Monday, August 31, 2015

MEXICO'S ANCHOR BABY FACTORIES FOR WELFARE vs THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - This is a guide to the constitutional issue of whether a child is a citizen if born in the United States to alien parents here illegally.  If you are simply looking for arguments to bolster your political views, look elsewhere.  If you are ...

This is a guide to the constitutional issue of whether a child is a citizen if born in the United States to alien parents here illegally.  If you are simply looking for arguments to bolster your political views, look elsewhere.  If you are ...

“Through love of having children, we are going to take over.”

"These maternity hotels are normally single-family homes in our neighborhoods that host numerous pregnant foreigners for months at a time, violating local zoning laws and putting an undue burden on our neighborhoods, hospitals and local governments," he wrote.


"Rarely do these maternity hotels have the ability to care for ill mothers and/or their babies, resulting in hospital visits that unfairly come at the cost of the American taxpayers."



LA RAZA-OCCUPATION and LOOTING in MEXIFORNIA…. shocking!

“Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen.”


Americans (Legals) have become a passive society while Mexico loots and occupies.

Here’s what the Democrat Party and Mexico have done to CA.


CALIFORNIA: MEXICO’S LOOTED 

WELFARE STATE


 AMERICAN’S FIGHTING OBAMA’S FORCED LA RAZA OCCUPATION:

Patriots in Murrieta, CA Fight Obama’s Alien Invasion


LA RAZA POLITICIANS ELECTED BY ILLEGALS IN MEXIFORNIA: WHERE LA RAZA LOOTS FIRST!




August 31, 2015

An Objective Guide to Birthright Citizenship

This is a guide to the constitutional issue of whether a child is a citizen if born in the United States to alien parents here illegally.  If you are simply looking for arguments to bolster your political views, look elsewhere.  If you are genuinely interested in the merits of this issue, keep reading.

The Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution in 1868.  Its first clause states that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."

Although some claim that merely being born in the U.S. makes one a citizen, neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court supports that view.  The Fourteenth Amendment further specifies that one must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.  The critical question is whether the child of a resident illegal alien meets that requirement.

Anyone who tells you this is an easy question is not telling you the truth.  It is an extraordinarily difficult question.

What makes it difficult is not merely the politically and racially charged atmosphere surrounding it.  What makes it difficult are problems common to interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.  The rest of the Constitution has many clauses that may seem obscure initially yet become clear in the light of contemporaneous law and history.  But the Fourteenth Amendment is filled with endless fodder for dispute.

This is partly because we know less than we should about the amendment's ratification by the state legislatures.  It is partly because the amendment's congressional drafters were not very competent.  They sometimes were ignorant of existing constitutional law.  They invented terms without defining them.  And they ascribed meanings to terms different from established legal meanings.  The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" is a good example.  We have only a few clues as to its intended meaning.
Additionally, none of the proposers discussed how the amendment would impact the children of illegal aliens – even though (contrary to modern assertion) everyone knew that such children were in the country.  They were the offspring of Africans illegally imported as slaves after the ban on the slave trade (1808) and before the end of slavery (1866).

The Supreme Court has addressed the Fourteenth Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" language in three important cases.  None of these cases definitively resolves our question.  But they offer hints.

Elk v. Wilkins (1884) was decided before Congress extended citizenship to Indians who remained tribal members.  In Elk, the Court ruled that an Indian born into a tribe was not a citizen unless naturalized under a statute or treaty.  The Elk case is only weak evidence of the rule applied to foreigners.  This is because the Constitution's text and history suggest that the citizenship standards for tribal Indians and foreigners are different.  However, the Elk case does tell us that:

* "Subject to the jurisdiction" in the Fourteenth Amendment has a specialized meaning, different from the common meaning of "within a given territory and therefore subject to a court's order."

* This meaning is connected to the concept of "allegiance," a legal term traditionally used to determine whether a person is a natural born citizen.

* For deciding whether a child born in the U.S. receives citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, the relevant issue is the parents' allegiance when the child was born.  The parents' or child's later decisions are irrelevant, unless the United States accepts them by statute or naturalization ceremony.

Two justices dissented from the holding in Elk.  They accepted the connection between "jurisdiction" and allegiance.  But they argued that an Indian becomes a citizen if he changes his allegiance by abandoning his tribe and becoming a member of his state's political community.  Their version of allegiance thus depended partly on a person's intent.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) ruled that the U.S.-born child of two legally resident foreigners was a natural born citizen.  Horace Gray, the same justice who wrote for the Court in Elk, also wrote for the Court in Wong.  The result was different in Wong primarily because the Constitution implicitly made it easier for foreigners to get automatic citizenship than tribal Indians.  But the underlying approach of Elk and Wong was similar in that citizenship by birth depended more on geography than subjective intent.

The most important lesson of Wong was this: the Constitution's version of "allegiance" was the version we inherited from Great Britain in 1776 – not versions prevailing in other countries or under international law.  This agrees with the independent conclusion in my book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.

As modified by parliamentary statute, the British version of allegiance was as follows:

* Birth in a country (or on a country's ships) normally creates a "natural allegiance" to that country.

* A child born abroad is in allegiance to a country, and is therefore natural born, only if his father is a citizen of that country and not engaged in treasonous or felonious activities.  In Anglo-American law, a person's status usually followed that of the mother, but for allegiance the rule was partus sequitur patrem.

* Foreign residents and visitors generally are in "local allegiance" to the host country, since they submit themselves to its laws and protection.  Their children born in the host country are natural born citizens of that country.

* To this last rule, there are two exceptions: When the father is a foreign diplomat or a foreign invader, he has no allegiance to the host country, and his offspring are not citizens.

Two justices dissented in Wong.  They argued that the British version of allegiance should not apply in America.  They contended that parents in merely local allegiance should not bestow citizenship.  For example, they stated that if a foreign power occupied U.S. territory, the natural allegiance of parents should pass U.S. citizenship to their children, even if those parents had a local duty to obey the conqueror.

In my view, the Wong majority was right to hold that the British version of allegiance applies to the original Constitution.  But because of developments between 1789 and 1868, the dissent made a good argument that a newer, American version applied to the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court's third case was Plyler v. Doe (1982).  It ruled that a state's treatment of illegal aliens' children is controlled by the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.  The "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase was not at issue. 

 Nonetheless, the strongly liberal majority inserted a footnote reading in part:
As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.

In my opinion, this footnote has little or no persuasive power.  It merely recited the views of a commentator and was irrelevant to the matter under decision.
So where does that leave us?

Let's assume that the Court does not overrule the Elk and Wong cases.  To rule against "birthright" citizenship, the Court would have to find a third exception to the precept that children born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens.

Those arguing in favor of citizenship will argue against another exception.  They may point out that, unlike a diplomat or an invader, an alien who has violated immigration law still a duty to honor other U.S. laws.  In other words, unlike the diplomat or invader, the alien owes local allegiance, and a father's local allegiance should be enough to grant citizenship to his child.

Citizenship advocates also can point out that unlike in Elk, our country has largely accepted the children of illegal aliens.  Our officials generally let them stay in the country and even provide government benefits, such as drivers' licenses and public university tuition preferences.

Finally, advocates may argue that although the diplomatic and tribal Indian exceptions were mentioned during the Fourteenth Amendment debates, there was no mention of an exception for the children of Africans illegally imported.  This implies that such an exception does not exist.

Opponents of citizenship may compare the illegal alien to the foreign invader whose mate produces a child in occupied territory.  Both enter the country illegally, and neither should profit from his own wrong.  This is different from the case of the captured slave, who is guilty of no wrong.  Opponents can add that official acceptance of residence is not the same as acceptance of citizenship.

They may try to prove that illegal aliens often show no interest in abandoning their original citizenship.  Opponents may then argue that the Wong dissent was correct to consider personal attitudes as well as mere geographic location.

These questions will be vigorously litigated, as they should be.  My current bet is for the Court to rule in favor of citizenship.

Rob Natelson is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver and author of The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.  His research is cited frequently in Supreme Court opinions and arguments.

This is a guide to the constitutional issue of whether a child is a citizen if born in the United States to alien parents here illegally.  If you are simply looking for arguments to bolster your political views, look elsewhere.  If you are genuinely interested in the merits of this issue, keep reading.

The Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution in 1868.  Its first clause states that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."

Although some claim that merely being born in the U.S. makes one a citizen, neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court supports that view.  The Fourteenth Amendment further specifies that one must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.  The critical question is whether the child of a resident illegal alien meets that requirement.

Anyone who tells you this is an easy question is not telling you the truth.  It is an extraordinarily difficult question.

What makes it difficult is not merely the politically and racially charged atmosphere surrounding it.  What makes it difficult are problems common to interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.  The rest of the Constitution has many clauses that may seem obscure initially yet become clear in the light of contemporaneous law and history.  But the Fourteenth Amendment is filled with endless fodder for dispute.

This is partly because we know less than we should about the amendment's ratification by the state legislatures.  It is partly because the amendment's congressional drafters were not very competent.  They sometimes were ignorant of existing constitutional law.  They invented terms without defining them.  And they ascribed meanings to terms different from established legal meanings.  The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" is a good example.  We have only a few clues as to its intended meaning.
Additionally, none of the proposers discussed how the amendment would impact the children of illegal aliens – even though (contrary to modern assertion) everyone knew that such children were in the country.  They were the offspring of Africans illegally imported as slaves after the ban on the slave trade (1808) and before the end of slavery (1866).

The Supreme Court has addressed the Fourteenth Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" language in three important cases.  None of these cases definitively resolves our question.  But they offer hints.

Elk v. Wilkins (1884) was decided before Congress extended citizenship to Indians who remained tribal members.  In Elk, the Court ruled that an Indian born into a tribe was not a citizen unless naturalized under a statute or treaty.  The Elk case is only weak evidence of the rule applied to foreigners.  This is because the Constitution's text and history suggest that the citizenship standards for tribal Indians and foreigners are different.  However, the Elk case does tell us that:

* "Subject to the jurisdiction" in the Fourteenth Amendment has a specialized meaning, different from the common meaning of "within a given territory and therefore subject to a court's order."

* This meaning is connected to the concept of "allegiance," a legal term traditionally used to determine whether a person is a natural born citizen.

* For deciding whether a child born in the U.S. receives citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, the relevant issue is the parents' allegiance when the child was born.  The parents' or child's later decisions are irrelevant, unless the United States accepts them by statute or naturalization ceremony.

Two justices dissented from the holding in Elk.  They accepted the connection between "jurisdiction" and allegiance.  But they argued that an Indian becomes a citizen if he changes his allegiance by abandoning his tribe and becoming a member of his state's political community.  Their version of allegiance thus depended partly on a person's intent.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) ruled that the U.S.-born child of two legally resident foreigners was a natural born citizen.  Horace Gray, the same justice who wrote for the Court in Elk, also wrote for the Court in Wong.  The result was different in Wong primarily because the Constitution implicitly made it easier for foreigners to get automatic citizenship than tribal Indians.  But the underlying approach of Elk and Wong was similar in that citizenship by birth depended more on geography than subjective intent.

The most important lesson of Wong was this: the Constitution's version of "allegiance" was the version we inherited from Great Britain in 1776 – not versions prevailing in other countries or under international law.  This agrees with the independent conclusion in my book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.

As modified by parliamentary statute, the British version of allegiance was as follows:

* Birth in a country (or on a country's ships) normally creates a "natural allegiance" to that country.

* A child born abroad is in allegiance to a country, and is therefore natural born, only if his father is a citizen of that country and not engaged in treasonous or felonious activities.  In Anglo-American law, a person's status usually followed that of the mother, but for allegiance the rule was partus sequitur patrem.

* Foreign residents and visitors generally are in "local allegiance" to the host country, since they submit themselves to its laws and protection.  Their children born in the host country are natural born citizens of that country.

* To this last rule, there are two exceptions: When the father is a foreign diplomat or a foreign invader, he has no allegiance to the host country, and his offspring are not citizens.

Two justices dissented in Wong.  They argued that the British version of allegiance should not apply in America.  They contended that parents in merely local allegiance should not bestow citizenship.  For example, they stated that if a foreign power occupied U.S. territory, the natural allegiance of parents should pass U.S. citizenship to their children, even if those parents had a local duty to obey the conqueror.

In my view, the Wong majority was right to hold that the British version of allegiance applies to the original Constitution.  But because of developments between 1789 and 1868, the dissent made a good argument that a newer, American version applied to the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court's third case was Plyler v. Doe (1982).  It ruled that a state's treatment of illegal aliens' children is controlled by the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.  The "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase was not at issue.  Nonetheless, the strongly liberal majority inserted a footnote reading in part:
As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.

In my opinion, this footnote has little or no persuasive power.  It merely recited the views of a commentator and was irrelevant to the matter under decision.

So where does that leave us?

Let's assume that the Court does not overrule the Elk and Wong cases.  To rule against "birthright" citizenship, the Court would have to find a third exception to the precept that children born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens.

Those arguing in favor of citizenship will argue against another exception.  They may point out that, unlike a diplomat or an invader, an alien who has violated immigration law still a duty to honor other U.S. laws.  In other words, unlike the diplomat or invader, the alien owes local allegiance, and a father's local allegiance should be enough to grant citizenship to his child.

Citizenship advocates also can point out that unlike in Elk, our country has largely accepted the children of illegal aliens.  Our officials generally let them stay in the country and even provide government benefits, such as drivers' licenses and public university tuition preferences.

Finally, advocates may argue that although the diplomatic and tribal Indian exceptions were mentioned during the Fourteenth Amendment debates, there was no mention of an exception for the children of Africans illegally imported.  This implies that such an exception does not exist.

Opponents of citizenship may compare the illegal alien to the foreign invader whose mate produces a child in occupied territory.  Both enter the country illegally, and neither should profit from his own wrong.  This is different from the case of the captured slave, who is guilty of no wrong.  Opponents can add that official acceptance of residence is not the same as acceptance of citizenship.

They may try to prove that illegal aliens often show no interest in abandoning their original citizenship.  Opponents may then argue that the Wong dissent was correct to consider personal attitudes as well as mere geographic location.

These questions will be vigorously litigated, as they should be.  My currComposeent bet is for the Court to rule in favor of citizenship.

Rob Natelson is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver and author of The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.  His research is cited frequently in Supreme Court opinions and arguments.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/an_objective_guide_to_birthright_citizenship.html#ixzz3kPP1gqzV
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook




The surge in Mexican breeders in America’s open borders.

MEXICO'S BIGGEST EXPORTS ARE: DRUGS, POVERTY, CRIMINALS and ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS FOR 18 YEARS OF GRINGO-PAID WELFARE.



*
“Through love of having children, we are going to take over.”  AUGUSTIN CEBADA, BROWN BERETS, THE LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY


PREGNANT WOMEN JUMP AMERICAN BORDERS FOR THE LA RAZA WELFARE PROGRAM TO ANCHOR AND EXPAND MEXICO’S WELFARE STATE IN U.S. BORDERS




2003: Mexican population in U.S. reported to have increased 10 percent in just three years, mostly as a result of illegal immigration. Mexicans encouraged to breed at all costs. "A baby a year" Mexican pride slogan emerges …EVERY ANCHOR BABY GETS MORE WELFARE FOR 18 YEARS. THAT CHILD IS ALSO STILL A CITIZEN OF MEXICO!

The birthrate among illegals is more than double that of legal US residents. The Pew Hispanic Center calculates that within seven years, the children of immigrants, legal and illegal, will account for one in nine school-age children in the US.



The birthrate among illegals is more than double that of legal US residents. The Pew Hispanic Center calculates that within seven years, the children of immigrants, legal and illegal, will account for one in nine school-age children in the US.



OBAMA-CLINTONomis: THE LOOTING of AMERICA RATCHETED UP - The problem with Hillary Clinton's economic thinking is that there is a level of self-awareness that is simply missing.  That's what I think when I read about Hillary Clinton's grand plan for the economy on her website.  She pro...

The problem with Hillary Clinton's economic thinking is that there is a level of self-awareness that is simply missing.  That's what I think when I read about Hillary Clinton's grand plan for the economy on her website.  She pro...

OBAMA-CLINTONomics is a simple device - Serve the super rich and pass the cost of their looting and Wall Street crimes on to the backs of the last of the American middle-class!


"Of course, the wealth of the financial elite cannot come from nowhere. Ultimately, the continual infusion of asset bubbles is the form taken by a massive transfer of wealth, from the working class to the banks, investors and super-rich. The corollary to rise of the stock market is the endless demands, all over the world, for austerity, cuts in wages, attacks on health care and pensions."



“As a result, the share of wealth held by the richest 0.1 percent of the population grew from 17 percent in 2007 to 22 percent in 2012, while the wealth of the 400 richest families in the US has doubled since 2008.”

 
THE ULTIMATE LOOTING of AMERICA BY BIG BANKSTERS STARTED UNDER BILLARY CLINTON. THEY’VE PULLED IN HUGE BRIBES FROM BANKSTERS SINCE THEN.


“President Bill Clinton repealed the law in 1999. Glass-Steagall has long been popular with liberals, who argue the repeal was part of the deregulation they say led to the 2008 financial collapse.”

OBAMA-CLINTONOMIC FOR THE SUPER RICH - THE MELTDOWN IS HERE

OBAMA-CLINTONomics is a simple device - Serve the super rich and pass the cost of their looting and Wall Street crimes on to the backs of the last of the American middle-class!


"Of course, the wealth of the financial elite cannot come from nowhere. Ultimately, the continual infusion of asset bubbles is the form taken by a massive transfer of wealth, from the working class to the banks, investors and super-rich. The corollary to rise of the stock market is the endless demands, all over the world, for austerity, cuts in wages, attacks on health care and pensions."



“As a result, the share of wealth held by the richest 0.1 percent of the population grew from 17 percent in 2007 to 22 percent in 2012, while the wealth of the 400 richest families in the US has doubled since 2008.”



THE ULTIMATE LOOTING of AMERICA BY BIG BANKSTERS STARTED UNDER BILLARY CLINTON. THEY’VE PULLED IN HUGE BRIBES FROM BANKSTERS SINCE THEN.


“President Bill Clinton repealed the law in 1999. Glass-Steagall has long been popular with liberals, who argue the repeal was part of the deregulation they say led to the 2008 financial collapse.”

OBAMA-CLINTONomics: PROTECTING THE RICH (again) FROM THE MELTDOWN THEY CAUSED... AGAIN! Central banks step in to prop up global financial bubble

OBAMA-CLINTONomics is a simple device - Serve the super rich and pass the cost of their looting and Wall Street crimes on to the backs of the last of the American middle-class!

"Of course, the wealth of the financial elite cannot come from nowhere. Ultimately, the continual infusion of asset bubbles is the form taken by a massive transfer of wealth, from the working class to the banks, investors and super-rich. The corollary to rise of the stock market is the endless demands, all over the world, for austerity, cuts in wages, attacks on health care and pensions."



SEN. BERNIE SANDERS ON HILLARY’S
SERVITUDE TO OBAMA’S CRIMINAL
CRONY BANKSTERS… their looting continues
unabated.


…. but will Mexico elect LA RAZA SUPREMACIST Hillaria?


"I think that the business model of Wall Street is fraud," said Sanders. "I think these guys drove us into the worst economic downturn in the modern history of America and I think they're at it again. I believe that when you have so few banks with so much power you have to ... break them up. That is not Hillary Clinton's position."



OBAMA-CLINTONomics

– Did their crony banksters ultimately destroy the global economy?



Richest one percent controls nearly half of global wealth


AMERICA: NO LEGAL NEED APPLY!!!

It started the day Obama moved into the White House and commenced the perpetration of his “hope & change”.

24,639,000: Record Number of Foreign-Born Hold Jobs in U.S.


"We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers," said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. "President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws."


HILLARY CLINTON: DEDICATED SERVANT

TO THE 1%, OBAMA’S

CRIMINAL CRONY BANKSTERS and DISCIPLE of OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS for the super-rich.

The central aim of Clinton’s speech was to reassure the American financial oligarchy that, despite her occasional lukewarm denunciations of corporate criminality and social inequality, she is a right-wing, pro-business defender of Wall Street.



The speech makes clear that a Clinton presidency will pursue the same pro-Wall Street policies of the Obama administration, seeking to expand the fortunes of the super-rich at the expense of the great majority of society, while invoking “fairness” and “equality” as window dressing.

RASMUSSEN POLL:

Hillary Clinton is a bad clone of Barack Obama
owned by the same bankster paymasters as
Obama


Hillary’s BIGGEST DONORS are Obama’s criminal crony banksters! What does that tell you???

CRONY CAPITALISM and the FALL  of A DEMOCRATIC NATION

OBAMA’S LOOTING BANKSTERS AGREE TO FUND HIS DICTATORSHIP…. They owned him from day one!


“The vast sums of money pocketed by bank executives are bound up with activities that range from borderline legal to flagrantly illegal. Nearly all of the CEOs included on the list head banks that have been the subject of multiple investigations and fines related to the rigging of global interest and foreign exchange rates, mortgage fraud, money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes.”

Central banks step in to prop up global financial bubble


Central banks step in to prop up global financial bubble

31 August 2015
Early last week, global stock markets experienced their worst selloff since the 2008 financial crisis. At the opening of US markets on Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down more than 1,000 points, its largest intraday fall in history. By the end of the week, however, the markets in the United States and Europe had staged a major rally, recovering much of what they had lost.
The reason for the turnaround in global stock markets was not
hard to find. As the New York Times put it: “Once again, the
Federal Reserve helped save the day for investors” who were
“inspired by soothing words from an influential Fed policy
maker.” By “soothing words,” the Times means the promise of
further infusions of cash into the financial system, which has
fueled the continual rise in equity prices.
In particular, the Times was referring to the comments of William Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a key ally of Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen, who said that the deterioration of the US economy made the case for raising interest rates “less compelling.”
Whether or not the Fed actually raises
interests rates a small amount at its meeting
next month, these statements were a pledge to
do whatever it takes to keep the Wall Street
asset bubble inflated.
The same day, European Central Bank Executive Board member Peter Praet made clear that the ECB stood ready to go even further by expanding its ongoing “quantitative easing” money printing operation. “There should be no ambiguity on the willingness and ability of the Governing Council to act if needed,” he declared.
These announcements compounded the moves by the Chinese central bank Tuesday to cut its target interest rate and reduce banks’ reserve requirements simultaneously, sending yet another flood of money into the economy on top of the 900 billion renminbi ($140 billion) it is estimated to have injected in June and July.
It is striking that, largely on the basis of a few hints dropped by monetary policy officials, the biggest global stock market sell-off since 2008 was at least partially reversed.
These developments underscore a basic reality of the contemporary capitalist economy: the ongoing stock market surge, which has seen all three major US stock indexes triple in value since 2009, is the product not any genuine economic “recovery,” but of continual infusions of cash from global central banks.
The present situation is the outcome of an extended process. Over the course of decades, the creation of wealth for the financial elite has become increasingly divorced from any productive activity and tied ever more directly to speculation in financial bubbles—a process most nakedly expressed in the United States. As Raymond Dalio, head of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund put it, “The money that’s made from manufacturing stuff is a pittance in comparison to the amount of money made from shuffling money around.”
Significantly, Dalio, whose wealth has tripled since 2008, this
week called for the Federal Reserve to respond to growing
turmoil in financial markets with a new round of quantitative
easing.
In fact, so dependent has the global economy become on free money that former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers conceded in a column last week that, “Satisfactory growth, if it can be achieved, requires very low interest rates that historically we have only seen during economic crises,” concluding that “new conditions require new policies.”
Of course, the wealth of the financial elite
cannot come from nowhere. Ultimately, the
continual infusion of asset bubbles is the form
taken by a massive transfer of wealth, from the
working class to the banks, investors and
super-rich. The corollary to rise of the stock
market is the endless demands, all over the
world, for austerity, cuts in wages, attacks on
health care and pensions.
Nowhere are these processes more clear than in the US. In the aftermath of the 2008 crash, the Obama administration and the US Federal Reserve made trillions of dollars available to the banks and major financial institutions. As a result, the share of

wealth held by the richest 0.1 percent of the

population grew from 17 percent in 2007 to

22 percent in 2012, while the wealth of the

400 richest  families in the US has doubled

since 2008.
The same period has witnessed an
unprecedented decline in the incomes of
working people. According to the latest
Federal Reserve survey of consumer finances,
between 2007 and 2013 the income of a

typical US household fell 12 percent. The

median US  household now earns $6,400 less

per year than it did in 2007.
The threatened bursting of the asset bubbles is driven by concern that the easy money policy is reaching some form of denouement, that the ammunition of central banks is drying up. All the more ferocious will be the ruling elite’s assault on the working class, in the United States and internationally.
As the WSWS wrote in 2009, “The most essential feature of a historically significant crisis is that it leads to a situation where the major class forces within the affected country (and countries) are compelled to formulate and adopt an independent position in relationship to the crisis.”
The ruling class responded to the crisis with a drive to vastly expand its own social wealth and privileges at the expense of the great majority of society. This drive will only intensify in the coming months and years. The working class must advance its own worked out program, based on an understanding of the forces that it confronts: a ruthless financial aristocracy, political institutions that are bought-and-paid for by the banks and giant corporations, and a global social system, capitalism, that has reached a historic dead-end.
Andre Damon

THE ULTIMATE LOOTING of AMERICA BY BIG

BANKSTERS STARTED UNDER BILLARY CLINTON.

THEY’VE PULLED IN HUGE BRIBES FROM BANKSTERS

SINCE THEN.
“President Bill Clinton repealed the law in 1999. Glass-Steagall has long been popular with liberals, who argue the repeal was part of the deregulation they say led to the 2008 financial collapse.”