Op Ed: Trillions Of U.S. Debt Reveal Repeated Mismanagement

(EUGENE, Ore.) - One President multiplied the U.S. national debt during his regime by more than all others preceding him. You want to play “Guess WHO”?

It was Ronald Reagan, Hollywood luminary, lighting up the heavy role of President of the United States. His “administration” spent more than a third of the TEN TRILLION dollars on global confrontation with the Soviet Union in the closing stages of a Cold War that raged from 1945 till January 1989. (In U.S. dollar-value as of 1988.)

That massive militaristic expenditure added more to our national debt than all previous Presidential regimes back to Gen. George Washington, COMBINED.

Most historians now date the advent of such wildly adventuresome fiscal foolhardiness from that Reagan era, with its “supply-side” management concealing and concentrating damages via the concept of monetarism.

“Monetarism” is the heart and soul of conservative economic thought, controlling the flow of money and the actions of government vs inflation and unemployment. What monetarism does is create the essential conditions (very theoretically) for “free trade” itself.

That’s why “the Washington consensus”, --shaping the economic policies of agencies like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and others-- has clamped down “monetarism” on rescue and aid actions with developing nations around the world.

With “woefully distressing and damaging results”, according to many world-leading economists now. Most specializing, best-informed experts today agree that monetarism and offshoots of “supply-side” theory --well-known together as “Reaganomics”-- lie at the very root of worldwide economic crisis now engulfing the free-flow of credit, and threatening what’s left of distorted, perverted “free trade”, worldwide.

They point to the perhaps-irreversible rapid growth of globalization and its strong impacts on every nation, particularly the “third world” of now-developing nations, as irresistible proof of what’s occurring on this globe.

Plunder of natural resources by piratical corporate control of both credit and trade is one highly obvious source of overwhelming concern, complexifying all the rest of economic characteristics into a stupefying -- yes-- stew.

Most join in seeing the continuance of debt creation under Bush I and II as proof positive of cause and consequence for the crisis now engulfing the financial and credit-delivery systems worldwide.

The joint impacts of both inflation and deflation, as well as the continued fall-in-value of the American dollar --the “free trade” standard worldwide-- makes all calculations of consequences much more complex and confusing.

Even world-winner economists disagree on how to decipher the monstrous fiscal mysteries we are thus forced to face --while most of us simply do NOT understand what those REALLY BIG BUCKS numbers represent in realities.

For many, that explains the rapid reliance on such mysterious monstrous asset-bundles as those now seen at the heart of the extremely damaging mortgage collapse. Those derivatives-of-derivative assets are reportedly so complex that even those who created them are now at a loss (no pun !) both to understand them AND to profit from them.

Undoubtedly, irrevocably --AND UNNECESSARILY-- that situation has resulted from overemphasis on deregulation, allowing commercial and investment banks to commit the financial hari-kari from which wise and informed New Deal-era legislation protected the public.

If you counted once-a-second, day and night, it would take you more than a week to reach a million. If you counted once-a-second, it would take you a lifetime to reach ONE BILLION.

If you counted once-a-second for 32,000 years -- longer than the human race is known to have inhabited Earth-- you could reach ONE TRILLION --if you COULD last that long! HOW MUCH is TEN Trillion? Here it is:

Using the l998 dollar-values (cited then by Carl Sagan in both PARADE Magazine and his COSMOS tvprogram): “With $10 trillion, you could buy EVERYTHING in the U.S. except the land. Everything--all the houses, airplanes, factories, highways, railroads, stores, hotels, food, clothing, medicine, furniture, toys, games, and baby bottles.

“At the beginning of the Cold War, the nation was, in all significant respects, untouchable by any foreign military force. Today, after expenditure of this immense national treasure, the United States is vulnerable to virtually instant annihilation.” (1998-dollars, remember!)

To put it in more-timely perspective: The Iraq War, begun “as preemptive attack on a nation that had not touched us by its own aggression”, has already cost us a total of THREE TRILLION DOLLARS.

That’s according to Nobel Laureate economist Dr. Joseph Stiglitz, who wrote a whole book documenting that brutal fact, widely acclaimed by economists worldwide.

That “wasting war”--one of TWO continuing-- now counts costs at the continually-growing rate of: $4,681 per household.

Its economic impacts on American life and our economy is so tremendous and paramount to all other considerations that many publications now print, daily, the rapidly-ascending sunk-costs totals, and most large cities have a public clock-display counting down the trillions of dollars-lost, remorselessly bleeding away.

What those compelling, insistent death-count and war-cost displays show, every day, updated by constant-stream, is so rapidly-growing that it is far outdated within a minute, so not-shown here.

There is even a personal cost-of-war-to-you calculator, based on your income, easily figured for astounding economic impact on your own finances.

Nearly all of those sickening sunk-costs demand stupendous simultaneous borrowings from whatever sources can be tapped --including many other national pools of capital, some of surprising depth and origin.

That guarantees their addition to the overwhelming total now constituting the major legacy this generation already has in place for our children --AND THEIR children, too.

Inescapably, that huge burden of international interest payments will continue at least unto the third generation so cursed by near-criminal national-level incompetence, ineptness and impure political intent. It is no coincidence, naturally and inescapably a fact, that this Iraq War example originates in the public record of the Bush II “administration”.

