The National Security Agency’s secretive new $2 billion, one- million-square-foot data death star...

September 28, 2013 NY TIMES

Creeping Cloud

By MAUREEN DOWD

BLUFFDALE, Utah — AT the Husband and Wife lingerie store here in Mormon country — where babies are welcome amid the sex toys and the motto is “Classy, tasteful and comfortable” — no one had heard of it.

At the Allami smoke shop across the street, adjacent to a hypnosis center that can help you stop smoking, they were disturbed by it. Down the road at Quiznos, the young man making subs went on a rant about his insular community’s compliance with the government’s intrusions into Americans’ private lives.

Indeed, this valley of subdivisions, sagebrush and one of the remaining polygamous sects gets more exercised about the letter “c” — there’s a Kapuccino cafe, a Maverik convenience store and a Pikasso print shop — than they do about the National Security Agency’s secretive new $2 billion, one- million-square-foot data death star.

As Mark Reid, Bluffdale’s city manager, told The Times’s Michael Schmidt, the community’s initial excitement about new jobs faded because many of the data analysts are elsewhere. The good jobs, he says, are for security dogs who have a “plush” kennel.

“They don’t interact with anybody, they don’t let anybody come up there,” he said: “It is like they are not there. It is not like they are I.B.M. and they join us for town days and sponsor a booth.”

At a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee in Washington on Thursday, Democratic Senator Mark Udall of Colorado tried to pin down the shadowy and largely unchecked Emperor Alexander, as the N.S.A. head, Gen. Keith Alexander, is known, on whether his agency is indiscriminately Hoovering Americans’ phone records.

“I believe it is in the nation’s best interest to put all the phone records into a lockbox that we could search when the nation needs to do it, yes,” Alexander said.

When Alexander was asked a year ago if the Bluffdale center would hold the data of Americans, he replied no: “We don’t hold data on U.S. citizens,” adding that reports that they would “grab all the e-mails” were “grossly misreported.”

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon told me ruefully that on Thursday, “Alexander put in a lockbox information that he’s told the public he doesn’t have. This is what we’re dealing with.

“They think it’s O.K. to repeatedly say one thing to the public about domestic surveillance and do something completely different in private,” continued Wyden, who pressed Alexander about whether they’re collecting cellphone location information.

The senator is skeptical that the N.S.A. is open to reform, noting, “They’re just putting the same wine in a new bottle.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/opinion/sunday/dowd-creeping-cloud.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130929

Of Martyrs, Sinners and Saints...

Of Martyrs, Sinners and Saints...

"These books can be read, independent of their time and place, as strong preventive medicine against the mentality of servility, and especially against the lethal temptation to exchange freedom for security:  a bargain that invariably ends up with the surrender of both."  

- Christopher Hitchens, Washington D.C. (January 20, 2003) - Preface to Animal Farm and 1984, by George Orwell 

By J.M. Hamilton  9-28-13

What possesses a person to write a blog, illustrating their beliefs on economic and political issues, knowing full well that they risk upsetting at least half their readers?  Even if such chicken scratch is written under a pseudonym to protect family - we now know that nothing is private, and the NSA can track down anybody, using IP addresses and the world wide web.

I've said it before and it's worth repeating, if this blog troubles you... It’s probably because the points made challenge your own beliefs?  One simple solution is don't read J.M.H.  Better yet, start your own blog, as a direct counterpoint to my own.  If you are inclined to believe that I am merely unqualified to write on the issues of the day, one should check out what passes for news and journalism in many of today's mainstream/corporate news organizations, or turn on the six o'clock local news, replete with sanitized, often mindless news stories, and the weather.  Yes, and there is that thing called the first amendment.  On the other hand, if individuals are judging me based upon my life, well.... I guess by that standard, nobody would be qualified to write or offer an opinion.  I've never claimed to be saint, and I have met very few saints, if any, in my lifetime.

I've often analyzed my own intentions in writing this blog, and they have evolved over time.  At there most altruistic - I write to educate, to share what I have learned, and - as is true of any polemicist - in the hopes that my words may influence others and bring about positive change.  Who knows?  If these editorials cause you to foam at the mouth, raise your blood pressure just a little bit, or laugh out loud, than I've achieved my objective.  My novice opinions are expressed on the macro economic and political issues of the day, and are intended for a macro audience.

All of this makes me wonder about Mr. Snowden.  Here is a man, at great personal risk to himself and his future, who wanted to bring about change by sharing what he knew.  That he had to flee the U.S. to protect himself from persecution and prosecution, demonstrates how far this nation has come in sacrificing freedom for alleged claims of personal safety - not unlike certain claims made by totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.  The ends always justify the means in an authoritarian or totalitarian state; and individual freedom - and the individual - are often sacrificed for specious claims about the greater good, the protection of the state (i.e. dictator), the safety of said regimes inhabitants, or just on a whim.

President Obama has accomplished a great deal while in office, much of it positive; and of course, there's the GOP's foregone opportunity cost, when the Bush (W) administration - and subsequent Republican presidential nominees - placed President Obama into power, not once but twice.  And yet, despite high hopes, there's already a wistfulness (and in some instances rebellion) among his supporters, about this Presidency and what it might have been.  Particularly, when it comes to issues like governmental transparency, and reining in some of the worst excesses of the previous administration, such as an assault on personal freedoms, all under the guise of protecting said freedoms, under the Orwellian named Patriot Act.   The very notion that the U.S. is now under 24-7 surveillance, and many of our global allies and friends are upset about their own surveillance at the hands of the U.S.government (sometimes with the complicity of same/said allied government)... well, possibly, one starts to understand why Mr. Snowden may have done what he did.

The idea that Mr. Snowden could have gone to his superiors within the NSA, or a member of Congress to discuss his findings, is absurd.  The country, as often as not, suffers from what Mr. Orwell called "groupthink," and clearly lockstep obedience and consent is often not only preferred but demanded, particularly in today's economy.  The squeaky wheels, with the best of intentions (and even if they are correct, can save their government or organizations money, profits, or embarrassment) are turned away, told to shut up, and get back into line.  Or are simply terminated.

This then, maybe the nation's Achilles heal.  Have we grown so massive, bureaucratic, brittle, hierarchical/patriarchal, and passive/apathetic... that it is not foreign military power that the nation has to fear, but a single person with an idea?  Ideas, after all, are dangerous things.  And this concept helps explain, why our government maybe spying upon it's citizens.  Ideas - as well as democracy itself - seemingly, must be contained.  The only other explanation for the NSA's behavior is moral hazard.  Is the NSA what happens when the profit motive and the private contractors - who run the NSA, are both introduced to unlimited/black/offline budgets, and a sub-rosa regulatory court for oversight?  Anything goes?  (By the way, I would like to think it's greed that drives the NSA because with proper oversight that can be reined in.  Then again, if our government truly is afraid of it's citizens - that it feels compelled to spy on us 24-7 - than this is as it should be.  For governments - even one's founded on such unprecedented idealism as our own - should be afraid of it's citizens, particular when said government is, allegedly, derived by the will of it's people.  Mr. Jefferson told us that, and more.)

Mr. Snowden is a patriot.  He will enter the pantheon of great men, not unlike MLK, Gandhi, Jefferson, and Paul Volcker.  He's a rebel with a cause, and his cause is freedom from the tyranny of a government agency(ies) that has over-extended it's reach.  Mr. Snowden is a radical and revolutionary (but only to the extent that telling the truth, and government transparency have become a radical idea and a revolutionary concept, respectively).

Quite simply, Mr. Snowden has pulled back the veil in the land of Oz, and has defied the power behind that veil.

And for that, liberals and libertarians, democrats and republicans, should all be grateful.  General Alexander, who runs the NSA, appears to come from a line of military leaders throughout the ages, who appeared to have gone meglo, or at his very best, has a questionable regard for the constitution of the United States.  In response, what Americans should insist upon is greater transparency in government and the DOD/NSA.  We should also be weary of the "contrived event" that places this nation on a wartime footing, is used to justify an absurd amount of spending on the NSA and DOD, and causes Americans and the Congress from taking their eye off reforming these same bureaucracies.  (By way of example, the Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - and some conspiracy theorist have even suggested 9-11 itself - fall into the "contrived event" category.)

Whether Mr. Snowden ends up a martyr or a saint, or perhaps both, remains to be seen.  In either case, a debt is clearly owed to this man, and he should have not have had to fled to the former Soviet Union, out of fear for his personal safety or reprisals from our government.  Could there be a Nobel in this young man's future?  I certainly hope so.

And speaking of saints...  The patron saint of Capitalism, Mr. Warren Buffett, let loose an interesting point at Georgetown University recently, when he called the Federal Reserve the greatest hedge fund ever.

Mr. Buffett deserves tremendous credit and respect for being honest; he continues to be effusive in his praise for Chairman Bernanke, and Messrs. Geithner and Summers, for bailing the nation out of the financial crisis.

But as events have shown, it wasn't the nation that was bailed out of the ongoing Great Recession; but rather, the high flyers in banking, finance, shadow banking and private equity who were bailed out of a disaster of their own making, by the Federal Reserve and the Congress of the U.S.  There's been  news story after news story as of late, that the true beneficiaries of the Fed's largess (read QE and interest rate suppression) have been the plutocracy and folks like Mr. Buffett.  Hence, praise from Mr. Buffett for the Fed programs that have done little for the 99% and have actually, arguably, harmed same.

Unemployment appears to be creeping down but for the wrong reason:  people have given up looking for jobs.  Speculation is rife in the Wall Street cartel, and some of the banks that make up the cartel are under investigation for rigging commodities markets, and financial benchmarks.  J.P. Morgan has reportedly set aside another six billion plus in legal expense, so much for the epitome of risk management.   Meanwhile, the 99% are having trouble finding employment, are squeezed by higher food and fuel priced - caused by speculation courtesy of the Feds largess to the connected and the powerful, and the housing market is still a mess.

Mr. Buffet once called derivatives and swaps "financial weapons of mass destruction," but his companies continue to profit tremendously from same.

Mr. Buffet also told us that there is class warfare in our society, and the rich have been taking it to the 99%, and winning in a very big way.  Just one more way in which the 99% are getting "scrod" - paying higher rates of taxes to subsidize the über wealthy's shear rapacity.

We can give Mr. Buffett credit for his candor, but he's also very bright... and he knows that excessive concentrations of power and wealth in any nation, often leads to some combination of revolt, wealth confiscation, and sometimes even revolution.  At Georgetown, Mr. Buffet said our system has got to find a way to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.

An excellent thought, but how does Mr. Buffet propose to bring about such change?  He's offered very little in the way of solutions.  Redistribution of wealth by our tax code, via the Federal government, is a start, but isn't the private sector a better way to go?  Your humble blogger believes so.  Presently our government gives tremendous welfare to many businesses and companies, via the tax code and government contracts, w/out insisting upon anything in return.  In order for these tax credits and contracts to be renewed, would it be too much to ask that our elected representatives and senators insist that these same businesses hire Americans and outsource less?

As for the financial weapons of mass destruction, the architect of our present and future crisis, would it not be best if these instruments were traded in open and transparent exchanges, with actual - good ol' - private sector capital backing these instruments as collateral, in lieu of the full faith and credit of the American people?   How about breaking up cartels and monopolies, which would create more jobs and opportunities in management, not to mention lead to greater competition and reduced prices for the consumer?

And as for our Central Bank, cum hedge fund, Mr. Bernanke has likely painted himself and the American people into a very dark corner.  The stock market, the only thing that is humming, is addicted like a junkie to Fed liquidity.  And the cartel also jacks up the interest rates on the mortgage market, anytime there is mention of cutting back on the QE fix.  The cartel is now so powerful, and interconnected throughout the economy, my guess is it has tremendous sway over employment, globalization, and labor - tax - regulatory arbitrage.  In short, the Fed is as the mercy of the Street, instead of the other way around.  The Fed and the American people may ultimately pay a dear price for the Fed's actions, because like any hedge fund holding bonds, these bonds will eventually depreciate in value - at a significant discount - when the Fed finally does stop pushing QE and interest rates inevitably rise (observe the recent outflows from PIMCO - the world's largest bond mutual fund).  But the Fed doesn't mark its holdings to market, which means it will have to hold onto these assets to the bitter end in order to avoid reporting the loss.  Either way, both the Feds holdings or assets, and the earnings on same, will likely suffer a serious and significant discount when interest rates rise... all at a time when the fiscal health of the nation is at low ebb, and the economy still has not recovered.  There's a very good chance that the billions the Fed is paying the U.S. Treasury today on it's portfolio, will vanish tomorrow in a higher interest rate environment.... unless the nation heads back into recession and interest rates fall.

It would appear then, if the Fed truly is a hedge fund, to be redemption time for the American public.

Probably the greatest crime of the Great Recession was it was papered over by Chairman Bernanke with a flood of liquidity, at the expense of the 99% and the nation's future.  A flood of liquidity was unleashed that allowed banks and the titans to purchase assets at fire side sale prices.  Wealth has become more concentrated, and more powerful.  If the rich had felt the pain however, like the 99%, you can bet there would have been true reform in this country.  The banks would have been broken up, Glass-Steagall re-implemented, and the financial weapons of mass destruction would have been heavily regulated.  And I believe the banking cartel presents such a drag on the economy, and a tax on the American people, that nothing short of it's break up, and the re-institution of Glass- Steagall, will save this country and it's economy.

As it stands, very few of the wealthy or elite felt little or no pain as a result of the ongoing crisis, and their opportunity and ability to empathize with everyone else vanished.... bailed out by the Congress of the U.S. and the Federal Reserve.   As a result, we are exactly in the situation that led to the last crisis:  too big to fail, or prosecute, banking institutions; too much concentrated wealth and power; a crony Congress owned by the elite; and unregulated financial weapons of mass destruction.

Many Americans nearly deify executives and captains of industry, like Mr. Buffet, and they are deserving of the same respect afforded any human; but as Mr. Gross recently pointed out with the Fed juicing the game for the wealthy, banking and shadow banking, maybe we should not get carried away with idol worship.  Add in crony capitalism, a Congress that is for sale, a SCOTUS that caters to the plutocracy, tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, and ask yourself a question: Just how hard is it to win a rigged game?

Mr. Buffet is no saint, but he's smart enough to know where this is all leading.
 

Given the dysfunction in Congress, any solutions to the nation's very real problems will likely come after the next crisis hits.  Let's hope next time around, the government doesn't bailout the rich at the expense of everyone else. Last I looked, one does not see hedge fund listed among the Fed's responsibilities within the Federal Reserve Act.

P.S.

Really!  And what's up with the new Pope?  This is the first Pope in my lifetime, possibly ever, who has abandoned the patriarchal, fear, fire and brimstone message of the Old Testament (the law), in favor of the enlightenment, hope, and tolerance of the New Testament (salvation).  Watch your back, Papa!  They crucified Christ for a lot less.  God bless, Pope Francis!

Copyright JM Hamilton Publishing 2013

Democracy in Flames and Sovereignty under Fire!

Democracy in Flames and Sovereignty under Fire!

By J.M. Hamilton  (11-11-11)

“Thus was parliamentary democracy finally interred in Germany.  Parliament had turned over its constitutional authority to Hitler and thereby committed suicide…”  - William  L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

It doesn’t take much to overturn a democracy or democratic institutions:  economic chaos, unchecked fear, a couple of gallons of gasoline, and a few matches.   That’s all it took in Germany in the 1930’s, when the Nazis burned down the Reichstag (Germany’s emblem of democracy and the equivalent to the U.S. Congress).  Communist were of course blamed and used as scapegoats.  In the resulting fear and turmoil, civil rights were suspended by Germany’s President Hindenburg, allowing Hitler to round up and exterminate any and all political opposition without due process.  A short time later the aptly named “Enabling Act” was passed and a dictatorship was born – all perfectly legal and sanctioned by the state.  Hitler said the suspension of both German civil liberties and democracy itself, was all for the German peoples protection.  It was through fear and uncertainty that Hitler seized that which the Nazis could not obtain democratically, hegemonic and absolute power over the German state.

Today in Europe and America we see the erosion of democratic institutions at every turn.   And what global banking oligarchs cannot accomplish by a flood of money into the political process, or by the purchase of politicians, is won through the coercive power of the state, as former bank executives cruise through the revolving door and operate key government positions – again, all perfectly legal and sanctioned by the state.  (e.g. Witness the recent coronation of Goldman Sachs alum, Mario Draghi, as head of the E.U.’ central bank, who is said to have wrote the book on hiding government debt via the use of swaps and derivative products; or check out another Goldman alum who runs the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Mr. Gensler… and some people wonder why the CFTC has delayed implementation of new derivative/swaps rules and regulations?)

Per the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman, there’s a reason why 61 house members sit on the congressional Financial Services Committee.

In the cradle of democracy last week, Greek Prime Minister, George Papandreou, dared defy the established order of things, that of banking uber alles, and actually sought a referendum by the people on the proposed E.U. Greek bailout package.   Now this bailout package promises a write down on Greek debt of 50%, when the market values the haircut to bond holders at no less than 80% (what a deal for the bank or institution who picks up this debt at the fireside sale price, because if the bailout holds, they will more than double their money, all at the expense and suffering of the taxpayer – both U.S. and European); moreover, the proposed bailout would in all probability consign Greece to austerity and economic decline for at least a decade or more.  Not that the alternative, default, hyper-inflation, capital flight magnified, and a return to the drachma, would have been much better.  But the resulting outcry from the European and U.S. political elites was so stunning and sharp in response to the referendum, it merely proves the point that the J.M. Hamilton blog made in an editorial a couple of weeks ago (entitled, Fear and Loathing – Globally), namely, that the elites fear democracy.   Mr. Papandreou retreated and cancelled democracy/the referendum, which would have finally given Greek citizens an opportunity to weigh in on their nation’s financial crisis.

Meanwhile, in Italy, a media mogul and a septuagenarian playboy, also known at the Italian Prime Minister, has “voluntarily” submitted his government and its budget to International Monetary Fund (IMF) oversight and scrutiny.   Now, submitting your government budget for IMF review is very much like the indignity, and an infringement upon sovereignty, that the Greeks have already endured and continue to suffer, that of sovereign budgetary oversight by interested third parties.

Moreover, it is an indignity and threat to sovereignty that the United States Congress would never tolerate, at least not yet.  You’ve got to hand it to the bankers, however, they would never tarnish and soil their bespoke suits with gasoline and matches.   That’s entirely unnecessary, especially when the banks can burn down democracy with threats of a “Lehman event,” a capital strike, dumping sovereign debt, or by making financial bets against the very nations that have repeatedly bailed them out.  (Note: In yet another assault on pesky democracy, both the democratically elected Italian and Greek prime ministers, Berlusconi and Papandreaou, are being replaced by “technocrats,” which is a fancy word for saying that Messrs. Monti and Papademos are more than likely BBF or Banker Buddies Forever.  Messrs Monti and Papademos have not been popularly elected, but will most likely run both Italy and Greece, presumably, for Wall Street’s and E.U. Bank benefit.)

Three years after the last financial crisis, politicians are desperate to avoid another “Lehman event,” which is code for the global systematic risk posed by international banking, derivatives, and credit default swaps.  Aside from the economic damage such an event would  cause the global economy, already strained state budgets, and the havoc it would reek upon global currencies, the political elite are worried that the European and U.S. electorate might begin asking very pointed questions.  Namely, what have these same politicians done over the last three years to prevent the banking crisis that is unfolding before our eyes, here and now in real time?

And that’s a question no politician, who wants to be elected or re-elected, appears to want to answer.  Why?  Because in the U.S. both political parties share blame for catering to Wall Street, and the lack of rules, regulation, and oversight since the 2008 financial crisis.

At the end of the day, international banking is the tail that has been wagging world governments, democracy, and the global economy with ever more frequent and deleterious effects.  Multi-national corporations wised up to the games these Wall Street sharks play a while ago, and have hoarded colossal amounts of cash, in essence becoming their own banks, so as to avoid dealings with same.

But the public isn’t quite as fortunate.

Ultimately, the only thing that will rein the banks in, and the threat to global security and stability they represent, is to allow them to fail and subsequently nationalize them.  If the global banking model the world is headed towards, willingly or unwillingly, is that of utility banking (i.e. elementary/pedestrian lending without the proprietary trading), than why not nationalize the cartel, install new management, and preserve as many banking jobs as possible, when these institutions inevitably fail again?  As it stands, the banks often prey upon anybody or any institution, private or public, they come into contact with; and as often as not operate to the detriment of legitimate business, the world economy, and world governments.  World governments are tapped out after bailing out international banking, repeatedly, and now the banks are demanding fiscal austerity, so that governments have the means to bailout the banks, yet again.

And to insure that the global political system continues to favor banks, these same institutions now appear to be installing their own heads of state.  Democracy be damned.

Outlawing and unwinding existing naked shorts (e.g. speculative derivatives instruments) is also a must, if we are avoid repeating the same mistakes ad nauseum.  In the last bubble, the speculative instrument of choice was mortgages, and in the coming crisis, as predicted by J.M. Hamilton, it is sovereign debt.  In both instances, the banks have suspended all business prudence in exchange for the fast buck, with the full knowledge that governments will bail them out again, since they are too big to fail.  Isn’t it time to stop this cycle?  The failed banking institutions can always be returned to the private sector, post re-org.

As this blog has alluded to before, global democracies, as a general rule, don’t allow megalomaniacs to hold and operate standing armies or to possess nuclear weapons (or they do a great deal to suppress, contain, and avoid the re-occurrence of such individuals as Herr Hitler).

Containing these rogues is a matter of global security for world markets and the consumers within those markets.

If that’s the case, then why would business leaders and global governments allow something possibly more insidious than nukes, say international banking in its present incarnation, to be left in the hands of private sector dictatorships?

PS:  For those who think that our banks, shadow banking, and exchanges are over-regulated… please explain it to the fine investors of MF Global, who relied upon CME -the self- regulating futures trading exchange – to protect their interests.   A lot of farmers and investors are missing millions of dollars, because of this unregulated market and exchange, and some could face financial ruin.

Copyright JM Hamilton Publishing 2013

A Question of Trust, A Question of Credibility

A Question of Trust, A Question of Credibility

"In a wilderness of mirrors."  - T.S. Eliot

By J.M. Hamilton (9-9-13)

How many times have the American people been lied to, so that the political elite could drag this country into war?

Gulf of Tonkin, which led to Vietnam... check.  
Weapons of mass destruction - the second Iraq war ... check again.  

War is very big business.  With a revolving door between the MIC (military industrial complex), the contractors and subcontractors who support and supply same, and the political and military elite.... is there any wonder why there appears to be a near constant drum beat for martial action?

Consider the following:

$$$  America has or is in the process of pulling out of two major wars.  Afghanistan, as a nation building exercise, would appear to be an abject failure.  The corruption and graft within this narco-terrorist state, despite our greater than decade long involvement, are unfathomable to many Americans.  This is America's legacy in Afghanistan?  In Iraq, we took down a dictator and appear to have a replaced him with a democratically elected dictator.  Now that we have or are pulling out of Afghanistan, what possible justification is there to continue to spend half the nation's discretionary Federal budget on the MIC.  Answer:  None.  Hence, the need for a new war?

$$$  This Administration (the one I favored) would appear to be in hot water.  The President, in many respects, is already a lame duck, and his Administration has largely been rendered - much to many Demo's chagrin - impotent.  The second term mandate has been made moot by a recalcitrant and gerrymandered House of Representatives.  And while I don't have the credentials to delve into the President's or Administration's psyche, with domestic policy in chaos, just how tempting must it be to demonstrate to the U.S. and international community that this Administration is still powerful, and can insinuate itself in to Syria?  Exactly like another President - who was in trouble - did during the 90's, when Mr. Clinton launched this nation into war:

Kosovo - Check Again.  Syria presents a classic "wag the dog scenario, " just like the Balkans did in the 90s.   

$$$  The Saudi regime underwrote and supported the military coup in Egypt and helped overthrow a democratically elected government, and the GOP has been baiting the President ever since, as ineffectual.  The neo-cons believe that the U.S. should rule the world, and military intervention is always their first response; however, this philosophy has helped bankrupt the nation, and left our true enemies - and the sources of many of the world's problems - in power.  What  better way to demonstrate that the U.S. still is the top dog militarily, than to bomb a third rate power, in which we have no national interest?

$$$  War can provide a convenient distraction, take away valuable time and resources from real problems that remain unaddressed here at home.  For instance, the NSA is being lanced weekly, if not daily, by Mr. Snowden's revelations.  Seems that we are all under surveillance 24/7, and that the NSA is accountable to no one.  The NSA's budget is offline or in the black, and it's results - in terms of domestic spying - are highly questionable.  Moreover, the NSA is under no supervision whatsoever, except by a secret/rubber stamp court.  But the NSA, once again, is big business, run by subcontractors and private equity firms who are very well connected to the Washington establishment.  Who am I kidding, the Carlyle Group is the Washington Establishment.   

So, surely, the NSA's invasion of privacy on a monumental scale must continue unhindered.   Right?  It's almost as if war is being waged within the U.S. upon it's own citizens.  Right?  Or is this just another Federal public works project, that has completely run off the rails, much like the MIC itself?

$$$  Last week, Secretary of State, John Kerry, arrived at the hill to "sell" the pending Syrian war to the House and the Senate.  Fortunately for the nation, the liberals and militant right in the House, don't appear to be buying the Secretary of State's product.  Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam Vet., once asked, how can you ask a man to die for a mistake?  When it comes to finding out what our national interests are in Syria, we've been told that our failure to act makes us look weak.  The nation watched the Syrian horror show unfold for two years.  Why suddenly now, would the U.S. look weak?
 

The counter-argument is the U.S. looks both weak, and is made weak, by a string of never ending budget breaking - military actions with dubious results.  The nation will likely need it's military someday.  But with a nation's collective confidence, coffers, and will - steadily eroded by our political elites apparent ability to drag America into every conflict of their choosing, how likely are we to act effectively when we need to?  Administration after administration has cried "wolf," often to the detriment of the nation and our international standing.

$$$  The President says he's worried about the children in Syria.  I believe that.  Many of us are.  But how about the one in four U.S. children born into poverty?  How about a federal budget that is in shambles?  How about tax avoiding monopolies and cartels, who own and run this country, while the middle class and upper middle class are the only ones who actually pay taxes.  How about campaign finance reform?  When will these crucial issues, et al., be addressed?

$$$  Where is the Arab League, an institution comprised of oil rich monarchies and despots?  Why aren't they standing by Syria's children?   How about our friends in Europe, who actually are dependent upon middle-east oil and energy?  Why doesn't the French military man the front lines?  The U.S. has all but achieved energy independence, and the glory in that, is the U.S. will finally be rid of a war torn and bellicose middle-east, if our elected leaders will allow it.

Seems to many Americans, the time and place for nation building is right here and now at home?

Until the cost of war is born by the people and organizations, who profit from it the most, there will be no end to war and bloodshed.  As President Eisenhower said, in his farewell address, every cent spent on the MIC, ultimately is theft from our children.  How about our children, President Obama?  (Shouldn’t the administration turn it’s gaze inward?  Frustration aside, the President should realize that just by virtue of being in office, versus the alternative, he is achieving a great deal.  Isn’t it time to focus on domestic matters, use the bully pulpit, and expose the House to the sanitizing light of day?)

The unintended consequences of war are great.  Perhaps the members of the Senate, or the board of directors and management team at the Carlyle Group - who runs the NSA, could man the aircraft that will be used to lob missiles into Damascus?  Better yet, make them all apart of the "boots on the ground," U.S. battalion that ushers the way into Syria, in yet another failed nation building exercise.  Maybe the Royal House of Saud would like to join them?


P.S.  Some have said, the U.S. is the only liberal democracy never to be ruled by Military fiat.  However, given MIC lobbying and power in Washington, the revolving door, and recent NSA revelations, one can argue that the U.S. is already under military control.

Copyright JM Hamilton Publishing 2013