I have to suspect that I must not be the only American that has come to the conclusion that the excuses that are now being given by BP (British Petroleum) over their inability to cap this oil spill that just so happened to occur as the American public was demanding more domestic production, and less reliance on foreign crude due to the ongoing and continuing War on Terrorism (oil) are beginning to sound rather hollow...and familiar.
And Louisiana and the U.S. government's hand wringing also suspect.
Obama has stated that he plans to be "hands on" in the cleaning up of this disaster due also to globalization and foreign ownership of another American vital industry which apparently went for the most part unregulated which resulted in the loss of more American lives at the hands of foreigners.
It is interesting that this was a British company involved, and that although Mr. Obama's efforts have been restricted for the most part in formulating another panel at the taxpayers expense to study just what occurred, I wonder if he has also directed them to study some of those "free trade" agreements with global corporations which are operating outside U.S. regulatory body oversight more and more?
I mean post Katrina and the U.S. recession, it is the British and Canadians who are buying up a great many of those million dollar homes in the French Quarter and Garden District, many of whom also work for BP.
And I wouldn't hesitate to guess that as the U.S. gets involved now in this disaster posthumously, that there is a move in Washington to increase the gasoline taxes then in order to provide for the revenue to clean up this spill, even given the announced "fines" that are being levied against BP (which, I'm sure, will be appealed under those "free trade" agreements, leaving again the American public holding the bag).
Washington, and the Global Socialists in both the Republican and Democratic parties have become oh so predictable.
Sort of like Hollywood, that has taken to making more and more "remakes" of both cancelled television series formats, "digitally enhanced" versions of rereleases, or earlier Hollywood blockbusters as their standard fare.
This country can place a man on the moon, and developed the nuclear bomb, and can't clean up an oil spill.
Since we also have shared that technology with Britain and also those other foreign countries and "allies" who now have again risked American lives for their global commercial gain.
While Congress, and this Adminstration as the last, creates panels and twiddles its thumbs.
Fairly similar to the Katrina disaster and subsequent response, for which many lost their homes for eventual foreign and commercial gain.
For which many of those working still on the reconstruction are, once again, foreigners or illegal government contractor or day labor immigrants.
I wonder if the BP reconstruction will be a replay of the Katrina repairs?
Providing for the jobs and the economy, once again, of foreigners for that global economy?
First AIG (American International Group, but London home domiciled) and now BP.
Kinda makes you wonder....
Well, after the oil settles (pun intended) there will, after all, be then future oil reserves discovered again in the future to guarantee those oil barons and their families continued wealth. I mean this is not really a renewable form of energy for the most part.
Hmmm...maybe BBC Worldwide (an ally of the Fox USA network, it would appear) also needed the cash since this has been a major news story now for a good deal of the last month and those ad revenues and advertisers needs must also be satisfied, no matter what the cost or the spin.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Obama Sends Out The Guard: Far Too Little, Way Too Late
In the wake of the brouhaha over the recent legislation passed by the State of Arizona after the murder of a rancher and decades of increased crime in that state due primarily to the open U.S. southern borders, it was announced by the Obama Administration that an additional 1,200 National Guardsmen will be sent to assist the Border Patrol in securing the U.S. Mexico border.
But is this simply another political ploy in order to quiet the masses and gain some public support from those recent transplants or non-border state residents for another Reagan era amnesty in the interests of commerce rather than national security, or another fine example of the federal government's response of too little, too late after literally thousands upon thousands of border state residents have been adversely impacted by this governmental negligence nine long years post 9-11?
I mean, if those U.S. borders HAD been secured, would an American rancher today still be alive, or those in Arizona particularly losing their homes by the score due to increases in property insurance and added taxation due to this situation, in addition to the federal negligence which resulted in those bogus British LIBOR based loans which were sold by California lenders to so many unsuspecting homeowners during the short housing boom?
Which bears the question: How can banks in this country be loaning out sums based on a foreign currency almost twice that of the U.S., and backed also by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without Congress's knowledge, which negligence also has not been addressed in any meaningful way after that bogus bank "bailout."
The U.S. Mexico border encompasses over 1,900 miles of expanse, a great deal of which is desert terrain and passable only by all terrain vehicles - of which the drug cartel members have in abundance due to their progressive profits at the American public's expense, including our youth. The War on Drugs is as much a commercial venture and falacy, it appears as the War on "Terrorism."
"Terrorism" that never occurred prior to the "Go Globalists" gaining an ever increasing foothold in public offices in this country through the two mainstream political parties, and basically selling off vital U.S. industries and infrastructure to foreigners over the "global" exchange.
The economy they are truly concerned with - global industry and "foreigners" profit once again.
This additional troop surge amounts to a drop in the bucket, from this writer's perspective, since it would literally take agents linked arm in arm to secure those southern borders, and the costs in salaries and benefitis of those additional border agents which this Administration is hiring far exceeds that which would be necessary to construct the border fencing.
I mean esthetically pleasing titanium vehicle spikes about six feet high would definitely preclude those drug cartels from entering in their SUVs, and reduce significantly the hard core drugs and auto theft criminal activity tremendously.
And certainly could be made to look esthetically pleasing for those environmental wackos that believe in protecting nature as a priority, rather than the lives and property of their fellow Americans who have been victimized.
Sending out the Guard, in this writer's opinion, appears again to be another political tool and ploy, since Ms. Napolitano also was sent additional troops during the Bush years and yet the crime continued almost unabated.
I hope this time, at least, they will be able to use their guns - with buckshot if not bullets - to deter the criminal element and secure this nation's borders which should have been done after the Mexican American war, but at the very least immediately after 9-11 while this country remains "at war" due to a foreign massive attack - whether it could be classified at this point military or civilian.
Since those Guard members, due to those U.S. Mexico free trade agreements, were pretty much disempowered from actually securing the border in any meaningful way.
That was also while Ramos and Compean were being prosecuted for shooting a drug peddler in the rear, for which they received jail time while the foreigner got the American lawyers.
The timing of this announcement is suspect, while this Administration and Congress have also delayed funding for that fence under the Secure Fence Act, while providing instead billions to the local and state governments for upgrades for their computers, and spent massive amounts also on extra-Constitutional functions instead.
When providing for the common defense actually is the primary reason that the United States even has a federal government at all. I mean that WAS the reason that the Constitution even came to be, in order to protect and provide for the common defense of the states, and the state citizenry from foreign attack or invasion.
Be it militarily, or through attrition which is actually what is occuring in the lower 48.
Particularly those border states, which are being "assumed" by Mexico progressively in sending their citizens to this country to find work, and hopefully strengthen the Mexican economy at the cost of America's own if not eventually bring it economy down to that of Mexico's in its two class system.
What's to say that as soon as another amnesty style bill passes, as appears is the agenda here, that those troops then are once again removed in the interests of "budgetary reasons," while, again, sums are spent for political reasons most of all rather than Constitutional ones?
This Administration, as the last, has shown its true colors in continuing to play the "race card" on this issue inappropriately by and large.
After the Patriot Act, which is still for the most part on the books and the continued marginalization of the American public who are outraged at this point with their federal and state governments over its progressively unconstitutional focuses, does it not seem hypocritical for the Obama Administration and this Congress to attack Arizona's "new" law "national origin" profiling which also is one of its primary duties and functions, the protection of its lawful and legal citizens from foreign attacks or invasion?
Apparently that connection and out and out hypocricy has been lost by those on the Hill and our mainstream media in the interest of politics and ratings.
I'm sure to most Americans this little ditty will ring true, especially those Americans living in a border state who have lived there since the first Reagan amnesty under "Reaganomics," which primarily created this situation to begin with, along with continued federal and state negligence in carrying out their Constitutional functions regarding this issue:
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
But is this simply another political ploy in order to quiet the masses and gain some public support from those recent transplants or non-border state residents for another Reagan era amnesty in the interests of commerce rather than national security, or another fine example of the federal government's response of too little, too late after literally thousands upon thousands of border state residents have been adversely impacted by this governmental negligence nine long years post 9-11?
I mean, if those U.S. borders HAD been secured, would an American rancher today still be alive, or those in Arizona particularly losing their homes by the score due to increases in property insurance and added taxation due to this situation, in addition to the federal negligence which resulted in those bogus British LIBOR based loans which were sold by California lenders to so many unsuspecting homeowners during the short housing boom?
Which bears the question: How can banks in this country be loaning out sums based on a foreign currency almost twice that of the U.S., and backed also by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without Congress's knowledge, which negligence also has not been addressed in any meaningful way after that bogus bank "bailout."
The U.S. Mexico border encompasses over 1,900 miles of expanse, a great deal of which is desert terrain and passable only by all terrain vehicles - of which the drug cartel members have in abundance due to their progressive profits at the American public's expense, including our youth. The War on Drugs is as much a commercial venture and falacy, it appears as the War on "Terrorism."
"Terrorism" that never occurred prior to the "Go Globalists" gaining an ever increasing foothold in public offices in this country through the two mainstream political parties, and basically selling off vital U.S. industries and infrastructure to foreigners over the "global" exchange.
The economy they are truly concerned with - global industry and "foreigners" profit once again.
This additional troop surge amounts to a drop in the bucket, from this writer's perspective, since it would literally take agents linked arm in arm to secure those southern borders, and the costs in salaries and benefitis of those additional border agents which this Administration is hiring far exceeds that which would be necessary to construct the border fencing.
I mean esthetically pleasing titanium vehicle spikes about six feet high would definitely preclude those drug cartels from entering in their SUVs, and reduce significantly the hard core drugs and auto theft criminal activity tremendously.
And certainly could be made to look esthetically pleasing for those environmental wackos that believe in protecting nature as a priority, rather than the lives and property of their fellow Americans who have been victimized.
Sending out the Guard, in this writer's opinion, appears again to be another political tool and ploy, since Ms. Napolitano also was sent additional troops during the Bush years and yet the crime continued almost unabated.
I hope this time, at least, they will be able to use their guns - with buckshot if not bullets - to deter the criminal element and secure this nation's borders which should have been done after the Mexican American war, but at the very least immediately after 9-11 while this country remains "at war" due to a foreign massive attack - whether it could be classified at this point military or civilian.
Since those Guard members, due to those U.S. Mexico free trade agreements, were pretty much disempowered from actually securing the border in any meaningful way.
That was also while Ramos and Compean were being prosecuted for shooting a drug peddler in the rear, for which they received jail time while the foreigner got the American lawyers.
The timing of this announcement is suspect, while this Administration and Congress have also delayed funding for that fence under the Secure Fence Act, while providing instead billions to the local and state governments for upgrades for their computers, and spent massive amounts also on extra-Constitutional functions instead.
When providing for the common defense actually is the primary reason that the United States even has a federal government at all. I mean that WAS the reason that the Constitution even came to be, in order to protect and provide for the common defense of the states, and the state citizenry from foreign attack or invasion.
Be it militarily, or through attrition which is actually what is occuring in the lower 48.
Particularly those border states, which are being "assumed" by Mexico progressively in sending their citizens to this country to find work, and hopefully strengthen the Mexican economy at the cost of America's own if not eventually bring it economy down to that of Mexico's in its two class system.
What's to say that as soon as another amnesty style bill passes, as appears is the agenda here, that those troops then are once again removed in the interests of "budgetary reasons," while, again, sums are spent for political reasons most of all rather than Constitutional ones?
This Administration, as the last, has shown its true colors in continuing to play the "race card" on this issue inappropriately by and large.
After the Patriot Act, which is still for the most part on the books and the continued marginalization of the American public who are outraged at this point with their federal and state governments over its progressively unconstitutional focuses, does it not seem hypocritical for the Obama Administration and this Congress to attack Arizona's "new" law "national origin" profiling which also is one of its primary duties and functions, the protection of its lawful and legal citizens from foreign attacks or invasion?
Apparently that connection and out and out hypocricy has been lost by those on the Hill and our mainstream media in the interest of politics and ratings.
I'm sure to most Americans this little ditty will ring true, especially those Americans living in a border state who have lived there since the first Reagan amnesty under "Reaganomics," which primarily created this situation to begin with, along with continued federal and state negligence in carrying out their Constitutional functions regarding this issue:
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The Obama Limbo: Or How Low Can You Go?
That globally affiliated news organization, ABC, carried a story this morning that seemed to sink to a level that seems to be becoming the modus operandi with those in Washington over controversial and unpopular (and unconstitutional) legislation.
Use the children.
Yesterday apparently there was an "uncomfortable" moment during a visit by Ms. Obama and the wife of the current president of Mexico, Mr. Calderon.
During this highly publicized visit of the Mexican first family which conveniently co-incided with the passage of the Arizona legislature of a law merely codifying the federal laws with respect to illegal immigration meant to be used during lawful stops by local law enforcement authorities in requiring ID or green cards from immigrants (as U.S. citizens are required to provide driver's licenses) during those stops, there was a question posed by a "shy" second grader to Ms. Obama with respect to this requirement.
The second grader related how "Barack Obama was taking everyone away that didn't have papers" and that her mother "didn't have any."
It seems that this Administration, as with the last, will use any method imaginable to further polarize and politicized this issue, when it has been due to federal negligence and a prior Administration's "amnesty" in the interest of commerce before national security pre-9-11 which has led to the fact that there even are over 12 million reported illegal and undocumented foreigners in this country at all.
Of course, the article went on to publicize how fearful this child's mother was, and would not then give her name for fear apparently of deportation.
Which moment appeared more aimed also at slamming those in Arizona once again who have been victimized repeatedly by this situation, and also the fact that this child was in a public school afforded such an opportunity to get politically used as a tool seems utterly contemptible to this writer.
And just goes to show how low those in Washington that are on the illegal immigrant gravy train from both sides of the political aisle will go, again, at the cost of their fellow natural or naturalized American.
In defending and protecting foreigners and foreign interests, rather than abiding by those lawful and legal duties of their office, offices which they wouldn't even hold if not for that "antiquated" document both parties apparently disdain.
Since, of course, it was meant to limit their powers over the American citizenry and masses, and yet protect them from foreign invasion such as what is occurring in Arizona and elsewhere due to the open border situation that continues now nine years after 9-11.
And prevent such occurrences as happened yesterday, and just wonder where those highly paid state and federal social service workers are in using a child in such a manner for political gain.
Since this little incident was simply too scripted to believe.
First after the 2006 attempt with the Pope getting involved during a visit in 2007 to facilitate this "globalism" agenda of the Global Socialists even though the Pope actually has a fortress surrounding his country from his own church members, and now a child.
Just how much further can those on the Hill, and in the Halls of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and those global mostly European bankers sink for their agendas?
At the ultimate cost in their collusion with those whose lust for power knows no end nor recognition of the fight and sacrifices and personal cost those founders made to establish a free and independent America of their fellow Americans?
Who will also wave the flag also to facilitate their ends, but apparently haven't even a shred of knowledge in just what it truly stands for.
Since Arizona is one of those stars on the stars and stripes, after all.
Or is this something the Global Socialists conveniently forget in order to continue their massive march into world socialism and government?
Or that the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution was the entire reason the states united to begin with, and supercedes any "free trade" agreements with our southern neighbors at the cost of the American people?
I wonder just how many poor South Americans or their criminal element Mexico has taken in in the past ten years?
Wait, maybe America is also getting a great many of those South Americans too through those porous southern borders.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/michelle-obama-caught-immigration-debate/story?id=10694734
Use the children.
Yesterday apparently there was an "uncomfortable" moment during a visit by Ms. Obama and the wife of the current president of Mexico, Mr. Calderon.
During this highly publicized visit of the Mexican first family which conveniently co-incided with the passage of the Arizona legislature of a law merely codifying the federal laws with respect to illegal immigration meant to be used during lawful stops by local law enforcement authorities in requiring ID or green cards from immigrants (as U.S. citizens are required to provide driver's licenses) during those stops, there was a question posed by a "shy" second grader to Ms. Obama with respect to this requirement.
The second grader related how "Barack Obama was taking everyone away that didn't have papers" and that her mother "didn't have any."
It seems that this Administration, as with the last, will use any method imaginable to further polarize and politicized this issue, when it has been due to federal negligence and a prior Administration's "amnesty" in the interest of commerce before national security pre-9-11 which has led to the fact that there even are over 12 million reported illegal and undocumented foreigners in this country at all.
Of course, the article went on to publicize how fearful this child's mother was, and would not then give her name for fear apparently of deportation.
Which moment appeared more aimed also at slamming those in Arizona once again who have been victimized repeatedly by this situation, and also the fact that this child was in a public school afforded such an opportunity to get politically used as a tool seems utterly contemptible to this writer.
And just goes to show how low those in Washington that are on the illegal immigrant gravy train from both sides of the political aisle will go, again, at the cost of their fellow natural or naturalized American.
In defending and protecting foreigners and foreign interests, rather than abiding by those lawful and legal duties of their office, offices which they wouldn't even hold if not for that "antiquated" document both parties apparently disdain.
Since, of course, it was meant to limit their powers over the American citizenry and masses, and yet protect them from foreign invasion such as what is occurring in Arizona and elsewhere due to the open border situation that continues now nine years after 9-11.
And prevent such occurrences as happened yesterday, and just wonder where those highly paid state and federal social service workers are in using a child in such a manner for political gain.
Since this little incident was simply too scripted to believe.
First after the 2006 attempt with the Pope getting involved during a visit in 2007 to facilitate this "globalism" agenda of the Global Socialists even though the Pope actually has a fortress surrounding his country from his own church members, and now a child.
Just how much further can those on the Hill, and in the Halls of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and those global mostly European bankers sink for their agendas?
At the ultimate cost in their collusion with those whose lust for power knows no end nor recognition of the fight and sacrifices and personal cost those founders made to establish a free and independent America of their fellow Americans?
Who will also wave the flag also to facilitate their ends, but apparently haven't even a shred of knowledge in just what it truly stands for.
Since Arizona is one of those stars on the stars and stripes, after all.
Or is this something the Global Socialists conveniently forget in order to continue their massive march into world socialism and government?
Or that the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution was the entire reason the states united to begin with, and supercedes any "free trade" agreements with our southern neighbors at the cost of the American people?
I wonder just how many poor South Americans or their criminal element Mexico has taken in in the past ten years?
Wait, maybe America is also getting a great many of those South Americans too through those porous southern borders.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/michelle-obama-caught-immigration-debate/story?id=10694734
Proposition 100: Arizonans Victimized And Misled Once Again
As if the garbage over the "new" illegal immigrant law codifying the federal laws with respect to illegal foreigners in this country wasn't enough with all the outside agitators and backlash that has resulted, the clueless Arizonans just victimized themselves once again due to the special interest lobbying groups operating without any check or balance within that state.
Including those state employees who were behind the push to increase the sales taxes in Arizona at a time of both increasing homeless and joblessness due to the progressively regressive global agendas of both political parties at the present time.
Early returns show that the Arizona citizenry has passed an added transaction privilege tax in order to purportedly fund the deficits in the state budgets with respect to education and public services.
