Washington's Blog
In case it's not crystal clear, this isn't the "Great Recession".
It's really the Great Bank Robbery.
First, there was the threat of martial law if the $700 Billion Tarp bailout wasn't passed. Specifically, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson warned Congress that there would be martial law unless the Tarp bailouts were approved.
As I pointed out last October:
The New York Times wrote on July 16th:
In retrospect, Congress felt bullied by Mr. Paulson last year. Many of them fervently believed they should not prop up the banks that had led us to this crisis — yet they were pushed by Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke into passing the $700 billion TARP, which was then used to bail out those very banks.
Congressmen Brad Sherman and Paul Kanjorski and Senator James Inhofe all say that the government warned of martial law if Tarp wasn't passed:
Bait And Switch
Indeed, the Tarp Inspector General has said that Paulson misrepresented some fundamental aspects of Tarp.
And Paulson himself has said:
During the two weeks that Congress considered the [Tarp] legislation, market conditions worsened considerably. It was clear to me by the time the bill was signed on October 3rd that we needed to act quickly and forcefully, and that purchasing troubled assets—our initial focus—would take time to implement and would not be sufficient given the severity of the problem. In consultation with the Federal Reserve, I determined that the most timely, effective step to improve credit market conditions was to strengthen bank balance sheets quickly through direct purchases of equity in banks.
So Paulson knew "by the time the bill was signed" that it wouldn't be used for its advertised purpose - disposing of toxic assets - and would instead be used to give money directly to the big banks?
And see this and this.
But at least the bailout money was used to help the economy by stabilizing the financial sector, right?
Sorry.
As I wrote in March 2009:
The bailout money is just going to line the pockets of the wealthy, instead of helping to stabilize the economy or even the companies receiving the bailouts:
•Bailout money is being used to subsidize companies run by horrible business men, allowing the bankers to receive fat bonuses, to redecorate their offices, and to buy gold toilets and prostitutes
•A lot of the bailout money is going to the failing companies' shareholders
•Indeed, a leading progressive economist says that the true purpose of the bank rescue plans is "a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives"
•The Treasury Department encouraged banks to use the bailout money to buy their competitors, and pushed through an amendment to the tax laws which rewards mergers in the banking industry (this has caused a lot of companies to bite off more than they can chew, destabilizing the acquiring companies)
And as the New York Times notes, "Tens of billions of [bailout] dollars have merely passed through A.I.G. to its derivatives trading partners".
***
In other words, through a little game-playing by the Fed, taxpayer money is going straight into the pockets of investors in AIG's credit default swaps and is not even really stabilizing AIG.
But at least the government is trying to help the struggling homeowner, right?
Well, PhD economists John Hussman and Dean Baker (and fund manager and financial writer Barry Ritholtz) say that the only reason the government keeps giving billions to Fannie and Freddie is that it is really a huge, ongoing, back-door bailout of the big banks.
Many also accuse Obama's foreclosure relief programs as being backdoor bailouts for the banks. (See this, this and this).
But certainly quantitative easing is helping the little guy?
Unfortunately, QE only helps the big banks and giant corporations, and the small number of investors who hold most of the stock. See this, this, this, this and this.
And now, the government has announced that it will maintain tax breaks for the wealthiest while considering slashing social security and medicare.
Warren Buffet famously said a couple of years ago:
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.
The proof is in the pudding: a small handful of people have ended up with a lot more loot in their safes, while everyone else has gotten a lot poorer. And, unfortunately, radical concentration of wealth is destroying both capitalism and democracy.
The government has not only failed to enforce any laws to prevent theft, but has been so busy helping the big boys carry their bags of cash that - even with the sheriffs' badges - it is difficult to tell who is who.
View Article With Links HERE
Sunday, November 14, 2010
High Court Considers Barring Christian Foster Parents
WorldNetDaily
The stunning, benchmark case of a Christian couple told they may not be able to be foster parents under new laws dictating sensitivity to homosexual children is now awaiting judgment from Great Britain's High Court.
Owen and Eunice Johns of Derby, England, had cared for more than a dozen foster children through 1993, but when in 2007 they wished to resume foster care, they were required to reapply with their city council.
In the interval, however, Great Britain passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations and the Equality Act, which led a social worker to question whether a Christian couple would be "fit" to care for a potentially homosexual child.
Mrs. Johns told London's Daily Mail, "The council said, 'Do you know, you would have to tell them that it's OK to be homosexual?'"
"But I said I couldn't do that," Johns continued, "because my Christian beliefs won't let me. Morally, I couldn't do that. Spiritually I couldn't do that."
The Johns appealed to the courts, hoping it would force their council to clarify whether Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics would be forbidden from adopting foster children.
Read "Back Fired," by William J. Federer, and see how the faith that gave birth to tolerance is no longer tolerated!
The groundbreaking legal collision of homosexual "rights" and the freedom of religion has generated extensive public attention, including an open letter from several British clergy and signed by former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton:
"The High Court is to be asked to rule on whether Christians are 'fit people' to adopt or foster children – or whether they will be excluded, regardless of the needs of children, from doing so because of the requirements of homosexual rights," the clergy write. "This 'equality,' however, privileges homosexual rights over those of others."
"There is a 'clash of rights,' which the court must settle," the clergy continue. "If the court believes that those with traditional Christian views on homosexuality can be discriminated against, the state has taken a position on a moral question, namely that such religious belief is problematic."
They conclude, "We trust and pray that common sense and justice will be done."
The Christian Legal Centre, which campaigns for religious freedoms, is representing the Johns.
"The case will decide whether the Johns will be able to foster without compromising their beliefs," the CLC said in a statement. "The implications are huge. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of Christian foster carers and adoptive parents hangs in the balance."
Andrea Minichiello-Williams, director of the CLC further told the Mail, "That the court even needs to consider this is a remarkable reversal in the concept of the public good and the traditional definition of sexual morality."
Ben Summerskill, of the lesbian, "gay" and bisexual rights charity Stonewall, however, told the newspaper the interests of a child should become before the "prejudices of a parent":
"Many Christian parents of gay children will be shocked at Mr. and Mrs. Johns’s views, which are more redolent of the 19th century than the 21st," Summerskill said.
Great Britain's High Court, which is similar to a federal district court in the U.S., heard testimony earlier this month and is expected to take up to six weeks to hand down its decision.
In the hearings, the Derby City Council was represented by Jeremy Weston, who told the court that the Johns' application had technically never been decided and the council was also waiting for judicial review of the case.
"The city council needs clarity on this matter," he said. "It defends diversity and equality and has treated the Johns as it would have treated anyone else. It would be inappropriate for the council to approve foster carers who cannot meet minimum standards."
Weston also said, however, "It would be difficult and impractical to match children with Mr. and Mrs. Johns if they feel that strongly."
Weston added that the Johns' application could also be ultimately denied should the Johns be found "unsuitable" for other reasons, including "if Mrs. Johns' attendance at church twice on a Sunday would limit available time [to care for children]."
Read Article With Links HERE
The stunning, benchmark case of a Christian couple told they may not be able to be foster parents under new laws dictating sensitivity to homosexual children is now awaiting judgment from Great Britain's High Court.
Owen and Eunice Johns of Derby, England, had cared for more than a dozen foster children through 1993, but when in 2007 they wished to resume foster care, they were required to reapply with their city council.
In the interval, however, Great Britain passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations and the Equality Act, which led a social worker to question whether a Christian couple would be "fit" to care for a potentially homosexual child.
Mrs. Johns told London's Daily Mail, "The council said, 'Do you know, you would have to tell them that it's OK to be homosexual?'"
"But I said I couldn't do that," Johns continued, "because my Christian beliefs won't let me. Morally, I couldn't do that. Spiritually I couldn't do that."
The Johns appealed to the courts, hoping it would force their council to clarify whether Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics would be forbidden from adopting foster children.
Read "Back Fired," by William J. Federer, and see how the faith that gave birth to tolerance is no longer tolerated!
The groundbreaking legal collision of homosexual "rights" and the freedom of religion has generated extensive public attention, including an open letter from several British clergy and signed by former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton:
"The High Court is to be asked to rule on whether Christians are 'fit people' to adopt or foster children – or whether they will be excluded, regardless of the needs of children, from doing so because of the requirements of homosexual rights," the clergy write. "This 'equality,' however, privileges homosexual rights over those of others."
"There is a 'clash of rights,' which the court must settle," the clergy continue. "If the court believes that those with traditional Christian views on homosexuality can be discriminated against, the state has taken a position on a moral question, namely that such religious belief is problematic."
They conclude, "We trust and pray that common sense and justice will be done."
The Christian Legal Centre, which campaigns for religious freedoms, is representing the Johns.
"The case will decide whether the Johns will be able to foster without compromising their beliefs," the CLC said in a statement. "The implications are huge. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of Christian foster carers and adoptive parents hangs in the balance."
Andrea Minichiello-Williams, director of the CLC further told the Mail, "That the court even needs to consider this is a remarkable reversal in the concept of the public good and the traditional definition of sexual morality."
Ben Summerskill, of the lesbian, "gay" and bisexual rights charity Stonewall, however, told the newspaper the interests of a child should become before the "prejudices of a parent":
"Many Christian parents of gay children will be shocked at Mr. and Mrs. Johns’s views, which are more redolent of the 19th century than the 21st," Summerskill said.
Great Britain's High Court, which is similar to a federal district court in the U.S., heard testimony earlier this month and is expected to take up to six weeks to hand down its decision.
In the hearings, the Derby City Council was represented by Jeremy Weston, who told the court that the Johns' application had technically never been decided and the council was also waiting for judicial review of the case.
"The city council needs clarity on this matter," he said. "It defends diversity and equality and has treated the Johns as it would have treated anyone else. It would be inappropriate for the council to approve foster carers who cannot meet minimum standards."
Weston also said, however, "It would be difficult and impractical to match children with Mr. and Mrs. Johns if they feel that strongly."
Weston added that the Johns' application could also be ultimately denied should the Johns be found "unsuitable" for other reasons, including "if Mrs. Johns' attendance at church twice on a Sunday would limit available time [to care for children]."
Read Article With Links HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)