Geithner Promoting Megabank Monopolies in D.C.?

As reported by Inner City Reporter’s Bank:

http://www.innercitypress.org/bankbeat.html

March 30, 2009

Geithner Promotes Megabanks’ Monopoly, in DC as at Fed, 17 Cut to 7 on Derivatives

Byline: Matthew R. Lee of Inner City Press on Wall Street: News Analysis

 

NEW YORK, March 28 — Seven megabanks’ renewed grab for monopoly power in the over the counter derivatives market shows how little Wall Street’s real power has changed in the transition from the Bush to Obama administrations.

  The banks, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank, are paying over $1 million to p.r. firm Prism Public Affairs to “educate” the voters weary of bonus and bailouts that those who caused the crisis should benefit from it.

  Already, Congress members hungry for campaign

contribution have submitted to closed door briefings by

 Ed Rosen of the law firm Cleary Gottlieb, who drafted

the legislative language for monopoly.

  The connector in this story is Timothy Geithner, under Bush the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and now Obama’s Treasury Secretary. Geithner in June 2008 convened closed door meetings with 17 banks, essentially allowing them to propose and draft their own rules for the derivatives market.


    This led to advocacy by the Fair Finance Watch that Geithner’s meetings were in fact rule making that excluded the public in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and by Inner City Press, as media, to get the meetings opened to journalists and the public.

  The Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. Section 553) and related laws require that when the government engaged in rule-making, it must provide notice to the public, and allow and weigh public commentsThe New York Fed under Geithner tried to rule-make without any involvement by the public, even the public most impacted by the subprime lending that underlies these processes. The New York Fed on June 9, 2008 met with a group of the largest banks to discuss, according to the Geithner himself

“Regulatory policy. These are the incentives and constraints designed to affect the level and concentration of risk-taking across the financial system. You can think of these as a financial analog to imposing speed limits and requiring air bags and antilock brakes in cars, or establishing building codes in earthquake zones. Regulatory structure. This is about who is responsible for setting and enforcing those rules. Crisis management. This is about when and how we intervene and about the expectations we create for official intervention in crises.”

     Press accounts made clear that the financial instruments and regulatory issues discussed behind closed doors are related to issues of public interest, which in fact are disproportionately impacting low- and moderate- income people and communities of color — subprime and predatory mortgages.

The financial institutions invited, in mid 2008, were:

Bank of America, N.A. – Barclays Capital – BNP Paribas – Citigroup – Credit Suisse – Deutsche Bank AG – Dresdner Kleinwort – Goldman, Sachs & Co. – HSBC Group – JPMorgan Chase – Lehman Brothers – Merrill Lynch & Co. – Morgan Stanley – The Royal Bank of Scotland Group – Societe Generale – UBS AG – Wachovia Bank, N.A.
Buy-Side Firms: AllianceBernstein – BlueMountain Capital Management LLC – Citadel Investment Group, L.L.C.

  Fast forward to March 2009, with Geithner despite tax evasion installed as Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, and with Lehman having failed and Wachovia been swallowed by Wells Fargo. Now he is promoting monopoly powers in the market for an even smaller group of banks, just seven: Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank — which despite European headquarters received billions of dollars in U.S. Troubled Assets Relief Program bailout funds through AIG.

  Now the idea is to formalize the monopoly through legislation, not rule making. Industry friendly Congress people like Connecticut’s Chris Dodd are supporting the monopoly for the privileged. The fig leaf policy argument is that derivatives should runs through regulated banks. The push is made now, before it is formalized that non-banks, too, are regulated.  It is a pure power grab, with Timothy Geithner as the connector. And who is fighting this monopoly of the morally if not financially bankrupt? To be continued.

March 23, 2009

   Citigroup‘s Pandit put out this spin last week, “The work we have all done to try to stabilize the financial system and to get this economy moving again would be significantly set back if we lose our talented people because Congress imposes a special tax on financial services employees,” Mr. Pandit wrote in a memo distributed to Citi’s 300,000 employees.

 Bank of America‘s Ken Lewis claims that B of A is “part of the solution for the financial crisis” through its subsidized acquisitions of Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch. Most say, part of the problem…

March 16, 2009

 In DC, “Inevitable” Fraud as Obama Jokes with JPM Chase, Meets Citi and ExxonMobil

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press

WASHINGTON, March 12 — As President Barack Obama promises to find and “call out” misuses of the stimulus package, and to review the over 7,000 earmarks in the budget bill he signed this week, the chairman of his Recovery Act’s Transparency and Accountability Board, Earl Devaney, told the Press of a “naive impression that given the amount of transparency and accountability called for by this Act, no or little fraud will occur… some level of waste and fraud is unfortunately inevitable.”

