Panetta: Israel,Do What We Say But We Still Love Ya!

My advice to Newt: "What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your mouth."
---
Let's rip the heart out of the 1% and see how long the 99% survive.

These three academics have brilliant ideas but when their rubber hits the road the car they want us to drive is likely to go over the cliff and that is why we should keep them in the classroom teaching future socialists instead of allowing them on the track in Indianapolis.(See 1 below.)
---
The I's have it or do they? (See 2 below.)

Newt is where he is because he fights! (See 2a below.)

And we are where we are because Obama's vision is clouded by socialism's cataracts, his promotion of class warfare and because of the lies and incompetence of Obama's appointees. (See 2b and 2c below.)
---
Serving up some jail time? Don't count on it. Jail is not for criminals among the 1% but for the lowlifes among the 99%. (See 3 below.)
---
Panetta lectures Obama's most 'important ally.' Panetta's message for Netanyahu is get to the bargaining table, quit throwing a monkey wrench into everything because of your concern about survival in the face of Iran's nuclear threat. Your intractable position does not accord with America's needs but we still love yah! (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)The Sheer Tax Naivete Of Supercommittee” to agree upon a plan for reining in the U.S. budget deficit, Progressives have once again started beating the drums for higher taxes.

In his article in the New York Times on November 28, Yale professor Robert J. Shiller touted higher taxes as a solution to high unemployment. On November 27, also in the New York Times, Paul Krugman called for higher taxes on, believe it or not, “the rich”.

However, the article that best illustrated the sheer idiocy of the Progressive “raise taxes” crowd was Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs’ November 20 article at The Huffington Post, “The Super Committee’s Big Lie”.

According to Professor Sachs, the aforementioned “Big Lie” was that “…the deficit must be closed mainly by cutting government spending, rather than by raising taxes on corporations and the super-rich.”

To prove his point, Sachs compared the U.S. with seven European countries that collect a much higher percentage of GDP in taxes than does the U.S. These nations were Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, and Denmark. In aggregate, they collected 44.9% of their GDP in taxes in 2010, which was almost half again as much as the combined 2010 Federal, State, and Local tax take of the U.S., which was 31.6%.

Sachs noted approvingly that his “Euro 7” countries enjoy, “High-quality government services…” that, “…reach all parts of the society”. In contrast, the U.S. is, “…stuck with its politically induced ‘low-tax trap’…” and therefore, “…ends up with crummy public services, poor educational outcomes, high and rising poverty…”

Although Professor Sachs is an economist, he obviously isn’t very good at math. Sachs missed one tiny little factor in his comparison: caught in its “low-tax trap”, the U.S. economy has consistently grown much faster than the economies of his favorite seven “high tax” European nations.

Since everything that Progressives like to complain about started with Ronald Reagan, let’s look at the past 30 years. In 1980, U.S. GDP (in real, “purchasing power parity” terms) was 2.3 times as large as the combined GDPs of Sachs’ Euro 7 nations. In 2010, it was almost 3.0 times as big. This is because, with its lower tax burden during the past 30 years, the U.S. economy grew at an average real rate of 2.73%, vs. 1.88% for Sachs’ seven European countries.

If the U.S. had taken the Progressives’ advice and raised taxes 30 years ago, and had subsequently grown at the same rate that they did, the American economy would have been $2.9 trillion, or 22%, smaller in 2010. With a tax take 42% higher, total government revenues in the U.S. would have been higher, but only by about $0.4 trillion, or 11%. Meanwhile, the GDP available to the private sector would have been $3.3 trillion, or 37%, less.

It is sheer fantasy to think that you could take $3.3 trillion of disposable income away from the American people without having their need for government services increase by more than $0.4 trillion. Yet this is the utopian vision that Progressives like Sachs have for America.

But wait, there’s more! By 2023, total U.S. government revenues would actually be lower in Sachs’ high tax, low growth America than they would be if we continued to wallow in the “low-tax trap” that Sachs deplores. Meanwhile, the total income of our private sector in 2023 would be a full $5.5 trillion, or 44%, less than it would be if we stay with our lower tax take and its associated higher GDP growth rate.

Even these numbers, as striking as they are, do not fully convey the stupidity of sacrificing economic growth on the altar of higher taxes.

Assuming 2010 GDP of $13.0 trillion, a long-term real growth rate of 2.73%, a real interest rate of 2.90%, and a tax take of 31.60%, the present values of future U.S. GDP, government revenues, and private sector incomes are about $6,350 trillion, $2,000 trillion, and $4,350 trillion, respectively. Going to Sachs’ high tax, low growth scenario would cut the present value of U.S. GDP by almost 80%. It would also reduce the present value of future government revenues by more than 70%, despite the much higher tax rates. Meanwhile, the present value of the income that the rest of us get to spend would be cut by more than 83%.

As noted earlier, in 2010, U.S. GDP was about 3.0 times that of Sachs’ Euro 7 nations combined. However, assuming the continuation of the GDP growth rates of the past 30 years, the present value of future U.S. GDP is 14.5 times the present value of the GDP of those seven European countries.

While total U.S. tax revenues in 2010 were only 2.1 times that of Sachs’ Euro 7, the present value of future U.S. government revenues is 10.2 times as high. And, while 2010 private sector income in the U.S. was only 7.1 times that of the Euro 7, the present value of U.S. private sector income is 18.0 times as much as that of Sachs’ seven European countries.

Because the world financial markets run on present value, the U.S. currently has no trouble selling its bonds, while the interest rates facing high-tax European countries are rising ominously, and there are fears that the entire euro zone could implode financially.

The truth is that, for Progressives like Shiller, Krugman, and Sachs, high tax rates are ends in themselves. They make government, and therefore the Progressives that hope to control it, more important. High taxes also allow Progressives to dispense largess with other people’s money, which makes them feel good.

Ironically, Professor Sachs makes his strongest point when he says that America is, “…stuck with…poor educational outcomes…” His own article demonstrates that even our PhDs in Economics cannot do simple math these days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 340 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS
BY Gary Bauer


8.6% -- Really?

Today's unemployment report has a lot of folks scratching their heads in disbelief. According to the Labor Department, the official unemployment rate fell from 9% to 8.6% after the economy added just 120,000 jobs. The White House is bragging about this dramatic drop in the unemployment rate, and you can almost hear a chorus of "Happy Days Are Hear Again" coming from the DNC headquarters.

But all the experts have been saying that the economy would have to create between 200,000 and 250,000 new jobs to move the unemployment rate. So how could 120,000 jobs cause such a sharp drop?

Here's how: 315,000 people -- more than twice the number of new jobs -- dropped out of the work force last month. They gave up trying to find a job, so they no longer count when the figures are calculated. And smaller work force figures allow for larger percentage gains from smaller job growth. If all the jobless would just stop looking, the unemployment rate would be zero!

Unfortunately, we already have one of the lowest levels of total workforce participation in modern history, meaning that there are fewer and fewer workers paying taxes to support all of Obama's spending. But given this administration's history of deception, I have no faith in these figures, and you shouldn't either.

In fact there was bad news behind the headlines. Hourly earnings were down last month, and year-to-year earnings rose just 1.8%. That is not enough to keep up with the pace of inflation, which is well above 3%. In addition, just yesterday, weekly jobless claims rose again.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that the unemployment and job growth figures are valid. Whom do we thank for that? As Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, noted today, "The Obama Administration told the American people that the stimulus legislation would bring the unemployment rate down to 6.5% by now." So, we can't really credit Obama's two-year-old stimulus bill.

And as Obama is constantly reminding us, he can't get any of his great ideas through Congress now because of GOP obstructionism. So clearly it's not anything he's done lately either.

Is it a coincidence that the unemployment rate is coming down after the GOP took control of the House of Representatives and slammed the brakes on Obama's agenda? I don't believe it really is falling, but if it is, then thank you, House Republicans!


I, I, I, Me, Me, Me

Is Barack Obama worried about his own unemployment in 2012? Andrew Malcolm, writing in Investor's Business Daily, notes that Obama's speeches to big donor events in New York City this week were strikingly desperate and urgent, and they're all about him.

For example, in one speech Obama warned, "The very core of what this country stands for is on the line." On that point we agree. But then Obama went on to say:

"I've got to win in 2012."

"In order to finish the job, I'm going to have to have a second term."

"I need a couple more years to finish the job."

"I'm going to need another term to finish the job."

And, "I'm going to need a few more years to finish the job."

As Malcolm notes, "This was in one speech. He gave three of them," Wednesday. But this is the sort of rhetoric used to energize activists in the closing days of a campaign, "Not 10 months before even early voting opens."

My friends, I've been warning for months that this campaign will be vicious and brutal. If Obama is this desperate now, just wait until October of 2012.


Corzine Summoned To Congress

Two weeks ago, I wrote in this daily report that House Republicans should haul Jon Corzine up to Capitol Hill and demand that he testify about the billion-dollar investment scandal at the hedge fund he used to run. I'm pleased to report that our friends in Congress are doing just that.

The House Agricultural Committee today voted unanimously to subpoena Corzine to testify next week. In addition, two other congressional committees have called on him to appear before them the following week.

Corzine, a liberal Democrat and former senator and governor of New Jersey, was a frequent guest on cable news shows. But he has disappeared since the scandal erupted weeks ago. According to reports, more than one billion dollars has also disappeared from investors' accounts. But if Corzine were a conservative, I'm sure the media would be reminding us every day about his party affiliation and his corruption.


Newt, The New Front-Runner

The latest national Rasmussen poll of GOP primary voters is causing a lot of buzz in Washington. According to the findings, Newt Gingrich has opened up a whopping 21-point lead over Mitt Romney -- 38% to 17%.

Gingrich's surge is clearly coming at Cain's expense. At the beginning of the month, Cain led the field at 26%. Today he is tied for third place with Ron Paul at 8%. (Bachmann, Perry and Santorum are at 4% and Huntsman is at 3%.) This is also the first poll since late September to put Herman Cain in the single digits.

It is worth repeating, however, that the race will not be decided in one national primary, but in a series of state-by-state races. So let's take a look at the RealClearPolitics.com average of recent polls in the early voting states.

In Iowa, it's Gingrich 26.3%, Romney 15%, and Cain at 14.3% and Ron Paul 11%. No other candidate is in double digits.

In New Hampshire, Romney leads 36.2% to Gingrich's 19.6%. Paul has 13.4%.

In South Carolina, it's Gingrich 26.3%, Romney 17.7% and Cain 16.7%.

In Florida, its Gingrich 35.7%, Romney 19.3% and Cain also at 19.3%.

Should Gingrich win the nomination, how would he fare against Barack Obama? According to another Rasmussen poll released this week, he leads Obama 45% to 43%. Of course, that's before the liberal media and political establishments, as well as the Obama campaign, spend a billion plus dollars demonizing him.

But for now it seems that the former Speaker of the House is the latest front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. And that seems to be a very dangerous position to be in.


2a)Newt: The Civil Warrior
By Rosslyn Smith


Over the last couple of days, several well-regarded Republican pundits have taken it upon themselves to educate Republican primary voters about the many shortcomings of Newt Gingrich. As I read them, I was reminded of Abraham Lincoln's reaction to the series of military and political experts who warned him that Ulysses S. Grant was an overly ambitious, incompetent drunk. When these experts demanded Grant's removal after the then-unprecedented casualties at Battle of Shiloh in April 1862, Lincoln acknowledge Grant's shortcomings but responded, "I can't spare this man; he fights."

Many of Grant's critics were enamored of George B. McClellan, a parade ground general who consistently overstated the strength of his Confederate opposition and who had long fancied himself the presidential frontrunner for 1864. The bottom line was that while McClellan considered himself the next Napoleon, it was apparent to Lincoln that it was Grant who actually had the rare 2 o'clock in the morning courage Napoleon himself so highly valued. In 1863, during Grant's siege of Vicksburg and amid his own growing unhappiness with the series of generals rotated through the leadership of the Army of the Potomac following McClellan's dismissal, Lincoln's reply to the incessant complaints of Grant's critics was even more pointed.

"Well," returned Lincoln, with the faintest suspicion of a twinkle in his eye, "you needn't waste your time getting proof; you just find out, to oblige me, what brand of whiskey Grant drinks, because I want to send a barrel of it to each one of my generals."

