AMTV News: LIBOR Scandal, Big Drug Banks, Iran Black Market Oil

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

 

This is AMTV News, I’m your host Topher Morrison.  Today is Tuesday July 10^th 2012.

Drug Cartels Launder with B of A, Again

Huffington Post

After being caught laundering $3 billion in 2006 from one branch, Bank of America officially rejoins an infamous list of big banks including Wells Fargo, Wachovia, and of course the British Crown’s original repository of opium proceeds – HSBC.  These are just a few among countless others in the Laundromat of the War on Drugs.  FBI affidavit submitted to a Texas federal court linked the Las Zetas Mexican drug cartel, a local racehorse business and several B of A accounts.  Should any unscrupulous banking practices be exposed expect B of A to receive a slap on the wrist.  In 2010 Wachovia settled a nearly $400 billion laundering binge to the tune of merely $160 million.

Bank Runners Vote With Their Wallets

Guardian

It’s been said Barclay’s LIBOR scandal was like finding your house was built on quicksand, rampant rate manipulation by the world’s leading financial institutions and yet again nobody sees a jail cell.  Well, its time to stop having Tea Parties and occupying Wall Street and vote with your wallet!  There has been an explosion of requests to move money from the ‘big five’ banks to smaller more responsive and hopefully more ethical alternatives like co-ops, building societies and credit unions. 

The Rate Heard Round the World

CNBC

The outbreak of negative interest rates in Europe is a telltale sign the second shoe has dropped in the ongoing global financial saga, central banks don’t want you saving they want you risking your money in the markets.  The negative rates is ultimately an effort to depreciate sovereign currency, driving global money parkers elsewhere and hopefully spurring exports and growth.  Problem is this hurts the local banks reliant on interest from loans and savings accounts to stay afloat.  This also runs the risk of competing with the biggest depreciator of them all – the Federal Reserve.

Iran’s Black Market Oil

RT 

In the face of EU sanctions Iran is still selling its oil to Europe through a private Iranian consortium.  Selling up to 20% of its average volumes to privately-owned European refineries it is likely the union of exporters, under an agreement with Iran’s central bank and oil ministry, will offer minor privileges and discounts to buyers in light of international restrictions.  Japan and China are also eager to bypass sanctions approving insurance and offering tankers to secure their energy. Don’t expect the transactions to be in US dollars though, which reminds me how did that work out for Hussein and Ghaddafi again?

Yes, Obamacare IS the Biggest Tax Increase in History

Reason

From Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, to Ezra Klein at the Washington Post, to Bloomberg’s Elizabeth Dwoskin, to the New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn and all the links back to Drum and Klein herd journalism of the left claims Obamacare isn’t the largest tax hike in US history, problem is – it’s the biggest tax increase in the history of the world.  According to page 36 of Drum’s cited CBO analysis it’s $525 billion worth of new taxes.

 

Catch our in depth commentary and analysis of stories like these at GreeneWave.com part of the AMTV network.

The Real GOP Choice: Paul or Romney?

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Who's it going to be GOP?

Ron Paul is now and has been for sometime a legitimate candidate.  Romney is on his second chance, Paul is as well.  A recent Rasmussen Report shows Romney is the only GOP candidate who can beat Obama, but Paul is within a percentage point.  The question then is, who will the GOP rather have as their candidate, Paul or Romney?


          Mitt Romney has shown himself to be a skillful debator and a smooth orator.  Ron Paul on the other hand has a voice that unfortunately comes off a bit whinny, he tends to stammer and loses a bit of coherence from time to time.  However, when in small groups, in interviews with major media and when compared to last year the Congressman from Texas has made huge improvements in his ability to connect with people. 


          When the rubber meets the road, Romney is peeling out.  Mitt received some Big Love from fellow Republican Jeff Flake today adding fuel to establishment support along with the capitulation of Tim Pawlenty who as of last week permanently subdued his criticism of Obamneycare and jumped on board with the former Governor of Massachusetts.  Other nominations like Sarah Palin (if she doesn't run), conservatives stars like Paul Ryan, and other campaign dropouts that may be cannibalized are waiting in the wings.  Is there any doubt that John Huntsman will propose in similar fashion and marry into the Romney camp once his campaign has embraced its futility?  I think not. 


           Meanwhile... Rick Perry has a commanding lead over both Paul and Romney in major polling, yet he falls behind Obama 46% to 39%, according to Rasmussen.  Perry enjoys broad support among conservatives and has Lord Limbaugh fawning since I can't remember, but can he "win over suburbia?"  The differences in Romney and Perry are succinctly described by Alex Castellanos, former aid to Romney:

“You can see the playbook pretty clearly here: It’s populist against patrician, it’s rural Texas steel against unflappable Romney coolness, conservative versus center-right establishment, Texas strength versus Romney’s imperturbability, Perry’s simplicity versus Romney’s flexibility.”

It is on this question that the Romney appeal factors in, electability.  For once Ron Paul is a factor is this equation as well.  Paul is in third in a Real Clear Politics average if the non-candidate Sarah Palin and those voting for her are factored out.  The recent surge for Paul came after Bachmann's latest backfire.


          If we accept, contrary to the generic ballot, which favors Republicans on average by 0.5% that if Perry wins the GOP nomination he will lose to Obama, who is most reflective of the country's and the GOP's values?  Most Americans want Obamacare repealed while only a third believe it is good for America.  In this case Romney and his health care reform in Massachusetts isn't copacetic with the American mainstream.  


          When it comes to bailouts, while Romney criticized holding General Motor's hand on CNN he championed the TARP program, the essentially ex post facto legislation endorsing the myriad of financial vehicles covertly concocted by the Federal Reserve to bailout big banks.  At the 2009 CPAC Conference Romney evidently didn't believe America could survive without them:

"I know we didn’t all agree on TARP. I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses. For free markets to work, there has to be a currency and a functioning financial system."

          Ron Paul on the other hand excoriated all attempts at price fixing, printing money, secret lending, etc. and therefore shares more common ground with the American people who loath all recent bailouts than Mr. Romney.  Moreover, the American public wants to see the Federal Reserve fully audited, however, Mitt is contented with current auditing practices as he "believes" the Fed is "independently audited" and doesn't want Congress meddling in its affairs.  If the Fed is so transparent perhaps Romney will explain why Bloomberg required the US Supreme Court and a FOIA request to pry out that the they lent $1.2 trillion in secret lifelines to foreign banks.

          When it comes to foreign adventurism or national defense (can't seem to find a consensus definition) the American public overwhelmingly wants out of 10 years in Afghanistan, doesn't know or care for anything in Libya, almost half don't think "major" cuts in defense will put America at risk, and almost 80% of Americans feel we spend too much protecting other countries.  Listening to our generals, as Mr. Romey would have it, most likely doesn't accomplish a more noninterventionist foreign policy something mainstream America seems to crave. 

          If the campaign were tomorrow, the GOP would be in a tough position to choose to either to win big and lament four to eight years with a flexible patrician or a choose a arduous intellectual battle on behalf of a consistent and ardent libertarian.  If the GOP wants change, I'd suggest they put their helmets on and run with Ron.  

          

Health Care Nullification on Governor’s Desk in North Dakota

The 10th Amendment Center
Michael Boldin
April, 22nd 2011

Nullification in North Dakota? That’s just what could be coming if Governor Jack Dalrymple signs Senate Bill 2309 (SB2309). This week, the bill passed the senate by a vote of 32-15 and the house by a vote of 69-24.

The bill, just one page of legislative language, states:

1. The legislative assembly declares that the federal laws known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [Pub. L. 111 - 148] and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 [Pub. L. 111 - 152] likely are not authorized by the United States Constitution and may violate its true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers.

2. The legislative assembly shall consider enacting any measure necessary to prevent the enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 within this state.

3. No provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 may interfere with an individual’s choice of a medical or insurance provider except as otherwise provided by the laws of this state.

This is a modification of the Tenth Amendment Center’s Federal Health Care Nullification Act – introduced in more than ten states this legislative session. Click here to track progress.


NULLIFIED!

Nullification – any act or series of acts which results in a particular federal law being rendered null and void, or unenforceable, within a state, is what Thomas Jefferson referred to as “the rightful remedy” to unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Interposition is explicitly stated in SB2309 through its requirement that the legislature to consider measures preventing the Affordable Care Act from being enforced within the state.

SUPREMACY

Opponents, however, claim that the law is “meaningless because state law can’t override federal law.” But, constitutionally-speaking, such a statement is dubious, at best.

All the founders agreed that the federal government would only be able to exercise those powers delegated to it in the constitution. It was clearly represented to the Constitution’s ratifiers that laws made outside those powers were not really laws at all – they were usurpations.

And, more importantly, such a statement is a direct reference to Article VI, the “supremacy clause” of the constitution. But, claiming that state laws cannot override federal law as a blanket statement is flat out wrong. Here’s the full text of the clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

The key points:

1. For a federal law to be supreme, it must be made in pursuance of a power delegated to the federal government in the constitution. If not, it’s no law at all, and state law is supreme.

2. There is no number two, it’s that straightforward.

Read the rest of Michael Boldin's article with the 10th Amendment Center here.