   Accordingly, the same is true not only at the United Nations — despite Obama not mentioning the need for UN reform in his comments Tuesday after meeting Secretary General Ban Ki-moon — but also with the bank bailout funds of the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Nevertheless, Obama joked with JPMorgan Chase‘s Jaime Dimon at the Business Roundtable’s gabfest Thursday in Washington. As a smaller banker asked the final question of Obama — no questions were taken after his meeting with the UN’s Ban — Obama said that banking has of late become complex, and that he could ask “Jaime” about it.

  Also on the White House’s list of Roundtable attendees was Citigroup’s longtime board member and now chairman Richard Parsons. Citigroup veered into predatory lending, JPM Chase at a minimum securitized it, while lending to payday lenders and pawnshops.            What then is so funny?

  Obama’s successor as Senator from Illinois Roland Burris is said to have a brother who is going through foreclosure. A well-known Representative from the state of Illinois, sponsoring a pro-industry payday lending bill, has taken over $10,000 from the lender QC Holdings. If this is how politics will be in the current Washington, predatory lending can be expected to continue.

http://www.innercitypress.org/bankbeat.html

Timothy Geithner is connected to the Group of 30.  So is Paul Volker, and Larry Summers. Members of Group of 30 list HERE:

The Group of 30 gets contributions and support from those listed HERE

All the banks listed above are included as well as the People’s Bank of China.

Of IMPORTANT NOTE: Zhou  Xiaochuan, the Governor of the People’s Bank of China is a member.  Is this why Geithner spoke so fondly of Zhou talking about a World Currency in place of the US dollar?

http://www.group30.org/bios/members29.htm

Democrat or Republican…..it does not matter to the Bildeberg Group or the Trilateral Commission.  The Federal Reserve and the IMF are working for a One World Governance…..the groundwork has been laid and we are speeding toward their planned “end”…….

Obama connected to George Soros……Soros and his Open Society dreams…..will we see Soros’ dreams come to fruition?

New Bill In Congress: H.R.1698 Establishment of A Government “Green” Bank

 

H.R.1698: To establish the Green Bank to assist in the financing of qualified clean energy projects and qualified energy efficiency projects.

To establish the Green Bank to assist in the financing of qualified clean energy projects and qualified energy efficiency projects.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled

SECTION 1. CAPITALIZATION, METHOD OF CAPITAL STOCK PAYMENTS, ISSUANCE OF GREEN BONDS.

Chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 3102 the following new section:
‘Sec. 3102A. Green Bonds

‘(a) Initial Capitalization- The Secretary of the Treasury shall issue bonds (in this section referred to as ‘Green Bonds’) in the amount of $10,000,000,000 on the credit of the United States to acquire capital stock of the Green Bank (established under section 9801 of this title), of which not more than $200,000,000 shall be used for costs that the Green Bank incurs for its first year in order to provide loans, loan guarantees, debt securitization, insurance, portfolio insurance, and other forms of financing support or risk management for qualified clean energy projects and qualified energy efficiency projects (as such terms are defined under such section). Stock certificates evidencing ownership in the Green Bank shall be issued by the Green Bank to the Secretary of the Treasury, to the extent of payments made for the capital stock of the Green Bank.‘(b) Future Capitalization- The Secretary of the Treasury may issue additional Green Bonds on the credit of the United States to acquire additional capital stock of the Green Bank in an aggregate amount not to exceed $50,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time.‘(c) Denominations and Maturity- Green Bonds shall be in such forms and denominations, and shall mature within such periods, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘(d) Interest- Green Bonds shall bear interest at a rate not less than the current average yield on outstanding market obligations of the United States of comparable maturity during the month preceding the issuance of the obligation as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘(e) Guaranteed- Green Bonds shall be fully and unconditionally guaranteed both as to interest and principal by the United States, and such guaranty shall be expressed on the face of each bond.
‘(f) Lawful Investments- Green Bonds shall be lawful investments, and may be accepted as security for all fiduciary, trust, and public funds, the investment or deposit of which shall be under the authority or control of the United States or any officer or officers thereof.

‘(d) Green Bank-

‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF CORPORATION- There is established a corporation to be known as the Green Bank that shall be wholly owned by the United States.

‘(2) INDEPENDENT CORPORATION- The Bank shall be an independent corporation. Neither the Bank nor any of its functions, powers, or duties shall be transferred to or consolidated with any other department, agency, or corporation of the Government unless the Congress provides otherwise.

‘(3) CHARTER- The Bank shall be chartered for 20 years from the date of enactment of this section.

‘(4) GOVERNANCE-

‘(A) BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BANK-

‘(i) IN GENERAL- The Bank shall be under the direction of a Board of Directors.

(ii) MEMBERSHIP- The Board shall consist of 8 members, as follows:

‘(I) The Secretary of the Energy or his designee.

‘(II) The Secretary of the Treasury or his designee.

‘(III) The Secretary of the Interior or his designee.

‘(IV) The Secretary of Agriculture or his designee.

‘(V) Four members appointed by the President of the United States including a Chief Executive Officer, 1 member with expertise regarding renewable energy, 1 member with expertise regarding electric utilities, and 1 member with expertise regarding consumer affairs.

‘(iii) QUORUM- 5 members of the Board shall constitute a quorum.

‘(iv) BYLAWS- The Board shall adopt, and may amend, such bylaws as are necessary for the proper management and functioning of the Bank, and shall, in such bylaws, designate the vice-presidents and other officers of the Bank and prescribe their duties.

‘(v) TERMS- The initial terms of the members of the Board shall be 4 years. For terms beginning after the first 4 years following the date of the enactment of this section, the Board shall create staggered terms of 2, 3, and 4 years for members of the Board.

‘(vi) VACANCIES- Any vacancy on the Board shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.

‘(vii) INTERIM APPOINTMENTS- Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which such member’s predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such term.

‘(viii) REAPPOINTMENT- Members of the Board may be reappointed for additional terms of service as members of the Board.

‘(ix) CONTINUATION OF SERVICE- Any member of the Board whose term has expired may continue to serve on the Board until the earlier of–

‘(I) the date on which such member’s successor is appointed; or

‘(II) the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date such member’s term expires.

‘(x) CHAIRMAN- The Board shall select a Chairman from among its members.

‘(B) EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT- The Chief Executive Officer shall appoint an Executive Vice-President who–

‘(i) shall serve as Chief Executive Officer of the Bank during the absence or disability of, or in the event of a vacancy in the office, of Chief Executive Officer; and

‘(ii) shall at other times perform such functions as the Chief Executive Officer may prescribe.

‘(C) POLICIES AND PROCEDURES- At the request of any 2 members of the Board, the Chairman shall place an item pertaining to the policies or procedures of the Bank on the agenda for discussion by the Board. Not later than 30 days after the date such a request is made, the Chairman shall hold a meeting of the Board at which such item shall be discussed.

‘(D) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST- No director, officer, attorney, agent, or employee of the Bank shall in any manner, directly or indirectly, participate in the deliberation upon, or the determination of, any question affecting such individual’s personal interests, or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which such individual is directly or indirectly personally interested.

Read the rest of this bill HERE

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

 

    (a) Tax Exempt Status- Subsection (l) of section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

 

  •  
    •  
        `(4) The Green Bank established under section 9801 of title 31, United States Code.’.

 

    (b) Wholly Owned Government Corporation- Paragraph (3) of section 9101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

 

  •  
    •  
        `(S) the Green Bank.’.

So a WHOLLY OWNED GOVERNMENT CORPORATION WITH TAX EXEMPT status?

And its Board of Directors are ALL government officials…….

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h1698:

The Obama/Harold Koh/Soros Connection

Obama’s latest most radical nomination yet: Harold Koh

From The New York Post:

OBAMA’S MOST PERILOUS LEGAL PICK

By MEGHAN CLYNE

March 30, 2009

JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations’ legal “norms.” Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an “axis of disobedience” along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.

Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government’s top lawyers: Harold Koh.

President Obama has nominated Koh — until last week the dean of Yale Law School — to be the State Department’s legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

It’s a job where you want a strong defender of America’s sovereignty. But that’s not Koh. He’s a fan of “transnational legal process,” arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

What would this look like in a practical sense? Well, California voters have overruled their courts, which had imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Koh would like to see such matters go up the chain through federal courts — which, in turn, should look to the rest of the world. If Canada, the European Human Rights Commission and the United Nations all say gay marriage should be legal — well, then, it should be legal in California too, regardless of what the state’s voters and elected representatives might say.

He even believes judges should use this “logic” to strike down the death penalty, which is clearly permitted in the US Constitution.

The primacy of international legal “norms” applies even to treaties we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — a problematic document that we haven’t ratified — should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes.

Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that “in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.”

A spokeswoman for Koh said she couldn’t confirm the incident, responding: “I had heard that some guy . . . had asked a question about sharia law, and that Dean Koh had said something about that while there are obvious differences among the many different legal systems, they also share some common legal concepts.”

Score one for America’s enemies and hostile international bureaucrats, zero for American democracy.

Koh has called America’s focus on the War on Terror “obsessive.” In 2004, he listed countries that flagrantly disregard international law — “most prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our own country, the United States of America,” which he branded “the axis of disobedience.”

He has also accused President George Bush of abusing international law to justify the invasion of Iraq, comparing his “advocacy of unfettered presidential power” to President Richard Nixon’s. And that was the first Bush — Koh was attacking the 1991 operation to liberate Kuwait, four days after fighting began in Operation Desert Storm.

Koh has also praised the Nicaraguan Sandinistas’ use in the 1980s of the International Court of Justice to get Congress to stop funding the Contras. Imagine such international lawyering by rogue nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela today, and you can see the danger in Koh’s theories.

