The Watchman On The Wall

The Watchman On The Wall
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Verse 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Monday, December 29, 2014

Spreme Court Delivers Blow To The 4th Amendment

In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a reasonable mistake about the law on the part of police.."
"Acting contrary to the venerable principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse, the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law.
By the time President Obama leaves office, our Constitution will be "hanging by a thread"!

These erosions of our Constitutional rights are simply signposts along the road, warning us that the anti christ is coming. Are you paying attention to God? If you died right now where would you go heaven or hell?

Sunday, December 28, 2014

We Are In A Global Depression

JimRickards on the CIA and financial warfare

So, if we are in a global depression where are the U.S. soup lines? They are invisible soup lines because millions of people in the U.S. are on food stamps (50 million), working part time (7 million), collecting government checks and collecting welfare. These things did not exist on a massive scale in the “Great Depression” of the 1930s. Watch Jim Rickards video below. I tend to agree with Jim Rickards an unexpected financial crisis will catch us unaware and will usher in the anti-christ. Some of Jim Rickards' main points are:
1. low gas prices are deflationary
2. deflation increases the value of U.S. debt which is bad
3. depression equals: fewer people working and productivity going down 
4. Central banks, e.g. the Fed destroy wealth, they do not create wealth
5. to get out of this global depression structural changes must be made
6. Central banks printing money creates asset bubbles
7. The currency war began in 2010 and there is no end in sight to it
8. making currencies stronger equals interest rate tightening
9. The last 1 1/2 years we have seen a strong dollar that is deflationary and the reason the U.S. economy is slowing down
9. Look for QE4 in 2015 and a weaker U.S. dollar
10. The strong GDP numbers are really inventory accumulation
11. In the last 5 years the U.S. economy has grown less than 2% annually, depression numbers
12. China is the biggest credit bubble in the world and Chinese investors have few alternatives to invest in
and one of their biggest investments is in worthless real estate
13. China has a real estate bubble and wealth management bubble that is ready to collapse
14. Chinese leaders make slow decisions and in an economic crisis that is bad when fast decisions need to be made to stop a panic
15. Chinese selling U.S. stock and bonds will spread the panic contagion to the U.S. and around the world
16. Monetary policy cannot fix inherent structural problems in an economy
17. China is the world's largest oil importer
18. War causes more oil to be pumped e.g. the Iran/Iraq war; when nations are at war they need more oil
19. Russia is not a real economy, it is a "Cleptocracy" run by gangsters skimming oil revenues
20. Economic instability can cause military "flash points" e.g. Syria, Iraq, Venezuela and Ukraine in order to distract from domestic problems
21. When a default occurs we don't know who the creditors are e.g. AIG's biggest creditor was Goldman Sachs 
22. Japan has been in a depression for 25 years

Jim Rickards on Russia

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia Declare Economic War on Russia and Iran

If you are in a hurry, just read the yellow highlights.
Ellen Brown wrote this excellent article.
The sudden dramatic collapse in the price of oil is an act of geopolitical warfare against Russia and Iran. The result could be trillions of dollars in oil derivative losses; and depositors and taxpayers could be liable, following repeal of key portions of the Dodd-Frank Act signed into law on December 16th.
On December 11th, Senator Elizabeth Warren charged Citigroup with “holding government funding hostage to ram through its government bailout provision.” At issue was a section in the omnibus budget bill repealing the Lincoln Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, which protected depositor funds by requiring the largest banks to push out a portion of their derivatives business into non-FDIC-insured subsidiaries.
Warren and Representative Maxine Waters came close to killing the spending bill because of this provision. But the tide turned, according to Waters, when not only Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, but President Obama himself lobbied lawmakers to vote for the bill.
It was not only a notable about-face for the president but represented an apparent shift in position for the banks. Before Jamie Dimon intervened, it had been reported that the bailout provision was not a big deal for the banks and that they were not lobbying heavily for it, because it covered only a small portion of their derivatives. As explained in TimeThe best argument for not freaking out about the repeal of the Lincoln Amendment is that it wasn’t nearly as strong as its drafters intended it to be. . . . [W]hile the Lincoln Amendment was intended to lasso all risky instruments, by the time all was said and done, it really only applied to about 5% of the derivatives activity of banks like Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, according to a 2012 Fitch report.
Quibbling over a mere 5% of the derivatives business sounds like much ado about nothing, but Jamie Dimon and the president evidently didn’t think so. Why?A Closer Look at the Lincoln Amendment, the preamble to the Dodd-Frank Act claims “to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts.” But it does this through “bail-in”: authorizing “systemically important” too-big-to-fail banks to expropriate the assets of their creditors, including depositors. Under the Lincoln Amendment, however, FDIC-insured banks were not allowed to put depositor funds at risk for their bets on derivatives, with certain broad exceptions.
In an article posted on December 10th titled “Banks Get To Use Taxpayer Money For Derivative Speculation,” Chriss W. Street explained the amendment like this:
Starting in 2013, federally insured banks would be prohibited from directly engaging in derivative transactions not specifically hedging (1) lending risks, (2) interest rate volatility, and (3) cushion against credit defaults. The “push-out rule” sought to force banks to move their speculative trading into non-federally insured subsidiaries.
The Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in 2013 allowed a two-year delay on the condition that banks take steps to move swaps to subsidiaries that don’t benefit from federal deposit insurance or borrowing directly from the Fed.
The rule would have impacted the $280 trillion in derivatives primarily held by the “too-big-to-fail (TBTF) banks that include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo. Although 95% of TBTF derivative holdings are exempt as legitimate lending hedges, leveraging cheap money from the U.S. Federal Reserve into $10 trillion of derivative speculation is one of the TBTF banks’ most profitable business activities. 
(Watchman comment: Now you know why interest rates are low!)
What was and was not included in the exemption was explained by Steve Shaefer in a June 2012 article in Forbes. According to Fitch Ratings, interest rate, currency, gold/silver, credit derivatives referencing investment-grade securities, and hedges were permissible activities within an insured depositary institution. Those not permitted included “equity, some credit and most commodity derivatives.” Schaefer wrote:
For Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the rule is almost a non-event, as they already conduct derivatives activity outside of their bank subsidiaries. (Which makes sense, since neither actually had commercial banking operations of any significant substance until converting into bank holding companies during the 2008 crisis).
The impact on Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and to a lesser extent, Wells Fargo, would be greater, but still rather middling, as the size and scope of the restricted activities is but a fraction of these firms’ overall derivative operations.
A fraction, but a critical fraction, as it included the banks’ bets on commodities. Five percent of $280 trillion is $14 trillion in derivatives exposure – close to the size of the existing federal debt. And as financial blogger Michael Snyder points out, $3.9 trillion of this speculation is on the price of commodities, including oil.
As Snyder observes, the recent drop in the price of oil by over $50 a barrel – a drop of nearly 50% since June – was completely unanticipated and outside the predictions covered by the banks’ computer models. And with repeal of the Lincoln Amendment, the hefty bill could be imposed on taxpayers in a bailout or on depositors in a bail-in.
Financial expert Yves Smith suggests other derivative-related reasons the banks are likely to be concerned over the oil crisis, which are too complicated to explain in this article, but the link is here
Interest rate swaps compose 82% of the derivatives market. Interest rates are predictable and can be controlled, since the Federal Reserve sets the prime rate. The Fed’s mandate includes maintaining the stability of the banking system, which means protecting the interests of the largest banks. The Fed obliged after the 2008 credit crisis by dropping the prime rate nearly to zero, a major windfall for the derivatives banks – and a major loss for their counterparties, including state and local governments.
Manipulating markets anywhere is illegal – unless you are a central bank or a federal government, in which case you can apparently do it with impunity.
In this case, the shocking $50 drop in the price of oil was not due merely to the forces of supply and demand, which are predictable and can be hedged against. According to an article by Larry Elliott in the UK Guardian titled Stakes Are High as US Plays the Oil Card Against Iran and Russia,” the unanticipated drop was an act of geopolitical warfare administered by the Saudis. History, he says, is repeating itself:
The fourfold increase in oil prices triggered by the embargo on exports organized by Saudi Arabia in response to the Yom Kippur war in 1973 showed how crude could be used as a diplomatic and economic weapon.
Now, says Elliott, the oil card is being played to force prices lower:
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, struck a deal with King Abdullah in September under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and Syria caused by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.
. . . [A]ccording to Middle East specialists, the Saudis want to put pressure on Iran and to force Moscow to weaken its support for the Assad regime in Syria.
War on the Ruble
If the plan was to break the ruble, it worked. The ruble has dropped by more than 60%against the dollar since January. (Watchman comment: you can bet Soros, Dimon and other criminal banksters made money shorting the Ruble.)
On December 16th, the Russian central bank counterattacked by raising interest rates to 17% in order to stem “capital flight” – the dumping of rubles on the currency markets. Deposits are less likely to be withdrawn and exchanged for dollars if they are earning a high rate of return.
The move was also a short squeeze on the short sellers attempting to crash the ruble. Short sellers sell currency they don’t have, forcing down the price; then cover by buying at the lower price, pocketing the difference. But the short squeeze worked only briefly, as trading in the ruble was quickly suspended, allowing short sellers to cover their bets. Who has the power to shut down a currency exchange? One suspects that more than mere speculation was at work.
Protecting Our Money from Wall Street Gambling
The short sellers were saved, but the derivatives banks will still get killed if oil prices don’t go back up soon. At least they would have been killed before the bailout ban was lifted. Now, it seems, that burden could fall on depositors and taxpayers. (Watchman comment: the Obama administration made a deal with the big derivatives banks to save them from Kerry’s clandestine economic warfare at taxpayer expense.)
Whatever happened behind closed doors, we the people will again be stuck with the tab. We will continue to be at the mercy of the biggest banks until depository banking is separated from speculative investment banking. Reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act is supported not only by Elizabeth Warren and others on the left but by prominent voices such as David Stockman’s on the right.

Another alternative for protecting our funds from Wall Street gambling can be done at the local level. Our state and local governments can establish publicly-owned banks; and our monies, public and private, can be moved into them.

Videos of the Day 23 December 2014

More on the criminal banks

Charles Krauthammer  on rascism in the U.S.

Influenza Update

CDC Warning: Flu Viruses Mutate and Evade Current Vaccine

Judgment continues in Japan? now 340,000 cases of flu.........anti-Israeli policies and practice of pagan rituals bringing judgment on Japan

Monday, December 22, 2014

Misunderstanding Hanukkah and Christmas

A common misunderstanding of the December holiday season is that Christmas is the holiday for Christians and Hanukkah is the holiday for Jews. 
Few Christians relate to Hanukkah since it is not one of the biblical feasts of Israel. But, the fact that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah should make Christians curious enough to investigate the possible importance of the festival to their faith.
It is no exaggeration to say that had it not been for Hanukkah, there could have very well not been a Christmas. Hanukkah prepared the way for the birth and ministry of Jesus. Therefore, Christians may want to not only wish the Jewish community a Happy Hanukkah, but celebrate it themselves!
God Gives the Victory
The story of Hanukkah begins during the period in-between the Old and New Testaments, when Antiochus IV Epiphanes became the ruler of the Greek empire. While the Hellenization of the area already threatened the survival of the Jewish religion, Antiochus seemed obsessed with ensuring the demise of the Jewish faith and thereby, the future of the Jewish people.
He not only murdered the High Priest, Onias III, but he slaughtered 40,000 inhabitants of Jerusalem. All sacrifices, the service of the Temple, and the observance of the Sabbath and of feast days were prohibited. The Temple was dedicated to Zeus, the Holy Scriptures were destroyed, and the Jews were forced to take part in heathen rites.
In his attempt to destroy every trace of the Jewish religion, the final assault was the slaughter of a pig on the sacrificial altar of the Temple, thereby desecrating it. The Maccabean family, from the priestly line of Aaron, led a revolt against this evil ruler and miraculously experienced victory after victory over the mighty Greek forces, until at last the Temple could be purified and its services restored.
This rededication of the Temple to the God of Israel is celebrated during Hanukkah, originally known as the Festival of Dedication. Hanukkah is a Hebrew word derived from the word “to dedicate.”
The defeat of the Greek forces by this small band of Jewish zealots was nothing short of a miracle. God had once again demonstrated His steadfast love and faithfulness to His people by saving them from the threat of extinction. This in itself is cause enough for celebration!
The story goes on to claim that when the Jews re-entered the city of Jerusalem and the Temple, there was only enough of the special oil to light the Temple menorah and keep it burning for one day. But, the oil miraculously burned for eight days while more was being brought from the Galilee—an eight day trip there and back.
The story of the miracle oil is nowhere found in the inter-Testamental writings, therefore it is largely believed to be a legend, however, the very first Hanukkah was indeed celebrated for eight days, and the festival was called the festival of lights as early as the first century. Perhaps archeology will one day uncover a clue to the story’s authenticity.
A Turning Point in History
The events leading up to the Maccabean revolt were prophesied in vivid detail in the Old Testament book of Daniel. In chapter 8, the Angel Gabriel described to the prophet Daniel the coming abomination of a king who would put a stop to sacrifices and desecrate the sanctuary.
The fact that it was prophesied some 250 years before it occurred indicates how serious the threat was to the Jewish people. The Maccabean revolt was a turning point in history that saved the Jewish people and their religion from the threat of extinction.
This story, and the various archeological finds that support it, provide further proof as to the existence of the Temple in Jerusalem. So, while Israel’s modern-day enemies attempt to rewrite history and distort fact by denying the Temple ever existed in Jerusalem, the celebration of the Hanukkah story takes on new meaning. 
Jesus and Hanukkah
In John's Gospel, chapter 10, Jesus entered the Temple during the Feast of Dedication. He would have surely known the story behind the Feast and that the Temple He stood in would not have been in operation without it.
Christians today would also do well to remember the faithfulness of God to the Jews on that first Hanukkah. Had Antiochus succeeded to annihilate the nation of Israel, there would have been no Jewish woman named Mary to become the mother of Jesus Christ.
There would have also been no Temple for the beginning of the Christmas story. Luke 1 starts the nativity story in the Temple with an angel announcing to the priest Zacharias that his wife would give birth to John the Baptist. It is no coincidence that God chose to begin the Christmas story in the Temple, the heart of Jewish life and faith at the time.

Without Hanukkah, the celebration of Christ’s birth could very well have not been possible. So as you wish friends and family Merry Christmas this year, you might also like to wish them Happy Hanukkah!

Videos of the Day 22 December 2014

Count your blessings

The video below is excellent about harbingers and the Shemitah that began in September 2014 and ends 13 September 2015. 
If your time is precious begin watching at the 1 hour 14 minute mark. Jim Rickards begins talking at that point and he is a CIA financial analyst and editor of Currency Wars. Jim gives a critique of our current financial state and what it holds for the U.S. and the world in the future. 
As you know your Watchman always says God is in control, however, I would highly recommend that we batton down our financial hatches and be good stewards of our money.

Walt Disney was a free mason

Do not marvel at so called superheroes; and no marvel; for satan himself is transformed into an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14) 

Hollywood exposed part 1

Hollywood exposed part 2, begin at the 2:40 

Saturday, December 20, 2014

G-20 and U.S. Scumbag Politicians Sell Out Average Americans To Big Banks

Deposits vs Reserves vs Derivs_0 #2

The problem with deriviatives is graphically illustrated in this chart from a March 2013 ZeroHedge post pictured above:

After closing their New World Order meeting in China and wearing their stupid costumes on the weekend of November 16th, the G20 New World Order leaders whisked into Brisbane, posed for their photo ops, approved some proposals, made a show of roundly disapproving of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and whisked out again. It was all so fast, but they knew they were endorsing and rubber-stamping the Financial Stability Board’s “Adequacy of Loss-Absorbing Capacity of Global Systemically Important Banks in Resolution,” which completely changes the rules of banking. Keep in mind, these global thugs make decisions that effect you and me and none of us elected these foreigners to make our decisions. I wish we would get an American President to quit going to these damn meetings that destroy U.S. sovereignty and erode our House and Senate's authority.
Russell Napier, writing in ZeroHedge termed their latest decision “the day money died.” In any case, it may have been the day deposits died as money. Unlike coins and paper bills, which cannot be written down or given a “haircut,” says Napier, deposits are now “just part of commercial banks’ capital structure.” That means they can be “bailed in” or confiscated to save the megabanks from derivative bets gone wrong.
Rather than reining in the massive and risky derivatives casino, the new rulesprioritize the payment of banks’ derivatives obligations to each other, ahead of everyone else. That includes not only depositors, public and private, but the pension funds that are the target market for the latest bail-in play, called “bail-inable” bonds.
“Bail in” has been sold as avoiding future government bailouts and eliminating too big to fail (TBTF). But it actually institutionalizes TBTF, since the big banks are kept in business by expropriating the funds of their creditors.
It is a neat solution for bankers and politicians, who don’t want to have to deal with another messy banking crisis and are happy to see it disposed of by statute. But a bail-in could have worse consequences than a bailout for the public. If your taxes go up, you will probably still be able to pay the bills. If your bank account or pension gets wiped out, you could wind up in the street or sharing food with your pets.
In theory, US deposits under $250,000 are protected by federal deposit insurance; but deposit insurance funds in both the US and Europe are woefully underfunded, particularly when derivative claims are factored in.

The G20 agreement, that Obama participated in, was compounded by the passage of the recent budget bill that places big bank derivatives above the average American’s bank account.

When the “crash” comes and it is coming, your money in the banks could be given to the big banks in a bailout so that those banks can avoid collapsing. More likely we taxpayers will pay the bill to bail out the big banks. An $18 trillion deficit will sky rocket again. Derivatives, credit swaps and commodity trading were a major factors in the 2008 crash and they are back bigger and worse than ever. As the graph at the top clearly shows there are now $300 billion in derivatives (housing, oil and others) however there is only $29 in FDIC insurance for our accounts in the banks. I am not counting the $9 billion in commercial banking insurance.  Friends, derivatives and credit swaps are ponzy schemes. It is like you giving the Watchman money to play the lottery. It is a house of cards waiting to fail. Also the so-called transparent Obama presidency has been exposed as a fraud, he is truly the bankster's and wall street's best friend.  

Criminal bankster and JP Morgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon, pictured above, personally called politicians to urge support for the derivatives rule in the budget.

The acrimony that erupted Thursday between President Obama and members of his own party largely pivoted on a single item in a 1,600-page piece of legislation to keep the government funded: Should banks be allowed to make risky investments using taxpayer-backed money?

The very idea was abhorrent to many Democrats on Capitol Hill. And some were stunned that the White House would support the bill with that provision intact, given that it would erase a key provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, one of Obama’s signature achievements.
But perhaps even more outrageous to Democrats was that the language in the bill appeared to come directly from the pens of lobbyists at the nation’s biggest banks, aides said. The provision was so important to the profits at those companies that J.P.Morgan's chief executive Jamie Dimon (the white collar bankster criminal) himself telephoned individual lawmakers to urge them to vote for it, according to a person familiar with the effort.
The White House, in pleading with Democrats to support the bill, explained that it got something in return: It said that it averted other amendments that would have undercut Dodd-Frank, protected the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from Republican attacks, and won double digit increases in funds for the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. "The president is pleased," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. 
Friends, Obama is clearly in the camp of the banksters. I may be wrong but I do believe Democratic Presidents Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt would have never signed such a bankster budget. But it is not just the Dems, Boehner and McConnell and the Republicans are just as bad. These  scoundrel politicians sold the average American out for future campaign funds from the big banks.
Earnest said that Democrats were upset about "a specific provision in this omnibus that would be related to watering down one provision of the Wall Street reform law.  The President does not support that provision.  But on balance, the President does believe that this compromise proposal is worthy of his support."
But "that provision" isn't just any provision. It's one that goes to the heart of the Dodd Frank reform because it would let big banks undertake risky activities with funds guaranteed by the federal government and, hence taxpayers.
The omnibus appropriations bill would do that by undoing the Dodd Frank provision that ordered banks to move their riskiest activities -- such as default swaps, trading commodities, and trading derivatives -- to new entities so that deposits guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. would not be in danger.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pointed to this item as the main reason she would vote against a bill backed by her own president. Wow, this is a rare moment when I agree with Pelosi. 
"What I am saying is: the taxpayer should not assume the risk," she said. She said the amendment went "back to the same old Republican formula: privatize the gain, nationalize the risk.  You succeed, it's in your pocket.  You fail, the taxpayer pays the bill.  It’s just not right."
It isn't only liberal congressional Democrats up in arms about the proposed change. "It really is outrageous," said a former senior Obama Treasury official, who asked for anonymity to preserve business relationships. "This was the epicenter of the crisis. This is what brought AIG down, what brought Lehman Brothers down."
The nation's biggest banks -- led by Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and Bank of America -- have been lobbying for the change in Dodd Frank, which had given them a period of years to comply. Trade associations representing banks, the Financial Services Roundtable and the American Bankers Association, emphasized that regional banks are supportive of the change as well. I do not believe the small bankers support this change. I think this a blatant lie.
The banks have long argued that the Dodd Frank provision will limit their ability to extend credit to clients and that setting up separate entities to engage in derivatives and commodities trading isn't practical. The ABA’s top lobbyist, James Ballentine, executive vice president of congressional relations and political affairs, said in an e-mailed statement that the requirement that banks move some swaps in to separate affiliates "makes one stop shopping impossible for businesses ranging from family farms to energy companies that want to hedge against commodity price changes."
But the regulatory change could also boost the profits of major banks, which is why they are pushing so hard for passage, said Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management.
"It is because there is a lot of money at stake," Johnson said. "They want to be able to take big risks where they get the upside and the taxpayer gets the potential downside," he said.
Johnson said the amendment of Dodd Frank only affects a small portion of derivatives.  “I don’t want to make a mountain out of a molehill on this,” he said. But he added that “on a forward looking basis this could become very big.”
The effort to enact this language has been years in the making. Language that was written and edited in part by the major banks was originally inserted in a House bill that called for relaxation of the push out rules in 2013. Citi Bank declined to comment on the role its lobbyists played in developing the legislation, which was originally disclosed in an e-mail exchange reported on by the New York Times. However, a blog post written in 2013 by the bank’s head of global public affairs, referred to the effort to modify this portion of Dodd-Frank as “a great example of how the industry and Congress can work together to find common ground.”
The banking lobby has always been a powerful force in Washington. The banks that could benefit from this change -- Citigroup and J.P. Morgan -- are among Washington’s most influential corporate players. Each firm, for example, spent over $5 million a year lobbying in recent years, both of them ranking in the top 90 firms for lobbying expenditures, according to data prepared by the Center for Responsive Politics.  In addition J.P. Morgan contributed over $5 million to federal candidates and parties in 2012, compared with  $2.6 million in the last election cycle for Citigroup. And both firms have strong connections on Capitol Hill and the White House. Citi, for example, includes among its stable of lobbyists former House Speaker Bob Livingston (R-La.) and former Senators John Breaux (D-La.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.).
Former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank on Wednesday also urged his former colleagues to reject the omnibus appropriations bill. He called the amendment inserted into the bill “a substantive mistake, a terrible violation of the procedure that should be followed on this complex and important subject, and a frightening precedent that provides a road map for further attacks on our protection against financial instability." 

Frank added that “ironically it was a similar unrelated rider put without debate into a larger bill that played a major role in allowing irresponsible, unregulated derivative transactions to contribute to the crisis." He said people could disagree about how best to regulate derivatives but that the way to do that was "not for a non-germane amendment inserted with no hearings, no chance for further modification, and no chance for debate into a mammoth bill in the last days of a lame-duck Congress."
The Senate passed the budget 56 to 40 with 4 missing votes.
The House passed the budget 219 to 206. 67 Republicans voted against the budget. 57 Dem traitors voted with 162 Republican traitors.