Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Mitt Romney Returns to Roy Rogers
Once Again MR Has To Be Taken Care of by the Marriots!
After a grueling ten years of campaigning for the Presidency of the United States -Mitt Romney, a decent, over ambitiousover achiever returns to the very bosom of his nascent financial and political career—Bill Marriott—the formidable Mormon Business Executive. 
  What makes this denouement of a man so eager to become POTUS is the simple fact that Mitt never really left his immediate environs despite his efforts to portray a different narrative.
  What do I mean? 
First of all this blog is not intended to denigrate anyone, let alone, Mitt who valiantly, but foolishly took on the long-term pursuit of trying to become POTUS. 
 As many of you know from my blogs I was against his candidacy from the very beginning.  Not because in his heart or in his ‘real self’,  M.R. was not a good person; but, the basic reason was that he, unlike Obamadid not really know who he was.  And if you don’t really know anything about your psychological dynamics than you really don’t have a “prayer” to become anything more than what you are not.
  The dictum, ‘know thyself’ was never more true than for Mitt Romney and for other future Republican candidates
  As a political psychiatrist who worked for five US Presidents and helped two candidates to get into the White House, the one factor that made all of these candidates capable of really winning the Presidency was not their wishful thinking or their narcissism –which is necessary for any grand achievement—but the most important factor was that they knew their own limits.
  I can't tell you how important a factor that was.  Because if one does not know what one's limits are or were then one can’t surround oneself with the people who may complement ones own deficiencies. 
  For example, Bush Sr was extremely uncomfortable acting like a ‘politician’ and ‘glad handing’.   He was born of the New England establishment where his mother correctly informed him not to tout ones one virtues.  So he had surrounded himself with professionals who were not ideologues but “pragmatists”.   This division between pragmatists and ideologues has plagued the Republican Party since Nixon. 
But Sr brought into his inner circle professionals who, in my humble opinion were very competent—James Baker, quiet, intense, shrewd and a lawyer who thought strategically and implemented efficiently and without any excuses.
  In contrast,  Mitt brought into his entourage the ‘dregs’ of the Republican Party---Karl Rove – a complete unmitigated intellectual and political self-absorbed bum.  And then Mitt surrounded himself with discredited neocons and selected a Vice President with little gravitas and a propensity for lying and self-aggrandizement.
Without belaboring the point,  Mitt was in no way a real candidate with any real bona fide credentials in business and in politics. 
  He was and is a rich, spoiled Mormon who could learn a lot from the Marriott family who in contrast,  built an empire from the ground up without resorting to ‘blood money’ or ‘stripping out companies’ and then extracting ‘value’. 
  How do I know? 
  For better or worse,  I lived around the vicinity of Bill Marriott in the Washington DC area.  But more importantly,  I watched as his father and family literally built stone by stone an empire that started with root beer and sandwiches delivered to National Airport and to the planes that took off from there. 
  Then I watched as they developed a franchise of fast food outlets called "Hot Shoppes" in which they cornered many valuable pieces of real estate around the Washington DC area. 
Next they went into creating one of the first hamburger franchises that competed effectively with McDonald’s called "Roy Rogers".   It’s there where from time to time,  I would see Bill and his family just eating their ‘Big Burgers’ and salad plate.  It was there that I was first aware of the modesty and amiability that the family projected.   They were one of the first business families to integrate during the period of segregation and allow blacks to work in major positions in their franchises. 
  So why I do laud their accomplishments?
  Because the Marriots are the example of Mormons who unlike M.R. did not have to excuse or apologize for their beliefs –both in business and in religion.  If you wanted to stay at one of the many Marriott Hotels around the world,  you had a chance to read the Mormon Bible.  It was always placed in the night stand next to the TV.
But you also had a chance not to read it.
  And so Mitt, comes back to his real roots--- the successful Mormon family that broke all the barriers of business and religion without once having to lie,  distort or contort the truth.
  They were proud to create the Roy Rogers Franchise and they were equally proud to change it when it no longer was financially viable as a business. 
As a psychiatrist,  I am pleased that M.R. can return to a comfortable environment in which he can personally reconstitute himself emotionally and spiritually. 
  But the more important point of my blog is that as MR has returned to Roy Rogers for solace as the Republican Party has completely transmuted itself into a stuffed ‘Trigger’ –Roy Roger’s horse.
The Republican Party as it is presently constituted can and will not win anything other than  another rendition of the movie "White Man Can’t Jump". 
  The future of the party lies not with an ersatz latino, or a new immigration policy but with a candidate that has served our country overseas in many incarnations, and has built businesses that created value and jobs.  And that person also has had experience as a Governor of a State.  He speaks softly but carries a Big Stick.  He has to be bright both domestically and internationally
  That candidate has to be so formidable that the Democratic Party had been smart enough to neutralize his candidacy from the very beginning.  Of course, as many of you know now,  I am speaking of Ambassador John Huntsman.
  I supported him from the very beginning as did President Obama.  So both of us knew something that the Republican Party clearly did not pick up. 
Simply that the only threat to President Obama --- the child/man born and bred of the CIA [mother, maternal grandmother and maternal grandfather] and tutored in the wily,  brutal ways of Mayor Daley’s ruthless Chicago politics—that John Huntsman born of a true business genius –his father—CEO of Huntsman Industries---was the REAL THREAT to OBAMA. 
  Now it’s time for the Republicans to go through their list of potential candidates and really ask themselves ‘can we afford to lose another election’? 
  Otherwise,  I can assure them as of today that if they fail once again, there is no doubt in my mind that another Democrat will enter the WH for another eight years.  And that means America will have only one viable political party. 
  Think again—Koch Brothers--- we are borne of MIT analytical approaches and not just knee jerk reactions.  Think again—Roger Ailes—don’t nod your head so easily when the candidates come to seek your blessings—you can afford to be what I knew you to be –shrewd, tough, analytical and extremely pragmatic.
  So the good doctor sends out his yearly warning to a party he once belonged to and was proud of but which has entered the moribund period of dying.
  Don’t let another candidate deceive himself and others into thinking that they can win because they have the desire to run and kow-tow.
  It’s time to become PRAGMATIC not IDEOLOGICAL. 
  Let’s not become Roy Roger’s “Trigger”stuffed and dead.   


  1. Living in Texas I'm in the Redist of all places, which used to be solidly Democratic until the Voting Right Act and Civil Rights Acts were bulldozed through by one of our native-son Presidents. Thereafter we turned ever so slowly away from all perceived excesses of the Left so identified with that man's "Great Society," welfare state, affirmative action, attempts at gun control, etc.

    Out here in the heart of gun-carrying rugged individualism we'll vote for any loon the Republican party picks merely out of our loathing for all things progressive about our once-cherished party.

    But we are a fringe exception and there are only a handful of states remaining like ourselves.

    Look at John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, or even Barak Hussein himself and tell me the Democrats are fielding candidates any stronger?

    Romney lost because he ran a weaker campaign...that's all.

    Both candidates had huge vulnerabilities, and the side which got out their base and hammered the oppositon is the side which won.

    What the Republicans need if they want to win is someone as effective in campaigning as Rove or Atwater, but with some kind of conscience.

    It's hard to be pragmatic and win the nomination in that party, but I think it's still possible. Thereafter they have to run a ruthless campaign.

  2. On the Democratic side I always wanted Bob Kerry, but he was just defeated in his bid to re-gain a Senate seat.

    On the Republican side let's see how Ted Cruz works out from my native state. I don't think Rubio or that Ayn Rand worshipping nut-ball [Ryan] have the PSYCHOLOGICAL maturity [as opposed to age] to succeed.

  3. Bush 41 installed Obama, and he paid off Romney ($900 million?) to LOSE and make a fool of himself--Why he never attempted to expose Obama's past and his sealed records. He did no heavy lifting, except coiff his toupee.
    All Romney did was surf to the Boardwalk, collect $200 at GO! and on to Disneyland with the kidz. He never intended to be POTUS. Legal and illegal voters alike were cheated and disillusioned that the game is rigged for the House of Bush, the next POTUS: JEB)

    Rove is Bush 41"s Poodle - Haven't you figured that out by now?

    As for Huntsman's job description, OBAMA MEETS NONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, yet here he is bringing down America, top down bottom up.

    "Ed Falcone attempted to invest funds in a private placement program which would have benefited those Katrina victims who had lost their houses, and it would have provided help to an urban renewal project in Miami. Mitt Romney, yes that Mitt Romney, introduced Falcone to former President G. H. W. Bush, Sr. who then orchestrated the theft of Falcone’s funds utilizing the nefarious talents of Dr. Michael Herzog and Paul Guenette. When Falcone couldn’t find help anywhere else, he reached out to Vice President Joseph Biden for assistance. Bush Sr. then reached out to Biden as well. He bought his silence to the tune of $200,000,000. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered the bribe. Since then, Falcone’s initial funds have been traded numerous times with Romney being paid in excess of $900,000,000 for his part in the plot."

    Sarin gas on the news now: another False Flag to enter prediction.

    1. Sorry to differ with you friend, but nobody would go through all the trouble of running for President to earn $900 million he doesn't need.

      I recommend sticking to sources who have some real experience dealing with government, and the actors who function within it. Otherwise you'll fall prey to many making a pretty penny by sensationalizing issues which are actually more sensation in their real forms if understood correctly.

    2. MIT,
      These are a group of retired career CIA and international Security guys (MI6), who have fought in service of our country.
      What you don't believe is their personal opinions.
      Connect the dots.
      Romney has disappeared off the radar...just like that!
      McCain didn't; Palin didn't; Kerry didn't; Gore didn't (his deviant proclivities and Climategate)

      These Patriots are being silenced, and their videos have been removed. Their most recent release has been suppressed, apparently audits, prima facie evidence of money laundering into the international banking system.
      They have endeavored to unravel the secret government who runs the leadership either by appointment, selection, voter fraud and/or blackmail.

      From where did Dr. Steve Pieczenik and Tom Clancy derive their resource material and storylines? Fiction is far more credible than government TRUTH (including the OLD WMD SARIN SCARE OBAMA IS PROPAGATING IN ORDER TO ENTER A WAR WITH SYRIA TO EXTEND THE ISLAMIC CALIPHATE.)
      Fool me MORE THAN ONCE....

      "Mitt, the White Hats think the American people need someone better than you to represent us, to lead us and make decisions for us. Take the pay-off money from the Bushes and go away. Hide behind the other recipients of the stolen money … the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.

      America needs leadership, a small feeling of truth in it’s candidates and integrity. You maintain none of the qualities required to lead America!"

      "Our Constitutional values are still being dismantled and replaced by the dictates of a criminal Cabal, a pretend president and his illegal administration. Homeland Security has failed to recognize that our greatest enemy is already within. This enemy is the greatest threat to the liberties and freedoms we love as Americans: a failing president controlled by a dark cabal conspiring to profiteer from their insatiable greed. The world knows what is unfolding as Israel has now sold 46% of its US Treasuries and Russia has sold 95% of its own US Treasury holdings...

      Both our Senate, Congress, Pentagon and all Agency leaders know fully that Obama is an illegal President, as do the Supreme Court Justices. Slowly International media is waking up and challenging the inadequacies and transgressions of Obama and his criminal Chicago support team..
      Obama is not able to be a Lawful American President. He is a criminal Usurper.
      Obama knowingly and fraudulently tendered a FALSE Birth Certificate, that in itself is a criminal act. He is a Fraud! The whole world sees it, with exception of the US Regulators...
      Obama has knowingly and fraudulently used the ID number of a dead 19 year old Connecticut boy. Congress knows this as do all Senators. Failure to act on such a deeply humiliating criminal transgression is a Congressional disgrace raising again the integrity of this now neutered House. This raises the question of Representatives for whom because they no longer represent the American people or protect our Constitution or values.
      Obama fraudulently obtained a US passport with bogus papers. Why has no one checked this? How can Homeland Security allow a Bogus illegal to penetrate so far?
      Under what legal accord is Obama even married to a US citizen with false papers?..."

    3. "In service to our country"


      Gimme a break with all this flag-waving sentimentality.

      There is no document revealing that anyone was paid $900 million to throw a Presidential election.

      Romney doesn't need the money.

      By the way if someone wished to bribe a Presidential nominee of the other party to throw the election how exactly would you broach your offer? "Hey uh, Mitt, ever consider the advantages to yourself by just forgetting this whole thing? Lemme show you how....."

      Kinda ridiculous.

    4. Patriarch:

      How do you know they are "a group of retired career CIA and international Security guys (MI6)"?

      (I was reading White Hats Report before you mentioned it, here, but quit because nothing ever happened.)

      Because the website claimed as such, but there was never any actual evidence to support its claim.

      On those self-claimed "good guy" websites, the key is MULTIPLE SOURCES.

      That's the problem with "White Hats", there never is anything else besides their website.

      And, notice, how if you go around repeating their claims, you end up discredited.

      I can't prove it, but I suspect that is exactly the purpose of the website.

    5. Make your own inferences. Be sure to read the comments:

      10-19-12 2min: radio interview by a member "T-Man"

      12 min: "Absolutely. Obama is a figurehead. He takes orders. He is the most unpresidential president in the world."
      14 min 15 sec:
      "We are a group of people who have background, the people who we we write about are our former employers. We are in Military, Law Enforcement, and Intel..We get info from all levels..Leadership is on the wholesale level..Commonfolk are on the retail level. People want to find out if they are named in our reports. I have been on the Hill..You get the aides to senators and congressmen, they are carrying the White Hats Report..
      Unfortunately for a great many years, we've had this NEO NAZI CONCEPT GOING ON, TAKEOVER THE WORLD, CONTROL PEOPLE...althought it is great to pooh pooh-it is a "joke"..people need to take a look around..FEMA camps, money reset WORLDWIDE..WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?"
      19 min: "Result of a business or operation are financial. Countries run the same way. The value of the money they use is based upon their assets and liabilities..When the US invaded Iraq, it was responsible for operating the country to get to a positive financial position. Their saleable product is oil.
      Oil's value is created by contracts with other countries based upon market value. They become assets placed on the value sheet. The countries' net worth is equated to the strength of the dollar. If their liabilities go up or down..The reevaluation of the Dinar is directly related to the value of the Dollar. It is controlled..Wells Fargo bank is in charge of conversion."
      26 min 30 sec: Global Settlements- There is a HUGE BATTLE FOR THE CONTROL OF THE FINANCIAL WORLD. They are winning. They are READY TO BANKRUPT THIS WORLD. The Global Settlement and Iraqui Dinar would put fresh cash back into the world economy, & their grip of power will lessen..control over the Vatican Accounts, & our Congressmen & Senators..your leaders are selling you out-they have all bought into..Over the years, many foreign individuals are concerned about the economic status of the US; they have contributed $$$ to keep the US strong. Cash in Kind resources are available (deposits). The battle is for the release of those funds..Decades ago these funds were put together to keep the USA safe. Bush 41 & his minions are witholding these funds. PEOPLE WANT THE FUNDS RELEASED AND DEMAND IT TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES to those who are supposed to have them...
      Everything is gold backed not fiat money. The contributors are old sources..
      The FRB New York (Geithner) will never ever get out of the total debt amassed. The cabal wants to bankrupt the entity and scatter the records, so there is no trail. Everything is "off balance sheet" purposely..
      42 min: THE USA has been bankrupted 2 previous times. Bush is controlling the worldwide MTM markets. The world is fighting him.
      45 min: The FED RESERVE IS A CLANDESTINE Printing Press ORGANIZATION & has been plundered. The US has begun to move it to the Dept of Treasury. The FR is not corrupt; the people behind it are: illuminati, Bilderbergs Bushes: you control the $$, you control the people.."
      1hr 3 min: new dollar currency has been printed.

      Report #48 summary of the financial corruption orchestrated via trading programs, following the money was to be released, but they were "quietly coerced" perhaps to stand down or consequences. no verification except they were threatened.
      shows 400 funds undetectible "off balance sheet" that are going into secret programs run by the secret government.
      38 min 15 sec: "White Hats are retired military and a core group of forensic financial experts...Pureheart Investments--a cover where the money goes, orchestrated by Bush Sr.

      Select-November 25, 2012 Show
      "Disinfo Purge: firing Generals for superfluous reasons...Factions know that Obama is being run by Bush...all this is not positive for the US"

    7. Listen friend...

      I hate to burst your bubble but no real person in government talks that way or says those things.

      Those are not real former members of anything.

      All the real former members say the opposite.

  4. As far as I can see the Republicans have only one defining issue which unites them....

    The idiotic doctrine that each and every person who makes over $250,000 a year creates jobs.

    This is a totally laughable proposition on the face of it, and surely cannot be believed by ANYONE who actually makes that income....INCLUDING ME!

    I make that income and I CREATE NO JOBS!

    Most people with that income are:

    1.professionals such as MDs, attornies and dentists, veteranarians, CPAs..

    2.corporate executives

    3.independently wealthy living off investments usually managed by others

    4.small business owners

    So let's take this one last minority category, the small business owners as they're the ever-mythical "job creators" the entire GOP claims will be ravaged by any increase in their taxes.

    It's not themselves personally who hire employees, but the small companies they own. Their personal income is derived from the earnings of their company, and is related to, though seperate from, the company they own. All their company's employees exist because, like the receptionist in the Dentist's office, they are needed to do an indespensible job the business owner cannot do himself.

    If the company's owner has to pay more income tax and his disposable income is reduced this does not cause him to fire his needed employees.

    Nor does the loss of a fraction of his disposable income cause him to fail to expand his business and hire additional employees because that small fraction of the company's overall revenues wouldn't be enough to expand anything anyway. He'd need a lot more capital, from other sources for that.

  5. And given this rather self-evident, though completely unexamined, doctrine of this now bankrupt party.....

    Can we draw any other conclusion than that this party merely exists to perpetuate the narrow self-interests of the top financial class of this country, and really for nothing else?

    Sorry to sound so drastically cynical but what other conclusion can I reach?

    I guarantee you there is no millionaire in this country who really believes increasing taxes on those earning 250K will reduce job creation, but all of them who are Republicans claim it's so.

  6. The Republican Party is not finished, but they have to go back to their roots:

    Dirt farmers, family farms, constituted over 60% of the U. S. population in 1850, during that decade the Republican Party was born.

    It's birth was a reaction against the "Slave Power" and the prospects of slavory spreading throughout the territories.

    Why were family farmers so against the spread of slavory? They knew family farmers couldn't compete economically with slave plantation farming.

    The farmers' beef was ECONOMIC, not necessarily the moral objection to slavory, although that was in the mix, too, but the driving force that caused the Republican Party to spread like a "fire on the prairie" was economic.

    Farmers in the 1850's are what the working class and middle class are to the present: The dominant electorial block that decides elections in the U. S.

    Why the history lesson?

    Because the Republican Party lost the past election because working class (mostly) and middle class (partly) did not trust a party who nominated a Wall Street candidate in the shadow of the Great Wall Street Financial Crash of 2008.

    The Bain connection to Wall Street and the 47% comment of the candidate spooked many voters away from voting Republican, from the top of the ballot on down (that Romney out-polled numerous down-ballot Republican candidates was due to Obama fatigue, even if they didn't like Romney, they really didn't like Obama, but the Republican message that Romney represented [Republicans represent Wall Street] was realized by down-ballot Republicans who weren't running against the disliked Obama).

    Republicans have to support policies that promote higher wages and more jobs for the working class and middle class. Outsourcing and offshoring were a major part of the insecurity for those voters and some lip-service from candidate Romney wasn't going to outweigh his Wall Street background.

    (Romney was too much of a proven flip-flopper for a few thow-away political lines to counter the Bain-Wall Street connection.)

    It was like asking 'dirt farmers' to vote for a 'Slave Power' candidate in the 1850's.

    Limited government principles can win national elections if it is coupled with policies that build manufactoring, here, in America and higher wages: Wages that provide for a family without needing government subsidy via food stamps and section 8 housing.

    Example: Walmart is the biggest private employer in the U. S., but a large percentage of its employees qualify for food stamps.

    Walmart made nearly 16 billion in profits in the last few years.

    You can't expect working class voters to 'pull the lever' for candidates who want to cut those supports.

    While those food stamp payments went to the individuals, it was in effect a subsidy to Walmart.

    Republicans have to be clear that they support the workers over huge transnational corporations, which are the 'Slave Power' of today.

    Abraham Lincoln said, "Every man is entitled to the fruits of his labor." Labor comes before capital.

    If you want the folks to vote for limited government candidates, those folks have to believe limited government will provide a system where there will be jobs & wages which support a family.

    Republicans didn't provide a candidate who addressed those concerns.

    1. Yeah that's like saying the Democrats should vote for more tax cuts for the rich.

      What you're suggesting the Republicans need to do is exactly what they can't do because if they did it would take wealth away from their core constituency - the wealthy trying to get wealthier at others' expense.

      In my opinion the Republicans are the party of Satan, and this is why...

      They waged a horrific civil war which was unnecessary, unjustified, immoral and illegal. THEY WON! Which to me is no surprise because the way I read history the most immoral side usually wins in war.

      Because they won all the elites in the north flocked to them and that's how they became the party of the robber-barrons, speculator and scoundrels.

      Ever since that time they've stood in the way of any kind of progress at all, and I say that as a conservative. They really did oppose all the simple humane things protecting the public from harm which today everyone takes for granted.

      In foreign affairs the Republicans gave us AMERICAN IMPERIALISM. Yes! All those rich assholes wanted to plunder banana Republics abroad, and that's how we got murderous loons like Teddy Roosevelt, the Spainish American war and a score of other imperial horrors for the sake of American investors and banks.

      And this leads us to the Cold War, which was far exaggerated and turned into a covert action over-zealous campaign of international genocide in Vietnam, Indonesia, Brazil, El Salvador, Afghanistan, etc....,

      ...all brought to us by zealous, stupid and murderous anti-communists 98% of whom were Republicans.

      And then there's the horrors of the neo-con wars of the last dozen years. If that's not the work of Satan I don't know what is.

    2. I do acknowledge a jobs & wages policy would be radical for many Republicans.

      But losing elections focusses the mind and makes what was once unthinkable, possible, maybe not likely, but possible, nevertheless.

      MITmichael wrote: "They waged a horrific civil war which was unnecessary, unjustified, immoral and illegal. THEY WON!"

      Hard to be objective 150 years later.

      Keeping the Union together apparently motivated many. I'm glad the Union survived and one result was that slavory in the U. S. was made unconstitutional.

      That's significant in my estimation.

      MITmichael wrote: "Because they won all the elites in the north flocked to them and that's how they became the party of the robber-barrons, speculator and scoundrels."

      Yes, to a large degree that did happen.

      MITmichael wrote: "Ever since that time they've [Republicans] stood in the way of any kind of progress at all, and I say that as a conservative. They really did oppose all the simple humane things protecting the public from harm which today everyone takes for granted."

      To an extent, but not entirely correct.

      Democrats brought in the Federal Reserve.

      Wooodrow Wilson brought us World War I.

      MITmichael wrote: "...all brought to us by zealous, stupid and murderous anti-communists 98% of whom were Republicans."

      False, LBJ was a Democrat, there were many cold warrior Democrats.

      Selfish & arrogant men want war to agrandize themselves and obtain loot.

    3. Maybe preserving the Union was positive or negative, but the way it was preserved was indefensible. The people of the Confederacy were fighting for their self-determination just as they'd fought against the British two generations earlier. Lincoln of course jailed anyone who voiced opposition based on "war powers," yet he refused to negotiate with the Confederacy because he claimed "they weren't at war with him; only a local rebellion..." Lincoln had every issue his way regardless of principle or law, and the only reason had nothing to do with justice, or slavery, or even preserving the union. It had only to do with his personal humiliation at being the sole cause for the nation splitting up. As for slavery being made unconstitutional, it would never have passed if the south had the chance to vot on the measure. Lincoln purposely prolonged the fighting and made sure the south wouldn't have a chance to vote on the enabling Amendment, just as he excluded their participation in everything else which concerned them.

      Furthermore I happen to think slavery of savage killers who if left in Africa would have just raped and slaughtered each other anyway was no crime. I agree with Jefferson, Washington, Madison and the other founder/slaveholders who lived among the slaves that they were suited for nothing else.

  7. Republicans talk about the family as being the central social unit for a healthy society, and they're right. But you have to have policies which back up the rhetoric.

    Republicans talk about being against corporate welfare, but you have to have policies which back up the rhetoric.

    Private Union bashing (as opposed to public unions) when unions constitute around 7% of the American work force is the height of stupidity.

    Because while most people aren't a member of a labor union, bashing those same labor unions says to working class folks, "I (we) support lower wages for the working class."

    So-called "free-trade" is the code word for outsouring and offshoring which are a key reason for lower wages and the loss of jobs.

    Sure, many items are cheaper at Walmart (where the majority of products are foreign, can you say, "made in China"), but if you don't have a job or the job pays minimum wage, you can't buy the items, no matter how cheap.

    Production (and jobs) comes before consumption.

  8. Ambassador John Huntsman is a "country club" Republican, that won't win a national election.

    I'm afraid, Dr. Pieczenik is focussed on the "ambassador" part of Mr. Huntsman's resume.

    Huntsman is not his father, he is the proto-typical spoiled rich kid, even more so than Mitt Romney.

    Huntsman was governor of Utah, while I don't know his detailed record in Utah, he likely got the job by Mormon and family connections (and huge campaign contributions via his family connections) not because he was a super candidate.

    Do Republicans really want to nominate two Mormons in a row? Let's face it, a significant percentage of folks are uneasy with Morminism. It's a "built in" disadvantage Republicans don't need to take on, again. Sorry, but that's political reality -- this blog deals in reality.

    Huntsman's ambassadorship was likely political because of family connections and because Huntsman (along with his family's corporation) were known "free traders", who Obama knew wouldn't rock the boat of our disasterous "free trade" policy with China.

    Huntman's nomination after Romney would be the final death blow to the Republican Party.

    Huntsman is an unabashed Globalist just as Romney was in reality, campaign rhetoric aside.

    The only good I can see from Huntsman is that he likely would be better in terms of military/foreign policy (where a significant part of my concerns are focussed on the Republican Party), but otherwise it would be Wall Street, same old, same old, as usual for Republicans.

    Foreign policy, as important as I think it is, will not be the determining factor in 2016, domestic policy will determine the race (and as foreign trade policy effects the domestic economy).

    Republicans need a populist to head the ticket in 2016. They need to shake things up.

    John Huntsman doesn't know a thing about the common man. John Huntsman is no Marriot.

    But, here's the thing about the Marriot hotel chain, they have been great promoters of cheap labor at their hotels and have openly supported illegal alien employment. Again, with the "cheap labor" thing.

    Marriot thinks they can't live without cheap labor to clean the toilet, but in reality, labor is a small percentage of their overhead, capital is the biggest overhead.

    Paying a decent wage to "maid service" would reduce their profits by a managable small percentage -- this is true for almost all large corporations who bellyache all the time about labor costs.

    Cheap labor Republicans, whether domestic or foreign derived, need to be put in the back of the bus (no, not kicked out, but they need to know their place).

    A healthy society & economy needs "cash flow" at all levels of society.

    This is the "tragedy of the commons" analogy: Every business person wants to reduce costs, including labor, but if everybody does it, then the society as a whole suffers.

    I know creative types (ahmmm) tend not to think about the average joe who isn't going to write a book or start a business, but the Republican Party has to focuss on those average joes before it's going to win national elections.

    The Republican Party was born out of the ashes of the Whig Party and disaffected Democrats in the 1850's.

    The Republican Party can rise like a phenix from the ashes of the 2012 elections, but only if it makes clear the working man is his friend, not his enemy or indifferent.

    Many Democrats (and independents) are disaffected by their party leadership, the time is ripe for Republicans to pick a populist governor with a track record of rising wages in his state (or at least labor friendly policies).

    John "country club" Huntsman will complete the alienation of the working class from the Republican Party.

    Foreign service, while important, will not win a national election in 2016.

    A Republican candidate who is credible with working class voters can win the 2016 election.

    At this point, John Huntsman is not that candidate.

  9. A-eloquent as usual (and I really appreciate the care you take in your replies, much better than any commentator on the networks etc) but whom do you like? Who should we get behind...if not a name yet, how about some characteristics, fantasy football but with candidates....I would like to hear what people (intelligent voters) have to say...

    1. I don't know, time will tell.

      If Republicans fail to be honest with themselves about the causes for the lose of the election, including down-ballot losses, which happened in my own state, as well as others, then, regrettably, there might not be a Republican candidate who can win.

      Right now, while Republicans give lip-service to Main Street, they really serve Wall Street at the national level.

      Dr. Pieczenik, your image of the dead eliphant may be prophetic.

      I sorely hope that is not the case, but I do take seriously that image and your admonition.

      That is why I take a political line that may seem radical to many Republicans, but on the other hand, it seems the same tack, as the Romney nominination, will not produce a winner.

      Talk radio will not produce a winner because what "wins" on talk radio is not pragmatic (people want to listen to what re-inforces their already preconceived ideas, confirms their ideology) and while a 10% share is king on talk radio, victory at elections require 50% plus one vote. For far too long Republicans have tried (and often succeeded) holding the working and middle class with social issues, while the economic positions have come straight from Wall Street.

      That won't win any more.

      Wall Street and Main Street have conflicts.

      Not irreconcilable conflicts, but conflicts where compromise has to favor Main Street for Republicans to win over the working class and the middle class.

      Obviously, this is not easy -- politics is never easy.

      Dr. Pieczenik wrote: "how about some characteristics, fantasy football but with candidates..."

      Yes, I agree.

      Republicans do need to discuss what kind of candidate would win -- without being tied down to personalities... at this point.

      It is early enough to do that.

      But here is a prerequisite:

      The candidate needs to (must) be able to inspire Americans to believe their aspirations can be realized.

      Faith... in the American system.

      Faith is an ephemeral...

      But without it... faith... I fear for the American system.

      And in politics, faith must be grounded in reality... right now, our politics (both political parties) is not grounded in the reality necessary to make good decisions.

      (Dr. Pieczenik, you have participated in communicating to and between various parties in an attempt to ground those parties in reality -- instead of wishful thinking -- you know how hard it can be.)

      Part of a winning politics will be having a "heart to heart" talk with Americans, all Americans, with ourselves.

      Group-think and echo chambers will not produce a successful politics for America.

      We have to talk with each other, as best we can, from one political wing to the other, in good-faith... as best we can...

      Our future depends on it, that is for sure.

    2. Oh please....

      Romney could have won if he'd run a better campaign. That's all.

      All Romney had to do was smear Obama hard with independents using his connections to Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and his other radical actions. No problem there.

      Then he should have smeared Obama with the Left by pointing out his campaign against whistleblowers, his use of the Sedition Act, his suspension of habeous corpus, et....No problem.

      He should have smeared him to the Republican base by slamming him on problem.

      Mitt lost because he played softball with this guy, and Obama's from Chicago.

      The Republicans can win any time they want to. All they have to do is run stronger campaigns. All this analysis about a "changing society" is an illusion. You're making the fallacy of assuming that the way people voted is how they NECESSARILY HAD TO VOTE. They WOULD HAVE VOTED DIFFERENTLY if the campaigns had been run differently.

      I believe communications wins out! I'm an old psychops guy and I believe people are:

      ..habit-forming, stress-avoiding, comfort-seeking beings who are HIGHLY SUGGESTABLE and prone to error.

      Where's the challenge in that?

    3. Once again my carelessness has yeilded a mistake. Obama hasn't used the Sedition Act, but the Espionage Act, which is a 1917 law created by the moron of all morons President Wilson.

      Since 1917 it was only used three times [once against Danny Ellsberg from MIT I proudly declare] until Barak Hussein came alone and has used it six times in four years to TERRORIZE whistleblowers and investigative journalists alike, even in cases where human rights abuses were the substance of the leaks.

      There would have been no Sy Hirsch and reporting on Mi Lai under this criminal President.

      Barak is a wholely immoral scoiopath who is INCAPABLE OF EXPERIENCING EMPATHY, has no convictions of any kind, and is a villian in the mold of Stalin, Mao, Lincoln, and other psychotics.

    4. MIT--
      Now, that's the Ticket!

      You answered your own ? why Romney lost:

      Anyone who wanted to win, would have led the party with the exposure of the true obama/soetoro/malcolm X metamorphosis..

      That he surprisingly shut up (after Obama made an imbecile of himself in a stupor on oxycontin or dope or sopors) post-1st debate, speaks volumes about how he was overdoing his left hook...that was NOT the playbook, which is why Romney has since disappeared and was PAID OFF TO LOSE!!
      Do you not believe that he was ORDERED NOT TO OPEN THE DOOR ON BENGHAZI IN THE 3RD DEBATE?
      Romney wanted the job so much, he repeated the same spiel at every stop, never explaining or detailing any way to turn the economy around.
      Romney wanted the job so much, he refused to donate any of his own affluence for the cause.

      Romney is not what he appears to be in any manner. (without his rug, he looks like he is Milken's brother, his hero.)

    5. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There are more prosaic reasons why Romney did what he did, and those reasons comport with the man's overly mild, and even timid, personality. The guy's lived in an ivory tower all his live, occassioned only by tragedies involving car accidents and deseases. He has no rage about anything...neither does Obama.

    6. i would hardly call the first debate, "timid".

      anyone who fleeces companies for a living is not timid...well mannered, yes.

      that's his hook.

      i understand his silver spoon inheritance was donated to the LDS.

      Romny is a player, plain and simple.

      by the way, here is the "untold history of the POTUS" since Kennedy:

  10. "The American System" of political economy as laid forth in our Constitution was implemented in the form of the First National Bank of the United States by Alexander Hamilton. The purpose of the National bank was to be a credit system for infrastructure development. It made the country economically sovereign and independent of British finance capital, which was and is the essence of British imperialism. It was the ultimate expression of complete American independence. The First National Bank was attacked by the British and their minions in the United States, led by Aaron Burr, who assassinated Hamilton among his other treasonous acts to help the British regain control of the country. The Second National Bank of the United States was destroyed by Andrew Jackson, another British agent and slaveocrat whose policies eventually led to the Civil War. The United States has never been free and independent of the British financial power ever since, with the partial exceptions of the Lincoln greenback and FDR's Reconstruction Finance Corporation. These were our greatest, truly American presidents. We do need a second American Revolution to finish the job the first did not quite get done. The way we do it is by seizing the Federal Reserve, which is currently the private preserve of these same damned imperialist bankers, who are using it to control the whole economy for their private benefit, and establishing a Third National Bank of the United States, which will issue credit, not to banks to pay off bad debts from kited derivatives which Bernanke calls "quantitative easing", but for rebuilding our crumbling infastructure, bridges, roads, Mag-Lev faxt trains, build sea walls to prevent things like Sandy from happening again, rebuild our electrical grid, our hospitals and schools, fully fund a space program, large scale national projects like NAWAPA, the North American Water and Power Alliance, that was already on the drawing board in the Kennedy administration. This would create tens of millions of high-wage jobs, a full economic recovery in a very short time. We the American people can do this if we can just break the grip of this alien force that has controlled us for so long.

    1. Tony Wicher:

      It would seem serious investigative research needs to be done with regard to the interests behind the two national banks.

      I have read just the opposite (not that it's necessarily true): Hamilton was a British agent and the first bank was significantly financed by British interests behind the scenes.

      That this British backing of the bank became known is one reason why its charter was not renewed by Congress in 1811.

      And at that, the Rothchilds were behind British provocations which precipitated the War of 1812.

      The next bank then was chartered by Congress and, again, British interests supplied significant capital and controlled the bank.

      Andrew Jackson did own slaves, however, the best evidence currently available suggests he wasn't a British agent.

      Jackson took on the Second Bank of the United States because of the foreign interests behind the bank (and plutocrats generally) vowing to "rout out" the "vipers" behind the bank.

      It may or may not have been good policy, but Andrew Jackson was no British agent.

      Andrew Jackson had suffered many times as a child and young man at the hands of the British during the American Revolution.

      That is why he took such delight at beating the British at the Battle of New Orleans at the tail end of the War of 1812.

      Also, there was an attempt to assassinate Jackson and evidence exists the Rothchilds and British interests were behind that attempt (both guns of the would-be assassin failed to discharge at point blank range).

      The latter part of your comment sounds like you are a follower of Webster Tarpley.

      Tarpley is a good historian and geopolitical analyst, but his political outlook is hard-core left wing.

      Take a look at the evidence FDR was instrumental in inducing the Japanese to attack Pear Habor, knew of it in advance (broken signal intelligence of the Japanese) and intentionally didn't tell the field commanders at Pearl Harbor.

      Why would Roosevelt do that?

      Because he wanted into the European war and America was solidly against intervention up until Pear Habor.

    2. Anaconda,

      I also join Tarpley in believing that Roosevelt did not "induce the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor", that is was on the contrary done by fascist sympathizers within the Roosevelt administration and the army, who incidentally tried to assassinate him, and also that this story itself comes from these same fascists. Nobody hated Roosevelt worse that those fascist bankers, and they have spent 80 years reversing the work he only began. The result is the crappy country we have today. "Hard core left" is just another way of saying "Communist". Tarpley and I are as "hard core left" as Roosevelt. Anti-communism was never anything but fascism in disguise.

    3. You're way out there Dude.

      Andrew Jackson as an "British agent."

      I think you've fallen for a lot of speculation about the functioning of the City of London. It's a nice theory with some explanitory power, but no real evidence and loads of evidence to the contrary.

      Look let's take one example of how inconsisent you're statements are...Jackson in particular.

      Washington, Madison, Jefferson all owned slaves too. To single out Jackson as a villian because he belonged to that system is folly.

      And Jefferson was harshly opposed to Hamiliton and your "Ameican system," which Tarpley grossly misconstrues.

      Are you going to claim he too was a British agent?

      Tarpley's great entertainment, and he knows a lot of history, but he misinterprets it greatly...greatly.

    4. Tony Wicher wrote: "'Hard core left' is just another way of saying 'Communist'."

      No, that's not correct.

      Please don't put words in my mouth. You have just engaged in a straw man argument.

      It's not Communism, rather, it's statism, a view for vigorous state intervention or direction.

      Also known as 'Dirigisme': "an economy in which the government exerts strong directive influence. It designates a mainly capitalist economy with strong directive, as opposed to merely regulatory, economic participation by the state." -- Wikipedia entry

      You are just parroting Tarpley's well practiced deflection from what is his domestic political line: Hare core left.

      It's an attempt to obscure an accurate description of Tarpley's perspective.

      Obviously, Tarpley would rather not have his policy perscription labelled 'Hard core left'.

      And sure, it's a political label, so one must be careful and realize it is a short-hand for a set of policies and the application of those policies. But when one looks at Tarpley's set of preferred policies, it is fair to say 'Hard core left as traditionally thought of here in America.

      Perhaps, 'active statism' would be a better way to describe Tarpley's policy menu or 'dirigiste'.

  11. Footnote to previous comment: the pistols used in the duel in which Hamilton died are now on display in the Executive Conference center of J.P. Morgan Chase at 277 Park Avenue in Manhattan.

    1. Hamilton was a madman who loved war, was bent on concentrating power to himself, and was all about the concentration of mercantile power among his friends. He was dispised by all the other founders, save Washington out of sentimentality for his military service under him.

      When Burr finally killed him everyone save his clique of would-be robber barrons breathed a sigh of relief.

  12. As to whom the next president should be, whether Democratic or Republican or neither, how about a new Federalist instead of a Democrat-Republican, one who will assert the economic sovereignty of the United States by nationalizing the Fed using its credit-creating power, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, to finance an economic recovery, instead of putting that full faith and credit at the service of some degenerate fat cats?

    1. "finance an economic recovery?"

      With what?

      Unless you're willing to do what the Nazis did in 1934 and give a temporary government job to every unemployed person in the country then forget about it. Nothing short of that will work, and Krugman is right about that much.

      But where Krugman is dead wrong is that this economy cannot be jump started by any number of temporary jobs because unlike Germany we now have no manufacturing [except for film and television I must say] so we're doomed to have massive trade imbalances no matter what we do and therefore all our wealth simple escapes.

      Trade policy is at the root of our structrual low employment, low incomes, low revenue collection, high government spending....

      There's no way out of this unless the trade policies of the last thirty years are reversed, and that ain't gonna happen.

  13. Anacconda,

    I suspect that your history of the first two national banks and the presidency of Andrew Jackson was also written by British imperialists, as much of the "history" we learn in school has been. As Orwell says, he who controls the past controls the future. But leaving that aside, on the proposal for a Third National bank as I envision it, the general idea is that it would be Congress, to which the Constitution originally gives "the power of the purse" that would control the Fed instead of Helicopter Ben and his merry men. Congress would pass an economic recovery bill involving rebuilding and renovating our crumbling infrastructure on a national level. This recovery would NOT be financed by tax revenue. The National Bank would just print the money, just as the Fed does now. Money IS credit. The idea is credit for real economic development but no credit for speculation. Close down the big zombie banks. They are parasites on the economy and we the people are going bankrupt paying their bad debts. Private investment banking is the problem. Nothing wrong with local commercial banks. This is not "communism". If Congress allocates a trillion dollar tranche for a big project like NAWAPA, what will they do next? Put out bids to private companies to build it, what else? Big engineering companies will get those bids. They will hire workers. The economy will get going again.
    The question is where does wealth really come from, a banker's bank account or the creative power of our people?

    1. Hey Dudes the Fed charges like no interest anymore so let's not hear anymore talk about how our debt/fiat money system is all a scam to make the whole country enslaved to foreign bankers who suck us dry by paying them interest BECAUSE THERE IS NO INTEREST!

      We pay loads of interest to the Chinese, the Japanese, the Dutch, and others who buy our bonds, and maybe now the Fed is having to buy them out of default because no body else can afford to buy this much.

    2. It boils down to who controls the bank.

      Or who controls the issuence of money into the political-economy.

      Is it as Lincoln envisioned with his 'greenbacks' and a national issuence of currency based on the full faith and credit of the United States.

      Or a issuence of debt-based currency out of a private bank of issue.

      And, the First and Second Bank of the United States was of the latter type.

      And, substantial evidence exists that Rothchild interests both in London and domestic associates of London bankers did have financial positions in the First and Second Bank of the United States.

      In this instance, Tarpley fails to distinguish between what his disired model of currency policy is versus what the historical structure and finance of the First and Second Bank of the United States.

      It's unnecessary and lowers Tarpley's credibility.

  14. How long can or will the Federal Reserve keep interest rates minimal?

    And why have these near-zero interest introducions of liquidity failed, for the most part, to filter down into the regular economy, as opposed to their use to prop up banks with under performing assets?

    When will interest rates go up or inflation?

    1. Inflation won't happen because the new money isn't finding it's way into general circulation.

      Inflation only happens when there is no corresponding production to balance the increase in money on the street, and that hasn't happened because the new money isn't making its way to the street.

      All the new money has simply offset the paper loses of the banks, whose asset holdings have been striped away by write-offs and declines in the market value of their holdings.

      All the new money was necessary just in order to maintain the existing level of liquidity needed to make low interest car and mortgage loans, commerical loans for businesses, etc.

      Without the new money interest rates would have increased worldwide, and Europe and the US would have crashed.

      As for fiat money.....

      Either politicians or bankers can issue it, take your pick.

      I've seen developing countries, like Mexico, where the privately-owned banks issuing the currency was used to hijack and bankrupt the country to benefit a few moguls.

      There is always such a risk of corruption when private parties issue the currency, and Jackson and others realized this all too well.

      In terms of the Federal Reserve I think those days are long since over, and they do the best job they can [often flawed of course] to maintain a healthy economy on the theory that the best way to aid their owner's banks is to maintain a strong overall economy.

      With that said there is obviously favoritism in this country as to who has access to the money created.

      Banks with influence at the Fed, or easy access to the Fed window are hugely advantaged over everyone else.

    2. Let me make this correction.

      The new money has made its way to the street, but it has not INCREASED the amount of money in general circulation.

      The new money on the street has been needed just to keep the same level of easy money available which this economy has grown used to.

      Without the easy credit of the last fifteen years we'd have gone down the tubes long ago because of extreme trade imbalance [we import far more than we can export].

  15. From my little perch, I hope you are right about the Federal Reserve, they do have that interest, you would think.

    Still the manipulation seems to be there.

    "To big to fail" international banks are choking the credit system, yes, 'the street' isn't getting the credit it needs.

    But part of it is that currency needs to flow at all levels of society so that goods & services, of all types, are exchanged for money -- "the fruits of their labor" -- or credit based on assets & income, and likely repayment.

    This keeps all segments of society at all levels productive & happy.

    Stability of the society is the result.

    1. One problem with bankers is that they become afraid to make loans at the exact time when they're most needed.

      They're also to devil-may-care at the times when they should be more cautious.

      Like everyone else they have a heard mentality, and it causes them to be very inefficient in the movement of money.