Koh, a self-described “activist,” would plainly promote his views aggressively once at State. He’s not likely to feel limited by the letter of the law — in 1994, he told The New Republic: “I’d rather have [former Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, who uses the wrong reasoning in Roe [v. Wade] to get the right results, and let other people figure out the right reasoning.”

Worse, the State job might be a launching pad for a Supreme Court nomination. (He’s on many liberals’ short lists for the high court.) Since this job requires Senate confirmation, it’s certainly a useful trial run.

What happens to Koh in the Senate will send an important signal. If he sails through to State, he’s a far better bet to make it onto the Supreme Court. So Senate Republicans have a duty to expose and confront his radical views.

Even though he’s up for a State Department job, Koh is a key test case in the “judicial wars.” If he makes it through (which he will if he gets even a single GOP vote) the message to the Obama team will be: You can pick ‘em as radical as you like

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03302009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_most_perilous_legal_pick_161961.htm?page=0

George Soros and Harold Koh are tightly woven together.  The Open Society is part of their agenda.

Even in George Soros’ The Age of Fallibility book, George Soros thanks Harold Koh for his input.

Acknowledgements:

 

I benefited from a discussion at the Central European

University in Budapest with the following participants: Aziz

Al-Azmeh, Sorin Antohi, Andri Chassambouli, Yehuda

Elkana, Katalin Farkas, Eva Fodor, Janos Kis, Liviu Matei,

Daniel Monterescu, Prem Kumar Rajaram, Howard Robinson,

and Carsten Schneider; and an informal seminar in my

home with Leon Botstein, Rosa Brooks, Troy Duster, Hendrik

Hertzberg,      Harold Koh,      Gara LaMarche, Deborah

Leff, Nicholas Lemann, Aryeh Neier, Peter Osnos, John

Podesta, Simon Rosenberg, Mark Schmitt, Jennifer Soros,

Jonathan Soros, and Michael Vachon.

PublicAffairs, and particularly its founder, Peter Osnos,

excelled as usual.

April 2006

 

George Soros

http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAnalysis/Soros_intro-the-age-of-fallibility.pdf

 

So was this another nomination suggested and promoted by George Soros for the Obama Administration?  Or was it a suggestion by Hillary Clinton, the SOS?  Both Soros and Hillary Clinton are “buds”.  They started the Shadow Party…..

Why is it that George Soros’ name keeps coming up in most nominations, the agenda of the Obama campaign…….etc.?

 

 

 

 

Constitutional Rights: Second Amendment…Right To Bear Arms

Thanks to Trevor Loudon for peaking  my interest in an article titled:  Spirit of America 1. 

This addresses issues about our 2nd Amendment.

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The subject matter and unusual phrasing of this amendment have led to much controversy and analysis, especially in the last half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the meaning and scope of the amendment have long been decided by the Supreme Court.

http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-ii-to-the-u-s-constitution

 

 

From YouTubes’ ConstitutionMan:

On October 16, 1991, Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby’s Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled “This is what Bell County has done to me!”, then opened fire on the restaurant’s patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. During the shooting, he approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby’s Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri’s HB-1720 bill[1] and in general, after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but “a hundred feet away in [her] car”, her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. (Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person. One patron, Tommy Vaughn, threw himself through a plate-glass window to allow others to escape. Hennard allowed a mother and her four-year-old child to leave. He reloaded several times and still had ammunition remaining when he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after being cornered and wounded by police.
Reacting to the massacre, in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law allowing Texas citizens with the required permit to carry concealed weapons. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby’s massacre and both of whose parents were shot and killed. Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush and became part of a broad movement to allow U.S. citizens to easily obtain permits to carry concealed weapons.

See her testimony:
Watch the face on Sen. Schumer (D-NY) and his arrogant demeanor….

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

Wealth Redistribution Has Begun But Not Without Issues And Problems

From FoxNews Business:

http://briansullivan.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/03/30/the-wealth-redistribution-has-begun-but-problems-loom/

The Wealth Redistribution Has Begun But Problems Loom

By Brian Sullivan
March 30, 2009

[Emphasis in bold mine]

While campaigning, President Obama made the now-famous comment to the now-infamous plumber that he wants to “spread the wealth around” by raising taxes.   He certainly isn’t alone these days in wanting to stick it to the wealthy.   Protesters at the G20 meeting, in the streets of New York City and on bus tours of AIG executives’ homes are all calling for higher taxes and their populist rage is being heard.   New York state has agreed to a massive tax increase on those making more than $300,000 per year.   Other states are discussing similar moves.   The federal government’s tax increase on those making $250,000 per year will begin in 2011.    That hike is also likely to be accompanied by a reduction in the amount of interest allowed as a deduction on home mortgages.   It is  a tax triplet whose cumulative impact is that a doctor in New York making $500,000 per year is facing a tax hike of more than $2,000 per month.  

That increase will then be scattered through government spending, a “middle class tax cut” that provides a two-income family with a meager $13 more per week, along with the filling of a variety of state budget gaps, particularly in government employee pension plans.

