Update 1 on the below over at Atlas Shrugs replete with the below presentation:
Pamela over at Atlas Shrugs has been doing an exceptional job exposing the Jihad bailout of AIG. To go along with being a terrible hedge fund manager in AIGFP, it just so happens that “AIG was (and still is) the world leader in promoting Shariah-compliant insurance products.” The problem? As noted in the press release on attorney David Yerushalmi’s site, “By propping up AIG with tax payer funds, the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam and, more troubling, Shariah.” The crux of the court case is below:
David Yerushalmi, who is co-counsel with Robert Muise, laid out the grounds for the motion:
At the time of the takeover decision, Secretary Geithner was the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and he was the leading advocate of the AIG takeover. Moreover, he designed how the U.S. government would not only bail out AIG with taxpayer dollars, but how the government would illegally take control of 80% of the voting shares through what was patently an illegal and invalid trust arrangement. It is apparent from the discovery we’ve conducted to date that this was done purposefully and with an intent to conceal the illegal takeover with a fraudulent trust.
Attorneys Yerushalmi and Muise want to ask Secretary Geithner:
· Why he forced AIG to take on so much debt that AIG’s credit rating, already in peril, was sure to collapse without yet additional government funds, essentially guaranteeing AIG would remain a ward of the state?
· Why he imposed such Draconian terms on AIG that there was no way it could survive without additional billions from U.S. taxpayers?
· Why he then used AIG to secretly funnel 100% payoffs to AIG’s counterparties, including his colleagues and friends at Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and the European giant, Société Générale. In other words, why did Geithner decide to destroy AIG’s chances of survival as a private entity while surreptitiously saving and preserving private ownership of other domestic and foreign financial companies? And,
· Why he took control of 80% of AIG’s voting shares without legal authority to do so and used a fraudulent trust arrangement to conceal the illegal takeover?
For more on the matter check out (via Big Government) this transcript from 2008 in which Yerushalmi gives a detailed explanation on the problems regarding taxpayer dollars and Shariah and this interview from yesterday between Frank Gaffney and Yerushalmi on this landmark case of Murray v. Geithner.
On Shariah, Yerushalmi’s moral if not legal argument is well taken:
FrontPage Mag: Why do we care if AIG is offering a Muslim-friendly insurance product as just another way to make money even if the USG is now a shareholder? Doesn’t the USG invest in other companies that might offer religious consumers unique products? For example, what if the USG invests federal employee pension plan funds in a company that publishes books, including a line of religious books?
Yerushalmi: We should care a great deal. First, when the USG invests federal employee pension plans it is acting as an employer, not a government agency per se. In fact, the investment has nothing to do with the government’s tax and spending authority. Second, the investment in such plans is generally through an intermediary investment fund which in turn only invests passively and through minority holdings. In this case, we have the USG acting not as an employer but expressly through its tax and spending authority and taking an absolute controlling position. AIG is in effect nationalized. It is a government company.
But, beyond these strictly legal arguments, there is an overarching concern. Can it really be the case that we want the USG involved in a theologically based legal doctrine that calls for our conversion, subjugation or murder? Have we abdicated even the rudiments of good sense in the name of a PC-driven, non-judgmental multi-culturalism? If we have, we have abdicated our very right to exist as a nation.
Back in the olden days, people simply bartered products. One might trade a couple of loaves of bread for a fish. In order to ease this process so people didn’t have to bring their produce to market, over time people turned to gold, later paper money backed by gold and ultimately paper money backed by faith in government as currency in trade. Money itself should thus be considered as merely a commodity to be exchanged for other commodities. It only differs from other goods to the extent that it is not consumed like milk or sugar or a house. Its value is in serving as a medium of exchange of other goods and services.
As such, it makes no sense that governments should create money through “quasi-private” central banks, or at the very least impose legal tender laws that prevent others from doing so. If there is consumer demand for facilitating the exchange of goods and services, then there will arise through the spontaneous order of the free market a system of competing providers of currencies. Presumably, those who produce money that will retain its value will drive out of the market those incompetent or unscrupulous competitors producing depreciating money. This is because money that retains its value over time will make the exchange of products easier because businesses will be able to make better calculations in exchange, and because as with any product, a premium will be placed on maintenance of value over depreciation.
One could speak to a host of problems with government currency: that inflation of the money supply unfairly benefits debtors at the expense of creditors and serves as an outright tax on all; that a constantly debased currency allows the government to fund unjustifiable wars in addition to all sorts of social programs and other means of unjust and unconstitutional wealth redistribution; that government naturally will mismanage the money supply just as they do all programs from a purely economic standpoint; that it is absurd that the government should have the power to outlaw monopolies yet grant itself a monopoly on a commodity like money that serves a specific special interest of the banking sector; and finally that government’s record in management of the money supply has been horrendous, with central banks creating a perpetual boom-bust cycle and constantly devaluing the people’s money. Concentrating the monopoly power over the money supply in the hands of a select group of bureaucrats is an asinine, irrational and furthermore dangerous policy.
But without going into these sometimes arcane economic phenomena, the most important thing to understand is that at its core, money supply is just like the supply of any other good or service except to the extent that its value is derived from its use as a commodity in exchange, rather than from the utility we gain in consuming a traditional good or service. If the market can provide other goods and services in the proper quantities and qualities to meet the demands of society, then surely it too can provide the proper quantity and quality of money. To believe that somehow, government provision of money is any more sacred or preferable to government provision of any other good or service is pure folly.
Today’s Daily Quips are brought to you by the labor unions: destroying American enterprises and beating people up since the Industrial Revolution.
From Breitbart With Love One of the heroes in this upside down world is Andrew Breitbart. I had the privilege to meet him a year ago where he laid out his vision of a world in which conservatives could fight back through the media, be it in Hollywood or abroad. His vision is starting to be realized, as the ACORN videos and their startling effect on the public have shown. He is taking this ACORN story straight to the liberals, all the way up to Eric Holder, a man who seems to have been getting a lot of press coverage recently. Keep fighting the good fight Mr. Breitbart!
Those Loopy Louisianans In a story that reflects all too often the rule rather than the exception, we get the scoop from ABC News on how Mary Landrieu will be bought off for her healthcare vote. First, one can’t help but notice how arcane yet deceptive the language is in the bill. Clearly it is something written by lawyers, intentionally set out to deceive the public. Second, this is how politics works. In its simplest form this case represents bargaining, but in its most nefarious it represents legalized plunder. Third, Glenn Beck did a great job of showing how the DC game works in exposing good ol’ John Murtha last night. American politics makes a mockery of the public, but the public continues to feed at the trough of DC.
The Financial-Political Complex Mr. Corzine, another esteemed former Goldman politician looks to potentially be coming back into the financial fray as CEO of B of A. And he thought governing New Jersey was hard. Big Government picks up on Corzine’s ties to Big Labor, and questions how that might impact his decisions as CEO. As we know, the big financial institutions have always done business with the criminal community-organizers, and I would expect nothing less if Corzine does in fact take the job.
Gangreen Michelle Malkin, another hero in the effort to expose the sheer and utter corruption of this administration specifically and the lefties generally writes about a global warming scandal that has recently come to light. People need to understand what the Green Movement is. It has nothing whatsoever to do with improving the environment. It is about a power grab, plain and simple. There will be a massive wealth transfer to companies that play along with the government in pushing green technology, and to the financial services sector that will make billions in trading revenues from the “carbon market.” The consumers will have to deal with the cruel tax of increases in energy prices, while politicians, energy-producers and bankers will have a field day. I should note that GE is the face of all evil when it comes to this movement. They are also ruining quality programming like The Office and 30 Rock with their green message. Al Gore plugged global warming for a couple of minutes at the end of last night’s 30 Rock for example. And can they please stop with the green NBC peacock logo and green tickers. Shameless, shameless propaganda.