GOLDMAN SACHS, CITIGROUP, WALL STREET FINANCIAL TYPES RUN OBAMA ADMIN: MAINSTREAM MEDIA CENSORS

I knew that Ben Bernanke (definitely also read: "KILL THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM: BEN BERNANKE GIVEN SOFTBALLS BY PBS'S JIM LEHRER, PAUL SOLMAN") had allowed Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company without even waiting the required 5 days. I didn't know though that the Federal Reserve also allowed Goldman Sachs to be exempt from Market Risk Rules to which all regulated banks must adhere. The Federal Reserve also allowed Goldman Sachs to continue using "value at risk" (VaR) accounting practices in determining Goldman Sachs' reserves and therefore its leverage ratio.

Maybe this is what Tom Eley and Barry Grey meant by "the decision by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to weaken "mark-to-market" [emphasis added] accounting rules and permit banks to inflate the value of their toxic assets." ("Obama's Wall Street cabinet," Global Research. April 15, 2009.)

In other words, Goldman Sachs is a regular bank in name only. It was rubber stamped a regular bank by Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve so that Goldman Sachs could tap into the TARP and other funds. It's a scam. Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury Department, and all financial law enforcement are at the very least complicit in this gigantic fraud.

I knew that Goldman Sachs had sucked down about $13 billion from the AIG bailout, but I didn't know that that was just the tip of the iceberg. Goldman Sachs reportedly received a total of $63.6 billion. It repaid some $10 billion so far. So correct me if this is wrong, but Goldman Sachs still has over $53 billion from the Federal government bailout. Why? Where's the $53 billion for the Christian Commons? The Commons is a better idea than Goldman Sachs will ever be. Why wasn't Goldman Sachs denied when it asked to become a bank in name only? Why if it was too big to fail on its own didn't the federal government just nationalize it and take it apart in a way that would not have doomed the so-called whole system rather than bail it out with the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars that could have been put into creating jobs directly to improve the people's infrastructure, etc.? Why are the people who make such terrible choices still in charge? The scam continues is the answer. Read on.

Read this article: "How You Finance Goldman Sachs' Profits: An insider's view of Wall Street's rebound," by Nomi Prins. (Mother Jones. July 28, 2009.)

Well, just remember all the Goldman Sachs people who have been through the revolving door of government. Nearly all the household names have been Goldman Sachs or from other Wall Street scam firms.

Some of the following people may have moved on, but without hitting every department to check the very latest news, here's what the Obama administration looks like:

The list of former Goldman Sachs employees holding top positions in the Obama administration includes:

o Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, who is the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (himself the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York).

o Reuben Jeffery III, former managing partner at Goldman Sachs, who holds the post of undersecretary of state for economic, business, and agricultural affairs.

o Neel Kashkari, former Goldman Sachs vice president, who is the assistant secretary of the treasury for financial stability, responsible for administering the TARP funds.

o Dianna Farrell, former financial analyst at Goldman Sachs, who serves as deputy director of the National Economic Council.

"Record pay and profits at Goldman Sachs," by Andre Damon and Barry Grey. (World Socialist Web Site. July 15 2009.)

o Robert Hormats, former Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs, is now Under Secretary of Economics, Business, and Agricultural Affairs. I guess he's replacing Reuben Jeffery III.

o Jacob Lew, former Chief Financial Officer of Citigroup Alternative Investments Group, is now Deputy Secretary of State.

o Michael Froman, formerly of Citi and Chief of Staff to Robert Rubin during the Clinton administration, is now Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs

o David Lipton, formerly in charge of Citi's global country risk management effort and deputy under secretary for international affairs in the Clinton administrations Treasury Department, is now deputy to Michael Froman.

o Lewis Alexander, formerly Citigroup chief economist, is now Counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

o Neal Wolin, former president and chief operating officer of the Property and Casualty Group at Hartford Insurance Company and Treasury General Counsel during the Clinton administration, is now Deputy Treasury Secretary.

o Gary Gensler, former Goldman Sachs partner and Assistant Secretary of Treasury in the Clinton Administration, is now Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

o Linda Robertson, former Enron lobbyist who also served in the Clinton administration's Treasury Department under Robert Rubin and then Larry Summers, is now a Federal Reserve (not really under any branch of government) lobbyist. (Telling)

See: "How Goldman Sachs and Citi Run the Show: The Wall Street White House," by Andrew Cockburn. (CounterPunch. July 2, 2009.)

See also: "One bright light for the future of America," by Bill McCullough, (Business Lexington. July 23, 2009; "Congressman Ron Paul's HR 1207: The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009") which states:

Of course the Fed is doing everything in its power to quell HR 1207, which includes hiring a former Enron lobbyist, Linda Robertson, to put pressure on individual Congressmen, and issuing underlying threats if it is audited. Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn warned Congress interest rates will increase if they are audited and America's bond rating will go down, making it more expensive to borrow money.

That's the same kind of garbage argument Alan Greenspan used to push through deregulation that he has since had to admit was a dumb idea, although he's still fudging. It's also the kind of dumb argument Henry Paulson used to push through the TARP. He told people there would be riots so terrible that the President would have to declare martial law. That was a total lie designed to panic the ignorant. There were perfectly capable laws on the books to allow levelheaded regulators to move in as they did during the Savings and Loan crisis to handle the failing banks and Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs. Greenspan, Paulson, and the rest knew that full well. They were around during the S&L crisis. It was their job to know. It was their job to finagle for the superrich, plutocrat, banking gangsters, called banksters during the Great Depression, which they also caused on purpose.