The only problem is that the clueless Arizona public, consisting of mostly transplanted Easterners and Californians at this point in Arizona's history, have no idea that a hike in the transaction privilege tax which is levied against the corporate interests in that state will be passed on to the Arizona citizenry, and as a general "sales" tax will simply go into the general fund for the legislature to spend at will and not for those purpose for which this added tax was promoted.
And will, of course, continue to increase the bankruptcies in that state which have increased in leaps and bounds due to just such measures as these.
Not to mention that if any of those sums do go into education, will simply stay at the top increasing the ASU president's salary from the current $700,000 to maybe $750,000 and not trickle down to those teachers in any manner whatsoever.
Or to the local law enforcement for the bogus "new" illegal immigrant law, since most of those law enforcement officials also get civic contributions from those businesses that are hiring those illegals that supplement their pay in added benefits, so the Arizona legislature will simply deny any added budgetary requests from the city and state law enforcement officials as has progressively also occurred.
So that they can continue to feed their special interest lawyer, real estate and financial sector groups for their next run for office.
Arizona is a transient state, which markets to retirees most of all in order to fleece them of their wealth in one form or another, or progressively bankrupt the longer term residents until they also eventual move in order to feed their real estate and land fraud backers.
Proposition 100 was promoted as a "temporary" increase in the sales and/or transaction privilege tax in Arizona, but if history serves, this tax will be permanent.
And the homeless and jobless in the Arizona washes will simply increase.
Since the monster must be fed, and until the Arizona residents are truly bled dry, the monster apparently is insatiable.
Beware America.
Those now "cheap" homes have a price that is far above the listed price for those foreclosed homes.
Your eventual ruin.
Including those state employees who were behind the push to increase the sales taxes in Arizona at a time of both increasing homeless and joblessness due to the progressively regressive global agendas of both political parties at the present time.
Early returns show that the Arizona citizenry has passed an added transaction privilege tax in order to purportedly fund the deficits in the state budgets with respect to education and public services.
The only problem is that the clueless Arizona public, consisting of mostly transplanted Easterners and Californians at this point in Arizona's history, have no idea that a hike in the transaction privilege tax which is levied against the corporate interests in that state will be passed on to the Arizona citizenry, and as a general "sales" tax will simply go into the general fund for the legislature to spend at will and not for those purpose for which this added tax was promoted.
And will, of course, continue to increase the bankruptcies in that state which have increased in leaps and bounds due to just such measures as these.
Not to mention that if any of those sums do go into education, will simply stay at the top increasing the ASU president's salary from the current $700,000 to maybe $750,000 and not trickle down to those teachers in any manner whatsoever.
Or to the local law enforcement for the bogus "new" illegal immigrant law, since most of those law enforcement officials also get civic contributions from those businesses that are hiring those illegals that supplement their pay in added benefits, so the Arizona legislature will simply deny any added budgetary requests from the city and state law enforcement officials as has progressively also occurred.
So that they can continue to feed their special interest lawyer, real estate and financial sector groups for their next run for office.
Arizona is a transient state, which markets to retirees most of all in order to fleece them of their wealth in one form or another, or progressively bankrupt the longer term residents until they also eventual move in order to feed their real estate and land fraud backers.
Proposition 100 was promoted as a "temporary" increase in the sales and/or transaction privilege tax in Arizona, but if history serves, this tax will be permanent.
And the homeless and jobless in the Arizona washes will simply increase.
Since the monster must be fed, and until the Arizona residents are truly bled dry, the monster apparently is insatiable.
Beware America.
Those now "cheap" homes have a price that is far above the listed price for those foreclosed homes.
Your eventual ruin.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
O'Reilly & Company Continue The Spins On Arizona's "New" Illegal Immigrant Laws
Bill O'Reilly really, really needs a reality check regarding he and his "political commentators" remarks regarding Arizona's "new" illegal immigrant laws.
Tonight I briefly watched a segment where O'Reilly, the "no spin, spinner" again was addressing Arizona's "new" illegal immigrant law signed into law by Arizona's interim governor, Jan Brewer, this last legislative session.
On the program he had, of course, two different "political commentators" supposedly taking both sides of this issue, of course neither one of which was taking the Constitutional positions, nor Bill O'Reilly for that matter.
One of which pointed out that he had lived in Arizona "from 1997 to 1999" or thereabouts, so felt he was qualified to comment on the history of just what has occurred in that state to bring this matter to national attention.
The other, of course, was an illegal immigrant sympathizer again pushing for amnesty "since we have over 12 million illegals in this country," without, of course, pointing out that this would not be the case at all if the Reagan amnesty way back when had not created this situation to begin with, nor that the federal government through the U.S. Marshall's office has abdicated its responsibilities progressively in their duties in busing the illegals back which were picked up by the local Arizona law enforcement on stops as was done for decades, which kept those numbers down and those border hoppers at bay who are victimizing the Arizonans.
Nor was there then federal funding given to most of these lawyer led "immigrant rights" groups that have progressively also defended the rights of illegals, over those of the natural or naturalized citizenry due to an unconstitutional statute which was passed that granted these lawyer led groups their legal fees for civil rights matters, whether they were in defense or prosecution of American civil rights, or those of foreigners.
Bill, of course, reiterated that in the event this law is used by local law enforcement in any manner "racially profiling" those individuals picked up under this law, then they always have the recourse of suing.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually had to do with American Civil Rights, not foreigners, although this has been left out of the liberals posturing - whether O'Reilly's, or CNN's.
Since, of course, the Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the American citizenry from both the government, corporate entities such as these groups, and foreigners.
Oh, the spins continue on both sides of the poltiical spectrum.
By both the American liberals, and those British Conservatives that are posturing ad nauseum on Fox.
I mean, as a 45 year former Arizona resident, I can tell you that there was always "national origin" profiling in Arizona pre-Reagan since Arizona does, after all, border a foreign country.
But political correctness and lawyer profit is the aim here, not the Constitution.
Since this segment appeared clearly aimed at a spin for the legal community that would make a jester proud.
I mean, just who does Bill think will pay for all those bogus lawsuits for the civil rights special interest "non-American" groups if not the Arizona citizenry, and really the American public since those sums for that "civil rights" statutes comes out of the federal coffers?
And if Bill is an example of our educators, America and Americans should be very, very worried since apparently he has no concept of just truly what has occurred, and just whose economy this "new" law was meant to insure.
This is a public/public partnership between the feds and the state at the cost of the Arizona citizenry, bottom line, since the solution is clear.
Fund the fence, and if the feds won't cough up the dough, they are in "breach of contract" and should be held accountable under both the Constitution, and the 2006 Secure Fence Act.
And then simplify the paperwork so that it isn't necessary to hire an immigration lawyer in this country to complete, and make the application fees not for profit so that those Mexicans that wish to immigrate can do so for less than it costs for those Coyotes to bring them across the border, and then abandon them to the desert.
And that's no spin from this former long term resident and victim.
Although what CAN you expect from a mainstream media organization that hires non-practicing lawyer/political commentators that haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about?
Other than continue the spins for their Bar affiliated brothers and sisters.
Or their American taxpayer funded special interest group - which in actuality means that the Arizona and American taxpayers are actually paying for their own abuse in a great many of these foreigner "civil rights" actions under an unlawful and illegal U.S. statute to begin with meant purely for lawyer, politician and special interest profit at the American public's ultimate expense.
Tonight I briefly watched a segment where O'Reilly, the "no spin, spinner" again was addressing Arizona's "new" illegal immigrant law signed into law by Arizona's interim governor, Jan Brewer, this last legislative session.
On the program he had, of course, two different "political commentators" supposedly taking both sides of this issue, of course neither one of which was taking the Constitutional positions, nor Bill O'Reilly for that matter.
One of which pointed out that he had lived in Arizona "from 1997 to 1999" or thereabouts, so felt he was qualified to comment on the history of just what has occurred in that state to bring this matter to national attention.
The other, of course, was an illegal immigrant sympathizer again pushing for amnesty "since we have over 12 million illegals in this country," without, of course, pointing out that this would not be the case at all if the Reagan amnesty way back when had not created this situation to begin with, nor that the federal government through the U.S. Marshall's office has abdicated its responsibilities progressively in their duties in busing the illegals back which were picked up by the local Arizona law enforcement on stops as was done for decades, which kept those numbers down and those border hoppers at bay who are victimizing the Arizonans.
Nor was there then federal funding given to most of these lawyer led "immigrant rights" groups that have progressively also defended the rights of illegals, over those of the natural or naturalized citizenry due to an unconstitutional statute which was passed that granted these lawyer led groups their legal fees for civil rights matters, whether they were in defense or prosecution of American civil rights, or those of foreigners.
Bill, of course, reiterated that in the event this law is used by local law enforcement in any manner "racially profiling" those individuals picked up under this law, then they always have the recourse of suing.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually had to do with American Civil Rights, not foreigners, although this has been left out of the liberals posturing - whether O'Reilly's, or CNN's.
Since, of course, the Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the American citizenry from both the government, corporate entities such as these groups, and foreigners.
Oh, the spins continue on both sides of the poltiical spectrum.
By both the American liberals, and those British Conservatives that are posturing ad nauseum on Fox.
I mean, as a 45 year former Arizona resident, I can tell you that there was always "national origin" profiling in Arizona pre-Reagan since Arizona does, after all, border a foreign country.
But political correctness and lawyer profit is the aim here, not the Constitution.
Since this segment appeared clearly aimed at a spin for the legal community that would make a jester proud.
I mean, just who does Bill think will pay for all those bogus lawsuits for the civil rights special interest "non-American" groups if not the Arizona citizenry, and really the American public since those sums for that "civil rights" statutes comes out of the federal coffers?
