Home Front: WoT |
Jihad's Wall Street Face |
2012-01-06 |
America's enemies intend to subvert the marketplace American capitalism - led by and caricatured as the financial industry centered on Wall Street - is predicated on the notion that the market is driven by fundamentally economic motives. To its admirers, that means its dynamics are dictated by profit motivation. Wall Street's critics call it greed. The rules and regulations that govern our stock transactions largely reflect this assumption. We discourage undesirable behavior primarily by levying fines and otherwise making it costly to engage in it. Forgive the obviousness of this question but, what if actors who are interested in affecting our stock market and economy more generally are motivated not by making money but by some larger strategic interest? In that case, financial disincentives are likely to prove completely ineffectual. For example, would our present Maginot Line of financial defenses - much of them constructed by legislators bearing names such as Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Paul Sarbanes and Michael Oxley - protect us if avowed enemies of this country sought to inflict a major, and possibly decisive, blow against us and didn't care if they lost money in the process? This proposition is explored in a riveting book that will be published this month by one of my colleagues, Kevin D. Freeman, a senior fellow of the Center for Security Policy. In fact, as the title of "Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Brought Down the U.S. Stock Market and Why It Can Happen Again"suggests, Mr. Freeman's thesis is that it already has occurred, with devastating effect, and that worse may be in the offing. By training a certified financial analyst who worked for a decade with one of the giants of modern finance, investment maven Sir John Templeton, the author knows his stuff. Among other things, Mr. Freeman reminds us that U.S. enemies - potential and actual - have served notice repeatedly that they understand our market's vulnerabilities to attack. For instance, in 1999, two senior Chinese colonels wrote an officially sanctioned book titled "Unrestricted Warfare." It identified "bear raids" on stocks to trigger a market collapse as the first in a long list of unconventional weapons that could devastate America. Another threat of financial warfare was issued by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who boasted that his jihadists were as "aware of the cracks in the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in their own hands." That from a man who selected the World Trade Center as a target for the Sept. 11 attacks so as to do massive economic harm to the United States. It was not lost on bin Laden - or America's other enemies - that when the U.S. economy declines, calls intensify for cutting back spending on America's defenses. No less troubling should be the fact that a very-much-alive spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has described the use of proceeds from Shariah-compliant finance as "jihad with money." Worse, Sheik al-Qaradawi is a top Shariah authority for the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar. That position and his preeminence in Islamic jurisprudence worldwide (thanks in part to his popular jihadist program broadcast by Al-Jazeera Arabic TV) has helped make Sheik al-Qaradawi a driving force in what is now said to be a trillion-dollar "Islamic finance" industry. Under his influence, Islamists have successfully enlisted Western capitalists to help them exploit free markets as a strategic tool for promoting and insinuating their toxic, supremacist politico-military-legal doctrine throughout the Free World, including the United States. Incredibly, this stealth jihadist is the man the Obama administration reportedly has tapped to help broker peace talks with the Taliban on Afghanistan. It is presumably no accident that the latter has chosen to set up a diplomatic mission in Sheik al-Qaradawi's adopted hometown, the Qatari capital of Doha. Is it a coincidence that, as the Wall Street Journal reported in August 2007, Shariah authorities gave their blessing to the practice of "short-selling" just as the stock market was peaking? As even former Obama economic guru and Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers has observed, sovereign wealth funds serve the interests of the sovereign first, and profit second. Mr. Freeman believes we face a particular danger from the fact that most of the world's wealth-fund sovereigns are in China and the Middle East - the latter increasingly governed by the dictates of Shariah-compliant finance. I have accompanied Mr. Freeman in briefings he has conducted at senior levels in official Washington and with top financial players in New York, Dallas and Houston. Those of his interlocutors in the national security community seemed, without exception, to accept that economic threats to the United States could come from quarters not interested in monetary returns. Unfortunately, such folks typically lack Mr. Freeman's deep understanding of financial markets, their vulnerabilities and how they could be exploited. By contrast, when Mr. Freeman has presented his findings to financial market participants, they rarely get it. They typically fall back on the traditional assumption that anyone who buys Credit Default Swaps, stocks or bonds has an exclusively economic motive. The idea that these instruments could be used as weapons is so foreign to them that they often push back angrily, denying the obvious. Despite willful blindness and blistering attack, Mr. Freeman's warnings stand up to scrutiny. His "Secret Weapon" should receive it at the highest levels of both the national security and financial security communities and at once. Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for The Washington Times and host of Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights ii 9 p.m. on 1260 AM. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix | |
Another Of Christopher Dodd's Parting Shots | |
2010-09-12 | |
A social engineering bill to restrict residence in the suburbs and rural areas and force Americans into city centers has passed the United States Senate Banking Committee and is on the fast track to passage in the Senate. The bill is called the Livable Communities Act (SB 1619) and it was introduced by corruptocrat outgoing Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.). It seeks to fulfill the United Nation's plan Agenda 21, adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and signed onto by "New World Order" President George H.W. Bush.
| |
Link |
-Lurid Crime Tales- | |
Countrywide Dealt With More Lawmakers and Staffers Than Previously Known | |
2010-07-16 | |
U.S. senators or Senate employees received 30 loans--far more than had previously been known--under a controversial lending program at Countrywide Financial Corp. that provided cut-rate terms to favored borrowers.
No specific loan recipients were named in the letter. But Mr. Issa's letter said borrowers on a dozen loans listed their place of employment as the office of "Senator Robert Bennett." Available public records don't indicate that Sen. Bennett, a Utah Republican and member of the Senate Banking Committee, received a Countrywide home loan. Sens. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) and Kent Conrad (D., N.D.), have previously been identified among the high-profile individuals who received such loans. Both senators have denied wrongdoing. Until the Issa letter, no other senators or their staff members had been linked to the VIP loan program. A spokeswoman for Sen. Bennett didn't respond to questions. Sen. Bennett recently lost his primary election battle and will be leaving the Senate in January after 18 years. A spokesman for the Senate Ethics panel declined to comment. A spokesman for Bank of America Corp., which in 2008 acquired Countrywide, said the company had cooperated with the investigation by the House committee. The VIP program operated during the housing boom earlier this decade, often writing mortgages with terms more favorable than those available to the general public. An estimated 28,000 loans were made, mostly to private parties such as Countrywide employees or their friends and relatives. The House Oversight panel, where Mr. Issa is the ranking Republican member, is probing whether such loans were issued to public officials in an attempt to influence them. Last year, the committee subpoenaed VIP loan records from Bank of America. In his letter dated July 13, Mr. Issa wrote that on seven loans not tied to Mr. Bennett's office, the borrowers listed their place of employment as "U.S. Senator." Another 11 listed the "U.S. Senate." In response to questions, a spokesman for Mr. Issa said the House committee didn't receive the names of the borrowers from Bank of America. | |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Perspectives Of A Russian Immigrant (No. 10) |
2010-07-09 |
By SVETLANA KUNIN In a speech he gave in Wisconsin on June 30, President Obama said: "We already tried the other side's ideas. We already know where their theories led us. And now we have a choice as a nation. We can return to the failed economic policies of the past, or we can keep building a stronger future. We can go backward, or we can keep moving forward." For the Soviets, moving forward meant that with each consecutive five-year government plan the economy of the USSR would eventually surpass the American economy (the one Obama thinks has failed). They could have succeeded: Russia has abundant natural resources and a well-educated populace, with a culture that's been in existence for far longer than the United States. The central government enforced these five-year economic plans with zero interference from members of the U.S. Republican Party or Fox News. Yet, they were about as successful in growing the economy as Obama's stimulus package has been in creating American jobs. The idea is that government-appointed experts and officials know how to drive innovation, rather than people who make their own choices, and who have real expertise and experience in their chosen field. In his Oval Office address, President Obama spoke about creating a clean energy future: "As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -- but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. Even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet know precisely how were going to get there. We know we'll get there." Soviet Chairman Nikita Khrushchev, after returning from a visit to the U.S., decided that the USSR had to increase its production of corn. All Soviet republics, from Belarus to Siberia, replaced the crop most appropriate to their soil and climate with corn, as directed by the ministry of agriculture. The following year, the corn crop was a failure, and there was a shortage of potatoes and grain for the population to eat. There is a common theme crystallizing from Democratic leaders: Their policies are driven by their ideological vision and, in their own words, they don't have a clue about what to expect. Sen. Christopher Dodd, speaking about his financial reform bill, said: "After great debate, we have produced a strong Wall Street reform bill that will fundamentally change the way our financial services sector is regulated. No one will know until this is actually in place how it works." Speaker Nancy Pelosi, talking about health reform in March, said: "(This) is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." The response of authorities to the catastrophic oil accident in the Gulf of Mexico illustrates how centrally controlled bureaucracy works. It is revealing to see how the federal government obstructs localities trying to save their states from disaster. America is an advanced and prosperous country. The failed economic policies that Obama talks about somehow produced a dynamic economy, with opportunities available to more people than everywhere else in human history. But liberal elites do not make the connection: They yell loudly about regulating capitalism and talk quietly about regulating speech, capping salaries, taxing incomes and creating bureaucracies in order to control everything and everyone. Instead of relying on basic laws of economics and an understanding of human nature, they elevate socialist-style management based on the political economics of class warfare and central planning. The left believes that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are backward and out of date. Meanwhile, their new ideas for transforming America are based on old, unsuccessful concepts from Marx, Engels and Keynes. The country I grew up in was filled with statues of the leader, his arm proudly extended, pointing toward a future where the life of all citizens would be framed within the boundaries of his vision. I prefer the Statue of Liberty. |
