JUDICIAL WATCH EXPOSES OBAMA'S AGENDA OF OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED WITH HORDES MORE ILLEGALS:
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2012/07/judicial-watch-exposes-obamas-agenda.html
*
IBD Editorials
The Tragic Illusion Of Obama's Fine Mind
06/27/2012 06:26 PM
ET
The Obama Record
The Obama Record: As it becomes clear our
"brilliant" president has failed to turn the economy around, a poll
shows half of Americans want to know how he did in college.
Forty-nine percent of
respondents to an exclusive IBD/TIPP survey say they agree that Obama
"should release his academic records" before November. Only 28%
strongly disagree. Seven percent answered "not sure."
Voters got a look at the college coursework and grades of
President Bush, as well as Democratic challengers Al Gore and John Kerry.
Obama, however, refuses to release his transcripts, despite media requests.
It's natural voters would now wonder about his academic
performance. Other polls show they're increasingly unhappy with his job
performance.
With signs the economy may be slipping back into recession,
and the president's economic policies looking woefully ineffective, many voters
are waking up to the notion he may not be nearly as smart as he's made out to
be.
Obama's storied intellect simply isn't measuring up to the hype created by media sycophants like MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who's called him "very smart," or historians like Michael Beschloss, who said he's "probably the smartest guy ever to become president."
Obama's storied intellect simply isn't measuring up to the hype created by media sycophants like MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who's called him "very smart," or historians like Michael Beschloss, who said he's "probably the smartest guy ever to become president."
Coming into office on
the heels of a tongue-tied predecessor, the well-spoken Obama was supposed to
have all the answers. But it turns out he doesn't know any better. His bright
ideas, from energy policy to health care and jobs, haven't worked.
When it comes to economics, Obama is tragically lost. Yet he
insists he knows best. He thinks with his own superior intelligence he can
solve any problem.
When he ran for the U.S. Senate, Obama bragged about how
relatively well-read and cosmopolitan he was. "There is a certain
self-consciousness that I possess as somebody with probably too much book
learning, and also a very polyglot background," he sniffed in a 2004
interview with BeliefNet.com.
He seems to look down
on ordinary Americans, views them as rubes. He griped in the same interview
that the American people "get confused sometimes, watch Fox News or listen
to talk radio. That's dangerous."
No, what's dangerous
is his intellectual elitism. Besides clouding his judgment, it fools others
into thinking his judgment is beyond reproach.
Worse, his smugness may be unearned. Obama's brainy
reputation is based almost entirely on his ability to string together
sentences. But most of his thoughts are scripted. Unlike George Bush, Obama
needs a teleprompter just to talk to elementary school kids.
While Obama may come across as an erudite professor, he is
actually quite sloppy in his scholarship. His misattributing a quote to MLK in
the rug he had custom-made for the Oval Office is one example. Another is his
absurd statement to French TV that based on America's "7 million"
Muslim population, we'd be one of the largest Muslim nations. The actual size
is a third that figure.
Bush was ridiculed for not reading enough books. Yet he was
at least familiar enough with the word "corps" — as in Navy
"corpsman" — not to confuse it with a dead body like Obama did at a
prayer breakfast. At a recent summit, Obama the "polyglot" world
traveler mangled the Argentine term Malvinas as "Maldives."
Defenders say the fact Obama wrote two books alone proves
his intellectual firepower. But there are doubts he actually penned his first
memoir. His subversive pal Bill Ayers recently claimed authorship. Much of the
book's prose, in fact, resembles Ayers' writing style.
Regardless, both Obama autobiographies are riddled with
howling factual errors. He even got several key dates wrong in his family
history.
We have a lot of evidence Obama is not a genius, and little proof that he is. The empirical proof remains sealed at Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard University.
(We would add the University of Chicago, where he once lectured, because as far as we can tell, he never wrote a scholarly article or joined intellectual debates while employed there.)
We have a lot of evidence Obama is not a genius, and little proof that he is. The empirical proof remains sealed at Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard University.
(We would add the University of Chicago, where he once lectured, because as far as we can tell, he never wrote a scholarly article or joined intellectual debates while employed there.)
There's at least
anecdotal evidence that Obama was a terrible student in high school and
college, where he routinely got high on pot and cocaine, skipped class and
turned assignments in late. Yet somehow — somehow — he got into Ivy League
schools.
Even Obama confessed
in 2007 that he was "a goof-off in high school . . . There was a whole
stretch of time where I didn't apply myself." That stretch runs at least
through his entry into Columbia in the fall of 1981, as a member of one of the
worst transfer classes in the school's history. Breitbart.com found it had the
worst SAT scores in recent memory.
In fact, Obama may
have had a lower score than C-student Bush, whom the media have maligned as the
dumbest president.
Perhaps this is why
Columbia professors haven't come forward to exalt Obama as a standout. In fact,
Obama had to beg Northwestern University professor John McKnight, who worked
with him as a street organizer in Chicago, for a letter of recommendation to
Harvard. Apparently other professors balked.
There are a lot of
unanswered questions about this president. Now, many Americans are wondering,
with good reason, if his superior intellect is a myth.
Seeing a first term
marked by callowness and incompetence, some are wondering if he conned his way
to the top, or got into Ivy League schools not on academic merit but through
racial preferences.
His academic records
would help voters determine whether they've been sold a bill of goods. They
have a right to see all of them before the election.
*
"Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down
and you cut a deal with the corporate world," Edwards Campaign Manager
David Bonior said during an interview with MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. "If
you look at his record in Illinois when he had a major — sponsored a major
health bill that's what he did. He watered down with the help of the corporate
lobbyist and they got a weak product out of that."
Scarborough asked: "Are you saying that Barack Obama is
a sellout to corporate interests?"
Bonior replied: "He was four years ago in Illinois. All
you have to do is look at the legislation I'm referring to."
Bonior was referring to health care legislation that Obama
was instrumental in passing when he was an Illinois state senator five years
ago, in part because he worked with insurance companies to make additions to
the bill that would ensure their approval of the measure.
All this while the
administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special interest
- from drug companies to auto unions to doctors - in which favors worth
billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.*
DENVERPOST.com
opinion
Krauthammer:
The decline of Obama
By Charles
Krauthammer
Posted:
09/04/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
What happened to President Obama? His wax wings having melted, he is the man who fell to earth. What happened to bring his popularity down further than that of any new president in polling history save Gerald Ford (post-Nixon pardon)?
The
conventional wisdom is that Obama made a tactical mistake by farming out his agenda to Congress and allowing himself to be pulled left by the doctrinaire liberals of the Democratic congressional leadership.
All this while the administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special interest - from drug companies to auto unions to doctors - in which favors worth billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.
All this while the administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special interest - from drug companies to auto unions to doctors - in which favors worth billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.
ALL
THREE, OBAMA, REID AND PELOSI MAKE JUDICIAL WATCH’S 10 MOST CORRUPT EVERY YEAR!
But the idea of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling Obama left is quite ridiculous. Where do you think he came from, this friend of Chavista ex-terrorist William Ayers, of PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi, of racialist inciter Jeremiah Wright?
But forget the character witnesses. Just look at Obama's behavior as president, beginning with his first address to Congress.
Unbidden,
unforced and unpushed by the congressional leadership, Obama gave his most
deeply felt vision of America, delivering the boldest social democratic
manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president. In American politics, you can't get
more left than that speech and still be on the playing field.
In
a center-right country, that was problem enough. Obama then compounded it by
vastly misreading his mandate. He assumed it was personal.
This,
after winning by a mere seven points in a year of true economic catastrophe, of
an extraordinarily unpopular Republican incumbent, and of a politically weak
and unsteady opponent.
Nonetheless,
Obama imagined that, as Fouad Ajami so brilliantly observed, he had won the
kind of banana-republic plebiscite that grants caudillo-like authority to
remake everything in one's own image.
Accordingly,
Obama unveiled his plans for a grand makeover of the American system, animating
that vision by enacting measure after measure that greatly enlarged state
power, government spending and national debt.
Not
surprisingly, these measures engendered powerful popular skepticism that burst
into tea-party town-hall resistance.
Obama's
reaction to that resistance made things worse. Obama fancies himself tribune of
the people, spokesman for the grass roots, harbinger of a new kind of politics
from below that would upset the established lobbyist special-interest order of
Washington.
Yet
faced with protests from a real grass-roots movement, his party and his
supporters called it a mob - misinformed, misled, irrational, angry, unhinged,
bordering on racist.
All this while
the administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special
interest - from drug companies to auto unions to doctors - in which favors
worth billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.
"Get
out of the way" and "don't do a lot of talking," the great
bipartisan scolded opponents whom he blamed for creating the "mess"
from which he is merely trying to save us.
If
only they could see. So with boundless confidence in his own persuasiveness,
Obama undertook a summer campaign to enlighten the masses by addressing
substantive objections to his reforms.
Things
got worse still. With answers so slippery and implausible and, well, fishy, he
began jeopardizing the most fundamental asset of any new president - trust.
You
can't say that the system is totally broken and in need of radical
reconstruction, but nothing will change for you; that Medicare is bankrupting
the country, but $500 billion in cuts will have no effect on care; that you
will expand coverage while reducing deficits - and not inspire incredulity and
mistrust. When ordinary citizens understand they are being played for fools,
they bristle.
After
a disastrous summer - mistaking his mandate, believing his press, centralizing
power, governing left, disdaining citizens for (of all things) organizing -
Obama is in trouble.
Let's
be clear: This is a fall, not a collapse. He's not been repudiated or even
defeated. He will likely regroup and pass some version of health insurance
reform that will restore some of his clout and popularity.
But
what has occurred - irreversibly - is this: He's become ordinary. The spell is
broken. The charismatic conjurer of 2008 has shed his magic. He's regressed to
the mean, tellingly expressed in poll numbers hovering at 50 percent.
For a man who only recently bred a cult, ordinariness is a great burden, and for his acolytes, a crushing disappointment. Obama has become a politician like others.
And
like other flailing presidents, he will try to salvage a cherished reform - and
his own standing - with yet another prime-time speech.For a man who only recently bred a cult, ordinariness is a great burden, and for his acolytes, a crushing disappointment. Obama has become a politician like others.
But
for the first time since election night in Grant Park, he will appear in the
most unfamiliar of guises - mere mortal, a treacherous transformation to which
a man of Obama's supreme self-regard may never adapt.
*
OBAMA’S CRONY CAPITALISM, A LOVE STORY BETWEEN
THE ACTOR PRESIDENT, AND HIS BANKSTER DONORS!
Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of
financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806),
JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).
Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses
BY TIMOTHY P CARNEY
Editorial Reviews
Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?
Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer,
the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed
to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government
policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics,
investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media
ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and
Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming
he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory
robbery—it’s Obamanomics.
Congressman Ron Paul says,
“Every libertarian and free-market conservative needs to read Obamanomics.”
And Johan Goldberg, columnist and bestselling author says, “Obamanomics
is conservative muckraking at its best and an indispensable field guide to the
Obama years.”
If you’ve wondered what’s
happening to America, as the federal government swallows up the financial
sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding
“stimulus packages,” this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately,
Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s
getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book names the
names—and it will make your blood boil.
Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?
Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer,
the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed
to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government
policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers.
Investigative reporter
Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White
House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering
corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate
America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics. In
this explosive book, Carney reveals:
* The Great Health Care
Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell corporate profits and
more government control
* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda
* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)
* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists
* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics
* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda
* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)
* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists
* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics
If you’ve wondered what’s
happening to our country, as the federal government swallows up the financial
sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding
“stimulus packages” that create make-work government jobs, this book makes it
all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every
time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are
friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will make your blood boil.
*
Praise for Obamanomics
Praise for Obamanomics
“The notion that ‘big
business’ is on the side of the free market is one of progressivism’s most
valuable myths. It allows them to demonize corporations by day and get in bed
with them by night. Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best.
It reveals how President Obama is exploiting the big business mythology to
undermine the free market and stick it to entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and
consumers. It’s an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”
—Jonha Goldberg, LA Times columnist and best-selling author
—Jonha Goldberg, LA Times columnist and best-selling author
“‘Every time government gets
bigger, somebody’s getting rich.’ With this astute observation, Tim Carney
begins his task of laying bare the Obama administration’s corporatist governing
strategy, hidden behind the president’s populist veneer. This meticulously
researched book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how
Washington really works.”
—David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against Barack Obama
—David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against Barack Obama
“Every libertarian and
free-market conservative who still believes that large corporations are trusted
allies in the battle for economic liberty needs to read this book, as does
every well-meaning liberal who believes that expansions of the
welfare-regulatory state are done to benefit the common people.”
—Congressman Ron Paul
—Congressman Ron Paul
“It’s understandable for
critics to condemn President Obama for his ‘socialism.’ But as Tim Carney
shows, the real situation is at once more subtle and more sinister. Obamanomics
favors big business while disproportionately punishing everyone else. So-called
progressives are too clueless to notice, as usual, which is why we have Tim
Carney and this book.”
