Why Was President Obama's Seemingly Important Press Release Ignored by Mainstream Media?

On November 21, while aboard Air Force One, President Obama dictated a press release that has been virtually ignored by the Western Press. He announced that the White House was going to investigate and mitigate the possible systematic infiltration of violent traitors within the executive branch. According to Senior editor of Veterans Today, Gordon Duff, "There is, currently, within the U.S. military, the Executive branch of government and among extremist "power brokers" in America an active plot to "alter" America's form of government through "decapitation"

From the White House:

"Presidential Memorandum -- National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs

This Presidential Memorandum transmits the National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs (Minimum Standards) to provide direction and guidance to promote the development of effective insider threat programs within departments and agencies to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security. These threats encompass potential espionage, violent acts against the Government or the Nation, and unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including the vast amounts of classified data available on interconnected United States Government computer networks and systems.

The Minimum Standards provide departments and agencies with the minimum elements necessary to establish effective insider threat programs. These elements include the capability to gather, integrate, and centrally analyze and respond to key threat-related information; monitor employee use of classified networks; provide the workforce with insider threat awareness training; and protect the civil liberties and privacy of all personnel.

The resulting insider threat capabilities will strengthen the protection of classified information across the executive branch and reinforce our defenses against both adversaries and insiders who misuse their access and endanger our national security.

BARACK OBAMA

Or, as one commenter [to the Duff article], Kathryn, said, is this "a government smokescreen to arrest more 'Bradley Mannings'?" In other words, is this another smokescreen to continue the war on whistle blowers? Shielding the real enemy to America, to humanity: the power elite?

Read more...

From Golden Parachutes to Golden Coffins.

We've all heard of "golden parachutes," that guarantee top corporate executives benefits that may include severance pay, cash bonuses, stock options, etc, totaling millions of dollars. But, have you heard of "golden coffins," that guarantee big fortunes to the heirs of top executives?

That's right. As the rest of us struggle to pay for their "sins" - who stole not only our futures, but the future of our offspring - they are arranging for "giant posthumous severance payouts, supercharged pensions or even a continuation of executives' salaries or bonuses for years after they're dead."

Take CEO, Verizon's Ivan Seidenberg, for example. His heirs will get up to $35 million in bonus after the golden lid of his coffin shuts for the last time.

"The ultimate in pay that isn't based on performance," the Wall Street Journal notes.

Read more...

Where are the Investor Activists?

Wall Street executives will receive 10% of the $700 billion US government bail-out package in pay and bonus deals...that's $70 billion we, the taxpayers will fork over to those who have already profited beyond what most of us can imagine, as a reward for hijacking our financial system.

“We support the bill, but we are opposed to provisions on executive pay,” said Scott Talbott, senior vice president for government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group. “It is not appropriate for government to be setting the salaries of executives.”

Where is the remorse? Well, apparently, remorse is not written into their "contract", in fact, it's not part of the Wall Street vernacular at all. The words, accountability, merit, responsibility, ethics, morality, etc. are also excluded. Compensation consultant committees under the supervision of the board of directors determine what CEOs and top executives earn. Earning almost 600 times what the average worker takes home, these lucky men constantly receive pay increases and bonuses whether or not they do their job or not, because their raises depend not on how they perform, but on what their peers earn.

When compensation is paid out in the form of stock options, the temptation is to raise the stock price. Companies often apply special financial engineering to inflate profits and deflate losses on their Profits & Loss statement (P&L). The pressure is on to grow, merge or do anything to blur the numbers ...just bring in those returns!

Performance measurements are half the problem. Stock price is not a reliable gauge of a company's value simply because it's too easy to manipulate.

This week, Dupont, the chemical giant, slashed employee pension benefits by two-thirds. Furthermore, new Dupont workers won't get a guaranteed pension at all -- and no health care after retirement. It's part of Dupont's new "Die Young" program, I hear. Dupont is not in financial straits. Rather, the slash attack on its workers' pensions was aimed at adding a crucial three cents a share to company earnings, from $3.11 per share to $3.14. -- Greg Palast, September, 3 2006

So, what are better performance measurements? According to John Bogle, cash flow, dividend growth, operating earnings (earnings from the business rather than reported earnings which are earnings after the writeoffs) earnings per share, book value, etc are much more accurate.

Consider this. 65% of all company mergers do not work out, causing their book value to take a dive, however, there are no requirements to include that information in their P&L. So, if 65% of mergers fail, why do we have so many mergers? Because not only are most of us ignorant of this information, mergers are a great way to fudge the numbers, making it much harder to assess which companies are good for investing over the long run...the reason most of us invest to begin with.

Where are the investor activists and why aren't they protesting?

At one time, not too long ago, almost all the stock in America was owned by individuals and only 8% of stock owned by financial institutions. Now, 75% of stock is owned by institutions, yet institutions act much more like speculators rather than investors. So, why should they care... they "invest" short term and more than likely will not hold the same stock the following year.

We no longer have an ownership society. We have an agency society where agents or financial intermediaries are holding most of the stock, certainly the lion share of stock in the nation. The agents are not adequately representing their principles. We have corporate trustees and mutual fund managers who are acting too much in their own interests and not in the interest of the underlying pension beneficiaries and the fund shareholders. - John Bogle

In the end, Wall Street takes 75% of the return, over the lifetime of an investment, and put up ZERO percent of the capital and take ZERO percent of the risk, meanwhile, investors who put up 100% of the capital and take ALL the risk take home 25% of the return!

Now that half of all Americans are invested in the market, we can't afford to let this con game continue. As long as we stay within the Constitutional framework of our country, we the people can make up and enforce the rules that serve us. We can start by following the same procedures we use to rid our pets of ticks, and rid our financial system of the greedy parasites who have been given full permission to leech off we the taxpaying public.

Read more...

Wouldn't it be Great if We Could All Cite Executive Privilege ?

President George W. Bush, once again cites executive privilege in order to dodge accusations that his administration fired nine federal prosecutors because they refused to "tow the line." He rejected a subpoena for requiring Karl Rove testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee in an investigation over fired federal attorneys.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy made available to Reuters, the letter Fred Fielding wrote to him explaining why Karl Rove is immune to testifying before Congress:

"Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity,"

Read more...

The "Signing Statement" - Bush's Secret Source of Power.

Pulitzer winner Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe discovered President Bush's aggressive pursuit of expanding his power using the "Signing Statement" as no other President has before him.

"Signing Statements" is a way of constitutionally challenging laws and claiming the authority to bypass laws without issuing vetoes. They are technical legal documents which a President can file in the federal record and they contain his interpretation of what the law means and what it doesn’t mean and instructions to the Federal Bureaucracy or the military about how they are to implement the law.

President Bush often makes constitutional objection to the statues and provisions that he thinks intrude on his own powers as commander and chief to run the government or head the executive branch as he sees fit.

President George W. Bush -- 750 Signing Statements in 5 years
President Bill Clinton -- 140 Signing Statements in 8 years
President George H. W. Bush -- 232 Signing Statements in 4 years

Signing Statements are more powerful than vetoes:

1. One can take out bits and pieces of the bill that one does not like while keeping the rest in tact.
2. Congress has the power to override a veto which is one of the checks and balances the founders put into the Constitution whereas a signing statement is a unilateral final word on what is going to count and what is not going to be part of the law.
3. Signing Statements generally pass without notice in the public, media and congress. Vetoing comes under political scrutiny
4. President gets to become final arbiter as to what’s Constitutional as opposed to letting the courts decide. Aside from the excessive number of signing statements Bush has, he also chooses segments of the bill that will never get into court.
5. There is no alerting Congress as to these signing statements although congress could look into them if they so choose. Congress has chosen not to do that or has not even thought to do that as signing statements have not been a normal part of our governing system thus far.

President Bush has also challenged many statutes using "Signing Statements" in the following areas:

1. Requiring congressional oversight committees to be given information about how the government is conducting a certain area of its business.
2. Affirmative action provisions that require the government to try to make sure minorities receive a share of contracts and grants and jobs.
3. Whistle blower statutes which allow members of the executive branch to speak out about government wrongdoing without fear of losing their job if they tell congress about it. He said only he as the head of executive branch can decide what congress receives.
4. Safeguards against political interference on federally funded research.

After Abu Ghraib congress passed a series of new laws in response to that scandal which were all severely curtailed by President Bush's use of "Signing Statements."

1. Congress set up a broad ranging Inspector General in Iraq that would go around and have the power to uncover any kind of wrongdoing by US forces and officials in Iraq. They specifically said no official could get in the way of any inquiry or subpoena of an official that the Inspector General wanted to issue and if anyone tried to interfere or didn’t cooperate in any way the Inspector General was immediately to tell congress about it. Bush limited what the Inspector General could investigate and secondly he made sure the Inspector General could not tell congress anything without the permission of the President and his appointees. The Inspector General shall not investigate intelligence, national security, or anything the Pentagon decides to investigate on its own.
2. Congress also required the retraining of prison guards in the Geneva Convention world wide. Bush removed any restrictions placed on him from changing how prison guards were trained even if those methods did not meet Geneva Convention standards.
3. Regarding private contractors, congress created stronger rules on the use of private contractors. Background checks were required for all private contractors and they were barred from participating in any type of criminal justice process. Bush stipulated that he could set up rules and regulations for private contractors and override the new rules.

It's a scary thought to think that President Bush has afforded himself the right to interpret the Constitution as he sees fit. Other Presidents have done this but nowhere near as frequently or as aggressively as President Bush has and no President has done this while abandoning their veto power.

Read more...