And if Bill is an example of our educators, America and Americans should be very, very worried since apparently he has no concept of just truly what has occurred, and just whose economy this "new" law was meant to insure.
This is a public/public partnership between the feds and the state at the cost of the Arizona citizenry, bottom line, since the solution is clear.
Fund the fence, and if the feds won't cough up the dough, they are in "breach of contract" and should be held accountable under both the Constitution, and the 2006 Secure Fence Act.
And then simplify the paperwork so that it isn't necessary to hire an immigration lawyer in this country to complete, and make the application fees not for profit so that those Mexicans that wish to immigrate can do so for less than it costs for those Coyotes to bring them across the border, and then abandon them to the desert.
And that's no spin from this former long term resident and victim.
Although what CAN you expect from a mainstream media organization that hires non-practicing lawyer/political commentators that haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about?
Other than continue the spins for their Bar affiliated brothers and sisters.
Or their American taxpayer funded special interest group - which in actuality means that the Arizona and American taxpayers are actually paying for their own abuse in a great many of these foreigner "civil rights" actions under an unlawful and illegal U.S. statute to begin with meant purely for lawyer, politician and special interest profit at the American public's ultimate expense.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Obama Nominates British Trained Kagan To Supreme Court
Well, I guess it comes once again as no surprise to the Constitution believing Americans in this country.
Barack Obama has continued the tradition of nominating another justice to the United States Supreme Court that got at least some of her education outside the United States in Great Britain, and also from the liberally focused Harvard, one of its U.S. branch campus.
Elena Kagan is another East Coast liberal who obtained at least some of her schooling, according to news reports, from Oxford in England, whose system of government and also legal education is focused on the government being above the citizenry and "sovereign" while, of course, in this country our government is just the opposite.
At least on those rights as outlined in America's Bill of Rights which were meant as protection against both the government, and the corporate commercial (property) entities.
Which was why those first Americans fought to break free from British influence and control way back in 1776, while the progressives and liberals in this country seem to be hell-bent on returning this country to British rule and control.
If not directly, then through the U.S. Supreme Court.
Interesting that Ms. Kagan's first appearance before the Court was to argue on behalf of the government on that ludicrous Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case granting unlimited and outside of district "free speech" rights to corporate entities in this country.
Even if they are federally funded through taxpayer paid grant monies, as a great many of these "educationally" focused lawyer led "grass roots" corporate organizations continue to be.
In effect, nothing more than "state actors" then of the federal government with all those strings attached to those grant monies, and apparently being used more and more in this country in order to also extended 'corporate' rights under the Bill of Rights to "corporate person-hoods," - another party to the Constitution created by a bogus and rogue Supreme Court ruling way back when.
Which coincided within that time frame the creation of the Office of the Solicitor General back in 1870, a position Ms. Kagan now holds although had never previously argued a case before the Supreme Court.
Who also wrote a thesis during her law school education in defense of socialism.
The Global Socialists are hard at work on the Hill, that much is clear, with this recent nomination from both "sides" of the corporate global socialist bent political parties now in power.
Which fundamentally is a violation of those founders intent for a representative government at its core.
As was that Citizens United decision.
Interesting that Ms. Kagan did not argue the question of the Constitutionality of the unlawful creation and extention of Bill of Rights protections for corporate entities outside the clear language of the Constitution and intent of those founders, hence the Boston Tea Party which was also a demonstration against global corporate control of the people of the United States by the sovereign, King George, and the East India Tea Company public/private partnership in that initial appearance before the Court.
But then, that would in effect negate the legality of all those public officials right to hold their current offices as not "duly elected" to begin with, would it not, including those Supreme Court justices as affirmed by those now unlawfully holding public office?
I'm simply waiting for that position on one of these commercial and "corporate friendly" cases to be argued giving increasingly unequal privileges and immunities to "property" as opposed to the people of this great nation.
But I won't hold my breath.
At least not in this Administration, as with the last and so many, many before which is why this nation is where it is, clearly, at this point in our history.
Dissolving and regressing back into foreign ownership and control through both its foreign owned banks, and through its globally focused and dictated leadership PROGRESSIVELY.
Barack Obama has continued the tradition of nominating another justice to the United States Supreme Court that got at least some of her education outside the United States in Great Britain, and also from the liberally focused Harvard, one of its U.S. branch campus.
Elena Kagan is another East Coast liberal who obtained at least some of her schooling, according to news reports, from Oxford in England, whose system of government and also legal education is focused on the government being above the citizenry and "sovereign" while, of course, in this country our government is just the opposite.
At least on those rights as outlined in America's Bill of Rights which were meant as protection against both the government, and the corporate commercial (property) entities.
Which was why those first Americans fought to break free from British influence and control way back in 1776, while the progressives and liberals in this country seem to be hell-bent on returning this country to British rule and control.
If not directly, then through the U.S. Supreme Court.
Interesting that Ms. Kagan's first appearance before the Court was to argue on behalf of the government on that ludicrous Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case granting unlimited and outside of district "free speech" rights to corporate entities in this country.
Even if they are federally funded through taxpayer paid grant monies, as a great many of these "educationally" focused lawyer led "grass roots" corporate organizations continue to be.
In effect, nothing more than "state actors" then of the federal government with all those strings attached to those grant monies, and apparently being used more and more in this country in order to also extended 'corporate' rights under the Bill of Rights to "corporate person-hoods," - another party to the Constitution created by a bogus and rogue Supreme Court ruling way back when.
Which coincided within that time frame the creation of the Office of the Solicitor General back in 1870, a position Ms. Kagan now holds although had never previously argued a case before the Supreme Court.
Who also wrote a thesis during her law school education in defense of socialism.
The Global Socialists are hard at work on the Hill, that much is clear, with this recent nomination from both "sides" of the corporate global socialist bent political parties now in power.
Which fundamentally is a violation of those founders intent for a representative government at its core.
As was that Citizens United decision.
Interesting that Ms. Kagan did not argue the question of the Constitutionality of the unlawful creation and extention of Bill of Rights protections for corporate entities outside the clear language of the Constitution and intent of those founders, hence the Boston Tea Party which was also a demonstration against global corporate control of the people of the United States by the sovereign, King George, and the East India Tea Company public/private partnership in that initial appearance before the Court.
But then, that would in effect negate the legality of all those public officials right to hold their current offices as not "duly elected" to begin with, would it not, including those Supreme Court justices as affirmed by those now unlawfully holding public office?
I'm simply waiting for that position on one of these commercial and "corporate friendly" cases to be argued giving increasingly unequal privileges and immunities to "property" as opposed to the people of this great nation.
But I won't hold my breath.
At least not in this Administration, as with the last and so many, many before which is why this nation is where it is, clearly, at this point in our history.
Dissolving and regressing back into foreign ownership and control through both its foreign owned banks, and through its globally focused and dictated leadership PROGRESSIVELY.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
State Governors Declare Halts In Offshore Drilling
In the wake of the Louisiana BP explosion and disaster, and at the behest, of course, of those also governmentally funded environmental groups in the United States, two states have made noise about banning offshore drilling off their respective coastlines - Calfornia and Florida.
What has been of interest to me has been the timing of this particular disaster, at a time when the American public has been pressing toward more domestic production and less dependence on foreign oil.
Governor Schwartzenegger of Calfornia and Governor Crist of Florida both have publicly stated for the record that both felt in light of the BP disaster in Louisiana that their states were taking a second look at increasing offshore exploration and development of new wells.
Could it just possibly be also that given that there is regulation in this country of oil production and development which was initiated and stepped up primarily due to the fallout from past disasters, especially in Alaska, that it is far more productive and profitable for those who are heavily invested in Wall Street and those U.S. corporations to get their oil from the Middle East, bypassing many of the restrictions and oversight that is involved with those added costs for domestic production?
I mean, it does seem rather fortuitous that this disaster occurred at this time, since the wars in the Middle East continue to be propagandized as one involving mainly our presence there and need for foreign oil - when this just may be a banking and economic war due to fundamentalist Muslim beliefs which has resulted in their having their own banks outside the World Bank and European banking system?
Of course, this disaster, after all the investigations are finally completed, will also involve major repair and reconstruction of those rigs, thus feeding Wall Street and the British bankers and BP once again which has been left out of the mainstream reporting.
Right now, Louisiana is still recovering from both Katrina and Gustav, and construction has become its major industry even surpassing oil and gas exploration, its historic industry.
Which companies also hire a great many of those illegals that supposedly have left the United States due to the decline in the economy - although you wouldn't know it if you had recently visited Louisiana since there is a boom in construction occuring there at the present time and many of those government contractors are hiring those illegals.
Two British terrorist bombers attempting to enter the U.S., and now a British based company involved in the Louisiana disaster.
It does make at least a few Americans pause.
Especially due to the "globalized" economy now in which the U.S. is entrenched thanks to Washington's Constitutional negligence, and that deficit to those British based bankers that own our Federal Reserve is clearly growing in leaps and bounds, while it appears we are taking in more and more of their population from Canada and Australia due to their now stronger currency.
There couldn't be an agenda here, could there?
What has been of interest to me has been the timing of this particular disaster, at a time when the American public has been pressing toward more domestic production and less dependence on foreign oil.
Governor Schwartzenegger of Calfornia and Governor Crist of Florida both have publicly stated for the record that both felt in light of the BP disaster in Louisiana that their states were taking a second look at increasing offshore exploration and development of new wells.
Could it just possibly be also that given that there is regulation in this country of oil production and development which was initiated and stepped up primarily due to the fallout from past disasters, especially in Alaska, that it is far more productive and profitable for those who are heavily invested in Wall Street and those U.S. corporations to get their oil from the Middle East, bypassing many of the restrictions and oversight that is involved with those added costs for domestic production?
I mean, it does seem rather fortuitous that this disaster occurred at this time, since the wars in the Middle East continue to be propagandized as one involving mainly our presence there and need for foreign oil - when this just may be a banking and economic war due to fundamentalist Muslim beliefs which has resulted in their having their own banks outside the World Bank and European banking system?
Of course, this disaster, after all the investigations are finally completed, will also involve major repair and reconstruction of those rigs, thus feeding Wall Street and the British bankers and BP once again which has been left out of the mainstream reporting.
Right now, Louisiana is still recovering from both Katrina and Gustav, and construction has become its major industry even surpassing oil and gas exploration, its historic industry.
Which companies also hire a great many of those illegals that supposedly have left the United States due to the decline in the economy - although you wouldn't know it if you had recently visited Louisiana since there is a boom in construction occuring there at the present time and many of those government contractors are hiring those illegals.
Two British terrorist bombers attempting to enter the U.S., and now a British based company involved in the Louisiana disaster.
It does make at least a few Americans pause.
Especially due to the "globalized" economy now in which the U.S. is entrenched thanks to Washington's Constitutional negligence, and that deficit to those British based bankers that own our Federal Reserve is clearly growing in leaps and bounds, while it appears we are taking in more and more of their population from Canada and Australia due to their now stronger currency.
There couldn't be an agenda here, could there?
Friday, May 14, 2010
Renewable Energy Is Homeland Security
While out and about driving this late afternoon, I pulled behind a car that had a bumper sticker that read "Renewable Energy Is Homeland Security," and couldn't help but laugh.
I am a former 45 year resident of Phoenix, Arizona, a state which receives most of its energy resources from Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station about 50 miles outside Phoenix.
I was living there when the idea of nuclear power was being brought to the state, and those at our local power company, Arizona Public Service, were in the forefront of getting an initiative passed in Arizona that called for a bond election to assist with its building, and a Corporation Commission then also expanded after it was built in order to supposedly act as a check on rate increases.
Although most in Arizona still believe that Arizona Public Service Company is a public utility company that is accountable to the Arizona Corporation Commission for its rate increases and also its regulation with respect to Palo Verde, such is not the case.
Why?
Well, after Palo Verde was finished being built, which also supplies some power to California - the state which has stolen Arizona's water for literally decades, and now boycotting it due to the citizenry and state government actually attempting to stop Phoenix and Tucson and those border towns from truly becoming another L.A. - the federal and state government afforded Arizona Public Service Company to be assumed by a holding company that also is engaged in commercial building construction by the name of Pinnacle West.
And shares of Pinnacle West are currently sold over the global stock exchange, in essence affording foreigners or foreign governments to now own shares in even America's nuclear reactors and generators progressively (don't you love that word, those progressives have sold out this country right and left to foreigners in the name of "progress").
So just how secure is Palo Verde (and America itself, for that matter) if it is entirely possible that foreigners, and not even Americans, own controlling interests in the largest nuclear generating station and reactor in the country?
Another American asleep at the wheel, and couldn't stop laughing at the naiveté that is still present in a good many Americans who are under 40.
Or possibly missed the 60's, 70's and 80's.
I am a former 45 year resident of Phoenix, Arizona, a state which receives most of its energy resources from Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station about 50 miles outside Phoenix.
I was living there when the idea of nuclear power was being brought to the state, and those at our local power company, Arizona Public Service, were in the forefront of getting an initiative passed in Arizona that called for a bond election to assist with its building, and a Corporation Commission then also expanded after it was built in order to supposedly act as a check on rate increases.
Although most in Arizona still believe that Arizona Public Service Company is a public utility company that is accountable to the Arizona Corporation Commission for its rate increases and also its regulation with respect to Palo Verde, such is not the case.
Why?
Well, after Palo Verde was finished being built, which also supplies some power to California - the state which has stolen Arizona's water for literally decades, and now boycotting it due to the citizenry and state government actually attempting to stop Phoenix and Tucson and those border towns from truly becoming another L.A. - the federal and state government afforded Arizona Public Service Company to be assumed by a holding company that also is engaged in commercial building construction by the name of Pinnacle West.
And shares of Pinnacle West are currently sold over the global stock exchange, in essence affording foreigners or foreign governments to now own shares in even America's nuclear reactors and generators progressively (don't you love that word, those progressives have sold out this country right and left to foreigners in the name of "progress").
So just how secure is Palo Verde (and America itself, for that matter) if it is entirely possible that foreigners, and not even Americans, own controlling interests in the largest nuclear generating station and reactor in the country?
Another American asleep at the wheel, and couldn't stop laughing at the naiveté that is still present in a good many Americans who are under 40.
Or possibly missed the 60's, 70's and 80's.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Los Angeles Boycotts Arizona: Hooray!
With much ceremony and political rhetoric, it appears the City of Los Angeles has boycotted doing business with Arizona businesses in response to the "new" illegal immigration measures signed into law by Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer.
As a former 45 year Arizonan and victim of illegal loans sold to thousands of Arizonans through California domiciled banking institutions that were not even based on the U.S. currency, but the British LIBOR rates, all I can say is hooray!
It doesn't appear to me that the City of Los Angeles knows anything at all about how corrupt some of their own politicians and businesses are, so since it is more expensive to bring litigation in the California courts due to all those outrageous hotel and bed taxes levied there, this boycott appears it will work in favor of the Arizona businesses whose contracts will be illegally broken due to the Council's actions.
It seems California's budgetary problems will become even more extreme after this latest scene right out of Hollywood.
Interesting also that during all those illegal immigrant rallies held in Los Angeles in years past, during the one in which the rubber bullets were used, the Mayor of Los Angeles just happened to be out of the country in Mexico at the time.
It would appear that since most of those Arizonan businesses also hire local day laborers in Los Angelese to assist with some of those contracts, the Council has just taken a stand that may cost a few illegal immigrants their jobs.
Way to go, Mayor and Council, you made your constituents proud.
At least those that are waiting in front of the Home Depots now, but you might want to schedule a few more trips out of the country when those jobs dry up.
Just a suggestion from one who has waited a long, long time for California to show their true colors in just how far afield they have gone from even giving the slightest credence to the U.S. Constitutuion.
Or California's.
And I wouldn't be looking for many of those Zonies on the beaches, so the Governor might need to up the budgets on those "See California" ads for the rest of the country, at least in those which have state citizens that can still afford those bed and tourism taxes.
Hey, if Arizona can't get its water back that you've stolen, just give them the cash.
They will need it for all those deportation hearings, including over half California's former residents who fled to Arizona within the last fifteen years due to its "progressively" regressive policies such as these.
Maybe even some of them will too finally leave, since it is a great many of those former Californians who may have left California, but brought their same excesses and expectations with them.
Which has progressively also impacted the long term and native Arizonans along with the illegal immigrant situation, many of whom are now living in those desert washes.
Do you think you can get San Francisco and San Diego, and the rest of the state to join you?
Please?
The first that need to go are all those California New Agers that have taken over Sedona - including those that even recently baked a few women in a plastic tent after charging them over $10,000 each for the privilege.
As a former 45 year Arizonan and victim of illegal loans sold to thousands of Arizonans through California domiciled banking institutions that were not even based on the U.S. currency, but the British LIBOR rates, all I can say is hooray!
It doesn't appear to me that the City of Los Angeles knows anything at all about how corrupt some of their own politicians and businesses are, so since it is more expensive to bring litigation in the California courts due to all those outrageous hotel and bed taxes levied there, this boycott appears it will work in favor of the Arizona businesses whose contracts will be illegally broken due to the Council's actions.
It seems California's budgetary problems will become even more extreme after this latest scene right out of Hollywood.
Interesting also that during all those illegal immigrant rallies held in Los Angeles in years past, during the one in which the rubber bullets were used, the Mayor of Los Angeles just happened to be out of the country in Mexico at the time.
It would appear that since most of those Arizonan businesses also hire local day laborers in Los Angelese to assist with some of those contracts, the Council has just taken a stand that may cost a few illegal immigrants their jobs.
Way to go, Mayor and Council, you made your constituents proud.
At least those that are waiting in front of the Home Depots now, but you might want to schedule a few more trips out of the country when those jobs dry up.
Just a suggestion from one who has waited a long, long time for California to show their true colors in just how far afield they have gone from even giving the slightest credence to the U.S. Constitutuion.
Or California's.
And I wouldn't be looking for many of those Zonies on the beaches, so the Governor might need to up the budgets on those "See California" ads for the rest of the country, at least in those which have state citizens that can still afford those bed and tourism taxes.
Hey, if Arizona can't get its water back that you've stolen, just give them the cash.
They will need it for all those deportation hearings, including over half California's former residents who fled to Arizona within the last fifteen years due to its "progressively" regressive policies such as these.
Maybe even some of them will too finally leave, since it is a great many of those former Californians who may have left California, but brought their same excesses and expectations with them.
Which has progressively also impacted the long term and native Arizonans along with the illegal immigrant situation, many of whom are now living in those desert washes.
Do you think you can get San Francisco and San Diego, and the rest of the state to join you?
Please?
The first that need to go are all those California New Agers that have taken over Sedona - including those that even recently baked a few women in a plastic tent after charging them over $10,000 each for the privilege.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Three-Card Monte Arizona Style
If the political gamesmanship over the illegal immigration situation isn't enough, there is more rotten in the State of Arizona than simply the continued negligence of the State officials over this issue.
Enter the three card monte style of western government and extortion.
Although this state has been one of the hardest hit due to the California banks and mortgage scams and the fallout from the open borders since the Reagan amnesty with continued negligence at both the state and federal levels which has lead to thousands upon thousands losing their homes and jobs, the Arizona legislature and state government isn't finished yet, it appears.
This week the citizens of Arizona are being asked to fork over another "temporary" increase in the sales taxes in order to supposedly cover budgetary gaps in education, health care and public safety.
Recently I attended the graduation of a family member at one of the public institutions of higher learning in Arizona.
During the speechifying for the masses by the faculty, there was a plea to the public for the passage of Proposition 100, in order to bulk up the universities budgets in that increased "temporary" sales tax.
An institution that was granted within the last year, along with the other two public universities, one of the highest tuition rate increases ever - and during a recession where there lies vacant thousands of Arizona homes.
And in a state which the state Constitution provides that funding for education IS a Constitutional function of the Arizona state government, one of their primary functions, although more and more revenue is earmarked for discretionary expenditures in annual budgets, with threats then instead directed to reducing public services and education funding in order to close the gap due to a balanced budget initiative that was passed by the Arizona citizens way back when in order to rein in the cost of government.
Most of these universities receive their funding by the Arizona residents through their property taxes primarily, and Arizona has had a "growth at all costs" agendas for at least the past three decades which has expanded the tax base tremendously in the process - although its now reliance on tourism, and as a retirement state for those from colder climes and then progressively forsaking its sustainable industries (cotton, cattle, copper, climate for those with respiratory diseases, and citrus) has cost this state dearly.
Foreclosures and empty homes mean that the amount of revenue has shunk within the past four years, however, little nod has been given that prior to that time the state was raking in added revenue during the boom since property taxes are tied into home valuations in the State of Arizona - and had doubled its number of citizens in less than ten years.
Also what was missing in this plea to the public during a graduation ceremony was the fact that those faculty members and administrators at the present time, including their taxpayer paid benefits, make more than most of those unemployed and homeless Arizonans - and can retire with full benefits after a mere 20 years service, and are also afforded the freedom to then work in another district or even community college while collecting their retirement benefits, thus double dipping.
As one who was affected by the increasing costs of ownership of my home due to state negligence, special interest "give mes" and rising taxation that bore no relevance to either the cost of living, or the Constitution parameters under which those state legislators were duty bound, I found using a graduation exercise in order for those university staff members to up their budgets, and increase their salaries once again at the public's expense both ill timed, and outrageous.
Interesting also is that this special election is scheduled a mere week after all three major universities have had their graduations, using the public and those graduates in order to raise their salaries, and budgets through this "special interest" proposition - since this measure did not pass the legislature when it was proposed in the last session.
The three card monty lives and breathes in Arizona, and I would not hesitate to guess, in the majority of other states across the nation.
Which sums ultimately would not be earmarked for education, health or public safety at all, since as a sales tax would merely go into the general fund for general budgetary purposes with no accountability whatsoever.
The desert isn't the only thing that is dry in Arizona.
Since it appears that unless and until the Arizona citizens' wallets are bled dry, the greedy state and local government appears insatiable.
Sort of like their Big Brother.
Enter the three card monte style of western government and extortion.
Although this state has been one of the hardest hit due to the California banks and mortgage scams and the fallout from the open borders since the Reagan amnesty with continued negligence at both the state and federal levels which has lead to thousands upon thousands losing their homes and jobs, the Arizona legislature and state government isn't finished yet, it appears.
This week the citizens of Arizona are being asked to fork over another "temporary" increase in the sales taxes in order to supposedly cover budgetary gaps in education, health care and public safety.
Recently I attended the graduation of a family member at one of the public institutions of higher learning in Arizona.
During the speechifying for the masses by the faculty, there was a plea to the public for the passage of Proposition 100, in order to bulk up the universities budgets in that increased "temporary" sales tax.
An institution that was granted within the last year, along with the other two public universities, one of the highest tuition rate increases ever - and during a recession where there lies vacant thousands of Arizona homes.
And in a state which the state Constitution provides that funding for education IS a Constitutional function of the Arizona state government, one of their primary functions, although more and more revenue is earmarked for discretionary expenditures in annual budgets, with threats then instead directed to reducing public services and education funding in order to close the gap due to a balanced budget initiative that was passed by the Arizona citizens way back when in order to rein in the cost of government.
Most of these universities receive their funding by the Arizona residents through their property taxes primarily, and Arizona has had a "growth at all costs" agendas for at least the past three decades which has expanded the tax base tremendously in the process - although its now reliance on tourism, and as a retirement state for those from colder climes and then progressively forsaking its sustainable industries (cotton, cattle, copper, climate for those with respiratory diseases, and citrus) has cost this state dearly.
Foreclosures and empty homes mean that the amount of revenue has shunk within the past four years, however, little nod has been given that prior to that time the state was raking in added revenue during the boom since property taxes are tied into home valuations in the State of Arizona - and had doubled its number of citizens in less than ten years.
Also what was missing in this plea to the public during a graduation ceremony was the fact that those faculty members and administrators at the present time, including their taxpayer paid benefits, make more than most of those unemployed and homeless Arizonans - and can retire with full benefits after a mere 20 years service, and are also afforded the freedom to then work in another district or even community college while collecting their retirement benefits, thus double dipping.
As one who was affected by the increasing costs of ownership of my home due to state negligence, special interest "give mes" and rising taxation that bore no relevance to either the cost of living, or the Constitution parameters under which those state legislators were duty bound, I found using a graduation exercise in order for those university staff members to up their budgets, and increase their salaries once again at the public's expense both ill timed, and outrageous.
Interesting also is that this special election is scheduled a mere week after all three major universities have had their graduations, using the public and those graduates in order to raise their salaries, and budgets through this "special interest" proposition - since this measure did not pass the legislature when it was proposed in the last session.
The three card monty lives and breathes in Arizona, and I would not hesitate to guess, in the majority of other states across the nation.
Which sums ultimately would not be earmarked for education, health or public safety at all, since as a sales tax would merely go into the general fund for general budgetary purposes with no accountability whatsoever.
The desert isn't the only thing that is dry in Arizona.
Since it appears that unless and until the Arizona citizens' wallets are bled dry, the greedy state and local government appears insatiable.
Sort of like their Big Brother.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
State, Local Tourism Taxes Keeping Americans Home?
In addition to the piss poor economy in the United States at the present time (pardon my French), it appears that the U.S. Chamber and travel and tourism industry have yet to also discover just why occupancy levels are down, and more and more Americans are staying at home during normal vacation periods.
And that would be that the taxation rates now in the travel and tourism industry in many major U.S. cities, especially those that depend on tourism for a great deal of their tax revenue, has increased in leaps and bounds during the past two decades.
Many are exceeding the benchmark taxation rates which most Americans are willing to pay of 10%.
This "passing on" of the taxation which has been levied by state and local governments on rooms, meals and assundry related taxes has hurt this industry, although appears the corporate types of most of the major U.S. chains have yet to realized just why so many are choosing "cheaper" destinations, camping or purchasing or renting RVs instead of visiting those much ballyhooed hotel discount trip planning sites.
California is the largest advertiser bar none of its tourism industry, with the Governor and Hollywood types even participating as was evident during the recent Winter Olympics.
Although it is truly unbelieveable also the liberal political mindset in this particular state.
Many of those beach communities throughout California have banned both smoking, and pets on most public beaches in the interest of safety and health concerns.
Which knocks out an entire major segment of the population insofar as choosing California as a vacation destination, rather than the mountains (those which are not suffering drought conditions) or other locales.
I wonder what will be next in the Golden State.
Banning sun bathing on the beaches (after all, skin cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer and far exceeds that of second hand smoke, thus the biggest health risk to the sun worshippers of all).
So U.S. Chamber, before wining and dining the members of Congress and local and state governments for your next hotel development project, or loss at the public's expense since it appears there continues to be literally hundreds of new hotels now in the works, you might just step back and re-evaluate your corporate policies in order to attract Mom, Dad and the kids rather than your corporate clientele.
Since it appears your economies favor the "corporate" also, and not the citizenry, since those AAA discounts don't apply to the taxes passed on to the average American family.
Avoidance of the paying of usury is one biblical precept that many, at least of the boomer generation, still practice whenever possible.
Hence the number of "tea party activists" that identify themselves also as Christian, and this is a basic tenet of that religion, and several others found in this country.
Not to mention those who, in order to reduce their household budgets to be able to afford their mortgages and necessities at this point, do not include vacations or discretionary travel outside business or necessity at all.
Since in many states this is a "transaction privilege tax" on the commercial entity which is being passed on indiscriminantly to the public, please consider this simply a heads up from one who has been amazed due to business related travel at rates approaching 15% added additional taxes for overnight stays in many cash hungry states added to those predominantly large corporate chains wishing to "capitalize" on the public in historically tourism heavy states even with higher and higher base rates such as those found California, Inc.
There are very valid reasons that most states are seeing fewer and fewer return visitors.
At least the U.S. family variety, after also factoring in those astronomically high Disney passes for your average family of four into the mix.
Which industry also in many instances has been financially subsidized by the American public through federal, state and local tax benefits, subsidies and other freebies or "give mes" both during construction, and thereafter.
And that would be that the taxation rates now in the travel and tourism industry in many major U.S. cities, especially those that depend on tourism for a great deal of their tax revenue, has increased in leaps and bounds during the past two decades.
Many are exceeding the benchmark taxation rates which most Americans are willing to pay of 10%.
This "passing on" of the taxation which has been levied by state and local governments on rooms, meals and assundry related taxes has hurt this industry, although appears the corporate types of most of the major U.S. chains have yet to realized just why so many are choosing "cheaper" destinations, camping or purchasing or renting RVs instead of visiting those much ballyhooed hotel discount trip planning sites.
California is the largest advertiser bar none of its tourism industry, with the Governor and Hollywood types even participating as was evident during the recent Winter Olympics.
Although it is truly unbelieveable also the liberal political mindset in this particular state.
Many of those beach communities throughout California have banned both smoking, and pets on most public beaches in the interest of safety and health concerns.
Which knocks out an entire major segment of the population insofar as choosing California as a vacation destination, rather than the mountains (those which are not suffering drought conditions) or other locales.
I wonder what will be next in the Golden State.
Banning sun bathing on the beaches (after all, skin cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer and far exceeds that of second hand smoke, thus the biggest health risk to the sun worshippers of all).
So U.S. Chamber, before wining and dining the members of Congress and local and state governments for your next hotel development project, or loss at the public's expense since it appears there continues to be literally hundreds of new hotels now in the works, you might just step back and re-evaluate your corporate policies in order to attract Mom, Dad and the kids rather than your corporate clientele.
Since it appears your economies favor the "corporate" also, and not the citizenry, since those AAA discounts don't apply to the taxes passed on to the average American family.
Avoidance of the paying of usury is one biblical precept that many, at least of the boomer generation, still practice whenever possible.
Hence the number of "tea party activists" that identify themselves also as Christian, and this is a basic tenet of that religion, and several others found in this country.
Not to mention those who, in order to reduce their household budgets to be able to afford their mortgages and necessities at this point, do not include vacations or discretionary travel outside business or necessity at all.
Since in many states this is a "transaction privilege tax" on the commercial entity which is being passed on indiscriminantly to the public, please consider this simply a heads up from one who has been amazed due to business related travel at rates approaching 15% added additional taxes for overnight stays in many cash hungry states added to those predominantly large corporate chains wishing to "capitalize" on the public in historically tourism heavy states even with higher and higher base rates such as those found California, Inc.
There are very valid reasons that most states are seeing fewer and fewer return visitors.
At least the U.S. family variety, after also factoring in those astronomically high Disney passes for your average family of four into the mix.
Which industry also in many instances has been financially subsidized by the American public through federal, state and local tax benefits, subsidies and other freebies or "give mes" both during construction, and thereafter.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Foxy O'Reilly Gets It Wrong On Arizona's Law
This evening briefly while flipping channels (I find I do that frequently with all the political proganda now carried by the cable networks more and more in the interest of ratings), I caught a brief segment of Bill O'Reilly's on Arizona's new law purportedly "cracking down" on the illegal immigrants residing in that state.
As a former 40+ year Arizona resident, I dispute most of all the continued representations of the mainstream networks that there are only an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants in the State of Arizona.
I would state that the numbers of the illegal Mexicans is rather low if 12 million is the figure throughout the entire United States.
If you count the Canadians, and those from other countries such as South America that also cross the open desert, there are considerably more since most of those Canadians also overstay their visas or cross the borders and migrate to Arizona without formally going through the entire process of naturalization while living there almost full time.
Arizona does, after all, share the largest border with Mexico outside Texas, which most likely would mean that those numbers are higher, and I would guess both states have 80% of the illegal Mexicans in this country.
The climate in those states is more similar to their own, and many have family members also living in those border states.
Tonight, however, Bill O'Reilly was in fine form, as usual, attacking the "liberals" regarding Arizona's new illegal immigrant enforcement laws which have been used by both political parties at both the federal level, and throughout the remaining U.S. states in order to use Arizona as an example for why immigration "reform" is so vitally needed.
Including Mr. Obama, and those state representatives running on the illegal immigrant issue, or whose states are profiting at the Arizona citzenry's also expense until they migrate further north or throughout the country.
Rather than, of course, the federal government doing their primary job in getting those borders fenced and secured in order to stop the flow, and the other states supporting the Arizona legal residents in putting pressure on the federal government to so do in order to protect the lives and property of all Americans who have been adversely affected for decades by this federal negligence.
Bill, of course, came out in support of Arizona's new law, however ill conceived it may be, rather than taking the legal methods under the Constitution in this legislature simply passing a Resolution directing the Arizona Attorney General to sue the federal government for "breach of contract" in dallying on the border security situation now nine long years after 9-11 and the Bush' Administration's continued negligence, and get those sums to get this problem resolved once and for all.
He indicated that the Governor in signing the bill indicated that it would not make Arizona a police state, but would take the handcuffs, as it were, off the local officers in order that they can effectively bring charges against these individuals under state laws backing up the existing federal provisions.
However, if history serves in that state, what the Governor says and what local law enforcement at the county and municipal level does are two different things.
I mean, there are so many levels of government now that one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing much of the time.
And the fact is, what Bill also doesn't realize is that most of the local law enforcement personnel in Arizona are not long term or native born Arizonans, but transplants from other states who would not know a Mexican from a Navajo, if put to the test.
It would also appear to me that the penalty for breaking this law doesn't at all follow America's adherence to the common law of punishment in this country of letting the punishment fit the crime.
Six months incarceration, and a hefty fine means that most of these individuals will serve time waiting for those deportation hearings and trials which are now given as opposed to the procedures of the past under our Constitution, also at the Arizona and American taxpayer's expense in Sheriff Joe's tent city, a misdemeanor facility in which there has been reported over 12,000 lawsuits filed by various groups and individuals over the conditions in which those misdemeanor offenders are kept, and the treatment - many of whom are simply low level DUI offenders or pot smokers who cannot make bail because the bail amounts now on minor offenses also do not fit the crimes.
Mr. O'Reilly then went on to state that if any individuals were unlawfully "profiled" that there was always the redress of filing a civil suit against the State or local government.
But guess who pays then for those lawsuits, Mr. O'Reilly?
You got it, the Arizona citizens.
This bill apparently in its present form, without first using the proper legal redress for the State against the federal government for negligence, is simply another law feeding the civil rights lawyers in this country at the citizen's expense - in more ways than one.
It appears that the British style of conservatism promoted on Fox TV by Mr. Murdoch's crew is simply another method of increasing this nation's dependence on those British bankers in increasing the federal deficit by using not only the federal government, but the state and local governments in order to so do.
Since the Arizona citizens also pay for "professional liability" and indemnification policies with their state and local taxes for those law enforcement officials, some of which are elected officials contributed to by those very same civil rights lawyers and organizations and many of them domiciled outside the State of Arizona, many in California primarily.
Which bears the question: Just what incentive is there for law enforcement personnel to abide by Ms. Brewer's representations and directives - especially after she leaves office?
Arizona is cash strapped for a reason.
"Laws" such as this one in the name of "jobs and the economies" of the elected officials and their feeder special interests at the Arizona citizens' ultimate expense.
And I am a victim of illegal immigrant crime, not a left winger, and know this law is not what it appears.
It is simply another political tool for the politicians, and stimulus for their special interest backers, and means to threaten many of those illegals upon arrest in order to use for also political or economic reasons for those politicos personally or their backers.
And which law will do nothing whatsoever to address the true problem and negligence of the feds, who are also using it for political reasons rather than doing THEIR jobs.
I wonder if Bill even knows that the fox is the national animal of the British?
As a former 40+ year Arizona resident, I dispute most of all the continued representations of the mainstream networks that there are only an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants in the State of Arizona.
I would state that the numbers of the illegal Mexicans is rather low if 12 million is the figure throughout the entire United States.
If you count the Canadians, and those from other countries such as South America that also cross the open desert, there are considerably more since most of those Canadians also overstay their visas or cross the borders and migrate to Arizona without formally going through the entire process of naturalization while living there almost full time.
Arizona does, after all, share the largest border with Mexico outside Texas, which most likely would mean that those numbers are higher, and I would guess both states have 80% of the illegal Mexicans in this country.
The climate in those states is more similar to their own, and many have family members also living in those border states.
Tonight, however, Bill O'Reilly was in fine form, as usual, attacking the "liberals" regarding Arizona's new illegal immigrant enforcement laws which have been used by both political parties at both the federal level, and throughout the remaining U.S. states in order to use Arizona as an example for why immigration "reform" is so vitally needed.
Including Mr. Obama, and those state representatives running on the illegal immigrant issue, or whose states are profiting at the Arizona citzenry's also expense until they migrate further north or throughout the country.
Rather than, of course, the federal government doing their primary job in getting those borders fenced and secured in order to stop the flow, and the other states supporting the Arizona legal residents in putting pressure on the federal government to so do in order to protect the lives and property of all Americans who have been adversely affected for decades by this federal negligence.
Bill, of course, came out in support of Arizona's new law, however ill conceived it may be, rather than taking the legal methods under the Constitution in this legislature simply passing a Resolution directing the Arizona Attorney General to sue the federal government for "breach of contract" in dallying on the border security situation now nine long years after 9-11 and the Bush' Administration's continued negligence, and get those sums to get this problem resolved once and for all.
He indicated that the Governor in signing the bill indicated that it would not make Arizona a police state, but would take the handcuffs, as it were, off the local officers in order that they can effectively bring charges against these individuals under state laws backing up the existing federal provisions.
However, if history serves in that state, what the Governor says and what local law enforcement at the county and municipal level does are two different things.
I mean, there are so many levels of government now that one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing much of the time.
And the fact is, what Bill also doesn't realize is that most of the local law enforcement personnel in Arizona are not long term or native born Arizonans, but transplants from other states who would not know a Mexican from a Navajo, if put to the test.
It would also appear to me that the penalty for breaking this law doesn't at all follow America's adherence to the common law of punishment in this country of letting the punishment fit the crime.
Six months incarceration, and a hefty fine means that most of these individuals will serve time waiting for those deportation hearings and trials which are now given as opposed to the procedures of the past under our Constitution, also at the Arizona and American taxpayer's expense in Sheriff Joe's tent city, a misdemeanor facility in which there has been reported over 12,000 lawsuits filed by various groups and individuals over the conditions in which those misdemeanor offenders are kept, and the treatment - many of whom are simply low level DUI offenders or pot smokers who cannot make bail because the bail amounts now on minor offenses also do not fit the crimes.
Mr. O'Reilly then went on to state that if any individuals were unlawfully "profiled" that there was always the redress of filing a civil suit against the State or local government.
But guess who pays then for those lawsuits, Mr. O'Reilly?
You got it, the Arizona citizens.
This bill apparently in its present form, without first using the proper legal redress for the State against the federal government for negligence, is simply another law feeding the civil rights lawyers in this country at the citizen's expense - in more ways than one.
It appears that the British style of conservatism promoted on Fox TV by Mr. Murdoch's crew is simply another method of increasing this nation's dependence on those British bankers in increasing the federal deficit by using not only the federal government, but the state and local governments in order to so do.
Since the Arizona citizens also pay for "professional liability" and indemnification policies with their state and local taxes for those law enforcement officials, some of which are elected officials contributed to by those very same civil rights lawyers and organizations and many of them domiciled outside the State of Arizona, many in California primarily.
Which bears the question: Just what incentive is there for law enforcement personnel to abide by Ms. Brewer's representations and directives - especially after she leaves office?
Arizona is cash strapped for a reason.
"Laws" such as this one in the name of "jobs and the economies" of the elected officials and their feeder special interests at the Arizona citizens' ultimate expense.
And I am a victim of illegal immigrant crime, not a left winger, and know this law is not what it appears.
It is simply another political tool for the politicians, and stimulus for their special interest backers, and means to threaten many of those illegals upon arrest in order to use for also political or economic reasons for those politicos personally or their backers.
And which law will do nothing whatsoever to address the true problem and negligence of the feds, who are also using it for political reasons rather than doing THEIR jobs.
I wonder if Bill even knows that the fox is the national animal of the British?
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Buffett Befriends Bankers At Berkshire Soiree
In a published article from the Omaha World Herald, it appears that the major focus of the Berkshire Hathaway stockholders soiree concluded yesterday was a 30 minute keynote speech made by Warren Buffet speaking in defense of Wall Street bankers, Goldman Sachs.
Although Berkshire reportedly has several billion dollars invested in Goldman, Mr. Buffett was there to reassure his flock that he isn't "wasting away in Margaritaville" as that other Buffett over the Congressional hearings conducted this week in which several election vulnerable senators publicly chastized the Wall Street giant for its investment practices.
At issue, of course, was the nondisclosure of the parties to some of the contracts with investors which were based on "junk," to put it mildly, insofar as the degree of risk - and in which the issuing major client had also "hedged" their bets by investing in derivatives banking on the failure of the original investments.
Which, apparently, Mr. Buffett sees no ethical or conflict of interest complications in Goldman then "contracting" with other noninterested investor-clients without disclosure of the true degree of risk, and which essentially has so fundamentally affected this country's citizens trust in the banks, Wall Street, and even home "ownership," since it has been the American public holding the bag for Goldman's free and easy investment style and losses, using American's homes as the collateral.
I'm no gambler, but it does seem that in betting that these investments would "crap out," Goldman had knowledge that the issuing investor for those investments was using loaded dice.
Since apparently most of those which were directly affected and scammed were European banks which "should have known better," according to Mr. Buffett, Berkshire doesn't plan to make any changes in its close partnership with Goldman.
Which may be true for those investors, but there were others indirectly affected, many of them now homeless.
One top executive even seemed to take to task the outraged American public, indicating that there was a misconception that Goldman's actions cheated ordinary Americans, but in his opinion, they hadn't cheated anyone.
Left unsaid, however, were the number of American homeowners who were indirectly affected, and which is continuing especially in the West and Southwest, while most of those U.S. banks which were selling those "bad loans" seem to be more concerned also with their bottom lines and under pressure from Washington to satisfy those foreign investors by either renegotiating short term adjusted terms, or foreclosing - whichever is more beneficial to everyone but those homeowners.
In fact, Obama's focus has been since this mess began in pushing Americans to refinance their homes, into some of these creative loans which have not changed, it appears, since the same individuals which sold those loans have been given Washington's blessing to sort out the mess and "counsel" some of those scammed homeowners.
And left out in all of this is the fact that a great many of those loans were also underwritten by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - many of which also were not even based on the U.S. currency, but British LIBOR rate - a currency almost one and a half that of the U.S. when most of those loans were pushed.
I mean, how CAN U.S. banks be pushing and selling loans that are not even based on the U.S. currency, I ask?
So connecting the dots in the true fallout seems not to factor into Berkshire itself's bottom lines, so thus inconsequential.
Mr. Buffett is known in this country by the investment community as the "Oracle of Omaha," however, it seems to me this partnership with Goldman Sachs really is a no brainer insofar as profit for Berkshire, and profit for Goldman Sachs.
It's a win-win partnership no matter which way the dice roll, since Goldman has now been designated as one of those investment houses that was determined by Washington to be "too big to fail."
Although, according to reports also, Goldman actually is a major shareholder in our own Federal Reserve - in other words, how could Goldman fail when it is a major shareholder in the entity that prints and regulates the U.S. currency and interest rates for loans extended by their branch banks?
And Berkshire is, after all, heavily invested also in the insurance industry, and not purely Goldman Sachs preferred partner.
Although, if one of your investments is with a company that issues the money for an entire nation, with the U.S. government itself merely minor shareholders without any true "voting" authority over day to day operations, just how can you lose?
It appears that the scene in Omaha was a rather festive one, given the crumbling housing market, and over 10% unemployment in most areas of the country.
I wonder if Mr. Buffett has been to Phoenix, L.A. or Las Vegas lately?
I mean, outside the casinos.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100501/MONEY/305019931#buffett-reassures-the-faithful
Although Berkshire reportedly has several billion dollars invested in Goldman, Mr. Buffett was there to reassure his flock that he isn't "wasting away in Margaritaville" as that other Buffett over the Congressional hearings conducted this week in which several election vulnerable senators publicly chastized the Wall Street giant for its investment practices.
At issue, of course, was the nondisclosure of the parties to some of the contracts with investors which were based on "junk," to put it mildly, insofar as the degree of risk - and in which the issuing major client had also "hedged" their bets by investing in derivatives banking on the failure of the original investments.
Which, apparently, Mr. Buffett sees no ethical or conflict of interest complications in Goldman then "contracting" with other noninterested investor-clients without disclosure of the true degree of risk, and which essentially has so fundamentally affected this country's citizens trust in the banks, Wall Street, and even home "ownership," since it has been the American public holding the bag for Goldman's free and easy investment style and losses, using American's homes as the collateral.
I'm no gambler, but it does seem that in betting that these investments would "crap out," Goldman had knowledge that the issuing investor for those investments was using loaded dice.
Since apparently most of those which were directly affected and scammed were European banks which "should have known better," according to Mr. Buffett, Berkshire doesn't plan to make any changes in its close partnership with Goldman.
Which may be true for those investors, but there were others indirectly affected, many of them now homeless.
One top executive even seemed to take to task the outraged American public, indicating that there was a misconception that Goldman's actions cheated ordinary Americans, but in his opinion, they hadn't cheated anyone.
Left unsaid, however, were the number of American homeowners who were indirectly affected, and which is continuing especially in the West and Southwest, while most of those U.S. banks which were selling those "bad loans" seem to be more concerned also with their bottom lines and under pressure from Washington to satisfy those foreign investors by either renegotiating short term adjusted terms, or foreclosing - whichever is more beneficial to everyone but those homeowners.
In fact, Obama's focus has been since this mess began in pushing Americans to refinance their homes, into some of these creative loans which have not changed, it appears, since the same individuals which sold those loans have been given Washington's blessing to sort out the mess and "counsel" some of those scammed homeowners.
And left out in all of this is the fact that a great many of those loans were also underwritten by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - many of which also were not even based on the U.S. currency, but British LIBOR rate - a currency almost one and a half that of the U.S. when most of those loans were pushed.
I mean, how CAN U.S. banks be pushing and selling loans that are not even based on the U.S. currency, I ask?
So connecting the dots in the true fallout seems not to factor into Berkshire itself's bottom lines, so thus inconsequential.
Mr. Buffett is known in this country by the investment community as the "Oracle of Omaha," however, it seems to me this partnership with Goldman Sachs really is a no brainer insofar as profit for Berkshire, and profit for Goldman Sachs.
It's a win-win partnership no matter which way the dice roll, since Goldman has now been designated as one of those investment houses that was determined by Washington to be "too big to fail."
Although, according to reports also, Goldman actually is a major shareholder in our own Federal Reserve - in other words, how could Goldman fail when it is a major shareholder in the entity that prints and regulates the U.S. currency and interest rates for loans extended by their branch banks?
And Berkshire is, after all, heavily invested also in the insurance industry, and not purely Goldman Sachs preferred partner.
Although, if one of your investments is with a company that issues the money for an entire nation, with the U.S. government itself merely minor shareholders without any true "voting" authority over day to day operations, just how can you lose?
It appears that the scene in Omaha was a rather festive one, given the crumbling housing market, and over 10% unemployment in most areas of the country.
I wonder if Mr. Buffett has been to Phoenix, L.A. or Las Vegas lately?
I mean, outside the casinos.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100501/MONEY/305019931#buffett-reassures-the-faithful
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