—Thomas E. Woods, Jr., best-selling author of Meltdown and The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to American History
*—Thomas E. Woods, Jr., best-selling author of Meltdown and The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to American History
THE
BANKSTER-OWNED PRESIDENT PROMISED HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS NO real
REGULATION, NO PRISON TIME, AND UNLIMITED PILLAGING OF THE NATION’S ECONOMY!
DESPITE
THE DEVASTATION THESE BANKSTERS HAVE CAUSED AMERICANS, THEIR PROFITS SOARED
GREATER DURING OBAMA’S FIRST TWO YEARS, THAN ALL EIGHT UNDER BUSH. SO HAVE
FORECLOSURES!
Records show that
four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry
giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207)
and Citigroup ($358,054).
*
“Barack Obama's favorite banker faces losses of $2 billion and possibly more -- all because of the complex, now-you-see-it-now-you-don't trading in exotic financial instruments that he has so ardently lobbied Congress not to regulate.”
*
“Barack Obama's favorite banker faces losses of $2 billion and possibly more -- all because of the complex, now-you-see-it-now-you-don't trading in exotic financial instruments that he has so ardently lobbied Congress not to regulate.”
Is JPMorgan's Loss a Canary in a Coal Mine?
Posted: 05/16/2012 4:49 pm
That sound of
shattered glass you've been hearing is the iconic portrait of Jamie Dimon splintering
as it hits the floor of JPMorgan Chase. As the Good Book says, "Pride
goeth before a fall," and the sleek, silver-haired,
too-smart-for-his-own-good CEO of America's largest bank has been turning every
television show within reach into a confessional booth. Barack Obama's favorite
banker faces losses of $2 billion and
possibly more -- all because of the complex, now-you-see-it-now-you-don't
trading in exotic financial instruments that he has so ardently lobbied
Congress not to regulate.
Once again, doing
God's work -- that is, betting huge sums of money with depositor funds knowing
that you are too big to fail and can count on taxpayers riding to your rescue
if your avarice threatens to take the country down -- has lost some of its
luster. The jewels in Dimon's crown sparkle with a little less grandiosity than
a few days ago, when he ridiculed Paul Volcker's ideas for keeping Wall Street
honest as "infantile."
To find out more about
what this all means, I turned to Simon Johnson, once chief economist of the
International Monetary Fund and now a professor at MIT's Sloan School of
Management and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International
Economics. He and his colleague James Kwak founded the now-indispensable
website baselinescenario.com. They co-authored the bestselling book
13
Bankers and a most recent
book, White
House Burning, an account every
citizen should read to understand how the national deficit affects our future.
Bill Moyers: If Chase began to collapse because of risky betting, would the government be forced to step in again?
Bill Moyers: If Chase began to collapse because of risky betting, would the government be forced to step in again?
Simon Johnson: Absolutely, Bill. JPMorgan Chase is
too big to fail. Hopefully in the future we can move away from this system, but
right now it is too big. It's about a $2.5 trillion dollar bank in terms of
total assets. That's roughly 20 percent of the U.S. economy, comparing their
assets to our GDP. That's huge. If that bank were to collapse -- I'm not saying
it will -- but if it were to collapse, it would be a shock to the economy
bigger than that of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and as a result, they
would be protected by the Federal Reserve. They are exactly what's known as too
big to fail.
Moyers: I was just looking at an interview I did with you in February of 2009, soon after the collapse of 2008 and you said, and I'm quoting, "The signs that I see... the body language, the words, the op-eds, the testimony, the way these bankers are treated by certain congressional committees, it makes me feel very worried. I have a feeling in my stomach that is what I had in other countries, much poorer countries, countries that were headed into really difficult economic situations. When there's a small group of people who got you into a disaster and who are still powerful, you know you need to come in and break that power and you can't. You're stuck." How do you feel about that insight now?
Moyers: I was just looking at an interview I did with you in February of 2009, soon after the collapse of 2008 and you said, and I'm quoting, "The signs that I see... the body language, the words, the op-eds, the testimony, the way these bankers are treated by certain congressional committees, it makes me feel very worried. I have a feeling in my stomach that is what I had in other countries, much poorer countries, countries that were headed into really difficult economic situations. When there's a small group of people who got you into a disaster and who are still powerful, you know you need to come in and break that power and you can't. You're stuck." How do you feel about that insight now?
Johnson: I'm still nervous, and I think that
the losses that JPMorgan reported -- that CEO Jamie Dimon reported -- and the
way in which they're presented, the fact that they're surprised by it and the
fact that they didn't know they were taking these kinds of risks, the fact that
they lost so much money in a relatively benign moment compared to what we've
seen in the past and what we're likely to see in the future -- all of this
suggests that we are absolutely on the path towards another financial crisis of
the same order of magnitude as the last one.
Moyers: Should Jamie Dimon resign? I ask that
because as you know and as we've discussed, Chase and other huge banks have
been using their enormous wealth for years to, in effect, buy off our
politicians and regulators. Chase just had to pay up almost three quarters of a billion
dollars in settlements and surrendered fees to settle one case alone, that of
bribery and corruption in Jefferson County, Alabama. It's also paid out
billions of dollars to settle other cases of perjury, forgery, fraud and sale
of unregistered securities. And these charges were for actions that took place
while Mr. Dimon was the CEO. Should he resign?
Johnson: I think, Bill, there should be an
independent investigation into how JPMorgan operates both with regard to these
losses and with regard to all of the problems that you just identified. This
investigation should be conducted separate from the board of directors.
Remember that the shareholders and the board of directors absolutely have an
incentive to keep JPMorgan Chase as a too-big-to-fail bank. But because it is
that kind of bank, its downside risk is taken by the Federal Reserve, by the
taxpayer, by the broader economy and all citizens. We need to have an
independent, detailed, specific investigation to establish who knew what when
and what kind of wrongdoing management was engaged in. On the basis of that,
we'll see what we'll see and who should have to resign.
Moyers: Dimon is also on the board of the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which, as everyone knows is supposed to
regulate JPMorgan. What in the world are bankers doing on the Fed board,
regulating themselves?
Johnson: This is a terrible situation, Bill. It
goes back to the origins, the political compromise at the very beginning of the
Federal Reserve system about a hundred years ago. The bankers were very
powerful back then, also, and they got a Federal Reserve system in which they
had a lot of representation. Some of that has eroded over time because of
previous abuses, but you're absolutely right, the prominent bankers, including
most notably, Jamie Dimon, are members of the board of the New York Federal
Reserve, a key element in the Federal Reserve system. And he should, under
these circumstances, absolutely step down from that role. It's completely
inappropriate to have such a big bank represented in this fashion. The New York
Fed claims there's no impropriety, there's no wrong doing and he doesn't
involve himself in supervision and so on and so forth. Perhaps, but why does
Mr. Dimon, a very busy man, take time out of his day to be on the board of the
New York fed? He is getting something from this. It's a trade, just like
everything else on Wall Street.
Moyers: He dismissed criticism of his dual
role yesterday by downplaying the role of the Fed board. He said it's more like an "advisory group
than anything else." I had to check my hearing aid to see if I'd heard
that correctly.
Johnson: Well, I think he is advising them on lots of things. He also, of course, meets with some regularity with top Treasury officials, and some reports say that he meets with President Obama with some regularity. The political access and connections of Mr. Dimon are second to none. One of his senior executives was until recently chief of staff in the White House, if you can believe that. I really think this has gone far enough. Under these kinds of circumstances with this amount of loss of control over risk management, what we need to have is Mr. Dimon step down from the New York Federal Reserve Board.
Johnson: Well, I think he is advising them on lots of things. He also, of course, meets with some regularity with top Treasury officials, and some reports say that he meets with President Obama with some regularity. The political access and connections of Mr. Dimon are second to none. One of his senior executives was until recently chief of staff in the White House, if you can believe that. I really think this has gone far enough. Under these kinds of circumstances with this amount of loss of control over risk management, what we need to have is Mr. Dimon step down from the New York Federal Reserve Board.
Moyers: He told shareholders at their annual
meeting Tuesday -- they were meeting in Tampa, Florida -- that these were "self-inflicted mistakes"
that "should never have happened." Does that seem reasonable to you?
Johnson: Well, it's all very odd, Bill, and
I've talked to as many experts as I can find who are at all informed about what
JPMorgan was doing and how they were doing it and nobody really understands the
true picture. That's why we need an independent investigation to establish --
was this an isolated incident or, more likely, the breakdown of a system of
controlling and managing risks. Keep in mind that JPMorgan is widely regarded
to be the best in the business at risk management, as it is called on Wall
Street. And if they can't do this in a relatively benign moment when things are
not so very bad around the world, what is going to happen to them and to other
banks when something really dramatic happens, for example, in Europe in the
eurozone?
Moyers: Some of his supporters are claiming
that only the bank has lost on this and that there's absolutely no chance that
the loss could have threatened the stability of the banking system as happened
in 2008. What do you say again to that?
Johnson: I say this is the canary in the coal
mine. This tells you that something is fundamentally wrong with the way banks
measure, manage and control their risks. They don't have enough equity funding
in their business. They like to have a little bit of equity and a lot of debt.
They get paid based on return on equity, unadjusted for risk. If things go
well, they get the upside. If things go badly, the downside is someone else's
problem. And that someone else is you and me, Bill. It goes to the Federal
Reserve, but not only, it goes to the Treasury, it goes to the debt.
The Congressional
Budget Office estimates that the increase in debt relative to GDP due to the
last crisis will end up being 50 percent of GDP, call that $7
trillion dollars, $7.5 trillion dollars in today's money. That's extraordinary.
It's an enormous shock to our fiscal accounts and to our ability to pay
pensions and keep the healthcare system running in the future. For what? What
did we get from that? Absolutely nothing. The bankers got some billions in
extra pay, we get trillions in extra debt. It's unfair, it's inefficient, it's
unconscionable, and it needs to stop.
Moyers: Wasn't part of the risk that Dimon
took with taxpayer guaranteed deposits? I mean, if I had money at JPMorgan
Chase, wouldn't some of my money have been used to take this risk?
Johnson: Again, we don't know the exact details, but news reports do suggest that yes, they were gambling with federally insured deposits, which just really puts the icing on the cake here.
Johnson: Again, we don't know the exact details, but news reports do suggest that yes, they were gambling with federally insured deposits, which just really puts the icing on the cake here.
Moyers: Do we know yet what is Dimon's
culpability? Is it conceivable to you that a risk this big would have been
incurred without his approval?
Johnson: It seems very strange and quite a
stretch. And he did tell investors, when he reported on first quarter earnings
in April, that he was aware of the situation, aware of the trade -- he called it a "tempest in a teacup,"
and, therefore, not something to worry about.
Moyers: He's been Wall Street's point man in
their campaign against tighter regulation of derivatives and proprietary
trading. Were derivatives at the heart of this gamble?
Johnson: Yes, according to reliable reports,
this was a so-called "hedging" strategy that turned out to be no more
than a gamble, but the people involved perhaps didn't understand that or maybe
they understood it and covered it up. It was absolutely about a bet on
extremely complex derivatives and the interesting question is who failed to
understand exactly what they were getting into. And how did Jamie Dimon, who
has a reputation that he burnishes more than anybody else for being the number
one expert risk manager in the world -- how did he miss this one?
Moyers:I've been reading a lot of stories
today about members of the House, Republicans in particular, saying this
doesn't change their opinion at all that we've got to still diminish
regulation. What do you think about that?
Johnson: I think that it is a recipe for
disaster. Look, deregulating or not regulating during the boom is exactly how
you get into bailouts in the bust. The goal should be to make all the banks
small enough and simple enough to fail. End the government subsidies here. And
when I talk to people on the intellectual right, Bill, they get this, as do
people on the intellectual left. The problem is, the political right largely
doesn't want to go there because of the donations. I'm afraid some people, not
all, but some people on the political left don't want to go there either.
Moyers: The Washington Post reported
that the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into
JPMorgan's trading loss. Have you spotted -- and I know this is sensitive --
but have you spotted anything in the story so far that suggests the possibility
of criminality? Dodd-Frank is not in existence yet, so where would any
possibility of criminality come from?
Johnson: Well Dodd-Frank is in existence but
the rules have not been written and therefore not implemented. So yes, it is
hard to violate those rules in their current state. And many of those rules, by
the way, violation would be a civil penalty, not a criminal penalty. If you
violate a securities law -- if you've mislead investors, if there was material
adverse information that was not disclosed in an appropriate and timely manner
-- that's a very serious offence traditionally.
I have to say that
the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission have not
been very good at enforcing securities law in recent years, including and
specifically since the financial crisis. I am skeptical that this will change.
But if they have an investigation that reveals all of the details of what
happened and how it happened, that would be extremely informative and show us,
I believe, that the risk management approach and attitudes on Wall Street are
deeply flawed and leading us towards a big crisis.
Moyers: So what are people to do, Simon? What
can people do now in response to this?
Johnson: Well, I think you have to look for
politicians who are proposing solutions, and look on the right and on the left.
