BARACK OBAMA WILL BE A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT IF HE DOESN'T CLEAN HOUSE, ESPECIALLY ECONOMIC HOUSE, AND VERY SOON
Barack Obama is highly overrated. He took huge donations from Wall Street and rewarded the Goldman Sachs of the world with the prime positions in his administration over economic matters. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and National Economic Council Chair Lawrence H. Summers are disastrous. Along with Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin Bernanke, they have presided over the worst economic planning and execution for the people in general but the "best" for economic parasites.
If Barack Obama doesn't want to be a one-term president, among other things, he must clean economic house and he doesn't have much time to do it. All three of those people need to be replaced but especially Geithner and Summers. Bernanke heads an organization that itself should be scrapped by the Obama administration, not strengthened, as Geithner has moved to do.
Obama should replace Geithner and Summers with people who will do everything within the power of the executive to rollback the bailouts to Wall Street bankers and replace all of that with highly productive, public-works projects to create immediate, high-paying, skilled, public jobs (public-payroll jobs). He needs to embark upon skills training and putting skilled workers on constructing and running public projects and programs. He needs to abolish the Federal Reserve and replace it with nationalized United States Notes issued at a rate that exactly matches real productivity and nothing from speculation on Wall Street.
As to whether and to what degree he holds onto that creation rather then later privatizing the creation, is not an issue that will make or break his reelection if he has made great strides in jobs creation even if publicly funded jobs (people on the U.S. payroll) on publicly run projects.
People need food, housing, clothing, healthcare, transportation, energy, education, etc., and if comes from the private or public sector, it's all a matter of democratic choice. If it is cheaper and easier and returns better results overall in the aggregate for the whole citizenry, then why be saddled with private enterprise? The American state is an enterprise afterall. The only thing that matters is how well it is run and to what end. A bunch of mega-corporations and private banks has certainly proven harmful. Selfish interests have ruined things for the vast majority. The pursuit of private gain is not a good mentality. It is a bad ideology. It is not pragmatic.
The above is a mundane answer in that it is comprehensible to the majority, even though most have been deeply programmed to believe the falsehood that is laissez-faire capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, and egoism (objectivism; Ayn Rand) and the like.
The more divine can be comprehended too. The divine contains no charge, no tax, no interest, no debt, no lack, no over consumption, no trade, and no medium of exchange (money). The Christian Commons is a real liberal (no villainy; no harm; harmless as a dove) device that will begin to bring forth Heaven on Earth. It is completely consistent with the Gospel of Jesus. It is better than the United States of America. It is better than George Washington's vision of worldly Empire.
America was different from the Old World, said its mythologists. America was the Land of Liberty, uninterested in conquest. But what of George Washington's call for a "rising empire" and James Madison's "laying the foundation of a great empire"? What of slavery, the theft of Texas from Mexico, the bloody subjugation of central America, Cuba and the Philippines?
Let's not forget then Vice President Dick Cheney's official 2003 Christmas card that quoted another imperialist Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin:
If a sparrow can fall to the ground without His notice, it is likely that an empire can rise without His help?
When Cheney was asked about whether he thinks the U.S. is an empire, he said, "Ask my wife." Lynne Cheney is Dick's wife, and he said that she chose the Franklin quote as an indication that God is on the side of the worldly American Empire builders. If Jesus were dead, he'd have rolled over in his grave. Of course, the Cheney's don't really know anything about Jesus else they wouldn't be as they are now would they.
Obama is blowing it for the Democrats who were thickheaded enough, mesmerized enough, duped enough, naive enough, gullible enough, to choose a so-far fraud. Can he repent? Will he even try?
So now we are told by the mainstream U.S. pollsters, such as Rasmussen, that the masses are swinging back to the infamous Republicans, who brought on all the deregulation that exactly led to the Crash of 2008 under the George W. Bush administration, something Rasmussen wants to see and is careful to craft his polls and to report the results in such a way to help make it happen.
Here's where the financial deregulation of the Republicans especially influenced by the economic airhead, Phil Gramm (the bringer of darkness: swaps and derivatives), and aided and abetted by the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) types, such as one of its main founders, Bill Clinton, came in.
One November 12, 1999, the greed-based Republicans along with turncoat Democrats repealed critical parts of the New Deal era Glass-Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933; Keynesianism). The repeal, called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, .
You will please note that the date of the above well documented and thought-out piece is Jan 13, 2009. That's before Obama's inauguration. The Bush administration had ample opportunity to head off the crash but did nothing. The crash was and will remain Bush's Crash, Bush's Depression, Bush's Great Recession, or whatever you want to term it. However, Barack Obama is quickly making it the Bush/Obama Depression, just as he has created his "Obama's War" that is Pakistan's proxy war on it's own for the sake of the Empire.
All the deregulation led directly to all the toxic securities (securitized junk loans; bad loans sold and traded and insured as equity securities). There's no doubt about it. It was one huge Ponzi scheme. The greedy are still trying to prop it up to have another run (bubble) to time for their maximum advantage and then to drive through another wave of bailouts using the taxes of workers who have little to no attention span or interest. The workers are deliberately fed the boob tube to keep them boobs (aka suckers, patsies, dupes, etc.).
All of the deregulation led to the dotcom bubble (and bust), all the Enron-type corporate scandals, and to the mortgage-backed securities and credit-default swaps (AIG) current global depression.
What would the Republican leadership do different or better? They aren't for bailing out the common people either. Why are the American people not paying attention? Why do they have their heads buried in the boob tube watching the inane? They get what their spirits and souls deserve in the end.
The arguments against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act) at the time all prove correct. History shows it clearly. Yet, the same selfish, mental midgets are in charge under Obama.
We ended up with leveraging that is actually incalculable. God alone knows. It's all guess work at best. Who can gage the value of all the bad loans? What are the underlying assets (real estate and such) truly worth? What's a vacant foreclosed home worth when jobs are disappearing?
What's happening is that unemployment is creating a mass of people willing to work for the superrich for peanuts. Deficit Federal spending will be used as an excuse to further privatize even extending into Social Security and Medicare and despite Obama's call for some portion of healthcare payments to come from the federal government as simply a payer and not an owner or employer in the healthcare industry (contrary to all the liars and distorters who call government payments "socialism"). If Obama does get the government payer plan enacted soon enough or if the Republicans come back into power and undercut it, the Republicans will privatize Social Security and Medicare and finally sink the American economy likely forever.
The Federal Reserve was used by the greedy to accomplish all the redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top via bailouts using future tax dollars of the working class. It's robbery. It's a giant scam. Those at the top of the greed chain know full well what they were and are still doing. They are stealing. They are crooks. They are corrupt. They are unethical. They are monstrous. One cannot demonize them enough. They are the worst of humanity. They are why so many others lower down are so messed up. They are personal, private empire builders who stop at nothing: not bombing the innocent, not torturing the innocent, not anything. Their selfishness self-licenses them to do the work of the devil. They bring Hell to Earth. They are evil.
So far, all Obama has really done is to allow Bernanke, et al., to continue the shell game. Rather than allowing the banks to disappear and replacing them with United States Notes and nothing but (not gold or other "commodities" neither needed or wanted; just trustworthiness), he has allowed them to continue moving the toxics around to mask the fact that rather than write it all off as pure garbage, it's all being used to bilk the taxpayers — to transfer their earnings to the speculators who set up the whole scheme to accomplish just that: deepening the economic enslavement of those who actually work rather than live off so-called passive investments the result of earlier theft is all.
Here are some names for Obama's consideration if he is to save himself by God at all.
The article is from November 30, 2002. Please take particular notice of his refutation of the employment-cum-inflation joke. I call it what Greenspan and others pushed for which was "systemic unemployment." It was just a scam to get people to work for as little as possible for the rich. That false Greenspan idea is still there to pressure legislators but now the stick is deficit spending challenged toward the superrich banksters rather than the taxpayers themselves. The Friedmanites (after Milton Friedman) and Greenspan and many, many others simply dreaded the Humphrey-Hawkins full-employment concept. Oh God, they thought, we can't allow such sharing of the fruits of everyone's laborer as a unified nation. We must have the sovereignty reside with the richest of the rich because that's who's making sure that we (Friedman, et al.) get paid for sitting on our brains.
For the sake of the general population, James K. Galbraith tells it more the way it is. He doesn't sell the falsehoods just so he can get his bread buttered. He bucks those who spew the falsehoods.
If Obama would make James K. Galbraith his economics guru for a while, until Obama might catch onto a few truths, Obama would be a two-term president for sure. Galbraith is vastly brighter than Geithner, Summers, and Bernanke or was Friedman and so many others.
(As of the date of this writing, Michael's website is decidedly mid-1990's in visual theme. Don't let that deter you.) Michael is an anti-imperialist and anti-militarist. If the U.S. were to stop channeling everything into raping the rest of the planet and rather channel everything into raising the living standard of everyone as opposed to the greedy, all things would vastly improve. Were Obama to follow Michael's advice in conjunction with James K. Galbraith's, Obama would much more merit some of the adoration that was given him during his campaign. It wouldn't make him The Second Coming, per se, but it would make him a pivotal figure in history leading up to the Second Coming. The reason Obama can never rise to the level of the Second Coming is because he's trying to do things from within the coercive system. The non-coercive is Kingdom Theology for those who don't recognize it. I fully subscribe.
Michael is a much truer Populist and much closer to what is ultimately needed in terms of the whole spiritual system.
I don't, of course, hold with the "liberal" (false-liberal) notions concerning sex and scientism, but on the economics, Kuttner is better than Geithner, et al. Please note that Kuttner knows what "principled libertarianism" is. He separates that from neoconservatism and predation. He uses the term patricians. He's saying that old "conservatism" was crushed by the neocons.
William Kristol, in his well-practiced rebuttals, wants to take historical credit but not blame. He asks, as is typical, whether we would want to return to the "liberal" past? He uses a blanket, sweeping style to avoid connecting the neocon, Machiavellian agenda to the better known and rightly feared (for the great unwashed) dark side.
Kuttner did a good job of redirecting attention back to what could have been rather than what was — in other words, how the so-called compassionate conservatism (an oxymoron) could have been vastly more compassionate.
Kuttner also cites some polling at the time that showed then (during the presidential campaign) that Obama and the Democrats had a huge opportunity to use government to make things fairer and more just. (They don't know how to go all the way to completely fair and just.) However, Obama for reasons of getting campaign funds from the Wall Street bankers and to reward them for it, has squandered that golden opportunity, as mundane as it was and which is quickly slipping away. He's actually killing the now very short lived Democratic Party opportunity. Democrats should be livid and rebelling in droves, but they aren't smart enough. They're asleep.
Kristol use the 4-5% of GDP argument for military spending. Well, he's a military imperialist. He doesn't hide it. He embraces it. The military spending though is more than half the federal budget when all things military are added together. Just think of a doubling of the federal budget for everything else simply by eliminating the military. Then think about greatly increasing the budget again simply by nationalizing the currency to make it interest-free.
Just for those who don't know. I don't subscribe to the separation of Church and state while I don't hold with coercive religion or government. I know that the only acceptable government to God is where the informed consent of every single last soul is obtained before allowing for the government, the system, the ordering, etc. It's a semantical point, but perfectly correct and utterly defensible.
Kuttner and Kristol are arguing on a different wholly spectrum from mine. I put forth Kuttner only as the lesser of mundane evils and not the divine answer. American "Progressivism" is not the ultimate solution. Jesus's New Commandment informed by all the things recorded in the four canonical Gospels as Jesus's words and deeds is.
You will also note that Robert grants that Bill Kristol is a principled conservative. I don't grant that. Robert doesn't take Bill to task for neocon philosophy that is based upon Machiavellianism or take him to task for the clear and plain lies and deceptions used by the neocons who ran George W. Bush's policies and programs without doubt. Robert only mentioned the conflation of Saddam Hussein with terrorism and al Qaeda. He didn't drive home the point. He didn't probe Bill on Bill's father and on Straussianism and Machiavellianism (which condones lying). He didn't grill Bill on illegal domestic spying. He didn't grill Bill on torture. He didn't grill Bill on the millions of war refugees and the thousands of dead innocents.
Bill defends the ideology of lies but only complains about execution. Bush's ideology if good, but his execution was bungling according to Kristol. However, Bill's ideology enslaves people rather than lifting them.
What you should also notice is that Israel, as in the Anglo-American-Israeli Empire, didn't come up. Why is that? Neoconservatism is largely the creation of left-wing Zionists "mugged by reality," as Bill's father, Irving Kristol said. One cannot rightly discuss neoconservatives in terms of whether or not they can be trusted to govern without bringing the Anglo-American-Israeli Empire into it.
So, my knowledge is that neocons most certainly cannot be trusted and that their minions are bought off, as Robert stated. The rich have created the think tanks that churned out the lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq. It's a war crime. Those topics aren't nearly exhaustive and only just scratch the surface.
This is close to my starting position concerning abolishing the Federal Reserve and instituting United States Notes as the sole U.S. currency. Zarlenga doesn't fit it exactly, but he is more recognized at this point and that is a pragmatic reality. It can and will change, but we all have to begin from where we find ourselves.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)