GASOLINE PRICE INCREASES ARE NOT A COINCIDENCE-- THEY ARE PART OF THE BUSH ECONOMIC MIRACLE
>
Yes, there's a connection between who we elect and how badly we get ripped off
Dr. Steven Porter is the Blue America-endorsed candidate for Congress in northwest Pennsylvania. In 2006 he held rubber stamp slob Phil English to 54% of the vote which excited the Inside the Beltway Democrats so much that they realized English is vulnerable and started looking around for one of their own corporatist hacks to take him on. They didn't get the one they wanted but they managed to stick Democrats with an anti-choice loser named Kathy Dahlkemper who virtually guarantees another term for English. Steven had already pulled out of the Democratic Party in disgust and is running as an independent. He sent us this straight forward look on why we're paying do much at the gas pumps today. It is based on a posy by F. William Engdahl, an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization in the HuntingtonNews.net. Steven Porter's report:
The article states that 60% of the price of oil is not due to the supply/demand pressures cited yesterday by the oil company magnates to the Senate of the United States. Rather, it says, the prices are being jacked up by speculative trading which, since the new Bush commerce laws were passed, are now often beyond the regulation and control of Congress.
In fact, the article quotes the Senate’s own Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (report filed Washington D.C., June 27, 2006, p.3) which warns about an impending crisis. Quoting the Senate’s own report: "Until recently US energy futures were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States, like the NYMEX, which are subject to oversight… In recent years, however, there has been a tremendous growth in the trading of contracts which are traded on unregulated electronic markets… The impact of market oversight has been substantial… In contrast… unregulated OTC electronic exchanges are not required to keep records or file Large Trader Reports… These trades are exempt from oversight."
Engdahl goes on to say that Enron was behind the push for unregulated oil trading, and that the largest speculators in this unregulated market include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase. It is of extreme importance to note that these banks are leading contributors to the campaigns of all three presidential candidates (numbers 1, 6, 2, and 4 respectively for Clinton; 1, 16, 10, and 2 respectively for Obama; and 3, 12, 2, and 9 respectively for McCain), as well as to other members of Congress.
It is quite clear that Congress has ignored its own report, and that the major candidates and major parties are "owned" by the speculators whose greed is now causing an enormous amount of pain to the American people. When I read such reports, I laugh at the claims that either of the corrupted parties or any of the puppeted candidates will bring about change for our people. And I continue to be dumbfounded by a media which does not bring these connections to light but rather spends hour after hour, headline after headline, arguing about political trivia.
Time is running out for the American people to come to their senses.
ActBlue doesn't take contributions for Blue America candidates who aren't in the Democratic Party. I can't imagine we'll ever endorse a Republican but it seems reasonable that when we're looking at an anti-choice "Democrat" and a rubber stamp Republican, we need to speak up for the independent. If you'd like to support Steven's campaign you can do it directly at his website.
Labels: Bush economic miracle, Culture of Corruption, energy policy, gasoline, Pennsylvania, Phil English, Steve Porter
2 Comments:
I have a really good friend who is a middle east expert. Her ex husband found on the web at
http://angryarab.blogspot.com
says that high oil prices are high as pay back to chimpy for stirring the hornests nest in Iraq. According to him the Saudis begged chimpy not to invade Iraq.
i have heard mutterings about "speculation" on the (broadcast, not cable) news but the information provided here explains the actual mechanism.
the irony is that news programs consistently cite "time constraints" as the reason why they don't go into detail on many things (along with, of course, "it's just too complicated" and "people don't want to hear about it") and i think it took me all of two minutes to read the entire post. the most "complicated" part of the post was the ins-and-outs of the quoted author's recent political history (which was very confusing because it starts out by calling him "Blue America-endorsed candidate" but, further on toward the close of the introductory paragraph, we are told that "[he] is running as an independent."
not that it matters to me what he's running for or what party, if any, he's a member of. what matters to me is whether what he says passes the stink test. imo, he passes with flying colors.
thanks very much for this post.
karen marie aka google-"membership"-phobic
Post a Comment
<< Home