It is no coincidence, either, that the preemptivewar decision --to attack Iraq --was made rapidly by that administration, from long-laid, publicly-stated prior planning.

That irrefutable fact is demonstrated in the Clinton Era “open letter” to the President seeking to set up rapid application of the Project for A New American Century.

Thus, for rational and responsible people in this nation, especially following a transformative Presidential election just completed, we now face that inevitable question for any democratic-mandating population: What is our demanded next-step to preserve, prolong, protect and project our original democratic republic?

We have, presciently placed by our Founders in the famed American Constitution instituting freedom for all to seek equal opportunity under the law, precisely the tools we need to set our direction clear and remain constant to their principles.

We need to capture and confront those who perpetrated these damaging deeds, and make sure their fate writes a precedent to echo down the centuries, as does our American historical search for freedom.

Given all that has gone before in our national history, including those heavy current costs of “wasting wars” in youthful blood and national treasure, what other honorable choice do we still have?

Henry Clay Ruark is the one of, if not the most experienced, working reporter in the state of Oregon, and possibly the entire Northwest. Hank has been at it since the 1930's, working as a newspaper staff writer, reporter and photographer for organizations on the east coast like the Bangor Maine Daily News.
Today he writes Op-Ed's for Salem-News.com with words that deliver his message with much consideration for the youngest, underprivileged and otherwise unrepresented people.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

PS November 23, 2008 9:29 am (Pacific time)

According to the "experts" in Europe and at home, the conservative message no longer resonates with the American electorate -- or most Western democracies. Supposedly, we are in a new era of "redistributing wealth," increasing demand for domestic government intervention and global economic interdependence. Those who propound these ideas ignore history. No economic system ever has brought about prosperity by discouraging thrift. No society has succeeded in strengthening the weak by weakening the strong; or boosted wage earners by pulling down wage payers; or helped the poor by destroying the rich. It is impossible to keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn or to build character and courage by taking away initiative and independence. Nor has any government been able to help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. These ideas are neither new nor mine. They are actually a paraphrase of the principles of governance applied by the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, in his campaign to preserve our republic. Unspoken in Lincoln's platform was his unequivocal stance against slavery. "Honest Abe's" detractors believed his advocacy for abolition made him unelectable. They were wrong. In 1994, a congressman from Georgia, organized a Republican resurgence after the rout of '92. In a recent appearance on "Face the Nation," he recounted: "I've been through the '64 collapse, when the Republican Party was going to disappear, and the '74 Watergate collapse, when the Republican Party was going to disappear, and the '92 defeat of President Bush. And in each case, I watched us within a short time focus on new ideas and new solutions and within a very short time come back as a stronger and healthier party." That's how things work in this country, a good balance so far.

Ehhh? November 22, 2008 4:19 pm (Pacific time)

Uggghh.. 1,000 million is a Billion and another 1,000 Billion is a Trillion. Double check before you comment, Hank, Please. And people are entitled to having a differing opinion without the threat of attack???

Henry Ruark November 22, 2008 3:08 pm (Pacific time)

"Anon",W-ee, et al" "One THOUSAND Million" checks out correct as written, from Sagan'a copy as shown; he wrote elsewhere "Each is 1000 times bigger than the one before", referring to the sequence. If incorrect, your quarrel is with him. Re Confrontation with some few Commenteers here, that's part of my assigned role. What's cited is always documented correction or addition. Re numbers by hcr, why not count those to which the added shots are addressed ? IF you do, will see most are to few hardheads to whom rational and documented additional content is simply like cheese to, um, mice...too delicious to ignore and satisfying to chew on... Re dissent, S-N channel was designed purposely to produce precisely that for stronger dialog impacts...and since we seem to be driving some few far-outers to further public display of unfounded and uncheckable fantasy, we may be succeeding also in causing some cogitation among others more serious by presenting the wild-side of public dialog. Your kind encouragement mildly but honestly appreciated by this writer. See next few Op Eds for further enlightenment.

Wowee! November 22, 2008 12:28 pm (Pacific time)

21 out of 38 posts are from Henry. Probably 90% of all words written. Wow!

Not Henry November 22, 2008 11:52 am (Pacific time)

It is pretty bad when Henry is the number one poster in his own stories...

Anonymous November 22, 2008 11:49 am (Pacific time)

First, you need to correct an error is the following: "What’s a TRILLION? It is One THOUSAND Million." Second, I have to say that today was the first time in over a year that I have gone to Salem-News. I liked the overall stories that Hank writes, however his pontification and continual attack against people who do not share his views is the reason I will leave again. I promise to check back some time in the future to see if things are improved. At least you got rid of the posts by that other guys, who was extremely abusive. At least these comments are from one who "has seen with his own eyes." Sheesh...

Henry Ruark November 22, 2008 11:16 am (Pacific time)

muxhtruth: Checked your video to find only JFK speech, nothing re special cause or threats, nothing in any way tied to his assassination. SO your assumptions stand only as just that: assumptions, until and unless you provide further solid-source proof beyond his words clearly referring to world situations open to wild variety of interpretations. Re mine previously, this one applies: ""I know that you believe you understand what you think I said but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." (Anonymous but very useful.) You are welcome to dissent here, but furnish something more substantial to support any rational approach. Happens I too doubt historic explanation for JFK killing, and agree it is peculiar fact that three other major leaders have also been so eliminated. But suspicion doth not make supportable fact, so we are stuck with what skilled others have seen to accept as the best possible explanation on basis of what is known. Re Clinto shipping out US jobs by his own action, you are either uninformed or misinformed since that great damage to our economy is one consequence of globalization. See prior Op Eds for coverage and seek out basic refs. given for solid-source learning already shared here. May report further soon on your points, and thanks for participation albeit tendency towards radical, unsupported statement.

muchtruth November 21, 2008 8:55 pm (Pacific time)

by the way.. you are correct that I dont follow thru on answering etc. I get busy. But I will follow thru on your answers to 911, and the JFK video I sent. I will be back tomorrow, and will check your answers. I will take the time...this time. :-)

muchtruth November 21, 2008 8:52 pm (Pacific time)

Also, Mr journal. Mind explaining to me what JFK was talking about in his speech and why he was assasinated? Now proven that is was the CIA that did it? Come on Mr Journalist!! http://heyokamagazine.com/heyoka.20.kennedyspeech.htm

muchtruth November 21, 2008 6:27 pm (Pacific time)

I was wondering if Mr. Journalist of the west might open a topic in regards to 911 and what really took place? thanks.

muchtruth November 21, 2008 4:57 pm (Pacific time)

how about clinton who sent all jobs overseas, and raided the social security fund to make the deficit balance? I am really getting sick of your bias. It is a ONE PARTY SYSTEM run by the bankers of the early 19th century. Ron Paul was our only hope, the only one that told the truth. I complained when hillary, obama, and mccain were promising things that they could not follow thru on. Lets see what Henry is going to talk about 3-6 months from now.

muchtruth November 21, 2008 2:29 pm (Pacific time)

Timothy Geithner thats all I have to say.

Henry Ruark November 21, 2008 12:53 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Perhaps for some the word "pander" may be less than entirely clear. As it applies to current politics, we mean it to clearly designate without any confusion the attempt by some to obscure, deny, defy and defeat the real meaning of issue, event or action. Pandering is now far too often used to support a particular philosophy vs any other. It is especially offensive to sensible, rational persons when openly intended to obviate or deny defeat by the voters of wit, wisdom and will demonstrated by specific crucial choices To clarify from whence that wellworn phrase originally came, here's definition(s): pander (as in "pimp") n. : someone who procures customers for whores (in England they call a pimp a ponce) pander (as in "gratify") v. : yield (to); give satisfaction to pander (as in "provide") v. : arrange for sexual partners for others ------------------ That latter one probably says it as cleanly (no pun !) as possible for usage here, ostensibly to offer rational dissent but obviously meant to damage, denigrate, defeat "the others" by any means possible whether or not correct,ethical or even reasonable --and always negative in tone and intent.

PS November 21, 2008 11:58 am (Pacific time)

Pearl of Wisdom: "Obama equals collectivism. When you stop to think about this, it's really the opportunity of many of our lifetimes, because we haven't really dealt with full-bore collectivism as an ideology identified with a political party up 'til now." So the next year will be very interesting indeed.

Henry Ruark November 21, 2008 10:33 am (Pacific time)

"Positive: Note quotes, surely called for since you intentionally seek to turn my honest declaration and demonstration over years into reversed meaning. That simple grammatical usage indicates for sensitive readers that special meaning is intended. The very fact that we provide "see with own eyes" links, not depend only and always on our own words, puts your attempt, sir, to shame. IF we meant to act otherwise, we need not do so nor even list and offer comprehensive and complete, even verbatim, access to whatever sources and statements we may use to firm up and achieve good faith convenience here for all. Still further proof is surely also demonstrated in our also continuing strong emphasis on "evaluate with your own mind". IF we intended to persuade and manipulate, that is the last perhaps destructive action we would seek --as demonstrated by the very Comments to which you ostensibly now object. The definition for "evaluate", in case you missed its proper meaning, is: evaluate (as in "measure") v. : place a value on; judge the worth of something. Please note we insist on our readers doing their own work at that level, which for some may well be overconfidence on our part. That surely, unmistakably, inevitably and in all good faith-demonstrated, leaves it up to YOU-the-reader as to whether we have applied what we work hard to learn (and share for your convenience) from our manifold sources in professional and ethical relation to obvious truth surely understandable by those who seek it. Again, only those who seek to pander for personal political purposes will question, delay, deny, avoid, and if possible defeat that rational, responsible, professionally ethical approach. For those serious readers we owe precisely the approach we take, and our spirited defense of it when unfairly attacked. Your participation fully now appreciated, sir. See if you can live up to that quoted name next time, via the sharing/learning process we truly do offer here, despite its unfamiliarity and thus perhaps some confusion for some who prefer that status. Again: You pays your nickel for our paper, then are free to use it for whatever need is most pressing for you.

Positive Debates November 21, 2008 8:22 am (Pacific time)

Hr, Your below statement: "What we do is seek sources for you to "see with own eyes", then evaluate with your own mind." So if someone offers other sources/"comments" that have a different interpretation from yours, then those sources are bad, evil neocon sources? If we just heard one side of any issue there would be no need for debate, for that and contrary comments would be stifled. Whose the alligator in this "Orwellian" swamp?

Henry Ruark November 21, 2008 7:50 am (Pacific time)

To all: Do not hold breath awaiting Sanchez et al responsible, accountable, ethical summary of solid source we so helpfully supplied. That demands principled professional approach of the trained,experienced journalist --and "see with own eyes" link to solid documentation. Whether or not such source documentation is cited, any professional journalist must depend on it, being human and unable to sample and observe each and every event, issue, problem-solving group, et al, et al, involved in realities. That's WHY a "free press" is so essential for freedom in a democracy. That's also why political pander permitted in open, honest,democratic channel is so destructive, where others seek to share and learn from each other's thoughtful perspectives. It is the height of contempt for them to distort/pervert facts and figures for personal political-feeling gain, by careful selection, conscious omission, and injurious error intentionally applied in any interpretation. That's how we were sold the preemptive War in Iraq; and the neocon economic and social policies now pressing our democracy towards the cliffs of feudalism or fascism. SO we will follow soon with an Op Ed from these solid source persons cited in our source offered here, to build our own Op Ed to usual S-N standards --always open both to your own check and to evaluation by YOUR OWN mind. We think that's what our role is in this new-media world, and we work at it publicly and openly, for all to see and to profit by participation. That's the best way we know to preserve, protect and further project what the Founders felt was demanded, demonstrated in their own Federalist Papers approach.

Henry Ruark November 20, 2008 7:52 pm (Pacific time)

m-truth: IF you really wish to see in detail the reasons for what's happened in Agentina, seek out this one: When Corporations Rule the World; David Korten: ISBN 1-887208-04-6. First thing you will find is six pages of reviews by world leaders including Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate, so you can rest assured of its reliability and integrity. For further solid information re radical change in what was once capitalism, see Robert Reich: SUPERCAPITALISM. Sorry, not at hand so no ISBN. Hope you will share your evaluations of these when you read; be prepared for some shock, despite information cited here in past Op Eds.

Henry Ruark November 20, 2008 7:34 pm (Pacific time)

Rich: You mistake my role here, sir. Reporters do not peer into the future; that's for pundits. Reporters do not pander for political inanity; that's for neocon no-counts. What we do is seek sources for you to "see with own eyes", then evaluate with your own mind. Example: Extended quote from TIME, one of 23 checked for mandate reference. We present what we compile from comparative sources as Op Ed Opinion to motivate and sometimes irritate many of apathetic aptitudes into some form of cogitation, conscious or caused by contact with fact fighting its way through that apathetic fog. IF you feel so strongly, seek out further dialog with TIME, surely a proper opponent for so solid a feeling as yours here with its multitude of checkable sources, as for theirs quoted here. Perhaps they will then publish your personal opinion, whether they see it as "informed" or otherwise. Thank you for participation and hope to still be here to check out your prognostication if-and-when the future has futured, as it surely will far faster and farther than any furious fallacies such as some fashion here. You pays your nickel for the paper, then you can use it for whatever is your pressing need.

muchtruth November 20, 2008 5:31 pm (Pacific time)

go to youtube and search "argentina's economic collapse" Same scenario that is happening here. Same people, same banks. reminder. free on google video. "endgame" by Alex Jones. A great website: www.infowars.com

Henry Ruark November 20, 2008 4:02 pm (Pacific time)

Sanchez et al: Heavy emphasis on the evils ostensibly done in the name of voter registration by ACORN have been one constant here in expressed concerns by you and others. SO here's "see with own eyes" link and lead from major media report: Consensus Builds for Universal Voter Registration By Project Vote Printed on November 20, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/story/107657/ America's system of voter registration, in which the responsibility is placed almost solely on individuals, took center stage in this election cycle. In the wake of historic interest in voting, and after months of controversy surrounding nonprofit registration drives, America's leaders, journalists, and voting rights experts are calling for a new registration system that reduces the need for third-party registration drives and shifts responsibility from the individual to government. ----------------------- "The rest of the story" is compilation from many of the best-informed authorities of key factors in what is now truly demanded. For your good-faith assignment here, use the link to learn what they offer, then share it positively here --if you can write without political pandering as your objective. That's equivalen to what is demanded for an Op Ed, and substitutes "informed opinion" prognosis for injurious very personal pandering. IF you operate on good faith, here's your opportunity to prove that faint possibility to our readership. IF you ignore or refuse, we will soon offer a solid Op Ed built on this and numerous other sources, for our serious readers who understand and appreciate honest, open and democratic opportunity for dialog, not available elsewhere. Recognize, if you are still capable of positive action, an opportunity to prove up your personal integrity by simple demonstration in handling this fair and accountable assignment.

Rich November 20, 2008 11:45 am (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark you provided in a below post the different percentages of different groups Obama won, but you left out the largest demographic group in the country, that is Caucasians. Obama won just 42% of this group, which constitutes approx. 2/3's of all voters. Subsequently 57 million (of different backgrounds) voters did not vote for Obama. My opinion is that these are hard votes that probably will not change, in fact in my opinion I predict their numbers will grow. As we see that more of Obama's cabinet picks are "back to the future" Clintonites it will soon show that a significant percentage of Obama's voters are probably soft votes subject to change. As far as a clear mandate, well 95% of blacks voted for him. If white people voted 95% for McCain would you say that vote percentage was motivated by race? I would, but it didn't happen. I noticed that just before the Nov. 4 election nearly all the "undecided's broke for McCain. John McCain was probably the worst candidate the Republicans could have fielded, so I say 2010 will be like 1994 and 2012 will be like 1984 for the republicans because they will field a conservative candidate and that is what America wants. Obama did not run with leftist rhetoric he ran essentially as a center right tax cutter. Soon his judgement abilities will be on full display. Look at Eric Holder, who engineered the Mark Rich pardon as the AG pick. How about his Dept. of Commerce pick?

Henry Ruark November 20, 2008 10:49 am (Pacific time)

To all: Wish to share the fact that dialog here re indictment and jury process was called forth by distorted usage of "ham sandwich" statement to disparage Obama's huge and historic mandate. "See for yourselves and evaluate with own mind." That's a main strength of real civil conversation here on open, honest, democratic S-N opportunity for dialog. But that strongly emphasizes the good faith demand on all engaging here to maintain real relevance to the topic or issue involved primarily, either in story or Op Ed. Otherwise we are led into usually futile side-struggle, which --albeit sometimes fruitful-- far more often imposes time, attention and cost problems for our very kind and patient Editors. That's the primary danger here from distorted/perverted continuance of politically pandering inanities imposed on all with no real relevance. Given enough wasted effort, space, server-time costs and irrelevance, we might find our open opportunity here either curtailed or gone, with windy wastes encountered a prime cause.

Henry Ruark November 20, 2008 10:36 am (Pacific time)

P. Labbe et al You wrote: "Otherwise we as individuals just really give a limited account via our limited individual experience. I'm always amazed how people extrapolate their experiences as the way it is for everything or everyone else. Thank goodness for the "scientific methodology" concept, it is that concept that gave us true freedom to start questioning... Yours strikea to the heart of the matter, and illuminates both the weakness of reporting process and the strength of open, honest dialog demanded to supplement honest effort. Surely agree with your civil act to share from solid personal experience, and your emphasis on "scientific" method, which is reflected practically in dialog as in S-N, esp. when specifics added to strengthen and document. It is only honest offset for so much of belly-b./feeling often encountered here. Interpretation is always the key, perhaps most strongly tested in court-and-jury context, I think you will agree. In case I cited we used the specially revealing process described, which varies much from more-usual all-at-once performance-based process with prosecutor playing lead-role. Letter was cited since that documentation is standard for Editor from me as LMA process, a needed fact for readership. Perhaps this detailed exchange has assisted others to more fully understand the process involved, and to appreciate the appeals principle you mention, surely demonstrating democratic strength thereby. Your participation appreciated and I, for one, have learned from our sharing efforts. SO again, Dewey's words that "conversation is the heart of democracy" are proven true.

Peter Labbe November 20, 2008 8:42 am (Pacific time)

I have two brothers that are lawyers, and each spent time as county prosecutors. They agree with the \"Indict a ham sandwich\" phrase which has been used in the public domain for many years . It\'s getting the conviction where standards really come into play, e.g. , beyond a reasonable doubt and a lower standard for civil cases. I have been on both Grand Juries and regular juries( criminal and civil) and each time there were people who could be swayed by some DA rhetoric that others found absurd. In the end you have a dynamic situation that can be hard to predict. I did find that when living in more rural areas (crime is much lower by the way), it was more of a no-nonsense group of jury members and the DA better have some good evidence. As most learned people know, there are jury professionals out there, and I suggest if you want to know more about this, read about it from the professionals, for they will explain that strange things happen and that\'s why we have an appeals process. Otherwise we as individuals just really give a limited account via our limited individual experience. I\'m always amazed how people extrapolate their experiences as the way it is for everything or everyone else. Thank goodness for the \"scientific methodology\" concept, it is that concept that gave us true freedom to start questioning...

Henry Ruark November 20, 2008 7:43 am (Pacific time)

To all: By coincidence,while furiously discarding years-old files, rediscovered folder re that G/Jury assignment. Contained letter from John Frohnhmayer, then Oregon Attorney General, thanking me for informing him of visit with jurors, months afterward, and our kudos for prosecutor Hamilton's conduct of our G/J term. (On file with Editor).

muchtruth November 19, 2008 8:35 pm (Pacific time)

Henry needs to watch the documentary "ENDGAME" by Alex Jones...until he does, his words mean nothing to me. It is free on google video

muchtruth November 19, 2008 8:00 pm (Pacific time)

Just a song from youtube I found from Don Henley of the Eagles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm2SYlwd8nY

Sanchez November 19, 2008 6:37 pm (Pacific time)

HR thanks for the bio-info on your jury duty. I have also served in various positions within the judical community, as have "millions of other Americans." Back to the mandate inquiry, I am not concerned with keeping a count of what other people/organizations say, for you can always find many who will fall on both sides of that question. I was asking you if in your own opinion you felt he had a mandate with his winning margin, and how that stacks up to other winning margins and if you also thought those were mandates using the same criteria? Note: Because of my stock ownership and the way the Texas indictment was structured I also could have been indicted with Cheney along with millions more coming along for that Texas joy ride of partisan justice. Most people invested in blind trusts and municpal funds would also be exposed that absurd liability.

Henry Ruark November 19, 2008 3:42 pm (Pacific time)

To all AND Sanchez: Re "mandate" here's definition: mandate (as in "commission") n. : (politics) the commission that is given to a government and its policies through an electoral victory. NOW: Re sweeping, historic mandate for Obama, here's quote from TIME coverage, pp.34-40, issue of 11/17/08, gathered from nationwide observers, monitored by one of world's recognized leading news journals, edited by large group of experienced observers from 60s till this election: "Obama won more votes than anyone else in U.S. history, the biggest Democratic victory since Lyndon Johnson crushed another Arizona Senator 44 years ago. Obama won men, which no Democrat had managed since Bill Clinton. He won 54% of Catholic voters, 66% of Latinos, 68% of new voters. (That is)...a multicultural, multigenerational movement that shatters the old political icepack. He let loose a deep blue wave that washed well past the coasts and the college towns into the South through Virginia and Florida, the Mountain West with Colorado and New Mexico into the Ohio Valley and the Midwestern battle grounds; you could almost walk from Maine to Minnesota without getting your feet wet in a red state. After months of mapmaking all the roads to 270, Obama tore right past with ease." ------------ I citge this from one of my 23 sources mentioned previously, checked before I applied the word "mandate". It seemeth to me that this alone now is more than sufficient to maintain the highest probability there is precisely the strongest mandate possible for precisely what S-N and others have been stating was the transformative decision to come...and we said so well prior to the vote,too. Will you now change your repeated distortion obviously flying in the face of the reality that actually did happen ? If you continue your distortion, how many sources did YOU use ? Why not give us "see with own eyes" links to some of yours ? Why not snatch away those political/pander dark-glass attitudes blinding you et al to real life, now, today and in the future, in this nation ? To do otherwise is to subvert and seduce and sabotage the real wit, wisdom and will of the American people --fully demonstrated and documented by many national sources Nov. 4.

Henry Ruark November 19, 2008 2:06 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Since mandate-size and importance to guide new President Obama is still naively questioned by some reluctant to recognize reality involved, here is nationally recognized reliable source for further information. Visit it for "see with own eyes" evidence-points, then evaluate with own mind any you choose to study: www.inthesetimes.com Hello In These Times reader, So, Americans elected a new president. But what does Obama's historic victory mean? In These Times editors David Sirota, Slavoj Zizek and David Moberg weigh in... Mandate For Change. Obama must heed voters' message by thinking big, David Sirota writes in the cover story from our brand-new December issue. Why Cynics Are Wrong. Slavoj Zizek on the sublime shock of Obama's victory. Obama and the Union Vote. How did Obama do with white working-class voters? David Moberg reports. The Roots of Obama's Field Campaign. Cesar Chavez and the farmworkers movement brought community organizing strategies into the electoral and legislative arenas, writes Randy Shaw, author of the new book Beyond the Fields, in this web-only op-ed." ----------------- Be aware of difference between "popular" and "electoral" vote. Electoral is only one that counts, by Congressional action. Counterclaims now for strength of "popular" comes from those who screamed in pain from reversed-field in past elections over 50 years.

Henry Ruark November 19, 2008 1:17 pm (Pacific time)

Friend S.: Just noted that you wrote:"I wonder if others also feel that this winning margin establishes a strong mandate for his administration." Again, your words reflect your intention to throw obloquoy (polite word !) on realities well recognized by huge record of public opinion --see my previous Comment. Would you wish such a serious situation as we now face to be fronted by a President without precisely that strong mandate to act per obvious strong and long-continued changes in the public belief and feelings about where the country is and what needs to be done ? If question where the public really stood, how explain that overwhelming tide-of-electoral choice shown in state totals ? By normal, natural represented action in Congress, citizens choose to empower electoral vote --so WHO are YOU or anyone else to question its validity --except as political pander method and patternb\. Also notice you continue to ignore key question repeated here for you a number of times now: Where do you stand on impeachment of perpetrators ? Now, Later, or Never ? Will await your revealing action to answer --or NOT.

Henry Ruark November 19, 2008 1:08 pm (Pacific time)

Sanchez: You wrote:"...a "DA can indict a ham sandwich."" Again, either misinformation or naivete shapes your words. Have you ever been foreman for a Grand Jury ? Was my (reluctant) experience to serve for some 200 cases in one term, named by group. We used learning media basics for content-comparison work in small groups; ended by summary to whole Jury (legal requirement for all-to-hear) --and had 100% consensus for all but two. Full-Jury final agreement was to indict for them, too, after full-group exam of dissent. Point: ONLY JURY indicts; any prosecutor must win near unanimous agreement. IF you think that easy to indict even ham sandwich you need to rethink both mustard AND ham ! Toughest prosecutors often pale vs determined, hardhead jurors enjoying combat wity vulnerable Justice-man, believe me; ask an experienced one. But then military justice works differently and far from as democratically, right ?Your own words re application here surely demonstrate precisely that wellknown truth. Re mandate: here we report national recognized-reliable sources, heavy majority of which state "mandate" on basis of electoral vote --only one that counts a damn. Then too there's the solid majority describing precisely what occurred: Transformative choice everywhere, at all levels reported. My list of sources for prior report shows count of twenty-three. How many did you check ? No kudos involved, that's professional working pattern. IF you choose to disregard plain evidence spread widely throughout the public record, that, too, indicates both naivete and intention choice for distortion to manipulate what others think. Thank you for such obvious examples for open, honest dialog here, and sorry if they prove up points precisely the opposite to what you continue to claim (yes, naively !) But then that's obvious result of your reluctantly-revealed military justice experience.

Sanchez November 19, 2008 11:46 am (Pacific time)

HR is it your assertion that Obama's 52-53% percent of the vote he received is a mandate? Also regarding the recent indictment of Cheney/Gonzales in Texas, I believe millions of other citizen investors could also be indicted in this matter, including myself. This deals with a municipal investment fund, which should remind people of the phrase that a "DA can indict a ham sandwich." Once again regarding that election aspect re: Obama having a mandate is an interesting concept and I wonder if others also feel that this winning margin establishes a strong mandate for his administration.

Henry Ruark November 19, 2008 10:49 am (Pacific time)

Sanchez: No doubt whatsoever we need some extreme remediation for multiple matters messed-up in our democracy. (See past Op Eds for last four years.) But we will never achieve them by continuing intentional distortion/perversion of known historical fact, as some still continue broadly as well as right here at S-N. For those honestly seeking the return to Founders' principles we must undoubtedly now pursue in depth, detail and painful remedy, there are better ways to assist than destructive and naive criticism. Nationl service in many areas is one of them, replacing the deadly effects on attitudes and understandings of some military service situations. First steps demand what the Constitution provides to make sure strong, shaping precedent follows for any predator or perpetrator of attack on the Constitution itself. Where do YOU stand on impeachment ? NOW, Later, or Never ? That's most revealing question we must now ask of every thinking American.

Henry Ruark November 19, 2008 10:41 am (Pacific time)

Peter L. Thank you for your civil and revealing response, proving again value of dialog here. Interpretation always at stake for Founders' words, as you no doubt realize, as in all such readings. Continued conflicts at the Supreme Court level surely so prove, as doth Presidential pressure to shape by selective appointment whenever possible. Even FDR used that as tool, as O. will, also; part of our democracy perhaps soon at issue, demanding remediation, too. But nice to know you were NOT targeting me, since dissenter role my assignment here, and doth seem to provoke still further --sometimes revealing-- responses adding to strength and function of open, honest, democratic dialog in S-N's unique channel precisely as intended. Never resent such, but do feel necessity to seek honest explanation, as in yours, well appreciated.

Peter Labbe November 19, 2008 10:03 am (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark my below post that referred to the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with you. Since you stated that you are familiar with them and often quote them, then what do you take was their opinion on \"Big Government?\" How about the government getting involved in gaining control over vocations/organizations that are typically not a government fuction, say shoe-making? I am not a novice when it comes to the U.S. Constitution, nor am I reluctant to point out those that are not accurate. Thank you.

Sanchez November 19, 2008 9:46 am (Pacific time)

I wonder when Obama is sworn in and his Attorney General gets confirmed if the ongoing criminal investigations of ACORN will continue, and if so, will they make that investgation transparent? We can certainly minimize fraud with a social security and photo cross check. For those who have problems proving who they are, well should these people be allowed to vote? Everyone needs ID to cash a check, to get on an airplane and get government benefits, etc. , so voting should be held to the same standard. Also penalties for voter fraud should be "mandatory" jail time.

Henry Ruark November 19, 2008 9:10 am (Pacific time)

To all: Here's "see with own eyes" link to reliable, responsible news source highly relevant here: www.thepublicrecord.com Report: Rove Deeply Involved in U.S. Attorney Firings Posted: 18 Nov 2008 Former White House political adviser Karl Rove helped Department of Justice officials compile a list of U.S. Attorneys to fire in 2006 and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales engaged in a “cover-up” when he offered up reasons to explain the dismissals, according to a report released Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The evidence shows senior officials were focused on the political impact of Federal prosecutions and whether Federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases,” said the 60-page Judiciary Committee report released by Tuesday’s chairman Patrick Leahy. “It is now apparent that the reasons given for these firings, including those reasons provided in sworn testimony by the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, were contrived as part of a cover-up.” The decision to terminate the prosecutors, the report said, was based on resistance by the federal prosecutors to pursue partisan political prosecutions. Rove was just one top Bush administration official who worked with the Justice Department on compiling the list." ------------ AP has story in R.G this a.m. re Texas prosecutor and his grand jury indicting both Cheney and Gonzales on a variety of charges stemming from prison developments and conflict of interest on funds involved.

Henry Ruark November 18, 2008 1:19 pm (Pacific time)

Labbe, for YOU: You wrote:"They often will distort history and historical figures with lies (use of the Founders is a prime example) , half-truths and some facts to sound credible." Since I refer to our Founders often and with deep respect for their profound prescience, it is surely relevant here to demand of you NOW and HERE to show where any such reference by me has either misquoted them or distorted their stand or statement on any one fact or issue or problem, at any time. Simply find any-such and send us links to locate and check each and every one. Until and unless you accomplish that impossible feat, sir, I suggest that the title of my retort to a similar situation, known to the Editor is certaily relevant here: "You Lie In Youth Teeth, You Cur, Sir !" Since that is title of former writing, it may well also serve here as Comment, right ? Meanwhile your bigwords are publicly challenged, and we await your response with example and link OR even conceivably a moral and natural statement apologizing for the unfounded allegation. OR are you, too, simply one of those alligators my Dad told me to "deny and defy" ?

Henry Ruark November 18, 2008 11:12 am (Pacific time)

Labbe et al: Yours reads nicely supplying same line as millions heard for decades before...and then they voted. Re very real mandate, the more one checks precisely the places you state, and compares what one finds with authoritative others highly skilled in the arts involved, one cannot rationally, reasonably deny the solid, sensible and symbolic mandate derived. To coin a phrase: That is history, hard to deny or defy, and on the record irrevocably. To deny by reflecting in words still further obvious and open political-pandering does in no way diminish the demanded and very real consequences, now already under way in changing composition of the Congress, and very thoughtfully and responsibly by the mandated new President, whose arrival itself is very solid proof of what was the underlying, very resounding message sent by that vote: YES WE CAN ! (Not to mention We Shall Overcome, also completely justified...) Please note the painful absence in such statement of any acceptable proven source or link to publication for the conclusions so blithely drawn. Stay tuned for more objective and consequential proof here, and for some view of what's already happened and what's to come, in your favorite online daily: S-N. That's because we specialize in "opinion informed" by solid and professional sources, sent to you as "see with own eyes" links, and open to "evaluation with your own mind" --rather than slavish dependence on words-only --ours or from any others --usually via Op Eds with multiple sources and reference to decades of specialized files, but also often in responsible professional reporting by S-N staff and participants.

Peter Labbe November 18, 2008 8:52 am (Pacific time)

The radical left believes what we (Americans) have built must be knocked down. They take no pride in our successes, but instead wallow in recrimination at injustices committed getting here. They believe they can do better and to do so takes a dismantling of the power structures that exist. Revolutionaries (except the over zealous types) discover it is easier to destroy than to build, and despite the promises of bi-partisan embraces and grand unifying speeches, there is a malevolent nihilism by the radical left, a destructive urge that seeks to undermine all that has come before--culture, history, religion, tradition, custom, honor, even morality. They often will distort history and historical figures with lies (use of the Founders is a prime example) , half-truths and some facts to sound credible. Just look at their documented history. The voice of the progressive post-modern devil whispers in their ear, “There is no truth, there is no right and wrong, there is only power.” I suggest that bipartisanship is a myth that the radicals sell the gullible, and now you must learn that there are those who really don't care about your welfare, except now pragmatic Americans realize that it's time to take-off the gloves to save our beloved country. Please note conservatives have a disgust for all the Bush's and people like McCain. They have nothing in common with the current republican party leadership. Interesed people should look at how the vote internals break down during the last election and you can see quite clearly that no mandate was given. Look at previous winning margins that were several times the last one, and to the radicals these were not mandates. Beware of their distortions, review their sources with a critical eye.

Henry Ruark November 17, 2008 8:13 pm (Pacific time)

To all: This just in filed on another forum by a friend: "A friend living in Mexico observes, "The GOP portrayed Obama variously as a socialist, a communist, a Muslim, an America hater, a friend of terrorists and a corrupt Chicago politician. But a majority of American voters said, "Y’know, we’re O.K. with that, as long as he’s not a Republican. ================ Somehow, it felt very relevant to ongoing dialog here, surely reflecting national judgment and unmistakable mandate.

Henry Ruark November 17, 2008 7:48 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Here's "see with own eyes" from Naomi Klein, famed for investigative reporting from D.C., re near-criminal actions on bailout and financial firm taxes: In Praise of a Rocky Transition by Naomi Klein, The Nation, November 13, 2008 www.thenation.com The more details emerge, the clearer it becomes that Washington's handling of the Wall Street bailout is not merely incompetent. It is borderline criminal. In a moment of high panic in late September, the US Treasury unilaterally pushed through a radical change in how bank mergers are taxed--a change long sought by the industry. Despite the fact that this move will deprive the government of as much as $140 billion in tax revenue, lawmakers found out only after the fact. According to the Washington Post, more than a dozen tax attorneys agree that "Treasury had no authority to issue the notice. Of equally dubious legality are the equity deals Treasury has negotiated with many of the country's banks. According to Congressman Barney Frank, one of the architects of the legislation that enables the deals, "Any use of these funds for any purpose other than lending--for bonuses, for severance pay, for dividends, for acquisitions of other institutions, etc.--is a violation of the act." Yet this is exactly how the funds are being used.

Sanchez November 17, 2008 5:51 pm (Pacific time)

Every money bill that "all" presidents sign comes to their desk via congress. It is congress that controls the money and during the time President Reagan was in office democrat Tip O'Neil was the big man on campus so to speak. He controlled what hit the presidents desk. Lots of people like to blame the executive branch for almost everything, but it was the democrats that controlled congress during a period that had both positive and negative attributes, like most administrations. Currently the democrats are in charged of the money strings and have been for two years now. Before they came into power what was the state of the economy? What was the unemployment rate? What is going on now? The above are basic empirical observations and they represent no ideological bias, just what it was and what it is. My hope is that the republicans vote against all future bailouts and enough blue dog democrats join them to stop the people like Reid and Pelosi. Also check out the senate record during Clinton's administration and review the senator democrats who were making claims of Iraq's WMD's and that we needed to act immediately. The radicals count on people not knowing their history, bone up! When Reagan came into office the interest rate was over 22%. How many of you could afford a mortgage or car payment with that interest rate?

[Return to Top]