently in office.
IN THE MEANTIME - CONVINCE YOUR FRIENDS THAT WE NEED VOTES FOR OBAMA, FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT, FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND RESPECT, FOR THE END OF PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE OF POWER AND FOR THE CONGRESS TO RETAKE ITS POSITION AS AN EQUAL PARTNER IN GOVERNANCE; FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL JUDGES WHO PUT THE LAW ABOVE THEIR PERSONAL FAITH AND WHO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION ON THE WORDS IT CONTAINS, NOT THE DISCUSSIONS THAT LED TO THOSE WORDS - FOR THE FOUNDING FATHERS, WHEN THEY SAW FIT, ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTION, i.e. THE BILL OF RIGHTS - BUT NOT THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. ANYONE WHO WOULD NOT VOTE FOR A BRILLIANT CANDIDATE LIKE SEN. OBAMA BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN IS AN UNAMERICAN RACIST, WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS OR EVEN, IF ALLEGEDLY RELIGIOUS, IN THE BELIEF OF A GOD WHO IS THE FATHER OF ALL REGARDLESS OF COLOR, RELIGION, GENDER OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION -A HYPOCRITE!
Comment: - As a result of almost eight years of profligate and unrestrained deregulation and neglect of statutory enforcement, as well as the transfer of "social" welfare to "corporate welfare, we have reached a point of decline in our democracy where the term, in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States, "promote the general welfare" has been interpreted to mean promote the wrongdoings of corporate greed at the expense of the general public, and reward them for the error of their ways.
Fearing a financial crisis worldwide, the Federal Reserve reversed course on Tuesday and agreed to an $85 billion bailout that would give the government control of the troubled insurance giant American International Group. The decision, only two weeks after the Treasury took over the federally chartered mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is the most radical intervention in private business in the central bank’s history. One may wonder why the same was not done for Lehman Brothers. Mr. Paulson had flatly refused to risk taxpayer money to prevent the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the distressed sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America. Before coming to Treasury, Paulson was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs since the firm’s initial public offering in 1999. He joined Goldman Sachs Chicago Office in 1974 and rose through the ranks holding several positions including, Managing Partner of the firm’s Chicago office, Co-head of the firm's investment Banking Division, President and Chief Operating Officer, and Co-Senior partner Could this be the reason he did nothing for competing Lehman Brothers. "When a government takes over a people’s economic life it becomes absolute, and when it has become absolute it destroys the arts, the minds, the liberties and the meaning of the people it governs."
With time running out after A.I.G. failed to get a bank loan to avoid bankruptcy, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, convened a meeting with House and Senate leaders on Capitol Hill about 6:30 p.m. Tuesday to explain the rescue plan. They emerged just after 7:30 p.m. with Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke looking grim, but with top lawmakers initially expressing support for the plan. But the bailout is likely to prove controversial, because it effectively puts taxpayer money at risk while protecting bad investments made by A.I.G. and other institutions it does business with.Fearing a financial crisis worldwide, the Federal Reserve reversed course on Tuesday and agreed to an $85 billion bailout that would give the government control of the troubled insurance giant American International Group.. "When a government takes over a people’s economic life it becomes absolute, and when it has become absolute it destroys the arts, the minds, the liberties and the meaning of the people it governs."
Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke had not requested any new legislative authority for the bailout at Tuesday night’s meeting. “The secretary and the chairman of the Fed, two Bush appointees, came down here and said, ‘We’re from the government, we’re here to help them,’ ” Mr. Frank said. “I mean this is one more affirmation that the lack of regulation has caused serious problems. That the private market screwed itself up and they need the government to come help them unscrew it.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi quickly criticized the rescue, calling the $85 billion a "staggering sum." Ms. Pelosi said the bailout was "just too enormous for the American people to guarantee." Her comments suggested that the Bush administration and the Fed would face sharp questioning in Congressional hearings. President Bush was briefed earlier in the afternoon. The A.I.G. rescue won’t be the last. At Tuesday night’s meeting. lawmakers asked if there was any way of knowing if this would be the final major government intervention. Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson said there was not. Indeed, the markets remain worried about the financial condition of major regional banks as well as that of Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest thrift. "When a government takes over a people’s economic life it becomes absolute, and when it has become absolute it destroys the arts, the minds, the liberties and the meaning of the people it governs."
For those responsible for the financial harm does to millions be held accountable, both in and out of government? Fascism is defined, " a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition; a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control." For the first six years of his administration, George W,. Bush had a ideologue Republican majority in both Houses of Congress and a weak Democrat opposition that allowed him the practice what he claimed, 'If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.' And that was just what he was for his first six years in office, a dictator, and he is principally responsible for the economic meltdown and his administration's blind eye to the abuses of corporate entities of greed and corruption.. And all of this blind approval of corporate deregulation and disaster was with the approval of John S. McCain, who looks forward to adding to it.
Today's quote: - "Treason is in the air around us everywhere. It goes by the name patriotism." - THOMAS CORWIN, Letter from Washington, D.C., Jan. 16, 1861.
Comment: - Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 provides: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Regarding the threat by House Minority Leader, John Boehner, to shut down the government and cut off all government spending unless it submits to the lifting of the ban against off-shore drilling, might it not be considered an act of "adhering to our enemies" and giving them a sense of "aid" and of "comfort." The mere fact that the price of oil over $115 per barrel, and the hardships it has placed on the American people and the American economy was as effective as any terrorist attack that cold have been devised by Osama bin Laden. That the stopping of Social Security checks to our seniors and pension checks to our Veterans, as well as the halt in funding Veteran hospital facilities will not doubt put smile on the face of Osama bin Laden
.Patriotism is not wearing a pin of the American flag on your clothing, nor wearing a red, white and blue necktie or scarf, nor even the carrying of an American flag, because the latter is done by most of the 888 "hate" groups spread throughout these United States. Patriotism is not shutting down the government because a campaign contributor is not getting preferential treatment, or the ideology of a misinformed and incompetent President and administration is being contested. for a disregard of the Constitution and the laws of the land to which they do not subscribe. Patriotism infers a duty to the country, not a political party or political concept Shutting down a country because of a political position is the type patriotism that borders on treason. The following threats in Congress are in point:
House Republicans signaled Monday that they are ready to cut off government spending over the issue of offshore drilling, though the party’s Senate leader said he hopes to reach an energy deal and avoid a shutdown. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, called a Democratic energy proposal to allow limited offshore drilling inadequate. Boehner said House Republicans would vote against a spending resolution needed to keep the government running when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1 unless restrictions on offshore drilling are dropped from it. “We’re going to insist that any continuing resolution that passes does not continue the drilling ban,” Boehner said. Does Boehner speak for the people he represents or for the oil companies who support his campaigns? Boehner’s threat is largely symbolic, as Democrats control enough votes in the House to pass a spending bill over Republican objections. But Republican cooperation will be needed to pass such a resolution in the Senate, where 60 votes are necessary to overcome a filibuster.
“There is still time to act on this issue,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. “And we should.” While McConnell downplayed talk of a government shutdown, other Senate Republicans said they would vote against any funding resolution that includes the ban on offshore drilling expansions, which has been renewed in appropriations bills since 1992 and was most recently included in the fiscal 2008 omnibus spending bill (PL 110-161). “We have to take that moratorium away,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison , R-Texas.
The call for more offshore drilling has been a powerful election-year issue for Republicans, with appeal to taxpayers unhappy with higher energy prices. Chants of “Drill!” filled the Republican National Convention last week, and GOP lawmakers kept a daily vigil in the House chamber during the summer recess. Republican bloggers and talk show hosts have attacked party members trying to negotiate a bipartisan Senate compromise. “For the last five months, we have used this issue effectively to put Democrats on the defensive, and that’s going to continue into November,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Boehner.
But even as they try to defuse the politically charged issue with legislation allowing limited new offshore oil and gas exploration, Democrats warn that a government shutdown would boomerang against Republicans. “Let’s be clear,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev. “Shutting down the government means that senior citizens stop receiving checks and veterans stop receiving health care.” Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau said Republicans are kidding themselves if they think a shutdown will help them politically. “If Republicans want to have a debate about denying senior citizens Social Security checks and health care, that’s a debate we’re willing to have,” he said.
House Democratic leaders are expected to move a bill to the floor as early as Sept. 11 that would allow Virginia, Georgia and the Carolinas to opt into drilling off their coastlines. A bipartisan group of senators has offered a similar compromise as part of a package that would also roll back tax breaks for the oil industry. “It this bill is what we think it is, it’s nothing but another . . . poison pill sham,” Republican Ken Smith said. “Any deal, any bill, that puts 80 percent [of the outer continental shelf] off limits permanently will not find our support.” Patriot of the United States of America or the International Oil companies?
At a news conference Monday, House Republicans were nearly drowned out by protesters —including some dressed as polar bears and pelicans — chanting “Spill, baby, spill!” and “Shame on Big Oil.” Democratic leaders have not said whether they will bring their bill to the floor under a rule that would give Republicans a vote on their own drilling amendment.
The Senate is expected to spend most of this week debating a defense authorization bill (S 3001), providing leaders with a little breathing space to negotiate before moving energy legislation to the floor next week. Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman , D-N.M., and the panel’s ranking Republican, Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, are hosting a bipartisan energy summit Sept. 12. Reid said he plans to bring up a Bingaman-sponsored draft bill that would open new areas of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling. Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, and 68 million have not been drilled on, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources. If all these existing areas were being drilled, U.S. oil production could be boosted by nearly 5 million barrels a day, although the oil industry said that number is far too high and one government agency said it was impossible to estimate production. Oil companies "should finish what's on their plate before they go back in line," said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit. Some Democrats also charge that oil companies are deliberately not drilling on the land to limit supply and drive up oil prices. "Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil," said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass), who has co-sponsored a bill to charge oil companies a fee for land they hold that's not producing oil. "We should not even begin discussing handing over more public land to the oil companies until they first use [the land] they already hold." But the oil industry says it pays millions of dollars for these leases, and that it would not make sense to purposely leave the areas untapped. With record profits over the last six quarters realized by the oil industry, the costs of these oil leases are minimal and give control to the oil companies for the future and the power to control the prices. Curiously neither the government proponents of oil industry support, or the oil industry, never mentions the government subsidies it receives, despite the record quarterly profits.
With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop. Instead, they're holding out, hoping the government will open areas closer to shore that would be cheaper to work on.While that proposal, along with provisions extending tax credits for alternative energy, would likely enjoy bipartisan support, the bill would offset costs by cutting subsidies to oil companies, which many Republicans would oppose.. Are they willing to surrender the leases not being drilled on for new leases, and if so, will they guarantee to start drilling within a set period of time, or surrender the lease back to the government?
Reid also would call up the compromise draft legislation proposed by a bipartisan group of senators — the so-called Gang of 16 — which would allow the Southeastern states to opt into drilling off their shores, as part of a broader package including an estimated $84 billion in investments in conservation and efficiency offset by cutting tax breaks to oil and gas companies. Budget Chairman Kent Conrad , the North Dakota Democrat who helped assemble the gang, said an additional five Democrats have expressed support for the plan. But many Senate Republicans remain committed to a complete repeal of the moratorium.
“We’re all trying to see how we can get that moratorium lifted,” said Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski .A blanket lifting of the moratorium will give the oil companies total control over every possible oil deposit of U.S. shores, with little oversight by the government. There is no way that should be allowed to happen- the oil industry is far too powerful in government circles at the present time and must be brought under control. These are the people's minerals, not the governments, and must be used for the people's interests primarily - and they are not.
McConnell — caught between pressure to avoid a deal that does not end the moratorium and the political risks of being blamed for a government shutdown — has indicated a willingness to find a compromise. “We also need to do our most basic duty of funding the government by passing appropriations bills,” he said. “The upcoming election is no excuse to put off our responsibilities for another day. . . . The work of government must go on, regardless of how strong the partisan currents flow. It always has. And it should this year.”
Gheit hasn't seen the legislation proposed by Markey and others, but he thinks the government should revise the leasing process to encourage more drilling on existing areas before it puts more acres up for bid.
