Holder & Donovan Open Comedy Act in Vegas

The editorial in yesterday's Las Vegas Sun might have been titled "Moving Forward, Stabbing You in the Backward". Allegedly co-written by Attorney General Eric Holder and HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, it's a cringe-worthy, craven apologia shamelessly directed at residents of one of the states hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis.

You have to read it to believe it.  I'm posting a somewhat condensed version, with translation (you can peruse the whole slimy thing here. And the daffy duo also crossposted their self-parody at the Obama-friendly Daily Kos for the even greater convenience of the koolaid-bloated masses) --

Too often, real progress in Washington can be stymied by bureaucratic red tape, turf fights, or conflicts between federal and state authorities. Unfortunately, it has become a place where partisan deadlock and political games can threaten to crowd out substantive debate.
In times of crisis – when people’s livelihoods are in jeopardy and families are losing their homes to foreclosure – they deserve better than intransigent bureaucracy. They need and deserve a government that actually solves problems.
This past week, the Obama Administration and a bipartisan coalition of 49 state attorneys general demonstrated what can be accomplished when people put aside turf wars and focus on what they can do to make things better. By working closely with one another across federal agencies, state boundaries, and party lines, we reached a historic mortgage servicing settlement on behalf of American homeowners.

(Translation: We have been putting pressure on a few recalcitrant Attorneys General for well over a year now, trying to get them to cave to a sweetheart deal letting the banksters off the hook. We are absolutely blaming the AGs for their altruistic foolishness -- and we are also accusing them of allowing even more homeowners to be foreclosed on while they diddled about trying to do the right thing instead of the expedient thing. We finally co-opted them through our sheer brute force. We worked closely with them by getting right in their faces. We are disdainfully reducing their bravery in the face of an overreaching federal government to a political "turf war.")

The need for a settlement on this scale has long been clear. Some five years after the housing bubble burst, America continues to pay a steep price. Lenders sold loans to people who couldn’t afford them and packaged mortgages to make profits that turned out to be nothing more than a mirage. Their actions hurt millions of families who did the right thing, but still lost their houses or saw their home prices drop. And, unfortunately, as our extensive investigations found, abuses continued long after consumers bought their homes.

(Translation: we were well aware this whole time of massive fraud and conspiracy. Even though our "extensive investigations" uncovered abuses, we did nothing. How unfortunate. We are not mentioning in this editorial that the crimes continue to this very day. Because we are corrupt, do-nothing political hacks. We are also throwing minorities under the bus by putting equal blame on some of the victims who were snookered into signing fraudulent documents. They rose above their station by buying into our American Dream malarkey. Even though many are uneducated and barely literate, we brazenly claim that they knowingly bit off more than they could chew. We continue to insinuate that poor black and brown people hurt the "responsible" homeowners just as much as the mega-banks did.)

In response to thousands of mortgage servicing complaints fielded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), state attorneys general, and banking regulators across the country, HUD initiated a large-scale review of the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) 10 largest servicers in the summer of 2010. Devoting some 6,000 hours to reviewing servicing files for thousands of FHA-insured loans, the scope of this review soon broadened to encompass a long list of mortgage servicing issues, including lost paperwork, long delays, and missed deadlines for loan modifications. The Justice Department’s U.S. Trustees Program reviewed more than 37,000 bankruptcy claims and motions filed by the top five servicers. And HUD’s Office of the Inspector General, the Justice Department, and state authorities discovered that the country’s five largest loan servicers routinely signed foreclosure-related documents without knowing whether the facts they contained were correct.

Some have asked why we don’t address these actions by taking the banks to court. But rather than pursuing hundreds of lawsuits with varying degrees of success, the goal of this settlement has been to benefit struggling homeowners and to do so now – not sometime in the future, when it may be too late to help many families. 

(Translation: our chutzpah knows no bounds. We started this huge investigation a year and a half ago, spent 6000 hours reviewing files, looked at 37,000 pieces of paper filed by mortgage servicers and banks. We chose not to prosecute, because the success would only have been "varied". So we decided to give up while we were ahead, sweep the whole thing under the rug, and throw a few pennies at the victims before they die and it's too late.  Why we are not being investigated ourselves for legal malpractice and dereliction of duty is beyond the scope of this editorial and may be chalked up to our unbridled arrogance.) 

This settlement also forces banks to clean up their acts – and to fix the problems covered during our investigations – by committing them to major reforms in terms of how they service mortgage loans. This is significant, given that these banks service nearly 2 out of every 3 mortgages. And these new customer service standards are in keeping with the Homeowners Bill of Rights recently announced by President Obama – a single, straightforward set of commonsense rules that families can count on, requiring lenders and servicers to honor a long list of rights for those facing foreclosure.

 (Translation: We choose to call the crimes of the banksters "problems" in order to further absolve them and us, their willing and able co-conspirators and accessories during and after the fact. Slapping them on the wrist will scare the bejesus out of them and make them honest. They need a dose of common sense, not a jail term.)

 While this historic settlement isn’t designed to address all the issues of the housing crisis, it will offer significant help to those who suffered the most harm. Alongside the broad-based refinancing plan President Obama announced to help homeowners, it provides a path toward stability for our housing market and our broader economy. And, by ensuring that banks and mortgage servicers fulfill their essential obligations – and taking major steps to hold these institutions accountable – it proves that we can make real progress, and achieve extraordinary results, when we work together.

(Translation: A path toward stability for our housing market and our broader economy is simply doublespeak for more profits for the banks and a surge in their stock prices. This travesty proves that not only can they get away with murder, they can always count on us, their 'umble servants, to help them and cover up for them as they continue their stranglehold on the entire planet. They own us lock, stock and barrel; they pay us and keep us exactly where they can see us.)

