Showing posts with label fiscal irresponsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fiscal irresponsibility. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

US charges Fla. lawyer with $1B investment fraud

The hits just keep on coming:

US charges Fla. lawyer with racketeering, fraud in $1B investment scam over fake settlements

* By Curt Anderson, AP Legal Affairs Writer
* On 11:00 am EST, Tuesday December 1, 2009

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) -- A once high-flying attorney who courted politicians and celebrities was arrested Tuesday on federal racketeering and fraud charges alleging he operated a $1 billion investment scheme that used phony legal settlements.

Lawyer Scott Rothstein was led into the Miami FBI office in handcuffs following his early-morning arrest on five charges, including a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations or RICO law often used against the Mafia and other criminal organizations.

Alicia Valle, spokeswoman for the Miami U.S. attorney's office, said Rothstein was also charged with mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. The combined maximum prison term for convictions on all counts is 100 years, according to court documents.

Rothstein was scheduled to appear in federal court later Tuesday. A news conference by prosecutors, the FBI and Internal Revenue Service was also planned.

The type of charging document filed by prosecutors, known as an "information," is typically used when a defendant has already agreed to plead guilty. Rothstein's attorney Marc Nurick declined comment Tuesday.

The document cites unnamed "other conspirators" who also played key roles in the fraud, suggesting that more people could face charges. In addition, the document says that Rothstein paid "gratuities" to unidentified police officials "to deflect law enforcement scrutiny" of his activities.

The criminal case was seen as inevitable after Rothstein returned from Morocco early last month amid mounting questions from investors and the FBI about missing money. The FBI has estimated the Ponzi scheme could top $1 billion and asked investors to come forward with information.

Federal agents have seized Rothstein's boats, including an 87-foot yacht, as well as 20 luxury cars and numerous other assets, including his share of the Miami Beach mansion formerly owned by fashion designer Gianni Versace. Prosecutors are also going after 21 homes and other properties linked to Rothstein in Florida, New York and along Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay.

Meanwhile, the once fast-growing law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler is defunct and Rothstein has been disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court. Several investors have already filed lawsuits seeking their money back, including one case demanding more than $100 million in damages.

Rothstein promised huge returns on investments in legal settlements he said would pay out over time. Prosecutors say most of the settlements never existed and that Rothstein operated a Ponzi scheme, using money from new investors to pay older ones.

Shortly after the scandal broke, the Florida Democratic Party returned $200,000 in contributions from Rothstein and his law firm. The state Republican Party gave back $150,000, and Gov. Charlie Crist returned $9,600 that Rothstein and his wife, Kim, had donated to Crist's campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Rothstein's office is filled with photos of him with politicians from around the country, including former President George W. Bush, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Arizona Sen. John McCain and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was also close to Miami Dolphins great Dan Marino and many South Florida business and community leaders.


In other news...found a new blog - History Bytes, and I found a terrific number of postings. Try this one out for size.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The Lost Polanski Transcripts by Marcia Clark - TDB

Never give a scumbag an even break - that's my motto.

Before you read this piece, please step over to Snippits And Snappits and Meet The Dark Side Of Roman Polanski - a really good read - thanks, Noor!

The idea that Roman Polanski was done in by an unscrupulous judge is a myth. Marcia Clark studies the startling transcripts from his 1977 guilty plea.

Ever since he fled Los Angeles for Europe, Roman Polanski and his defenders have been putting out a story: he had to run because Judge Laurence Rittenband, after having promised not to impose any jail time past a 42-day psychiatric evaluation for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, had changed his mind and intended send him to state prison. It’s a myth.

How do I know this? From Roman Polanski.

“What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?” asked the prosecutor.

“It’s one to fifteen – twenty years in State Prison,” responded Polanski.

The transcript of Polanski’s August 8, 1977 courtroom guilty plea is one of the lengthiest, most thorough pleas I’ve ever seen. Reading it allows one to literally travel back in time to the Carter years, and hear all the players—Judge Rittenband, prosecutor Roger Gunson and, yes, Polanski—in their own exact words. No interpretations, no spin.

First, Gunson read out the litany of charges Polanski initially faced:

“Mr. Polanski, you are charged in Information A-334139 with the crimes of Furnishing Drugs to a Minor, Lewd or Lascivious Acts upon a Child under 14 year of Age, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, Rape by Use of Drugs, Perversion, and Sodomy, all felonies committed on or about March 10th, 1977.”

The single crime Polanski pled guilty to, unlawful sexual intercourse, was the lightest of the charges filed against him. But even so, because the victim was so young, the judge had the power to require Polanski to register as a sex offender, something Gunson was quick to remind the director.

Full coverage: The Polanski Scandal

Marcia Clark: Polanski’s Lost Alibi

Robert Goolrick: Polanski’s Victim and Me


“Mr. Polanski, because this offense involved a girl under the age of 14, it is mandatory that MDSO proceedings be instituted. MDSO means Mentally Disordered Sex Offender. If you are found to be an MDSO, you would have to register that fact with the law enforcement officer of the community in which you resided.”

Gunson then went on to ask: “….on March 10, 1977, the day you had sexual intercourse with the complaining witness, how old did you believe her to be?”

Polanski conferred with his lawyer and then answered: “She was 13.”

Gunson: “Did you understand that she was 13 on March 10, 1977, when you had sexual intercourse with her?”

Again, Polanski conferred with his lawyer, then answered: “Yes.”

So Polanski knew he faced the possibility of becoming a registered sex offender and admitted in open court that he was subject to that penalty because he knowingly had sexual contact with a girl who was 13 years old.

He also knew the sentence Polanski he was facing: “What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?” asked Gunson.

“It’s one to fifteen—twenty years in State Prison,” responded Polanski.

“Do you understand it is also possible that you could be placed on probation, with or without being required to serve up to one year in the County Jail?” the prosecutor next asked

“Yes,” responded Polanski.

Twenty years in prison—or zero. Felony with registration as a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender—or a misdemeanor with probation. Polanski knew the entire range of sentences he faced. And who did Polanski explicitly acknowledge had the sole power to decide which it would be? That’s what Gunson wanted to know:

“Mr. Polanski, who do you believe will decide what your sentence will be in this matter?”

Polanski: “The Judge.”

Polanski didn’t respond, so Gunson repeated this critical question: “Do you understand that the Judge has not made any decision?”

“Yes,” said Polanski.

Gunson next asked: “Who do you think will decide whether or not you will get probation?”

Polanski: “The Judge.”

Gunson: “Who do you think will determine whether the sentence will be a felony or a misdemeanor?”

Polanski: “The Judge.”

Gunson: “Do you understand that at this time, the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?”

Polanski didn’t respond, so Gunson repeated this critical question: “Do you understand that the Judge has not made any decision?”

“Yes,” said Polanski.

Could this be any clearer? This exchange proves unequivocally that no sentencing promises had been made and that the judge would decide what Polanski would get. Then Gunson made it clear that this would be no lay-down by the prosecution either:

“Mr. Polanski, do you understand that at the time of probation and sentencing, the prosecutor may argue that you should be sentenced to State Prison, or be incarcerated in the County Jail?”

Polanski: “Yes.”

Gunson then elicited from Polanski that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily, after full consultation as to all the possible consequences of his plea with his lawyer, which included the “possible sentences, the possible MDSO procedures, and the possible deportation.” Gunson then went on to state: “The District Attorney will make a motion to dismiss the remaining pending charges after sentencing. Other than that promise, has anyone made any promises to you, such as a lesser sentence or probation, or any reward? Immunity? A court recommendation to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or anything else, in order to get you to plead guilty?”

Polanski: “No.”

Gunson then asked Polanski’s lawyer, Douglas Dalton, whether he was aware of any promises made to his client that hadn’t been stated on the record in open court that day, and the attorney confirmed that there hadn’t been, and he consented to the plea. At that point, the Judge Rittenband stopped the proceedings just before Polanski entered his plea:

“I must advise the defendant, under section 1192.5 of the Penal code, that the approval of the Court to the plea is not binding on the Court; that the Court may, at the time set for hearing on the application for probation or pronouncement of judgment, withdraw its approval, in light of further consideration of the matter; and three, in such case, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw his plea, if he desires to do so. Now, Mr. Polanski—and the Court will also make a finding at this time that the plea was freely and voluntarily made, and that there is a factual basis for it. You may now proceed to take the plea.”

And so Gunson asked: “Mr. Polanski, to Count III of indictment number A-334139, which charges you with the commission of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse on March 10th, 1977, a felony, how do you plead?”

Polanski: “Guilty.”

Bottom line: Polanski’s story about getting sold a bill of goods so the judge could sell him down the river is bunk. Few defendants were ever more thoroughly warned of the sentence they faced and the power of the judge to impose it as Roman Polanski.

The next step was for Polanski to undergo psychological assessment by two psychiatrists to determine whether he was a MDSO—Mentally Disordered Sex Offender. At the same time, a probation report was prepared—routinely done prior to sentencing in all cases.

On September 19, 1977, court again convened. The psychiatrists both reported that Polanski was not an MDSO and no one argued to the contrary. So the judge agreed that he would not have to be registered as a sex offender, and they moved on to the sentencing.

Dalton, Polanski’s lawyer, started out conciliatory, stating “no reasonable person would stand here and argue to you that Mr. Polanski is entitled to any special consideration,” but that he shouldn’t be treated more harshly either, then went on to say:

“This particular offense doesn't have the connotation of rape. It's not even an offense, a criminal offense, in about 13 of our states and in many places of the world… this is a crime that's been committed by policemen; it's been committed by probation officers assigned to counsel girls at a detention school; it's a crime that's been committed by people that have a far higher trust to their victims than did Roman Polanski… I feel he is a criminal only by accident; and that there are many complex social and psychological factors that were involved in this situational event which otherwise was a complete departure from his normal mode of conduct.”

He’d come to rue those last words. When prosecutor, Roger Gunson stood up to speak, he put all the pieces together, giving a complete view of the case that has not, until now, been fully revealed. Gunson began by referring to the report of one the psychiatrists, one with a poor reputation among Los Angeles district attorneys, Dr. Alvin Davis:

“Doctor Davis seems to misunderstand the underlying circumstances, when he indicates that the offense occurred as an isolated instance of transient poor judgment and loss of normal inhibitions, in circumstances of intimacy and collaboration in creative work; and with some coincidental alcohol and drug intoxication.

He also indicates that the sexual activities occurred naturally and mutually.”

“Naturally and mutually.” A 44-year-old man who dopes, rapes and sodomizes a 13-year-old girl. Gurson went in for the kill:

“From the testimony at the Grand Jury and from the Grand Jury transcript, we know that not to be true. We know from the probation report that—from letters sent in that Mr. Polanski is of very high intelligence. One friend indicates that Mr. Polanski is almost a teetotaler. And we also have information in the probation report that Mr. Polanski has received a prescription for 150 milligram quaalude, for jet fatigue in his travels throughout the world. However, the evidence indicates that if Mr. Polanski is of high intelligence, and if he is next to a teetotaler, and if he was not a user of drugs, then why do we have a—the situation that we have in this case?”

Gurson’s implication: Polanski that Champagne so he could pour it down his victim’s throat? As for the 150 milligram Quaalude:

“And that's it: We have Mr. Polanski coming to the family, showing them an elaborate, slick paper magazine—Paris Vogue—with beautiful photographs of beautiful girls and scenery and background…. Mr. Polanski shows these articles and this issue of Paris Vogue to the family and asks if their daughter, the complaining witness, in this case, who he has been told is 13 years old, if she would like to be photographed for a future article in that same magazine. The family agrees, and Mr. Polanski comes back at a later time, and there is a photo session at that time….”

“In addition to that, there has been some indication that there is some blame to be put on the mother for allowing the daughter to go. However, it appears from the testimony at the Grand Jury—and also from the probation report—that the mother asked to go on that photo assignment, and it was Mr. Polanski who suggested and who indicated that the mother should not go, because it would—it might inhibit the girl in the photo session.”

So it wasn’t just a stage mom who said, “Sure, take my daughter.” This mom wanted to be there, and it’s a fair bet that mom would’ve “inhibited” her daughter right out of there the minute Polanski told her to take her shirt off.

“Mr. Polanski…furnished the champagne to the 13 year old girl. He also, at a later time that evening, produced parts of a quaalude tablet, a 300 milligram quaalude tablet, and offered that to the girl, and the girl took that quaalude tablet…. It does not appear that these are the normal job or work projects involved in photographing a 13 year old girl. This does not appear to be coincidental drugs and alcohol. This all indicates that this is more than a normal course of action, a situational event. It appears that it was almost planned.…your Honor, the People are requesting that Mr. Polanski be placed in custody for a violation of Section 261.5, the offense that he has pled guilty to.”

The defense attorney replied that Gunson was taking things out of context, and reminded the judge that the victim and her family were in favor of a probationary sentence. What followed from Judge Rittenband was less a statement about the Polanski case than how, even in 1977, the “she had it coming” attitude prevailed, even on the bench:

“The probation report discloses that although just short of her 14th birthday at the time of the offense, the prosecutrix was a well developed young girl who looked older than her years; and regrettably not unschooled in sexual matters. She has a 17 year old boyfriend, with whom she had sexual intercourse at least twice prior to the offense involved. The probation report further reveals that the prosecutrix was not unfamiliar with the drug quaalude, she having experimented with it as early as her tenth or eleventh year.”

None of that is relevant to whether the girl was raped. Nowadays, a judge wouldn’t say any of it. Some people still make that kind of judgment about a rape victim—but I call it some form of progress that we at least know that kind of thinking is wrong. And the judge goes on to say as much:

“However, although the prosecutrix was not an inexperienced and unsophisticated young girl, this of course was not a license to the defendant, a man of the world, in his forties, to engage in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with her… and it is no defense to such a charge that the female might not have resisted the act.”

Except of course, that she said she did resist. She testified to the Grand Jury: “I was ready to cry. I was kind of, I was going, ‘No. Come on, stop it.’ But I was afraid.” And being isolated up there at Jack Nicholson’s house, with no way home, how hard could she afford to fight? As she testified before the Grand Jury: “I was mostly just on and off saying ‘No, stop.’ But I wasn’t fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.”

Nevertheless, despite the ambivalence shown in these remarks, after taking a slap at the victim’s mom, the judge decided to send Polanski to prison for a 90 day diagnostic study:

“It is the judgment of this Court that the defendant be committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections at its prison facility in Chino, California, where he will be confined for a period of 90 days and undergo a diagnostic evaluation, pursuant to the provisions of 1203.03 of the Penal Code.”

That might have been the end of it, with Polanski in and out of jail in a few short months. But then Dalton asked to let him stay out and work on a film for three months before reporting to prison:

“Mr. Polanski is presently engaged as a director of a film that is being produced—this is a film that is budgeted for many millions of dollars and involves the services of literally hundreds of people.”

Wait. Wasn’t this the lawyer who argued Polanski shouldn’t be treated any differently than anyone else? Gunson countered: “That is a movie that the defendant has contracted to make after this offense.”

The judge agreed to give Polanski three months to get his movie up and running. But even then, whatever the lawyers may have thought, the judge foreshadowed a different agenda: “The request is for 90 days, and I assume that the defendant and his counsel were optimistic about the defendant just being given probation, and probably the contract was made on that assumption. However, it was miscalculated.”

In other words, Polanski had figured he’d get out of court with no time at all. Instead, he was ordered to report to prison for diagnostic on December 19, 1977. The lawyers, interviewed after the hearing, said they didn’t think Polanski would have to do any more time after the diagnostic. But there’s no question that the transcript show that no such promise was ever made in court, which is the only thing that counts.

Nevertheless, the lawyers might have been right if only Polanski had kept a low profile. Was that so much to ask? Apparently so.

On October 24, 1977, Polanski got photographed with his arms around yet another teenaged girl, Nastaji Kinski, in a bar during an Oktoberfest celebration in West Germany. Polanski was told there’d be no further extensions and he had to report to Chino State Prison on December 19, 1977.

Polanski did 42 days of diagnostic testing in Chino before being released on January 28, 1978. During that time, Judge Rittenband, viewing the photo with Kinski, had apparently come to feel that stint just wasn’t enough.

Polanski caught wind of the attitude shift. On February 1, 1978, the day of sentencing, Polanski’s lawyer stood up in court and said: “Your honor, I received a call from Mr. Polanski advising me he would not be here this morning.”

Or any morning after for the next 32 years.

Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.


In other news...Democratic Underground's Top Ten Conservative Idiots is stunning this week - give it a read.

A funny thing happened on the way to the G-20...


Will Hollywood risk their already flaky reputation for a guy who needs Quaaludes and champagne to bang a 13-year old? You be the judge.

Monday, August 3, 2009

The Entire Monetary System Is A Ponzi Scheme

From: Freedom is truth in action (397063550)
To: (443289640)
Date: 8/3/2009 11:17:06 AM
Subject: The Entire Monetary System is a Ponzi Scheme...

-..-..-------------- Bulletin Message -..-..---------------
From: Orwellian Bob (405851800)
To: (462124578)
Date: 8/3/2009 10:43:28 AM
Subject: Entire Monetary System is a Ponzi Scheme...


-........-........-........-------------- Bulletin Message -........-........---------------
From: ♪♫URiAH♫♪ (171649204)
To: (405851800)
Date: 7/27/2009 8:46:25 AM
Subject: Spitzer: Federal Reserve is ‘a Ponzi scheme, an inside job’


Spitzer: Federal Reserve is ‘a Ponzi scheme, an inside job’



By Daniel Tencer

Published: July 25, 2009
Updated 2 days ago

The Federal Reserve — the quasi-..​autonomous body that controls the US’s money supply — is a “Ponzi scheme” that created “bubble after bubble” in the US economy and needs to be held accountable for its actions, says Eliot Spitzer, the former governor and attorney-..​general of New York.

In a wide-ranging discussion of the bank bailouts on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan described the process by which the Federal Reserve exchanged $13.9 trillion of bad bank debt for cash that it gave to the struggling banks.

Spitzer — who built a reputation as “the Sheriff of Wall Street” for his zealous prosecutions of corporate crime as New York’s attorney-..​general and then resigned as the state’s governor over revelations he had paid for prostitutes — seemed to agree with Ratigan that the bank bailout amounts to “America’s greatest theft and cover-up ever.”

Advocating in favor of a House bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Spitzer said: “The Federal Reserve has benefited for decades from the notion that it is quasi-..​autonomous,​ it’s supposed to be independent. Let me tell you a dirty secret: The Fed has done an absolutely disastrous job since [former Fed Chairman] Paul Volcker left.

“The reality is the Fed has blown it. Time and time again, they blew it. Bubble after bubble, they failed to understand what they were doing to the economy.

“The most poignant example for me is the AIG bailout, where they gave tens of billions of dollars that went right through — conduit payments — to the investment banks that are now solvent. We [taxpayers] didn’t get stock in those banks, they didn’t ask what was going on — this begs and cries out for hard, tough examination.

“You look at the governing structure of the New York [Federal Reserve], it was run by the very banks that got the money. This is a Ponzi scheme, an inside job. It is outrageous, it is time for Congress to say enough of this. And to give them more power now is crazy.

“The Fed needs to be examined carefully.”

Spitzer resigned as governor of New York in March, 2008, after news reports stated he had paid for a $1,000-an-hour New York City call girl.

At the time, Spitzer had been raising the alarm about sub-prime mortgages. In the wake of the economic meltdown triggered last fall by sub-prime loans, some observers have suggested that Spitzer may have been targeted by law enforcement because of his high-profile opposition to Wall Street financial policies.

Investigative reporter Greg Palast wrote that federal agents’ revealing of Spitzer’s identity as a call-girl customer was no coincidence.

Palast wrote that the principle of “prosecutorial discretion” is often used to keep the names of high-profile persons out of the media when they are tangentially linked to a criminal investigation. In the case of Spitzer, the Justice Department chose not to invoke prosecutorial discretion.

Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.

Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.

Spitzer recently told Bloomberg News that President Obama’s regulatory reforms of the financial sector are “irrelevant” because regulatory agencies have not been enforcing corporate laws to begin with.

“Regulatory agencies already had the power to do everything they needed to do,” he said. “They just affirmatively chose not to do it.”

– Daniel Tencer

The following video was broadcast on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, Friday, July 24, 2009, and uploaded to YouTube July 25, 2009
:




http:​/​/rawstory.com/​08/news/2009/07/25/​spitzer-federal-reserve-is-​a-ponzi-scheme-an-​inside-​job/​

Thursday, July 23, 2009

N.J. Politicians, Rabbis Arrested In Federal Money Laundering Sweep - The Star-Ledger

Posted by cdelacru July 23, 2009 07:43AM

NEWARK -- Federal authorities arrested dozens of people today in New York and New Jersey as part of a money laundering and corruption sweep. Those arrested included several New Jersey public officials and rabbis.

The suspects are scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in Newark later today. Those arrested include Assembly Daniel Van Pelt (R-Ocean), Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano, Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell and Jersey City Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini, and Jersey City Council President Mariano Vega.
Reena Rose Sibayan/The Jersey JournalPeter J. Cammarano is sworn in as Hoboken's 37th mayor by United States District Court Judge Katharine S. Hayden, Wednesday, July 1. He is joined by his wife, Marita and daughter, Abigail.

Nearly 20 people, including Cammarano, Elwell, and Vega, have already been led into the FBI building in Newark to face the charges.
Town of Secaucus Municipal websiteDennis Elwell

Elwell, 64, and his council slate recently won victory in their contested Democratic June primary contests. Elwell garnered 56 percent of the vote in his contest against town attorney Peter Weiner.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

No Longer Alone...Ron Paul Fights The Fed! Wall Street Journal

No Longer Alone Ron Paul Fights the Fed! Wall Street Journal

Thanks to Uncle Sam (472250938) Darla 4 RON PAUL (73060206) & Dreamer (50584125)
No Longer Alone Ron Paul Fights the Fed!

Source
By Sudeep Reddy

Rep. Ron Paul usually stands far outside the mainstream in Congress, particularly in his campaign to kill the Federal Reserve. But the Texas Republican now has the bulk of his colleagues standing alongside him in a fight against the central bank’s autonomy.

His bill to audit the Fed, just three pages long, has 274 co-sponsors — every House Republican and almost 100 Democrats — and counting. “People are upset,” he says. “People are demanding more transparency of the Fed, and they’re supporting me on this.”

The longtime Fed critic would prefer an economy without a central bank, where the market sets interest rates and troubled firms are left to sink. He blames the Fed for the past century’s financial bubbles and worries about its ability to monetize debt to finance government spending, even though Fed officials insist they’d never allow it.

Mr. Paul sees transparency as a first step in making the public more aware of the Fed’s ability to electronically print money to support the banking system. The revelations from an audit will “expose to the American people exactly how the Federal Reserve operates,” he says. “Because when they fully understand how they operate, what they do, how they manipulate monetary policy and interest rates, they will finally figure out that it’s the Fed that has caused all the mischief.”

Most of the lawmakers who have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation don’t share Mr. Paul’s anti-Fed stance. They say Congress has an oversight role and needs a full accounting of how much money the Fed has lent — and to whom.

Some lawmakers signed up as an expression of disapproval after learning more about the Fed’s decisions to lend money to firms such as AIG. Many others say greater scrutiny is critical before any discussion of expanding the Fed’s authority in other areas, as the Obama administration proposes. “Bringing transparency and accountability to the Federal Reserve through an audit will help ensure that tax dollars are not wasted,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House’s top Republican.

Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, says none of the Depression-era lawmakers who gave the Fed its power to lend to non-financial institutions “ever thought it would involve trillions of dollars.” He said the Fed system’s unique structure, with private officials leading the regional Fed banks, also needs a review by congressional auditors. “Anyone exercising governmental power should be subjected to governmental oversight.”

Even lawmakers who are less eager to sign on acknowledge the momentum. If the Fed gets added responsibilities, “there wouldn’t be any question in my mind that a bill would be passed,” said Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a senior Democrat who has not taken a position on the legislation. “They would have to buy into much more regular audit control of the Fed.”

Mr. Paul recognizes that his movement to audit the central bank ultimately may help the Obama administration expand the Fed’s oversight role in the economy.

“I think what they’ll do is they’ll give in to some of the transparency at the same time they’ll give them more power,” Mr. Paul said. “We’re going to be bugging you a lot more. We’re going to be keeping eyes on you. That might be the way. Maybe inadvertently I’ll help them get more power at the Fed.”


I posted at the WSJ blog page, that if we do not nationalize the Federal reserve, we should all get ready to be paid in RICE.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Commemorate PNAC!‏ Buy Stuff!


All the NeoCONS got rich -- where's my take?

Celebrate the enduring genius of the "Plan For A New American Century"
with these affordable posters!

• Will probably become family heirloom, as your spawn pay off the debts racked up by the PNAC goons!
• Can be used as dartboard or voodoo fetish!
(you'll want more than one, as they're sure to wear out fast)!
• Two sizes: 16"x20" and 17"x11"
• All your favorite Neocons: Rumsfeld, Frum, Feith, Wolfowitz, Cheney,
Rove, Kristol, Wurmser, Bolton, Rice, Bush, Ledeen, Perle, Coulter!
• Support your starving Cartoonist – Forward, forward, forward!
(hey, it's the "new economy," I gotta hustle! These free-market ideologues owe me!)

• ORDER here from CafePress:
http://www.cafepress.com/traviskelly/6180856

16"x20" Small Poster -- $18.99 plus $5.00 shipping
View larger image here: http://www.traviskelly.com/cafe/PNAC_small.html

And don't forget to sign the petition - Free John O'Hara!

PNAC to me is "Poor Neutered Ass Clowns".

Here's the real legacy of PNAC:

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Make Your Voice Heard - VOTE!

Before I begin, I implore you to peruse my web pages of interest - many of the sites presented have provided me either directly or indirectly with valuable information which has guided me politically and wisely since 1998.

I wish to add a new site to the list: PardonPower.

My buddy John Kennedy O'Hara has survived his decade-long sentence, and, with the completion of a few requirements, will once again be able to earn a living doing what he does best.

"Whatever doesn't kill one, makes one stronger" - I'm paraphrasing, but the message stands intact. I can't wait to see the powerhouse return to the ring...it's like watching "Iron" Mike Tyson in his prime, without all of the stupidity, the ear chewing, the bad marriage, the excess.

Now...GO OUT AND VOTE!!!

Don't forget...you need to not only vote for the deserved candidates today...you need to REMOVE those candidates who defied your will, in regards to voting for the American taxpayer rape referred to as a "bailout", and also to those members of the City Council who subverted the will of the people and voted for the term limits extension last night.

Let's see the will of We The People prevail today.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Jesse "Mind & Body" Ventura Talks Sense; Voter Intimidation Once Again Rears Its Ugly-Ass Head; Google Follies

Since it was so perfectly stated by the blogger, I'll let him speak (my comment to follow):

"This is just one of several segments on "the Tube" but all worth checkin' out - I have to say that Ventura is one helluva' spokesman for the truth movement because he speaks in common sense terms and really gets to the heart of the matter. I no longer wonder why he isn't covered more by the mainstream media - they can't have him on because the questions he is asking are so obvious. I can go on and on but will simply repeat myself - please watch the following video and keep yourself informed. I hope by posting this I am keeping some readers apprised of the growing truth movement - that it is a grass roots movement - from the bottom up - getting bigger every day...anyway please watch the following and the rest on YouTube."

Posted by jack rabbit at 9:44 PM
1 comments:

Anonymous said...

It would seem to me that the only way to get an honest report on 911 is to redact the Government. Start fresh and examine all the obviously illogical components eg. BBC reporting WTC7 falling before it did, and the engineering reports showing temperatures insufficient to produce structural failure from jet fuel. A quote I vagely remember goes 'if everything is impossible then whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, is the truth'


hANOVER fIST says:

I don't wish to bore you by repeating ad nauseum what has occurred in the past...but clearly, when abuses of power and outright failure and/or incompetence are rewarded, and whistle-blowing or forthright behaviour is met with hostility, harassment and loss of employment, we have a case of the foxes running the henhouse...and contrary to former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, the only interest the financial industry has is MONEY.

They are beholden ONLY to MONEY.

Long-term investment, nor the well-being of the stock market, or of the United States of America, for that matter, means BUPKIS to them...and so, there was never any incentive whatsoever to rein in ill-advised transactions.




In other news...some tools don't seem to understand the idea of voting, and that it should NOT be discouraged:



Published on HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com (http://hamptonroads.com)
Phony flier says Virginians vote on different days

RICHMOND

A phony State Board of Elections flier advising Republicans to vote on Nov. 4 and Democrats on Nov. 5 is being circulated in several Hampton Roads localities, according to state elections officials.

In fact, Election Day, for voters of all political stripes, remains Nov. 4.

The somewhat official-looking flier - it features the state board logo and the state seal - is dated Oct. 24 and indicates that "an emergency session of the General Assembly has adopted the follwing (sic) emergency regulations to ease the load on local electorial (sic) precincts and ensure a fair electorial process."

The four-paragraph flier concludes with: "We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause but felt this was the only way to ensure fairness to the complete electorial process."

No emergency action has been taken by the General Assembly. It is not in session and lacks the authority to change the date of a federal election.

State Board of Election officials today said they are aware of the flier but disavowed any connection to it.

"It's not even on our letterhead; they just copied the logo from our Web site," said agency staffer Ryan Enright, noting the flier has been forwarded to State Police for investigation as a possible incident of voter intimidation.

Election officials did not specify in which Hampton Roads localities the flier had been spotted.

State Police are aware of the complaint and are looking into it, said spokeswoman Corinne Geller.

In 2007, the General Assembly passed a law making it a Class 1 misdemeanor to knowingly communicate false information to registered voters about the date, time and place of the election or voters' precincts, polling places or voter registration statuses in order to impede their voting. The measure is one of the few such deceptive voting practice laws in the country, according to the watchdog group Common Cause.

Julian Walker, (804) 697-1564, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com


Let's see some prosecutions for this disenfranchisement of the voting public.

Check out this information on privacy information and Google:

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

$400 MILLION In Tax Liabilities?!? Is It Even Possible?



Good morning, dear readers...I awoke this morning to an avalanche (fellow neighbors, fear not - nothing is broken!); so I've been awake ever since 3:45 this full moon day.

I tackled the mess, and after enjoying most of Lovedrive by the Scorpions and a little bit of Michael Schenker Group, I turned on 1010WINS, and had gravy and mashed potatoes for breakfast (the hanger steak to be consumed later in the day...), whereupon I heard about this poor bastard owing over $400,000,000 in unpaid taxes.

Did that number not quite compute? Let me spell it out.

FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.

The fellow is 26 years of age...he states that he's been working since 18 or so...he computed that he would've have had to earn over $5,000,000,000 to owe such a tax burden...but let's address some side issues here.

First, there's the bloody legality of the tax burden as is. I posit that WE THE PEOPLE were betrayed by quisling elected officials beholden to a foreign power in 1913.

This is the crux of all that has gone wrong with the United States of America.

You know...it really wouldn't take much effort on the part of Those-Supposedly-In-Power to actually make things GOOD for all Americans.

Think about it.

Really think about it.

You see how the servile will bend to their will? What if "their will" were to "SPREAD GOOD CHEER AMONGST YOUR FELLOW MAN"...don't you think that will would be enacted?

Ah...but therein lies the rub.

Those-Supposedly-In-Power are all a bunch of greedy fucking scumbags.

So...no, we're not all gonna have a good time here in America, while TSIP are living the fallacy that they are running things. And no - I don't agree that they're the best persons for the job, since we aren't all spying on each other, or knifing one another at Starbucks, so their efforts at having us all degenerate into animals have all been for NAUGHT.

The burden of paying taxes does NOT belong to WE THE PEOPLE - this burden belongs to the CORPORATIONS.

The corporations conspired with the bankers and the quisling elected officials and prepared to make slaves of Americans...so far, the plan has worked in their favor.

How much longer will you play the one-armed bandit?

Just take a look at this document...where does it explicitly state that WE THE PEOPLE must pay taxes?

Go ahead...I'll wait. While you're waiting...peruse this:

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

FOX News: World Bank Under Cyber Siege in 'Unprecedented Crisis' by Richard Behar

World Bank Under Cyber Siege in 'Unprecedented Crisis'

Friday , October 10, 2008
By Richard Behar

The World Bank Group's computer network — one of the largest repositories of sensitive data about the economies of every nation — has been raided repeatedly by outsiders for more than a year, FOX News has learned.

It is still not known how much information was stolen. But sources inside the bank confirm that servers in the institution's highly-restricted treasury unit were deeply penetrated with spy software last April. Invaders also had full access to the rest of the bank's network for nearly a month in June and July.

In total, at least six major intrusions — two of them using the same group of IP addresses originating from China — have been detected at the World Bank since the summer of 2007, with the most recent breach occurring just last month.

In a frantic midnight e-mail to colleagues, the bank's senior technology manager referred to the situation as an "unprecedented crisis." In fact, it may be the worst security breach ever at a global financial institution. And it has left bank officials scrambling to try to understand the nature of the year-long cyber-assault, while also trying to keep the news from leaking to the public.

Click here to see the e-mail.

Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Cybersecurity Center.

The crisis comes at an awkward moment for World Bank president Robert Zoellick, who runs the world's largest and most influential anti-poverty agency, which doles out $25 billion a year, and whose board represents 185 member nations. This weekend, the bank holds its annual series of meetings in Washington — and just in advance of those sessions, Zoellick called for a radical revamping of multilateral organizations in light of the global economic meltdown.

Zoellick is positioning himself and the bank as an institution that can help chart a new path toward global financial stability. But that reputation, more than ever, depends on the bank's stable information infrastructure.

The fact that the information vaults of the World Bank have been repeatedly pried open won't help Zoellick's case.

While it remains unclear how much data has been pilfered from the bank, it's a lot. According to internal memos, "a minimum of 18 servers have been compromised," including some of the bank's most sensitive systems — ranging from the bank's security and password server to a Human Resources server "that contains scanned images of staff documents."

Click here to see bank memos about the intrusions.

One World Bank director tells FOX News that as many as 40 servers have been penetrated, including one that held contract-procurement data.

Despite the gravity of the break-ins, the bank is trying hard to pretend to outsiders it didn't happen. "There were attempts to hack the bank's computer systems last summer," says a World Bank spokesman. "However, there was no compromise of confidential information." Requests for on-the-record interviews with Zoellick and other top officials were declined.

Meanwhile, the bank's treasurer, Kenneth G. Lay, has been briefing Zoellick's senior management team regularly on the situation since April.

Other bank officials are also sleuthing. The bank's chief information officer, Guy De Poerck, has engaged Price Waterhouse Coopers to do a confidential million-dollar assessment that is expected to tell him what's going on in his own department. And a 22-page internal report by a computer security company named MANDIANT, dated August 18, fleshes out many details of the June-July breaches. But very few people have ever seen the report, and nobody has been permitted to retain a paper copy.

At the same time, De Poerck has been downplaying the problem to the bank's 10,000 rank-and-file staffers as mere intrusion "attempts" in his e-mails. Yet most of those staffers have been asked to change their password three times in the past three months.

"As previously reported in mid-July," CIO De Poerck and a senior bank treasury official wrote in an August announcement to employees, "we would like to reassure you that there is no evidence that Bank staff personal information is at risk from the recent external attempts."

It's unclear how that statement squares with an internal memo to De Poerck a month earlier revealing that a sensitive Human Resources server "that contains scanned images of staff documents" had been successfully breached. De Poerk declined to comment to FOX News about any of these details.

Click here to see De Poerck's memo.

In reality, the situation is serious enough that federal investigators have been called in. "We're not talking about hackers playing games or messing up our website," insists a senior member of the bank's IT department at its Washington headquarters. "It's about the FBI coming last summer and saying, 'You should take a look at your systems because we think something weird is going on.' It's about the intruders knowing what information they wanted — and getting to it whenever they wanted to. They took our existing data stores and organized them in a way that they could be easily accessed at will."

In plainspeak: "They had access to everything," says the source. "They had the keys to every room at the bank. And we can't say whether they still do or don't until we fully and openly address what's happening here."

The data raids are not a matter of stealing inconsequential bits and bytes. The World Bank's data center is literally a treasure trove of vital financial information from around the globe. As a clearinghouse for financial data from both governments and companies, the bank's computers could provide intruders with both a financial and intelligence gold mine — from inside information on bids and contracts to the minutes of confidential board meetings.

If the bank takes a position in a currency, for example, that currency usually moves in response to the bank's actions. Stocks and bonds can also swing up and down based on World Bank announcements. "If you know beforehand that the bank is going to put an order in for oil pipelines in Chad or healthcare systems in India, you can actually make a good amount of money," says one insider.

Although the bank typically provides only a fraction of the financing for a project, its influence on those projects is immense. Private corporations see the bank's stamp of approval as a guarantee that their own larger investments will be safe — and profitable. Knowing in advance what projects the bank's board will reject could be just as profitable.

Some insiders fear that contractors — perhaps even governments — might be seeking advance knowledge on the status of the bank's anti-corruption probes. "The bank knows the books of countries almost as well as the countries do — including the corruption at times," says one insider.

The first breach of the bank's secrets was discovered in September, 2007, after the FBI —while at work on a different cybercrime case — notified the bank that something was wrong. The feds pointed to a part of the bank's network that led out of the Johannesburg hub of the International Finance Corp. (IFC), a bank arm that lends to the private sector.

Within a week of the tip, teams of bank investigators sent to Johannesburg discovered that intruders had gained full and total access to all of IFC's worldwide information — including all incoming and outgoing e-mail — for at least six months. "They were downloading everything and anything," says one insider, who says that IFC's monitoring systems were extremely weak. "They [intruders] had full access."

Investigators discovered that the intruders were using a so-called "cluster" of IP addresses from Macao, China. But since those addresses can be spoofed (i.e., disguised) the discovery doesn't prove that the breaches actually originated in China. Nonetheless, bank officials and its executive director for China clashed behind closed doors over whether or not China's government is involved in the break-ins.

Bank sources tell FOX News that Johannesburg is one of several secret "hubs" containing a "common data store" (or CDS) that the World Bank Group has established around the globe. In layman's terms, a CDS is the cyber-world's version of a bomb shelter where every piece of an organization's data is replicated and backed up in case of a data-wipeout at headquarters in Washington. While it's known that IFC data was accessible at the hub, it remains unclear if all World Bank Group data was compromised there.

The second major breach — of the bank's treasury network in Washington — was discovered in April 2008. The World Bank's Treasury manages $70 billion in assets for 25 clients — including the central banks of some countries. It carries out substantial collaborations with the world's finance ministers on public wealth and debt management, runs an active bond-trading desk in Washington, and does everything from currency trading to capital markets financings.

After a forensic analysis of the treasury breach, bank investigators discovered that spy software was covertly installed on workstations inside the bank's Washington headquarters — allegedly by one or more contractors from Satyam Computer Services, one of India's largest IT companies.

The software — which operates through a method known as keystroke logging — enabled every character typed on a keyboard to be transmitted to a still-unknown location via the Internet.

Upon its discovery, insiders report, bank officials shut off the data link between Washington and Chennai, India, where Satyam has long operated the bank's sole offshore computer center responsible for all of the bank's financial and human resources information.

Satyam was also banned from any future work with the bank. "I want them off the premises now," Zoellick reportedly told his deputies. But at the urging of CIO De Poerck, Satyam employees remained at the bank as recently as Oct. 1 while it engaged in "knowledge transfer" with two new India-based contractors.

Satyam — one of the largest and most prestigious IT companies in India — is publicly listed on the NYSE and boasts having $2 billion in sales and more than 150 Fortune 500 companies as clients. In 2003, Satyam — it means "truth" in Sanskrit — won a much-heralded and lucrative five-year "sole source" contract to design, write and maintain all of the World Bank's information systems.

The contract — which began at $10 million and grew to more than $100 million by 2007 — was suddenly not renewed this year. Satyam so far declines to comment.

Then came the June-July breaches in Washington. They were similar to the Johannesburg attack, as the same group of IP addresses from Macao were used.

This time, however, the cyber-burglars used a different spyware. They broke into an external server run by the bank's private sector development unit. They were able to acquire passwords — including the password for the systems administrator.

That enabled them to jump into the servers at MIGA, the bank's giant insurance arm. It was there that they captured the security administrator's password as he was logging on to his computer.

It took ten days for bank officials to detect that they'd been invaded. Once they did, they shut down all external servers, except for e-mail — which it turns out the invaders were already using as their entrance point. By the end of July the invaders "had completely mapped out the topography of the bank's information systems," says one expert — "where everything was, the types of servers, and the types of files on the servers."

What the intruders did with all that information is the World Bank's most sensitive and painful mystery. It has clearly left the institution in a highly vulnerable position.

And the same may go for bank president Zoellick. Bank insiders say that he needs desperately to get the security of his own house in order. Despite the vast sums that the Bank spends on data and data storage, its information systems are deeply in disarray.

Today the total cost to maintain the bank's information infrastructure is at least $280 million per year. But according to one disgruntled bank staffer, "We don't even have an internal search engine that works."

The truly alarming fact, however, is that someone — or many people — seem to know their way around the bank's most valuable resource very well, even though they aren't supposed to be there at all.

UPDATE: After FOX News published its story, a World Bank spokesman issued the following statement:

"The Fox News story is wrong and is riddled with falsehoods and errors. The story cites misinformation from unattributed sources and leaked emails that are taken out of context.

"Like other public and private institutions, the World Bank has repeatedly experienced hacking attacks on its computer systems and is constantly updating its security to defeat these. But at no point has a hacking attack accessed sensitive information in the World Bank's Treasury, procurement, anti-corruption or human resources departments."

FOX News stands by its story.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

A Vote For McCain/Palin Is Like Chickens Voting For Colonel Sanders


Just remember - 26 years of voting for DE-REGULATION for financial institutions, as opposed to "that one's" FISA vote and his "bailout/American ripoff" vote.

Let's spell it out, so even the slow kids can understand:

Twenty-six years of saying, "Oh, sure, the market can regulate itself...I'm SURE that NO ONE will GAME THE SYSTEM for their OWN INTEREST"...nosiree, bob.

America need John "Songbird" McCain and Sarah "Flintstones" Palin like Jennifer Levin needed Robert Chambers.

I'm a Republican, and I'm sick of the muttonheads that have been chosen to represent my party in the last thirty-odd years.

Sick.

Here's Keating Economics:

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

The Obama Campaign Just Launched a Nuke At the McCain Campaign

Posted by berni_mccoy in General Discussion: Presidential
Mon Oct 06th 2008, 07:59 AM
And it just arrived in my email.

Here it is folks: McCain and the Keating 5

Over the weekend, John McCain's top adviser announced their plan to stop engaging in a debate over the economy and "turn the page" to more direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.

In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to change the subject from the central question of this election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.

But it's not just McCain's role in the current crisis that they're avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like the other major financial crisis of our time.

During the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.

Sound familiar?

In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.

So at noon Eastern on Monday, October 6th, we're releasing a 13-minute documentary about the scandal called "Keating Economics: John McCain and the Making of a Financial Crisis" -- it will be available at KeatingEconomics.com, along with background information that every voter should know.

Watch a preview right now and share it with your friends.

The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still hasn't learned his lesson.

And this time, McCain's bankrupt economic philosophy has put our economy at the brink of collapse and put millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes.

Watch the video to see why John McCain's failed philosophy and poor judgment is a recipe for deepening the crisis:

http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo


It's no wonder John McCain would rather spend the last month of this election smearing Barack's character instead of talking about the top priority issue for voters.

But if we work together, we can make sure the focus stays on the economy -- and how to fix it.

Please forward this email to everyone you know.

Thanks,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

P.S. -- The documentary will be live at noon Eastern at www.KeatingEconomics.com.


Hey...not familiar enough with the background of the Keating Five scandal?

Dear readers...never say that I left you hanging:

CHAPTER VII: THE KEATING FIVE

As a war hero and U.S. senator, John McCain has been chronicled in pictures.

There are grainy mug shots of a young McCain, printed in U.S. newspapers after his jet was shot down over North Vietnam. There are black-and-white images of his return, grinning and waving.

In happier times, there is McCain holding his newborn daughter while his wife, Cindy, smiles from her hospital bed.

But it is an innocent vacation picture that carries the reminder of the scandal that threatened his political career.

In the picture, taken in the Bahamas, McCain is seated on a bandstand while wearing an outrageous straw party hat. Next to him on the dais sits Charles Keating III, son of developer Charles H Keating Jr.

McCain calls the Keating scandal "my asterisk." Over the years, his opponents have failed to turn it into a period.

It all started in March 1987. Charles H Keating Jr., the flamboyant developer and anti-porn crusader, needed help. The government was poised to seize Lincoln Savings and Loan, a freewheeling subsidiary of Keating's American Continental Corp.

As federal auditors examined Lincoln, Keating was not content to wait and hope for the best. He had spread a lot of money around Washington, and it was time to call in his chits.

One of his first stops was Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.

The state's senior senator was one of Keating's most loyal friends in Congress, and for good reason. Keating had given thousands of dollars to DeConcini's campaigns. At one point, DeConcini even pushed Keating for ambassador to the Bahamas, where Keating owned a luxurious vacation home.

Now Keating had a job for DeConcini. He wanted him to organize a meeting with regulators to deliver a message: Get off Lincoln's back. Eventually, DeConcini would set up a meeting with five senators and the regulators. One of them was McCain.

McCain already knew Keating well. His ties to the home builder dated to 1981, when the two men met at a Navy League dinner where McCain spoke.

After the speech, Keating walked up to McCain and told him that he, too, was a Navy flier and that he greatly respected McCain's war record. He met McCain's wife and family. The two men became friends.

Charlie Keating always took care of his friends, especially those in politics. McCain was no exception.

In 1982, during McCain's first run for the House, Keating held a fund-raiser for him, collecting more than $11,000 from 40 employees of American Continental Corp. McCain would spend more than $550,000 to win the primary and the general election.

In 1983, as McCain contemplated his House re-election, Keating hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner for him, even though McCain had no serious competition. When McCain pushed for the Senate in 1986, Keating was there with more than $50,000.

By 1987, McCain had received about $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.

McCain also had carried a little water for Keating in Washington. While in the House, McCain, along with a majority of representatives, co-sponsored a resolution to delay new regulations designed to curb risky investments by thrifts such as Lincoln.

Reluctant participant

Despite his history with Keating, McCain was hesitant about intervening. At that point, he had been in the Senate only three months. DeConcini wanted McCain to fly to San Francisco with him and talk to the regulators. McCain refused.

Keating would not be dissuaded.

On March 24 at 9:30 a.m., Keating went to DeConcini's office and asked him if the meeting with the regulators was on. DeConcini told Keating that McCain was nervous.

"McCain's a wimp," Keating replied, according to the book Trust Me, by Michael Binstein and Charles Bowden. "We'll go talk to him."

Keating had other business on Capitol Hill and did not reach McCain's office until 1:30. A DeConcini staffer already had told McCain about the "wimp" insult.

When he arrived, Keating presented McCain with a laundry list of demands for the regulators.

McCain told Keating that he would attend the meeting and find out whether Keating was getting treated fairly but that was all.

The first meeting, on April 2, 1987, in DeConcini's office, included Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, as well as four senators: DeConcini, McCain, Alan Cranston, D-Calif., and John Glenn, D-Ohio.

(Years later, McCain recalled that DeConcini started the meeting with a reference to "our friend at Lincoln." McCain characterized it as "an unfortunate choice of words, which Gray would remember and repeat publicly many times.")

For Keating, the meeting was a bust. Gray told the senators that as head of the loan board, he worried about the big picture. He didn't have any specific information about Lincoln. Bank regulators in San Francisco would be versed in that, not him. Gray offered to set up a meeting between the senators and the San Francisco regulators.

The second meeting was April 9. The same four senators attended, along with Sen. Don Riegle, D-Mich. Also at the meeting were William Black, then deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp., James Cirona, president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and Michael Patriarca, director of agency functions at the FSLIC.

In an interview with The Republic, Black said the meeting was a show of force by Keating, who wanted the senators to pressure the regulators into dropping their case against Lincoln. The thrift was in trouble for violating "direct investment" rules, which prohibited S&Ls from taking large ownership positions in various ventures.

"The Senate is a really small club, like the cliche goes," Black said. "And you really did have one-twentieth of the Senate in one room, called by one guy, who was the biggest crook in the S&L debacle."

Black said the senators could have accomplished their goal "if they had simply had us show up and see this incredible room and said, 'Hi. Charles Keating asked us to meet with you. 'Bye.'"

McCain previously had refused DeConcini's request to meet with the Lincoln auditors themselves. In Worth the Fighting For, McCain wrote that he remained "a little troubled" at the prospect, "but since the chairman of the bank board didn't seem to have a problem with the idea, maybe a discussion with the regulators wouldn't be as problematic as I had earlier thought."

McCain concedes that he failed to sense that Gray and the thrift examiners felt threatened by the senators' meddling.

'Always Hamlet'

The five senators, including McCain, seemed like a united front to Black.

"They presented themselves as a group," Black said, "and DeConcini is the dad, who's going to take the primary speaking role. Both meetings are in his office, and in both cases it's we want this, with no one going, 'What do you mean we, kemo sabe?'"

According to nearly verbatim notes taken by Black, McCain started the second meeting with a careful comment.

"One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion," McCain said. "ACC (American Continental Corp.) is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn't want any special favors for them. . . .

"I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper."

Black said the comment had the opposite effect for the regulators. It made them nervous about what might really be going on.

"McCain was the weirdest," Black said. "They were all different in their own way. McCain was always Hamlet . . . wringing his hands about what to do."

Glenn, a former astronaut and the first American to orbit the Earth, was not as tactful.

"To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs," he told the regulators. "If things are bad there, get to them. Their view is that they took a failing business and put it back on its feet. It's now viable and profitable. They took it off the endangered species list. Why has the exam dragged on and on and on?"

DeConcini added: "What's wrong with this if they're willing to clean up their act?"

Cirona, the banking official, told the senators that it was "very unusual" to hold a meeting to discuss a particular company.

DeConcini shot back: "It's very unusual for us to have a company that could be put out of business by its regulators."

The meeting went on. McCain was quiet. DeConcini carried the ball. The regulators told the senators that Lincoln was in trouble. The thrift, Cirona said, was a "ticking time bomb."

Then Patriarca made a stunning comment, according to transcripts released later.

"We're sending a criminal referral to the Department of Justice," he said. "Not maybe, we're sending one. This is an extraordinarily serious matter. It involves a whole range of imprudent actions. I can't tell you strongly enough how serious this is. This is not a profitable institution."

The statement made DeConcini back off a little.

"The criminality surprises me," he said. "We're not interested in discussing those issues. Our premise was that we had a viable institution concerned that it was being overregulated."

"What can we say to Lincoln?" Glenn asked.

"Nothing," Black responded, "with regard to the criminal referral. They haven't and won't be told by us that we're making one."

"You haven't told them?" Glenn asked.

"No," said Black. "Justice would skin us alive if we did. Those referrals are very confidential. We can't prosecute anyone ourselves. All we can do is refer it to Justice."

After the meeting, McCain was done with Keating.

"Again, I was troubled by the appearance of the meeting," McCain said later. "I stated I didn't want any special favors from them. I only wanted them (Lincoln Savings) to be fairly treated."

Black doesn't completely buy that argument. If McCain was concerned about Keating asking him to do things that were improper, why go to either meeting at all?

Black said McCain probably went because Keating was close to being the political godfather of Arizona and McCain still had plenty of ambition.

"Keating was incredibly powerful," Black said. "And incredibly useful."

McCain's reservations aside, Keating accomplished his goal. He had bought some time, though the price was very high.

Short-lived reprieve

A month later, the San Francisco regulators finished a yearlong audit and recommended that Lincoln be seized. But the report was virtually ignored because of politics on the bank board.

Gray was being replaced as chairman by Danny Wall, who was more sympathetic to Keating.

The audit, which described Lincoln as a thrift reeling out of control, sat on a shelf.

In September 1987, the investigation was taken away from the San Francisco office, away from Black and Patriarca. In May 1988, it was transferred to Washington, where Lincoln would get a new audit.

It was a win for Keating. A battle, not the war.

Back in San Francisco, Black was fuming.

"Clearly, we were shot in the back," he would say later.

Despite the reprieve, Keating's businesses continued to spiral downward, taking the five senators with him. Together, the five had accepted more than $300,000 in contributions from Keating, and their critics added a new term to the American lexicon: "The Keating Five."

The Keating Five became synonymous for the kind of political influence that money can buy. As the S&L failure deepened, the sheer magnitude of the losses hit the press. Billions of dollars had been squandered. The five senators were linked as the gang who shilled for an S&L bandit.

S&L "trading cards" came out. The Keating Five card showed Charles Keating holding up his hand, with a senator's head adorning each finger. McCain was on Keating's pinkie.

As the investigation dragged through 1988, McCain dodged the hardest blows. Most landed on DeConcini, who had arranged the meetings and had other close ties to Keating, including $50 million in loans from Keating to DeConcini's aides.

But McCain made a critical error.

He had adopted the blanket defense that Keating was a constituent and that he had every right to ask his senators for help. In attending the meetings, McCain said, he simply wanted to make sure that Keating was treated like any other constituent.

Keating was no ordinary constituent to McCain.

On Oct. 8, 1989, The Arizona Republic revealed that McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.

The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.

McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. Total cost: $13,433.

When the story broke, McCain did nothing to help himself.

"You're a liar," McCain said when a Republic reporter asked him about the business relationship between his wife and Keating.

"That's the spouse's involvement, you idiot," McCain said later in the same conversation. "You do understand English, don't you?"

He also belittled reporters when they asked about his wife's ties to Keating.

"It's up to you to find that out, kids."

The paper ran the story.

In his 2002 book, McCain confesses to "ridiculously immature behavior" during that particular interview and adds that The Republic reporters' "persistence in questioning me about the matter provoked me to rage."

"I don't know how (The Republic journalists) would have reported the story had I been more civil and understanding or just more of a professional during the interview," McCain wrote.

At a news conference after the story ran, McCain was a changed man. He stood calmly for 90 minutes and answered every question.

On the shopping center, his defense was simple. The deal did not involve him. The shares in the shopping center had been bought by a partnership set up between McCain's wife and her father. (The couple also had a prenuptial agreement that separated Cindy McCain's finances and dealings from his.)

But McCain also had to explain his trips with Keating and why he didn't pay Keating back right away.

On that score, McCain admitted he had fouled up. He said he should have reimbursed Keating immediately, not waited several years. His staff said it was an oversight, but it looked bad, McCain jetting around with Keating, then going to bat for him with the federal regulators.

"I was in a hell of a mess," McCain later would write.

Meanwhile, Lincoln continued to founder.

In April 1989, two years after the Keating Five meetings, the government seized Lincoln, which declared bankruptcy. In September 1990, Keating was booked into Los Angeles County Jail, charged with 42 counts of fraud. His bond was set at $5 million.

During Keating's trial, the prosecution produced a parade of elderly investors who had lost their life's savings by investing in American Continental junk bonds.

Verdict: 'Poor judgment'

In November 1990, the Senate Ethics Committee convened to decide what punishment, if any, should be doled out to the Keating Five.

Robert Bennett, who would later represent President Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones case, was the special counsel for the committee. In his opening remarks, he slammed DeConcini but went lightly on McCain, the lone Republican ensnared with four Democrats.

"In the case of Senator McCain, there is very substantial evidence that he thought he had an understanding with Senator DeConcini's office that certain matters would not be gone into at the meeting with (bank board) Chairman (Ed) Gray," Bennett said.

"Moreover, there is substantial evidence that, as a result of Senator McCain's refusal to do certain things, he had a fallout with Mr. Keating."

Among the Keating Five, McCain took the most direct contributions from Keating. But the investigation found that he was the least culpable, along with Glenn. McCain attended the meetings but did nothing afterward to stop Lincoln's death spiral.

Lincoln was the most expensive failure in the national S&L scandal. Taxpayers lost more than $2 billion on the bailout. McCain also looked good in contrast to DeConcini, who continued to defend Keating until fall 1989, when federal regulators filed a $1.1 billion civil racketeering and fraud suit against Keating, accusing him of siphoning Lincoln's deposits to his family and into political campaigns.

In January 1993, a federal jury convicted him of 73 counts of wire and bankruptcy fraud in the collapse of American Continental and Lincoln. Keating was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in prison but served just 50 months before the conviction was overturned on a technicality. In 1999, at age 75, he pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud. He was sentenced to time served.

In the end, McCain received only a mild rebuke from the Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating. Still, he felt tarred by the affair.

"The appearance of it was wrong," McCain said. "It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."

McCain noted that Bennett, the independent counsel, recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation.

"For the first time in history, the Ethics Committee overruled the recommendation of the independent counsel," McCain said. For his part, DeConcini is critical of McCain's role in the affair. The two senators never were particularly cozy, and the stress of the public scrutiny worsened their relations.

In his memoir Senator Dennis DeConcini: From the Center of the Aisle, he praises the decision to keep McCain on the hook.

"It became clear to me, and it was later confirmed by Ethics Committee members, that Bennett was attempting to dismiss the charges against McCain, and in order to appear nonpartisan, he included Glenn in this effort," DeConcini wrote with co-author Jack August. "Thanks to the three Democrats on the committee and perhaps with the help of Senator (Jesse) Helms (R-N.C.), however, the charges remained in place for all the senators under investigation. So all of us had to attend the 23-day public hearing, which was indeed a trial, before the six-member Senate Ethics Committee."

In the book, DeConcini reiterates his allegation that McCain leaked to the media "sensitive information" about certain closed proceedings in order to hurt DeConcini, Riegle and Cranston. It's a fairly serious charge. The Boston Globe revisited the Keating Five leaks in 2000. The story paraphrased a congressional investigator, Clark B. Hall, as personally concluding that "McCain was one of the principal leakers." The newspaper also reported that McCain, under oath, had denied involvement with the leaks.

McCain owns up to his mistake this way:

"I was judged eventually, after three years, of using, quote, poor judgment, and I agree with that assessment."

Friday, October 3, 2008

Our Quisling Senators

Alabama Sessions (R) No; Shelby (R) No.

Alaska Murkowski (R) Yes; Stevens (R) Yes.

Arizona Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Yes.

Arkansas Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.

California Boxer (D) Yes; Feinstein (D) Yes.

Colorado Allard (R) No; Salazar (D) Yes.

Connecticut Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (I) Yes.

Delaware Biden (D) Yes; Carper (D) Yes.

Florida Martinez (R) Yes; Nelson (D) No.

Georgia Chambliss (R) Yes; Isakson (R) Yes.

Hawaii Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes.

Idaho Craig (R) Yes; Crapo (R) No.

Illinois Durbin (D) Yes; Obama (D) Yes.

Indiana Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) Yes.

Iowa Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) Yes.

Kansas Brownback (R) No; Roberts (R) No.

Kentucky Bunning (R) No; McConnell (R) Yes.

Louisiana Landrieu (D) No; Vitter (R) No.

Maine Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.

Maryland Cardin (D) Yes; Mikulski (D) Yes.

Massachusetts Kennedy (D) Not Voting; Kerry (D) Yes.

Michigan Levin (D) Yes; Stabenow (D) No.

Minnesota Coleman (R) Yes; Klobuchar (D) Yes.

Mississippi Cochran (R) No; Wicker (R) No.

Missouri Bond (R) Yes; McCaskill (D) Yes.

Montana Baucus (D) Yes; Tester (D) No.

Nebraska Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Nevada Ensign (R) Yes; Reid (D) Yes.

New Hampshire Gregg (R) Yes; Sununu (R) Yes.

New Jersey Lautenberg (D) Yes; Menendez (D) Yes.

New Mexico Bingaman (D) Yes; Domenici (R) Yes.

New York Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.

North Carolina Burr (R) Yes; Dole (R) No.

North Dakota Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) No.

Ohio Brown (D) Yes; Voinovich (R) Yes.

Oklahoma Coburn (R) Yes; Inhofe (R) No.

Oregon Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) No.

Pennsylvania Casey (D) Yes; Specter (R) Yes.

Rhode Island Reed (D) Yes; Whitehouse (D) Yes.

South Carolina DeMint (R) No; Graham (R) Yes.

South Dakota Johnson (D) No; Thune (R) Yes.

Tennessee Alexander (R) Yes; Corker (R) Yes.

Texas Cornyn (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes.

Utah Bennett (R) Yes; Hatch (R) Yes.

Vermont Leahy (D) Yes; Sanders (I) No.

Virginia Warner (R) Yes; Webb (D) Yes.

Washington Cantwell (D) No; Murray (D) Yes.

West Virginia Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Yes.

Wisconsin Feingold (D) No; Kohl (D) Yes.

Wyoming Barrasso (R) No; Enzi (R) No.

I guess we can look forward to seeing 74 new Senators come Election Day.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Let Risk-Taking Financial Institutions Fail (kudos to Travis Kelly)

Let Risk-Taking Financial Institutions Fail

The Administration and Congress have felt compelled to do something about the "financial meltdown," so an inefficient and inequitable "bailout plan" has been rushed through the legislature despite harsh criticism from the right and left. That's unfortunate. Both presidential candidates were stalling by qualifying the plan. Whichever candidate had had the courage to reject outright this proposal would have had the better claim to be President.

Do not be fooled. The $700 billion (ultimately $1 trillion or more) bailout is not predominantly for mortgages and homeowners. Instead, the bailout is for mortgage-backed securities. In fact, some versions of these instruments are imaginary derivatives. These claims overlap on the same types of mortgages. Many financial institutions wrote claims over the same mortgages, and these are the majority of claims that have "gone bad."

Follow the money. Average Joes and Janes are not the holders of the other side of complicated, over-the-counter derivatives contracts. Rather, hedge funds are the main holders. The bailout will involve a transfer of wealth — from the American people to financial institutions engaging in reckless speculation — that will be the greatest in history...

Rescuing financial institutions is not the best solution. Yes, banks are needed to provide capital to businesses. But it is not necessary to spend $1 trillion to maintain liquidity. If the government is to intervene, it should pick and choose which claims to purchase; claims that are directly tied to mortgages would be a good start.

Let financial institutions fail, merge or be bought out. The faltering institutions will see their shares devalued and will be likely to be taken over by stronger institutions — as has already started happening. This consolidation of the financial sector is both efficient and inevitable; government action can only delay the adjustment.

The government should not intervene. It should leave overleveraged financial institutions to default on their derivatives obligations and, if necessary, file for bankruptcy. Much of the crisis has arisen from miscalculating the risks involved in a large book of positions in these derivatives. It is only logical that these institutions pay for their poor management.

Rather than bailing out Wall Street, we propose that the government should buy up the actual mortgages in question and do nothing else. The government should not touch any derivatives; that is, claims that do not directly tie into the actual mortgages. If money becomes too tight, then the Fed can certainly increase its loans to financial institutions.

Let the poorly managed, overly risk-taking financial institutions fail! Always remember that Wall Street and the real economy are not the same thing.

— Ari J. Officer has completed his master of science degree in financial mathematics at Stanford University. Lawrence H. Officer is a professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Monday, September 29, 2008

"Bailout" Update - Round One Goes To WE THE PEOPLE


the bailout...

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/vote-against-bail-out-supporters-in-congress.html


http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/vote-against-bail-out-supporters-in-congress. html
The following members of the House of Representatives voted FOR the Bail-Out and can be held accountable by voting AGAINST them in the November election:

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castle
Clarke
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson Fossella
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller (Did Not Vote)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf

Petition:
We, the undersigned people of the United States, hereby pledge to vote AGAINST any incumbent Senator or Member of Congress who supports the proposed federal government bail-out of the financial system.

This is a new website organized by journalist Dave Lindorff: Throw Them All Out.
http://www.throwthemallout.synthasite.com/


Are You Tired of Being Ripped Off By Congress and the White House?
Is this Wall Street Bailout the Last Straw for You?

The public won the first round! We the People bombarded Congress with calls and emails, actually crashing the Capital website and jamming up the phone system, with "No!" opinions outnumbering backers of a bailout by 999:1.

Now we need to make sure they don't come back and pass the same ripoff handout of $700 billion to the Wall Street gang on Thursday!

Don't let up the pressure! Call Congress today. Call them again tomorrow. Demand that they not be scare-mongered by the Bush administration and the House and Senate leadership (of both parties) or by the two presidential candidates into passing a bill that came to them in the form of two and a half pages of notes from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.

Demand that before any rescue bill is considered there must be full hearings into the cause and nature of the crisis, and into the most appropriate solutions. The public and members of Congress need to hear from other experts besides self-interested Wall Street bankers and their lobbyists.

Let us and Congress hear from the Nobel Laureate economists like Joseph Stiglitz and others who are warning that this bailout proposal won't work, that it attacks the wrong thing, and that there are better, cheaper ways of addressing the nation's economic crisis than just throwing money at Wall Street and shifting the bad debts onto the backs of taxpayers.

No bailout without full hearings! We've seen what Congress produces when it is pressured into passing legislation without hearings: The Patriot Act and the War on Iraq. Both have been disasters and have helped to undermine the Constitution and to destroy this nation. A $700-billion or $1-trillion handout of borrowed money to Wall Street, and an unprecedented handing over of congressional power to the secretary of the treasury will be a similar unconstitutional and nation-wrecking atrocity.

We can do this! The key is telling each of our elected representatives--House and Senate--that if they pass this legislative ripoff without first holding full hearings, and if all they do is bailout Wall Street and hand us the bill, we will vote them out off office, giving their seats to whoever happens to be running against them this year, or whenever they face the voters next. That threat is the only one they understand.

Pennsylvania residents have shown the way. We learned that the the state legislature--Republicans and Democrats--had connived in the middle of the night to give themselves a raise in violation of the state constitution, which said raises could only be given to the next cycle of elected officials, not to those in a current term. They got around this bar to self-dealing by declaring the pay increases "undocumented expense reimbursements."

The citizenry rose up and in a leaderless grassroots campaign, they swept out off office many long-time members of the legislature who had voted for the measure, as well as a judge who backed the action (the state's judges get whatever the legislators get)!

If Pennsylvania voters can do this, so can the rest of America.

If you are fed up with having your money (and your kids' money, and their kids' money!) stolen and handed to the greedy, crooked bankers, insurance executives and auto tycoons who have been destroying jobs and undermining the US economy for years while enriching themselves at our expense, then make a pledge to yourself to vote against any member of your congressional delegation, whatever the party, who votes for this latest colossal $700-billion Wall Street bailout!

Vote for a third party candidate, or vote for the incumbent's challenger (a better option if you really want to oust him or her).

No exceptions! It doesn't matter of your senator or representative has done some good things. Voting for this bailout is a travesty that outweighs any other act.

Next (and this is critical!) send this website address:
www.throwthemallout.synthasite.com
to everyone you know.

And talk to everyone you know and get them to join this viral campaign to clean out the Capitol of the thieves and corporate whores who are wrecking the country.