Posts
“All secret societies, oath bound, political parties are dangerous to any nation.” Ulysses S. Grant, 18th President of the United States.
Among secret societies, Skull and Bones of Yale University may be the most notorious. With all its rituals and macabre relics (allegedly the heads of Geronimo, Martin Van Buren and Poncho Villa), there are only 15 inductees per year with a roll call of about 800 living members at any given time.
Many ‘Bonesmen’ have gone on to positions of great power within the United States, especially in politics, including what might be called ‘The Bush Dynasty’.
Prescott Sheldon Bush (Bones Alma Mater 1917) married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, whose son George, Jr. and grandson George III were also Bonesmen (1927 and 1953); James S. Bush (1922), son of Prescott and father of George H.W. Bush and Jonathon J. Bush (1953); and grandson George W. Bush (1968). Take note that John Ellis Bush graduated from the University of Texas at Austin.
There have been many brethren in the hierarchy of the U.S. government. In 1981, Supreme Court Justice Potter (1937) swore in ‘H.W.’ as Vice President, while ‘W.’ appointed no less than ten Bonesmen under his presidency, the most noteworthy being William Donaldson (1953) to the SEC.
John Kerry (1966) faced off with George W. Bush in the 1984 Presidential Election. Questioned by media on the merits of the society, Kerry said, “It’s a secret.” In his autobiography, Bush reiterated, "My senior year I joined Skull and Bones, a secret society, so secret, I can’t say anything more."
Of other secret societies, Freemasons have a more diverse membership in 164 countries, 500 million members worldwide of which approximately 200 million are in the United States.
The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of denouncing Freemasons dating back to 1783 when Pope Clement XII issued the first prohibition of membership in “Francs Massons or by any other name according to the various languages.”
In 1917, Pope Benedict XV declared in the Code of Canon Law that “Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or against legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.”
The 1983 Code of the Canon Law declared, “A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.”
Although the mention of Freemasons was omitted, the Office of the Sacred Congregation issued the ‘Declaration of Masonic Associations’ which clarified “…the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion."
The document was signed by Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the one and same who wrote in a 1986 letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church ‘The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”, “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech and action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”
Of course, Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XIV, whose handling of sexual abuse cases during the period from 1981 to 2005 when he led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the responsibility for upholding doctrine purity. During this period, sexual abuses were either widely known to have occurred in previous decades or known to have taken place in Germany, Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, and Sweden… In other words, it’s a global phenomenon, including incidences in the United States.
In 2008, then-deceased priest Harold White and Leonard Abercrombie cost the Archdiocese of Denver $5.5 million for 18 individual claims for abuses that occurred from 1954-1981.
In 2002, three priests in Boston were sentenced to prison for multiple cases of abuse, including those of John Geoghan who sexually abused over 130 children over a 30-year period in six parishes. This led to the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law.
Of late, the perversions of Rev. Lawrence Murphy that occurred in Wisconsin have come to light that from 1950 to 1974 he sexually molested perhaps 200 deaf boys as he, too, was shuffled off to various parishes because he was a top fundraiser and too ‘valuable’ to let go.
With the given history of pervasive sexual abuses, the Catholic Church, to me, is the undisputed hierarchy of secret societies. Pope Benedict XIV continues to feign ignorance to the abuses that were rampant during the years he responsible to uphold purity within the Church.
To quote President John F. Kennedy, “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.”
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
A Racy Cup of Tea
There’s something seriously wrong with the ideology of Tea Party Movement. The ‘official website’ mission statement professes ‘The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.’ Sounds like mighty good stuff, doesn’t it? But it’s not necessarily so.
Massachusetts voters got it right when they handily elected Republican Scott Brown over what was supposed to be a shoe-in victory for Democrat Martha Coakley. Although Brown claimed during an interview with the Boston Globe that he was “not quite sure what you are talking about”, when questioned about what he thought about the Tea Party movement, he had nonetheless attended a fundraiser sponsored by the Greater Boston Tea Party eleven days prior to making the statement.
As it turned out, Brown went to Washington as an “independent voice” and proved to be true to form when the first piece of legislation he voted in favor of was the Democratic Jobs Bill. Aghast at such audacity, Tea Party enthusiasts chastised Brown for having “voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.” Although the Congressional Budget Office estimated the $15 billion will create between 100,000 to 200,000 jobs, it lacked the premise of fiscal responsibility, a heinous crime by any measure to the Tea Party.
The Tea Party was formed in response to the growing number of moderate Republicans. If the intentions of the Tea party are to attract voter support in the upcoming mid-term elections, their defeat may be preordained by making statements that could very likely alienate a vast majority of the electorate.
To begin with, during a January town hall meeting on Medicare, Republican South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer said federal government entitlement programs for the poor are like “feeding stray animals” and that by giving “an animal or a person ample food supply” they will “reproduce, especially the ones that don’t think too much further than that.”
The comment may have been made in correlating a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion with food stamp benefits totaling $706 billion and that with 34% of the children in the state being black as compared to 14% nationwide, and the poverty rate among blacks is 33.5% the solution may be to drug test parents as a condition for people to continue public assistance when 58% of South Carolina school children receive free or subsidized lunch programs.
I can‘t imagine Bauer will be able to fulfill his 2012 goal of becoming the next Governor of South Carolina in 2012 when Mark Sanford vacates the post due to term limits. A third of the registered voters are non-white and only 3% of the population is Hispanic. Bauer isn’t the only politician to make statements that are blatantly racist.
In February, Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman from Colorado and a 2008 presidential candidate, told an audience at a Tea Party Convention in Nashville that "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." The statement suggested literacy tests would have prevented Obama from becoming President.
I don’t know where Tancredo’s future political aspirations may lie but they’re seriously in doubt when he makes statements that too easily group together illiterate blacks and Hispanics that don’t speak English. They are racist in nature and hopefully at odds with the majority of the electorate.
Such are my concerns about the Tea Party movement. What I thought would be a group of patriots destined to become political game changers have, instead, become what I refer to as ‘political punks’ for their unrelenting intentions on disrupting the status quo with no structured solutions to combat what is socially unacceptable to their simplistic ideals.
Massachusetts voters got it right when they handily elected Republican Scott Brown over what was supposed to be a shoe-in victory for Democrat Martha Coakley. Although Brown claimed during an interview with the Boston Globe that he was “not quite sure what you are talking about”, when questioned about what he thought about the Tea Party movement, he had nonetheless attended a fundraiser sponsored by the Greater Boston Tea Party eleven days prior to making the statement.
As it turned out, Brown went to Washington as an “independent voice” and proved to be true to form when the first piece of legislation he voted in favor of was the Democratic Jobs Bill. Aghast at such audacity, Tea Party enthusiasts chastised Brown for having “voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.” Although the Congressional Budget Office estimated the $15 billion will create between 100,000 to 200,000 jobs, it lacked the premise of fiscal responsibility, a heinous crime by any measure to the Tea Party.
The Tea Party was formed in response to the growing number of moderate Republicans. If the intentions of the Tea party are to attract voter support in the upcoming mid-term elections, their defeat may be preordained by making statements that could very likely alienate a vast majority of the electorate.
To begin with, during a January town hall meeting on Medicare, Republican South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer said federal government entitlement programs for the poor are like “feeding stray animals” and that by giving “an animal or a person ample food supply” they will “reproduce, especially the ones that don’t think too much further than that.”
The comment may have been made in correlating a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion with food stamp benefits totaling $706 billion and that with 34% of the children in the state being black as compared to 14% nationwide, and the poverty rate among blacks is 33.5% the solution may be to drug test parents as a condition for people to continue public assistance when 58% of South Carolina school children receive free or subsidized lunch programs.
I can‘t imagine Bauer will be able to fulfill his 2012 goal of becoming the next Governor of South Carolina in 2012 when Mark Sanford vacates the post due to term limits. A third of the registered voters are non-white and only 3% of the population is Hispanic. Bauer isn’t the only politician to make statements that are blatantly racist.
In February, Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman from Colorado and a 2008 presidential candidate, told an audience at a Tea Party Convention in Nashville that "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." The statement suggested literacy tests would have prevented Obama from becoming President.
I don’t know where Tancredo’s future political aspirations may lie but they’re seriously in doubt when he makes statements that too easily group together illiterate blacks and Hispanics that don’t speak English. They are racist in nature and hopefully at odds with the majority of the electorate.
Such are my concerns about the Tea Party movement. What I thought would be a group of patriots destined to become political game changers have, instead, become what I refer to as ‘political punks’ for their unrelenting intentions on disrupting the status quo with no structured solutions to combat what is socially unacceptable to their simplistic ideals.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Is the Tea Party Over Already?
There’s something seriously wrong with the ideology of Tea Party Movement. The ‘official website’ mission statement professes, ‘The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.’ Sounds like mighty good stuff, doesn’t it? But not necessarily so.
Massachusetts voters got it right when they handily elected Republican Scott Brown over what was supposed to be a shoe-in victory for Democrat Martha Coakley. Although Brown claimed during an interview with the Boston Globe that he was “not quite sure what you are talking about”, when questioned about what he thought about the Tea Party movement, he had nonetheless attended a fundraiser sponsored by the Greater Boston Tea Party eleven days prior to making the statement.
As it turned out, Brown went to Washington as an “independent voice” and proved to be true to form when the first piece of legislation he voted in favor of was the Democratic Jobs Bill. Aghast at such audacity, Tea Party enthusiasts chastised Brown for having “voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.” Although the Congressional Budget Office estimated the $15 billion will create between 100,000 to 200,000 jobs, it lacked the premise of fiscal responsibility, a heinous crime by any measure to the Tea Party.
The Tea Party was formed in response to the growing number of moderate Republicans. If the intentions of the Tea party are to attract voter support in the upcoming mid-term elections, their defeat may be preordained by making statements that could very likely alienate a vast majority of the electorate.
To begin with, during a January town hall meeting on Medicare, Republican South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer said federal government entitlement programs for the poor are like “feeding stray animals” and that by giving “an animal or a person ample food supply” they will “reproduce, especially the ones that don’t think too much further than that.”
The comment may have been made in correlating a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion with food stamp benefits totaling $706 billion and that with 34% of the children in the state being black as compared to 14% nationwide, and the poverty rate among blacks is 33.5% the solution may be to drug test parents as a condition for people to continue public assistance when 58% of South Carolina school children receive free or subsidized lunch programs.
I can‘t imagine Bauer will be able to fulfill his 2012 goal of becoming the next Governor of South Carolina in 2012 when Mark Sanford vacates the post due to term limits. A third of the registered voters are non-white and only 3% of the population is Hispanic. Bauer isn’t the only politician to make statements that are blatantly racist.
In February, Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman from Colorado and a 2008 presidential candidate, told an audience at a Tea Party Convention in Nashville that "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." The statement suggested literacy tests would have prevented Obama from becoming President.
I don’t know where Tancredo’s future political aspirations may lie but they’re seriously in doubt when he makes statements that easily group together illiterate blacks and Hispanics that don’t speak English. They are racist in nature and hopefully at odds with the majority of the electorate.
Such are my concerns about the Tea Party movement. What I thought would be a group of patriots destined to become political game changers have instead become what I refer to as ‘political punks’ for their unrelenting intentions on disrupting the status quo with no structured solutions to combat what is socially unacceptable to their ideals.
Massachusetts voters got it right when they handily elected Republican Scott Brown over what was supposed to be a shoe-in victory for Democrat Martha Coakley. Although Brown claimed during an interview with the Boston Globe that he was “not quite sure what you are talking about”, when questioned about what he thought about the Tea Party movement, he had nonetheless attended a fundraiser sponsored by the Greater Boston Tea Party eleven days prior to making the statement.
As it turned out, Brown went to Washington as an “independent voice” and proved to be true to form when the first piece of legislation he voted in favor of was the Democratic Jobs Bill. Aghast at such audacity, Tea Party enthusiasts chastised Brown for having “voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.” Although the Congressional Budget Office estimated the $15 billion will create between 100,000 to 200,000 jobs, it lacked the premise of fiscal responsibility, a heinous crime by any measure to the Tea Party.
The Tea Party was formed in response to the growing number of moderate Republicans. If the intentions of the Tea party are to attract voter support in the upcoming mid-term elections, their defeat may be preordained by making statements that could very likely alienate a vast majority of the electorate.
To begin with, during a January town hall meeting on Medicare, Republican South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer said federal government entitlement programs for the poor are like “feeding stray animals” and that by giving “an animal or a person ample food supply” they will “reproduce, especially the ones that don’t think too much further than that.”
The comment may have been made in correlating a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion with food stamp benefits totaling $706 billion and that with 34% of the children in the state being black as compared to 14% nationwide, and the poverty rate among blacks is 33.5% the solution may be to drug test parents as a condition for people to continue public assistance when 58% of South Carolina school children receive free or subsidized lunch programs.
I can‘t imagine Bauer will be able to fulfill his 2012 goal of becoming the next Governor of South Carolina in 2012 when Mark Sanford vacates the post due to term limits. A third of the registered voters are non-white and only 3% of the population is Hispanic. Bauer isn’t the only politician to make statements that are blatantly racist.
In February, Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman from Colorado and a 2008 presidential candidate, told an audience at a Tea Party Convention in Nashville that "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." The statement suggested literacy tests would have prevented Obama from becoming President.
I don’t know where Tancredo’s future political aspirations may lie but they’re seriously in doubt when he makes statements that easily group together illiterate blacks and Hispanics that don’t speak English. They are racist in nature and hopefully at odds with the majority of the electorate.
Such are my concerns about the Tea Party movement. What I thought would be a group of patriots destined to become political game changers have instead become what I refer to as ‘political punks’ for their unrelenting intentions on disrupting the status quo with no structured solutions to combat what is socially unacceptable to their ideals.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Working Man's T-Party
He’s the man who does the grunt work in America – without him, the prosperity of the past decade wouldn’t have happened because he cleared the land, laid down the foundation, hammered, cemented, plumbed and stuccoed the homes that put a roof over the heads of his fellow Americans.
He’s not above the law – so long as he doesn’t get caught. He’s never been victimized – he’s been ‘done wrong’. He doesn’t know about passionate lovemaking – it’s raw sex and the tender afterglow. He’s proud of his guns – it does a guy good to truck it out to the Florida scrub and shoot a few rounds.
He worries about what the future holds for his kids, more nowadays than ever. He wants them to have a better life than himself. College? The best he can do is make sure they graduate from high school. After that, hard knocks build character.
He worked for The Boss Man whose ethic was more about getting the job done in the least amount of time than it was about quality. Boy, he’d be running his own business right now, doing it right. But the economy sank. So did his chances of getting a small business loan.
He’s a couch potato but with a six-pack by his side, and a couple more in the fridge, his goal is to become a smashed potatohead. A good chugfest helps drown out the sorrows of “What life’s done to me?”
He smokes, weed included. Other drugs? Hard liquor beats hard drugs any time of the day. The meds meant to dull the down-to-the-bones pains of years of backbreaking work are now the only guaranteed source of income. The return on the dollar is too good to pass up. He’s an entrepreneur, a believer in supply and demand.
Football is the only sport and the rest are for pansies. Except for Jordan, Shaq, Bonds, Jeter and maybe A-Rod when he’s got his act together. Skin color doesn’t matter in sports.
He’s a can-do person. He can do this and he can do that but an occasional do-it-yourself job gets screwed up. Who does he call? His buddy. Between the two of ‘em they get it done – the best example of bipartisanship.
A dog’s best friend is his master. A man’s best friend? You guessed it – his guns. The right to bear arms is the only protector of The Constitution – the symbol of freedom that guarantees life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and free speech. And justice for all.
White isn’t the flag of surrender. It’s a dare to come and get me and I’ll beat the crap out of ya!
Call it male chauvinism but a woman’s place is in the home. Cleaning, cooking, caring for the kids – those are her responsibilities. But he can’t get over the fact that he hasn’t been able to find a job in weeks, months, perhaps a year or more. So the little woman has to take on a job to help make ends meet. And that’s not right! Although he might not know it was Truman who said it first, but out of anguish for the plight he’s in, he howls, “I’m mad as Hell.”
And who’s he mad at? Those dirty, rotten, scoundrel, scandalous politicians, that’s who! Democrats are for the working man. Republicans are for gun rights. But their all a bunch of self-serving ego-headed maniacs that spend more time listening to bankers, lawyers, CEOs and who knows who else rather than the people who gave them their jobs and pay their salaries through taxes. Taxation with mispresentation, that’s what it is!
The Tea Party people seemed to have a certain down to earth appeal about ‘em but then he saw the SUVs, RVs and hybrid cars and there’s not a one of ‘em that looks like they’ve ever put in a back-breaking day of work in their lives as he has.
They’re the disgruntled. They’re middle class and he’s not. The recession to them is a depression to him. They’re fed up with the politicians in Washington but they’re being herded up just like every other American.
He displays the colors of patriotism day in, day out. His body is burned red from working endless days in the scorching sun. He’s forever in blue jeans. During the day his shirt is soiled from sweat and dust, dirt and grime from a hard day’s work, but when he’s all cleaned up, feeling good and accomplished, he dons a fresh, clean white T-shirt. You can’t get much more Americana than that!
So, what’s he thinkin’? A T-shirt Party would best represent him. Damn right!
And if that doesn't work out, how about a Wet T-shirt Party! Sarah Palin for President!
(Note: The content of this column has been edited. Add a couple hundred more words – they all start with the letter “F”.)
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Foreign Entitlement
At first glance, the article appeared to be an advertisement but, as I saw no disclosure to that affect, I began reading what portends to be an alarming realization that future trends in globalization bids farewell to highly technical jobs in the United States.
As it turned out, the ‘article’ in The Wall Street Journal was written by two esteemed professionals, Kannan Srikanth (Indian School of Business, assistant professor of strategy) and Phanish Puranam (London Business School, professor of strategic and international management) which I interpreted as a soft-shell approach to hard-sell an idea with the headline ‘Advice for Outsourcers: Think Bigger’ and a sub-headline that read, ‘Too many companies mistakenly limit offshore work to routine tasks’.
To sum it up, five questioned were asked of the corporate reader if their offshore business operations are hindered by poor performance, communication problems with onshore enterprises, and differences in education and training, but the nutshell was cracked and the meat of the ‘thesis’ was exposed with question #5, ‘Would it benefit you to be able to move more intellectually complex work offshore?’
Now, doesn’t that just beat all? Not at all. The ‘essay’ provided a link to a podcast where Jennifer Merritt, WSJ Career Journal Editor, interviewed Dr. Srikanth in a discussion emphasizing the advantages of widening the scope of offshore jobs to include highly educated professionals in organic and process chemistries, computer chip design, engineering design, risk evaluation, pharmaceuticals and other well-paid professionals with a disclaimer that such a strategy “would not necessarily result in cost-savings” – an unlikely claim.
Big business corporations in the U.S. and Western Europe were specifically identified as beneficiaries of the expansion of outsourcing jobs to workers not only in India, but also China. The domino effect will also lead to lay-offs of executive positions in the U.S. Take heed that these are highly paid jobs and, once their gone, they’re virtually lost forever with no strategic means to replace them with other well-paying jobs, the loss of which will cost the U.S. billions of dollars in personal taxable income.
The interview came to a climax with Ms. Merritt feeding a question to Dr. Srikanth that was poised to bring to attention concerted efforts to entice natural born citizens of India to bring their Western-educated talents back to the homeland.
Let me twist this dialogue in another direction and piece together what globalization means to America’s future.
The near collapse of financial conglomerate AIG was largely caused by credit-default swaps that were questionably sold as insurance, a small degree of which was executed by Alico, an affiliate insurance unit based in Delaware. The main perpetrator was AIG Financial Products in London, the disintegration of which led to the biggest bailout in American history.
There is no doubt that globalization has intertwined American corporate interests over and above our sovereignty. A third of all sales and nearly 40% of the profits of major American companies come from abroad. Spot-check: During the ‘80s and ‘90s approximately 50% of foreign shares were in foreign investments compared to 90% today. Therefore, American corporations, directly or indirectly, are dependent on profits from foreign interests.
The impact of these facts will have major implications on the election of our lawmakers. Money talks and the free speech given to corporations by the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs the FEC will allow corporations the means to bankroll election campaigns with their vast amounts of money.
If alive today, our Founding Fathers would once again incite American patriots to bear arms and challenge the Supreme Court decision. The crafters of the Constitution fought and died to guarantee the rights and freedoms of all men and in no way intended to give corporations the rights to spend freely their caches of funds to dominate election campaigns to brainwash the electorate to put in office lawmakers who will to some degree give corporate interests the wherewithal to denigrate the inherent rights bestowed upon American citizens.
As opined in the WSJ, “The president’s claim about ‘foreign entities’ bankrolling U.S. political campaigns is also false, since the Court did not overrule laws limiting such contributions.” Consider the fact that the WSJ is owned by News Corporation which also owns Dow Jones, whose industrial averages are purveyors of international monetary demagoguery.
My conclusion, and possibly yours, is that American corporations will take into consideration their foreign interests and greatly influence voters to elect lawmakers who will, in turn, cast their legislative votes in favor of their international interests.
The impact of the Supreme Court ruling will have on state and local issues has yet to be thrashed out. Micro-politicking is sure to be of particular interest.
As it turned out, the ‘article’ in The Wall Street Journal was written by two esteemed professionals, Kannan Srikanth (Indian School of Business, assistant professor of strategy) and Phanish Puranam (London Business School, professor of strategic and international management) which I interpreted as a soft-shell approach to hard-sell an idea with the headline ‘Advice for Outsourcers: Think Bigger’ and a sub-headline that read, ‘Too many companies mistakenly limit offshore work to routine tasks’.
To sum it up, five questioned were asked of the corporate reader if their offshore business operations are hindered by poor performance, communication problems with onshore enterprises, and differences in education and training, but the nutshell was cracked and the meat of the ‘thesis’ was exposed with question #5, ‘Would it benefit you to be able to move more intellectually complex work offshore?’
Now, doesn’t that just beat all? Not at all. The ‘essay’ provided a link to a podcast where Jennifer Merritt, WSJ Career Journal Editor, interviewed Dr. Srikanth in a discussion emphasizing the advantages of widening the scope of offshore jobs to include highly educated professionals in organic and process chemistries, computer chip design, engineering design, risk evaluation, pharmaceuticals and other well-paid professionals with a disclaimer that such a strategy “would not necessarily result in cost-savings” – an unlikely claim.
Big business corporations in the U.S. and Western Europe were specifically identified as beneficiaries of the expansion of outsourcing jobs to workers not only in India, but also China. The domino effect will also lead to lay-offs of executive positions in the U.S. Take heed that these are highly paid jobs and, once their gone, they’re virtually lost forever with no strategic means to replace them with other well-paying jobs, the loss of which will cost the U.S. billions of dollars in personal taxable income.
The interview came to a climax with Ms. Merritt feeding a question to Dr. Srikanth that was poised to bring to attention concerted efforts to entice natural born citizens of India to bring their Western-educated talents back to the homeland.
Let me twist this dialogue in another direction and piece together what globalization means to America’s future.
The near collapse of financial conglomerate AIG was largely caused by credit-default swaps that were questionably sold as insurance, a small degree of which was executed by Alico, an affiliate insurance unit based in Delaware. The main perpetrator was AIG Financial Products in London, the disintegration of which led to the biggest bailout in American history.
There is no doubt that globalization has intertwined American corporate interests over and above our sovereignty. A third of all sales and nearly 40% of the profits of major American companies come from abroad. Spot-check: During the ‘80s and ‘90s approximately 50% of foreign shares were in foreign investments compared to 90% today. Therefore, American corporations, directly or indirectly, are dependent on profits from foreign interests.
The impact of these facts will have major implications on the election of our lawmakers. Money talks and the free speech given to corporations by the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs the FEC will allow corporations the means to bankroll election campaigns with their vast amounts of money.
If alive today, our Founding Fathers would once again incite American patriots to bear arms and challenge the Supreme Court decision. The crafters of the Constitution fought and died to guarantee the rights and freedoms of all men and in no way intended to give corporations the rights to spend freely their caches of funds to dominate election campaigns to brainwash the electorate to put in office lawmakers who will to some degree give corporate interests the wherewithal to denigrate the inherent rights bestowed upon American citizens.
As opined in the WSJ, “The president’s claim about ‘foreign entities’ bankrolling U.S. political campaigns is also false, since the Court did not overrule laws limiting such contributions.” Consider the fact that the WSJ is owned by News Corporation which also owns Dow Jones, whose industrial averages are purveyors of international monetary demagoguery.
My conclusion, and possibly yours, is that American corporations will take into consideration their foreign interests and greatly influence voters to elect lawmakers who will, in turn, cast their legislative votes in favor of their international interests.
The impact of the Supreme Court ruling will have on state and local issues has yet to be thrashed out. Micro-politicking is sure to be of particular interest.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
We've Been Had By The Supreme Beings
Of the $1.4B in campaign funds in the 2008 General Election, which nearly doubled 2004 figures, and covering all political parties in the House and Senate races, $404M came from Political Action Committees and $800M from individual donations, a two-to-one ratio. In the Presidential race, individual donations were $1.4B of the total $1.8B.
The deduction? PACs know their funds are best spent supporting elected officials who have the ultimate power to pass into law legislation that will have an impact on their interests. The influence of the all-mighty dollar at its best.
Data released January 27 by the Federal Election Commission shows nearly $450M has been accumulated for this year’s Midterm Elections among both Democrats and Republicans, new candidates and incumbents inclusive, of which $130M has come from Political Action Committees while individual donations total $275M.
But the recent Supreme Court decision on United Citizens vs the Federal Election Commission will no doubt turn on the spigots of corporate campaign financing, inflicting upon American voters a flurry of lies, half-truths and misrepresentations of candidates and ballot initiatives. And, in spite of the state of the economy, in this election year there will be beaucoup bucks thrown here, there and everywhere the politicians go. Contributions are still regulated (for now) but given the freedom for corporations to ‘speak’ as they will in any venue not resolve the grievous financial plights of American taxpayer.
2009 was totally wasted. Misdirected stimulus funds. Failure to focus on job creation. An inept, disruptive Congress. The redistribution of wealth from the Treasury to Wall Street. And health care reform that has turned the political arena into a self-interest free-for-all. States demanding exemptions, pharmaceutical companies muscling down attempts to contain rising costs, insurance companies refusing to give up even a smattering of their fortunes, and labor unions given exclusive concessions that sidestepped the concessions – all contributed to blocking any chance at health care reform.
Because of mistrust, confusion and worries about the economy, as never before we’ve heard more and more about moderates, centrists, liberals, conservatives and, fresh out of the political coffee pot, comes another breed of political activists, tea party-goers. Our structured democratic state has gone helter-skelter. Because of this myriad of opposing factions within both parties, the Midterm Elections are unpredictable. Corporate maneuvering has been set up to be the determining factor in many Congressional races.
The New York Times called the Court decision “a broad interpretation of free speech rights.”
President Obama said “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” And we all snickered at the posturing of the polished politician.
The Court’s decision played along party lines – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia – all appointed by Republican Presidents and the majority vote. They outnumbered Democrat-appointed Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975 and the senior member who’s gotten much wiser in his old age with 35 years on the bench. He wrote, “The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind,” Justice Stevens wrote. “And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.”
Lawrence Noble, who serves as general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, speculated corporations can, in essence, threaten, “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you – whichever one you want.” This interpretation is right on the money and suggests that any amount can make or break a candidate’s bid for political office.
Another Republican-appointee from the Reagan era, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, had a different take on the impact of the Supreme Court decision on Citizen United vs. Federal Election Commission. Referring to the June, 2009, ruling in Caperton vs. Massy, the Supreme Court ruled West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself from hearing a case where he had voted twice in favor of overturning a $50M decision against the owner of a business who had donated $3M to his campaign to defeat an incumbent. It was the first time the Court had ruled that judges elected to state courts can be required to step down from hearing cases if one party made major contributions to their elected campaigns. O’Connor said that between the two cases it “should be a warning to states that still choose their judges by popular election.” In other words, last week’s decision creates “an increasing problem for maintaining an independent judiciary.”
Looking forward, does this mean that large banking institutions, investors, mortgage lenders – in short, Wall Street – will effectively take on, and manipulate, any financial reform tactics proposed by the Obama Administration? Count on it.
In the Court decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials.”
As The Tampa Tribune opined, “… the ruling affirmed free speech and acknowledged voters can think for themselves.” But voters are easily duped when flashy pictures appear before their eyes and fancy words and sounds fill their minds. Campaign infomercials may decide the upcoming elections.
Money is no object when corporations are given the means to influence American voters. Face it, the Supreme Court sold out America and its citizens to corporate interests in the grandest of all mergers and acquisitions. We, the people, have been had by the supreme beings.
The deduction? PACs know their funds are best spent supporting elected officials who have the ultimate power to pass into law legislation that will have an impact on their interests. The influence of the all-mighty dollar at its best.
Data released January 27 by the Federal Election Commission shows nearly $450M has been accumulated for this year’s Midterm Elections among both Democrats and Republicans, new candidates and incumbents inclusive, of which $130M has come from Political Action Committees while individual donations total $275M.
But the recent Supreme Court decision on United Citizens vs the Federal Election Commission will no doubt turn on the spigots of corporate campaign financing, inflicting upon American voters a flurry of lies, half-truths and misrepresentations of candidates and ballot initiatives. And, in spite of the state of the economy, in this election year there will be beaucoup bucks thrown here, there and everywhere the politicians go. Contributions are still regulated (for now) but given the freedom for corporations to ‘speak’ as they will in any venue not resolve the grievous financial plights of American taxpayer.
2009 was totally wasted. Misdirected stimulus funds. Failure to focus on job creation. An inept, disruptive Congress. The redistribution of wealth from the Treasury to Wall Street. And health care reform that has turned the political arena into a self-interest free-for-all. States demanding exemptions, pharmaceutical companies muscling down attempts to contain rising costs, insurance companies refusing to give up even a smattering of their fortunes, and labor unions given exclusive concessions that sidestepped the concessions – all contributed to blocking any chance at health care reform.
Because of mistrust, confusion and worries about the economy, as never before we’ve heard more and more about moderates, centrists, liberals, conservatives and, fresh out of the political coffee pot, comes another breed of political activists, tea party-goers. Our structured democratic state has gone helter-skelter. Because of this myriad of opposing factions within both parties, the Midterm Elections are unpredictable. Corporate maneuvering has been set up to be the determining factor in many Congressional races.
The New York Times called the Court decision “a broad interpretation of free speech rights.”
President Obama said “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” And we all snickered at the posturing of the polished politician.
The Court’s decision played along party lines – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia – all appointed by Republican Presidents and the majority vote. They outnumbered Democrat-appointed Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975 and the senior member who’s gotten much wiser in his old age with 35 years on the bench. He wrote, “The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind,” Justice Stevens wrote. “And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.”
Lawrence Noble, who serves as general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, speculated corporations can, in essence, threaten, “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you – whichever one you want.” This interpretation is right on the money and suggests that any amount can make or break a candidate’s bid for political office.
Another Republican-appointee from the Reagan era, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, had a different take on the impact of the Supreme Court decision on Citizen United vs. Federal Election Commission. Referring to the June, 2009, ruling in Caperton vs. Massy, the Supreme Court ruled West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself from hearing a case where he had voted twice in favor of overturning a $50M decision against the owner of a business who had donated $3M to his campaign to defeat an incumbent. It was the first time the Court had ruled that judges elected to state courts can be required to step down from hearing cases if one party made major contributions to their elected campaigns. O’Connor said that between the two cases it “should be a warning to states that still choose their judges by popular election.” In other words, last week’s decision creates “an increasing problem for maintaining an independent judiciary.”
Looking forward, does this mean that large banking institutions, investors, mortgage lenders – in short, Wall Street – will effectively take on, and manipulate, any financial reform tactics proposed by the Obama Administration? Count on it.
In the Court decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials.”
As The Tampa Tribune opined, “… the ruling affirmed free speech and acknowledged voters can think for themselves.” But voters are easily duped when flashy pictures appear before their eyes and fancy words and sounds fill their minds. Campaign infomercials may decide the upcoming elections.
Money is no object when corporations are given the means to influence American voters. Face it, the Supreme Court sold out America and its citizens to corporate interests in the grandest of all mergers and acquisitions. We, the people, have been had by the supreme beings.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)