In a related development sure to be swept under the rug as soon as the Obama Administration can make them an offer they can't refuse, San Francisco officials discovered that of the 400 foreclosures they audited recently, nearly all of them were fraudulent at worst, suspicious at best. The intrepid Gretchen Morgenson broke the story in today's New York Times. You can read it here. 

Donovan & Holder Share a Conspiratorial Chuckle At Our Expense

Bootlicking for Dollars

Enough with the Robin Hood shtick he's been forced to perform in Washington lately, co-opting the language of Occupy and presenting a lukewarm budget that pretends to take a little from the rich to give even less to the poor. It's time for President Obama to devote some attention to his neglected day job: crisscrossing the country in Air Force One to mingle with the fabulously wealthy at multimillion-dollar fundraisers, and do some old-fashioned political wheeling, dealing, and groveling.


Forget about the phony baloney nonsense of how Populist Obama is siding with the middle class against the rich. His real business is playing Silicon Valley off the movie industry, doing the bidding of Wall Street in private as he chides it in public, talking the 99% talk while walking the 1% walk.


Today he's off to Hollywood to placate pouty entertainment plutocrats like Senator-turned-lobbyist Christopher Dodd, who vowed last month to cut off the Obama cash because of the president's failure to support SOPA and PIPA.  If you were hoping to catch TV footage of the president crooning with the stars in the next few days, you're out of luck. All the events will be private, unless a millionaire Occupier manages to sneak in and get video.


And now that the paltry foreclosure fraud settlement is apparently a done deal, and Campaign Director Jim Messina has met with banksters to assure them that Obama has no beef with them, the president will go to four back-to-back Wall Street fundraisers in New York on March 1.  This is where it gets interesting.


It turns out that one of the $35,800-a-plate soirees will be hosted by regular Obama bundler Ralph Schlosstein, a hedge fund manager who is among a whole slew of financial overlords going public with opposition to the looming Volcker Rule. He is also among the money men whom Messina soothed last week, promising that the president will not be demonizing Wall Street in campaign speeches.


The Rule, which is set to go into effect in July, will ban proprietary trading by banks -- in other words, it will prevent them from trading with their own money rather than for clients. A centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul, it says that banks should not make risky wagers while the government guarantees their deposits. It's designed to prevent the kind of bubble which caused the Crash of 2008. Or the kind of unpunished theft allegedly committed by former Senator and Obama Bundler Jon Corzine. But since these kinds of bets are so lucrative for banks, they are howling at the prospect of their profits being reduced in the interest of honesty, fairness and the public good.


Regulatory agencies only have four months to further tweak the Volcker Rule here and there and everywhere. They are being beset from all sides as they decide to either water down an already watered-down bill, or stand firm against the banks. From the L.A. Times:

The passion on both sides of the issue — and the big money that is at stake — are evident in the 14,490 public comments that the SEC had received and posted on its website as of Tuesday. Thousands of those were from private individuals expressing their support for cracking down on Wall Street's risky trading practices.

For banks, the debate comes at a particularly sensitive moment. The last few months have been filled with news of layoffs and pay cuts on Wall Street as banks grapple with a raft of newly proposed regulations and continued economic turmoil in Europe.

The proposed Volcker rule puts a number of new limitations on the financial industry. Big banks would be able to own only small stakes in private equity and hedge funds and they would have to do away with any trading desks that trade solely for the profit of the bank.

Schlosstein has gone on TV to signal publicly what he will no doubt be whispering privately in the presidential ear as he tantalizingly waves his bundle of cash. 

"Its (the Volcker Rule's) intent is to reduce risk in commercial banking and investment banking,” Schlosstein said today (2/14) in a Bloomberg Television interview with Betty Liu. “But the line between proprietary trading and market-making is almost impossible to draw. You wind up with this incredibly complex regulation with incredibly complex enforcement, all of which will really increase costs for investors and for companies in the U.S.,” Schlosstein said. (waaaaah)

The United States Chamber of Commerce has also bundled up corporations to stand in solidarity with Wall Street to protest the Volcker Rule. It may have unintended consequences for profit-hoarding "job creators", they fear. Corporations are people, my friend, etc.

But others, such as pension fund managers, individual citizens and even a few bankers, say the Rule -- even in its current un-tweaked, pre-Schlosstein influenced state -- does not go nearly far enough in reining in the big banks. It is one more weak, and delayed, and meagerly-funded part of the already limp Dodd-Frank financial "reform" bill (yeah, the same Dodd to whom Obama must also now kowtow for even more cash). One former banker who disagrees with Obama's bundler buddy is:

John S. Reed, who ran Citigroup from 1984 to 2000 and has been an outspoken proponent of financial reform, cited the recent cases of MF Global and UBS in his comment letter to make his case for tougher regulation, writing, "When a firm is focused on market gain, it will employ every available device to achieve those gains -- including taking advantage of clients and putting the firm at risk."

In his own way, Reed was a victim of the deregulatory environment on Wall Street that the Volcker rule aims to rein in. He was ousted soon after Citigroup was created in the wake of the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, allowing banking, securities and insurance firms to merge.

(See Reed's suggestions for improvement at the above link).


And this from Occupy the SEC, via Firedoglake.


Space is Limited, but the 1% Possibilities Are Endless 



Twisted Logic



Happy Valentines Day from Your Pretzel President (graphic by Kat Garcia)

I thought I had heard all the reasons why President Obama is being forced at gunpoint to embrace the Supreme Court Citizens United decision in order to fight nasty Republican dirt with clean Democratic dirt. But how wrong I was. The justifications for influence peddling and money-grubbing by the Obama re-election campaign are flying fast and furious.  George Bush choked on a pretzel; Barack Obama and his handlers are twisting themselves into one. It's the warm, soft, malleable kind that vendors sell on the street corners in winter.
 
Not only will Priorities USA  now accept unlimited cash for negative ads -- but Obama has given the go-ahead for members of his own cabinet to shill for him at SuperPac fundraisers. It is all perfectly legal, as long as they don't blatantly ask for money during their pay-to-play availabilities with wealthy lobbyists and CEOs. For example, when Energy Secretary Stephen Chu gives a speech in front of a group of oil tycoons about deepwater drilling safety at a SuperPac fund-raising event, he won't say a single word about campaign donations. This logic runs in tandem with the reasoning that it's okay for lobbyists to bundle campaign cash for the president as long as they are not registered lobbyists.


Chu and at least three other Cabinet officials are openly champing at the bit to get into the fund-raising that is not fund-raising sweepstakes. The reason?  They already have histories of being champion political bundlers. It might even be safe to say they got their jobs in large part because of the wads of cash they raised for their boss in his first campaign.


According to the Center for Public Integrity's  iWatch News, one such expert bundler is Education Secretary Arne Duncan, a fellow Chicago pol from the old days, who is anxiously awaiting invitations to speaking gigs. And Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is an enthusiastic natural, having raised over $13 million for his own Senate campaign. Then there are U.S. Trade Rep Ron Kirk and the hundred grand he bundled for Obama's first campaign, and Chu, who even before the SuperPac decision, has "mingled" among donors at various political soirees.


That does it for the Cabinet officials -- so far. According to CPI, Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta will not be shilling for campaign cash, nor will Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and former bundler Susan Rice, who is now UN ambassador.


Politico is running a pretty hilarious piece today on the various criticisms and rationales from both the left and the right about the Obama cave on anonymous fundraising. The funniest conservative gripe comes from David Bossie, chairman of the Koch Brothers' astroturfing Americans for Prosperity. He so hates the Obama hypocrisy of deploring Citizens United only to then start PrioritiesUSA that he has produced a video funded by SuperPac money to condemn SuperPac money.


Besides the critics, there are also defenders from both the left and the right. Former Republican Congressman Philip English quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson in defending Obama: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines", adding:

By robustly trolling for big money to fund the inevitable attack ads, the Obama campaign has demonstrated a predictable large-mindedness, free of hobgoblins. The only venue in which anyone should be shocked by this is Rick’s Place in Casablanca. One has to wonder - if a Republican incumbent displayed such ambidexterity, would the media be so placid?

Hmm. If I were more cynical, I'd say English is trolling for a team of rivals-type appointment in Obama's second term.


Then there are the usual Democratic apologists twisting themselves into knots:

We may not like the rules, but we didn't choose them. So as Democrats fight for campaign finance reform - which Republicans have repeatedly blocked - we will play by the rules as they are, not as we wish they were. -- Bill Burton, founder of Priorities USA.


Playing by the rules as they exist, the same rules that apply to everyone else, while they work to change those rules for everyone, is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the Republican expectation that Democrats hold themselves to a stricter standard than their opponent, when it was Republicans who stopped those standards from being put in place. -- Rodell Molineau, president of American Bridge 21st Century.


Unsurprisingly, the same Republicans who falsely claim the president is an appeaser expect him to unilaterally disarm his campaign. Thankfully he is too smart for that. President Obama knows that to change elections you have to win elections. -- Christine Pelosi, Democratic activist and daughter of Minority Leader Nancy.


There is no hypocrisy in working to change a system while following its rules as long as they are in place. In politics, acting like you are in a perfect system while your enemies kill you amounts to stupidity not idealism. The hypocrisy here is among those who are criticizing Obama for doing what they do. Also, I think this is a non-issue with Americans in general. For them, the dysfunction of the entire political system is the issue. -- Theda Skocpol, Harvard professor.


Obama's decision to tacitly support the super PAC set up to benefit him was just an acknowledgment of reality. With potentially hundreds of millions flowing to its anti-Obama counterparts, the president really had no choice but to act.
Don't think that this decision will drive a single vote away from Obama in the fall, however. In 2008, remember, Obama spurned public financing after promising he would accept it, and no one cared - except for John McCain, who sputtered around impotently about what an outrage it supposedly was. All of this is inside baseball that doesn't impact the behavior of real voters, who cynically and correctly assume that candidates are going to raise as much as they can no matter how they do it. Obama made the right decision. -- Garry South, Democratic consultant.


If we are ever going to right this political ship it will be the Democrats who do it not the McConnells and Boehners. There is no point of acting like lambs to the slaughter, and sacrificing the presidency and seats in Congress, if our ultimate goal is to have the votes to change the system. Obama made the only call possible. --  Peter Fenn, Democratic media consultant.

Speaking of hilarity, I got an amusing email the other day from the Obama campaign. It gives instructions on how to slap down mean talk about the prez from my redneck friends and relatives. The Empire Strikes Back it is not, but there is more than a hint of Homeland Security-lite in what they are asking "supporters like me" to do. If I hear something, I should say something. There are even downloadable talking points for Obamabots to stash in their arsenals. Sign up now to be a worker bee for the Ministry of Truth Truth Team. Campaign operative Stephanie Cutter writes:

Comunicating about the President's record -- and that of our opponents -- is what I do full-time. But people don't just want to hear from campaign statements or ads -- they want to hear from the family and friends they trust.

The President needs folks on board to roll up their sleeves, stand with him, and get the truth out all over the country.

So the next time you hear Mitt Romney accusing the President of "crony capitalism" or someone asking, "What has President Obama really accomplished?" you'll know what to do.

Stephanie has no idea what I am capable of doing. For one thing, most of my conservative family members and friends already despise Romney and the crew of wingnuts. And defending Obama against crony capitalism charges? Jeffrey Immelt, Timmy Geithner, Larry Summers, to name just a few.


Happy Valentines Day, fellow Sardonickists!

Quoth McRaven: "Give Me More"

The New York Times has a pretty stunning lead article today on how the admiral in charge of the elite and secret Special Ops wants carte blanche to bypass normal command channels and conduct his own War on Terror, in the interest of saving time and trouble. It seems as though he wants to be named Global Warlord and have a big say in dictating foreign policy from the battlefield of a shadow world war.

Reading between the lines of the article, it's obvious that both Admiral William H. McRaven and the Obama Administration are the likely sources. The usual leakers are not identified because they are "not authorized to speak". Or they are too coy to talk, and The Times is the willing stenographer. So we are left wondering whether McRaven is a loose cannon attempting a soft military coup against an inept executive branch, or whether this is a joint effort at a trial balloon to gauge public reaction before an end run around the State Department and Congress. The Times makes it clear that the White House is fully aware that McRaven is lobbying for more power.  President Obama, of course, is known to be a huge fan of McRaven, of the Special Ops, and the bin Laden-killing Navy SEALs -- who are now starring in their own commercial Hollywood movie. They're playing themselves in a documentary disguised as a thriller. It's a recruiting tool! It's entertainment for the masses! It's propaganda to feed our fear and make us safe!

From  today's article:

.... McRaven, who leads the Special Operations Command, is pushing for a larger role for his elite units who have traditionally operated in the dark corners of American foreign policy. The plan would give him more autonomy to position his forces and their war-fighting equipment where intelligence and global events indicate they are most needed.

It would also allow the Special Operations forces to expand their presence in regions where they have not operated in large numbers for the past decade, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Administration, military and Congressional officials say that the Special Operations Command has embarked on a quiet lobbying campaign to push through the initiative. Pentagon and administration officials note that while the Special Operations Command is certain to see a growth in its budget and personnel when the new Defense Department spending plan is released Monday — in contrast to many other parts of the military that are being cut — no decisions have been made on whether to expand Admiral McRaven’s authorities.

The article contains just enough doublespeak to confuse us. On the one hand, McRaven is quoted as saying while he is not really interested in running the global war on terror, he doesn't want to go through normal Pentagon channels in deciding where troops are to be deployed, or how many are to be deployed -- because sometimes there just isn't enough time to be deliberate and cautious. So if he isn't running the shadow wars, who will be?  Is it because he doesn't want to bother Barry with a 3 a.m. phone call? Is it to give Barry plausible deniability?  This is pretty unbelievable stuff.

McRaven already runs the elite military within the military. It is unaccountable to the public, of course. And now it wants to be unaccountable even to the brass, or (disingenuously) tothe executive branch. Forget about Congress. The full extent of his activities is already been deep in the shadows. According to Nick Turso of Counterpunch, Special Ops represent an industrial scale killing machine:

In 120 countries across the globe, troops from Special Operations Command carry out their secret war of high-profile assassinations, low-level targeted killings, capture/kidnap operations, kick-down-the-door night raids, joint operations with foreign forces, and training missions with indigenous partners as part of a shadowy conflict unknown to most Americans. Once “special” for being small, lean, outsider outfits, today they are special for their power, access, influence, and aura.
That aura now benefits from a well-honed public relations campaign which helps them project a superhuman image at home and abroad, even while many of their actual activities remain in the ever-widening shadows. Typical of the vision they are pushing was this statement from (McRaven predecessor Admiral Eric) Olson: “I am convinced that the forces… are the most culturally attuned partners, the most lethal hunter-killers, and most responsive, agile, innovative, and efficiently effective advisors, trainers, problem-solvers, and warriors that any nation has to offer.”

On any given day, writes Turso, Special Ops are deployed in at least 70 countries (and likely about 120) throughout the world -- theoretically, by invitation only from the host country. Or whatever goon purports to be acting in behalf of the host country.  Read Turso's whole article. It's an eye-opener.

The latest gimmick in that "well-honed public relations campaign to project their superhuman image" is the new commercial Hollywood movie about the SEALs that I mentioned earlier. Act of Valor is scheduled to open in 3000 theaters nationwide next week, and it has already generated controversy. It was originally meant to be a  Pentagon  recruiting tool, but the scenes were so exciting and action-packed that the producers decided to go commercial and make a buck.

A retired army lieutenant general gave Admiral McRaven a dressing down last week for approving the  chest-thumping cinematic piece of propaganda, warning it might be used as a training tool for enemies. Others accused the admiral of using it as a tool to get more funding from Congress.

The movie reveals the faces of the SEALs -- but not to worry: 

At the New York premiere, held at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum, the Navy seemed to be trying to find the right balance between glitz and discretion. Most of the Seals arrived in limousines, dressed in their dress blues. There were canapes and champagne served at the reception afterward. Squads of paparazzi and press handlers swarmed through the crowd.

But when the Seals took the stage for a question-answer session after the screening, introduced by their ranks and first names only, a Navy public affairs officer waived off any questions from the audience and would not allow the Seals to talk to a reporter.

This phony coyness is also very much the defacto policy of the Obama Administration's secret and exquisitely executed assassination program. The president pretty much destroyed the top secret nature of his kill list at an internet "Hangout with the President" PR appearance last week, when he bragged about the precise precision of his drone strikes. But he is still fighting a Freedom of Information request by the ACLU and others about the precise nature of the program.

JSOC, which has even been implicated in torture in the so-called black site prisons, has been described as Obama's own private army: a unique hybrid of killing machine and spy agency. Marc Ambinder, in a Wired magazine interview, describes the Constitutional end-run logistics:

There are legal restrictions on what the CIA can do in terms of covert operations. There has to be a finding, the president has to notify at least the “Gang of Eight” [leaders of the intelligence oversight committees] in Congress. JSOC doesn’t have to do any of that. There is very little accountability for their actions. What’s weird is that many in congress who’d be very sensitive to CIA operations almost treat JSOC as an entity that doesn’t have to submit to oversight. It’s almost like this is the president’s private army, we’ll let the president do what he needs to do. As long as you don’t get in trouble, we’re not gonna ask too many questions.

The American public has not displayed too much curiosity about the foreign policy being conducted in our name, either. We apparently do not care. A recent poll revealed the vast majority of us are perfectly content to let Gitmo remain open forever, and have no problem with drone strikes against alleged militants in foreign countries. Even if they are American citizens.

And don't look for Obama to even consider firing Admiral McRaven for insubordination or overreach. This is no Truman/MacArthur scenario, at least not yet. These men belong to a mutual admiration society,  McRaven having lauded the president for being the "smartest guy in the room", and in turn being awarded a prized seat in the First Lady's box at the State of the Union address. I guess the only consolation we have is that the "Protester" beat out the Admiral as Time's Person of the Year. (Read McRaven's magazine profile here.)

Admiral McRaven (first from left) at State of the Union Address

No Banker Left Behind

How do we hate the mortgage fraud settlement? Let us count the ways. First, there are Yves Smith's dozen reasons why the deal stinks. (She should know -- she writes from the unique perspective of a shadow banking heretic who escaped to tell about it). And Dave Dayen, Jon Walker and Matt Taibbi, who has dutifully confessed that his initial optimism was woefully misplaced. As was mine, believing somehow that my attorney general (Eric Schneiderman) was the reincarnation of Eliot Spitzer -- who isn't dead, but simply marginalized and only occasionally allowed to speak truth to power on Current TV.

That we would be screwed once again was to be expected. But what is still breathtaking to me is the unbridled arrogance of President Obama in pretending this is a great deal for people. I missed his TV appearance yesterday, but just looked at the grim photos and the transcript. Yes, they actually had the nerve to preserve the broadcast of their litany of lies, the likes of which we haven't heard since.... oh, maybe a week ago when Obama bragged on the exquisite execution and precise precision of his officially nonexistent war crimes.  And the pictures memorializing yesterdays's heinous event actually reminded me of the publicity shot from The Sopranos. Mobsters, no matter the particular racket or crime family from which they hail, all seem to share the same body language and facial expressions: hands folded casually in front of their pricey dark suits, each oozing a uniform aspect of smug, sullen, cocky arrogance: 

You can read the transcript of Obama's bravura performance here. I am not going to parse the whole speech: its mendacity and unmitigated gall speak for themselves. But here are a few excerpts from a somewhat more truthful rough draft rescued from my imaginary waste basket:


All right, good afternoon, everybody.  Before I start, I just want to introduce my enforcers the folks on stage here, because the extraordinary work that they did is the reason that a lot of families are going to be screwed helped all across the country.....

The criminal actions of too big to exist banks and our complicit government housing bubble that burst nearly six years ago triggered, as we all know, the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes.  It cost millions of innocent Americans their jobs and their homes.  And because I refused to break up the banks and bring back Glass-Steagall it remains one of the biggest drags on our economy.

Last fall, my administration unveiled a series of steps but failed to actually follow through on to help all responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages to take advantage of historically low rates.  And last week, I urged Congress to pass a plan that would help millions more Americans refinance and stay in their homes.  And I indicated that the American people need Congress to act on this piece of legislation. Election time is fast approaching, the Occupy movement happened, and I had to pretend to care.

But in the meantime, we can't wait to get things done and to provide relief to America's homeowners.  We need to pretend to keep doing everything we can to help homeowners and our economy.  And today, with the help of Democratic and Republican attorney generals from nearly every state in the country, and taking our marching orders from the banks themselves we are about to take a unprecented leap into the arms of our Wall Street masters major step on our own.
   
We have reached a paltry landmark settlement with the nation’s largest banks that will speed relief to their bottom lines and secure the bonuses of their CEOs hardest-hit homeowners, aid and abet end some of the most criminal abusive practices of the mortgage industry, and begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness that continues to leave has left so much damage in its wake.

By now, it’s well known that millions of professionals in the monied burbs Americans who did the right thing and the responsible thing -- shopped for a house, secured a mortgage that they could afford, made their payments on time -- were, nevertheless, hurt badly by the irresponsible actions of others:  by lenders who tricked and defrauded sold loans to people who couldn’t afford them; by buyers who knew who were snookered into signing documents they didn't understand  couldn’t afford them; by speculators who were looking to make a quick buck; by banks that took risky mortgages, packaged them up, and knowingly and fraudulently and maliciously traded them off for large profits.

It was the worst and biggest case of massive fraud and theft and forgery in the history of the world wrong.  And it is still costing cost more than 4 million families their homes to foreclosure.