I see Elizabeth Warren, running for the Senate in Massachusetts, who is saying
we should bring back Glass-Steagall to separate commercial banking from
investment banking. I see Tom Hoenig, who is not a politician, he's a regulator,
he's the former president of the Kansas City Fed, and he's now one of the top
two people at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the FDIC. He is saying
that big banks should no longer have trading desks. That's the same sort of
idea that Elizabeth Warren is expressing. We need a lot more people to focus on
this and to make this an issue for the elections.
And I would say in
this context, Bill, it's very important not to be distracted. I understand for
example, Speaker Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of
Representatives, is proposing to have another conflict over the debt ceiling in
the near future. This is the politics of distraction. This is refusing to
recognize that a huge part of our fiscal problems today and in the future are due
to these risks within the financial system that are allowed because the people
running the biggest banks hand out massive campaign contributions across the
political spectrum.
Moyers: Are you saying that this financial
crisis, so-called, is at heart a political crisis?
Johnson: Yes, exactly. I think that a few
people, particularly in and around the financial system, have become too
powerful. They were allowed to take a lot of risk, and they did massive damage
to the economy -- more than eight million jobs lost. We're still struggling to
get back anywhere close to employment levels where we were before 2008. And
they've done massive damage to the budget. This damage to the budget is long
lasting; it undermines the budget when we need it to be stronger because the
society is aging. We need to support Social Security and support Medicare on a
fair basis. We need to restore and rebuild revenue, revenue that was absolutely
devastated by the financial crisis. People need to understand the link between
what the banks did and the budget. And too many people fail to do that.
"Oh, it's too complicated. I don't want to understand the details, I don't
want to spend time with it." That's a mistake, a very big mistake. You're
playing into the hands of a few powerful people in the society who want private
benefit and social loss.
Watch Moyers &
Company weekly on public television. See more web-only features like this
at BillMoyers.com
*
NOT
CONNECTED TO THE BANKSTERS THAT OWN OBAMA, OR THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA
RAZA!
THE REASON OBAMA BROUGHT IN DALEY WAS BECAUSE WAS FROM
JPMORGAN, AND AN ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS.
For much of Obama’s tenure, Jamie Dimon was known as the
White House’s “favorite banker.” According to White House logs, Dimon visited
the White House at least 18 times, often to talk to his former subordinate at
JPMorgan, William Daley, who had been named White House chief of staff by Obama
after the Democratic rout in the 2010 elections.
OBAMA PROMISED HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS NO
PRISON TIME AND NO REAL REGULATION. DID HE DELIVER?
The JPMorgan scandal also throws into
relief the government’s failure to prosecute those responsible for the 2008
financial meltdown. Despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing and criminality
uncovered by two federal investigations last year, those responsible have been
shielded from prosecution.
Records show that four out of Obama's
top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman
Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup
($358,054).
The
JPMorgan debacle
15
May 2012
The economic and
political fallout from JPMorgan Chase’s sudden announcement last Thursday night
that it lost more than $2 billion from speculative bets on credit derivatives
continued to grow on Monday. The biggest US bank announced the forced retirement
of Ina Drew, who headed up the bank’s London-based Chief Investment Office,
which placed huge bets on the creditworthiness of a collection of US
corporations. Other top executives and traders are expected to be sacked or
demoted.
The bank’s shares
fell another 3.2 percent, bringing its two-day market capitalization loss to
nearly $19 billion. The Wall Street Journal reported that JPMorgan was
prepared for a total loss of more than $4 billion over the next year from its
soured stake in credit default swaps—the same investment vehicle that played a
central role in the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the government bailout of
insurance giant American International Group (AIG) in September of 2008.
In an interview on
NBC’s “Meet the Press” program on Sunday, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon sought to
present the loss as an innocent mistake, resulting from “errors, sloppiness and
bad judgment.” Only a month ago, Dimon, who has led the public campaign by Wall
Street against even the mildest restrictions on speculative banking practices,
dismissed warnings over the massive bets being made by his Chief Investment
Office as “a complete tempest in a teapot.”
The scale of the loss
and the denials that preceded it raise the likelihood that banking rules and
laws against investor fraud and deception were breached.
President Obama, however, rushed to the
defense of JPMorgan and Dimon, declaring on a daytime television talk show
Monday that JPMorgan was “one of the best managed banks there is” and Dimon was
“one of the smartest bankers we got.”
At the same time he cited the bank’s loss as a vindication of the Dodd-Frank
financial regulatory bill that he signed into law in July of 2010. “This is why
we passed Wall Street reform,” he said.
In fact, the JPMorgan debacle
demonstrates that nearly four years after the Wall Street crash nothing has
changed for the financial aristocracy. No measures have been taken to rein in
the banks, which received trillions of dollars in government handouts,
guarantees and cheap loans. The same forms of speculation and outright
swindling that led to the financial meltdown and the worst economic crisis
since the Great Depression continue unabated.
The big banks, such as JPMorgan, have
increased their stranglehold over the US economy. They have recorded bumper
profits by withholding credit from consumers and small businesses, keeping
unemployment high, while speculating on credit default swaps and other exotic
financial instruments that drain resources from the real economy. On this
basis, bank executives and traders, including those at bailed-out institutions,
have continued to rake in eight-figure compensation packages. Last year, Ina
Drew made $14 million, and Jamie Dimon took in $26 million.
The Dodd-Frank law trumpeted by Obama
is a fraud, an attempt to give the appearance of financial reform while
enabling the banks to continue their parasitic and criminal activities. A case in point is the so-called
Volcker Rule, named after the former chairman of the Federal Reserve and
economic adviser to the Obama White House, Paul Volcker.
The rule,
incorporated into the Dodd-Frank Act and supposedly one of its most daring
provisions, ostensibly bars proprietary trading—speculation by a bank on its
own account—by commercial banks whose consumer deposits are guaranteed by the
federal government. The idea is to prevent government-insured banks from
speculating with depositors’ money.
But the regulation as
drafted by federal regulators—under pressure from the Federal Reserve and
Obama’s treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, as well as the banks—would
actually allow the type of speculative bet made by JPMorgan in the guise of a
“hedge” to offset risk in the bank’s overall investment portfolio.
The Volcker Rule,
whose precise form is yet to be announced, will do nothing to halt speculation
by government-backed banks using small depositors’ money.
The JPMorgan scandal also throws into
relief the government’s failure to prosecute those responsible for the 2008
financial meltdown. Despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing and criminality
uncovered by two federal investigations last year, those responsible have been
shielded from prosecution.
When Iowa Senator
Charles Grassley submitted a letter to the Justice Department earlier this year
asking how many bank executives had been prosecuted in response to the
financial crisis, the Justice Department replied it did not know because it was
not keeping a list.
According to a study
by Syracuse University, however, federal financial fraud prosecutions have
fallen to 20-year lows under the Obama administration, and are down 39 percent
since 2003. Under Obama, the number of financial fraud cases has fallen to
one-third the level of the Clinton administration.
These facts
demonstrate the de facto dictatorship exercised by the financial aristocracy
over the entire political system and both major parties. The Obama
administration, in particular, is an instrument of the most powerful financial
institutions. It has focused its efforts on protecting and increasing the
wealth of the privileged elite while utilizing the crisis to permanently slash
the wages and living standards of the working class.
For much of Obama’s tenure, Jamie Dimon
was known as the White House’s “favorite banker.” According to White House
logs, Dimon visited the White House at least 18 times, often to talk to his
former subordinate at JPMorgan, William Daley, who had been named White House
chief of staff by Obama after the Democratic rout in the 2010 elections.
The incestuous and
corrupt relations between Wall Street, the Obama administration and the entire
political system underscore the necessity for the working class to build its
own mass socialist movement to fight for its interests in opposition to the
ruling elite.
The bankers
responsible for the financial crisis, including Dimon and his co-conspirators,
must be held criminally liable for their lawlessness and held accountable for
the social suffering that has resulted from their actions. The ill-gotten
trillions accumulated by the banks must be expropriated, with full protection
for small depositors and small businesses, and used to provide decent jobs,
housing, health care and education for all.
There is no way to
rein in the banks and end their socially destructive activities within the
framework of the capitalist system. The only way to stop the fraud and
parasitism that go on every day on Wall Street is to nationalize the banks and
run them as democratically controlled public utilities.
Andre Damon and Barry
Grey
*
FACT: JP MORGAN IS ONE OF BANKSTER-BOUGHT OBAMA’S BIGGEST
PAYMASTERS! HE’S PROMISED THEM NO PRISON TIME AND NO REAL REGULATION.
THERE IS A REASON WHY THE BANKSTERS INVESTED HEAVILY IN
OBAMA’S CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION!
Records show that four out of Obama's
top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman
Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup
($358,054).
Obama: JPMorgan Is 'One of the
Best-Managed Banks'
By Mary Bruce | ABC
OTUS News – 2 hrs 31 mins ago
Obama:
JPMorgan Is 'One of the …
Lou
Rocco / ABC News
Just
hours after a top JPMorgan Chase executive retired in the wake of a
stunning $2 billion trading loss, President Obama
told the hosts of ABC's "The View" that the bank's risky bets
exemplified the need for Wall Street reform.
"JPMorgan is one of the best managed banks there
is. Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of
the smartest bankers we got and they still lost $2 billion and counting,"
the president said. "We don't know all the details. It's going to be
investigated, but this is why we passed Wall Street
reform."
While
a powerhouse like JPMorgan might be able to weather an error that the bank's
own CEO called "egregious," the president questioned what might
happen to smaller institutions in similar situations.
"This
is one of the best managed banks. You could have a bank that isn't as strong,
isn't as profitable managing those same bets and we might have had to step
in," he said. "That's why Wall Street reform is so important."
While
touting his efforts to rein in the Wall Street behavior that led to the massive
taxpayer bailout of the banks following the financial crisis, he noted his
administration is still fighting for tough reform.
Pivoting
to November, the president said Wall Street reform is one of the many critical areas
where he and his Republican challenger, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney,
have a different vision for the future.
The
president's full interview airs Tuesday on "The View." Tune into
"World News with Diane Sawyer" tonight for more.
*
*
Nicole Gelinas
It’s Not About Jamie Dimon
We should look to markets, not men, to govern the economy.
14 May 2012
It’s Not About Jamie Dimon
We should look to markets, not men, to govern the economy.
14 May 2012
OnMeet the Pressyesterday, JPMorgan Chase
chief Jamie Dimon epitomized what’s wrong with America’s approach to the
financial crisis. The American media and political elite remain obsessed with
personalities, looking for heroes and villains instead of focusing on what we really
need: the dispassionate rule of law that would allow free markets to flourish. Meet
the Press is for politicians, and Dimon performed like a model one. He
spoke in short sentences and apologized directly: “I was dead wrong,” he
offered, for having made a“terrible, egregious mistake.” Specifically, last
Thursday, JPMorgan announced a $2
billion trading losson a derivatives bet.
Theoretically, anyway, such a loss should be a
matter between the bank and investors, not TV fodder. Yet Dimon’s business—too-big-to-fail
banking—is no ordinary business. Washington’s willingness to
subsidize failure means that Dimon’s job is as much political risk management
as financial risk management. Because
JPMorgan depends on Uncle Sam’s backing, one of Dimon’s key constituencies is
politicians and government regulators. And one way to charm
regulators—and the voters who elect the politicians—is through a killer
interview.
In October 2008, the Bush administration, not
normally a fan of government expropriation, forced
nine big banks, including Dimon’s, to accept $125 billion in
TARP money. The banks were deemed so important that they had to take the money
to protect them against failure, whether they wanted it or not. Since then, the banks and the government
have stayed bound together. President Obama’s Dodd-Frank financial reform law,
enacted two summers ago, has tied the two sides closer still.The
problems that led to the financial crisis, remember, included
investors’perception—honed over two decades of smaller-scale bailouts—that big
banks were too big to fail. Dodd-Frank has given such banks an official
title:“systemically important financial institutions.”
Another problem that led to the financial crisis
was that, over the years, politicians and regulators determined that banks had
become so good at risk management that they no longer needed to abide by
consistent rules—fixed limits on borrowing, for example, so that banks could
fail without leaving behind so much unpaid debt that they endangered the
economy. Instead, banks could largely do what their executives wanted, as long
as regulators believed, on a case-by-case basis, that they knew what they were
doing.
In the aftermath of the JPMorgan mess,
politicians and reporters have been invoking the Dodd-Frank law’s “Volcker
Rule.” Named after Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve chairman from the Carter
and Reagan eras, the rule prohibits banks whose customers benefit from
taxpayer-backed deposit insurance from engaging in“proprietary trading,” or
speculation. But the Volcker Rule isn’t a rule at all: it prohibits behavior
that has no set definition. Twenty-two months after Dodd-Frank became law,
regulators have delayed
enforcing the rulebecause they still cannot figure out what
proprietary trading really is. Consider how JPMorgan lost all that money:
creating derivatives that let it sell billions of dollars’ worth of protection
against the risk that some corporate securities would default. That sure
doesn’t sound like a good idea. Banks, because they’re lenders, are already at
risk if people and companies default in droves.
But does selling such synthetic “insurance”
constitute proprietary trading? Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who helped draft
the Volcker Rule language, says it does. Bank officials have argued that such
behavior is hedging, which would be okay under Dodd-Frank.
Real rules could govern Wall Street, but
politicians must give regulators the backing to create and enforce them. Rather
than worry about the Volcker Rule, politicians and reporters should be focusing
on derivatives rules. One reason that Washington had to bail out the financial
system four years ago was that financial firms such as AIG had taken on
virtually infinite risk through the derivatives markets. Through derivatives,
AIG could “sell” protection against other companies’ defaults with almost no
cash down. Lo and behold, that’s what JPMorgan Chase was doing, too. Regulators
should demand that traders—whether big banks or tiny hedge funds—put a set
amount of cash down behind such bets, curtailing the amount of potential unpaid
debt in the financial system. Regulators should also require that traders
execute such transactions on open clearinghouses and exchanges—so that markets
can determine which bets are going well and which aren’t, and clearinghouses
can demand more money from traders to cover their losses. Such rules empower
market signals, not regulatory micromanagement, to control risk. If such rules were in place, it’s unlikely Dimon would have
visited the White House 18 times in three years, as he would have
had no way to manipulate a restriction that, after all, applied to everyone.
The best way to stop bailouts is to limit
borrowing and demand transparency. When markets know that financial firms have
put a cash cushion behind their bets—and where the risk behind such bets
lies—they’re unlikely to pull their money out of the financial system en
masse, necessitating a government rescue. The Volcker Rule, by contrast,
adds no such protection against future taxpayer rescues; all it does is unleash
regulators to debate, in private, the definitions of risk.
Dodd-Frank gave regulators the authority to
impose real rules on derivatives, and the regulators have done
so.
But lobbyists demanded and secured exceptions, which could eventually prove the
rule. With such loophole-ridden reform, America has hardly set a good example
for Europe, which lags even further behind in enacting derivatives rules. In
fact, JPMorgan Chase may have executed the derivatives deals from London
because the bank perceived London as a looser environment. Moving this activity
around the world so that financiers can play inconsistent rules against one
another does nothing to help the struggling Western economies.
The media and the politicians, however, would
rather discuss people than arcane issues like financial rules. Look at how
politely—almost obsequiously—NBC’s David Gregory treated Dimon. Gregory asked
Dimon: “Here you are, Jamie Dimon, you’ve got a sterling reputation. . . . How
does a guy like you make this mistake? If this happened at JPMorgan Chase . . .
what about all the other banks out there? If somebody else made a mistake like
this, would we be again talking about too big to fail and taxpayer bailouts?”
Then, when asking delicate questions about potential criminal liability,
Gregory unconsciously switched from “you” to “the bank.” Lowly regulators will
hardly be more willing to take on Dimon and his colleagues.
Focusing on one man represents bailout thinking.
Policymakers continue to be distracted from the rules needed to protect the
economy from the consequences—including corporate failure—of the bad decisions
that individuals can make. Nearly four years after the financial crisis began,
Washington seems to have learned almost nothing.
Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the
Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. She tweets at
@nicolegelinas.
NO RESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS TAKEN MORE LOOT FROM
CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS THAN OBAMA. HE PROMISED HIS BANKSTERS NO CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION, AND NO REAL REGULATION.
PROFITS FOR BANKSTERS HAVE SOARED UNDER OBAMA, JUST
AS FORECLOSURES HAVE. DURING HIS FIRST 2 YEARS THE BANKSTERS MADE MORE LOOT
THAN ALL 8 UNDER BUSH!
WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?
"In general,
these are professional prognosticators," said Ritsch. "And they may
be putting their money on the person they predict will win, not the candidate
they hope will win."
Shaping up to be the most corrupt
administration in American history:
administration in American history:
- Obama’s team:
Not the “best of the Washington insiders,” as the liberal media style
them, but rather, a dysfunctional and dangerous conglomerate of
business-as-usual cronies and hacks
- In the first two
weeks alone of his infant administration, Obama had made no fewer than 17
exceptions to his “no-lobbyist” rule
- Why the fact
that the massive infusion of union dues into his campaign treasury didn’t
trouble him in the least reveals Obama’s credibility as a reformer
- The lack of
unprecedented pace of withdrawals and botched appointments -- and how
getting through the confirmation process was no guarantee of ethical
cleanliness or competence, even as Obama’s cheerleaders were glorifying
the Greatest Transition in World History
- Inconsistency:
How Obama, erstwhile critic of the campaign finance practice known as
“bundling,” happily accepted more than $350,000 in bundled contributions
from billionaire hedge-fund managers
- How Obama broke
his transparency pledge with the very first bill he signed into law --
helping make hostility to transparency is a running thread through Obama’s
cabinet
- Michelle Obama:
Beneath the cultured pearls, sleeveless designer dresses, and eyelashes
applied by her full-time makeup artist, is a hardball Chicago politico
- Joe Biden: It’s
not just that he lies, it’s that he lies so well that you think he really
believes the stuff he makes up
- Treasury
Secretary Geithner: His ineptness and epic blundering -- including how he
nearly caused the collapse of the dollar in international trade with a
single remark
- The appalling
story of Technology Czar Vivek Kundra, the convicted shoplifter in charge
of the entire federal government’s information security infrastructure
- Obama’s “Porker
of the Month” Transportation Secretary, Roy LaHood: An earmark-addicted influence
peddler born and raised on the politics of pay-to-play
- SEIU:
Responsible for installing a cabal of hand-chosen officers who exploited
their cash-infused fiefdoms for personal gain and presided over rigged
elections -- in the process, becoming all that they had professed to stand
against as representatives of the downtrodden worker
- How Obama lied
on his “Fight the Smears” campaign website when he claimed that he “never
organized with ACORN”
- ACORN: How the
profound threat the group poses is not merely ideological or economic --
it’s electoral
- ACORN’s own
internal review of shady money transfers among its web of affiliates: How
it underscores concerns that conservatives have long raised about the
organization
- Liar, liar,
pantsuit on fire: How Hillary Clinton has already trampled upon her
promise not to let her husband’s financial dealings sway her decisions as
Secretary of State
- How even a few principled progressives are finally beginning to question the cult of Obama -- even as Obama sycophants in the mainstream media continue to celebrate his “hipness” and “swagga”
GET THIS BOOK!
