The FBI and the DOJ remain unlikely to prosecute the elite bank officers that ran the enormous "accounting control frauds" that drove the financial crisis. While over 1000 elites were convicted of felonies arising from the savings and loan (S&L) debacle, there are no convictions of controlling officers of the large nonprime lenders. The only indictment of controlling officers of a far smaller nonprime lender arose not from an investigation of the nonprime loans but rather from the lender's alleged efforts to defraud the federal government's TARP bailout program.
What has gone so catastrophically wrong with DOJ, and why has it continued so long? The fundamental flaw is that DOJ's senior leadership cannot conceive of elite bankers as criminals.
Bill Black goes on to explain the naivety (supposed — I don't buy it that the prosecutors are that naive but rather also largely corrupt).
The fact though is that William Black is right that corrupt CEO's and their underlings jacked up the bottom lines of the companies they were (and some still are) running to likewise increase their bonuses and other aspects of their compensation packages and golden parachutes (severance or retirement packages). They embarked upon massive fraud to accomplish this at the expense of everyone else, including the companies they were allowed through utter stupidity to run. They hardly feared a thing though because they rigged the political system via massive contributions to assure that they would get away with it all, often paying only a percentage of their ill-gotten gains back in the form of settlement deals.
Remember during the AIG debate over clawing back bonuses? Remember the argument that the bonuses represented such a small percentage that executive compensation couldn't possibly be the reason for the economic crash? Remember the further argument that the compensation contracts were sacrosanct? Well, without those compensation deals, the executives would never have had the wicked incentive to rip off the whole world. Furthermore, no contract is enforceable when a party is engaged in illegal activity such as defrauding the planet, which is exactly what the executives Bill Black is talking about did and are still getting away with, at least in the mundane. They will face their maker whether they think so or not. I wouldn't want to be standing in their shoes then. I'll have enough to answer for just for myself.
So, why is nothing being done? Is it because the "regulators" are naive? Nothing is being done because the system has been purchased and nearly everyone in it has knowingly sold out. Bill Black is being naive about that. He doesn't want to think that so many people are really that evil. It's wishful thinking. It's understandable too. If I'm right (and I am), then the United States of America is utterly lawless at the top, and all obligations are off — meaning the people are not obligated to follow the evil leaders dictates.
Really, there is no binding agreement in force right now in terms of the state and the whole people. It is completely illegitimate. I would that it were not so, but wishful thinking about it won't help a thing.
The only law I'm obeying right now is my conscience. I am doing my best to take my cues from the teachings of Jesus. The United States is rogue. It is rebelling against righteousness. It is a terrible liar — horrendously so. I hold it in contempt.
The US is in contempt of God, and God is righteousness. What else can I say? I'm not going to tell you that the US is "good." It is not being good. It is being bad. It is bringing forth more and more evil. It has not stopped, turned, repented, and worked to make amends (atoned). Of course, the US is not alone among the nations in that regard. Frankly, I can't name one nation-state that is not consciously failing righteousness.
Let me add something else here that I haven't said before. The banks were the biggest cheerleaders behind the prosecution of the S&L executives. They were that because the banksters were rubbing their hands together at the prospect of gaining all that market share.
The Savings and Loans were depositor owned. They were not fractional-reserve entities. They lent out what they had on deposit. The loans were well-collateralized. The borrowers were put through real due-diligence by the lenders. The S&L's were not allowed to violate the Glass–Steagall Act. It hadn't yet been gutted. Rip-off artists did infiltrate the S&L's though. They ruined a relatively good thing — relative to what went before and what we have now.
The arguments for taking down the S&L industry included that the commercial banks were so much better run with much higher standards, etc. What a joke that turned out to be, right? Who can't see that?
George Bailey's Building and Loan hired the wrong CEO, someone without a working conscience, and then Mr. Potter ended up getting his hands on the whole thing, paid the politicians to give Potter free rein, and under the gutted Glass–Steagall Act, racked up tens of trillions in one of the biggest frauds in financial history. Where is Potter now? He's laughing at the suckers because he hasn't even had his wrist slapped. He's laughing at the Palin-type Tea Party Members who are working to further gut what would otherwise keep Potter from gaining the world because he doesn't believe he has a soul to lose. Souls are for the suckers.
So, all those Tea Partiers just keep aiding and abetting those who are ripping them off. They are helping those who want to be sure to get everyone else in the position where those others can't afford to be at all choosy about anything. They'll have such tiny wages that they won't be able to afford to turn down the hardest work for the most subsistence wages — that includes the so-called middle class too. They'll turn over everything to the privatizers. Where they aren't charged now to use it, such as parks and roads and fire and police services, etc., they'll have to pay at the point and time of use. If they don't have the money because they are working for slave wages or not at all, too bad. They will have chosen their own serfdom.
Isn't it ironic that those who are ushering in serfdom are the ones who claim that 1) higher based wages 2) higher public benefits for all and 3) higher taxes on the rich (a combination that has always led to a higher standard of living and quality of life for the average citizens and nation as a whole) lead to serfdom.
I'm speaking specifically about that economic numbskull, Friedrich von Hayek, who wrote the ridiculous anti-socialist screed, "The Road to Serfdom." He was a favorite of Margret Thatcher, who claimed that there was no other choice but to follow Hayek's road to the very serfdom we see unfolding before our very eyes.
Coercive socialism for all isn't the ultimate path, but it's a far cry better than coercive capitalism of the poor and socialism for the rich that we have now.
I wish the Ron Paul followers would actually read and consider those who are opposed to the Austrian School of Economics, opposed to Ludwig von Mises Institute, opposed to Murray Rothbard and the rest.
Make no mistake though, while the banksters were busy doing away with due-diligence, many common people were busy scrambling to take advantage of the deliberate laxness. The banksters though knew ahead of time that their strategically placed insiders, such as Henry Paulson, would see to it that those banksters would be bailed out out as too big to fail while the little borrowers had no clue about what was about to happen to them: foreclosure and being blamed by the banksters sycophants for all the problems along with Big Government — but never the banksters themselves who caused the whole thing. Afterall, the banksters, the Plutocrats, the Kleptocrats, own the Big Government (and the media corporations/news services that cover for the banksters). The "little" people certainly don't own the government in any practical sense, despite the words of Abraham Lincoln to the contrary: Government of, by, and for the people. Well he also said that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Okay, but those people who aren't fooled aren't the leaders. Those doing the fooling are. Hence, the US is a level of Hell bringing more Hell to Earth.
Bill Black writes, "The new House committee chairs have championed even weaker regulation and have not championed the prosecution of Wall Street elites." So, the Palin, fake Tea Party is aiding and abetting, as I said. However, the Ron Paul Tea Partiers wouldn't get it right either.
Laissez-faire capitalism is a road to totalitarian, global monarchical powers vested in one, unholy person: the greatest purveyor of mammon and usury the world will ever know: the proverbial Satan incarnate.
As for solutions, there are stepping stones, such as interest- debt- inflation- and deflation-free United States Notes, and then there is the Christian Commons.
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)