Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

The 2012 election comes down to one word: "Fraud." Who will be willing to say it?

Here's Bill Black's thinking on our Beloved Leader's recent bloviating on regulation (here) in the WSJ:

Obama's proposal and the accompanying OMB releases do not mention the word or the concept of fraud. Despite an "epidemic" of fraud led by the bank CEOs (which caused the greatest crisis of his life), Obama cannot bring itself to use the "f" word. The administration wants the banks' senior officers to fund its reelection campaign. I've never raised political contributions, but I'm certain that pointing out that a large number of senior bank officers were frauds would make fundraising from them awkward.

And there you have it. Accounting control "fraud" by the banksters, from fraud by robosigners, fraud by their lawyers, fraud by MERS, fraud in selling the same mortgages over and over again to different clients, fraud by selling mortgage backed securities as if they were gold bricks when in fact they were The Big Shitpile (and then paying themselves bonuses), fraud by the bought-and-paid for economists who shill for all this: It's fraudsters all the way down, and the fraud is connived at, obfuscated, and completely supported by the leadership and the apparatus of both legacy parties, 100%, and without exception. How do you know that? They won't use the word.*

[RL calls, so more linky goodness later.]

So now there's a very simple litmus test that can be easily applied to all candidates in 2012, from His Oliness on down: Will they use the word "fraud," and apply it to the banksters?

If they will not, don't give them your vote, and, if possible, give your vote to any non-legacy party candidate. The current party system is like a frozen lava-flow that needs to be jackhammered apart. The word "fraud" is the jackhammer's chisel.

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

NOTE * And if members of the D apparat do use the word, they never name names, and it's never about the banksters.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Nancy Bordier's picture
Submitted by Nancy Bordier on

that most people who are trying to make a living in the U.S. either inside or outside the political system, would not be able to do so if they constantly and publicly decried all the corruption. That's because the sources of the corruption are so wealthy, well-placed and ubiquitous that they virtually control not only our economic and financial systems but most electoral and legislative processes and their outcomes, particularly at the federal level.

The people who do make a public issue out of the corruption of our democracy, like Bill Moyers, Amy Goodman, Robert Scheer, Chris Hedges, Paul Rosenberg, Simon Johnson, Robert Reich, for instance, make the rest of us feel good, but they are ignored and have virtually no political clout.

The fact is that the large majority of the American people, according to polls, are of the opinion that special interests have too much power in Washington, and that the large majority of lawmakers and certainly the two major political parties are complicit in the transformation of our democracy into a plutocracy. But they have no way of ending the plutocracy because they cannot wrest control of elections and legislation from the plutocrats.

That is why I keep harping on the Interactive Voter Choice System because it is the only way I know of that grassroots voters can get control of elections and oust the plutocracy. I have used my political scientist tools and analyzed the system up one side and down the other and I see virtually nothing on the horizon that has IVCS's potential to leverage the collective action power of the Internet to empower grassroots voters to get control of government.

I wish there were something else, because if there were, I would jump on that bandwagon immediately. Which is not to deny that there are many worthwhile reform projects in the works, like passing a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United v. Fec, but it will take years if not decades for these well-meaning efforts to bear fruit.

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

When we the sheeple said nothing, the PTB said, "Well, let's go for it. Get rid of that pesky middle class". And so they did.

Submitted by Hugh on

Of course, the war against the middle class has been going on for 35 years. I remember 6 years or so ago when I first came to the blogosphere writing about how we were experiencing a slow-motion coup with the 2000 election being one of the defining moments in it. Saying that then seemed edgy. Not so much now. What is the line about us going out, not with a bang, but a whimper?