The weak economy, bank bailouts, AIG bonuses and a collapsed housing market has created a wave of anger at the top end of the economic spectrum.   Out of work laborers hold signs saying “tax the rich,” seemingly under the belief that higher taxes are a panacea to America’s, or at least their, economic problems.   Those groups are going to get what they are asking for, as taxes are set to rise on a number of different fronts.   And while the higher tax proponents will net a small political victory, history says they will likely encounter few big changes in their own scenarios

Higher marginal tax rates may provide families with a few extra dollars of temporary relief, but are unlikely to provide better job prospects long term.   Higher tax nations do not traditionally have lower unemployment rates than the United States, and periods of higher taxes in America haven’t helped the under or unemployed find new work.    In fact, generally the opposite is true.   As an example, higher tax European and Scandinavian countries have traditionally also posted much higher unemployment rates than the United States.  The percentage of individuals actually looking for work (and are thus counted in those figures) is even lower in these countries.   Only a few years ago Italy found itself out of the top 100 list of national employment rates.   Many European nations actual unemployment rates are even worse than the numbers indicate, as there are millions in those nations who live entirely off state sponsored welfare their entire lives and are thus not measured in official dataFrance, a country considered a model of socialist economic thinking more than most, is going in the opposite direction of America and cutting income tax rates.   In 2007 the new government led by Nicolas Sarkozy eliminated income taxes on any “overtime” work done beyond the traditional 35-hour work week as part of an overall plan to increase French competitiveness and productivity.

There also appears to be little positive correlation between high taxes on the wealthy and job creation in America.   The top tax rate in the 1970s was a staggering 70% yet unemployment averaged around 7-8% for most of the decade, topping out above 10% for the first few months of 1983.   Only when the impact of the Reagan tax cuts of the early 80s began to be felt did joblessness fall.  Franklin Roosevelt raised the highest end tax rate to 94%, and while the unemployment rate did fall in the later half of the 1930s it was still more than 17% in 1939

[snip]

New York is raising taxes on the very top earners by a staggering 31%.   The second highest group of earners will face a smaller but still punishing tax increase of 14.5%.   Assuming many of those earners do not move to lower tax states and their incomes stay the same (big assumptions in this economy), those tax hikes will together add $4 billion dollars to the Empire State’s coffers.   It sounds like a lot until you consider that New York’s budget deficit is a whopping 400% more than that amount at $16 billion and growing.   Ironically, much of that huge budget gap is due to falling income tax receipts as many of the “rich” Wall Street crowd lose their jobs or make less money.   Until those high paying and high tax generating jobs return, the burden will grow on the fewer high earners left.   That is, until they too finally break down, leave the state or do as many high income earners do and underreport their incomes to get around higher taxes.

Sadly, it is likely those screaming loudest about higher taxes on the rich who will get hurt the most when they get them.   Travel is already down 30-plus percent to Las Vegas this year and the city has one of the fastest growing unemployment rates in the country.   Retail workers across America are losing their jobs as stores close and companies go under.   Towncar drivers in New York report business is down even more.   The stories are endless, but the spending of those with money is not anymore.   In the end, that doctor in New York will probably take one fewer vacation per year, drive his car for a year or two longer before buying a new one and perhaps even trade down into a smaller home.   Lost in the frenzy though, few will care.   Except for the bellhop at the hotel, the car salesman or the worker at the furniture store.

Bizarrely though, the higher tax crowd seems to have little interest in discussing real job creation or long term improvements in the economy.   The shouting seems to be more punitive.  Many “working party” type organizations have long pressed for tax hikes on those making more than $250,000 per year, saying that the wealthy should “share the sacrifice.”  Notice the  tone of the language.   Instead of “how can we make things better” we instead hear “we should all suffer together.”   The implication seems to be that it is more desirable to bring the top down than to try to bring the bottom up.

http://briansullivan.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/03/30/the-wealth-redistribution-has-begun-but-problems-loom/

 

Will Congress, the Movie Magnum elite, and hedge fund managers in the likes of George Soros, etc……all “share the sacrifice” or will they be like Tim Geithner who only pays his taxes when he is caught?

George Soros likes to have his “holdings……offshore” and not under the scrutinizing eye of the IRS……

If the top earners like the Executives and Wall Street entrepreneurs have lost their jobs…..how will they be part of the “sacrifice”?  If our government doesn’t gain any tax money from these income earners…..will the “tax ladders” lower to include those making $75,ooo/year and up?  After all Obama and his government liasons are banking on that income from the “top earners” in America……

Who Will Raise YOUR Children? You or The Government?

Sen. Barbara Boxer is requesting expediation of the Bill she has introduced in Congress that basically takes away parental rights and conveys them to the GOVERNMENT.

Sen. Boxer tries to hurry children’s ‘rights’ treaty

Opponents warn U.N. measure would put government in place of parents
February 26, 2009

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.,is urging a hurry-up timetable for adoption of a United Nations treaty she says provides for “basic human rights” for children but opponents argue would destroy parental rights to raise their children as they choose.