May I humbly suggest that Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn, Jennifer Rubin, et al. take to heart a quaint old country expression about teaching your grandma to suck eggs before they again deign to inform Republican primary voters about Newt's many shortcomings? The former speaker of the House has not attained that rarefied status of needing only a first name because voters are unaware of both his character and his convictions. As with Lincoln's dismissal of the critics' scorn over Grant's purported taste for whiskey, Newt's supporters are already aware of his overweening ego, his willingness to offer sound bites off the top of his head, and his tendency to embrace ideas for the sheer novelty factor rather than soundness. What is important to these voters in 2012 is Newt's insistence throughout the 1980s and early 1990s that control of Congress was within reach, and his optimism after the 2008 election debacle that the political pendulum would quickly turn against the Obama and the Democrats.

As Lincoln with Grant, and as with Britain's Labour Party's insistence that the bellicose imperialist Churchill become prime minister in May 1940, these supporters know that Newt is a fighter of rare courage, and they value his consistent focus on American exceptionalism. Above all, these primary voters salute Newt's adherence to Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment. During the now-seemingly endless string of Republican debates, Newt has consistently eschewed opportunities to take cheap shots at his Republican primary opponents in favor of keeping the focus on the real enemy of our values.

Barack Obama and an ever more left-leaning national Democratic Party have brought long-simmering political and cultural differences to a point where it can be aptly said that America is in the middle of a cold civil war. For the conservative punditry to be bashing Newt at this point in the election cycle is akin to chiding the Labour Party in May 1940 to "Remember Tonypandy" and settle for a coalition led by the wishy-washy Lord Halifax because that imperialist reactionary apostate Churchill was such a loose cannon.

There are eras that call for competent managers and eras that call for warriors. Newt seems to understand the true significance of the coming election, and if he sometimes comes across as both a grandiose self-promoter and as someone who can have the attention span of a grasshopper, his consistent affirmation of American virtues and his very obvious relish at the prospects of facing Obama one-on-one make him highly attractive to Republican primary voters.

Instead of bashing Newt, I suggest that the Republican pundits turn their efforts towards advising Mitt Romney to fully embrace the limited-government, free-market candidate he very much tried to be in 2008. For some time now, the overly programmed, middle-of-the roadm "it's my turn now" Romney 2012 has been his own worst enemy.


2a)Obama's Success in a Failed Country
By Jeannie DeAngelis


Great patriot President Ronald Reagan once said: "Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation." At the time he spoke those words, Reagan assured Americans that "[y]ou will have opportunities beyond anything we've ever known."

Conservative Ronald Reagan promoted optimistic prospects for the future, and it appears as if liberal ideologue Barack Obama looks for every opportunity to suppress them. Thus, Reagan's impression of America as a land where exponential growth in opportunity would be passed down from generation to generation is quite different from the cataclysmic future Barack Obama's policies are presently cultivating. Of course, Barack's not worried about his own kids, because "they're on a path that is going to be successful, even if the country as a whole is not successful."
Clearly, for political expediency, the president of the United States has no qualms about boasting of personal wealth and success if doing so instills the type of envy and fear in the American voter that foster further dependency and discourage autonomy.

Not only is Obama's elitist prediction telling, but it's prophetic. Tucked within the obvious anti-American sentiment is a qualifier that exempts his family from a dire future that he believes, without liberal intervention, the rest of the nation's children are destined to endure.

Rather than sharing a vision of America as a "shining city on a hill," Reagan's arrogant antithesis, Barack Obama, campaigns on the taxpayer's dime and insists that if Republicans are in power, a dismal future awaits America.
The basis of Obama's prediction is that if the Republican leadership gets its way, the United States is ruined and will no longer be a land of opportunity. What Barack conveniently fails to mention is that he is the harbinger of the endemic entitlement mentality and unmanageable debt the next generation will be forced to face in place of the unlimited personal advancement President Reagan promoted.

Instead of proclaiming the greatness of America, while wife Michelle dines at trendy D.C. restaurants, Barack Obama cooks up huge cauldrons of class warfare on the campaign trail. The president stokes the fire of support with words of societal and economic division when he boasts that "[o]ur kids are going to be fine. And I always tell Malia and Sasha, look, you guys, I don't worry about you ... they're on a path that is going to be successful, even if the country as a whole is not successful."
Such absurd statements are not out of character. Why shouldn't the Obama daughters rest in the knowledge that the same opportunities their father's policies deny the rest of the country will be a privilege they'll enjoy, regardless of who suffers? Meanwhile, Mrs. Obama eats chunks of chocolate sculpture for dessert while lecturing the rest of the nation about staying away from sweets.

Both the president and his wife have been afforded every opportunity this nation could provide and then some. Now, the thank-you America gets is the president of the United States telling a crowd of "supporters" that there is a good possibility that the country he claims to lead has the potential to not be successful "as a whole"?
Wasn't it Michelle, recently seen dining at the oh-so-chic co co. sala lounge and boutique, who realigned Americans' lofty aspirations by saying, "They don't want the whole pie. There are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit...someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more"?

Now Barack Obama claims that he fears an "America where [his] kids are living behind walls and gates, and can't feel a part of a country that is giving everybody a shot." Seems the president forgot that his brand of liberal ideology discourages exactly what he's claiming Republican policies deny. Barack is the one pushing "thrive a little bit" policies while crowing about how, unlike other children, his two girls will be among the favored few who succeed.

Instead of bolstering generational success, the president is burdening rather than buoying future generations. Sadly but truly, Obama is right -- if he has anything to say about it, his privileged daughters will certainly do well, but if his share-the-wealth/tax-and-spend governing remains in place, the nation "as a whole" will ultimately fail.

Rather than standing tall, if Barack Obama's "fundamental transformation" continues, the country is destined to be flaccid and weighed down, a bankrupt wilderness with insurmountable debt accrued by a president whose vision of government "giving everybody a shot" is the real reason why -- unlike Sasha and Malia -- most American children could face a future without a strong set of shoulders to stand upon.


2c)Furious Cover-up Grows Bigger
By Bob Beauprez


The Fast & Furious scandal pot may be reaching the boiling point. Attorney General Eric Holder has maintained he knew nothing about the “gun walking” operation on the southern border that put thousands of high powered weapons into the hands of the Mexican gun cartel and led to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and increased the mayhem on both sides of the border.

He would have us believe that the operation was simply a misguided adventure involving a couple of rouge officers behaving badly way out west. Holder contends that even after Agent Terry’s murder in December, 2010, the subsequent extensive press coverage, and formal inquiries for information to DOJ by Members of Congress that Fast & Furious simply didn’t register high enough on priority meter to merit any attention from the Attorney General himself, and that F&F was a minor subplot at the Department of Justice. (See previous articles here)

However, 1364 pages of documents just released to Congressional investigators tell a very different story. It’s a story of “robust internal deliberations” at the highest levels of the Justice Department to craft denials and falsify the facts of the gun running operation leading up to a formal response sent to Senator Charles Grassley on February 4, 2011. Based on the release of these new documents, the Justice Department has withdrawn the February 2011, and is now going through a tortured effort to cover their considerably messy tracks.

In a letter sent to Congress on Friday, December 2, 2012 Deputy Attorney General James Cole said, “Facts have come to light during the course of this investigation that indicate the February 4 letter contains inaccuracies.” That would be DOJ-speak for “we lied.”

“Department personnel…relied on information provided by supervisors from the components in the best position to know the relevant facts: ATF and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona…Information provided by those supervisors was inaccurate. We understand that, in transcribed interviews with congressional investigators, the supervisors have said that they did not know at the time the letter was drafted that information they provided was inaccurate.”

According to a lengthy expose in Politico.com, “A selection of documents the Justice Department released to reporters on Friday demonstrates that U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke, ATF Acting Director Ken Melson and ATF Deputy Director William Hoover vigorously urged the department to issue a forceful and broad denial of the allegations.”

Burke, who was also a former chief-of-staff to Janet Napolitano, resigned in August. Melson was “reassigned.” But, the head-rolling from this scandal is likely far from done. Politico explains that the huge volume of newly released documents “shed little light on precisely where in the federal bureaucracy the erroneous denials originated and whether the misstatements were deliberate or the product of some confusion.” Resolving those questions remains a major focus of the ongoing investigation.

