Fermer X Les cookies sont necessaires au bon fonctionnement de 24hGold.com. En poursuivant votre navigation sur notre site, vous acceptez leur utilisation.
Pour en savoir plus sur les cookies...
AnglaisFrancais
Cours Or & Argent en

Don’t Protect the Banks, Protect the People!

IMG Auteur
Publié le 11 janvier 2012
436 mots - Temps de lecture : 1 - 1 minutes
( 38 votes, 4,3/5 ) , 7 commentaires
Imprimer l'article
  Article Commentaires Commenter Notation Tous les Articles  
0
envoyer
7
commenter
Notre Newsletter...
Rubrique : Editoriaux

 

 

 

 

This week, partisan games in Washington reached a fevered pitch as Congress acted to prevent recess appointments, yet the administration made them anyway. Congress has been gaveling into session for less than a minute every three days for the express purpose of technically staying in session. The 40 second “pro forma” sessions may strike supporters of the President as obstructionist, but Congress was using its clear constitutional authority and playing by the rules. Frustrated, the President simply disregarded the Constitution, and appointed Richard Cordray as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Board, and Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn to the National Labor Relations Board anyway.


Playing fast and loose with the Constitution only gets worse with every administration. Because of the dangerous precedents being set, both parties would be wise to defend constitutional bounds, no matter who crosses the line. Defending a constitutional overstep always comes back to haunt them once power changes hands.


The Obama administration expressed extreme frustration with the Senate’s refusal to confirm its nominees. The truth is, for better or worse, these are the cards the voters have dealt Washington. The Constitution, with its system of checks and balances, not only allows for gridlock, it practically guarantees some degree of it. The Founders knew that gridlock can be a very good thing. If nothing can be agreed upon in Washington, harm to the country is limited. Considering the Obama administration’s ideas of what caused our problems, and how to solve them, the wisdom of the founders certainly shines through today.


According to the administration, the new Consumer Financial Protection Board is an absolute necessity. Another bureaucracy, with more rules and red tape and paperwork and procedures is supposed to protect the people from bad actors in the marketplace. On the contrary, the answer was staring us in the face in late 2008 when these bad banks and corporations threatened to go belly-up. The laws of economics were working to remove corrupt companies from the market forever, to never abuse or defraud another customer or depositor or shareholder again. Bankruptcy is the ultimate consumer protection, and what did Washington do? It protected the banks instead, and created more bureaucrats.


This is exactly why constitutionally-inflicted gridlock should be respected. But instead it is clearer than ever that we are now a nation ruled by men, not laws. This nation needs to respect the Constitution again. No exceptions. The oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution is still in effect when checks and balances get in the way of a political agenda. If not, it has no meaning at all.


 

 

<< Article précedent
Evaluer : Note moyenne :4,3 (38 votes)
>> Article suivant
Publication de commentaires terminée
  Tous Favoris Mieux Notés  
Vox:

Remember the Battle of Tours?

Dante?

The Khazar repulse of the eastern Caliphate?

Modern extremist Islam needs no modern reason to be defined in our set of western definitions or philosophical models to hate us, it hates us for its own theological and historical reasons,
and apparantly, we will never have the intellect or connection to God to understand those.

No one needs to stand today and make valid arguments as to if or as to why.

No point wasting time discussing 'reasons.'

It is simple enough to know that yes, the west is hated, and a militant mind-set started that in the 8th century.

Forget the modern day players. This war started in Mecca, moved to Medina, moved to Jerusalem, expanded across northern Africa, and moved to Italy, Spain, France, Austria, and Khazaria.

It was defeated on the battlefields in Europe back then, and will be defeated globally as a militant force today.

Some just plain forget the war is over, and they just plain need to keep fighting.

They bank on the fact that the liberal western mind loves to forget.


Evaluer :   0  4Note :   -4
EmailPermalink
A protector of people, I am sorry to say, Ron Paul is not. Economically, perhaps; in all other areas, no.

A lot has been said about the National Defense Authority Act of 2012 recently signed into law by President Obama on Dec 31st: namely, the clause that allows for the indifinite detention of Americans suspected of some undisclosed connection to terrorist activity -- or what passes for such in now or in some future policitcal environment. Ron Paul's susporters with tweets and blogs have routinely denounced that act, and rightly so, touting their man as the only one actively against it. Mainstream Republicans, to their shame, like John McCain pushed it's passage though both the Senate and the Congress. Rand Paul, to his credit, not only voiced opposition but voted against it as well.

Ron Paul's opposition was in voice only. When it came to the all important vote, Ron Paul was missing in action. "He was too busy campainging," his susporters stammer. I suspect he didn't want to chase away whaterver susport he had left with those mainstream Republicans in his race to be their candidate for President.

That missing vote, and his contintued blaming of America for the 9/11 attack, makes Ron Paul's concern for the protection of 'the people' laughable.
Evaluer :   8  17Note :   -9
EmailPermalink
Jim, i think you are a bit too harsh in your criticism of Dr. Paul. i believe he can be forgiven for having not been present to vote on NDAA given that he was otherwise occupied with rather important business of his own. It is not like he did not make his views well known and it was never going to be a case of his being the deciding vote on the bill.

More to the point (and this i write as someone who is not American) there is an awful lot of truth in what he says about the 9/11 attacks. As much as we may despise those who actually carried out the attacks, it is not good enough to merely believe that they were the acts of lunatics, or people who hate America because of her freedom. Afterall, attacks were not carried out in New Zealand, Sweden or Switzerland and all of those nations enjoy a comparable level of freedom. And so we must ask ourselves why America and not those places? For an answer we need look no further than to those who planned the attacks. They were most forthcoming with their reasons. The chief reason given was American foreign policy. For some crazy reason they did not want American troops to be stationed in their countries; in many cases supporting corrupt dictators who suppressed the aspirations of the people, often brutally. And that sort of reasoning is neither new nor hard to grasp. Those that are perceived to be occupiers of our lands or the hired muscle brought in to maintain a system that stiffles our very freedoms and makes a mockery of our dignity are never welcomed by the populace. Did not the Yemenis hate the Saudis who came streaming across the border in tanks at the invitation of Saleh, in a desperate measure to keep him in power? Of course they did. And did the Afghans welcome the Soviets into their country with open arms? Well, i guess their president of that time did, but the population had a very different response. And just ask yourself this wildly hypothetical question: Should there come a time in the future when some very unpopular president invites the Chinese or Russians to station their troops on American soil, free not to obey American laws, all in an effort to keep him or herself in power, would you come to resent their presence? And if they had been there for 50 years already and showed no inclination to leave, might that not upset you? i suspect it would. And i further suspect that even if you, yourself, were not willing to try and do something about it, you might well understand what motivated one of your neighbors to do so and you might even be cheered by the news that they had struck a blow for liberty.

So then, there really is some truth in what Dr. Paul has to say about the reasons behind the 9/11 attacks. As it were, you can only poke someone in the eye with a stick for so long before they realize that asking you to cease and desist nicely can only be their strategy for so long and no longer before other options need to be explored. And i strongly suspect that were America to adopt the sort of foreign policy advocated by Dr. Paul, it would soon enough have no reason to fear attack from abroad, having removed the irritant.
Evaluer :   15  6Note :   9
EmailPermalink
"The chief reason given was American foreign policy. For some crazy reason they did not want American troops to be stationed in their countries" Really?? We had bases in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (before the war), and Pakistan? Wow. didn't know that.

Sorry Vox, but that's BS. They hate us for a handful of reasons, ALL of them tied to religion. They hate us because we have freedom (at least for now), they hate us because of our support of Israel, and they hate us because we are not Muslim. The fanatics of Islam use their religion to preach hate of anyone not a Muslim, plain and simple. Our foreign policy did play a part, but it was not the main reason--remember, we were the heroes when Russia invaded Afghanistan, we were providing the Afghans with weapons--and then when we abandoned them after the war, that's when we became the "Great Satan" and they could use their religion to preach hate against America.
Evaluer :   2  7Note :   -5
EmailPermalink
Nunya, while you have managed to get the odd thing right, i am afraid your response has shown that you are neither a student of history nor someone who understands human nature very well.

If you were seriously asking if America had bases in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan (before some unnamed war) and not then showing mock surprise to find out that they did, the answer would be yes, yes and no in the case of Afghanistan, unless the war you alluded to was the Viet Nam war, in which case the proper answer would be that i do not know and am not about to look it up. America would have had troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the royal family in exchange for the feudally run kingdom continuing to price oil in American dollars and nothing else. And America would have had troops stationed in Pakistan at the behest of their military,for the cold war was raging and India was tending to side with the Soviets. But they would not have been in Afghanistan in the years leading up to what you have called the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. In those years the country was actually ruled by a communist government under Amin. As you could imagine, that did not go over too well with the populace, especially the more religious among them and so consequently, the country was embroiled in a civil war. With things not going too well for Amin anywhere outside of Kabul, he called on his Soviet allies to send help and send help they did. As Amin was the internationally recognized leader of the country, he had about as much right to invite the Soviets in as did he the tyrants who remained in power by agreeing to host American troops.

You hit the mark with your statement that America is hated for a number of reasons, but so very little of it is tied to religion and that part which is exists only among the tiniest subsect.
You listed 3 of the reasons you believe America is hated by Muslims. The first was that they hate your freedom. That statement illustrates just how very poorly you understand human nature. People who do not have their freedom do not wish that everyone else suffer the same fate. What they do is work toward the day when they will be free. If you do not believe me, just go to your local jail and ask any prisoner if he would rather have everyone in lockdown or have the jail house door hit him in the behind on his way out.... Your second reason is precisely correct and it backs up my contention that American foreign policy should be seen as a contributing factor for the tragic events that unfolded on 9/11. America has long had a pro-Israel foreign policy that has served to squash what most of the world consider to be the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians. To the Muslims of the region, the hatred of America over this matter is not about Christians backing up Jews with muscle in their never ending dispute with Muslims. Indeed, anyone with a sense of history would find the assertion rather funny given that there has been a long history of Jews living in peace in Muslim ruled lands while Christians have a centuries long history of expulsions, forced conversions, instutionalized discrimination and pogroms aplenty for their Jewish populations. America could be chock full of Muslims; were they to maintain the same eneven-handed foreign policy in that part of the world, believe me, the Muslims there would have no trouble hating America....As for your last reason given, it is not that America is hated because it is not Muslim. As i pointed out in my initial post, there are many countries that are not Muslim and they are not targets for extremists, the ones i mentioned being predominately Christian, just like America. You have not dealt with that fact whatsoever. If America is hated, it is for its actions in the world and not the particular deity the greatest number of its citizens pray to each day. i mean, if they do not like who you are praying to in America, don't you think they would still consider that better than those godless Communists in China dedicated to eradicating the opium of the masses? They should have some very intense hatred for China if what you assert is true and yet China is not a target and it is not one because its foreign policy in the region does nothing to hurt the legitimate aspirations of the people living there.

What you next say about the "fanatics of Islam" is true, but it would also be pretty much true for the "fanatics" of most every religion. For Jewish fanatics that would be somewhat different in that conversion to the religion is supposed to be discouraged and so they would not hate someone not born a Jew. But if they come across a Jew who is not obeying the law as they believe it should be, they are not at all shy about letting that person know just what they think of them. Fanatacism of any kind is probably not a good thing and assuredly not so when it leads to violence.

And now to your final point on what led to America becoming the Great Satan. Your amalgam of supposed facts leading to a conclusion that is a non-sequitor leaves me shaking my head at what must be the quality of an American education. To begin with, the term Great Satan was famously first uttered by Iran's Ayatollah Komeinei in November of 1979. As you should have known, that was a full month before the Soviets, being invited, entered into Afghanistan to help the government there fight a civil war against what were considered to be Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. It would take 10 years before the Soviets got themselves out of there. That the Americans did not remain in the country after the Soviets were forced to withdraw or go bankrupt was in no way seen as a bad thing by anyone in the Arab world. Indeed, it would have been seen as a good thing, for who wants foreign troops on their soil when they are no longer needed? And really, it was not like America sent its army to help win the war. It was mainly some CIA types providing intelligence along with businessmen who had connections to American armaments manufacturers that were deployed. As stated, America became the Great Satan long before you claim and for reasons having nothing to do with what you have been going on about. The Ayatollah hated America because he considered it to act as an imperial power. England would later on come to earn the same title of disrespect from the Ayatollah and for the same reason, not because it was also a nation composed mainly of Christians.

You must come to understand this basic law of physics which states that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. This fundamental law may not work quite as precisely in the world of real politik, but make no mistake, blowback is inevitable.
Evaluer :   4  4Note :   0
EmailPermalink
Vox:

Many countries other than the United States have been attacked by radical Islamics -- a fact which you curiously deny. Sweden and Spain, to name two, and Afganistan where the radicals did their best to destroy any remnant of Buddishm -- recall, if you will, the demolition of that enormous stone Budda. What, may I ask, did the Buddists do to them?

Having U.S. bases in other countries (where we were invited) is not an invitation to a terrorist's attack on our soil -- as the foolish Ron Paul has blattered many times. Our bases all over the world provide an income to the locals that would otherwise not be forthcoming. It is radical Islam that will not allow 'competition' for the souls of 'its' people that is the current evil in the world.

Lenghty responses, such as yours, do not an agrument make -- as if you wish to paper over with words disagreeable truths.
Evaluer :   6  3Note :   3
EmailPermalink
You did not seem to like the length of my reply and yet you faulted me for having not been comprehensive. A list of other countries attacked beside the U.S. as a result of their foreign policy was not supplied in that it should have been inferred that such countries exist. The list i supplied was supposed to show that those countries that do not go poking their noses in where they are not wanted are in no danger. i mistakenly included Sweden on that list; having missed that a suicide bomber killed himself to protest that the country was going to send 500 troops to Afghanistan.

That the Taliban did their best to destroy the Bhudda at Bamiyan is of course very sad. But at least they were not killing anyone. Sad to say, it is the sort of thing religious fanatics have been doing for centuries all over the world. If it helps any, Islam forbids any such art. Had the statue been of their prophet or Osama bin Laden, they would have felt the same need to destroy it.

In terms of having bases in other countries, let us make a real life distinction in terms of where those are (over 120 countries) and more importantly, just how welcome they really are. Certainly there are places where American troops are welcome such as South Korea and so i would be astonished if some South Korean terror cell carried out an attack on the American homeland. But there are places where U.S. involvement is not wanted and that is all too obvious from all those soldiers coming home in body bags.

It is not the countries that America has been legitimately invited into that pose a problem to America's security. What Dr. Paul has been speaking about are the countries that did not invite America to send troops. As you will recall, Saddam Hussein did not ask the Americans to send the troops either time it did. Nor did Mullah Omar over in Afghanistan roll out the welcome wagon. But that did not stop the Americans. That could not endear them to the local populations. And then there were those awful pictures of prisoners being abused that made some folks upset. And stories of other prisoners being subjected to what was euphemistically called a harsh interrogation technique did nothing to salve the feelings of the subjugated populations, especially amongst those who knew that the Americans tried and executed Japanese soldiers for using the very same harsh interrogation technique on American soldiers during WWII. i could go on for quite a while with such items, but i will save you the trouble of reading it all. The point is that you cannot go meddling into affairs that are not your concern just because you have the most powerful armed forces the world has ever known without expecting to really rile up some folks and have them take a poke at you. It has happened time and time again and it will continue to go on. Some folks just refuse to learn from history.

As for it being radical Islam not allowing 'competition' for the souls of its people being the current evil of the world, you are partially correct. But how about radical Christianity attempting to block the construction of mosques in America? Do you suppose that is good for the competition you speak of, or evil? And take a look at youtube some time. There are crazies aplenty burning Korans, but i have not come across any Bible burners; though doubtlessly there is some loonie out there doing just that in some crazed tit for tat frenzy.

As difficult as it appears for you to understand, you must grasp that actions have consequences and the actions of America are not immune from having repucussions. The nature of the response is governed by the perception of the action by those affected (and still alive to talk about it) and their ability to respond.

Why is it that you have a compulsion to twist Dr. Paul's words around? Is it that they make sense, but being patriotic you cannot believe that America would actually do anything that others would object so strongly to and so you pretend that America was invited into Iraq and Afghanistan? They were not invited. They were warned that there would be consequences if they did not leave. They did not leave. There were consequences. Simple a follows b. If you do not get it by now, i fear you never will.



Evaluer :   9  4Note :   5
EmailPermalink
Dernier commentaire publié pour cet article
Vox: Many countries other than the United States have been attacked by radical Islamics -- a fact which you curiously deny. Sweden and Spain, to name two, and Afganistan where the radicals did their best to destroy any remnant of Buddishm -- recall, if  Lire la suite
Jim C. - 15/01/2012 à 01:54 GMT
Note :  6  3
Top articles
Flux d'Actualités
TOUS
OR
ARGENT
PGM & DIAMANTS
PÉTROLE & GAZ
AUTRES MÉTAUX