Cookies

Notice: This website may or may not use or set cookies used by Google Ad-sense or other third party companies. If you do not wish to have cookies downloaded to your computer, please disable cookie use in your browser. Thank You.


.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Obama Making Trading Easier for US Politicians

Obama Quietly Passed a Law Making Insider Trading Easier for US Politicians, From www.activistpost.com by way The Daily Sheeple.  Nothing really new to the people here. But still surprised at the brazen contempt for ethical standards. It make it seem like this Country is doomed. Here is the article:

The whole concept of avoiding ‘conflicts of interest’ is a virtue now consigned to history in the United States.

Remember the good old days, when the good men and women of America got into politics to help serve their country, and not for the money?

Imagine if you were able to pass a law that would regulate your own behavior and ultimately define the consequences of that behavior. That’s what all politicians in Washington DC do on a regular basis.

When it comes to regulating their investments whilst in office, they are able to pass laws that allow them to use special foreknowledge (that only lawmakers and government regulators have) for personal gain.

It’s all about finding that golden loophole. Once upon a time it was called “insider trading” … hardly a crime on Wall Street anymore (props to Goldman Sachs), and neither in Washington DC, or so it seems, according to the President and his legislative branch.

Now we know how hard it is to be a politician these days. Many of you genuinely feel that there should be some additional value-added perks to your job as a public servant. After all, our elected officials deserve some extra compensation for shunning the public sector and offering their incredible talents for the public good, right?

While tragic events in Boston are dominating the national media this week, US President Barack Obama quietly signed a bill, and one which passed rather swiftly through Congress we might add … it’s a bill that prevents key financial disclosure forms filed by senior governmental employees from being posted online. In a rare display of cross-party cooperation, both sides of the aisle seemed happy to approve (surprise, surprise) by unanimous consent.

This latest bill specifically alters the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or “STOCK Act”, which, when it was originally drafted was intended to be a law designed to combat insider trading on Capitol Hill – until our elected officials got their teeth into it that is.

This is how the criminals usually work – quietly and in secret: the bill passed both House and Senate chambers on a voice vote (where lawmakers’ names are not recorded). Both chambers cleared the legislation in near record time by Washington DC standards – taking only ten seconds in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House to pass.

According to the report below, “The bill represents a major blow to government transparency”. It certainly does and then some, but more than anything it just makes it a lot easier to get richer from a career in politics.

This is really the sort of law you would expect to be passed in a corrupt banana republic, with a fascist dictator presiding over a government full of self-interested industrialists. So is this the new America?

Obama signing a bill like this with the hyper-sonic, complete backing of both chambers of government spells out everything that is wrong with American government today and why so few people trust anyone who calls themselves a politician or government staffer. It’s also a prime example as to why so many Americans have all but given up on the political process, almost forced to submit to its systemic corruption.

This is one of the ways in which our long-serving Congressmen/women, Senators, esteemed residents and staff in the White House are able the amass such huge fortunes during their glorious political careers- by simply gaming the system.

One set of rules for the people, and another set of rules for our “leaders”.

It does not appear that they can actually be trusted to make decisions that govern political life.

Keeping tabs of financial conflicts of interest on Capitol Hill just got more difficult. On Tuesday, President Obama signed a bill passed by Congress that would prevent financial disclosure forms filed by senior governmental employees from being posted online.

Washington DC politicians can breathe easier now that Obama has better enabled insider trading for them.

The bill passed both the House of Representative and the Senate on a voice vote. In a voice vote, now members of Congress’s votes are not recorded. The Senate and House both cleared the legislation by unanimous consent, taking only ten seconds in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House of consideration to pass. The bill represents a major blow to government transparency, according to government watchdog groups.

The bill modifies the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, a law passed to combat insider trading. The bill effectively repeals a provision that requires financial disclosure forms to posted online into a searchable database in order to be easily assessed. Proponents of repealing the measure argued that it would increase the risk of identify theft and other crimes against disclosures as well as security concerns for the government.

But such disclosure forms are technically already available to the public. Without the provision, the forms must be requested individually from government agencies. The Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation, two pro-government transparency organizations harshly criticized the bill. Lisa Rosenberg of the Sunlight Foundation said of the move, “The result: More corruption and less trust in government.”

Dan Auble of the Center for Responsive Politics said of the bill, "Without the provisions, the STOCK act is made toothless. Insider trading by members of Congress and federal employees is still prohibited, but the ability of watchdog groups to verify that Congress is following its own rules is severely limited because these records could still be filed on paper — an unacceptably outdated practice that limits the public’s access. This is not true disclosure."

The bill does not completely gut the STOCK Act. Federal workers would still be required to report securities trades over a $1,000 threshold within 45 days and make them available to the public. The president, vice president, members of Congress, candidates for Congress, Cabinet members, and deputy secretaries are still required to post financial transactions online. However the searchable database was killed along with the requirements that federal employees post transactions.

However the searchable database was considered by some to be the most effective part of the act. Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility Ethics in Washington said that, “by getting rid of the online disclosure they get rid of the only effective part. It’s almost a useless act.”

Rather than reforming the act to address privacy concerns, Congress just decided to get rid of those requirements entirely. The approach is known as “security through obscurity,“ the idea being that by making the system difficult, people who want to engage in malicious acts will be discouraged from accessing the information. The drawbacks of such a system are immediately obvious, as a criminal simply needs to be dedicated enough to go through the system in order to gain the information they desire.

The STOCK Act has already been criticized for being incomplete. In 2012, a loophole in the STOCK Act was discovered that could have allowed family members of lawmakers to still profit from inside information, which was promptly corrected. No word if they will fix other efforts at weakening the act soon.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Campaign Against Christians

Mychal Massie makes a good point, albeit facetiously about which religious group is conducting all the terrorist acts, and which reglious groups are being persecuted. However his best point is that if the U.S. Government wil not support 1st Amendment rights for Christian soldiers or citizens, then perhaps the Government should not not use Christians to fight their wars nor accept taxes from Christians. From Mychal Massie 

According to Investors Business Daily, a spokesman for ISAF Joint Command said: "We can confirm that those items were removed from the chapel. These items were removed out of respect for the beliefs of other faiths." (Army Removes Crosses and Steeple From A Chapel In Afghanistan; 4/8/13)

What things was the spokesman referring to? The things removed from the chapel by the Army were Crucifixes and a steeple because they are religious symbols that offend Muslims. The interesting thing is that the action was prompted because of a complaint filed by an atheist military person which led to a formal letter of complaint being written to the Pentagon by an atheist organization. My point being, based on the course of complaint one could argue that Muslims are atheists, in addition to being terrorists.

Adding insult to injury, an Army training instructor lists Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism.

I was prepared to be offended by the children of Erebus who have claimed such stupidity. But then I remembered that it is Evangelical Christians and Catholics who are responsible for thousands of violent acts of terrorism around the world. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for vaginal mutilation of their wives and daughters. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for stoning and caning women for such extreme acts of insubordination as learning to read. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for beheadings, bombings, and practically every act of terrorism directed at military installations and bases located in the United States. I forgot that it is atheists and Muslims who are responsible for raising tens of millions of private dollars to send overseas to help those suffering. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for raping and murdering women and children in some of the poorest regions around the world.

How silly of me not to remember that Christians and Catholics worship and follow after Jesus Christ the Risen Savior and Lord while Muslims follow after a faux prophet who was a murderer, a pedophile, a rapist, and is rumored to have engaged in homosexual acts.

Yes, sir, I was just about to lose my cool until I realized that it is an atheist and one of the most ritualistic cults under the sun that have teamed up in an attempt to outlaw the religious ornamentation Christians and Catholics in a worship chapel. Then I came up with a solution to the whole thing.

If they don't want Christians and Catholics worshipping there that's fine -- send home all of the Christians and Catholics. Do not send another Christian or Catholic ever again into a battle zone or area of conflict. Let the atheists and their Muslim brothers handle such things.

And I would also add that the federal government not receive another nickel of tax revenue from Christians or Catholics. If they want to deny us the right to worship let them deny themselves our service and tax dollars.

The bottom line is that Muslims and atheists contribute nothing but hatred. But, be of good cheer. Because the day is coming, and may well be very near, when they will reside in a place separate from us. We will reside for eternity in a place of untold beauty and wonder; they will reside in a place populated by those, like themselves, unable to even drink the moisture from their sweat to satisfy their thirst.

I believe this is where we say "The fool has said there is no God."

Monday, April 22, 2013

Self Defense - What Part of Self Don't You Understand?

Apparently I wasn't the only one thinking this as Boston was locked down during the manhunt for the second terrorist bomber suspect. Liberals will certainly take offense to Arkansas Representative Nate Bell for his comments, but it remains a fact the protection of yourself and family is at first an individual responsibility.