Ohio Republican Sen. Mike DeWine is sticking with the political advertising firm that doctored images of the World Trade Center to make it appear as though the footage came from the September 11 attacks. The video was used in a 30-second campaign spot that has aired throughout Ohio since last Friday, accusing his opponent, Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown, of being weak on national security. An investigation by U.S. News revealed that the images, which show the south tower ablaze and the north tower untouched –– contradicting the chronology of the day's events –– were bogus.
The firm that produced the commercial has been the subject of controversy before. Alexandria-based Stevens, Reed, Curcio & Potholm produced the famous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that challenged the war record of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry in 2004. Still, the DeWine campaign has no plans to ax the ad agency. Stevens, Reed, Curcio & Potholm is a nationally recognized firm, and they will continue to do media consulting for the campaign, said DeWine spokesman Brian Seitchik.
The DeWine campaign learned of the faked video when contacted by U.S. News Wednesday evening. DeWine promised to immediately replace the video in question with a still image of the World Trade Center taken before the attacks. The campaign says the spot, now modified, will not be pulled anytime soon, despite ongoing controversy that has threatened to drown out the commercial's message. Long before yesterday's revelation, Democratic critics were lambasting the ad as an attempt to capitalize politically on the terrorist attacks. Republicans have made similar charges about the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's use of images of flag-draped coffins in ads criticizing the war in Iraq.
Still unclear is why DeWine's advertising firm would doctor an image of the twin towers when numerous photos and video accounts of the actual event are available. A source with some knowledge of the ad called the entire commercial graphics based, with the computer-generated smoke just another part of the mix. Stevens, Reed, Curcio & Potholm did not return phone calls requesting comment. A source says no one has been fired from either the campaign or the ad agency as a result of the fallout.
Brown's campaign, already enraged over the ad, called the doctored images shameless. Brown has seized this opportunity to question DeWine's character. Mike DeWine has always run campaigns with attack ads and distortions, Brown said in an interview. For his part, DeWine insists it was an honest mistake that doesn't detract from the message of the ad. The fact is we stand by the ad. Sherrod Brown and I have very different views and approaches to the defense of this country, DeWine said.
Brooks Jackson, director of the watchdog publication publication FactCheck.org, expressed mostly bemusement. This seems to be a case of incompetence on the part of the media consultant, Jackson said, not an attempt to deceive voters.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
CINDY SHEEHAN couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 Crawford vacation day when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" by going fishing. On this Aug. 6 the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Mr. Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Ms. Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.
When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam.
The most prominent smear victims have been Bush political opponents with heroic Vietnam résumés: John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry. But the list of past targets stretches from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke to Specialist Thomas Wilson, the grunt who publicly challenged Donald Rumsfeld about inadequately armored vehicles last December. The assault on the whistle-blower Joseph Wilson - the diplomat described by the first President Bush as "courageous" and "a true American hero" for confronting Saddam to save American hostages in 1991 - was so toxic it may yet send its perpetrators to jail.
True to form, the attack on Cindy Sheehan surfaced early on Fox News, where she was immediately labeled a "crackpot" by Fred Barnes. The right-wing blogosphere quickly spread tales of her divorce, her angry Republican in-laws, her supposed political flip-flops, her incendiary sloganeering and her association with known ticket-stub-carrying attendees of "Fahrenheit 9/11." Rush Limbaugh went so far as to declare that Ms. Sheehan's "story is nothing more than forged documents - there's nothing about it that's real."
But this time the Swift Boating failed, utterly, and that failure is yet another revealing historical marker in this summer's collapse of political support for the Iraq war.
When the Bush mob attacks critics like Ms. Sheehan, its highest priority is to change the subject. If we talk about Richard Clarke's character, then we stop talking about the administration's pre-9/11 inattentiveness to terrorism. If Thomas Wilson is trashed as an insubordinate plant of the "liberal media," we forget the Pentagon's abysmal failure to give our troops adequate armor (a failure that persists today, eight months after he spoke up). If we focus on Joseph Wilson's wife, we lose the big picture of how the administration twisted intelligence to gin up the threat of Saddam's nonexistent W.M.D.'s.
The hope this time was that we'd change the subject to Cindy Sheehan's "wacko" rhetoric and the opportunistic left-wing groups that have attached themselves to her like barnacles. That way we would forget about her dead son. But if much of the 24/7 media has taken the bait, much of the public has not.
The backdrops against which Ms. Sheehan stands - both that of Mr. Bush's what-me-worry vacation and that of Iraq itself - are perfectly synergistic with her message of unequal sacrifice and fruitless carnage. Her point would endure even if the messenger were shot by a gun-waving Crawford hothead or she never returned to Texas from her ailing mother's bedside or the president folded the media circus by actually meeting with her.
The failure of the smear campaign against Cindy Sheehan is yet another historical marker in the collapse of support for the Iraq war.
He was paid, the firm wasn't. SM
Either way, he could have said no and he didn't. Mind you, I have a limitation on what I think gay rights should extend to, but I won't go into that here because I will get slaughtered.
I am a firm supporter of the military, but --
My exhusband was a soldier the entire 20 years we were married and is in fact in Iraq right now; my son, whom I love dearly, is graduating from basic training on Friday. I support the military wholeheartedly, but that does not mean I have to support McCain.
I don't believe that our soldiers should be where they are and I don't believe they should have ever been where they are. And I believe that when they come home, they should have better support and better care than they are getting.
But I have the utmost respect for the military and their families and would always hope and pray the best for them. They did after all fight to give me the right to disagree on who their commander-in-chief should be.
That being said, I also do not think that serving in the military should be experience that counts in running the country. Just because McCain is a a war hero and former POW does not make him entitled to be the leader of the United States of America. That would be the same as saying my ex-husband could have that job; he has just as much experience in the military as McCain, not as a POW, but he has served many more years than McCain did.
He did not take the case pro bono. The firm he worked for did. SM
You might want to check that out. I could be lying.
ok, here goes - I know I'll get flamed, but I am firm on my stance. SM
Well over 50% of the American population is either Hispanic or African American (I am being conservative because it is probably higher). This population IMO voted for Obama because of his skin color, without researching his view on major issues that revolve around being capable of tackling the presidency of the U.S. I think it is only a matter of time when this will come back and kick all who voted for him in the "you know what." It's not about our ethnicity or religion, but rather about a candidate who is experienced enough to tackle the job. I just cringe at the fact that someone as inexperienced as Obama is now running this country.
*Heckuvajob Brownie* starts disaster planning firm
Ex-FEMA Head Starts Disaster Planning Firm
Former FEMA Director Michael Brown, heavily criticized for his agency's slow response to Hurricane Katrina, is starting a disaster preparedness consulting firm to help clients avoid the sort of errors that cost him his job.
If I can help people focus on preparedness, how to be better prepared in their homes and better prepared in their businesses — because that goes straight to the bottom line — then I hope I can help the country in some way, Brown told the Rocky Mountain News for its Thursday editions.
Brown said officials need to take inventory of what's going on in a disaster to be able to answer questions to avoid appearing unaware of how serious a situation is.
In the aftermath of the hurricane, critics complained about Brown's lack of formal emergency management experience and e-mails that later surfaced showed him as out of touch with the extent of the devastation.
The lawyer admits that while he was head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency mistakes were made in the response to Katrina. He also said he had been planning to quit before the hurricane hit.
Hurricane Katrina showed how bad disasters can be, and there's an incredible need for individuals and businesses to understand how important preparedness is, he said.
Brown said companies already have expressed interested in his consulting business, Michael D. Brown LLC. He plans to run it from the Boulder area, where he lived before joining the Bush administration in 2001.
I'm doing a lot of good work with some great clients, Brown said. My wife, children and my grandchild still love me. My parents are still proud of me.
Have had Humana HMO for small biz owners (just myself as employer/employee) and this started out as $242/month - 5-6 years ago. I rarely use this insurance too, but because I'm nearly 59 now - it went up July 1st to $710/month. I have to have group insurance due to preexisting conditions and I pay THRU THE NOSE because I don't earn that extra $710/month....between the mortgage ($1750), maintenance ($729/month), phone bills x2, cable TV, electric company, and a little bit of food and some paper goods.....You'd have to be earning $3000-$4000 month to cover everything. I don't earn that amount.
DON'T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA SAVE YOUR TEARS FOR YOURSELF - While bankers do control the issuance of credit, they cannot control themselves. Bankers are the fatal flaw in their deviously opaque system that has substituted credit for money and debt for savings. The bankers have spread their credit-based system across the world by catering to basic human needs and ambition and greed; and while human needs can be satisfied, ambition and greed cannot—and the bankers' least of all.
I have a bad feeling about what's about to happen. The Great Depression is the closest that comes to mind. I, like most, was not alive during the 1930s when it happened. Nonetheless, what once was feared in private is now being discussed in public. It's going to be bad. It's going to make high school seem like fun.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE NEXT ARGENTINA
This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises by University of Maryland‘s Carmen Reinhart and Harvard's Kenneth Rogoff makes for perfect reading when flying between the US and Argentina.
There is perhaps no better analysis than Reinhart and Rogoff's on the history of sovereign defaults; and, as such, Reinhart and Rogoff's paper was ideal reading material when traveling between the US and Argentina , for the sovereign defaults that happened in the past to Argentina will soon be happening to the US .
But a US default will make Argentina 's debt defaults pale both by comparison and consequence. The US , unlike Argentina , is the world's largest economy, the issuer of the world's reserve currency and the world's largest debtor—and a default by the US on its debt will shake the very foundations of our increasingly fragile global economy.
SOVERIGN DEBT LIQUIDATING AMBITION
The power of ambition is extraordinary. The power of ambition transformed the US from the world's only creditor after WWII into the world's largest debtor in less than fifty years. Wanting to emulate England 's 19 th century empire in the 20 th , the US instead has mirrored England decline in the 20 th century here in the 21 st .
Credit and borrowing fueled America 's ambitions in the 20 th century as it had England 's in the 18 th and 19 th . During the 1980s, to pay for President Reagan expansion of the military, the US quadrupled its national debt in less than a decade by borrowing three trillion dollars during a presidency pledged to balance the budget.
When Reagan took office, US debt totaled one trillion dollars. When Reagan left office, US debt totaled four trillion dollars. Reagan's vaunted slogan of fiscal conservatism was just that—a slogan; and while talk is cheap, the debts now have to be repaid.
Just as the costs of WWI forced England to abandon the gold standard in the early 1900s, post WWII military spending forced the US to suspend the convertibility of the US dollar to gold in 1971; and the consequences, e.g. burgeoning trade deficits and global currency instability, are now putting unsustainable strains on a financial system already in extremis .
Ambition has its price and the bill is now due and owing. The question is: how will the US pay what it owes? In Hyman Minsky's Financial Instability Model, the US is close to “Ponzi status” if not already there since the US is having to roll its debt forward and borrow from others to pay the interest as it can no longer pay down the principle.
In 2006, in an article published by the St Louis Federal Reserve Bank, Professor Laurence Kotlikoff stated the US was “technically bankrupt” as there was no way the US could pay the $65.9 trillion it owed.
Evidently, Professor Kotlikoff was conservative in his estimate or we're going downhill faster than he knew. Just three months ago, on May 28, 2008 Richard W. Fisher, President and CEO of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank estimated the obligations of the US to be actually $99.2 trillion, 50 % higher than Kotlikoff's figures.
Fisher stated: In the distance, I see a frightful storm brewing in the form of untethered government debt . I choose the words—“frightful storm”—deliberately to avoid hyperbole. Unless we take steps to deal with it, the long-term fiscal situation of the federal government will be unimaginably more devastating to our economic prosperity than the subprime debacle and the recent debauching of credit markets that we are now working so hard to correct.
Fisher should know what the US owes and the danger that sum represents. As President and CEO of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, Fisher is a part of the Federal Reserve
System—the very system that has indebted America into perpetuity when its credit-based money forced out gold and silver based money in 1913.
But in his speech Fisher said nothing about the role the Federal Reserve has played in America 's fatal dance with debt, warning instead about the increasing costs of entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.
Fisher is part of a larger effort to now blame America 's entitlements as the primary cause of our problems, assiduously avoiding the role his own Federal Reserve Bank has played in sinking our once wealthy nation into perpetual indebtedness.
In truth, the entitlement program that poses the greatest threat to America is—and always has been—the Federal Reserve System. Without the Federal Reserve's credit-based money whose compounding interest (paid to the bankers) is obliged to be paid for by a possibly unconstitutional US income tax [note: the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Income Tax were both instituted the same year in 1913], the US would not be indebted and bankrupt as it is now.
If Ben Bernanke and Richard Fisher et. al. at the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank resigned and stopped plundering the US for their own benefit at the expense of the public in order to line the pockets of their banker friends with public funds, the US might have a chance of successfully getting out of this mess.
But, of course, they won't and the now privately controlled US government will continue to indebt the American public so insiders can continue to profit immensely at the public trough. But the question still remains, how will the US pay its unpayable debt? The answer is as clear as it is obvious. It won't because it can't.
DEBT & DESTRUCTION SOUTH OF THE BORDER
In their well-researched paper, Serial Defaults and Its Remedies , Reinhart and Rogoff write “Cycles in capital flows to emerging markets have now been with us for two hundred years”. If we are to understand the dynamics of serial default, it would do us well to look at these cycles and their relevance to what is happening today.
Serial Defaults and Its Remedies, Section 2. Capital Flow Cycles and the Syndrome of “This Time Is Different” :
..a pattern of borrowing followed by crisis is evident in the string of defaults during 1826-28 in Latin America that come on the heels of the first wave of massive capital flows from Britain into Latin America in 1822-25…A second wave of capital flows from Britain came during the 1850s and 1860s. The cycle ended with the crisis of 1873. The next wave of capital flows into emerging markets coincided with the shift of the financial epicenter of the world from London to New York . Among Latin American countries, the borrowing binge of 1925-28 was [financed] with “cheap” money from New York . Capital flows peaked in 1928, the year before the U.S. Stock market crash ushered in financial and currency crises around the world and eventually an international debt crisis during 1929-33.
Argentina is at the very epicenter of Latin America borrowings and defaults and a cursory judgment may well lay the blame for such on Argentina . But understanding the past is akin to sedimentary sampling and a deeper reading of events reveals far more than the too familiar story of a spendthrift deadbeat nation borrowing more than prudence would otherwise dictate.
The capital flows from England and the US in the last two hundred years to Latin America were flows of credit, not money. The distinction is critical in understanding what has happened during the last two centuries. It explains the basis of the British Empire and current American power. It also explains the exploitation of Argentina .
The British Empire was founded on the central bank invention of credit-based money and the subsequent ability to substitute this new “money” for costly gold and silver; and the issuance of paper money allegedly backed by gold and silver is a critical component in the confidence game of central bankers to pass off their printed coupons as the real thing.
What the private bankers accomplished with the creation of the Bank of England was the government's “legitimization” of the bankers' new credit based coupons, sic paper money—coupons upon which the private bankers could now charge interest just as they had when loaning actual gold (what a wonderful scam). The new coupons were a lot easier to come by, especially when the king gave them a monopoly over its issuance.
The advantage to the king was that the king now had an unlimited supply of “money” that could be used to finance his wars—wars which led to the establishment of the British Empire; the cost of which was transferred directly as a burden to the people as the new counterfeit debt-based money was now an obligation of the state, not of the king.
This was the genesis (genius to the bankers and government) of the modern income tax where the people are forced to pay interest on the credit-based money issued by their own government. This was also the beginning of credit-based markets, deceptively called capitalism in order to closely identify the newly counterfeit credit based economy with the real money it had replaced.
CAPITALISM THE SPREAD OF DEBT IN DISGUISE
The flow of credit from England and then from its surrogate successor, the US, to developing nations such as Argentina was but the flow of printed coupons designed to harness and indebt the wealth and productivity of new lands.
The “capital” was really only credit, thinly disguised debt in the form of paper money originally issued by central banks, the Bank of England in Britain and the Federal Reserve Bank in the US , the twin towers of monetary Mordor.
The wonderfully sounding idea of unfettered capitalism is but a smokescreen for bankers to leverage their coupons in the form of credit and thereby indebt and control the productivity and wealth of others. As such, it has accomplished its goal admirably but its success will now cost the bankers dearly.
Three centuries of indebting nations, businesses, and the citizenry with constantly compounding debt is no longer sustainable. This is why central bankers in London , New York , Paris , and Tokyo are in such distress. Debtors can no longer pay their debts, defaults are on the rise and bankers may actually have to find real jobs if their confidence game continues to disintegrate.
BANKERS' FEARS
Lawrence Summers' credentials as a banker are impeccable. Educated at MIT and Harvard in economics, Summers has served as Chief Economist for the World Bank, US Secretary of the Treasury and President of Harvard University.
Recently, in March 2008, Summers stated:..we are facing the most serious combination of macroeconomic and financial stresses that the U.S. has faced in a generation--and possibly, much longer than that…It's a grave mistake to believe in the self-equilibrating properties of economies in the face of large shocks. Markets balance fear and greed. And when fear takes over, the capacity for self-stabilization is not one that can be relied upon.
On June 29, 2008 the Financial Times quoted Summers:... we are in an economic environment where we have more to fear than fear itself …
Lawrence Summer's fears are not to be taken lightly. They are the banker's equivalent of Jim Cramer's televised fit of fear when interviewed on CNBC last year, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?
While Summers is rightfully fearful of the current economic environment, the rest of us have far more to fear from bankers like Lawrence Summers and others like him. Summer's role in the manipulation of the price of gold is found in his 1988 paper Gibson's Paradox and the Gold Standard co-authored with Robert Barsky, published in the Journal of Political Economy (vol. 96, June 1988, pp. 528-550).
The hubris of bankers such as Summers is stunning. Fixing the price of gold hoping to control interest rates and prices is like fixing the temperature of thermometers hoping to control global warming. Such is the short reach of Summers' considerable intellect.
EVIL BANKERS FACT OR FICTION?
But the real danger of bankers like Lawrence Summers lies not in their untethered intellect but in their cold ambition and selfish greed that sees nations and people as but living fodder to be milked, used and discarded as they and others profit.
In 1991, Summers issued the following memo while serving as Chief Economist at the World Bank:
…developed countries ought to export more pollution to developing countries because these countries would incur the lowest cost from the pollution in terms of lost wages of people made ill or killed by the pollution due to the fact that wages are so low in developing countries…the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
As the World Bank's Chief Economist, Summer's memo is a chilling reflection of the heartlessness that lies at the core of bankers and banking establishments. The World Bank itself seems to be a favorite watering hole for those of questionable intent.
Robert McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam War was President of the World Bank as was Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the Iraq War. The current President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, is also an ardent supporter of the Iraq War (also on Zoellick's considerable list of “credits” is his service as advisor to Enron, his membership on the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission and his attendance at the secretive Bilderberg meetings from 1991 to the present and his role as Senior International Advisor to investment bank Goldman Sachs).
It is no coincidence that those heading the World Bank are closely associated with America 's vast war machine. Bankers have profited from fueling the military ambitions of both England and the US for the past two centuries and continue to do so today.
But perhaps the most damning indictment yet of the World Bank and today's bankers is John Perkins's Confessions of an Economic Hitman (Barrett Koehler, 2004) in which Perkins reveals the hidden intent of the World Bank and US bankers to cold-bloodedly indebt third world countries such as Argentina and profit by their misery.
In their review of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman write:
Remember Smedley Butler?
He was perhaps the most decorated Major General in Marine Corps history. In the early part of this century, he fought and killed for the United States around the world. Butler was awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor.
Then, when he returned to the United States he wrote a book titled “War Is A Racket” which opens with the memorable lines: “War is a racket. It always has been.”
“I was a high class muscleman for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers,” Butler said. “In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”
In a speech in 1933, Butler said the following:
“I helped make Mexico , especially Tampico , safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.”
Smedley Butler, meet John Perkins.
Perkins has just written a book, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” (Barrett Koehler, 2004). It is the War is A Racket for our times. Some of it is hard to believe. You be the judge.
In 1968, after graduating from Boston University , Perkins joined the Peace Corps and was sent to Ecuador . There, he was recruited by the National Security Agency (NSA) and hired by an international consulting firm, Chas. T. Main in Boston.
Soon after beginning his job in Boston , “I was contacted by a woman named Claudine who became my trainer as an economic hit man.” Perkins assumed the woman worked for the NSA.
“She said she was sent to help me and to train me,” Perkins said. “She is extremely beautiful, sensual, seductive, intelligent. Her job was to convince me to become an economic hit man, holding out these three drugs –- sex, drugs and money. And then she wanted to let me know that I was getting into a dirty business. And I shouldn't go off on my first assignment, which was going to be Indonesia, and start doing this unless I knew that I was going to continue doing it, and once I was in I was in for life.”
Perkins worked for Main from 1970 to 1980. His job was to convince the governments of the third world countries and the banks to make deals where huge loans were given to these countries to develop infrastructure projects. And a condition of the loan was that a large share of the money went back to the big construction companies in the USA – the Bechtels and Halliburtons.
The loans would plunge the countries into debts that would be impossible to pay off.
“The system is set up such that the countries are so deep in debt that they can't repay their debt,” Perkins said. “When the U.S. government wants favors from them, like votes in the United Nations or troops in Iraq, or in many, many cases, their resources – their oil, their canal, in the case of Panama, we go to them and say – look, you can't pay off your debts, therefore sell your oil at a very low price to our oil companies. Today, tremendous pressure is being put on Ecuador , for example, to sell off its Amazonian rainforest -– very precious, very fragile places, inhabited by indigenous people whose cultures are being destroyed by the oil companies.”
When a leader of a country refuses to cooperate with economic hit men like Perkins, the jackals from the CIA are called in. Perkins said that both Omar Torrijos of Panama and Jaime Boldos of Ecuador -– both men he worked with – refused to play the game with the U.S. and both were cut down by the CIA -– Torrijos when his airplane blew up, and Roldos when his helicopter exploded, within three months of each other in 1981.
If the CIA jackals don't do the job, then the U.S. Marines are sent in –- Butler 's “racketeers for capitalism.”
Perkins also gives lurid details of how he pimped for a Saudi prince in the 1970s, in an effort to get the Saudi royal family to enter an elaborate deal in which the U.S. would protect the House of Saud. In exchange, the Saudis agreed to stabilize oil prices and use their oil money to purchase Treasury bonds, the interest on which would be used to pay U.S. construction firms like Bechtel to build Saudi cities.
For years, Perkins wanted to stop being an economic hit man and write a tell-all book. He quit Main in 1980, only to be lured back with megabucks as a consultant. He testified in favor of the Seabrook Nuclear power plant (“my most infamous assignment”) in the 1980s, but the experience pushed him out of the business, and he started an alternative energy firm.
When word got out in the 1990s that he was starting to write a tell-all book, he was approached by the president of Stone & Webster, a big engineering firm.
Over seven years, Stone & Webster paid Perkins $500,000 to do nothing.
“At that first meeting, the president of the company mentioned some of the books that I had written about indigenous people and said –- that's nice, that's fine, keep doing your non-profit work,” Perkins told us. “We approve of that, but you certainly would never write about this industry, would you? And I assured him that I wouldn't.”
Perkins assumes the money was a bribe to get him not to write the book.
But he has written the book.
You be the judge.
Evil bankers? Fact or Fiction? You be the judge.
DEFAULT OR JUST DEADBEATS
While Reinhart's and Rogoff's work on sovereign default is worthwhile and important, their glaring avoidance of the geopolitical aspect of credit flows from England and the US to Latin America and other developing regions is indicative of the blind eye scholars turn to the activities of those who pay them.
Lawrence Summers was President of Harvard University where Kenneth Rogoff is now employed. It is not likely those who hired the likes of Summers would look kindly upon Rogoff should he begin asking questions whose answers would lead to truths Harvard's trustees would rather not see the light of day.
So instead of dealing with the critical issues raised by John Perkins, Reinhart and Rogoff consider the phenomena of sovereign defaults as an innocent rite of passage much like high school through which developing economies must pass. Perhaps it is so, perhaps not.
But their “trained” eye wanders a bit, even to an untrained eye such as mine. According to Reinhart and Rogoff, the US is a “default virgin”, sic the US has never missed a debt repayment or rescheduled on at least one occasion. While this is strictly so, the US is nonetheless at the center of the largest default in monetary history.
In the 1970s, the US defaulted on its gold obligations under the Bretton-Woods Agreement. After overspending the greatest hoard of gold in history, 21,775 tons, between 1949 and 1971, the US had 7,000-8,000 tons of gold left and still owed perhaps over 31,000 tons to others.
In 1973, when the US officially refused to convert US dollars held by other countries to gold, it was the biggest monetary default ever. In that one act, as a consequence the entire global monetary system shifted from a gold-based system to a fiat-paper system.
Of the US default on its gold obligations, Professor Antal Fekete wrote in June 2008:
Thirty-five years ago gold, symbol of permanence, was chased out from the Monetary Garden of Eden , replaced by the floating irredeemable dollar as the pillar of the international monetary system. That's right: a floating pillar. The gold demonetization exercise was a farce. It was designed as a fig leaf to cover up the ugly default of the U.S. government on its gold-redeemable sight obligations to foreigners. The word ‘default' itself was put under taboo even though it punctured big holes in the balance sheet of every central bank of the world, as its dollar-denominated assets sank in value in terms of anything but the dollar itself. These banks were not even allowed to say ‘ouch' as they were looking at the damage to their balance sheets caused by the default. They just had to swallow the loss, obediently and dutifully join the singing of the Hallelujah Chorus of sycophants in Washington praising the irredeemable dollar and the Nirvana of synthetic credit.
Debt virgin? Hardly, and whether the US defaulted or not is not just a question of semantics, it is a matter of truth—which, like credit, is now surprisingly hard to come by.
THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT
Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff's paper, This Time It's Different , refers to the idea that sovereign defaults are a thing of the past. That we have somehow fixed what was wrong and it won't happen again. Reinhart and Rogoff think otherwise.
But this time, in a different way it really is different. This time default will come to both banker and debtor alike. The bankers' system itself is now collapsing under the weight of debt that the bankers' debt-based money has produced.
Banks are finding themselves increasingly bankrupt as are the governments the bankers used to debase the world's currencies. This time, not only will Argentina possibly suffer another sovereign default, so too will its creditor, the US , as will many of the US banks that issued that debt.
The default of the US will remain, however, outside the limited definition of default used by Reinhart and Rogoff. The US will not miss a payment or reschedule its debt. Unlike Argentina , the US prints the currency in which the Argentine and US debt is denominated. The US will print its way out of its debts. Argentina cannot.
Because of the enormity of the US debt, the amount of dollars necessary to print to pay down the debt will lead to the hyperinflation in the US and the destruction of the US dollar. Those who live by the sword sometimes die by the sword—though not often.
In that same article where Professor Kotlikoff estimated US liabilities to be $65.9 trillion, Kotlikoff also wrote:
The United States ..appears to be running the same type of fiscal policies that engendered hyperinflations in 20 countries over the past century.
Maybe this time it isn't different..
DON'T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA
SAVE YOUR TEARS FOR YOURSELF
In 1976, the Argentine military overthrew the democratically elected Argentine government. The first to recognize the dictatorship was the US . The second was the International Monetary Fund, and within 24 hours of recognizing the soon-to-be most brutal regime in recent history, the IMF arranged a loan to the military junta.
At the time, Argentina 's external debt totaled $7 billion. When the bloody dictatorship ended with the return of democracy six years later, Argentina 's debt totaled $43 billion, a debt owed mainly to US banks.
The common law concept of caveat emptor has particular relevance here, caveat emptor —Latin, “let the buyer beware", is a legal precept that buyers must take responsibility for the conditions under which the sale was made.
If you loan to a dictatorship, don't expect to be repaid if a democracy emerges.
Richard Perle, former US Assistant Secretary of Defense and neoconservative lobbyist
Richard Perle who supported the Iraq War said those words shortly after the US invaded Iraq . While it is doubtful Perle believes the same applies for debts incurred by the US supported dictatorship in Argentina , the truth of Perle's words extend beyond Perle's situational principles or a lack thereof. In a court of law, an illegal contract cannot be enforced—unless, of course, the court has been bought off.
A critical distinction between the debt “owed” by Argentina and the debts owed by the US is that Argentina's debt was illegally imposed upon Argentina by the IMF, the US and international bankers without the consent of the Argentine citizenry, The US debt, however, was incurred with the consent of the American people—or was it?
That, my fellow Americans, is a $99.2 trillion question.
BANKRUPT BE THE BONDS THAT BIND
Americans with their outstanding obligations now measured in trillions of dollars of outstanding US bonds have much in common with the Argentine people. We have both been enslaved and bankrupted by the same financial system.
While it is impossible for the debt burdened Argentines to do something about US banks, it is not impossible for Americans to do so. The US Federal Reserve Bank—the largest emitter of debt-based money in the world—while not an official US government agency is nonetheless still subject to the rules and laws of our land.
STIRRINGS IN THE ELECTORATE
Dissatisfaction, the beginning of change, is now occurring. The two political polarities are finally awakening to the fact that both have been callously used by those in power. The US has lurched right then left then right again, but it continues to go in the same disturbing direction, a direction now equally distasteful to those on the left and on the right.
In modern democracies, successful politicians must possess two qualities: They must say what the people want to hear and they must do what those in power want done.
It has been easy to manipulate those on the right as well as those on the left. The Republicans and Democrats have done so for years. But where's the beef? The nation's finances have been even more badly managed by the Republicans than the Democrats—and Iraq ? Sure, vote for the Democrats and stay mired in a conflict they promised they would end.
Both parties are controlled by the same money, the same money that now controls global governments and institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, the same money that buys politicians, scholars, the military, lawyers, TV anchors, radio talk show hosts and anyone else whose influence they can use for their own ends.
There is a reason why we are indebted as we are and there is a reason why we are mired in a war that one wants except the few that do, the few that now control our nation and many others. In the midst of this most unreasonable world, there are reasons—whether you want to know them or not.
Humanity now finds itself at the beginning of a profound shift, a shift that will force us—if we are to survive, if we are to triumph—to put aside our differences to accomplish together what we obviously cannot accomplish apart.
The two political polarities must find common ground or they will soon find there is no ground at all. What is happening is bigger than money and power although it involves both. It involves humanity, it involves all of us and unless we find each other we will soon find there will be nothing left to find at all.
We are closer to the end than to the beginning. Keep your own counsel. Buy gold and silver. Keep the faith.
In Argentina , I read in a recent issue of Scientific American that physicists now believe that in the beginning of time the Universe was only one centimeter across. That knowledge heartened me. We have come a long way.
Note: I will be speaking at Professor Fekete's last session of Gold Standard University Live to be held in Canberra , Australia from November 11 th to the 14 th . The focus of the session will be trading the gold and silver basis for profit. For further details, contact feketeaustralia@yahoo.com .
By Darryl Robert Schoon
www.survivethecrisis.com
www.drschoon.com
blog www.posdev.net
About Darryl Robert Schoon
In college, I majored in political science with a focus on East Asia (B.A. University of California at Davis, 1966). My in-depth study of economics did not occur until much later.
In the 1990s, I became curious about the Great Depression and in the course of my study, I realized that most of my preconceptions about money and the economy were just that - preconceptions. I, like most others, did not really understand the nature of money and the economy. Now, I have some insights and answers about these critical matters.
In October 2005, Marshall Thurber, a close friend from law school convened The Positive Deviant Network (the PDN), a group of individuals whom Marshall believed to be "out-of-the-box" thinkers and I was asked to join. The PDN became a major catalyst in my writings on economic issues.
When I discovered others in the PDN shared my concerns about the US economy, I began writing down my thoughts. In March 2007 I presented my findings to the Positive Deviant Network in the form of an in-depth 148- page analysis, " How to Survive the Crisis and Prosper In The Process. "
The reception to my presentation, though controversial, generated a significant amount of interest; and in May 2007, "How To Survive The Crisis And Prosper In The Process" was made available at www.survivethecrisis.com and I began writing articles on economic issues.
The interest in the book and my writings has been gratifying. During its first two months, www.survivethecrisis.com was accessed by over 10,000 viewers from 93 countries. Clearly, we had struck a chord and www.drschoon.com , has been created to address this interest.
Darryl R Schoon Archive
Whatever floats your boat
--
Mike Gravel.........
x
Oh for the love of Mike!!!!!!! n/m
x
I think Mike was adopted. LOL
God bless you too!
Oh for the love of Mike!
I should hope that no one would be swayed by stupid blogs. They are so obviously biased. May I suggest that you listen to what comes out of all candidates MOUTHS. Obviously the rabid Republicans would be happy to have you stay home and not vote if you aren't going to vote for their "chosen one."
I like the way Mike Huckabee said it
tonight, *as long as we are being kicked in the rear, we know we are still in the front.* I have had so many good laughs this week, has made me feel so good after recuperating from my hip replacement.
It has been so comical, since watching TV is about all I have been able to do, I had to watch CNN and MSNBC just for the laughs! It is so obvious that they are afraid of Fox News and their ratings. They have made such fools of themselves this week! They would have appeared much more professional if they had just handled the tea parties as any normal news coverage. In trying to make someone else look stoopid, they have only made themselves the stooges.
The prime example was the subject of your post. I don't know what kind of rock they found her under, but she needs to slither back under it and stay put (just a personal opinion). As for Olberman agreeing with her, he was just showing his usual stupidity! Disgusting hardly begins to describe this clip.
Anyone who tries to defend what this person(?) says surely has some serious issues that need addressing. And the DHS is worried about our returning veterans and anyone who is pro-life? They have us on a list of terrorist? The people who attacked the Twin Towers are no longer terrorists. But, these rednecks at the tea parties are potential terrorists.
I have family and friends all over the place retired from the big 3 auto companies and are all worried about their pensions. Am originally from Michigan and it has kind of turned into a ghost town up there. Very sad. Never thought I would see the day when the auto companies would be in so much trouble. The auto companies have put a lot of food on a lot of folks table!
Mike Malloy from Air America...sm
For the past couple of months, I have been listening to Mike Malloy's show. I have become quite a fan. Like myself, he has gone from being very nervous to downright scared of these lunatics occupying our White House. I was quite surprised to learn that he supports the 2nd Amendment and owns a gun. He was on Alex Jones' radio program today. I strongly agree with what he had to say. Here is a link to the audio on their discussion.
I didn't agree with Mike Huckabee politically, but I always found him to be incredibly gracious and authentic. He had Coulter on his show (aptly followed by Jerry Springer, who ironically brought CIVILITY to the show.) and confronted her about the lies she published about HIM in her book.
If you scroll down the first page, you'll see the Springer segment. I believe when Huckabee referred to "authenticity" while speaking to Springer, he was referring to Coulter. At least, that's how it came across to me.
I didn't agree with Mike Huckabee politically, but I always found him to be incredibly gracious and authentic. He had Coulter on his show (aptly followed by Jerry Springer, who ironically brought CIVILITY to the show) and confronted her about the lies she published about HIM in her book.
If you scroll down the first page, you'll see the Springer segment. I believe when Huckabee referred to "authenticity" while speaking to Springer, he was referring to Coulter. At least, that's how it came across to me.
I was simply casually passing on a bit info in line with the post below that was speculating on whether or not Obama has lost his support. According to CNN's poll right after the election and this one now (comparing apples to apples, since they are from the same source), it appears that he is pretty much holding his own IN SPITE OF all the controversy surrounding the stimulus package. That makes me feel pretty relaxed, all things considered, so I'll pass on that drink you offered, thanks just the same.
Air America just fired Mike Malloy...sm
MIKE MALLOY FIRED BY AIR AMERICA RADIO
There will be no Mike Malloy program today - or any day - on Air America Radio as we have been terminated. We are as shocked as you are. We are told its a financial decision.
More details to follow as we hear them ourselves.
They said it was financial - This is total BS. More free speech suppression.
Bloody butchers block 3 tons of medical supplies being transported to Gaza to help prevent severely injured Palestinians from becoming fatalities due to lack of medical supplies resulting from ongoing Israeli blockade of Israel. People who could be stabilized with provisions as basic as electrolytes, antibiotics, bandages, etc are being turned away from hospitals and left to die in the street. Dead bodies are being returned to the family to be taken home due to inability to prepare them for burial. Wonder how many Hamas were hiding out on that boat? Yesiree, our tax dollars are hard at work once again.
The Anti-Republican Republican Who is Really a Republican
The whole anti-Republican Republican ruse might have succeeded, were it not for the fact that McCain's rhetoric was at odds not merely with his own voting record - 90 percent with Bush - and his own Bush-on-steroids agenda.
Even as he was pledging to "change the way government does almost everything," the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.
He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.
He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.
He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.
And he threatened to achieve "energy independence" by declaring:
"We will drill..."
"We'll drill..."
"More drilling..."
McCain's rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party's failed president and corrupt Congresses.
But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.
Chris Wallace....son of Mike Wallace (of CBS fame).
Chris Wallace is not a conservative. He does fair interviews. He doesn't softball. I would love to see Chris Wallace interview him. Chris Wallace is a journalist. Those the other poster mentioned are commentators. Their schtick is to be controversial. Wallace is not like that at all, but he doesn't pander either. That is who I would like to see interview him. I would also like to see him agree to the townhall meetings that John McCain has tried to get him to go to...where regular folks can ask some of the questions. But he steadfastedly refuses to do so. And I understand why. They might ask the difficult questions he does not want to answer.
Republican
Are't you the one posting Democrat? Get over it. After all, thank God John Kerry's not in office, we'd all be dead.
The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).
After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".
All five of the senators involved served out their terms. Only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election, and they were both re-elected.
ANd by the way....I think Obama has the market cornered on bad judgment. lol.
So is all the one-way republican B.S. Republican too
I am a Republican too, just don't get on politics board very often. I am praying McCain/Palin win for the sake of our country.
Since when has a Republican? (Unless you
.
I'm not republican....I'm just looking out for my
Unfortunately, I've come to realize the real reason for putting Obama in office has nothing to do with their pocketbook, which is all I heard for weeks, but it has to do only with the color of his skin. I've realized there are so many racists such as yourself on this board that care absolutely nothing about their country...only the color of this man's skin.
that would be you, right? So you mean he played his own democratic party into believing he actually cared about the people of this country, isn't that what you meant? Republicans and independents knew he was lying all along. Too bad you didn't!
ROFL!
So tell me what does a republican look like
I'd like to know how you were able to tell the republicans from the democrats and independents. All three parties were at the rallies, and to me they all look like human beings to me. I couldn't tell one from the other. They all had 2 ears, a head, a body, and most of them had arms and legs (except for a few I would imagine). All I know is there were democrats, republicans, and independents there and they were all patriots. It was a day where parties were put aside and people talked about facts, not parties. Everyone who participated did not say it was one side or the others fault. They said it was both sides fault. This was not an anti-Obama rally, it was an anti-government rally. Didn't you read the signs? I guess not.
You think there are no black republicans. Guess you don't follow politics very closely. As for old and white. First, that is a racist comment. Second if you want to see old and white look at your lord's administration. Every time he has a photo op he is surrounded by old white man. No blacks, no hispanics, no nothing except for old white men. Boy, talk about racism.
As for you not seeing any black faces. Yeah, sure you didn't. Why don't you say something that sounds halfway like a truth.
This is complete and utter bu!!sh!t about it being an anti-Obama rally. This pity party poor us your all picking on us routine is so old.
There is no danger to your lord. The danger is the fear and paranoia being spewed by the left. The left wing media is like a person who yells fire in a theater when there is none and then whines when people call him on it.
Yes I have heard there are concentration camps here, but how true it is I don't know. I'd have to do more research on it.
But for Pete's sake, turn off Keith Oberfool, CNN (Communist News Network) and the other spew on BSNBC and watch some real news. There are many many channels to choose from. Listen to both sides. Not just spew from the hate filled and spiteful left.
And this "I saw no black faces in the crowds". Sorry, I don't buy it. By reading your post I'll bet you were not even watching any of it.
I think I said right off what a republican
convention looks like, old and white. So you have bought into the concentration camps here in America also, how sad. What is wrong with everyone? Oh, I saw some of the pictures from the teabaggers outing, not on any of the channels you name but on the internet and they are so just horrific. I saw no diversity in the pictures (by the way, Fox was the only channel that was playing any of the outing that day so that is where I watched about 5 minutes or so). In all my 60+ years and remembering as far back as Eisenhower, the country has never to me seemed so rabid, pure unadulturated hysteria. Just insane. People have the what if syndrome. Someone posted about what are you going to do in 2011. News flash- you might be dead. I know there are some black repubs but only a token few. Just does not fit into the picture of the good ole boys.
AND he's a Republican
.
Republican chant says it all!
Mercenary pro-war trolls chanting to Cindy Sheehan, shouting "We don't care! We don't care!" Well we knew that all along:)
republican baloney
Whew..have heard the right wing frightening baloney for years and years and dont want to hear it any more..cant wait till next year when the people vote their displeasure of the republicans..Gonna be party time..
A Day in the Life of a Republican
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because *some liberal* union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packingindustry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home or go hungry because of his temporary misfortune.
It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and hisbelow-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuckhis nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.
Joe agrees: We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.
Yes, but you did say to me and another person(s) that we were not telling the truth and that is to be taken that you thought we were lying = liar.
Your reasoning appears impaired, your ability to recall what you said and when appears impaired and your ability to define and decipher what is truth and what are lies appears highly suspect. I think you most definitely are a Republican!!!! (with nixon and clinton thrown in just for a laugh).....
End of story.
Outsourcing is NOT just Republican...
I'd advise you to check out the outsourcing that happened during the "glory" years of Bill Clinton. As to Democrats beating ol' McCain's posterior...don't count your chickens.
I am not a Republican....but two years is...
plenty of time for the Democrat majority to have done SOMETHING...and they have done nothing...including taking their vacation instead of voting on an energy bill and they claim to care about gas prices. Pardon me if I doubt their sincerity.
I am not a Democrat either. But I know Barack Obama is as much or more invested in Europe as he is in the US, and that does not give me a warm and fuzzy. His Chicago connections, his voting record, his writings, his wife's writings, his pastor, his friends...all of those things send up huge red flags to me. What he is saying now is not anything like what his history and life have been to this point. So I don't trust him. He is way left of Clinton...most liberal voting record in the senate.
McCain has butted heads with Bush several times over the years...he is not a repeat of Bush. All one has to do is look at his record, if one is so inclined. He is not my favorite either; I have some issues with him as well. However, I know he would protect this country and I am not so sure Obama would.
The best thing I can say about George W. Bush is thank God he was President when we were attacked on 9-11, and not Kerry!
marks the location of current message within thread