“Children deserve basic human rights … and the convention protects children’s rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected,” Boxer said, according to Fox News.

Boxer wants quick action on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a proposal on which for 20 years Congress has refused to act because of concerns and questions.

The instrument was signed by President Clinton in 1995, but opposition and critics’ concerns that it would override centuries of practice, policy and law regarding children have left it unadopted.

The document would create “the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” which critics say would usurp the role of parents in directing their children’s religious training.

[snip]

The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we’re stuck with it even if they lose the next election,” he warned.

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide but not the U.S. or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to formally recognize the measure, and in the U.S. there’s been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.
 

The international treaty creates specific civil, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” While the treaty states parents or legal guardians “have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child,” Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents’ decisions are in their children’s best interest.

According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:

  • Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
  • A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
  • Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
  • The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
  • A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
  • According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
  • Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
  • Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children’s lives.

Read the rest HERE

There are efforts from the Republicans of Congress to thwart this effort:

From: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93333

March 29, 2009

Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.

According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra’s office, the amendment “would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit.”

“At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children,” Hoekstra writes on his website, “it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution.”

According to ParentalRights.org, an organization dedicated to seeing the amendment passed, this year’s effort, in addition to senatorial support from DeMint, has recruited 65 U.S. representatives who have committed to joining Hoekstra in co-sponsoring a parental rights amendment.   http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={48D114CD-BD70-4776-A32A-5661013D8897}

 

[snip]

“It’s possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children,” Smith wrote. “Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we homeschool, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

He continued, “By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the ‘best interests of the child,’ outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision.”

As WND reported, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month urged a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the UNCRC.

“Children deserve basic human rights … and the convention protects children’s rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected,” Boxer said, according to Fox News.

Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates “the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” usurps the role of parents in directing their children’s upbringing.

 

From Rep. Hoekstra’s website:

Parents’ Rights

Parents have the responsibility to care for, love and nurture their children. Parents, and not the government, should determine how their children are raised and how they should be educated.

At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children, it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution. Doing so would protect parents’ ability to raise their children.

I will be introducing a Parents’ Rights Constitutional Amendment this Congress which would protect parents’ rights to raise their children from unnecessary government intrusion.

http://hoekstra.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=4332&ln_desc=

 

The United Nations is chipping away at the United States’ Sovereignty:

United Nations Treaty of the Seas

United Nations Conference for Women’s Rights

United Nations Conference of Children

The United Nations Millenium Development Goals: The UN president called the United States “slackers” because we DON’T give ENOUGH MONEY to the United Nations.

 

Are we as Americans and our beloved country headed on a path to a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT?

What Will This Trip Cost Taxpayers?

From http://theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm:

 

Obama’s 500

This week, Obama will fly into London to take part in the G20 summit in the capital’s Docklands area.  He will not be travelling light.

For the last two weeks, we have watched as politician after politician has pilloried American business executives for using their “corporate” jets.

 

Accompanying Obama will be an entourage of 500 staff, an armor-plated limousine. a fleet of decoy helicopters, 200 US secret service staff, a six-doctor medical team and his kitchen staff.

More than 500 officials and staff will accompany the president on his tour this week – along with a mass of high-tech security equipment, including the $300,000 presidential limousine, known as “The Beast.”  Fitted with night-vision camera, reinforced steel plating, tear-gas cannon and oxygen tanks, the vehicle is the ultimate in heavy armored transport.

US security teams have already carried out three visits to prepare for Obama’s first official visit to Britain.  The first was a “site survey”, the second a “pre-advance visit” which was carried out to pick sites that the president would visit.  Finally there was the “advance trip”, which took place last week.  Its purpose was to set up equipment, sweep venues for electronic bugs, test food for poison and measure air quality for bacteria.

Then to the linked story from the Uk:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/29/obama-london-visit-uk-g20

 

And should anything befall the President, a White House medical unit will be at hand to provide emergency care. The team consists of surgeons, nurses and other medical personnel and carries supplies of blood of the type AB, the president’s blood group. At the same time, Obama will be constantly minded by his personal aide Reggie Love, who dials his BlackBerry, fetches his jacket and tie and supplies him with snacks. First Lady Michelle Obama will also have a coterie of assistants, including a secretary, a press officer and several bodyguards.

It is a striking presence and shows that, for the next few days, London, not Washington, will be the beating heart of American foreign policy. At the end of the week Obama and his massive retinue will head off for meetings in France, Germany and the Czech Republic, although not before he has indulged in an unprecedented whirlwind of diplomatic activity – he and his advisers will not just be involved in complex summit negotiations, but will also be camped out in London conducting a series of individual high-level mini-summits with the most powerful leaders in the world.

Indeed, despite all the heat and fury over this week’s G20, the most important work might actually emerge from the meetings that Obama and his team have scheduled on the side, far away from the debate over the economic crisis. In effect, if the G20 were a party with a guest list, then Obama’s series of mini-summits would be a VIP room; open only to a select few powerful players and conducted firmly behind closed doors. [Will he be meeting "behind closed doors with Bildeberg Group and the Trilateral Commission?]

The schedule is hectic and the subjects are weighty. On Wednesday, Obama will hold his first bilateral talks with President Hu Jintao of China. The meeting of America’s first black president at a time of almost unprecedented economic crisis with the leader of the world’s foremost rising power is historic. It comes at a time when China has been asserting its international role and taking on the US by talking of replacing the dollar as the main international currency and having a recent naval showdown with a US spy ship in the South China Sea. On the same day, Obama will also meet Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev, again in the first face-to-face talks between the two. Subjects up for discussion will include ways to co-operate to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions and debate over plans for a US missile shield that Russia views as a hostile act.

But that will be just the beginning. On Thursday, Obama will hold his first personal meeting with India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh. Their discussions will be crucial, given the fact that the explosive situation in India’s neighbour, Pakistan, is the most pressing foreign policy concern of Obama’s administration. Then, just to add another massively complex problem to an already exhaustive list, Obama will hold bilateral talks with the South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak. That chat comes against the backdrop of an increasingly erratic North Korea, which is threatening to attack the South and is moving to launch a long-range missile which Japan has said it might try to shoot down. “He does have a huge amount of challenges to try to tackle,” said Larry Haas, a political commentator and former aide in the Clinton White House.

That is putting it mildly. But Obama is far from alone in dealing with his intense schedule. At his London “diplomatic base camp” will be an array of the best and the brightest from his new administration. Chief among them will be former rival Hillary Clinton, now secretary of state and the public face of American diplomacy. His famously combative chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, will also be travelling to London on Air Force One. Obama’s economic team includes Larry Summers, head of the National Economic Council, and Christina Romer, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

[snip]

The entourage

Apart from the 200 secret service personnel who will follow Obama on his European tour, the president’s entourage will also include representatives of the White House Military Office, the White House Transportation Agency, the White House Medical Unit, the Marine Corps Helicopter Squadron, the State Department Presidential Travel Support Service, the US Information Agency, the Immigration and Naturalisation Service and the Customs Service.

In addition, there will be staff from the White House kitchen ready to turn out a quick burger should the president suddenly feel peckish.

Michelle Obama will have eight of her own staff, including a secretary, a press officer and bodyguards. And Obama’s personal aide Reggie Love – called by the president “the kid brother I never had” – will be at hand to provide pens, Nicorette gum, throat lozenges, tea or even aspirins.

Read the rest here

 

So while America reaches for their boxes of macaroni and cheese, cups of ramen noodles, and hot dogs from the fridge, think about what Obama is indulging in……

And the COST of this trip?  I would guess at least THREE MILLION+ dollars.  Trips in Air Force One are not cheap, especially “across the pond”,  the cost and lodging of the 200 Secret Service men, the entourage of his ‘mini’ group of advisors, Clinton, Summers, Emanuel, Love, etc. their food and lodging, etc.  It WON’T BE CHEAP……

I wonder if Obama’s manicurist comes too?

 

UPDATE: From http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

 

 

Military Strained By Obama Trip

 

And, speaking of Obama’s 500-plus G-20 entourage, The Washington Times is reporting that Obama’s European visit this week has strained the US Air Force’s heavy-airlift capabilities and obliged the military to hire more foreign contractors to help resupply U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, according to military sources.

The large delegation traveling with the president in Europe required moving several transports, including jumbo C-5s and C-17s, from sorties ferrying supplies to Afghanistan to European bases for the presidential visit, said two military officials familiar with the issue.  They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid any misunderstanding with White House officials.

The Air Mobility Command, part of the U.S. Transportation Command, was ordered to provide airlift for the president’s entourage of nearly 500 people, including senior officials, staff, support personnel, news reporters and some 200 Secret Service agents for the European visit, which began Tuesday in London.

Airlift for the traveling entourage also was used to move the president’s new heavy-armored limousine and several presidential helicopters used for short transits.

To make up for the shortfall, the Air Force had to increase the number of Eastern European air transport contractors hired to fly Il-76 and An-124 transport jets into Afghanistan loaded with troop supplies, the two officials said.

The airlift crunch comes at a particularly difficult time, as the military is stepping up deliveries of supplies in advance of a surge of 21,000 U.S. troops.

One official said the problem was not only the vehicles and helicopters that were needed for presidential security, but also the unusually large number of people traveling with the president. 

The official said U.S. taxpayers are paying twice for airlift, once for Air Force jets that are not available for a war zone and again for foreign contractor aircraft that are.

 

 

 

 

 

Obama’s Open Forum At The White House: An “Open” and “Honest” Forum…..Really?

From The Obama File Latest with link to WorldNet daily:

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93194

 

Obama’s deck stacked in billed ‘open’ forum

President picks campaign supporters to ask questions at ‘online’ town hall

Posted: March 28, 2009
By Drew Zahn

In an event billed as an opportunity for the American people to ask questions of an “open” and “transparent” administration, the only fully identified inquirers plucked from the audience, it turns out, were Obama campaign supporters.

At last week’s “Open for Questions” forum, the full transcript and video of which is posted on the White House website, Obama answered several questions selected from a reported 100,000 queries posted online. He also took a handful of questions, in town hall fashion, from those in attendance at the event.

But according to a Washington Post report, those audience members the president chose included “a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama’s campaign in 2008.” [emphasis mine]

After answering concerns submitted by online inquirers – including a question about legalization of marijuana that prompted the president to joke about the composition of the online community – Obama invited six audience members to pose questions.

The first questioner, named Ellie, wasn’t fully identified on the White House transcript of the event. The other five, however, were people later pegged as Obama campaign backers.

In the week leading up to the Open for Questions forum, Obama released a promotional video on YouTube in which he said, “One of my priorities as president is opening the White House to the American people, so that folks can understand what we’re up to.”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told the Post that Obama has said, “I think it’s important to engage your critics … because not only will you occasionally change their mind but, more importantly, sometimes they will change your mind.”

Those the president engaged, however, included Sergio Salmeron, who told the Post he had worked as a canvasser for the campaign, as well as working with voter registration and translation of campaign materials.

Salmeron told the Post he was invited to Open for Questions by a fellow worker at Organizing for America, the volunteer coordination effort with the homepage www.barackobama.com.

Read the rest HERE

 

HONESTY?

TRANSPARENCY?

One World Order via The Federal Reserve

1.  The Federal Reserve IS NOT a part of the United States Government. It is its own entity and answers to NO ONE in our government!

2.  The “heads” of the Federal Reserve set inflation rates. 

3.  Bernanke, Greenspan and Geithner all belong to the Bildeberg Group and are part or have history with the Federal Reserve.

4.  Why would OUR United States Government designate one of them to be in charge of our TREASURY (Geithner)?

5.  WHY would our Congress even consider giving Geithner the overall power of all our businesses and banks?

 

Comments by participants in the 912 project:

I found some interesting comments made by banker David Rockefeller on Sept. 23, 1994… (NOTE DATE!!!!)
“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
Doesn’t the last part of that sound familiar? It almost echoes the recent words of Rahm Emanuel “to never let a good crisis go to waste…”

 

 

The Federal Reserve Bank is NOT part of the Government. I applaud the thousands of patriotic Americans who are spreading the word so we can live in economic prosperity and uphold our Constitutional rights!!!

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT ONLY CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF.

IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE ITS POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP. (Reference 22, P. 168) Please do your research!Check out the Glenn Beck videos below!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLCHWhmyn8w&fe…
 

 

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18EeVyVXS6U&fe…

 
Thomas Jefferson stated, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered.”

 

 

Glenn Beck with Ron Paul why the Fed should be abolished.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCh6pLXkky8&fe…

 

 

 
MANY others have stressed that the real control of the world is in the hands of a few bankers behind the scenes.
 

 

Most would be totally shocked to read the roles of America’s most revered founders of industry such as Ford, Rockefeller and many others in supporting totalitarian regimes and actively controlling the world banks to drive the New World Order.

Now, much of the rest of the world is driving the devaluation of the dollar so that we will have little choice but to abandon the dollar…which is also controlled by the fed…which is controlled by the international banks. NOT conspiracy theory, but FACT.

http://www.world-enlightenment.com/enlightenment-…

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.the912project.com

Will George Soros and his dreams of an Open Society and One World Global government be, in the corner;smiling and rubbing his hands together, at the G20 meeting in London?

My guess would be the Bildeberg Group or the Trilateral Commission will be either in the gallery or nearby.

 

The 912 Project: Americans Standing Up For 9 Principles and 12 Virtues

It is not that you are Democrat OR Republican: It IS because you are an American.

Our country is being undermined by a select few and it is up to us to bring America back to the country that our fathers, our grandfathers fought to defend and protect our Democracy and our Sovereignty. Certain groups are trying to “divide and conquer” our country. 

This video says it all:

 

 

We are not a militia: WE are Americans…….

9 Principles

1. America Is Good.
   
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
  God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the external rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.
   
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
  Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington
   
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
  Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson
   
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
  Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson
   
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
  Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson
   
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
  Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington
   
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
  On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington
   
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
  Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson

12 Values

  • Honesty
  • Reverence
  • Hope
  • Thrift
  • Humility
  • Charity
  • Sincerity
  • Moderation
  • Hard Work
  • Courage
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Gratitude

http://www.the912project.com/

 

Mission Statement

 

 http://www.the912project.com/

 

The 912 project

The 912 project

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers