Americans have a choice to uphold justice under the US Constitution, honor unalienable rights, and reject Orwellian unlawful orders that kill in the millions, harm billions, and loot trillions of Americans’ dollars (full documentation here).
This choice is for all Americans, and with focused interest on those serving the 99% in US military and various expressions of law enforcement because they have authority to end the unlawful wars and arrest the 1% criminals.
The other choice is to obey “emperor has no clothes” obvious unlawful arms to commit egregious crimes, destroy the US Constitution’s rights, and support dictatorial government.
The 1%’s crimes center in war and money. The criminals, as always in history, center in government, banking, and media. Massive government crimes of oligarchy must have all three areas in their control in order to make so-called “laws” and order their enforcement, literally “make” money to pay their minions, and lie to the 99% to hide their crimes.
If US military, police, and various law enforcement agents make the choice for virtue rather than psychopathic and vicious domination of the 99% by a 1% and minions, this 2nd American Revolution will simply affirm what was won in the first American Revolution and our US Constitution. That is:
unlawful Wars of Aggression will be seen as such, with those “leaders” violating those crystal-clear limits arrested for War Crimes.
Wall Street and bankster looting in the trillions will be recognized, with subsequent arrests for massive criminal economic fraud.
corporate media “leadership” will be recognized for lying in omission and commission that helped cause millions of war-murders and trillions of costs.
For years, colleagues and I have offered the 1% Truth and Reconciliation in exchange for their surrender. The 1% have so far rejected that choice.
But Bill Black Demolishes Dimon’s Fake PR Campaign
Jamie Dimon told Meet the Press:
We support getting rid of “too big to fail.” And it’s very important that—and this is not—this is a—not going to even remotely—we’re going to make money, we’ve got tons of capital. But we support “too big to fail.” We want the government to be able to take down a big bank like JPMorgan, and it can be done. We think Dodd-Frank, which we supported parts of, gave the FDIC the authority to take down a big bank, and when it happens, I believe compensation should be clawed back, the board should be fired, the equity should be wiped out, and the bank should be dismantled, and the name should be buried in disgrace. That’s what I believe. We need to put that back in the system, and we’ll work with the regulators to try to get that back in the system.
Moreover, Bill Black (professor of economics and law and former chief S&L regulator) responds to Dimon’s statement by making a very important point:
You can’t have a system work the way he is saying. So, if the institution is allowed to stay this large, it will be too big to fail, and its creditors will be bailed out. And that’s to prevent what is feared to be a cascade of failures, in which one big bank would then cause the failure of the next big bank, etc., etc., and you would have a global crisis. So, allowing them to be this big, even conservative economists call this crony capitalism, and they say that it creates such competitive advantage in it for the systemically dangerous institution—JPMorgan in this case—that it is the equivalent, when they compete with smaller banks, of — and I’m quoting — “bringing a gun to a knife fight.”
So the only way this can work is to shrink the systemically dangerous institutions—this is the 20 largest banks in the United States—down to the point that they no longer pose a systemic risk, they are no longer too big to fail, and therefore, they will no longer have this implicit federal subsidy that completely distorts competition. And, of course, we’re not just talking about destroying market systems; this also destroys democracy, because these giant institutions have so much political power. And lastly, the statement is completely disingenuous because JPMorgan in fact opposes all efforts to get rid of “too big to fail.”
Now, former senior S&L prosecutor – and current professor of economics and law – Bill Black provides a succinct and memorable take-down of the faux hedges:
The claim from out of JPMorgan is nobody was looking very carefully at the supposed hedge, and the hedge didn’t perform to offset losses, instead it increased the losses and increased the losses dramatically. And supposedly, no one was looking, and no one adjusted for this. And they woke up, and they had a $2 billion loss. So that’s the story from JPMorgan [which] doesn’t make sense.
***
If you have distressed European debt [the underlying asset holding that Dimon against which JPM's so-called "hedge" was made], you’re supposed to have already reserved against the losses in it. So, why hedge the position at all? Just sell it. Get rid of these incredibly risky assets before they can suffer any additional losses. If you’ve already got loss reserves, you don’t even have to recognize a loss, because you’ve already reserved for it. So, you shouldn’t have had to hedge, period.
Second, if you were going to hedge, he should have hedged. And the way you would hedge something like this is to buy a credit default swap protection against the bad assets. That would hedge. In other words, if you lost on the value of the European debt, the credit default swap would go up in value, and you would be protected against loss. Instead, they have allegedly bet in the opposite direction by buying this derivative of a derivative. If the European debt lost value, the derivative of the derivative was also likely to lose value. Well, that’s not a hedge. That’s a double speculation in the same direction. You’re doubling down on the bet.
And the reason you’re calling it a hedge is because it’s illegal, under the Volcker Rule, to speculate in this fashion. So the story coming out of JPMorgan doesn’t make any sense as a financial matter. It seems reasonably clear that this is faux hedges. This is, you know, to hedging like truthiness is to truth. So this is hedginess: not really a hedge, but you call it a hedge to evade the law.
***
Even when the Volcker Rule was adopted, over their opposition and over the opposition of the Federal Reserve and of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who remains true to his former boss, Jamie Dimon, after that, they gutted the rule—at least the draft rule to implement the Volcker Rule. And unless it is changed, the Volcker Rule will be essentially unenforceable, because you’re allowed, under the current draft, to simply call something a hedge, even though it operates in the exact opposite of a hedge. And voilà, this hedginess is OK, and the losses just mount up and produce the next disaster.
The Avengershas earned over $1 billion in ticket sales; this colossal amount of money communicates that the story inspires the hero in all of us.
Americans can direct their heroism here:
Because of the tremendous sacrifices of all our families through two world wars, the US authored war law into treaty status; US “Supreme Law” in Article 6 of the US Constitution. War law is crystal-clear: a nation can never use its military in armed attack unless another nation’s government attacks first. This means the US armed attacks/wars on all current nations are unlawful Wars of Aggression, the worst crime a nation can commit.
The US has $4 – $6 trillion in long-term costs for its wars since 2001; a daily average cost of ~$1 billion to $1.6 billion. This costs the average US household of $50,000/year income a sum of $40 – $60,000 (if your household earns multiples of $50,000/year, you can do the math for your family’s share). These are only the US costs; damages to those we attacked are multiples of our costs.
Americans can avenge the millions killed, billions hurt, and trillions of our dollars looted for this evil.
While politicians, insiders and experts may be divided over how much the government should spend on the nation’s defense, there’s a surprising consensus among the public about what should be done: They want to cut spending far more deeply than either the Obama administration or the Republicans.
***
According to the survey, in which respondents were told about the size of the budget as well as shown expert arguments for and against spending cuts, two-thirds of Republicans and nine in 10 Democrats supported making immediate cuts — a position at odds with the leaderships of both political parties.
The average total cut was around $103 billion, a substantial portion of the current $562 billion base defense budget, while the majority supported cutting it at least $83 billion. These amounts both exceed a threatened cut of $55 billion at the end of this year under so-called “sequestration” legislation passed in 2011, which Pentagon officials and lawmakers alike have claimed would be devastating.
“When Americans look at the amount of defense spending compared to spending on other programs, they see defense as the one that should take a substantial hit to reduce the deficit,” said Steven Kull, director of the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), and the lead developer of the survey. “Clearly the polarization that you are seeing on the floor of the Congress is not reflective of the American people.”
A broad disagreement with the Obama administration’s current spending approach — keeping the defense budget mostly level — was shared by 75 percent of men and 78 percent of women, all of whom instead backed immediate cuts. That view was also shared by at least 69 percent of every one of four age groups from 18 to 60 and older, although those aged 29 and below expressed much higher support, at 92 percent.