Remember, Greenspan was an objectivist/libertarian disciple of Ayn Rand. He studied the competing arguments. He knew for instance the Ludwig von Mises, Austrian School of economics outlook concerning how the Federal Reserve is a scam. He's seen many other views and twists on the basic theme as well. He knew all about the arguments against the private National/Central banking. The common people are just completely duped on these matters. Alan Greenspan knew that United States Notes have always just been sitting there as a totally better idea for the people's currency than are Federal Reserve Notes. That Wikipedia article only scratches the surface.

o Thomas E. Donilon, a lawyer from a Washington firm representing Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, is now deputy national security adviser.

o Louis Caldera, formerly of IndyMac Bancorp, is now director of the White House Military Office.

{Not to single out IndyMac, but according to William K. Black [a truth-teller at least on these issues up to a point], in just one year, IndyMac sold $80 billion in liars loans where IndyMac deliberately did no income or job verifications on loan applicants who were often even encouraged to inflate their data. (See: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html April 3, 2009.)

William K. Black has the story down. You may know all the basics of what he says, but it's worth it to listen to hear someone who has thought threw how to explain it with sufficient detail to drive home the point that deregulation was a completely stupid, greedy, even criminally fraudulent thing to have done.

He explains how the mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders, rating bureaus, supposed regulators, and securities bundlers all colluded. The video is the best summation I've seen to date.

The Law Required that Goldman Sachs and the Others be Nationalized (placed into receivership)

There was one thing that was complete news to me. It was, and remains, the law (Prompt Corrective Action) that the banks be put into receivership. That really hit me. I knew that they should have been nationalized and parceled out to prevent runs and to not bail them out (throw "good" money after bad) in a vain attempt at an indefinite global shell game, but I didn't know that the regulators, such as the Federal Reserve, were actually required by law to do it.

Wow, what a dark, dark age this is. The regulators, including Ben Bernanke, have refused. They have been breaking the law. That's the first time I've heard that even though I've heard many, many different parties call for placing the banks into receivership.

William K. Black says to get rid of the people who caused the problems. I've said that Obama must clean economic house or fail.}

o David Stevens, president and chief operating officer of Long and Foster Cos., and a former top executive for Freddie Mac is planned to head the Federal Housing Administration.

o Larry Summers is Obama's top economic advisor. Summers has received a boatload of money from many Wall Street firms concerning which he then goes on to argue in favor of in the Obama administration. Of course, Obama received record campaign donations from Wall Street too. Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, also has very close Wall Street ties.

o Timothy Geithner, former head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the most powerful of the Federal Reserve regional banks with huge regulatory responsibility, is now Secretary of the Treasury.

We don't want to forget that it wasn't just Henry Paulson's doing, even though he's not in the Obama administration. It was also former Goldman Sachs CEO Robert Rubin who became Clinton's Treasury Secretary and then went on to Citi. Alan Greenspan too had a huge hand in the deregulation frenzy. They were hugely supported by Senator Phil Gramm (the main culprit in dismantling the Glass-Steagall Act).

(Please understand here that I'm discussing errors within the system. I am not advocating for the system. Christianity is not for the system but for its peaceful, voluntary displacement. The laissez-faire capitalist system is inherently flawed and therefore antichrist.)

They all fought Brooksley Born when she was head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

They pushed through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. It was a huge error that, along with overturning key aspects of the Glass-Steagall Act via the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Those two key anti-regulation measures along with the Federal Reserves monetary policies favoring insane laissez-faire capitalist desires has resulted in the current recession/depression. In the face of those facts though, the mass media is being paid to censor this from the mainstream understanding of the common people who are mesmerized into watching and reading and caring about total inanities rather than what really matters concerning the welfare of all.

Brooksley Born was right. Their mentality prevailed. The world is now in a global depression on account of it.

She apparently knew intuitively that the Invisible Hand is the same as city traffic with all the traffic signals shut down forever. That means car wrecks that would not otherwise happen. Don't give me the capitalist Invisible Hand garbage. Until everyone is with the flow of the Holy Spirit, which means no selfishness but rather concern for each and all, the economy needs traffic lights timed by the traffic engineers with their very visible hands.

Greenspan had said, "There is nothing involved in federal regulation per se which makes it superior to market regulation." Rubin and Summers gained up with Greenspan in shooting down Brooksley Born's sensible, visionary concerns.

I'm not saying that Born knew this, but how can a whole economy hedge itself against its own whole downward spiral? It's just plain stupid not to see that it cannot. The only thing that can be used as a hedge against the downturn in a whole system is a whole other system. The only thing that has even slowed the current down turn is doing the less than half measures they've done so far which even those not-even half measures fly in the face of unregulated markets so-called self-regulated law-of-the-jungle markets. Now, if they would go in for full measures that run exactly contrary to the so-called free market and did it right, we'd be out of the recession/depression in less than a couple of months. I mean that literally.

See: "THE RECKONING Risk in hindsight: Taking Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy," by Peter S. Goodman. (The New York Times. October 16, 2008.)

It's amazing that the derivatives market swelled to over $500 trillion mostly of hot air. Rather than dump the whole system, Ben Bernanke is trying to hold off having to write it all off. He wants to re-inflate the economy and reassign value to the derivatives. Where's the value other than make believe. Who's going to verify all the underwriting? Why facilitate such raw gambling? It isn't raising the bottom. That's the measure that matters.

Even when there was supposedly over $500 trillion in assets, there were more people percentage wise in poverty in America than in any other developed nation. Rather than pumping tax dollars into saving the ultra-rich reckless gamblers, why didn't all the bailout money go into raising the bottom the way it should have? When will the American people stop being so self-oriented so that we can raise everyone?

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.