Government leaders on your side?

Believe it or not.

Honorable politicians (practically an oxymoron) who actually keep the people’s interest at the forefront of their agendas are on the extinction list.

They suffer from assassinations, ridicule, marginalization or they are expunged from the political scene by the more powerful and all pervasive anti-democratic forces that stalk and infest our nation’s capitol.

So rare are these individuals that I could only come up with three names for this article. If the reader knows of other congressional leaders who are as vocal and hard hitting as representatives Katur, Kucinich and Paul please leave a comment to that effect.

President Obama could make this list in the future if his actions end up matching his pre-election rhetoric. If you want to know what is truly happening in the halls of congress and where the roots problems are, then please heed and support what representatives Kucinich, Katur and Paul have said and continue to say. These 3 individuals are the most trustworthy reporters we have on the political scene.

Contents:

Video: Rep. Marcy Katur

• against bailout scheme

Videos: Rep. Dennis Kucinich

• against bailout scheme
• against increased Government surveillance
• against the Federal Reserve Monetary System

Videos: Rep. Ron Paul

• against imperialist US foreign policy and militarism
• against the Federal Reserve Monetary System
• against the IRS and unconstitutional Income tax system

Special mention

I added Rep. Barney Frank to the end of this list for his report on why we should cut military spending.  As noted in a earlier article of mine, militarism is the biggest drain on our economy, the worlds largest polluter and the greatest destroyer of lives and civilization.

Rep. Marcy Katur

Rep. Marcy Katur breaks down the bailout scheme better than anybody else. She also offers an alternative plan to deal with the perennially scheming politicos and their industry puppet masters.

For those having to deal with foreclosure, see her advice here. Part of her speech is a detailed summary of the 5 point strategy plan employed by the proponents of the bailout.

The five key strategies Rep. Katur outlines are the same 5 strategies employed day in and day out by corrupt lawmakers(socio-economic engineer) lurking inside every opportunistic niche to enables the parasitic relationship existing between the governed and the governors.

Rep. Marcy Katur against bailout scheme

The five key strategies of Corrupt Governance

1. Calculated timing

2. Disarm public opposition though fear

3. Control the playing field and set the rules

4. Divert attention and keep the public confused

5. Privatize the profits for the few and socialize the losses to the many

Rep. Dennis Kucinich

excerpts from a Gore Vidal article on  Dennis Kucinich are interspersed between the videos.

So who is he(Dennis Kucinich)? Something of a political prodigy: at 31 he was elected mayor of Cleveland. Once he had been installed, in 1978, the city’s lordly banks wanted the new mayor to sell off the city’s municipally owned electric system, Muny Light, to a private competitor in which (Oh, America!) the banks had a financial interest.

When Mayor Kucinich refused to sell, the money lords took their revenge, as they are wont to do: they refused to roll over the city’s debt, pushing the city into default. The ensuing crisis revealed the banks’ criminal involvement with the private utility of their choice, CEI, which, had it acquired Muny Light, would have become a monopoly, as five of the six lordly banks had almost 1.8 million shares of CEI stock: this is Enronesque before the fact.

Dennis Kucinich against the Bailout

“Kucinich is opposed to the death penalty as well as the USA Patriot Act. In 1998 and 2004 he was a US delegate to the United Nations convention on climate change. At home he has been active in Rust Belt affairs, working to preserve the ninety-year-old Cleveland steel industry, a task of the sort that will confront the next President should he or she have sufficient interest in these details.”

Dennis Kucinich spoke against the US support of Israeli atrocities in Gaza

“More to the point, in October 2002 he opposed the notion of a war then being debated. For those of us at home and in harm’s way from disease, he co-wrote HR 676, a bill that would insure all of us within Medicare, just as if we were citizens of a truly civilized nation.”

Dennis Kucinich speaks about the corrupt banking system and how to reform the monetary system.

“The tax code is not the only area where the administration is helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It has spent $155 billion for an unnecessary war driven by fear.”–Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich speaks against the invasion and occupation of Iraq

“think it`s inconsistent to tell the American people that you oppose the war and, yet, you continue to vote to fund the war. Because every time you vote to fund the war, you`re reauthorizing the war all over again.” –Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Rep. Ron Paul

Ron Paul deftly upends US Foreign policy and Militarism.

“War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.” –US Rep.Ron Paul

Ron Paul on Federal Reserve, banking and economy

“The obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.”–US Rep.Ron Paul

Ron Paul against the IRS and unconstitutional Income tax system

“Aggressive wars, income taxes, national IDs, domestic spying, torture regimes, secret prisons, Federal Reserve manipulation — we don’t have to take it any more.” — Ron Paul, Sept 27, 2007

Rep. Barney Frank

Here are some excerpts from Rep. Barney Franks report on why we should cut military spending.

Cut the Military Budget–II
By Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)

February 11, 2009

original article The Nation

I would be very happy if there was some way to make it a misdemeanor for people who talk about reducing the budget deficit without including a recommendation that we substantially cut military spending.

Sadly, self-described centrist and even liberal organizations often talk about the need to curtail deficits by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that have a benign social purpose, but they fail to talk about one area where substantial budget reductions would have the doubly beneficial effect of cutting the deficit and diminishing expenditures that often do more harm than good.

When I am challenged by people–not all of them conservative–who tell me that they agree, for example, that we should enact comprehensive universal healthcare but wonder how to pay for it, my answer is that I do not know immediately where to get the funding but I know whom I should ask. I was in Congress on September 10, 2001, and I know there was no money in the budget at that time for a war in Iraq.

So my answer is that I will go to the people who found the money for that war and ask them if they could find some for healthcare.

It is particularly inexplicable that so many self-styled moderates ignore the extraordinary increase in military spending. After all, George W. Bush himself has acknowledged its importance. As the December 20 Wall Street Journal notes, “The president remains adamant his budget troubles were the result of a ramp-up in defense spending.”

Bush then ends this rare burst of intellectual honesty by blaming all this “ramp-up” on the need to fight the war in Iraq.

Current plans call for us not only to spend hundreds of billions more in Iraq but to continue to spend even more over the next few years producing new weapons that might have been useful against the Soviet Union. Many of these weapons are technological marvels, but they have a central flaw: no conceivable enemy.

It ought to be a requirement in spending all this money for a weapon that there be some need for it. In some cases we are developing weapons–in part because of nothing more than momentum–that lack not only a current military need but even a plausible use in any foreseeable future.

It is possible to debate how strong America should be militarily in relation to the rest of the world. But that is not a debate that needs to be entered into to reduce the military budget by a large amount. If, beginning one year from now, we were to cut military spending by 25 percent from its projected levels, we would still be immeasurably stronger than any combination of nations with whom we might be engaged.

Spending on military hardware does produce some jobs, but it is one of the most inefficient ways to deploy public funds to stimulate the economy.

When I asked him years ago what he thought about military spending as stimulus, Alan Greenspan, to his credit, noted that from an economic standpoint military spending was like insurance: if necessary to meet its primary need, it had to be done, but it was not good for the economy; and to the extent that it could be reduced, the economy would benefit.

The math is compelling: if we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity even with a repeal of Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

I am working with a variety of thoughtful analysts to show how we can make very substantial cuts in the military budget without in any way diminishing the security we need.

I do not think it will be hard to make it clear to Americans that their well-being is far more endangered by a proposal for substantial reductions in Medicare, Social Security or other important domestic areas than it would be by canceling weapons systems that have no justification from any threat we are likely to face.

So those organizations, editorial boards and individuals who talk about the need for fiscal responsibility should be challenged to begin with the area where our spending has been the most irresponsible and has produced the least good for the dollars expended–our military budget.

Both parties have for too long indulged the implicit notion that military spending is somehow irrelevant to reducing the deficit and have resisted applying to military spending the standards of efficiency that are applied to other programs.

If we do not reduce the military budget, either we accustom ourselves to unending and increasing budget deficits, or we do severe harm to our ability to improve the quality of our lives through sensible public policy.
Barney Frank represents the 4th District of Massachusetts in Congress and is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Related posts:

1. Open letter to President Obama by Carmen Yarrusso: Our Political System is a Threat to Humanity. Dear President Obama, By Carmen Yarruso Mr. President, for...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

 Print This Post