Look: who started this? Who got the ball rolling on:
US Imperialism
Dumbing down education
exponentiating debt
deliberate economic destruction
degredation of morality and ethics
globalism
media domination of the American hive-mind
Marxists in the 'left
Fascists in the 'right'
Do I need go on?
It's the 'elite'-the banksters, the CFR 'think tank' that has turned America political institutions into their cartel, it's the millions of BAR Attorneys who make the laws, administer the laws and try is by their laws.
And, all the people that usually crop up for the hate-the federal bureaucrats and agents, and all the revenuing oath traitors they're the foot soldiers in all this.
Should've started shooting DECADES ago-hell, the GI's of Athens TN should've had a clue and kept that revolt against the McMinn political syndicate going into a full-blown revolution, the papers of that era shat themselves at the prospect, but being good ol' patriotic country boys kicked back after their victory and the scum and the traitors got back in stronger than ever.
The GIs of Athens TN in 1946 had the right ideal-taking over local government using recall elections backed up by force. We in theory can do so much better today and we will need to.
We're going to. I'm going to see to that.
J. Croft
Denninger: If You Read One Article This Month...
Denninger links to this Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi on how FedGov insiders from POTUS on down are helping Wall Street banksters continue the largest scam in human history.
Read both in full, please, but note: language alert on each.
Since the utterly-predictable collapse of the Dead Elephants on both the budget and the defunding of Obamacare over the past week, I have felt a curious lift in my spirits.
I know now that the aircraft is undoubtedly going into the water, and that I will have to use my ditch gear and training.
If I survive the crash, that is.
But today, the clouds came in again, as the Wisconsin public-union thug demonstrations made me realize that the good guys are deeply and perhaps irretrievably disadvantaged by their own rule-set.
As a good guy, I was raised to respect the law (whatever it was), work hard, follow the rules, and keep my own nose clean. Doing so, taught my parents and the culture of first-half Sixties America, would ensure my success and that of the community in which I lived.
But the cataclysm that struck America in the second half of the Sixties and continues today tore away those social rule-set foundations.
That country and that culture are gone, almost certainly never to return absent a Renaissance presently unforeseeable in the coming decades.
I have fought in the nearly 30 years since my own personal resurrection from drug and alcohol addiction not just to believe in those rules, but to live by them.
Don't lie.
Don't steal.
Don't hurt people (at least those who don't need hurting).
Pay your taxes.
Wear clean underwear.
Obey the law.
Respect authority.
Be a good citizen.
Don't break things that don't belong to you.
Read the major news periodicals so that you are familiar with the issues of the day.
Register and vote in every election.
Pick up after yourself.
Be kind to others.
And don't get me wrong -- I have, in varying degrees and frequency, failed to live up to each of those "musts".
But at core, I believed in each of them and, even as I failed, tried the next time to do better.
Events of the past year have convinced me that I have been nothing but a rube, a naif, a fool.
The rule of law in this country is dead.
The idea that you have to work for what you have is dead.
What respect should one have when your country's leadership in both parties are accessories before, during, and after the fact to a parade of frauds and corruption bordering on the unimaginable in both scope and consequence?
The vast majority of my fellow North American residents actually accept the idea of soon being de facto slaves to our creditors -- or, at the very most, will only grumble at the prospect.
What we have, here on the first springish day in the wintry South of the USA, 2011, is a worldwide collection of street gangs, each of whom understands that now and for the foresesable future is the time for root, hog, or die.
And Alex, we'll take "root" for 3 trillion, please.
Each gang has its own colors, uniforms, language, and other anthropological markers.
The lawyer gangs, the cop gangs, the banker gangs, the politician gangs, the regulator gangs, the union gangs, the government employee gangs, the immigrant gangs, the NGO and QUANGO gangs, the drug gangs, the tax enforcement gangs, the gun enforcement gangs, the disability-rights gangs, the street crime gangs, the climate gangs, the commercial sex gangs, the pundit gangs, the enviro-gangs, the academic gangs, the Islamic gangs, the collectivist gangs....the list is nearly endless.
But the key commonality between all such groups is this:
There are those in the group, and then there is everyone else.
"Everyone else" breaks into two subcategories:
1) Other gangs (each of which can be, at any given time, an ally, an enemy, a takeover target, or an acquiring entity), and
2) The "unaffiliateds": Individuals or small groups of individuals who are not part of any clearly-differentiated gang.
Guess who's on the menu 24/7/365 for every other group looking for resources, victims, food, or just a bit of the old ultra-V?
Guess too where falls the average good guy or good gal who still believes in the old values?
Do you see the problem?
It's all nice and happy to talk about "activism" and "fighting back" and "standing up". And I don't for a minute mean to disparage any of the good folks that I have met anywhere along the path of the last eight years of trying to do what I thought was (and likely was) the "right thing".
But understand - in the Endarkenment, there is no such thing as "the right thing".
There is only the cannibal pot.
Those unaffiliateds who hold to the old values rather than embracing the new savagery place a "kick me" sign on their own backs -- a request that every gang thug of whatever persuasion within booting range will be glad to oblige.
But just know that the really bad guys will read that "kick me" sign as meaning:
"Beat me, take my stuff, savage and then kidnap for further savaging any females with me, and, if you're feeling peckish and have dispensed with the primal taboos, throw me in the stewpot when you're done."
And spare me, please, just this once, the bellowing, chesty "From my seventy-pounds-overweight cold, dead hands in a pile of hot brass with my .308 man's rifle by any means necessary but only after sufficient provocation lest we slide into the abyss when we gaze into becoming the beast we are fighting for our eternal souls" self-serving-and-deluding masturbatory-fantasy horseshit.
Just this once.
Please. For the love of all that is holy.
Readers of this blog know how few people will actually show up, let alone fight - in any circumstance.
Snyder called it right.
Let me be blunt, dear friends -- anybody noticed any bankers going missing lately?
Anyone?
How about union leaders?
Government lawyers?
The other major and minor cannibals strutting about your AO - every single one of them still has all ten fingers and ten toes, right?
You do understand that these gang members have destroyed the country into which you were born, and ensured that your children and grandchildren face a nearly-inescapable future as debt serfs, right?
Go back now, please, and re-read those last six questions.
Think for a few seconds on each.
Do you understand yet?
At least this old rule still applies:
When you're sitting around the card table, trying to decide who the sucker is, and you can't tell......
It's you.
The old way's over, boys and girls.
New World Order, indeed.
Form your own gang, or get eaten by someone else's gang.
It's just that simple, and just that inescapable.
New era.
New rules.
Evolve.
Or die.
posted by Concerned American | 5:21 AM | 45 Comments
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2011/02/denninger-if-you-read-one-article-this.html Walter Mitty's Second Amendment
By Jeff Snyder
Once upon a time, there was a people who inhabited a majestic land under an all-powerful government. Now this government had the resources to control practically every aspect of human existence; hundreds of thousands of "public servants" could access the most personal details of every citizen's life because everyone was issued a number at birth with which the government would track him throughout his life. No one could even work in gainful employment without this number.
True, the government left certain domains of individual action largely free, particularly matters concerning speech and sex. These activities posed no real threat to the state. When not used to entertain and divert, the power of speech was used principally to clamor for more or better goods from the state, or for "reforms" to make the state work "better," thereby entrenching the people's dependency. And insofar as sex was concerned, well, the people's behavior in this area also really had no effect on the scope of state power. In fact, the rulers noted that people's preoccupation with matters of sexual morality -- whether premarital, teenage pregnancy, adultery, divorce, homosexuality or general "who's zooming who" -- diverted the people's attention from the fact that they were, for economic and all other intents and purposes, slaves.
Slaves, though, who labored under the illusion that they were free. The people were a simple lot, politically speaking, and readily mistook the ability to give free reign to their appetites as the essence of "personal freedom."
In that fruitful land, the state took about 50 percent of everything the people earned through numerous forms of taxation, up from about 25 percent only a generation earlier. However, this boastful people, who believed themselves to be the freest on earth, retained the right to keep and bear arms. Tens of millions of them possessed firearms just in case their government became tyrannical and enslaved them.
In that land, an astronomical number of regulations, filling more than 96,000 pages in the government's "code of regulations," were promulgated by persons who were not elected by the people. The regulators often developed close relationships with the businesses they regulated, and work in "agencies" that had the power both to make law -- and to enforce it.
The agencies were not established by the government's constitution, and their existence violated that instrument's principle of separation of powers. Yet the people retained the right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government, some day, ceased to be a "government of the people."
In that land, the constitution contemplated that the people would be governed by two separate levels of government -- "national" and "local." Matters that concerned the people most intimately -- health, education, welfare, crime, and the environment -- were to be left almost exclusively to the local level, so that those who made and enforced the laws lived close to the people who were subject to the laws, and felt their effects.
So that different people who had different ideas about such things would not be subject to a "one size fits all" standard that would apply if the national government dealt with such matters. Competition among different localities for people, who could move freely from one place to another, would act as a reality check on the passage of unnecessary or unwise laws.
But in a time of great crisis called the Great Economic Downturn, the people and their leaders clamored for "national solutions to national problems," and the constitution was "interpreted" by the Majestic Court to permit the national government to pass laws regulating practically everything that has been reserved for the localities.
Now the people had the pleasure of being governed by not one, but two beneficient governments with two sets of laws regulating the same things. Now the people could be prosecuted by not one, but two governments for the same activities and conduct. Still this fiercely independent people retained the right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government, some day, no longer secured the blessings of liberty to themselves or their posterity.
In that fair land, property owners could be held liable under the nation's environmental legislation for the cleanup costs associated with toxic chemicals, even if the owners had not caused the problem.
Another set of laws provided for asset forfeiture and permitted government agencies to confiscate property without first establishing guilt.
Yet the people retained the right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government denied them due process by holding them liable for things that were not their fault. (The Majestic Court had long ago determined that "due process" did not prevent government from imposing liability on people who were not at fault. "Due process", it turned out, meant little more than that a law had been passed in accordance with established procedures. You know, it was actually voted on, passed by a majority and signed by the president. If it met those standards, it didn't much matter what the law actually did.)
Oh well, the people had little real cause to worry. After all, those laws hardly ever affected anyone that they knew. Certainly not the people who mattered most of all: the country's favorite celebrities and sports teams, who so occupied the people's attention. And how bad could it be if it had not yet been the subject of a Movie of the Week, telling them what to think and how to feel about it?
In that wide open land, the police often established roadblocks to check that the people's papers were in order. The police -- armed agents of the rulers -- used these occasions to ask the occupants whether they were carrying weapons or drugs. Sometimes the police would ask to search the vehicles, and the occupants -- not knowing whether they could say no and wanting to prove that they were good guys by cooperating -- would permit it.
The Majestic Court had pronounced these roadblocks and searches lawful on the novel theory, unkown to the country's Founding Forebears, that so long as the police were doing this to everyone equally, it didn't violate anyone's rights in particular.
The roadblocks sometimes caused annoying delays, but these lovers of the open road took it in stride. After all, they retained their right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government, some day, engaged in unreasonable searches and seizures. In that bustling land, the choice of how to develop property was heavily regulated by local governments that often demanded fees or concessions for the privilege. That is, when the development was not prohibited outright by national "moistland" regulations that had no foundation in statutory or constitutional law.
Even home owners often required permission to simply build an addition to their homes, or to erect a tool shed on their so-called private property. And so it seemed that "private property" became, not a system protecting individual liberty, but a system which, while providing the illusion of ownership, actually just allocated and assigned government-mandated burdens and responsibilities.
Still, this mightily productive people believed themselves to live in the most capitalistic society on earth, a society dedicated to the protection of private property. And so they retained the right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government ever sought to deprive them of their property without just compensation.
Besides, the people had little cause for alarm. Far from worrying about government control of their property, the more immediate problem was: what to buy next?
The people were a simple lot, politically speaking, and readily mistook the ability to acquire and endless assortment of consumer goods as the essence of personal freedom.
The enlightened rulers of this great land did not seek to deprive the people of their right to bear arms. Unlike tyrants of the past, they had learned that it was not necessary to disarm the masses. The people proved time and time again thaty they were willing accomplices to the ever expanding authority of the government, enslaved by their own desire for safety, security and welfare.
The people could have their guns. What did the rulers care? They already possessed the complete obedience that they required.
In fact, in their more Machiavellian moments, the rulers could be heard to admit that permitting the people the right to keep and bear arms was a marvelous tool of social control, for it provided the people with the illusion of freedom.
The people, among the most highly regulated on earth, told themselves that they were free because they retained the means of revolt. Just in case things ever got really bad. No one, however, seemed to have too clear an idea what "really bad" really meant. The people accepted the fact that their government no longer even remotely resembled the plan set forth in their original constitution. And the people's values no longer remotely resembled those of their Founding Forebears. The people, in their naivetι, really believed that the means of revolt were to be found in a piece of inanimate metal! Really it was laughable. And pathetic.
No, the rulers knew that the people could safely be trusted with arms. The government educated their children, provided for their retirement in old age, bequeathed assistance if they lost their jobs, mandated that they receive health care, and even doled out food and shelter if they were poor.
The government was the very air the people breathed from childhood to the grave. Few could imagine, let alone desire, any other kind of world.
To the extent that the people paid any attention to their system of government, the great mass spent their days simply clamoring for more or better "programs", more "rational" regulations, in short, more of the same. The only thing that really upset them was waste, fraud, or abuse of the existing programs. Such shenanigans brought forth vehement protests demanding that the government provide their services more efficiently, dammit! The nation's stirring national anthem, adopted long ago by men who fought for their liberty, ended by posng a question, in hopes of keeping the spirit of liberty alive. Did the flag still fly, it asked, over the land of the free?
Unfortunately, few considered that the answer to that question might really be no, for they had long since lost an understanding of what freedom really is.
No, in this land "freedom" had become something dark, frightening, and dangerous. The people lived in mortal terror that somewhere, sometime, some individual might make a decision or embark upon a course of action that was not first approved by some government official.
Security was far more preferable. How could anyone be truly free if he were not first safe and protected?
Now we must say goodbye to this fair country whose government toiled tirelessly to create the safety, fairness and luxury that all demanded, and that everyone knew could be created by passing just the right laws. Through it all, the people vigorously safeguarded their tradition of firearms ownership.
But they never knew -- and never learned -- that preserving a tradition and a way of life is not the same as preserving liberty. And they never knew -- and never learned -- that it's not about guns.
American Handgunner, Sep/Oct 1997, reprinted without permission
NOTE: HERE'S THE RESULT OF US FUCKING OURSELVES WITH OUR AFORMENTIONED 'ETHICS':
If You Read One Article This Month...
Read this one.
Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.
"Everything's ****ed up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."
I put down my notebook. "Just that?"
"That's right," he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. "Everything's ****ed up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there."
Yep.
And it gets better, of course.
Conversely, one has to consider the powerful deterrent to further wrongdoing that the state is missing by not introducing this particular class of people to the experience of incarceration. "You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bull**** would stop, all over Wall Street," says a former congressional aide. "That's all it would take. Just once."
Ok, which former congressional aide reads The Ticker and is talking to Taibbi? That's one of my favorite phrases, and I've used it liberally over the last four years. I can guess who that might be, but I won't bother (although if you're he, drop me an email. )
Indeed, the shocking pattern of nonenforcement with regard to Wall Street is so deeply ingrained in Washington that it raises a profound and difficult question about the very nature of our society: whether we have created a class of people whose misdeeds are no longer perceived as crimes, almost no matter what those misdeeds are. The SEC and the Justice Department have evolved into a bizarre species of social surgeon serving this nonjailable class, expert not at administering punishment and justice, but at finding and removing criminal responsibility from the bodies of the accused.
Some people call it "regulatory capture." Others call it "control fraud" (William Black, primarily, along with me.) But I take it further; this is Control Fraud within the government, which is the most-pernicious form of all.
Consider this: What if organized crime was able to do this? Then any of their "muscle" could show up at any bank in the United States, any "stop and rob" on the corner, and do exactly that - stick it up. And the result? A fine. Maybe.
Well, that's a hell of a deal! You pull 100 jobs, you get caught doing five, you pay five fines equal to the loot you took those five times.
But you keep the fruits of the other 95 criminalities, so the fines simply become a cost of doing business. And since winding up in "pound-me-in-the-ass" Federal Prison is not one of your risks, there is no deterrence against you doing it again.
But the real fireworks came when Khuzami, the SEC's director of enforcement, talked about a new "cooperation initiative" the agency had recently unveiled, in which executives are being offered incentives to report fraud they have witnessed or committed. From now on, Khuzami said, when corporate lawyers like the ones he was addressing want to know if their Wall Street clients are going to be charged by the Justice Department before deciding whether to come forward, all they have to do is ask the SEC.
"We are going to try to get those individuals answers," Khuzami announced, as to "whether or not there is criminal interest in the case so that defense counsel can have as much information as possible in deciding whether or not to choose to sign up their client."
And there, my friends, is the evidence.
Raw collusion between government and the financial industry.
There is no longer prosecution. There is now negotiation so that the SEC is a middleman between the cops and the robbers, and "negotiates" a fine only when caught.
Again, we now appear to have a formal structure where you can pull the equivalent of one hundred bank jobs, get caught at five of them, and simply give the money back without any risk of going to prison.
So there you have it. Illegal immigrants: 393,000. Lying moms: one. Bankers: zero. The math makes sense only because the politics are so obvious. You want to win elections, you bang on the jailable class. You build prisons and fill them with people for selling dime bags and stealing CD players. But for stealing a billion dollars? For fraud that puts a million people into foreclosure? Pass. It's not a crime. Prison is too harsh. Get them to say they're sorry, and move on. Oh, wait let's not even make them say they're sorry. That's too mean; let's just give them a piece of paper with a government stamp on it, officially clearing them of the need to apologize, and make them pay a fine instead. But don't make them pay it out of their own pockets, and don't ask them to give back the money they stole. In fact, let them profit from their collective crimes, to the tune of a record $135 billion in pay and benefits last year. What's next? Taxpayer-funded massages for every Wall Street executive guilty of fraud?
No Matt, it's not a massage.
They're getting and giving blowjobs to and from the 536 most-wanted criminals in Washington DC.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=180233 Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?
Financial crooks brought down the world's economy but the feds are doing more to protect them than to prosecute them
Illustration by Victor Juhasz
Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.
"Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."
I put down my notebook. "Just that?"
"That's right," he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. "Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there."
Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.
This article appears in the March 3, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone. The issue is available now on newsstands and will appear in the online archive February 18.
The rest of them, all of them, got off. Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities has ever been convicted. Their names by now are familiar to even the most casual Middle American news consumer: companies like AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. Most of these firms were directly involved in elaborate fraud and theft. Lehman Brothers hid billions in loans from its investors. Bank of America lied about billions in bonuses. Goldman Sachs failed to tell clients how it put together the born-to-lose toxic mortgage deals it was selling. What's more, many of these companies had corporate chieftains whose actions cost investors billions from AIG derivatives chief Joe Cassano, who assured investors they would not lose even "one dollar" just months before his unit imploded, to the $263 million in compensation that former Lehman chief Dick "The Gorilla" Fuld conveniently failed to disclose. Yet not one of them has faced time behind bars.
Invasion of the Home Snatchers
Instead, federal regulators and prosecutors have let the banks and finance companies that tried to burn the world economy to the ground get off with carefully orchestrated settlements whitewash jobs that involve the firms paying pathetically small fines without even being required to admit wrongdoing. To add insult to injury, the people who actually committed the crimes almost never pay the fines themselves; banks caught defrauding their shareholders often use shareholder money to foot the tab of justice. "If the allegations in these settlements are true," says Jed Rakoff, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, "it's management buying its way off cheap, from the pockets of their victims."
Taibblog: Commentary on politics and the economy by Matt Taibbi
To understand the significance of this, one has to think carefully about the efficacy of fines as a punishment for a defendant pool that includes the richest people on earth people who simply get their companies to pay their fines for them. Conversely, one has to consider the powerful deterrent to further wrongdoing that the state is missing by not introducing this particular class of people to the experience of incarceration. "You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bullshit would stop, all over Wall Street," says a former congressional aide. "That's all it would take. Just once."
But that hasn't happened. Because the entire system set up to monitor and regulate Wall Street is fucked up.
Just ask the people who tried to do the right thing.
Wall Street's Naked Swindle
Here's how regulation of Wall Street is supposed to work. To begin with, there's a semigigantic list of public and quasi-public agencies ostensibly keeping their eyes on the economy, a dense alphabet soup of banking, insurance, S&L, securities and commodities regulators like the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), as well as supposedly "self-regulating organizations" like the New York Stock Exchange. All of these outfits, by law, can at least begin the process of catching and investigating financial criminals, though none of them has prosecutorial power.
The major federal agency on the Wall Street beat is the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC watches for violations like insider trading, and also deals with so-called "disclosure violations" i.e., making sure that all the financial information that publicly traded companies are required to make public actually jibes with reality. But the SEC doesn't have prosecutorial power either, so in practice, when it looks like someone needs to go to jail, they refer the case to the Justice Department. And since the vast majority of crimes in the financial services industry take place in Lower Manhattan, cases referred by the SEC often end up in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Thus, the two top cops on Wall Street are generally considered to be that U.S. attorney a job that has been held by thunderous prosecutorial personae like Robert Morgenthau and Rudy Giuliani and the SEC's director of enforcement.
The relationship between the SEC and the DOJ is necessarily close, even symbiotic. Since financial crime-fighting requires a high degree of financial expertise and since the typical drug-and-terrorism-obsessed FBI agent can't balance his own checkbook, let alone tell a synthetic CDO from a credit default swap the Justice Department ends up leaning heavily on the SEC's army of 1,100 number-crunching investigators to make their cases. In theory, it's a well-oiled, tag-team affair: Billionaire Wall Street Asshole commits fraud, the NYSE catches on and tips off the SEC, the SEC works the case and delivers it to Justice, and Justice perp-walks the Asshole out of Nobu, into a Crown Victoria and off to 36 months of push-ups, license-plate making and Salisbury steak.
That's the way it's supposed to work. But a veritable mountain of evidence indicates that when it comes to Wall Street, the justice system not only sucks at punishing financial criminals, it has actually evolved into a highly effective mechanism for protecting financial criminals. This institutional reality has absolutely nothing to do with politics or ideology it takes place no matter who's in office or which party's in power. To understand how the machinery functions, you have to start back at least a decade ago, as case after case of financial malfeasance was pursued too slowly or not at all, fumbled by a government bureaucracy that too often is on a first-name basis with its targets. Indeed, the shocking pattern of nonenforcement with regard to Wall Street is so deeply ingrained in Washington that it raises a profound and difficult question about the very nature of our society: whether we have created a class of people whose misdeeds are no longer perceived as crimes, almost no matter what those misdeeds are. The SEC and the Justice Department have evolved into a bizarre species of social surgeon serving this nonjailable class, expert not at administering punishment and justice, but at finding and removing criminal responsibility from the bodies of the accused.
The systematic lack of regulation has left even the country's top regulators frustrated. Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant for the SEC, laughs darkly at the idea that the criminal justice system is broken when it comes to Wall Street. "I think you've got a wrong assumption that we even have a law-enforcement agency when it comes to Wall Street," he says.
WELL, THAT WAS LONG BUT THE REST IS HERE:
http://freedomguide.blogspot.com/2011/02/wrsa-if-you-read-one-article-read.html
