Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 31, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Hydropower Illuminates a Piece of History
Report Criticizes EPA Oversight of Injection Wells






Truthdig Bazaar
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
$26.00

Moby-Dick

Moby-Dick

By Herman Melville

more items

 
Report

California Refuses to Accept Obama’s Banking Sellout

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 10, 2011
AP / Damian Dovarganes

California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

By Robert Scheer

There is no three-strikes law for crooked bankers, not even a law for a fifth strike, as The New York Times reported in the case of Citigroup, cited last month in a $1 billion fraud case. Unlike the California third-striker I once wrote about whom a district attorney wanted banished forever to state prison for stealing a piece of pizza from the plate of a person dining outdoors, Citigroup executives get off with a fine and by offering a promise not to do it again, and again and again.

As the Times reported when Citigroup agreed to settle SEC charges last month: “Citigroup’s main brokerage subsidiary, its predecessors or its parent company agreed to not violate the very same antifraud statue in July 2010. And in May 2006. Also as far back as March 2005 and April 2000.”

Not that the bankers face prison time, since the Justice Department has refused to act in these cases, and the Securities and Exchange Commission is bringing only civil charges, which the banks find quite tolerable. This time, the fine against Citigroup was $285 million, which may sound like a lot except that the bank raked off as much as $700 million on this particular toxic securities deal. As the Bloomberg news service editorialized, “... there should be only one answer from Jed S. Rakoff, the federal judge in New York assigned to weigh the merits of the agreement: You’ve got to be kidding.”

Not to pick on Citigroup, the too-big-to-fail bank that Clinton administration Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin helped make legal before he was paid off with a $126 million job on Wall Street; that corporation was not the only serial offender. “Citigroup has a lot of company in this regard on Wall Street,” the Times noted, “nearly all of the biggest financial companies—Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America among them—have settled fraud cases by promising that they would never again violate an antifraud law, only to have the SEC conclude they did it again a few years later.”

So forget relying on the federal government to hold the Wall Street swindlers accountable. Indeed, the Obama administration has been involved in negotiating a deal with state attorneys general to settle their complaints with the banks for a pittance of compensation for the victims. In return, the states would promise not to institute further legal proceedings against the banks. 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The fix was in for what a New York Times editorial on Tuesday headlined “Letting the Banks Off Easy” described as “paltry” mortgage relief, reducing by less than $20 billion the balances of 14.5 million underwater homeowners who are “drowning in some $700 billion of negative equity.” The deal has been stalled by the refusal of California Attorney General Kamala Harris to accept this sellout. Among its other disastrous concessions would be ending further investigation by the states into financial skulduggery connected with the housing meltdown.

In September, Harris, elected in a Democratic sweep of the state’s top offices in 2010, went against the dictates of the Democrat in the White House, stating that she refused to release the banks from legal liability for the mortgage crisis. That is the nub of the pending White House-brokered deal with the banks. As the Times summarized it: “The proposed settlement reportedly would prevent the states from pursuing claims against banks relating to fraud or abuse in the origination of the bubble. It would also prevent states from pursuing claims for foreclosure abuses, like improper denial of loan modifications.”

Traditionally the states provided the essential regulation of mortgage origination, ownership and sales as a transparent process duly recorded and subject to public examination at the county level. But in order to facilitate the gathering of those mortgages into the sort of collateralized debt obligations that the banks could then bet on and trade worldwide, homeownership became a murky matter. Many of the mortgages now in question, including the ones that Citigroup’s “synthetic” derivative was based on, are no longer owned by the banks that originated them. They are instead part of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) database, owned by a consortium of banks and residing in computers in Reston, Va.

The MERS system is described by the Times as “a land registry system implicated in bubble-era violations of tax, trust and property law.” The Obama-supported settlement would make it very difficult if not impossible to investigate at long last the workings of MERS and other systemic sources of what is now a full-blown international economic crisis. As the Times editorial put it, “In effect, the legal waivers being contemplated would let the banks pay up to sweep wrongdoing under the rug.”

Thankfully, we have a few state attorneys general, most prominently California’s Harris, standing up for the American people, but it is outrageous that a president who avowedly committed to defending the public interest would now be subverting that effort rather than leading it.

 

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Dispatches From Cairo: Feast of Sacrifice

Next item: It Seems Wall Street Is Occupying Us



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 21, 2011 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

@JDmysticDJ

Your explanations of several points is useful, and as composed and written,
appear to me to be largely accurate.  However, thus far, I have seen no
clarification that explains why “Barack H. Obama” continues to deliberately
make falsified, national policy statements, such as having removed the
combat soldiers from Iraq.  This cannot be blamed on Republicans.

My comment,  drbhelthi, November 18 at 12:55 pm, quotes part of an email
sent home by a USArmy soldier in Iraq, assigned to a heavy brigade combat
team.  The brigade continues the same mission, but with a new name that
disguises their mission. The email is quoted at the following link, which must
be copied into ones browser, in order to work properly:
http://truthalliance.net/Archive/News/tabid/67/ID/6187/Combat-soldier-in-
Iraq-exposesObama-lies.aspx

Nor does your vociferous defense of the Dem party clarify the dishonesty of
the Obama entourage and its destruction of the American middle-class. 
Considering that the Federal Reserve controls the U.S. Treasury printing
presses, your concept of “defaulting” on the “U.S. debt” is just a bit naïve. 
The intensity and detail of your comments are what I would expect from the
wife of “Barack H. Obama, who earned her degrees without the assistance of
the CIA, and who would be more honest in the U.S.Presidency than her
Kenyan-born husband.

Report this

By truedigger3, November 21, 2011 at 3:50 am Link to this comment

Re: By JDmysticDJ, November 21 at 3:25 am

JDmysticDJ wrote:

“Are you asserting a secret collusion between Democrats and Republicans? Theatrical holleing [sic]? “
———————————————————
JDmysticDJ,
The answer is YES, YES and YES.
The collusion is indirect since both of them have their marching orders from the moneyed elites and both of them are assingned roles and boundaries within which to operate.
I didn’t say that the intention of my “strategy” is for the situation to get worse, but what I said is that my “strategy” will succeed gradually as the situation get worse. Please don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t say.!
I think the only thing left for us is that we agree to disagree. OVER AND OUT!

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 21, 2011 at 3:25 am Link to this comment

RE; truedigger3, November 19 at 10:43 am

“Knock it off”? You’re telling me to knock it off? Let me assure you; you can be absolutely certain that I will not “knock it off.” I consider you and your ilk to be every bit as harmful and ignorant as are right - wing loonies.

In my opinion you and your ilk have fallen under the spell of counter productive nihilistic gurus found here on truthdig and elsewhere. These gurus exaggerate, distort, and use sensationalist fear tactics in order to win people over to their dialectic of demagoguery and counter productive nihilism. I would not be surprised to see fellow travelers in nihilism gathered together shouting Zieg Heil! or equivalent, sometime in the future. “Hail victory!” a victory devoid of any political potential other than misguided, directionless, revolutionary chaos.

Effective non-violent political protest must: Be exquisitely passive, totally committed to the ideals of non-violence in its most reverent aspects, avoid the perception of being menacing, have clear political objectives in order to expedite reform of politics, and avoid the perception of unbridled anarchy. People who confront, harangue, resist, and assault the police defeat the purpose of non-violent protest. The police, the courts, and politicians assigned with the duty of keeping the peace will react with violence when confronted by unruly mobs, and feel justified in doing so, and the largest percentage of the populace will side with the police, the courts, and politicians under such circumstances. Reacting to police violence with outrage rather than passivity will only increase the violence. The other night I heard a well known national talk radio host warn that Congressman Peter King had better run for his life when the revolution comes, he has also warned the police that former U.S. soldiers who are a part of Occupy Wall Street will not stand for police violence and that police should beware of these former soldiers. This national talk show host was in affect exhorting former soldiers and others to violence in order to wreak revenge on the police for their violence. Such talk is dangerously inflammatory and representative of the most extreme of nihilists.

Chris Hedges has cited the writings of Bakunin:

“Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin was a well-known Russian revolutionary and theorist of collectivist anarchism. He has also often been called the father of anarchist theory in general.”

“He [Bakunin] rejected political action as a means of abolishing the state and developed the doctrine of revolutionary conspiracy under autocratic leadership… His approval of violence as a weapon against the agents of oppression led to nihilism in Russia and to individual acts of terrorism elsewhere– with the result that anarchism became generally synonymous with assassination and chaos.”

The more I read of Hedges the more I consider him to be a counter productive demagogue and sensationalist motivated by his singular experiences and enormous ego. Hedges makes a humanitarian argument, but by my perception, he does not display the characteristics or attributes of a humanitarian. I would suggest that people who have affection for Hedges should not encourage him.

Now, you truedigger3, are not, in my opinion, as dangerous as Hedges and his fellow nihilist pseudo- intellectuals. You are in my opinion merely a sycophantic dupe, misguided, and unaware in your ignorance. You are only a pawn in their game; a designated martyr who must be manipulated and sacrificed in order to topple the much hated King. “The King is dead, long live the King,” “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” and so on.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 21, 2011 at 3:00 am Link to this comment

RE; truedigger3, November 19 at 10:43 am (Cont.)

You write:

“You didn’t give a single example of the the so called differences! Please don’t tell me Health care “reform” which is nothing but a give away subsidies to the Medical/Phamaceutical/Insurance complex and it has the full approval and blessing of the Republicans, regardless of their theatrical holleing and objections.”

Better, and more informed, minds than yours or mine from the Left supported passage of the Affordable Health Care Act. People like Bernnie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore (Of “Sicko” fame,) and Noam Chomsky just to name a few. The Affordable Health Care Act is not Universal Health Care, but it is a valuable social reform. The Affordable Health Care Act was the best that could be passed in the Senate because of Republican obstruction. The Bill after nearly a year of debate was passed without one Republican vote. Now, you myopic moron, is this an example of a difference between Republicans and Democrats?

I shouldn’t call you a moron. You clearly do not qualify as being a moron, unless your knowledge was compared with mine, then you would qualify.

The Affordable Health Care Act::

“Insurers won’t be able to cancel coverage because a patient made an unintentional mistake on his or her application for coverage.  They won’t be able to set annual or lifetime limits on benefits that leave patients without coverage when they need it most.  And they won’t be able to exclude millions of Americans from coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition.  Patients will have new rights to choose their primary care professionals – including pediatricians – and to file appeals when insurers deny claims.  FINALLY, INSURERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO SPEND A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF PREMIUM DOLLARS ON PATIENT CARE, REDUCING THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE EXCESSIVE PROFITS AND PAY UNREASONABLY HIGH SALARIES.”                                                   

When you write, “...it [The Affordable ACT] has the full approval and blessing of the Republicans, regardless of their theatrical holleing and objections.” I can only believe you are exhibiting a paranoid delusion. Are you asserting a secret conspiracy? Are you asserting a secret collusion between Democrats and Republicans? Theatrical holleing [sic]?

You write:

“The Credit Cards “reform” is another make believe bullshitting from your Obama and on and on…”

Obama assigned Credit Card reform to Elizabeth Warren.

“… The conservative group Crossroads GPS spent $560,000 on an attack add blasting Warren for sympathizing with the ongoing ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protests. When asked about the add Warren said that she had been ‘protesting Wall Street’ for years and years.”

“’For years, I have worked to expose how Wall Street and big banks have been crushing middle class families’ she said. ‘It just isn’t right. I stood up to the big banks and their army of Washington lobbyists. I worked to hold them accountable. I led the fight for a new agency to protect consumers, and we got it.’”

Is Elizabeth Warren another example of the difference between Democrats and Republicans; you myopic ignoramus?

I shouldn’t call you an ignoramus. Ignorance is just the sign of a lazy, uninformed, or confused mind.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 21, 2011 at 2:47 am Link to this comment

RE; truedigger3, November 19 at 10:43 am (Cont.)

You write:

“Bush’s obscene tax cuts for the super-wealthy are still there and your beloved Obama did not do nothing about them, with a Democratic majority in Congress, and he wants to balance the budget on the back of the eldery, sick and the needy.”

You are absolutely correct. Obama did not do nothing; he did something. For example, he toured the country asking people to put pressure on Republicans to pass the legislation that would rescind the tax cuts for the super-wealthy. Senate rules and Republican obstruction in the Senate effectively negated the Democratic majority in the Senate. Are you so uninformed that you are unaware of this fact? If so you should silence yourself because you are not qualified to comment about something you know nothing about. So, knock it off! Republicans nearly put our country into default obstructing tax reform. Republicans were willing to deny unemployment benefits for the unemployed obstructing tax reform. Being ignorant of political realities you demand the impossible and become irrationally angry when you don’t get the impossible. Obama is not a dictator and he must work within the existing political reality, that reality being that republicans have taken an oath not to raise taxes i.e. roll back the tax cuts for the super-wealthy. When I write oath, I mean oath. Republicans have taken Grover Norquist’s oath not to raise taxes i.e. roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Are you so uninformed that you do not know the gridlock in our government is a result of Democrats defending the social safety net and Republicans obstructing a more equitable tax reform? Nine, nine, nine, or a flat tax as advocated by Republicans would be an even more inequitable tax structure accelerating the upward distribution of wealth in our society; Democrats know that and Republicans know that and this is another glaring difference between Democrats and Republicans; could it be that you can not see this difference? Let me spell it out for you, Democrats are advocating for 4 percentage points increase in taxes for the super-wealthy and Republicans are advocating for a ten percentage point decrease in the taxes for the super-wealthy. Note the difference? You should, it’s not too difficult to comprehend, 7th grade math is what it is. Are you as smart as a 7th grader?

It is true that Democrats have been willing to compromise in order to reduce the debt; it’s also true that Republicans have not been willing to compromise and this is the reason for the gridlock. Democrats are only willing to compromise if Republicans are willing to compromise too, and Republicans are not. Republicans are demanding 0 tax reform and they are dogmatically refusing to move from that 0 point. Difference…?

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 21, 2011 at 2:25 am Link to this comment

RE; truedigger3, November 19 at 10:43 am (Cont.)

You conclude:

“There is NO nihilism vibes coming from me? Where did get that from?. Are you trying to label me and intimidate me?! Shame on you!
My strategy is to vote for the Greens or anybody except the Republicans and Democrats. Yes, several elections will be lost, but by persverance and as the situation of the common people get worse, a strong viable third party will emerge!
We don’t have a REAL left in this country so knock it off.”

“There is no nihilism vibes coming from me?” The question mark here requires some intuitive interpretation. I’m guessing that an exclamation mark would be the correct symbol to communicate your meaning. “Punctuation is a series of symbols used in the English language. These symbols are extremely important in written English as they can completely change the meaning of the sentence.” Sorry, I just thought I’d take some time here to give you a 7th grade English composition lesson. I’m not trying to intimidate you, but I do feel a little bit ashamed about pointing out your apparent error. If my intuitive interpretation should be considered incorrect by you please correct me on this little issue. Are you asking, “Are there no nihilism vibes coming from me? Or are you declaring that my perception of nihilism vibes coming from you puzzles you, or are you stating that there are no nihilism vibes coming from you? Hum…? This is a communication dilemma.

Thank you for recognizing that your strategy would result in several elections being lost. I’ve been asking for someone to recognize that reality for quite some time now. You did not designate who those elections would be lost to. Am I correct in asserting that if the Left (As per the objective Bell Curve, and not per a subjective determination of what the Left is.) were to divide its opposition to Republicans those several elections would be lost to Republicans?

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 21, 2011 at 2:08 am Link to this comment

RE: truedigger3, November 19 at 10:43 am Cont.)

So, if I understand you correctly, per your strategy the situation of the common people would get worse under your strategy, but would, according to your postulation, result in a third party. I’m not particularly fond of postulations and conjecture. Whether postulations will be correct is an uncertainty is it not? I don’t mean to be negative, or to critical. If things are, out of necessity to create a third party, going to get worse, shouldn’t we be concerned with things getting better? Again, intuitively interpreting your thoughts, I’m guessing that you are asserting that things would get better, after getting worse, if a third party were created. Surely you must be asserting that a third party would be better than the dominant currently existing two Parties… no? Just for the sake of argument I’ll ask what if a postulated third party powerful enough to usurp the power held by the two existing parties, were never to come into existence? Again, using intuition I’ll guess that you are postulating that if things got really bad, a third Party would arise. So, if I understand your strategy we would have to persevere through the worse in order to get a third Party… but wait… are you saying that creating a third Party would require perseverance?

I’m losing interest and having trouble persevering with this comment. (I’m thinking one should never persevere through the witching hour on a Saturday night, but I shall persevere a little longer.) What if I were to postulate, just for the heck of it, that a third party that arose out of the worseness and perseverance would be even worse and make things even worse. Is there no peril in making things worse to make things better; correct postulations being uncertain? What if things got so bad that a charismatic figure would arise saying follow me I’ll make things better, but he turned out to be a lunatic who made things worse. Shouldn’t we persevere to make sure that lunatics don’t persevere their way into power? I‘m fantasizing about a bunch of perseveres shouting, “Follow us! We are the perseveres!” Further postulating, what if the third party couldn’t convince people that they were the perseveres who would make things better, instead of worse.  What if the worse party just kept persevering?

I’m too tired to persevere any longer.  I’ll conclude by commenting that Republicans and other morons appear to want us to persevere into the worse in order to make things better. It’s a recommendation for austerity; persevering through the austere in order to create something better than austere. It’s Bakunin’s “Destruction as creation theory.” A theory that postulates making things worse will make things better. Persevering to make things better should not include making things worse. There is a difference between making things worse in order to make things better and working to make things better… No?

Report this

By truedigger3, November 19, 2011 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

Re: By JDmysticDJ, November 19 at 9:35 am


JDmysticDJ wrotre:
“My opinion is that truedigger3’s politics are the politics of anger and nihilism; devoid of any political strategy other than unfocused anger. Political chaos in the Left only serves the interests of the Right.”
——————————————————————-

JDmysticDJ,
You didn’t give a single example of the the so called differences! Please don’t tell me Health care “reform” which is nothing but a give away subsidies to the Medical/Phamaceutical/Insurance complex and it has the full approval and blessing of the Republicans, regardless of their theatrical holleing and objections.
The Credit Cards “reform” is another make believe bullshitting from your Obama and on and on…
Bush’s obscene tax cuts for the super-wealthy are still there and your beloved Obama did not do nothing about them, with a Democratic majority in Congress, and he wants to balance the budget on the back of the eldery, sick and the needy.
There is NO nihilism vibes coming from me? Where did get that from?. Are you trying to label me and intimidate me?! Shame on you!
My strategy is to vote for the Greens or anybody except the Republicans and Democrats. Yes, several elections will be lost, but by persverance and as the situation of the common people get worse, a strong viable third party will emerge!
We don’t have a REAL left in this country so knock it off.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 19, 2011 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

truedigger3:

“I don’t see any difference, whatsoever, between Democrats and Republicans. The only difference is in rhotric and style but not in substance.”

Me:

The differences between Democrats and Republicans are very real and manifest. The differences between the two parties are evident in rhetoric, style, and substance.

truedigger3

“Both of them are two different masks for a single party that serve the moneyed elite and don’t give a shit about the common people.”

Me:

There are clearly two different Political Parties; one serving only the moneyed elite the other with a vested interest in serving the common people.

truedigger3

“The differences between them are artificial and theatrical for public consumption only. For example, suppose the moneyed elites wants 8, so the Republicans start by suggesting 10, and the Democrats suggest 6 and finally they “agree” on 8.!”

Me:

The differences between the two Parties are real and tangible not artificial. The differences between the two Parties are no more theatrical than any other aspect of life. The moneyed elites want 0 and the Republicans start by demanding 0 and refuse to move from 0.

truedigger3

“So, in my opinion, the Democrats are worse because they pretend that they are with the common people while in reality they are stabbing them in the back.”

Me:

In my opinion, the Democrats are better because they better serve the interests of the common people. It is the Republicans who are stabbing the common people.

truedigger3

“Now with the deficit commision, the dismantling of the New Deal will continue under a Obama!”

Me:

It is Republicans who are attempting to dismantle the New Deal. Democrats are attempting to preserve the New Deal.

truedigger3:

“The repeal of Glass-Steagall was done under another Democrat, your another beloved, Bill Clinton?”

The Gramm [R] Leach [R] Bliley [R] Act repealed one important part of the Glass Steagall Act. Democrats in the Senate voted down the Gramm [R] Leach [R] Bliley [R] Act as originally proposed by Gramm [R] Leach [R] and Bliley [R].

truedigger3

“And so on and on .... and I will not repeat what Obama did differently from W Bush, which in REALITY, NOTHING.”

Me:

What Obama did differently than Bush is a matter of the public record. Failing to acknowledge the public record is myopia born of ignorance or an outright and willful refusal to recognize fact.

truedigger3:

“Obama is rolling on the same tracks that W Bush was rolling on. The train might have been painted diffently, has a different whistle, but it is the same train, carrying the same cargo and going to the same destination.”

Me:

Republicans and Democrats are not on the same track. Obama is not rolling on the same track as George W. The track the Democrats are on has a different destination than the track Republicans are on.

*************************************************************

Blah, blah, blah; this has been a worthless declaration of opinions nearly devoid of fact. [T] ruedigger3 could have saved himself time by simply stating Clinton signed the Gramm - Leach - Bliley Act. Clinton’s signing of the Gramm - Leach - Bliley Act in no way proves that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

My opinion is that truedigger3’s politics are the politics of anger and nihilism; devoid of any political strategy other than unfocused anger. Political chaos in the Left only serves the interests of the Right. The dividing of the Democratic opposition to Republicans guarantees that the balance of power will move to Republicans. Perhaps when Republicans again achieve the office of the Presidency and majority control of Congress the differences between Democrats and Republicans will become evident to truedigger3 and his counter productive, nihilistic, ilk.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 18, 2011 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment

I suspect there is a lot of shit going on I do not know about, for instance I am aware of alien ass probing, but I know the real story behind the probes, because the probing is really done by the CIA. So, it must be said we are lucky there are people out there who really know all the shit that is going on, people who live in a place where truth is fiction and fiction is fantasy, in a place called Never Never Land!

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment

When copying the link to your browser, no space between exposes Obama can be allowed.  The s must touch the O.
Sorry. doc b.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 18, 2011 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

The Obama administration is characterized by this excerpt from an email message a
combat soldier in Iraq sent home:
“We have the same personnel/equipment layout as before and are doing the same missions.  The ONLY difference is that they changed our name from a HBCT to an AAB and that’s how he is getting away with saying that he has pulled all of the “combat” troops out.  It is really ridiculous what he’s doing and he has ticked alot of people off.”
http://truthalliance.net/Archive/News/tabid/67/ID/6187/Combat-soldier-in-Iraq-exposes Obama-lies.aspx

Obama´s C.I.A. disinformaiton training works nicely, until someone presents the facts.  Yet, some refuse to recognize the GHWBushSr/Obama entourage subterfuge.  Their numbers are decreasing steadily.  Graduated Columbia U. after nine months of attendance?  Right.  Time to have the C.I.A. graphics dept. whip out another birth certificate and a few more diplomas.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 18, 2011 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

Most of the time,  I see both parties as choreographed Kabuki Theater, I mean how can the Republicans be taken seriously, sadly there are a passel of imbeciles, I mean inbred people out their who do take the Republicans seriously and feel incoherence messaging sponsored by the Repulcians is like hearing gospel from a savior, Oh Rick Perry?  The hate sponsored from one side in this case the Repulcians is nothing like the Democrats, instead from the Dems we got Anthony Werner!

Absurdity and insanity sponsored by the Republican candidates would embrace a spitting image of Adolf Hitler and he would probably get more applause then Exicution Perry, brother from another mother Cane or female Porky pig sounding Bdee…Bdeea Bachmann.  The bought and sold Republicans are saturating the air waves with their lies and tainted messages, and if enough people listen to them, as they say, people will start to believe them.

The first thing to do is get the money out of politics or we are doomed, to the plan of the 1 percent where both parties will become exactly the same, with even subtler difference, when every politician is bought at auction of the highest bidder only accountable to the 1 percent and owned by the 1 percent.

Report this

By truedigger3, November 18, 2011 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

Re: By JDmysticDJ, November 18 at 9:48 am

JDmysticDZJ wrote:
“If perchance you see no difference between Democrats and Republicans and if you should find the question unimportant I can only conclude that you are not “smart and knowledgeable.” “
———————————————————————-
JDmysticDZJ,
I don’t see any difference, whatsoever, between Democrats and Republicans. The only difference is in rhotric and style but not in substance.
Both of them are two different masks for a single party that serve the moneyed elite and don’t give a shit about the common people.
The differences between them are artificial and theatrical for public consumption only. For example, suppose the moneyed elites wants 8, so the Republicans start by suggesting 10, and the Democrats suggest 6 and finally they “agree” on 8.!
So, in my opinion, the Democrats are worse because they pretend that they are with the common people while in reality they are stabbing them in the back.
Now with the deficit commision, the dismantling of the New Deal will continue under a Obama!
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was done under another Democrat, your another beloved, Bill Clinton?
And so on and on .... and I will not repeat what Obama did differently from W Bush, which in REALITY, NOTHING.
Obama is rolling on the same tracks that W Bush was rolling on. The train might have been painted diffently, has a different whistle, but it is the same train, carrying the same cargo and going to the same destination.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 18, 2011 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

RE: truedigger3, November 17 at 3:12 pm

Your writing that I am “A smart and knowledgeable guy” is flattering. It would be inappropriate for me to comment about my own smartness and knowledge but I will comment that it is not difficult to appear smart and knowledgeable when one is informed and the facts support one’s argument. My partisanship is not at all blind. My partisanship comes from being informed and from being aware of the facts. I see quite well if I do say so myself. Your comment, “A smart knowledgeable guy, is such brainwashed” is one I will not dispute. Putting modesty aside I’ll comment that my cerebral hygiene is quite good. Is I such brainwashed? Well yes, my brain is cleansed by being aware of the facts and by staying informed. My attachment to the Democratic Party is not at all emotional; it is rational and well reasoned. The facts clearly demonstrate that the Democratic Party is preferable to the Republican Party. The facts are biased in favor of the Democratic Party, and therefore I am biased in my preference for the Democratic Party.

You write:

“You are bullshiting, obfuscating and bypassing the facts to find excuses to the Democrats and your beloved Obama!”

Oh Contraire Mon frère!

bullshit definition:

noun

foolish, insincere, exaggerated, or boastful talk; nonsense.

Bullshiting is talking bullshit. I am not talking bullshit. I am simply relating the facts. I am trying to avoid being boastful but you make that difficult what with your flattery and all. My being “Smart and knowledgeable” by your appraisal indicates that you believe I am not foolish. Are you being duplicitous? Are you attempting to bullshit me? I can only conclude that your comment is nonsense. Have I exaggerated? If I have I will apologize profusely. Please give me examples of my exaggerations. Finally, facts are not bullshit (See definition.)


ob•fus•cate [ óbf? skàyt ]
 
1.  make something obscure: to make something obscure or unclear, especially by making it unnecessarily complicated

2.  confuse: to make somebody confused

Synonyms: obscure, complicate, confuse, muddy, cloud, mystify, muddle, befuddle, befog

Am I confusing you? It is not my intention to obscure, complicate, confuse, muddy, cloud, mystify, muddle, befuddle, or befog. My intention is to bring clarity and to make things as uncomplicated as possible. Democrats suck but Republicans are suckier might be a vernacular less complicated and less confusing for you. I apologize if my dialectic has been too confusing and complicated for you. In all sincerity I will assert that my intention is only to bring clarity by presenting the facts.


Your contention that I am “…bypassing facts to find excuses to the Democrats and your beloved Obama!” saddens me. I have attempted to present all the facts calling my “beloved” a war criminal and whatnot. My intention has been to point out that Democrats are preferable to Republicans only, and not to “…find excuses to the Democrats.” It is the facts that are bypassed by others that provide the reasons why I prefer Democrats to Republicans. I am not trying to, “…find excuses to the Democrats.” I have offered reasons why I believe my “beloved” is tragically wrong headed, and if my offering these possible reasons strike you as making excuses, “… to the Deomocrats” then I have failed in communicating my thoughts to such as you and such apparently being the reality I am filled with regret. Keeping you in mind, I will avoid providing reasons that I believe might explain “my beloved [’s]” wrong headed and criminal behavior.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 18, 2011 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

RE: truedigger3, November 17 at 3:12 pm (Cont.)


Concluding, if I thought my writings were responsible for your tears I would be even further saddened. On the other hand, if I thought my writings were the object of your scornful laughter I would be confused, mystified, befuddled, and befogged, not to mention being a little pissed off. Have I disrespected you? No I have not, in spite of your rather strange idioms.

Perhaps you can answer the question I have been unable to find anyone smart and knowledgeable enough to answer; that question being, “Does dividing the Democratic opposition to Republicans serve the interests of Republicans. If perchance you see no difference between Democrats and Republicans and if you should find the question unimportant I can only conclude that you are not “smart and knowledgeable.”

Report this

By ardee, November 18, 2011 at 4:03 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, November 17 at 9:03 am

Playing the “alliance card” heh?

That you cannot wrap your brain around Obama’s continuance of torture, violations of civil rights and legal remedies is sad. Your case must be weak indeed to call me an ally of one so obviously out of his gourd.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 17, 2011 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment

drbhelthi my angry over zealous friend. The national debt in 2008 was 9.6 trillion dollars, if as you claim, Obama doubled the size of the national debt the national debt would be19.2 trillion dollars. When George W. Bush was ushered into office by the Supreme Court in 2000 the national debt was 3.5 trillion dollars; the national debt nearly tripled during George W. Bush’s reign. Incidentally, the national debt quadrupled under the reigns of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The national debt increased by a paltry 400 billion during the reign of Bill Clinton. During the Clinton reign a deficit surplus was created that, if left undisturbed would have reduced the national debt substantially.

“Several government agencies provide budget data and analysis. These include the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Treasury Department. These agencies have reported that the federal government is facing a series of important financing challenges. In the short-run, tax revenues have declined significantly due to a severe recession and tax policy choices, while expenditures have expanded for wars, unemployment insurance and other safety net spending. In the long-run, expenditures related to healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are projected to grow faster than the economy overall as the population matures.”

Republican economic policies are responsible for the recession. The debt is rapidly expanding because of: decreased revenues because of the recession, increased unemployment compensation payments and other safety net spending, increased costs of Health Care, etc. The key to solving our debt crisis has to do with “Tax policy choices;” choices that Democrats are trying to implement and Republicans have taken an oath to prevent. Under Obama’s presidency the expensive occupation of Iraq is ending, and Obama has pledged his commitment to ending the occupation of Afghanistan by 2014.

Do you deny that in the past you commented here on truthdig that Clinton had several people killed in order to cover up his nefarious activities?

Regarding your sources:

Phillip Agee is a former member of the CIA who wrote a tell all book about the CIA. He was a shady character who worked with the KGB, and Cuban Intelligence; he has been accused of reprehensible activities in his personal life. The validity of those accusations is suspect because Phillip Agee was accused of spying and he defected to Cuba. It might be that Agee was falsely accused of reprobation in his personal life in order to discredit him. I remember reading Agee’s book sometime in the past. I don’t remember much about the book, but I do remember being unimpressed and unconvinced. As I recall, the book was primarily concerned with the difficulties he was having with CIA censorship. His double agent status make his writings suspect.

Philip Schneider from his former wife:

For the last two years of his life, Philip had been on the “lecture tour” throughout the United States, talking out about government coverups. You name it, he was talking about it: Aliens (treaties and abductions), UFO’s, the One World Government, Black Budgets, Underground Mountain Bases, CIA involvement in civilian murders and drugs, Stealth technology, the Philadelphia Experiment, Operation Crossroads (Bikini Island A-bomb experiments), Dulce Fire Fight, the Oklahoma bombing, the World Trade Center bombing, missing children, Gunderson Freight Cars, the opening of concentration camps and Marshal Law/UN involvement, man-made viruses and earthquakes, etc.etc.”

The consensus of opinion seems to be that Philip Schneider was a looney. He either committed suicide in a hospital or was assassinated in a hospital, depending on whether you believe the coroner or other theories.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 17, 2011 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

RE: drbhelthi (Cont.)

Fletcher Prouty has written that he believes Kennedy’s assassination was a coup d’etat, and that there is a secret, global “power elite” at work to direct world events.

Prouty said that “it would not surprise me if this was a Secret Team operation” in response to the death of Princess Diana.

Prouty presented “a quartet of the greatest propaganda schemes ever put forth by man” that included Darwin’s theory of evolution and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

As part of a relationship with the Church of Scientology, Prouty told Scientology leaders that L. Ron Hubbard’s military discharge papers were “sheep dipped,” meaning two sets of government records were created documenting Hubbard’s service. The claim came to light when a Lawrence Wright expose’ on the subject revealed that official government documents contained no mention of any injury suffered by Hubbard during his service, injuries Hubbard claimed were later healed through Dianetics. Prouty’s assertion is of particular importance to Scientologists; had there been no injury to Hubbard, a cure of such injuries by use of Dianetics would have been impossible, and thus the foundational claim of Scientology would be undermined.

“Wayne Madsen has been described by many journalists including Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic Monthly, CBS, and Salon as a conspiracy theorist.”

In July 2009, Madsen released a report saying there was a Q Group within the National Security Agency tasked with concealing US government involvement in 9/11.

Madsen reported ‘unnamed’ World Health Organization officials as having said the H1N1 virus was a maufactured by the U.S. Military.

Susan Lindauer is an American journalist, author, and antiwar activist. She was accused of conspiring to act as an agent for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Lindauer was found mentally unfit to stand trial and all charges were dropped in 2009.

In 2006, she was released from prison after Michael B. Mukasey ruled that Lindauer was unfit to stand trial and could not be forced to take antipsychotic medication to make her competent to stand trial.

In 2008, Loretta A. Preska of the Federal District Court in New York City reaffirmed that Lindauer was mentally unfit to stand trial.

On January 16, 2009 the government decided to not go ahead with the prosecution saying “prosecuting Lindauer would no longer be in the interests of justice.”

Lindauer has written a book “Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover-Ups of 9/11 and Iraq” about her experience.

Sibel Edmonds is a Turkish American former translator for the FBI and non- partisan promoter of whistle blowing.

“Edmonds appeared as a guest on the Alex Jones Show to give an update on her organization’s progress and indicated that the preponderance of evidence, plus the outright cover-up surrounding 9/11 - suggests that criminal elements at the very apex of the US military-industrial complex had a direct hand in carrying out the attack.”

Apparently this Turkish American translator was a burr under the saddle of the FBI. She was fired from her job as translator for attempting to take over and direct the FBI’s anti-terror investigations.

“Alex Jones has been the center of many controversies. Jones has accused the US government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and September 11 attacks.”

So much for your sources.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 17, 2011 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment

RE; drbhelti (Cont.)

Finally my meager paycheck does not come from Mossad, the Secret World Government, or some mythical clandestine organization. I post here as an avocation and to make my little contribution as an activist. My posting here is not an occupation. Seeing as how Joseph Goebell’s notoriety comes from his being the purveyor of out and out falsities I’ll suggest that you are, unbeknownst to you, more similar to Joseph Goebbels than am I.

Telling someone to “Get a grip” might be considered insulting, but my now telling you to get grip is meant to be therapeutic. Take some time out to meditate and contemplate the mysteries of the universe, such simple advice has worked miracles in the past.

Report this

By truedigger3, November 17, 2011 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Your blind partisanship is sickening!
I am very saddened and baffled that you, a smart knowledgeable guy, is such brain washed!
I am not sure if you are brain-washed or it is emotional attachment to the Democratic party??!
You are bullshiting, obfuscating and bypassing the facts to find excuses to the Democrats and your beloved Obama!
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!?

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 17, 2011 at 10:07 am Link to this comment

@ JDmysticDJ

It is interesting how you assign information to me that I have not written, and spin
available information to support your obeisance to the current administration.
The information I have written was essentially parroted from expert sources, several of which I have linked.  Which of course, did not include you.  Your almost accurate summary of my stance on various issues is flattering.

You obviously are not acquainted with the clinical meaning of paranoia, and your tossing insults toward me simply reflects your sophomoric presumptuousness. 
Perhaps, the source of your paycheck, also, suggesting you took the illegal vow.

It would serve the world for you to use your intelligence to broadcast facts, instead of covering them up with disinformation, similar to that orchestrated by NAZI SS General Joseph Goebbels, continued by the GHWBushSr entourage, magnified by the B.S. Obama entourage.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 17, 2011 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

ardee

Here’s a quotation from your L.A. Times link:

“Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. “What I heard loud and clear from the president’s order was that they want to design a system that doesn’t result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured…”

The following is a reality you choose to ignore:

“The Obama administration closed the CIA’s ‘black-sites’ and its secret interrogation program. Currently the administration continues to allow rendition only ‘to a country with jurisdiction over that individual (for prosecution of that individual)’ when there is a diplomatic assurance ‘that they will not be treated inhumanely.’”


Under the Bush Administration the CIA abducted 3,000 people and rendered them to be tortured. Again you are unwilling to recognize very real differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Does it give you pause to find yourself in league with the likes of drbhelthi? In the past you and I have exchanged comments regarding drbhelthi’s paranoid delusions. [D]rbhelthi’s sources run the gamut from the credible to the certifiably looney. He is a birther, a truther, and he ascribes to every conspiracy theory coming from the Left and Right. Clearly drbhelthi lacks the ability to discriminate between fact and fiction. He believes that Clinton was a drug smuggler and had dozens of people killed in order to cover his tracks, extraterrestrial aliens, the illuminati, the Philadelphia Project, Secret World Governments, etc. etc. ad nausea. I do not dislike drbhelthi, I believe his heart is in the right place, but his mind appears to be in need of replacement. Unfortunately, seeing as how we agree on many things, I must conclude that your thinking is, willingly or unwillingly, similar to that of drbhelthi’s to a much lesser extent. Hopefully, in order not to be too cruel, you won’t object to this comparison too strenuously.

Some degree of truth extrapolated into falsity is falsity. Our national debt is not 19.2 trillion dollars as drbhelthi asserts. The increase in the national debt is not attributable to Obama it is attributable to Republican economic policy, the recession, unfunded wars, unfunded privatization of Medicare in the form of Medicare part D, unemployment compensation payments, increased costs of Health Care making Medicare and Medicaid more expensive etc. The only increase in the debt that can be attributed to Obama is a result of the American Recovery and Stimulus Act, which created 3 million jobs and prevented us from going into a deeper recession. I agree with progressive economists who believe that the “Stimulus Package” was too small. Overnight short term “loans” made to the financial institutions in the amount of trillions were paid back to the Federal Reserve and prevented a global economic catastrophe. The fact that financial institutions are now doing well awarding obscene bonuses and unwilling to invest in America is an entirely different matter. I foresee drbhelthi and others, who are using our national debt as a means of criticizing Obama screaming bloody murder and accusing Obama and the Democrats of the worst kind of perfidy when the “Super Committee” offers its recommendations for reducing our debt. Shortly, there will be a raging debate regarding the “Super Committee” recommendations. People from the Left and Democrats will be arguing that there should be an increase in the taxes of the richest Americans and corporations, and Republicans will be screaming for increased cuts in the social safety net. Whether the “Super Committee’s” recommendations will be approved by Congress and escape presidential veto will be interesting and I suppose extremely frustrating to witness, but one thing is certain, some will be vehemently dissatisfied regardless of outcome.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 17, 2011 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

The CIA’s complicity with drug smugglers is well known and well documented. Beginning in 1948 and throughout the Cold War the CIA facilitated, funded, and provided arms to drug smugglers, most glaringly manifest by CIA complicity with Reagan’s “Freedom Fighters” in Central America and Afghanistan. Any attempt to attribute that CIA complicity to Obama is unfounded extrapolated falsity, and the result of the delusions of a paranoid mind. Knowledgeable people know that the CIA is guilty of great perfidy, deaths incalculable, complicity in the overthrow and assassination of elected leaders, and providing logistical and other support for brutal dictators. Again, attributing such to Obama is not rational. I agree with drbhelthi that the CIA is, and has been a rogue organization with an enormous black budget and essentially free from oversight and public scrutiny. Because of extreme secrecy, the full extent of the CIA’s perfidy might never be known. To a large extent it is the intelligence community that advises our presidents and shapes our foreign policy. Single minded presidents such as George W. Bush have their own agendas and seem to be right in tune with the thinking of the intelligence community. Sadly, our current president is not immune from being influenced by the intelligence community and other bellicose advisors. His actions in many respects indicate such a reality. However, there is another reality that people seem unable or unwilling to recognize, there is a great difference between Republicans and Democrats in these respects. The public pronouncements of Republican leaders illustrate those differences. According to Republican leaders Obama is weak on foreign policy and not nearly bellicose enough. “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran” was a stupid joke and an amazingly brazen diplomatic faux pas but an accurate representation of Republican attitudes.

I have never asserted that everything is perfect under Obama’s leadership, quite the contrary. Things in nearly every respect are far from perfect by my appraisal but I also believe that things can get worse. Our sad political reality, as I see it, is what it is and it can not be made better by allowing Republicans to achieve political power. I continue to see reform of the Democratic Party from inside and outside activism as our best hope of creating a better political reality.

Once again, and I’m sure not for the last time, I’ll ask the simple question that has not elicited any direct response. “Does the dividing of Democratic opposition to Republicans serve the interests of Republicans?” I will give the answer to that question which others choose to ignore. The answer to that question is an absolute yes. Of course others have the option of answering no to that question, but to date they have chosen not to do so because a logical argument to support the no answer is not available.

Report this

By ardee, November 17, 2011 at 3:27 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, November 16 at 5:29 am

Oh humbug.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1

So, your hero was for it before he was against it after he was for it. The issue of “rogue agents” still practicing torture is really a last gasp effort to hang on to a loyalty increasingly shown to be undeserved. Where does that buck stop again?

The false mantra that one must vote for democrats because republicans are so very different and so very evil is refuted by recent history in which it is plainly shown that democrats have been no part of a solution, voting for and with, in far too many cases, the GOP positions. At the least they have been too incompetent to change the course of our governance.

I am sorry that you feel put out by those of us questioning your reasoning. I guess you and your ideals are ,in your opinion, like so many of your democratic brethren and GOP trolls alike share here, above reproach.

We live in a system in which human rights are violated daily, in which our working people descend into third world status while the wealthy soar to new heights of decadence , in which our government refuses its responsibilities to the people in favor of its obligations to the corporations that fund it all.

To see an intelligent person as yourself buy into the myth that voting democratic can or will change anything is sad, really sad. To see you become as OzarkMichael, as Imax and the multi-hued “liberal” ( his definition certainly not mine or any sane one), a one track , single issue poster with a mind shut tight to any input conflicting with your opinion is ,again, sad.

The OWS movement is refreshing for many reasons, not the least of which is that they, unlike you, see clearly that government, as currently constituted, is a part of the problem. I do hope you will grow politically, and become more flexible, we need all the help we can get after all.

“When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule, the majority is wrong.”  Eugene V. Debs

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 17, 2011 at 3:27 am Link to this comment

Doubly sad, when considering that the C.I.A. was created by the
same group of Zionist-NAZI-types that murdered several million,
innocent Jewish and other folk, as a false-flag event, with
support of the british throne, a seventy-five year precedent of
the false-flag, 9-11, murder event. 

The C.I.A., tool of the Zionist-WWII Hitler-NAZI entourage, which
has been used to decimate the third world, steal oil-rich Euro-
Asian lands from their rightful owners, and take control of the
western world via the evil Rothschild banking clan, which clan
owns the U. S. Federal Reserve and the world banking system.

Triply sad, when considering that the vast majority of Americans
who have been sucked into the C.I.A. were a cut or more above the
average American, and who thought they were rendering genuine,
patriotic service to the U. S. of A. and the Republic for which it
stands. 

Their basic, patriotic value system was seduced by the >thought<
of importance-power, as was revealed to me so vividly by a dear
friend in the 1970s, “- I may be in the Army, but I work for the
President of the United States.”  How little did he know, that
although he was in the U.S. Army, his orders came from the spy
network of the George H. W. Bush Sr., NAZI entourage, as
established by the WWII NAZI SS General Reinhard Gehlen.
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=8252175042329977626#

It is time for all these basically patriotic Americans in various
USGOV “spy” organizations, to indeed do their patriotic duty.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 16, 2011 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment

“Your supposition is basically making the claim that the two are mutually exclusive. They are not.”  Outraged

When supporting the USPresident overrides the U.S. Constitution, it is a matter that violates constitutional legality.  Whether or not your value system allows you to comprehend it.

Your categorization of “supposition” displays prejudice.  The kind of prejudice typically associated with novices who have taken the illegal vow.  Some of whom have awakened after several years of illegal, even treasonous behavior, but in time to “Whistle Blow.”  Many of whom have not been assassinated, some of whom continue to fear the possibility.  A sad state of affairs, when an organization that never should have been created, which has inflicted suffering and pain and death onto millions of innocent people around the world, can assassinate a member who has broken one of the rules of membership.  Which rule was a constitutional violation, anyway.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 16, 2011 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment

Re: drbhelthi, November 16

Your comment: “A greater problem, from my
viewpoint, resides with the Americans
who vow to support the “President of the United
States,” instead of
the Constitution of the United States.”

Your supposition is basically making the claim that
the two are mutually exclusive. They are not.

Your comment: “Thank God for all who have the
courage to “Whistle-Blow” !!!”

With this I can agree but this is not a partisan
affair, neither is it left or right leaning, it is
one of either illegal or legal and at other times
moral/ethical or immoral/unethical. Although
certainly the value is the basis for the nature of
its legality.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 16, 2011 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

A greater problem, from my viewpoint, resides with the Americans
who vow to support the “President of the United States,” instead of
the Constitution of the United States. 

Which vow is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, which has led to
the violation of the ENTIRE U. S. Constitution.  Dem party worshipper
or Rep party worshipper, both are superceded by requiring worship
of whomever occupies the position of U. S. President.  Which vow
came from the NAZIs who “invented” the company, rather than
from Americans.  Which vow has led to the nazification of the U.S.,
and is heading toward dissolution of the United States of America,
and the Republic for which it stands - - -

Thank God for all who have the courage to “Whistle-Blow” !!!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 16, 2011 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

They will RECOGNIZE only those issues which support
their argument or half of the information available
and therefore take an irrational position.

THEY WILL ALWAYS REFUSE TO ANSWER A SIMPLE DIRECT
QUESTION,

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 16, 2011 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

Correction, not Thomas Dodd, rather Norman Dodd.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 16, 2011 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

“Currently the administration continues to allow rendition only ‘to a country with
jurisdiction over that individual (for prosecution of that individual)’ when there is
a diplomatic assurance ‘that they will not be treated inhumanely.’”  JdmysticDJ

The above statement is an excellent example of Obama disinformation. I support
neither the Rep party nor the Dem party, nor schism by supporters of either.  Why
jabber about rendition, when the first “American” has already been
assassinated by the U.S.Military, while he was outside the United States, at the
direction of the occupant of the PotUS slot.  And, who established, via executive
directive, a secret committee to decide whom to assassinate, among Americans
who are qualified by the Obama version of the Patriot Act, as “Homeland
Terrorists” ? 

When you speak of “ - those rogue elements within the intelligence community-
“, are you referring to “Whistle-blowers,” such as Philip Agee,  William B. Bader,
Philip Schneider, John Stockwell, Fletcher Prouty, Wayne Madsen, Susan
Lindauer, Sibel Edmonds and associates, and many other genuine Americans ? 
Since one of the most valiant, Chip Tatum, was assassinated several years ago, I
did not mention his name.  However, his “Chronicle” continues to be valuable.
http://www.whale.to/b/tatum.pdf

The history of the C.I.A. verifies that it was formed by a NAZI SS general officer,
hired by an American-born, NAZI sympathizer with the family name of Dulles.
“Rogue elements” within the intelligence community?  Are there any others ? 
John Stockwell provides an overview:  http://wn.com/JOHN_AND_THE_CIA

The dissolution of the USA is being accomplished by leadership of the USGOV, as
revealed in the 1960s by Thomas Dodd, chairman of the Reese Commission.  The
USGOV is controlled by the USCongress and the occupant of the PotUS.  Dems
and Reps working hand-in-hand with Rothschild-types.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 16, 2011 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

Re: JDmysticDJ, November 16

” The problem, as stated previously, is that
people are unwilling to recognize Democratic
achievements and people irrationally and dogmatically
claim that there are no differences between Democrats
and Republicans in spite of the magnitude of evidence
to the contrary. Eyes and minds close when evidence
is made manifest because such evidence is
inconvenient and contradicts a false dialectic.”

I agree. Because they are unwilling to RECOGNIZE
achievements, these achievements of course are moot.
They will RECOGNIZE only those issues which support
their argument or half of the information available
and therefore take an irrational position.

Just for the record, THEY WILL ALWAYS REFUSE TO
ANSWER A SIMPLE DIRECT QUESTION, because these
obviously expose their irrationality and even they
recognize that.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 16, 2011 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

A simple question, but a question avoided because an answer asserting
anything but the affirmative can not logically be argued.  JDmysticDJ

Mr. B.S. Obama has promised many things and stated even more.  His abuse of executive directive exceeds that of Bush Jr.  Nor am I able to verify that “Obama´s” non-rendition executive order has been full-scale implemented. 

Mr. B.S. Obama doubled the U.S. debt in two years, and continues to carry out
the NAZI-empiricist plan of the GHWBushSr. entourage.  Take Libya and Ghadaffi for one example.  Now, continuing the Bush-NAZI plan, the Obama entourage directs Israel to make the first hit on Iran, with US Military hiding immediately behind them.  Similar to U.S. involvement in Libya.  Did Republicans make these decisions for Mr. B.S. Obama ?

Guantanamo continues to exist, filled with Moslem-types, whom the Obama
administration knows are guilty only of defending their homeland against Bush-NAZI-type empire-building.  Democratically-continued wastefulness. 

“— another achievement that is ignored by the purveyors of a false dialectic.
Republicans are in favor of torture and extraordinary rendition, Democrats are
not.” 
Your gross generalizaitons miss the target, and, while your wishful thinking is
quite optimistic, perhaps a bit “dialectic,”  it is simply inaccurate.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 16, 2011 at 5:29 am Link to this comment

The simple question that I’ve been asking remains unaddressed, while people demand that I provide a detailed list of Democratic achievements, the list of achievements I provided should suffice. As stated previously the achievements of Democrats, in spite of unified Republican obstruction, are manifest. The problem, as stated previously, is that people are unwilling to recognize Democratic achievements and people irrationally and dogmatically claim that there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans in spite of the magnitude of evidence to the contrary. Eyes and minds close when evidence is made manifest because such evidence is inconvenient and contradicts a false dialectic.

“The Obama administration closed the CIA’s ‘black-sites’ and its secret interrogation program. Currently the administration continues to allow rendition only ‘to a country with jurisdiction over that individual (for prosecution of that individual)’ when there is a diplomatic assurance ‘that they will not be treated inhumanely.’”

“President Obama signed an Executive Order opposing rendition torture and establishing a task force to provide recommendations about processes to prevent rendition torture.”

It seems a near certainty that rogue elements within the intelligence community exist, it is also certain to me that those rogue elements within the intelligence community have a Republican perspective.

Finally, I’ll point out that the worst aspects of extraordinary rendition were practiced by a Republican administration, and ceased by a Democratic president; another achievement that is ignored by the purveyors of a false dialectic. Republicans are in favor of torture and extraordinary rendition, Democrats are not.

With no expectations, I’ll ask again, does dividing the Democratic opposition to Republicans serve the interests of Republicans?  A simple question, but a question avoided because an answer asserting anything but the affirmative can not logically be argued.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 16, 2011 at 2:24 am Link to this comment

“Such speculations are worthy of consideration, but such speculations
obfuscate the issue now under discussion here.” JdmysticDJ

It is my opinion that the issue under discussion here consists basically of
speculation and obfuscation.  Both of which summarize U.S. national
administrations, beginning, at the latest, with Nixon.

While you make some points that appear to me to be valid, you fail to either
present or link to info that authenticates a difference between the currently
demonstrated policies of Reps vs Dems. 

However.

If you can steer me to authenticated info that demonstrates that one, single
secretive USGOV lockup in Eurasia has been genuinely dismantled, I would
be grateful.  For example, the C.I.A. training installation in Greece.  Greece,
which has practiced C.I.A. covert government for over thirty years.  I wonder
how much money-wash the Grecian govt. has done for the C.I.A., without
telling Grecian folk, and how many billions the Rothschild banking system
has profited, without telling Grecian folk?

Report this

By ardee, November 15, 2011 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, November 15 at 11:30 am

The health care bill to which you point as a success of the Obama administration will not take effect until 2014 thus your boasts are a bit premature. Not only that but it still leaves about 25 million of us without coverage and is considered by many to be nothing more or less than a sop to Big Pharma and the Health Care Industry.

Obama has refused to end rendition which is done for the purpose of sending someone to be tortured. You cite more of his pretty words while refusing to see they are empty.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 15, 2011 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

RE: drbhelthi, November 15 at 11:44 am

Criticisms of Obama are well founded; I myself have criticized him, calling him a war criminal etc. He is I believe disconnected, uninformed, misguided, and isolated by his academic and government experiences, but well meaning. My belief is that he believes he must fight against evil with evil. Such is the kind of evil pragmatism that is used to justify all wars and war crimes.

Condemnations of Obama’s national security and foreign policies might serve to give him pause about pursuing those policies but those condemnations will have no affect on dissuading his opponents from pursuing those same policies in an even more ghoulish manor. Note that Obama is constantly being criticized by his opponents for not being heavier handed with his foreign policy and he is criticized for not prosecuting the wars with even greater prejudice. Obama is being criticized for not implementing torture, for not being more sympathetic to Israel, for not cracking down on Iran, etc. Mitt Romney has said Obama will allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and that he, Mitt Romney will not. How Mitt Romney will stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon leaves little to the imagination. Whether Iran is in the process of developing a nuclear weapon or has the right to develop a nuclear weapon are not issues worthy of consideration to Obama’s critics. Let us not forget the run-up to the invasion of Iraq; a run-up that included faulty intelligence and determined falsification. Will the U.S. attack Iran with the intention of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities in total with a corresponding loss of human life and a corresponding further aggravation of animosities, or will the U.S. give its approval to Israel to do so? I’ll argue that such will be dependent upon which political party is in control of our government. Such speculations are worthy of consideration, but such speculations obfuscate the issue now under discussion here.

Will abandoning Democrats serve the interests of the most ghoulish? Will abandoning Democrats end the errant policies, foreign and domestic, or will abandoning Democrats escalate those errant policies?

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 15, 2011 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

@ JdmysticDJ

When applying the yardstick of what Obama has said versus what he has done,
his statement about waterboarding sounds good.  As has almost everything else he
has said.

When we compare his amplified advancements of the suppressive activities
against Americans that were initiated by the GHWBushSr entourage, who were
allegedly Republicans, considering that Obama is allegedly a Democrat, where is
the practical difference?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 15, 2011 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

By ardee, November 15 at 4:41 am

Leefeller, November 14 at 10:17 pm

“I see that, yet again, rather than respond to my request that you point to achievements by Democrats rather than use the current insanity infesting the GOP as reason to waste one’s votes on your own choice, you chose not to do so.”

******************************************************************

Pointing out “achievements” is lost on you because you and people like you will simply deny that very real “achievements” are “achievements.” I will not do the necessary research to enumerate the many “achievements” but I will point to the passage of the Affordable Health Care Bill, a Bill that was obstructed in the Senate for roughly a year and a Bill that was passed into law with virtually no Republican support. People who have been justly and adamantly opposed to the occupation of Iraq are now claiming that ending that occupation is not an achievement. Please note that Republicans have been extremely critical of ending the occupation of Iraq. Democrats are fighting tooth and nail for a shared sacrifice by the wealthiest Americans; a shared sacrifice that Republicans have taken an oath to prevent. Senate rules and Republicans have prevented many suggested “achievements” (400 pieces of Legislation that were passed in the Pelosi House of Representatives went to the Senate to die the death of Republican obstruction.) People dissatisfied with Democratic achievements contributed significantly to the results of the 2010 mid-term elections, the consequences of which are manifest and recognized by people who have even the remotest semblance of political acuity. There are many more achievements but I will conclude listing achievements with one more example. Republican candidates for President have voiced the approval for waterboarding, while Obama rescinded the Bush administrations advanced interrogation techniques. Obama said in response to Republicans who advocate for Bush’s advanced interrogation techniques:

“Let me just say this: They’re wrong. Waterboarding is torture,” he said. “It’s contrary to America’s traditions. It’s contrary to our ideals. That’s not who we are. That’s not how we operate. We don’t need it in order to prosecute the war on terrorism. And we did the right thing by ending that practice. “


Ending that practice was an “achievment” and this comment by Obama is also an achievment, a moral “achievment.”

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 15, 2011 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

By ardee, November 15 at 4:41 am (Cont.)


What has become absolutely clear to me is that people like you when confronted by very real differences between Democrats and Republicans will, in spite of very real evidence, repeat your mantra, “They are both the same, there is no difference between the two Parties.” I can only believe that such is willful ignorance or worse. Admitting that there are very real differences between the two Parties refutes a dialectic; a dialectic that is false and counter productive.

You further address Leefeller:

“Yes, Lee, we agree that OWS is potentially a good thing. No, Lee, this doesn’t answer my question; what reason to vote for a Party that has, whether in the majority or the minority, failed abysmally to enact anything, failed abysmally to stand against the torrent of nonsense from the other side of the aisle and succeeded only in defending its own torrent of money from the same corporate masters that control both parties, one not subtle the other a bit more so.”

The truth is that the “torrent of money” coming from the financial institutions and corporations is going to Mitt Romney and Republicans, the data is available and I have posted it here at truthdig but such as you again refuse to acknowledge that reality. Now, your demand that your question be answered brings to mind a question I asked earlier on this thread, a question that was ignored. “Does dividing the opposition to the most outrageous serve the interests of the most outrageous?” Perhaps this question was asked in too vague a manor. Let me attempt to make the question easier to understand in the hope that you will endeavor to answer the question. “Does dividing the Democratic opposition to Republicans serve the interests of Republicans?” The answer to that question can only be yes and is made abundantly clear by the results of the 2010 mid-term elections. It is a simple question, and I challenge you once again to offer a logical argument that asserts the answer to that question is no.

Your ideals are admirable, and we agree in many respects regarding the injustices that are evident in our society, but what you and people like you advocate is counter productive and only serves to advance what you are opposed to. You are advocating the impossible rather than the “Art of the possible.”


Having some experience in populist protest I predicted that Occupy Wall Street would cease to be a positive force in our politics before Christmas. Actually, Occupy Wall Street was never a powerful force in our politics. Occupy Wall Street performed a valuable function by bringing the Wall Street issue and the issue of economic injustice to the forefront of political debate, and the movement may continue to a lesser extent in that respect, but Occupy Wall Street is dying, being killed by the media, local governments, and by the excesses of elements within its midst. Former participants in Occupy Wall Street are losing interest and accepting that their idealistic aspirations were unrealistic and that their undefined political objectives will not come to fruition simply by stating their grievances. Even Chris Hedges a most enthusiastic supporter of Occupy Wall Street has walked back some from his initial enthusiasm. Note Hedges’ absence from this site this week. I wish Occupy Wall Street every success in achieving goals but I too must be realistic.

I must reiterate, please explain to me how serving the interests of Republicans by abandoning Democrats will lead to any positive outcome in terms of mutually shared objectives.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 15, 2011 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

@Leefeller
“I look at this like the protection racket and I do not want to see my
windows broke.”

During your fun and games with Truthdig, verbal sparring partners, if you care to acquire a genuine view into the putrification of the “protection racket,” get a copy of “Vultures´Picnic,” by Greg Palast. Written in novel fashion, he provides many events, names and dates of causation, and US Dollar amounts jockied around by the “oilies” among the alleged one percent, whose numbers don´t come close to approximating 01%, yetwho control oil and nations, while accelerating the destruction of the environment.
Or, perhaps vice-versa.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 15, 2011 at 8:35 am Link to this comment

In the end it really dost not matter who I or you vote for Ardee, partisanship is rigged, corrupt and tainted like road kill full of maggots.  Since I am not a buzzard I look at it for what it is, an illusion of what it claims to be, but it is still rigged, corrupt and tainted road kill.

Absurdity has no bounds, because I suspect many politicians are lacking morals, very equivalent to that of criminals. Differences between the two parties as I stated before are clearly obvious to any human being capable of utilizing reason.  I also believe those differences are programed, orchestrated and choreographed by a few slime bags, possibly the same someones who stooped over and humped the teabags?

The CBS recent exposure of the equivalent to inside trading by both parties in Congress is just one more maggot infested peace of meat, seems little different from the Supreme courts inability to appreciate something called integrity.

You may be right Ardee the differences are subtle and I suspect promoted for the purpose of polarizing and dividing the people only for appearances. No matter how I look at it, I fear the Repulcians much more than the Democrats, so I am duped?

Occupy Wall Street has changed the usual circle jerk dance routine,  they have turned on the light switch to expose the ugly under belly called the 1 percent.  As for the Greens, I have little comfort in a third party right now. I look at this like the protection racket and I do not want to see my windows broke.

Report this

By ardee, November 15, 2011 at 4:41 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, November 14 at 10:17 pm

in·sen·tient
adj \(?)in-?sen(t)-sh(?-)?nt\
Definition of INSENTIENT
: lacking perception, consciousness, or animation


I see a Freudian slip in your replacement of my use of incessant with your own insentient. Actually your own self condemnation works better, thanks.

I see that, yet again, rather than respond to my request that you point to achievements by Democrats rather than use the current insanity infesting the GOP as reason to waste one’s votes on your own choice, you chose not to do so.

Yes, Lee, we agree that OWS is potentially a good thing. No, Lee, this doesn’t answer my question; what reason to vote for a Party that has, whether in the majority or the minority, failed abysmally to enact anything, failed abysmally to stand against the torrent of nonsense from the other side of the aisle and succeeded only in defending its own torrent of money from the same corporate masters that control both parties, one not subtle the other a bit more so.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 14, 2011 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

Insentient citing of the obvious, it may be, but for me it is a work on understanding. a learning experience a way of promoting interaction from other posters who may grasp the not so obvious.

I find the polarizing techniques used in politics self perpetuating of the two party system and now with the advent of the Occupy moment, I sense a clearness of the air, something new and anything new suggest a threat to the self perpetuating normalcy, their is change in the air and it is not the lack of jingle in our pockets.

I will argue to those who suggest the Democrats are exactly like the Republicans. Their differences right now are vast, of course some people choose to ignore this. But, I keep seeing something which is not quite right, a propagated phoniness an illusion of difference, sometimes I feel the partisanship is there only for the dupes among us, those who need black and white, hot and cold, the hand picked differences which mean little in the end except to excite the masses, all an illusion covering the real issues of what is morally and ethically wrong. 

Occupy Wall Street is standing out shouting out the clear issues, the obvious so long ignored, never talked about and not even eluded to, the 1 percent who own 40 percent, the 1 percent who control our lives in ways never really talked about. Corruption, lack of integrity, absolute lack of accountability, a Congress and unbalanced system which has no shame and even less compassion for the people who are real people. No, the obvious is not so obvious and Occupy is exposing the ugly underbelly of shameless opportunism for what it is. Occupy is here to stay, I hope this is the obvious and may we see Occupy as the seeded future of change.

Report this

By ardee, November 14, 2011 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, November 14 at 9:34 am

Perhaps you might take time from your incessant citing of the obvious reasons to not vote Republican Party and give us reason to vote Democratic Party.

Because they are subtler than the GOP?

Because they are harming this nation slower than their counterparts across the aisle?

Because they are in need of our pity ( through the use of the ballot) for their incredible ineptitude whether in the majority or the minority in Congress?

Because Obama, their titular leader, gives such pretty speeches, and, after all, what are the odds that he will continue to work in opposition to those speeches?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 14, 2011 at 9:34 am Link to this comment

The insanity sponsored from the right seems a bit way over done, I believe is part of the plan to bring the left more to the right.

The barrage of hideous degenerative misanthropic ideals being applauded with deluded glee at every Republican Debate is case in point.  If one steps back and looks at the Republican picture it is a picture of hate and belittlement of society and the world, possibly themselves?

Uninformatively their are only two choices for comparison, that is choices of worthy focus. The Democratic Party and the Republican/Tea Bag, otherwise one lives on denial, not the river. Possibly Occupy may bring change, my fingers are crossed for inequality is very real as is disenfranchisement both strongly felt by the 99 percent and not just of this nation. 

Look at the Republicans and what they do towards Sanity offered by Huntsman. They have been marginalizing him to silence just as any differencing opinions they would silence coming from occupy. Disenfranchisement is shoved under the bus. There are other Republican candidates which were not even allowed to see the light of day, listening to them they sound sane and they seem more left than I on some issues. It appears behind the curtains the party deciders call the game, this would stand for all parties.  But for now we have the Republicans, a fanatic side, where intelligence and common sense are considered a weakness. Commonality is perceived with contempt as the untouchables in India, the Republican party appears to have an trickle down superiority complex with a mean streak for good measure, maybe funded by their own fears of difference.

Human rights are not allowed in the room where the party of no resides. Selfishness sponsored by the Republicans has a magnitude seen before with its historical droppings, and the outcomes have not been pleasant.

The moronic concepts formed between the ears of the Simple Simmons of our nation must have it their way or else,  for they appear as solipsists joined at the hip in a clinical sense if not the double-jointed ones who find fault with anything not of them.

Report this

By ardee, November 14, 2011 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, November 14 at 8:32 am

We are a polarized society. There are those like the all too often mentioned Imax who post, not to find solutions, but to increase said polarization. Then there are those like Outraged who are so wrapped up in their own beliefs that they cannot even read with comprehension any position that differs from
their own.

I am thoroughly sick of them both, and it shows.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 14, 2011 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

Egos have taken precedence over issues here. Please forgive my “Dumsiness” but the apparent insult “Imax” is lost on me. “Imax in drag” further complicates my understanding; I’m sure such is a clever insult but its cleverness is lost on me apparently because of my “Dumsiness.”

Allow me to ask a simple question. Does dividing the opposition to the most outrageous serve the interests of the most outrageous? Answering no to this simple question would be easy but supporting that answer with a logical argument, I believe, would be more difficult, if not impossible.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 14, 2011 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

Re: ardee

“just who, “oh angry one” in your opinion are
these democrats (their party affiliation along with
that would be helpful).”

Report this

By ardee, November 14, 2011 at 4:38 am Link to this comment

What can one say except to repeat the obvious. Why on earth, I must wonder, would I seek to continue a conversation you seek to hijack with such clumsiness?

Congrats, you are Imax in drag arent you?


Oh, outraged. You might consider changing your name to outrageous. Or taking a course in reading comprehension. My words were unambiguous and stand in opposition to your suppositions about them. You are simply dishonest…yet again.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 14, 2011 at 4:16 am Link to this comment

The concept of the Rep Party vs the Dem Party was - for a while - with the Tea
Party mixed in, a somewhat interesting distraction.  However, it is little wonder
that Obama continues to unroll the pre-determined actions he is mandated to
take.  His orders - and those for the “U.S. Federal Reserve” - come from the HQ of the top level Zionists.  Certainly, “israel” plays a part.  However.  The public generally does not understand the “incorporated City of London.” This video explains a few details. 
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1689952/pg1

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 13, 2011 at 11:43 pm Link to this comment

Re: ardee

Yep, you still didn’t answer the simple question I
asked, but that’s not unlike you.

Your refusal and evasion speaks volumes.  You hurl
insult after insult which btw also speaks volumes.

It was your premise I questioned, it’s a simple
question maybe you missed it.

“just who, “oh angry one” in your opinion are
these democrats (their party affiliation along with
that would be helpful).”

Report this

By ardee, November 13, 2011 at 7:32 pm Link to this comment

It appears that ardee is claiming Franken to be a REAL democrat…..right? Of course fact is Sen. Franken is a BIG “D”, Democrat.

Oh, outraged. You might consider changing your name to outrageous. Or taking a course in reading comprehension. My words were unambiguous and stand in opposition to your suppositions about them. You are simply dishonest…yet again.

Franken, whose political work prior to becoming a Democrat was admirable indeed, has been lost and ground up by the very machine he joined when elected to office.

Spouting Herman Cain speaks volumes about your real motives here, shouts that you are a fragile person who will use the stupidest of inferences to “win” a point. You seem completely unaware that your very tactics lose, not only that point, but respect as well.

Oh and I say DemocratIC Party while that groper of women says democrat party.. I no longer really care what you say. Join Imax as you seem so infatuated with such tactic.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 13, 2011 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

Re:  Foucauldian

I disagree with your assertions regarding communism and
anarchy and their relationship to democracy but that is
a different argument.

As I said:
“But won’t it be enlightening to see who ardee
claims is a REAL democrat. I’m certainly interested.”

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 13, 2011 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

Outraged,

But even a true communist or anarchist (my leaning) are
proponents of true democracy.

The democratic ideals are still shining, and they
surely would be embraced by those I’ve mentioned.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 13, 2011 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

Re:  Foucauldian

I understand what you are saying, but there’s no
ambiguity in ardee’s supposition.

ardee is claiming a democrat (small d ) to be
“proponent of democracy”, whereas ardee is also
claiming none of the Democrats ( uppercase D -
meaning of the Democratic Party) are ACTUAL
democrats.

Yet, also making the claim there are “good democrats”
but they are trapped within the “the Democratic Party machine” when speaking of Sen. Franken.  BTW, this is Cain’s
talking point.

“Herman Cain blamed the “democrat machine in
America” for the latest hit on his integrity and
character during his press conference today.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/herman-cain-democratic-machine-of-america-have-brought-forth-a-troubled-woman-video/

But won’t it be enlightening to see who ardee claims
is a REAL democrat. I’m certainly interested.

It appears that ardee is claiming Franken to be a REAL democrat…..right? Of course fact is Sen. Franken is a BIG “D”, Democrat.

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 13, 2011 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

Oustraged, ardee,

Perhaps there’s some ambiguity here.

What does it mean to say that being an elected member
of the Democratic party makes one a democrat?

What does it mean to say one in a “democrat” given that
context?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 13, 2011 at 10:13 am Link to this comment

Re: ardee

Nope. There’s no logic in your supposition. Both
parties cannot be ” WHOLLY OWNED subsidiaries of
corporate America” and still have democrats within
them.

Try it in a Venn Diagram, that should help.

BTW, just who, “oh angry one” in your opinion are
these democrats (their party affiliation along with
that would be helpful).

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 13, 2011 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

For the disenchanted!

We have a system which smacks of good old boy cronyism, a representative congress which is representative; not to the people who fight wars and die, not to those who go to prison, not to the unemployed who lost their homes, it goes to a pack of liars beholding to other liars who just happen to have lots of money the lobbyists, super packs, 403C’s, this is the 1 percent.  Clearly criminal in nature and disgusting in practice, but only if you are not the selected few, the fortunate 1 percent?  This scheme called a system touts itself a democracy where money is speech and corporations are people, a democracy appearing as anything but.

As our so called previous decider, George Bush once stated with bravo, ‘we are spreading Democracy around the world’, when in reality he and his were spreading something, actually themselves and ceiling it Democracy!

Our nation is living an illusion and lead by a pack of few, the monied opportunists and their hangers on.  It would seem our founding fathers would dispersed what we have now become. 

Occupy Wall Street is screaming at the top of its lungs, pointing at the rotted structure, supported by a foundation built on the backs of the sold out 99 percent!

Getting the money out stands as much chance of becoming real as a teabag emulating enlightenment, for the money is speech few are against truth or facts, ...for truth must never be allowed near the table, then we would not be the fantasy representative democracy.

Report this

By ardee, November 13, 2011 at 7:14 am Link to this comment

Foucauldian, November 12 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment

There’s no contradiction there, is there?

Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, the departed Russ Feingold ...

Well, Bernie is a socialist not a democrat, Dennis lacks a spine, Barney is a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking community, though, to be as fair as possible, he makes liberal noises on occasion. You are right on the mark about Feingold, perhaps that is why he is no longer among us.

Of course, overall, your point is well taken, if the examples not so much.

Report this

By ardee, November 13, 2011 at 4:42 am Link to this comment

Outraged, November 12 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

Re: ardee

You disprove yourself.

You claim: ” that exists within the Democratic Party. Both are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America”

“I” claim that ,yes. and I am far from alone in that claim.

But also claim: ” Of course there are good folks sitting in Congress, many of them democrats in fact. Both of these could not possibly be true.

I wish you would give a bit of thought to your posts prior to making them public, though your name indicates ,perhaps, a lack of thought in general.

Of course my statement can be true, and if you actually ponder you might agree, though I hold out little hope of your “pondering”. Ponder this, oh angry one; there is a difference between Democrats and democrats. There is a difference between speaking about an individual and an institution. There are indeed well meaning democrats, trapped within a Democratic Party that has suppressed progressive goals in favor of corporate ownership and continued funding..

Whatever happened to Al Franken anyway? Oh yeah he became a part of the Democratic Party machine and was ,at least ideologically, ground up within its gears.

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 12, 2011 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment

There’s no contradiction there, is there?

Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, the
departed Russ Feingold ...

Report this

By CanDoJack, November 12, 2011 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

from CanDoJack

Leefeller, I appreciate your input.

Fear is definitely a motivator. I am as certain as I am
about anything that motivating fear will separate blather
from lather as the days go by faster and get shorter.

People know fear now who never had to before. When all a
person has strived for is tossed out like trash by the
garbage men of the empowered; When a person lies outside
in the cold, perhaps with children and worries whether
the nigh watchmen of the powerful will just roust them or
club them to death or simply wreck their cranial hardware
with a flare cannister; When some find their false
prophets have their blather pistols loaded with caca
opaca de la vaca paca and not with jesus logos; When all
the doctors have left to treat wired or wireless wounded
with is placebo that smells faintly of blather; well,
then maybe the “good” book will fulfill its prophecy of
people praying for the rocks to fall on them.

And some crusty ones will say the drastic increase in
suicides is just a step toward reducing the population to
a manageable level.

What is slow to come to consciousness (perhaps because it
is unknown) is that it is too late to upgrade the system
software and reboot.

Norwegians have had a long time to talk together and
reason until it becomes natural for each to think of the
other’s wealth and welfare as germane to their own.

Once, while wandering around the island of Bali I stopped
along the road and talked with a rice farmer who spoke
English well. Somewhere in the conversation he said, “How
could I hurt you? We are part of the same organism.”

Someday soon, though we might be unable to build an
appropriate social consciousness quickly enough, we might
have time to consider the difference between the
implications and ramifications of empathy/responsibility
and authoritative mindsets.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

Re: ardee

You disprove yourself.

You claim: ” that exists within the Democratic
Party. Both are wholly owned subsidiaries of
corporate America”

But also claim: ” Of course there are good folks
sitting in Congress, many of them democrats in fact.

Both of these could not possibly be true.

Report this

By ardee, November 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment

For the Greens not to accept money is noble, but what would happened if the Democrats did the same thing as the Greens and we know the Republicans are connected at the elbow to the money, so it will never happen for them.

No, no, Lee The Greens do indeed accept money, just not from the sources that have used that money to purchase government. If the Democrats did the same as the Greens, which they haven’t nor ever will I believe, then perhaps there would be no need for a Green Party.

While you profess to understand the attachment ( elbow or further down) that Republicans have for corporate funding I get a sense that you are not as willing to note the same attachment, and probably in the same place, that exists within the Democratic Party. Both are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America and that is the gist of the problem and the necessity for a third party.

Certainly the decision by the GOP to utilize the crazies on the right to elect Georgie is analogous to “boy rides tiger, cannot dismount” . Now they are saddled with a number of legislators unfit to call themselves such, as to legislate involves compromise and more than a bit of sanity. The current race to the bottom to see who will carry the banner for Republican insanity shows this plainly enough, a barrel of chimps fighting to show which of them is more stupid.

But one should be honest about the state of the Democratic Party, far too many of whom are just about as nuts as their across the aisle counterparts, without, it saddens me to note, the ability to carry out an agenda, any agenda. Of course there are good folks sitting in Congress, many of them democrats in fact. But recent history plainly shows them to be , as a party, incompetent, unfocussed, unable to throw down with their counterparts and thus losing constantly. Who needs them?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 12, 2011 at 10:28 am Link to this comment

I’m outraged over Outrage’s impeccable logic being overwhelmed by counter productive idealism. It’s a sad state of affairs when pragmatism must take precedence over idealism, but that is the state of affairs. Outrage directs his outrage at the most outrageous in order to defeat the most outrageous. The strategy of counter productive idealists seems to be to submit to the rule of the most outrageous in order to build an army against the most outrageous. We’d be better served by reforming the outrageous while avoiding the most outrageous.

What’s as plain as noses on faces is that there would be no Attorney General Kamala Harris if the most outrageous held the office of Attorney General.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 12, 2011 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

Not sure I agree with the idea it is power that corrupts, it may be more like power attracts a certain kinds of people? For the Greens not to accept money is noble, but what would happened if the Democrats did the same thing as the Greens and we know the Republicans are connected at the elbow to the money, so it will never happen for them.

So Lakoff defines progressives as tending to be empathic and responsible while Republicans are authoritative, what of the important factor known as fear? 

As I see it, popularization is used to divide the populous into separated bickering factions.  I do not feel the Democrats are resistant to using fear, but for now the Democrats do not weal fear with quite the same gusto as the Repulcians. For the present the Democrats seem always to be in a more defensive stance, so for now the Republicans have the ball.  Guess fear is only used by the party in power offensively.  The same old story, the good cop bad cop thing?  Apparently fear helps partisanship perpetuates its own existence.

Fear works extremely well in motivating people to vote against their own best interests, this may explain many things. After all Religion has used fear for thousands of years,  Fear is quite the motivator for support of differing degrees of partisanship. Successes of fear used to gain partisanship is nothing new, but in religion there are almost as many variances of fear as their are years in which it has been used.

If the common good is ever going to achieve a foot hold and becomes a viable option, it may mean human nature itself needs an eye awaking mass enema, possibly the new generation may just be on to something and this is a wake up call they are in the high colonic stages of awareness, but without the fragrance of rose water?

Report this

By ardee, November 12, 2011 at 5:25 am Link to this comment

It is probably safe to say, if there was a dominate Green Party and no Democratic party, the Green party would in time be sold to the hugest bidder. The Cesspool called politics will always have the biggest turds floating to the top. 

Safe? Why? The very nature of the Green Party would seem to preclude your intimation of corruption, Lee. Pledged, as it is, to accept no contribution from corporate sources it is hard to see the potential for said corrupting influence.

I am certainly aware that power corrupts, as I am that the Democrats actually do exist, and are, in fact, the chief reason that the Greens exist as well. I find that your statement despairs of hope or change, thus of what good is it?

Report this

By CanDoJack, November 12, 2011 at 12:45 am Link to this comment

People will do what they are conditioned to do.

Witness the last hundred years of US politics.

Witness the first decade of this century.

The biggest lesson is in PSYCHO PATHS AND CON TRAILS.

Lakoff’s book, THE POLITICAL MIND, uses the concept of
conditioning scripts. PSYCHO PATHS AND CON TRAILS uses
paradigms. Both are developed in a weak minded populace
by the psychopaths at the top.

Democrats suffer from a paralyzing paradigm. They think
third parties are anathema because they do not have
enough people voting democrat to begin with. What votes
they have or get will come, they believe, from Democrats.

Because they have always scared themselves into staying
in the line, in place, and cross their fingers and other
members that democrats will win.

People who are confident a third party will succeed are
confident that enough people and the correct people would
drop and party quickly but democrats would change party
if the third party were progresive.

Lakoff defines progressive as being empathic and
responsible. Republicans are authoritative. If a
progressive third party were introduced, Republicans who
chafe at authoritative bits would quickly go to the third
party. And those democrats who are not corrupt would flow
out of the democrat camp and into the third party easily
and sufficiently.

Report this

By GJS, November 11, 2011 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey Outraged:  Your quote.
There one simple reason people will not vote for a
third party president and that is that they have no
chance of being elected, regardless of what you may
feel.  I’d be foolish.

You make my case thank you, what a simplistic & defeatest attitude you have, YOU & people like you are the reason we are in the mess we are in now.

You do NOT want change, you are the problem !

Report this

By radson, November 11, 2011 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment

To the Truthdig Staff
Vous etres un gang de vendues ;a mug would have been reasonable ;yet you choose nothing

so here’s for nothing

Report this

By litlpeep, November 11, 2011 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

California refuses to cooperate with Obama’s filthy scam on behalf of the scum bag bankers!

Well, at least there is one state remaining in the union.

Report this

By radson, November 11, 2011 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment

Hello bob where’s my mug

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 11, 2011 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment

I suppose it can be stated, tis not only the 99 percent being disenfranchised by the 1 percent, if partisan politics has any say in it. For the common good is not a one party monopoly!

It is probably safe to say, if there was a dominate Green Party and no Democratic party, the Green party would in time be sold to the hugest bidder. The Cesspool called politics will always have the biggest turds floating to the top. 

Occupy Wall Street is the closest thing I have seen to a populous movement for the common good. Though in time the Occupy moment may become what it despises! I believe it is the nature of the beast.

Let me make this clear, I am only surmising my opinion as I feel right now, and I hope my surmising is wrong!

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, November 11, 2011 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

Critical steps in the healing of the economic system is first NOT to cut social services - for the same if not a better reasons than the Repubs want no tax increases in a recession, and even more important is to re-instate Glass Steagal and protect the commercial depositors from the investment banking pimps.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 11, 2011 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

Re: ardee

I guess “pie in the sky loyalty to a party” is
in the eye of the beholder…..

Report this

By ardee, November 11, 2011 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

Outraged, November 11 at 10:36 am Link to this comment

There one simple reason people will not vote for a third party president and that is that they have no chance of being elected, regardless of what you may feel.  I’d be foolish.

So, do you really,truly believe people vote for the Green candidate for President because they think she might win? Foolish you said and foolish is your reasoning.

The Greens are committed to a grassroots building of that party in local and state elections, running a national candidate only to keep name recognition prominent. Also, recognizing the “foolishness” of continuing to vote for Tweedledee or Tweedledum, both of whose track records , despite your impassioned plea otherwise, are focused on the wealthy and care not a bit for you until its time to ,once again, trick you into voting for them.

As to your pie in the sky loyalty to a party that has betrayed you at every turn, well, you are entitled.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 11, 2011 at 11:22 am Link to this comment

Re: PatrickHenry

Your comment: “This worrys me more than if a
candidate is electable or not.”

This worries me too, especially as we see the
Republicans have made an all out war on voting. Look
what happened in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race:

“Nickolaus said she decided to take the election
data collection and storage system off the county’s
computer network – and keep it on stand-alone
personal computers accessible only in her office –
for security reasons….

...It is strange that we should suddenly find over
7,000 missing votes in a county that uses a different
system than the rest with little to no oversight of
the results. There may not be any fraud at all, but
it does raise questions. It’s also a little odd that
you have the clerk, Nickolaus, claiming that her
system is secure from failure and then somehow
magically turning up over seven thousand votes that
were missing due to a computer error.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/04/07/questions-surround-votes-found-in-waukesha-county/

To add insult to injury:

“Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus was using a
software program created especially for her by the
state Government Accountability Board when she made
the huge error in compiling results for the State
Supreme Court race between incumbent David Prosser
and challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. The special
program was revealed in an email sent to other county
clerks and released by the Kloppenburg campaign to
buttress her claim that an independent investigation
of Nickolaus’ office is needed.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x965063

So yeah, I hear ya. Of course since then this same “elected” judge has had one of the other State Supremes “run their neck into his hands” during a disagreement in one of the chambers. He’s a effing nut job almost without equal.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 11, 2011 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

It will be interesting to see if the money defeats Elizabeth Warren, yes we should get the money out, we need to get the money out. The concept and idea that money is free speech is deluded, just as insane with the opinion corporations are people!

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 11, 2011 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

“Outraged” definitely shouldn’t be your handle,
Outraged.

Just sayin ...

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 11, 2011 at 10:49 am Link to this comment

Outraged,

Ron Paul won a straw poll in Iowa recently, in every district with hand count ballots he won in those districts with computer voting machines he lost.

It has already been proven that a 12 year old with $26 in store bought hardware can change the results of a precinct.

This worrys me more than if a candidate is electable or not.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 11, 2011 at 10:36 am Link to this comment

There one simple reason people will not vote for a
third party president and that is that they have no
chance of being elected, regardless of what you may
feel.  I’d be foolish.

There are reasons to support the Democrats. Did the
Democrats attempt to stifle voting with voter ID
laws?  Did the Democrats introduce “personhood
legislation”? Did the Democrats attempt to disband
unions?

Some act as if “there’s no difference” which I hear
AD NAUSEUM. There is a difference. Do we need to get
money out of politics? Absolutely.  But shooting
yourself in the foot won’t do it.  We have one year
until the election, an election that is going to
spend untold billions and you seem to think that some
no-name without money has a chance to win?  I don’t
think so.  It’s as simple as that. If you believe this where are all these names…..where’s the massive list of people ready to vote that way…..? It doesn’t exist.

We can get the money out of politics, but it’ll take a while and be a struggle. Here’s a petition to Reverse Citizens United by amending the Constitution, again by the Democrats (do you see any Republicans in there?).
http://petition.reversecitizensunited.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5007&tag=rcu_url

The Democrats and the Republicans are not the same. That’s hogwash. Yes we need to clean up the Democratic Party, but first and foremost we’ll need to GET THE MONEY OUT.

The best way to get a third party elected President is to have a TRUSTED candidate with a track record. Like Bernie Sanders for instance, but if he were to run (he’s said he won’t) would even HE have a real chance of winning within the current state of affairs….?

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 11, 2011 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

BTW, check out this site for the kind of examplary
discussion of OWS as to its future and possibilities. 
You wouldn’t want to miss it.

The entire url may not be highlighted, but here it is
anyway:  http://www.thenation.com/video/164494/watch-
michael-moore-naomi-klein-and-others-tonight-whats-
next-ows

Report this

By oregoncharles, November 11, 2011 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

How outrageous, Mr. Scheer?  Are you ready to vote and campaign against him?

Have you learned the lesson about who the Democrats really are, aside from a handful like Ms. Harris, who actually respond to public pressure?  The national party, in particular, is utterly corrupt, and prepared to manipulate the nomination process, as they did against Howard Dean - before he went over to them.

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 11, 2011 at 9:39 am Link to this comment

ardee,

I once stated on another site that our well-meaning
liberal friends are the greatest obstacle to true
democracy—and that was long before OWS on anyone’s
map—and you can’t imagine the kind of wrath that
was unleashed.  It’d rather deal with the most rabid
conservatives, for then I know who I’m dealing with,
rather than with people who are always full of
excuses no matter what.

BTW, I’ll keep you informed as to “the project” as
soon as we make some headway.  I’m trying to prepare
the ground, if you know what I mean.

Report this

By ardee, November 11, 2011 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

Foucauldian, November 11 at 9:03 am

This point, which you frame rather well in fact, has been repeated, re-repeated, almost ad nauseum, without a glimmer of a clue from Democratic Party loyalists.

Regardless of the abysmal record of the Obama administration these poor folks plod on, head down, eyes firmly shut and hands in place over their ears. No matter how many times one points out the facts that pointedly show the Democrats to be either complicit or incompetent, sometimes both at the same time, this canard that Lafayette raises, in almost cyclic fashion, returns as if a last desperate gasp to defend a vote for a democrat.

Revolutionaries have noted that ,sometimes, things just have to get worse before real change can be addressed. This is something I would fervently hope to avoid considering the suffering we currently find in today’s world. There might of course actually be a nuanced difference in a Romney Presidency when compared to an Obama re-election.

Yet, with a Democratic Congress and one in the Oval Orifice, we have seen how a Republican minority ran the roost. Thus, if Romney is actually elected, why would an admirer of Democrats not be confident that his beloved party might be at least as effective as has the GOP in blocking all that Lafayette fears might occur?

We are all familiar I am certain with the old saw about insanity being a state of doing the same thing over and again and expecting differing results. I would hope that, as the do nothing Democrats and the refuse everything Rethugs play their tragic games, the electorate might remember that saying while in the voting booths.

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 11, 2011 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

Lafayette, Nov 11, 2:11 am

“Would you rather that Obama avow to his
miscalculations and be defeated? Would you prefer a
Milt Romney in the White House? I wouldn’t.”

It’s precisely think kind of thinking which stands in
the way of any meaningful change—business as usual.

To expect any meaningful and lasting solutions given
the present political-economic setup is sheer lunacy.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, November 11, 2011 at 2:11 am Link to this comment

ELECTIONEERING

RS: but it is outrageous that a president who avowedly committed to defending the public interest would now be subverting that effort rather than leading it.

Perhaps, RS, but we are presently in a election-year.

Would you rather that Obama avow to his miscalculations and be defeated? Would you prefer a Milt Romney in the White House? I wouldn’t.

A PotUS cannot get elected without campaign donations - and those donations come from all quarters of the American industry and commerce. That matter is quite another subjecct - to be treated with much needed revisions of campaign financing of American national and state elections.

MY POINT

We must get corporate donations out of the individual candidate campaign donation circuit. Let companies donate, even by means of tax credits, to “get-out-the-vote” campaigns - since we Americans have demonstrated an awful disdain of our electoral process by very poor voter turnouts.

A FURTHER POINT

If we, the sheeple, showed a real preference for Progressive Values - with its responses to both Income Disparity as well as Corporate Influence in politics - I am sure that a Barack Obama would embrace them.

He’d be a fool to disregard them if he wanted to get re-elected.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, November 11, 2011 at 2:02 am Link to this comment

My major statements are based on documentation.  The statement regarding the Janny Scott book and Obama deception are observations.  Numerous bloggers have observed the deceptions of “Barack H. Obama”, to include a few who typically shill for him !

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, November 11, 2011 at 1:57 am Link to this comment

FINANCIAL ENGINEERING FRAUD

RS: Traditionally the states provided the essential regulation of mortgage origination, ownership and sales as a transparent process duly recorded and subject to public examination at the county level. But in order to facilitate the gathering of those mortgages into the sort of collateralized debt obligations that the banks could then bet on and trade worldwide, homeownership became a murky matter.

Indeed it did, with some artful trickery.

The Investment Bankers securitizing the loans into Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs) knew perfectly well the differentiation between SubPrime, Alt-A and Prime loans.

So, they “perfumed” the potential Toxic Waste SIVs by adding some Prime and Alt-A loans, in case of an audit (by the Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs), which never occurred anyway). They added just enough to cover the stench of toxicity. The Investment Bankers then obtained Triple-A ratings for the SIVs from their cronies-in-crime at the CRAs.

Those who were potential buyers were told that the SIVs were “real estate backed” giving them an odor of propriety that real-estate lends to international transacting.

The entire process was an elaborate piece of financial engineering fraud.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, November 11, 2011 at 1:40 am Link to this comment

PROPORTIONALITY

RS: Citigroup executives get off with a fine and by offering a promise not to do it again, and again and again.

RS is right on this one - a crime’s punishment should have proportionality with the seriousness of the crime.

As regards the fraud perpetrated during the subprime debacle, the guilty parties were both the real-estate agents and banks that generated non-creditworthy debt - that the Investment Banks sold on as “Triple-A” investment instruments to a gullible world.

They should be banned from employment in the Banking/Finance industry. Milken was just such an example and he was indeed ostracized by judicial decree from a banking career. Of course, by then, he had made his millions - he retired to the sunny climes of California.

POST SCRIPTUM

The banks and real-estate agents who peddled the predatory loans are not the only one’s to blame. Jack ‘n Jill America also had a responsibility in promoting the fraud. They had calculated that, with a bit of luck, they could get in and out of the market whilst making a quick hundred-thousand.

Yet another example of the bent for Instant Gratification so very much alive in our national spirit. That mentality reigned from 2000 to 2007 and, with a return of circumstances, the perfidy could reign once again in the American mentality.

Have we lost, as a nation of people, our sense of human dignity and morality?

Methinks yes.

Report this

By GJS, November 11, 2011 at 1:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

WHY ARE PEOPLE SO AFRAID OF VOTING AGAINST THE 2 MAIN PARTIES ?????????????
THEY ARE THE CAUSE OF THIS & ENABLED OTHERS TO ROB US ALL.
SURELY PEOPLE HAVE NOT BECOME SO GUTLESS THEY WON’T BREAK WITH TRADITION, NOT EVEN FOR THEIR KIDS OR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
I HONESTLY DON’T KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING TO PEOPLES THOUGHT PROCESSES.
THIS IS VIRTUALLY YOU & YOURS LIFE OR DEATH.
PLEASE WAKE UP, WHILE WE CAN STILL CHANGE THINGS !

Report this

By clarence, November 10, 2011 at 11:56 pm Link to this comment

Meanwhile, California just switched from sending Unemployment checks inthe same envelope with the claim forms to a system where BoA issues everybody a debit card.  You still get an envelope with your claim form, but you have to gou have to wait for BoA to get around to putting your money on your card.  It took me an hour or two, including a call to customer service where a nice lady helped steer me through the process, but I arranged to have it automatically sent to may credit uniom.  But BoA still gets to hold it for a while.  I used to get my check the Saturday after I mailed it in.  Under the new system, I waited over a month and eventually got three payments (6 weeks worth) on the same day.

I haven’t seen anything about this anywhere.  How did BoA get this sweet contract?  How much are they making?  Why, for example, couldn’t I have arranged for UI to send the money directly to my checking account.  How’s it working out for people even less tech savvy than I?  I finally got the three payments because I went to UI’s website and asked about them.  You can spend hours hitting redial trying to get them on the phone.  How much is BoA making on the deal?  And, a cynic might wonder, how much did BoA contribute to Jerry 2.0’s election campaign?

Report this

By ocjim, November 10, 2011 at 10:19 pm Link to this comment

It’s incredible that week after week we write and talk about the criminals in high places and nothing is ever done about them. The Occupy Movement is the only hope I have seen since the neo-conservatives successfully used the naive and brain-washed Ronald Reagan as their puppet, starting the slide for the middle class. The best thing we can say about him is that he didn’t take truckloads of money to serve the plutocrats, he believed. I can’t believe the current crop of puppets can delude themselves that much.

Report this

By CanDoJack, November 10, 2011 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

@drbhelthi
You may be right about that. If the CIA is strong enough
to drone kill kids and overthrow govs, American foreign
workers are easy pickings.

Does anyone know a peace corps worker who was not
“approached” by the CIA for ...?

Report this

By ardee, November 10, 2011 at 5:18 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, November 10 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

Obama is a grave disappointment me too, but the Obstruction Congress may have something to do with his lack of accomplishments, (I know the wars) after all they have an agenda to make Obama a one term president.

Certainly most are or should be familiar with the outrageous conduct of the Republicans in the Legislature. They put their own partisan agenda before the needs and wishes of the people of this nation. I think the recent elections in Mississippi and Arizona may denote a tipping point in the American voter. At least I hope so.

I am reminded of the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt who actually understood for whom he worked and from where the power actually stems. The presidency comes with a rather strong “bully pulpit”,to cite yet another Roosevelt, and allows for a direct voice to the people, whether declarative or informational.

Never once, in my memory, has Barack Obama, in his flowery and quite stimulating speeches, followed through. Never once has the Democratic Party, whether in the majority or the minority, waged a fight for what it supposedly believes in, rather they allow the “threat” of a filibuster to act as excuse for allowing corporate wishes to trump the needs, wishes and the will of the people.

The Justice Dept. to add another dimension, has rather an enormous amount of power to investigate and, should the need arise,prosecute. Yet Halliburton continues to rob the public trough, the financial community, which contributed mightily to this economic collapse, not only continues to pay out huge bonuses some of it tax payer money, but continues to speculate and tout risky investments.

Thus I am sorry, but there are two parties to blame here, and both are working , not for the people , but for the large campaign contribution.

Report this

By kibitzer, November 10, 2011 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment

Thanks for the blog, Robert.

Well commented on.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 10, 2011 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment

Good for California, rage against the dying of the light!

States rights issue.  If Obama and the feds don’t like it tell them to pound sand. 

Withhold the federal income and excise taxes.

Report this

By EverythingsJake, November 10, 2011 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment

It’s not yet clear that Harris is “standing up.”  She’s carved out the appearance of having done so without actually having committed to anything (a very Obama like move).  There are reasons to be deeply skeptical - Matt Stoller summarizes here: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/matt-stoller-50-state-settlement-chatter-–-65-million-of-fundraising-and-the-kamala-harris-network.html

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook