I've said this before but didn't have someone as prestigious as Simon Johnson to back it up. I don't believe the US President or Congress is running the country, but rather it is an oligarchy of high-powered bankers and corporatists who call the shots for all of us. Johnson writes about this in The Atlantic:
"The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time." --Simon Johnson
17 comments:
Been saying that for years...
That is what makes me laugh about the conservatives ranting constantly about the loss of our freedoms to government...
We lost those along time ago
Conspiracy theorist. lol
In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation's major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members." -- Chicago Tribune, 2004.
And who is the Muslim Brotherhood? The Muslim Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." -- "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991.
Imagine if a conservative Congressman had taken a trip that had been paid for by a Christian group that was, according to one of its own documents, dedicated to "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house" so that Christian law would replace the U.S. Constitution. I expect we would hear more of an outcry than we ever heard about Ellison's Hajj.
Like I said many times during the Presidential election campaign, Obama has too many disturbing, extremist ties. He should not be directly, deliberately seeking to boost presence by any particular identifiable group within his regime, but, lo and behold, he is.
But, hey, if the Hard-Left Obama propagandists and brownshirt bullies say there's nothing wrong with actively seeking to add more Muslims to the government, regardless of their ties, even to the horrendously, murderously hateful, intolerant and supremacistic Muslim Brotherhood, which itself has a history going back to its direct, inside involvement with Hitler and the Nazis, including in the Nazi military during WWII, well, then, they will have no business whatsoever in criticizing Republican politicians for being Christian, pro-life, pro-traditional-marriage, etc... and for actively seeking to put more Christians, pro-life and pro-traditional-marriage people inside government.
Why does Obama, born a Muslim (and if he's no longer a Muslim, is therefore, according to Islam, deserving of death for apostasy), seek the increased presence within his administration of folks like Keith Hakim Mohamed Ellison, who was sworn in with his hand on, not the Bible, but the Koran, and who is indubitably, unapologetically linked to radical Islamic organizations?
Aw come on now, it's not about Islam or "Liberalism" or Christianity or "Conservativism" or Right or Left or black or white or whatever other arbitrary division you might wish to invent.
It's about money, and banksters, the (private) Federal Reserve, IMF, and fraud. Anything else is a simple attempt to 'divide and conquer'. Don't lose sight of who is really responsible for the crisis. Who your country has been fighting since its inception.
There have been three central banks in US history. The first was shut down by Thomas Jefferson: "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." Sounds familiar today...$9trn bailouts and so on.
The second was shut down by Andrew Jackson, who declared to the bankers: "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out!"
And the third central bank, the 'Federal' Reserve, was granted to the banksters by Woodrow Wilson, who later wrote: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
He was right. So if you hear that your country is falling 'to the left', or to 'evangelical nuts', or to 'Muslims' or whatever your MSM talking head tells you, try to remember the words of your founding fathers and other ancestors, for the war to stop banks from pillaging your nation has been waged since before the Revolution; in fact, it was a partial cause of that revolution. Now there must be another one if liberty and prosperity is to return; all these 'measures' to 'save' the economy are the very thing destroying it. I wish Ron Paul had won the election, but I only understand why with hindsight.
Seriously Beth! Take an Exlax, will ya! You forgot to mention that Obama was born on Mars...
Would everyone please stop using the word "progressive" as a euphemism for "socialist!" The usage implies that the achievement of socialism is a commonly acknowledged goal toward which it's a good thing to make progress. There's nothing "progressive" about socialism! It's a simplistic political system based on the assumption that government is all-was--and must therefore be all-knowing--and that ordinary people can't be trusted to make economic decisions. It's the precise antithesis of the principles on which this country was founded.
And yes Beth, I think a clod shower would do you wonders.
Like I said many times during the Presidential election campaign, Obama has too many disturbing, extremist ties. He should not be directly, deliberately seeking to boost presence by any particular identifiable group within his regime, but, lo and behold, he is.--Beth
When you post statements like the above, we expect you to back them up with a link and evidence that Mr. Obama is tied to extremists.
If you can't do it, please don't come here and spread your fear-mongering lies. Thank you.
Why does Obama, born a Muslim (and if he's no longer a Muslim, is therefore, according to Islam, deserving of death for apostasy),--Beth
If you had any sense, you'd understand the foolishness of that statement.
No infant is born as a religion. Religion is NOT a genetically inheritable trait. Your parents have to TEACH YOU your religion. Mr. Obama is a Christian.
...seek the increased presence within his administration of folks like Keith Hakim Mohamed Ellison, who was sworn in with his hand on, not the Bible, but the Koran,--Beth
Mr. Ellison was elected to the House of Representatives by his constituents in Minnesota, not by President Obama.
There is nothing wrong with taking an oath on the Koran.
There is nothing shameful in Rep. Ellison's record. If you come here to denigrate him on the basis of his religion, you're not welcome.
Please take your fears, hatreds, and prejudices to other blogs where it will be more appreciated.
In the past, people like you said these sorts of things about Jewish people--as far as I'm concerned your Muslim bashing shows you're no different from them.
"There was an anti-Semitic feeling in Congress, as well as in the US Armed Forces. In Congress, anti-Semitism was a factor explaining the common hostility towards refugee immigration. Anti-Semitism explained Congress’ actions that blocked all likely havens of refuge for the Jews. For example, Congress passed a Visa policy that allowed only a minuscule number of Jews into the US, and supported Britain’s policy that placed tight limits on refugee entry into Palestine. Representative John Rankin, an example of a blatant anti-Semite in Congress, frequently and verbally lashed out at the Jews. Clearly, if such a high up representative of the American public spoke out viciously against the Jews, there was an evident problem within the American government.
SOURCE
Shame on you, Beth.
szspeak,
Here's the dictionary's definition of progressive--nowhere does it say progressive means socialist.
pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv)
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician;
progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
7. Pathology Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
8. Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.
n.
1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
2. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
3. Grammar A progressive verb form.
In the United States, the The Progressive Party of 1918 was a political party created by a split in the Republican Party in the presidential election of 1912. It was formed by Theodore Roosevelt when he lost the Republican nomination to William Howard Taft and pulled his delegates out of the convention. The party is colloquially also known as the Bull Moose Party, after the party's emblem and after Roosevelt's boast that he was "as strong as a bull moose".
"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." - 1912 Progressive Party Platform, attributed to Theodore Roosevelt[1] and quoted again in his autobiography[2] where he connects Trusts and monopolies (sugar interests, Standard Oil, etc.) to Woodrow Wilson and Howard Taft, and consequently both major political parties.
SOURCE
The rich and their money handlers own politics as well. Money rules. Grass roots is merely a show now. Big budgets and big ad campaigns are what wins. Financed by big money. Damn shame.
^ they don't own everything, only the 'TV viewer' demographic. Grassroots support for Obama, or Beck's 912 campaign, for example, is manufactured, but massive grassroots support for 3rd party/liberty oriented candidates operates outside of the corporations.
The Revolution is not being televised, but it is there, and the establishment is getting scared. Hence the threats of martial law - what a criminal regime always does when it has no other option to hold onto power.
Lewis Lapham has discussed the topic of the American oligarchy in essays in Harpers Magazine for years. His is an insightful view into how big money and the endless dream of American empire have turned our nations promise into the current state of affairs. 'Money and Class', 'Waiting for the Barbarians' and 'Lights, Camera Democracy' are particularly good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_H._Lapham
So here we are.
A broken economy with an increasing disparity between haves and have nots with the middle disappearing fast and unending war.
The hits keep coming.
"There is nothing shameful in Rep. Ellison's record."
Actually,
there is.
His district would elect a certified lunatic, so long as the lunatic had the DFL endorsement.
Beth says,
"But, hey, if the Hard-Left Obama propagandists and brownshirt bullies......a history going back to its direct, inside involvement with Hitler and the Nazis, including in the Nazi military during WWII....."
Right, now play the Nazi card. Obama is a Nazi and his staff are brown shirts.
Get help Beth, professional help.
Gordon,
How many times have you sneered at me when I've linked to a liberal source for information? Can you count them?
Now you link to Powerline as a source of unbiased information on Ellison? LOL!
I read the article. It is unfortunate that Ellison had connections with Farrakhan when he was young, but he has since renounced them. As distasteful as those associations were, they were not illegal. And he has severed those ties.
Do people do stupid things when they're young? Like, say, join southern white supremacist groups (although the Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott, was hardly "young" when he was a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I point the above out not to excuse Ellison, but to illustrate how bad associations are practiced on both side of the aisle. I haven't got time to find the article Powerline wrote on Trent Lott's, association with his white supremacist group, but I'm sure you'll find it for me. Don't disappoint me.
But Ellison's past associations apparently didn't bother other conservatives. In fact, the Bush administration was happy to use Ellison as an example of America's enlightened attitude toward Muslims:
"Two months after taking office Ellison met "with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top State Department officials to talk about showcasing his story as part of their public diplomacy efforts in the Muslim world."
According to the Star Tribune, Ellison was "profiled three times by the State Department’s overseas press bureau." He also "did a Voice of America interview from his office, where an American flag was placed conspicuously behind his desk for the cameras." In the interview which was set to play in the Middle East and South Asia, Ellison stressed global inclusiveness and quoted verse 49:13 of the Qur’an "Oh humanity, we created you from a single pair…"
Ellison also accepted the Bush administration's request to be part of a "teleconference with Karen Hughes, the State Department's undersecretary for public diplomacy. The White House has asked that the teleconference promote American values and confront ideological support for terrorism around the world."
The Voice of America’s Faiz Rehman, ("a Pakistani native and senior political producer") applauded Ellison's cooperation saying "He is the most famous freshman congressman in the world." It was noted that after he took his oath of office he was surrounded by the foreign press, intrigued in part by the oath controversy, who "had to be ushered out of his office after he took his oath to make room for home-state news crews."
Source
Shaw,
Twice, actually.
The Powerline article is a short source. You can follow the links to coverage elsewhere; much of it was in the Star-Tribune, a newspaper recognized as liberal even by other liberal newspapers.
Ellison maintains his ties with, and accepts money from, radical Muslim organizations. He cut his ties with Louis F and the Nation of Islam right at the moment they started to become a liability to his political career.
In that, he's just like our president. He uses people and groups while he can, and then tosses them under the bus when they become inconvenient.
Remember where I live, Shaw? I known this guy for a while. I've sat across the table from him in meetings. I know how he operates, and his agenda.
That should have read, "I've known him....
In that, he's just like our president. He uses people and groups while he can, and then tosses them under the bus when they become inconvenient.
Oh Gordon please don't say that.
So you think our president uses people and groups while he can and then tosses them under the bus?
Ha!
It seems to me George Bush did the same. While he had majorities in both houses, he failed to make his base happy by getting a Constitutional amendment passed banning gay marriage--he had the power to go further with that issue than he did--most of which was enticing bait for his base. Once he was reelected, I didn't hear much more on the importance of making marriage Constitutionally mandated between only a man and a woman. He went up to the line, but he never crossed it nor did the heavy lifting of getting the amendment process started. Why was that? He asked Congress in 2004 to get the amendment written and start the ratification process going. What happened? His party was the majority.
Also, why was there no challenge to Roe v. Wade during his majority rule in the presidency? That could have happened once he got Alito and Roberts on the Court.
Both of those issues were the red meat his base hungered for and on which the radical Christian right pinned their hopes and dreams, all to be forgotten and ignored once Bush was re-elected.
Post a Comment