Barack Obama is always talking about fairness, shared responsibility, shared sacrifice and justice for all and then he pit’s the so-called “haves” with the so-called “have-nots.” Life isn’t fair but in America you have the opportunity to make it more fair by working hard and trying to make something of yourself, to support your family and to improve your condition and place in life.

I ask, however, what is fair? Is it fair:

- that the wealthiest American’s pay 40-percent of the total federal income tax while the top 10-percent chip in two-thirds?

- that the wealthiest 10-percent of American’s pay more than any other industrialized country?

- that American companies pay a higher corporate tax rate than in any other industrialized country?

- that Barack Obama and many other politicians who write the laws send their children to private schools but deny free choice to the rest of us, particularly, those in poor districts with failing educational systems?

- that entrepreneurs and all private business owners must pay an estate tax of 35-percent, soon to rise to 55-percent after spending a lifetime working, building, hiring, paying taxes at the federal, state and local level when they pass away instead of leaving their earned wealth to family members?

- that self-proclaimed elitists such as the current Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, former Democrat Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel failed to properly file and pay their taxes?

- that Obama policy such as Obamacare and massive regulations are making the poor poorer, inflicting pain on the middle class and well over 5.5 million citizens have lost their jobs?

- that 88-percent of all political contributions from television producers, reporters and others from the mainstream media went to Democrats during the 2008 election cycle?

- that three  counties with families with the highest median income in America are located in the Washington DC area?

- that so-called green energy companies including solar, wind and ethanol products received billions of dollars in federal subsidies without paying taxes while we oil and gas industry companies pay billions in taxes, supply the majority of energy to America and Obama complains they are “subsidized?”

- that working Americans, many who work multiple jobs, must pay taxes that support unemployment benefits for 99 weeks for those not working with many not looking for work at all?

- that people with legitimate mortgages, who responsibly pay them on time have their tax dollars used to subsidize others who want a housing bailout when then took mortgages on homes knowing they weren’t qualified, couldn’t pay, but acted with greed and deceit but now can’t pay?

- that Barack Obama won’t permit the Keystone XL pipeline which would immediately create 20,000 new American jobs and thousands of indirect jobs to appease to his base and the environmentalists?

- that many of Obama’s largest campaign contributors received enormous federal loan guarantees for investments for green renewable energy projects that went bankrupt?

- that federal employees receive as much as 50-percent more in benefits than their counterparts in the private sector, the people who must pay for those public sector jobs?

- that 50-percent of the federal budget will redistribute income from younger workers to the non-working elderly who are some of the wealthiest Americans?

- that in 27 states a person seeking work is compelled to join a union to get a job and pay dues and retain membership to keep their job?

- that 4 in 10 American households pay zero in federal income taxes a number is on the increase with Obama and his ilk in office?

- that private companies like Boeing are threatened by agencies of the federal government when they build a plant and create jobs in a right-to-work-state as opposed to one infiltrated with union thugs?

- that not only our children and grandchildren but children who have yet to be born will be required, without a vote, to pay on a rising $5 trillion debt accumulated during the current administration without ever receiving any benefits?

No, life isn’t fair, but in America a person by birth is entitled to make their own way, to succeed and have the freedom and liberty to pursue their goals.

Under Barack Obama your freedom and liberty will be encroached upon further. Four more years of Barack Obama will indeed be the end of the Constitutional Republic known as America.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

“Look to the Constitutions of South Africa or Canada, Not to the US Constitution”

Ginsburg didn’t stop there, she let the interview know exactly what she thinks of the United States Constitution, in particular, while visiting a country that denounces us and burns our flag. (Emphasis LCs)

It is a very inspiring time – that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people.

I met with the head of the elections commission. I think that the first step has gone well, and that elections have been held for the lower house that everyone has considered to be free and fair. So that’s one milestone, and the next will be the drafting of a constitution.

I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.

Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution – first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

Sure, Ginsburg notes some positives about the US Constitution but the parts I highlighted are certainly odd for someone who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and has a primary duty to do so as their job. It’s obvious Ginsburg doesn’t think much of our Constitution by referring other nations to look elsewhere as a guide for writing one.

Following is the interview, if you can stomach it, with the highlights of the transcript above. (03:46)

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

In front of the White House an individual is seated upon a park bench within the throes of depression. He’s flanked by all forty three presidents. In the forefront, intentionally disregarding the depressed gentleman is Barack Obama, whose right foot is treading over the Constitution. James Madison is beside Obama, pleading with him to halt. It also appears to the right (Obama’s left) Bill Clinton, FDR or LBJ and Teddy Roosevelt (know your history) are applauding. Where are Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter? Would FDR be standing, surely he would be at the forefront.

This tableau below is called “The Forgotten Man”, a piece of art by Jon McNaughton, an artist recognized with regard to his politically-charged work.

The Forgotten Man

The artwork utilizes objects like disposed of dollar bills as symbols and scraps of paper having individual constitutional amendments scrawled upon them.

Originally released in 2010 it has now resurfaced with the 2012 election cycle beginning and controversy over many un-Constitutional issues by Obama and his administration during his 3 years in office.

“For a long time I didn’t know if I wanted to paint this picture, because I worried it might be too controversial,” McNaughton explains in a voice over. “(T)his man (on the park bench) represents every man, woman, and child who is an American… he hopes to find the American dream of happiness and prosperity.”

“But now because of unconstitutional acts imposed by the American people by our government we stand on the precipice of disasters,” he added.

Obama is anti-American, anti-Constitution and if reelected has huge ambitions to further erode the individual liberties and freedom’s guaranteed by the US Constitution. Obama’s is his “Daddy’s Son” who was a Communist.

Wake up America, stop the destruction of America, stop the trampling of the most precious document in the world – The United States Constitution.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

No Republican’s in Congress have the intestinal fortitude to start proceedings for impeachment of Barack Obama, or at the very least, begin legal proceedings against VP Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta. Why you ask? Here is an article printed in the Wall Street Journal by Leif Babin a former Navy SEAL officer who served three tours in Iraq, earning a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. He left active duty six months ago.

*****************

America’s premier Special Operations force is once again in the headlines after a team of Navy SEALs rescued two hostages from captivity in Somalia last week. Elite U.S. forces have carried out such operations periodically over the past decade, always with skill and bravery. The difference in recent months is that the details of their work haven’t remained secret. On the contrary, government officials have revealed them for political gain—endangering our forces in the process.

The floodgates opened after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last May, and the Obama administration’s lack of discretion was on display again at last week’s State of the Union address. As President Obama entered the House chamber, in full view of the cameras, he pointed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and exclaimed: “Good job tonight, good job tonight.” Clearly something had happened that he wanted the world to know about.

After delivering his speech, which included multiple references to the bin Laden raid, the president again thanked Mr. Panetta. “That was a good thing tonight,” he said as if to ensure that the viewing public, if they missed it initially, would get it a second time around.

Sure enough, shortly thereafter, the White House announced the successful rescue of the hostages in Somalia by U.S. Special Operations forces. Vice President Biden appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to highlight the success the next morning, and Mr. Panetta also publicly praised it. Then came the “anonymous U.S. officials” to provide extensive details of who conducted the raid and how. As with the bin Laden operation, the top-secret unit that carried it out was again front-page news, as were its methods and tactics.

Our special operators do not welcome this publicity. In fact, from conversations I’ve had in recent days, it’s clear they are dismayed by it.

Adm. William H. McRaven, America’s top special-operations commander, wrote in his 1996 book “Spec Ops” that there are six key principles of success in special operations. Of paramount importance—especially given the risk and sensitivity of the missions and the small units involved—is what the military calls “operational security,” or maintaining secrecy. If the enemy learns details and can anticipate the manner and timing of an attack, the likelihood of success is significantly reduced and the risk to our forces is significantly increased.

This is why much of what our special-operators do is highly classified, and why military personnel cannot legally divulge it to the public. Yet virtually every detail of the bin Laden raid has appeared in news outlets across the globe—from the name of the highly classified unit to how the U.S. gathered intelligence, how many raiders were involved, how they entered the grounds, what aircraft they used, and how they moved through the compound. Such details were highly contained within the military and not shared even through classified channels. Yet now they are available to anyone with the click of a mouse.

It’s difficult for military leaders to enforce strict standards of operational security on their personnel while the most senior political leadership is flooding the airwaves with secrets. The release of classified information has also opened a Pandora’s box of former and retired SEALs, special operators, and military personnel who have chosen to violate their non-disclosure agreements and discuss intricate details of how such operations are planned and executed.

We’ve already begun seeing specific examples of strategic harm from the post-bin Laden leaks. In June, Pakistan arrested several individuals who allegedly provided information to the CIA in advance of the raid. One of those charged with treason was a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi. This Sunday, Mr. Panetta confirmed to “60 Minutes” that Dr. Afridi had provided “very helpful” intelligence to the CIA. That may have condemned Dr. Afridi to death or life imprisonment.

Such disclosures are catastrophic to U.S. intelligence networks, which often take years to develop. Recklessness not only puts lives at risk but could set U.S. intelligence-collection efforts back decades. Our ability to carry out future operations is significantly degraded—something not lost on Pakistan.

A week after the bin Laden raid, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed dismay about Washington’s loose lips, telling a town hall meeting of U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune: “Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday—the next day.”

Do the president and his top political advisers understand what’s at stake for the special-operations forces who carry out these dangerous operations, or the long-term strategic consequences of divulging information about our most highly classified military assets and intelligence capabilities? It is infuriating to see political gain put above the safety and security of our brave warriors and our long-term strategic goals. Loose lips sink ships.

*****************

Thank you for your unwavering service and courage Mr. Babin.

How so many American citizens can applaud Obama, bundle millions in campaign donations, support him and vote for him is hard for me to understand. I can’t get my arms around the fact that so many anti-Military, anti-American’s would like to see our country destroyed yet call themselves patriots and American. It’s unthinkable but we all better understand that Barack Obama needs to be run out of office. Barack Obama is an enemy of the United States of America.

Meaning of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”

I’ve already discussed the Keystone XL pipeline situation here and here. It’s apparent the Obama administration has a problem with the oil and natural gas industry although they are deemed safe to the environment through mountains of impact studies and create thousands of new jobs.

A little reported lawsuit in which the US Attorney for North Dakota hauled seven oil and natural gas companies into federal court for killing 28 migratory birds that were found dead near oil waste lagoons last year has been ruled upon. Wind production companies were not found within this suit and not presumed “guilty” of similar circumstances. Imagine that.

Continental Resources was accused of violating the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act because “on or about May 6, 2011 in the District of North Dakota” the company “did take [kill] one Say’s Phoebe,” of the tyrant flycatcher bird family. Brigham Oil & Gas is accused of killing two Mallard ducks. The Class B misdemeanors carry fines of up to $15,000 for each dead bird and up to six months in prison.

Now, about the wind industry, which the environmentalists and Barack Obama are wild about. Each year the wind industry kills not 28 birds, or even a few hundred, but some 440,000, according to estimates by the American Bird Conservancy based on Fish and Wildlife Service data. At the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Northern California, some 5,000 wind turbines each year kill scores of golden and bald eagles, which are highly protected under federal law. In fact, according to the September 13 draft of its new “Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines,” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would give the wind industry “assurances” of law enforcement discretion if it adheres to certain safeguards and then inadvertently kills birds.

Gas and oil had been prosecuted under the “Migratory Bird Act.” The criminal charges carried fines and potential prison sentences. A recent ruling by US district Judge Daniel Hovland contrasted “incidental and unintended” deaths during “legal, commercially-useful activity” with “hunting and poaching.”

The court rejected US Attorney Timothy Purdon’s “expansive interpretation of the law” because it “would yield absurd results”:

If the government’s case carried the day, “many everyday activities become unlawful—and subject to criminal sanctions—when they cause the death of pigeons, starlings, and other common birds.”

The court wrote that among the potential felonious bird-killing habits are cutting brush and trees, planting and harvesting crops, driving a vehicle, owning a building with windows and . . . “owning a cat.” The court noted that cats kill “hundreds of millions” of birds each year and cars kill 60 million, while windows kill 97 million to 976 million. In short, every American could be an unwitting criminal bird killer.

What we have here is “selective prosecution” by the Obama administration. Judge Hovland also pointed out that windmills kill “roughly 39,000 birds annually.” No lawsuits can be found against the windmill industry under the Migratory Bird Act.

Although I thought the Dodo bird was extinct it appears Obama and his ilk are the reincarnation of the bird. At least in name.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Since midnight, Wikipedia has closed down for twenty four hours, and countless additional well-liked internet sites have gone dark right together with them. They’re standing up collectively in demonstration regarding a pair of contentious pieces of legislation which jeopardize Internet security and safety and also challenge the freedom of speech all in order to crack down on online “piracy” — the unlawful circulation associated with copyrighted information.

Hollywood, the music community, and also the US Chamber of Commerce have joined together with respect to these recommended regulations on the understanding that they’re going to safeguard important copyrighted property. Although the aim might be laudable, the ends do not warrant the methods. Stop Online Piracy Act as well as the Protect IP Act possess far-reaching outcomes with regard to the Internet’s foundation, personal liberties, and innovation within the digital era.

Inside of the laws and regulations, after a order from the court, third-party organizations as well as internet sites will be compelled to crack down on rogue websites — as well as ones which unintentionally host or connect to content which could infringe copyrights or trademarks, if they know about the violation or not. Internet service providers shall be forced to block out Internet addresses associated with problematic websites — a step in which Internet technical engineers advise might jeopardize Internet security. Search engines like Google could well be banned from incorporating pirate websites from search results, a requisite which moves well past existing laws and could, in reality, breach the First Amendment.

It is actually considerations such as these which have triggered a firestorm within the internet community, compelling Wikipedia to state that the legislation “would be devastating to the free and open web” and driving Google to push in opposition to the laws over their highly trafficked search engine. At the same time, PC Magazine states that co-founders associated with leading technology companies such as Twitter, Google, Yahoo, along with eBay published an open letter opposing these laws, reasoning they would certainly undercut the “regulatory climate that promotes entrepreneurship, innovation, the creation of content and free expression online.”

This is the reason why: Underneath the legislation, internet sites such as Facebook, along with its hundreds of millions of end users, or perhaps YouTube, in which forty-eight hours of online video is uploaded every minute, would be responsible with regard to all content material published upon their particular websites. As a consequence, internet sites would be discouraged from participating in speech or perhaps from offering a community forum in which other people may undertake the equivalent. This, in turn, will certainly constrain creativity – the lifeblood of the economic system. One particular analysis revealed that among two hundred venture capitalists as well as angel investors, virtually all would cease financing digital mass media intermediaries in the event that these kinds of laws are passed.

Setting aside the burden the laws and regulations would likely inflict upon your freedom of speech as well as innovation, they do not make reasonable sense. Attempting to obstruct content material on the Internet is actually equivalent to obstructing the Mississippi River using a two-by-four. The idea cannot be accomplished. Nations such as Iran regularly censor content material, nevertheless information continues to pass through – quite often having the assistance from the United States. This particular endeavor in order to crack down on pirated content is undoubtedly a useless effort by industrial sectors that tend to be struggling at the hands of a technology which has overtaken it, a lot like when Hollywood had been up agitated over VCRs during the 80s as well as when the music industry had a fit concerning MP3 players throughout the latter 90s.

The Internet is definitely the most significant vehicle regarding absolutely free speech as well as innovation ever recognized to mankind. Undoubtedly its potential may be utilized for good as well as bad, yet censoring content material, endangering the security and safety associated with the Internet, in addition to stifling advancement is not necessarily the solution with regard to safeguarding intellectual property rights.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Yes, Marxist! Or maybe you’d prefer Communist? Barack Obama has once again crossed the line and ignored the US Constitution. Let me be very clear concerning one thing – Obama is no scholar or expert on the US Constitution. At best he was a part-time lecturer at the University of Chicago in the law department. He was not a Professor, he was only tenured in community organizing and a graduate from the “School of Saul Alinksky.” So forget that “expert” argument, it’s hold no weight.

If George W. Bush was referred to as the “Imperial President” for recess appointments than Barack Obama should be labeled “Tyrant.” At least Bush followed the rules and made legal recess appointments when Congress was officially out of session. Obama sees things differently. His arrogance precedes him. What did Obama do?

“The One” installed Richard Cordray, former Ohio Attorney General and current Comrade, as the first chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This latest Czar appointment is a result of the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law. Isn’t it funny how both sponsors, Dodd-Frank, chose not to seek reelection after years in office? HA! That was a rhetorical question. Bad legislation sometimes has its way of catching up to the crooked politicians who get them passed.

Obama has the power to make recess appointments but he has a problem when he doesn’t get his way. The last clause of Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution says that “Neither House” of Congress can adjourn for more than three days “without the Consent of the other” house. In this case, the House of Representatives had not formally consented to Senate adjournment.

It’s true the House did this to block Obama from making recess appointments, but it is following the Constitution in doing so. How does Mr. Obama legally justify this?

Senate Republicans had blocked Mr. Cordray’s nomination “because they don’t agree with the law setting up the consumer watchdog.”

So like a schoolyard child he picks up his marbles, burns the Constitution and goes on the campaign trail with his new Comrade with a visit to Ohio. Congress is allowed to have a different position then Obama. New Flash! It’s still America!!

Obama didn’t stop with the Cordray appointment. He named three new members to the National Labor Relations Board, two Democrats and one Republican, effectively giving the labor board a quorum that it wouldn’t have had with the December 31 expiration of the term of previous recess-appointee Craig Becker. Obama only notified Congress of his intent to nominate them on December 15 and the Senate hasn’t had time to hold a single confirmation hearing.

The NLRB is supposed to be bi-partisan but has now become a partisan arm of Big Labor but appointee Sharon Block is the Labor Department’s Congressional liaison and former aide to Ted Kennedy and Richard Griffin is general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers. You can’t get much further Left unless you resurrect Vladimir Lenin and appoint him.

One additional item on the Cordray appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Dodd-Frank specifically states that the director or chief must be confirmed by the Senate to operate at full capacity in setting budgets and making rules. So without a full Senate confirmation for Comrade Cordray he remains illegitimate.

“The irony is that while this recess appointment may advance the White House’s political goals, it does nothing to advance the work of the CFPB. The statute creating the CFPB makes clear that only Senate confirmation of a director — not a recess appointment — can activate the new powers of this agency,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said in a statement.

Of course the administration disputes this assertion but I see a conflict between a recess appointments authority and what the law that person is operating under says.

There is a conflict but who cares, this is the Obama administration, illegitimate as well. Radicals like Obama make up their own rules, why let the US Constitution get in the way?

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

The following is a reprint By Joseph W. McQuaid – New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher

*******************

Ron Paul is a dangerous man. While his domestic libertarian views are quite attractive to some voters fed up with politics as usual, it is Paul’s position on issues of our national security that are truly dangerous.

Those views have been largely overlooked by a news media more interested in the presidential “horse race” than in the candidates’ positions on issues. But we expect New Hampshire primary voters will examine the facts and act accordingly.

A Wall Street Journal columnist notes that Paul is “a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.”

Perhaps this warped view is why Paul believes that al-Qaida terrorists caught in the United States ought to be treated as common criminals, not enemy combatants. He wants them read Miranda rights to which they are not entitled and he wants them tried and sentenced in civil courts rather than by military tribunals.

This is nothing short of nuts. What is needed to competently fight a war, and al-Qaida is indeed at war with us, is the ability to gather information. Telling the enemy that it has a “right to remain silent” is absurd.

Paul believes that if a U.S. citizen throws in with al-Qaida or associated groups overseas, where he plots American death and destruction, we need to somehow find him, arrest him, and bring him back to stand civil trial here rather than eliminate him, even if that is the only option.

We are in a much different kind of war than we have ever faced, but Paul doesn’t see it. He has repeatedly said that U.S. aggression is responsible for 9-11 and other attacks on America from radical jihadists.

He has repeatedly said that we should allow Iran to continue to develop a nuclear weapon. This is the same country whose leadership vows death to America, the “Satanic power,” and who wants Israel wiped from the map.

Never mind Paul being the favored candidate of the lunatic fringe (see white supremacists, anti-Semites, truthers, etc.). Never mind his refusal to disavow a third-party run (which would only help President Obama’s reelection).

His defenders say they admire Ron Paul’s “consistency.” It is true, Paul has been consistently spouting this nonsense. It is about time New Hampshire voters showed him the door.

*******************

Liberally Conservative and its author concur. (See related post directly below)

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

George Soros - Crony Capitalist - Obama Insider

Perhaps the best investment a hedge fund can make these days is not in a financial wizard but a politician. Hedge funds and financiers are becoming more political than ever before. And political figures and government appointees with no background in finance (former Vice Presidents Dan Quayle and Al Gore, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, for example) have launched their own investment funds.

“The former politician/investment guru fraternity appears to be growing,” noted one industry observer. And former politicians are finding a career that can be even more lucrative than lobbying: providing “political intelligence” to investment funds, based on private conversations with congressional staffers and sitting senators.

In the world of investment finance it is increasingly important to be well connected politically. These hedge funds, one’s that hired lobbyists and made campaign contributions, had a much better rate of return than those which were not. One study explained that “connected funds possess an informational advantage in trading politically sensitive stocks.” The study also found that when a given hedge fund switched from being apolitical to getting into the political game, it’s performance increased by an impressive average of 2% to 2.9% per month. Economists also discovered that the more hedge funds gave to political candidates and the more they hired lobbyists, the more they tended to invest in politically sensitive stocks that were influenced by government actions.

“Connected fund managers exhibit a bias towards politically sensitive stocks (both in terms of trading and holdings) and they outperform significantly in these political stocks.”

The simple fact is that politically connected hedge fund managers and billionaire financiers can make a lot of money based on information gleaned from politicians and government officials. And it is not illegal for a politician to share this information. If an official gets paid directly for it, however, he risks a bribery charge. Former Congressman Brian Baird warned that the financial states are so high, “the possibility of direct kickbacks [is] enormous.” So the payback must be subtle.

Elliott Portnoy, a lobbyist in Washington, says that the biggest field of growth for lobbyists is not in influencing legislation but in obtaining “political intelligence” for hedge funds and large investors.

“There are a lot of savvy investors who have realized that there is a lot of money to be made from what Congress does,” Portnoy said.

One congressional staffer was even more blunt when he told the Wall Street Journal,

“The amount of insider trading going on in these halls is incredible.”

Access to government information is critical. And being on good terms with the gatekeepers of that information – elected officials, political appointees, and bureaucrats – can make all the difference between getting rich and getting hammered in the market.

George Soros is perhaps the most visible investor in the world after Warren Buffett. He is famous for his currency trades as for his outspoken political views. And in a world where government actions and policies have such a huge effect on the world of finance, the two spheres are not so separate as one might think.

But as a review of the many ways in which he [Soros] made smart stimulus bets reveals, the lesson is clear: if you are a big investor, you are a sucker if you don’t play the Washington game. The symbiosis of politics and markets has become so blatant, the two realms have become so intertwined, that Washington is essentially putting its thumb on the scale of a massive portion of the American economy – and elite insiders are the ones who benefit most.

Source: Throw Them All Out by Peter Schweizer – How Politicians and their friends get rich off insider stock tips, land deals, and cronyism that would send the rest of us to prison.

Buy it, read it, then fight Congressional Insider Trading!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

**************

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?”, said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age of beautiful gestures.

We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.

One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt.

Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

**************

So I ask you – Who Is John Galt? If you don’t know, it’s time you find out!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines: