“Historically, there has been a bull market in commodities every 20 or 30 years.”
~Jim Rogers
<span class=”bodyJim Rogers On Current Economic Conditions 5.12.09 Part 1
<span class=”bodyJim Rogers On Current Economic Conditions 5.12.09 Part 2
<span class=”bodyJim Rogers On Current Economic Conditions 5.12.09 Part 3
Let The Incompetent Fail – Jim Rogers
Jim Rogers Says Investors Should Expect More Bottoms pt 1/3 Apr 13 2009
Jim Rogers Says Investors Should Expect More Bottoms pt 2/3 Apr 13 2009
Jim Rogers Says Investors Should Expect More Bottoms pt 3/3 Apr 13 2009
Jim Rogers Expect Civil Unrests in the US (Or Create Your Own) pt 1/4
Jim Rogers Expect Civil Unrests in the US (Or Create Your Own) pt 2/4
Jim Rogers Expect Civil Unrests in the US (Or Create Your Own) pt 3/4
Jim Rogers Expect Civil Unrests in the US (Or Create Your Own) pt 4/4
Jim Rogers is the Asian model Viable for the West ? pt 1/2
Jim Rogers is the Asian model Viable for the West ? pt 2/2
Jim Rogers Britain could go Bankrupt
Jim Rogers on Glenn Beck Program March 4, 2009
Jim Rogers on Barack Obama – March 4th 2009
Jim Rogers abolish the WB and the IMF 13 Feb 09
Best Jim Rogers Video Ever
Jim Rogers America is Collapsing pt 1/5
Jim Rogers America is Collapsing pt 2/5
Jim Rogers America is Collapsing pt 3/5
Jim Rogers America is Collapsing pt 4/5
Jim Rogers America is Collapsing pt 5/5
Jim Rogers : Teach your children Chinese
Jim Rogers on GSR Radio pt 1/2 Feb. 24, 2009
Jim Rogers on GSR Radio pt 2/2 Feb. 24, 2009
Jim Rogers on dutch TV pt 1/2 Feb 12 2009
Jim Rogers on dutch TV pt 2/2 Feb 12 2009
Jim Rogers the UK is FINISHED
Jim Rogers UK will go bankrupt pt 1/2
Jim Rogers UK will go bankrupt pt 2/2
Jim Rogers has started a Bank Run on UBS Part 1/2
Jim Rogers has started a Bank Run on UBS Part 2/2
Jim Rogers on Russia Today 09 FEB 2009
Jim Rogers in Russia : No Future for the Rubble , I buy only Yen 05 FEB 2009
Jim Rogers Russia will continue to disintegrate
Jim Rogers on the Asian Financial Forum pt 1/2 Jan 21 2009
Jim Rogers on the Asian Financial Forum pt 2/2 Jan 21 2009
Jim Rogers Asian Financial Forum interview 20 Jan 09
2009 will be the year of Total decline for US Jim Rogers
Jim Rogers The worse recession ever pt 1/2
Jim Rogers The worse recession ever pt 2/2
“The price of a commodity will never go to zero. When you invest in commodities futures, you’re not buying a piece of paper that says you own an intangible piece of company that can go bankrupt. ”
~Jim Rogers
Background Articles and Videos
Jim Rogers
“James Beeland Rogers, Jr. (born October 19, 1942) is an American investor and financial commentator. He is co-founder, along with George Soros, of the Quantum Fund, and is a college professor, author, world traveler, economic commentator, and creator of the Rogers International Commodities Index (RICI). …”
“Books
Investment Biker: Around the World with Jim Rogers – 1995 (ISBN 1-55850-529-6)
Adventure Capitalist: The Ultimate Road Trip – 2003 (ISBN 0375509127)
Hot Commodities: How Anyone Can Invest Profitably in the World’s Best Market – 2004 (ISBN 140006337X)
A Bull in China: Investing Profitably in the World’s Greatest Market – December 4, 2007 (ISBN 1400066166)
A Gift to My Children: A Father’s Lessons For Life And Investing – April 28, 2009 (ISBN 1400067545) …”
I am OFF to Washington Fair Tea Party July 4, 2009
Celebrate Passage of 6 Month Tax Holiday and FairTax!
“When people lack jobs, opportunity, and ownership of property they have little or no stake in their communities.”
~Jack Kemp
I.O.U.S.A.
Tea Parties are spreading nationwide protesting the fiscally irresponsible Federal and state government spending and huge increases in Federal budget deficits and the national debt including:
Bailouts of banks and businesses totalling over $3 trillion or $3,000,000,000,000.
Stimulus spending totalling over $800 billion or $800,000,000,000
Mortgage loan bailouts totalling over $275 billion or $275,000,000,000
Over 9,000 earmarks or special projects spending totalling over $7.7 billion or $7,700,000,000.
A new Universal Health Care proposal the would cost over $634 billion or $634,000,000,000 over a ten year period.
A new cap and trade carbon tax on energy use that would tax the use of electricity, heating oil, gasoline and in turn raise the prices of all goods and service.
Higher taxes on the top 2% of all taxpayers that already pay over 50% of all Federal Income Taxes collected.
The above taxes on businesses would result in more job losses, higher unemployment rates and a prolonged and deeper recession.
The first proposed budget of President Obama has a projected deficit of over $1.75 trillion or $1,750,000,000 the single largest deficit since World War II.
The first proposed budget of President Obama is for $3.6 trillion or $3,600,000,000,000 and represents an increase from 21% to 28% of Gross Domestic Product !
The United States is broke yet our political class keeps on spending and piling debt upon debt and digging the American people into a financial hole for generations to come:
I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: A $53 Trillion Federal Financial Hole
The political elites are bankrupting the country and passing the bill to the American family.
The political elites have for years spent the Social Security surplus on more government spending, but in nine years the Social Security surpluses will become deficits requiring either a cut in Social Security benefits or significantly higher Social Security taxes:
I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: Social Security+Medicare Projections
I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: Deficits and Social Security
Your own families are being attacked by the political elites of both political parties.
Irresponsible Federal and State government spending and programs will only take more and more of your hard-earned money out of your wallet and give it to the political friends of the political class–the redistribution of wealth–in a word socialism.
Looks like backdoor black reparations to many and the repeal of welfare reform and class warfare straight out of Karl Marx.
The Radical Socialists think they know how to spend your money better than you do.
The Radical Socialists in Congress and the Whitehouse aim to make you dependent on the government.
The Radical Socialists want to restrict your liberties including freedom of speech and the freedom to choose life, cars, homes, schools, colleges, jobs, health care insurance plans, retirement plans, guns, and even your favorite talk-show host.
The Radical Socialists want to wreck the US economy and destroy jobs by engaging in fiscally irresponsible behaviour.
The Radical Socialists have already damaged if not ruined our schools, bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, and now threatens your and your families lives by instituting socialized medicine or universal health care.
The Radical Socialists objective is destroy America’s free enterprise capitalist system and replace it with cradle to grave welfare socialism.
These economic policies failed in the 1930s in the United States, failed in Great Britain in the 1960s and 1970s and failed in Japan in the 1990s and in Great Britain today.
The Radical Socialists will also fail in the United States today as well.
The Second American Revolution has begin.
The blog posts of the internet are firing the first posts viewed around the world.
The time has come for the American people–the silent majority–to defend their families, homes, businesses, employers, jobs, wealth, and freedoms from the Radical Socialists.
The Radical Socialists have pulled off their masks and revealed themselves.
Massive voter remorse will set in when those who voted for the Radical Socialists become unemployed and those with paychecks find out that tax cuts were lies as their food, gasoline and electrical bills significantly increase.
Starting in 2011 rising inflation rates will further errode the purchasing power of your paychecks.
The hardest hit will be the poor and those on a fixed income.
The Radical Socialists are intentionally destroying the economy and creating a crisis by their irresponsible government spending.
The sooner the American people start resisting the Radical Socialists, the sooner the economy will recover and economic growth and prosperity will return to America.
The aim of Operation Family Freedom (OFF) is to meet in Washington D.C. on July 4, 2009 and assembly peacefully at various Tea Party Celebrations of Liberty with the aim to pressure Congress and the President to pass both a six-month tax holiday and the FairTax:
The 2003 tax cut was the second in three years, and although tax rates are lower, the federal income tax still remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2006 ranges from 3.0 percent of income for the bottom half of tax returns to 22.8 percent for the top 1 percent.
Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2006
Glenn Beck Shorts 03-31-09 Tax Day Tea Parties April 15th
TEXAS “Tax Day” TEA PARTY Events – CAPITALIST MARCH ON WASHINGTON
Share it: The Tea Party Google map
By Michelle Malkin
FreedomWorks has put together a terrific map with info on all the Tax Day Tea Party events. Spread the word and click to find all the location/time/date info you need. Go to the Tax Day Tea Party website for all the latest. Pretty amazing, don’t you think:
“…Eric Odom reports that there are now 115 cities signed up for the April 15 nationwide Tax Day Tea Party protest. Wow. If you haven’t signed up, want to start your own, and are looking to meet up and organize with other tax revolters, go to Tax Day Tea Party’s website here.
(On a parallel track, fellow Fox News colleague Glenn Beck has spearheaded “We Surround Them” parties scheduled across the country today. I’m hearing from lots of first-time activists who have found overlapping networks. The same principles that unite the “We Surround Them” effort also are in sync with the tax revolters. Synergy is good. We need every body and mind in motion we can get.)
In the meantime, other local Tea Party events keep rolling on.
Reader Stan e-mails photos from Columbia, MO’s protest today: …”
No duh! White House “worried about bailout backlash”
By Michelle Malkin
“…With a few notable exceptions, the national media has ignored the tax revolt movement against the porkulus package, omni-pork spending bill, and bottomless bailouts that began in Seattle on President’s Day; continued in Denver on the day of the Generational Theft Act signing; spread to Mesa AZ during President Obama’s massive mortgage entitlement push; spurred protest in Overland Park KS; and evolved into the Tea Party movement across the country.
But local politicians and local newspapers/TV are definitely on notice. Thousands of folks converging in places like St. Louis (1,500), Greenville (2,000), Fullerton (est. 15,000), and Cincinnati (5,000) are getting harder to ignore.
And now, it seems, word is getting around in Washington. The White House, the NYTimes (which has mocked the tax revolters) tells us, is worried about a populist backlash against bailout-mania. Naw. Really? You don’t say: …”
Huge: Thousands converge for Cincinnati Tea Party; Update: 5k strong
By Michelle Malkin
“…The Cincinnati Tea Party organizers told us it was going to be big. And it was. Organizer J. Binik-Thomas e-mails this evening that 5,000 folks turned out for the protest and more than 1,600 people signed a petition to ask local governments to reject porkulus funding.
Check out photos at Instapundit, including this aerial:
A friend of mine brought his 5 year old son, holding a sign saying, “Even a 5 year old knows socialism is stealing” #teaparty
about 3 hours ago from TwitterBerry
Good sign: “Tar. Feathers. Washington. Now.” #teaparty
about 3 hours ago from TwitterBerry
“My recommendation is that people look no further than the halls of Congress to find the stench of pork” #teaparty
Unlike the Los Angeles Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer actually covered the tax revolters without trashing them: …”
Tea Party on: Taxpayer revolts in Green Bay, Lafayette, Olathe, and Harrisburg; Plus: Live from Fullerton CA… “Recall the Taxinator!;” Arnie videotapes/DVDs smashes/shredded
By Michelle Malkin
“…The tax-paying rebels are not going away.
In Green Bay, Wisconsin, today an estimated 500 protesters gathered for a Tea Party at Titletown Brewing. Reader David has more at Pork Revolution:
Tea Party USA Watch: Party planning continues; Sen. DeMint: “People have to show that they’re not going to take it anymore”
By Michelle Malkin • February 25, 2009 02:32 PM
(Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti)
Lots of folks are only now hearing about the nationwide Tea Party events on Friday and beyond — as well as the pig roasts and anti-stimulus protests that paved the way for revolts across the country.
A reminder of the main resources for activists looking to join:
The New American Tea Party page from “a coalition of citizens and organizations concerned about the recent trend of fiscal recklessness in government…dedicated to the Washington, D.C. effort specifically sponsored by the American Spectator, the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Prosperity, and the Young Conservatives Coalition” is here.
The #TCOT has a site here and #dontgo has a list of links to official Facebook Event (and some non-Facebook) pages for each confirmed Chicago Tea Party.
On Twitter, search “#teaparty” for the most up-to-date organizational info.
Glenn Reynolds has links to protest info in Nashville, Houston, D.C., St. Louis, San Diego, Atlanta, Orlando, Kansas City, and Cleveland. Glenn also has a related poll.
“…Via Snapped Shot and STACLU comes news that Iowa state officials have banned the use of tea by Tea Party protesters holding an event tomorrow in Cedar Rapids.
The tea violates environmental standards because it will discolor the water:
A Cedar Rapids group will do a symbolic tea dumping into the Cedar River on Saturday because state officials won’t let them use the real thing.
An anti-tax group wanted to pitch in real tea like the Bostonian revolutionaries opposed to England’s tea taxes.
Tea, although natural and quite tasty, is considered a pollutant that can’t go into a body of water without a permit, said Mike Wade, a senior environmental specialist at the DNR’s Manchester field office.
“Discoloration is considered a violation,” Wade said.
Tea Party photo album: Fiscal responsibility is the new counterculture
By Michelle Malkin
“…I’ve got tons of photos and e-mails pouring in from Tea Party people across the country. I joked to a Christian Science Monitor reporter covering the events that fiscal responsibility is the new counterculture. More coverage/photos/livestreaming at TCOT Report.
There is, as the old ’60s song goes, something happening here. And what it is, is very clear: A grass-roots revolt against the culture of entitlement. The spendzillas in Washington do not speak for us. …”
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
ByJames Simpson
“…America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.
Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama’s connections to his radical mentors — Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama’s radical connections since the beginning.
Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama’s life comprise a who’s who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.
But even this doesn’t fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s. …”
President Barack Obama’s Radical Socialist Network
“…As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.
Did they not know this would occur? Were these smart people, led by a Harvard graduate, unaware of the Econ 101 concept of moral hazard that would result from the government making implicit guarantees to underwrite private sector financial risk? They should have known that freeing the high-risk mortgage market of risk, calamity was sure to ensue. I think they did.
Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of the bailout pie!
God grant those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to prevent this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage to stand up in the face of this Marxist tidal wave.”
“…On Tuesday evening, when President Barack Obama declared before a joint session of Congress that “we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks,” House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, popped out of their seats like jackrabbits for a standing ovation. On Wednesday, those same House Democrats, led by Pelosi, passed a budget with, by some counts, nearly 9,000 earmarks, worth an estimated $7.7 billion. …”“…The last eight years, spending got way out of control. The White House couldn’t put a check on Congress and the Congress wouldn’t put a check on the White House, so everyone spent what they wanted and we ended up with trillion-dollar deficits,” says Representative Jim Moran, a Virginia Democrat who nevertheless voted for the package. “We have a responsibility as Democrats to make sure that we don’t do that sort of thing — that when the White House is willing to make tough budgetary choices, that Congress plays a constructive role.” Apparently, that new responsible role doesn’t officially start until fiscal 2010.”
Obama’s Mortgage Relief Could Bailout 9 Million Homeowners
by Broderick Perkins
“…The President Barack Obama administration’s “Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan” could help as many as 9 million struggling homeowners, but largely those in lower-cost housing areas.
The $275 Billion Plan, with a March 4 rollout, includes a refinancing program for “responsible” borrowers who haven’t missed payments and whose loans are larger than the value of their homes, and a loan modification provision with incentives for lenders to voluntarily modify certain mortgages. …”
“…A Costly PropositionThese measures would set a limit, or cap, on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. The effect of such a cap would be to impose rationing of coal, oil, and natural gas on the American economy. Each covered utility, oil company, and manufacturing facility would be given allowances based on past emissions or some other formula. Those companies that emit less carbon dioxide than permitted by their allowances could sell the excess to those that do not; this is the trade part of cap and trade. Over time, the cap would be ratcheted down, requiring greater cuts in emissions. …”
“…A Regressive Tax
By limiting the supply of fossil fuels, S. 2191 would raise the cost of energy. For consumers, cap and trade means more expensive gasoline and electricity as well as net job losses in energy-dependent sectors. Senator Lieberman himself concedes costs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. And as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, such energy cost increases act as a regressive tax on the poor.[8]
Lost Jobs
The net job losses from S. 2191 are estimated by Charles River Associates to be 1.2 million to 2.3 million by 2015.[9] Some of these jobs will be lost for good, due to the impact of higher energy costs on economic activity. Others, chiefly in the manufacturing sector, will be sent overseas. In the very likely event that S. 2191 significantly raises domestic manufacturing costs and that developing nations refuse to impose similar restrictions, the American economy could experience a substantial outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to those nations with lower energy costs.
Little Environmental Gain
While the costs of aggressive cap and trade proposals are substantial, the environmental benefits are suspect. This is true even if one fully accepts the claim of man-made global warming. The most ambitious measure to date is the Kyoto Protocol, but even if the U.S. were a party to this treaty and the European nations and other signatories were in full compliance (most are unlikely to meet their targets), the treaty would reduce the Earth’s future temperature by an estimated 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050–an amount too small even to verify.[10] S. 2191 would at best do only a little more. …”
Aides Call Money a ‘Down Payment’ Toward Universal-Coverage Efforts
By Ceci Connolly
“President Obama is proposing to begin a vast expansion of the U.S. health-care system by creating a $634 billion reserve fund over the next decade, launching an overhaul that most experts project will ultimately cost at least $1 trillion.
The “reserve fund” in the budget proposal being released today is Obama’s attempt to demonstrate how the country could extend health insurance to millions more Americans and at the same time begin to control escalating medical bills that threaten the solvency of families, businesses and the government.
Obama aims to make a “very substantial down payment” toward universal coverage by trimming tax breaks for the wealthy and squeezing payments to insurers, hospitals, doctors and drug manufacturers, a senior administration official said yesterday.
Embedded in the budget figures are key policy changes that the administration argues would improve the quality of care and bring much-needed efficiency to a health system that costs $2.3 trillion a year.
By first identifying a large pot of money to underwrite health-care reform — before laying out a proposal on who would be covered or how — Obama hopes to draw Congress to the bargaining table to tackle the details of a comprehensive plan. The strategy is largely intended to avoid the mistakes of the Clinton administration, which crafted an extensive proposal in secret for many months before delivering the finished product to lawmakers, who quickly rejected it. …”
$3.6 Trillion Plan Would Raise Taxes Sharply on the Affluent, Open Battles on Health, Education; The ‘Trickle Up’ Agenda
“President Barack Obama delivered a $3.6 trillion budget blueprint to Congress Thursday that aims to “break from a troubled past,” with expanded government activism, tax increases on affluent families and businesses, and spending cuts targeted at those he says profited from “an era of profound irresponsibility.”
The budget blueprint for fiscal year 2010 is one of the most ambitious policy prescriptions in decades, a reordering of the federal government to provide national health care, shift the energy economy away from oil and gas, and boost the federal commitment to education. …”
“…The budget’s introduction is likely to herald one of the fiercest political fights Washington has seen in years, waged on multiple fronts. Within minutes, Republicans were lambasting a document they called class warfare, designed to mire the nation in recession for years to come. Business lobbyists were girding for battle even before the budget’s unveiling. Even Democrats are likely to blanch at cuts to agriculture and other programs that have been tried before – and have failed repeatedly.
The budget sets aside an additional $250 billion to complete the president’s effort to rescue the financial markets and stabilize the banking sector. That would come on top of the $700 billion already allocated by Congress. And it is likely to grow. The budget makes clear that the reserve would be used to leverage the purchase of toxic assets weighing down the banking sector’s books, $750 billion in asset purchases overall. That could mean a doubling of the original bailout in the end. …”
Editorial: Obama budget is too heavy on taxes, spending
The Detroit News
“…President Barack Obama’s proposed budget outline assumes tax increases don’t affect behavior. They do. It also assumes Congress will end its spending spree. It won’t. If all of the programs in the budget plan become law, tax increases will affect more Americans than the high-income earners targeted in this proposal, and the economy will suffer.
The president’s outline for a 2010 budget, and a blueprint covering the next decade, was released Thursday. The plan sees $3.9 trillion in spending in the current budget year, with a deficit of $1.7 trillion, a shortfall equal to more than 12 percent of the nation’s $14.2 trillion gross domestic product. That kind of deficit as a share of the nation’s total economic output hasn’t occurred since World War II.
And while short-term deficit spending is necessary to jolt the nation out of recession, Obama’s plan advances spending far beyond what’s necessary for stimulus and for the long term. …”
“…Raise the cost of extra effort and risky investments, the kind that make the economy grow, and the result will be less economic activity.
The budget optimistically assumes inflation-adjusted GDP growth rates of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4 percent in 2011 and 4.2 percent in 2012, but the private Blue Chip Consensus forecast for the same years is 2.1 percent, 2.9 percent and 2.9 percent. It’s also worth noting that many of the proposed tax hikes for upper-income families go into effect in 2011, just when the Obama budget foresees a sharp increase in economic growth.
Those higher taxes could very well derail that anticipated rebound.
The Obama budget also expects reductions in spending to help reduce the deficit over the next several years. But is this realistic when the House of Representatives just adopted a $410 billion spending plan for the remainder of this budget year that is generously larded with pork and includes an average increase for domestic agencies of 8 percent? …”
TEXAS “Tax Day” TEA PARTY Events – CAPITALIST MARCH ON WASHINGTON
The Second American Revolution
Government
If You Think The Problems We Create Are Bad
Just Wait Until You See Our Solutions
Rick Santelli Is As Mad As Hell | Chicago Tea Party
History of Housing Prices Chart – *SHOCKING* You Need To See This!
Glenn Beck Stimulating Rant
The FairTax: It’s Time
This morning I turned on a local talk radio station and the host was reading a list of Tea Parties in Texas both locally and in other cities protesting the irresponsible stimulus package, bailouts of banks and businesses and new taxes including the cap and trade carbon tax.
The talk show host was also suggesting several other locations that would make good sites such as local lakes in the area.
Later that day I turned on the radio in my car to another station and the local news also mentioned the Texas Tea Party protests.
The problem with the professional political class or elites of both parties in Washington D.C. is they are disconnected from the American people.
The American people are mad and outraged about bank nationalization or socialization, bank and business bailouts, so-called stimulus spending bills, ear marks or “special projects” and more taxes such as the cap and trade carbon tax on electricity, heating oil, and gasoline that will result in rising prices for all goods and services.
The American people need to get the Washington D.C. political elites attention.
Why not have a Washington D.C. Fair on July 4, 2009 with multiple tea parties all over the city?
Bring the entire family, friends, and neighbors.
Learn about the First American Revolution.
Watch the movie The Patriot:
The Patriot-John Williams
“A Mel Gibson film,one of my favourate films,and I love the music very much,so,I made this.
The Patriot tells the story of Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson), a widowed father of seven children, as he tries to keep his family together during the Revolutionary War. He had fought in the French and Indian War, since married and started a family. He has tried to put his actions in that war behind him, but still carries some guilt and regret from those actions. He fears that his past will come back to haunt him.
When war breaks out, his eldest son Gabriel (Heath Ledger) joins the fight against his wishes. Benjamin soon ends up reluctantly joining the fight as well. His successfully leads a militia band against the British until Colonel William Tavington (Jason Isaacs) is ordered to do everything he can to capture or kill Martin and his South Carolina militia. …”
Patriot – Mel Gibson – Best Clip 2/3
Patriot – Mel Gibson – Best Clip 1/3
Patriot – Mel Gibson – Best Clip 3/3
Read the Declaration of Independence and The US Constitution on your way to Washington D.C.
Organize city car conveys to drive to Washington D.C. and join millions of Americans celebrating the second American Revolution at the Washington Fair, Saturday, July 4, 2009
Call your local and national talk-show hosts and invite them to be promoters and speakers at the various Tea Parties at the Washington Fair.
Join the second American Revolution and do some talking and walking at the Washington Fair on Saturday, July 4, 2009:
Simon and Garfunkel – Are you going to Scarborough Fair
Celtic Woman – Scarborough Fair
Are you going to Washington Fair?
Parsley, sage, Rosemary and thyme.
Remember me to one who lives there.
She once was a true love of mine.
Tell her to make me a cambric shirt,
parsley, sage, Rosemary and thyme.
Without any seam or fine nedlework,
and then she’ll be a true love of mine.
Tell her to wash it yonder dry well,
parsley, sage, Rosemary and thyme.
Where water ne’er sprung, nor drop of rain fell,
and then she’ll be a true love of mine.
Tell her to dry it yonder thorn,
parsley, sage, Rosemary and thyme.
Which never bore blossom since Adam was born,
and then she’ll be a true love of mine.
Oh, will you find me an acre of land,
parsley, sage, Rosemary and thyme.
Between the sea foam and the sea sand,
or never be a true love of mine
Background Articles and Videos
For Tax Year 2006
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$388,806
39.89
Top 5%
$153,542
60.14
Top 10%
$108,904
70.79
Top 25%
$64,702
86.27
Top 50%
$31,987
97.01
Bottom 50%
<$31,987
2.99
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
The 2003 tax cut was the second in three years, and although tax rates are lower, the federal income tax still remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2006 ranges from 3.0 percent of income for the bottom half of tax returns to 22.8 percent for the top 1 percent.Table 1 Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2006 (Updated July 2008)
Tea Party USA Watch: Party planning continues; Sen. DeMint: “People have to show that they’re not going to take it anymore”
By Michelle Malkin • February 25, 2009 02:32 PM
(Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti)
Lots of folks are only now hearing about the nationwide Tea Party events on Friday and beyond — as well as the pig roasts and anti-stimulus protests that paved the way for revolts across the country.
A reminder of the main resources for activists looking to join:
The New American Tea Party page from “a coalition of citizens and organizations concerned about the recent trend of fiscal recklessness in government…dedicated to the Washington, D.C. effort specifically sponsored by the American Spectator, the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Prosperity, and the Young Conservatives Coalition” is here.
The #TCOT has a site here and #dontgo has a list of links to official Facebook Event (and some non-Facebook) pages for each confirmed Chicago Tea Party.
On Twitter, search “#teaparty” for the most up-to-date organizational info.
Glenn Reynolds has links to protest info in Nashville, Houston, D.C., St. Louis, San Diego, Atlanta, Orlando, Kansas City, and Cleveland. Glenn also has a related poll.
“The Battle of Cowpens (January 17, 1781) was an decisive victory by American Revolutionary forces under Brigadier General Daniel Morgan, in the Southern campaign of the American Revolutionary War. It was a turning point in the reconquest of South Carolina from the British, and an American tactical masterpiece. It was an awesome victory for the Americans. …”
“Daniel Morgan knew that he should use the unique landscape of Cowpens and the time available before Tarleton’s arrival to his advantage. Furthermore, he knew his men and his opponent, knew how they would react in certain situations, and used this knowledge to his advantage.[27] To begin with, the location of his forces were contrary to any existing military doctrine: he placed his army between the Broad and Pacolet River, thus making escape impossible if the army was routed. His reason for cutting off escape was obvious: to ensure that the untrained militiamen would not, as they had been accustomed to do, turn in flight at the first hint of battle and abandon the regulars. Selecting a hill as the center of his position, he placed his Continental infantry on it, deliberately leaving his flanks exposed to his opponent. Morgan reasoned that Tarleton would attack him head on, and he made his tactical preparations accordingly. He set up three lines of soldiers: one of skirmishers (sharpshooters); one of militia; and a main one. The 150 select skirmishers were from North Carolina (Major McDowell) and Georgia (Major Cunningham). Behind these men were 300 militiamen under the command of Andrew Pickens.
Realizing that poorly-trained militia were unreliable in battle, especially when they were under attack from cavalry, Morgan decided to ask the militia to fire two shots and then retreat, so he could have them re-form under cover of the reserve (cavalry commanded by William Washington and James McCall) behind the third, more experienced line of militia and continentals. The movement of the militia in the second line would mask the third line to the British. The third line, composed of the remainder of the forces (about 550 men) was composed of Continentals from Delaware and Maryland, and militiamen from Georgia and Virginia. Colonel John Eager Howard commanded the Continentals and Colonels Tate and Triplett the militia. The goal of this strategy was to weaken and disorganize Tarleton’s forces (which would be attacking the third line uphill) before attacking and defeating them. Howard’s men would not be unnerved by the militia’s expected move, and unlike the militia they would be able to stand and hold, especially since the first and second lines, Morgan felt, would have inflicted both physical and psychological damage on the advancing British before the third line came into action.
Additionally, by placing his men downhill from the advancing British lines, Morgan exploited the British tendency to fire too high in battle. The downhill position of his forces allowed the British forces to be silhouetted against the morning sunlight, providing easy targets for Patriot troops. With a ravine on their right flank and a creek on their left flank, Morgan’s forces were protected against British flanking maneuvers at the beginning of the battle. Morgan insisted,[28]
“the whole idea is to lead Benny [Tarleton] into a trap so we can beat his cavalry and infantry as they come up those slopes. When they’ve been cut down to size by our fire, we’ll attack them.”
In developing his tactics at Cowpens, as historian John Buchanan wrote, Morgan may have been “the only general in the American Revolution, on either side, to produce a significant original tactical thought.”
Some American history for your children about the American Revolution and the Boston Tea Party
Liberty’s Kids- The Boston Tea Party Part 1/7
Liberty’s Kids- The Boston Tea Party Part 2/7
Liberty’s Kids- The Boston Tea Party Part 3/7
Liberty’s Kids- The Boston Tea Party Part 4/7
Liberty’s Kids- The Boston Tea Party Part 5/7
Liberty’s Kids- The Boston Tea Party Part 6/7
Liberty’s Kids- The Boston Tea Party Part 7/7
Scarborough Fair
“”Scarborough Fair” was a traditional English fair, and is also a traditional English ballad.
The fair
During the late Middle Ages the seaside town of Scarborough (now a resort) was an important venue for tradesmen from all over England. It was host to a huge 45-day trading event, starting August 15, which was exceptionally long for a fair in those times. Merchants came to it from all areas of England, Europe, Norway, Denmark, the Baltic and the Byzantine Empire. Scarborough Fair originated from a charter granted by King Henry III of England on 22 January 1253. The charter, which gave Scarborough many privileges, stated “The Burgesses and their heirs forever may have a yearly fayre in the Borough, to continue from the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary until the Feast of St Michael next following”. (On the modern Roman Catholic calendar, the equivalent dates are August 15 to September 29.) Naturally, such a large occasion attracted a lot more than just tradesmen; they needed to be entertained and fed, therefore large crowds of buyers, sellers and pleasure-seekers attended the fair. Prices were determined by ‘Supply and demand’, with goods often being exchanged through the barter system. Records show that from 1383 Scarborough’s prosperity slumped.
In the early 17th century competition from other towns’ markets and fairs and increasing taxation saw further collapse of the Fair until it eventually became financially untenable. The market was revived again in the 18th century, but due to intense competition Scarborough Fair finally ended in 1788.
The traditional ‘Scarborough Fair’ no longer exists but a number of low-key celebrations take place every September to mark the original event. Scarborough Fair in July 2006 witnessed Medieval Jousting Competitions, hosted by English Heritage in addition to the usual attractions.
