Showing posts with label Alan Grayson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alan Grayson. Show all posts

Monday, April 14, 2014

Ebenezer Scrooge loved his money so much that he slept with it. Now American corporations are doing the same thing. Instead of reinvesting their enormous riches (acrued with the help of insanely low taxes and large tax loopholes) and thus boosting the stagnant economy, these kleptocrats are letting their loot pile up just like Scrooge.


A flood of cash is filling the coffers of Corporate America and nobody else. (Photo by lightboxx/ Shutterstock)

FEATURES » MARCH 24, 2014
Money, Money, Everywhere
In an age of disparity, corporate wealth is far from an indicator of economic health.

BY REP. ALAN GRAYSON

I read a number of finance-industry newsletters. I want to share with you a recent excerpt from one of them. Here it is:
$1,265,836,000,000.

This is the amount of cash that S&P 500 companies (excluding banks and other financial institutions) are currently sitting on. As of the beginning of the third quarter, the largest U.S. companies collectively held $1.27 trillion. That’s about 13.5 percent more than this time last year. …

Where is this cash coming from? Well, borrowing accounts for some of it. But mostly, it’s that companies are simply generating cash faster than they are spending it.
Companies sitting on cash—the financial newsletter thinks that this is great news! Spectacular news! How nice—for them.

Here is more great news for Big Business: Corporations have been largely excused from paying taxes. The Government Accountability Office found earlier this year that the average effective tax rate on U.S. corporations is only 12.6 percent of their income. That’s low enough to make Mitt Romney jealous. Hooray, say the financial newsletters! More spectacular news!

In fact, the corporate income tax has been performing a magical disappearing act for decades. In 1952, corporate income tax revenues totaled 6 percent of GDP. The average during our enormous post-war economic expansion, between 1945 and 1970, was more than 4 percent of GDP. Since then, in every year, it has been less than 3 percent. In 1983, Reagan’s tax breaks knocked corporate income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP all the way down to 1 percent. It returned to that pitifully low level in the first year of the Obama administration, and it has remained below 2 percent. No wonder the corporate cash pile keeps growing and growing and growing.

But what about the non-corporate entities in America? How are those bags of flesh and bones known as “human beings” faring?

Well, 11 million of us are unemployed and more than 7 million of us have part- time jobs, but can’t find full-time work. And in the past 10 years, the U.S. labor force participation rate has shrunk by 3 percent. Among those who are fortunate enough to find work, the average pay is a whopping $24 an hour. According to a University of Michigan report, around 1 in 5 households in America has a negative net worth—they owe more than they own. In addition 48 million Americans have no health coverage, and 48 million rely on food stamps to stave off hunger.

Don’t expect the next generation of red, white and blue meat-bags to do much better. One fifth of all American children live in households trying to survive on less than $2,000 a month. Many of these children go to bed hungry; is it any wonder that our schools are producing students whose math scores, by one measure, are among the worst in the world?

A Tale of Two Cities , the novel by Charles Dickens, begins with the famous words, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” In America today, it is the best of times for multinational corporations and their CEOs. But for ordinary people, it’s pretty bad, and getting worse.

For non-corporeal entities, times are good. For flesh and bone, bad.

Legal fictions, good. Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters—all bad.

I submit to you that there is a connection between those two things, a connection generally known as “cause and effect.” There are several such connections, in fact.

First, inequality causes poverty through simple arithmetic. If the richest 1% is taking half of everything, then that just doesn’t leave very much for the other 99%. And inequality in America is not only the highest in our history, but also the highest in any industrialized country. According to the CIA World Factbook, our Gini coefficient— a statistical measure of income inequality—places us between Venezuela and Uruguay, with far more inequality than every major European or East Asian nation. Our inequality is surpassed largely by a bunch of African countries.

Second, inequality causes poverty through economic mismanagement. As that finance newsletter proudly states, huge corporations don’t spend their money; they just sock it away. And the same thing is true of rich people, and banks, and multi-national corporations. The 400 individuals on the Forbes 400 list alone have accumulated more than $2 trillion in wealth, the great majority of which remains in their pockets year after year. We are ending up with enormous pools of cash that have been drained from the real economy, and are not reinvested in it. We have a national economy with a maximum possible economic output of $16 trillion each year, but much of it ends up in deep pockets with no holes, just sitting there. This creates a massive and chronic shortage in “aggregate demand,” a problem that John Maynard Keynes accurately described 75 years ago. If we allow demand to fall short, then unemployment explodes. Hence we paper over the evaporation of all that money from aggregate demand with federal deficits, “quantitative easing” and enormous personal debt.

But it doesn’t matter, because the existence of all those people without jobs—what Marx called a “reserve army of the unemployed”—still fuels poverty by decimating wages. Desperate people bid down the price of labor simply to survive. Average wages, adjusted for inflation, haven’t increased since the 1970s. America is becoming a nation of cheap labor. And the notion that in such circumstances, burgeoning business profits somehow will magically increase wages and create jobs is delusional. They haven’t, and they won’t.

The misconception that the so-called job creators will deploy corporate profits to take risks, to reinvest, to expand and, ultimately, to employ more people is a right-wing pipe dream. They might be doing that in China; they sure aren’t doing that in America. Businesses see labor simply as a cost. Business tries to reduce that cost as much as possible, in order to boost profits as much as possible. Business is not in the business of creating jobs. Business is in the business of maximizing profit. Business hires labor only when it can make a profit from that labor. If any business could eliminate its labor force entirely, it would. And many actually do just that, through subcontracting, outsourcing, offshoring and other measures that reduce compensation or eradicate the labor force.

So please forgive me if, when I read in a financial newsletter that giant corporations are “sitting on” $1,265,836,000,000 “in cash,” I don’t feel like breaking out the champagne. I see it as a funeral pyre for the American Middle Class.

A system that taxes Warren Buffett’s secretary at a higher rate than Warren Buffett stokes the flames of that funeral pyre. A system that provides for corporate tax loopholes that are as large as corporate tax revenue stokes the flames of that funeral pyre. We create that system, and it’s breaking us, from within.

Those are the facts. The Sturm und Drang that you see on the evening news is a desperate effort to avoid those facts. And the deep, deep question in our political system today is this: Are we going to do anything about it?


REP. ALAN GRAYSON
U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson is a progressive Democrat from Orlando. He currently serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Science, Space and Technology Committee. He previously served as a member of the House Committee on Financial Services.

Thursday, September 05, 2013

Alan Grayson, the most rational -- and effective(!) -- member of the House of Representatives, is interviewed for his opinion of how to deal with the Administration's insane determination to attack Syria. Don't miss this America! There is hope for peace.


THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2013                                                                    Original Here

Rep. Alan Grayson on Syria: Congress Should Reject "Warmongering" and Focus on Problems at Home



President Obama’s effort to win legislative backing for military strikes against Syria passed its first hurdle on Wednesday when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10 to 7 in favor of bombing Syria. We’re joined by Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, a leading opponent of the resolution in the House. Grayson has set up a website, DontAttackSyria.com, which is gathering signatures for a petition calling on Congress to deny permission to attack Syria. "I am very disturbed by this general idea that every time we see something bad in the world, we should bomb it," Grayson says. "The president has criticized that mindset, and now he has adopted it. It’s simply not our responsibility to act alone and punish this."

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

If your (BIG) bank fails, the U.S., Canada, England, and European governments are prepared take part of your deposits ...and any help from the FDIC will be miniscule. This is called a bail-IN (as opposed to a bail-out). The large global and Wall Street banks are at the greatest risk because they have been gambling depositor money in risky derivatives and other speculative devices. Derivatives enjoy special status in bankruptsy, effectively making drivative counterparties senior to almost all other claimants, especially bank depositors. What a pity that only 842 people are following this blog, when due to their ignorance millions of people will surely lose much of their bank deposits in this way. The big banks are now gobbling up much of the wealth on earth before their bubbles burst, at which point they will steal even more. Do your friends a favor by telling them to follow Ellen Brown.


PublicBankingTV : Your Money Is Not Safe in the Big Banks

Posted on August 25, 2013 by Ellen Brown




The Leveraged Buyout of America

Posted on August 26, 2013 by Ellen Brown

Giant bank holding companies now own airports, toll roads, and ports; control power plants; and store and hoard vast quantities of commodities of all sorts. They are systematically buying up or gaining control of the essential lifelines of the economy. How have they pulled this off, and where have they gotten the money?

In a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke dated June 27, 2013, US Representative Alan Grayson and three co-signers expressed concern about the expansion of large banks into what have traditionally been non-financial commercial spheres. Specifically:
[W]e are concerned about how large banks have recently expanded their businesses into such fields as electric power production, oil refining and distribution, owning and operating of public assets such as ports and airports, and even uranium mining.
After listing some disturbing examples, they observed:
According to legal scholar Saule Omarova, over the past five years, there has been a “quiet transformation of U.S. financial holding companies.” These financial services companies have become global merchants that seek to extract rent from any commercial or financial business activity within their reach.  They have used legal authority in Graham-Leach-Bliley to subvert the “foundational principle of separation of banking from commerce. . . .

It seems like there is a significant macro-economic risk in having a massive entity like, say JP Morgan, both issuing credit cards and mortgages, managing municipal bond offerings, selling gasoline and electric power, running large oil tankers, trading derivatives, and owning and operating airports, in multiple countries.
A “macro” risk indeed – not just to our economy but to our democracy and our individual and national sovereignty. Giant banks are buying up our country’s infrastructure – the power and supply chains that are vital to the economy. Aren’t there rules against that? And where are the banks getting the money?

How Banks Launder Money Through the Repo Market

In an illuminating series of articles on Seeking Alpha titled “Repoed!”, Colin Lokey argues that  the investment arms of large Wall Street banks are using their “excess” deposits – the excess of deposits over loans – as collateral for borrowing in the repo market. Repos, or “repurchase agreements,” are used to raise short-term capital. Securities are sold to investors overnight and repurchased the next day, usually day after day.

The deposit-to-loan gap for all US banks is now about $2 trillion, and nearly half of this gap is in Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo alone. It seems that the largest banks are using the majority of their deposits (along with the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing dollars) not to back loans to individuals and businesses but to borrow for their own trading. Acquiring a company or a portion of a company mostly with borrowed money is called a “leveraged buyout.” The banks are leveraging our money to buy up ports, airports, toll roads, power, and massive stores of commodities.

Using these excess deposits directly for their own speculative trading would be blatantly illegal, but the banks have been able to avoid the appearance of impropriety by borrowing from the repo market. (See my earlier article here.) The banks’ excess deposits are first used to purchase Treasury bonds, agency securities, and other highly liquid, “safe” securities. These liquid assets are then pledged as collateral in repo transactions, allowing the banks to get “clean” cash to invest as they please. They can channel this laundered money into risky assets such as derivatives, corporate bonds, and equities (stock).

That means they can buy up companies. Lokey writes, “It is common knowledge that prop [proprietary] trading desks at banks can and do invest in a variety of assets, including stocks.” Prop trading desks invest for the banks’ own accounts. This was something that depository banks were forbidden to do by the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act but that was allowed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed those portions of Glass-Steagall.

The result has been a massively risky $700-plus trillion speculative derivatives bubble. Lokey quotes from an article by Bill Frezza in the January 2013 Huffington Post titled “Too-Big-To-Fail Banks Gamble With Bernanke Bucks“:
If you think [the cash cushion from excess deposits] makes the banks less vulnerable to shock, think again. Much of this balance sheet cash has been hypothecated in the repo market, laundered through the off-the-books shadow banking system. This allows the proprietary trading desks at these “banks” to use that cash as collateral to take out loans to gamble with. In a process called hyper-hypothecation this pledged collateral gets pyramided, creating a ticking time bomb ready to go kablooey when the next panic comes around.
That Explains the Mountain of Excess Reserves

Historically, banks have attempted to maintain a loan-to-deposit ratio of close to 100%, meaning they were “fully loaned up” and making money on their deposits. Today, however, that ratio is only 72% on average; and for the big derivative banks, it is lower yet. The unlent portion represents the “excess deposits” available to be tapped as collateral for the repo market.

The Fed’s quantitative easing contributes to this collateral pool by converting less-liquid mortgage-backed securities into cash in the banks’ reserve accounts. This cash is not something the banks can spend for their own proprietary trading, but they can invest it in “safe” securities – Treasuries and similar securities that are also the sort of collateral acceptable in the repo market. Using this repo collateral, the banks can then acquire the laundered cash with which they can invest or speculate for their own accounts.

Lokey notes that US Treasuries are now being bought by banks in record quantities. These bonds stay on the banks’ books for Fed supervision purposes, even as they are being pledged to other parties to get cash via repo. The fact that such pledging is going on can be determined from the banks’ balance sheets, but it takes some detective work. Explaining the intricacies of this process, the evidence that it is being done, and how it is hidden in plain sight takes Lokey three articles, to which the reader is referred. Suffice it to say here that he makes a compelling case.

Can They Do That?

Countering the argument that “banks can’t really do anything with their excess reserves” and that “there is no evidence that they are being rehypothecated,” Lokey points to data coming to light in conjunction with JPMorgan’s $6 billion “London Whale” fiasco. He calls it “clear-cut proof that banks trade stocks (and virtually everything else) with excess deposits.” JPM’s London-based Chief Investment Office [CIO] reported:
JPMorgan’s businesses take in more in deposits that they make in loans and, as a result, the Firm has excess cash that must be invested to meet future liquidity needs and provide a reasonable return. The primary reponsibility of CIO, working with JPMorgan’s Treasury, is to manage this excess cash. CIO invests the bulk of JPMorgan’s excess cash in high credit quality, fixed income securities, such as municipal bonds, whole loans, and asset-backed securities, mortgage backed securities, corporate securities, sovereign securities, and collateralized loan obligations.
Lokey comments:
That passage is unequivocal — it is as unambiguous as it could possibly be. JPMorgan invests excess deposits in a variety of assets for its own account and as the above clearly indicates, there isn’t much they won’t invest those deposits in. Sure, the first things mentioned are “high quality fixed income securities,” but by the end of the list, deposits are being invested in corporate securities [stock] and CLOs [collateralized loan obligations]. . . . [T]he idea that deposits are invested only in Treasury bonds, agencies, or derivatives related to such “risk free” securities is patently false.
He adds:

[I]t is no coincidence that stocks have rallied as the Fed has pumped money into the coffers of the primary dealers while ICI data shows retail investors have pulled nearly a half trillion from U.S. equity funds over the same period. It is the banks that are propping stocks.
Another Argument for Public Banking

All this helps explain why the largest Wall Street banks have radically scaled back their lending to the local economy. It appears that their  loan-to-deposit ratios are low not because they cannot find creditworthy borrowers but because they can profit more from buying airports and commodities through their prop trading desks than from making loans to small local businesses.

Small and medium-sized businesses are responsible for creating most of the jobs in the economy, and they are struggling today to get the credit they need to operate. That is one of many reasons that we the people need to own some banks ourselves.  Publicly-owned banks can direct credit where it is needed in the local economy; can protect public funds from confiscation through “bail-ins” resulting from bad gambling in by big derivative banks; and can augment public coffers with banking revenues, allowing local governments to cut taxes, add services, and salvage public assets from fire-sale privatization. Publicly-owned banks have a long and successful history, and recent studies have found them to be the safest in the world.

As Representative Grayson and co-signers observed in their letter to Chairman Bernanke, the banking system is now dominated by “global merchants that seek to extract rent from any commercial or financial business activity within their reach.” They represent a return to a feudal landlord economy of unearned profits from rent-seeking. We need a banking system that focuses not on casino profiteering or feudal rent-seeking but on promoting economic and social well-being; and that is the mandate of the public banking sector globally.

For a PublicBankingTV video on the bail-in threat, see here.

____________________________
Ellen Brown is an attorney, president of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her websites are http://WebofDebt.com, http://PublicBankSolution.com, and http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.

Sunday, December 04, 2011

ABRAHAM LINCOLN EXPLICITLY REJECTED THE PREMISES OF SOCIAL DARWINISM


Lincoln: "Labor is the Superior of Capital"

by Alan Grayson, candidate for U.S. Congress
Saturday, 3 December 2011

 During my two years in Congress, I heard an awful lot of speeches. Some of them were delivered by some of the finest public speakers in America today – like Barack Obama, Neil Abercrombie, John Lewis, Anthony Weiner and Alcee Hastings. But none of them was as profound and poignant as the one that I’m about to share with you. It was delivered to a Joint Session of Congress by President Abraham Lincoln, exactly 150 years ago today. The focus of the President’s speech was, of course, the Civil War. But President Lincoln took a short detour, and with a few bare sentences, he summed up an issue that remains with us to this day.

This is what President Lincoln said to Congress, to America, and to us:

"It is not needed, nor fitting here [in discussing the Civil War] that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effect to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor, in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded thus far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

“Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights."

If I were still in Congress, I would have repeated President Lincoln’s speech on the Floor of the House this week, in the same spot where he rendered it 150 years ago. “Labor is the superior of capital.” And we must not “place capital . . . above labor in the structure of government.” Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. If I had to sum up my job as a Congressman in 25 words or less, that would do it.

I realize that for a statement as profound as this one, it is “far beyond [my] poor power to add or detract” (as Lincoln himself said, two years later, at Gettysburg). But I’ll try anyway, recognizing that “the world will little note, nor long remember, what we say.

I find it startling to read something like this, and realize how timeless these battles are. As the French say, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” (“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”) In fact, you can hear echoes of Lincoln’s words in what Elizabeth Warren said just ten weeks ago: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.”

Now, admittedly, capital is wealthier, better organized, and far more powerful today than it was in Lincoln’s time. Capital gorges on Republican tax cuts for the rich, on bailouts, on government contracts and corporate welfare, on free money from the Fed, and on monopoly profit. Capital treats politicians and whole political parties like puppets. Capital creates and perpetuates a system where Labor is unemployed, where Labor is in debt up to its eyeballs, where Labor cannot see a doctor when ill, where Labor is pitted against Labor. There probably are plenty of well-meaning people who realize this, throw up their hands, and say, “if you can’t beat them, join them.”

And then there are us. People with a head, and a heart. People who want to occupy Wall Street, occupy K Street, and occupy America with the simple concept of justice for all. People who understand that the very fact that this fight has been going on for 150 years or more, and will continue after you and I are gone – that very fact – makes this a fight that is worth fighting for.

And gradually, things do get better. I know, I know -- two steps forward, one step back. But then two more steps forward.

Oh say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed, at the twilight’s last gleaming.

When Lincoln spoke, 150 years ago today, his time was the twilight’s last gleaming. And today, you can see the dawn’s early light.

Can you see it?

Courage,

Alan Grayson


Blogger's Note: Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks and former MSNBC host, returns to TV tomorrow night, on Current TV. And he has invited Alan Grayson to be a guest on his first show.  Watch this if you have a chance.  Alan Grayson is one of the few great Congress persons of out times (note several of his videos in the stack to the right if my posts).

Cenk virtually invented Internet TV news, and completely dominates that medium.  Cenk’s Young Turks YouTube channel has almost 300,000 subscribers, enjoys 1,000,000 views a day, and has accrued more than 600 million views since it started.

Now, Cenk has decided to take his talents to Current TV. He’ll be on weekdays, at 7 pm. Current TV is channel 358 on DirecTV, and channel 215 on the Dish Network. If you have cable TV, you can go to current.com and put in your zip code in the upper right corner, to find out which channel Current TV is for you.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

DID THEY DIE IN VAIN? A SHORT HISTORY OF U.S. LABOR'S STRUGGLE TO WIN THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE BY ALAN GRAYSON

Bloggers Note: I just received the material below by e-mail from former U.S. Congressman Alan Grayson. Who is he exactly? Well, if you want to know -- and you should! -- I urge you to read this short biography and/or play the first three videos you will find in the right-hand column of this blog just below my Blog Archive.

Dear David:

On May 4, 1886, in Haymarket Square in Chicago, the public rallied peacefully in support of 40,000 workers in Chicago who had gone on strike, to win the right to organize. The police attacked, and eight died.

On July 6, 1892, in Homestead, Pennsylvania, 3800 workers went on strike, to win the right to organize. Three hundred hired and armed goons attacked them. Five people died.

On April 20, 1914, in Ludlow, Colorado, 1200 coal miners went on strike, to win the right to organize. The Colorado National Guard attacked their shantytown, and burned it to the ground. Nineteen people died. Two women and 11 children were asphyxiated, and they burned to death.

Here and around the world, many people have fought and died, so that you and I would have the right to organize.

And so that 250,000 public workers in Wisconsin would have that right, too.

This is not exactly a new idea. Six months after the Ludlow Massacre, President Wilson signed the Clayton Act, prohibiting the prosecution of union members under Antitrust Law. That was almost a century ago.

Two decades later, during the Franklin Roosevelt's first term as President, he signed the National Labor Relations Act into law. It protects the right to organize. That was over 75 years ago.

The right to organize also is a fundamental principle of international law. Over 150 countries have ratified the "Right to Organize" Convention, an international treaty. It was adopted in 1949, over 60 years ago.

So why are we even talking about this, 11 years into the 21st Century?

Because the teabaggers want to "take back America." They want to take it back, all right – take it all the way back to the 19th century. When there was no right to organize. When people worked for a dollar a day. When grown men competed against children for jobs. When women were barred from most jobs entirely. When you worked until you died.

Not to mention slavery.

I want to see an America that is healthy and wealthy.

They want an America that provides cheap labor to our corporate overlords. An America where the middle class is chained by debt.

We didn't ask for this fight. But we have no choice except to fight back. For the survival of the middle class in America. For us, for our children, and for our grandchildren. And so that the victims in Haymarket, in Homestead and in Ludlow did not die in vain.

As Cardinal Spellman said 45 years ago, "it is a war thrust upon us, and we cannot yield to tyranny."

I'm ready to fight for what's right. What about you?

Courage,

Alan Grayson

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Rep. Alan Grayson: "Gabby Was Right, Palin Is Wrong"

Bloggers Note: Just yesterday I received this e-mail from Congressman Alan Grayson:

Dear David,

When I opened my web browser yesterday, at yahoo.com, there was Sarah Palin, smiling at me.

“Oh, God,” I said to myself, “what has she done now?”

The headline was “Palin Defends ‘Blood Libel’”. That’s interesting, I thought. What else might Palin be defending? Cannibalism, maybe?

Well, it turned out to be a report on Palin’s disjointed remarks on Sean Hannity’s show, regarding the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. I then watched the report. Let me summarize it for you:

Palin: I am so misunderstood.
Hannity: I am so misunderstood.
Palin: I am so misunderstood.

But there was one person who seemed to understand Sarah Palin quite well. Gabby Giffords, herself, during the health care debate. Discussing threats against Democratic Members of Congress. After the door to her office was shattered. This is what Gabby said:

“You know, for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is the way that she has depicted it is the crosshairs of a gun-sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize that there are consequences to that action.”

And here is Palin’s blithe response, on Hannity’s show: “That map wasn’t an original graphic.”

What is that remark supposed to be, Sarah? An exculpanation?

Even before I heard earlier Palin’s whining about “misguided finger-pointing” and “irresponsible statements from people who are apportioning blame,” I thought about this:

Palin came to my district, and told her people to “take me out.”

Palin told people again and again, “don’t retreat, reload.”

The day before the health care vote, one of my five-year-old twins received a telephone death threat intended for me.

A right-wing commentator offered anyone $100 to punch me in the nose.

We received so many threats of violence from teabaggers that we started a file.

And the day before Gabby was shot, I received a postcard saying “you better get some personal protection. You could very well be getting your ass kicked soon.”

Cause and effect. As Gabby put it, “there are consequences.”

Of course, I wasn’t the only target of these threats.

Gabby’s tea party opponent held fundraisers in which he invited contributors to fire an automatic weapon.

Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s opponent conducted target practice on her initials.

Democrat Ron Klein’s opponent told his supporters to make sure that Klein was “afraid to leave his house.”

Democrat Frank Kratovil was hung in effigy.

Democrat Tom Perriello was burned in effigy. And the gas line to his brother’s house was cut.

Democrat Emanuel Cleaver – a minister – was spat on.

Democrat Russ Carnahan had a coffin left at his home.

I could go on, but you get the point. Cause and effect. “There are consequences.”

And the Republicans? The shot supposedly fired at Republican Eric Cantor’s office was quickly exposed as a hoax.

As I observed on MSNBC last week, there has been a stream of violence and threats of violence by the right wing against Democrats. Gabby warned against it, and then became a terrible victim of it. Palin has instigated it, and then tried to pretend that it doesn’t exist.

What do I think? I think that Gabby said it best: “We can’t stand for this.” We have to stand against it.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

Why would you suppose that Alan Grayson has been the subject of death threats?

What would you bet that it might be related to his going public with things like this?:

Fraud Factories: Rep. Alan Grayson Explains the Foreclosure Fraud Crisis
RepAlanGrayson



Why do you suppose that no banksters have gone to jail for fraudulently driving hardworking Americans out of their homes into tent cities?

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

GANGSTER GOVERNMENT USA

Blogger's Note: I found this first video on the "The Daily Bail," a web site with a library of 10,000+ videos exposing the criminal operations of the U.S. government. Both of the videos below have been viewed more that 2 million times. The first one is proclaimed by The Daily Bail editors as the "Most Important Video We've EVER Posted."

Representative Alan Grayson: Is Anyone Minding the Store at the Federal Reserve?
May 12, 2009



The video above is a high quality version of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing of May 5, 2009.

Rep. Alan Grayson asks the Federal Reserve Inspector General about the trillions of dollars lent or spent by the Federal Reserve and where it went, and the trillions of off balance sheet obligations. Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman responds that the IG does not know and is not tracking where this money is.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok

Federal Reserve Office of the Inspector General: http://www.federalreserve.gov/oig/


We Now Have A Total Gangster Government
June 14, 2009



Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) speaking on the House floor: Now weve moved into the realm of gangster government. We have gangster government when the Federal Government has set up a new cartel and private businesses now have to go begging with their hand out to their local hopefully well politically connected Congressman or their Senator so they can buy a peace offering for that local business. Is that the kind of country we are going to have in the future?

Please join our efforts to rid our government of these scum bags. Join The Kick Them All Out Project at http://www.KickThemAllOut.com