In light of the still mounting evidence surrounding labor leader Leo Gerard and his considerable influence within the Obama administration, we are once again offering this story orginally published on September 7th, 2011.
Ulsterman: Why would institutions that received so much bailout funding from this administration…Congress, whatever you want to call it – why would they not support a president who pushed so aggressively for them to receive those funds?
Wall Street: You’re posing the question much more clearly now – and not nearly being as personally intrusive. Thank you.
Ulsterman: You’re welcome – can you answer the question?
Wall Street: First, when we speak of Wall Street, you must understand it is comprised of far more than those names you commonly hear on television, or read about in newspapers. There are significant numbers of mid-tier entities that never took any bailout monies but collectively make up a significant portion of, for lack of a better term – “Wall Street”. And these institutions are spread out across the country and the world. Wealth is a global inclination – Americans are still playing catch-up in that regard.
Ulsterman: But what if the companies that did receive bailout funds? Are they no longer supporting the president?
Wall Street: Which one? Bailout funds were originated by the Bush administration, and later administered in full by the Obama administration.
Ulsterman: The current administration – the only one that matters right now. For –expletive- sake!
Wall Street: You’re asking if Wall Street is no longer supportive of President Obama then? Or at least, those institutions that received bailout funds? Correct?
Wall Street: That would be correct – in my own observational capacity. That would be correct.
Ulsterman: Buy why? Why bite the hand that fed you billions upon billions in bailout funds?
Wall Street: Ah…that is a bit more complicated but I will try and keep it as simple for you as possible. Let’s just say…some of those firms were not entirely in agreement regarding receipt of those funds.
Ulsterman: They were forced to take the money. That is what you’re saying?
Wall Street: That is a bit of a simplistic summation, but generally accurate, yes.
Wall Street: Pardon?
Ulsterman: How were they – these firms, how were they forced to take bailout funding?
Wall Street: When the United States government comes knocking on your door…you tend to open it or face potential consequences that could prove…debilitating to your continued existence. It is very easy for those not in such a position to judge. Very easy. But imagine if you will, all of the massive regulatory and legal powers of the American government coming down to bear upon you. One option is to oppose and fight and face almost certain annihilation. The kind of annihilation that occurred right before our eyes. It happened. An entire institution wiped away as if it never existed. The other is to run away and live to fight for another day. Some among us chose to run away – and now we are prepared to fight. The election of 2012 is to be that battle.
Ulsterman: You seem to be speaking for more than yourself right there.
Wall Street: (Smiles) Am I? Perhaps I am…
Ulsterman: How? How do you – how does Wall Street intend to fight the Obama administration?
Wall Street: I said I would do nothing – NOTHING, to help President Obama enjoy a second term. For the sake of this interview, let us assume then that others in similar positions as my own are doing the same.
Ulsterman: Staying out of a fight isn’t necessarily putting up a fight you know. Sometimes you need to scrape your knuckles up, don’t you think?
Wall Street: We would leave that to the likes of you to do. By stepping away from this White House…the Wall Street bundlers are greatly diminished for the Obama people. That is as aggressive a hit to their re-election hopes as anything. Perhaps not a knock-out blow, to follow your own analogy, but certainly one that will hurt them a great deal.
Wall Street: Bundlers…your friend would know that term very well. They hunt and gather campaign funds for a particular candidate or cause. Wall Street represents a significant sum of those dollars. Very significant. Perhaps the only ones who can directly rival the labor unions – who I consider among the most vile and evil operators of American politics. Can you imagine attempting to unionize our American military? And for such a consideration to be made by an administration…it is appalling how dangerous the mindset of the Obama people has become. Almost as appalling as how many of us didn’t see it all coming our way.
Ulsterman: Stop right there. Did you just say that the Obama administration wants to unionize the American military?
Wall Street: Oh my – look at you now! That’s got you a bit riled does it?
Ulsterman: Are you being serious?
