American Civil War II - It Could Happen... or It Could Not Happen

It's almost like watching somebody trying to open the puzzle box from the movie Hellraiser. As each piece is moved into the correct configuration position, you can feel the energy change and become almost palpable... and you know that something evil is about to happen.

Those pieces are in motion as a complicit Congress continues to work against the expressed will of the people, and in continued support of a "President" who appears to be concerned about only one thing - increasing his power to control the citizens of the USA through expanded government control of goods and services. Your President now has 37 unelected "Czars", who have gone through no vetting process by the Senate, and are answerable only to the POTUS. Most people probably haven't really thought about this, but I would guess that the position of Czar pays significantly more than minimum wage, and that each Czar will have a staff of... ohhhh, let's be conservative and say 10 people. That increases the size - and cost - of government by 407 people. And these "Czars" seem to have no more qualifications for the political plums they have been given by Obama than do any of his other appointees. But, why should we expect that they would have qualifications, when the President himself doesn't have any qualifications for his job?

The time of "Civil War II" seems to be rapidly approaching. What influences have created this condition?
1. The election of a left-wing/Marxist/socialist/communist/anti-American "President" with no qualifications other than his personal charisma and his ability to read from a teleprompter. Congratulations America - you've done a bang-up job in electing your new leader... I hope the White House has a good On-the-Job Training program! (Please do not ignore the intentional sarcasm)
2. The decimation of our financial infrastructure by a Congress that directed mortgage lenders to loan money (at ridiculously low interest rates) to people who obviously could not afford to repay those loans. Thank you Barney Frank, et al!
3. The highest unemployment rate since the era of the Great Depression. Double-digit unemployment across the country, with some areas reaching 16% and more (like Michigan).
4. Financial bail outs of companies and corporations whose business was purportedly that of managing money! If they couldn't do it properly, then why are we, the taxpayers, giving them more hundreds of billions of tax dollars to keep playing with? They FAILED in their responsibility to their stockholders, and to the public in general. And our government lawyers apparently failed to put any restrictions upon the improper use of those funds. What they should have gotten is tarred and feathered!
5. A $60 million grant to the National Endowment for the Arts with no restrictions upon its use. So, what's the first thing they do with it? Put on a live stage porn show!
6. Your "President" travels the world apologizing for the United States, instead of reciting the list of good that we have done for most of the rest of the world.
7. The government has insinuated itself even deeper into the direct control of industry and finance, and is now working on grabbing control of nationwide health care services. (Euthanasia is not referring to teenyboppers in Thailand - it means when you reach a certain age, be prepared for your government to take steps to "assist" you in ending your life.)
8. The creation of special protections - beyond those guaranteed to all by our Constitution - for particular groups. Groups who are apparently considered more than "equal".
9. The appointment of 37 "Czars" (and their attendant staff members) within an already cash-strapped government system. Of course nobody is recognizing and reporting this for what it truly is - political cronyism.
10. Passing legislation that nobody (with the possible exception of its creator, and possibly not even them) has read! (But the legislation doesn't sound too bad, and it makes Obama feel good.)
11. It is also obvious that our government does not care one iota about what "We the People" want. Our elected officials are too busy insuring that their political party and the corporate lobbyists get what they want!

The list of reasons for social unrest could go on and on. These simply skim the surface by identifying the most obvious reasons. Think of a few of your own dislikes about the path along which your current federal administration is racing. Why did I choose the word "racing" there? Because Obama knows that if he slows down even a bit, even the true dullards of the country would eventually catch on to what it is he's really trying to do!

What influences are apt to circumvent a second Civil War?
1. The initial reluctance of Americans to do battle against other Americans. We are basically a caring people, and see violence only as the "court of last resort"... like if our Constitution were in jeopardy... which it appears to be.
2. Our tendency to disbelieve that our elected government would do anything that ran counter to the best interests of the American citizens. We cling to the ever-dwindling hope that there are still a few people in Congress who are honest, and will refuse to rubber stamp bills without first having an opportunity to read and understand those bills.
3. The fact that, if we were to engage in such a civil war, our enemies in the world - and there are legions of them - would be on us like white on rice (or black on a bowling ball - your choice)! What better time to eliminate those with whom you are in strong political, moral (i.e. - religious) and philosophical disagreement than when they are engaged in internal hostilities? (The million dollar question then becomes; "Could we reconcile our internal differences in time to repel such an attack?" or would we all become subjects of yet another kind of ruling party?)

I'm sure there are many more ways to avoid a "civil" war (talk about your oxymorons!) within our national boundaries, but my mind is weary now, so I'm going to stop thinking about the subject for awhile... and go clean my guns.

I suppose I could be entirely wrong about this, but in this world there is very little that is completely outside the realm of possibility.

Goldman Sachs Running the Fed... Is The Fox Guarding The Hen House?

Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs has a long list of graduates who have gone into government service... that is, if we can stretch the meaning of the term "government Service". The most interesting of which is the appointment of Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO, Henry M. Paulson Jr. as the head of our Treasury Department!

But company officials have filled in heavy-hitting posts in less visible areas, too. The Goldman Sachs' alumni who have served in government include Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick; former president and chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States Kenneth D. Brody; chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and former director of the National Economic Council Stepehn Friedman; Reagan Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead; and Reagan Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Robert Hormats. Goldman Sachs' alumni James Johnson served as president and CEO of quasi-government housing lender Fannie Mae.

Most of the job posts involve economics, but some have broadened their professional portfolios by serving in an array of other government policy positions. names like New Jersey Gov. Jon Cprzine, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Corzine was CEO of the Goldman Sachs brokerage before he won a Senate seat in 2000. Until taking up work with the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000, Bolten was executive director for legal and government affairs at Goldman Sachs International in London. Rubin was co-chairman of Goldman Sachs until 1992, when he was confirmed for his Cabinet seat in the Clinton administration.

"Richard Linowes, a business professor for Kogod School of Business at American University, and a former Goldman Sachs employee, said 'the job duties of Goldman employees combined with their lucrative salaries, frequently tapped for political donations, make them ripe for the pickings of government service. When people make campaign contributions, they're recognized for their support by being put into presidential appointments," Linowes said, adding, "They know how international financial markets work, and they've been part of it. They come in with finance expertise."

Georgetown University corporate law professor Donald Langevoort cautioned that those looking for a conspiracy behind the link between Goldman Sachs and government service won't likely find one.

"I don't think it necessarily makes them more powerful," Langevoort said. "I think every Wall Street firm has its way of exercising influence in Washington and around the world. Goldman no doubt benefits from its political contacts, but the other firms have their own tools."

On the other hand, it certainly doesn't make Goldman Sachs less powerful, and if the other financial firms exercising influence in Washington have one fifth of the power that GS has, "We the people" are skrood!

According to Wall Street Watch, "The financial sector invested more than $5 billion in political influence purchasing in Washington over the past decade, with as many as 3,000 lobbyists winning deregulation and other policy decisions that led directly to the current financial collapse, according to a 231-page report issued today by Essential Information and the Consumer Education Foundation. The report, "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America," shows that, from 1998-2008, Wall Street investment firms, commercial banks, hedge funds, real estate companies and insurance conglomerates made $1.725 billion in political contributions and spent another $3.4 billion on lobbyists, a financial juggernaut aimed at undercutting federal regulation."

There's no doubt about the fact that we need people with strong backgrounds in finance in government service... but is it prudent to have the majority of them coming from one powerful Wall Street firm? Is there not an above average chance for conflicts of interest with each appointment from Goldman Sachs? Such an arrangement could have easily been responsible for our current financial crisis.

Right now there is in excess of two dozen current and former Goldman Sachs employees and officers, working within our government's financial infrastructure. The "feather your nest" possibilities are endless if they should all work in concert, for a single self-serving goal. But that would never happen, would it? Let's just ignore the fact that Goldman Sachs was the first Wall Street investment firm bailed out, and that their chief rivals and competitors were the first ones to be allowed to go under. Our government is staffed with nothing but altruistic, forthright and honorable people, who put the good of the nation above individual profit. That is correct, isn't it? (If you believe it is, I have this property at the southern tip of Florida, called the Everglades, that I'd consider a reasonable offer on. I'll even throw in the George Washington Bridge!)

I could be wrong about the possibilities that I see in this arrangement. But, worse yet... I could be right.