Even worse, many companies that handled these foreclosures were such heartless bastards they planned ahead of time to steal people's homes out from under them didn’t give people a fighting chance to hold onto their homes.  In many cases, they deliberately committed fraud didn’t even verify that these foreclosures were actually legitimate.  Some of the people they hired to process foreclosures used fake signatures to -- on fake documents to speed up the foreclosure process.  Some of them didn’t read what they were signing at all. The deal I am agreeing to today absolves all these felons of criminal responsibility.

We've got to think about that. We did think about it, a little, and came to the conclusion that the American people are not as important as the banks. You work and you save your entire life to buy a home.  That's where you raise your family.  That's where your kids' memories are formed.  That's your stake, your claim on the American Dream.  And the person signing the document couldn’t take enough time to even make sure that the foreclosure was legitimate. And the person signing the document knew damn well what they were doing was illegal and immoral. He or she was getting paid minimum wage in a foreclosure mill working as a subcontractor to the criminal banking cabal. We should not be calling it "carelessness."

These practices were plainly felonies punishable by long prison terms. irresponsible.  And we are allowing them refused to let them go unanswered.  So about a year ago, our federal law enforcement agencies teamed up with state attorneys general to get to the bottom of these abuses to try to force a sweetheart deal to please the banks and sweep the whole thing under the rug.  The travesty settlement we’ve reached today, thanks to the co-optation and passive aggression work of some of the fucks folks who are on this stage -- this is the largest criminal conspiracy joint federal-state settlement in our nation’s history -- is the result of that extraordinary cooperation and complete takeover of our democracy by fascist elements.

Under the terms of this settlement, America’s biggest banks -- banks that were rescued by taxpayer dollars -- are getting yet another taxpayer bailout.will be required to right these wrongs.  That means simply paying a small fee of less than a penny for each dollar they stole more than just paying a fee.  These banks will put billions of dollars of other people's money towards relief for a mere fraction of families across the nation.  They’ll theoretically provide refinancing for borrowers that are stuck in high interest rate mortgages.  They’ll possibly but not probably and not in time to help reduce loans for families who owe more on their homes than they’re worth.  And they will deliver another kick in the teeth some measure of justice for families that have already been victims of Class A felonies abusive practices. If people who were robbed even get their moving costs covered maybe three years hence, they'll be lucky. 

All told, this isn’t good at all just good for those families -- it’s good for the banks their neighborhoods, it's good for their the bankers' families, and it's good for increased Wall Street donations to my SuperPac our economy.

This settlement also protects our ability to further ignore investigate the crimes practices that are stilling causing caused this mess.  And this lie is important for my own political prospects.  The woefully inadequate mortgage fraud task force I announced in my State of the Union address retains its full authority to cursorally aggressively investigate the packaging and selling of risky mortgages that led to this crisis.  This investigation is already well underway and will end mere days after the statute of limitations runs out and millions more families are kicked to the curb.  And working closely with the co-opted and bought-off state attorneys general, we're going to keep at it until I am safely re-elected we hold those who broke the law fully accountable.

Now, let me tell last whopper before I go count the Wall Street money in my war chest  I want to be clear.  No compensation, no amount of money, no measure of justice is enough to make it right for a family who's had their piece of the American Dream wrongly taken from them. This deal sucks -- so what?  And no action, no matter how meaningful, is going to, by itself, entirely heal the housing market. So shut the hell up if you don't like it. But this settlement is a pathetic response to a crime against humanity start.  And we're going to make sure that the banks live up to their end of the bargain until, in keeping with past promises and past behavior, we won't.  If they don’t, we've set up an independent inspector whom the banks have approved, a monitor that has the power to make sure they pay exactly the peanuts what they agreed to pay, plus a lashing with a wet noodle penalty if they fail to act in accordance with this agreement.  So this will be a big help. to the banksters.

Of course, even with this settlement, there's still millions of responsible homeowners who are out there who will still be illegally foreclosed on doing their best.  And what they need us to do is get back on their feet. and make a campaign donation to me. We've still got to stoke the fires of my personality cult of our economic recovery.  So now is not the time to pull back.

And the conspiratorial bipartisan nature of this settlement and the appalling outstanding work that these state attorneys general did is a testament to what happens when money rules politics everybody is only concerned with their own re-elections.is pulling in the same direction.  And that’s what today's settlement is all about -- screwing standing up for for the American people, absolving and continuing to reward and enable holding those who broke the law accountable, restoring confidence to in to our rentier class housing market and our financial sector, getting things moving and allowing the financial predators to get bigger in order to strengthen their chokehold on our very lives.  And we're going to keep on at it until the 99% are rendered moot everyone shares in America's comeback.

So, consiglieres ladies and gentlemen, thank you for selling out your outstanding efforts.  We are very, very proud of you.  And we look forward to seeing this settlement lead to some miniscule small measure of relief to a pathetic few lot of property owners families out there that need help.  And that’s going to strengthen my re-election chances the American economy overall. 
So thank you very much.

Black Bloc Backlash (say three times fast)

It's a given that Chris "Death of the Liberal Class" Hedges is one of the intellectual inspirations and living legend heroes of OWS. So when this Pulitzer Price-winning journalist wrote that there is a cancer growing in the movement, it caused a widespread stir. More than one stomach plummeted, heart sank, spine chilled. Depression became epidemic in a matter of hours as Hedges' TruthDig piece spread throughout progressive cyberspace.
   
Hedges, of course, was talking about so-called "Black Bloc" anarchist elements infiltrating various Occupy groups and fomenting violence. Occupy Oakland is the poster child for the radicalization of the movement, with its shutdowns of ports and storming of vacant buildings and "clashes" with paramilitary police.

That the corporate pundits are quick to smugly declare OWS dead and buried with each crackdown and each eviction is to be expected; they have, for the most part, denigrated it from Day One of its Zuccotti Park birth. From time to time, the mainstream press has legitimized the protests and it actually became chic to take quick rides on the resistence bandwagon, straight to cable. If you had a minor tussle with the fuzz and got the plastic cuff treatment for an hour or two, so much the better. It seemed like the nightly cable shows were filled with celebrities chattering about their forays into one camp or another. Then came the presidential horserace reality show, and Occupy was pushed off the national radar. Coverage revolved around the latest in a round of serial evictions. The public, decreed the pundits and their polls, was growing tired. The novelty of a protest movement was wearing off. 

And now, coupled with corporate media ennui, comes Hedges' declaration that there is a Cancer on Occupy. What's up with that?  I love Chris Hedges, I really do. But let's face it: the man is a professional diehard pessimist. Read his book -- he predicts that sooner or later we'll all be living in widely scattered communes, scratching out a miserable existence in a dystopian hell that even George Orwell didn't imagine.  During interviews at the burgeoning of Occupy, he expressed pleasant surprise that the propagandized masses had actually mobilized. It seemed like he was All In.

Then the revelation of the Black Bloc element, which Hedges predicts is a possible death decree to the inherently pacifist Occupy. Only peaceful nonresistance is allowed in a populist uprising. Be good little Gandhis, or begone, I reckon. The violent, "hypermasculine" outside agitators, he writes, will give the security state the perfect excuse to smash the entire movement into smithereens:

The corporate state understands and welcomes the language of force. It can use the Black Bloc’s confrontational tactics and destruction of property to justify draconian forms of control and frighten the wider population away from supporting the Occupy movement. Once the Occupy movement is painted as a flag-burning, rock-throwing, angry mob we are finished. If we become isolated we can be crushed. The arrests last weekend in Oakland of more than 400 protesters, some of whom had thrown rocks, carried homemade shields and rolled barricades, are an indication of the scale of escalating repression and a failure to remain a unified, nonviolent opposition. Police pumped tear gas, flash-bang grenades and “less lethal” rounds into the crowds. Once protesters were in jail they were denied crucial medications, kept in overcrowded cells and pushed around. A march in New York called in solidarity with the Oakland protesters saw a few demonstrators imitate the Black Bloc tactics in Oakland, including throwing bottles at police and dumping garbage on the street. They chanted “Fuck the police” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away.”

The absolute worst thing we as citizens can do is moan, groan, bitch that anarchists are spoiling things and therefore we might as well give up while we are ahead. What we should be doing is mounting a PR counteroffensive. The "official" newspaper of OWS -- The Occupied Wall Street Journal -- is doing just that, and publicizing the debate. Here's how Crooks & Liars Managing Editor Tina Dupuy tells it in one guest contribution: 

.... the destruction of property is exactly what Occupy is protesting against; it’s what the banks took from us. Occupy has pointed out the criminality of the banks and the seeming collusion with government to take wealth and property away from working people and give it to the wealthy. So protest property crimes, by committing crimes against property? It’s nonsensical.
Destroying property destroys moral authority.

On the other hand, protest movements throughout history have had their ugly, violent sides. People protest when they get angry, and some angry people have  anger management issues. And Occupy Oakland is unique. It exists in a city with a horrible reputation for police brutality and repression, even murder; its police force is on the verge of being taken over by the Feds because of its pattern of civil rights violations. Blogger Josh Cook of Deep Green Awakening thinks we can acknowledge the anarchic mindset without condoning it: 

Compare the “property damage” (and the whole issue of property and what sort of damage constitutes violence is another discussion altogether) with the long-term harm done to the People of Oakland, especially minority groups, activists, and Occupiers. It should dawn on rational, empathic people that such intense moments of conflict are practically unavoidable in the face of so brutal a system, and rather than waste time judging people, we ought to cry out louder for an end to the rule of the 1% and their system, the true root cause of social unrest and violence.
Furthermore, at this point, it is silly to talk about Constitutional rights. We in the US live in a Police State. We have no such rights — most recently and dramatically demonstrated by the passing of the NDAA. For moral force, I suggest speaking of human rights, as this has the added benefit of keeping us connected to the international dimension of this movement. Solidarity with all people struggling for democracy and justice is of utmost importance.

And in an article in Counterpunch (don't you love all these aggressive-progressive blog titles?) Peter Gelderloos accuses Hedges of using the C word as a scare tactic to frighten OWS into submission... or nonexistence. Nobody, he says, ever promised you a revolutionary rose garden:

The medical language of Hedges’ title, referring to the anarchists as a “cancer,” should immediately ring alarm bells. Portraying one’s opponents as a disease has long been a tactic of the state and the media to justify the repression. This language was used against the Native Americans, against the Jews, against communists, and many others. Recently the police and the right wing used this same language of hygiene to talk about the occupations around the country as health threats so as to justify their eviction and generate disgust and repulsion.....
But beneath the black masks, anarchists have been an integral part of the debates, the organizing, the cooking and cleaning in dozens of cities. Anarchists also participated in preparing the original call-out for Occupy Wall Street, and they played a key role in organizing and carrying out the historic Oakland general strike and the subsequent West Coast port blockades–probably the strongest actions taken by the Occupy movement to date.

There have been setbacks in every movement for change. Outside agitation is nothing new and it serves the agenda of the oligarchy in squelching protest only too well. Perhaps the most famous (or infamous) incident of violent elements nearly destroying the entire labor movement was the Haymarket Massacre in 1886, when an unknown assailant threw a bomb into a crowd of protesters, killing a Chicago policeman, with an ensuing gunfight killing more cops and citizens. It was not until several years later that the "anarchist" labor movement demonstrators got what they wanted in the first place: an eight-hour day. It's something we take for granted today, not something we can envision people actually dying for.

Randomly Ranting Edition

Wending my way through the various "progressive" news sites and blogs over the past day or so, I have been struck by the dearth of criticism of President Obama's latest foray over to the dark side -- to wit, his decision to embrace Citizens United, and accept unlimited and anonymous campaign donations via his SuperPac.

Maybe I've been looking for outrage in all the wrong places, or maybe the usual polemicists are still working on their material. But so far, I can count on the fingers of one hand the severe condemnations of the latest Barry flip-flop. The New York Times ran an editorial accusing the president of selling out democracy to the highest bidder. It even came close to accusing the president of criminal behavior for now allowing and encouraging members of his Cabinet to shill for corporate cash for the aptly named "Priorities First USA" SuperPac. (It is against the law for cabinet members to actively campaign and solicit money).

 Ditto for Robert Reich, who blogged about the "sad spectacle" that is the Obama re-election campaign:

The sad truth is Obama has never really occupied the high ground on campaign finance. He refused public financing in 2008. Once president, he didn’t go to bat for a system of public financing that would have made it possible for candidates to raise enough money from small donors and matching public funds they wouldn’t need to rely on a few billionaires pumping unlimited sums into super PACS. He hasn’t even fought for public disclosure of super PAC donations.
And now he’s made a total mockery of the Court’s naïve belief that super PACs would remain separate from individual campaigns, by officially endorsing his own super PAC and allowing campaign manager Jim Messina and even cabinet officers to speak at his super PAC events. Obama will not appear at such events but he, Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden will encourage support of the Obama super PAC.

 Former Sen. Russ Feingold also professed to be appalled and shocked, but ended his tirade by saying he still supports the president even though he is "dancing with the devil". So as far as I am concerned, he cancelled himself out. His purported disgust is full of baloney and shouldn't even count. He was among those "pragmatists" who helped quash talk for a primary challenger while there was still time.

The Times piece was greeted with scathing reviews by the Readers Who Comment. It is just so naive of the editorial board to think our pragmatic president wouldn't level the playing field, they cried. One reader huffed that the public at large simply does not mind that money rules politics. My own comment, meant as a tongue in cheek pre-emptive litany of Obama apologist talking points, seems to have been taken at face value by at least a few 'bots. I thought my irony was fairly obvious; for example, "you have to fight Evil with Evil."  One person responded "Totally agree! About time he took a gun to a gunfight!"

 Even the erstwhile renegade Keith Olbermann seems to have given the president a pass on this one. He has been out on an extended sick leave, and I can only surmise that his medical treatment included an IV cocktail with Obama kool aid mixed in with an MSNBC antibiotic. He has failed to mention Occupy and the mass evictions  even once this week, but is falling into the familiar and lazy pattern of guffawing at the latest GOP loathesomeness and waxing indignant at Susan G. Komen. Yeah, I get that Susan G. Komen for the Cure is full of horseshit. But it has always been a corporate gimmick, so why are we surprised about the Planned Parenthood de-funding? What about the Drone attacks, the media drumbeat for an Iranian War, the continuing Long Depression that is so bad that people have stopped getting married?

And do you know who Keith had on as his very special guest last night? Jerry Springer! These guys are apparently buddies from way back. Springer was celebrated on Countdown because he had told Fox and Friends they were not fair and balanced, to their faces. So apparently, you can exploit poor people on a TV show all you want, as long as you later insult the talking heads who are politically dishonest while performing their own brand of poor people-exploitation.

*****************************************************************

I admit it. I watched the Super Bowl on Sunday night, but just to see the commercials and the halftime show. Seriously! I kept the sound muted for the actual game, and read some of George Orwell's essays to pass the time. His Notes on Nationalism hit me like a ton of bricks. If you just substitute "partisanship" for "nationalism", he could be talking about the divisive and corrupt political cesspool threatening to drown us in this election year. Early in the essay is this trenchant observation:

By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

Once citizens have allowed their own rational thought processes to be subsumed, whether by mindless allegiance to an authoritarian, attractive symbol of power, or by fear of "the other" -- be it nonexistent homegrown terrorists, or right-wing lunatics who want to crush the birth control pills of every woman in America, or whatever -- Democracy is doomed. Otherwise sane people literally lose touch with reality in their desperate quest to normalize the abnormal. Obama apologists now trying to justify legalized bribery fall into this  category. Orwell calls such rationalizing an "indifference" to reality. The same good, intelligent people who condemned the Bush War crimes, secrecy, and civil rights abuses, are turning a blind eye to the Obama crimes:

 All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.

Should we even bother fighting back against this awfulness? Absolutely, says Orwell. Half the battle, he says, is to recognize the cognitive dissonance that is part of modern politics and life in general, to recognize that we all have biases, but never to allow these emotional defense mechanisms to trump rational thought. In other words, giving up at this point is just not an option, even though fighting back seems like crying out alone in the wilderness in these crazy times. 

Fight on. Resist. Occupy.

Update: Speak of dancing with the devil. Glenn Greenwald blasts the repulsive hypocrisy of so-called progressives who are just fine with Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping and assassinations. We knew Orwell was prescient. We just didn't how pin-pointy accurate he would turn out to be. As Greenwald says, the liberal pundits who blasted the war crimes of Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld now owe them a huge apology.  



Occupy Your Inner Orwell