Disagreement with the Obama administration’s continued spending on the war in Afghanistan was particularly intense, with 85 percent of respondents expressing support for a statement that said in part, “it is time for the Afghan people to manage their own country and for us to bring our troops home.” A majority of respondents backed an immediate cut, on average, of $38 billion in the war’s existing $88 billion budget, or around 43 percent.
***
When it comes to military forces, respondents on average favored at least a 27 percent cut in spending on nuclear arms — the largest proportional cut of any in the survey. They also supported, on average, a 23 percent cut for ground forces, a 17 percent cut for air power and a 14 percent cut for missile defenses. Modest majorities also said they favored dumping some major individual weapons programs, including the costly F-35 jet fighter, a new long-range strategic bomber, and construction of a new aircraft carrier.
“Surveyed Americans cut to considerably deeper levels than policymakers are willing to support in an election season,” said Matthew Leatherman, an analyst with the Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense Project at the Stimson Center, a nonprofit research and policy analysis organization that helped develop the survey.
While Republicans generally favored smaller cuts, they overwhelmingly agreed with both independents and Democrats that current military budgets are too large. A majority of Republicans diverged only on cutting spending for special forces, missile defenses, and new ground force capabilities.
***
In one exercise, a larger group chose to cut the defense budget (62 percent supported this) than to cut non-defense spending (50 percent) or to raise taxes (27 percent). They then chose to cut deeply as a means to address the deficit.
But as Bloomberg reported this week, Congress has a different agenda:
The U.S. House voted to cut food stamps, federal workers’ benefits and other domestic programs to avoid scheduled reductions in defense spending.
***
Democrats lined up against the measure, H.R. 5652, saying it would put too much of the deficit burden on the needy. The proposal goes to the Democratic-controlled Senate, where it is doomed to failure.
***
The automatic spending reductions set to begin in January are triggered by the so-called supercommittee’s failure last year to come up with a plan to reduce the $1.2 trillion federal budget deficit. About $55 billion would be subtracted next year from the Pentagon budget, with an equal amount coming from non- defense programs.
***
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters today he opposes the House measure even though it sought to protect defense spending, because “it’s not balanced, it’s not fair and ultimately the Senate isn’t going to accept it either.” [If Panetta's position surprises you, remember that the top U.S. military and intelligence leaders say that debt is the main threat to our national security.]
***
The … plan would reduce spending by about $310 billion over a decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It would cut off food stamps to 1.8 million Americans, according to CBO, while reducing aid to millions more. About 280,000 children who receive food stamps would no longer be automatically eligible for free school lunches, CBO said.
***
The measure would make it easier for state governments to cut enrollment in Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, and eliminate Social Services Block Grants, which fund programs such as “Meals on Wheels.”
***
Other provisions would reduce funding for the administration’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, tighten medical malpractice laws and reduce Medicaid payments to Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories.
iWatchnews also notes:
Despite the public’s distance from Obama’s defense budget, the survey disclosed an even larger gap between majority views and proposals by House Republicans this week to add $3 billion for an extra naval destroyer, a new submarine, more missile defenses, and some weapons systems the Pentagon has proposed to cancel. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has similarly endorsed a significant rise in defense spending.
Before we can understand what’s really going on with JP Morgan’s loss (which will probably end up being a lot more than $2 billion), we need a little background.
Has had large potential exposures to credit default swap losses for years
Has replaced the chief investment officer who made the risky bets with a trader who worked at Long Term Capital Management … which committed suicide by making risky bets
Is a Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is the chief bank regulator for Wall Street (including JPM). Indeed, Dimon served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the same time that his bank received emergency loans from the Fed and was used by the Fed as a clearing bank for the Fed’s emergency lending programs. In 2008, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns. At the time, Dimon persuaded the Fed to provide JP Morgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. He also convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired this troubled investment bank
Has a reputation of being the “golden boy” and smartest guy on Wall Street
Jokes about a new financial crisis happening “every five to seven years”
What Does It Mean?
Pundits and consumers alike are reacting to JP Morgan’s loss like a startled herd of sheep.
They somehow believed that the “best of the breed” bank and CEO – the biggest boy on the block – was immune from losses. Especially since JPM has been so favored by the Feds, and the government likes Dimon so much that he was being groomed for Secretary of Treasury.
And the fact that the head cheerleader for letting banks police themselves has egg on his face is making a lot of people nervous.
And that the biggest of the too big to fails could conceivably fail.
Someone at the Fed should have at least secondary accountability for the JPM losses if the VaR model/process was faulty. Is there any accountability for incompetent, badly managed federal bank regulators? As our colleague Janet Tavakoli wrote in the Huffington Post: “The U.S. can count on JPMorgan to continue both long and short market manipulation and take its winnings and losses from blind gambles. Shareholders, taxpayers, and consumers will foot the bill for any unpleasant global consequences.”
We think that the loss by JPM is ultimately yet another legacy of the era of “laissez-faire” regulation and even overt Fed advocacy for the use of OTC derivatives by US banks. Fed officials such as Pat Parkinson, who retired as head of the Fed’s division of supervision and regulation in January, were effectively lobbyists for the large banks and their derivatives activities. It seems a little ridiculous for the same Fed officials who caused the problem over the years to now be tasked with investigating JPM, much less regulation of large bank dealings in OTC instruments.
JP Morgan Chase’s loss is the perhaps inevitable result of the interaction of two policies: too big to fail and zero interest rates.
***
Too big to fail, the de facto insurance provided by the U.S. to financial institutions so big their failure would be disastrous, provides JP Morgan and its peers with a material advantage in funding and as counterparties. Depositors see it as an advantage, as do bondholders and other lenders. That leaves TBTF banks flush with cash.
At the same time, ultra-low interest rates make the traditional business of banks less attractive, naturally leading to a push to make money elsewhere. [See this.] With interest rates virtually nothing at the short end but not terribly higher three, five or even 10 years out, net interest margins, once the lifeblood of large money center banks, are disappointingly thin. Given that investors are rightly dubious about the quality of bank earnings, and thus unwilling to attach large equity market multiples to them, this puts even more pressure on managers to look elsewhere for profits.
Investors believe, rightly, that the largest banks won’t be allowed to fail; what they also appear to believe is that they very well may not be able to prosper and that to the extent they do shareholders won’t fairly participate.
What would you do if you had a built-in funding advantage but little demand for your services as a traditional lender, i.e., one which borrows short and lends long? If you are anything like JP Morgan Chase appears to be you will put some of that lovely liquidity to work in financial markets, hoping to turn a built-in advantage into revenue.
The Volcker Rule, now being shaped, is intended to stop such speculative trades, though in practice debating what is a hedge and what isn’t is a sort of angels-dancing-on-the-heads-of-pins argument which makes effective regulation almost impossible.
***
The keys are motive, opportunity and ability. Profits – and the investment office is reported to have made considerable ones in the past – provide a more believable motive than simple hedging. Opportunity is afforded by the combination of a privileged funding cost combined with poor alternative places to put money to work elsewhere in the banking business. While there may be some active borrowers, and TBTF banks enjoy an unfair advantage in serving their needs, the trans-Atlantic balance-sheet recession means households and businesses are showing a preference for paying back loans rather than taking them out.
Bruce Lee, chief credit officer of Fifth Third Bancorp, which isn’t TBTF, was frank about this recently, saying that the value of deposit funding was now at its lowest in his career.
Finally there is ability, and like common sense all bankers believe they have the ability to trade successfully despite the wealth of historical evidence to the contrary.
While events show clearly that JP Morgan wasn’t able to adequately manage its own business, an attack on it engaging in speculation doesn’t actually hinge on that.
There is clearly a public policy outrage here because should JP Morgan find itself in difficulties due to speculation the taxpayer will end up paying the freight. That’s probably not even the worst of it. All of the profits that TBTF banks make through speculation have been subsidized and enabled by the taxpayer. It is obvious that managers and employees have an incentive to take risks because, after all, TBTF may not be forever but they will capture 35 or 40 percent of the inflated takings so long as it lasts. Even if JP Morgan never blew up speculative trades, we should still oppose them so long as they are made possible and profitable by government policy.
Raising interest rates in order to remove an incentive to speculation probably wouldn’t work; low rates are the result of too much debt as well as a palliative for that disease.
The Volcker Rule won’t be effective; it is impossible to distinguish hedges from speculation and either can blow up banks.
The better alternative is to end the policy of too big to fail, preferably while at the same time forcing all banks out of the business of market speculation through a revival of the kind of Glass-Steagall-like policy which encouraged a small and useful financial sector for decades, forcing those that want government insurance to act like utilities, taking deposits, processing payments and making simple loans.
Let the investment banks take their risks, take their chances and suffer their losses – as separate entities.
However, Ron Paul supporters believe that – while he won’t be campaigning in the primary states – Paul is still in the race, and will be focusing on winning delegates in caucus states.
Ron Paul announced today in a letter to supporters that he will not campaign for the popular vote in states that have yet to held their primaries.
In his under-reported IDD strategy (“It’s the Delegates, Dummy”), Paul has focused on the fact that presidential nominees are chosen by delegates, not by popular vote. Paul’s campaign has focused to date especially on states that allow committed Republican Party members to have a greater voice in the process. States like Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Louisiana, Washington, and Colorado have been states where Paul supporters have made tremendous inroads in winning party leadership positions and being influential in the national delegate selection process. While many states have yet to finish the delegate selection process, it increasingly looks like Paul could dominate the nationwide delegate process called long ago in Romney’s favor.
Paul’s announcement today fits that same vein, but will no doubt surprise many of his supporters. Not only is Paul saying “It’s the Delegates Dummy” to Mitt Romney and the national media, he is taking it a step further and saying that spending his supporters’ money on winning the popular vote is of such little importance to the campaign that they aren’t going to waste time or money on that any longer.
Does that mean Paul has dropped out? Quit the race? Suspended his campaign? Packed his bags? Returned home to lil ole Lake Jackson, Texas? No, it means quite the opposite. It means that Paul will have more ability to focus on delegate selection instead of the many upcoming winner take all states.
As has been the case from January 3 – the night of the Iowa Caucus – this is a two man race. It’s Mitt Romney v. Ron Paul. Paul, the seasoned campaigner, will be on Romney’s heels through to the RNC in August. If Romney makes 1,144 delegates on the first ballot, Romney becomes the Republican nominee. If Romney slips, the man on his heels will gladly take his place. That’s been the story since Iowa and remains the story today. The decision remains in the hands of 2,286 Republican delegates, many of whom have yet to be chosen. Will it be more of the same or will it be the man who’s spent some 40 years standing on his principle against the GOP establishment both inside DC and out?
The following videos show that passionate Paul supporters believe that Paul is still in the race:
Is this wishful thinking by Paul supporters … or for real?
Certainly, the timing will strike Paul supporters as odd, given that Paul has picked up a huge number of delegates in recent weeks, and the fact is starting to be known that delegates pledged to Romney can switch their vote at will.
But mixed messages are coming out of the Paul camp … even as they claim that Paul is still in the race.
“We are absolutely not dropping out of this race! We are focusing our efforts squarely on winning delegates and party leadership positions at state conventions.”
- Jesse Benton, Campaign Chairman
Ron Paul announced today he would not be competing in the upcoming primary states, saying that he would focus, instead, on his delegate strategy. A strategy that is working, by the way, and transforming the Republican Party. It is something he has said many times since the February 11, 2012 caucus in Maine.
Only this time, the main stream media gave the announcement full attention and treated it like the end of his campaign. Drudge ran it as a front page headline “Ron Paul is out.”
***
For the last two years the national media has been saying that Ron Paul is out. So how could that possibly be news? One might ask, “When has the mainstream media ever thought that Ron Paul was in?”
Bracing for a Ron Paul win in Iowa, major new outlets last January announced that if he won, the Iowa Caucus, itself, would be discredited. According to the New York Times and the Associated Press, Ron Paul is still listed as the recipient of one, count em, one delegate from Iowa, a state that he now dominates.
Likewise, the fact that Ron Paul supporters took a big chunk of the delegation of Mitt Romney’s home state of Massachusetts was not big news.
***
By ending the primary battles, Ron Paul is signalling to the field that this is the end of hostilities. In primaries you end up tearing each other down. It is millions of dollars spent on negative advertising. In caucuses, as brutal as they may be, you change the Republican Party, you empower the new and challenge the established.
The delegate strategy is working. That is the way we will impact the platform in Tampa. That is the way we will begin the process of change. It is through the caucuses that we are attracting youth, like the twenty-one year old woman recently elected to the national committee from Maine or the Ron Paul Hispanics or the Independents who have never been involved in party politics.
***Our people have been punched, yelled at, lied to and worked until they can hardly stand. But on they come, fighting for their children, fighting for their future, angry at the corruption of the banks, of Wall Street, of the lobbyists, of the congress, of the White House. The battle for liberty is not over. It has just taken on a new phase. It cannot be stopped by the national media. If that were the case it would never have been born in the first place.
And some will say that it is a lost cause, which I will not concede but it does remind me of Clarence Darrow’s famous line, “Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for.”
Following US and UK “leaders” Obama and Cameron’s threats to war-murder Iranians under ongoing similar non-specific accusations, US corporate media now “reports” that an un-named alleged official from an un-named nation provided a generic drawing alleged to be from an Iran military base consistent with nuclear weapon development.
A generic search provided 8 million results from the initial AP “news”, such as this one, showing the extent of corporate media’s echo chamber.
The US waged unlawful war on Iran for 35 consecutive years with the overthrow of their democracy from 1953 to 1979, and then supported Iraq’s War of Aggression from 1980-1988 that war-murdered ~ one million Iranians.
US corporate media lies in omission of this history, then lie in omission that US war-murder threats are both criminal and ignore that all inspections find Iran’s treaty-guaranteed programs for nuclear energy and medical isotopes fully accountable. They lie in omission by failing to report that Iran is in compliance with all treaty terms, and that the US is in violation for not eliminating its nuclear arsenal per treaty terms. Corporate media also lie in omission (such as here) by not reporting that the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not have any authority to enter military bases. To make this last point clear, imagine if Iran demanded access to US military bases to prove what we know, the US has expanded technology and efficiency of their nuclear arsenal in Orwellian opposite of treaty terms. Would the US comply and US media demand such access?
Corporate media lie in commission by stating Iran’s president threatened Israel, when the crystal-clear content and context is stating Israel is wiping the Palestinians off the map.
US corporate media lie in omission that US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are in direct violation of war law and UN Security Council Resolutions, and that all “reasons” for those wars are disclosed by US government agency reports as known lies as they were told. This is immediate and vital history when considering the same actors’ rhetoric with a new war target.
We are NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, we are calling for the reinstatement of our government.
We are not calling for lawlessness. We are calling for an end to lawlessness and lack of accountability and a return to the rule of law.
Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, we are calling for its enforcement.
We are patriotic Americans born and raised in this country. We love the U.S. We don't seek to destroy or attack America ... we seek to restore her to strength, prosperity, liberty and respect.
We don't support or like Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any supporting groups. We think they are all disgusting.
The nation's top legal scholars say that draconian security laws which violate the Constitution should not apply to Americans.
Should you attempt to shut down this site or harass its authors, you are anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-American ... and undermining America's national security.
Copyright Notice
This site provides political commentary, education and parody protected by the fair use and My Lai/Zapruder exceptions to copyright law.
We are not copyright pirates. We do not seek to destroy all copyright law.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, and educational issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