One of Holder’s key deputies, Lanny Breuer, must be particularly nervous over the newly released documents. Breuer, who heads the Criminal Division at DOJ, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 1 that “I cannot say for sure whether I saw a draft of the letter that was sent to you.” The “letter” referred to was the February 4, 2011 letter that DOJ now admits was “inaccurate.” In written testimony sent to Senator Grassley, Breuer also said he had “no recollection” of seeing the letter before it was sent.

However, as the Friday dump of documents indicates, Breuer forwarded versions of the letter from his official email to his personal gmail account on three occasions: once before it was sent and twice after.

Further, Breuer’s aid Jason Weinstein was deeply involved in the drafting and redrafting of the Feb. 4 letter. On Feb. 2 expressing frustration and how difficult it was to satisfy all concerned, Weinstein sent an email to both Breuer and Burke, “The Magna Carta was easier to get done than this was.” In another email addressed to both Breuer and Weinstein as the final draft was near completion Burke wrote, “Great job by you.” Breuer replied, “Thanks, Jason, as usual great work.”

James Cole, the Deputy AG who drew the short straw and sent the letter to Congress Friday retracting the Feb. 4, 2011 Letter-of-Lies is going to have some explaining to do, as well. The documents show that his chief deputy, Lisa Monaco, expressed serious reservations about the “categorically false” claims in the Feb. 4 letter that F&F guns were used to kill Agent Terry.
“Obviously we want to be 300% sure we can make such ‘categorical’ statement” she warned, but apparently to no avail.

To some degree, these new documents are just further confirmation of what was already known. That the Fast and Furious operation, and most particularly the cover-up following Agent Terry’s assassination, involved some of the most highly placed officials at the Department of Justice. While there has been no disclosure as of yet that the new 1364 pages implicate Eric Holder himself, we reaffirm our earlier conclusion that on May 3, 2011 the Attorney General perjured himself when he testified to Congress that he had only just learned of F&F “over the last few weeks.”

Briefing memos from Holder’s closest aides including Lanny Breuer indicate Holder knew – or had an obligation to have known - of F&F as early as July, 2010, five months before Brian Terry was gunned down. Holder’s top aides have now been implicated in a cover-up plot to deny Congress, the American people, and Agent Terry’s family from knowing the truth of an ill-conceived, shameful operation that extended to the highest levels of government. And, yet, to date all Barack Obama has said of the scandal is, “I have complete confidence in Attorney General Holder.” And, for the record, the “I was not aware” defense invoked by Holder and Breuer is also the defense of choice by the President, too. Time will tell.



Bob Beauprez
Bob Beauprez is a former Member of Congress and is currently the editor-in-chief of A Line of Sight, an online policy resource. Prior to serving in Congress, Mr. Beauprez was a dairy farmer and community banker.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Jail Cells for Corzine, Soros, Waters, Paulson, Frank, Pelosi, No One
By John Ransom



Newt Gingrich made headlines in October because he suggested that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should go to jail for authoring the so-called Dodd-Frank banking reforms. Taken together the “landmark” reforms look a lot like an Obama speech: very wordy, very partisan, but full of inaction, cross-purposes and the typical liberal confusion about economics, society and man.

The legislation crafted by Dodd and Frank has reformed none of the systemic failures in our banking system, but it sure has made it harder for banks to loan money, or for you and me to buy a house.

Much of the failure of the housing sector to recover since 2008 can be laid at the feet of the misshapen and misanthropic Dodd-Frank reforms. And much of the failure of the economy in general to recover since 2008 can be laid at the feet of the failure of the housing sector to recover.

Loaning money was not a problem when Dodd and Frank both were getting favors from the industries they regulate. Dodd got a VIP loan from one of the most reckless sub-prime lenders, Countrywide; and Frank got his live-in lover- boyfriend, husband, wife, whatever- a job at Fannie Mae, the largest of the government mortgage mills- and Frank went on to staunchly defend Fannie as safe and sound in the run-up to the mortgage meltdown.

So naturally when Congress was looking for a pair of geniuses to fix the banking sector, Dodd and Frank had comedic resumes that stood out. It’s the way Congress has always done business.

"All being corrupt together," wrote E.L. Godkin, of Congress in 1873, "what is the use of investigating each other?" Godkin made a name as a muckraker and a reforming journalist who helped found the periodic magazine The Nation. Note that Godkin was a fierce critic of socialism.

But of course Frank and Dodd’s chances of seeing a jail cell are not just remote; the chances are nonexistent mostly because they would be judged by others who share the same ethical lapses that Dodd and Frank do.

You are either part of the club or not.

And it’s gotten to the point that we are just not even surprised anymore at the depth of depravity of our political class.

The TV news magazine 60 Minutes recently did an expose of how members of Congress, most notably our former Madam Speaker, Nancy Pelosi and our current Madam Speaker John Boehner, have possibly traded stocks on non-public information for their own benefit. And the reaction from Congress has been a tepid attempt to make Congress follow the same insider trading laws that the rest of us have had to follow for decades.

Despite some strong indications of ethical lapses not just jail, but even strongly-worded censure is out of the question.

This week it was revealed that at the height of the financial crisis at Fannie Mae, secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, stopped by some Wall Street offices and shared with traders his plan to have the government seize the assets of Fannie Mae, while he was publicly telling investors and the press the opposite.

Congress won’t investigate, and it practically won’t comment on the matter either.

Former US Senator, New Jersey Governor and Obama pal, Jon Corzine- according to vice president Joe Biden, Corzine was the first person Obama called for economic advice after the election and a key architect of the stimulus law passed by Obama- ran futures firm MF Global so solidly into the ground in a little over a year after being bounced from office that the firm dipped into customer accounts to pay their bills. Not only is that an ethical problem, it’s also illegal. No arrests have yet been made as of December 1st. Charlie Gasparino at Fox News says that as much as $1.2 billion dollars in customer money may be missing.

Oops.

And that’s how Congress will treat it.

Sure it issued a subpoena to Corzine.

But don’t expect the man to ever face jail time.

Now that the government is firmly in the business of business, expect the graft to multiply.

Our government subsidizes not just government guaranteed loans, as seen in the green graft Solyndra scheme, but government guaranteed profits to prominent campaign contributors.

As our featured writer Mike Shedlock observed on Monday, in 2009 the FDIC turned over a bank to an investment group led by George Soros that in one year made more than a billion dollars in profit- more than the group invested to buy the bank- despite the federal government still being on the hook for $11 billion in potential bad loan losses.

From the LA Times:

The billionaires' club of private financiers who took over the remains of IndyMac Bank from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. turned a profit of $1.57 billion last year on the failed mortgage lender -- more than they invested less than a year ago.

Yet under the sale agreement, the federal deposit insurance fund still could lose nearly $11 billion on bad loans that the Pasadena institution made before it was sold last March and renamed OneWest Bank.

And soon, thanks to Barney Frank’s retirement, we could be looking at Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-God Help Us) in charge of tweaking the Dodd-Frank reforms as the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee. Waters, named by Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington as one of the most corrupt politicians in DC, is under an ethics investigation for trying to secure a federal bailout for a bank she is personally, financially involved with.

Jail time? Ha!

Look for the House to tell Waters how very disappointed they are with her as she ascends to the number one post on the Financial Services Committee, while the US continues its descent into hell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Panetta: Israel must bow to nuclear Iran, Islamized ME, paramount US security


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta with US President
US President Barack Obama declared in ringing tones Wednesday, Nov. 30, "We don't compromise when it comes to Israel's security. No ally surpasses Israel in importance to the US." Three days later, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in a lecture to the Brookings Institute was crystal-clear about what America expects Israel to deliver in return.

He cited "Israeli estimates" to argue against an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities because "it would set back (the program) by one to two years at best." He urged Israel to take risks and get to "the damn negotiating table" with the Palestinians, and "mend fences with countries like Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, which share an interest in regional stability"- in view of Israel's "growing isolation in a volatile region."

The content and tone of the defense secretary's lecture were clearly designed to rebut Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak's comments Thursday, Dec. 1, that as a sovereign state, Israel is bound to determine its own security needs and the ultimate responsibility for its national security rests with the government in Jerusalem and the Israeli Defense Forces – no one else.

Panetta's lecture was long on generalizations and contradictions and short on facts.
The "Israeli estimates" he cited referred to the most outspoken opponents of the Netanyahu-Barak government, namely the former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, the ex-chief of staff Gaby Ashkenazi, former military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin, as well as Kadima leader Tzipi Livni

Their political agenda would tend to overrule their true views on the merits of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites. It also runs contrary to the assessment of every responsible, knowledgeable Israeli intelligence and military expert, who all believe an attack could delay Iran's nuclear armament by three or four years at the least.

Yet Panetta chose the contrary, minority view to support his arguments against an Israeli attack.

He also contradicted himself on at least one point:
On the one hand, the defense secretary told the Washington forum that, "No greater threat exists to the security and prosperity of the Middle East than a nuclear-armed Iran," adding that Obama has not ruled out using military force to stop Iran from going nuclear.

On the other hand, Panetta warned "the consequences (of an Israeli attack) could be that we have an escalation that …would not only involve many lives… but trigger Iranian retaliation against US forces, and ultimately spark a backlash in Iran that would bolster its rulers."

The facts contradict this assertion: An opinion poll secretly conducted at the universities of Tehran, Shiraz and Isfahan in early November showed that 72 percent of those canvassed were certain the population of Iran's cities would rise up against the Islamic regime the moment the US or Israel attacked its nuclear program.
As to the secretary's argument that it would also be hard for attackers to reach Iran's nuclear installations because some of them (the centrifuge plant transferred to Fordo, near Qom) have already been moved underground, he failed to answer two key questions:

1. Why was Israel held back from carrying out a military operation when those installations were still on the surface and vulnerable?

2. By continuing to hold back Israel back, is he saying that Iran should be allowed to go all the way to manufacturing a nuclear bomb without military interference? Is the US defense secretary advising Israel to learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, even though its menace is constantly expanding?

Panetta did not supply an answer to either question. But he was a lot clearer on Iran's threat to American security when he said: "…any disruption of the free flow of commerce through the Persian Gulf is a very grave threat to all of us" and a redline for the US."

Was he saying that a nuclear-armed Iran was not a red line for America?
The defense secretary then offered the opinion that "sanctions and diplomatic pressure were working" to isolate Iran. Middle East sources emphasize he would not find a single informed politician, general, intelligence official or economist in the region who agreed with him. Just the reverse: the region's leaders and international financial community report the Islamic Republic has overcome sanctions with remarkable success and has not slowed down its nuclear progress by a second.

The US would safeguard Israel's security, said Panetta, but "Israel has a responsibility to pursue shared goals (with the US) – to build regional support for Israeli and United States' security objectives."

He was referring to the US offer of a security shield in return for Israel's pursuit of "shared goals." The only trouble with that offer is that when it was put before Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, they agreed to pursue only certain "shared goals" – but not those affecting their national security, especially on the Iranian question, which they preferred to address by developing their own independent nuclear options. Therefore, the US shield on offer would be very limited.
His assumption that if Israel could persuade the Palestinians to sit down for peace talks and if it reached out to Turkey, Jordan and Egypt, relations would instantly improve, is just as fallacious.

Perhaps Panetta has not heard that Mahmoud Abbas stands by his year-long refusal to face Israel across any "damned tables" and only this week tried to manipulate the Middle East Quartet into forcing Israel to accept an indirect track.
Neither does he address the anti-Israel posture adopted by the rulers of Egypt, Turkey and Jordan to persuade their people of their affinity with the Islamist forces rising in the region, like the ultra-orthodox Salafis of Egypt.

Neither Israel, nor any of the mainstream Arab governments accept the Obama-Panetta proposition that time will magically temper the extremism of the Islamist regimes. They have before them the example of a former Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, who made the same argument 32 years ago for the West to dump the shah and welcome Khomeini's ayatollah regime.

It is time for Jerusalem to state clearly to the Obama administration that there is no way to reconcile Israel's essential security needs with the rejection of a military operation to cripple Iran's nuclear program; or to promote the rise of Islamist forces in the Arab capitals neighboring on the Jewish state and at the same time hold Israel to account for not reaching out to them.

Israel must put its cards on the table, after Panetta put his, by saying: "I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------