Bill Gilroy wrote: "Is it rubbish? "
Before getting too carried away with this, yes, rubbish, to which you
directed, you should make yourself a little more aware of Michael W.
Masters, his biases, his known background (or lack thereof), the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and its membership, and just
why Masters testified before it.
Masters is the "managing member" of Masters Capital Management, a small
outfit down in Christiansted, Virgin Islands. His performance does not
even rise to the level of "lackluster". Anyone who might have invested with
him has lost their shirt this year, as he held onto losing stock, including
the airlines. ELEVEN of the 14 stocks in his portfolio not only lost
money, but flushed it down the toilet by losing 50, 60, up to 75% of their
value! Even *my* dinky little portfolio is stellar in comparison.
Now, just what is Masters' record, education, expertise, or insight that
makes him worthy of testifying before a Senate panel? Who knows? It has
not be found. Well, not exactly. It is known that he was in league with
that esteemed congressman from the Great State of New Yawk, Charley Rangel.
In 2007, Rangel introduced a tax "reform" that would put massive hikes on
couples earning over $200,000, and on businesses and industry. Masters, a
big money donor Democrats in general and to Rangel in particular, was
beneficiary of a little noted provision of the bill that would *require*
that the IRS cease and desist tax audits on certain individuals in the
Virgin Islands. One of those who benefited? None other than the good Mr.
Masters. (Note for the record: Congress almost never, ever meddles in the
political hot potato of IRS audits!)
But why would the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs have Masters testify before it about commodity speculators? That
hardly fits into the committee's responsibility for Homeoland Security or
Governmental Affairs. Hmmm. Two reasons:
1. Masters was NOT asked to testify, he ASKED the committee to testify
on a matter outside its scope.
2. Who was on the committee? Why none other than Illinois Senator
Barak Obama.
Voila, Obama suddenly has a new campaign issue with already prepared attacks
ready to be launched. All provided by timely congressional "testimony" just
coincidently given by a Democratic backer who ASKED to make it public in
their limelight.
Those interested in more on the subject of "speculators" might want to read
an arti8cle in The Times of London Wednesday edition:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article4207213.ece
http://tinyurl.com/43o9so
Buster
(I believe in Santa Claus, not the Tooth Fairy.)
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
http://www.team.net/archive
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/spridgets
|