Link |
Economy |
GOP should push tough regulation of Wall Street |
2010-04-15 |
It's not hard to predict how the coming fight over financial regulation legislation will be framed by most of the mainstream media. Democrats like Christopher Dodd, the sponsor of the pending Senate bill, will be portrayed as cracking down on greedy Wall Street operators. Republicans will be portrayed as letting Wall Street operators have their way. That might be a fair characterization if Republicans concentrate their fire on the consumer protection agency the bill would establish in the Federal Reserve. But that's a peripheral issue, and Republicans would be well advised to leave the opposition to chief executive officers like JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon, a Democratic contributor, who argues persuasively that regulators should just do a better job of enforcing already existing rules. The real heart of the Dodd bill is the provision creating a $50 billion fund collected from large financial firms and authorizing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to use the funds to reorganize any such firm it decides is failing. Under the bill, the FDIC would use this "resolution authority" rather than have the firm go into bankruptcy courts, as Lehman Brothers did after it collapsed in September 2008. This sounds reassuring. But actually it's very dangerous. It amounts to granting "too big to fail" status to financial firms like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase. As my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison and University of Pennsylvania law professor David Skeel explain in the Wall Street Journal, it tells those firms' creditors and shareholders that Uncle Sam will bail them out if they make what turn out to be imprudent loans. The Lehman Brothers bankruptcy process was orderly and did not result in the financial collapse of the firm's counterparties in financial transactions. But it did impose severe losses on creditors, shareholders and managers. Players in the financial markets were put on notice that they face dire penalties for placing trust in shaky firms. FDIC resolution authority would work differently. The Dodd bill specifically authorizes the agency to treat "creditors similarly situated" differently, i.e., it can pay off creditors who would get little or nothing in bankruptcy proceedings. Moreover, as Wallison and Skeel note, the FDIC does not have experience in dealing with the abstruse financial instruments of the largest financial firms. It does a good job of winding up the affairs of small banks, paying off depositors and selling deposits to another bank. But it has never handled anything as big and complex as Lehman Brothers, as the bankruptcy courts have. |
Link |
Economy |
Dodd aims to rein in US banks |
2010-03-17 |
![]() Under Senator Dodd's bill, the Federal Reserve Bank (the US central bank) will have the right to investigate what they deem risky or suspicious activity, reported Wall Street Journal today. Additionally, the bill will bring large financial companies that are not banks under the domain of the Fed's supervisory powers. The plan will also see the establishment of a body within the Federal Reserve Bank tasked with protecting consumers' financial interests, such as credit cards and mortgages, the paper reports. This new entity would be independent within the Feds and would have its own budget and rule-making authority. Mr. Dodd's bill has triggered anger among Republicans in the Senate who believe the bill goes too far and insist that the Fed itself should retain responsibility for protecting consumer interests. On the other hand, the plan is inadequate for many Democratic senators who prefer to see an entirely new agency. The bill also entails serious outlays among many institutions, with the largest financial firms required to pay into a $50 billion fund, should there be any more financial collapses in the future. Under Senator Dodd's proposals, there will be restrictions on large bank investments in or sponsorship of hedge funds or private equity funds. Dodd has also been blamed for being principally responsible for pushing through legislations allowing financial institutions to continue offering huge bonuses and perks to top banking executives even after they were rescued from total bankruptcy by hundreds of billions of tax-payer funds granted to them by the US Government. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Delahunt to spend more time with family |
2010-03-05 |
While the getting's good. These guy's skying out must be seeing November in their nightmares... WASHINGTON Representative William Delahunt will not seek re-election to Congress, the seven-term Democrat will announce tomorrow, ending a nearly 40-year career in elected office and giving Republicans hope of capturing the seat, which stretches from Cape Cod to the South Shore. "It's got nothing to do with politics," the Quincy Democrat said today. "Life is about change. I think it's healthy. It's time." Past time ... The 68-year-old lawmaker said he has been considering leaving the House for several years, but was talked out of it two years ago by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who convinced his friend he should stay and help President Obama with his first-term agenda. "He said, 'Come on this is a new time. It's a new era. We [will] have a new president. We're all needed," Delahunt recalled Kennedy telling him. Once Kennedy died last year, Delahunt said he grappled with whether to stay and work on the issues Kennedy held dear. "Clearly, since his death, there's something missing. There's a void. With the void, you feel the need to be here because there's much to do," Delahunt said wistfully in an exclusive interview. But the congressman said he concluded that after nearly four decades in public service, the grueling House schedule was taking its toll on his personal life. "I've got a granddaughter," the divorced father of two said. "Given the pace down here, I don't want to miss out on her childhood, her first year." The congressman has faced recent questions about the handling of the 1986 Amy Bishop shooting case, which occurred when he was Norfolk County district attorney. Delahunt has said consistently that his office was not told that Bishop fled with a loaded weapon after killing her brother in what police then called an accident. But the case has absolutely nothing to do with his decision to retire, Delahunt said. Voters in Delahunt's 10th District gave Republican Scott Brown his best margins in the state in the special Jan. 19 election to fill Kennedy's seat. But Delahunt said the wave of anti-incumbent anger also did not affect his decision. Delahunt's retirement is the 17th among House Democrats, and the third among lawmakers with close ties to Kennedy. Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and a close Kennedy friend, announced his retirement in January; Rhode Island Representative Patrick Kennedy, the late senator's son, followed suit last month. The lawmaker established himself in Washington as a leading Yeah, Suntan Billy liked heading south. And if he had to kiss some commie ass to get a free "fact finding" trip down in, like, February, it was a small price to pay. I'm sure Hugo and El Jefe will always be glad to see him. They might even put him on the payroll to be their mouthpiece in DC. He also hosted a "Grupo de Boston" weekend in the Cape with Venezuelan government and opposition leaders, hoping to get the feuding sides together by having them spend time together in a neutral place. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Liberal agenda could be on hold as Dems face election carnage |
2010-01-08 |
The retirements of longtime Sens. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., will likely chill the liberal agenda of the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate as they seek to avoid widespread losses in 2010. Political experts believe the prospect of significant Republican gains in November will leave Democrats divided over what to do next when it comes to passing their biggest legislative priorities, including global warming legislation and an immigration reform bill. "Obama is going to make the argument that now is the time to act," said University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato. "But the congressional Democrats who are threatened are going to be saying, 'Sorry Mr. President, we have given you enough tough votes for this term.' " The bills Democrats are most likely to abandon in the face of this daunting political landscape are the global warming bill, which would cap carbon emissions and fine those who pollute, and legislation that would make it easier for employees to unionize. Immigration reform, which was already considered unlikely, will also come off the table, political analysts say. Veteran Democratic strategist Doug Schoen believes that in the short term, Democrats will push hard to pass their health care reform bill, preferably in the coming weeks. "Longer term, they will have to move to the center, otherwise they will face a tsunami," he said. Experts are predicting gains of 20 seats or more in the House for the GOP. And Dorgan's retirement puts at least nine Senate Democratic seats in reach of Republicans. If those predictions are close to the mark, Democrats in both chambers will have to work with a much smaller majority, which will make it harder, if not impossible, to move their agenda. Lawmakers may look to Dorgan as a warning sign. The three-term senator watched his once-high poll numbers plummet in recent months as the Democratic health care bill made its way through the Senate. In a hypothetical matchup with Republican Gov. John Hoeven, Dorgan trailed by 22 points. In the same poll, conducted in December by Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of voters said they opposed the sweeping Democratic health care reform bill that Dorgan voted for. The Cook Political Report now lists Dorgan's seat in the "Lean Republican" category. In the House, there has been a string of Republican and Democratic retirements, but it is the GOP that stands to gain in 2010, according to election analysis data. The Democrats who are calling it quits are vulnerable moderates from districts that lean Republican. There are many more politically vulnerable House Democrats who have been unwilling to sacrifice their jobs by voting for legislation that is unpopular with their constituents. That isn't likely to change. "There are still a core group of Democrats here who are not suddenly going to lay down and roll over because of Democratic retirements," political analyst Stu Rothenberg said. "If anything, it will only enhance their position, and leaders will have to find a way to pass bills." |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2009 |
2010-01-02 |
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians." The list, in alphabetical order, includes: 1.Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 "Ten Most Corrupt" list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee. 2.Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year's worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: "The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide..." The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign's office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Conrad Black: What a dismal decade |
2009-12-28 |
As we say farewell to this rather dismal decade, which opened with Millennial celebrations of a New World Order and The End of History, and has been thoroughly disfigured by terrorism, economic stupidity, inept political leadership and untrammeled vulgarity of public tastes, I dare to hope for somewhat better things (for the world as well as my family and self). Readers will have noticed that Copenhagen was about as complete a mockery as was forecast, here and elsewhere. Thousands of protesters, festooned with banners about the water level in Tuvalu, and dressed as polar bears and seals, inanely screaming at the earnest Global Coolers, had to be restrained by the gentle Danish police. Most of the world's most odious leaders were present, demanding trillions of dollars to assist them in green development. Zimbabwe's infamous Robert Mugabe, who has violated every clause of the Clarence House agreement which conferred independence on Rhodesia, and has terrorized the country and reduced its standard of living by 99%, accused the advanced nations of trying to disguise the baleful effect of their carbon emissions on all mankind behind trivial concerns about the absence of human rights in Zimbabwe. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, now challenging Fidel Castro ("Papa Castro" to the Trudeau family) as Latin America's shabbiest tyrant, announced the death of capitalism, to the rapacity of which he imputed the impending destruction of the world's environment, as well as the dissipated prosperity of his own oil-rich country which he has master-minded. The chief spokesman of the aggrieved despots, Sudan's president Omar al-Bashir (whose country's government's cupped hands are dripping with the blood of a million victims of domestic genocide) dismissed a European offer of $11-billion to promote green industrial growth in the Third World as a pittance. I can't be the only person who wondered if sincere dupes of this nonsense, from the Prince of Wales to Elizabeth May, have the remotest idea of what mayhem they have brought down on the world. At least Al Gore has made a lot of money from it. Indeed, it must be said that this unlikely man has had the greatest revenge of anyone ever wrongfully deprived of the U.S. presidency, except perhaps Richard Nixon. Gore has grown rich, eminent, won a Nobel Prize, completely disrupted the world and turned international relations into a gigantic slap-stick farce. The absence of evidence that global warming is actually occurring, and that human activity affects the world's temperature at all, was scarcely mentioned. The real result, however, is the pledged objective of not permitting the world's temperature to increase more than two centigrade degrees by 2050. Since it has only risen one degree in the last 35 years, and not at all in the last ten, this should be safe enough. The heads of government fellowship will pat itself hydraulically on the head and back, and money will be handed over to the toads of despotism when pigs fly and shrimps sing. This must be the supreme coruscation of what Malcolm Muggeridge christened the "great liberal death-wish;" a canard about a fraud, invoked to impoverish the world's advanced countries in favour of its most rancid despotisms, which have already squandered and embezzled a trillion dollars of Western aid; all for a nonsensical purpose, solemnly agreed to, and then ignored. For the first time in the history of the U.S. Presidency, Mr. Obama had to badger a foreign head of government to meet him (China's premier Wen). Last year, shoes were thrown at the U.S. president. This year we had self-abasement before the Japanese Emperor and (unsuccessful) supplication to the Chinese. If this trend continues, by the end of this new decade, the U.S. president will be invited to international meetings as a shoe-shine boy. The great stars of Copenhagen were the Chinese and the Canadians. The Chinese strutted and gloried as a mighty economic growth story, a super-power presumptive, while leading the G-77, as the under-developed countries now modishly style themselves, out of the conference in protest against the supposed miserliness of the advanced countries. China has staged the greatest act of international pocket-picking in history, beggaring the U.S. by dumping trillions of dollars of cheap goods in it, which the United States bought with money largely borrowed from China. And as it spurned the importunity of the United States at Copenhagen, and basked in the adoration of the Third World, its leaders po-facedly demanding hundreds of billions of dollars to clean its economic growth, while refusing the donors the right to monitor the use of the money. All Canadians should be proud of Stephen Harper. Of all the leaders of serious countries, he is the most conspicuously skeptical of this great eco-scam. This is Canada's finest foreign policy hour since Mackenzie King supported Charles de Gaulle's takeover of St. Pierre and Miquelon from Vichy at Christmas 1941, against the mindless opposition of the U.S. state department. The flip-side of this controversy is the emerging U.S. economic miracle, which at this point officially promises increased taxes, faster economic growth, 50% to 100% annual increases in money supply without inflation, for a decade of trillion dollar annual federal budget deficits without seriously raising interest rates, or devaluing the dollar. All 18 wheels will come off this impossible contraption, in all directions of the compass. And all numerate people, including, presumably, the unfathomable Timothy Geithner and the fabulist President whom he serves, know it. I predict that in a decent interval after his confirmation as Federal Reserve chairman next month or February, Ben Bernanke will announce that the central bank will no longer buy the treasury notes that finance this orgy. The United States cannot drink itself sober. China has now passed on the pleasure of continuing to buy low yield instruments of a country that is doing the necessary to convert its currency into wall paper, if not toilet paper. The Federal Reserve is buying the treasury issues that finance the federal government's deficit-straight additions to the money supply -- the most familiar form of currency debasement and rampaging inflation, from the times of Caligula to Juan Peron and Robert Mugabe. Obama and Geithner will scream like wounded banshees that Bernanke has betrayed them on how to deal with what they will portray as George W.'s messy leavings, while Bernanke devalues the dollar by about 15%, raises interest rates to about 6% and requires federal government spending cuts of about $500-billion annually, largely from a revisitation of entitlements and some sales and transaction taxes that the Congress will have to agree to in conference as an emergency compromise between the parties. The health care charade of buying individual senators with from $100-million (Christopher Dodd,), to $3-billion (Bill Nelson of Florida -- not Ben Nelson of Nebraska who folded at $100 million) can't slice this Gordian Knot. There will be fewer lawyers and investment bankers in the U.S., and more savers and investors, and if the politicians don't ruin it again, market forces will shape up the U.S. to meet the Chinese challenge. But both job creation and economic growth will be slow in a transitional period. Good riddance to 2009. Let us all have a splendid 2010. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Health bill money for hospital sought by Dodd |
2009-12-22 |
![]() "Nelson and Landrieu can have boodle! Why not me?" The legislation leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where the money should be spent, although spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said Dodd hopes to claim it for the University of Connecticut. The provision is included in a 383-page series of changes to the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outlined Saturday. Scattered throughout are numerous items sought by individual lawmakers, many of them directing money explicitly to programs or projects in their home states. The one sought by Dodd provides $100 million for "a health care facility that provides research, inpatient tertiary care, or outpatient clinical services." It must be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States "that contains a State's sole public academic medical and dental school." The money can cover a maximum of 40 percent of the facility's construction costs. Based on the criteria set out on the bill, it appeared that state-affiliated hospitals in about a dozen states could compete for the funds. |
Link |
Home Front: WoT |
Dodd: Civilian Courts Better Than Military Tribunals for Prosecuting Terrorists |
2009-11-26 |
![]() CNSNews.com asked: "If and when we catch Osama bin Laden, are we going to have to read him his Miranda rights?" Dodd said: "We'll have far better prosecutions in our civilian courts than in our military courts. We're doing better there. I'm interested in seeing these people brought to justice and concluding their trials and getting convictions, and we've had far greater success in our federal court system than we have with our military courts." Dodd added that while he was not against military tribunals, turning the issue into a political debate was "presumptuous" and people with a "political agenda" should not be weighing in on where terrorists are prosecuted. "I'm not opposed to the military courts but having a bunch of congressmen and senators sitting around here deciding that they're going to be the attorney general and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense is a little presumptuous," Dodd told CNSNews.com on Capitol Hill. "And giving them the decision-making process as to where this must be done frankly ought not to be decided by somebody who's got a political agenda. So I'm pretty confident they [the Obama administration] know what they're doing." Dodd was referring to questions raised by Republicans in Congress, particularly Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) who questioned Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. on Nov. 18 about how the administration would treat terrorists caught in the future, now that they apparently will be sent to federal court to stand trial. (Holder had announced on Nov. 13 that five being held for their role in the 9/11 attacks would be tried in a federal court and not a military tribunal.) |
Link |