I just received the following e-mail from Jamie Hope:
>I don't know if you have seen this on the internet I think Bill O'Reilly is going to do a segment on it on Monday. A church was attacked by this group...Attached is an open letter on the incident that I put together in response.
Hope's Letter Follows
An Open Letter on the Homosexual Attack on Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan
Jamie Hope, Legislative Liaison, Concerned Women for America of Michigan
We as a Christian community in America are responding as a unified Body of Christ to the outrageous assault on Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan, last Sunday, November 9, 2008, by a group of radical self-avowed anarchist gay and lesbian individuals known as “Bash Back.” We are addressing our American Christian community, law enforcement, the media and the groups responsible for and associated with this assault on our civil liberties.
For those in our nation that have not heard of this incident, below is a clip from an article by worldnetdaily.com that best describes the attack on this church:
"'Jesus was gay,' they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the platform. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss," he wrote.
He cited the Bash Back organization's own announcement of other items members brought into the church, including "a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric ..."
According to the alternative Lansing City Pulse – which reported it was notified of the protest ahead of time and sent a reporter along instead of warning the church – the protesters also screamed at parishioners and pulled the church facility's fire alarm. Printed material protesters distributed said, "We specialize in confronting homophobia, transphobia and every and all other forms of oppression."
For the full article go to: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=80743
We as a Christian community in America would first like to address the group ”Bash Back.” While what you did was vile, especially in the presence of children, we forgive you. However, it is unfortunate that you have taken the message of a church and their Biblical beliefs and twisted them into a lie to benefit your cause. First and foremost, Mount Hope Church, and any true Christian church, does not preach hate. Yes, we preach the word of God that states homosexuality is a sin. Mount Hope Church upholds this belief. However, Pastor Dave Williams along with his associate pastors have stated many times that homosexuality is no more a sin than drunkenness, gossip, cohabiting heterosexuals, etc. Mount Hope Church is also very clear that we as Christians are to love one another Christian and non-Christian in spite of our differing views and beliefs. To promote this church as a “hate church” is a satanically-inspired lie to justify crude and lawless behavior. In fact we challenge you to buy or download Pastor Dave’s sermons and find one time where he preaches and promotes hate for homosexuals as people. You will find he condemns the sin not the person. And for any other church in this country that does preach hate, including for homosexuals, they are not of our flock, and we do not count them as Christians. They are counterfeits. Oh and on a side note, we are not a phobic group of individuals. Phobia is a fear. We are not homophobic; we are Bible believing Christians.
We as a Christian community in America would also like to address the media. Your slanted coverage and liberal bias toward our community is coming to an end. We are taking back our rights, our country and standing up for our God. The fact that the only local news coverage (other than the internet) was the Lansing State Journal is a sad testament to your journalistic integrity. The four local news stations, WILX TV 10, WLNS TV 6, WLAJ 3, WSYM 47 failed miserably in their ability to accurately report the news in their community. The fact that a supposed journalist from Lansing City Pulse was aware that this attack was going to happen in a church where children were present shows the selfish ambition and corrupt morals of people who look out for their own interests ahead of the safety of children. This was a heinous assault on a group of innocent church attendees by a radical self-avowed lawless group and not one station bothered to even report this story. If this were a group of church people that stormed a gay and lesbian rally with terrorist style clothing and defaced their property and told them they were going to hell for being gay, this would not only make local news but their would be a public cry from CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. There would be protests and riots in the streets. But because you have shown especially through the election that you are biased and liberal and no longer “just report the news” but push your personal agendas, we are firing you. You are fully discredited until you begin reporting unbiased news.
Law enforcement, where were you? You were at the church, but did you do your job? Why were there no arrests? We would like answers. From the story reported, it appears this group has already labeled themselves as not conforming to the laws of our society (anarchy). They assaulted a church, defaced property, disturbed the peace, potentially emotionally abused children for exposing them to a threatening environment and yet, no arrests. We as a Christian community are calling upon local law enforcement and the Attorney General to investigate this incident, arrest those responsible and charge them with the appropriate crimes. Just because we are a forgiving people does not mean these individuals should not face the consequences of their actions. We need to hold people accountable for their actions when they break the law. By your silence and lack of urgency in this matter you have sent a very clear and powerful message to radical groups and to every Christian in America.
For the true Christian church and not those counterfeit Christians who preach hate and false doctrine, it is time for us to unite with one another and separate ourselves from the counterfeits. We may vary in our denominations, but we all believe Jesus is the Son of God and the only way to heaven. For those churches and organizations that espouse these beliefs, we need to work together and come together to show the rest of America that we are a voice in this country, we are a community in this country and we deserve to enjoy our freedoms in this country without fear of persecution. It is a common characteristic for Christians to love their enemy, pray for their enemy and forgive. But do not let us forget the teachings of Jesus himself in John 2:13-17, Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-18 and Luke 19:45-46. When it was time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the moneychangers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
Jesus was outraged. He did not walk into the temple and tell those people who were desecrating the temple, “I will pray for you brother; it’s okay.” No, he acted and destroyed what was an abomination in the eyes of God. He defended God and drove out all those that were discrediting God by their corrupt actions.
We as a Christian community in America no longer can afford to stay within our churches and act as “Sunday” Christians. We who are good are now being called evil, and those who are evil are now being called good. Some of this is due to our own inaction. It is time we revive our Christian beliefs and act as a unified Body of Christ. Speak out, act out, call your representatives, senators, news stations and write to your papers that this will no longer be tolerated among the Body of Christ.
Jamie Hope
Legislative Liaison
Concerned Women for America
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Breaking: President George W. Bush Confused about Definition of "Capitalism"
Speaking at the Manhattan Institute yesterday, George W. Bush said that he believes in capitalism, arguing that:
"the surest path to...growth is free markets and free people."
It seems to me that President Bush is confused. Free markets and free people are by definition independent of government. Dictionary.com defines capitalism as:
"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
President Bush has:
-used a government agency, the Federal Reserve Bank, to pump endless amounts of money into the economy for the past eight years causing massive distortion, over-building, over-purchasing and economic dislocation
-aimed to solve these government-induced problems, induced during his administration, by pumping even more money into the system
-caused the federal government to take a $150 billion stake in an insurance company, AIG, to help his cronies on Wall Street
-caused Congress to authorize $750 billion in bailout money to interfere with market forces
-overseen massive growth in the federal government budget
-failed to cut any government agencies or budgets of note
It seems to me that President Bush is confused. Capitalism means private ownership. The bailout his chief economic advisor, Henry Paulson, has engineered involves new breakthroughs toward public ownership.
The current instability in the economy is indeed due to big government, specifically the past 28 years of Federal Reserve policy, mostly during Republican administrations.
The Bush presidency has convinced me that northeasterners and anyone associated with a university in the northeast ought not to be allowed near the levers of power. President Bush, a graduate of the Harvard Business School, does not seem to know what capitalism means. He does not know what markets are. He is an economic illiterate. He is the symptom of an underlying problem. Progressivism, the dominant ideology in the northeast, is opposed to freedom and opposed to free markets.
"the surest path to...growth is free markets and free people."
It seems to me that President Bush is confused. Free markets and free people are by definition independent of government. Dictionary.com defines capitalism as:
"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
President Bush has:
-used a government agency, the Federal Reserve Bank, to pump endless amounts of money into the economy for the past eight years causing massive distortion, over-building, over-purchasing and economic dislocation
-aimed to solve these government-induced problems, induced during his administration, by pumping even more money into the system
-caused the federal government to take a $150 billion stake in an insurance company, AIG, to help his cronies on Wall Street
-caused Congress to authorize $750 billion in bailout money to interfere with market forces
-overseen massive growth in the federal government budget
-failed to cut any government agencies or budgets of note
It seems to me that President Bush is confused. Capitalism means private ownership. The bailout his chief economic advisor, Henry Paulson, has engineered involves new breakthroughs toward public ownership.
The current instability in the economy is indeed due to big government, specifically the past 28 years of Federal Reserve policy, mostly during Republican administrations.
The Bush presidency has convinced me that northeasterners and anyone associated with a university in the northeast ought not to be allowed near the levers of power. President Bush, a graduate of the Harvard Business School, does not seem to know what capitalism means. He does not know what markets are. He is an economic illiterate. He is the symptom of an underlying problem. Progressivism, the dominant ideology in the northeast, is opposed to freedom and opposed to free markets.
John Winthrop: The First Progressive
Most people think of John Winthrop as the first social conservative because of his "City on a Hill" speech that he gave on board the ship Arbella before landing to become the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630. But an equally famous speech by Winthrop is his "Little Speech" given upon the conclusion of a trial for "arbitrary government" when he had been acquitted. Although Winthrop was arguably the first social conservative, his elitism, emphasis on imposed morality and belief that social justice ought to trump freedom and natural liberty are consistent with Progressivism as well as intermediate elitist American ideologies, to include Hamilton's Federalism and the early nineteenth cenutry Whigs of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln. In saying that moral liberty is "maintained and exercised in a way of subjection to authority" Winthrop applies the logic of John Dewey. American elitism flows from Winthrop to Hamilton, to Clay to Dewey, to Roosevelt. Progressivism has roots in Puritanism, just as liberalism does.
In his "Little Speech" Winthrop stated:
"For the other point concerning liberty, I observe a great mistake in the country about that. There is a twofold liberty, natural (I mean as our nature is now corrupt) and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good. This liberty is incompatible and inconsistent with authority, and cannot endure the least restraint of the most just authority. The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil, and in time to be worse than brute beasts: omnes sumus licentia deteriores. This is that great enemy of truth and peace, that wild beast, which all of the ordinances of God are bent against, to restrain and subdue it. The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions amongst men themselves. This liberty is the proper end and object of authority and cannot subsist without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is good, just, and honest. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard (not only of your goods, but) of your lives, if need be. Whatsoever crosseth this is not authority but a distemper thereof. This liberty is maintained and exercised in a way of subjection to authority; it is of the same kind of liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. The women's own choice makes such a man her husband; yet, being so chosen, he is her lord, and she is to be subject to him, yet in a way of liberty, not of bondage; and a true wife accounts her subjection her honor and freedom and would not think her condition safe and free but in her subjection to her husband's authority. Such is the liberty of the church under the authority of Christ, her king and husband; his yoke is so easy and sweet to her as a bride's ornaments; and if through forwardness or wantonness, etc., she shake it off, at any time, she is at no rest in her spirit, until she take it up again; and whether her lord smiles upon her and embraceth her in his arms, or whether he frowns, or rebukes, or smites her, she apprehends the sweetness of his love in all, and is refreshed, supported, and instructed by every such dispensation of his authority over her. On the other side, ye know who they are that complain of this yoke and say, Let us break their bands, etc.; we will not have this man to rule over us. Even so, brethren, it will be between you and your magistrates. If you want to stand for your natural corrupt liberties, and will do what is good in your own eyes, you will not endure the least weight of authority, but will murmur, and oppose, and be always striving to shake off that yoke; but if you will be satisfied to enjoy such civil and lawful liberties, such as Christ allows you, then will you quietly and cheerfully submit unto that authority which is set over you, in all the administrations of it, for your good. Wherein, if we fail at any time, we hope we shall be willing (by God's assistance) to hearken to good advice from any of you, or in any other way of God; so shall your liberties be preserved in upholding the honor and power of authority amongst you.
In his "Little Speech" Winthrop stated:
"For the other point concerning liberty, I observe a great mistake in the country about that. There is a twofold liberty, natural (I mean as our nature is now corrupt) and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good. This liberty is incompatible and inconsistent with authority, and cannot endure the least restraint of the most just authority. The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil, and in time to be worse than brute beasts: omnes sumus licentia deteriores. This is that great enemy of truth and peace, that wild beast, which all of the ordinances of God are bent against, to restrain and subdue it. The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions amongst men themselves. This liberty is the proper end and object of authority and cannot subsist without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is good, just, and honest. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard (not only of your goods, but) of your lives, if need be. Whatsoever crosseth this is not authority but a distemper thereof. This liberty is maintained and exercised in a way of subjection to authority; it is of the same kind of liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. The women's own choice makes such a man her husband; yet, being so chosen, he is her lord, and she is to be subject to him, yet in a way of liberty, not of bondage; and a true wife accounts her subjection her honor and freedom and would not think her condition safe and free but in her subjection to her husband's authority. Such is the liberty of the church under the authority of Christ, her king and husband; his yoke is so easy and sweet to her as a bride's ornaments; and if through forwardness or wantonness, etc., she shake it off, at any time, she is at no rest in her spirit, until she take it up again; and whether her lord smiles upon her and embraceth her in his arms, or whether he frowns, or rebukes, or smites her, she apprehends the sweetness of his love in all, and is refreshed, supported, and instructed by every such dispensation of his authority over her. On the other side, ye know who they are that complain of this yoke and say, Let us break their bands, etc.; we will not have this man to rule over us. Even so, brethren, it will be between you and your magistrates. If you want to stand for your natural corrupt liberties, and will do what is good in your own eyes, you will not endure the least weight of authority, but will murmur, and oppose, and be always striving to shake off that yoke; but if you will be satisfied to enjoy such civil and lawful liberties, such as Christ allows you, then will you quietly and cheerfully submit unto that authority which is set over you, in all the administrations of it, for your good. Wherein, if we fail at any time, we hope we shall be willing (by God's assistance) to hearken to good advice from any of you, or in any other way of God; so shall your liberties be preserved in upholding the honor and power of authority amongst you.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Is It Time for a New Conservative Party?
In 1970, James L. Buckley, William F. Buckley's brother, was able to win a US Senate seat in New York on the Conservative Party ticket. Buckley was the last US Senator elected on a third party ticket.
The Republican Party has let people who believe in freedom down. This is true nationally and in many states, including New York. It seems to me that social conservatives and those who believe in less government (and are social liberals) comprise a majority of the vote. A moderately free market, pro-budget reduction and mildly social conservative party might be able to win 35% of the vote if packaged in a serious way. This would enable a third party to win elections against a Progressive Republican Party that is socially conservative plus in favor of big government and a progressive Democratic Party that is socially liberal but also in favor of big government and anti-freedom.
Third parties have a history of protest but not electoral success. The Republican Party was built on the remains of the early 19th century Whig Party and was not really a third party even in the beginning.
Nevertheless, the electoral system is broken. It no longer represents the mainstream American viewpoint of liberty, liberalism (in the 19th century meaning), economic dynamism and traditional Christian values. The Republicans have been good at cultural and military issues. The Democrats have been good at income redistribution and economic decline. Neither has been good at what most Americans care about: improving economic opportunity.
It may be time to seriously consider a third party that reflects the interests of freedom-loving Americans.
The Republican Party has let people who believe in freedom down. This is true nationally and in many states, including New York. It seems to me that social conservatives and those who believe in less government (and are social liberals) comprise a majority of the vote. A moderately free market, pro-budget reduction and mildly social conservative party might be able to win 35% of the vote if packaged in a serious way. This would enable a third party to win elections against a Progressive Republican Party that is socially conservative plus in favor of big government and a progressive Democratic Party that is socially liberal but also in favor of big government and anti-freedom.
Third parties have a history of protest but not electoral success. The Republican Party was built on the remains of the early 19th century Whig Party and was not really a third party even in the beginning.
Nevertheless, the electoral system is broken. It no longer represents the mainstream American viewpoint of liberty, liberalism (in the 19th century meaning), economic dynamism and traditional Christian values. The Republicans have been good at cultural and military issues. The Democrats have been good at income redistribution and economic decline. Neither has been good at what most Americans care about: improving economic opportunity.
It may be time to seriously consider a third party that reflects the interests of freedom-loving Americans.
Berg, Martin, Donofrio, Oh My!
Count Us Out summarizes the litigation and other actions surrounding Barack Obama's birth certificate (h/t Bob Robbins). Count Us Out notes that The Universal Seduction writes that Rosary films has offered one million dollars for the original vault copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate. With $650 million in campaign donations, much of it from illegal foreign contributors, what would the Obama campaign do with a paltry million?
Count us Out notes that TB Bradley, a forensic psychologist, has filed the following case:
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 16 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 71
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE NO. 02-08-CV-04083 PHILLIP BERG, ESQ. PLAINT1FF
V.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, JR., AKA BARRY SOETORO, CITIZEN OF INDONESIA DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR APPLICATION TO INTERVENE WITH COMPLAINT
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES
AND MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Applicant is a Forensic Psychologist who works for the Criminal Justice System and the Courts.
2. Upon reading all of the books written by or about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. aka Barry 50etoro, (hereinafter Obama) Applicant discerned that Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States or if he was a natural born citizen that he had lost his citizenship when his biological mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia. And, Obama then became a citizen of Indonesia as a result of his mother's expatriation of herself and her son, by self declaration on legal public educational records that Obama was formally known as Barry Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia.
3. Hence, Applicant discerned that Obama was not US Constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of the United States Senator from Illinois or the Office of the President of the United States.
Read it here.
Count us Out is doing an excellent job tracking all of the litigation. It is certainly a phenomena in itself.
Count us Out notes that TB Bradley, a forensic psychologist, has filed the following case:
Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 16 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 71
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE NO. 02-08-CV-04083 PHILLIP BERG, ESQ. PLAINT1FF
V.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, JR., AKA BARRY SOETORO, CITIZEN OF INDONESIA DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR APPLICATION TO INTERVENE WITH COMPLAINT
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES
AND MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Applicant is a Forensic Psychologist who works for the Criminal Justice System and the Courts.
2. Upon reading all of the books written by or about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. aka Barry 50etoro, (hereinafter Obama) Applicant discerned that Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States or if he was a natural born citizen that he had lost his citizenship when his biological mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia. And, Obama then became a citizen of Indonesia as a result of his mother's expatriation of herself and her son, by self declaration on legal public educational records that Obama was formally known as Barry Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia.
3. Hence, Applicant discerned that Obama was not US Constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of the United States Senator from Illinois or the Office of the President of the United States.
Read it here.
Count us Out is doing an excellent job tracking all of the litigation. It is certainly a phenomena in itself.
Contrairimairi Stands Up to KC Propaganda Machine
Contrairimairi just e-mailed that she sent this missive to the Kansas City Star:
Dear Sirs,
Word out is, your paper is going down the tubes due to the unfair reporting during the campaign.
Well, here's a HUGE tip, and I'll bet your readership will skyrocket on just this story alone!
The campaign is NOT over. Millions of Americans are working across the Country to get the FACTS on Mr. Obama BEFORE he sets foot in our White House.
We have watched as his associates have crawled back out of the woodwork once again. Billy Boy calling him a "Family Friend". Admitting that he was silent so Barack could get elected. ( Did you notice in his little "American Flag Trample" picture he was hiding between two very large buildings.....out of site.....where no one who loves this Country could SEE him? A true "yellowbelly" IMHO.) Same with Wright, and Farrakhan.
The contribution question is HUGE also among most reasonable Americans, who just can't fathom why EVERY possible security measure was manually SHUT OFF to allow unlimited contributions from anyone......ANYWHERE.
There are millions who REFUSE to rest until Barack proves his citizenship, or lack thereof. We DEMAND answers to the question, "WHY was Barack actively supporting, and campaigning for Raila Odinga, against our ally, and with a "cousin" who had signed a contract with the same jihadists who attacked the WTC?" When his Auntie was living in squalor in public housing, and his 1/2 brother living in a hut in Africa, he contributed a MILLION dollars to Raila, who was such a sore loser, women and children were burned alive in churches, and slaughtered with machetes in the streets until he was named "Prime Minister" to appease him and end the genocide against his opponents.
How about this part of the story, which passport did Barack use in 1981 to gain access to Indonesia and Pakistan? If we look at his school registration records, will they indicate he actually was enrolled as a "foreign student" to have better access to American education at a "more affordable" price?
Let me put it to you this way......What do YOU actually KNOW about this man?
Have you looked at his Secret Service Registration? FINALLY released because sensible Americans are NOT giving up, even though the media DID. The documents also appear to be a pretty good forgery job, but not good enough to fool Americans. Maybe just someone like YOU!
Do yourself, and your failing newspaper a favor. Give Americans the news THEY WANT..........instead of the news you want to give! We really don't care so much what YOU'RE thinking.....bore us with those details on the editorial pages. Instead, give us the news we want that will sell papers like hot cakes. Then, prepare to start bringing back laid of staff members who want to be JOURNALISTS, and not hacks and cronies afraid of losing their jobs if they don't agree with you.
I'm just sayin'..........
Sincerely,
Mairi
Dear Sirs,
Word out is, your paper is going down the tubes due to the unfair reporting during the campaign.
Well, here's a HUGE tip, and I'll bet your readership will skyrocket on just this story alone!
The campaign is NOT over. Millions of Americans are working across the Country to get the FACTS on Mr. Obama BEFORE he sets foot in our White House.
We have watched as his associates have crawled back out of the woodwork once again. Billy Boy calling him a "Family Friend". Admitting that he was silent so Barack could get elected. ( Did you notice in his little "American Flag Trample" picture he was hiding between two very large buildings.....out of site.....where no one who loves this Country could SEE him? A true "yellowbelly" IMHO.) Same with Wright, and Farrakhan.
The contribution question is HUGE also among most reasonable Americans, who just can't fathom why EVERY possible security measure was manually SHUT OFF to allow unlimited contributions from anyone......ANYWHERE.
There are millions who REFUSE to rest until Barack proves his citizenship, or lack thereof. We DEMAND answers to the question, "WHY was Barack actively supporting, and campaigning for Raila Odinga, against our ally, and with a "cousin" who had signed a contract with the same jihadists who attacked the WTC?" When his Auntie was living in squalor in public housing, and his 1/2 brother living in a hut in Africa, he contributed a MILLION dollars to Raila, who was such a sore loser, women and children were burned alive in churches, and slaughtered with machetes in the streets until he was named "Prime Minister" to appease him and end the genocide against his opponents.
How about this part of the story, which passport did Barack use in 1981 to gain access to Indonesia and Pakistan? If we look at his school registration records, will they indicate he actually was enrolled as a "foreign student" to have better access to American education at a "more affordable" price?
Let me put it to you this way......What do YOU actually KNOW about this man?
Have you looked at his Secret Service Registration? FINALLY released because sensible Americans are NOT giving up, even though the media DID. The documents also appear to be a pretty good forgery job, but not good enough to fool Americans. Maybe just someone like YOU!
Do yourself, and your failing newspaper a favor. Give Americans the news THEY WANT..........instead of the news you want to give! We really don't care so much what YOU'RE thinking.....bore us with those details on the editorial pages. Instead, give us the news we want that will sell papers like hot cakes. Then, prepare to start bringing back laid of staff members who want to be JOURNALISTS, and not hacks and cronies afraid of losing their jobs if they don't agree with you.
I'm just sayin'..........
Sincerely,
Mairi
How the US Government Created Segregated Black Neighborhoods
There is an excellent article by John Steele Gordon in today's Wall Street Journal about the history of banking regulation. The article originally appeared in Commentary. Gordon traces a brief history of banking regulation from the age of Jackson to the present. One of his points is about the origination of redlining, which in turn led to white flight to the suburbs and the segregation of the inner cities. Gordon writes:
"...historically there was also a class, made up mostly of American blacks, for whom home ownership was out of reach. Although simple racial prejudice had long been a factor here, it was, ironically, the New Deal that institutionalized discrimination against blacks seeking mortgages. In 1935 the Federal Housing Administration, established in 1934 to insure home mortgages, asked the Home Owner's Loan Corp.—another New Deal agency, this one created to help prevent foreclosures—to draw up maps of residential areas according to the risk of lending in them. Affluent suburbs were outlined in blue, less desirable areas in yellow, and the least desirable in red.
"The FHA used the maps to decide whether or not to insure a mortgage, which in turn caused banks to avoid the redlined neighborhoods. These tended to be in the inner city and to comprise largely black populations. As most blacks at this time were unable to buy in white neighborhoods, the effect of redlining was largely to exclude even affluent blacks from the mortgage market..."
This federal government-created, racially-linked lending policy was compounded by the urban renewal policies of the 1950s, the archetypal example of which was due to New York's Robert Moses. Under urban renewal, business and factory districts were destroyed or made unworkable by building expressways through the hearts of dozens of working class neighborhoods and direct condemnation of factories and privately owned residences. New York State continues to lead the nation in private use eminent domain and is close to the top in income inequality to this day. It also has the most government intervention and regulation. "Liberals" who claim that regulation will "solve" income inequality would do well to look at New York's "progressive" history.
As much as any other force, federal government mortgage, real estate and urban renewal policy segregated African Americans and deprived them of job opportunities. Coupled with drug illegalization and the institution of union-sponsored regulatory systems that made "blue state" industry uncompetitive, African Americans were frozen out of the primary economy and forced to live in red-lined districts whose economic development was directly attacked or crippled by left-wing and liberal regulation, making economic opportunity unavailable.
"...historically there was also a class, made up mostly of American blacks, for whom home ownership was out of reach. Although simple racial prejudice had long been a factor here, it was, ironically, the New Deal that institutionalized discrimination against blacks seeking mortgages. In 1935 the Federal Housing Administration, established in 1934 to insure home mortgages, asked the Home Owner's Loan Corp.—another New Deal agency, this one created to help prevent foreclosures—to draw up maps of residential areas according to the risk of lending in them. Affluent suburbs were outlined in blue, less desirable areas in yellow, and the least desirable in red.
"The FHA used the maps to decide whether or not to insure a mortgage, which in turn caused banks to avoid the redlined neighborhoods. These tended to be in the inner city and to comprise largely black populations. As most blacks at this time were unable to buy in white neighborhoods, the effect of redlining was largely to exclude even affluent blacks from the mortgage market..."
This federal government-created, racially-linked lending policy was compounded by the urban renewal policies of the 1950s, the archetypal example of which was due to New York's Robert Moses. Under urban renewal, business and factory districts were destroyed or made unworkable by building expressways through the hearts of dozens of working class neighborhoods and direct condemnation of factories and privately owned residences. New York State continues to lead the nation in private use eminent domain and is close to the top in income inequality to this day. It also has the most government intervention and regulation. "Liberals" who claim that regulation will "solve" income inequality would do well to look at New York's "progressive" history.
As much as any other force, federal government mortgage, real estate and urban renewal policy segregated African Americans and deprived them of job opportunities. Coupled with drug illegalization and the institution of union-sponsored regulatory systems that made "blue state" industry uncompetitive, African Americans were frozen out of the primary economy and forced to live in red-lined districts whose economic development was directly attacked or crippled by left-wing and liberal regulation, making economic opportunity unavailable.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Increasing Value of Dollars Offsets Stock Declines
Many people, including myself, have been suffering from declining stock values. Those of us who track our account values may forget that the value of the dollar has increased, and to a surprising degree given the Fed's weak dollar policy. At this point in time, people who have a diversified portfolio that includes a dollop of cash should take heart from the fact that their dollars have increased in value and that this implicit increase, which does not appear on your statement, offsets the declining stock market. This increase in value may offer an additional reason to consider investing the cash in stocks and commodities over the coming year.
Since the summer, the dollar has increased against the Euro by more than 20%, and against the Australian dollar by about one third. Thus, if you are holding a portfolio that includes 1/2 stocks and 1/2 short term money market or treasuries, your decline is not nearly so bad as it seems.
The Dow topped at about $14,164 in October 2007 and is currently at 8,308, a decline of 41%. If you were holding 1/2 short term treasuries and 1/2 stocks, your portfolio has declined by a little less than half that adjusting for interest on your bonds. For instance, if you had $250 in stock and $250 in cash, your portfolio looks like it declined by 41% x 250 - 3% (interest on bonds) x 250 = $95 / $500 = 19%.
But in that calculation you're excluding the gains in the dollar, which are not reflected in your financial statement. The dollar gained about 20% against the Euro, so you've gained 20% x $250 = $50. Subtracting the $50 implicit gain in the dollar from the $95 paper loss gives you a loss of $45. So if you were diversified in cash you suffered a loss of $45 / $500 = 9% net of the dollar gain.
Although a 9% loss is unpleasant for all of us, it is hardly earth shattering to anyone who's been around the stock market via a 401k, mutual fund or brokerage account for the past ten years.
Thus, there is no need to panic. Rather, John H. Cochrane, a professor at the University of Chicago, gives some fascinating advice in today's Wall Street Journal. Cochrane, like Warren Buffett, argues that smart investors should be buying now. Cochrane suggests that the ratio of dividends to price or dividend yield indicates that current valuations are mediocre and that in light of recent history, this may be a buying opportunity, although not an excellent one. Whether to buy depends on your personal circumstances, cash flow, risk preference, time of life and the like. Cochrane argues that when the dividend yield is high and reaches six or seven percent, the market is low and stock prices historically have increased during the ensuing seven years, but when the yield is low and falls to below 2% as it did around 2000 the market is high and stock prices have declined during the ensuing seven years. Currently, yields are middling.
However, Cochrane's analysis does not contemplate money supply policy, which influences both the dividend/price ratio and stock prices. When the Fed is increasing the money supply, as it has, then yields are going to be relatively low and stock prices are going to increase over the ensuing period. The Fed has pumped money into the system repeatedly during the past 35 years, so Cochrane's chart shows a secularly declining dividend/price ratio since 1950. Moreover, the chart suggests that average returns since 1971 have been greater than average returns between 1945 and 1971. The lowest returns occurred around 1967, several years prior to President Richard M. Nixon's removal of the international gold standard. The highest returns occurred around 1946, not long after World War II and around 1982, upon the advent of President Ronald Reagan's "supply side" economics. Increasing money supply may be the causal variable that both reduces dividend yield and increases future stock returns.
Thus, the cyclical ups and downs need to be interpreted in light of the long term trend. What are the political ramifications of the stock market's depending on perpetual injections of money and what are the policy implications?
In order to reach 1981 levels, a huge amount of liquidity will need to be injected into the system. But there is already much waste in the economy in terms of bad real estate investments, unworthy purchases on credit and the like. To compensate for these the Fed will need to give the economy much testosterone. This would cause the dividend/price curve to continue to decline. However, there is the risk of intensifying the above-average inflation rates that have characterized the recent past. If Americans are willing to live with a declining stock market, then perhaps the Fed will restrain inflation and stop the dividend/price trend from following its 63 year long downward pattern. If the main point of American society is to increase the stock market, then more injections will be needed, and increasing welfare transfers from cash earners to stock holders will ensue, likely intensifying the already massive inefficiencies in the American economy.
Which will it be? Paper wealth? Or real wealth? Further monetary expansion? Or deflation and permitting the termination of badly managed firms?
Since the summer, the dollar has increased against the Euro by more than 20%, and against the Australian dollar by about one third. Thus, if you are holding a portfolio that includes 1/2 stocks and 1/2 short term money market or treasuries, your decline is not nearly so bad as it seems.
The Dow topped at about $14,164 in October 2007 and is currently at 8,308, a decline of 41%. If you were holding 1/2 short term treasuries and 1/2 stocks, your portfolio has declined by a little less than half that adjusting for interest on your bonds. For instance, if you had $250 in stock and $250 in cash, your portfolio looks like it declined by 41% x 250 - 3% (interest on bonds) x 250 = $95 / $500 = 19%.
But in that calculation you're excluding the gains in the dollar, which are not reflected in your financial statement. The dollar gained about 20% against the Euro, so you've gained 20% x $250 = $50. Subtracting the $50 implicit gain in the dollar from the $95 paper loss gives you a loss of $45. So if you were diversified in cash you suffered a loss of $45 / $500 = 9% net of the dollar gain.
Although a 9% loss is unpleasant for all of us, it is hardly earth shattering to anyone who's been around the stock market via a 401k, mutual fund or brokerage account for the past ten years.
Thus, there is no need to panic. Rather, John H. Cochrane, a professor at the University of Chicago, gives some fascinating advice in today's Wall Street Journal. Cochrane, like Warren Buffett, argues that smart investors should be buying now. Cochrane suggests that the ratio of dividends to price or dividend yield indicates that current valuations are mediocre and that in light of recent history, this may be a buying opportunity, although not an excellent one. Whether to buy depends on your personal circumstances, cash flow, risk preference, time of life and the like. Cochrane argues that when the dividend yield is high and reaches six or seven percent, the market is low and stock prices historically have increased during the ensuing seven years, but when the yield is low and falls to below 2% as it did around 2000 the market is high and stock prices have declined during the ensuing seven years. Currently, yields are middling.
However, Cochrane's analysis does not contemplate money supply policy, which influences both the dividend/price ratio and stock prices. When the Fed is increasing the money supply, as it has, then yields are going to be relatively low and stock prices are going to increase over the ensuing period. The Fed has pumped money into the system repeatedly during the past 35 years, so Cochrane's chart shows a secularly declining dividend/price ratio since 1950. Moreover, the chart suggests that average returns since 1971 have been greater than average returns between 1945 and 1971. The lowest returns occurred around 1967, several years prior to President Richard M. Nixon's removal of the international gold standard. The highest returns occurred around 1946, not long after World War II and around 1982, upon the advent of President Ronald Reagan's "supply side" economics. Increasing money supply may be the causal variable that both reduces dividend yield and increases future stock returns.
Thus, the cyclical ups and downs need to be interpreted in light of the long term trend. What are the political ramifications of the stock market's depending on perpetual injections of money and what are the policy implications?
In order to reach 1981 levels, a huge amount of liquidity will need to be injected into the system. But there is already much waste in the economy in terms of bad real estate investments, unworthy purchases on credit and the like. To compensate for these the Fed will need to give the economy much testosterone. This would cause the dividend/price curve to continue to decline. However, there is the risk of intensifying the above-average inflation rates that have characterized the recent past. If Americans are willing to live with a declining stock market, then perhaps the Fed will restrain inflation and stop the dividend/price trend from following its 63 year long downward pattern. If the main point of American society is to increase the stock market, then more injections will be needed, and increasing welfare transfers from cash earners to stock holders will ensue, likely intensifying the already massive inefficiencies in the American economy.
Which will it be? Paper wealth? Or real wealth? Further monetary expansion? Or deflation and permitting the termination of badly managed firms?
Mairi Responds to Sup. Ct. Clerk Dan Bickell
Hi, Mitchell,
I don't know about you, but I have found this story to be quite infuriating. Mr. Donofrios states the clerk tried to stop and dissuade him from the get-go. Then, to misguide his case, and label it as something entirely different in an apparent attempt to stall, if not completely lose it in other work, just once again adds more fuel to the fire. How DARE a clerk misdirect a filing they personally disagree with. I HOPE Justice Clarence Thomas ORDERS the information to be sent to his desk IMMEDIATELY.
It makes one begin to understand why the legal system seems to be derailing. If "no account clerks" (my own label for this person Dan Bickell) can play games with legitimate filings to make them "disappear", how can anyone hope to have a chance in the system unless they have a very knowledgeable attorney with the fortitude to fight tactics employed by the opposition. There shouldn't even be "opposition" in the Court system itself. The Courts are supposed to be the People's platform.
This is frightening if true, and I have no reason to doubt what Mr. Donofrios' claims. Those of us determined to have answers to the very legitimate question of confirmation of eligibility of a candidate are shaking our heads in disbelief, wondering HOW we will ever find the person who will accept the responsibility, whether in the Courts, or with another entity.
I guess we will have to keep chipping away at the system until we are finally heard, and ANSWERED.
Mairi
I don't know about you, but I have found this story to be quite infuriating. Mr. Donofrios states the clerk tried to stop and dissuade him from the get-go. Then, to misguide his case, and label it as something entirely different in an apparent attempt to stall, if not completely lose it in other work, just once again adds more fuel to the fire. How DARE a clerk misdirect a filing they personally disagree with. I HOPE Justice Clarence Thomas ORDERS the information to be sent to his desk IMMEDIATELY.
It makes one begin to understand why the legal system seems to be derailing. If "no account clerks" (my own label for this person Dan Bickell) can play games with legitimate filings to make them "disappear", how can anyone hope to have a chance in the system unless they have a very knowledgeable attorney with the fortitude to fight tactics employed by the opposition. There shouldn't even be "opposition" in the Court system itself. The Courts are supposed to be the People's platform.
This is frightening if true, and I have no reason to doubt what Mr. Donofrios' claims. Those of us determined to have answers to the very legitimate question of confirmation of eligibility of a candidate are shaking our heads in disbelief, wondering HOW we will ever find the person who will accept the responsibility, whether in the Courts, or with another entity.
I guess we will have to keep chipping away at the system until we are finally heard, and ANSWERED.
Mairi
Obama Birth Certificate: Turner Responds--Martin Counter Responds
Neil Turner Writes:
Andy; You asked us to let you know what we think about your column (below) and your arguments against Berg. My comments follow your statements:
‘Mr. Berg did file his loony case, and it began to attract a lot of attention. My initial reaction was sadness at the gullibility of the public. People obviously had no idea that the form and forum of Berg's lawsuit were totally deficient.’
My comments: Berg’s lawsuit got Obama to publish a blatantly fraudulent and doctored (rendering it invalid) COLB, thereby implicating himself (Obama) in what may be the biggest attempted fraud in the history of our Constitutional Republic.
‘Berg's lawsuit was promptly dismissed, as I had anticipated before it was even filed. Berg was ready with an explanation: there was a conspiracy to deprive him of justice. No such conspiracy existed.’
My comments: Berg filed on 8/21/08, and his suit was ‘Dismissed’ for ‘lack of standing’ on October 27, 63 days later (not promptly dismissed as you state). This ‘unprompt’ ruling gave enough time to claim admission of the charges due to non-response by Obama (et al), and got him to produce his self-implicating blatantly false COLB.
‘When I asked Berg in August how he was going to prove Obama was born in Kenya, he said "I saw it on the Internet." Not good enough for a federal judge.’
My comments: C’mon Andy. Crappy argument, especially when you now know that Jerome Corsi went to Kenya and confirmed it with his detailed research.
‘To be sure, my Committee also receives donations, but we have funded two trips to Hawai'i for Obama research and investigation, and a birth certificate lawsuit scheduled for a hearing on November 18th in Honolulu.’
My comments: A lawsuit? Against whom? Isn’t it just a petition to the court to release ‘alleged’ documents, that most assuredly will not be released, since no one believes that they actually do exist. Time is lost, nothing gained, and you start again.
You dismissed my suggestion that we get thousands of people to request any documents concerning this issue (under the Freedom of Information Act), instead relying on your single person request – which obviously will go nowhere, and will get no press coverage (like the refusal of thousands of requests probably would).
‘Finally, is Berg really an Obama operative? Berg's behavior is so far outside the normal confines of legal practice that his conduct is aberrant as well as abhorrent. To date, only Obama has benefited from Berg's misbehavior.’
My comments: Your bashing of the only person who has gotten our concerns into 2 courts as an actual lawsuit (one being the SCOTUS) seems aberrant as well as abhorrent to those of us who sincerely want this issue publicized nationwide until justice (and our Constitution) is served!
And now, for you to ask the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board to investigate the conduct of Mr. Berg, seems most aberrant and abhorrent indeed.
Although I am not an enthusiastic believer of the Berg-for-Obama explanation for Berg's behavior, it still makes a lot of sense.
My comments: It makes no sense whatsoever!
At some point Berg could face sanctions for his misconduct and abusive behavior.
My comments: Which are???
‘So we are left with no clear explanation for why Berg is acting out: (1) is he "crazy" or ill? (2) is he an Obama saboteur? (3) is he a financial flim flam artist using false claims to collect money?’
My comments: What false claims? A $90,000 ‘Open Letter to Obama’ ad in USA Today will reach millions more people than a single-person FOIA request for non-existent documents in Hawaii, I would proffer. (3,000 people sending in $30 should just about do it. Please send yours today).
CLICK HERE to make your secure, (tax deductible) donation to the WTP Foundation.
Click here to see how much money we have raised so far. ($14,000 as of 11-12-08)
So what is Berg's game? Let me know what you think.
My comments: I think that your arguments stink!
Please try to bury your hatchet for Mr. Berg (no matter what you think about him) and help us finish the work of keeping this ILLEGAL ALIEN POSEUR and IMPOSTER Obama from trashing our Constitution and our Nation. The job at hand is too big for this dissention in the ranks of our Patriots. (We saw this with the traitor Jim Gilchrist - co-founder of the modern-day Minutemen movement – and it did us no good).
Sincerely,
Neil Turner
Carlsbad, CA
Andy Martin Responds
Your letter is so fallacious as to be unworthy of serious response. Your claim that Berg's lawsuit got Obama to release a birth certificate is complete nonsense. Obama released his document months before Berg. Had Berg actually accomplished what you claim, he would have taken credit for it. Did he make such a claim? No.
With many Obama opponents in your state of mind, is it any wonder Obama won? The inability of his opponents to confront and admit reality is what helped Obama get elected.
Sadly, you refuse to admit the facts even when they are biting you in the nose. What will your excuse be when Berg is kicked out of the Supreme Court? Another conspiracy?
Andy Martin
Andy; You asked us to let you know what we think about your column (below) and your arguments against Berg. My comments follow your statements:
‘Mr. Berg did file his loony case, and it began to attract a lot of attention. My initial reaction was sadness at the gullibility of the public. People obviously had no idea that the form and forum of Berg's lawsuit were totally deficient.’
My comments: Berg’s lawsuit got Obama to publish a blatantly fraudulent and doctored (rendering it invalid) COLB, thereby implicating himself (Obama) in what may be the biggest attempted fraud in the history of our Constitutional Republic.
‘Berg's lawsuit was promptly dismissed, as I had anticipated before it was even filed. Berg was ready with an explanation: there was a conspiracy to deprive him of justice. No such conspiracy existed.’
My comments: Berg filed on 8/21/08, and his suit was ‘Dismissed’ for ‘lack of standing’ on October 27, 63 days later (not promptly dismissed as you state). This ‘unprompt’ ruling gave enough time to claim admission of the charges due to non-response by Obama (et al), and got him to produce his self-implicating blatantly false COLB.
‘When I asked Berg in August how he was going to prove Obama was born in Kenya, he said "I saw it on the Internet." Not good enough for a federal judge.’
My comments: C’mon Andy. Crappy argument, especially when you now know that Jerome Corsi went to Kenya and confirmed it with his detailed research.
‘To be sure, my Committee also receives donations, but we have funded two trips to Hawai'i for Obama research and investigation, and a birth certificate lawsuit scheduled for a hearing on November 18th in Honolulu.’
My comments: A lawsuit? Against whom? Isn’t it just a petition to the court to release ‘alleged’ documents, that most assuredly will not be released, since no one believes that they actually do exist. Time is lost, nothing gained, and you start again.
You dismissed my suggestion that we get thousands of people to request any documents concerning this issue (under the Freedom of Information Act), instead relying on your single person request – which obviously will go nowhere, and will get no press coverage (like the refusal of thousands of requests probably would).
‘Finally, is Berg really an Obama operative? Berg's behavior is so far outside the normal confines of legal practice that his conduct is aberrant as well as abhorrent. To date, only Obama has benefited from Berg's misbehavior.’
My comments: Your bashing of the only person who has gotten our concerns into 2 courts as an actual lawsuit (one being the SCOTUS) seems aberrant as well as abhorrent to those of us who sincerely want this issue publicized nationwide until justice (and our Constitution) is served!
And now, for you to ask the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board to investigate the conduct of Mr. Berg, seems most aberrant and abhorrent indeed.
Although I am not an enthusiastic believer of the Berg-for-Obama explanation for Berg's behavior, it still makes a lot of sense.
My comments: It makes no sense whatsoever!
At some point Berg could face sanctions for his misconduct and abusive behavior.
My comments: Which are???
‘So we are left with no clear explanation for why Berg is acting out: (1) is he "crazy" or ill? (2) is he an Obama saboteur? (3) is he a financial flim flam artist using false claims to collect money?’
My comments: What false claims? A $90,000 ‘Open Letter to Obama’ ad in USA Today will reach millions more people than a single-person FOIA request for non-existent documents in Hawaii, I would proffer. (3,000 people sending in $30 should just about do it. Please send yours today).
CLICK HERE to make your secure, (tax deductible) donation to the WTP Foundation.
Click here to see how much money we have raised so far. ($14,000 as of 11-12-08)
So what is Berg's game? Let me know what you think.
My comments: I think that your arguments stink!
Please try to bury your hatchet for Mr. Berg (no matter what you think about him) and help us finish the work of keeping this ILLEGAL ALIEN POSEUR and IMPOSTER Obama from trashing our Constitution and our Nation. The job at hand is too big for this dissention in the ranks of our Patriots. (We saw this with the traitor Jim Gilchrist - co-founder of the modern-day Minutemen movement – and it did us no good).
Sincerely,
Neil Turner
Carlsbad, CA
Andy Martin Responds
Your letter is so fallacious as to be unworthy of serious response. Your claim that Berg's lawsuit got Obama to release a birth certificate is complete nonsense. Obama released his document months before Berg. Had Berg actually accomplished what you claim, he would have taken credit for it. Did he make such a claim? No.
With many Obama opponents in your state of mind, is it any wonder Obama won? The inability of his opponents to confront and admit reality is what helped Obama get elected.
Sadly, you refuse to admit the facts even when they are biting you in the nose. What will your excuse be when Berg is kicked out of the Supreme Court? Another conspiracy?
Andy Martin
Gold Prices
This Superfund analyst, Johann Santer predicts inflation and $1,500 - $2,000 gold in the medium run, $1,000 gold in three months.
Steve Forbes: Fed, Bush Administration Responsible for Current Financial Problems
Steve Forbes takes a page out of Mitchell Langbert's blog. He blames the Bush administration and the Fed for the current financial problems.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Obama Birth Certificate: Donofrio v. Wells: Supreme Court Clerk Danny Bickell Is Confused
Pamela Geller (h/t Bob Robbins and Larwyn) blogs about another law suit concerning Barack Obama's birth certificate. As well, Miri Green sent me a link to Leo C. Donofrio's website. Geller quotes a press release:
>"On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution."
Donofrio's case follows through the letter writing I did earlier this year. The Supreme Court's "Stay Clerk" (I wonder if they also have a "Go Clerk"), Dan Bickell, seems to contradict himself and be giving Donofrio the run around. First, Bickell told Donofrio that the stay was refused, then, upon learning that the public was aware of his (Bickell's) actions, Bickell reversed himself. Is the Supreme Court being run by thugs?
It is undoubtedly true that the election boards and secretaries of state do not police the election process. Candidates may be committing identity fraud, may not be legitimately eligible to run and may be criminals under assumed identities, and the elections boards do not know, do not want to know, and do not care. The level of elections administration in this country is dismal. The same is true of the Federal Elections Commission, which should be abolished. Sadly, though, Danny Bickell and the Supreme Court that he seems to represent is indifferent to maladministration of elections in the United States, preferring to stick its nose into questions about the morality of the death penalty based on elitist moralism picked up in dogmatic, ideological classwork the justices learned in pissant-left-wing first year law classes.
In other words, the Supreme Court seems to be interested in using state violence to enforce third rate, left-wing philosophy but it doesn't seem interested in enforcing the law.
The press release that Pamela Geller quotes concludes:
"While Mr. Berg, who has made a valiant effort, does not have legal standing, I do have a right of review by the US Supreme Court since New Jersey recognizes my standing and also because I have exhausted all of my state court options and there is nowhere else for me to go for justice."
On his website Donofrio indicates that he is now appealing the New Jersey Court's decision in his case. On his website, Mr. Donofrio accuses the Supreme Court clerk of dissembling:
"True to his form , but not to his word, US Supreme Court, Stay Clerk, Danny Bickell, has not updated the Docket to reflect that my case has come directly from a New Jersey Supreme Court order denying emergency relief."
He argues:
"Mr. Bickell now claims a specious semantical falsehood to deny me review in the US Supreme Court. This time he alleges that the chain of succession from the NJ Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court was broken by my applying for a "Stay" instead of "injunctive relief" when he knows damn well that a stay is injunctive relief."
He adds:
"I am outraged and disgusted by Bickell's cavalier piracy of my rights, of your rights, of our rights. And my passion for the law has never been greater than it is right now. I believe in law and order and that all stands must be made under the color of law."
After several citizens called the Supreme Court to complain about Bickell's behavior, Bickell reversed himself. Several hours after Donofrio's call to arms, he wrote:
"Leo C. Donofrio was just contacted by Mr. Danny Bickell, Stay Clerk of the United States Supreme Court as a direct result of Mr. Bickell receiving phone calls from the public...
"1. He says he is now in the process of correcting the Docket to reflect that my case is before the US Supreme Court from a direct ruling of the NJ Supreme Court wherein a Constitutional issue had been raised.
"2. Mr. Bickell informed me today that after he decided, improperly, not to pass on my Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd, that he did not owe me any special notification...Speaking to Mr. Bickell a few minutes ago, I asked him what happened to my letter informing me of the first disposition back on Monday Nov. 3rd when he decided not to pass the Stay Application on to Justice Souter. To this he replied, "That wasn't a disposition so I didn't have to give you any notice." Incredible. He disposed of my case illegally and then said that since it wasn't a proper disposition I wasn't entitled to notice thereof, and certainly not by "appropriately speedy means". Sabotage...
...Mr Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on the day it is received. His word isn't worth much to me so I still need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay Application arrives.
Donofrio concludes:
THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO TO HELP THIS CASE GET BEFORE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS IS TO WRITE TO HIM AND THE OTHER JUSTICES:
The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
--------------------------------
Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - CLERK'S OFFICE CONTINUES SABOTAGE OF NJ CITIZEN STAY APPLICATION FOR 08 ELECTION - YOUR HELP IS REQUESTED
>Dear Citizens of the United States of America,
>I need your help and the US needs your help.
>My case, LEO C. DONOFRIO v. NINA MITCHELL WELLS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY - US Supreme Court Docket # 08A407 - continues to be subjected to misconduct by the US Supreme Court Clerk's office, particularly by Mr. Danny Bickell, the Stay Clerk.
>For a full review of the Judicial treachery in this case, please review the entire UNORTHODOX PROCEDURAL HISTORY of the case...
>It has come to my attention today that the US Supreme Court's Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, has continued to list this case incorrectly thereby preventing it from ever crossing the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas.
>The Docket of the case fails to mention that the case went directly from the Appellate Division in New Jersey to the New Jersey Supreme Court which is the nexus that allows the case to be properly before the US Supreme Court. The Clerk's office appears to be doing everything possible to see that this case never gets to the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas or any of the other Supreme Court Justices.
>I have an order handed down from the New Jersey Supreme Court which makes reference to the Appellate Division case as well, but the US Supreme Court Clerk's office refuses to acknowledge the NJ Supreme Court's review and it is that review which allows my case to go before the US Supreme Court...
>This is unprecedented in that the Clerk's office at the SCOTUS appears to be injecting politics into the handling of paperwork properly before it. It will be a terrible blow to the separation of powers if Supreme Court review can be stopped by Clerks imposing their own political views on litigants who have properly followed legal procedure.
>Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court must receive direct mail letters (not e mail) bringing this case Docket # and the URL of my blog to their attention. You may write to Justice Thomas at the following address:
>The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
--------------------------------
>Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
If you write to Chief Justice Roberts, please make sure the envelope is addressed to
THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thank you,
Leo C. Donofrio
>"On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution."
Donofrio's case follows through the letter writing I did earlier this year. The Supreme Court's "Stay Clerk" (I wonder if they also have a "Go Clerk"), Dan Bickell, seems to contradict himself and be giving Donofrio the run around. First, Bickell told Donofrio that the stay was refused, then, upon learning that the public was aware of his (Bickell's) actions, Bickell reversed himself. Is the Supreme Court being run by thugs?
It is undoubtedly true that the election boards and secretaries of state do not police the election process. Candidates may be committing identity fraud, may not be legitimately eligible to run and may be criminals under assumed identities, and the elections boards do not know, do not want to know, and do not care. The level of elections administration in this country is dismal. The same is true of the Federal Elections Commission, which should be abolished. Sadly, though, Danny Bickell and the Supreme Court that he seems to represent is indifferent to maladministration of elections in the United States, preferring to stick its nose into questions about the morality of the death penalty based on elitist moralism picked up in dogmatic, ideological classwork the justices learned in pissant-left-wing first year law classes.
In other words, the Supreme Court seems to be interested in using state violence to enforce third rate, left-wing philosophy but it doesn't seem interested in enforcing the law.
The press release that Pamela Geller quotes concludes:
"While Mr. Berg, who has made a valiant effort, does not have legal standing, I do have a right of review by the US Supreme Court since New Jersey recognizes my standing and also because I have exhausted all of my state court options and there is nowhere else for me to go for justice."
On his website Donofrio indicates that he is now appealing the New Jersey Court's decision in his case. On his website, Mr. Donofrio accuses the Supreme Court clerk of dissembling:
"True to his form , but not to his word, US Supreme Court, Stay Clerk, Danny Bickell, has not updated the Docket to reflect that my case has come directly from a New Jersey Supreme Court order denying emergency relief."
He argues:
"Mr. Bickell now claims a specious semantical falsehood to deny me review in the US Supreme Court. This time he alleges that the chain of succession from the NJ Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court was broken by my applying for a "Stay" instead of "injunctive relief" when he knows damn well that a stay is injunctive relief."
He adds:
"I am outraged and disgusted by Bickell's cavalier piracy of my rights, of your rights, of our rights. And my passion for the law has never been greater than it is right now. I believe in law and order and that all stands must be made under the color of law."
After several citizens called the Supreme Court to complain about Bickell's behavior, Bickell reversed himself. Several hours after Donofrio's call to arms, he wrote:
"Leo C. Donofrio was just contacted by Mr. Danny Bickell, Stay Clerk of the United States Supreme Court as a direct result of Mr. Bickell receiving phone calls from the public...
"1. He says he is now in the process of correcting the Docket to reflect that my case is before the US Supreme Court from a direct ruling of the NJ Supreme Court wherein a Constitutional issue had been raised.
"2. Mr. Bickell informed me today that after he decided, improperly, not to pass on my Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd, that he did not owe me any special notification...Speaking to Mr. Bickell a few minutes ago, I asked him what happened to my letter informing me of the first disposition back on Monday Nov. 3rd when he decided not to pass the Stay Application on to Justice Souter. To this he replied, "That wasn't a disposition so I didn't have to give you any notice." Incredible. He disposed of my case illegally and then said that since it wasn't a proper disposition I wasn't entitled to notice thereof, and certainly not by "appropriately speedy means". Sabotage...
...Mr Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on the day it is received. His word isn't worth much to me so I still need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay Application arrives.
Donofrio concludes:
THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO TO HELP THIS CASE GET BEFORE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS IS TO WRITE TO HIM AND THE OTHER JUSTICES:
The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
--------------------------------
Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - CLERK'S OFFICE CONTINUES SABOTAGE OF NJ CITIZEN STAY APPLICATION FOR 08 ELECTION - YOUR HELP IS REQUESTED
>Dear Citizens of the United States of America,
>I need your help and the US needs your help.
>My case, LEO C. DONOFRIO v. NINA MITCHELL WELLS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY - US Supreme Court Docket # 08A407 - continues to be subjected to misconduct by the US Supreme Court Clerk's office, particularly by Mr. Danny Bickell, the Stay Clerk.
>For a full review of the Judicial treachery in this case, please review the entire UNORTHODOX PROCEDURAL HISTORY of the case...
>It has come to my attention today that the US Supreme Court's Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, has continued to list this case incorrectly thereby preventing it from ever crossing the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas.
>The Docket of the case fails to mention that the case went directly from the Appellate Division in New Jersey to the New Jersey Supreme Court which is the nexus that allows the case to be properly before the US Supreme Court. The Clerk's office appears to be doing everything possible to see that this case never gets to the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas or any of the other Supreme Court Justices.
>I have an order handed down from the New Jersey Supreme Court which makes reference to the Appellate Division case as well, but the US Supreme Court Clerk's office refuses to acknowledge the NJ Supreme Court's review and it is that review which allows my case to go before the US Supreme Court...
>This is unprecedented in that the Clerk's office at the SCOTUS appears to be injecting politics into the handling of paperwork properly before it. It will be a terrible blow to the separation of powers if Supreme Court review can be stopped by Clerks imposing their own political views on litigants who have properly followed legal procedure.
>Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court must receive direct mail letters (not e mail) bringing this case Docket # and the URL of my blog to their attention. You may write to Justice Thomas at the following address:
>The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
--------------------------------
>Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
If you write to Chief Justice Roberts, please make sure the envelope is addressed to
THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thank you,
Leo C. Donofrio
Banking Is Not Necessary
Today's banking system is based on a principle that did not exist until the 17th century. The notion of fractional reserve banking is that bankers lend out more money than they actually have on deposit because they can predict with some accuracy how much money depositors will reclaim each day. Currently, the supply of money is about double the cash and reserves on deposit in banks, so half the money supply is due to bankers' lending money that does not really exist anywhere.
Academics vigorously argue in favor of fractional reserve banking. They claim to be in favor of the poor and of economic development, but a little common sense tells you that enabling bankers to double the money supply chiefly benefits bankers. Moreover, bankers do not lend to the poor, they lend to the rich and to the middle class, and to government's favored recipients. Hence, the traditional tendency is that fractional reserve banking is most beneficial to the wealthy.
Bankers refuse to lend to entrepreneurs. This is a well known phenomenon to anyone interested in starting a business. Bankers view lending to innovative start ups as too "risky". On the other hand, they are eager to lend to sub-prime mortgage borrowers, Bunker Hunt when he was eager to corner the silver market, Long Term Capital Management when it claimed to have "hedged" all bets based on crackpot theories of modern finance professors, and to sellers of credit default swaps that the bankers did not understand, but what the hell, they're less risky than investing in A/C electricity or a cure for cancer.
The main problems of capitalism have related to the fraud in which bankers engage in lending money. Economically illiterate historians and historically illiterate economists both make the argument that without fractional reserve banking there would have been no progress. But they cannot point to examples of progress that depended on fractional reserve banking. Nikola Tesla depended not on banking but on venture capital from JP Morgan to work on energy transmission and earlier inventions. Milton Hershey depended not on banking but on friends and family to build his candy empire. Do most entrepreneurs today depend on bank loans to finance new business concepts, or on private investment capital that they save themselves, from friends and family or from private "angels" who do not benefit from the fractional reserve system?
Where do bank loans go? They go to the least risky investments: real estate and to finance lumbering, incompetently managed large firms.
Now, let us think for a moment who pays for fractional reserve banking. When a bank lends a dollar it does not have, it collects interest on that dollar. But it has increased the money supply. By increasing the money supply, it reduces the value of everyone else's dollars. So anyone who holds dollars, workers and savers, subsidize the bank. As the value of everyone's dollars is reduced, the borrower repays the loan in cheaper dollars. So the banker is subsidized and the borrower is subsidized, but the thrifty and poor who do not borrow pay.
Now who are the chief borrowers? Large corporations are the most indebted. Hedge funds, investment banks and large real estate investors are the chief borrowers. It is true that the middle class has also borrowed. The group that borrows least is the poor.
Inventors who are trying to build a new business based on an invention cannot borrow because banks will not lend to them. So money is transferred from innovators to borrowers. From inventors to real estate developers.
Banking is not necessary for progress. Innovation has not depended on banking. It has depended on private capital. Rather, banking stalls innovation. Thus, as the Federal Reserve Bank's power to create money has increased, and Wall Street and the banking system has flourished over the past 35 years, innovation has been limited to a few industries that stock brokers favor. Real estate and stock investment has soared. And American workers' real wages have declined.
Fractional reserve banking is not necessary to American progress. It is a form of income redistribution from the innovative to the opportunistic.
Academics vigorously argue in favor of fractional reserve banking. They claim to be in favor of the poor and of economic development, but a little common sense tells you that enabling bankers to double the money supply chiefly benefits bankers. Moreover, bankers do not lend to the poor, they lend to the rich and to the middle class, and to government's favored recipients. Hence, the traditional tendency is that fractional reserve banking is most beneficial to the wealthy.
Bankers refuse to lend to entrepreneurs. This is a well known phenomenon to anyone interested in starting a business. Bankers view lending to innovative start ups as too "risky". On the other hand, they are eager to lend to sub-prime mortgage borrowers, Bunker Hunt when he was eager to corner the silver market, Long Term Capital Management when it claimed to have "hedged" all bets based on crackpot theories of modern finance professors, and to sellers of credit default swaps that the bankers did not understand, but what the hell, they're less risky than investing in A/C electricity or a cure for cancer.
The main problems of capitalism have related to the fraud in which bankers engage in lending money. Economically illiterate historians and historically illiterate economists both make the argument that without fractional reserve banking there would have been no progress. But they cannot point to examples of progress that depended on fractional reserve banking. Nikola Tesla depended not on banking but on venture capital from JP Morgan to work on energy transmission and earlier inventions. Milton Hershey depended not on banking but on friends and family to build his candy empire. Do most entrepreneurs today depend on bank loans to finance new business concepts, or on private investment capital that they save themselves, from friends and family or from private "angels" who do not benefit from the fractional reserve system?
Where do bank loans go? They go to the least risky investments: real estate and to finance lumbering, incompetently managed large firms.
Now, let us think for a moment who pays for fractional reserve banking. When a bank lends a dollar it does not have, it collects interest on that dollar. But it has increased the money supply. By increasing the money supply, it reduces the value of everyone else's dollars. So anyone who holds dollars, workers and savers, subsidize the bank. As the value of everyone's dollars is reduced, the borrower repays the loan in cheaper dollars. So the banker is subsidized and the borrower is subsidized, but the thrifty and poor who do not borrow pay.
Now who are the chief borrowers? Large corporations are the most indebted. Hedge funds, investment banks and large real estate investors are the chief borrowers. It is true that the middle class has also borrowed. The group that borrows least is the poor.
Inventors who are trying to build a new business based on an invention cannot borrow because banks will not lend to them. So money is transferred from innovators to borrowers. From inventors to real estate developers.
Banking is not necessary for progress. Innovation has not depended on banking. It has depended on private capital. Rather, banking stalls innovation. Thus, as the Federal Reserve Bank's power to create money has increased, and Wall Street and the banking system has flourished over the past 35 years, innovation has been limited to a few industries that stock brokers favor. Real estate and stock investment has soared. And American workers' real wages have declined.
Fractional reserve banking is not necessary to American progress. It is a form of income redistribution from the innovative to the opportunistic.
AIG Investors Not Allowed To Lose
It's nice to be a bank. You can lend people money you don't have, and make reckless investments at that. Then, when the reckless investments bail, er, I mean fail, economists are eager to justify subsidizing you through public funds in the interest of the "public good". I wonder how hard these guys are laughing when they're on the way to the bank.
According to the Wall Street Journal:
>"Banks in the U.S. and abroad are among the biggest winners in the federal government's revamped $150 billion bailout of American International Group Inc...Banks in the U.S., Europe and Canada bought credit-default swaps on these securities from AIG, which in turn promised to compensate them if the securities defaulted. Defaults haven't been a major problem, but the market values of these CDOs fell sharply over the past year or so...Throughout its AIG rescue efforts during the past two months, the government has had the banks in its sights; it made its initial bailout of AIG in part to avoid potential bank losses that might have threatened the broader financial system...The banks that participate will be compensated for the securities' full, or par, value in exchange for allowing AIG to unwind the credit-default swaps it wrote..."It's like a home run for some of the banks," says Carlos Mendez, a senior managing director at ICP Capital, a fixed-income investment firm in New York. "They bought insurance from a company that ran into trouble and still managed to get all, or most, of their money back."
According to the Wall Street Journal:
>"Banks in the U.S. and abroad are among the biggest winners in the federal government's revamped $150 billion bailout of American International Group Inc...Banks in the U.S., Europe and Canada bought credit-default swaps on these securities from AIG, which in turn promised to compensate them if the securities defaulted. Defaults haven't been a major problem, but the market values of these CDOs fell sharply over the past year or so...Throughout its AIG rescue efforts during the past two months, the government has had the banks in its sights; it made its initial bailout of AIG in part to avoid potential bank losses that might have threatened the broader financial system...The banks that participate will be compensated for the securities' full, or par, value in exchange for allowing AIG to unwind the credit-default swaps it wrote..."It's like a home run for some of the banks," says Carlos Mendez, a senior managing director at ICP Capital, a fixed-income investment firm in New York. "They bought insurance from a company that ran into trouble and still managed to get all, or most, of their money back."
Boycott Firms that Receive Government Aid
The Wall Street Journal writes of another homeless corporation that is panhandling for $3.5 billion from the federal government: American Express. According to the Journal:
"The card issuer is the latest company not directly hit by the housing crisis to request cash from the federal government. While retailers, car companies and others hit by the slowdown in consumer spending haven't gotten the government money, financial firms of all kinds are getting federal bailouts."
There are about 130 million Americans who file tax returns but about one third of these pay no taxes, so the number of taxpayers is about 86 million. With a bailout of $750 billion, each taxpayer pays on average $8,720 to subsidize inept millionaire investment bankers, slothful auto executives and now, if they have their way, the people who bring you the American Express card.
I take it personally that my taxes are being raised to subsidize bozos at badly managed firms. I think that all Americans should just say no to any firm that receives a subsidy. The American car companies have been indifferent to the plight of their employees for decades. Now, they claim public subsidies. Investment bankers have been overpaid for decades. Now, they want average earners to subsidize their inept practices.
Boycott American Express. Boycott General Motors. Boycott the lot of them.
"The card issuer is the latest company not directly hit by the housing crisis to request cash from the federal government. While retailers, car companies and others hit by the slowdown in consumer spending haven't gotten the government money, financial firms of all kinds are getting federal bailouts."
There are about 130 million Americans who file tax returns but about one third of these pay no taxes, so the number of taxpayers is about 86 million. With a bailout of $750 billion, each taxpayer pays on average $8,720 to subsidize inept millionaire investment bankers, slothful auto executives and now, if they have their way, the people who bring you the American Express card.
I take it personally that my taxes are being raised to subsidize bozos at badly managed firms. I think that all Americans should just say no to any firm that receives a subsidy. The American car companies have been indifferent to the plight of their employees for decades. Now, they claim public subsidies. Investment bankers have been overpaid for decades. Now, they want average earners to subsidize their inept practices.
Boycott American Express. Boycott General Motors. Boycott the lot of them.
George Bush, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi: Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest
It is difficult to consider a more ill advised policy than propping up managements of large, poorly managed firms. Yet, Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke and George Bush have decided to provide a massive subsidy to inept Wall Street executives. Few politicians in history have concocted dumber policies, but, believe it or not, the Democrats have come up with an even dumber idea: bail out Detroit as well as Wall Street.
According to the Wall Street Journal :
"Democratic leaders in Congress said Tuesday they will push legislation next week to use the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund to bail out Detroit auto makers, and President-elect Barack Obama ordered his transition team to look at ways to aid the car industry even before his inauguration."
A good book on the mismanagement of the auto industry is John Z. De Lorean's and J. Patrick Wright's "On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors".
De Lorean's descriptions of massive incompetence and waste at General Motors in the early 1970s, 35 years ago, makes the reader laugh out loud. After four or five decades of GM's utter incompetence, the Democrats are eager to raise your and my taxes to force us to subsidize GM. If they made cars we wanted they wouldn't need the subsidy.
Isn't GM the company whose selfishness Michael Moore contemned two decades ago for moving half its plants to Mexico, stiffing American workers and thumbing its nose at Flint, Michigan in the name of "private property" and the prerogatives of private corporations? And now the Democrats are shelling out tens of billions of dollars to these self-indulgent incompetents?
Excuse me for my snit, but this is getting out of hand.
According to the Wall Street Journal :
"Democratic leaders in Congress said Tuesday they will push legislation next week to use the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund to bail out Detroit auto makers, and President-elect Barack Obama ordered his transition team to look at ways to aid the car industry even before his inauguration."
A good book on the mismanagement of the auto industry is John Z. De Lorean's and J. Patrick Wright's "On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors".
De Lorean's descriptions of massive incompetence and waste at General Motors in the early 1970s, 35 years ago, makes the reader laugh out loud. After four or five decades of GM's utter incompetence, the Democrats are eager to raise your and my taxes to force us to subsidize GM. If they made cars we wanted they wouldn't need the subsidy.
Isn't GM the company whose selfishness Michael Moore contemned two decades ago for moving half its plants to Mexico, stiffing American workers and thumbing its nose at Flint, Michigan in the name of "private property" and the prerogatives of private corporations? And now the Democrats are shelling out tens of billions of dollars to these self-indulgent incompetents?
Excuse me for my snit, but this is getting out of hand.
Conservatives Should Disempower Left-wing Propaganda
Raquel Okyay is a noted New York State conservative. She ran for City Council in Queens and now is a major figure in the Republican Liberty Caucus in New Paltz, New York. Recently she wrote an excellent blog arguing that "Obama won by lies, fraud and manipulation." Okyay makes some excellent points about the mass media's bias. But she argued that the New York Times is "a major partisan news organization".
I correct Okyay on her blog as follows:
"No, no, no. The Times is the 'pissant media'. Don’t empower it. It is a pissant. Nothing more. Please don’t call it 'major'. It is as major as the biggest ant you can think of, a quarter inch or so."
Okyay wrote back to me:
"You're right, what was I thinking?? I changed it to pissant."
But I was wrong about one thing. The Times is not media. It is propaganda. Media implies communication of information. The Times does not communicate information; it propagandizes and lies. Conservatives have made the error of empowering pissant propaganda sources like the Times by calling them "mainstream", "media", "MSM" and "major". They are not mainstream, major nor media.
Conservatives need to raise their consciousness and begin to disempower propaganda sources. I think there needs to be consciousness raising among conservatives. Conservatives need a new vocabulary attendant upon a new consciousness. Conservatives need to evolve away from the categories that statist left wing murderers have constructed. "Progressivism" is not progressive; "liberals" are not liberal; socialism is anti-social; and the news media provides neither news nor serves as media. There is nothing "mainstream" about the New York Times nor network television. Nor is there anything major about them.
I correct Okyay on her blog as follows:
"No, no, no. The Times is the 'pissant media'. Don’t empower it. It is a pissant. Nothing more. Please don’t call it 'major'. It is as major as the biggest ant you can think of, a quarter inch or so."
Okyay wrote back to me:
"You're right, what was I thinking?? I changed it to pissant."
But I was wrong about one thing. The Times is not media. It is propaganda. Media implies communication of information. The Times does not communicate information; it propagandizes and lies. Conservatives have made the error of empowering pissant propaganda sources like the Times by calling them "mainstream", "media", "MSM" and "major". They are not mainstream, major nor media.
Conservatives need to raise their consciousness and begin to disempower propaganda sources. I think there needs to be consciousness raising among conservatives. Conservatives need a new vocabulary attendant upon a new consciousness. Conservatives need to evolve away from the categories that statist left wing murderers have constructed. "Progressivism" is not progressive; "liberals" are not liberal; socialism is anti-social; and the news media provides neither news nor serves as media. There is nothing "mainstream" about the New York Times nor network television. Nor is there anything major about them.
Peoples' Passion Calls For Obama to Stand Up or Step Down
I just received this e-mail from Peoples' Passions
>A Call for Barack to Stand Up or Step Down!
What happened to these lawsuits and where are they going next?
URGENT Call for Action by Citizens to work with Electors! (What can I do?)
URGENT Call for Action by Citizens to Petition Congress! (What can I do?)
URGENT Call for Action by Electors ONLY to Petition Congress!
Peoples Voice is involved in resolving definitively the Citizenship question that has dogged the Obama Campaign. Since Mr. Obama has refused or is unable to demonstrate any documentation proving his actual place of birth, I launched a lawsuit against the Washington Secretary of State for dereliction of duty. This call to action began spreading like a prairie fire with similar lawsuits popping up across the nation. More lawsuits demanding answers to these simple questions are being filed as each day goes by approaching the election and beyond. Now, why would I or anyone else put themselves through that! I can tell you I have no love lost for Hillary, but I would never think to challenge her in court. She is unquestionably a US citizen - Natural born.
Obama, however, in an enigma, a man without a past who wears a mask, No one has ever seen even a copy of his birth certificate (the one with the hospital, city, doctor - you know like the one we all have) His past is peppered with intrigue from the foreign money college loans, hidden college records, papers and associates and especially his lengthy involvement with the terrorist Ayres. He hasn't even made a full discloser of his medical records. His recent visits and connections with relatives who are communist organizers responsible for the bloody anti Christian takeover in Kenya are especially troubling. The constitution requires the President to be natural born to avoid possible personal entanglements in foreign lands. Who is Obama?
For a Man without a Past
He sure wants a say in our Future
Posted by Steve Marquis on Nov 6th 2008
Press Releases: Latest to Earliest
Posted by Steve Marquis on November 3, 2008
1. Press Releases 11/03/08 CT heard at Supreme Court and CA Superior Court challenging Barack.
2. Press Releases 10/31/08 VP Candidate to file law suit; electors to file law suit, citizens file suit.
3. Press Releases 10/29/08 Citizen Files Lawsuit Against Texas State Secretary of State
4. Press Releases 10/22/08 Lawsuits being filed in Eight States Demanding Obama's Birth Certificate
5. Press Releases 08/10/08 Averting a Crisis in Confidence
Library being Created to Host Presidential Certificates of Birth and Candidate Declarations of Qualifications – Stay tuned
>A Call for Barack to Stand Up or Step Down!
What happened to these lawsuits and where are they going next?
URGENT Call for Action by Citizens to work with Electors! (What can I do?)
URGENT Call for Action by Citizens to Petition Congress! (What can I do?)
URGENT Call for Action by Electors ONLY to Petition Congress!
Peoples Voice is involved in resolving definitively the Citizenship question that has dogged the Obama Campaign. Since Mr. Obama has refused or is unable to demonstrate any documentation proving his actual place of birth, I launched a lawsuit against the Washington Secretary of State for dereliction of duty. This call to action began spreading like a prairie fire with similar lawsuits popping up across the nation. More lawsuits demanding answers to these simple questions are being filed as each day goes by approaching the election and beyond. Now, why would I or anyone else put themselves through that! I can tell you I have no love lost for Hillary, but I would never think to challenge her in court. She is unquestionably a US citizen - Natural born.
Obama, however, in an enigma, a man without a past who wears a mask, No one has ever seen even a copy of his birth certificate (the one with the hospital, city, doctor - you know like the one we all have) His past is peppered with intrigue from the foreign money college loans, hidden college records, papers and associates and especially his lengthy involvement with the terrorist Ayres. He hasn't even made a full discloser of his medical records. His recent visits and connections with relatives who are communist organizers responsible for the bloody anti Christian takeover in Kenya are especially troubling. The constitution requires the President to be natural born to avoid possible personal entanglements in foreign lands. Who is Obama?
For a Man without a Past
He sure wants a say in our Future
Posted by Steve Marquis on Nov 6th 2008
Press Releases: Latest to Earliest
Posted by Steve Marquis on November 3, 2008
1. Press Releases 11/03/08 CT heard at Supreme Court and CA Superior Court challenging Barack.
2. Press Releases 10/31/08 VP Candidate to file law suit; electors to file law suit, citizens file suit.
3. Press Releases 10/29/08 Citizen Files Lawsuit Against Texas State Secretary of State
4. Press Releases 10/22/08 Lawsuits being filed in Eight States Demanding Obama's Birth Certificate
5. Press Releases 08/10/08 Averting a Crisis in Confidence
Library being Created to Host Presidential Certificates of Birth and Candidate Declarations of Qualifications – Stay tuned
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Obama Agrees to Bail Out New York Times
Legenday blogger Doug Ross carries this breaking story.
>Breaking: Obama Agrees to a bailout of The New York Times
>Only hours after Mediapost reported that The New York Times had a negative net worth, President-Elect Barack Obama announced a $5 billion bailout rescue package for the media concern. In a hastily arranged press conference at the newly constructed Office of the President-Elect, Obama noted the importance of the Times' ability to influence public opinion.
Read the whole thing here.
Given that the government has gotten into the business of bailing out bankers who can't run banks and auto companies that can't sell cars, it is only logical that it is now bailing out pissants who can't write a fair newspaper. Keep up the good work, Doug!
>Breaking: Obama Agrees to a bailout of The New York Times
>Only hours after Mediapost reported that The New York Times had a negative net worth, President-Elect Barack Obama announced a $5 billion bailout rescue package for the media concern. In a hastily arranged press conference at the newly constructed Office of the President-Elect, Obama noted the importance of the Times' ability to influence public opinion.
Read the whole thing here.
Given that the government has gotten into the business of bailing out bankers who can't run banks and auto companies that can't sell cars, it is only logical that it is now bailing out pissants who can't write a fair newspaper. Keep up the good work, Doug!
Obama Thought Police Program Linked to "Diogenes" on This Blog
There's an anonymous visitor to this blog named "Diogenes" who has recently threatened that he will inform on me to the Obama thought police. Now, Newsmax reports that a Georgia Congressman predicts assaults on freedom from Barack Obama's left-wing supporters similar to those that "Diogenes" has threatened:
Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship
"A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press..."That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said..."We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."
Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship
"A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press..."That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said..."We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."
Monday, November 10, 2008
Andy Martin Calls for GM Bankruptcy
I just received the following e-mail from Andy Martin.
>Three years ago I was swamped with calls from Wall Street after I said that General Motors should immediately file for bankruptcy. The 2005 column follows this column so you can see what I wrote then. It was prophetic.
Today I renew my call for General Motors to file for bankruptcy. Tomorrow. If GM delays, it will certainly derail Barack Obama's "first 100 days" and could end up derailing our national economic recovery.
GM mangers did not want to file in 2005 because they probably foresaw that bankruptcy could come some day, and they wanted to protect their executive pensions by insulating them from future creditor claims. In addition, GM's astronomical executive salaries could not survive a bankruptcy proceeding. Fair enough.
But GM's labor costs would be slashed as well in bankruptcy. In the long run, there is no way the existing labor cost structure can be preserved in the automobile industry. If GM and others move quickly, they can still save tens of thousands of good jobs and preserve good pay and good benefits. But every day's delay will cost the economy future jobs.
This weekend auto industry executives were in Washington seeking a bailout. Congress and the president should say no. The executives' demands place Barack Obama in a quandary. Michigan voted for Obama and the Democrats. Labor unions will claim that they want a bailout instead of a handout. But the Democrats and union leaders are living in a dream world. Repeat: every day that bankruptcy is delayed will cost every American economic security.
Today the auto industry has unsustainable wage levels and ridiculous benefits. They are the product of a bygone era in labor relations when the Big three enjoyed a practical monopoly in domestic sales. It's hard to believe but GM alone once controlled more than half of the U. S. auto industry. No more. Americans are no longer loyal to American automobiles.
But the high wages and extreme benefits of the past have survived in one form or another. Recently, auto companies have begun to shed their medical benefits programs, and to involve the United Auto Workers in benefit management. But the UAW can no more defy the laws of economics than GM's anemic management.
During the primary season John McCain was pilloried by politicians for stating the obvious: high wage jobs in the auto industry would not be returning and that "change" was coming. What businessman in his right mind would build a plant or invest in an existing plant in Michigan, Indiana or Ohio, when they could "go south" and save 25% of their labor costs? In some sort of suicide pact, the states where the auto industry was strongest voted for their own death sentence by supporting the Democrats.
Democrats can no more rewrite the laws of economics than Republicans.
GM's CEO tried to use scare tactics by saying that no one would buy a car from a bankrupt company. Oh yeah? Tens of millions of passengers flew on bankrupt airlines. In 2005 I showed why there is no fear of bankruptcy in today's economy.
So what happens if GM does not file for bankruptcy protection and keeps pounding the table demanding a bailout?
First, there will be confusion and delay. Nothing will happen for months. By then GM will be even weaker. Second, labor unions will try to strong-arm congress into voting bailout funds.
Frankly, the end of the road has arrived for the inflated, incompetent auto industry management. In President Reagan's time they got assistance in the form of import quotas to give them "time to retool." As soon as their prospects improved, up went salaries and wages and the public was forgotten. We are in yet another down cycle of auto production, and once again executives are in Washington begging for assistance and predicting dire consequences if no aid is forthcoming.
I predict even more dire consequences for the economy if aid does go to the auto companies.
First, there will be no pressure to cut or costs and modernize labor relations. Wage levels are still way too high in the northern UAW auto plants.
Second, resentment is already building against bailouts that preserve high wages and executive perks, and are paid for by poor and working families. It just is not fair, or right, for the least among us to support the wealthier. Wall Street took the bailouts and went back to its bad ways, again promising bonuses for bad management and poor performance. If Democrats do adopt "corporate welfare" in response to pressure from labor, the long-term economy and economic recovery will be weakened not strengthened.
Well, there you have it. Sadly, I can only prescribe a bitter pill for my friends in the UAW. But I also can promise them that if labor and management do not head for bankruptcy court this week, the next pill will be a suicide pill. Which is worse?
Fast bankruptcy action will save jobs and stimulate the economic recovery. Delay is death, for workers, managers and our economy.
Look at what I had to say three years ago about this identical problem:
----------------------------------------------
AMERICA'S DAILY BRIEFING FOR OCTOBER 14, 2005
CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY FROM ANDY MARTIN
AMERICA AND THE WORLD ECONOMY:
WHY GENERAL MOTORS SHOULD FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY--NOW
(CHICAGO)(October 14, 2005) I got a letter in the mail this week. Delta Airlines was telling me they had filed for bankruptcy. They said "not to worry," my frequent flyer miles were safe and operations were normal. I also fly on United Airlines (in bankruptcy three [3] years) and Northwest Airlines (also filing for bankruptcy). US Airways just exited bankruptcy, after a second trip through the financial wringer.
What do all of these airline bankruptcies have to do with General Motors? Read on.
I first saw a prediction that General Motors could/should file for bankruptcy several months ago. The writers suggested that by some time later in this decade GM would have exhausted its financial resources, and would be forced into bankruptcy.
Last weekend a former GM subsidiary, Delphi Corporation, did file for bankruptcy. General Motors is potentially liable for up to $11 billion in retiree health premiums and pensions for Delphi's workers. That overhanging liability, as well as GM's steadily eroding financial position, causes me to write this column. GM should file for bankruptcy--now. Before it is too late.
GM is still a formidable worldwide enterprise. It has billions of dollars in cash resources, as well as "crown jewel" assets that are highly profitable and are currently subsidizing the money-losing automobile business. Why file for bankruptcy?
This is a painful column to write because I have enjoyed a close association with members of the UAW for thirty (30) years. Some of them have supported me in earlier political campaigns. I have a great deal of affection for and loyalty to the men and women on the shop floor. And I accurately predicted thirty years ago that unless America changed its trade policies, large areas of Illinois's manufacturing economy, notably in the Quad Cities, would be hollowed out and eventually destroyed. Unfortunately I was proven right.
The UAW faces a cruel dilemma. It can cut wages slowly and hope GM survives. Or it can seek to maintain its current levels of wages and benefits, initially see jobs slowly disappear, and eventually see the whole enterprise disappear. Yes, GM could disappear. It would be dismembered first, and then disappear.
Why should GM file now? There are several persuasive reasons why it should accept the horrible alternative of corporate reorganization immediately and file for bankruptcy relief.
First, if GM files now, shareholders will be able to influence the reorganization process and likely retain a massive equity ownership interest in the firm. If GM waits several years to file, shareholders will be wiped out, the way airline shareholders are being erased from the picture. So, the sooner GM seeks corporate reorganization relief in bankruptcy court, the more shareholders will be able to salvage from their investment.
Firms that are financially strong when they enter bankruptcy will be financially stronger when they exit.
Second, there is no realistic prospect that under current conditions the UAW will agree to significant wage and benefit reductions. Mentally, psychologically union leaders and workers are not prepared to accept the inevitable. Therefore GM will continue to die a slow death, as employees demand a financial return that can no longer be provided by the enterprise, and as it struggles to complete in the world economy. A bankruptcy filing would force everyone involved to confront reality. Now, before it is too late.
GM management has been poor to atrocious but part of that poor performance is based on an increasingly global automobile market and GM's inability to justify UAW wages in a competitive environment. Non-union auto workers in southern states earn less, receive fewer benefits and less generous pensions, and work under conditions that are more stringent. GM workers are not prepared to accept similar conditions. (If they act now, they won't have to.)
Third, UAW employees are likely to do significantly better if GM files for bankruptcy now, than if the UAW waits for GM to bleed and hemorrhage to the point of financial exhaustion several years down the line and then seeks bankruptcy protection. The sooner GM files the more leverage UAW employees will have to protect their wages, pensions and benefits. (Yes, this column is called "Contrarian Commentary" for a reason.)
Fourth, there is no longer any stigma to corporate bankruptcies. Are people avoiding United Airlines because of its endless bankruptcy proceedings? Doubtful. And United just snagged almost $3 billion in new financing to exit bankruptcy. Delta Airlines' comfort letter to its customers, telling them their benefits are safe and airline operations are normal, is the norm today. People love to engage in patriotic breast beating; until it comes time for them to shop and spend their hard-earned dollars. Then they usually buy the lowest price offering. And that is why GM is suffering. American automobile buyers do not want to pay UAW wages any longer. Something has to give. Or give back.
Fifth, which is a combination of the first and third reasons, if GM files now the legitimate owners of GM will be able to retain their stake, instead of corporate undertakers earning unconscionable profits from financial manipulation in bankruptcy court. Wilbur Ross, a wise Wall Street operator, has made billions by buying bankrupt companies after they file, using reorganization to profit himself, and then dumping employees on the street.
The same thing happened at K-Mart, where outright fraud appears to have been committed to cheat employees, shareholders and creditors, while a handful of speculators profited from insider information and made a billion dollar killing.
Bankruptcy courts are literally a "necessary evil," and they are very evil indeed. Shysters and scum bags do everything they can to profit at the expense of legitimate stakeholders in a business. But they succeed only because the stakeholders themselves refuse to face reality and act realistically. If GM management and workers march into bankruptcy when the firm is financially strong, the "vulture investors" can be kept at bay. If GM delays, the vultures will win, and the employees and shareholders will take the big hit so that Wall Street ogres can fatten their own wallets.
Kirk Krikorian, a legendary shrewd investor, has recently been buying GM stock. Obviously, he does not expect the firm to go under. But he wants the company to reorganize its assets and operations. If GM agrees to Krikorian's demands he will make millions in the short run, but only ensure that GM continues to weaken financially and ultimately ends up in bankruptcy court.
So, if at first you thought my proposal that GM file for bankruptcy was absurd, I submit you were wrong, wrong, wrong. Contrarian that I am, I think workers, managers and shareholders must face the inevitable before it is inevitable. They must act to control their own destiny instead of allowing speculators such as Krikorian and vultures such as Ross to profit at the expense of little people.
I first visited Wall Street over forty years ago. I have followed the stock market for almost fifty years. I have seen firsthand what corruption and shenanigans take place in the bankruptcy courts when a company seeks relief only after it is prostrate: the vultures profit and employees are punished with the loss of their jobs, benefits and pensions. I don't want the same thing to happen to my UAW friends and supporters on the shop floor at GM.
I don't know what management, labor and shareholders should agree to as a realistic solution for GM to survive. But I do know how that future will look if these groups don't go to bankruptcy court now, and ask a judge to help while the firm is still financially flush and able to control its own destiny.
Airline employees have been devastated and virtually wiped out in the airline bankruptcies because those firms waited too long before seeking protection. No one ever thought the airlines could fail, and indeed they have not stopped flying. But paychecks have been slashed, benefits evaporated, and pensions disappeared. I don't want the same for GM.
GM is an honorable enterprise. Its employees are great people. I believe that GM helped save America after 9/11 when, instead of closing its plants in response to falling demand, GM opened up the throttle and "Kept America Moving." GM has never received any appreciation for this bold policy that rescued the economy. Now it is GM that needs a rescue. Once again, bold leadership, bold vision, and bold action are needed to "Keep America Moving."
>Three years ago I was swamped with calls from Wall Street after I said that General Motors should immediately file for bankruptcy. The 2005 column follows this column so you can see what I wrote then. It was prophetic.
Today I renew my call for General Motors to file for bankruptcy. Tomorrow. If GM delays, it will certainly derail Barack Obama's "first 100 days" and could end up derailing our national economic recovery.
GM mangers did not want to file in 2005 because they probably foresaw that bankruptcy could come some day, and they wanted to protect their executive pensions by insulating them from future creditor claims. In addition, GM's astronomical executive salaries could not survive a bankruptcy proceeding. Fair enough.
But GM's labor costs would be slashed as well in bankruptcy. In the long run, there is no way the existing labor cost structure can be preserved in the automobile industry. If GM and others move quickly, they can still save tens of thousands of good jobs and preserve good pay and good benefits. But every day's delay will cost the economy future jobs.
This weekend auto industry executives were in Washington seeking a bailout. Congress and the president should say no. The executives' demands place Barack Obama in a quandary. Michigan voted for Obama and the Democrats. Labor unions will claim that they want a bailout instead of a handout. But the Democrats and union leaders are living in a dream world. Repeat: every day that bankruptcy is delayed will cost every American economic security.
Today the auto industry has unsustainable wage levels and ridiculous benefits. They are the product of a bygone era in labor relations when the Big three enjoyed a practical monopoly in domestic sales. It's hard to believe but GM alone once controlled more than half of the U. S. auto industry. No more. Americans are no longer loyal to American automobiles.
But the high wages and extreme benefits of the past have survived in one form or another. Recently, auto companies have begun to shed their medical benefits programs, and to involve the United Auto Workers in benefit management. But the UAW can no more defy the laws of economics than GM's anemic management.
During the primary season John McCain was pilloried by politicians for stating the obvious: high wage jobs in the auto industry would not be returning and that "change" was coming. What businessman in his right mind would build a plant or invest in an existing plant in Michigan, Indiana or Ohio, when they could "go south" and save 25% of their labor costs? In some sort of suicide pact, the states where the auto industry was strongest voted for their own death sentence by supporting the Democrats.
Democrats can no more rewrite the laws of economics than Republicans.
GM's CEO tried to use scare tactics by saying that no one would buy a car from a bankrupt company. Oh yeah? Tens of millions of passengers flew on bankrupt airlines. In 2005 I showed why there is no fear of bankruptcy in today's economy.
So what happens if GM does not file for bankruptcy protection and keeps pounding the table demanding a bailout?
First, there will be confusion and delay. Nothing will happen for months. By then GM will be even weaker. Second, labor unions will try to strong-arm congress into voting bailout funds.
Frankly, the end of the road has arrived for the inflated, incompetent auto industry management. In President Reagan's time they got assistance in the form of import quotas to give them "time to retool." As soon as their prospects improved, up went salaries and wages and the public was forgotten. We are in yet another down cycle of auto production, and once again executives are in Washington begging for assistance and predicting dire consequences if no aid is forthcoming.
I predict even more dire consequences for the economy if aid does go to the auto companies.
First, there will be no pressure to cut or costs and modernize labor relations. Wage levels are still way too high in the northern UAW auto plants.
Second, resentment is already building against bailouts that preserve high wages and executive perks, and are paid for by poor and working families. It just is not fair, or right, for the least among us to support the wealthier. Wall Street took the bailouts and went back to its bad ways, again promising bonuses for bad management and poor performance. If Democrats do adopt "corporate welfare" in response to pressure from labor, the long-term economy and economic recovery will be weakened not strengthened.
Well, there you have it. Sadly, I can only prescribe a bitter pill for my friends in the UAW. But I also can promise them that if labor and management do not head for bankruptcy court this week, the next pill will be a suicide pill. Which is worse?
Fast bankruptcy action will save jobs and stimulate the economic recovery. Delay is death, for workers, managers and our economy.
Look at what I had to say three years ago about this identical problem:
----------------------------------------------
AMERICA'S DAILY BRIEFING FOR OCTOBER 14, 2005
CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY FROM ANDY MARTIN
AMERICA AND THE WORLD ECONOMY:
WHY GENERAL MOTORS SHOULD FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY--NOW
(CHICAGO)(October 14, 2005) I got a letter in the mail this week. Delta Airlines was telling me they had filed for bankruptcy. They said "not to worry," my frequent flyer miles were safe and operations were normal. I also fly on United Airlines (in bankruptcy three [3] years) and Northwest Airlines (also filing for bankruptcy). US Airways just exited bankruptcy, after a second trip through the financial wringer.
What do all of these airline bankruptcies have to do with General Motors? Read on.
I first saw a prediction that General Motors could/should file for bankruptcy several months ago. The writers suggested that by some time later in this decade GM would have exhausted its financial resources, and would be forced into bankruptcy.
Last weekend a former GM subsidiary, Delphi Corporation, did file for bankruptcy. General Motors is potentially liable for up to $11 billion in retiree health premiums and pensions for Delphi's workers. That overhanging liability, as well as GM's steadily eroding financial position, causes me to write this column. GM should file for bankruptcy--now. Before it is too late.
GM is still a formidable worldwide enterprise. It has billions of dollars in cash resources, as well as "crown jewel" assets that are highly profitable and are currently subsidizing the money-losing automobile business. Why file for bankruptcy?
This is a painful column to write because I have enjoyed a close association with members of the UAW for thirty (30) years. Some of them have supported me in earlier political campaigns. I have a great deal of affection for and loyalty to the men and women on the shop floor. And I accurately predicted thirty years ago that unless America changed its trade policies, large areas of Illinois's manufacturing economy, notably in the Quad Cities, would be hollowed out and eventually destroyed. Unfortunately I was proven right.
The UAW faces a cruel dilemma. It can cut wages slowly and hope GM survives. Or it can seek to maintain its current levels of wages and benefits, initially see jobs slowly disappear, and eventually see the whole enterprise disappear. Yes, GM could disappear. It would be dismembered first, and then disappear.
Why should GM file now? There are several persuasive reasons why it should accept the horrible alternative of corporate reorganization immediately and file for bankruptcy relief.
First, if GM files now, shareholders will be able to influence the reorganization process and likely retain a massive equity ownership interest in the firm. If GM waits several years to file, shareholders will be wiped out, the way airline shareholders are being erased from the picture. So, the sooner GM seeks corporate reorganization relief in bankruptcy court, the more shareholders will be able to salvage from their investment.
Firms that are financially strong when they enter bankruptcy will be financially stronger when they exit.
Second, there is no realistic prospect that under current conditions the UAW will agree to significant wage and benefit reductions. Mentally, psychologically union leaders and workers are not prepared to accept the inevitable. Therefore GM will continue to die a slow death, as employees demand a financial return that can no longer be provided by the enterprise, and as it struggles to complete in the world economy. A bankruptcy filing would force everyone involved to confront reality. Now, before it is too late.
GM management has been poor to atrocious but part of that poor performance is based on an increasingly global automobile market and GM's inability to justify UAW wages in a competitive environment. Non-union auto workers in southern states earn less, receive fewer benefits and less generous pensions, and work under conditions that are more stringent. GM workers are not prepared to accept similar conditions. (If they act now, they won't have to.)
Third, UAW employees are likely to do significantly better if GM files for bankruptcy now, than if the UAW waits for GM to bleed and hemorrhage to the point of financial exhaustion several years down the line and then seeks bankruptcy protection. The sooner GM files the more leverage UAW employees will have to protect their wages, pensions and benefits. (Yes, this column is called "Contrarian Commentary" for a reason.)
Fourth, there is no longer any stigma to corporate bankruptcies. Are people avoiding United Airlines because of its endless bankruptcy proceedings? Doubtful. And United just snagged almost $3 billion in new financing to exit bankruptcy. Delta Airlines' comfort letter to its customers, telling them their benefits are safe and airline operations are normal, is the norm today. People love to engage in patriotic breast beating; until it comes time for them to shop and spend their hard-earned dollars. Then they usually buy the lowest price offering. And that is why GM is suffering. American automobile buyers do not want to pay UAW wages any longer. Something has to give. Or give back.
Fifth, which is a combination of the first and third reasons, if GM files now the legitimate owners of GM will be able to retain their stake, instead of corporate undertakers earning unconscionable profits from financial manipulation in bankruptcy court. Wilbur Ross, a wise Wall Street operator, has made billions by buying bankrupt companies after they file, using reorganization to profit himself, and then dumping employees on the street.
The same thing happened at K-Mart, where outright fraud appears to have been committed to cheat employees, shareholders and creditors, while a handful of speculators profited from insider information and made a billion dollar killing.
Bankruptcy courts are literally a "necessary evil," and they are very evil indeed. Shysters and scum bags do everything they can to profit at the expense of legitimate stakeholders in a business. But they succeed only because the stakeholders themselves refuse to face reality and act realistically. If GM management and workers march into bankruptcy when the firm is financially strong, the "vulture investors" can be kept at bay. If GM delays, the vultures will win, and the employees and shareholders will take the big hit so that Wall Street ogres can fatten their own wallets.
Kirk Krikorian, a legendary shrewd investor, has recently been buying GM stock. Obviously, he does not expect the firm to go under. But he wants the company to reorganize its assets and operations. If GM agrees to Krikorian's demands he will make millions in the short run, but only ensure that GM continues to weaken financially and ultimately ends up in bankruptcy court.
So, if at first you thought my proposal that GM file for bankruptcy was absurd, I submit you were wrong, wrong, wrong. Contrarian that I am, I think workers, managers and shareholders must face the inevitable before it is inevitable. They must act to control their own destiny instead of allowing speculators such as Krikorian and vultures such as Ross to profit at the expense of little people.
I first visited Wall Street over forty years ago. I have followed the stock market for almost fifty years. I have seen firsthand what corruption and shenanigans take place in the bankruptcy courts when a company seeks relief only after it is prostrate: the vultures profit and employees are punished with the loss of their jobs, benefits and pensions. I don't want the same thing to happen to my UAW friends and supporters on the shop floor at GM.
I don't know what management, labor and shareholders should agree to as a realistic solution for GM to survive. But I do know how that future will look if these groups don't go to bankruptcy court now, and ask a judge to help while the firm is still financially flush and able to control its own destiny.
Airline employees have been devastated and virtually wiped out in the airline bankruptcies because those firms waited too long before seeking protection. No one ever thought the airlines could fail, and indeed they have not stopped flying. But paychecks have been slashed, benefits evaporated, and pensions disappeared. I don't want the same for GM.
GM is an honorable enterprise. Its employees are great people. I believe that GM helped save America after 9/11 when, instead of closing its plants in response to falling demand, GM opened up the throttle and "Kept America Moving." GM has never received any appreciation for this bold policy that rescued the economy. Now it is GM that needs a rescue. Once again, bold leadership, bold vision, and bold action are needed to "Keep America Moving."
Decline and Fall of the United States
Chuck Gengler, my colleague from my years at Clarkson University (1991-3) and now at Baruch College (which, like Brooklyn College, is a part of CUNY, so Chuck is still my colleague) just wrote me:
>...the speed of decline is accelerating, a snowball-like effect. The government has become corrupt, so we will make bigger government and it will be more corrupt. First will come an aggressive move to "regulate" the right to own firearms, then comes the massive confiscation of property for "redistribution." It is quite amazing how prophetic both Animal Farm and Atlas Shrugged are at this juncture (not to mention the low-brow but accurate movie I mentioned before).
Some say this is like when Carter was in office, but I say far from it. This government will be far more militant. I frankly have trouble believing the words I see coming from Pelosi and Reid.
By the way, Bush and congress together took away a lot of our rights the last 7 years...have you heard any of these great "liberals" talking about returning those rights? It never even came up as a campaign issue. No matter what party is elected in the future, they seem to always take away more freedom and never give it back---because that would be giving up power and they are addicted to power.
Chuck is one of a small minority of perceptive and sane people in higher education. Unfortunately, the minority is small. Very small.
>...the speed of decline is accelerating, a snowball-like effect. The government has become corrupt, so we will make bigger government and it will be more corrupt. First will come an aggressive move to "regulate" the right to own firearms, then comes the massive confiscation of property for "redistribution." It is quite amazing how prophetic both Animal Farm and Atlas Shrugged are at this juncture (not to mention the low-brow but accurate movie I mentioned before).
Some say this is like when Carter was in office, but I say far from it. This government will be far more militant. I frankly have trouble believing the words I see coming from Pelosi and Reid.
By the way, Bush and congress together took away a lot of our rights the last 7 years...have you heard any of these great "liberals" talking about returning those rights? It never even came up as a campaign issue. No matter what party is elected in the future, they seem to always take away more freedom and never give it back---because that would be giving up power and they are addicted to power.
Chuck is one of a small minority of perceptive and sane people in higher education. Unfortunately, the minority is small. Very small.
Democratic Party Progressivism at Work
Gather.com carries this tuna tidbit (h/t Bob Robbins):
>Del Monte: Pelosi's Tuna
>Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San Francisco. Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters, are located in San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi's home district. Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi's political fund. Star-Kist is also the major employer in American Samoa, actually employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.
>Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Del Monte stock. In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.
>Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an "economic development credit in American Samoa".
Nancy Pelosi has called the Bush Administration "corrupt"...?
Well she would know.....!
Borrowing once again from Certs: America has two, two, two corrupt parties in one!
>Del Monte: Pelosi's Tuna
>Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San Francisco. Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters, are located in San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi's home district. Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi's political fund. Star-Kist is also the major employer in American Samoa, actually employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.
>Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Del Monte stock. In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.
>Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an "economic development credit in American Samoa".
Nancy Pelosi has called the Bush Administration "corrupt"...?
Well she would know.....!
Borrowing once again from Certs: America has two, two, two corrupt parties in one!
Sunday, November 9, 2008
An Explanation of The Evolution of American Politics
An explanation of the evolution of American democracy. H/t Chuck Gengler:
How To Contact Your Electors Re Birth Certificate
Two websites has been set up to facilitate contact of presidential electors regarding the birth certificate here and here. I'm interested in learning how to contact the electors for the states not listed.
The sites are:
http://www.democratic-disaster.com
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com
Julie writes:
I think to keep the cause "active" and to keep people engaged, a social networking group which includes all of the above may be a better idea. I took the liberty of creating a social networking group which will allow volunteers in each state to form a group and share information, ideas, news, updates, etc. I have already created "State Elector Action" groups for each state. Here group members can chat live and share documents,progress, etc., which may cut down on emails and people not knowing what to do. The social networking site also has a comment/posting notification system, so when an update is posted or a comment is made, the member will receive an email notification. I will include some articles and news stories soon, but i believe that it is the type of site that is more interactive and hopefully it will get more people involved and keep them engaged.
This does not take away from the effort that has already been made with the forum that was created. It is just a very different format that I think will encourage people to post, blog and share ideas.
The site is: http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/ Please take a look at it.
Also, please pass this information on to all those that have volunteered that were not on my email list so we can spread the word about the site.
Doug writes:
Our website is at http://www.democratic-disaster.com/ Do I have your permission to share your contact info with the state coordinator?
Thanks for standing up for the Constitution,
Doug
The sites are:
http://www.democratic-disaster.com
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com
Julie writes:
I think to keep the cause "active" and to keep people engaged, a social networking group which includes all of the above may be a better idea. I took the liberty of creating a social networking group which will allow volunteers in each state to form a group and share information, ideas, news, updates, etc. I have already created "State Elector Action" groups for each state. Here group members can chat live and share documents,progress, etc., which may cut down on emails and people not knowing what to do. The social networking site also has a comment/posting notification system, so when an update is posted or a comment is made, the member will receive an email notification. I will include some articles and news stories soon, but i believe that it is the type of site that is more interactive and hopefully it will get more people involved and keep them engaged.
This does not take away from the effort that has already been made with the forum that was created. It is just a very different format that I think will encourage people to post, blog and share ideas.
The site is: http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/ Please take a look at it.
Also, please pass this information on to all those that have volunteered that were not on my email list so we can spread the word about the site.
Doug writes:
Our website is at http://www.democratic-disaster.com/ Do I have your permission to share your contact info with the state coordinator?
Thanks for standing up for the Constitution,
Doug
Joseph Stewart Asks Barack Obama About Inner Cities
My student in management at Brooklyn College, Joseph Stewart, asked then-Senator Barack Obama a question on television recently. Joseph, who lives in Red Hook, Brooklyn, knows at least 40 people who have been murdered. He wanted to know how Barack Obama thinks that hope can be injected into the inner city.
I agree with parts of Mr. Obama's remarks. I do not believe that improvement of medical care, after school programs or teacher quality are relevant to crime. The creation of jobs would help, but not if taxation of income makes a good job a pastime for a sucker. One way to encourage a focus on the work ethic is to limit taxation, government intervention and inflation to encourage saving, thrift and self-improvement. As well, elimination of minimum wage requirements for training programs would enable firms to employ unskilled labor that they train for the best jobs.
Perhaps Red Hook could become a free trade zone and attract industrial enterprise back to New York, enterprise that was ejected (and its associated jobs destroyed) during the "urban renewal" of the 1950s. As well, decriminalization of drugs would reduce violent crime. Along these lines, Mr. Obama suggests drug courts that decriminalize drugs.
I agree with Mr. Obama's claim that young people should be given opportunity to learn construction trades, although if much of their earnings are taxed, good jobs may not be so desirable. Strengthening of the family and individual assumption of responsibility (and rewarding assumption of such responsibility) are the best ways to end crime.
Crime rates did not increase in inner cities until the early 1950s. The increase was concomitant with increased government programs, welfare, social work and urban renewal. As someone once said, government is not the solution, government is the problem.
I agree with parts of Mr. Obama's remarks. I do not believe that improvement of medical care, after school programs or teacher quality are relevant to crime. The creation of jobs would help, but not if taxation of income makes a good job a pastime for a sucker. One way to encourage a focus on the work ethic is to limit taxation, government intervention and inflation to encourage saving, thrift and self-improvement. As well, elimination of minimum wage requirements for training programs would enable firms to employ unskilled labor that they train for the best jobs.
Perhaps Red Hook could become a free trade zone and attract industrial enterprise back to New York, enterprise that was ejected (and its associated jobs destroyed) during the "urban renewal" of the 1950s. As well, decriminalization of drugs would reduce violent crime. Along these lines, Mr. Obama suggests drug courts that decriminalize drugs.
I agree with Mr. Obama's claim that young people should be given opportunity to learn construction trades, although if much of their earnings are taxed, good jobs may not be so desirable. Strengthening of the family and individual assumption of responsibility (and rewarding assumption of such responsibility) are the best ways to end crime.
Crime rates did not increase in inner cities until the early 1950s. The increase was concomitant with increased government programs, welfare, social work and urban renewal. As someone once said, government is not the solution, government is the problem.
Extension of Unemployment Insurance versus Public Works--Subsidies Should Be Sent to Me, at PO Box 130, W. Shokan, NY
A friend of mine suggested that if the unemployment rate continues to rise a good plan might be public works projects to employ the unemployed. Herbert Hoover did this during 1930-1932. He put through the Hoover Dam in '32 but lost the election, so it was implemented during Roosevelt's administration. In short, Hoover's public works programs did nothing to stop the Great Depression. Roosevelt continued this policy with the Works Projects Administration but again, this was not an effective strategy.
Part of the problem with public construction is excessive waste and regulation, which leads to cost overruns and mismanagement. This is especially true in New York State, which happened to be the leading recipient of the WPA money. I suspect that a public works project would lead to considerable thievery, especially in places like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, where it is most needed. I have lived in rural places like Potsdam, New York, and there are plenty of crooked construction people there too.
However, the training of inner city unemployed to become plumbers, masons, carpenters and electricians would be potentially productive. These newly trained individuals might be employed by experienced firms. Hence, road and bridge repair work could be done by newly trained people who have previously been excluded from construction trades because of discriminatory union policies and closed shops.
Barring the training of new construction help, I suspect any works projects money would be stolen.
Many people may have lost their jobs due to excessively stimulative Federal Reserve policy that has led to the real estate bubble and the recent collapse. Easy money leads to inept corporate behavior, and the banks' problems are no exception. It is outrageous that not only is the government bailing them out, but now the Democrats want to use bailout money to subsidize the auto industry.
According to the Wall Street Journal Online:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent to send a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urging him to assist the Big Three auto makers by considering broadening the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to help the troubled industry."
I think they have the wrong idea. I need the subsidy, not auto executives. I can run automobile companies as badly as they do. Moreover, I can run investment banks as badly as the guys at Bear Stearns. Most of all, I can run commercial banks almost as badly as the guys at Citigroup. I should get the bailout, and run the banks, the investment banks and the automobile companies. After all, I too want a new car and a trip to Italy. Why should I suffer? I deserve the bailout money. Ms. Pelosi, please send me the subsidy, not the auto industry. I'm deprived. And I want public works subsidies. And banking subsidies. I want it all, baby. Life is short.
Seriously, though, unemployment insurance for those in serious need is a good plan. I don't mind paying 2% of my income to help the unemployed. That would be conditional upon abolishing the departments of education and energy, and cutting waste, that is, government spending by 40%.
Part of the problem with public construction is excessive waste and regulation, which leads to cost overruns and mismanagement. This is especially true in New York State, which happened to be the leading recipient of the WPA money. I suspect that a public works project would lead to considerable thievery, especially in places like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, where it is most needed. I have lived in rural places like Potsdam, New York, and there are plenty of crooked construction people there too.
However, the training of inner city unemployed to become plumbers, masons, carpenters and electricians would be potentially productive. These newly trained individuals might be employed by experienced firms. Hence, road and bridge repair work could be done by newly trained people who have previously been excluded from construction trades because of discriminatory union policies and closed shops.
Barring the training of new construction help, I suspect any works projects money would be stolen.
Many people may have lost their jobs due to excessively stimulative Federal Reserve policy that has led to the real estate bubble and the recent collapse. Easy money leads to inept corporate behavior, and the banks' problems are no exception. It is outrageous that not only is the government bailing them out, but now the Democrats want to use bailout money to subsidize the auto industry.
According to the Wall Street Journal Online:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent to send a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urging him to assist the Big Three auto makers by considering broadening the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to help the troubled industry."
I think they have the wrong idea. I need the subsidy, not auto executives. I can run automobile companies as badly as they do. Moreover, I can run investment banks as badly as the guys at Bear Stearns. Most of all, I can run commercial banks almost as badly as the guys at Citigroup. I should get the bailout, and run the banks, the investment banks and the automobile companies. After all, I too want a new car and a trip to Italy. Why should I suffer? I deserve the bailout money. Ms. Pelosi, please send me the subsidy, not the auto industry. I'm deprived. And I want public works subsidies. And banking subsidies. I want it all, baby. Life is short.
Seriously, though, unemployment insurance for those in serious need is a good plan. I don't mind paying 2% of my income to help the unemployed. That would be conditional upon abolishing the departments of education and energy, and cutting waste, that is, government spending by 40%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
