Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Obama’s Guantánamo dilemma

By giving his most detailed speech so far on terrorist detainees on Thursday, Barack Obama was hoping to persuade others to drop the subject.

Unfortunately for Mr Obama, who wants to direct the conversation to more forward-looking topics, such as healthcare reform and a possible Arab-Israeli peace process, the turmoil surrounding treatment of alleged terrorists is likely to persist.

That is partly because he has adopted a messy position himself. On the one hand Mr Obama has said he will close the Guantánamo detention centre by next January. On the other, his administration continues to use George W. Bush’s definition of the “war on terror” to detain the most dangerous ones indefinitely – just not on Cuban soil, or American, if Congress continues to get its way.

Mr Obama is unlikely to get much help from his Democratic colleagues. From the left, he faces a growing cry of betrayal. His decision to “look forward, not back” means that the Bush lawyers who drafted the memos reclassifying torture as legal are unlikely to be prosecuted.

Nor does Mr Obama want to set up a “truth commission” to investigate post 9/11 torture. Such a move might put the politics on ice for a few months. Then it would return squared. Mr Obama would be faced with a dilemma: choose again to “look forward” and be branded a traitor to the high ideals on which he campaigned; or prosecute those found culpable and risk igniting a real backlash against his presidency.

It is worth remembering that half the American people believe “waterboarding” is justified, according to polls – a far higher number than those who do not. A small majority also believe it is wrong to close Guantánamo. These are not diehard conservatives. Many are Democrats.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, Mr Obama is getting little help from centrist colleagues. Last week, almost all Democrats joined their Republican counterparts in the Senate to vote down an $80m (€57m, £50m) appropriation to pay for the closure of Gitmo. They argued that it was wrong to close the facility before a policy had been devised to rehouse its 240 detainees.

This is understandable. Mr Obama made an error in announcing the closure before he had devised a new policy. But their real motive was more prosaic. Democrats don’t want alleged terrorists to set foot on American soil. And they will not permit reason to get in the way of a good argument.

No prisoner has ever escaped a federal “supermax” prison. Even if it were a possibility, it would surely be less frightening to have a terrorist suspect escape into your community than a convicted paedophile or psychopath. The latter two would know how to blend in. More importantly, America will have little chance of persuading other countries to take some of the Gitmo detainees if it refuses to take any itself.

All of which makes Dick Cheney’s increasingly bitter interventions fairly useful for Mr Obama. Leaving aside the suspicion that his real target is Mr Bush, who put an end to most “enhanced interrogation techniques” in 2004, Mr Cheney’s stridency has served to blunt much of the disillusion felt by Mr Obama’s liberal friends.

It also focuses attention on the fact that the shrinking Republican party is letting Mr Cheney stand in as its leader. Since Mr Cheney has had much to do with why it is shrinking, this can hardly be a bad thing for Mr Obama. Mr Cheney has asked for information about the results of the interrogations to be declassified. Mr Obama should comply.

That way we could establish the accuracy of allegations, by two intelligence officers, that Mr Cheney and others pushed for the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah in the forlorn hope of turning up evidence linking al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.

The timing fits the build-up to the Iraq war. The first was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003. The second 83 times in August 2002.

“They were legal, justified, essential and entirely the right thing to do,” Mr Cheney said.

Mr Obama should let the facts speak for themselves. Did these two waterboardees tell interrogators what they wanted to hear? And what was that precisely? If Mr Obama cannot change the conversation, then he should send it back to where it belongs.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Will Obama keep Israel to its promises?

The idea of two states – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace is endorsed by most of the world. The one-state solution that some support is a non-starter. Yet the chance of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict is diminishing. It is imperilled by unceasing growth in the number of Jewish settlers on the West Bank, known officially in Israel by the biblical names of Judea and Samaria. In 1972, 1,500 Jews lived there; now, it is more than 289,000. The more settlers and the bigger their settlements, the less possibility of creating an independent and viable Palestinian state. The Gaza Strip is out of the equation at this stage because of failure by Fatah and Hamas to agree on a joint government.

Israel has repeatedly promised to halt expansion on the West Bank. It has done so through its leaders and by going along with the road map of 2003, the Wye Plantation agreement before that, the Annapolis accord and so on. Despite this, last year the number of settlers increased by 4.9%, and the year before by 5.5%.

The ongoing process will be challenged on 18 May when the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will be in Washington DC for his first meeting with US president Barack Obama. The extent to which Obama insists that Israel keep its promises – and more importantly, how far he will go for fulfilment – will determine the future of the Middle East.

Obama has already declared his aim: the two-state solution. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton agrees. It's also the policy of the Palestinian Authority. The European Union wants it. So does Russia. The Arab League has offered acceptance, with qualifications, through its Saudi peace initiative.

Former president George W Bush also wanted two states. Israel told him it would curb settlement growth. It did not. Every now and again secretary of state Condoleeza Rice visited Israel and gave a press conference to announce that she was telling the government to curb settlements. She was ignored.

The three years up to January this year tell the story. Ehud Olmert was prime minister. He began as a rightwinger, believing in Israel's continued settlement of the West Bank, which it has occupied since the 1967 war. But he changed: during his last two years in office he increasingly supported a Palestinian state; by his last cabinet meeting he was saying passionately that Israel had to end its occupation. He warned that Israel was doomed if it stayed: its Jewish majority was threatened by Arab numbers and an apartheid situation would arise if it remained.

However, his government's actions consistently contradicted his words. Statistics provided by the Peace Now movement, using census and UN details show that 5,111 new "housing units" (meaning anything from one to 20 apartments) were built from January 2006 to January 2009, and tenders were issued for more than 1,500 housing units.

The same pattern occurred in the "illegal outposts" set up without formal government permission. Israel has promised to evacuate them. But not one was evacuated during the three years; instead, the outposts acquired 560 new structures – mainly caravans but also permanent buildings. At the start of Olmert's tenure, 475 roadblocks and checkpoints existed in the West Bank. Their purpose was and is security. With less tension and suicide bombings ended, the number was supposed to be reduced. Instead, according to the UN, by January this year there were more than 600.

East Jerusalem also features. It is intended to be divided and be a shared capital for Israel and Palestine. But the 250,000 Palestinians who live there have vast difficulty in getting permits to build houses and when they build illegally they are targets for demolition orders. At the same time, housing for Jews is fostered: during the three years, tenders were issued for 2,437 new housing units. These will add to the existing Jewish residential areas in East Jerusalem, which occupy 35% of the area and house 190,000 people. As far as is known, Olmert – who resigned as prime minister to face corruption charges – has never explained the discrepancy between his words and official deeds.

The fact is that the settlers do pretty much as they want. Many are driven by religious messianic belief that God gave Judea and Samaria to Jews and it is their right and duty to keep it so forevermore. Although the settlers are a tiny minority of the Israeli population they have become the tail that wags the dog. Successive governments have backed away from reining them in out of fear of violent resistance.

The settlers and their supporters – who include those who believe in possession of the West Bank for security purposes – permeate the government. That has enabled the illegal siphoning off of millions upon millions of shekels from departmental budgets to provide houses, build roads and lay on electricity and water to settlements and outposts – and to guarantee permanent protection by the army.

A government lawyer, Talia Sasson, appointed to investigate the illegal outposts, reported four years ago that the state was undermining its own rule of law. She has been ignored. None of it could be possible without the army's active connivance. No Israeli can do anything on the West Bank unless the army agrees and helps. That is also a cause for government apprehension: the officer corps has changed in character and the proportion who are religious has increased to about one-fifth. They live in settlements, or have family or friends there. Will they accept orders to evacuate, if necessary by force?

The settlers and others who support them are deliberately creating facts on the ground to undermine the chance of a Palestinian state; and even if one comes into being to ensure that it is so divided and weak as not to present any security threat. The intention is also to establish a ring of Jewish settlements around Jerusalem to cut off the city from the West Bank so that it cannot serve as a Palestinian capital. Meanwhile, the new rightwing government's policy on dealing with Palestinians is still being prepared and its statements are confused. Netanyahu, for example, says he wants to resume peace negotiations without conditions with Palestinians; in the next breath he says Palestinians must first accept Israel as a Jewish state.

Washington is sending strong signals: on Tuesday, Joe Biden and John Kerry told the pro-Israel Aipac lobby annual conference that Israel must freeze all West Bank building and make further concessions to the Palestinian Authority. It's also reported that two weeks ago Obama proposed a new deal on Palestinian refugees to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah.

But will Obama wield a stick if Israel does not embrace a two-state solution and work with Palestinians to get swift agreement on the core issues of ending the occupation, borders, Jerusalem, the Holy Basin and refugees? How big a stick is available as he contends with the economic catastrophe, domestic problems and Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan? How can he drive an Israeli government to do what it doesn't want to do?

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Casino Capitalism and Financial Recklessness: Obama Has Missed His Moment

Barack Obama has squandered his presidency. He had a fleeting moment to challenge the casino capitalism and financial recklessness of our economic and political elite. He could have orchestrated a state socialism that would have provided a safety net for tens of millions of Americans faced with dislocation and misery. The sums he has doled out to Wall Street could have been used to force companies to keep workers on the job or create new banks to open up credit. But he lacked the foresight and the courage to challenge entrenched power. And now we are headed down one of two frightening roads—massive deflation or hyperinflation. Neither will be pleasant.

Hyman Minsky—an economist largely ignored during his lifetime and now held up as something of a prophet—argued that speculative bubbles, and the financial collapses that follow them, are an inevitable consequence of unregulated capitalism. Minsky, an economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis who died in 1996, warned: “The normal functioning of our economy leads to financial trauma and crises, inflation, currency depreciations, unemployment and poverty in the middle of what could be virtually universal affluence—in short … financially complex capitalism is inherently flawed.” He called for socialized banking and stimulus packages to protect workers.

Our Minsky moment, however, has passed. Obama did not introduce radical measures to change our financial structures. And the outlook, even from Obama’s chief financial advisers, is very gloomy. The U.S. economy will continue to contract “for some time to come,” said Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council. “I expect the economy will continue to decline,” with “sharp declines in employment for quite some time this year,” Summers said Sunday on “Fox News Sunday.”

The International Monetary Fund has forecast that the U.S. economy will shrink 2.8 percent this year and have no growth in 2010, with unemployment rising to 10.1 percent.

Deflation, for the moment, remains our most immediate threat. The Labor Department reported that in March the consumer price index fell 0.4 percent over the last year, the first decline in over 50 years. Home values have fallen in the last year by 18 percent. Our current deflation is not the massive deflation endured during the Great Depression, but if it continues, and it becomes sustained, it will wreck our economy. I suspect that the few trillion dollars thrown at an economy that may have lost as much as $40 trillion in wealth means deflation will win out.

A sustained deflation, such as the one that has afflicted Japan, would make it much harder for borrowers, who would have less cash, to pay off debt. It would fuel more defaults, see more bankruptcies and dry up credit. It would lead to a fall in wages. Those attempting to sell houses, or any other products, would watch helplessly as the value of what they own evaporated.

Classical economic theory states that when you pump huge sums of money into the economy you produce inflation. And Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke would like to trigger inflation to relieve the heavy debts weighing on many banks and investment houses. Inflation, because it reduces the value of the dollar, effectively devalues debts and reduces what many owe. This push toward inflation is why we have low interest rates. This is why we are printing and borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars. And this is why projected deficits are almost beyond comprehension.

The Congressional Budget Office recently released its analysis of the Obama administration’s 10-year budget proposal. The projected deficit for fiscal year 2009 is $1.8 trillion. And the CBO projects deficits over the next 10 years that annually are between about $650 billion and $1 trillion. The CBO also projects that the outstanding federal debt held by the public will increase from 40.8 percent of GDP in 2008 to 82.4 percent in 2019. This is a doubling of the national debt over the next 10 years. These deficits are being produced to jump-start the economy, to prevent deflation and to produce inflation.

Inflation, which may look good if you are a Wall Street firm overloaded with bad debt, is as risky as deflation, however. It can easily morph into hyperinflation and bring, like deflation, political and economic instability. It can lead to runs on banks. It can make your currency worthless. It discourages investment and thrift. And when you borrow at the level we are borrowing at you frequently debauch your currency. This could lead to the dollar being abandoned as a global currency. Why would the Chinese, or anyone else, want to keep buying our debt while we work overtime to devalue our currency? It means, in essence, that they can never make a profit and what they own is being reduced daily in value.

Hyperinflation is never controlled domestically. It is created by outside forces. If China and other buyers of our debt view the endlessly increasing American deficit spending as a threat to the viability of the U.S. dollar they will abandon the dollar and reduce their purchases of treasury bills. Chinese leaders have already questioned the wisdom of keeping foreign reserves predominantly in the form of U.S. dollar-denominated treasury bills and bonds. And if they walk away from the dollar our currency will become junk and hyperinflation will race through the society like a plague.

Deflation or hyperinflation will be our nemesis. These are the only two options left. The speculators on Wall Street and in the White House are again rolling the dice. But be assured that no matter what combination comes up, we are going to be fleeced.

FDR'S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days

With good reason, progressive economists reflect positively on Roosevelt's New Deal even though:

-- it failed to end the Great Depression;

-- had many flaws;

-- did too little for blacks, women, immigrants, small farmers, agricultural workers, and the poor;

-- let blacks be persecuted, discriminated against, and in the South denied their voting rights and lynched;

-- 10 weeks after Pearl Harbor, he signed an Executive Order interning loyal Japanese American citizens because of their ethnicity; smaller numbers of German and Italian Americans as well;

-- despite popular discontent with US broadcasting, he signed the 1934 Communications Act establishing permanent broadcasting law that handed the public airwaves to entrenched interests and laid the foundation for today's corrupted media; he called it a "New Deal in Radio Law," indeed for the broadcasters that profited;

-- his main task was to save capitalism, not remake America into a social democracy beyond what was necessary at the time;

-- like all elected officials, Roosevelt was above all a politician who wanted to be re-elected; and

-- it took a world war to restore prosperity.

Nonetheless, his achievements were impressive, and the differences between then and now are stark - during the two gravest economic periods in US history. Obama embraces the Money Trust. Roosevelt, rhetorically at least, confronted "the unscrupulous money changers."

The problem is what he did, how, what he didn't do; what he could have done better; and if he had, maybe the Great Depression might not have been as Great or, in fact, Great at all.

He failed to do what Jackson and Lincoln did - return money-creation power to the people, as the Constitution mandates, instead leaving it in private hands - the very "moneychangers" he denounced with the Federal Reserve atop its pyramid.

Rather than finance New Deal programs with interest-free money, he chose debt obligations to private bankers, left the Fed's power unchanged, and turned deep recessionary years into the Great Depression.

Government-created money would have eliminated the national debt, income taxes, and most important given the gravity of the crisis, would have produced stable growth and prosperity without needing a world war to get it. Lincoln did it, the Civil War notwithstanding, and so did early colonists with interest-free money. Their decision to break free from the Bank of England (run by bankers) sparked the War of Independence. Britain wanted its power back, colonists resisted, hence the war.

A future article addresses this topic and much more. This one focuses on Roosevelt's first 100 days v. Obama's and the differences in their approaches - helping people, not bankers, the above comments notwithstanding; curbing speculation, not protecting it; imposing regulations and enforcing them, not disdaining them; establishing social services, not ignoring public needs; and much more.

In all, 15 landmark laws were enacted that (imperfections aside) set a standard for dealing with a troubled economy - so grave in March 1933 that (except for the Civil War period), machine guns protected government buildings because the nation's financial system had collapsed, peoples' life savings and jobs were being lost, and it was feared they'd react violently as a result.

The Emergency Banking Act

Roosevelt took office on March 4, 1933. The next day (through a special congressional session), he declared a four-day bank holiday. On March 9, the Emergency Banking Act passed that closed insolvent banks, then reorganized and reopened viable ones under Treasury supervision, with federal loans available if needed.

By mid-March, one-half of all banks with 90% of deposits were judged solvent and reopened. Forty-five percent of the others were reorganized under "conservators." The rest were shut down. By mid-April, over 12,800 banks were operating, 4000 fewer by year end after closures and mergers, and by 1935 one-third were nationalized, an idea the Obama administration rejects, but sooner or later will have no alternative but to embrace for the large most troubled ones.

The Bank Act of 1933 - Glass-Steagall

On June 16, the Bank Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall) created the FDIC insuring bank deposits up to $5000 and separated commercial from investment banks and insurance companies, among other provisions to curb speculation. Senator Carter Glass was its prime mover and got Senator Henry Steagall to go along by attaching his amendment to protect deposits. For years, Glass believed bankers should stick to their knitting, not deal in or hold corporate securities. He blamed them for the 1929 crash, the subsequent bank failures, and Great Depression that followed. The Bank Act of 1933 passed quickly to curb them.

Much more as well and largely people-oriented, not Obama's agenda to reward banksters with trillions of public dollars. More on that below.

Other economic measures enacted were:

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC)

In 1932, Herbert Hoover created it, but Roosevelt streamlined its bureaucracy and increased its funding to recapitalize troubled banks and corporations. Under Hoover, it had $500 million in capital with authorization to borrow up to $1.5 billion more. In its first six months, it loaned banks over $800 million but didn't halt the crisis. Like today, they retained their reserves, shunned lending, and, besides, public trust was lacking.

Roosevelt's New Deal changed things. Under the 1933 Emergency Banking Act, RFC could buy bank equity and within a year bought more than $1 billion, or about one-third of total banks' capital. At the same time, government measures and oversight restored public confidence enough to attract hundreds of millions in deposits that pumped life into troubled banks if only for starters.

During his tenure, Roosevelt used RFC funding for agencies like the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, Farm Credit Administration, Rural Electrification Administration, Public Works Administration, and others as well as emergency relief loans to states, something Hoover never did, let alone establish New Deal policies to let him.

The Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 - Following the Securities Act of 1933

The 1933 law (enacted May 27, 1933) required that offers and sales of securities be registered, pursuant to the Constitution's interstate commerce clause. Previously, they were governed by state laws, known as "blue sky laws" to protect against fraud.

The 1934 law (enacted June 6, 1934) regulates secondary trading of financial securities and established the SEC under Section 4 to enforce the new Act, then later the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the 1940 Investment Company Act and Investment Advisers Act, Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002, and the 2006 Credit Rating Agency Reform Act.

Overall, it's to enforce federal securities laws, the securities industry, the nation's financial and options exchanges, and other electronic securities markets unknown in the 1930s along with derivatives and other forms of speculation. Then and now, it's charged with uncovering wrongdoing, assuring investors aren't swindled, and keeping the nation's financial markets free from fraud. At least that was the idea. Eventually, the fulfillment fell far short of the promise.

In the 1930s, regulation worked by requiring that salesmen and brokers be licensed, prospectuses be used, full disclosure provided, and enough enforcement as well to cut fraud significantly. In addition, Glass-Steagall eliminated many 1920s shenanigans, a decade, like today, when Wall Street did as it pleased, created speculative excesses, and caused the inevitable crash.

Reforms were simpler to implement at a time fewer than 5% of the public owned stocks compared to 50% today, and most were sophisticated enough to know what they were doing or thought so. Also, there were no 401ks, IRAs, or a proliferation of mutual and hedge funds like today let alone:

-- securitization/structured finance asset-backed securities (ABSs), mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs), collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), collateralized bond obligations (CBOs), credit default swaps (CDSs), and collateralized fund obligations (CFOs) - combined, sliced, diced, packaged, repackaged, and sold in tranches to sophisticated and ordinary investors, many to mutual fund buyers, never knowing they owned any, let alone were being swindled; and

-- derivative futures, options, forwards, swaps, warrants, leaps, baskets, swaptions, and whatever else Wall Street minds can invent, package, and sell in various ways and forms - too much of it not on the up and up as the current crisis revealed.

Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC)

It was established in 1933 under the Homeowners Refinancing Act to refinance homes and prevent foreclosures, something largely missing in Obama's Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan, the so-called mortgage bailout. It mainly helps lenders, does nothing for homeowners under water or those with second mortgages. Nor does it address plunging property valuations and its affect on millions.

In contrast, HOLC extended short and longer-term loans for up to 30 years and prevented the loss of over a million homes (about one-fifth of those owned with mortgages, the equivalent of 10 million today) at a time half were in default, and annual mortgage lending and residential construction was down 80%.

States began enacting foreclosure moratoriums at a time the average owner was two years in delinquency and three years behind on property taxes. In today's dollars, relative to current GDP, HOLC was initially authorized to issue $200 billion in bonds, acquire defaulted properties in exchange for them from lenders and investors, then refinance mortgages at lower rates (at a maximum 5%) to keep owners from losing their homes.

An essential HOLC element was for lenders and investors to take losses to provide more affordable mortgages for their holders - something missing in Obama's plan that lets issuers add unpaid balances to principal in return for lower rates and term extensions, meaning defaults are delayed, not stopped, and as valuations keep falling, millions more may lose their homes.

HOLC was hugely successful but not perfect. Given the dire conditions of the times, around 200,000 owners eventually defaulted but 80% were saved, far different from today with over four million foreclosures and 2009 estimates ranging from three million more to much higher numbers, plus many more in 2010.

The Economy Act

It was enacted on March 14, 1933 to deliver on Roosevelt's campaign promise to balance the "regular" non-emergency budget, be fiscally prudent, and do it by cutting government employees' salaries and veterans pensions by 40% for a $500 million savings at the worst possible time to do it. As a candidate, Roosevelt said deficit spending impaired recovery and hurt business confidence. However, as president, New Deal spending took precedence. By 1936, even four million veterans got their $1.5 billion bonus, in Bonus Bill cash and welfare benefits over Roosevelt's veto.

The Beer-Wine Revenue Act

On February 17, 1933, a dismal experiment ended when the Blaine Act repealed Prohibition, the Constitution's 18th Amendment, then formally adopted iti in December under the 21st Amendment.

On March 22, passage of the Beer-Wine Revenue Act levied a $5 tax on every barrel of beer and wine and reenacted parts of the Webb-Kenyon Act to protect states with laws prohibiting alcoholic beverages in excess of 3.2%. States also were left in charge of the sale and distribution of spirits.

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)

The March 31, 1933 Emergency Conservation Work Act (CCC) put unemployed men to work on numerous projects - building roads, bridges, parts of dams, developing state parks, planting trees, and various forestry and recreational programs for the Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, and Soil Conservation Service.

Reportedly, it was FDR's favorite initiative. On April 5, Executive Order 6101 launched it by appointing a Director of Emergency Conservation Work "By virtue of the authority vested in me by the (CCC) Act of Congress...." It had great public support. By year end 1935, it employed over 600,000 in 2650 camps (including supervisors and administrators) in every state engaged in more than 100 kinds of work.

Civilian Works Administration (CWA)

On May 12, 1933, enactment of the Federal Emergency Relief Act established the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) to provide funds to states (from May through December 1935) to reduce unemployment. It set up CWA, supplied over $3 billion for various work and transient projects, created temporary jobs for over 20 million, then was gradually ended in favor of the Works Progress Administration (WPA).

Before it did, it was considered a significant initiative with Washington taking responsibility for the welfare of millions, both employable and unemployable, at a time of desperate need. Its flexibility and high administrative standards made it a model for later relief efforts.

The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA)

Passed on June 16, 1933, Roosevelt called it "the most important and far-reaching (law) ever enacted by the American Congress." It established the National Recovery Administration (NRA) as an initiative to revive economic growth, encourage collective bargaining, set maximum work hours, minimum wages, at times prices, and forbid child labor in industry.

Business response was mixed. GE helped write it, and the Chamber of Commerce said it was "a most important step in our progress towards business rehabilitation." In contrast, the National Association of Manufacturers and Henry Ford, among others, opposed it.

So did the Supreme Court unanimously in its Poultry Corp. v. United States (May 1935) ruling that NIRA/NRA "lay outside the authority of Congress," infringed on states' rights, unreasonably stretched the Commerce Clause, and gave legislative powers to the president in violation of the Nondelegation doctrine. It added that "extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional powers."

By then, the Act was increasingly unpopular, and many doubted its effectiveness. Some economists called it counterproductive and damaging to economic stability by weakening antitrust laws and allowing collusion.

Public Works Administration (PWA)

It was created by NIRA for PWA-initiated projects to provide jobs, increase purchasing power, improve public welfare, and help revive the economy. Some called it designed to prime the pump and spend "big bucks on big projects," including electricity-generating dams, airports, schools, hospitals, affordable housing, even aircraft carriers.

While it operated, it spent over $6 billion but did little to lift the economy or reduce unemployment because it didn't do enough toward for either. When the nation moved toward war production, PWA became irrelevant and was ended.

Works Progress Administration (WPA)

It was a post-first 100 day initiative funded by the April 1935 Emergency Relief Appropriation Act and launched by Roosevelt's May 6 Executive Order 7034 "to move from the relief rolls to work on (various) projects or in private employment the maximum number of persons in the shortest time possible."

It replaced FERA, CWA and PWA to became the largest New Deal agency, employing millions in every state, especially in rural and western areas - those able to work, not the aged, handicapped or otherwise unemployable to be helped mostly at state and local levels. It and other programs eventually found jobs for about 60% of the nation's unemployed, paying around $50 a month (on WPA jobs) that went a lot further then than now.

WPA focused heavily on construction and developmental programs but also in areas of education, the arts, health, and other community projects for professional and white collar workers as well as efforts to feed children and redistribute food, clothing and provide housing.

Most observers called WPA a success. Others, however, objected to its competing unfairly with business, dispensing jobs as political favors, undercutting prevailing wages, and letting social protest themes be part of various arts projects. Once war production began, WPA shifted focus in that direction. By mid-1943, most alphabet soup agencies ended in favor of business as usual taking over post-war.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

On May 18, 1933, the Tennessee Valley Authority Act became law creating TVA as a federally-owned corporation to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, economic development, and promote agriculture in the depression-impacted Tennessee Valley area covering most of Tennessee as well as parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. It was the federal government's largest regional planning agency and remains so.

From 1933 - 1944, it built 16 dams and a steam plant, produced electricity cheaply, and by 1941 was its largest producer in the country. It also established the Electric Home and Farm Authority (EHFA) to help farmers buy major electric appliances with EHFA low-cost financing.

In Ashwander v. TVA (February 1936), the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional, noting that regulating interstate commerce includes doing it for streams. They require flood control for navigability, and electricity generation is a by-product of this effort.

Today, TVA remains America's largest public power company, with over 34,600 megawatts in generating capacity serving about 8.5 million customers.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA)

Enacted on May 12, 1933, it restricted production by paying farmers to reduce and/or destroy crops and kill livestock at a time millions were impoverished and hungry. The idea was to decrease supply and raise prices (at the worst possible time) with farmers getting government payments for agreeing not to plant specific crops, not produce milk and butter, nor raise pigs and lambs. In addition, the Agriculture Secretary had exclusive powers to license food processors to control supply and raise prices.

In United States v. Butler (January 1936), the Supreme Court ruled that the tax underwriting AAA was unconstitutional because, among other reasons, it assessed one farmer to pay another. Congress later achieved part of AAA's goals through the 1935 Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act until enactment of the second AAA in February 1938. It was funded through general taxation and thus constitutionally acceptable to the High Court.

AAA was conceptually flawed. It ran counter to vitally needed policy to produce low-cost food, make it affordable for millions, and relieve hunger. It also subsidized owners, not tenant farmers or sharecroppers, and ended up depressing incomes and increasing unemployment at the worst possible time.

The Farm Credit Act of 1933

Enacted on June 16, 1933 (the last of FDR's first 100 days), it was established to help farmers refinance mortgages over an extended time at below-market rates, and by so doing, helped them stay solvent and survive. It also created the Farm Credit Administration to make loans for the production and marketing of agricultural products as well as regulate and examine banks, associations, and related Farm Credit System entities - a network of borrower-owned financial institutions to provide credit to farmers, ranchers, and agricultural and rural utility cooperatives.

The May 1933 Emergency Farm Mortgage Act, established during the time of the Dust Bowl, provided refinancing help for farmers facing foreclosure.

An Overall Assessment

Despite its flaws and failures, FDR's New Deal was remarkable in what it accomplished. It helped people, put millions back to work, reinvigorated the national spirit, built or renovated 700,000 miles of roads, 7800 bridges, 45,000 schools, 2500 hospitals, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 1000 airfields, and various other infrastructure, including much of Chicago's lakefront where this writer lives. It cut unemployment from 25% in May 1933 to 11% in 1937, then it spiked before early war production revived economic growth and headed it lower.

The Great Depression was, in fact, two severe recessions:

-- from summer 1929 - March 1933;

-- followed by a 1933 - 1937 recovery; impressive enough for the Dow Industrials to rise from a July 1932 low of 43 to 187 in February 1937 for a near-335% gain; however, the rally followed an 89% decline so even the new top ended up 50% below the 1929 peak of 385, a level it took 25 years to regain; then

-- from May 1937 - June 1938, another slump followed (and a 47% Dow average decline) in response to reduced government spending before early war preparations produced recovery.

It might have been stronger and quicker had Roosevelt embraced all of Keynes' advice in a December 31, 1933 New York Times "Open Letter" (republished on November 25, 2008 in the London Guardian) to:

-- "spend, spend, spend;"

-- supply "cheap and abundant credit;"

-- stress "speed and quick" recovery over reform that can come later;

-- hold back on recovery-impeding reforms initially;

-- direct recovery to "increas(ing) the national output," increasing purchasing power, and "put(ting) more men to work;"

-- let rising output, not government policies, produce price increases; "increasing aggregate purchasing power is the right way to get prices up and not the other way around;"

-- undertake "a large volume of Loan-expenditures under Government auspices" but work cooperatively with business; and

-- concentrate on projects that "can be made to mature quickly on a large scale, as for example the rehabilitation of the physical condition of the railroads."

Roosevelt did much of the above, but not enough of it, then in 1937 declared victory too early and precipitated another downturn. Nonetheless, he deserves praise for what he accomplished during the gravest ever economic period to that time. He confronted it head-on with emergency first 100 days measures and vital reforms, Keynes advice notwithstanding, including:

-- the above-cited "first 100 days" legislation, then later

-- the National Labor Relations Board with the passage of the 1935 Wagner Act, that, for the first time, let labor bargain collectively on equal terms with management - something very much eroded in today's environment;

-- the 1935 Social Security Act that to this day is the single most important federal program responsible for keeping seniors and others eligible out of poverty;

-- unemployment insurance in partnership with the states; by 1935, nearly all the unemployed got social benefit payments;

-- the Revenue Acts of 1934 and 1935, so-called "Soak the Rich" ones to make high income earners pay their fair share;

-- the Revenue Act of 1936 that established an "undistributed profits tax" on corporations;

-- the Revenue Act of 1937 that cracked down on tax evasion;

-- a minimum wage, a 40-hour week, and time-and-a-half for overtime guarantees under the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA);

-- public housing under the 1934 National Housing Act (creating the Federal Housing Administration - FHA) to make housing and mortgages more affordable through FHA and Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) financing;

-- the May 1935-established Rural Electrification Administration (REA) to bring electrical power to rural and remote areas;

-- the 1937 Housing Act (Wagner-Steagall Act) providing subsidies to local public housing agencies;

-- the Railroad Retirement System, separate from Social Security, administering a social insurance program for railroad workers and their families;

-- the National Youth Administration (NYA) under WPA to help youth unemployment through grants to high school and college students in return for work; it also aided unemployed young people not in school with on-the-job training in federally-funded work projects to provide marketable future skills; and

-- more initiatives in an effort to reform and revive the economy.

Obamanomics - Obama's Bad Deal

As stated above, Roosevelt confronted "the money changers," even though mostly through rhetoric. Obama, like Bush, embraces them openly to the tune of $12.8 trillion "spent, lent or guaranteed," according to Bloomberg on March 31 while people needs go begging at a time they're most essential. He leads:

-- an imperial enterprise presided over by a war cabinet engaged in unbridled militarism, aggressive wars and occupation with a budget well above $1 trillion annually;

-- a bogus democracy under a homeland police state apparatus;

-- an anti-labor job destruction offensive, from 800,000 - one million a month since his inauguration, compared to FDR creating employment for most workers and reviving the national spirit; and

-- a criminal cabal in charge of the greatest ever wealth transfer in history - from the public to the top 1%, mainly powerful corrupt Wall Street institutions.

As Michel Chossudovsky explains, his budget reflects "the most drastic curtailment in public spending in American history." It's a "War Budget (affecting) all major federal (programs except): 1. Defense and the Middle East War(s and whatever new ones are planned); 2. the Wall Street bank bailout, (and) 3. Interest payments (approaching $500 billion annually) on a staggering (growing) public debt."

People needs don't matter. They get little more than lip service, and in his April 14 Georgetown University economic policy speech, Obama promised disappointment. When he should have been Rooseveltian, he defended bank bailouts, suggested more are coming, championed "free market" rubbish, and presented "five pillars (to) make the new century another American (one):"

-- no-teeth financial regulations;

-- education reform, meaning the Bush agenda to end public education;

-- renewable energy and technology investments, likely to be far less than needed and for the wrong things;

-- health care reform minus Medicare-for-all to assure profits trump human need; and

-- "restoring fiscal discipline (by) reduc(ing) discretionary spending for domestic programs" at the same time it's been recklessly abandoned for bankers and militarism....we (cannot solve this problem by trimming a few earmarks; (the) biggest (budget costs) are entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security all of which get more expensive every year....So if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline - and I do - we will have to get serious about entitlement reform" - meaning phase them out in future years, or something close to that.

Unless policies like these are reversed, this agenda is heading the nation toward insolvency, tyranny and ruin with ordinary people hurt most.

Simon Johnson is a former IMF chief economist, now teaching at MIT's Sloan School of Management. His article in the Atlantic's May issue, titled "The Quiet Coup," suggests that Wall Street (a "financial oligarchy") is turning America into a "banana republic," given the depth, similarities and shock "reminiscent of" earlier crises in Southeast Asia, Russia, Latin America, and other developing countries.

His analysis is long and detailed, concluding as follows:

"The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump 'cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.' This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression - because the world is now so much more interconnected and the banking sector so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries, a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances. If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on the banking system and a breaking of the old elite."

So far policy is mirror-opposite, hugely destructive, publicly papered over but evident in divergent G 20 views, raging on London and other European streets, to a lesser degree in America, and openly stated by Czech prime minister/EU president Mirek Topolanek calling Washington's stimulus "a way to hell (that will) undermine the stability of" global finance.

Obama is wrecking America. Roosevelt determined to revive it and help people as the way to do it.

He had his "Brain Trust," notable figures like Felix Frankfurter, (a future Supreme Court justice), Justice Louis Brandeis, consumerist/labor supporter Frances Perkins, economist Rexford Tugwell, educator/author Adolph Berle, and close personal confidant Louis Howe, among others - officials and advisors dedicated to reviving the economy by putting people back to work. One other was prominent as well, his wife Eleanor.

Rexford Tugwell said this about her:

"No one who ever saw Eleanor Roosevelt sit down facing her husband, and, holding his eye firmly, say to him, 'Franklin, I think you should....or, 'Franklin, surely you will not....' will ever forget the experience....It would be impossible to say how often and to what extent American governmental processes have been turned in new directions because of her determination."

At first, she worried she'd be marginalized as first lady, unable to speak publicly about causes she championed. But it didn't stop her. She held press conferences for women reporters only; pressed FDR to appoint more women and much more:

-- she urged the creation of the National Youth Administration;

-- became a civil rights champion and pushed for including blacks in government programs;

-- supported the Southern Tenant Farmer's Union;

-- worked with the PWA's Housing Division for planned communities ("greenbelt towns") and slum clearance;

-- backed Federal Arts Projects, even ones with "controversial" themes;

-- supported worker rights and lobbied for the Wagner and Fair Labor Standards Acts;

-- visited coal mines, migrant camps, homes of sharecroppers and slum-dwellers;

-- wrote articles, spoke publicly and on radio;

-- traveled widely to see firsthand how the Depression affected the most vulnerable; and

-- displayed an unmatched spirit, passion and dedication, and, by so doing, set a standard never matched by another first lady; few, in fact, even tried.

That Was Then, This Is Now - A Different Time, A Different President, A Different Agenda

The differences between FDR and Obama are stark during the two gravest economic crises in our history. Obama chose a financial coup d'etat "dream team" to address it. It includes a rogue's gallery of 1990s and earlier retreads, many of them proteges of former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin who plundered world economies during his tenure, then led Citigroup close to collapse - disciples like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former New York Fed president who partnered with Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson's Treasury-looting under Bush.

Reportedly he was also one of the architects behind the Bear Stearns bailout and various others, including Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, and Lehman Bros.' suspicious collapse that shocked financial markets globally. He now runs the Treasury and continues looting on a grander scale on the pretext of reviving the economy. Instead, he's wrecking it - by design.

Others like Lawrence Summers, a former Reaganite and World Bank chief economist before becoming Clinton's Under-Treasury Secretary for International Affairs, then Treasury Secretary from 1999 - 2001. He helped deregulate financial markets and played a key role in the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed Glass-Steagall and opened the door to the kinds of rampant speculation, fraud, and abuse that created today's crisis.

He was also instrumental in the passage of the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernation Act (CFMA). It legitimized "swap agreements" and other "hybrid instruments" at the heart of today's problems by preventing regulatory oversight of derivatives and leveraging that turned Wall Street into a casino.

Now he's do for Obama what he did earlier - as Director of the National Economic Council where he's part of a criminal cabal triumvirate in charge of economic policies along with Geithner and Bernanke.

Another Rubin protege, Peter Orszag, heads the Office of Management and Budget. Earlier he was on Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, then was Congressional Budget Office Director from early 2007 to late 2008. He's for destroying Social Security through a combination of payroll and "benefits adjustments" as a way of cutting retiree payouts.

Also close to Rubin and for Social Security privatization is Jason Furman, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council. In the Clinton administration, he served as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and on the Council of Economic Advisors.

UC Berkeley economist Christina Romer chairs the Council of Economic Advisors where she's close to the president but with less clout than Geithner, Summers and Bernanke. Her idea of good government - the less the better, except for handouts to the rich. In praise of Ronald Reagan she once wrote: "The costly wrong turn in ideas and macropolicy of the 1960s and 1970s has been set right, and the future of stabilization looks bright," meaning, of course, to take from the many for the few.

That's also true for Paul Volker (former Fed chairman, Trilateralist, corporatist and no friend of working people), now serving as 1st Chair of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, a position with lots of bark and little bite, but enough to pay attention to nonetheless, especially when he differs on public policy.

Former Washington governor Gary Locke is the new Commerce Secretary, hailed as "safe (and) strait-laced," but his record shows otherwise. He skirted campaign finance laws; handed Boeing a $3.2 billion tax break; paid Boeing's private consultant and outside auditor $715,000; and arranged favors for his brother-in-law's business above and beyond what's ethical.

Former Colorado senator and rancher Ken Salazar heads the Interior Department. He backed the worst of Bush administration appointments, including Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General and right-winger Gale Norton for Interior. He's an anti-environmentist and is staunchly pro-business, clearly why he was appointed in the first place.

That's true as well for Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor, chair of the right wing Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), now new Agriculture Secretary. Agribusiness loves him. He's for ethanol and other biofuel production, big subsidies for the giants, and the proliferation of harmful GMO seeds.

As new Education Secretary, Arne Duncan will do for the nation what he did to Chicago - preside over public education's destruction by privatizing it for profit, and in the process, destroy the futures of millions of youths in the country.

The 1934 Securities and Exchange Act created an SEC with teeth and, for a while, it worked. At least since the 1980s, it hasn't, and under George Bush it became a travesty of non-enforcement.

Mary Schapiro is its new head, hand-picked by the industry she'll regulate so there's no doubt where her allegiance lies. She's a high-level insider, former FINRA and NASD head and earlier CFTC chairperson. In each job, she was a facilitator, not a regulator, credentials making her perfect for SEC where industry interests matter, not enforcing the nation's securities laws.

Other Obama officials are as tainted - his top team and their underlings. Roosevelt promised change and delivered. So did Obama - for his Wall Street backers and beneficiaries.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site and listen to The Global Research News Hour on Republic Broadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13326


Stephen Lendman is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Stephen Lendman

Obama’s new wars

In a society where war is glorified and military power is deified, the economy becomes dependent on waging wars. It becomes necessary to create contrived conflicts that manufacture consent domestically, distract people from the real issues, and generate pseudo patriotism.

It is essential to know history in order to understand the present. Nevertheless, knowing history has never precluded man from repeating it.

Historically, Every American president had his war. However, in the 60’s a change of policy or doctrine occurred during the Kennedy administration. The change was geared toward the deterrence of wars of national liberations, which in turn led to the McNamara revolution and to the creation of new mobile forces that will stealthily move smoothly and swiftly across the planet in the next 50 years establishing an invisible empire.

The following excerpts will clarify some of this history and will edify the reasons behind the conflicts we embarked on in the last 50 years.

Brief history:

Throughout the cold war era, American defense analysts believed implicitly in the proposition that military superiority was defined in terms of firepower, mobility, and other technological factors. Military doctrine is not formulated on the basis of abstract principles or unchanging laws. The armed forces of a nation are nothing more nor less than an instrument of national policy-an instrument that is, of those with the power to make that policy. In the United States , the making of foreign policy has been, for all practical purposes, the exclusive prerogative of the business elite that has dominated the Executive departments since the late nineteenth century. [5].

Of course, one cannot say that this elite constitutes a monolithic bloc with a unified policy orientation. Differences of outlook, competing short-and long-term interests, and conflicting power foci have always existed. But in the most general sense, the business community dominates the American foreign policy apparatus has shared a common interest in the continued growth of capitalism, the Open Door in world trade, and the expansion of our “invisible empire.” [6].

Given the intertwined relationship of American business and government, it is not surprising that the ultimate arm of national policy-the military-has been used consistently to defend, expand, and maintain our informal empire.

For over a century, the employment of U.S. forces abroad has been governed by the principle of business expansionism; again and again. American troops have been sent to the Third World to guarantee our access to key markets and sources of raw materials, and to protect American properties from expropriation.

This pattern of military intervention is graphically documented in a chronology of the “instances of use of U.S. Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1945,” prepared at the request of the late Senator Everett Dirksen and published in the Congressional record. Of the nearly 160 occasions on which American forces were employed abroad between 1798-1945, an overwhelming majority involved occupation of a Third World country.

Between 1900 and 1925, for instance, U.S. troops were dispatched overseas “to protect American interests” or “ to restore order” during “periods of revolutionary activities” in China (seven times), Colombia (three times), Cuba (Three times), The Dominican Republic (four times), Guatemala (twice), Haiti (twice), Honduras (seven times), Korea (twice), Mexico (three times), Morocco, Nicaragua (twice), Panama (six times), the Philippines, Syria and Turkey (twice). Of the longer interventions, American soldiers occupied Haiti from 1925 to 1934 “to maintain order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection,” and Cuba from 1917 to 1933 “to protect American interests during an insurrection and subsequent unsettled conditions.” [1].

Following World War II, American military strategy was reshaped by the nation’s cold war leadership to accord the principal foreign policy goals of the era: The stabilization of Western European capitalism and the prevention of further Soviet advances in Europe and Asia .

The officers who assumed leadership of the military apparatus at this time had all risen to prominence during World War, and they naturally turned to their wartime experience for guidance in the formulation of combat doctrine. The strategies they adopted and the weapons they acquired were appropriate to what they perceived as the greatest threat to American national interests-a Third World War in Europe precipitated by an invasion by the Soviet Red Army.

By the late 1950’s, it had become apparent to some American strategists that the maintenance of nuclear supremacy secured at the expense of other military programs-had left us vulnerable to attacks by armed revolutionaries. The stability of our invisible empire in the Third World was shaken by the unexpected rebel successes at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, in Cuba in 1959, and in Algeria in 1962. These events, coming at a time when trade and investment in the Third World were becoming increasingly critical to metropolitan economy, forced a complete reevaluation of American military strategy.

If our invisible empire were to be preserved and American expansion in the Third World facilitated, it would be necessary to develop new strategies and techniques for defeat of guerilla armies in underdeveloped areas. U.S. troops would once again be sent abroad to “protect American interests” and to “restore order” during periods of chronic and threatened insurrection. Therefore, the American business elite will have us fight so persistently to suppress revolutions because they view this struggle as the only way to maintain their power and privilege. The rewards at stake are far too great. Only through revolution can the people of the Third World begin the process of development and acquire some measure of self-dignity; only through counterrevolution can the American business elite preserve its wealth and power. For the United States , the only possible outcome of this global conflict is participation in a long series of “limited” conflicts, police actions, and “stability operation”-the war without end.

US interest in limited war strategy first emerged in response to the Korean War which was largely fought with World War II weapons despite an overwhelming American superiority in nuclear armaments. The opponents of the Massive retaliation called the “strategic revisionist” who rejected the Eisenhower-Dulles thesis felt that the U.S. would spend itself into bankruptcy if it prepared to fight local aggression locally at places and with weapons of the enemy’s choosing. General Maxwell D. Taylor a former army chief of staff was one of these revisionists who proposed the strategy of “flexible response” capability that would enable the U.S. to respond to each crisis with precisely the degree of force required to assure success.

Taylor had the backing of academic strategist associated with the Council on Foreign Relations, Center for International Affairs of Harvard University, and the Center for international studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These views were given further elaboration in the following year when panel II of the special studies Project of the Rockefeller brothers fund delivered its report on “international security: the “Military Aspect.” Prepared under the direction of Henry A. Kissinger (ten years before he was to become President’s Nixon key foreign-policy adviser).

President Kennedy, on the other hand was deeply impressed by these arguments, and in 1961 the advocates of Flexible Response were invited to participate in the new administration. Thus, under Kennedy the policy of Flexible Response became established Pentagon doctrine. Sharing the president’s concern with the threat of revolutionary warfare was the new secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara, who later on implements the doctrine and reorganizes the pentagon (described as the McNamara revolution) and endowed himself with the same of kind of management aids that were available to him as president of Ford. Shortly, after, the blueprint for counterrevolution was created. The blueprint entailed the ability to rapid military deployment, the electronic battlefield, the Mercenary apparatus (developing secret local armies/mercenaries by the CIA), and social systems engineering (project Camelot) designed to determine the feasibility of developing a general social systems model which would make it possible to predict and influence politically significant aspects of social change in the developing nations of the world. [1].

Today’s wars:

As we see the 60’s have set the stage for the future wars or otherwise called low intensity conflicts, or counterrevolution interventions.

This strategy works very well militarily and politically. Presidents began to wage low intensity wars that they can easily win in order to increase their popularity, rally the public behind them, generate jobs in the Military Industrial Complex, and create a frenzy of flag wavers. People love to win wars and to wave flags; besides, the military helps the populace act out vicariously their rage and their anger toward a common enemy instead of focusing on their own empty lives, ineptness, and alienation, and give them instead a pseudo-sense of mightiness and godliness when their military win a conflict regardless how insignificant the opposition might be (i.e. Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Haiti, Afghanistan, etc…).

Thanks for these military exercises or low intensity conflicts that the politicians and their cohorts in the corporate media who promote and dub as “just” wars, where evil must be defeated, because we are pure goodness when we kill, and because might is always right.

As a result, we maintain the illusion of a healthy economy that is based on debt, we deify war and warriors, foster vengeance, and create public fervor and zest for power and domination.

It always seems that every new president continues the process that his predecessor has begun. The rhetoric and the false promises that every politician promulgates during a campaign, become a congealed slide of lies in the deceptive archives of political history. Unfortunately, the public desperate to be led believes the same lies over and over again.

Here we are again today, another administration, rhetoric and newspeak and a prospective new war. However, the same money masters who groomed, recruited, and put Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. in office also put Obama in this same office to do their bidding.

Interestingly, Mr. Obama has endorsed the Patriot Act, the spying on Americans, the terrorist watch list, and the expansion of big brother into new heights. He has also continued the bail outs and rescue of the corrupt and insolvent fractional reserve banking system, since many of these super banks have contributed to his campaign generous amounts of money that went unnoticed by the corrupt global medial outlets. The Obama campaign received by August 2008 huge sums of money, per example, JP Morgan Chase contributed to Obama’s campaign $398,021, Citibank $393,899, UBS Swiss bank, $378,400, Goldman Sachs $627,730, [4], and the corporate list that Obama vowed not to take money from goes on and on.

Meanwhile, Obama predictably reneged on the rest of his campaign promises. Iraq became the forgotten war, or the new conflict due to the new escalation by alleged insurgents. Obama has kept the troops in Iraq and plans to shuffle and shuttle some of them to Afghanistan in order to start his new central Asian war. At the same time, the blood shed continues in Babylon (in April 2009, 18 American soldiers died) and the dismantling of every aspect of this country persists.

However, economically speaking, Iraq was part of our economic and Wall Street Ponzi scheme. It was a blessing in disguise for the Bush administration, because it kept the economy tagging along and the unemployment levels under control due to the high contracting and government jobs that were engendered by the Iraq war, while over a million Iraqis have died. "War makes money."

In addition, the new face of globalization embodied in Mr. Obama who has began his new war in Pakistan in collaboration with the Indian government, in order to dismantle that country and balkanize it like the rest of the world. Certainly, the region will witness more contrived attacks that will escalate the conflict on the borders of India and Pakistan , which will eventually change the map of the region. Pakistan must be dismantled with its ruling elite. The Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI a subsidy of the CIA) who rules Pakistan with the military generals has to be eradicated, because they are the main accomplice and the last witness who would indict the cabal of criminals who committed the atrocity of 911.

On April 9, 2009 Reuters reported that President Barack Obama asked the U.S. Congress for an additional $83.4 billion to fund the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan saying the security situation along the Afghan-Pakistan frontier was urgent. [7].

Ironically, the New York Times reported on May 1, 2009 that administration officials have stated that the American confidence in the Pakistani government has waned, and the Obama administration is reaching out more directly than before to Nawaz Sharif, the chief rival of Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president. What is more odious is that American officials have long held Mr. Sharif at arm’s length because of his close ties to Islamists in Pakistan, but some Obama administration officials now say those ties could be useful in helping Mr. Zardari’s government to confront the stiffening challenge by Taliban insurgents. [6]. In other words, the Obama administration is flirting with the Islamists in Pakistan to support the current president, whom they will eventually assassinate in order to take over the throne of corruption. As a result, the U.S. will have created once again a new monster to slay, an ogre with nuclear weapons in which they have provided and supported with billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

Subsequently, Obama will also continue his predecessor’s policies in the region, and in Afghanistan, to protect the oil pipelines, and to resume the encircling of Russia and China under the guise of wanting to destroy the mythical Al Qaeda and its leader the late OBL (who was declared dead by Benazir Bhutto on her interview with David Frost before she was assassinated).

On the local front Obama will be battling the new swine flu, which combines genetic material from pigs, birds and humans in a way researchers have not seen before. However, the medical establishment apparently has already in place a pre-existing blood test that could detect this new and unusual stain of hybrid flu.

Fear must continue to be drummed up into the public’s psyche intermittently to maintain its effectiveness, either with created ogres that are lurking among us, or by a disease that threatens our existence and render us into primitive automatons seeking shelter and gratification in the arms of a father figure embodied in a corrupt elitist government.

Obama’s other new local war will be in Mexico with the other swine personified in the drug cartel that have collaborated for years with intelligence agencies and facilitated the drug trafficking into the US and abroad.

What is it going to take for Mexicans to privatize their oil? A new plague?

The remaining question is whether Mr. Obama can remain popular throughout his term without engaging the military in a low intensity conflict?

Unfortunately, in his perch on the morning of 03-27-09 he elucidated his policy against the mythical and contrived war on terror, therefore, continuing the policy of the previous administration and of the money masters. Obama like every other president, chose expediency over truth and justice. He is after all another front man, namely a politician.

References:

1. M. T. Klare, (1972). War without end. American planning for the next Vietnam . Random House Inc. New York .

2. Michael C. Conley, “The Military Value of Social Sciences in an Insurgent Environment,” Army Research and Development Newsmagazine (November 1996). P. 22.

3. Prolific magazine. August 8, 2008. Meet Obama’s Corporate Backers

4. See Kolko, The roots of American Foreign Policy, Chapter 2, pp.27-47

5. Magdoff, The age of Imperialism. pp. 20-1

6. New York Times (May 1, 2009). In Pakistan , U.S. Courts Leader of Opposition.

7. Reuters (April 9, 2009). Obama asks Congress for extra $83.4 bln for military


Richard Skaff is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Richard Skaff

President Obama Won't Rule Out Torture

During his April 29, 2009, press conference, President Obama was asked if he would ever authorize or resort to torture. His answer more than implied an acceptance of torture, and true to form it was ignored in conference recaps by the main stream media.

The question was asked by Mark Knoller of CBS News. Here is the exchange (emphasis added):

OBAMA: Mark Knoller?

KNOLLER: Thank you, sir. Let me follow up, if I may, on [the previous] question. Did you read the documents recently referred to by former Vice President Cheney and others saying that the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" not only protected the nation but saved lives? And if part of the United States were under imminent threat, could you envision yourself ever authorizing the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques?

OBAMA: I have read the documents. Now they have not been officially declassified and released. And so I don't want to go to the details of them. But here's what I can tell you, that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn't answer the core question.

Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn't answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?

So when I made the decision to release these memos and when I made the decision to bar these practices, this was based on consultation with my entire national security team, and based on my understanding that ultimately I will be judged as commander-in-chief on how safe I'm keeping the American people.

That's the responsibility I wake up with and it's the responsibility I go to sleep with. And so I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe. But I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking short cuts that undermine who we are.

And there have been no circumstances during the course of this first 100 days in which I have seen information that would make me second guess the decision that I have made. OK?

So there, in a passing comment, is the answer to the broadest question of all: Would President Obama ever condone "enhanced interrogation techniques" (the favored euphemism for "torture")? He "will do whatever is required," especially if he sees "information that would" change his mind about the use of torture.

Is it any wonder President Obama is gun-shy about investigating, interrogating and prosecuting those from the Bush administration who violated laws prohibiting torture?

Sinclair's First Book Review

BOOK AS REVIEWED BY CITIZEN WELLS

The following is from Citizen Wells. Read the whole article at http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/larry-sinclair-book-review-update-may-4-2009-barack-obama-and-larry-sinclair-cocaine-sex-lies-and-murder-obama-thugs-internet-threats-attacks-death-threats/

I would like to add the following:

How many of you would be willing to go to jail and risk your life for your country and your beliefs?How many of you would persist against forces out to destroy you and your reputation, forces with unlimited resources and forces that ultimately gained the power of the US Presidency?How many of you would have refused to make money off of enormous web site traffic despite the fact that you were fighting a battle with limited resources

Larry Sinclair has done so.

On many occasions I suggested to Larry that he make money off of his web site traffic and he consistently stated that it was not about the money. Larry has in fact been consistent about his story and has always done what he has told me he was going to do. I began following the Larry Sinclair story early in 2008 and have covered it more than any other source. Larry asked me to review the first 11 chapters of his book several days ago. I have read it and it is consistent with everything I have witnessed and that Larry has told me. People have criticized Larry for the delay in the book but he has prevailed against powerful forces and is making progress. Publishing a book under normal circumstances is difficult enough, but imagine doing so with the whole world against you, especially the most powerful office in the world.


Larry has asked me not to reveal any details of the book. There are some details included that I have known about for many months and I have kept them to myself. The book is full of details and they are included to add credence to certain statements that he makes.


One of the things I discovered early on in my investigations was that Larry Sinclair, who was not running for the office of president, was forthright in admitting who he was and the mistakes that he had made. Larry has provided many details of his life leading up to the encounter with Barack Obama in 1999. Obama has consistently hidden records of his past including, but not limited to, his original long form birth certificate. After a few weeks of analyzing Obama and Sinclair, Larry Sinclair gained credibility and Obama has steadily plummeted in credibility.


Many have followed the Larry Sinclair story on the internet and those of you who have been faithful followers will recognize many details. However, the book ties it all together and covers what I listed above as the 4 separate stories that evolved out of the initial encounter between Obama and Sinclair:

1. The initial encounter with Obama in 1999.
2. The Donald Young controversy.
3. The attacks made on Larry Sinclair, those following his story and anyone questioningthe “messiah” Obama.
4. The changing and withholding of internet information and attempts to prevent Larry Sinclairand others from reporting the truth.


For those not as familiar with the Larry Sinclair story(s) or for those who were misled by the Obama camp thugs or by misreporting from the Main Stream Media, this book will be an eye opening, awakening into tactics out of Nazi Germany or the book “1984″ by George Orwell. For many, the honeymoon is over for Obama and they are starting to see how the Obama thugs operate. This book will reveal a long term pattern of deception and attacks from the Obama camp.


The Obama camp spent thousands of dollars and employed an army of internet thugs to discredit Sinclair. When you read the book you may find out that what you believed was true about Larry Sinclair was nothing but an Orwellian campaign to alter the truth and brainwash the public. I followed some of these stories in real time as they played out and even controlled Sinclair’s blog for a period of time when he was taken as a political prisoner. I watched as Obama camp thugs attempted to discredit and silence Sinclair. It was important to me that the American public know the truth. I am pleased that Larry Sinclair’s book, “Barack Obama and Larry Sinclair Cocaine, Sex, Lies and Murder” will be on bookshelves soon.


You may have read “Dreams from my Father” or “Audacity of Hope” by Barack Obama, which were carefully crafted to create illusions of only past drug use, fatherly mentors and to portray Obama as mainstream and a typical rags to riches success story. Now read the truth about Barack Obama, his continued drug use, his sexual exploits and misuse of power.


Order a copy of Larry Sinclair’s book and discover the real Barack Obama. This book is destined to be a best seller.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Setting the Stage for Obama’s Control Over the Internet: Electricity Grid in U.S. Penetrated by Spies

[Robert Moran monitors an electric grid in Dallas. Such infrastructure grids across the country are vulnerable to cyberattacks.]
Associated Press

Robert Moran monitors an electric grid in Dallas. Such infrastructure grids across the country are vulnerable to cyberattacks.

WASHINGTON -- Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, according to current and former national-security officials.

The spies came from China, Russia and other countries, these officials said, and were believed to be on a mission to navigate the U.S. electrical system and its controls. The intruders haven't sought to damage the power grid or other key infrastructure, but officials warned they could try during a crisis or war.

"The Chinese have attempted to map our infrastructure, such as the electrical grid," said a senior intelligence official. "So have the Russians."

The espionage appeared pervasive across the U.S. and doesn't target a particular company or region, said a former Department of Homeland Security official. "There are intrusions, and they are growing," the former official said, referring to electrical systems. "There were a lot last year."

Many of the intrusions were detected not by the companies in charge of the infrastructure but by U.S. intelligence agencies, officials said. Intelligence officials worry about cyber attackers taking control of electrical facilities, a nuclear power plant or financial networks via the Internet.

Authorities investigating the intrusions have found software tools left behind that could be used to destroy infrastructure components, the senior intelligence official said. He added, "If we go to war with them, they will try to turn them on."

Officials said water, sewage and other infrastructure systems also were at risk.

"Over the past several years, we have seen cyberattacks against critical infrastructures abroad, and many of our own infrastructures are as vulnerable as their foreign counterparts," Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair recently told lawmakers. "A number of nations, including Russia and China, can disrupt elements of the U.S. information infrastructure."

Officials cautioned that the motivation of the cyberspies wasn't well understood, and they don't see an immediate danger. China, for example, has little incentive to disrupt the U.S. economy because it relies on American consumers and holds U.S. government debt.

But protecting the electrical grid and other infrastructure is a key part of the Obama administration's cybersecurity review, which is to be completed next week. Under the Bush administration, Congress approved $17 billion in secret funds to protect government networks, according to people familiar with the budget. The Obama administration is weighing whether to expand the program to address vulnerabilities in private computer networks, which would cost billions of dollars more. A senior Pentagon official said Tuesday the Pentagon has spent $100 million in the past six months repairing cyber damage.

U.S. Intelligence Detects Cyber Spies

1:54

WSJ's Intelligence Reporter Siobhan Gorman says that Intelligence officials have found cyber spies lurking in the U.S. electrical infrastructure.

Overseas examples show the potential havoc. In 2000, a disgruntled employee rigged a computerized control system at a water-treatment plant in Australia, releasing more than 200,000 gallons of sewage into parks, rivers and the grounds of a Hyatt hotel.

Last year, a senior Central Intelligence Agency official, Tom Donahue, told a meeting of utility company representatives in New Orleans that a cyberattack had taken out power equipment in multiple regions outside the U.S. The outage was followed with extortion demands, he said.

The U.S. electrical grid comprises three separate electric networks, covering the East, the West and Texas. Each includes many thousands of miles of transmission lines, power plants and substations. The flow of power is controlled by local utilities or regional transmission organizations. The growing reliance of utilities on Internet-based communication has increased the vulnerability of control systems to spies and hackers, according to government reports.

[Chart]

The sophistication of the U.S. intrusions -- which extend beyond electric to other key infrastructure systems -- suggests that China and Russia are mainly responsible, according to intelligence officials and cybersecurity specialists. While terrorist groups could develop the ability to penetrate U.S. infrastructure, they don't appear to have yet mounted attacks, these officials say.

It is nearly impossible to know whether or not an attack is government-sponsored because of the difficulty in tracking true identities in cyberspace. U.S. officials said investigators have followed electronic trails of stolen data to China and Russia.

Russian and Chinese officials have denied any wrongdoing. "These are pure speculations," said Yevgeniy Khorishko, a spokesman at the Russian Embassy. "Russia has nothing to do with the cyberattacks on the U.S. infrastructure, or on any infrastructure in any other country in the world."

A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, Wang Baodong, said the Chinese government "resolutely oppose[s] any crime, including hacking, that destroys the Internet or computer network" and has laws barring the practice. China was ready to cooperate with other countries to counter such attacks, he said, and added that "some people overseas with Cold War mentality are indulged in fabricating the sheer lies of the so-called cyberspies in China."

Utilities are reluctant to speak about the dangers. "Much of what we've done, we can't talk about," said Ray Dotter, a spokesman at PJM Interconnection LLC, which coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in 13 states and the District of Columbia. He said the organization has beefed up its security, in conformance with federal standards.

In January 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved new protection measures that required improvements in the security of computer servers and better plans for handling attacks.

Last week, Senate Democrats introduced a proposal that would require all critical infrastructure companies to meet new cybersecurity standards and grant the president emergency powers over control of the grid systems and other infrastructure.

Specialists at the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit, a nonprofit research institute, said attack programs search for openings in a network, much as a thief tests locks on doors. Once inside, these programs and their human controllers can acquire the same access and powers as a systems administrator.

NERC Letter

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation on Tuesday warned its members that not all of them appear to be adhering to cybersecuirty requirements. Read the letter.

The White House review of cybersecurity programs is studying ways to shield the electrical grid from such attacks, said James Lewis, who directed a study for the Center for Strategic and International Studies and has met with White House reviewers.

The reliability of the grid is ultimately the responsibility of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., an independent standards-setting organization overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The NERC set standards last year requiring companies to designate "critical cyber assets." Companies, for example, must check the backgrounds of employees and install firewalls to separate administrative networks from those that control electricity flow. The group will begin auditing compliance in July.

—Rebecca Smith contributed to this article.

Corrections & Amplifications
Central Inteligence Agency official Tom Donahue's last name was misspelled in a previous version of this article.