…because to do so would impair the stability of the economy.
What did Ben expect to happen when they increased the money supply by over 120% since last year; a Nobel for saving the world from “financial extinction”? With the exception of his banker buddies, it looks like everybody else is on the road to financial extinction either through loss of income because of the depression we are in, or loss of future income through the hyperinflation that is coming down the road because of the inflated money supply.
It’s obvious Ben still thinks The Fed has a chance of pulling their a**es out of the fire and maintaining the monopoly on the American money supply, debt, and will be able to continue to make trillions off of us for interest payments on money the traitors in congress told them to print and the taxpayers pick up the check for.
Does anybody else realize the insanity of billions and billions of dollars of interest being paid to The Fed for money that was printed and loaned to a deaf Congress and Obama administration to bailout the big banks and car companies, “free” health care, and anything else the Dems want, in order to completely ENSLAVE Americans with unsustainable debt and interest payments? Until Paulson, Bernanke, and Obama, we were working until May 5th to pay our taxes. Now that line is moving upward again from August 15th. We now spend 2/3 of the year working to pay our taxes and to keep this going. What happens when The Fed raises interest rates? Hmmm?
Does Ben really think that the snake oil scam started in 1913 by New York bankers was going to go on into infinity? And people wonder why Americans have become so poor all of a sudden. Ben, get ready. The Fed is going away either in 2010 or 2012. The New York bankers monopoly on our economic stability is about to be crushed.
As for the title of the Bloomberg article below; I say NOT KICKING THE FED TO THE CURB PERMANENTLY will impair the economy and any future growth. I wonder what Market Ticker is going to have to say about all this.
Nov. 28 (Bloomberg) — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said curbing the central bank’s authority to supervise the banking system and tampering with its independence would “seriously impair” economic stability in the U.S.
“A number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions,” the Fed chairman said in a commentary released yesterday on the Web site of the Washington Post. The measures “would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the U.S..”
Bernanke has presided over the most expansive use of Fed powers since the Great Depression. While the 55-year-old Fed chairman has said he averted a financial meltdown, lawmakers have voiced concern about taxpayer-sponsored bailouts and proposed the most sweeping dismantlement of Fed authority since the creation of the institution in 1913.
Bernanke’s commentary, to appear in tomorrow’s Post, is his first comprehensive answer to proposals in the House and Senate that would limit the Fed’s supervisory powers and exert more political oversight in the setting of interest rates. The issues are likely to be discussed when he faces the Senate Banking Committee on Dec. 3 for a hearing on his nomination to a second term as chairman.
Senate Banking Committee Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, has criticized the central bank for lax supervision and introduced legislation this month that would strip bank oversight from the Fed and create a single bank regulator. Dodd would also limit the central bank’s ability to loan to individual companies.
“There is a strong case for a continued role for the Federal Reserve in bank supervision,” Bernanke said. “Because of our role in making monetary policy, the Fed brings unparalleled economic and financial expertise to its oversight of banks.”
The Fed chairman said that the government’s actions, while in some instances “distasteful and unfair,” were necessary to prevent “a global economic catastrophe that could have rivaled the Great Depression in length and severity.”
Bernanke pushed the Fed’s backstop lending beyond banks, setting up programs to support the commercial paper and asset- backed securities markets. The Fed Board approved the bank holding company applications of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, giving them access to the Fed’s loan window.
The former Princeton University economist and Great Depression scholar has more than doubled the Fed’s assets to $2.21 trillion and become the lender of last resort to government bond dealers, banks, Wall Street firms and U.S. corporations. The central bank has also propped up markets for mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities that support credit to consumers, small businesses and commercial real estate.
Kids, that $2.21 Trillion is the Fed’s money. It is a private banking cartel! Are you understanding now?
Matthew McCabe’s lawyer, Neal Puckett, speaking with Fox News about his client’s innocence, the unknown events surrounding the “assault” and the current lack of discovery to prepare for McCabe’s upcoming arraignment for court-martial on December 7th, 2009, (of all days).
Neil Puckett states that McCabe “has a completely clean record. In fact, he was onto a sterling career as a SEAL, as were his other two SEALs.” Puckett also wants to know “if the service is going to bring this terrorist to the courtroom in Norfolk so that we can have our 6th Amendment rights to confrontation of his accuser?”
There will be a rally to support these SEALs on December 7th in Norfolk, Virginia.
From an email I received this morning from a reader:
This is a complete outrage and mockery of our US Military. As Americans, we CANNOT stand for this and MUST show our support for our troops who are constantly being put in harms way to protect the country that is now bringing them under fire. We must send a message that “political correctness” has reached a boiling point and that these service men will not be hung out to dry.
I ask everyone, within reason, to take to Norfolk, VA on Dec 7 and send a message loud and clear that we stand behind them.
And PLEASE, even if you cannot make it because it’s just too far or you have other commitments, invite everyone on your friend list and encourage them to do the same. We have one week to get the word out and we need this to reach the right people.
US Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps : The Office of the Judge Advocate General : Public Affairs : 1322 Patterson Ave., Suite 3000 : Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066 Comm: (202) 685-5493 : Phone Numbers: Washington Navy Yard: (202) 685-5190 : Pentagon, Room 4C642: (703) 614-7420 : AJAG, Military Law : 1254 Charles Morris St., SE Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5047 Comm: (202) 685-7053
The International Criminal Court claims jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
By DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “great regret” in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague. (emphasis mine)
The ICC’s chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court’s authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction—at least with respect to Afghanistan.
Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute—the ICC’s founding treaty—all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC’s oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a “preliminary examination” into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.
“We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan,” Mr. Ocampo told me. “There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government.” Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, “there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture.”
It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out.
Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that “we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned.”
The fact that he avoided a straightforward “I am looking into possible war crimes committed by American soldiers” showed that Mr. Ocampo is aware of the enormity of crossing this legal and political bridge. Appointed in 2003 for a nine-year period, the 57-year-old Argentinian has—so far—established a record of cautious jurisprudence.
“Normally,” he said (another pause) “we select situations which are grave, for instance when I choose. . . .” Mr. Ocampo didn’t finish the sentence, sighed and began afresh: “Both [scenarios] are right. Normally, we open investigations in the worst situation in the world and in some cases [countries] we investigate the worst situation.”
This is an expansive and controversial interpretation of the court’s mandate, one that may put an end to the debate about whether former President George W. Bush, fearing just such judicial activism, was justified in unsigning the Rome Statute his predecessor, Bill Clinton, had endorsed. Although the prosecutor’s preliminary examination may not result in a formal investigation of Americans, the mere potential of a legal confrontation between the court in The Hague and Washington should be disconcerting to the White House, not to mention to all Americans.
In any event, the ICC’s very existence is already changing the way Western nations fights wars. Mr. Ocampo recounted how a legal adviser to NATO told him that troops these days are trained to realize that, in case of transgressions, they could be arrested and brought to the ICC on war crimes charges with the help of evidence provided by NATO itself.
“That is the new world,” Mr. Ocampo said proudly. I asked the obvious follow-up. “If this is the ‘new world,’ why do you bother collecting information about NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan?” Why, in other words, when his task is to end the impunity for the worst war crimes, does he spend his limited resources on the most advanced democracies in the world—which operate under strict rules of engagement, have their own chain-of-command investigations and swift prosecution of criminals? Mr. Ocampo got slightly irritated.
“You are suggesting that we are a court only for the Third World. That’s what the Arab world said about Bashir, that we are using double standards,” he explained. “I said no, I prosecute whoever is in my jurisdiction. I cannot allow that we are a court just for the Third World. If the First World commits crimes, they have to investigate, if they don’t, I shall investigate. That’s the rule and we have one rule for everyone.”
Mr. Ocampo—who has a photo of himself with the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, on his windowsill—could have pointed out to his Arab interlocutors that the real double standard was their own complaining about alleged Western aggression against Muslims while they protect Sudan’s Bashir, the greatest butcher of Muslims in modern history. The fact that Mr. Ocampo mentioned the Sudanese perpetrator of genocide in the same breath with alleged crimes of NATO soldiers shed light on what the International Criminal Court may have in store for the U.S. in the future.
The trillion dollar question being, “How do we boot Obama and his cronies out of the White House before he does anymore damage?”, because impeachment is not currently possible with the House and Senate being controlled by the democrats.