Is this your idea of transparency?

If you thought that the financial reform legislation that passed last week was bad, it turns out that it's probably even worse than you had imagined. A freedom of information act inquiry that was recently submitted by FOX Business to the SEC was summarily rejected. Why? Apparently under the new financial reform legislation the SEC is no longer required to comply with such requests.

The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

Not only does this legislation ignore many of the root causes that lead to the financial meltdown of 2008, it prohibits the public and the media from obtaining information from the regulatory body that oversees financial markets in the US. So much for that pledge of increased transparency and accountability under the Obama administration.

Return of the draft to the USA?

Remember this video from the campaign trail?



Unless America speaks up, it looks like President Obama may be getting his wish. Two weeks ago H.R.5741, the "Universal National Service Act," was introduced in the House by embattled Congressman Charlie Rangel. The act aims "[t]o require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes."

This is not hyperbole: You will essentially be enslaved for a two-year period. If we do not even have the right to our own person then what rights do we have? I strongly urge you to write your Congressman in opposition to this bill.

Financial Reform: More of the same?

Indeed, the current outstanding balance of overall Federal support for the nation's financial system...has actually increased more than 23% over the past year, from approximately $3.0 trillion to $3.7 trillion -- the equivalent of a fully deployed TARP program -- largely without congressional action, even as the banking crisis has, by most measures, abated from its most acute phases.

These are the words of Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. He asserts that this was due largely to the government's pledges to supply capital to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to guarantee more mortgages to the support the housing market. He went on to say that the TARP program has not "put an appreciable dent in foreclosure filings," i.e. the bailouts are not working.

So you'd expect that Fannie and Freddie, two government sponsored enterprises that were at the heart of the financial collapse, would be a main focus of the "monumental" financial reform legislation that was signed into law Wednesday by President Obama, right? Wrong. According to a report by the AP "[t]he bill doesn't include a fix for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

So basically we have a 2,000-page law that is supposed to prevent another collapse like the one we experienced in 2008 and it doesn't even address two of the biggest players that helped to cause the collapse? Brilliant!

North America - The New Battleground for Terror?

According to the AP, drug cartel battles have resulted in the deaths of about 25,000 people since late 2006 in Mexico. Friday night came the news that the Mexican drug traffickers have now added Hezbollah-style car bombings to their repertoire. This on the heels of a NY Daily News editorial reporting that the Mexican government has recently uncovered a Hezbollah network being built in Tijuana.

All of this is a direct consequence of the war on drugs and our adventurous foreign policy. Americans have some very important decisions to make this November regarding the proper role of government, both home and abroad.

What are we doing in Afghanistan?

Much ado has been made of Michael Steele's recent comment that Afghanistan is "a war of Obama's choosing." Given Obama's 2008 campaign rhetoric, it's hard to argue against this point. However, a larger point needs to be made: What exactly are we doing in Afghanistan?

According to CIA director Leon Panetta, there are maybe 100 al-Qaida militants currently operating in Afghanistan. Do we really need 100,000 US troops to hunt down 100 al-Qaida militants? Seems a bit like overkill, no?

In his 1961 farewell address President Eisenhower warned us to beware the military industrial complex. As we approach the tenth anniversary of our involvement in Afghanistan and the 50th anniversary of this speech, perhaps we would be wise to heed Eisenhower's warning.