For those of you who are not living under a rock, the announcement by the new leaders of Libya that Sharia Law would be the rule of law and any law that violates Sharia would be null and void is not a surprise. If you are surprised, you should be ashamed of your naivete.
The entire "Arab Spring" is nothing more than a Muslim uprising against anyone who has
been a leader in the Middle East. In our opinion, it short order, those countries which
experienced the "spring" will soon see how it is to live under not only totalitarian states but
religious totalitarian states.
Maybe this view is a bit extreme but so are the leaders of Iran who we believe is
instrumental in the effort to remove all existing leadership in the Middle East. Of course,
time will tell, however, don't ever vote against the extremists as they always win.
Here is the article posted yesterday regarding Sharia law in the "new" Libya.
Sharia law declaration raises concerns in new Libya
By Simon Martelli | AFP – 22 hrs agoRELATED CONTENT
- National Transitional Council (NTC) fighters gather around Libya's interim leader …
The announcement that Islamic sharia law will be the basis of legislation in newly liberated Libya has raised concerns, especially among women, despite Islamists insisting moderation will prevail.
Interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil said on Sunday, during his speech to the nation in Benghazi to formally declare the country's liberation from the ousted regime of Moammer Kadhafi, that sharia would be Libya's principal law.
"Any law that violates sharia is null and void legally," he said, citing as an example the law on marriage passed during the slain dictator's 42-year tenure that imposed restrictions on polygamy, which is permitted in Islam.
"The law of divorce and marriage... This law is contrary to sharia and it is stopped," Abdel Jalil said.
His comments have provoked criticism and calls for restraint both in Libya and in Europe, amid fears that the Arab Spring may give rise to a potentially intolerant Islamist resurgence.
Many Libyans awaiting Sunday's historic speech expressed surprise at the decision by the National Transitional Council leader to mention the role of sharia law in the new country before addressing such important issues as security and education.
"It's shocking and insulting to state, after thousands of Libyans have paid for freedom with their lives, that the priority of the new leadership is to allow men to marry in secret," said Rim, 40, a Libyan feminist who requested anonymity.
"We did not slay Goliath so that we now live under the Inquisition," she told AFP.
In his speech, Abdel Jalil also announced the introduction of Islamic banking in Libya in keeping with sharia which prohibits the earning of interest, or riba in Arabic, that is considered a form of usury.
Adelrahman al-Shatr, one of the founders of the centre-right Party of National Solidarity, launched just last week, said it was premature for the NTC leader to speak about the policies of the new state.
"It is a subject that should be discussed with the different political groups and with the Libyan people," he said.
"These declarations create feelings of pain and bitterness among women who sacrificed so many martyrs," in the eight-month battle against Kadhafi loyalists, he added.
"By abolishing the marriage law, women lose the right to keep the family home if they divorce. It is a disaster for Libyan women."
Western leaders also responded swiftly to Abdel Jalil's comments, with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton saying on Monday Libya's introduction of sharia law must respect human rights and democratic principles.
Abdel Jalil, a respected former justice minister of Kadhafi who distanced himself from the old regime, is seen as a pious man and a Sufi follower of Islam who is at odds with extremism.
He has already said that the new Libya would not adopt any extremist ideology, and sought to reassure the international community by stating on Monday that Libyans were moderate Muslims.
Nevertheless, Libya's Islamists are a rising force in the country's political arena, some of whom, such as Abdelhakim Belhaj, the founder of the Al-Qaeda linked but now-disbanded Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), are expected to hold prominent positions.
After suffering decades of persecution by Kadhafi, they are also working hard to present themselves as proponents of tolerant, democratic values and policies.
"The rules and laws (in new Libya) should take Islam as a basic reference," Islamist leader Sheikh Ali Sallabi, a supporter of Belhaj, told AFP.
He insisted that freedom, justice, equality and respect for human dignity should be enshrined in the new constitution, along with the peaceful rotation of power.
"We believe in the rights of others to show their programmes to the people, and to let the people decide," said Sallabi, who was jailed for eight years during the 1980s in Tripoli's notorious Abu Salim prison.
"We also believe in the freedom of the press and the right to self expression. We believe that our religion accommodates these rights," he added
I remember when we used to talk about a nation's "right to self-determination." Part of freedom is the freedom to choose social, political, religious institutions that are different from those preferred in other countries.
ReplyDeleteAs a Libertarian, I feel that Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, etc. should be free to run their country as they choose without outside pressure from the U.S. to adopt a secular constitution. So long as they stay within their own borders, it is their business, not ours. It is only when they attack other nations that they infringe the right of self-determination of their neighbors and, for that reason, deserve vigorous resistance from the rest of the world.
I know this is standard Ron Paul foreign policy, but I believe it makes sense both morally and politically.
--David
David, In isolation, I agree with your statement that we should not involve ourselves in other countries internal affairs. So you would disagree with NATOs decision to go into Libya? What happens when a country's surrogates de-stable another country internally? How do we know that it is only the citizens of Libya who want Sharia Law?
ReplyDeleteYes, the U.S., NATO, and every other country should not interfere with internal affairs of other countries. It is the business of a country to deal with surrogates operating inside their country. If the citizens of Libya don't want any elements of Sharia law in their constitution, then they need to get organized politically to prevent it from happening, or have another revolution to overthrow the new government. In either case, let them deal with their own problems. We have enough of our own.
ReplyDeleteVote Ron Paul.
-David
So, if a country decides that certain citizens are "unacceptable" and decides to exterminate them, we should not intervene?
ReplyDeleteAfter our military went into Iraq and Afghanistan, we did not get anything different than what they have in Libya. The constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan forbids any law that is contrary to Islamic law.
ReplyDelete--David
David, you are right. For a second opinion on this visit: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/war_for_islamic_sharia_law.html
ReplyDeleteReading the comments sheds light into how difficult it is to decide how to respond to international conflicts.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can see both view points discussed, I have to add my own:
Since the US was established it has fallen to us to help police the world. We did not ask for this responsibility but we have it. Therefore, we must help ensure unstable nations are not preyed upon by those with evil intent. I am not saying Islamic law is evil, I am however stating that there are many within the Middle East who do not want to live under Sharia laws but they are not in a position to fight such power without outside help.
While America does have problems of its own that desperately need to be addressed, if we ignore the Arab Spring, we will have more problems than we know how to handle.
To those with extremist views, America is a major hindrance to their agenda and they will endeavor to undermine us. Both Israel and America, along with countless other innocent people, are in jeopardy if the US,NATO,EU stand by and allow extremists to take over a country that has fought so diligently to overthrow a bad government.
How would we like it if we worked so hard to overcome a dictator only to have another form of oppression placed upon us?
Those who oppose Sharia law can only defend themselves for so long.
We may not want to help, but can we really afford not to?
If he thinks the parliament in Iraq would ever agree to a constitution that contradicts Islamic law, he is seriously delusional. They have their own minds and their own interests that do not coincide with ours. Same story in Afghanistan. In fact, Karzai says now that he would fight with Pakistan against the United States.
ReplyDeleteAs for Iraq, the U.S. has tried for years on behalf of the U.S. oil companies to get Iraq to accept the draft oil law written by Americans. That tactic was analogous to MacArthur and Japan.
They have not only refused to give us the oil law we want, they won't even allow Obama to leave more than 150 troops in Iraq after December 31. He sent a parade of generals, Joe Biden, Hillary, etc. to try to revise the SOFA agreement Bush negotiated. Now, Obama has the gall to say he is getting out to "keep a promise" when, in fact, the Iraqis are kicking us out of their country. Finally!!
In short, the Japan model failed miserably in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is not for lack of trying (as he claims).
--David
Sending Biden to do anything is like sending a lame dog into a burning building to rescue victims. Have you seen him sleep through Televised appearances of important meetings? He is a talking mouth with no real power (in my opinion).
ReplyDeleteAs for oil, I know we are supposed to protect our ozone and wildlife habitats and so on... but why is it okay to let other nations, nations that do not have the high standards we enforce, drill for oil and not allow drilling in our own land?
If we weren't so dependent on other nations oil we would have more bargaining power. Plus, our EPA regulates down to the finest details, why are we not allowed to drill here? I am positive we can drill safer than any of those other nations, if the environment is our true concern (I won't comment on the fact that 'going green' is a nice way to distract Americans and gain support for other less noble agendas).
Biden is a wild card. He is not smart enough to corral his mouth so lots of times he will blab what he really thinks (or what the administration is talking about.) Remember his "F-n big deal" when the ObamaCare was signed.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the oil, we should drill because 1) we need all the oil we can get out hands on 2) we are more environmentally aware than anywhere else in the world and 3)our future is dependent upon it.
You're getting off on a tangent here, unless you guys think there is some magic negotiator (besides Biden, Gates, Hillary, and all the military generals) who tried and failed to sell the Iraqis and the Afghans on our agenda for their constitutions, the Iraqi oil law, or leaving thousands of troops in Iraq beyond December 31, or their aligning with Iran/Pakistan, etc., etc.. They have their own ideas about how to manage their own affairs.
ReplyDelete--David
David, I have two points. First of all the contrast between the results we had after WWII and now are examples of America's declining influence. If we cannot influence a government to adopt a Constitution and freedoms after saving their rears, that is not impressive. McArthur imposed a new way of thinking on Japan including deposing the Emperor and the country accepted it.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, our negotiators must be poor. We removed the Taliban, gave back the country to the citizens and they will not accept our gift to them? How come McArthur could do it and these guys can't? Because he knew what was best for their country. We now have liver lillied negotiators who "don't want to tell others how to live." These people are examples of an America in decline. No longer do we know that we are the best, we see others as better and these doubts impact not only our personal relations but international relations.
We allow millions to come over our borders and when some demand they leave, these same accomadators say "they are just trying to improve their lives" completely ignoring the illegality of their act of coming to this country illegally.
We condemn people who make money and enshrine those who demand money from the government. No longer do we celebrate people who build businesses, we accuse them of theft, deceit and greed. While those who protest for more money from the treasury are said to be honorable while they really are the greedy ones!
Japan capitulated because we dropped an atomic bomb on them, not because MacArthur is a better negotiator than anybody Bush or Obama sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraqis and Afghans do not have to accept the dictates of the United States. Like Vietnam, they have proven to us (and to the Soviets before us --um, you think the Soviets were "lily livered"? -- they can sustain an insurgence for as many years as we want to keep the war going.
ReplyDeleteI have no issue with businesses making a profit. But when they run securities fraud and sink the global economy for their own personal greed, we should all have a problem with that. I haven't met anybody yet at a OWS event who is asking for free money from the treasury (that is what the Wall Street bankers do!). We have 14 million people who just want their jobs back, not a handout from the government. They don't mind if the super rich pay one half on one percent on earnings over $1 million a year in order to raise $35 billion to put 400,000 people back to work. The alternative is that the government continues to pay unemployed to them, and the economy continues to limp along at 2% GDP growth. Is that really what you prefer?
You call yourself a critic of Wall Street, but the articles you post and your own commentary tell a different story. Prove me wrong -- post something about banks instead of bank protestors.
--David
You mention Japan but you don't comment on Germany which had a constitution imposed on them also! We did the same to Italy.
ReplyDeleteVietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were conducted the same way which were directly opposite from WWII. We put so many limits on our troops it was ridiculous. In today's America we would have never dropped the bomb on Japan, we would not have the guts to do so. We don't have leaders who would do it.
Just another example of being lilly livered!!
As far as banks--I am not a lover of the big ones and believe they should have been allowed to go under or at least have the bad mortgages removed from their portfolios and then put into some sort of liquidation company like they used in the Savings and Loan mess.
By the way, the banks were REQUIRED to take money if they needed it or not. Treasury required it!!
As far as taxing the rich more, you could take all the income away from the richest and it would not run the government for more than a couple months.
The government may pay unemployment, but the employers fund it! Each month they make contributions based upon total salary paid times a rate which depends upon their history of layoffs. Additionally, unemployment is limited to 99 weeks which is less than two years.
Government does not create jobs, employers do! Government can only create an atmosphere where employers feel comfortable adding people. Government must get out of the way and let the private sector move.
We must remove the roadblocks to hiring which include lower taxes for the employee and employer and less regulation.
Since the 1970's we have removed our tariffs and moved millions of jobs overseas which has resulted in a lower standard of living for the middle class. Overseas jobs pay at a rate of 10% of those in the United States. How are we to continue to have the standard of living when we don't have jobs?
I place the blame on us. We demanded cheap goods like clothes, shoes, televisions etc and the politicians decided the only way to do that was to eliminate the tariffs and establish "free trade." We got what we wanted, but at what a cost.
The OWS people do not know history, demand government benefits, are being organized by "anti-American" activists and will result in riots and civil disobedience. Not a very positive group to be associated with.
Well, he only talked about Japan, so I only talked about Japan.
ReplyDeleteThe problem more generally with this WWII argument over Japan, Germany, Italy is that WWII was a conventional war fought between conventional armies that ended in the conventional way with men signing peace treaties that compel the losers to accept the terms of the winners.
By contrast, the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were asymmetrical wars where, despite spending trillions of dollars and losing many thousands of American lives in quagmires that dragged on for years, and years, and years, we never did -- and would never be able to -- get the Viet Kong, the Taliban, or the Iraqis to give up fighting, sit down, and sign a paper setting up the governments in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq to serve our interests.
They do not have to agree to our terms, they have not, and they will not. The people we are fighting in Afghanistan now are headquartered in Pakistan, and, as I said, Karzai stated that he would fight with Pakistan against the U.S. Given that attitude, do you seriously think there is any chance that your magical negotiator would find a way to convince them to become the first Islamic country to abandon Islamic law?
You say, "As far as banks--I am not a lover of the big ones and believe they should have been allowed to go under or at least have the bad mortgages removed from their portfolios and then put into some sort of liquidation company like they used in the Savings and Loan mess."
I agree. Did you see that Germany has forced the big European banks to eat 50% of their loans to Greece? No way our country would have done that to the Wall Street banks. In fact, we did the opposite. We bailed them out at tax-payer expense!
You say, "By the way, the banks were REQUIRED to take money if they needed it or not. Treasury required it!!"
That was done to confuse the public about which banks were solvent and which were not so that there would not be a depositor panic run on the banks that took the money.
--David
You say, "As far as taxing the rich more, you could take all the income away from the richest and it would not run the government for more than a couple months."
ReplyDeleteThat is a red herring. The proposal rejected only called for 1/2 of 1% tax on incomes over $1 million with the first $1 million exempt from taxes. That would raise $35 billion to put 400,000 police, teachers, firefighters, and other state employees back to work. That is not much, but ANY new tax for any purpose whatsoever has no chance of getting through this Congress. On that point, I see that the "super committee" was considering a proposal that has a 6-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue, but it was D.O.A.
You say, "The government may pay unemployment, but the employers fund it!"
Actually, 30 states have exhausted their unemployment funds and are borrowing from the federal government to pay for unemployment. But more to the point, it is far better to have people working and paying taxes than sitting home collecting unemployment. What we need is private-public partnership to build/repair infrastructure.
You say, "Government does not create jobs, employers do!"
They both create jobs. About 16% of the employees in this country work at government jobs. Also, job creation is not an "either,or" proposition. In the case of infrastructure, the government offers contracts to private companies to repair roads, bridges, schools, water systems, etc. Are such jobs created by government, private companies, or the actions of both?
You say, "We got what we wanted, but at what a cost."
I agree. China benefitted. Multi-national corporations benefitted. The American middle class lost their jobs, their homes, and their life savings.
Okay, I'd rather be associated with the typical OWS protestor than the Wall Street bankers who wrecked our economy with securities fraud for their personal gain. Maybe some of them will go to prison. I hope so. The typical OWS protestor is simply exercising his First Amendment rights to assembly and free speech. Protestors who assault police should be prosecuted. Police who assault peaceful protestors should also be prosecuted. Agree?
--David
Tom I agree with your points!
ReplyDeleteThroughout America's history there have been strong leaders willing to do what was right instead of what was easy...Washington, Lincoln, MacArthur, Pershing and many others. Today we have allowed Political Correctness to dissolve our moral compass and weaken us from within resulting in our voices being ignored in the international community.
I agree we have forgotten our history. We need to remember so we can learn from our mistakes instead of repeating them.
Anonymous,
Please research into those funding the OWS, many of them are leftist billionaires who desire a new type of world with America not at the helm of power. They are disguising their motives behind things that people want to see changed, such as unemployment. George Soros is one such person that you need to look at, he appears very innocent and generous on the surface but he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
As for taxing the rich more, why hasn't anyone realized that the rich have the money to up and leave America completely if they want? Try taking more from them and they will just leave. Why push them? Why bemoan their success, why not endeavor to work towards their success and become millionaires too?
For Avey...
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/13/on-george-soros-occupy-wall-street-and-reuters/
Soros has not contributed a dime to OWS.
Interesting--Reuters writes an article and then completely changes what it says. Who got to them?
ReplyDeleteThey made an error. They issued a correction. That is called responsible journalism.
ReplyDeleteBut the larger point is that so long as both sides remain focused on the protesters, the Wall Street banks get no attention from the media or this blog.
-- David
David, I disagree with your assumption that they made a mistake. I doubt it. Someone got to them!
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, nothing will happen to the banks or bank management because the agreement that granted them billions was set up by the government. Also, the banks were only doing what the government insisted they do--make loans to people who could not afford them!
If the banks are charged with crimes, so should the government officials who made up the rules. How about going after Barney Frank who insisted that Fanny and Freddy were very sound? How about the bank examiners who would downgrade a bank if they did not do enough loans to poor people? What about the original law (community reinvestment act) should the legislators be charged with malfeasance in office for causing the housing collapse? How about the rating agencies which gave AAA ratings to junk mortgages?
My point is that to only focus on the banks is looking for scapegoats and not positive.
Where is the evidence that Soros contributed to OWS? This claim is as baseless at this point as the charge that Cain sexually harassed two women. Both these stories are a distraction from what we should be talking about here and in the country.
ReplyDeleteTom, if you can't find any article to post about the Wall Street bankers, I recommend this one…
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-bankers.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
How do you like his 4 suggestions for avoiding the next Wall Street debacle?
Your "scapegoats" were criminals. Yes, Fanny and Freddie got into the game (late), but most of the subprime mortgages were done by others like Countrywide, and BY FAR the worst damage of all was done by the Wall Street banks with their mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps. The bad mortgages were a $400 billion problem. That is actually small compared to the $600 TRILLION in credit default swaps. It was the derivatives that ruined the global economy. That seems to be what you are missing. If they chose to do it, the federal government could have bought all of the mortgages for about HALF of the TARP money except for the fact that the lenders had sliced and diced them into the shadow banking system via CDO's that they couldn't even identify who owns the deed. That is what Bank of America is facing in litigation now. And, of course the rating agencies were in on the scam.
Read a good book: AFTER THE FALL: Saving Capitalism from Wall Street and Washington (by Nicole Gelinas).
--David
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI looked at the site you provided regarding Soros. I'm sorry to say that I do not agree with it at all.
One has to look closer at Soros himself, at his agenda's to understand his support of OWS.
Soros has been linked to assisting 5 Various currencies collapse. Mylasia calls him an "Economic Terrorist". He is also the "man who broke the bank of England".
He has gotten rich off of other economies downfalls.
That is why he supports the OWS.
While he is giving interviews on Russia Today saying "I can sympathize with their grievances" he is indirectly funding this movement through donating to organizations such as Sojouners (Look up Jim Wallace. Sojourners recently received 150,000 from Soros) and the Ad Busters who receives funding from the Tides foundation. (Ad Busters put out a call on 9/17 to recruit protesters, they received $70,000 from Tides. Since 2000, Tides has received 25 million from Soros' Open Society Institute).
Soros channels his money through various organizations:
Tides, Media Matters, Open Society, Moveon.org, Sojouners, Center for American Progress, Campaign for America's Future, National Council of La Raza, Apollo Alliance and more.
You have to follow the money and Soros' past. Try reading some of his own words, he has written many books.
One other interesting thing about him, in April 8-11 of 2011 he helped fund (I think 50 million) of Bretton Woods III. This meeting was to help reconstruct a new Global Community when the other one collapsed. Bretton Woods I and II talked about the Gold standard and America's control of money.
Soros supports OWS because it helps his agenda. He has been working on a new world, now he is working on transforming the old one in order to help establish his end goal.
There are many books I can recommend on reading to help understand the man behind the mask. He is not as innocent as the media he helps indirectly fund would like you to think.
Avey,
ReplyDeleteYou obviously did not bother to read ( or understand?) the last source I give you. Here is one more….
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-new-york/reuters-attempt-to-indirectly-link-george-soros-and-occupy-is-fox-news-worthy
I promise I am done with this topic. It is manufactured mostly by guys like Limbaugh to discredit the OWS protesters and keep attention off the Wall Street banks. (I noticed today that BOA just dropped their $5 extortion fee on debit cards because their customers have been changing banks -- actually, many people are so fed up with all the banks in this country that they are now switching to credit unions).
If you want to talk about something serious, I would be interested in you comments on the article about the Citigroup and Goldman Sachs that I suggested Tom post.
