Why Johnson & Johnson doesn't belong in your portfolio.

 

This post is kind of a reply to Tony Wang's post of May 16th regarding the value of keeping some Johnson & Johnson stock in your portfolio.

 

Below is an excerpt of a CNNMoney.com article which details some of the conditions at Johnson & Johnson's Tylenol plant located in Fort Washington, PA.: (My bold)

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The quality and safety violations that led to the shutdown of a Tylenol plant were extremely serious, and could lead to tough action by regulators on drugmaker Johnson & Johnson.

 

"It's absolutely shocking," said David Lebo, a professor of pharmaceutical manufacturing at Temple University in Philadelphia, referring to the Food and Drug Administration's May 6 inspection report on the facility in Fort Washington, Penn., operated by Johnson & Johnson's McNeil division.

 

"This inspection report is pretty close to being the worst I've seen. It suggests that basically the FDA found an issue with almost every system at the plant," said Lebo, who had previously worked for Johnson & Johnson's pharmaceutical sourcing group in 2002. Lebo said he left that job after nine months because the work required too much travel.

 

On May 1, McNeil recalled some 50 children's versions of non-prescription drugs, including Tylenol, Motrin and Benadryl. Johnson & Johnson (JNJ, Fortune 500) has suspended production at the plant.

 

The FDA report listed 20 violations, which include 46 consumer complaints on the recalled products. Johnson & Johnson has not revealed details of those complaints. ..........

 

The most damning, according to Lebo, was the charge that the plant "does not maintain adequate laboratory facilities for the testing and approval (or rejection) of components of drug products." (Stop and think about that one for a moment y'all)

 

and

 

The FDA also said that lack of proper controls in the manufacturing process led to some batches of infant's Tylenol being "superpotent," or having too much of some ingredients.

Also, the report noted that employees at the plant were not trained in current good manufacturing practices. The FDA inspectors further detailed dusty and filthy conditions at the plant, including "incubators with a large amount of visible gray and brown dust/debris, large hole in the ceiling and thick dust covering the grill inside a filtered cabinet."

=================================

 

The CEO of Johnson & Johnson can spew all the BS he wants, but the facts are clear. J & J simply cares more about profit than the safety of children. Period.

 

Here you have a company that makes a pain killer for use by infants and the plant that makes it "does not maintain adequate laboratory facilities for the testing and approval of components of drug products." So basically, whatever comes from their vendors is ASSUMED to be what they ordered, is not tested, and is put into a finished product intended for use by INFANTS.

 

Of course, why spend money on plant maintenance or lab equipment that will tell us exactly what we are putting into the products we make, when that cash can be put to better use in the form of executive bonuses.

 

How anyone who has even a remote shred of conscience can recommend owning the stock of a company such as this is beyond me. Although, I guess if your entire life revolves around the acquisition of money to the exclusion of all else then........well.......that's fine. (Not!)

 

Greed first, public safety last. It's the American way.

Home Depot: Greedy corporate scum, squared.

"(Expletive) Michael Powell," the executive said. "Let him sue us."

 

Home Depot knew exactly what it was doing,' U.S. District Judge Daniel Hurley said. 'They simply pushed Mr. Powell away and they did it totally and completely for their own economic benefit.'

By Jane Musgrave

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Updated: 4:35 p.m. Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Posted: 7:40 p.m. Monday, May 10, 2010

 

WEST PALM BEACH — When a Home Depot executive was told inventor Michael Powell might have a claim against the hardware giant for stealing an invention that keeps store employees safe, his reaction was swift and vulgar.

"(Expletive) Michael Powell," the executive said. "Let him sue us."

The crass response typifies the company's attitude toward Powell, who crafted an simple, yet ingenious, way to keep Home Depot employees from slicing off their fingers while they're cutting wood for customers, a federal judge said Monday.

"Home Depot knew exactly what it was doing," U.S. District Judge Daniel Hurley said. "They simply pushed Mr. Powell away and they did it totally and completely for their own economic benefit."

Calling the company callous and arrogant, he ordered it to pay the former Boca Raton man $3 million in punitive damages. That's on top of the $15 million a jury in March said the company should pay him for stealing his so-called "Safe Hands" gadget that is now affixed to radial saws at nearly 2,000 Home Depots nationwide.

The damages for Home Depot don't end there. Hurley also ordered the firm to pay Powell's attorneys the $2.8 million they say they are owed, and to pay Powell an estimated $1 million in interest annually on the judgment. The interest began building in 2006 and will continuing accruing until Home Depot pays up.

The roughly $25 million judgment could have been avoided had the company agreed in 2004 to pay Powell the $2,000 he offered to charge for each device. That bill would have come to $4 million.

Instead, Hurley said, the firm dispatched workers to duplicate the saw guards Powell allowed them to test in eight stores in Georgia and California.

"It's sad to say, but Home Depot literally organized a theft of the Powell invention," he said.

Powell, who now lives in North Carolina, declined to comment on the verdict on the advice of his attorneys . Home Depot attorneys also declined to comment.

A company spokesman said Home Depot disagreed with the ruling and is considering an appeal.

"We have a strong commitment to dealing with our business partners fairly and with integrity, which is how we've maintained long-standing relationships with literally tens of thousands of suppliers over the past 30-plus years," company spokesman Stephen Holmes wrote in an e-mail. "We would never condone actions that intentionally violate another company's intellectual property rights."

However, Hurley said, that's not what the evidence showed during Monday's day-long hearing or during a nearly monthlong trial.

Recognizing it was a Goliath to Powell's David, the company sought to cut him out of any profit for the invention that saved the company millions in worker's compensation claims. In the year before the devices were installed, the company paid out $1 million in claims related to injuries caused by the saw. In the year after the gadgets were installed, it paid out $7,000.

He also criticized Home Depot attorneys for their handling of the case, which he described as "nasty, mean litigation." For instance, when Powell's attorney asked for records of injuries cause by the saws, Home Depot attorneys handed over 6,000 documents. In a spot check of 2,300 pages, Powell's attorneys found one document that dealt with a saw injury.

"This is the kind of activity that people look at that engenders outright disgust for the legal profession," Hurley told Moss. "It is shameful."

==============================

 

Just one more example of America circling the bowl.

The problem with "diversity."

Turn your volume way down before playing the video.

====================================

==================================
And then we have this interesting link:
http://www.jsonline.com/general/37714089.html?bcpid=23739055001&bctid=78489347001
The news story the video is based on (Link) :

A man convicted of murdering University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee film student Nathan Potter was wrestled to the ground, pepper-sprayed and taken under guard from a courtroom Friday after he was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole.

Seandell Jackson spat a string of obscenities at Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Rebecca Dallet as three deputies and Milwaukee police Detective James Hutchinson dragged Jackson to the floor of her courtroom.

Moments before, Jackson's attorney, Patrick Earle, had asked Dallet to weigh into her sentence the 19-year-old Jackson's youth and, as Earle put it, his "lack of impulse control."

As authorities struggled to subdue Jackson, members of his family stood in the back of the courtroom and taunted Potter's family.

"I hate you!" a woman yelled toward the Potters. "I hate you all!"

"God's the judge," another woman yelled toward Potter's mother and father, who held each other and wept.

"God's the judge."

In February, a jury convicted Jackson, 19, of being party to a crime of first-degree intentional homicide and attempted robbery in the shooting death of 21-year-old Potter.

Assistant District Attorney Mark Williams showed Dallet videos of Jackson's reaction when the jury delivered its verdict.

In the videos, Jackson turns to Potter's family, mouths an obscenity and smirks. The video also shows Jackson being led from the courtroom a few minutes after the verdict is announced. As he reaches the courtroom door, he turns toward Potter's family and laughs.

"Is there such a thing as pure evil?" Nathan Potter's father, John Potter, asked Dallet.

"There is the tape."

Jackson shot Potter in the chest in July as Potter walked to his Riverwest apartment in the 2500 block of N. Dousman St.

Jackson and an accomplice, Derek J. Thomas, were attempting to rob Potter. Potter had no money.

Dallet, her voice raspy from the fumes of the pepper spray, also sentenced Jackson to five years in prison for attempted robbery. In addition, she sentenced Jackson to five years in prison for an unrelated non-fatal shooting that occurred the same day that Potter was killed.

No one was seriously injured in the courtroom melee, though Hutchinson, the chief detective in Jackson's case, was hit in the eyes by the pepper spray.

Jackson was sentenced in the morning. Hutchinson was back in Dallet's court for Thomas' sentencing in the afternoon.

So was Sarah Potter, Nathan Potter's 13-year-old sister. She told her mother and father that she had been afraid someone was trying to kill them during the morning fracas.

Gulping back tears, Sarah told Dallet that she and her 11-year-old brother, David - who has autism - cannot understand why anyone would even hurt her older brother, whom she called "a loving and caring man."

"We can't sleep knowing he's gone," she said, sitting at the defense table beside her father.

John Potter said later that David wants him to keep all the lights on in their home all the time.

"He asked me to remove all the windows," John Potter said.

Thomas, 20, pleaded guilty in March to felony murder.

Williams told Dallet that Thomas played a limited role in the murder.

"Mr. Jackson was the shooter," Williams said. "Mr. Thomas was a follower."

While Williams asked Dallet to sentence Thomas to 12 years in prison, Nathan Potter's mother, Denise Potter, said he deserved to the maximum penalty for felony murder, which is 35 years.

" 'Help me!' (were) the last words he ever said," Denise Potter said.

"Derek did nothing," she said. "They ran away."

Dallet followed Williams' recommendation, adding eight years of extended supervision.

==================================

Hmmm.......I wonder if those gang bangers and the murderer Seandell Jackson were products of a liberal or conservative public education system?

( Iknow liberals, I know, it's the gun's fault and not the homeboy with the gun---what was I thinking?)

Why we still need the Second Amendment

 

 

From Huffpo: 

NEW ORLEANS — A former New Orleans police officer told federal authorities he saw a fellow officer shoot and kick unarmed, wounded civilians in a deadly incident on a bridge in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, marking the first time an officer has provided federal authorities with an eyewitness account of the events.

The former officer, Michael Hunter, pleaded guilty Wednesday to helping cover up the shootings on the Danziger Bridge less than a week after the August 2005 storm.

A court filing Wednesday that describes Hunter's account of the shootings contradicts a police report that said civilians shot at officers before the police opened fire, killing two people and wounding four others.

Seeing no danger to officers, Hunter says he shouted "Cease fire!" after an unidentified sergeant with an assault rifle and other officers opened fire on a group of unarmed civilians who took cover behind a concrete barrier on the bridge.

After they stopped firing, Hunter says he saw several civilians who appeared to be unarmed, injured and subdued.

"(The sergeant) suddenly leaned over the concrete barrier, held out his assault rifle, and, in a sweeping motion, fired repeatedly at the civilians lying wounded on the ground," the filing says. "The civilians were not trying to escape and were not doing anything that could be perceived as a threat."

Moments later, Hunter saw two men later identified as Lance Madison and his 40-year-old mentally disabled brother, Ronald, running away near the bottom of the bridge.

Hunter's statement said an unidentified officer shot Ronald Madison in the back with a shotgun.

"As Ronald Madison lay dying on the pavement, (the sergeant) ran down the bridge toward Ronald and asked an officer if Ronald was 'one of them.' When the officer replied in the affirmative, (the sergeant) began kicking or stomping Ronald Madison repeatedly with his foot," the filing states.............

----------------------------------------------

Let's also remember that guns were confiscated after Katrina. Is it a wonder people do not trust our government or our law enforcement anymore?

On another related note....From uruknet :

On Monday, April 5, Wikileaks.org posted video footage from Iraq, taken from a US military Apache helicopter in July 2007 as soldiers aboard it killed 12 people and wounded two children. The dead included two employees of the Reuters news agency: photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh.

 

The US military confirmed the authenticity of the video.

The footage clearly shows an unprovoked slaughter, and is shocking to watch whilst listening to the casual conversation of the soldiers in the background.

As disturbing as the video is, this type of behavior by US soldiers in Iraq is not uncommon.

Truthout has spoken with several soldiers who shared equally horrific stories of the slaughtering of innocent Iraqis by US occupation forces.

"I remember one woman walking by," said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the US Marines who served three tours in Iraq. He told the audience at the Winter Soldier hearings that took place March 13-16, 2008, in Silver Spring, Maryland, "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."

The hearings provided a platform for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to share the reality of their occupation experiences with the media in the US.

Washburn testified on a panel that discussed the rules of engagement (ROE) in Iraq, and how lax they were, to the point of being virtually nonexistent.

"During the course of my three tours, the rules of engagement changed a lot," Washburn's testimony continued, "The higher the threat the more viciously we were permitted and expected to respond. Something else we were encouraged to do, almost with a wink and nudge, was to carry 'drop weapons', or by my third tour, 'drop shovels'. We would carry these weapons or shovels with us because if we accidentally shot a civilian, we could just toss the weapon on the body, and make them look like an insurgent."

Hart Viges, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division of the Army who served one year in Iraq, told of taking orders over the radio.

"One time they said to fire on all taxicabs because the enemy was using them for transportation.... One of the snipers replied back, 'Excuse me? Did I hear that right? Fire on all taxicabs?' The lieutenant colonel responded, 'You heard me, trooper,fire on all taxicabs.' After that, the town lit up, with all the units firing on cars. This was my first experience with war, and that kind of set the tone for the rest of the deployment."

Vincent Emanuele, a Marine rifleman who spent a year in the al-Qaim area of Iraq near the Syrian border, told of emptying magazines of bullets into the city without identifying targets, running over corpses with Humvees and stopping to take "trophy" photos of bodies.

"An act that took place quite often in Iraq was taking pot shots at cars that drove by," he said, "This was not an isolated incident, and it took place for most of our eight-month deployment."

Kelly Dougherty - then executive director of Iraq Veterans Against the War - blamed the behavior of soldiers in Iraq on policies of the US government.

"The abuses committed in the occupations, far from being the result of a 'few bad apples' misbehaving, are the result of our government's Middle East policy, which is crafted in the highest spheres of US power," she said.

Michael Leduc, a corporal in the Marines who was part of the US attack on Fallujah in November 2004, said orders he received from his battalion JAG officer before entering the city were as follows: "You see an individual with a white flag and he does anything but approach you slowly and obey commands, assume it's a trick and kill him."

Brian Casler, a corporal in the Marines, spoke of witnessing the prevalent dehumanizing outlook soldiers took toward Iraqis during the invasion of Iraq.

"... on these convoys, I saw Marines defecate into MRE bags or urinate in bottles and throw them at children on the side of the road," he stated.

Scott Ewing, who served in Iraq from 2005-2006, admitted on one panel that units intentionally gave candy to Iraqi children for reasons other than "winning hearts and minds.

"There was also another motive," Ewing said. "If the kids were around our vehicles, the bad guys wouldn't attack. We used the kids as human shields."

 

==================================

 

FULL UNCUT VIDEO

==================================

====================================================================

 

The really disturbing thing is the mentality of our troops. We can argue about the causes, but the results speak for themselves. The complete lack of common sense of our troops in assuming people casually walking around a city in broad daylight carrying alleged RPG's is just mind numbing. (Even in an area known for terrorist activity)

 

If our guys will do this to Iraquis and Afghani civillians, they will certainly do it to us.

Recovery?...and, if you thought Bush was an idiot...

 

 

So, it looks like we may have finally hit bottom and the recovery is starting to pick up speed. Not so fast. As Limbaugh has been mentioning, it appears Obama and the Dims have resigned themselves to a baseline 9 or 10 percent unemployment (we know the actual number is higher) as being the new norm. Let's see how that has been working out:

 

===================================

 

 

=================================================================================== And, if you thought Bush 43 was an idiot, have a listen to Dimocrat Hank Johnson. Why do we continue to elect these people? ===================================================================================

16th and 17th Amendments not ratified--Proof.

16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

17th Amendment: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."

The thing most people do not realize is that until 1913 senators were elected by their respective legislatures instead of by popular vote of the people.

The below article shows conclusively that the 17th Amendment was not ratified.

Source Link

National Archives
Seventeenth Amendment

Devvy Kidd
March 2010

This is a lengthy document. I tried to make it clear and easy to follow.

All of these official documents were obtained in person in Washington, DC, from the National Archives. I was accompanied by two dear friends, Dane vonBreichenruchardt, President, Bill of Rights Foundation, Washington, DC, and my other friend who wishes to remain anonymous. He is considered a 'master' researcher because of his experience doing research at the National Archives. I am truly grateful for their help in gathering these documents and to the sponsors of my trip.

Dane and my other friend can verify we were given the run around during the collection of some documents. We asked for everything on the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. Every document no matter if it was a letter, vote, copy of the resolution. We were told the rolls of microfilm in the archives contained ALL records.

I believe I did not get all I requested, either because they are no longer there or I was not meant to receive them. We were there several days; ample time for collection. All of these documents were on microfilm and copied by all of us at some point. They were copied in order off the microfilm and we were very careful not to skip any pages.

On March 31, 2009, we had a very short meeting with Congressman Ron Paul; the first and only time I have ever spoken with him. While our meeting was not about the Seventeenth Amendment, the issue of looting of documents from our precious National Archives came up. Ron Paul is aware of what has been going on; no more comment on that right now. This sickens me. The documents in the people's archives are originals and can never be replaced. They are our history.

If at all possible and you live near your state capitol, I hope you can visit and get court certified, every document they have on the vote and any correspondence from your state to Washington, DC on the Seventeenth Amendment — before more documents disappear. See link at bottom on the thief, Sandy Berger.

If you are a state legislator, please do everything in your official capacity to make your state archives produce all documents relating to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment by your state. I do not exaggerate when I say there is a high probability that some are already missing and we don't want more to vanish.

Many states were not in session at the time the Seventeenth Amendment was submitted. No Action was taken by some legislatures which begs the legal question:

If a state legislature was out of session at the time the voting process was underway, do they lose their equal right to representation due to actions by Congress beyond their control? I believe this is a KEY legal issue that must be addressed by the states; see:

Full text of "Constitution Jefferson's Manual And Rules Of the House Of Representatives Of The United States Eighty Seventh Congress"

http://www.archive.org/stream/constitutionjeff014670mbp/constitutionjeff014670mbp_djvu.txt

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose, Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

"Question has arisen as to the power of a State to recall its assent to a constitutional amendment (V. 7042)."

Since several states were out of session at the time of the vote, have they been deprived of equal Suffrage in the U.S. Senate because they did not participate in the ratification of this amendment? Is fraud (non ratification) enough to allow a state to declare it null and void in their state?

No Action taken: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware. No record for Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington State.

That Amendment was processed by Philander Chase Knox, Secretary of State in 1912, and then by his successor, William Jennings Bryan. I provide that just to clear up any confusion looking through the documents. The page numbers I refer to are ones I put on each page to avoid getting the documents mixed up since there are 239 of them.

From the official documents:

Department of State — Office of the Solicitor — Memorandum
June 2, 1913 — See page 17, 24 & 25

List of Errors in Resolutions of State Legislatures

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Page 26: "...the Executive branch* of the Government ruled that these errors were immaterial to the adoption of the amendment, it is clear that the procedure in which may be properly followed in proclaiming the adoption of the proposed amendment — that is to say, that the Secretary of State may disregard the errors contained in the certified copies of the Resolution of the Legislatures acting affirmatively on the proposed amendment." (Italics mine)

* No conflict of interest there!

Please note on page 27:

"It is believed that this meets fully the requirement with reference to receipt of "official notice" contained in Section 205, Revised Statutes of the United States (quoted supra page 2) and that Minnesota should therefore be numbered with the States ratifying the amendment."

This will come into play regarding the legal research courtesy of constitutional Attorney Larry Becraft below.

William Jennings Bryan declared the Seventeenth Amendment ratified at 11:00 am, May 31, 1913, by proclamation.

Before we go state by state, let me point this out:

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Page 12:

AMENDMENT [XVII.] 9

House, 48 Cong. Rec. (62d Cong., 2d Sess.) 6367, having previously passed the Senate on June 12, 1911. 47 Cong. Rec. (62d Cong., 1st Sess.) 1925. It appears officially in 37 Stat. 646. Ratification was completed on April 8, 1913, when the thirty—sixth State (Connecticut) approved the amendment, there being then 48 States in the Union. On May 31, 1913, Secretary of State Bryan certified that it had become a part of the Constitution. 38 Stat 2049.

Ratification was completed on April 8, 1913?

According to the official documents from the National Archives, pg 48, Arizona ratified June 3, 1913; Arkansas ratified April 14, 1913; Connecticut ratified April 15, 1913; Minnesota ratified June 10, 1913; Wisconsin ratified May 9, 1913.

How is it the ratification process could be completed April 8, 1913, when five states didn't ratify it until after that date?

The states of the Union must force a showdown. They can appoint two U.S. Senators and send them to Washington. That would force a constitutional showdown. They can sue the government and go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court. No path is going to be easy because of something called an enrolled bill.

Constitutional Attorney Larry Becraft represented Bill Benson in a lawsuit over the Sixteenth Amendment in the State of Oklahoma in 2001. For additional information on that lawsuit, see Inside Oklahoma's 16th Amendment lawsuit.

Click here to read SHORT EXPOSITION RE LAW OF RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS on Larry's web site. This is a lengthy and somewhat complicated document. HOWEVER, we must understand all the legal minefields and court rulings from the past. That legal research will be invaluable for state legislators and their legal staff.

Going state by state from the archives:

Alabama — No Action. Alabama was out of session until January 1915

Arizona — various errors in typographical print and one word added. Declared ratified.

Arkansas — Declared Ratified. Missing:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution providing that Senators shall be elected by the people of the several States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two—thirds of each House concurring therein).

That language is in the official submission to the states.

California — Declared ratified; text full of errors. Omitted last paragraph of the amendment!

Let's deal with this mess. Bryan's documents show ratified January 28, 1913; pg 43.

However, in June 2002, I personally retrieved a number of documents from the California State Archives. Many don't know that Bill Benson, who researched the Sixteenth Amendment did the Seventeenth at the same time. This type of research requires cross checking between documents in the National Archives and each state archives individually.

They are scanned with the rest, but you will see these exhibits relating to the Seventeenth (click here):

1. Letter from the office of March Fong Eu, Secretary of State, California dated November 23, 1981. The archivist could find no record of any debate or the vote for the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. NO RECORD OF THE VOTE.

2. The second document is Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5, January 20, 1913, regarding the Seventeenth Amendment. These documents I personally retreived from the State Archives in California. That J.R. is only 8 days before U.S. Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan declares it ratified by California. There were no fax machines, email or overnight mail. It is impossible to believe that their assembly and senate could have voted and transmitted the documents within eight days to Washington DC in the dead of winter. Besides the all important detail: No record of any debate or vote exists.

3. The next document is titled Engrossed Constitutional Amendment — Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 92, dated April 23, 1913.

Now, this is very important. Right below is the link to several pages cited above. You've looked at the letter from March Fong Yu, former Secretary of State of California: no record of debate or vote on the Seventeenth Amendment. Yet, the second document dated January 20, 1913 declares the state ratified it.

Scroll down to page five -- this is another document I personally obtained at the California State Archives. I believe Bill Benson and constitutional attorney Larry Becraft also have them. Note the date on this Assembly Final History dated April 23, 1913, four months after California allegedly ratified the amendment.

Go down to the next page of the Assembly Final History and see item 7 dated Jan 20, 1913: The Amendment was read, sent to printer and by May 11, 1913, gone from committee with NO recommendation.

How is all this possible if William Jennings Bryan declared it ratified on January 28, 1913?

These images are here.

Now, in File 2, which contains all documents I retrieved, see page 20. Secretary Bryan says 36 states have taken action purporting to ratify the amendment and no official information has been received from any State to the effect that the Legislature of that state has rejected the said amendment. That document is dated June 2, 1913, three days after William Jennings Bryan declared the Seventeenth Amendment ratified (May 31, 1913).

Colorado — Punctuation errors as well as typos. Declared Ratified.

Connecticut — Missing italics as in the original submission from DC. Declared ratified.

Delaware — Letter from the Delaware Secretary of State took no action.

Florida — No Action; see letter from Governor Trammell.

Georgia — No Action.

I highly encourage every state legislator to read the Report of Committee and Resolutions Adopted by the General Assembly of Georgia Relative to the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Providing for the Election of United States Senators by the People. Pgs 85 —97.

That report was signed by the Committee on behalf of their Senate, House, the Speaker of the House, Clerk of the House, President of the Senate. Those individuals fully understood what would happen to the State of Georgia if that amendment passed: they would lose their right of suffrage. Too bad we don't have statesmen like that serving in our Congress for decades.

Idaho — Bryan's documents show ratified January 31, 1913. Idaho's official document with seal shows the house passed January 23, 1913, the senate January 31, 1913 and signed off on February 7, 1913

Many typos and punctuation errors. Declared Ratified.

Illinois — Declared Ratified. Ditto.

Indiana — Declared Ratified. Ditto.

Iowa — Declared Ratified. Ditto.

Kansas — Declared Ratified. Ditto.

Kentucky — No Action. Kentucky was out of session until 1914.

Louisiana — Page 143: Ratification. Punctuation errors.

Official List of states which allegedly ratified, pg 43 does not list Louisiana.

Page 44 lists Louisiana ratified June 11, 1914

However, U.S. Secretary of State declared the amendment ratified on May 31, 1913.

Maine — Declared Ratified. Many typos and punctuation errors.

Maryland — No Action taken per their Secretary of State.

Massachusetts — Declared Ratified. Many typos and punctuation errors.

Michigan — Declared Ratified. Ditto.

Minnesota — Declared Ratified. However, there were but a few documents from the National Archives for that state; none show the amendment that was allegedly voted on by their legislature.

Missouri — Declared Ratified. That record is all in long hand. The sealed document from the Secretary of State declares it approved, dated April 14, 1913. The official archive document (pg. 43) says March 7, 1913. No other documents for that state.

Montana — Declared Ratified. Words changed, punctuation.

Nebraska — Declared Ratified. Words added, punctuation

The Governor signed off on the vote ratifying by their legislature on March 27, 1913.

The Official DC documents show Nebraska ratified it on February 5, 1913.

Nevada — Declared Ratified. Punctuation.

New Hampshire — Declared Ratified. All the usual punctuation and errors of italics. One paragraph appears to be not conformed.

New Jersey — Declared Ratified. Some different text, word changes and usual errors. Pages are missing.

New Mexico — Declared Ratified. Page missing.

New York — Declared Ratified. One paragraph has different text. Certification shows only their assembly voted for it; no mention of their senate.

North Dakota — Declared Ratified. Only shows house bill; no mention of vote by the senate.

Ohio — Declared Ratified. Usual errors. Missing paragraph. HJR 3 is for the House. No version of Senate shown, both allegedly voted yea.

Oklahoma — Declared Ratified. Missing a paragraph.

Oregon — Declared Ratified. No records on micro film.

Pennsylvania — Declared Ratified. Paperwork a mess.

Rhode Island — Not on Archives official list. No records on microfilm.

South Carolina — Not listed on archives list of ratified states. No documents on microfilm.

South Dakota — Declared Ratified. Usual errors. No records on micro film.

Tennessee — Declared Ratified. Paperwork a mess; had to use a search engine to find the state matching the governor.

Texas — Declared Ratified. Paragraph changes. Usual errors. Had to use search engine to find Secretary of State and the governor.

Vermont — Declared Ratified. No records on microfilm.

Washington — Declared Ratified. No records on microfilm.

West Virginia — Declared Ratified. Different text, first paragraph. Usual errors. Lack of paperwork.

Wisconsin — Declared Ratified. Usual errors and change in text. Lack of paperwork.

However, in Bill Benson's book (see link at bottom), he has a letter dated May 3, 1913, written by John B. Moore, Assistant Secretary of State to His Excellency, the Governor of Wisconsin. In this letter he says, "A comparison of the last mentioned Resolution with the one passed [emphasis mine] by the Wisconsin Legislature shows that certain clauses and paragraphs have been added in the later Resolution which were not contained in the Resolution passed by Congress."

Besides the fact this proves there was no conformity to the language for passage, note the date: May 3, 1913. According to the official documents, pg 43, Wisconsin's legislature ratified on May 9, 1913 — six days later. Wait! In the Benson documents is a letter dated May 5, 1913, from Governor Francis McGovern which states he acknowledges Moore's letter and the error in ratification (meaning it was no good). McGovern states he is transmitting copies of Moore's letter to the both branches of his legislature.

No other documentation showing another vote was taken.

Wyoming — Declared Ratified. Paperwork missing.

Total: 36 States. 48 states belonged to the Union at that time.

No Action: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland.

Some of the states are not on microfilm in DC. They would be sandwiched between other states and should have been on the rolls: Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington State.

Those documents (239 pages) I collected were court certified by the Archivist. I photographed them with the seal, but in order to go through them page by page, I had to cut the seal and the 'button's which bundled them. Those photos are here. (Also this link)

The file containing all the documents for the states above, click here.

Three horrendous things happened in 1913 and yes, it was a conspiracy.

1. 1. 1. The Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was declared ratified. The income tax amendment. It clearly was not.
         
         
      2. The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was declared ratified. It clearly was not.
         
         
      3. The unconstitutional Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913 was passed.
         

The income tax amendment was critical. It was needed to feed the privately owned consortium of banks called the FED. The Seventeenth Amendment was critical to remove the right of the states of the Union to equal representation in the U.S. Senate. Henceforth, those seats were up for the highest bidder.

The states are stomped on. The American people are bled to death via heavy progressive taxation and those fruits of our labor go into the coffers of an international and domestic banking cartel draining the lifeblood of this country and our people.

It was a conspiracy. A provable conspiracy: The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin.

Griffin's book is a factual account of the secret meetings at Jekyll Island between powerful bankers to seize and control the monetary system of our country. They were aided and abetted by rotten, corrupt senators who got the bill pushed through. You can watch an interview with G. Edward Griffin on the "FED" here.

"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." — Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr.

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money" — Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.

Lindbergh's book, Banking and Currency and The Money Trust is available free on line.

Supporting documentation and publications:

Fess, Simeon D. 1861—1936. works: Ratification of the Constitution and amendments by the states By statement: prepared by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress ... Series: 71st Cong., 3d sess. Senate. Doc., 240, Senate document (United States. Congress. Senate) ; 71st Congress, no. 240. Most large libraries carry this publication.

Proposing a Constitutional Amendment

Proof the Seventeenth Amendment Was Not Ratified

Bill Benson's collected documents. They are invaluable because they come from the state legislatures; their archives. These were not available to me in Washington, DC. I have not reproduced them because they are Bill's labor.

Special Page for State Legislators on Seventeenth Amendment

The Lunatic Left Is Getting Desperate

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo183.html

Well connected, protected thief:

Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger (Clinton Administration) was caught stealing original documents from the National Archives, which he destroyed. These were highly classified terrorism documents that would have exposed Bill Clinton for the failure he was — except with anything wearing skirts. Berger lied to investigators. That thief pled guilty, paid a $50,000 fine and became Marxist Hillary Clinton's key foreign policy adviser during her failed campaign for the presidency. Birds of a feather. If it were you and I, we would have gone to prison plus the fine. It pays to have friends in high places.

On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. Below is an excerpt; the full text is here.

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.

"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.

"These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War.

"They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. "Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any.

"In 1912 the National Monetary Association, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, made a report and presented a vicious bill called the National Reserve Association bill. This bill is usually spoken of as the Aldrich bill. Senator Aldrich did not write the Aldrich bill. He was the tool, if not the accomplice, of the European bankers who for nearly twenty years had been scheming to set up a central bank in this Country and who in 1912 has spent and were continuing to spend vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose.

"We were opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank. The men who rule the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free Country the worm—eaten monarchical institution of the "King's Bank" to control us from the top downward, and from the cradle to the grave."

=====================================================

Source Link

Now the 16th Amendment:

A criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue for approximately 10 years, William J. Benson of South Holland, Illinois has been at the vanguard of debate and controversy surround the 16th Amendment for almost two decades. In 1984 he embarked upon a year-long project to examine the process of the ratification of the 16th Amendment and to determine whether or not it had been lawfully adopted as part of the U.S. Constitution. The culmination of Benson's work is the book, "The Law That Never Was."

Bill Benson, author of "The Law That Never Was"

Question: You have been engaged in this 16th amendment battle for almost 20 years. How did it start?

Answer: I was a former investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue. I discovered a great deal of corruption within that department and for that the Director fired me. I told him if he fired me, I would sue him for violation of First Amendment rights. Six and half years later we were in court. We had a jury of six; it was a civil trial. They awarded me $353,000 for violation of First Amendment rights.

I began working with my attorney, Andy Spiegal. We had a willful failure to file case in Indiana. Red Beckman had some documentation that showed there was some serious problem with the 16th Amendment. He got the documentation from a man named Dean Hurst, from Cheyenne, Wyoming. I purchased that documentation and made every attempt to have Andy get it before the court, and the Judge said no.

The judge gave us three real good reasons why he did that: The documentation is not notarized, it is not certified, and you do not have a witness to testify to.

That evening I said, "Okay, the judge has given us our marching orders. The only thing we have to do is go to all 48 states and get the documentation" to see if the documents have any validity. The attorney said, "Bill, you're crazy, you can't do that." I said, "Sure you can."

Q: How long did it take to do that?

A: It took a full year. There is not one state -- not one -- that has ratified the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution. One of the most amazing documents I found was in the national archives in Washington D.C. -- a 16-page memorandum written by Ruben J. Clark, then the attorney for Secretary of State Philander Chase Knox, on February 15, 1913. What he says is that in the certified copies of the amendment passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the 16th Amendment, it appears that only four of those resolutions -- Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee and New Mexico -- have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly what was proposed by Congress. The other 33 resolutions contain either errors of capitalization, spelling or wording. ...

Q: So what's the big deal? Why are errors of capitalization, spelling or wording so significant?

A: On page 15 of the 16-page memorandum, the attorney says, "further under the Constitution, a Legislature is prohibited from altering 'in any way' the resolution proposed by Congress." The right of the Legislature is merely to approve or disapprove the amendment. The last page is also interesting because it says the department has not received the copy of the resolution passed by the state of Minnesota, but the secretary of the governor of the state has officially notified the department that legislators of that state have ratified the proposed 16th amendment.

Q: Here's the obvious question that comes up all the time. Say it was a bureaucratic oversight, a procedural glitch or something. Why are we still saddled with this thing? The reality check is, if you don't comply you end up in a whole world of hurt, as you know from personal experience.

A: Oh, there isn't any question about it. And that is why I continue to defy the federal government. That is why, when we were in Washington (at the National Press Club) I said, "I have waited 15 years to get behind these microphones, and I challenge the United States, I challenge the Justice Department, to come and get me. Take me, and leave these people alone." Let's get the 16th Amendment argument on the table once and for all before a jury and let them decide.

Q: Why don't they just drag you into court and resolve the controversy once and for all?

A: I wish they would. This has been going on now for 18 years. They cannot win with the 16th Amendment argument.

Q: Bill, at this event you guys had in Washington D.C. at the National Press Club in July, it seemed like a collection of former Geoff Metcalf guests, including Joe Banister.

Joe Banister is a former IRS agent -- a badge-carrying, gun-carrying agent who after listening to my radio program with interviews of other people and hearing discussions about this issue conducted a research analysis of his own to find out if he was enforcing a law that was a law or not. He submitted his findings to his superiors and asked them to either confirm or deny this stuff, or at least look into it. They basically said, "We'll be happy to accept your resignation, but we are not going to respond."

A: They forced him to resign. I think the entire nation owes Joe a great deal because of the courage it took for a special agent from the Internal Revenue Service to do what Joe Banister did. On C-SPAN Joe Banister told the entire listening audience that the IRS was a fraud, and that the 16th Amendment had not been ratified.

Q: It is fascinating that the first time you guys had a get together, it was broadcast on C-SPAN. I think they had the largest requests they ever had for any taped shows, and they ain't cheap. Yet, when you came back, they wouldn't even put you on the air.

A: That's true. I think the problem that arose was with the promoter of the program. He made a mistake. He went ahead and released a press announcement to the national press in Washington and to the President and right on down and told them what we were going to talk about.

The first session on July 2nd they had to bring in four people, two cameras, the lights and the whole thing, and we were on for three hours and 28 minutes. C-SPAN aired that program on four separate occasions. But they didn't show up on the second one and it was in my personal opinion because the cat was let out of the bag, so to speak, because of the error of the promoter.

Q: Bill, regarding this whole 16th Amendment issue, some folks say, "Well, it's an interesting academic argument, and they may be right on the 'technical' aspects of it, but the reality check is the golden rule -- and the guy with the gold makes the rules."

Were you ever approached by anyone "in government" regarding the documentation you had collected?

A: Yes I was. In 1985, prior to volume one being printed, Mrs. Benson had received a call from an attorney by the name of Warren Richardson. Warren said, "I am making this call on behalf of Senator Orrin Hatch. And of course," he said, "you know who he is? You tell Bill that it is an absolute emergency that he call Washington D.C. immediately."

Q: Did you call them immediately?

A: No, I had no emergency. I was lecturing on the 16th amendment. I did call them in a few days. Warren Richardson said, "I am making this call on behalf of Senator Orrin Hatch." He said "Bill, you cannot permit that book to get in the hands of the kooks out there. We know what you are doing."

I said, "Warren, by your making this telephone call to me you're one of the biggest kooks in D.C."

He said, "You don't understand what I'm trying to do? You have all of the books printed that you want. You name the number of books, and then you put a price on each and every book, and we will pay it. But then we want you never ever again to speak to one person, never again to get on one radio station, one television station or one group of people."

Q: Was that all?

A: No. Warren then said, "The last thing we want are all 17,000 certified, notarized documents that you have -- and you will be a multi-millionaire."

Q: What was your response?

A: I told him thank you, but no thanks. In fact, I told him to "go to hell!" I'm not for sale. America is not for sale. What I am fighting for is freedom, and that is exactly what I told Warren Richardson. I told him to carry that message right back to Orrin Hatch.

Q: You made that announcement at the second event in D.C. that C-SPAN chose not to broadcast. Did Orrin Hatch's office contact you to confirm, deny or threaten or try to sue you?

A: No, they have not.

Q: Have you made any effort to get in touch with them?

A: I haven't made any effort to get in touch with Orrin Hatch since 1985. I was waiting for the proper forum to release this information. I thought C-SPAN was that forum, because you're speaking to millions of people, not groups of 100 or 200, and it would get all over the country. But C-SPAN didn't show up.

Q: Bill, why is this whole 16th Amendment issue so critical?

A: In order for the federal government to collect anything from you, they must have a law. The 16th Amendment is what they collect the tax on. And I have proven beyond a doubt with 17,000 certified, notarized documents that not one state out of the 48 has ratified the law. They have all rejected it.

Q: Bill, thank you.

Final thoughts from interviewer Geoff Metcalf: Bill Benson claims that not a single state legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution in the manner required by law. According to Benson's book, "The Law That Never Was":

• The federal government claims Kentucky was the second state to ratify the 16th Amendment, on Feb. 8, 1910. However, the records of the State of Kentucky show that after the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment and sent it to the Senate, on Feb. 8, 1910 the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. Apparently, the Kentucky Senate never did ratify that amendment. Federal officials, who had possession of documents showing this rejection, nevertheless claimed Kentucky had ratified the amendment.

• In Oklahoma, the proposed amendment was passed by the Oklahoma House and the language of the resolution perfectly matched the one passed by Congress. However, the Oklahoma Senate obviously disliked what Congress had proposed, so it amended the language of the 16th Amendment in such a fashion as to have a precisely opposite meaning.

• The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the 16th Amendment. And whatever California did adopt bore no resemblance to what Congress had proposed. Several states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by Congress, a power that these states did not possess.

• Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington, but this did not deter Philander Knox from claiming that Minnesota ratified the amendment, regardless of the absence of any documentation from the State of Minnesota.

• Article V of the U.S. Constitution controls the amending process, which requires that three-fourths of the states ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. In 1913, there were 48 States in the American union, so to adopt any amendment required the affirmative act of 36 states. In February 1913, Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment -- including Kentucky, California and Oklahoma. But since Kentucky had rejected the amendment, California had not voted on it, and Oklahoma wanted something entirely different, the amendment was not legally adopted, the number of ratifying States being only 35. Then again, a total of 11 states failed to vote on the amendment, 33 changed the language of the amendment and Minnesota sent in nothing. In the final analysis, if the process of the adoption of the 16th Amendment is subjected to strict legal scrutiny, the amendment was never adopted.

============================================

Something to think about isn't it? All of the taxes we should never have paid and all of the legislation passed since 1913 void. This is not the work of kooks, but documented in depth conclusive research.

Finally, some good economic news.

 

Worlds billionaires grew 50% richer in 2009.

(link)

 

Now there's some change we can believe in. From WSWS: (My bold)

 

"2009 will be remembered by millions of ordinary people as the year they lost their job, their house, or the prospect of an education. For the rich, however, it was a bonanza.

 

The world’s billionaires saw their wealth grow by 50 percent last year, and their ranks swell to 1,011, from 793, according to the latest Forbes list of billionaires.

The combined net worth of these 1,011 individuals increased to $3.6 trillion, up $1.2 trillion from the year before. On average, each billionaire had his or her wealth increase by $500 million.

Four hundred and three billionaires reside in the United States. They constitute just 0.00014 percent of the country’s total population, but control 8 percent of the national wealth. Each of these individuals holds over 300 million times more wealth than the average US resident.

The list included 21 hedge fund managers, who as a group more than made up for whatever losses they incurred in 2008. Some of them, including James Simons, John Arnold, and George Soros, raked in profits during both the collapse and the market recovery.

Topping the list of wealthiest hedge fund managers was John Paulson, at $32 billion. Paulson made billions in 2008 by betting that the housing market would collapse, and billions more through the stock market recovery of 2009.

Only one of the 21 hedge fund managers on last year’s Forbes list fell off. This was Raj Rajaratnam of Galleon Group, who was arrested last year on charges of insider trading.

Hedge fund managers James Simons, John Arnold, and David Tepper got average returns of 62, 52, and 31 percent, respectively, between 2008 and 2010. David Tepper made $2.3 billion over the past year, while John Paulson’s wealth grew by $6 billion.

The number of US billionaires grew to 403, up from 359 last year. The Asia-Pacific region had 234 billionaires, up from 130 the last year. Europe has 248 billionaires, despite having twice the population of the United States.

The 1,011 people on this list command a phenomenal amount of personal wealth. Their holdings are larger than the gross domestic products of every country besides China, Japan, and the United States. The wealth of the 403 US billionaires could more than cover the 2008 US federal deficit, with money left over for the states.

 

and.....

 

The hedge fund managers and financiers on the list benefitted directly from the bank bailout, which transferred huge sums of public funds into the accounts of the largest financial companies. But the billionaires in every other industry were the indirect recipients the government’s wealth transfer program also.

The Wall Street Journal, commenting on the figures, wrote, “How did the world’s rich get so much richer? Stock markets…. In short, what the stock market had taketh, the stock market hath giveth back–-at least to the billionaires.”

But the stock market recovery itself is no accident; it was the direct outcome of policies pursued by both US political parties. The bailout has been financed by a policy of fiscal austerity and high unemployment. The rapid increase in the wealth of the billionaires is the result of the impoverishment of tens of millions; it is the other face of mass unemployment, poverty, utility shutoffs, and foreclosures.

Aside from direct government handouts to the banks and super-rich, the major driver of the recovery of corporate profits—and thus the stock market—was productivity growth and corporate downsizing."

 

See, I told y'all, some good news----at least for the billionaires.

 

Kompassionate Konservatism

 

 

Who says conservatives can't be compassionate?

===========================================

 

 

======================================================================= In keeping with the new spirit of compassion, gays are now welcome in the Klan. =======================================================================

======================================================================= Bonus!! ====================================================

====================================================

FDIC encourages pension funds to buy failed banks.

 

Here is an interesting article excerpt from Bloomberg:

March 8 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is trying to encourage public retirement funds that control more than $2 trillion to buy all or part of failed lenders, taking a more direct role in propping up the banking system, said people briefed on the matter.

Direct investments may allow funds such as those in Oregon, New Jersey and California to cut fees for private-equity managers, and the agency to get better prices for distressed assets, the people said. They declined to be identified because talks with regulators are confidential.

Oregon’s retirement fund may contribute $100 million as regulators seek “the support of state pension funds to solve the crisis surrounding ongoing bank failures,” Jay Fewel, a senior investment officer at the Oregon State Treasury, said in a presentation at the fund’s Feb. 24 meeting. New Jersey’s fund may also participate, said Orin Kramer, chairman of New Jersey’s State Investment Council.

The FDIC shuttered 140 lenders last year and expects the tally may be higher in 2010. Regulators have avoided signing up private-equity firms as rescuers on concern that they might take too much risk. Pension funds, whose 100 largest members manage $2.4 trillion, could provide capital to acquire deposits and outstanding loans from collapsed banks, according to the people.

Welcome Mat

“The FDIC is constantly looking at structures where we can get the greatest opportunity to tap into capital that we have not had the success reaching through previous disposition methods,” FDIC spokeswoman Michele Heller said in an e-mailed statement. “We welcome and work with all investors.”

Current rules don’t prohibit pension funds from buying failed banks. Until now, they have typically chosen to invest through private-equity firms using limited partnerships, which gives pension funds little to no control over the day-to-day management of the investments. They also pay management fees levied on the amount of money committed as well as a percentage of any profit.

“We’ve been examining a broad range of alternatives to take advantage of what I believe are attractive transactions coming out of the FDIC,” said New Jersey’s Kramer. The state pension system faced a shortfall of about $46 billion as of last year because of investment declines and a failure to make full contributions, according to annual financial reports.

==========================

 

OK, so the FDIC is running out of money (this might be a good time to mention that the top 25,000 bankers in the U.S. received bonuses averaging $308,000.00) and now wants to make it easier for the average American to lose their retirement savings. Who bails out the pension funds?

 

If you can't see the handwriting on the wall by this point, there is no hope for you. 

 

Dem. Rep. Eric Massa vs Rahm Emanuel

 

 

It looks like Dimocratic Representative Eric Massa and Rahm Emanuel aren't getting along:

 

 

 

 

And from the National Journal.com this:  "Embattled Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) lashed out in an emotional radio appearance Sunday, accusing Dem leaders of what he suggested was an orchestrated campaign to force his resignation."................

 

"When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn't heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983," Massa said. "And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible."

"If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I'm holding myself to and he should resign," Massa said.

Massa slammed House Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer for discussing a House ethics committee inquiry, accusing Hoyer of lying in an effort to eliminate an opponent of health care. Hoyer said last week he heard in early Feb. about allegations against Massa, and that he told Massa's office to report the allegations to the ethics committee.

"Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me at all, never, not once," Massa said. "Never before in the history of the House of Representatives has a sitting leader of the Democratic Party discussed allegations of House investigations publicly, before findings of fact. Ever."

"I was set up for this from the very, very beginning," he added. "The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against."

=========================

 

The Dim implosion continues.