Obamanomics:
How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends,
Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses
ARE AMAZED AT HOW UTTERLY BRAZEN THESE CORPORATE OWNED
POLITICIANS ARE?
Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats,
Crooks, and Cronies
by Michelle Malkin
Editorial Reviews
In her shocking new book, Malkin digs deep into the records
of President Obama's staff, revealing corrupt dealings, questionable pasts, and
abuses of power throughout his administration.
From the Inside Flap
The era of hope and change is dead....and it only took six
months in office to kill it.
Never has an administration taken office with more inflated
expectations of turning Washington around. Never have a media-anointed American
Idol and his entourage fallen so fast and hard. In her latest investigative
tour de force, New York Times bestselling author Michelle Malkin delivers a
powerful, damning, and comprehensive indictment of the culture of corruption
that surrounds Team Obama's brazen tax evaders, Wall Street cronies, petty
crooks, slum lords, and business-as-usual influence peddlers. In Culture of
Corruption, Malkin reveals:
* Why nepotism beneficiaries First Lady Michelle Obama and
Vice President Joe Biden are Team Obama's biggest liberal hypocrites--bashing
the corporate world and influence-peddling industries from which they and their
relatives have benefited mightily
* What secrets the ethics-deficient members of Obama's
cabinet--including Hillary Clinton--are trying to hide
* Why the Obama White House has more power-hungry,
unaccountable "czars" than any other administration
* How Team Obama's first one hundred days of appointments
became a litany of embarrassments as would-be appointee after would-be
appointee was exposed as a tax cheat or had to withdraw for other reasons
* How Obama's old ACORN and union cronies have squandered
millions of taxpayer dollars and dues money to enrich themselves and expand
their power
* How Obama's Wall Street money men and corporate lobbyists
are ruining the economy and helping their friends In Culture of Corruption,
Michelle Malkin lays bare the Obama administration's seamy underside that the
liberal media would rather keep hidden.
• ISBN-10:
1596981091
•
· ISBN-10: 1596986123
· ISBN-13: 978-1596986121
OBAMA STILL CUTTING BACK ROOM DEALS FOR HIS ILLEGALS!
Illegal Alien Parents to Benefit from President's DREAM Act Decree
Lost in the media frenzy surrounding
President Obama's decision to administratively implement the DREAM Act is the
Administration's plans to also grant a reprieve to the illegal alien parents
who brought them here in violation of U.S. immigration law. In doing so, the Administration is
directly contradicting its own public relations campaign — and that of amnesty
advocates nationwide — which has portrayed its new policy as a way to provide
"a degree of relief" to "innocent young kids." (See White
House transcript,
June 15, 2012; to read more about the President's "deferred action"
policy, see FAIR's Legislative Update, June 19, 2012)
The
Administration's decision to not deport the illegal alien parents of so-called
DREAMers was revealed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano during a
CNN interview. Here is the exchange between CNN Anchorman Wolf Blitzer and
Secretary Napolitano:
BLITZER: What about the parents of these children? The children
come forward now, they identify themselves. Should the parents be concerned
that potentially they could be deported? They would now be identified as
illegal immigrants.
NAPOLITANO: No. We are not going to do that. We have
internally set it up so that the parents are not referred for immigration
enforcement if the young person comes in for deferred action. However, the
parents are not qualified for deferred action. This is for the young people who
meet the criteria that we've set forth. (CNN transcript,
June 15, 2012)
While
Napolitano makes the distinction that the illegal alien parents will not
qualify for "deferred action," the Administration's decision not to
deport them essentially amounts to the same thing. The only major difference is
that if the Department of Homeland Security simply administratively closes the
parents' cases, it is uncertain whether it will grant the parents work
authorization.
As if
the President's new deferred action policy were not troubling enough itself,
the decision not to deport the illegal alien parents of DREAMers could triple
the number of illegal aliens who benefit from it. Excluding parents, the Pew
Hispanic Center estimates that at least 1.4 million illegal aliens would
qualify for deferred action under the President's new program. (See
Pew Hispanic Center report, June
15, 2012) But with the Administration's acknowledgment that it will no longer
deport the illegal alien parents of DREAMers, the size of the President's
amnesty program could triple, or perhaps even quadruple, when fraudulent
applications are taken into account.
OBAMA'S AGENDA OF KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED WITH OPEN BORDERS AND HORDES MORE ILLEGALS
WIKILEAKS EXPOSES OBAMA'S AGENDA OF LA RAZA SUPREMACY AND AN ILLEGAL IN EVERY AMERICAN JOB TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED. THE LEGALS GET THE TAX BILLS FOR THE MEX WELFARE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikileaks-exposed-obamas-la-raza-open.html
The Obama administration has also cut worksite enforcement efforts by 70%, allowing illegal immigrants to continue working in jobs that rightfully belong to citizens and legal workers.
Obama Quietly Erasing Borders
(Article)
Article
Link:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=240045
THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=240045
THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!
THE
LA RAZA DEMS HAVE SABOTAGED E-VERIFY TO HELP EASE MORE ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS.
IN MEX-OCCUPIED CA, THE LA RAZA (ILLEGALS) CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED
A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY. OBAMA HAS SUED AZ TO
STOP E-VERIFY…. HERE’S WHY:
“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs
taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of
Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on
the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should
support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they
need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”
*
THE
BELOW FIGURES ARE DATED. IT’S NOW ESTIMATED THAT THE MEX OCCUPATION DEPRESSES
WAGES FROM $300 TO $400 BILLION PER YEAR.
THIS
IS WHY OBAMA SABOTAGED E-VERIFY, AND THE U.S. CHAMBER of COMMERCE SUPPORTS
OBAMA’S OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS, AND SABOTAGE OF E-VERIFY!
OBAMA’S
SEC. of ILLEGAL LABOR IS LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILDA SOLIS. SHE DECLARES THAT
“WE” ARE ALL AMERICANS. LEGALS AND MEX LOOTERS!
“The principal beneficiaries of our current
immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard
wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American
workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant
flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor
*
“Listen to people
from the National Council of La Raza, LULAC, CARECEN, Latino TV networks, the
Piolin radio show (that’s Hispanic anti-Rush Limbaugh), and you will see that
the U.S. is replete with its own Chavezes-in-waiting.”
LA RAZA-CONTROLLED MEXIFORNIA – CAPITAL OF MEXICAN GANGS
THE LA RAZA CRIME TIDAL WAVE
NEARLY HALF OF ALL MURDERS IN CA ARE BY MEXICAN GANGS!
JUDICIAL WATCH EXPOSES
OBAMA’S ASSAULT ON OUR BORDERS:
No comments:
Post a Comment