January 18, 2010

Bring ’em On!

Filed under: Law, Reformism Can't Work, Sovereignty and Constitution — Russ @ 3:39 am


America’s ongoing train wreck sometimes affords examples of tragicomedy, and we woke up to find one this morning: Wall Street Weighs a Challenge to a Proposed Tax.

Wall Street’s main lobbying arm has hired a top Supreme Court litigator to study a possible legal battle against a bank tax proposed by the Obama administration, on the theory that it would be unconstitutional, according to three industry officials briefed on the matter.

In an e-mail message sent last week to the heads of Wall Street legal departments, executives of the lobbying group, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, wrote that a bank tax might be unconstitutional because it would unfairly single out and penalize big banks, according to these officials, who did not want to be identified to preserve relationships with the group’s members.

I thought in our entrenched corporatist age it was only reckless peasants who went around calling things “unconstitutional”. This sounds like a glorified example of a police riot.
This is in response to Obama’s anodyne bank tax. The administration is a pure flunkey of Wall Street and has done everything possible to loot the country on its behalf. It has also been spectacularly inept at the politics of this, so that the people have quickly figured out that these are not public servants but public enemies.
Finally,  belatedly, Obama has dusted off the Politics 101 textbook and discovered that you actually have to pretend to be working for the people as you plunge in the knife. You have to pretend you’re doing something, however anemic, to penalize history’s worst financial criminals.
So they came up with this bogus tax, which would be meager in its effect (if any) and would studiedly not touch or even question a single element of the Wall Street bonus casino structure. It’s meant to do nothing but appease the peasants. Here’s some more commentary on that.
Part of the reason such appeasement is necessary is because the banksters have also lost control of themselves. There seems not to be even any sense of political self-interest to place any limit on their public psychopahty, as they award themselves record-setting “bonuses” after having crashed the economy, and as the Second Great Depression sets in.
As jobs continue to disappear, as the very future continues to vaporize for most Americans, these capital thieves have stolen $14 trillion and counting. And now, as a public emblem of their infinite crimes, they award themselves bonuses beyond any conception of obscenity.
It’s in fear of the public rage that Obama has finally decided to try to play politics with this phony tax. He’s trying to save himself and the banksters from themselves.
But true to form, the banksters are so drunk with greed and power that they’re pondering making a Supreme Court case out of this. They’ve hired a bigshot lawyer, “Carter Phillips” (that’s some name; sounds like a character in a movie) who’s a real amicus of the court, if you get my meaning. He’s argued over sixty cases before them going back decades, especially when he was a Reagan DOJ cadre. He’s a real crony capitalism system insider. A fixer.
(To be fair, Obama sure doesn’t sound serious:

Indeed, President Obama urged the financial lobby to stand down when he introduced the tax proposal last week: “Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities.”

If I were a bank cadre I would’ve taken that as a wink and a signal that he wants us to challenge it.
Needless to say, when you’re serious about something like this you (1) make it absolutely clear in private, and (2) your public statement is affirmative and clear and will brook no dispute: “I will Smash anyone who opposes the will of the people on this”. Something like that.
But maybe the cultists who still believe in Obama’s Master Plan will think he was just luring them into a public fight.)
The legal reasoning is flimsy enough. It’s “retroactive”. It “would penalize a specific group”. But:

Mr. Phillips’s primary argument, however, might be that a tax so narrowly focused would penalize a specific group. Legal scholars say the Supreme Court has overturned only a handful of laws on those grounds, and those were typically rules that singled out political outcasts like former members of the Confederacy or people accused of being communists.

Well, except for the money and the corrupt political system they would be such political outcasts, so there you go. They may be onto something. “Communists” – they certainly believe in and practice Limousine Communism. Corporate Welfare Communism. “Members of the Confederacy” – they are rebels and secessionists. They are trying to steal every piece of the country, including literally the land, and secede with it, from all political, social, and rule of law accountability. They would leave the American people merely working the land as serfs.
Picture the Confederacy being a small cabal seceding with the entire physical body of the Union, leaving all civics, politics, and democracy to disintegrate and blow away with the wind, leaving behind only the zombie of a government and an “election” process, while no true society or government or law any longer existed. You wake up one morning and find you are a citizen of a Union in name only, while in fact you are homeless, stateless, and have to beg for a work permit which, if you get it, will pay only a starvation wage while you break your back and endure the whip.
This is our situation, and here this prospect seems to actually be the banksters’ legal concept of the case, if they do go to the courts with this. The Confederacy is their precedent.
The article quotes the usual suspects from the administration and Harvard saying the legal argument is flimsy, but that may not matter given the captured courts.
Which leads to my hopes for this charade. I’d love to see them very publicly fight this out. I’d love to see them shine the sunlight on their own corrupted “law”. Highlight how captured the courts are. (The article says there’s some debate among their ranks regarding the wisdom of this measure. So they’re not all completely oblivious.)
This is an absurdly picayune attempt to appease the peasants, and they’re going to engage in a high-profile fight? Sounds good to me. I always hope none of the stale crumbs a corrupt government tries to toss to the people get taken seriously as a meal. That could only impede the evolving public consciousness of the crime.
From the point of view of real activists, nothing’s more insidious than treacherous ad hoc liberal “reforms” which may have some superficial political appeal.
If they go through with this, the two lessons the public must take are these (not yet written here in slogan form):
1. The banks are absolutely incorrigible, literally totalitarian, and will never even compromise on the outer limits of capital crime. They can never be reformed. They can never be regulated. They can never be rehabilitated. They can never be redeemed. They will keep stealing, literally every cent they can, until they are absolutely destroyed.
2. The courts have abdicated the rule of law. They are rogues. They are renegades. They are bank-bought judicial activists. They cannot be reformed through the system. The law cannot be recovered here. if we want our rule of law back, we have to rebuild it from the bottom up. Just like we have to rebuild everything else.


  1. The entrapment of the voter continues apace in MA.
    As in so many, if not all elections, the lever puller is faced-only rhetorically, not in fact, with an apocalypse should they not vote for either/or.

    For those who have been hoodwinked into believing the present Federal legislative incarnation of health care reform is necessary, a Scott Brown victory-as per the comments of the execrable Barney Frank-represents the death knell of the pending health care “reform”

    And, of course, for those who are of the mind that the health care reform amounts to a Frankenstein horror show, one absolutely must pull the lever for Democrat Coakley.

    It’s all little more than elections as exercises in extortionate fear mongering. Neither party represents anything like a safe haven, they are simply two vapid sounding, yet criminal enterprises offering different forms of rapacious governance to those foolish enough to play the game of either/or.

    It appears, at the moment that the wheels on the crapulous Democratic bus are coming off so badly that the great Mocha Hope is being brought in tomorrow to bolster the election chances of the state’s party hack standard bearer AG Martha Coakley.

    She, and her mind numbing campaign are faltering badly against her equally hollow opponent, a typically intellectually challenged, full of rubbish, Republican businessman named Scott “I’m going to change the culture of D.C.” Brown. Let’s instead try Scott ” I can hardly stop hyperventilating with excitement when I ponder becoming part of the gravy train culture of D.C.” Brown.

    Comment by Edwardo — January 18, 2010 @ 5:39 am

  2. As for the state of the judiciary in the U.S, man behind bars, Martin Armstrong-who admittedly has a big axe to grind- would certainly agree wholeheartedly with you.

    Comment by Edwardo — January 18, 2010 @ 10:10 am

  3. Brown sounds like a typical Republican scumbag.

    Then again, Coakley sounds like a typical Democrat scumbag.

    I do want to see the Dems get smacked. I want to see them punished for their criminal actions on health “reform”.

    (Not that I think it would knock any sense into them, but who knows.)

    Since I don’t expect there to ever again be good legislation out of this system, I feel like the best we can get is gridlock.

    Comment by Russ — January 18, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: