If you enjoy the content you find here, please consider donating to support our continued efforts to bring you the best news and opinion articles we can. We hope you like the recent update to NWCitizen, and look forward to bringing you more insight into local politics and issues in 2017.

Support NWCitizen Not Now

Shocking Revelation: President Impotent

By On

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, asks, “What do you suppose it is like to be elected president of the United States only to find that your power is restricted to the service of powerful interest groups?”

“On April 30 the primacy of special over public interests was demonstrated yet again. The Democrats’ bill to prevent 1.7 million mortgage foreclosures and, thus, preserve $300 billion in home equity by permitting homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages, was defeated in the Senate, despite the 60-vote majority of the Democrats. The banksters were able to defeat the bill 51 to 45.

These are the same financial gangsters whose unbridled greed and utter irresponsibility have wiped out half of Americans’ retirement savings, sent the economy into a deep hole, and threatened the US dollar’s reserve currency role. It is difficult to imagine an interest group with a more damaged reputation. Yet, a majority of “the people’s representatives” voted as the discredited banksters instructed.”

"If Obama was naive about well-intentioned change before the vote, he no longer has this political handicap."

The New York Times recently reported the administration's utter lack of support for the legislation.

Democratic Majority Whip Dick Durbin acknowledged the voters’ defeat by the discredited banksters. The banks, Durbin said, “frankly own the place.”

Roberts continues, “It is not difficult to understand why. Among those who defeated the homeowners bill are senators Jon Tester (Mont), Max Baucus (Mont), Blanche Lincoln (Ark), Ben Nelson (Neb), Many Landrieu (La), Tim Johnson (SD), and Arlan Specter (Pa).

According to reports, the banksters have poured a half million dollars into Tester’s campaign funds. Baucus has received $3.5 million; Lincoln $1.3 million; Nelson $1.4 million; Landrieu $2 million; Johnson $2.5 million; Specter $4.5 million.”

Roberts observes, "A president who does a good job for the ruling interest groups is paid off with remunerative corporate directorships, outrageous speaking fees, and a lucrative book contract. .. it means a long life of luxurious leisure."

Read the rest of Roberts' article, The Impotent President, here.

About g.h.kirsch

Contributor • Member since Jan 16, 2008

Comments by Readers

Tip Johnson

May 15, 2009

Holy cow. Revelations shocking, indeed. Inquiring minds want to know!

The president is impotent and probably can’t even shoot baskets. Special interests run the government by offering more than the public can. Gee, should we be concerned about campaign ethics?

Global warming is cool, I mean hot, and anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it - notwithstanding several billion internal combustion engines greedily consuming oxygen and plowing long-sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere.

CO2 is not even a pollutant, never mind the overburden of carbonic acid impinging on our ocean plankton’s ability to produce the majority of our planet’s oxygen. It’s nothing compared to Nixon shooting students at Kent State.

Regardless, we should all remain unconcerned with electoral ethics, because, well Machiavelli, Disraeli and Brian Mulroney, etc., have set a precedent to which even philosophy professors must defer. Hey, wanna go shoot some baskets instead?

If only we could!


g.h. kirsch

May 15, 2009

So you didn’t like the article eh, Tip.  Can’t shoot baskets ... well, then let’s shoot the messenger.

No we should be concerned with campaign ethics.  But that’s a far cry from pissing on Ken Mann’s leg because he’s on the radio; or John Blethen’s because he might get picked up on BTV or whatever it is.

Is it ignoring the issue to bring up a much bigger cause for concern instead ?

And while you’re jumping from anecdotal information to conclusions, why don’t you explain the part anthropogenic CO2 emissions, absorbed by the oceans and converted to carbonic acid, represents compared to non-human CO2 sources.

It’s generally accepted that warming increases the release of naturally sequestered CO2. 

If warming is driven by natural forces, the sun and the rhythms of the oceans, is it appropriate to blame humans for more than their small part in CO2 production.

An ad hominem, even cleverly written, is just an ad hominem.


Tom Pratum

May 15, 2009

Well Tip, don’t forget that Mr. Kirsch is President of the Flat Earth Society, and as such that gives him the right to say whatever the hell he wants and expect us to pay attention - which most of us obviously are not doing.

I really don’t want to waste my time with the GK nonsense, but I can’t help look at this one: “..why don?t you explain the part anthropogenic CO2 emissions, absorbed by the oceans and converted to carbonic acid, represents compared to non-human CO2 sources” I suspect that GK doesn’t know what carbonic acid is, but he apparently expects that all human produced CO2 will be converted into it, thereby taking us “off the hook” so to speak.

We humans have produced (directly or indirectly) a huge amount of CO2 - through combustion of fossil fuels, biomass, and through deforestation and land clearing. And GK actually wants us to think this is not a problem - but don’t expect him to produce any peer-reviewed scientific literature to back up his point.


Tip Johnson

May 16, 2009

Greg, sorry you felt that was an ad hominem attack.  Far from it.  You are a fine, hail fellow, well met.  I was merely criticizing your sensational writing style and outlandish claims.

In my forty years of environmental activism, I have incurred many, many ad hominem attacks - or worse - as have many others working the issues.  To me, the most impressive feature of the environmental effort has been that, despite its many detractors, we “nutty environmentalists” have been right just about every time.

Maybe we are wrong on CO2.  Maybe cars, factories and coal fired generators are insignificant compared to volcanoes and melting tundra.  Maybe the ice shelves will break away, the glaciers slump and sea levels rise regardless of human activity.  But isn’t continuing to blow our CO2 contributions into the mix at least like playing with matches while Rome burns? And as I have mentioned before, our CO2 emissions are a vehicle for many toxic products of incomplete combustion, so limiting it can only help reduce risks to human health and the environment. Right?

Facebook Google LinkedIn Print Reddit Twitter