While researching this article, we found ourselves saying “I’m becoming a Jerry.” For those of you who didn’t catch the reference, we’re referring to the character Jerry Fletcher played by Mel Gibson in the movie Conspiracy Theory. Jerry does all this research and has all these weirdo conspiracy theories. Initially, you think he’s crazy, but by the end, several of his conspiracy theories prove to be true.
So in researching, the further we dug, the more we realized we’re on to something. We feel it in our guts. We know it’s true. Is it a conspiracy theory? Maybe. But everything is just so… obvious. And if it’s out there in the open, for anyone who knows how to use Google to look up, is it really a conspiracy?
This article started as a short piece about the dismantling of GM. Rather than delve again into the bumbling mess that the administration is making out of GM and Chrysler, we decided to focus instead on who is running the show for the President. And the more we dug into the story, the more we unraveled, and the more frightening the picture became. So a forewarning: this is a long article, and by the end you’re going to be looking for a stiff drink and a bottle of Tums.
So who is responsible for “reshaping” GM? Is it a business tycoon, well-heeled in labor negotiations and multi-tier supplier chains? No. Is it a world-class economist known the world over for his brilliant work? No. Who is it? Why, it’s Brian Deese, of course!
If you asked “Who the hell is Brian Deese?” then you had the same reaction we did. We started with the New York Times article that said:
“Mr. Deese’s route to the auto table at the White House was anything but a straight line. He is the son of a political science professor at Boston College (his father) and an engineer who works in renewable energy (his mother). He grew up in the Boston suburb of Belmont and attended Middlebury College in Vermont. He went to Washington to work on aid issues and was quickly hired by Nancy Birdsall, a widely respected authority on the effectiveness of international aid and the founder of the Center for Global Development.”
The New York Times article failed to answer the question “why”. Why was this virtual nobody picked for this important post, what the Times article referred to as “President Obama’s biggest experiment yet in federal economic intervention”? So we decided to go to Google and start searching.
What we found is that the long and short of is that Mr. Deese is a 31-year-old Washington insider. His first job with Ms. Birdsall saw him helping work on a book with Ms. Birdsall. So let’s take a look at the book, shall we? Delivering On Debt Relief talks about what can be done to reduce global poverty, which parallels what Ms. Birdsall’s Center for Global Development aims to do. But let’s look at how they aim to do it: through taxing carbon emissions, creating a global pool of money, and redistributing the wealth from wealthy nations to poorer nations. The book also speaks favorably of the United Nations’ Millenium Development Goals. While one of the goals is to end poverty, the other goals include things like developing a global financial system. The UN Millenium Declaration also calls for banning small arms, establishment of an International Criminal Court, global warming treaties, and “ratification and full implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child”, which among other things removes many parental rights such as which religion to teach your children and ensuring that children grow up in a gun-free home.
After working for Ms. Birdsall, Brian Deese went to work for Gene Sperling in the 2008 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, then moved to the position of deputy economic policy director on Obama’s presidential campaign. Despite having only degrees in political science and law, Mr. Sperling has held several high-level roles in economic advisory positions, including his current role as advisor to Treasury Secretary (and tax cheat) Timothy Geithner, and past role as National Economic Adviser to President Clinton. And his book The Pro-Growth Progressive argues that liberals should use market forces to achieve their political goals. Then it all started to fall into place: is that not what’s happening now? Market forces being used to grab unfathomable political power?
So back to Brian Deese. Certainly, one would think that after working under Mr. Sperling, Brian Deese has learned a thing or two about Sperling’s philosophies on how to use market forces to achieve political goals. So Brian Deese has all sorts of experience with the global power agendas of the political elite, but zero experience in business, finance, economics, manufacturing, or the auto industry.
Why would Obama pick someone with no experience in the auto industry to help “reshape” it? Because Brian Deese’s views are so close to Obama’s own. If you remember, When Barack Obama was a Senator, he drafted S.2433 which was essentially a “U.N. tax” to help end global poverty and also ratify… the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. Brian Deese was not picked for his competence; he was picked for his political world view. And he was picked for his knowledge on how to use market forces to achieve political goals.
So what are these political goals? More to the point, what are the Progressive political goals?
- Federal regulation of all industries
- Nationalization of major industries
- Steep graduated taxes & income redistribution
- Government regulation of private lives and government determination of morality
- Establish the government as the only way to solve social problems and establish fairness in gender, race, labor, and economic issues
- Promote the government as the cradle to grave provider of education, healthcare, wages, and retirement
So what does Brian Deese and the “reshaping” of GM have to do with any of this? Where are we headed? And how did we get in this mess so fast?
Before we get started, the most important thing to keep in mind is that the Progressive political goals know no distinction between Democrat and Republican; there are Progressives in both parties: George Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” is as Progressive in ideology as Jimmy Carter’s establishment of the Department of Education; Bush’s Medicare prescription drug entitlement is as Progressive as LBJ’s establishment of Medicare; and Barack Obama’s pushing us further in debt is as Progressive as Nixon’s taking the United States off the gold standard. And just as there are Progressives in both political parties, there are Conservatives in both parties. While “conservative” has been portrayed to be equal to “Republican” in recent history, you need to expunge this from your way of thinking. Conservatives are merely people who want to preserve existing institutions and oppose change, so anyone who wants to preserve the Constitution as it stands should be considered a Conservative. In this light, decisions by politicians should not be viewed as Democrat vs. Republican, but should be seen as Progressive vs. Conservative.
So let’s rewind to last summer. The artificially-inflated housing bubble was starting to burst. The groundwork for this was laid with the Fair Housing Act of 1968, then the Housing and Community Development act of 1974. These acts set the stage for activist groups like ACORN to start bullying and strong-arming banks into loaning to high-risk borrowers. Helping things along was the Congressional chartering of Fannie Mae in 1968, where government appointees could help their Progressive friends in office by helping them buy votes. It got a boost in the late 1990’s when two executive orders were issued that furthered the reach of the Fair Housing Act, and extended its reach to low-income populations (Executive Order 12898) and people with Limited English Proficiency (Executive Order 13166). See where this is going? Banks are pressured by “community activist” groups like ACORN to give mortgage loans to people who either can’t afford them or can’t understand what they’re signing. And insurance companies — like AIG — who guarantee the loans are on the hook for people who default.
Coming out of the dot-com bubble, people were looking to recoup their losses. They were riding the gravy train and didn’t want to get off. What happens when you mix greed with easy access to credit helped along by governmental regulations that required banks to authorize the loans or face prosecution? You get set up for the opportunity the Progressives have been waiting for.
So let’s fast forward past AIG, Fannie and Freddie, CitiGroup, and all the rest. Let’s go back to GM and Brian Deese. Brian was picked because he gets it. He buys into the Progressive world view, and he knows how to make that happen. Remember, one of Brian’s mentors is Gene Sperling, who believes in the philosophy of using market forces to achieve political objectives. So let’s play this out to a year from now:
The U.S. has been printing money like mad to intentionally deflate the dollar down the road. Progressive policies have spent the last 5 years or so getting hooks further into healthcare, banks, and the largest manufacturing industry in the country. Many people bailed out of their riskier investments during the stock market crash and they lost a lot of money. These people are primarily the largest voting block in America, the Baby Boomers, who have lived most of their lives with The New Deal and the Great Society policies of Social Security, Medicare, and the like. One other thing about the Baby Boomers: they are close to retirement and when the markets tanked, they saw their retirement savings evaporating. They’re teetering on the edge of willingly running to the open arms of a Progressive-inspired global socialist government, and all they need is a push. Enter Brian Deese to be that push.
After devaluing GM and getting it off the Dow, the Progressives have been artificially inflating the markets back up to entice people to buy back in and try to recoup their investment losses. Their retirement losses. Come next year or the year after when the effects of hyperinflation kick in and the artificially-inflated stock market tanks again on purpose, those retirement accounts will be absolutely and completely worthless. The Baby Boomers who had saved and invested now will see their retirement that was so close now vanish because they can’t afford it. “I was planning on retiring! I was planning on going on a month-long trip across Europe! I was planning on buying into a time-share in Florida!” All gone. Vanished. History. Then these same people who have been raised in the Progressive-infused education system will run happily into the waiting arms of a Government who promises to take care of them.
And we’re all along for the ride, whether we like it or not.
So we realized that what appears to be bungling incompetent stupidity on the part of the Obama administration is actually a well-thought-out Progressive plan to bring America to its knees, and to shove us whimpering into the Progressive plan. What’s ironic is that for all of their mocking of trickle-down economics, not only do they understand how it works and that it does work, they understand it well enough to use it to achieve their political goals. That is the role of Brian Deese. That is where we are headed. And you thought Mr. Deese was merely an incompetent 31-year-old! Of course so did we, but that was before we became a Jerry.