Friday, April 10, 2009

Open Forum

Got something to say?
Post it as comment to this blog and it will be seen by all.

Democrats and Republicans: It may seem that I only go after Republicans but any Democrats that believe in "Free" trade or deregulation will get the same scorn from me as they are every bit as much to blame for the mess we're in.

I will be adding old posts to my blog per your requests.

13 comments:

The Chinuk said...

Nothing to say right now except I like what you're doing and please keep it up!

p.a.turner said...

Great work Prairie2, keep reminding the people to stock up on food and grow a garden in their yard!

Jesse Hemingway said...

The Ring of Fire show 3/21/09 had Marc Marion and Sam Seeder on it great show the 3rd hour interview was excellent. Well worth checking out.

Ronmac said...

All this talk of brownshirts and the Great Depression is conjuring up images of the 1930's, isn't itÉ

To get to the point, I'm from the Great White North, Canada. Years ago I went to a talk given by Tommy Douglas who, by that time, was an old man.

For those of you who don't know, Tommy Douglas is known as the father of "Medicare". Back in 1962, as premier of the province of Saskatchewan, he brought in government sponsored health care for all and we never looked back.

Tommy Douglas started out as a Baptist minister in rural Saskatchewan in the 1930's. Then he ran for the mildly socialist CCF federal party (today's forerunner to the NDP) and went to Ottawa as a member of parliament in the midst of the Great Depression.

To Douglas the solution to the world's econoimic woes was to just print money and get it out into hands of people who would spend it and get things moving again.

Of course, the people around him looked at him like he stepped out of a spaceship from Mars. Print money! You can't do that! That`s crazy!

Fast forward to September 1, 1939, the day Canada declared war on Nazi Germany. The first act authorized by the Canadian Parliament was the printing of billions of dollars to pay for the war. Essentially to get Canada`s army of unemployed into uniform and of to Europe to fight.

Just what Tommy Douglas had been advocating a few years earlier.

brdrcli said...

Always look forward to your emails to Mike, Praire2. I enjoy the way you write and think you do a great job.

Anonymous said...

too many people are giving this O'bombya too much credit for allegedly having the education and intellect to save us all from 46 or so years of Military Industrial Complex rule.

when are you fuckers going to pull your collective heads out of your ass and realize HE IS MORE OF THE SAME BULLSHIT WE'VE BEEN LIVING UNDER FOR NEARLY 5 DECADES?

Anonymous said...

Hi Prairie2,
Mike Malloy keeps reading your Emails and he suggested that we listeners check out your web site, so I am doing so.

American corporate greed (mostly REpublican'ts CEOs have been happily destroying our manufacturing base for the last fifteen years or so.

The approval of NATFA by the Senate and Clinton back in 1996 was the first big breakthrough for these America-destroyers. I remember especially, Rep. Ann Eshoo (from the Peninsula, south of SF, in California) as a big cheerleader for NAFTA. She was/is a "liberal" Democrat...


We need to rebuild our tariff walls against foreign auto makers. Currently, the Japanese have a 33% tariff/tax on American cars imported into Japan, while we, saps of the trading world, have a 0% tariff/tax on Japanese cars imported into the US.

We need to go back to making our own shoes and socks, for starters.
American shoes for American feet.

Yours truly,

James K. Sayre

Anonymous said...

the blame game, nothing ever changes, not the players, not the fans,
we were given a chance to flush the toilet by just pulling the lever. so what did we do?. yep add more paper and well processed media cattle feed, we ate it with glee. now that we are up to our wast in it we yell at the plumbers.
its time America to pick up the shovel, get dirty, and do it our self

Jesse Hemingway said...

Since President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney violated the privilege of the Executive Order clause then a legally recognized investigation into 9/11has never occurred.



http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/11/bush-authorized-torture/



http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18769prs20041220.html



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fTuLKS4rss



http://www.inteldaily.com/news/173/ARTICLE/9017/2008-12-17.html







Let's start here with some basic ground rules of law and work from there.

Out of the gate we need to look at the scope of the Executive Order (EO) and does that have any legal bearing on a successful criminal prosecution and the crimes that occurred on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission was formed under an EO does it carry any legal validity or was it just a bluff to buy time? What type of criminal procedures followed 9/11 if any then if not who made the decisions not to file or follow criminal investigations or proceedings?

The EO procedures worked quite well with the JFK murder investigation it totally circumvented Texas state law bought enough time to yield to strong arm tactics with in the government similar to 9/11. In less then one year after JFK’s murder we were committed to a surge in Vietnam under false pretence Tokin Gulf Resolution the vote in the Senate 98 for 2 against.

Executive Orders Defined

An Executive Order (EO) is a directive issued to executive-level agencies, department heads, or other employees from the President under the President's statutory, or constitutional powers. In many ways, the EO is similar to written orders, or instructions the president of a corporation might send to department heads or directors.Thirty days after it is officially published in the Federal Register, an EO becomes law. While the EO does bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an EO may be illegal or unconstitutional. The first EO was issued in 1789 by none other than George Washington. Not until 1907 were EOs given official numbers.

no part of an EO may be illegal or unconstitutional
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) testimony in the 9/11 commission report would most likely be considered unconstitutional thus EO would be in violation of the law. The entire 9/11 commission report hinges on the testimony from KSM was that testimony obtained legally?


December 8, 2007, Greencastle, Ind. - "Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes," says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. "Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge," adds Hamilton, a 1952 graduate of DePauw University, in today's Detroit Free Press.
The article details demands by congressional Democrats "that the Justice Department investigate why the CIA destroyed" the tapes. It notes, "White House press secretary Dana Perino said President George W. Bush didn't recall being told about the tapes or their destruction. But she didn't rule out White House involvement, saying she hadn't asked others about it."

Meanwhile, the International Herald Tribune reports "the former chairmen of the Sept. 11 commission, who said the CIA assured them repeatedly during their inquiry that no original material existed from its interrogations of Qaeda figures, said they were furious to learn about the tapes ... Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton said they had made clear in hours of negotiations and discussions with the CIA, as well as in written requests, that they wanted all material connected to the interrogations of Qaeda operatives in the agency's custody in order to get a complete understanding of the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks for their 2004 report."

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=20521


The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.
In his book "Intelligence Matters," Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said "the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.'' On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter "a smoking gun" and said, "The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House."

The report added to suspicions about a Saudi role in the hijacking plot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/po...=1&oref=slogin

It's not the first time Graham has accused the Bush administration of a cover-up, having previously alleged that the White House had hidden evidence exposing Saudi Arabia's links to the Sept. 11 hijackers.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Sen._G...oing_1213.html




Reasons for Issuing an Executive Order

Presidents typically issue an EO for one of these purposes:
1. Operational management of the executive branch
2. Operational management of federal agencies or officials
3. To carry out statutory presidential responsibilities

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa121897.htm

Powers of the President

+ Serve as commander in chief of all U.S. armed forces
+ Commission officers of the armed forces
+ Grant pardons and reprieves from Federal offenses (except impeachments)
+ Convene special sessions of Congress
+ Receive foreign ambassadors
+ Take care that Federal laws are faithfully executed
+ Wield the "executive power"
+ Appoint officials to lesser offices
Powers of the President Shared With the Senate
+ Make treaties
+ Appoint ambassadors, judges, and higher officials
Powers of the President Shared With Congress as a Whole
+ Approve legislation

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blpres.htm


What is an Executive Order?

From time to time I hear that President Bush has issued an Executive Order establishing this policy or that. What is an Executive Order? Where does the President get the authority to issue them? Is there any way to reverse an Executive Order?

"Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool."
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998
"We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively."
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.

Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed "Presidential Decision Directives."

Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html


Crime (what is a crime)

A type of behavior that is has been defined by the state, as deserving of punishment which usually includes imprisonment. Crimes and their punishments are defined by Congress and state legislatures.

See Topic: Criminal Law

Prosecution n. 1) in criminal law, the government attorney charging and trying the case against a person accused of a crime. 2) a common term for the government's side in a criminal case, as in "the prosecution will present five witnesses" or "the prosecution rests" (completed its case). (See: prosecute, prosecutor)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...om/prosecution

Next step in the process:

PROVING AND DISPROVING CRIMINAL GUILT

§ 301. State's prima facie case; proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) In any prosecution for an offense, a prima facie case for the State consists of some credible evidence tending to prove the existence of each element of the offense.
(b) No person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(c) In any prosecution for any compound crime, including but not limited to first degree murder under § 636(a)(2) or (a)(6) of this title or for second degree murder under § 635(2) of this title, the corpus delicti of the underlying felony need not be proved independently of a defendant's extrajudicial statement. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 301; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 463, § 1.)
§ 302. Jury instruction for defendant on reasonable doubt.

(a) Pursuant to § 301(b) of this title, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the jury must acquit if they fail to find each element of the offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(b) The defendant may produce whatever evidence the defendant has tending to negate the existence of any element of the offense, and, if the court finds that a reasonable juror might believe that evidence, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the jury must consider whether the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 302; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 303. Credible evidence to support defenses.

(a) No defense defined by this Criminal Code or by another statute may be considered by the jury unless the court is satisfied that some credible evidence supporting the defense has been presented.
(b) Evidence supports a defense when it tends to establish the existence of each element of the defense.
(c) If some credible evidence supporting a defense is presented, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the jury must acquit the defendant if they find that the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 303; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 59 Del. Laws, c. 547, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 304. Defendant's affirmative defenses; prove by preponderance of evidence.
(a) When a defense declared by this Criminal Code or by another statute to be an affirmative defense is raised at trial, the defendant has the burden of establishing it by a preponderance of the evidence.
(b) Unless the court determines that no reasonable juror could find an affirmative defense established by a preponderance of the evidence presented by the defendant, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the jury must acquit the defendant if they find the affirmative defense established by a preponderance of the evidence.
(c) An affirmative defense is established by a preponderance of the evidence when the jury is persuaded that the evidence makes it more likely than not that each element of the affirmative defense existed at the required time. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 304; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 305.
Exemption from criminal liability; affirmative defense to be proved by defendant.
When this Criminal Code or another statute specifically exempts a person or activity from the scope of its application and the defendant contends that the defendant is legally entitled to be exempted thereby, the burden is on the defendant to prove, as an affirmative defense, facts necessary to bring the defendant within the exemption. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 305; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 306. No conclusive presumptions; rebuttable presumptions and proof thereof.
(a) There are no conclusive presumptions in this Criminal Code, and all conclusive presumptions formerly existing in the criminal law of this State are hereby abolished.
(b) Rebuttable presumptions formerly existing in the criminal law of this State are preserved except to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Criminal Code.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Criminal Code, the following rebuttable presumptions are expressly preserved:

(1) A person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of the person's act.
(2) A person found in possession of goods acquired as a result of the commission of a recent crime is presumed to have committed the crime.
(d) Proof of a fact tending to create a rebuttable presumption not inconsistent with this Criminal Code or a presumption created by this Criminal Code constitutes prima facie evidence of the presumed conclusion.

(e) The court may tell the jury of the existence of the presumption, and if it does so the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the presumption does not relieve the State of its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the jury may convict the defendant, despite the existence of evidence tending to rebut the presumption, if they find no reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 306; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 59 Del. Laws, c. 203, § 2; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 307. Jury inference of defendant's intention, recklessness, knowledge or belief.
(a) The defendant's intention, recklessness, knowledge or belief at the time of the offense for which the defendant is charged may be inferred by the jury from the circumstances surrounding the act the defendant is alleged to have done. In making the inference permitted by this section, the jury may consider whether a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances at the time of the offense would have had or lacked the requisite intention, recklessness, knowledge or belief.
(b) When the defendant's intention, recklessness, knowledge or belief is an element of an offense, it is sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the State to prove circumstances surrounding the act which the defendant is alleged to have done from which a reasonable juror might infer that the defendant's intention, recklessness, knowledge or belief was of the sort required for commission of the offense. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 307; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 308. Construction of provisions allowing no defense.
When a provision of this Criminal Code expressly denies the applications of a specific defense, no inference is thereby created that any other defense is valid. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 308; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1.)

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c003/index.shtml




FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html

Walter H said...

Free trade? No! Fair trade, YES! When can we get people in Washington to recognize this?

teoui said...

Being f....d as the saying goes assumes that there is nothing you can do about something. But that is wrong. We are not talking about evading regulation and laws we are talking about fraud, felony fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud by our largest financial institutions. There should be grand juries convened and indictments, trials and prison terms to follow.

First of all, a collaterized debt obligation is not secured or backed by collateral at all. A mortgage backed security is not backed by mortgage like protections under the law. A CDO is not backed by anything as a consumer loan is under the uniform commercial code, these are the initial two falsehoods or frauds from which the edifice of off balance sheet accounting arose.

How then did they get off balance sheet to permit more overly leveraged lending by the investment bankers? Easy, the big five got Greenberg to find a patsy at AIG to market credit default swaps. These illegal insurance devices were backed by nothing. AIG was the victim really of an investment bank ponzi scheme.

Yes AIG actions were criminal felonies in every case but the conspiracy emerged from the investment banks. Greenberg and his flunky should be in front of a grand jury. This isn't a crank opinion. READ THIS:

http://market-ticker.org/archives/923-FLASH-AIG-CA...

FLASH: AIG CALLED CRIMINAL SCAM!The Market TickerThursday, April 2. 2009
Posted by Karl Denninger at 08:55

FLASH: AIG CALLED CRIMINAL SCAM!
(Credit Barry Ritholtz and Institutional Risk Analytics, the original source)

WHOAH!

In fact, our investigation suggests that by the time AIG had entered the CDS fray in a serious way more than five years ago, the firm was already doomed. No longer able to prop up its earnings using reinsurance because of growing scrutiny from state insurance regulators and federal law enforcement agencies, AIG’s foray into CDS was really the grand finale. AIG was a Ponzi scheme plain and simple, yet the Obama Administration still thinks of AIG as a real company that simply took excessive risks. No, to us what the fraud Bernard Madoff is to individual investors, AIG is to the global financial community.

As with the phony reinsurance contracts that AIG and other insurers wrote for decades, when AIG wrote hundreds of billions of dollars in CDS contracts, neither AIG nor the counterparties believed that the CDS would ever be paid. Indeed, one source with personal knowledge of the matter suggests that there may be emails and actual side letters between AIG and its counterparties that could prove conclusively that AIG never intended to pay out on any of its CDS contracts.

Read that folks.

Then read it again.

Then read it AGAIN.

More excerpts:

There are two basic problems with side letters. First, they are a criminal act, a fraud that usually carries the full weight of an “A” felony in many jurisdictions. Second, once the side letter is discovered by a persistent auditor or regulator examining the buyer of protection, the transaction becomes worthless. You paid $6 million to AIG to shift risk via the reinsurance, but the side letter makes clear that the transaction is a fraud and you lose any benefit that the apparent risk shifting might have provided.

And finally, the last nail in the coffin:

The key point is that neither the public, the Fed nor the Treasury seem to understand is that the CDS contracts written by AIG with these various non-insurers around the world were shams - with no correlation between “fees” paid and the risk assumed. These were not valid contracts as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Geithner and Economic policy guru Larry Summers claim, but rather acts of criminal fraud meant to manipulate the capital positions and earnings of financial companies around the world.

Indeed, our sources as well as press reports suggest that the CDS contracts written by AIG may have included side letters, often in the form of emails rather than formal letters, that essentially violated the ISDA agreements and show that the true, economic reality of these contracts was fraud plain and simple. Unfortunately, by not moving to seize AIG immediately last year when the scandal broke, the Fed and Treasury may have given the AIG managers time to destroy much of the evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

go to the link above to read more.

yourimgiving.com said...

The Dems, save for a handful, are no different than the Republicans. They are true enablers and co-dependents. They let the Republicans wreck their evil upon this world. So long as you have lobbyists and million dollar campaigns, you can't see much of a difference because you MUST bow to the monied interests. I like Bernie Saunders (independent), of course Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Barbara Lee off the top of my head. Any Dem who voted against the Iraq war the first time it was up for vote. Power is the people, we outnumber them which is our power. One day I hope we will use it!!!!

Anonymous said...

Prairie2... you be ON POINT!

So glad you have this blog now... so I can read and reread your insightful comments.