Wall Street: Oh yes. Absolutely serious. A bit over a year…perhaps a year-and-a-half ago. A younger gentleman who was said to be with the administration – affiliated with the DOJ actually – these people were crawling all over everything at that time. That situation itself was enough to sour many of us on the Obama White House. They would walk in as if they owned you. Wall Street had become a plantation. Ironic, isn’t it? But that’s how it felt. It’s improved somewhat, but not enough. Not nearly enough…
Ulsterman: Stick to what you said about the military please. Unionizing the military. What was that about? What did that person say?
Wall Street: It wasn’t this office mind you. But a close associate. And it has been repeated by a few others, so I consider it quite likely it was in fact said. Now how high up in the administration it actually goes…that is more uncertain…
Ulsterman: What was said please – please just focus on that.
Wall Street: As I did say – the administration wants to unionize the American military. All of it. They apparently, if what this gentleman said is to be believed,…they wish to see the soldiers “justly represented”. That was the term that was repeated to me by more than one source. It had…the conversation had originated as one about unionizing Wall Street workers and then the information about the military – the actual plan for unionizing the military came out.
Ulsterman: And this person – they were from the Department of Justice?
Wall Street: Yes…an affiliation of the DOJ, yes.
Ulsterman: Could you be more specific?
Wall Street: No. I am surprised you were not told of this already. I shared it with our acquaintance some time ago. Can you imagine some 2 million more union members in this country? With a stroke of the pen – an executive order. Can you imagine the cost? The dysfunction? How much we could be weakened, put at risk by such a thing? The implications are…well, they are just too horrific to consider. The last I had heard of this was…perhaps the 1970s. And never coming from such a level within the government.
Ulsterman: Why would this person – the DOJ…whatever their position was…why would they be sharing that?
Wall Street: Have you spent any time with those people? They are insecure around us you know. Insolent. Defiant. They want to show their authority. The ones working for this current administration have been the absolute worst in that regard. So they talk. And they talk. This example is no different – and it’s that simple.
Ulsterman: Do you believe it? That President Obama wants to unionize the military?
Wall Street: I believe some – someone in that administration not only wants, but intends to do so, yes.
Ulsterman: But not Obama? President Obama?
Wall Street: That I don’t know – I just don’t get the sense this president is entirely aware of what is going on around him. In his own administration. What I saw at that meeting…he seems less than interested in the details if you will. Much like an absentee CEO. Your own stories seem to support that. Very much so.
Ulsterman: You’re being much too kind there. The guy is a moron. And I think you know that, but you won’t just come out and say it. Barack Obama is dumb, and dangerously so.
Wall Street: That is your opinion. I don’t share it. Incompetent, yes. Stupid? No.
Ulsterman: Do you think he – President Obama…do you think he could pull it off? The move to unionize the military?
Wall Street: Yes. Not him so much – but those around him. Yes. They would form the plan – the implementation plan, the DOJ would prepare the legal groundwork, and the president would be given the script.
Ulsterman: Why? If he is so incompetent, why do you think the president could actually pull something like that off? You seem to be contradicting yourself on this. Somebody might even say your full of –expletive- and it wouldn’t take much to convince me to agree with them on that.
Wall Street: (Pause) …I now live in a world of Dodd-Frank. While President Obama may in fact not possess the abilities to pull off something like that, as I indicated, there are those around him…those in the Democratic Party, who could. And if given the opportunity, they will. The plan has been discussed – and implementation of just this scenario – I have no doubt it will continues to be discussed.
Ulsterman: What? Unionization of the military? How do you know this? And why didn’t you say anything about bit earlier?
Wall Street: If you would allow me an opportunity, perhaps I would have.
Ulsterman: What “highest levels” are you talking about here? Who? And how do you know this? Did it come from the DOJ guy?
Wall Street: No, not him. His input had me concerned. The military…it impacts both my professional and personal livelihood. The possibility of it being made into another union…I find that…objectionable. Dangerous. Very dangerous. Unions have destroyed American industry. Almost every significant failing of private industry in this country can be linked to the influence of unions. The auto bailout is just such an example. Imagine the damage done to the military? And to the industries supporting the military?
Ulsterman: How would the unionization of the military impact your livelihood? You’re talking money right? Is that what has you so concerned? Your own bottom line?
Wall Street: That is not my main concern – NO. There are other reasons much more important than that. Money is not…to unionize the military would further cripple this economy. It would destroy companies. More job loss. It would be a disaster.
Ulsterman: Speak about the plan please. The implementation of this scenario that you say has been discussed at the highest levels. How do you know of this?
Wall Street: As I said, when I heard of what the gentleman from the DOJ had shared, had repeated to others, I became concerned. I reached out to certain…contacts I have. Longstanding acquaintances with direct ties to the Pentagon. Yes, the military is big money. Very-very big money, but I want to make it clear to you – that was not my primary motivation here.
Ulsterman: Fine – keep talking.
Wall Street: Basically what came back to me from these sources was confirmation of what I had heard earlier – the DOJ information. And the confirmation was solid. Discussions had taken place. Communication had come directly from the highest levels of both the Department of Justice and the Obama White House that indicated the legal means of unionizing the United States Military. Word then reached the contractors, and people were beginning to get…the concern was significant. We had just seen what had been done with healthcare – how that had been pushed through. What had been done with the auto unions. Organized labor owns this White House. The possibility of them doing to the military what they had so successfully done elsewhere appeared at that time to be very serious.
Wall Street: Military contractors. The companies who provide the hardware. Billions – trillions of dollars at stake. They were not pleased by this scenario. If you were to get access to materials likely available within an ongoing legal case, I do believe you would get confirmation of this – of the move to unionize the military.
Ulsterman: What case?
Wall Street: Do your own homework. You shouldn’t have to look so hard.
Ulsterman: You won’t say?
Wall Street: No, I will not. But what I’m saying will reach those who we want to know.
Ulsterman: The Boeing case?
Wall Street: I cannot comment on something that specific.
Ulsterman: Ah…can I ask you some yes and no questions? Just yes and no. Can you do that for me?
Wall Street: I won’t promise anything in that regard – but go ahead and ask them. Are you saying I’m a bit long-winded? (laughs)
Ulsterman: No – you’re even more…anonymous than –name deleted-. I understand why, and I agreed to hold that up as part of the bargain, but it does annoy the hell out of me sometimes. You can understand that, right?
Wall Street: Is that your first yes or no question?
Ulsterman: No…(long pause)…Were you the one to indicate that Wall Street had manipulated the economy back in 2008 to help Barack Obama get elected? Were you the source Insider used for that information?
Wall Street: Perhaps, but I am certain I was not the only one. But yes, I did share information related to that scenario.
Ulsterman: Do you support the Federal Reserve?
Wall Street: No.
Ulsterman: Can you expand on that answer?
Wall Street: That would take it beyond a yes or no response then.
Ulsterman: Just give me a quick summary of why you don’t support the Fed.
Wall Street: That is long bit of history…I will simply say the current Federal Reserve leadership is the single most dangerous contributor to the current economic climate in this country. I would qualify that by also stating not everyone in the Fed agrees with the current leadership position. There is quite a fight going on in-house there.
Ulsterman: Does Ben Bernanke need to be removed from his position at the Fed?
Wall Street: Yes – absolutely.
Ulsterman: Does Timothy Geithner need to be removed from his position at Treasury?
Wall Street: No.
Ulsterman: Why not?
Wall Street: My answer was no. That’s it.
Ulsterman: Do you consider Ben Bernanke more dangerous to the American economy than President Obama?
Wall Street: Yes – the president…the president likely has no clue what Chairman Bernanke is doing…has done, to the financial health of this country. Mr. Bernanke has been a boon to the volatility feeders. We are at the abyss here you know. So many of us know it, but nobody – very few…want to openly communicate that fact. The situation of this country is frightening. I cannot begin to…my words won’t do justice to just how dangerous this situation has become.
Ulsterman: What Bernanke is doing – is it intentional?
Wall Street: I believe so…(pause) yes.
Ulsterman: Care to elaborate?
Wall Street: (Sighs) No…not now. I’m not ready for that.
Ulsterman: What is the abyss? The economy – the economy is at the abyss? The debt?
Wall Street: These cannot be yes or no answers. And I’m getting tired here. I apologize for that, but this needs to come to a conclusion.
Ulsterman: Explain what the abyss is. Briefly. Please.
Wall Street: (Long pause)…Money has an inherent value. The borrowing of money is to have an inherent cost. That relationship is to be a symbiotic one. If you take away one, it can kill the other. —Don’t interrupt me here – if you don’t understand I can’t…I won’t be the one to explain it for you. Not at this time.
Ulsterman: Go ahead – I apologize. Please go ahead…
Wall Street: What the Federal Reserve is doing is killing off that relationship – that critical symbiotic component of a free-market economy. We are on this day a more centralized economy than at any other point in our history. Fiscal contagion can spread from nation to nation with a single click. Trillions upon trillions in value has been wiped out of the market by the printing of money with lessening value. When you wonder why Wall Street has succeeded under President Obama while Main Street continues to struggle is simply because Main Street still exists in some semblance of a free market economy. That relationship between the value of money and the cost of borrowing that value still exists. Wall Street has been allowed to exist outside of that reality. The Fed has made it so, and the result…we are nearing just the beginnings of that result – will be outright economic disaster. 2008? Nothing. 1929? Yes – that is where we are going here. And with that kind of economic chaos – what is soon to follow? Read you history. War. Famine. A total shock to the system, except this time, we have a proliferation of nuclear weapons, countries such as Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, they will be directly involved in this chaos. And of course there is China…the time I could spend on China…
Among the most frustrating things following the collapse of the Soviet Union was the repeated phrase that the Cold War had ended. Not so. China remained. China, who by then was a far greater economic threat to the United States than the Soviet Union – they were conveniently forgotten as part of that Cold War. Our intellectual laziness in that regard has now come home to roost. And we are cutting ourselves. Death by a thousand cuts. Every deficit dollar we print, we come closer to that abyss. We are at 40 or 50 trillion in total debt in this country – and in an economy that is no longer growing anywhere near a pace that can even pretend to accommodate such a debt. The folly of the New Deal and the Great Society and that entire mindset is choking the future of the nation. Literally choking the life out of us. Me, you, our kids, our grandkids…nothing will be left for them but pieces of what used to be, and a world ready and willing to feed off those scraps.
And these labor unions – the shift from private to governmental unionization…the inherent legacy costs of that scenario is simply unsustainable. The free market cannot withstand the attack. It is collapsing all about us now and too many are simply not paying attention. The only hope for our recovery – the only hope, is our ability to grow our way out of this. That growth, along with massive cuts in government spending, is the only way. Nations such as Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain …they have come to this understanding, but have only been able to do so with the assistance of other nations who in turn are printing their own deficit dollars in order to do so. That situation cannot be sustained can it? And certainly not without growth. Do you know the number of payroll jobs in 1999 was approximately 130 million? That is the same number as in 2011. Zero growth. This economic stagnation is leading to economic decapitation and it is coming sooner not later. It is happening NOW. If this nation does not elect leaders with the political will to do battle with the entitlement status quo, to do battle with the monster that is the Federal Reserve, we are finished. Done. President Obama does not have the political will to do so. Far from it. Nor does he have the understanding of just how dire the situation is. Far from it. More of the same will only lead to the mutual destruction of both political parties and the nation.
Ulsterman: That was not yes or no…but I certainly appreciate the response. You just gave as good a summary of the current economic situation I have heard. I want to thank you for allowing us to meet finally, and I hope to be able to do this again.
Wall Street: Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Ulsterman: Well…thank you either way. It really is much appreciated.
Wall Street: You’re welcome.