Archive for May, 2012

Obama’s Kill List–On Terrorist Tuesdays Obama Targets “Innocent” Civilian and American “Terrorists”–Deeply “Offensive”–Murder Boards Replace Water Boards!–Progressive Neocons Cheer–Videos

Posted on May 31, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Federal Government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Security, Strategy, Technology, Video, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

UPDATED June 14, 2012

Obama defends his Leaky Kill List and Drone Attacks

“…President Barack Obama strongly denied Friday that his administration deliberately leaked classified national security information.
Obama responded to a mounting controversy over two blockbuster stories in the New York Times, both of which divulged highly sensitive details about his national security policies. One story focused on Obama’s so-called “kill list.” Another looked at his ordering of cyberattacks against Iran.
Over the past week, Republicans and Democrats have condemned the leaks, with key members of Congress pledging to investigate them.
Some Republicans, most prominently Senator John McCain, have accused the White House of purposefully leaking the information in order to play up his national security record in an election year.
The Times, for its part, has denied that it was the recipient of any planted leaks. Managing editor Dean Baquet told The Huffington Post that the stories were simply the result of good reporting.
Obama forcefully rebuked the accusations at a Friday press conference in the White House. …”

How Obama Maintains His Secret ‘Kill List’

Glenn Greenwald: Obama’s Secret Kill List “The Most Radical Power a Government Can Seize” 

Ok For White House To Leak Classified Info, But Not Whistleblowers?

Former CIA Director Against Drone Strikes

Obama Drone Strikes Are ‘Mass Murder’ – Jeremy Scahill

Obama Denies National Security Leaks Came From White House

Reality Check:  President Obama’s “Kill List” and What It Means For You 

Remote Control War

Drones In America 

Judge Napolitano : 30,000 Drones In U.S. Skies to spy on you violates Constitution (May 14, 2012) 

Judge Napolitano: Killing US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki is Unconstitutional & Against American Values

Obama Death Panel Puts Americans on ‘Secret Kill List’

Judge Napolitano Asks ‘Who Will Obama Illegally Kill Next?’ 

As U.S. Drone Strikes Escalate in Pakistan, “Kill List” Stirs Fears of High Civilian Toll 

Obama’s kill list revealed

Obama is Out-NeoConning the NeoCons [Kill-List, Drone Strikes, No-Trial] 

Obama Kill List

Obama Kill List

“…”Memorial Day weekend brought news of more U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan as The New York Times raises new questions about President Obama’s so-called “Kill List” of terrorists targeted for assassination. An extensive report in Tuesday’s paper looks at the use of targeted attacks to take out terrorism suspects in other parts of the world, an increasingly important part of the government’s anti-terrorism policies that Barack Obama himself has taken personal responsibility for. According to the story, the President approves every name on the list of terrorism targets, reviewing their biographies and the evidence against them, and then authorizing  “lethal action without hand-wringing.”
As the president has slowly drawn down American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the use of drone attacks to take out senior leaders of al-Qaeda and the Taliban has become the primary tactic for fighting terrorism overseas. However, it raises a lot of legal and ethical questions about extra-judicial killings of individuals, particularly those who happen to be American citizens…”.* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down. …”

US justifying killing any American citizens ACCUSED of terrorism… Wow not even in Banana Republic! 

“We’re Committing A War Crime! And It’s Clear That’s What We’re About!” 

Nobel Peace Prize Obama´s “Counter-Terrorism Chief John Brennan the Assassination Czar?” 

Obama admits drone strikes kill innocent Pakistanis 

The girl killed by Barack Obama – she never saw it coming

US is lying about civilian deaths from its drone attacks in Pakistan

US drone strikes in Pakistan have risen from one a year in 2004 to one every four days under President Obama. There have been no civilian deaths from US drone attacks in Pakistan since August 2010, says the US. They must know this is a lie. As this BBC Newsnight report makes clear, at least 100 have been killed, many of them women and children. The use of pilotless drones has increased dramatically under Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama’s presidency, more than doubling George Bush’s record.

Obama’s secret drone war explained by Reuters’ David Rohde – Fast Forward

Background Articles and Videos

Authors at Google: Peter Bergen

Obama Death Panel Puts Americans on ‘Secret Kill List’

David Swanson: US drone program killing civilians f.e. in Pakistan plead for justice 

White House Has a Secret Kill List! 

Jeremy Scahill on can the CIA kill whoever they want

END WAR In Pakistan US CIA-Xe Drone Strikes Kill Civilians; To Continue Strikes Even If Pak Against

Alex Jones: Government using drones against Americans

Pentagon drones flying domestic; declaring war on your privacy? 

GGN: Technocrat’s Vision for America, Feds Organize Most Terror Plots, Americans to be Drone Bombed

Mobsters- Murder, Inc. 

Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will

By JO BECKER and SCOTT SHANE

“…This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.

President Obama, overseeing the regular Tuesday counterterrorism meeting of two dozen security officials in the White House Situation Room, took a moment to study the faces. It was Jan. 19, 2010, the end of a first year in office punctuated by terrorist plots and culminating in a brush with catastrophe over Detroit on Christmas Day, a reminder that a successful attack could derail his presidency. Yet he faced adversaries without uniforms, often indistinguishable from the civilians around them.

“How old are these people?” he asked, according to two officials present. “If they are starting to use children,” he said of Al Qaeda, “we are moving into a whole different phase.”

It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.

Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.

“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”

Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve. …”

“…Moreover, Mr. Obama’s record has not drawn anything like the sweeping criticism from allies that his predecessor faced. John B. Bellinger III, a top national security lawyer under the Bush administration, said that was because Mr. Obama’s liberal reputation and “softer packaging” have protected him. “After the global outrage over Guantánamo, it’s remarkable that the rest of the world has looked the other way while the Obama administration has conducted hundreds of drone strikes in several different countries, including killing at least some civilians,” said Mr. Bellinger, who supports the strikes.

By withdrawing from Iraq and preparing to withdraw from Afghanistan, Mr. Obama has refocused the fight on Al Qaeda and hugely reduced the death toll both of American soldiers and Muslim civilians. But in moments of reflection, Mr. Obama may have reason to wonder about unfinished business and unintended consequences.

His focus on strikes has made it impossible to forge, for now, the new relationship with the Muslim world that he had envisioned. Both Pakistan and Yemen are arguably less stable and more hostile to the United States than when Mr. Obama became president.

Justly or not, drones have become a provocative symbol of American power, running roughshod over national sovereignty and killing innocents. With China and Russia watching, the United States has set an international precedent for sending drones over borders to kill enemies.

Mr. Blair, the former director of national intelligence, said the strike campaign was dangerously seductive. “It is the politically advantageous thing to do — low cost, no U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness,” he said. “It plays well domestically, and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.”

But Mr. Blair’s dissent puts him in a small minority of security experts. Mr. Obama’s record has eroded the political perception that Democrats are weak on national security. No one would have imagined four years ago that his counterterrorism policies would come under far more fierce attack from the American Civil Liberties Union than from Mr. Romney.

Aides say that Mr. Obama’s choices, though, are not surprising. The president’s reliance on strikes, said Mr. Leiter, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, “is far from a lurid fascination with covert action and special forces. It’s much more practical. He’s the president. He faces a post-Abdulmutallab situation, where he’s being told people might attack the United States tomorrow.”

“You can pass a lot of laws,” Mr. Leiter said, “Those laws are not going to get Bin Laden dead.” …”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

U.S. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Declined From 3% in Fourth Quarter 2011 to 1.9% in First Quarter of 2011–U.S. GDP Peaked Heading Toward Recession in Second Half of 2012–Diving Off The Fiscal Cliff–Videos

Posted on May 31, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, government spending, history, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, People, Politics, Raves, Taxes, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Current Numbers:
  • 1st quarter 2012: 1.9 percent
  • 4th quarter 2011: 3.0 percent
Quarterly data: Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 1.9 percent in the first quarter of 2012 (that is, from the fourth quarter to the first quarter), according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter of 2011, real GDP increased 3.0 percent.

Real gross domestic product (GDP) rose 1.9 percent in the first quarter of 2012 after rising 3.0 percent

in the fourth quarter, according to the second estimate released today by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The

first-quarter growth rate was 0.3 percentage point less than the “advance” estimate released in April.

Over the past 4 quarters, real GDP grew 2.0 percent.

First-quarter highlights

An acceleration in consumer spending in the first quarter was more than offset by a slowdown in inventory investment.

Consumer spending was strong in the first quarter, rising 2.7 percent after rising 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter. The

firstquarter increase was the largest since the fourth quarter of 2010. Spending on services and nondurable goods accelerated,

more than offsetting a slowdown in spending on durable goods (mainly motor vehicles and parts).

The slowdown in inventory investment reflected a sharp downturn in inventory investment by nondurablegoods

wholesalers and manufacturers. A slowdown in business investment, mainly in industrial equipment and

in computers and software, also contributed to the slowdown in economic growth.

Revisions to GDP The downward revision of real GDP growth for the first quarter was largely accounted for by a downward

revision to inventory investment; manufacturing, wholesale, and retail inventories were all revised down. In addition,

imports was revised up. Partly offsetting these revisions, business investment and exports were revised up.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdphighlights.pdf

Economy tanking under Obama

Economy slides as Obama campaigns

World Business and Economy Look (US, UK Europe) – Economies slow down CNN (31-05-2012)

U.S. Fiscal Cliff – Martin Feldstein

CNBC:Global Recession? Marc Faber: 100%

Background Articles and Videos

U.S. Recession a Possibility in 2012, Shilling Says

2012 recession coming to the world

Roubini Says Stimulus Will Sap Second-Half U.S. Growth

Sept. 3 (Bloomberg) — Nouriel Roubini, chairman and co-founder of Roubini Global Economics LLC, talks about the outlook for the global economy and the possible impact of a double-dip recession or an increase in risk aversion on gold and currencies. He talks with Francine Lacqua in Cernobbio, Italy, on Bloomberg Television’s “Countdown.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Glenn Beck Interviews Ron Paul About U.S Recession (2/2/2012) 

U.S. recession still possible in 2012, says Shiller

Crandall: Europe’s banks a worry

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Cost of Public Education and The Results–Videos

Posted on May 31, 2012. Filed under: American History, Books, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, High School, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Current per-pupil expenditures for public elementary and secondary education in the United States: 2008–09

Bill Gates: How state budgets are breaking US schools

The True Cost of Public Education

Education Spending in the US – Dissecting the Data

Linda Darling-Hammond on Becoming Internationally Competitive

Andreas Schleicher in conversation with Thoughts on Public Education, part 1

Andreas Schleicher in conversation with Thoughts on Public Education, part 2

EWA Interview: Andreas Schleicher on America’s Standing Among World Education Systems

Andreas Schleicher talks with EWA’s Dale Mezzacappa about how American education policy differs from other countries (0:01); strategies for recruiting highly-qualified teachers to low-performing schools (1:30); and how countries can change their approaches to bring about school improvement (5:30).

Dr. Schleicher is special adviser on education policy to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s secretary-general. As head of OECD’s programs on indicators and analysis in the Directorate for Education, he is also responsible for the development and analysis of benchmarks on the performance of education systems and on the impact of knowledge and skills on economic and social outcomes.

This interview was recorded at EWA’s 64th National Seminar in April 2011 and was made possible in part by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Eminent Voices: Andreas Schleicher

Andreas Schleicher, Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division, OECD Directorate for Education, addresses participants at the Alliance for Excellent Education’s “Losing Our Edge: Are American Students Unprepared for the Global Economy?” event held at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on December 3, 2007.

Andreas Schleicher’s entire video and slide presentation is available at http://wm.nmmstream.net/aee/events/041207/schleicher/schleicher.asx. Mr. Schleicher’s video/slide presentation cannot be posted on YouTube as it is an interactive media experience.

Andreas Schleicher: Losing Our Edge – Part 1

Andreas Schleicher: Losing Our Edge – Part 2

Andreas Schleicher: Losing Our Edge – Part 3

Andreas Schleicher: Losing Our Edge – Part 4

Andreas Schleicher: Losing Our Edge – Part 5

Andreas Schleicher: Losing Our Edge – Part 6

PISA – Measuring student success around the world

American Dream-US Students Lagging in Global Test Scores-01-17-2011-(Part1)

American Dream-US Students Lagging in Global Test Scores-01-17-2011-(Part2)

American Dream-US Students Lagging in Global Test Scores-01-17-2011-(Part3)

Finland’s education success

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Coming World Recession: U.S. and Europe Enter A Recession As Growth Rates in Real Gross Domestic Product Plummet–Gloom & Doom–Video

Posted on May 26, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

 

CNBC:Global Recession? Marc Faber: 100%

THE DEPRESSION IS ABOUT TO BEGIN

Global Recession Looms as Euro Crisis Deepens

Peak Oil Global recession means drop in oil prices

IMMINENT AMERICAN DEPRESSION: Peter Schiff – We Aren’t That Far Behind Greece?!

Is talk of a “Grexit” the Smoke Screen for a Global Economic Meltdown?

 

Marc Faber: 100% Chance of Global Recession

By: Lee Brodie

“…Faber indicated that while investors remain focused on Greece and Europe – other issues, bigger issues are looming. And they’re more threatening.

“As an observer of markets – whenever everyone focuses on one thing – like Greece and Europe – maybe they miss issues that are far more important – such as a meaningful slowdown in India and China.”

The latest reports from Beijing would support Faber’s assertion.  The HSBC Flash Purchasing Managers Index, slipped to 48.7 in May from 49.3 in April. That marks the seventh straight month that the index has been below 50, a level which indicates economic activity is contracting.

Faber also cited weakness in the high-end as another key catalyst that’s very negative.

“There are more and more stocks that are breaking down – economic sensitive stocks and companies that cater to the high-end,” he said. “That suggests to me the economy is likely to weaken and the huge asset run is likely to come to an end with significant asset deflation.”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47566735

 Background Articles and Videos

PBS Frontline – Money Power and Wallstreet part 1 of 4 (2012)

PBS Frontline – Money Power and Wallstreet part 2 of 4 (2012)

PBS Frontline – Money Power and Wallstreet part 3 of 4 (2012)

PBS Frontline – Money, Power and Wallstreet part 4 of 4 (2012)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Win 270 or More Electoral Votes Out of 538 Electoral Votes in Electoral College To Be Elected President–Videos

Posted on May 25, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Education, Federal Government, government, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

Electing a US President in Plain English

How the Electoral College Works 

The Trouble with the Electoral College

Electoral College

“…The Electoral College consists of the electors appointed by each state who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election.[1] Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state’s legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election, as opposed to a direct election by United States citizens (such as for members of the United States House of Representatives).

The voters of each state, and the District of Columbia, vote for electors to be the authorized constitutional participants in a presidential election. In early U.S. history, some state laws delegated the choice of electors to the state legislature. Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.[2][3]

The Twelfth Amendment provides for each elector to cast one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. It also specifies how a President and Vice President are elected. The Twenty-third Amendment specifies how many electors the District of Columbia is entitled to have.

The Electoral College’s existence is controversial. A 2001 Gallup article noted that “a majority of Americans have continually expressed support for the notion of an official amendment of the U.S. Constitution that would allow for direct election of the president” since one of the first-ever public polls on the matter in 1944, and Gallup found no significant change in 2004.[4][5] Critics argue that the Electoral College is archaic, inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate influence in selecting the President and Vice President. Proponents argue that the Electoral College is an important, distinguishing feature of federalism in the United States and that it protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been introduced in the Congress seeking to alter the Electoral College or replace it with a direct popular vote; however, no proposal has ever passed the Congress.

 

“…Modern mechanics

The constitutional theory behind the indirect election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is that while the Congress is popularly elected by the people,[30] the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states.

In the Federalist No. 39, James Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. The Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.[31]

Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against “an interested and overbearing majority” and the “mischiefs of faction” in an electoral system. He defined a faction as “a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.[32]

Summary

Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis, as determined by the laws of each state. Generally (with Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions), each state appoints its electors on a winner-take-all basis, based on the statewide popular vote on Election Day. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and Washington, D.C. actually choose electors for their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices. Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials and media organizations, the national popular vote is not the basis for electing a President or Vice President.

A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the Presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for President, or Vice President, that election is determined via a contingency procedure in the Twelfth Amendment, which is explained in detail below. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok_VQ8I7g6I

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Landmark Judicial Decisions–Videos

Posted on May 24, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics | Tags: , , , , , |

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Lochner v. New York (1905)

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954)

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Gonzalez v. Raich (2005)

These are all important decisions in the consideration of federalism, for one reason or another.  You should try to know at least the very broad outline of the fact situation, what the decision was and why it is important (what its significance is).

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Marbury v. Madison 1977 Judicial Conference of the United States

Govt Project: Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison (Con Law: Judicial Review)

The Year is 1803, and Justice John Marshall authors the landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which solidified the judicial branch’s authority to interpret and decide the law.  Though Justice Marshall’s justification for the power of judicial review has received some criticism for being unclear, unnecessary to decide in this case, or not properly substantiated, this power has become one of the defining tools of the judicial branch.     After John Adams lost a reelection bid to Thomas Jefferson in 1800, Adams appointed several Federalist judges and justices of the peace before Jefferson took office along with an incoming congress that would be controlled by Democratic-Republicans.  Not all of these appointees, however, received their commissions before Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as president.  As a result, President Jefferson asked his Secretary of State not to deliver any remaining commissions.     William Marbury, who had been appointed as a justice of the peace in Washington D.C. but had not received his commission, decided to sue James Madison (then-Secretary of State) directly and originally in the Supreme Court to have his commission delivered.  Marbury argued that the Judiciary Act of 1789, gave the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to compel public officials to act.  Therefore the Supreme Court simply needed to decide if Marbury had a vested right in his commission and was being denied that right.     Justice Marshall, however, wrote an opinion that negated the need to answer that question.  Instead, Marshall argued that the Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because congress could not give the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus by original jurisdiction, because the Constitution did not allow for original jurisdiction in these types of cases.     Justice Marshall, a Federalist himself, seemingly rules in favor of Thomas Jefferson by refusing to compel James Madison to deliver a commission to William Marbury.  However, the greater victory for Federalists was won by Justice Marshall, because his opinion established the broad power of judicial review to void acts of congress that violated the Constitution.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

McCulloch v. Maryland 1977 Judicial Conference of the United States

Holding

Although the Constitution does not specifically give Congress the power to establish a bank, it does delegate the ability to tax and spend, and a bank is a proper and suitable instrument to assist the operations of the government in the collection and disbursement of the revenue. Because federal laws have supremacy over state laws, Maryland had no power to interfere with the bank’s operation by taxing it. Maryland Court of Appeals reversed.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court’s opinion as having specifically targeted the U.S. Bank. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution’s list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution.

This fundamental case established the following two principles:

  1. The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution’s express powers, in order to create a functional national government.
  2. State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.

The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.

Background

On April 8, 1816, the Congress of the United States passed an act titled “An Act to Incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of the United States” which provided for the incorporation of the Second Bank of the United States. The Bank first went into full operation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In 1817, the Bank opened a branch in Baltimore, Maryland, and transacted and carried on business as a branch of the Bank of the United States by issuing bank notes, discounting promissory notes, and performing other operations usual and customary for banks to do and perform. Both sides of the litigation admitted that the President, directors, and company of the Bank had no authority to establish the Baltimore branch, or office of discount and deposit, other than the fact that Maryland had adopted the Constitution of the United States.

On February 11, 1818, the General Assembly of Maryland passed an act titled, “an act to impose a tax on all banks, or branches thereof, in the State of Maryland, not chartered by the legislature”:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland that if any bank has established or shall, without authority from the State first had and obtained establish any branch, office of discount and deposit, or office of pay and receipt in any part of this State, it shall not be lawful for the said branch, office of discount and deposit, or office of pay and receipt to issue notes, in any manner, of any other denomination than five, ten, twenty, fifty, one hundred, five hundred and one thousand dollars, and no note shall be issued except upon stamped paper of the following denominations; that is to say, every five dollar note shall be upon a stamp of ten cents; every ten dollar note, upon a stamp of twenty cents; every twenty dollar note, upon a stamp of thirty cents; every fifty dollar note, upon a stamp of fifty cents; every one hundred dollar note, upon a stamp of one dollar; every five hundred dollar note, upon a stamp of ten dollars; and every thousand dollar note, upon a stamp of twenty dollars; which paper shall be furnished by the Treasurer of the Western Shore, under the direction of the Governor and Council, to be paid for upon delivery; provided always that any institution of the above description may relieve itself from the operation of the provisions aforesaid by paying annually, in advance, to the Treasurer of the Western Shore, for the use of State, the sum of $15,000.

And be it enacted that the President, cashier, each of the directors and officers of every institution established or to be established as aforesaid, offending against the provisions aforesaid shall forfeit a sum of $500 for each and every offence, and every person having any agency in circulating any note aforesaid, not stamped as aforesaid directed, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding $100, every penalty aforesaid to be recovered by indictment or action of debt in the county court of the county where the offence shall be committed, one-half to the informer and the other half to the use of the State…

James William McCulloch, head of the Baltimore Branch of the Second Bank of the United States, refused to pay the tax. The lawsuit was filed by John James, an informer who sought to collect one half of the fine as provided for by the statute. The case was appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals where the state of Maryland argued that “the Constitution is silent on the subject of banks.” It was Maryland’s contention that because the Constitution did not specifically state that the federal government was authorized to charter a bank, the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional. The court upheld Maryland. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court decision

The court determined that Congress did have the power to create the Bank. Chief Justice Marshall supported this conclusion with four main arguments.[1] First, he argued that historical practice established Congress’ power to create the Bank. Marshall invoked the first Bank of the United States history as authority for the constitutionality of the second bank.[1] The first Congress enacted the bank after great debate and that it was approved by an executive “with as much persevering talent as any measure has ever experienced, and being supported by arguments which convinced minds as pure and as intelligent as this country can boast.”[2]

Second, Chief Justice Marshall refuted the argument that states retain ultimate sovereignty because they ratified the constitution. “The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion.”[3] Marshall contended that it was the people who ratified the Constitution and thus the people are sovereign, not the states.[1]

Third, Marshall addressed the scope of congressional powers under Article I. The Court broadly described Congress’ authority before addressing the necessary and proper clause.[1] Marshall admitted that the Constitution does not enumerate a power to create a central Bank but said that this is not dispositive as to Congress’s power to establish such an institution.[1] Chief Justice Marshall wrote, “In considering this question, then, we must never forget, that it is a constitution we are expounding.”[4]

Fourth, Marshall supported the Court’s opinion textually by invoking the Necessary and Proper Clause, which permits Congress to seek an objective that is within its enumerated powers so long as it is rationally related to the objective and not forbidden by the Constitution. In liberally interpreting the Necessary and Proper clause, the Court naturally rejected Maryland’s narrow interpretation of the clause, which purported that the word “necessary” in the Necessary and Proper Clause meant that Congress could only pass those laws which were absolutely essential in the execution of its enumerated powers. The Court rejected this argument, on the grounds that many of the enumerated powers of Congress under the Constitution would be useless if only those laws deemed essential to a power’s execution could be passed. Marshall also noted that the Necessary and Proper Clause is listed within the powers of Congress, not the limitations.

The Court held that for these reasons, the word “necessary” in the Necessary and Proper Clause does not refer to the only way of doing something, but rather applies to various procedures for implementing all constitutionally established powers. “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”

This principle had been established many years earlier by Alexander Hamilton:[5]

[A] criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so … is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality….

Chief Justice Marshall also determined that Maryland may not tax the bank without violating the Constitution. The Court voided the tax on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. The opinion stated that Congress has implied powers that need to be related to the text of the Constitution, but need not be enumerated within the text. This case was a seminal moment in the formation of a balance between federalism, federal power, and states’ powers. Chief Justice Marshall also explained in this case that the Necessary and Proper Clause does not require that all federal laws be necessary and proper and that federal laws that are enacted directly pursuant to one of the express, enumerated powers granted by the Constitution need not comply with the Necessary and Proper Clause, holding that the clause “purport[s] to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted.”

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Gibbons v. Ogden

Gibbons v. Ogden (Con Law: Commerce Clause)

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

The Dred Scott Decision

An Unpopular Decision- The Dred Scott Decision

 The Dred Scott Decision of 1857

Dred Scott vs. Sanford 

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Plessy v. Ferguson 1896

History Project–Plessy v. Ferguson

Plessy v. Ferguson – Case Brief Summary

Facts

Plessy (P) attempted to sit in an all-white railroad car. After refusing to sit in the black railway carriage car, Plessy was arrested for violating an 1890 Louisiana statute that provided for segregated “separate but equal” railroad accommodations. Those using facilities not designated for their race were criminally liable under the statute.

At trial with Justice John H. Ferguson (D) presiding, Plessy was found guilty on the grounds that the law was a reasonable exercise of the state’s police powers based upon custom, usage, and tradition in the state. Plessy filed a petition for writs of prohibition and certiorari in the Supreme Court of Louisiana against Ferguson, asserting that segregation stigmatized blacks and stamped them with a badge of inferiority in violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments. The court found for Ferguson and the Supreme Court granted cert.

Issue

  • Can the states constitutionally enact legislation requiring persons of different races to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities?

Holding and Rule (Brown)

  • Yes. The states can constitutionally enact legislation requiring persons of different races to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities.

Thirteenth Amendment issue

The statute does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime. Slavery implies involuntary servitude and a state of bondage. The Thirteenth Amendment however was regarded as insufficient to protect former slaves from certain laws which had been enacted in the south which imposed upon them onerous disabilities and burdens and curtailed their rights in the pursuit of life, liberty and property to such an extent that their freedom was of little value; and that the Fourteenth Amendment was devised to meet this exigency.

Fourteenth Amendment Issue

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are made citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, and the States are forbidden from making or enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, or shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The proper construction of this amendment involves a question of exclusive privileges rather than race. Its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of former slaves, to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and of the States, and to protect the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States from hostile legislation of the states.

It was intended to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but it was intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting and even requiring their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race. Such laws have generally been recognized as within the scope of the states’ police powers. The most common instance involves the establishment of separate schools, which has been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of States where the political rights of blacks have been longest and most earnestly enforced.

Disposition

Judgment for Ferguson (Plessy loses).

Note

This case is often cited incorrectly as Plessey v. Ferguson.

This case was later overruled by Brown v. Board of Education. Justice Warren wrote the opinion for a unanimous court, holding that separate facilities which segregate based on race are inherently unequal.

 

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/plessy-ferguson.html

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of “separate but equal.” [1]

The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. “Separate but equal” remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education. [2]

After the Supreme Court ruling, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), which had brought the suit and arranged for Homer Plessy‘s arrest in order to challenge Louisiana’s segregation law, replied, “We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred.”[3]

In 1890, the State of Louisiana passed a law (the “Separate Car Act”) that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars. [4] Concerned, a group of prominent black, creole, and white New Orleans residents formed the Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) dedicated to repeal the law.[3] They eventually persuaded Homer Plessy to participate in an orchestrated test case. Plessy was born a free man and was an “octoroon” (someone of seven-eighths Caucasian descent and one-eighth African descent). However, under Louisiana law, he was classified as black, and thus required to sit in the “colored” car.[5]

On June 7, 1892, Plessy bought a first class ticket at the Press Street Depot and boarded a “whites only” car of the East Louisiana Railroad in New Orleans, Louisiana, bound for Covington, Louisiana. [6] The railroad company, which opposed the law on the grounds that it would require the purchase of more railcars, had been informed already as to Plessy’s racial lineage.[7] Additionally, the committee hired a private detective with arrest powers to detain Plessy, to ensure he was charged for violating the Separate Car Act, as opposed to a vagrancy or some other offense.[7] After Plessy had taken a seat in the whites-only railway car, he was asked to vacate it and sit instead in the blacks-only car. Plessy refused and was arrested immediately by the detective.[8] As planned, the train was stopped and Plessy was taken off the train at Press and Royal streets.[7] Plessy was remanded for trial in Orleans Parish.

In his case, Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana, Plessy argued that the state law which required East Louisiana Railroad to segregate trains had denied him his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. [9] However, the judge presiding over his case, John Howard Ferguson, ruled that Louisiana had the right to regulate railroad companies as long as they operated within state boundaries. Plessy was convicted and sentenced to pay a $25 fine. He immediately sought a writ of prohibition.

The Committee of Citizens took Plessy’s appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, where he again found an unreceptive ear, as the state Supreme Court upheld Judge Ferguson’s ruling. [7] Undaunted, the Committee appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 1896. [10]Two legal briefs were submitted on Plessy’s behalf. One was signed by Albion W. Tourgée and James C. Walker and the other by Samuel F. Phillips and his legal partner F. D. McKenney. Oral arguments were held before the Supreme Court on April 13, 1896. Tourgée and Phillips appeared in the courtroom to speak on behalf of Plessy.

Tourgée built his case upon violations of Plessy’s rights under the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the same rights to all citizens of the United States, and the equal protection of those rights, against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Tourgee argued that the reputation of being a black man was “property,” which, by the law, implied the inferiority of African-Americans as compared to whites. [11]

The Decision

In a 7 to 1 decision handed down on May 18, 1896 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate, due to the death of his daughter),[12] the Court rejected Plessy’s arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment, seeing no way in which the Louisiana statute violated it. [7] In addition, the majority of the Court rejected the view that the Louisiana law implied any inferiority of blacks, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it contended that the law separated the two races as a matter of public policy. [13]

When summarizing, Justice Brown declared, “We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.” [14]

While the Court did not find a difference in quality between the whites-only and blacks-only railway cars, this was manifestly untrue in the case of most other separate facilities, such as public toilets, cafés, and public schools, where the facilities designated for blacks were poorer than those designated for whites. [15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Andrew Napolitano – A Clause for Any Cause

Mark Levin – unconstitutional government & the commerce clause

Holding

Production quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act were constitutionally applied to agricultural production that was consumed purely intrastate, because its effect upon interstate commerce placed it within the power of Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause. Southern District of Ohio reversed.

Wickard v. Filburn

“…Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution‘s Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government.

Background

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production. The stated purpose of the act was to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market by controlling the amount of wheat produced. The motivation behind the Act was a belief by Congress that great international fluctuations in the supply and demand for wheat were leading to wide swings in the price of wheat, which were deemed to be harmful to the U.S. agricultural economy. The Supreme Court’s decision states that the parties had stipulated as to the economic conditions leading to passage of the legislation:

The parties have stipulated a summary of the economics of the wheat industry……The wheat industry has been a problem industry for some years. Largely as a result of increased foreign production and import restrictions, annual exports of wheat and flour from the United States during the ten-year period ending in 1940 averaged less than 10 percent of total production, while, during the 1920s, they averaged more than 25 percent. The decline in the export trade has left a large surplus in production which, in connection with an abnormally large supply of wheat and other grains in recent years, caused congestion in a number of markets; tied up railroad cars, and caused elevators in some instances to turn away grains, and railroads to institute embargoes to prevent further congestion. Many countries, both importing and exporting, have sought to modify the impact of the world market conditions on their own economy. Importing countries have taken measures to stimulate production and self-sufficiency. The four large exporting countries of Argentina, Australia, Canada, and the United States have all undertaken various programs for the relief of growers. Such measures have been designed, in part at least, to protect the domestic price received by producers. Such plans have generally evolved towards control by the central government. In the absence of regulation, the price of wheat in the United States would be much affected by world conditions. During 1941, producers who cooperated with the Agricultural Adjustment program received an average price on the farm of about $1.16 a bushel, as compared with the world market price of 40 cents a bushel.

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who admitted producing wheat in excess of the amount permitted. He maintained, however, that the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm. Since it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, he argued that it was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938, Filburn’s 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (4.5 ha) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices, Filburn planted 23 acres (9.3 ha) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (4.8 ha) of excess area.[1]

The Federal District Court ruled in favor of Filburn. The Act required an affirmative vote of farmers by plebiscite in order to implement the quota. Much of the District Court decision related to the way in which the Secretary of Agriculture had campaigned for passage: The District Court had held that the Secretary’s comments were improper. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which called the District Court’s holding against the campaign methods which led to passage of the quota by farmers a “manifest error.” The court then went on to uphold the Act under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Opinion of the Court

The intended rationale of the Agricultural Adjustment Act was to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Filburn the Court unanimously reasoned that the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce.

Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.

Some of the parties’ argument had focused on prior decisions, especially dormant Commerce Clause decisions, in which the Court had tried to focus on whether a commercial activity was local or not local. Justice Robert H. Jackson‘s decision rejects that approach as too formulaic:

The Government’s concern lest the Act be held to be a regulation of production or consumption rather than of marketing is attributable to a few dicta and decisions of this Court which might be understood to lay it down that activities such as ‘production,’ ‘manufacturing,’ and ‘mining’ are strictly ‘local’ and, except in special circumstances which are not present here, cannot be regulated under the commerce power because their effects upon interstate commerce are, as matter of law, only ‘indirect.’ Even today, when this power has been held to have great latitude, there is no decision of this Court that such activities may be regulated where no part of the product is intended for interstate commerce or intermingled with the subjects thereof. We believe that a review of the course of decision under the Commerce Clause will make plain, however, that questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as ‘production’ and ‘indirect’ and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce.

The issue was not how one characterized the activity as local, but rather whether the activity “exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce”:

Whether the subject of the regulation in question was ‘production,’ ‘consumption,’ or ‘marketing’ is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it…. But even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’

Here, the regulation of local production of wheat was rationally related to Congress’s goal: to stabilize prices by limiting the total supply of wheat produced and consumed. It was clear, the Court held,

“that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. ….. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.”

Wickard arguably marked the end to any limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause powers. The Court’s own decision, however, emphasizes the role of the democratic electoral process in confining the abuse of the Congressional power, stating that, “At the beginning Chief Justice Marshall described the Federal commerce power with a breadth never yet exceeded. He made emphatic the embracing and penetrating nature of this power by warning that effective restraints on its exercise must proceed from political rather than from judicial processes.”

Subsequent developments

United States v. Lopez (1995) was the first decision in six decades to invalidate a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeded the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The opinion described Wickard v. Filburn as “perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate commerce.” Lopez held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from “commerce” as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[2]

The Supreme Court has since relied heavily on Filburn in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law. The Supreme Court subsequently held that, as with the home grown wheat at issue in the present case, home grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce. As the Court explained in Gonzales v. Raich (2005):

“Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself ‘commercial’, in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.”

One commentator has written that “In the wake of New Deal era Supreme Court jurisprudence it has become clear that Congress has acquired the authority to regulate private economic activity in a manner near limitless in its purview.”[3] Justice Rehnquist’s opinion in United States v. Lopez explains:

Jones & Laughlin Steel, Darby, and Wickard ushered in an era of Commerce Clause jurisprudence that greatly expanded the previously defined authority of Congress under that Clause. In part, this was a recognition of the great changes that had occurred in the way business was carried on in this country. Enterprises that had once been local or at most regional in nature had become national in scope. But the doctrinal change also reflected a view that earlier Commerce Clause cases artificially had constrained the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Holding

Possession of a gun near school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. A law prohibiting guns near schools is a criminal statute that does not relate to commerce or any sort of economic activity

United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

Background

Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a 12th grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992 he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges, into the school. The pistol was not loaded; Lopez claimed that he was to deliver the weapon to another person, a service for which he would receive $40.[1] He was confronted by school authorities — the school had received anonymous tips that Lopez was carrying the weapon — and admitted to having the weapon. The next day, he was charged with violation of the federal[2] Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (the “Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)[3]

Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that §922(q) of the Act was “unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools.” The trial court denied the motion, ruling that §922(q) was “a constitutional exercise of Congress’ well defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the ‘business’ of elementary, middle and high schools… affects interstate commerce.”

Lopez was tried and convicted. He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that §922(q) exceeded Congress’ power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed his conviction, holding that “section 922(q), in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.” The Court of Appeals noted that the findings and evidence presented before Congress to justify the passage of the Act pursuant to the federal Commerce Clause power was simply insufficient to uphold the Act, in effect ruling that the Government had simply not made its case that the Act was justified as an exercise of the Commerce Clause power of Congress; this of course left the door open for a later Congress, with more complete evidence and justification, to enact a valid Act, based upon a more complete showing of evidence of interstate commerce being sufficiently “affected” to justify the exercise of the federal Commerce power.[4]

The United States government filed a petition for certiorari, whereby the Court has discretion to hear or to decline a particular case, for Supreme Court review and the Court accepted the case.

To sustain the Act, the Government was obligated[5] to show that §922(q) was a valid exercise of the Congressional Commerce Clause power, i.e. that the section regulated a matter which “affected” (or “substantially affected”[6]) interstate commerce.[7]

The Government’s principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in two ways. First, because violent crime causes harm and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe. The Government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students’ being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is clearly a crucial element of the nation’s financial health.

The Court, however, found these arguments to create a dangerous slippery slope: what would prevent the federal government from then regulating any activity that might lead to violent crime, regardless of its connection to interstate commerce, because it imposed social costs? What would prevent Congress from regulating any activity that might bear on a person’s economic productivity?[8]

Supreme Court decision

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from “commerce” as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[9]

Chief Justice Rehnquist, delivering the opinion of the Court, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

  • the channels of interstate commerce,
  • the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,[10] and
  • activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce[11]

The Court summarily dismissed any consideration of the first two categories and concluded that the resolution of the case depended only on consideration of the third category—regulation of activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The Court essentially concluded that in no way was the carrying of handguns a commercial activity or even related to any sort of economic enterprise, even under the most extravagant definitions.[12]

The opinion rejected the government’s argument that because crime negatively impacted education Congress might have reasonably concluded that crime in schools substantially affects commerce.

The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.

The Court specifically looked to four factors in determining whether legislation represents a valid effort to use the Commerce Clause power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce:

  1. Whether the activity was non-economic as opposed to economic activity; previous cases involved economic activity.
  2. Jurisdictional element: whether the gun had moved in interstate commerce.
  3. Whether there had been Congressional findings of an economic link between guns and education.
  4. How attenuated the link was between the regulated activity and interstate commerce.

It is important to note that although the ruling stopped a decades-long trend of inclusiveness under the commerce clause, it did not reverse any past ruling about the meaning of the clause. Later, Rehnquist stated that the Court had the duty to prevent the legislative branch from usurping state powers over policing the conduct of their citizens. He admitted that the Supreme Court had upheld certain governmental steps towards taking power away from the states, and cited Lopez as a decision that finally stepped in to check the government’s authority by defining clearly between state and federal powers.[13]

The dissent

Justice Breyer authored the principal dissenting opinion.[14] He applied three principles that he considered basic:

  1. The Commerce Clause included the power to regulate local activities so long as those “significantly affect” interstate commerce.
  2. In considering the question, a court must consider not the individual act being regulated (a single instance of gun possession) but rather the cumulative effect of all similar acts (i.e., the effect of all guns possessed in or near schools).
  3. A court must specifically determine not whether the regulated activity significantly affected interstate commerce, but whether Congress could have had a “rational basis” for so concluding.[15]

With these principles in mind, Justice Breyer asked if Congress could have rationally found that the adverse effect of violent crime in school zones, acting through the intermediary effect of degrading the quality of education, could significantly affect interstate commerce. Based on the existence of empirical studies, he answered this question affirmatively.[16] He pointed out the growing importance of education in the job market, noting that increased global competition made primary and secondary education more important.[17] He also observed that US firms make location decisions, in part, on the presence or absence of an educated work force.[18]

Thus, Justice Breyer concluded that it was obvious that gun related violence could have an effect on interstate commerce. The only question remaining, then, was whether Congress could have rationally concluded that the effect could be “substantial.” Congress could have rationally concluded, in Justice Breyer’s judgment, that the linkage from gun violence to an impaired learning environment, and from this impaired environment to the consequent adverse economic effects, was sufficient to create a risk to interstate commerce that was “substantial.”[19]

Congress, in Justice Breyer’s view, had a rational basis “for finding a significant connection between guns in or near schools and (through their effect on education) the interstate and foreign commerce they threaten.” In his opinion, no more than this was required to find sufficient supporting power for the challenged law under the Commerce Clause, and he consequently believed that the Court of Appeals had erred and should be reversed.

Justice Souter’s opinion warned that the distinction between “commercial” and “non-commercial” activity was not tenable and he echoed the “rational basis” theme of the Breyer dissent.[20]

Justice Stevens, in his dissent, iterated his agreement with the Breyer dissent that found ample Congressional power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the possession of firearms in schools, in the same way that Congress may act to protect the school environment from alcohol or asbestos. He also agreed with Justice Souter’s “exposition of the radical character of the Court’s holding and its kinship with the discredited, pre-Depression version of substantive due process.”[21]

 The impact of the decision

Lopez raised serious questions as to how far the Court might be willing to go in implementing judicial safeguards against federal encroachments on state sovereignty.[22] This precedent takes special significance in cases where the federal government is attempting to limit private conduct.[22] Commentators are still postulating its possible effects on other established federal laws enacted pursuant to the Commerce Power, such as the Clean Water Act. The argument can be made that this significant limiting of federal power is necessary to establish a greater threshold for governmental accountability and revitalizes the role of the states in public policymaking.[23] United States v. Lopez has been followed by the Supreme Court in limiting Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause in the 2000 case of United States v. Morrison[24] and under other enumerated powers in the 2001 case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (“SWANCC”).[25][26] Lopez has also been cited as a potentially crucial precedent in the legal battle over the 2010 health care reform legislation.[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Gonzalez v. Raich (2005)

Holding

Congress may ban the use of marijuana even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes

Angel Raich At MMJ Conference

Medical Marijuana Patient & Activist, Angel Raich 

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

Factual background

California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing the medical use of marijuana. The United States Federal Government has limited the use of marijuana since the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act came into effect. Defendant Angel Raich used homegrown medical marijuana, which was legal under California law, but illegal under federal law. On August 15, 2002, Butte County Sheriff’s Department officers and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) destroyed all six of California resident Diane Monson’s marijuana plants, facing light resistance. The marijuana plants were illegal Schedule I drugs under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). CSA is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Monson and Angel Raich sued, claiming that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.

Angel Raich’s physician has stated that, without marijuana, Angel’s life is threatened by excruciating pain. California was one of fourteen states that allowed medicinal use of marijuana. California’s Compassionate Use Act allows limited use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Legal background

The United States has a federal structure, with power divided between the states and the federal government. The state governments can act in any sphere not prohibited to them (10th Amendment, U.S. Constitution) but the federal government can pass laws only in areas specifically delegated to it.[1] The state governments have general police power. The federal government does not have general police power and is a government body of limited, enumerated powers granted by the Constitution. Consequently, a substantial amount of U.S. federal law regulating numerous areas, including economic legislation and criminal law, are legally premised on an exercise of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause, along with the Fourteenth Amendment and the spending power, allows Congress to do things that affect states. For more information, see States’ rights and the Rehnquist Court.

The case of Raich and Monson against the government

Angel Raich of Oakland, California, Diane Monson of Oroville, California, and two anonymous caregivers sued the government for injunctive and declaratory relief on October 9, 2002 to stop the government from interfering with their right to produce and use medical marijuana claiming that the Controlled Substances Act was not constitutional as applied to their conduct.

Angel Raich claimed she used marijuana to keep herself alive. She and her doctor claimed to have tried dozens of prescription medicines for her numerous medical conditions, and that she was allergic to most of them. Her doctor declared under oath that Raich’s life was at stake if she could not continue to use marijuana. Diane Monson suffered from chronic pain due to a car accident a decade before the case. She used marijuana to relieve the pain and muscle spasms around her spine.

 The government’s case

The Controlled Substances Act does not recognize the medical use of marijuana. Agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were assigned to break up California’s medical marijuana co-ops and seize their assets. This activity was the result of the belief that federal law preempted that of California. The government argued that if a single exception were made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that consuming one’s locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption. This argument stems from the landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops, due to the aggregate effect of individual consumption on the government’s legitimate statutory framework governing the interstate wheat market.

 Litigation

On December 16, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from interfering with Raich and Monson. In their ruling, they declared: “We find that the appellants have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the Controlled Substances Act is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority…”

Organizations involved

Partnership for a Drug-Free America, several other anti-drug organizations,[2] alliance of seven congressmen including Mark Souder and Katherine Harris filed amicus brief for the side of federal government.[3] The environmentalist group Community Rights Council also filed a brief for the government, fearing limitation of federal power would undermine their agenda.[4]

The Cato Institute,[5] Institute for Justice,[6] many libertarian organizations, and NORML, along with other groups opposing the War on Drugs, filed briefs for Raich and Monson. The governments of California, Maryland, and Washington also filed briefs supporting Raich. The attorneys general of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, three strongly anti-drug states from the usually conservative South, filed a brief supporting Raich on the grounds of states’ rights.[7]

 The decision

The starting point for the Court’s opinion was the fact that it was conceded that Congress had the power to control or ban marijuana for non-medical uses:

Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress’ commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents’ challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA’s categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause.

Banning the growing of marijuana for medical use, the Court reasoned, was a permissible way of preventing or limiting access to marijuana for other uses:

Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

The relevant precedents for the Court’s analysis are Wickard v. Filburn (1942), United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000).

Scalia’s opinion

Justice Scalia wrote a separate concurrence that had the effect of differentiating the decision from the previous results of United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison. Although Scalia voted in favor of limits on the Commerce Clause in the Lopez and Morrison decisions, he said that his understanding of the Necessary and Proper Clause caused him to vote for the Commerce Clause with Raich for the following reason:

Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. … This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”[8]

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Spoiler: How a Third Political Party Could Win!–Video

Posted on May 22, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Films, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

 

SPOiLER:  How a Third Political Party Could Win 

A James Jaeger Film featuring

 CHUCK BALDWIN, Radio Host-Pastor;

PAT BUCHANAN, Author/Political Analyst;

 G. EDWARD GRIFFIN, Author/Producer;

 NELSON HULTBERG, Political Strategist,

PETER LILLBACK, Author/Theologian;

JOHN McMANUS, President John Birch Society;

EDWIN VIEIRA, Author/Constitutional Attorney and

 JOHN WILLIAMS, Economist-Statistician with guest appearances by JACK ROONEY, Senatorial Candidate and RON PAUL, Congressman/Presidential Candidate.

Produced by Matrixx Productions in association with the Foundation for the Advancement of Free-market Thinking – Produced by EDWIN VIEIRA – HENRIETTA M. JAEGER, Executive Producer ANTHONY WILE, Associate Producers DIANA ZOPPA – DAN HAPPEL – ELIAS ALIAS .  Written & Directed by JAMES JAEGER

SPOILER explores the political, economic and philosophic ethos of the past 98 years for insights into the debt-driven, welfare-warfare state and ways Americans can get back to a Constitutional republic.  Analyzing the reasons no third party has been successful since John C. Fremont and Abraham Lincoln ran on the new Republican Party around 1860, SPOiLER offers a platform — based on the political strategies of Nelson Hultberg — that could inspire an existing, or new, third party to win, thus putting an end to the  DemoPublican monopoly.

Who Will Be Our Modern Day Jefferson? by Nelson Hultberg

Anybody with a lick of sense realizes there’s no difference anymore between the Democrats and Republicans. Both preach big dictatorial government to the people, and they do so relentlessly. Thus many Americans now realize that we need to open up the process and offer a small government vision as a third choice.

The question is how do we bring about such a goal. Many hurdles to a third-party exist, and many objections among conservatives to even begin such an attempt exist. What follows will provide some answers to those objections and outline a dramatic plan that will not only defeat Obama’s socialist agenda in 2012, but also save America in the coming decades from Republican socialism.

Restoring the Republic

It is assumed that Ron Paul will run again for the Republican nomination in 2012. But could this maverick freedom advocate actually take the GOP nomination away from one of the establishment luminaries such as Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee, or Palin? Common sense tells us, no. But that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try, for in the effort to do so the message of freedom at least gets a hearing.

But once Paul sees that he is going to be denied the nomination (along about February or March of 2012), he then needs to set his sights higher than just being a hard-money spokesman running Don Quixote-style campaigns to purge the Fed from the country. As important as this goal is, it’s going to require many decades to achieve anything substantive regarding such abolishment. Are Americans ready to adopt a totally free-market banking system, which is what would be required if we eliminated the Fed? Certainly not this decade or next. Maybe in 50 years.

There is a bigger, better crusade for Ron Paul to lead, however. It could be implemented NOW, rather than in 50 years. And it wouldn’t diminish his effort to expose the Fed and eventually phase it out.

Ron Paul needs to think “Independent Crusade” in the manner of Ross Perot in 1992, which would get him into the National TV Presidential Debates. The importance of this is that it puts Congressman Paul in front of 70 million voters on the major networks. Getting into the Republican nomination debates in primary season (as he did in 2008) only puts him in front of 10 million voters on the cable stations. Running as a Republican nominee is small potatoes. The big prize is the fall Presidential Debates. But only an Independent run can bring this about because Paul is not going to get into those debates as the GOP nominee.

There’s also another reason why the “Presidential Debates” are so important. In the Republican nomination debates, the moderators can ostracize a candidate by asking him only a few superficial questions and then ignoring him in favor of statist favorites such as Romney or Gingrich. This is what they did to Paul in 2008. But in the fall Presidential Debates there has to be equal time given to all candidates. Thus the moderator cannot ignore the freedom candidate in favor of the establishment favorites.

For Ron Paul to create a successful Independent run, he will need to find a promising conservative (let’s call him “Jefferson Thomas”) to team with as his VP candidate and do what Ross Perot and James Stockdale did in 1992. It goes without saying that Jefferson Thomas must be a man with gravitas and big league political experience, which unfortunately Stockdale was not. Perot managed to get on the ballot in almost all the states in less than six months at a cost of about $25-$30 million. A ticket of Ron Paul and Jefferson Thomas could do the same thing. Paul has already demonstrated that he has that kind of money-raising capability.

Thus our goal must now be to find Jefferson Thomas, or to have him find us. He will have to possess a genuine respect for the Founders’ vision. And he will have to be a strong social conservative, but one who wishes to promote traditional values in society through the churches and schools rather than legislative mandates.

By employing less radical language for some of Ron Paul’s 2008 positions, a formidable ticket could be formed. In today’s atmosphere of severe recession, ruinous foreign wars, Washington socialism run amok, and Tea Party revolts, such a ticket could garner the necessary 15% in the polls to gain entrance into the National TV Presidential Debates and give the freedom movement a podium in front of 70 million American voters.

A Ron Paul / Jefferson Thomas Independent run would electrify the country. It would sweep into the TV Presidential Debates in the same fashion that Ross Perot did in 1992. Today’s crisis times would guarantee it. And what’s most important is that this time, the Paul / Thomas ticket would be talking true free-enterprise and foreign policy sanity. Not to take anything away from Perot; he was a great American hero and a wonderful tribute to the country. But he did not advocate “limited government.” He basically accepted the monstrous welfare-statism of the two major parties. Ron Paul and Jefferson Thomas would not do this; thus their message would be truly salvational. Imagine them running on the following four Pillars of Reform:

Pillar # 1: A 10% equal-rate income tax across the board as replacement for our progressive tax rate structure, which would restore equal rights under the law to the system. With elimination of all special privileges, exemptions, and breaks, the tax base would be large enough for a simple 10% rate to be revenue neutral. But most importantly such a tax would stifle the “infinite demand” for government services that results from exempting 50% of the nations voters as our present progressive system does. When voters pay zero taxes for their services, their demand for those services is infinite. This is a cardinal law of economics, and it is the primary source of the relentless government growth that is bankrupting our nation today.

A 10% equal-rate tax will stifle this relentless growth. Voters will no longer want all the pork and privileges if they have to pay for them proportionally out of their own pockets. They will begin demanding a steady reduction of government. They will begin demanding that the 10% rate be lowered to 8%, 7%, 5%, and eventually replaced with across-the-board tariffs and a small national sales tax. Voila! The horrid income tax and IRS could be ended in a decade or two simply by eliminating “progressive rates.”

Pillar #2: Mandating by law that the Federal Reserve increase the money supply annually at the same rate as the growth of goods and services — approximately 4%. This would reduce price inflation to zero every year and end the horrible destruction of our currency and savings until we can convince Americans to end the Fed and restore gold. Milton Friedman suggested this years ago. It has its own flaws and thus is not a permanent solution, but it will stifle price inflation and buy time for us to educate America about vital monetary truths.

Enactment of these first two pillars of tax and monetary reform will bring hundreds of billions of dollars of investment capital back to America and millions of jobs back from overseas. It will create an explosion of economic productivity. It will restore our country’s manufacturing power and our people’s freedom because it will end the government’s ability to expand through confiscatory taxation and currency debasement.

Pillar #3: Radical immigration reform that encompasses a genuine crackdown on illegals and the total abandonment of any kind of amnesty. We don’t need massive deportation schemes to bring this about. An effective immigration reform would entail mandating English as the country’s official language, ending anchor baby policies, as well as chain migration and all welfare perks for illegals, along with persistent prosecution of all employers who hire illegals. In other words, remove the honey pots from our backyard, and the fire ants will stop invading us. The illegals will stay home.

Pillar #4: Ending the Mideast wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and returning to a mind-our-own-business foreign policy, which means we maintain a powerful military, but stop trying to be the policeman for the world. Carry a big stick, but walk softly would be the advice of the Founders. America does not need 820 military bases in 135 countries aound the globe. We are bankrupting the nation both morally and financially with such imperial hubris.

Imagine Ron Paul and Jefferson Thomas giving 30 minute lectures regarding these Pillars in prime time TV the night before each of their debates as Perot did so effectively in 1992 with his lectures on the coming debt crisis. Such an ideological challenge would shake up the corrupt Demopublican establishment in a very big way. In my opinion it would launch a profound paradigm shift in American politics.

Would a Paul-Thomas ticket be able to get 38% of the vote and win in a three-man race? Probably not; but what’s important is that freedom would now have a powerful voice in national politics. This would lay the groundwork for Jefferson Thomas running again in 2016 as head of a new party and vision for America — a small government vision of freedom and sanity. That new party is already formed. It is called the Conservative American Party, and it could be officially registered in all states and sufficiently promoted to the American people by 2016 if Ron Paul and Jefferson Thomas endorsed it. Paul would be 80 years old by then, but he would become the elder statesman, the symbolic head of the party.

Unlike today’s conventional third-parties that get only 1% of the vote, this would be a REAL third-party that achieves parity with the Democrats and Republicans and then replaces the Republicans as they replaced the Whigs in the 1850s.

Naysayers on the Right

The naysayers on the right will protest that such a campaign would split the Republican Party vote and assure Obama’s re-election, which is intolerable. This is a false fear that is stultifying the freedom movement. Here’s why. If a Paul / Thomas Independent ticket loses and Obama wins as a result of the GOP support being split, his socialist agenda can still be stopped because Republican conservatives will pick up a considerable number of seats in the House and Senate in 2012 — adding to their sizeable gains in the recent 2010 elections. This will create gridlock and force Obama to come into the center and govern no differently than a Romney or Gingrich.

So what do we lose in 2012 by splitting the Republican vote? Nothing. What we gain, however, is the means to dramatically explain to America what is really happening. Our message of freedom gains access to 70 million voters! The Demopublican monopoly of ideas is broken! A genuine third choice is offered. This has never been done in the entire 48-year history of the Presidential debates.

What’s important to grasp is that the country is finally ready to establish a conservative / libertarian era of government. The past 80 years of Marxist-Keynesian ideology has created the ruination that is driving the people to this realization. All that is necessary now is for a courageous leader to enter the scene and crystallize such a realization with a Ross Perot style campaign in 2012.

The path would then be open for a Jefferson Thomas win in 2016 on a Conservative American Party ticket, which would be genuinely revolutionary in a way that the ossified Republican Party can never be. The restoration of the republic could begin. The Four Pillars of Reform mentioned above could be implemented.

Would Ron Paul be willing to give up his House seat to run an Independent race? Hopefully so. At this time, we need him more in the National TV Presidential Debates than we do in Congress. He is no longer just a Representative from south Texas caught up in exposing the criminality of the Fed. He is the leader of freedom’s hope in America. This entails different responsibilities and larger ambitions. The freedom movement needs to be sensationalized, which requires a leader who is articulately schooled in its ideological fundamentals. Ron Paul is the one who history has ordained as that political leader.

Many prominent intellectuals, talk show hosts, and activists, would support a Ron Paul / Jefferson Thomas ticket such as: Patrick J. Buchanan, G. Edward Griffin, Edwin Vieira, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Alex Jones, Chuck Baldwin, Peter Brimelow, Thomas Sowell, Paul Craig Roberts, John Stossel, Walter Williams, Bill Bonner, Sheriff Richard Mack, Stewart Rhodes, Rick Santelli, David Koch, Peter Schiff, John McManus, Peter Lillback, Ted Baehr, and thousands of other prominent men and women in positions of leadership in the business, media, entertainment, religious, and literary arenas.

The latest Gallup Poll indicates that 58% of the American people feel that the Democratic and Republican Parties are doing such a terrible job that a third-party is needed. The time for such a revolution is now. As Shakespeare said, “There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.”

America desperately needs a small-government vision in its political arena. And the best way to bring such a vision about is to launch it with an Independent run by Ron Paul and Jefferson Thomas in 2012, to be followed by the official formation of the Conservative American Party for 2016 with Jefferson Thomas as its candidate for President.

To learn more about the Conservative American Party, see The Conservative Revolution: Why We Must Form a Third Political Party to Win It. This book explains in great detail the Four Pillars of Reform.

Also a new documentary, inspired by The Conservative Revolution, is now in production by filmmaker, James Jaeger. The feature-length film entitled, SPOiLER – How a Third Political Party Could Win, features Pat Buchanan, Edwin Vieira, G. Edward Griffin, John McManus, Peter Lillback, and others. A 3½ minute trailer is available at the official SPOiLER website at http://www.SpoilerUSA.org.

Conservatives and libertarians of America need to put their thinking caps on. Just as David O. Selznick conducted a nationwide search in the late 1930s to find his Scarlett O’Hara for Gone With The Wind, we need to find our Jefferson Thomas to team with Ron Paul for an Independent campaign in 2012 and then assume leadership of the freedom movement for 2016. Just as Hollywood needed Vivien Leigh, America now needs Jefferson Thomas to come forth.

—————- Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic http://www.afr.org. His articles have appeared in such publications as The Dallas Morning News, the San Antonio Express-News, The American Conservative, Insight, The Freeman, and Liberty, as well as on numerous Internet sites. Email him at: nhultberg@afr.org

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/watch-my-new-film-spoiler-how-a-third-political-party-could-win

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

America’s True Form of Government–Republic–Overview of America–John Birch Society–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Brian Doherty–Ron Paul’s rEVOLution: The Man And the Movement He Inspired –Videos

Posted on May 22, 2012. Filed under: American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Ron Paul’s rEVOLution: The Man And the Movement He Inspired (Broadside/HarperCollins, 2012)

Ron Paul’s two presidential campaigns have galvanized a mass movement for smaller government, sound money, and an end to our interventionist foreign policy. This genuinely spontaneous movement has featured blimps, “money bombs,” the rEVOLution logo, and thousands of college students chanting “End the Fed” at campuses across the country. Somehow the message Ron Paul had been advancing for 30 years caught on in an era of financial collapse, bailouts, unprecedented deficits, and the two longest wars in American history. Brian Doherty, a senior editor at Reason and author of several books on libertarian history, has been covering Ron Paul since 1999. In his new book he looks at Paul’s background, his early years in Congress, his 1988 Libertarian presidential run, his recent campaigns, the grassroots activists who joined the Ron Paul revolution, and indeed the election of Senator Rand Paul. Join us to hear two close observers of Ron Paul discuss “the man and the movement he inspired.”

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=9145

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) Discusses ‘Ron Paul’s Revolution’

Ron Paul’s two presidential campaigns have galvanized a mass movement for smaller government, sound money, and an end to our interventionist foreign policy. This genuinely spontaneous movement has featured blimps, “money bombs,” the rEVOLution logo, and thousands of college students chanting “End the Fed” at campuses across the country. Somehow the message Ron Paul had been advancing for 30 years caught on in an era of financial collapse, bailouts, unprecedented deficits, and the two longest wars in American history. Brian Doherty, a senior editor at Reason and author of several books on libertarian history, has been covering Ron Paul since 1999. In his new book he looks at Paul’s background, his early years in Congress, his 1988 Libertarian presidential run, his recent campaigns, the grassroots activists who joined the Ron Paul revolution, and indeed the election of Senator Rand Paul.

Dionysium with Brian Doherty author of Ron Paul’s Revolution

Ron Paul: Uniting All People 

SPOiLER:  How a Third Political Party Could Win 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

43 Catholic Organizations File 12 Lawsuits Over Obama’s Mandated Abortion Drugs, Sterilization and Contraceptives In Health Insurance Plans–Videos

Posted on May 22, 2012. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, government, government spending, Health Care, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Talk Radio, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Planned Parenthood vs. The Catholic Church

Catholic Groups Suing White House Over Health Care Mandate

Catholic Groups Sue Over Contraception Coverage

Catholic Organizations Sue Obama Administration Over His Intrusion on Freedom of Religion

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Planned Parenthood: Anti-Catholic

What Obama Does Not Want You To See Or Know / Video PSA

The Black Genocide (Maafa21)

BLACK GENOCIDE — The Negro Project — Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr.

Forty-three Catholic organizations file lawsuits against HHS mandate

“…The lawsuits argue that a federal mandate issued by the Obama administration violates their fundamental religious liberty. The controversial mandate will require employers to offer health insurance plans that cover contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so violates their consciences.

The mandate has drawn heavy criticism from bishops in every diocese in the U.S. They warned that the regulation could force Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable agencies around the nation to close down.

At least 11 previous lawsuits have already been filed against the mandate by states, colleges, private employers and organizations throughout the U.S.

Now, 12 new lawsuits are being filed by 43 dioceses, hospitals, schools and church agencies in a dozen different jurisdictions across the country.

The Archdioceses of New York, St. Louis and Washington, D.C, are part of separate lawsuits against the measure, as are Catholic Charities organizations in several dioceses and the Catholic publishing group Our Sunday Visitor. Other dioceses filing lawsuits include, Rockville Centre, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Fort Worth, Jackson, Biloxi, Fort Wayne-South Bend, Joliet, and Springfield, Ill. — all in their respective districts of federal court. …”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/forty-three-catholic-organizations-file-lawsuits-against-hhs-mandate/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama Official Surrogate Newark Mayor Cory Booker Tells It Like It Is–Bain Capital Good For Americans–The Left Goes Nuts!–Videos

Posted on May 22, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, government, government spending, High School, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

OBAMA: ROMNEY A ‘VAMPIRE’ 

Mayor Booker – Bain Capital, private equity good – nauseating 

Cory Booker Backtracks on Romney Support 

Cory Booker Backs Off Criticizing Obama Campaign Bain Attacks

“As the Obama campaign doubles down on the use of Bain Capital to question Mitt Romney’s economic philosophy, Newark Mayor Cory Booker is backing off his criticism of a line of attack he called “nauseating.” During an appearance Sunday on “Meet The Press,” Booker, an Obama supporter and rising star, seemed to equate the Obama campaign’s Bain strategy with the scuttled plans of a GOP “super PAC” to raise Obama’s past ties to Jeremiah Wright, a retired Chicago pastor whose controversial speeches became a campaign issue in 2008…”.* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

Big Bain Backfire

“…President Obama’s attacks on free enterprise have triggered a backlash among many—even among those in his own party. In just the past few days, everyone from former advisors to his own surrogates have criticized the Obama campaign’s attack on free enterprise. With no record to run on, it is no surprise that the Obama campaign has resorted to misleading attacks that have been disavowed by its own supporters. …”

Axelrod: Mayor Booker Was “Wrong” To Criticize Obama Attack On Romney 

Matthews On Obama Booking Booker: “I’m Appalled By This Of Course! HEAR ME!!”

Cory Booker Caught in Balancing Act Over Obama’s Bain Ad Comments

Corporatist Dem. Cory Booker Defends Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital 

Papantonio: Booker Has No Courage For A Fight 

Obama Campaign Does Damage Control After Dems Question Anti-Bain Strategy

“…The Obama campaign is in full damage-control mode one day after Newark Mayor Cory Booker publicly derided Democrats’ assault on presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney over his record at Bain Capital.

Chief Obama strategist David Axelrod today publicly rebuked Booker, a popular and high-profile surrogate for the campaign, saying he was “just wrong.”

“I love Cory Booker. He’s a great mayor. If I were, if my house was on fire, I’d hope he were my next door neighbor,” Axelrod said on MSNBC, referring to Booker’s rescue of a neighbor last month.

“I agree with what he said later. I think this was a legitimate area for discussion,” Axelrod said of Booker’s subsequent comments clarifying the issue. …”

“…Booker is not the only Democrat to question the aggressive, negative portrayal of Romney’s work in private equity.  Former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford Jr. said today he agreed with “the substance” of Booker’s comments and “would not have backed out.”

“I agree with him, private equity is not a bad thing. Matter of fact, private equity is a good thing in many, many instances,” the Democrat said in a separate appearance on MSNBC earlier in the day.

Former Obama administration economic adviser Steven Rattner made similar comments last week, calling a new Obama campaign TV ad attacking Romney’s role in the bankruptcy of a Bain-owned steel company “unfair.”

“Bain Capital’s responsibility was not to create 100,000 jobs or some other number. It was to create profits for its investors,” Rattner said.  ”‘It did it superbly well, acting within the rules, acting very responsibly. … This is part of capitalism, this is part of life. I don’t think there’s anything Bain Capital did that they need to be embarrassed about.”

Republicans have been gleeful with the apparent divide among Democrats over the portrayal of Romney’s Bain days.  The Romney campaign produced a web video – “Big Bain Backfire” – highlighting the comments, while the Republican National Committee purchased ads on Twitter to play up the Booker flap. …”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-campaign-does-damage-control-after-dems-question-anti-bain-strategy/

Background Articles and Videos

Cory Booker Fire Rescue

Cory Booker on “Stand Your Ground” 

Glenn Beck analyzes Obama’s new Bain Capital-related anti-Romney ad (5/15/12 show)

State of the Union:      Obama Ad Bashes Bain Capital 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

David Friend–Watching the World Change: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11–Videos

Posted on May 19, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Security, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Video, War, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Authors@Google: David Friend

The attack on the World Trade Center was the most watched event in human history. And the footage seen of that day came not only from TV cameras, but also from workers, tourists, and passersby, each of whose lives would change dramatically when confronted with the sight of the attacks. David Friend has uncovered the stories behind those images–from the street-level shots of the north tower crumbling to firefighters raising the American flag over the rubble. In Watching the World Change, he traces the images back to their sources and charts their impact over the next seven days. That week was the beginning of a digital age, a moment when all the advances in television, photography, and the Web converged on a single event.
David Friend is Vanity Fair’s Editor of Creative Development.
This event happened on September 5, 2007 at the Google NYC office

“I PHOTOGRAPHED MOHAMMED ATTA”

In January, while giving a talk about my book at the 2007 FotoFusion festival in Delray Beach, Florida, I fell into conversation with Art NeJame, one of the organizers of the annual slate of workshops for members of the photo community. Art told me a mesmerizing story of how he had come to encounter four of the September 11 hijackers — more than a dozen of whom had lived in South Florida during their preparation for their “mission.” It all happened because of a passport photo.

http://davidfriend.net/2007/02/i_photographed_mohammed_atta.php

    9/11 The Falling Man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3gbxJ4xUDE

INSIDE 9/11 : ZERO HOUR   (PART 1 of 4) 

“…Minute by minute documentary about September 11 2001 and the terrorist attacks that day. It contains tons of footage from the WTC impacts and collapse as well as the pentagon.It contains interviews with survivors and actual recordings from the WTC , passengers, flight crew and the terrorists on the planes. This is a National Geographic Channel documentary from 2005-06 …”

INSIDE 9/11 : ZERO HOUR (PART 2 of 4) 

INSIDE 9/11 : ZERO HOUR   (PART 3 of 4)

INSIDE 9/11 : ZERO HOUR   (PART 4 of 4)

The Falling Man

“…Do you remember this photograph? In the United States, people  have taken pains to banish it from the record of September 11, 2001. The story  behind it, though, and the search for the man pictured in it, are our most  intimate connection to the horror of that day. …”

By Tom Junod

“…In the picture, he departs from this earth like an arrow. Although he  has not chosen his fate, he appears to have, in his last instants of life,  embraced it. If he were not falling, he might very well be flying. He appears  relaxed, hurtling through the air. He appears comfortable in the grip of  unimaginable motion. He does not appear intimidated by gravity’s divine suction  or by what awaits him. His arms are by his side, only slightly outriggered. His  left leg is bent at the knee, almost casually. His white shirt, or jacket, or  frock, is billowing free of his black pants. His black high-tops are still on  his feet. In all the other pictures, the people who did what he did — who  jumped — appear to be struggling against horrific discrepancies of scale. They  are made puny by the backdrop of the towers, which loom like colossi, and then  by the event itself. Some of them are shirtless; their shoes fly off as they  flail and fall; they look confused, as though trying to swim down the side of a  mountain. The man in the picture, by contrast, is perfectly vertical, and so is  in accord with the lines of the buildings behind him. He splits them, bisects  them: Everything to the left of him in the picture is the North Tower;  everything to the right, the South. Though oblivious to the geometric balance he  has achieved, he is the essential element in the creation of a new flag, a  banner composed entirely of steel bars shining in the sun. Some people who look  at the picture see stoicism, willpower, a portrait of resignation; others see  something else — something discordant and therefore terrible: freedom. There is  something almost rebellious in the man’s posture, as though once faced with the  inevitability of death, he decided to get on with it; as though he were a  missile, a spear, bent on attaining his own end. He is, fifteen seconds past  9:41 a.m. EST, the moment the picture is taken, in the clutches of pure physics,  accelerating at a rate of thirty-two feet per second squared. He will soon be  traveling at upwards of 150 miles per hour, and he is upside down. In the  picture, he is frozen; in his life outside the frame, he drops and keeps  dropping until he disappears.

*****

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN#ixzz1vLfwefCt

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Ron Paul’s Hunt For Delegates At State Conventions–Videos

Posted on May 19, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Employment, Energy, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Health Care, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Resources, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Vacations, Video, War, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Fox Going Through Post manic Stress: Ron Paul A Major Threat 

40% Delegates are Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!! 

Breaking News: All Delegates Are Unbound!! Proof and Evidence

FOX News – Ron Paul Dominating State Conventions 5/7/12 

And Then There Were Two: Ron Paul and Mitt Romney 

Is Ron Paul electable? 

Ron Paul Has Not Suspended His Campaign!!

“Ron Paul Won Minnesota & Washington State!” Rachel Maddow (THIS IS HOW WE DO IT BABY!) 

Today Is a HUGE Day For The Ron Paul Campaign! 

Ron Paul’s Interview with CNBCs Larry Kudlow !!

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

It’s Over–Progressives Control Democratic and Republican Parties–Ron Paul Pursues Delegates–Running Scared–In Dreams–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Jamie Dimon–Videos

Posted on May 19, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Jamie Dimon Reacts to $2 Billion Trading Loss

Charlie Rose – Jamie Dimon 

Jamie Dimon Discusses the State of the Economy 

Jamie Dimon on Ben Bernanke 

Jamie Dimon Questions Ben Bernanke on New Bank Rules

GLOBAL AFFAIRS AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

IBM THINK Forum | A Conversation on Leading in Times of Deep Structural Change

A conversation with Jamie Dimon, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, JP Morgan Chase & Co.; Dr. Victor K. Fung, Li & Fung Limited; Jim McNerney, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Boeing Company; Moderated by Dr. Fareed Zakaria, CNN Host, Fareed Zakaria GPS, Editor-at-Large, TIME, Columnist, The Washington Post, and Author

Jamie Dimon of Chase speaks in Seattle on Nov. 2, 2011

The Jamie Dimon Interview With Shaili Chopra At Davos

The Jamie Dimon Interview with Shaili Chopra Part 2

Jamie Dimon:  Address to HBS MBA Class of 2009, Class Day June 21, 2009

Background Articles and Videos

THE TRUTH ABOUT JAMIE DIMON PART 1 – BAILED OUT CEO CONTINUES POOR DECISION MAKING

Jamie Dimon’s Letter: The Highlights

“…The CEO of the nation’s largest bank has written a 38-page letter to shareholders this year, laying out his company’s positions on everything from the sentiment toward banks to how he values J.P. Morgan shares.

“…JPM Stock: Dimon doesn’t normally talk about share prices. But as Buffett did while laying out Berkshire’s share repurchase plans, Dimon attempts to explain how he thinks about the value of JPM stock: “Our tangible book value per share is a good, very conservative measure of shareholder value…If you like our businesses, buying back stock at tangible book value is a very good deal. So you can assume that we are a buyer in size around tangible book value….Currently, above $45 a share, we plan to continue to buy back the amount of stock that we issue every year for employee compensation – we think this is just good discipline. As for the excess capital, we will either find good investments to make or simply use it to more quickly achieve our new Basel III targets. Rest assured, the Board will continuously reevaluate our capital plans and make changes as appropriate but will authorize a buyback of stock only when we think it is a great deal for you, our shareholders.”

Mortgage problems keeping J.P. Morgan from $24 billion in profits — “The main reason for the difference between what we are earning and what we should be earning continues to be high costs and losses in mortgage and mortgage-related issues. While these losses are increasingly less severe, they will still persist at elevated levels for a while longer.”

Mortgage crisis is brutal – “I suspect that the mortgage crisis will be the worst financial catastrophe of our lifetime. What the world experienced was almost a collective brain freeze…We need to write a letter to the next generation that says, ‘Never forget: 80% loan to value and verify appropriate income.’”

But housing is improving — “Housing is getting better – there, I said it … However, if one looks at the leading indicators, all signs are flashing green – the turn is coming if it is not here already. We don’t want to be blindly optimistic, but the facts are the facts… More jobs, more households, more Americans, good value – it’s just a matter of time” …”

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/04/04/jamie-dimons-letter-the-highlights/

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Jaime Dimon, The Volker Rule and Too Big To Fail–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Richard Church–US Constitution–Videos

Posted on May 17, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Taxes, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

US Constitution Class by Richard Church – Part 1/4

US Constitution Class by Richard Church – Part 2/4 

US Constitution Class by Richard Church – Part 3/4

US Constitution Class by Richard Church – Part 4/4

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Edward Klein–The Amateur: Barack Obama in The White House–Obama Crony Eric Whitaker Tried to Bribe Jeremiah Wright in 2008 to Keep His Mouth Shut –Videos

Posted on May 17, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Cult, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Religion, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

From the Inside Flap

“Think you know the real Barack Obama? You don’t—not until you’ve read The Amateur

In this stunning exposé, bestselling author Edward Klein—a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, former foreign editor of Newsweek, and former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine—pulls back the curtain on one of the most secretive White Houses in history. He reveals a callow, thin-skinned, arrogant president with messianic dreams of grandeur supported by a cast of true-believers, all of them united by leftist politics and an amateurish understanding of executive leadership.

In The Amateur you’ll discover: Why the so-called “centrist” Obama is actually in revolt against the values of the society he was elected to lead Why Bill Clinton loathes Barack Obama and tried to get Hillary to run against him in 2012 The spiteful rivalry between Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey How Obama split the Kennedy family How Obama has taken more of a personal role in making foreign policy than any president since Richard Nixon—with disastrous results How Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett are the real powers behind the White House throne

The Amateur is a reporter’s book, buttressed by nearly 200 interviews, many of them with the insiders who know Obama best. The result is the most important political book of the year. You will never look at Barack Obama the same way again.”

From the Back Cover
Praise for The Amateur

“The Amateur is the best book I’ve read on how Barack Obama is wrecking our country. I urge everyone who cares about America to read Edward Klein’s eye-opening book.”
—Donald J. Trump, world-famous businessman, owner and host of the hit NBC TV shows The Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice, and bestselling author of many titles, including Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again

“This is a racy, entertaining, informative book that illuminates aspects of Obama and his team that have not been previously reported. A necessary antidote to the Obama worship that is sure to characterize the election debate.”
—Dinesh D’Souza, president of The King’s College and bestselling author of The Roots of Obama’s Rage

“All the horrors I predicted in Welcome to Obamaland have now been definitively proven true by Edward Klein’s rip-roaringly readable new book The Amateur, which uses great stories and great reporting to illustrate just how ideological, arrogant, and hapless Obama and his administration really are. An outstanding demolition job on the most overrated president of our time.”
—James Delingpole, columnist for the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator and author of Welcome to Obamaland

“A devastating indictment of the lethal combination of incompetence and radicalism that has made Obama into one of the worst presidents in American history.”
—Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary magazine and author of many books, including most recently, Why Are Jews Liberals?

Klein – I voted for Obama

“…Edward Klein is a tough target for the Obama crowd considering he’s the former editor of the New York Times Magazine. But the White House is attacking, and Klein is defending claims such as Michelle Obama complaining about Oprah being too fat to be a proper role model. 5-15-12 …”

Edward Klein Talks ‘The Amateur’

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

Edward Klein w/ Glenn Beck on the Radio Talking Barack Obama

Jeremiah Wright offered bribe of $150,000.00 by Obama campaign to keep silent

Hannity’s Ed Klein interview with Rev. Wright tapes. Part 1

Hannity’s Ed Klein interview with Rev. Wright tapes Part 2

Sean Hannity Show: Ed Klein and Rev Jeremiah Wright Tapes

Obama Crony Eric Whitaker Tried to Bribe Jeremiah Wright in 2008 to Keep His Mouth Shut 

“The Amateur” author Ed Klein talks with Lou Dobbs.

Rev. Wright: Barack Obama Has Done Nothing For Black Community

Author Reveals Identity of Man New Obama Book Says Tried to Bribe Jeremiah Wright

“…Over the weekend, one of the many shocking allegations to come from Edward Klein’s controversial new book on Obama was the story that someone from the Obama camp tried to pay Rev. Jeremiah Wright — Obama’s controversial former pastor — $150k to keep quiet until after the 2008 election. Wright rejected the hush money. But we never knew who allegedly tried to pay Wright off.

Until now.

In an interview with Sean Hannity on Monday, Klein revealed the identity of his money middle man — and he’s a doctor from Chicago. …”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/author-reveals-identity-of-man-new-obama-book-says-tried-to-bribe-jeremiah-wright/

Ed Klein Talks New Book On Obama, Jeremiah Wright, Oprah

Videos

“…Author Ed Klein talks about his new book about Barack Obama called “The Amateur” on FOX News’ “Hannity.”
Klein talks about the Obamas relationship with the Clintons and how Bill Clinton urged Hillary to run in 2012 and even had private polling done.
Klein dishes on Oprah being cut out of Obama’s inner-circle and his three-hour interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright about an Obama confidant trying to pay for his silence and a meeting he had with Obama during the 2008 campaign season. …”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/16/ed_klein_talks_new_book_on_obama_jeremiah_wright_oprah.html

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Great Pretender–Barack Obama–The Big Liar–The Big Fail–Nobody For Obama The Narcissist–Videos

Sam Vaknin: Narcissism–Videos

Sam Vaknin Analyzes Barack Obama–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Send In The Clowns–Obama and Romney–Videos

Posted on May 16, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Comedy, Communications, Culture, Economics, Federal Government, government spending, Language, Law, Life, Links, media, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

Judy Collins Send in the Clowns

Barbra Streisand Send In The Clowns

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

It’s Over–Progressives Control Democratic and Republican Parties–Ron Paul Pursues Delegates–Running Scared–In Dreams–Videos

Posted on May 16, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Inflation, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Roy Orbison – It’s Over 

Ron Paul Has Not Suspended His Campaign!! 

Roy Orbison – Running Scared  

Roy Orbison – In Dreams

Dream Baby – Roy Orbison and Friends, A Black and White Night 

Roy Orbison – Pretty Women, (Black and White Night)

Roy Orbison performs “Oh, Pretty Woman” as the finale of the Black & White Night Concert. Backed by Bruce Springsteen, Elvis Costello, James Burton, Glen D. Hardin, Tom Waits, kd lang, Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt, JD Souther, T Bone Burnett, Steven Soles, and Jennifer Warnes. Recorded September 30, 1987.

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ron Paul’s Hunt For Delegates At State Conventions–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Congress Totally Rejects Obama Budget: Senate: 0 to 99, House 0 to 414–A Real Loser–0 to 513–Videos

Posted on May 16, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , |

yesterday

0-99: Senate Unanimously Rejects President’s Budget

For the second year in a row, President Obama’s budget was rejected without a single vote in its favor in the United States Senate. This year’s vote tally was slightly worse than last year’s vote of 0-97.

Sessions Details Danger Of Majority’s Budget Law Defiance As Debt Mounts

May 16–Speaking on the Senate floor today, Sen. Sessions detailed the dangers of the United States’ current financial state. For example, total U.S. government debt exceeds that of the Eurozone and UK combined (http://1.usa.gov/IBkTc8), and the U.S.’ per person government debt is worse than that of Greece (http://1.usa.gov/KxmEIT).

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate

By Stephen Dinan

“…President Obama’s budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

Coupled with the House’s rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama’s budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

Republicans forced the vote by offering the president’s plan on the Senate floor.

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president’s plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn’t actually match Mr. Obama’s budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president’s numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.

“A stunning development for the president of the United States in his fourth year in office,” Mr. Sessions said of the unanimous opposition.

The White House has held its proposal out as a “balanced approach” to beginning to rein in deficits. It calls for tax increases to begin to offset higher spending, and would begin to level off debt as a percentage of the economy by 2022. It would produce $6.4 trillion in new deficits over that time.

By contrast the chief Republican alternative from the House GOP would notch just $3.1 trillion in deficits, and three Senate Republican alternatives would all come in below $2 trillion.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

The Beatles I’m a loser

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Peter Wallison–Dissent from the Majority Report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission —Videos

Posted on May 16, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Homes, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Resources, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Dissent from the Majority Report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

http://www.aei.org/files/2011/01/26/Wallisondissent.pdf

Peter Wallison’s Dissent from the Majority Report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission 

Peter Wallison: the Financial Crisis and Regulatory Reform 

Wallison Says Government Caused The Financial Crisis

A Big Think Interview With Peter Wallison

Background Articles and Videos

Wallison Predicted Bailout 9 years ago

Raw Footage of Peter Wallison Interview from The Bubble 

Wallison Says New Fannie & Freddie Bill Will Make Things Worse

Minarik-Wallison Sovereign Debt Crisis

Peter J. Wallison

Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies

Research Areas:

  • Corporate governance
  • Accounting policy
  • Causes of the financial crisis
  • Regulation of mutual funds
  • Regulation of banking, securities, and insurance
  • Campaign finance
  • Financial markets
  • Financial services
  • GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)
  • Housing policy
                    Peter J. Wallison, a codirector of AEI’s program on financial policy studies, researches banking, insurance, and securities regulation. As general counsel of the U.S. Treasury Department, he had a significant role in the development of the Reagan administration’s proposals for the deregulation of the financial services industry. He also served as White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan and is the author of Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency (Westview Press, 2002). His other books include Competitive Equity: A Better Way to Organize Mutual Funds (2007); Privatizing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks (2004); The GAAP Gap: Corporate Disclosure in the Internet Age (2000); and Optional Federal Chartering and Regulation of Insurance Companies(2000). He also writes for AEI’s Financial Services Outlook series.
Read Peter Wallison’s Dissent from the Majority Report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

Experience

  • Cochair, Financial Reform Task Force, 2009
  • Member, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, 2009
  • Member, Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee, 1991-2009
  • Member, Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2007-2008
  • Partner, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, 1987-98, 1985-86
  • Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, 1986-87
  • General Counsel, U.S. Treasury Department, 1981-85
  • Partner, Roger & Wells, 1977-81
  • Special Assistant to Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller; Counsel during Rockefeller’s Vice Presidency, 1972-76

Education

LL.B., Harvard Law School
B.A., Harvard College

http://www.aei.org/scholar/peter-j-wallison/

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Jaime Dimon, The Volker Rule and Too Big To Fail–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Jaime Dimon, The Volker Rule and Too Big To Fail–Videos

Posted on May 15, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Computers, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Regulations, Taxes, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

 

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon with Fareed Zakaria

Whalen: Too Much Regulation Caused JP Morgan $2 Billion Loss

“…May 17 (Bloomberg Law) — Last week JP Morgan Chase acknowledged a trading loss of at least $2 billion, fueling calls by some observers for more regulation of financial institutions. Chris Whalen, a Senior Managing Director at Tangent Capital Partner, tells Bloomberg Law’s Lee Pacchia that it was actually too much regulation that led to the loss. Jeff Madrick, a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, maintains instead that regulators need to clamp down on financial institutions if the dangers of such losses are to be minimized….”

Could JP Morgan Losses Have Been Prevented?

JPMorgan Says Farewell to a Top Executive Amid Fallout

PRESS Pass: JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/meet-the-press/47400688#47400688

Sens. Levin, Corker Debate Implementing Financial Regulation

Should Jamie Dimon’s J.P. Morgan Duties Be Broken Up?

J.P. Morgan Moves to Protect Dimon

CBS Evening News with … : Three JPMorgan Chase executives resign

Inside Story Americas – Can US banks be trusted to self-regulate?

 

JP Morgan’s $2 Billion Trading Loss: Potential Impact

Jamie Dimon’s pivot from bravado to humility – Rough Cuts

After JPMorgan’s Huge Loss, Is More Regulation Needed?

Keiser Report: Countdown to Armageddon (Pt 1)

Keiser Report: Countdown to Armageddon (Pt 2)

$2 Billion Dollar ‘Mistake’ By JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon

Gerald Celente calls out Jamie “two-bit” Dimon and his Financial Crime Syndicate

Bloomberg Rewind (5/10) JPMorgan’s Trading Loss

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/92515511/

JPMorgan Unit’s London Staff May Risk Dismissal

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/92563143/

JPMorgan Trading Loss Own Words

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/92481695/

JP Morgan’s $2 Billion Trading Loss: Potential Impact

JAMIE DIMON WRITTEN UP AND ISSUED A CORRECTIVE & DISCIPLINARY ACTION OVER $2B TRADING

    J.P. Morgan’s $2B Trading Loss: Too Big to Manage?

“We Screwed Up”: JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon To Fox Business Network

Hedge Funds Profit as J.P. Morgan Sees Losses

JPMorgan Chase Acknowledges $2B Trading Loss 

P Morgan’s “Unicorn Hedge” Fairy Tale Harpoons the London Whale!

Financial Checkup: JP Morgan Loses 2 Billion

What should happen now to JPMorgan Chase’s CEO?

Bank of America’s Scarff on JPMorgan’s Trading Loss Implications

‘London Whale’ Rattles Debt Market

In recent weeks, hedge funds and other investors have been puzzled by unusual movements in some credit markets, and have been buzzing about the identity of a deep-pocketed trader dubbed “the London whale.” That trader, according to people familiar with the matter, is a low-profile, French-born J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. employee named Bruno Michel Iksil. Mr. Iksil has taken large positions for the bank in insurance-like products called credit-default swaps. Lately, partly in reaction to market movements possibly resulting from Mr. Iksil’s trades, some hedge funds and others have made heavy opposing bets, according to people close to the matter.

The “London Whale” Swamps JPMorgan

Raw Footage of Peter Wallison Interview from The Bubble

The Bubble is a feature length documentary that ask those who predicted the greatest recession since the Great Depression, why did it happen and what are we facing? The documentary is an adaptation of Tom Woods’ New York Times bestseller Meltdown. Filmmaker Jimmy Morrison is releasing each interview in full for free every month until the film’s release.

Peter J. Wallison, a codirector of AEI’s program on financial policy studies, researches banking, insurance, and securities regulation. As general counsel of the U.S. Treasury Department, he had a significant role in the development of the Reagan administration’s proposals for the deregulation of the financial services industry. He also served as White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan and is the author of Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency (Westview Press, 2002). His other books include Competitive Equity: A Better Way to Organize Mutual Funds (2007); Privatizing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks (2004); The GAAP Gap: Corporate Disclosure in the Internet Age (2000); and Optional Federal Chartering and Regulation of Insurance Companies(2000). He also writes for AEI’s Financial Services Outlook series.

A Big Think Interview With Peter Wallison

Peter Wallison’s Dissent from the Majority Report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commissioner Peter Wallison Questions Warren Buffet

The economic consequences of JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s $2 billion losses

Investment trading losses exceeding $2 billion at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co resulted in employees losing their jobs and a failing stock price. Will it lead to more banking regulations and bailouts?

On May 10 J.P. Morgan’s  Chief Executive, Jamie Dimon, disclosed losses on a derivatives trade of more than $2 billion at the London office of the bank.  These investments were supposed to hedge the risk of the bank’s other assets including the bank’s entire loan portfolio. These hedging investments actually lead not to less investment risk but significant investment losses that were disclosed by the bank before the investment position or trade was reversed.

The entire investment staff at the bank’s London office, which was responsible for the trading losses, may be at risk of losing their jobs, according to Bloomberg. The bank’s losses have led to the retirement, resignation, termination and reassignment of employees at the bank. Chief Investment Officer, Ina Drew, who was responsible for $360 billion in investments retired on May 14. However, the bank continues to employs Bruno Iksil, the investment trader, known as the London Whale, who used derivatives to bet on credit default swap indices. This trade was responsible for the bank’s losses. Dimon characterized the trade as “flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed and poorly monitored.”

Since the end of the first quarter, the bank’ stock price has declined more than $10 per share to about $36. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the largest U.S. bank, is considered to be one of the better managed U.S. banks as evidenced by the growth in profits and shareholder equity under the Dimon’s leadership. Last year the bank earned $19 billion in profits and had shareholders common equity of $184 billion. Even if the trading losses were to double or triple, the bank’s profits would more than cover these trading losses.

The Volker rule was mandated as part of the Dodd Frank Act and is named after former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volker. The rule is in the process of being finalized and would prohibit commercial banks from engaging in proprietary trading, where the bank invests or bets its own money. However, investment portfolio hedging is exempted under the Volker rule. Therefore, even if the Volker rule was operative, it would not have prevented the bank’s trading losses.

Existing government bank regulation failed to prevent the bank’s losses. There is no reason to believe more government bank regulation would stop future investment losses. Government intervention into the economy in the form of bank regulation has repeatedly failed to prevent bank insolvencies that may lead to financial crises.

The topic is important because the vast majority of Americans do not want the federal government bailing out banks that are “too big to fail”. This was confirmed by Rasmussen Reports on May 16 in a report titled, “71% Say Government Should Let Big Troubled Banks Fail.”

I oppose government intervention in the economy including government banking regulation. The market regulates business far better than government bank regulators. JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s poor management of investment risk resulted in losses and a falling stock price. The bank’s employees paid a price by losing their jobs and the bank’s shareholders paid a price by a significant decline in the bank’s stock price. This is exactly how free market capitalism works. The federal government should not “socialize losses” by bailing out insolvent financial institution that are “too big to fail” with taxpayer money. An insolvent financial institution should be liquated with their assets sold to other successful business firms.

Ludwig von Mises said it best: “Big business depends entirely on the patronage of those who buy its products: the biggest enterprises lose its power and its influence when it loses its customers.”

Background Articles and Videos

GLOBAL AFFAIRS AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

IBM THINK Forum | A Conversation on Leading in Times of Deep Structural Change

A conversation with Jamie Dimon, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, JP Morgan Chase & Co.; Dr. Victor K. Fung, Li & Fung Limited; Jim McNerney, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Boeing Company; Moderated by Dr. Fareed Zakaria, CNN Host, Fareed Zakaria GPS, Editor-at-Large, TIME, Columnist, The Washington Post, and Author

Jamie Dimon of Chase speaks in Seattle on Nov. 2, 2011

Jamie Dimon:  Address to HBS MBA Class of 2009, Class Day June 21, 2009

How will JPMorgan’s $2B loss affect banking rules?

By DANIEL WAGNER | Associated Press

“…The $2 billion trading loss at JPMorgan Chase has renewed calls for stricter oversight of Wall Street banks. Two years after Congress passed an overhaul of financial rules, many of those changes have yet to be finalized.

JPMorgan’s misstep gives advocates of stronger regulation an opening to argue that regulators should toughen their approach.

The Obama administration has argued that it went as hard on banks as possible without further upsetting global finance. Now Democratic lawmakers and administration officials say JPMorgan case proves that more change is needed.

Still, many in the industry warn against reading too much into one trading loss. They say losing money is an inevitable part of taking risk, as banks must.

Some fear that after JPMorgan’s announcement, regulators will greet industry concerns with more skepticism as they flesh out key parts of the overhaul law.

THE VOLCKER RULE

This provision restricts banks’ ability to trade for their own profit, a practice known as proprietary trading. It is named for former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

— Battle lines: Banks say it disrupts two of their core functions: Creating markets for customers who want to buy financial products and managing their own risk to prevent major losses.

They say proprietary trading was not a cause of the 2008 financial crisis and the rule is a means of political revenge on an unpopular industry. Advocates of stronger regulation argue that the rule would have prevented JPMorgan’s loss. They say the trades were made to boost bank profits, not to protect against market-wide risk.

— State of play: A draft of the rule satisfied neither side. It includes exceptions for hedging against risk and for market-making, but banks say they the exceptions are too narrow and difficult to enforce. It’s nearly impossible to tell whether a bank bought or sold something for itself or for customers.

— JPMorgan effect: Attitudes about the Volcker rule are likely to shift as a result of JPMorgan’s disclosure, experts say. Even if JPMorgan’s trades truly were a failed attempt to protect against risk, the resulting loss strengthens the argument that regulators should err on the side of scrutinizing trades. …”

http://news.yahoo.com/jpmorgans-2b-loss-affect-banking-rules-064405501–finance.html

Dissent from the Majority Report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
Peter J. Wallison | AEI Online
January 26, 2011

“…Read the dissent in full as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.

The question I have been most frequently asked about the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (the “FCIC” or the “Commission”) is why Congress bothered to authorize it at all. Without waiting for the Commission’s insights into the causes of the financial crisis, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA), far-reaching and highly consequential regulatory legislation. Congress and the President acted without seeking to understand the true causes of the wrenching events of 2008, perhaps following the precept of the President’s chief of staff: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Although the FCIC’s work was not the full investigation to which the American people were entitled, it has served a useful purpose by focusing attention again on the financial crisis and whether–with some distance from it–we can draw a more accurate assessment than the media did with what is often called the “first draft of history.”

To avoid the next financial crisis, we must understand what caused the one from which we are now slowly emerging, and take action to avoid the same mistakes in the future. If there is doubt that these lessons are important, consider the ongoing efforts to amend the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA). Late in the last session of the 111th Congress, a group of Democratic Congress members introduced H.R. 6334. This bill, which was lauded by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank as his “top priority” in the lame duck session of that Congress, would have extended the CRA to all “U.S. nonbank financial companies,” and thus would apply to even more of the national economy the same government social policy mandates responsible for the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis. Fortunately, the bill was not acted upon. Because of the recent election, it is unlikely that supporters of H.R. 6334 will have the power to adopt similar legislation in the next Congress, but in the future, other lawmakers with views similar to Barney Frank’s may seek to mandate similar requirements. At that time, the only real bulwark against the government’s use of private entities for social policy purposes will be a full understanding of how these policies were connected to the financial crisis of 2008. …”

JPMorgan case is complicated

Robert J. Samuelson 

“…The trading loss at JPMorgan is good for the system — though not for JPMorgan — because it reminds people that risk is unavoidable and because it may identify specific practices that, if they became widespread, could spawn a broader crisis. The time for genuine worry is when everyone agrees that the outlook is bright and risks are few. This suggests the wishful thinking that often precedes financial “bubbles.” Government regulation often follows a perverse cycle: too loose when the economy is strong; too rigid when it’s weak.

We don’t yet know all the details of JPMorgan’s loss. How did trades initially intended to hedge risk — to reduce it — end up having the opposite effect? Until we can answer that, the wider implications for government regulation, including the Volcker Rule, remain unsettled.

But we ought to avoid simple morality tales of avaricious bankers versus virtuous regulators. The real world is more complicated. The global financial system’s complexities and interconnections have grown. Some of these can be restrained; few can be repealed. Bankers and regulators are hostage to a rapidly changing, poorly understood system.

One lesson is obvious: Banks and other major financial institutions need ample capital. The dangers lie not in what we know — but in what we don’t.”

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/05/16/jpmorgan-case-is-complicated.html

By Dawn Kopecki – May 14, 2012 9:41 AM CT

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-13/jpmorgan-executives-said-to-depart-this-week-after-trading-loss.htmlhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-13/jpmorgan-executives-said-to-depart-this-week-after-trading-loss.html

JP Morgan Biography Federal Reserve Act History

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Peter Wallison–Dissent from the Majority Report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission —Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Eurozone In Recession–Videos

Posted on May 11, 2012. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, European History, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy | Tags: , , , |

European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs Olli Rehn

EU predicts 0.3 per cent eurozone economic contraction in 2012, says bloc in ‘mild recession’

By Pan Pylas,Raf Casert,

“…The European Union estimates that the economy of the 17 countries that use the euro is in recession in the wake of a debt crisis that has prompted savage spending cuts and a jump in unemployment to record highs.

The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, forecasts that the eurozone economy will contract by 0.3 per cent in 2012 and grow by 1 per cent next year. Its prediction for 2012 is far weaker than the one it gave last November, when it predicted growth of 0.5 per cent. A year ago it was predicting growth of 1.8 per cent.

Friday’s forecasts provide clear evidence of the impact of Europe’s debt crisis on the eurozone economy over the past year as governments have struggled to introduce deficit-reduction measures and business and consumer confidence has taken a dive.

Olli Rehn, the EU’s monetary affairs chief, said the recession is likely to be “mild” and “short-lived”.

A recession is commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth and figures next week are expected to show that the eurozone contracted by a quarterly rate of 0.2 per cent for the second quarter running.

Rehn insisted a “recovery is in sight” but urged member countries not to give up on their efforts to get their public finances back into shape. However, he did indicate that more could be done to give growth a boost.

“Sound public finances are the condition for lasting growth, and building on the new strong framework for economic governance, we must support the adjustment by accelerating stability and growth-enhancing policies,” said Rehn.

How to get the faltering eurozone economy growing again has become the hot topic in European policymaking circles over the past few weeks. Sunday’s presidential election victory by Francois Hollande was due in large part to his promotion of the need for a greater focus on growth in Europe. So far, austerity measures, such as cuts to wages and pensions as well as tax rises, have been the main policy response to too much government debt in a number of eurozone countries. …”

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/eu-predicts-0-3-per-cent-eurozone-economic-094121123–finance.html

Jim Rogers on the need for orderly defaults in Europe, starting with Greece

Austerity, the Euro Crisis and the US

What Americans can Learn from Eurocrisis 

Europe foresees recession in first half of 2012

It’s official: Eurozone faces double-dip recession

Deep Structural Change Won’t Come from Hollande

Europe, The Art of Chopping

This May Be The Most Devastating Weapon In The Entire US Arsenal

Real News – Stagnation Nation [5-06-2012] 

Roubini Global Economics on the UK & BoE

Gary Shilling Sees ‘Severe’ Recession for Europe 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

John McMannus–Bill Buckley: Pied Piper of the Establishment–Videos

Posted on May 11, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Union, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Betrayal of the Constitution An Exposé of the Neoconservative Agenda

Constitution Si, Amnesty No

A Tale of Two Rights by the Southern Avenger

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

SA@TAC – Taking the ‘Neo’ Out of ‘Conservative’

William F. Buckley Jr. and the John Birch Society — ­ A Book Review

“…As in the old conservatism, McManus cites a number of sources and lists a number of distinguished conservative personalities that parted ways with Buckley after they became dissatisfied with his “reshaping” of the conservative movement. Among them are the writers Medford Evans (now deceased) and his son M. Stanton Evans, the late free-market economist Murray Rothbard, and journalists Ralph de Toledano and Don Feder of The Boston Herald.

But why did Buckley want to destroy the John Birch Society? McManus provides answers and relates his own personal journey from being a Buckleyite to his eventual membership in the John Birch Society and becoming a follower of its magnanimous founder, Robert Welch. (1)

As to Buckley’s motives, McManus cites the appraisal of Retired Army General Thomas A. Lane, a staunch conservative and also once a former Buckley ally:

“William F. Buckley, Jr., learned about the obstacles which confront every attempt to illuminate the liberal shadows. He made his peace with the liberal powers by launching an attack on the John Birch Society, bracketed with ‘McCarthyism’ as the bogeymen of the liberals. He created a cleavage between Republican highbrows and Democratic commoners, which effectively destroyed all prospect of concerted conservative political action. He was rewarded with liberal acceptance as the spokesman of ‘conservatism.’ “

Regarding the damage Buckley inflicted upon the conservative movement, McManus provides an exhaustive list, from which I will cite only the following:

1. Provide “conservative” cover for the give-away of the Panama Canal to communist dictator Omar Torrijos in a deal which included $400 million for the Panamanian government.

2. Provide “conservative” cover to sundry CFR internationalists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR), Henry Kissinger (CFR) and, notably, President Richard Nixon (CFR), who shocked genuine conservatives with his 1971 admission on ABC-TV: “I am now a Keynesian in economics” (followed by the imposition of wage and price controls, the severance of the last tie of paper money to precious metals and other socialist policies in the U.S.).

3. Provide a rationalization for the savage downing of Korean Airlines Flight 007 by a Soviet fighter in which 269 people were killed, including the chairman of the John Birch Society, U.S. Representative Dr. Larry McDonald. Buckley wrote: “The only thing we know for absolute sure that has come out of this is that never again will a Korean airliner carelessly overfly Russian territory. And that, ladies and gentlemen, was the point the Soviet Union sought to make. It has made it.”

4. Provide “conservative” cover for continued U.S. aid to the USSR during the Cold War, aid that prolonged the collapse of Soviet communism. As a result, “Faced with peril from a U.S.-fed Soviet monster following World War II, the American people were persuaded to accept increased taxation, burgeoning federal controls, foreign entanglements, and steady contravention of the Constitution,” writes McManus.

5. Provide “conservative” cover for the U.S. to remain in the U.N. “In the immediate aftermath of the UN General Assembly’s vote to expel Nationalist China (Taiwan) and admit Communist China, Buckley advised that ‘the United Nations has its uses, and the United States would be mistaken recklessly to withdraw from it.’ ” Instead, Buckley recommended that the U.S. refrain from casting votes in the U.N. General Assembly!

This book should be read by all Americans who value freedom, particularly those who have wondered, as I have, why ­ despite repeated turnover of Democrat and Republican administrations ­ no matter which political party wins, we continue our steady march toward less personal freedom, more government and more foreign entanglements ­ and thus more conflicts abroad. …”

http://www.haciendapub.com/articles/william-f-buckley-jr-and-john-birch-society-%C2%AD-book-review

‘Bill Buckley: Pied Piper of the Establishment’

Review by Marcus Epstein

“…Fifty years ago, conservatism meant opposition to big government in all its manifestations and a belief in a non-interventionist foreign policy. Today, most people associate it with preserving the legacy of Harry Truman, Martin Luther King Jr., and Hubert Humphrey, while supporting American cultural, economic, and political hegemony across the globe. What conservativism means today is at odds for what it used to stand for. What is the reason? John Birch Society president, John F. McManus, puts the blame squarely on William F. Buckley in his excellent new book, William F. Buckley Jr., Pied Piper for the Establishment.

McManus tells the story of a talented and intelligent man born into privilege. His father, James Buckley, was an exemplar of the Old Right – a staunch opponent of Roosevelt’s New Deal and drive towards war. Buckley followed in his father’s footsteps and was outspoken in his politics, but somewhere he went astray. …”

“…He explains how Buckley then became one of the biggest apologists for the establishment in all its manifestations. Whenever it seemed that the conservative grassroots were ready to turn on the Council on Foreign Relations, Henry Kissinger, the United Nations, The Trilateral Commission, Richard Nixon, or the Rockerfellers, Bill Buckley always managed to defend the hated institutions. In addition to quelling the masses, it allows the establishment to say “Even Bill Buckley believes…” to make any critic of them seem like extremists. The book also explains how Buckley invited the neocons into the conservative movement and helped propel them to its leadership. It also details several leftist positions that Buckley has taken in recent years such as support for legalized abortion, a Martin Luther King Holiday, and special privileges for homosexuals. Looking at Buckley’s legacy, McManus writes,

Buckley is now in the twilight of his life. He has done most of the damage he could ever hope to do. Yet the counterfeit conservatism he has minted is now being circulated by others, including William Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol, and George W. Bush. The stakes in the struggle haven’t changed, even though many of the participants have. Many years ago, in his Commonweal article, Buckley recommended “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores… and the attendant centralization of power in Washington” as the means to fight Communism during the Cold War. Today’s neoconservatives are calling for police state powers at home and a coalition of nations under the UN in order to win the war against terrorism. As the French say: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”

While this book does an excellent job of exposing Bill Buckley for the fraud that he is, it fails to fully explain the Right’s transformation. McManus puts a great deal of emphasis on Buckley’s famous Commonweal article from 1952. But while libertarians such as Murray Rothbard and Frank Chodorov condemned it as socialist and statist as soon as the article came out, by McManus’ own account, Robert Welch didn’t say a single critical word about Buckley until National Review turned its guns on the John Birch Society. Why is this? Perhaps it is because Welch overestimated the Soviet threat, and underestimated the importance of an isolationist foreign policy. While the John Birch Society and Robert Welch had reservations about America’s entry foreign wars, they usually gave the same National Review line about how to finish the job.

At the same time, McManus fails to detail how far Buckley and National Review have strayed from their original views since the early 60s. Other than a few differences over conspiracy theories and strategy, the John Birch Society and National Review pretty much saw eye to eye forty years ago. Today they have absolutely nothing in common. Buckley’s membership in the Skull and Bones Club can’t totally account for the change. Perhaps the problem all goes down to foreign policy. Buckley saw the Soviet Union as a great threat that had to be countered by the United States military. To do this he was willing to align himself with liberal anticommunists, but not with conservative non-interventionists. By trying to please these liberal anticommunists, who had much more power and prestige than he, he eventually ended mimicking them.

Despite these few flaws, this book is still a great expose of the establishment’s favorite conservative and essential reading for any person interested in the history of the conservative movement.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein5.html

 

Stiff Right Jab: Pied Piper for the Establishment

Steve Farrell

 

“…According to McManus, neo-conservatives have taken over the Republican Party and incrementally remade it in the image of the socialist new world order, with the chief architect of that damning remake being none other than William F. Buckley Jr., the so-called “savior of conservatism,” the founder of National Review.

Mr. Buckley promised in that magazine’s premier issue to stand “athwart at history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one [was] inclined to do so” – and at times, McManus admits, Buckley delivered.

Trouble is, Buckley and NR’s standing athwart at history, taken as a whole, was and is laden with provisos, compromises, incremental abandonment and, importantly, a nebulous, transmutable definition of just what conservatism was – a definition Buckley once described as “a dance along a precipice.”

McManus has another vision of what conservatism ought to be:

  • a movement which ought to stand fast by an inspired constitution; 
  • a movement which ought to uphold the Judeo-Christian ethic as a necessary appendage to successful self government; 
  • a movement which ought to prefer principle over party, U.S. sovereignty over permanent entangling alliances; 
  • and a movement which ought to have the guts to call a conspirator a conspirator, a traitor a traitor, a mass murderer a mass murderer.

The neo-conservatives fall woefully short of this standard. Take the neo-conservative mantra on how it is U.S. foreign policy consistently aids and abets communist and socialist movements across the globe, even as we seem to oppose such movements.

The Buckley patented answer, complains McManus (a former Buckley fan): “stupidity and innocent miscalculations.” Likewise, the Buckley explanation as to the march of communism across the globe, McManus notes: “It’s not a conspiracy.”

Buckley, though few see it, takes Marx’s explanation that communism arises here and there as a spontaneous movement among the left-behind poor, and he promotes it.

McManus, the president of the John Birch Society, an organization that Buckley abhors, will have nothing to do with such naïve conclusions. Former Secretary of Agriculture (under Eisenhower) and American patriot Ezra Taft Benson sums up McManus’ take:

“Communism is not a political party, nor a military organization, nor an ideological crusade, nor a rebirth of Russian imperialist ambition, though it comprises and uses all of these. Communism, in its unmistakable reality, is wholly a conspiracy. …”

This is vital. The problem with refusing to call evil “evil” is that while we stick our heads in the sand, communism and its sister isms continue to pop up and prosper (even after the “Fall”) because the West continues to “naïvely” finance, counsel and shape so-called democratic movements of the poor across the globe – in ways which nearly always put the wrong guys in power. …”

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/21/02850.shtml

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

America’s True Form of Government–Republic–Overview of America–John Birch Society–Videos

Posted on May 11, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

What is America’s True Form of Government?

 This is an excerpt from “Overview of America” produced by The John Birch Society. It is narrated by John McManus.

“There are 5 basic forms of government which are Monarchy(Rule by one person), Oligarchy(Rule by a small handful of people), Democracy(Rule by majority of the citizens), Republic(Rule by law), and Anarchy(No Government). This video relates these basic forms of government to our American government to clarify that we are in fact not a democracy but rather a Republic since democracies lead to anarchy and ultimately the tyranny of oligarchy.”

JBS (John Birch Society) Overview of America Part 1 (HQ)

John McManus narrates a moving tribute to America and discusses the history of what makes America great and how only we, as informed citizens, can keep the timeless concepts of Americanism alive.

Overview of America II – Stopping the New World Order

“John McManus, the president of the John Birch Society discusses the history of the elite’s grasp for globalism beginning in the late 18th Century and how it continues today. He demonstrates that history, politics, war, and government are not a series of accidents and coincidences, but rather, conspiratorial in nature. But who is part of the cabal and what is their end game? For answers, watch this presentation.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eOS5acoEJk

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

Background Articles and Videos

An Introduction to The John Birch Society by Robert Welch 1962

What is The John Birch Society?

“(circa 1965) John Birch Society founder Robert Welch briefly explains why he worked to form The John Birch Society and what type of people make for good members.”

The John Birch Society-An Invitation to Membership-1959

A Touch of Sanity by Robert Welch 1965

In One Generation 1974

Documentary on the John Birch Society

“A documentary from the 1960’s narrated by G. Edward Griffin.”

G. Edward Griffin: The Collectivist Conspiracy

The Still Report #34 – Robert Welch Critique – SR 34

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Show Me The Money–Obama Makes Hay With Gays–Got To Pay-to-Play–The Great Pretender–Videos

Posted on May 10, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Culture, Economics, Education, Entertainment, government spending, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

$$$ Show Me the MONEY!!! $$$

President Obama – Gay Marriage: ‘Gay Couples Should Be Able to Get Married’ – ABC NEWS EXCLUSIVE

Barack Obama on Gay Marriage

From his ABC interview:

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday. Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer.”

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

“It’s interesting, some of this is also generational,” the president continued. “You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation that they believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

Got To Pay To Play 

  The Great Pretender

The Influence Industry: Same-sex marriage issue shows importance of gay fundraisers

By Dan Eggen

“…Many of Obama’s key financial supporters are gay–including finance director Rufus Gifford and Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias–and the campaign has regularly held fundraisers focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender donors.

A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay. His overall list of bundlers also includes a number of gay couples who have wed in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage was legal.

“It’s a very important constituency,” said Los Angeles attorney Dana Perlman, a top Obama bundler who is helping organize a 700-person LGBT fundraiser for the president on June 6. “The community for the most part is wholeheartedly behind this man.”

But that relationship was put to the test this week after Vice President Joe Biden said he was “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex unions. The remarks led to mounting pressure on Obama to also shift his position on gay marriage, which he had previously characterized as “evolving.”

“I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told ABC News Wednesday.

Some liberal gay donors had threatened to withhold contributions over Obama’s stance on gay marriage as well as his administration’s decision to shelve an executive order banning sexual-identity discrimination by federal contractors. …”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/same-sex-marriage-debate-many-of-obamas-top-fundraisers-are-gay/2012/05/09/gIQASJYSDU_story.html

 

Will Gay Marriage Endorsement Mean Campaign Dollars for Obama?

By Russ Choma

“…But even though the president has brought in just $41,950 from this group so far in this election cycle, he’s actually ahead of the $29,200 he’d raised at the same point (15 months in) in the 2008 campaign. His 2008 total from PACs or individuals in the gay and lesbian rights grouping jumped to $136,000 by the end of that campaign, though — the bulk of Obama’s money from the interest group didn’t come until the general election was in full swing. Mitt Romney, by contrast, has raised just $2,500 from the gay rights community this election cycle (though that’s a slight improvement above his 2008 pace, where by this point he had received just $2,300).

And Obama’s support from the LGBT community includes some prominent names who have signed on as bundlers for his campaign. Last fall, we counted at least 12 prominent gay and lesbian rights advocates who together had bundled at least $2.7 million for the Obama campaign. Included on the latest list of Obama bundlers, released last month, were at least two new ones: Tim Gill, a former tech executive and LGBT activist, and his husband, Scott Miller, of Denver, Colo., who bundled at least $500,000 more for Obama.

Overall contributions from PACs or individuals affiliated with gay and lesbian rights interest groups totaled just $590,000 so far this cycle, though, which seems a continuation of their downward trend. Even if that figure doubles in the next nine months, it would fall short of the $1.3 million contributed in the 2010 cycle, and well below the $1.8 million raised in 2008.

Worth noting, though: Conventional wisdom has it that the LGBT community is most supportive of Democrats, and the numbers bear that out. But there’s evidence that support for gay rights is jumping the aisle: a significant uptick in donations from gay rights interest groups to Republicans. In 2010, gay rights interest groups gave $1.2 million to Democrats and just $56,000 to Republican candidates — about 4 percent of their total contributions. So far this cycle, Republicans have collected about 11 percent of the contributions — a total of $65,400, which already surpasses their take in 2010. …”
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Time To Really Start Up The Ron Paul Revolution With Rolling Stones Rallies For Ron–Video

Posted on May 8, 2012. Filed under: American History, Business, College, Communications, Cult, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Entertainment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

ROLLING STONES LIVE IN RIO 1995 – Start me up 

If you start me up

If you start me up

I’ll never stop

If you start me up

 If you start me up

I’ll never stop

I’ve been running hot

You got me ticking gonna blow my top

 If you start me up

If you start me up

I’ll never stop

You make a grown man cry

 Spread out the oil, the gasoline

 I walk smooth, ride in a mean, mean machine

Start it up

If you start it up

Kick on the starter give it all you got, you got,

you got I can’t compete with the riders in the other heats

If you rough it up If you like it you can slide it up, slide it up

Don’t make a grown man cry

My eyes dilate, my lips go green

My hands are greasy

She’s a mean, mean machine

Start it up

If start me up

Give it all you got

You got to never, never, never stop

Never, never Slide it up

You make a grown man cry

Ride like the wind at double speed

I’ll take you places that you’ve never, never seen

 Start it up

 Love the day when we will never stop, never stop

Never stop, never stop

Tough me up

Never stop, never stop, never stop

You, you, you make a grown man cry

You, you make a dead man come

You, you make a dead man come

Rolling Stones – Wild Horses

Wild Horses lyrics Songwriters: Richards, K; Jagger, M;
Childhood living is easy to do

The things you wanted,

I bought them for you

 Graceless lady, you know who I am

You know I can’t let you slide through my hands

Wild horses couldn’t drag me away

 Wild, wild horses, couldn’t drag me away

I watched you suffer a dull aching pain

 Now you decided to show me the same

 No sweeping exits or offstage lines

 Could make me feel bitter or treat you unkind

Wild horses couldn’t drag me away

Wild, wild horses, couldn’t drag me away

I know I’ve dreamed you, a sin and a lie I have my freedom

 but I don’t have much time

Faith has been broken, tears must be cried

 Let’s do some living, after we die

Wild horses couldn’t drag me away

Wild, wild horses, we’ll ride them some day

Wild horses couldn’t drag me away

 Wild, wild horses, we’ll ride them some day

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Life of Julia–The New Progressive Woman–Or–How I Learned To Love The State–Collectivist Cradle To Grave Government Dependency Political Propaganda–Videos

Posted on May 7, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

The Life of Julia

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”

~Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961

Real Julia Rips Sexist Obama Ad

Romney: If you’re looking for more free stuff, vote for the other guy

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

Morning Joe Crew Blasts Obama #Julia Ad

Aldous Huxley interview. Brave New World. The changing face of democracy. Advertising and the Media 

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World

The Ultimate Revolution | by Aldous Huxley

Closer look at “The Life of Julia” 

The Life Of Julia

#Julia and Commie Cheerleaders!!

Pt. 1 – THE GREAT PETER SCHIFF DISSECTS BARACK OBAMA’S “THE LIFE OF JULIA” 

Pt. 2 – THE GREAT PETER SCHIFF DISSECTS BARACK OBAMA’S “THE LIFE OF JULIA” 

 

Individualism vs Collectivism – The True Debate of Our Time

Obama the Barbarian? Obama Parts with Left, And Wages War Across Globe

Julia Has Changed Her Name To Cecilia

Simon & Garfunkel – Cecilia

“Cecilia”

Celia, you’re breaking my heart,
You’re shaking my confidence daily.
 Oh Cecilia, I’m down on my knees, I’m begging you please to come home.
Celia, you’re breaking my heart,
 You’re shaking my confidence daily.
Oh Cecilia, I’m down on my knees,
I’m begging you please to come home.
Come on home.
Making love in the afternoon with Cecilia Up in my bedroom,
 I got up to wash my face When I come back to bed, Someone’s taken my place.
 Celia, you’re breaking my heart,
You’re shaking my confidence daily.
 Oh Cecilia, I’m down on my knees,
 I’m begging you please to come home.
Jubilation,
She loves me again,
 I fall on the floor and I laughing.
Jubilation,
She loves me again,
 I fall on the floor and I laughing.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Jonah Goldberg–The Tyrany of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat In The War of Ideas–Videos

Posted on May 7, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

On GBTV Author Jonah Goldberg book “The Tyranny of Clichés

The Great Liberal Lie: Jonah Goldberg on the Left’s War on Words

Michael Coren with Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg talks about his new outstanding book, “The Tyranny of Cliches” 05/02/12 

The Tyranny of Cliches

Jonah Goldberg on Piers Morgan Tonight April 30, 2012

Audio Interview: Jonah Goldberg discusses The Tyranny of Cliches Part I

Background Articles and Videos

Church and state, Newtzilla, social media, and the second favorite flavor

Liberal Fascism (1) — Jonah Goldberg  ** UNEDITED ** 

Liberal Fascism (2) — Jonah Goldberg  ** UNEDITED ** 

Liberal Fascism (3) – Jonah Goldberg  ** UNEDITED ** 

Liberal Fascism (4) – Jonah Goldberg  ** UNEDITED ** 

Liberal Fascism (5) – Jonah Goldberg  ** UNEDITED ** 

Liberal Fascism Q-A (1) 

Liberal Fascism Q-A (2) 

Liberal Fascism Q-A (3) 

Newt Gingrich & The Republican Revolution – FULL 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul On The Republican Party And Why The Young Are Attracted To Ron Paul, The Peace and Prosperity Candidate of The Freedom Movement–Videos

Posted on May 7, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

Dr. Paul Shares his Thoughts On the Republican Party 

Ron Paul Texas Tea Party Rally YNN News 5/6/12 

Ron Paul Gains Unstoppable Momentum in Battle for GOP Delegates 

Brian Doherty on Ron Paul’s Revolution

No They Can’t! John Stossel on Government Failure and Individual Success

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

High Fives For Ron Paul–Won Majority of Delegates In Five States–Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington, Louisiana, and Now Nevada and Maine–Alaska Next!–Will Be Nominated In Tampa, Florida–Romney Delegate Dirty Tricks In Maine–Videos

Posted on May 6, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Reviews, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul Won Nevada and Maine! That’s 7 States Now!!!

Fox News: Ron Paul has Qualified to be on ballot at the Convention

FOX News Admits Ron Paul Won 5 States

Ron Paul DOMINATING Despite Media Bias Against Him

Ron Paul WINNING Delegates/Massive Rallies (Feb-Apr 2012) 

RON PAUL WINS NEVADA!!!

Controversy at Nevada’s Republican Convention

Ron Paul Undisputedly Won Maine RNC WGME 5/8/2012

Ron Paul Gains Unstoppable Momentum in Battle for GOP Delegates

Ron Paul is EXPLODING!! with Zero media coverage 

Ron Paul At Texas A&M Black This Out

Ron Paul Rallies Feb-Apr 2012 

WTF !! – Romney Camp Circulates Fake List of Ron Paul Delegate

Ron Paul_ I’ll Stay in the Race until All the Votes Are Counted

May 5th – Ron Paul Delegates Not Allowed From Nevada? – Aaron Dikes InfoWars 12-5-5 

RNC Wont Allow Ron Paul Delegates from Nevada – May 3rd (2012-05-03)

 
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Speculators and Oil Prices: What Do We Know and What Should We Do?–Videos

Posted on May 5, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, government spending, history, Homes, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Security, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Speculators and Oil Prices: What Do We Know and What Should We Do?

U.S. Commodity Future Trading Commission

http://www.cftc.gov/About/Commissioners/BartChilton/index.htm

Banksters & Speculation Behind High Food-Oil Prices

Food Speculation

Speculation And The Frenzy In Food Markets

Background Articles and Videos

The Adequacy of Speculation in Agricultural Futures Markets: Too Much of a Good Thing?

Dwight R. Sanders*,

Scott H. Irwin and

Robert P. Merrin

“…Abstract

This paper revisits the “adequacy of speculation” debate in agricultural futures markets using the positions held by index                     funds in the Commitment of Traders reports. Index fund positions were a relatively stable percentage of total open interest                     from 2006–2008. Traditional speculative measures do not show any material shifts over the sample period. Even after adjusting                     speculative indices for commodity index fund positions, values are within the historical ranges reported in prior research.                     One implication is that long-only index funds may be beneficial in markets traditionally dominated by short hedging. …”

http://intl-aepp.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/1/77.full

Federal Regulation of Margin in the Commodity Futures Industry – History and Theory

by

Jerry W. Markham

“…Whether the federal government should regulate margin requirements for; commodity futures contracts has been the subject of intensive debate for over! fifty years. Although Congress has periodically rejected legislation that would have granted such authority, the stock market crash of 1987, and a subsequent mini-crash in 1989, have resulted in renewed demands for federal controls.

The· Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Department of the Treasury contend that such controls are necessary to prevent the near disastrous set of events that occurred during those market crises. 1 The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the commodity futures industry oppose federal controls on margin, and assert that market forces, not margins, were responsible for the events that occurred during the 1987 and 1989 market breaks.2

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/bibarticles/markham_margin.pdf

Gas Prices Explained

Quantitative Easing Explained

Senator Blumenthal on Curbing Excessive Oil Speculation

Senator Blumenthal calls for action against excessive oil speculation that inflates gas prices

Cantwell: ‘Shenanigans’ in Oil Market Reminiscent of Enron ‘Nightmare’ in Pacific NW

How Uncertainty, Speculation Factor Into Gas Prices

Banksters & Speculation Behind High Food-Oil Prices

Under Questioning by Cantwell, Exxon CEO Estimates Oil Should Cost $60-70 Per Barrel

On May 12, 2011, when questioned by U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Exxon Mobil Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson said that oil should cost between $60 and $70 per barrel, if the price of oil were based on supply and demand fundamentals. Oil was trading at $98 per barrel on Thursday morning, after inexplicitly plunging 5.5 percent yesterday.

Michael Greenberger on “commodity prices and volatility”

Regulations on Speculation Weak, But Better Than Nothing

Speculation and Watered Down Regulation

Secret Exemptions Allowed Speculators to Distort Futures Markets

CFTC Commissioner: “A Hair Trigger Away from Economic Calamity”

Will CFTC Limit Excessive Speculation?

Stossel: Oil Speculation

The Price Of Oil

CHHS Director explains derivatives regulation on C-SPAN – 5/15/09

Michael Greenberger Talks Speculation In Commodity Markets

Oil speculation and oil prices

Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil (Peak Oil)

Hearing on Energy Price Manipulation – Greenberger Testimony

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 624 other followers