David, I read the last posting (examiner) and said OK, I understand, until I read the last line which is "Reuters has always been a non-partisan in their reporting and it would be a crime to start sinking to Fox News' type of shabby journalism." This last sentence ruined, for me, the entire article and made the hairs on my neck stand up. No longer was this a piece of journalism, it became a piece of left wing propaganda.
ReplyDeleteInstead of making me feel that I was wrong about the money trail from Soros to OWS, the article strengthened my belief that there is a tie in!
Tom, separate his opinion about Reuters from the facts presented. The Tides contribution records show that Soros made his donations to Tides BEFORE the OWS ever existed. Tides has not contributed to OWS. They contributed to this outfit in Canada that contributed to OWS. Those are the facts. Now, Limbaugh and others are taking that as "Soros is funding the OWS movement." It is total B.S.
ReplyDeleteAre you ever going to post anything about Wall Street?
--David
I agree about being tired of this topic, but I don't think it is going to go away.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I'm not sure you realize what you wrote... Tides donated to a Canadian outfit that then contributed to OWS. Follow the money. For YEARS Soros has been plotting the downfall of our economy and he has done it brilliantly behind indirectly donating to causes he believes in.
“Main obstacle to a stable and just world is the United States” George Soros.
You may or may not be interested in a series I have started on educating people about Soros, I am sorry to say I have not gotten as far as I would like on this topic because I am trying to do thorough research. But there is information on there that shows his motives/past.
Did you know he has been behind the downfall of 5 other world currencies and has profited nicely from them? Why should his support of OWS be any different?
While there is much to discuss on this topic outside of Soros, that is what I have focused on lately.
When I was in my twenties, I thought it would have been great to be alive during the late 60's protests. As I have gotten older and educated myself, I realize how ignorant I was. I based my desire off emotion and not fact. While I understand some of the sentiment of the protesters today, I do not believe they have all the facts and part of the problem is our media is biased.
Liberals like to watch/listen to MSN or CNN while conservatives like Fox, both sides do put a spin on things and unfortunately some facts get lost in the battle. When I hear an article comes from a certain source I am less likely to take it seriously and I have a feeling others do the same when they see I take information from the opposite side as what they are used to reading.
Anyway, here is my latest post on Soros, http://tcavey.blogspot.com/2011/11/soros-and-occupy-wallstreet-what-media.html
He has a label, so you can read all my posts on him. I truly am trying to discover everything about him from all sources and I have to say, he is not the innocent man some want to portray him as. I am still researching, so I guess there is time for me to change my mind...
I have my own "pop psychology" theory about guys like Soros and Warren Buffett. Unlike the typical Wall Street banker, they have a (slightly) guilty conscious about making billions by participating in these hedge fund scams that manipulate markets with derivatives, bubbles, naked short-selling, credit default swaps, and the other tools of shadow banking system, and they are trying to sooth their guilt by giving back some of the money.
ReplyDeleteThey had Michael Issikoff on MSN this morning talking about the money Wall Street is pouring into the presidential campaigns. So far, they are betting on Mitt Romney ($18 million), but being good hedgers, they have also given ($13 million) to Obama. So, as always, they have their butts covered no mater which of them wins. You will be pleased to know that he also talk about Corzine and the allegations against him.
--David
You are probably not far off when it comes to those who want to give away their money.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I heard today that I think makes a lot of sense is that, the larger the banks get, the less freedom we have. We should have let the banks fail, picked up the pieces, restricted the business they can conduct and put them back into the business of making loans.
Anytime a business is "too big to fail" means that the business is too big! Large businesses (or government for that matter) do not gain economies of scale. They get duplication that is never cut out of the system, become anti-consumer, and too large to manage. We must take them down before they take the world's economy down.
As far as Corzine, I have not heard anyone calling for his head, his immediate resignation, calling for charges to be brought, seizing the corporation, demanding that all people be made whole out of Corzine's salary. Nothing like that is being said, he is a Dem so the press treats him with kindness and understanding, just like they did with Ken Lay! Yea, right!
I agree that the banks should have been allowed to fail, they have gotten too big and have too much power, but we can't undo the past. We can only make smarter decisions.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I agree that many like to cover their butts, that is one more problem with our nation. Money has too much voice when the people should have the voice. The 2010 elections were a sign that American's are not liking the current administrations, but it doesn't appear they got the message. I wonder what 2012 will look like since many are not happy with new group that was voted in. It makes me wonder if real change is even possible.