The ballad
The song tells the tale of a young man, who tells the listener to ask his former lover to perform for him a series of impossible tasks, such as making him a shirt without a seam and then washing it in a dry well, adding that if she completes these tasks he will take her back. Often the song is sung as a duet, with the woman then giving her lover a series of equally impossible tasks, promising to give him his seamless shirt once he has finished.
As the versions of the ballad known under the title “Scarborough Fair” are usually limited to the exchange of these impossible tasks, many suggestions concerning the plot have been proposed, including the hypothesis that it is a song about the Plague. In fact, “Scarborough Fair” appears to derive from an older (and now obscure) Scottish ballad, The Elfin Knight (Child Ballad #2), which has been traced at least as far back as 1670 and may well be earlier. In this ballad, an elf threatens to abduct a young woman to be his lover unless she can perform an impossible task (“For thou must shape a sark to me / Without any cut or heme, quoth he”); she responds with a list of tasks that he must first perform (“I have an aiker of good ley-land / Which lyeth low by yon sea-strand”).
As the song spread, it was adapted, modified, and rewritten to the point that dozens of versions existed by the end of the 18th century, although only a few are typically sung nowadays. The references to “Scarborough Fair” and the refrain “parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme” date to nineteenth century versions, and the refrain may have been borrowed from the ballad Riddles Wisely Expounded, (Child Ballad #1), which has a similar plot. …”
No duh! White House “worried about bailout backlash”
By Michelle Malkin • March 16, 2009 10:05 AM
“…With a few notable exceptions, the national media has ignored the tax revolt movement against the porkulus package, omni-pork spending bill, and bottomless bailouts that began in Seattle on President’s Day; continued in Denver on the day of the Generational Theft Act signing; spread to Mesa AZ during President Obama’s massive mortgage entitlement push; spurred protest in Overland Park KS; and evolved into the Tea Party movement across the country.
But local politicians and local newspapers/TV are definitely on notice. Thousands of folks converging in places like St. Louis (1,500), Greenville (2,000), Fullerton (est. 15,000), and Cincinnati (5,000) are getting harder to ignore.
And now, it seems, word is getting around in Washington. The White House, the NYTimes (which has mocked the tax revolters) tells us, is worried about a populist backlash against bailout-mania. Naw. Really? You don’t say: …”
Huge: Thousands converge for Cincinnati Tea Party; Update: 5k strong
By Michelle Malkin
“…The Cincinnati Tea Party organizers told us it was going to be big. And it was. Organizer J. Binik-Thomas e-mails this evening that 5,000 folks turned out for the protest and more than 1,600 people signed a petition to ask local governments to reject porkulus funding.
Check out photos at Instapundit, including this aerial:
A friend of mine brought his 5 year old son, holding a sign saying, “Even a 5 year old knows socialism is stealing” #teaparty
about 3 hours ago from TwitterBerry
Good sign: “Tar. Feathers. Washington. Now.” #teaparty
about 3 hours ago from TwitterBerry
“My recommendation is that people look no further than the halls of Congress to find the stench of pork” #teaparty
Unlike the Los Angeles Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer actually covered the tax revolters without trashing them: …”
“The word “neoconservative” was coined by Michael Harrington and the editors of Dissent to describe their old friends who’d moved to the right. It was an insult, along the lines of “running dog” or “fellow traveler.” Or perhaps the “neo” was intended to conjure “neo-Nazi,” the only other political label to sport the prefix. As Seymour Martin Lipset, one of the most-respected social scientists of the 20th century and an original neocon wrote, the term “was invented as an invidious label to undermine political opponents, most of whom have been unhappy with being so described.”
-~Jonah Goldberg
Jonah Goldberg on The Glenn Beck Show Feb 11/09
Jonah Goldberg on “Liberal Fascism”
Jonah Goldberg on Glenn Beck Explaining the Socialist Agenda Behind the Stimulus Bill
Glenn Beck A Closer Look At The Progressive Movement
Liberal Fascism part 1 Speech to YAF.wmv
Author Jonah Goldberg on Glenn Beck 2/18 – Liberal Fascism
Author Jonah Goldberg on Glenn Beck 2/19 – Liberal Fascism
Author Jonah Goldberg on Glenn Beck 2/20 – Liberal Fascism
Author Jonah Goldberg on Glenn Beck 2/21 – Liberal Fascism
Liberal Fascism (1) — Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED **
Liberal Fascism (2) — Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED **
Liberal Fascism (3) — Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED **
Liberal Fascism (4) — Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED **
Liberal Fascism (5) — Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED **
Liberal Fascism Q-A (1)
Liberal Fascism Q-A (2)
Liberal Fascism Q-A (3)
Background Articles and Videos
Jonah Jacob Goldberg
” Jonah Jacob Goldberg (born March 21, 1969) is an American syndicated columnist and author. Goldberg is known for his contributions on politics and culture to National Review Online, where he is the editor-at-large. He is the author of Liberal Fascism, a #1 bestseller.[1]
Goldberg also frequently appears on television, on such shows as Good Morning America, Nightline, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Real Time with Bill Maher, Larry King Live, Your World with Neil Cavuto and most recently the Glenn Beck Program and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He is also a frequent participant on bloggingheads.tv. …”
An interview with conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg, who argues that fascism is left-wing, not right-wing, and that contemporary liberals are fascism’s intellectual offspring.
By Alex Koppelman
“…What’s the book about?
It’s a revisionist history. It’s an attempt to reconfigure, or I would say correct, the standard understanding of the political and ideological context that frames most of the ideological debates that we have had since, basically, World War II. There’s this idea that the further right you go the closer you get to Nazism and fascism, and the further left you go the closer you get to decency and all good things, or at least having the right intentions in your heart.
For 60 years most historians have been putting fascism on the right, or conservative, side of the political spectrum. What are you able to see that they weren’t?
There are a lot of historians who get fascism basically right. There are a lot of historians who don’t. I think the Marxists have been part and parcel of a basic propaganda campaign for a very long time, but there are plenty of historians who understand what fascism was and are actually quite honest about it.
To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I.
Originally being a fascist meant you were a right-wing socialist, and the problem is that we’ve incorporated these European understandings of things and then just dropped the socialist. In the American context fascists get called right-wingers even though there is almost no prominent fascist leader — starting with Mussolini and Hitler — who if you actually went about and looked at their economic programs, or to a certain extent their social program, where you wouldn’t locate most if not all of those ideas on the ideological left in the American context. …”
“…The Herbert Hoover of popular imagination was a laissez-faire lickspittle of Adam Smith. But this idea began as Rooseveltian propaganda and endures as the creation myth of modern liberalism.
William Leuchtenburg, possibly the greatest authority on the FDR era, wrote some time ago, “Almost every historian now recognizes that the image of Hoover as a ‘do-nothing’ president is inaccurate.”
After the stock market crash of 1929, Hoover browbeat business leaders to keep wages and prices high. He invested heavily in public works projects. He pushed for an international moratorium on debts. He created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which later became a home for many of FDR’s Brain Trusters. Hoover increased farm subsidies enormously.
Some of Hoover’s interventions were good but ineffectual. A few were very, very bad and very effective.
In 1932, Hoover in effect repealed Calvin Coolidge’s tax cuts, increasing the rates for the poorest taxpayers by more than 100 percent and hiking the top rate from 25 percent to 63 percent. Worse, contrary to his own better instincts, Hoover signed the disastrous Smoot-Hawley trade bill that raised protectionist walls at precisely the moment the world needed trade the most.
Then there’s this idea that FDR rode to the rescue, saving the day by untying the American people from the railroad tracks of runaway capitalism. Former Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, now a surrogate for Barack Obama, recently said on NPR: “It’s very tempting to always think that the government should just stand back and let the private sector sort these problems out. That’s the kind of thinking that made the Depression ‘Great.’”
Summers should know better (in fact, I’m sure he does). The Great Depression was not made “Great” by government inaction. Indeed, FDR’s New Deal may have been wonderful in some mytho-poetic sense, and maybe some of its reforms can be defended in some broader context, but as an effort to end the Great Depression, the New Deal was a failure. As my colleague Mark Steyn writes, “Lots of other places – from Britain to Australia – took a hit in 1929 but, alas, they lacked an FDR to keep it going till the end of the Thirties. That’s why in other countries they refer to it as “the Depression,” but only in the U.S. is it ‘Great.’”
“…Both these defenses are representative of the general approach of New Deal apologists: Whenever challenged, they simply change the terms of the argument. While it’s certainly true that there is no consensus that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression, there is a sweeping consensus that the New Deal didn’t end it. The vast majority of historians and economists—including Paul Krugman—will concede that the Great Depression didn’t end until either World War II or the post-war economic boom (that’s a whole other argument). In other words, only after FDR himself admitted he was no longer going to play the role of “Dr. New Deal” and instead became “Dr. Win-the-War” was there any real chance of ending the Great Depression. If a golfer can’t hit the ball to save his life with a five-iron, but smacks the dickens out of it with a seven-iron, it’s hard to see how his improved score demonstrates the effectiveness of five-irons.
Ultimately, the question of whether the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression depends almost entirely on what you mean by “the New Deal.” When Social Security was in Republican crosshairs, liberals insisted that it was at the heart of the New Deal. Well, whatever Social Security’s merits, it had nothing to do with ending the Great Depression. When partisan divisions prove inconvenient to liberals, they lament the absence of the unity and common purpose we allegedly enjoyed during the New Deal (though the 1930s were actually a chaotic and deeply divided time). When certain favored industries suffer from international competition, the New Dealers’ supposed genius at economic planning is invoked; the problem there is that much of their effort on this front was a disaster. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration and National Recovery Administration, for example, were economic and moral disgraces. One would think—or at least hope—that today’s progressives don’t believe small businessmen should be prosecuted or jailed for trying to under-price their big-name competitors, or schoolchildren should be forced to conduct militaristic pageants in support of the government’s agenda.
In fairness, people who say, categorically, that the New Deal didn’t prolong the Great Depression make the same mistake as those who say it did: They assume that it’s possible to determine the “natural” lifespan of the Great Depression. It isn’t. Still, we can draw inferences from useful comparisons. In the U.S., the Great Depression was deeper, and the recovery from it slower, than in most industrial nations. Why did employment recover more quickly in Canada and the United Kingdom? Indeed, why was the American effort to end the Depression among the least successful of the industrialized nations? Some progressives might argue that it was because the government wasn’t interventionist enough. Fine, let them argue that. But it is a very different argument from the one we usually hear about the purported success of the New Deal. …”
Into the Belly of the Beast If you’re a socialist on the way down, you were never really a capitalist on the way up. By Jonah Goldberg
“…One of the great things about capitalism is that, unlike socialism or, say, Bobby Knight, it can deal with failure. In fact, capitalism needs failure. Joseph Schumpeter called this “creative destruction.” Your grandmother called it “making lemonade out of lemons.” The beauty of free markets is that firms learn from their mistakes or they lose money, shrink, and then go out of business. Governments, meanwhile, grow from their mistakes and learn to make money from them.
Under normal circumstances, the financial inferno would cause a lot of pain, but it would also burn away a lot of deadwood. The strongest firms would survive, and newer, healthier businesses would sprout from the ashes. Plummeting housing prices would make homes affordable for first-time buyers again, particularly those with good credit who live within their means.
Sure, we would still have a stimulus bill, with tax cuts and infrastructure spending and, yes, silly pork projects. And that would be fine. We would even have some kind of bailout of the banking industry, which became a mess in part because people like Christopher Dodd and Maxine Waters tried to play the banker in their own personal game of Monopoly.
But that’s not what we got. Instead, the old adage “Everyone’s a capitalist on the way up and a socialist on the way down” is kicking in. The thing is, if you’re a socialist on the way down, you were never really a capitalist on the way up. Capitalism requires putting your own capital at risk.
What we do have is a grand adhocracy where “government,” a.k.a. Barack Obama, Timothy Geithner, Nancy Pelosi, and a dozen others, will figure everything out as they go. Businesses will rise or fall based on their skill at kissing up to the government.
And as sure as shinola, when government fails again, we’ll be told that only government can save us. …”
One doesn’t have to break a sweat searching for examples of the news media’s ongoing love affair with our president. In this, he is like FDR.
By Jonah Goldberg
“…One of the great tests of news media bias is when the storyline has become unfalsifiable. With George W. Bush, no matter what he did, the facts always seemed to prove he was to blame. With Obama, no matter what he does, he’s always the hero. For instance, during a trip to China in 2005, then-President Bush tried to open a locked door while leaving a news conference, and the press tittered at his buffoonery. Yet last week, when President Obama walked into an Oval Office window that he thought was a door, much of the news media looked the other way — perhaps recognizing his genius at spotting where a door should have been.
Bush’s love of exercise was analyzed as a troubling obsession of an out-of-touch president. Obama’s fixation with physical fitness gives numerous reporters hope that he will alleviate America’s obesity epidemic. In a front-page exclusive, The Washington Post revealed that on Obama’s recent vacation, the Hawaiian “sun glinted off (his) chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.”
A more serious example can be found in some of the news coverage of the stimulus bill. Obama made it his top priority to get bipartisan support for his unprecedented spending bill. The president exerted enormous personal effort to sway House Republicans to his cause but failed to win a single GOP vote, and he even lost 11 Democrats. And yet the Post reported in another front-page article that the Democratic House’s passage of the bill — which was always assured — “marked a big victory for his presidency a little more than a week into his term.” Indeed, it’s hard to see how anything short of a crushing defeat would be described as anything other than a “big victory.” …”
“…One of the most prominent young conservative journalists on the scene today, Jonah Goldberg is Generation X’s answer to P.J. O’Rourke. His columns and articles, laced with keen wit and pithy insights, have rapidly generated a large readership. Whether he’s issuing a sharply-worded cultural critique or laying out a lucid analysis of a hot political issue, Goldberg is guaranteed to make you laugh, and learn. His work is proof that reading and thinking about political, media, and cultural issues can be enlightening and entertaining at the same time–even if you don’t agree with his particular point of view.
A nationally syndicated columnist and the editor of National Review Online, he also is a contributing editor to the print version of National Review. In addition, he writes the popular “Goldberg File” column for National Review Online. He is also the media columnist for The American Enterprise Magazine, and a media critic for Brill’s Content.
He has also written on politics and culture for the New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, The Public Interest, The Wilson Quarterly, The Weekly Standard, The New York Post, National Review, The Women’s Quarterly, and Slate. …”
Jonah Goldberg and the Libertarian Axiom on Non-Aggression
by Walter Block
“…The foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression axiom. This states that it is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property. Murray Rothbard characterized this as “plumb line” libertarianism: follow this one principle, and you will be able to infer the libertarian position on all issues, without exception.
Before considering the latest Jonah Goldberg criticism of this philosophy (saving a friend from suicide by force), consider, perhaps, an even more difficult case.
You are standing in the path on an onrushing boulder, completely unaware of your fate. In a second, this massive rock will hit you, and you will die. (Let us stipulate the truth of this supposition). Instead, however, I push you out of its path, and into safety. The only trouble is, as a result of it, although I have saved your life, I also broke your arm.
Now, if you are a reasonable sort of person, you will be grateful to me. Instead, you insist upon sticking to the literal letter of libertarian law, and sue me for damages for the injury you have sustained. After all, I did initiate a violent act upon your person, which resulted in an injury. If this is not assault and battery, you argue, then nothing is. How shall the libertarian judge rule? …”
“…With this introduction, I am now ready to consider Jonah Goldberg’s attack on libertarianism. Before I do so, let me say one word in his favor: at least he does not muddy the waters by claiming he is a libertarian. No, he flies the banner of conservatism (or Republicanism; despite his claims to the contrary, I don’t see much difference), a matter of accuracy and decency on his part. This is in sharp contrast to Milton Friedman, a person who does claim allegiance to this philosophy, and yet uses precisely the same argument as Goldberg in an attempt to undermine the non-aggression axiom. …”
Consider a drunken A, who is standing at the edge of a bridge, ready to jump. B, a friend of hers, forcibly grabs A, and saves her from suicide. According to our analysis, B is guilty of a battery, and even of a (short bout of) kidnapping, given that B follows up his act of life saving by restraining A from further attempts to harm herself until she sobers up. But now what? Suppose that when she wakes up the next morning, cold stone sober, A still wants to kill herself. According to the logic of the argument of the Goldbergs (and Friedmans) of the world, B may restrain her from so doing for the rest of her life. This is the role accorded Goldberg to the state. After all, if it is justified to use violence against a person to save her life, and this works in the short term, why not for the long run? When life is placed at the core of a political philosophy, not the non-aggression axiom, this all follows from the laws of logic.
Something else is inferable as well. Goldberg is really a paternalist. For drinking alcohol, using addictive drugs and smoking cigarettes are all slow ways of committing suicide. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet or an automobile without a seat belt, hang gliding, rodeo riding, football playing, boxing, are all ways of risking it. There is a paternalist continuum between Goldberg on the “right” who is willing to utilize initiatory aggression against innocent people for very limited good purposes, and your typical leftist who is willing to do precisely the same thing on a wider scale. It is only the libertarian who stands four square in favor of the non-aggression axiom.
If you really think saving your friend’s life is important because the desire for suicide is only temporary, then you ought to be willing to pay a relatively small penalty if this friend then turns around and sues you for battery, or kidnapping. The problem with the Goldberg variation (sorry, I couldn’t resist) is that he wants a freebie: to initiate violence against an innocent person with no risk of punishment whatsoever.
Nice try, Mr. Goldberg. But if this is the best you can do, you had better consider renouncing your views, and becoming a libertarian.”
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, Jonah Goldberg, Doubleday, 496 pages
By Austin W. Bramwell
“…Goldberg does at times display a blush of shame. He qualifies his conclusions to the point of taking them all back, insisting that he does not actually mean to say that liberals are dangerous totalitarians. He grants that some of his points are trivial and others may appear outrageous, so that nothing he says should be taken as both true and interesting at the same time. He claims that movement conservatives also suffer from the totalitarian temptation, so that we are “all” fascists now. Why then link liberalism in particular with fascism? Here Goldberg is surprisingly candid: because, he argues, liberals do it to conservatives all the time.
He’s right, of course. Many liberals do impute nefarious designs to conservatives. With just a modicum of restraint, Goldberg could have written a very good book. “Look,” he could have said, “‘Fascism’ has no meaning today, but, in any case, not only does conservatism owe nothing to fascism, but, historically, conservatives in America generally opposed fascism while liberals and leftists often were sympathetic.” Instead, lacking even the excuse of ignorance, he chose to sling the term “fascism” around as casually as the most vulgar leftist. It does not speak well of Goldberg that, by his own admission, he wrote his first book not to enlighten but to exact revenge.
Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg’s transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue. Perhaps it was hubris that made him do it. The last important book by a conservative was Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind in 1987, whose ideas had been in circulation for many years before. Goldberg may have convinced himself that by penning yet another disquisition into the “true nature of liberalism,” he could become the first movement conservative in a generation to write something lasting. In the end, he succeeded only in recycling 60 years worth of conservative movement bromides.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday that the Obama administration’s stimulus program is designed to “drop-kick” the economy out of its deep recession, declaring he is determined to ensure the $787 billion “gets out the door quickly and wisely.”
American People Drop Kicks Democrat and Republican
Take that You Son of A Bitch
If you are currently unemployed who would you like to do the drop-kicking?
Joe Biden: Be Patriotic Pay Higher Taxes
Both President Obama and Vice-President Biden think it is only fair and patriotic that those earning over $250,000 pay higher income taxes and a new carbon tax.
The only problem is that small businesses create the most jobs.
The top 2% of taxpayer are already paying over 50% of all Federal income taxes.
By raising their taxes you are only forcing them to not hire new employees or even layoff existing employees.
You do not create wealth, income, jobs by increasing the taxes on businesses, but instead you destroy jobs.
Join the second American Revolution and do some walkiing and drop kicking in Washington D.C. on July 4, 2009:
Wealth, income and jobs are created in the private sector mainly by small to medium size businesses.
When you increase the taxes on the top 2% of the taxpayers who already pay over 50% of all Federal income taxes, you are mainly taxing business that create the most jobs.
The result is that businesses will cut jobs and capital investment spending to pay for these additional taxes.
President Obama proposes a new tax on carbon in the middle of a recession based on the climate change crisis.
This will increase the cost of electricity, heating and transportation for all individuals and businesses as well as the prices of goods and services.
Businesses will largely pass these tax increases to their customers, the American people.
President Obama’s proposals will only prolong the recession and result in higher unemployment rates exceeding 10% or over 15 million people.
Furthermore, climate is always changing and is not man-made.
The primary drivers or causes of climate change are variable solar activity, cosmic rays, clouds, water vapor, volcanoes, and many more.
Man is not the primary driver or cause of climate change and at best man’s impact on climate is so small as to be immaterial.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and any attempt to control it is both arrogant and stupid for it is not possible.
The big lie that man-made global warming must be stopped by controlling and taxing carbon dioxide emissions is a radical socialist con-game and fraud.
Do not fall for the greed, arrogance, and stupidity of the political class of both parties that want to tax your use of energy for electricity, heating and transportation.
In the name of saving the planet, they will wreck the US economy and destroy jobs.
The Progressive Liberal Fascists want to take more money from your wallet in the form of a carbon tax or cap and trade tax.
The carbon tax or cap and trade tax will reduce consumer spending and job creation and preservation.
Thanks but not thanks, just say no!
If you value your life do not depend on government health care or socialized medicine.
Socialists always start killing those who are least able to defend themselves–children, disabled and the old.
First, abort as many children as possible.
Second wait out the old and disabled by putting them on a long waiting list for needed medical treatment, procedures and operations.
The radical socialist language put into the stimulus bill is a massive invasion of the privacy of your medical records and what treatment you can receive from your doctor.
This is the face and tactics of progressive liberal fascism.
Senator Specter with Megyn Kelly discussing Stimulus 2.10.09
Socialized Medicine In Stimulus Package
Obama approves of Gestapo medical records round-up to sort out undesirables.
President Obama wants every one to go back to school and more money for education from k-12 and college.
Yet, President Obama opposes parents having the choice to where their children go to school.
President Obama would not send parents a voucher or check every year that they can use to pay the tuition at the school of their choice.
The American people pay their local property taxes but must send their children to government schools, so-called public schools, many of which are terrible.
Yet, American government education from k-12 grades declines every year compared with other countries.
More money for government schools is not the solution–more competition and freedom to choose is.
Let the American people decide where they send their children to school.
If government schools are so great, why Mr. President have you not sent your children there?
Public Education – Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
The Federal Government is broke.
Yet, President Obama wants the Federal Government to tax you more so your taxes can pay for new and bigger government programs.
The American people are taxed out and many are unemployed.
Yet, President Obama proposes a new tax on carbon or a cap and trade tax as well as higher taxes on businesses and individuals who earn over $250,000.
President Obama is an excellent speaker and glibe as he tells bold face lies.
The reason businesses go overseas is the US has the highest taxes on business.
The US tax system and rates are no longer competitive with the rest of the world.
The 2003 tax cut was the second in three years, and although tax rates are lower, the federal income tax still remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2006 ranges from 3.0 percent of income for the bottom half of tax returns to 22.8 percent for the top 1 percent.Table 1 Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2006 (Updated July 2008)
U.S. stimulus bill pushes e-health records for all
“…What didn’t come up during the president’s first press conference was how one section of the convoluted legislation–it’s approximately 800 pages total–is intended to radically reshape the nation’s medical system by having the government establish computerized medical records that would follow each American from birth to death.
Billions will be handed to companies creating these databases. Billions will be handed to universities to incorporate patient databases “into the initial and ongoing training of health professionals.” There’s a mention of future “smart card functionality.”
Yet nowhere in this 140-page portion of the legislation does the government anticipate that some Americans may not want their medical histories electronically stored, shared, and searchable. Although a single paragraph promises that data-sharing will “be voluntary,” there’s no obvious way to opt out.
“Without those protections, Americans’ electronic health records could be shared–without their consent–with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health records network,” said Sue Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, a nonprofit group that advocates health care privacy. …”
“…Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far. …”
“…Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464). …”
Daschle’s revenge: Porkulus also a universal health care Trojan Horse; Updated
By Michelle Malkin
“…I’ve made note before of the Generational Theft Act’s universal health care promotion provisions (see here). Betsy McCaughey goes over the text with a fine-tooth comb and explains how the porkulus is, among many other abominations, yet another universal health care Trojan Horse. I call it Tom Daschle’s revenge: …”
“…Because, uh, you know, the whole “Obama-as-Lincoln” thing isn’t working out and the fear-mongering President Doom costume wasn’t exactly boosting consumer confidence.
“…Barack Hussein Obama (1936 − 24 November 1982) was a Kenyan senior governmental economist, and father of US President Barack Obama. He is a central subject in his son’s memoir, Dreams from My Father.
“…Barack Obama Sr. was born in Kanyadhiang village, Rachuonyo District[1] on the shores of Lake Victoria just outside Kendu Bay, Kenya, at the time a colony of the British Empire, and raised in the village of Nyang’oma Kogelo, Siaya District, Nyanza Province.[9] His family are members of the Luo ethnic group. He was the son of Onyango Obama (c. 1895-1979) who had at least three wives; Barack Obama Sr. was the son of Akumu Habiba, the second wife. However, he was raised by Onyango’s third wife, Sarah, after Akumu left her family and separated from her husband in 1945.[3][10] Before working as a cook for missionaries in Nairobi, Onyango had travelled widely, enlisting in the British colonial forces and visiting Europe, India, and Zanzibar, where he converted from Roman Catholicism to Islam and took the name Hussein Onyango Obama. Although Obama Sr. was born into a Muslim family, he was an atheist before he came to the United States.[4] Obama Sr. was married in 1954 at the age of eighteen, in a tribal ceremony to Kezia, with whom he had four children. …”
“…At the age of 23, Obama Sr. enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, leaving behind a pregnant Kezia and their infant son. He had turned away from Islam and become an atheist by the time he moved to the United States.[4] On 2 February 1961, Obama Sr. married fellow student Ann Dunham in Maui, Hawaii[14] though she would not find out that her new husband was already married until much later.[15] Obama Sr.’s and Dunham’s son, Barack Obama II, was born on August 4, 1961. Dunham left school to care for the baby, while Obama Sr. completed his degree. He graduated from the University of Hawaii in June 1962 (and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa[16]), leaving shortly thereafter to travel to Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he would begin graduate study at Harvard University in the fall.[15] Later that summer, Dunham and the year-old baby Barack stopped to visit her friends in Mercer Island, Washington, the Seattle suburb where she had grown up,[15][17][18] before joining Obama Sr. in Cambridge. However, mother and son soon returned to Seattle, where she enrolled at the University of Washington.[17][15] Dunham, missing her family, then moved back to Hawaii[17] and filed for divorce in Honolulu in January 1964. Obama Sr. did not contest, and the divorce was granted.[14] He visited his son only once, in 1971, when Barack was 10 years old.[15]
While at Harvard, Obama Sr. met an American-born teacher named Ruth Nidesand. She followed him to Kenya when he returned there after he received a master’s degree (AM) in economics from Harvard in 1965.[19] Nidesand eventually became his third wife and had two children with him before they divorced.[20]
Return to Kenya
On his return to Kenya, Obama Sr. was hired by an oil company and then served as an economist in the Ministry of Transport, and later became senior economist in the Kenyan Ministry of Finance.[21] In 1965 Obama Sr. wrote a paper titled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” published in the East Africa Journal, harshly criticizing the blueprint for national planning, “African Socialism and Its Applicability to Planning in Kenya”, which had been produced by Tom Mboya’s Ministry of Economic Planning and Development.[22] As his son describes in his memoir, Obama Sr.’s conflict with President Kenyatta destroyed his career.[citation needed]
Obama Sr.’s life then took a tailspin into drinking and poverty, from which he never recovered. His friend, Kenyan journalist Philip Ochieng, has described Obama Sr.’s difficult personality and drinking problems in the Kenya newspaper The Daily Nation.[12] Obama Sr. lost both legs in an automobile collision, and subsequently lost his job. He died in 1982, at the age of 46, in a car crash in Nairobi.[12]
Obama Sr. is buried in at the village of Nyang’oma Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya. His funeral was attended by ministers Robert Ouko, Oloo Aringo and other prominent political figures.[1] …”
“…Omwami says he would instead refer to the elder Obama as “a liberal person who believed in market forces but understood its limitations.” Sessional Paper No. 10 centered on the new control of Kenya’s resources, promoting a form of trickle-down economics in which financial aid would be consolidated in more populated areas with the hope that positive effects would eventually be felt by smaller villages.
Obama senior argued against this notion, and Omwami suggests history has proven him correct since most, if not all, small communities in Kenya have yet to benefit from monies that poured into larger cities since the nation’s independence four decades ago.
The elder Obama also looked ahead to what has become a shaping force across Africa — urbanization — arguing that the government’s efforts to lure citizens back to the land were futile.
“If these people come out in search of work, it is because they cannot make a living out of whatever land they have had,” he wrote.
In retrospect, it was one of several warnings in the paper that would prove true.
“If you understand the Kenyan context, you can clearly see in that paper that Obama senior was quite a sharp mind,” Omwami concluded. “He addresses economic growth and other areas of development, and his critique is that policymakers in Kenya were overemphasizing economic growth.
“We had high economic growth for years but never solved the problems of poverty, unemployment and unequal income distribution. And those problems are still there.”
Obama senior’s projections and critiques are so spot on, says Omwami, that he plans to assign the paper to his classes in the future.
“The National Defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.”
~John Adams
UPDATE:
Looks like Department of Defense budget cuts are being used as a funding source to payoff President Obama’s campaign supporters mainly auto and government employee unions and Wall Street financial institutions. The VH-71 and F-22 both Lockheed Martin programs will be terminated.
Gates to Cut Several Major Weapons Programs
Lou Dobbs on Robert Gate’s Defense Cuts
Obama’s Youtube Arrogance Just Became A Nightmare
Washington News – Obama to Cut Pentagon Budget, Iraq Troop Withdrawal – Bloomberg
When you elect a President of the United States that could not get security clearance based on a routine background check by the FBI, this is exactly what you get– an Keyanian radical socialist as President of the United States.
President Obama is a quick learner and now salutes Marines instead of shaking their hands or bowing.
A bigger door or hatch is also a possible engineering change to the new helicopter:
Obama Salutes Marine and Bumps Head Boarding Chopper
Presidential helicopter plans downloaded in Iran
Lockheed Martin – Second To None
New Presidential VH-71 Helicopter
President Obama boards Marine One for the first time
John McCain Blasts President Obama on the Cost of Presidential Helicopter Fleet
A $400 million helicopter?
Obama Upgrading Marine One at Cost of 11.2 billion ?
Onboard Marine One
Presidential Helicopter Squadron One-part 1
Presidential Helicopter Squadron One-Part 2
VH-71 Presidential Helicopter Test Aircraft Completes Maiden
The concept of dropping money at Presidential campaign events was recently tested in Altoona:
Altoona Curve Money Drop
When President Obama leaves a event there will be a fly over of the event crowd to dispense walking around money to loyal supporters crying Obama, Obama, Obama–He is the One!
The code name for the new conformal money dispenser is the “Green Voter Machine” or GVM for short.
Conformal fuel tanks have been used on the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Falcon to provide a longer operating mission range:
F-15 Eagle
Lockheed Martin F-16 CFT 1st Flight
The idea for money drops came from the boys in the hood:
Floyd Mayweather Drops $30K Bag Full Of Money In The Crowd!
The new helicopters should lengthen the terms of Presidents.
Give the masses a taste of Government Dependency with cold cash currency.
To save development and production money, the helicopters with conformal fuel tanks converted to money dispensers will also be used by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department to drop TARP money.
This should spread the design and development cost over 100 helicopters instead of just the Presidential fleet.
Only in America!
But why did Senator McCain and even President Obama seriously consider canceling the helicopters.
Rumor has it that the US Border Patrol wanted 200 VH-71 helicopters to patrol the US 6,000 mile border to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling and the violence and kidnapping associated with the drug cartels and illegal immigration.
This would more than double the US Border Patrol’s fleet of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.
The transport helicopters would enable officers to arrest and quickly transport illegal aliens directly to a central location for processing and deportation.
US Border Patrol
Border Patrols Are Attacked
Glenn Beck talks with Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Since both Senator McCain and President Obama favor open borders and amnesty aka a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants from Mexico this could kill the VH-71 Helicopter program.
McCain: “We Are Not Going To Build Fences And Barriers”McCain
Barack Obama on Immigration and a Path to Citizenship
The political class of both political parties need all those campaign contributions from businesses benefiting from cheap and complaint illegal immigrant labor–that alone should lead to the cancelling of the helicopter program and not to mention the E-Verify program as well.
Time will tell.
Stay tuned.
New Presidential VH-71 Helicopter
NGC – On Board Marine One 2009 Part 1/5
NGC – On Board Marine One 2009 Part 2/5
NGC – On Board Marine One 2009 Part 3/5
NGC – On Board Marine One 2009 Part 4/5
NGC – On Board Marine One 2009 Part 5/5
Background Articles and Videos
The President’s New Helicopter
By Jonathon Keats posted: 07 May 2006
“…After decades of upgrades to a fleet of notoriously cramped Sikorsky VH-3 Sea Kings, the White House has tasked Lockheed Martin with a dramatic, $6.1-billion makeover of Marine One, the presidential helicopter, starting this summer. The goal: to fit a mobile Oval Office into the tight quarters of a chopper. The new fleet will consist of 23 VH-71 aircraft, each of which will have 200 square feet of cabin space, nearly double the Sea King’s 116.
Aside from the legroom, the copter will incorporate major upgrades to the old defense and communications systems. Equally important is that the aircraft is flight-proven—the $110-million bird is derived from a European-built AgustaWestland EH101, currently doing military service for Canada and the U.K. Here, an inside look at the revamped Marine One, set to gradually go into service between 2009 and 2014. …”
“…The VH-71 Kestrel, a variant of the AgustaWestland AW101 (formerly EH101), is being developed to replace the United States Marine Corps’ Marine One Presidential transport fleet. It is being produced by the Lockheed Martin-led “US101 Team” of Lockheed Martin Systems Integration – Owego, AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter.
The projected total cost of the 28 helicopters planned under the program is over $11 billion. In February 2009, President Obama asked Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about placing the project on hold or canceling it because of its high cost.[2] …”
“… VXX competition
The U.S. Department of Defense issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) on 18 December 2003 for the supply of 23 helicopters to replace the 11 VH-3Ds and 8 VH-60Ns of USMC HMX-1 squadron. This requirement was given the designation VXX (V being the prefix for VIP aircraft and XX representing the then unspecified numerical part of the designation).
Both AgustaWestland and Sikorsky responded to the RFP. Sikorsky proposed the VH-92, a variant of the H-92 Superhawk, in partnership with FlightSafety International, L-3 Communications, Northrop Grumman, Rockwell Collins, Vought Aircraft Industries, and GE-Aviation.
On 28 January 2005 the Department of Defense announced that it had selected the US101 for the VXX program. The US101 team was awarded a US$1.7 billion contract for the VXX system development and demonstration (SDD) phase.[6] The price of the development later rose by 40% to $2.4 billion.[7] The full cost of the project is estimated at $6.1 Bn,[8] although some analysts expect the cost to rise above $7Bn, making this the most expensive helicopter ever, with a unit cost of $270m.[9] As of March 2008 the program cost totaled $11.2Bn, making each helicopter more expensive than the Boeing 747-based VC-25s that serve as Air Force One after adjustment for inflation.[1][10]
“…US101
On 23 July 2002 Lockheed Martin and AgustaWestland signed a 10-year agreement to jointly market, produce and support a medium-lift helicopter, an EH101 derivative called US101, in the United States.[3] The companies envisaged marketing the aircraft in three roles; US Air Force combat search and rescue, US Coast Guard search and rescue, and US Marine Corps executive transport.
On 15 May 2003 AgustaWestland signed an agreement with Bell Helicopter to undertake final assembly of the US101 in the United States.[4] AgustaWestland will produce the main rotor blades and main fuselage sections at its Yeovil, UK facility. The company will produce other components, including the gearbox, at its Cascina Costa, Italy facility. This represents a work share of 36%. The remaining 64% work share is split between Lockheed Martin (31%) and Bell Helicopter (27%) and others (6%).[5]
“…A year after Sept. 11, 2001, the White House set out to build a fleet of state-of-the-art Marine One helicopters for the al-Qaeda age that would be safer, more powerful and more reliable than the iconic white-topped aircraft that have landed on the South Lawn for decades.
But the al-Qaeda age has met the military acquisition process. Six years later, the cost of the new helicopters has nearly doubled, production has fallen behind schedule, and the bulk of the program has been put on hold while the government tries to figure out how to salvage it.
A year after Sept. 11, 2001, the White House set out to build a fleet of state-of-the-art Marine One helicopters for the al-Qaeda age that would be safer, more powerful and more reliable than the iconic white-topped aircraft that have landed on the South Lawn for decades.
But the al-Qaeda age has met the military acquisition process. Six years later, the cost of the new helicopters has nearly doubled, production has fallen behind schedule, and the bulk of the program has been put on hold while the government tries to figure out how to salvage it.
The Pentagon confirmed this month that the cost of the fleet of 28 new super-sophisticated helicopters has jumped from $6.1 billion when the contract was signed in 2005 to $11.2 billion today. Outfitted with cutting-edge communications equipment, antimissile defenses and hardened hulls, each of the VH-71 helicopters, to be dubbed Marine One whenever the president is onboard, will cost $400 million — more than the most recent Boeing 747 jetliner outfitted to serve as Air Force One when it was delivered in 1990, even when adjusted for inflation. …”
VH-71 is the nextgeneration Presidential Helicopter that will serve as an “Oval Office in the Sky,” keeping the Commanderin-Chief both “in touch” and “in
charge” while traveling. Equipped with a variety of sophisticated systems, the helicopter’s command, control, and communications capabilities are similar to those aboard the larger “Air Force One” jet aircraft. The VH-71 is based upon the US101 platform, the American variant of the combatproven and highly successful EH101 helicopter, built
by AgustaWestland. To win the VXX competition, Lockheed Martin joined forces with AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter and formed Team US101, with support from more than 200
suppliers in 41 states. The U.S. Navy selected the US101 to be the new Presidential Helicopter because of our best value, low-risk “system of systems” technical approach, the
helicopter’s excellent safety performance, three-engine design, survivability characteristics, and superior cabin size. The team’s familiarity with the unique demands of presidential
transport was also considered: past Presidents have flown aboard both Lockheed Constellations and JetStars, and Bell helicopters. The Navy will buy 23 operational VH-71
helicopters; the first to fly Presidential missions will do so during 2009. The U.S. Marine Corps’s HMX-1 squadron at Quantico, Virginia, will have the honor and duty to fly these
aircraft for future Presidents during decades to come. …”
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”
~George Washington
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
~Mahatma Gandhi
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
Attorney General Eric Holder
Eric Holder (Obama’s Attorney General): Make Assault Weapons Ban Permanent
CNN- Obama To BAN Guns SPREAD THIS FOLKS, PLZ!
Gun Store Owner – They Can’t Make Guns Fast Enough
Looks like the professional criminal class, politicians, including President Obama and Congressman Rush, two Chicago radical socialists, are coming after your guns.
Go out now and legally buy some before they pass this new law.
Load up on ammunition while you are at it.
President Obama will again take both sides of the issue, but gun owners know he wants to take their guns.
The Radical Socialist are going after your money, property, guns and free speech.
I no longer believe anything President Obama says.
He is reading from script bought and paid for by his political masters.
Follow the money.
HR45 Gun Control Holder Wants Medical Record Photo Fingerprints
Obama on Gun Control
Barack Obama Flip Flops on D.C. Gun Ban
BARACK OBAMA BUSTED FOR LYING ABOUT SUPPORTING HAND GUN BAN
A message to Obama and the liberals… respect firearms rights, and the rule of law.
Obama testing the ak47
LOL
Gun Control
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”
~John F. Kennedy
FILL YOUR HANDS !!! (True Grit)
Background Articles and Videos
The Mexican Excuse: Stealing Freedom
“…
Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama wish to reinstate the assault weapons ban, a ban of specific types of semi-automatic weapons imposed on Americans during the Clinton Administration. Oddly, the types of weapons that were forbidden were seldom used in the commission of crimes. Despite President Obama’s campaign assertion that he is a supporter of the Second Amendment, the new administration is predictably going after the freedoms law abiding citizens are guaranteed in the constitution, using the excuse of preventing violence. This time the violence is in Mexico, and the excuse is that drug cartels are smuggling weapons from the US.
As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.
I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.
Attorney General Eric Holder, to reporters on 25 Feb 2009
Holder’s words are revealing. You can be sure that “just a few gun-related changes” will morph into a very convoluted and restricting ban that will go as far as it dare to take as much freedom as it can from law abiding citizens. There is little evidence to support a ban. What they cannot steal openly they will take piecemeal. Excuses are easily found.
The State Department issued an official travel warning on Feb. 20, 2009:
Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades. Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez.
Previous Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration
By JASON RYAN WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009
Previous Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration
“…The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S. …”
“…During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.
“I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller,” Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual’s right to own a weapon. …”
“…Even before the inauguration, the new 111th Congress has fired the opening salvo in Obama’s widely anticipated “War on Guns.” Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL), with no cosponsors yet to sign on, introduced HR 45, the “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009” on January 6, 2009. Once again, Congress has seen fit to play the “for-the-children” card to get traction from a tragedy, in this next proposed step towards victim disarmament. In its “Findings,” Congress proposes that “interstate commerce” (the commerce clause) is the basis for the “authority” to launch this bill and that the tragic end to Blair Holt’s life is somehow related:
“Congress finds that: (1) the manufacture, distribution, and importation of firearms is inherently commercial in nature; (2) firearms regularly move in interstate commerce; (3) to the extent that firearms trafficking is intrastate in nature, it arises out of and is substantially connected with a commercial transaction, which, when viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce; (4) because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce; (5) gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries; and (6) on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.”
HR 45 follows with, “It is the sense of the Congress that: (1) firearms trafficking is prevalent and widespread in and among the States, and it is usually impossible to distinguish between intrastate trafficking and interstate trafficking; and (2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.”
Note here the use of the word “trafficking,” as if guns were already an illegal, contraband substance and the attempt to commingle “interstate” with “intrastate.” The Supreme Court has already ruled that the “commerce clause” relates only interstate matters—where articles in commerce actually cross state lines. Commerce within a state, i.e., “intrastate” has been declared off limits for congressional intervention. …”
“…The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.
But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties.Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric!Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.
FACT:Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17
FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18
FACT:Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT:Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15
FACT:Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT:Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9
FACT:Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT:Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4
FACT:Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT:Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT:Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT:Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT:Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8
FACT:Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9
FACT:Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10 …”
(US) A military command to put a weapon’s safety catch on, and load it with ammunition.
1949 — John Wayne in the film Sands of Iwo Jima
Lock and load, boy, lock and load.
(slang) To prepare for an imminent event.
Chuck Norris: An Outlaw’s Worst Nightmare?
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Tramples on Second Amendment with HR-45
Killer of American Dreams: Barack Obama Radical Socialist
Federal Budget Deficit Will Reach Levels Never Seen Before in U.S.
The budget deficit is projected to grow to 18 percent of GDP by 2082 even if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are allowed to expire and the AMT is not fixed. This will be driven by entitlement spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, with deficits well above the 30-year historical average of 2.5 percent. Deficits of this size have never been seen in the U.S. and illustrate the need to reform these programs.
Federal Budget Deficit as a Percentage of GDP, 1962–2082
Source: Deficit Data from CBO Long-Term Budget Outlook, December 2007 (Extended Baseline Scenario).
The Flim-Flam Man (1967) George C. Scott & Slim Pickens
Washington News – Fiscal Responsibility Summit – Bloomberg
Obama: Cut deficit we inherited ($1.3T) by half 1st term, US Budget – Exercise in deception!
Obama Tries To Reconcile The Recovery Package w/ His Call For Fiscal Responsibility
Hillary Begs China to Buy Debt/Gold Almost Hits $1000- Glenn Beck
Dirty Little Secret – Universal Healthcare? Social Security?
I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: Deficits and Social Security
I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: A $53 Trillion Federal Financial Hole
Who does the political class in Washington D.C. think they are kidding talking about fiscal responsibility.
The political elites of both political parties in Washington D.C. are the most fiscally irresponsible in the entire history of the United States.
The professional politicians are lying and misleading the American people.
They have zero credibility. They are joke gone terrible bad.
You got to be kidding. They are all con men.
I for one am not buying into this play acting.
In early 2011 President Obama will rescind much of the 2011 and 2012 spending in the stimulus bill as not being needed as the economy recovers.
Why?
To be able to say that he has cut the deficits by 50% and stop the threat of increasing inflation.
To get to the 50% mark President Obama will drastically cut military spending just like President Clinton did.
When he runs again for President in 2012 Obama could then claim he is a fiscal responsible President.
In other words much of the stimulus spending now getting a lot the attention will be sacrificed for the greater good of an Obama second term.
Without having a line item veto, saying you will examine every item in a budget or bill is an exercise in reading not cutting spending.
Presidents submit budgets and Congress passes spending bills.
Presidents sign or veto bills not items in a bill.
Also, Social Security surpluses have been spent every year and are considered to be off budget and in eight years will be in deficit.
Background Articles and Videos
The perfect metaphor for Obama’s suck-up summit
By Michelle Malkin • February 23, 2009 05:18 PM
“…If you missed the media coverage of President Obama’s suck-up fiscal responsibility summit today, you are lucky.
It was nauseating.
Republicans including John McCain and Eric Cantor joined Democrat tax cheat Charlie Rangel and spendocrat Henry Waxman, along with Obama corrupto-cronies such as the SEIU’s Andy Stern in a boot-licking session with Dear Leader.
He gathered them all in a press conference setting and called on them as if they were journalistic stenographers.
Obama paid lip service to bipartisanship. They paid lip service to bipartisanship. Obama declared the need to fix health care. They declared the need to fix health care. Obama said we had budget problems. They nodded their heads and bemoaned our budget problems.
“…Social Security in the United States currently refers to the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.
The original Social Security Act[1] and the current version of the Act, as amended[2] encompass several social welfare or social insurance programs. The larger and better known initiatives of the program are:
Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
Unemployment benefits
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
U.S. Social Security is a social insurance program funded through dedicated payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). Tax deposits are formally entrusted to[3] Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, or Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund or the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. The main part of the program is sometimes abbreviated OASDI (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) or RSDI (Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance). When initially signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935 as part of his New Deal, the term Social Security covered unemployment insurance as well. The term, in everyday speech, is used to refer only to the benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship, and death, which are the four main benefits provided by traditional private-sector pension plans. In 2004 the U.S. Social Security system paid out almost $500 billion in benefits.[4] By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget, with 20.9% for social security and 20.4% for Medicare/Medicaid, compared to 20.1% for military expenditure. [5] Social Security is currently the largest social insurance program in the U.S., constituting 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the gross domestic product[6] and is currently estimated to keep roughly 40% of all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty.[7] The Social Security Administration is headquartered in Woodlawn, Maryland, just to the west of Baltimore.
Largely because of the rise of neoliberalism, Social Security privatization became a major political issue for more than three decades during the presidencies of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. …”
“…The process of creating the budget for the United States Government is known as the budget process. The framework used by Congress to formulating the budget was established by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921[1], the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974[2], and by other budget legislation.
Congressional consideration of the federal budget begins once the President of the United States submits a budget request, which is formulated over a period of months with the assistance of the Office of Management and Budget, the largest office within the Executive Office of the President. The budget request includes funding requests for all federal executive departments and independent agencies.
The President submits the budget request each year to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a))[3] requires the President to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, Presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February.
The President’s budget request constitutes an extensive proposal of the administration’s intended spending and revenue plans for the following fiscal year. The budget proposal includes volumes of supporting information intended to persuade Congress of the necessity and value of the budget provisions. In addition, each federal executive department and independent agency provides additional detail and supporting documentation to Congress on its own funding requests.
The next step is the drafting of a budget resolution. The United States House Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on the Budget are responsible for drafting budget resolutions. Following the traditional calendar, by early April both committees finalize their drafts and submit it to their respective floors for consideration and adoption.
A budget resolution, which is one form of a concurrent resolution, binds Congress, but is not a law, and so does not require the President’s signature. The budget resolution serves as a blueprint for the actual appropriation process, and provides Congress with some control over the appropriations process. No new spending authority, however, is provided until appropriation bills are enacted.
Once both houses pass the resolution, selected Representatives and Senators negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions. The conference report, in order to become binding, must be approved by both the House and Senate.
The federal government’s fiscal year currently begins on October 1st and ends on September 30th of the next calendar year. The federal fiscal year’s starting date was shifted from July 1 to October 1 in 1976. The period between the end of FY1976 and the start of FY1977 was called the Transition Quarter. An earlier shift in the U.S. government’s fiscal year was made in the 1850s. …”
“…
In general, funds for Federal Government programs must be authorized by an “authorizing committee” through enactment of legislation. Then, through subsequent acts by Congress, budget authority is then appropriated by the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate. In principle, committees with jurisdiction to authorize programs make policy decisions, while the Appropriations Committees decide on funding levels, limited to a program’s authorized funding level, though the amount may be any amount less than the limit.
In practice, the separation between policy making and funding, and the division between appropriations and authorization activities are imperfect. Authorizations for many programs have long lapsed, yet still receive appropriated amounts. Other programs that are authorized receive no funds at all.[citation needed] In addition, policy language — that is legislative text changing permanent law — is included in appropriation measures. …”
“…But Madoff’s scam was small compared to Ponzi schemes the government itself runs: Social Security and Medicare.
By now we all know the government does not invest our payroll taxes and pay our benefits with the profits our money earns. In the beginning, writes economic historian Charlotte Twight in “Dependent on D.C.”, Americans were told Social Security was an insurance program. But the government was unable to sustain that bald lie.
In reality, our money, rather than being invested and kept in an actual “trust fund,” is immediately given to current retirees in Social Security benefits or to their healthcare providers in Medicare benefits. The government’s promise to pay for your retirement pension and medical care is just a promise. And a lie.
In theory, the promise could be kept by raising taxes on future workers, but there won’t be enough of them. Changing demographics are destroying the programs. A large working class can support a relatively small retired class, especially when life expectancy is 61 years and benefits don’t begin until 65. That’s how things were in the early years of Social Security. But when life expectancy grows to 80 and a large generational group — the baby boomers — retires expecting to be supported by a far smaller working class, that’s trouble. …”
Forewarned, forearmed; to be prepared is half the victory.
~Miguel de Cervantes
Do not say you were not forewarned about Barack Obama and his radical socialism.
Many including me have blogged and discussed on talk radio the issues mentioned by Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, Alan Keyes, and many many more.
The pump and dump drive-by mainstream media shut-up and said nothing about the radical socialism roots of Barack Obama.
The American people did not knowingly vote for a radical socialist.
Had the American people been informed about Obama’s roots and views they would never had voted for him.
Big media failed the American people and are no longer trusted.
OBAMA FABIAN SOCIALIST STORM
Michael Savage – Compares Obama and The History of Fascism
Michael Savage says President Obama Will Destroy the Middle Class
Jonah Goldberg on Glenn Beck Explaining the Socialist Agenda Behind the Stimulus Bill
Glenn Beck, “Road to Socialism: Should we nationalize U.S. banks?”
Glenn Beck on Obama’s ‘Change’: Socialism
Glenn Beck’s Comrade Update
Sean Hannity showing how history repeats itself
Rush Limbaugh on Hannity – I hope Obama Fails with His Socialist Agenda – Part 2
CNN: Barack Obama’s opposition to Born Alive Act
Values Voters Summit – Bill Bennett – Part 4 of 4
Obama Citizenship: I Invented The Internet (Ep. 6: October Surprise)
Dr. Alan Keyes – “Obama is a Radical Communist – Will Destroy America!”
EMERGENCY; Warning to All U.S.A. Citizens – Obama and Ayers
Join the counter-revolution while you still have a chance.
Only a grassroot movement of individuals will result in 100 times this picture occupying Washington D.C. on April 15, 2009 at The Rally for the American Plan of A Tax Holiday and The FairTax.
Background Articles and Videos
Obama’s Radical Revolution:Its Alinsky Root and Global Vision
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
“…Saul Alinsky was the father of community organizing. Before Alinsky devised his diabolical plan to bring the international socialist revolution to America — working within the very liberal and free system upon which the U.S. was founded — he was an older fellow traveler and advisor to student radicals of the 1960s.
Alinsky was a sort of father figure, to whom many radicals turned in the aftermath of the infamous DNC Convention of 1968 in Chicago. His advice?
“Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing — but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates.” (emphasis in original)
– Saul Alinsky; Rules for Radicals; p. xxiii
Calm down. Forget “burning the system down.” Organize. Organize. Organize. Work within the system. Become the delegates. …”
“…Obama did everything Alinsky prescribed. He went to Chicago, home of Alinsky and the place where Davis had worked for the communist revolution. Obama trained at the Industrial Areas Foundation, an Alinsky training institute. He organized in Chicago and did voter registration and training for ACORN. He went to law school. He built political alliances. He kept a tight lock on his records and his past.
As for Judeo/Christian morals. Forget it. Alinsky trained his radicals in the spirit of no-holds-barred methods. In Alinsky’s mind, the American power structure was evil to its core and justified any means necessary to change the “world as it is” into the “world as it should be.” Both Barack and Michelle Obama include these Alinsky code words in their speeches, and we should not mistake their meaning. No means are out of bounds.
Many of these radical revolutionaries have already bombed and burned. Lying, cheating and stealing are just more par for their revolutionary course.
Alinsky’s tenth rule of the ethics of means: “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”
“…Obama’s one piece of signature legislation in the Senate is the Global Poverty Act, aimed at curing what socialists deem as the root cause of all violence and war — poverty.
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
By James Simpson
“…America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.
Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama’s connections to his radical mentors — Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama’s radical connections since the beginning.
Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama’s life comprise a who’s who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.
But even this doesn’t fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s. …”
“…In this belief, Obama has high-powered company. He is joined by a cabal of international socialists, especially his biggest-moneyed backer, George Soros. Soros himself backs a global tax on wealthy countries, especially the United States. And Soros, like Obama, believes that the Global War on Terror is ill-intentioned and based on the desire of conservatives to build lasting American hegemony.
The current economic meltdown, coupled with the well-laid foundation of socialist radicals throughout this Country, now threaten to bring America closer than we’ve ever been to joining the international collective. And Barack Obama has demonstrated that he will do anything — anything — it takes to be The One to close their long-envisioned revolutionary deal. …”
I try to open up my heart as much as I can and keep a real keen eye out that I don’t get sentimental. I think we’re all afraid to reveal our hearts. It’s not at all in fashion.
Without Arthur’s voice, I never would have enjoyed that success.
~Paul Simon
Paul has more, I think, of a feel for the stage. Whereas I have it more for the notes themselves. I love record making and mixing, arranging, producing. That I love. I love to make beautiful things, but I don’t like to perform.
~Art Garfunkel
For Emily Whenever I May Find Her
Sound Of Silence – Simon & Garfunkel (live sound)
Leaves That Are Green
A Poem On The Underground Wall
Simon & Garfunkel – Richard Cory 1966 live
Simon & Garfunkel – He was my brother 1966 live
Simon & Garfunkel – Barbriallen
Simon & Garfunkel – Red Rubber Ball
Simon And Garfunkel – Cecilia Live In Cologne 2004
Simon & Garfunkel — Flowers Never Bend With the Rainfall
I Am a Rock
I Am a Rock
Simon & Garfunkel – Hazy Shade of Winter
Simon & Garfunkel – Homeward Bound (Monterey 1967)
Simon & Garfunkel – Homeward Bound
Homeward Bound
Simon & Garfunkel – Overs
Simon & Garfunkel – Cloudy
The 59th Street Bridge Song – Simon & Garfunkel
Feeling Groovy – Simon & Garfunkel
The 59th Street Bridge Song/Mystery train
Simon and Garfunkel – Old Friends
Simon and Garfunkel – Old Friends
Simon & Garfunkel – Homeward Bound (Monterey 1967)
America
SIMON @ GARFUNKEL..BOXER
April Come She Will–Simon & Garfunkel
Simon & Garfunkel – Bridge Over Troubled Water(Live)
Simon and Garfunkel – Are you going to Scarborough Fair
Simon and Garfunkel- Mrs. Robinson
Kathy’s Song (live) – Simon & Garfunkel
Simon and Garfunkel, the concert in Central Park (13)
Simon and Garfunkel, the concert in Central Park (21)
I don’t think that Simon and Garfunkel as a live act compares to Simon and Garfunkel as a studio act.
~Paul Simon
Paul is a very creative artist but I’m more that thorough, meticulous, disciplined nut.
~Art Garfunkel
Background Articles and Videos
Simon & Garfunkel
“…Simon & Garfunkel were an American singer-songwriter duo consisting of Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel. They formed the group Tom and Jerry in 1957, and had their first taste of success with the minor hit “Hey, Schoolgirl”. As Simon and Garfunkel, the duo rose to fame in 1965, backed by the hit single “The Sounds of Silence”. Their music was featured in the landmark film The Graduate, propelling them further into the public consciousness.
They are well known for their close vocal harmonies and sometimes unstable relationship. Their last album, Bridge over Troubled Water, was delayed several times due to artistic disagreements. They were among the most popular recording artists of the 1960s; among their biggest hits, in addition to “The Sounds of Silence”, were “I Am a Rock”, “Homeward Bound”, “Mrs. Robinson”, “Bridge over Troubled Water”, and “The Boxer”. They have received several Grammys and are inductees of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Long Island Music Hall of Fame (2007). In 2004, Rolling Stone ranked Simon and Garfunkel #40 on their list of the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time.[1]
They have reunited on several occasions since their 1970 breakup, most famously for 1981’s The Concert in Central Park, which attracted about 500,000 people. …”
The American people have as the song goes “Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet”!
Cash is king or more precisely hard assets or commodities are especially gold, silver, etc.
Buy guns and safes to protect them.
Unfortunately the third wave of mortgage defaults will be in commercial real estate and will shortly follow the second wave.
The greedy, arrogant, stupid bastards that got us into this mess are really beginning to make me mad including the political class in Washington who were their pals.
No more bailouts–on strike–shut it down.
A phrase even the radical socialists might even be able to understand.
Result: 18 month to 24 month recession, unemployment rate peaks at 15% in next 12 months.
Hang on to your job if you have one.
Great investment buying opportunity in real estate and eventually equities over the next 12 to 18 months.
For the long run buy commodities or raw materials.
Just wait awhile.
You ain’t seen nothing yet.
Jim Rogers has it completely right. My favorite video–three cheers!
Jim Rogers about Tim Geithner testimony 2009.02.11
When it comes to economics President Obama is an economic illiterate advised by a group of arrogant big government economists who think government intervention is the answer to the world’s economic problems–living in the 1930s with the same results.
Tom Woods on Glenn Beck “Meltdown” 02/09/2009
History of Housing Prices Chart – *SHOCKING* You Need To See This!
Count me out.
Join the second American Revolution and march on Washington July 4, 2009:
Time to take care of business and get out of Dodge.
Learn Chinese!
Bachman Turner Overdrive – You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet
Alt+A and Option Arm Mortage Crises Yet to Come – MORE BANKER FRAUD (1 of 2)
Alt+A and Option Arm Mortage Crises Yet to Come – MORE BANKER FRAUD (2 of 2)
Deconstructing the Subprime Crisis
Mr Mortgage – HERE COMES THE ALT-A CRISIS
Mr Mortgage on the Pay Option ARM Implosion
Mark Zandi on the Risky Loans Behind the Meltdown
Jeremy Siegel on the Resilience of American Finance
Franklin Allen on Lessons from the Subprime Crisis
Richard Herring on What’s Next for Investment Banks
Wall Streets Day of Reckoning: Turmoil in the Global Market
John Berlau on Obama’s Mortgage Rescue Plan
1/3) Tom Woods: Meltdown (Lew Rockwell Show 2/11/09)
2/3) Tom Woods: Meltdown (Lew Rockwell Show 2/11/09)
3/3) Tom Woods: Meltdown (Lew Rockwell Show 2/11/09)
Bachman Turner Overdrive “Takin Care Of Business” Live ’74
Background Articles and Videos
Jim Rogers on the Asian Financial Forum pt 1/2 Jan 21 2009
Jim Rogers on the Asian Financial Forum pt 2/2 Jan 21 2009
Investment guru Jim Rogers
Jim Rogers : Teach your children Chinese !!!!!!!!
Richard Herring on Mortgage-backed Securities
Angry renters, unite!
By Michelle Malkin
“…I want you to look at this chart, via AngryRenter.com. While ACORN and the housing entitlement mob get all the press, look who’s not getting attention.
Now, here’s some feedback in response to my appearance on FNC’s Neil Cavuto show this afternoon in support of renters (self included) who are getting the shaft from the housing entitlement-mongers: …”
“…The sharp increase in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures during 2007 prompted numerous calls for government intervention in housing and mortgage markets, including the creation of an HOLC-like agency to purchase delinquent mortgages. The right of lenders to foreclose on collateral is themain reason why the interest rates on secured loans, such as home mortgages, are typically much lower than those on unsecured loans, such as credit card debt. Ordinarily, mortgage foreclosures receive little notice from the public because they have little impact on parties other than the delinquent borrower. However, when the number of foreclosures is high or concentrated geographically, they can lower property values, destabilize neighborhoods, and impose other social costs. Such “externalities” can justify government intervention to reduce the number of foreclosures. …”
New data analysis helps identify future foreclosure trouble spots
“…First, some background on the data we used. This background discussion includes a brief overview of two recent and related changes in the mortgage market: namely, mortgage securitization and the use of risk-based pricing for mortgage loans.
In the past, lenders originated, serviced, and owned their mortgages. However, in recent years, it has become more common to separate these functions. Typically, mortgages are now pooled and sold to secondary market investors, while the rights to service the loans are sold to a servicer, a firm that specializes in conducting this activity for a fee. The share of U.S. residential mortgage debt in a mortgage pool or trust has grown in the past decade. As of the second quarter of 2007, it accounted for 57 percent of total mortgage debt.1/
As the use of securitization expanded, lenders found that investors had a ready appetite for securities backed by nonprime (that is, subprime and alt-A) loans. By 2006, the number of nonprime mortgage originations increased substantially, accounting for 40 percent of all newly securitized mortgages, compared to only 9 percent in 2001.2/
In retrospect, it appears as though the chain of securitization failed to align the interests of mortgage originators, who earned fees by making loans, and investors in mortgage-backed securities, who ultimately bore the credit risk of the loans. Why investors did not exert sufficient oversight to ensure the quality of securitized mortgages is beyond the scope of this article.
The data used in our analysis capture a good deal of information about the simultaneous growth in and fusion of nonprime lending and mortgage securitization. In particular, the data include a sizable proportion of all loans sold into subprime or alt-A securities. As noted above, alt-A and subprime loans are considered riskier than prime loans and more prone to default. The risk is due mainly to quality and size considerations that make these loans “nonconforming” in the eyes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.3/
Our understanding is that LP captures about 70 percent of subprime securities and 95 percent of alt-A securities. Still, it is important to remember that these data do not include any loans held on a bank’s books. The data used in this article are from October 2007. …”
“…The mortgage market began suffering serious problems in mid-2005. According to data from the Mortgage Bankers Association, the share of mortgage loans that were “seriously delinquent” (90 days or more past due or in the process of foreclosure) averaged 1.7 percent from 1979 to 2006, with a low of about 0.7 percent (in 1979) and a high of about 2.4 percent (in 2002). But by the second quarter of 2008, the share of seriously delinquent mortgages had surged to 4.5 percent. These delinquencies foreshadowed a sharp rise in foreclosures: roughly 1.2 million foreclosures were started in the first half of 2008, an increase of 79 percent from the 650,000 in the first half of 2007 (Federal Reserve estimates based on data from the Mortgage Bankers Association). No precise national data exist on what share of foreclosures that start are actually completed, but anecdotal evidence suggests that historically the proportion has been somewhat less than half (Cordell et al., 2008).
Mortgage defaults and delinquencies are particularly concentrated among borrowers whose mortgages are classified as “subprime” or “near-prime.” Some key players in the mortgage market group these two into a single category, which we will call “nonprime” lending. Although the categories are not rigidly defined, subprime loans are generally targeted to borrowers who have tarnished credit histories and little savings available for down payments. Near-prime mortgages are made to borrowers with more minor credit quality issues or borrowers who are unable or unwilling to provide full documentation of assets or income; some of these borrowers are investing in real estate rather than occupying the properties they purchase. Near-prime mortgages are often bundled into securities marketed as “Alt-A.” Since our data are based on the loans underlying such securities, we use the term “Alt-A” to refer to near-prime loans in the remainder of this paper. …”
“…Conclusions and Future Research
Slackened underwriting standards–manifested most dramatically by lenders allowing borrowers to forego downpayments entirely–combined with stagnant to falling house prices in many parts of the country appear to be the most immediate contributors to the rise in mortgage defaults. The surge in early payment defaults and the rise in the share of mortgages with low or no documentation suggest that underwriting also deteriorated along other dimensions. Because downpayments were so small, when house prices declined many borrowers had little or no equity in their properties and thus less incentive to repay their mortgages. In the industrial Midwest, economic distress was also a factor in the heightened defaults. Unorthodox mortgage features such as rate resets, prepayment penalties, or negative amortization provisions do not appear to be significant contributors to date to the defaults because borrowers who experienced problems with these provisions could refinance into other mortgages. However, as markets realized the extent of the poor underwriting and house prices began to fall, refinancing opportunites became more limited. Borrowers may not be able to resolve their problems with these products through refinancing going forward and thus may be forced to default. Our conclusions are consistent with other studies (Sherlund, 2008, Gerardi, Lehnert, Sherlund, and Willen, 2008, Gerardi, Shapiro, and Willen, 2007, Haughwout, Peach, and Tracy, 2008).
Our conclusions run counter to the popular perception that unorthodox mortgage features are responsible for the surge in defaults. At first glance, the fact that the most common subprime mortgage was a confusing and complicated product–a short-term hybrid with a prepayment penalty–and that delinquency rates were highest on these products suggest that the mortgage type itself must be to blame. We suggest instead that default rates were highest on these products because they were originated to the borrowers with the lowest credit scores and highest loan-to-value ratios. This interpretation raises the questions of why the riskiest borrowers were matched with the most complicated products, and whether it was borrowers, lenders, or both who misjudged the likelihood that borrowers would default. Did borrowers seek out this product because it offered the lowest initial payment and they were focused on short-term affordability? Or did lenders offer this product to borrowers because they thought that this combination of features allowed them to manage the risks of lending to borrowers with high probabilities of default?
News accounts often suggested that borrowers were steered into subprime adjustable-rate mortgages when they could have qualified for fixed-rate or prime mortgages (Brooks and Simon, 2007). Given the poor credit profiles of these borrowers and the high price of housing relative to their incomes, however, it seems more likely that in the absence of subprime adjustable-rate mortgages these borrowers would not have gotten credit at all. If so, several more questions spring to mind. First, were these borrowers better off for having the opportunity of home ownership when the possibility of failure was so high? Second, were the associated gains in the homeownership rate illusory, or will some of these gains be sustained? Finally, to what extent were house prices pushed up by the entrance of these new buyers into the market?
Alt-A mortgages pose a similar set of questions and issues. As with subprime mortgages, the complicated provisions of these mortgages do not appear to be responsible for the sharp rise in delinquencies. Very few of these mortgages are scheduled to “recast” before 2010, when their payments could potentially increase dramatically. But even more than subprime mortgages, these mortgages were originated to borrowers who may have been speculating on future house price appreciation. As these borrowers were somewhat better credit risks than borrowers with subprime mortgages, they tended to have lower combined loan-to-value ratios at origination and better credit scores. However, the areas where investors speculated most heavily on house price appreciation were also the areas that experienced the most severe house price declines. Although the initial equity cushion kept Alt-A mortgages from defaulting as quickly as subprime mortgages, default rates on Alt-A loans, and on option adjustable-rate mortgages in particular, began to skyrocket in 2007, about twelve months after the surge in subprime delinquencies. Going forward, the key question is whether house prices will decline enough so that borrowers with prime mortgages are also left with little or no equity and thus a higher chance of default.
Any government response to mortgage distress would entail some cost. For example, a government purchase of delinquent mortgages, or expanded federal mortgage guarantees or insurance, could impose a substantial monetary cost on taxpayers. Some policies, including a government bailout of delinquent loans or expanded loan guarantees, could also encourage increased financial risk-taking and thereby lead to further instability in the future. Other actions, such as a government-imposedmoratoriumon loan foreclosures, could simply delay inevitable adjustments that are necessary to restore the functioning of mortgage and housing markets. Such direct government intervention could also increase the cost of loans for future borrowers by encouraging lenders to add a premium to loan interest rates to compensate for the risk that government officials might re-write the terms of loan contracts.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
~H.L. Mencken
Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Democrats are Clueless on Freddie Mac Fannie Mae and the financial credit crisis.
How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton’s HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter
Encouragement from Obama? None!
President Obama Addresses Economic Crisis
Pres. Obama’s First Press Conference
Obama: This is a “Full-Blown Crisis”
“Show Us Hope, Barack !” : BILL CLINTON | Crisis Economy? | Interview GOOD MORNING AMERICA
Scenario Planning : Thinking The Unthinkable–More Doom, Gloom and Revolution
Glenn Beck Predicts What the ‘New World Powers’ Might Look Like Following Massive Global Upheaval
ELITE Pushing for WW3 and Accelerating NWO ENDGAME at Warp Speed
War Room: WWIII Glenn Beck and Panel Discuss the scenario that will create, The New World Order
WW News: Glenn Beck Lays Out The ‘Road To World War III’
Peter Schiff on CNBC 18th Feb 2009 1 of 2
Peter Schiff on Kudlow 02-18-09 (2/2)
Jim Rogers: Abolish The IMF & World Bank
Tom Woods on Glenn Beck “Meltdown” 02/09/2009
Rudyard Kipling’s Poem ”If” Read By Federer & Nadal
Typography: IF Rudyard Kipling
If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; . . . If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same . . . Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it.” – “If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; . . . If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same . . . Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it.’);”
~Rudyard Kipling
For the next 6-12 months the Democrats will be blaming the high unemployment rates of between 10% and 12% with over 15-18 million unemployed on the Bush Administration.
Then starting in 2010 the Democratic message will gradually change to one that the so-called stimulus package is working and they will take credit for any good news regarding the economy and the stock market, just in time for the 2010 elections.
The majority of the economic impact of the stimulus bill will be in 2011-2012 when the economy should be growing again, no thanks to the stimulus bill.
Unfortunately by then inflation will be exceeding 10% as the Federal Reserve decreases the money supply and raises interest rates to prevent rising inflation.
In economics and politics timing is everything and lags happen.
If the timing is off, this can very easily result in a repeat of the Carter years with stagflation, little growth in the economy, high unemployment and inflation rates.
The 2012 election will be a repeat of 1980.
Who will be the Ronald Reagan of 2o12–Former Speaker of the House–Newt Gingrich.
His running mate–Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin.
What concerns me and many others is that the so-called stimulus package was designed for political impact during the six to twelve months before the election of 2010 and not for immediate economic impact in the next six to twelve months.
President Obama and the Democratic Party are intentionally trying to scare people instead of doing something that would improve the economic situation.
The result will be millions and million of unemployed Americans with rising inflation rates two years out. This will hurt the poor and those on fixed income.
Should the misery index, the sum of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate, rise above 15% both the Democrats and Obama will lose in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
The American people will rightfully feel betrayed by the political class or elites of both parties.
Ignore the crisis creators with their cries of crisis, they may know what they are doing politically, but economically they are destroying jobs and wealth for the next two years.
For that they justily deserve to pay a very high price; they should be voted out of office.
What is very disturbing is President Obama is out and out lying about the economic situation and the so-called stimulus package and he knows it.
The President is being called out on his lies, but he does not give a damn and just repeats the lies.
The American elites of both politically parties could care less that million of americans are unemployed and losing their homes.
If they truly cared they would shut down the open borders, deport all illegal aliens, cut tax rates now, cut government spending, and pass the Fair Tax just for starters.
Neither political party has the will, courage or wisdom to do the above.
The public interest be damned.
Both are playing politics as usual.
The choice in 2010 and 2012 will be one of the lesser of two evils, welfare socialism or national socialism, not much difference between the two.
When was the last time Federal spending was actually cut and Departments eliminated?
Instead each day we hear of a new “commissar” or “czar” for energy, cars, etc.
Buffalo Springfield – For What It’s Worth (Monterey 1967)
Background Articles and Videos
Scenario Planning
“Scenario planning [or scenario thinking or scenario analysis] is a strategic planning method that some organizations use to make flexible long-term plans. It is in large part an adaptation and generalization of classic methods used by military intelligence.
The original method was that a group of analysts would generate simulation games for policy makers. The games combine known facts about the future, such as demographics, geography, military, political, industrial information, and mineral reserves, with plausible alternative social, technical, economic, environmental, educational, political and aesthetic (STEEEPA) trends which are key driving forces.
In business applications, the emphasis on gaming the behavior of opponents was reduced (shifting more toward a game against nature). At Royal Dutch/Shell for example, scenario planning was viewed as changing mindsets about the exogenous part of the world, prior to formulating specific strategies.
Scenario planning shines especially if it includes systems thinking, which recognizes that many factors may combine in complex ways to create sometime surprising futures (due to non-linear feedback loops). The method also allows the inclusion of factors that are difficult to formalize, such as novel insights about the future, deep shifts in values, unprecedented regulations or inventions. Systems thinking used in conjunction with scenario planning leads to plausible scenario story lines because the causal relationship between factors can be demonstrated. In these cases when scenario planning is integrated with a systems thinking approach to scenario development, it is sometimes referred to as structural dynamics. …”
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 USDL 09-0117
http://www.bls.gov/cps/
Establishment data:(202) 691-6555 Transmission of material in this release
http://www.bls.gov/ces/ is embargoed until 8:30 A.M. (EST),
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 Friday, February 6, 2009.
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JANUARY 2009
Nonfarm payroll employment fell sharply in January (-598,000) and the unem-
ployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of
the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll employment has declined
by 3.6 million since the start of the recession in December 2007; about one-
half of this decline occurred in the past 3 months. In January, job losses
were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors.
Unemployment (Household Survey Data)
Both the number of unemployed persons (11.6 million) and the unemployment
rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of un-
employed persons has increased by 4.1 million and the unemployment rate has
risen by 2.7 percentage points. (See table A-1.)
The unemployment rate continued to trend upward in January for adult men
(7.6 percent), adult women (6.2 percent), whites (6.9 percent), blacks (12.6
percent), and Hispanics (9.7 percent). The jobless rate for teenagers was un-
changed at 20.8 percent. The unemployment rate for Asians was 6.2 percent in
January, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed
temporary jobs increased to 7.0 million in January. This measure has grown
by 3.2 million during the last 12 months. (See table A-8.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
was little changed at 2.6 million in January. Over the past 12 months, the
number of long-term unemployed was up by 1.3 million. The number of persons
unemployed less than 5 weeks rose to 3.7 million in January. (See table A-9.)
Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)
The civilian labor force participation rate, at 65.5 percent in January, has
edged down in recent months. The employment-population ratio declined by 0.5
percentage point to 60.5 percent over the month, and by 2.4 percentage points
over the year. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged in
January at 7.8 million; however, this measure was up by 3.1 million over the
past 12 months. Included in this category are persons who would like to work
full time but were working part time because their hours had been cut back or
because they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-5.)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Misery Index
“…The misery index is an economic indicator, created by economist Arthur Okun, and found by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. It is assumed that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflation create economic and social costs for a country.[1] It is often incorrectly attributed to Chicago economist Robert Barro in the 1970s, due to the Barro Misery Index that additionally includes GDP and the bank rate.[2]
During the Presidential campaign of 1976, Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter made frequent references to the Misery Index, which by the summer of 1976 was at 13.57%. Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election. However, by 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%. Carter lost the election to Reagan.
“…Seattle on Monday. Denver on Tuesday. Mesa AZ on Wednesday. Overland Park, Kansas today. What a week, huh? We got the anti-stimulus, anti-entitlement protest ball rolling — and now the movement, spurred further by CNBC host Rick Santelli’s call for a “Chicago Tea Party,” is really taking off.
David Hogberg at Investor’s Business Daily has a nice piece out today spotlighting the growing taxpayer revolt the rest of the MSM won’t cover. He interviewed our registered commenters Liberty Belle Keli Carender, who spearheaded the Seattle anti-pork protest, and HuskerGirl Amanda Grosserode, who organized today’s anti-stimulus demonstration against Democrat Rep. Dennis Moore in Overland Park, KS.
I’m happy to report on several new protest events now on the docket. …”
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on”;
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings – nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run –
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man my son!
Looks like President Obama, aka King Rat, made sure the Chicago Way was included in the stimulus bill by making it possible to stop any investigation and audit by the various Federal Departments and Agencies inspector generals into wrong doing resulting from spending associated with the so-called “stimulus package” :
The RAT hiding deep inside the stimulus bill
By Byron York
“…The provision, which attracted virtually no attention in the debate over the 1,073-page stimulus bill, creates something called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board — the RAT Board, as it’s known by the few insiders who are aware of it. The board would oversee the in-house watchdogs, known as inspectors general, whose job is to independently investigate allegations of wrongdoing at various federal agencies, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House.
In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.
When Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, a longtime champion of inspectors general, read the words “conduct or refrain from conducting,” alarm bells went off. The language means that the board — whose chairman will be appointed by the president — can reach deep inside a federal agency and tell an inspector general to lay off some particularly sensitive subject. Or, conversely, it can tell the inspector general to go after a tempting political target. …”
“…Last Friday, when he learned the RAT Board was in the final bill, Grassley wanted to voice his objections on the Senate floor. But there was no time in the rush to a vote, so Grassley’s statement went unread. “It’s fitting that the acronym for this board is RAT,” he was prepared to tell the Senate, “because that’s what I smell here.” …”
“…First, let’s ask ourselves how this stimulates the economy. Why include this in an emergency stimulus bill when it has nothing to do with stimulus or economics? This rule change should have come in separate debate in Congress — like so many other portions of Porkulus.
It does, however, have everything to do with Hope and Change. What the RAT Board can do, as York points out, is direct or quash investigations by Inspectors General throughout the federal bureaucracy. Until now, IGs have had independence of action in order to avoid charges of politicization (remember that word?) and to conduct probes without interference from the Department of Justice, the White House, or Congress. Now they will answer to Congress not on general performance, but on the specifics of their probes.
How did it get into Porkulus? Grassley says it wasn’t in the original bill passed in the Senate, and it suddenly appeared in the conference version. No one has claimed ownership of the RAT Board yet, but clearly the Democratic majority wants full control over oversight in the bureaucracy — which more or less means an end to effective oversight over the majority, which is the entire point of the IG position. After all, if we could rely on politicians and bureaucrats to police themselves, we wouldn’t need Constitutional checks and balances at all. …”
That’s just one of several reported transparency and related problems with the stimulus bill, but let’s tackle it first.
A sneaky text file embedded at recovery.gov initially prevented Google, and other search engines, from indexing content on the site. And, no, don’t tell me this was accidental. The file was embedded for three hours, then removed; all the biggie tech-type online mags seemed to have picked up on this.
“…(As CNET notes, the file was just three lines of text, and was written expressly for the purpose of blocking web-crawling.)
Oh, this is far and away from the first time the Obama Administration has used the robots.txt file to block crawling of various government websites.
That said, Chris Soghoian says don’t judge Team Obama’s commitment, or lack thereof, to transparency just by the robots.txt file usage.
Of course, Chris earlier commented on the White House allowing YouTube tracking cookies on government websites.
Meanwhile, uberconservative writer Byron York smells a RAT – namely, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, or the RAT Board, in the stimulus bill.
If York is even half right in his worries, about how the RAT board has the power to try to get Cabinet department and Federal agency inspectors general to curtail investigations…
To be fair to President Obama, he is not the King Rat character in the novel or movie, but closer to the character of Robin Grey, a British officer and Provost Marshal of the prison camp.
Background Articles and Videos
King Rat the Movie
King Rat
“King Rat is a 1962 novel by James Clavell. Set during World War II, Clavell’s literary debut describes the struggle for survival of British, Australian and American prisoners of war in a Japanese camp in Singapore — a description informed by Clavell’s own three-year experience as a prisoner in the notorious Changi Prison camp. One of the major characters, Peter Marlowe, is based upon Clavell’s younger self.
Despite its fearsome reputation, Changi was historically among the better-run Japanese camps, with only 850 deaths among the 87,000 prisoners who passed through.[1]
King Rat retroactively became the first book published of Clavell’s sweeping series, the Asian Saga, and the fourth chronologically. Several main characters from King Rat appear again in Noble House. …”
“…The novel opens in early 1945. Peter Marlowe, a young British Flight Lieutenant, has been a P.O.W. since 1942. Marlowe comes to the attention of the “King,” an American corporal who has become the most successful trader and black marketeer in Changi, when the King sees him conversing in Malay. Marlowe’s language skill, intelligence, honesty, and winning personality cause the King to befriend him and attempt to involve him in black market deals. This, in turn, brings Marlowe to the attention of Robin Grey, a British officer and Provost Marshal of the camp, who has developed a Javert-like obsession with the King and hopes to arrest him for violating camp regulations. Grey is attempting to maintain strict military discipline among the prisoners and sees the King as the antithesis of everything he believes.
Despite being only an enlisted man and without distinction in civilian life, the King has become a major power in the enclosed society of the P.O.W. camp through his charisma and intelligence. Trading with Korean guards, local Malay villagers, and other prisoners for food, clothing, information, and what few luxuries are available, the King keeps himself and his fellow American prisoners alive. Even senior officers come to him for help in selling their valuables to buy extra food, and other officers are secretly on his payroll.
Grey, the son of a working class family, is a legal positivist, following the rules for their own sake, and using his position as Provost Marshal to gain a status otherwise unavailable to him in British society. …”
“…The novel can be understood as an examination of the ethics of individualism and natural law in opposition to collectivism and legal positivism. In this sense, the novel takes on a certain amount of political significance in that it establishes two forms of political ideology that Clavell would explore in his entire Asian Saga series. The King relies on free trade to survive, in which he reaps the most reward, although he does help all the men who are associated with him. On the other hand, the system Grey attempts to enforce is one of Socialistic equality in that every man would only get an equal share what was rationed by their captors, regardless of individual merit. …”
In recent years, some critics have compared the philosophy and character of the King to that of Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark from The Fountainhead. Clavell himself lent credence to this claim by sending Ayn Rand a copy of Noble House in 1981 with the following inscription – “This is for Ayn Rand – one of the real, true talents on this earth for which many, many thanks. James C, New York, 2 Sept 81.”[
“…Will Recovery.gov [1] — the oversight Web site promised in the stimulus bill — really give the public enough information about how their money is spent?
While the stimulus package passed by the House of Representatives earlier today lays out some public reporting requirements, it also leaves some wiggle room. And that’s what worries some transparency advocates.
Any direct recipient of stimulus funds must give the agencies they’ve received funds from details about their projects. Then agencies, in turn, have to make those details public. But the bill doesn’t clearly define how states and other recipients of the money will have to report information.
“These could be pdfs on recovery.gov and that wouldn’t be the kind of transparency that we would urge there being,” said Sean Moulton, director of federal information policy for OMB Watch [2]. “We wanted a strong requirement on the government to establish a standard reporting system. So you’re not getting 50 different structures.”
“…Transparency and oversight in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 extend beyond posting spending data on the Internet. The economic recovery bill establishes an “Accountability and Transparency Board.” The oversight body would be headed by the new Chief Performance Officer, Nancy Killefer, and composed of six inspectors general and/or deputy secretaries from various federal agencies. It would be charged with coordinating and conducting oversight of federal spending under the law to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse by submitting monthly reports to Congress on contract and grant awards, contractor performance, and the adequacy of contractor and acquisition oversight within the federal government.
In addition to the Board, the bill would also create an “Independent Advisory Panel” and require regular oversight by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’s investigative arm. Composed of experts in the fields of economics, public finance, and other related disciplines, the Independent Advisory Panel would be charged with advising the Accountability and Transparency Board with an aim to prevent and otherwise identify waste, fraud, and abuse related to spending under the law. The bill also appropriates $25 million to GAO for the ongoing oversight of and reporting on the stimulus bill.
OMB Watch has analyzed the bill’s transparency and accountability section and has found areas in which Congress could expand or improve the legislation as drafted. Our analysis expounds on these areas in some detail, but in short we suggest the bill stipulate that:
Recovery.gov be open to indexing by commercial search engines
All contract and grant transactions should be posted on USASpending.gov, with a special notation that such contracts and grants are created through the stimulus legislation
All reports, findings, minutes and agendas of meetings, official letters and correspondence of the Board, and any data or information gathered during investigations by the Board be made publicly available and posted on Recovery.gov within five business days of the release of information …”
Certain Firms, Industries Got Last-Minute Gifts in Stimulus
“…The political parties fought over words as well as numbers. For example, Democrats removed GOP language added in the Senate that would have barred the use of stimulus funds for stadiums, community parks, art centers, museums and highway beautification. The bill does forbid localities from using stimulus funds for casinos, aquariums, zoos, golf courses and swimming pools, but the federal government is not bound by the rule.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, railed against a provision that he said would undermine the independence of watchdog agencies within the government. The bill sets up a new panel, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which has the authority to request “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.”
“Any new limitation on the independence of inspectors general is dangerous,” Grassley said. …”
“…Plans are underway for anti-stimulus-palooza protests in Overland Park, Kansas, Nashville, and New York — home of smug Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer. Schumer’s derisive comment on the Senate floor about the “chattering classes” who oppose reckless spending has not been forgotten or forgiven. The insult spurred central Kentucky talk show host Leland Conway to organize a pork rind drive. Angry taxpayers bombarded the senator’s office with 1,500 bags of cracklins.
Disgraced Democrat Sen. John Edwards was right about one thing: There are two Americas. One America is full of moochers, big and small, corporate and individual, trampling over themselves with their hands out demanding endless bailouts. The other America is full of disgusted, hard-working citizens getting sick of getting played for chumps and punished for practicing personal responsibility.
Now is the time for all good taxpayers to turn the tables on free-lunching countrymen and their enablers in Washington. Community organizing helped propel Barack Obama to the White House. It can work for fiscal conservatism, too. …”
When watching men of power in action it must be always kept in mind that, whether they know it or not, their main purpose is the elimination or neutralization of the independent individual–the independent voter, consumer, worker, owner, thinker–and that every device they employ aims at turning men into a manipulable “animated instrument” which is Aristotle’s defintion of a slave.
~Eric Hoffer
Hail Hitler, Hail Obama
Glenn Beck is one of few on television that is connecting the dots and asking where have I seen this pattern in history before?
Friday night I heard Michael Savage also connects the dots to the National Socialists in Germany.
Is it Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, progressives, liberals, and the Democratic Party in the United States or is it Adlolf Hitler and the National Socialists in Germany in the 1930s?
Looks like Progressive Liberal Fascism is alive and well in the United States.
President Obama – Moron or Genius?
Glenn Beck: Is It Time to Fire the Government
Hitler February 10, 1933 Part 1
Hitler February 10, 1933 Part 2
Hitler February 10, 1933 Part 3
Triumph des Willens (1935) – Triumph of the Will
Triumph of the Will (German: Triumph des Willens) is a propaganda film made by Leni Riefenstahl. It chronicles the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, which was attended by more than 700,000 Nazi supporters. The film contains excerpts from speeches given by various Nazi leaders at the Congress, including portions of speeches by Adolf Hitler, interspersed with footage of massed party members. Hitler commissioned the film and served as an unofficial executive producer; his name appears in the opening titles. The overriding theme of the film is the return of Germany as a great power, with Hitler as the True German Leader who will bring glory to the nation.
Triumph of the Will was released in 1935 and rapidly became one of the best-known examples of propaganda in film history. Riefenstahl’s techniques, such as moving cameras, the use of long focus lenses to create a distorted perspective, aerial photography, and revolutionary approach to the use of music and cinematography, have earned Triumph recognition as one of the greatest films in history. Riefenstahl won several awards, not only in Germany but also in the United States, France, Sweden, and other countries. The film was popular in the Third Reich and elsewhere, and has continued to influence movies, documentaries, and commercials to this day.
Hitler: The Rise of Evil” is a TV miniseries that aired in two parts in May 2003 on CBS, and was produced by Alliance Atlantis. The film explores Adolf Hitler’s rise and his early consolidation of power during the years after World War I and focuses closely on how the embittered, politically fragmented and economically buffeted German society after Word War I made that ascent possible. Also central to the plot is the influence that Ernst Hanfstaengl had on Hitler’s rise to power.
The subplot of this film follows the struggles of Fritz Gerlich, a German journalist who opposes the rising National Socialist German Workers Party. He is portrayed in the role of a martyr to fulfill the essence of the quotation attributed to Edmund Burke, which is displayed at the beginning and at the end of the film:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
~Edmund Burke
Hitler – The Rise of Evil (Full Film)
Hitler – The Rise of, presents A unique slant, profiling the life of Adolf Hitler as a child and his rise through the ranks of the National German Workers’ Party prior to World War II.
Although many have critiqued it as historically inaccurate it is an intriguing look into the personage that was Hitler and with the editing of a fellow Nationalist (Whom made the film far more parallel to the real history) the film is now far more articulate in following the life and rise of Adolf Hitler.
Third Reich-The Rise
This program shows how Hitler and the Nazis came into power, the reasons behind it, and why the German people embraced Hitler the way they did. Apart from the other Nazi shows made in America, this one does not denounce Nazism. It just presents the facts as told by the people who were there.
Hitler in Colour( Nazi Rise to Power)
No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.
~Edmund Burke
The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, who in less than three decades killed or maimed nearly a hundred million men, women, and children and brought untold suffering to a large portion of mankind.
The essence of the interventionist policy is to take from one group to give to another. It is confiscation and distribution.
Interventionism cannot be considered as an economic system destined to stay. It is a method of transformation of capitalism into socialism by a series of successive steps.
~Ludwig von Mises
The above cartoon combined with an excellent article by economist Thomas Sowell provides a casebook example of government intervention in the economy leading to more and more government intervention with the result being a US and world wide recession and financial crisis.
The Radical Socialists led by Renegade President Obama are wrecking the economy and destroying jobs by their continuing plans to bailout the imprudent and irresponsible.
The market would let them fail, because that is how resources are reallocated to those who produce the wealth, income and jobs.
The Federal government wants to continue the bailouts to those who should not be bailed out.
The Fascist Democratic Radicals (FDRs), socialist all, are destroying the United States economy.
The Trouble Asset Recovery Plan (TARP) money was designed to provide sound and quality banks with capital to buy the assets of banks that were failing.
My advice is do not to do business with any bank, business, and organization that accepts government bailout money.
Why?
The Federal Government gradually controls more and more of that bank, business, and organization once they accept their money.
Obama’s Focus On Foreclosures
Who caused the problem?
Jim Rogers : Must Let Banks Fail Feb 11 2009
2009 will be the year of Total decline for US Jim Rogers
Rogers on the Global Market Meltdown
Just say no to bailouts and no to businesses, banks, and organizations that accept bailouts.
What should you do?
Here is one interesting suggestion:
Jim Rogers Obama does not Understand Economics !!!!!!
Tom Woods on Glenn Beck “Meltdown” 02/09/2009
Upside Down Economics
by Thomas Sowell
“…It was precisely government intervention which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.
An economist specializing in financial markets gave a glimpse of the history of housing markets when he said: “Lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable businesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century.” That was what the market was like before the government intervened. Like many government interventions, it began small and later grew. …” “…Under growing pressures from both the Clinton administration and later the George W. Bush administration, banks began to lower their lending standards. Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other “creative” financial arrangements abounded. Although this was done under pressures begun in the name of the poor and minorities, people who were neither could also get these mortgage loans. With mortgage loans widely available to people with questionable prospects of being able to keep up the payments, it was an open invitation to financial disaster. Those who warned of the dangers had their warnings dismissed. Now, apparently, we need more politicians intervening in more industries, if you believe the politicians and the media. …” http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/02/18/upside_down_economics?page=2
Socialism and interventionism. Both have in common the goal of subordinating the individual unconditionally to the state.
Every step which leads from capitalism toward planning is necessarily a step near to absolutism and dictatorship.
~Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, page 44 and 53.
Background Articles and Videos
Glenn Beck Socialism to Fascism
The Economic “Stimulus”
by Thomas Sowell
“…In short, it can be years before the money that is supposed to stimulate the economy actually gets into the economy. And nobody knows what the economy will be like when that money finally gets into circulation.
A common problem with government economic policies in general is that it is very hard to predict how long it will be before the policy actually affects the economy. An economic stimulus policy created during a contraction in demand can take effect during an inflationary expansion of demand– and fuel still more inflation.
A trillion dollars or so, created out of thin air by a government that already has a huge deficit, can set off another round of inflation that can take some very painful new policies to bring under control– or can have even more painful effects, if it is not brought under control. The new administration may need that get-out-of-jail-free card.”
“…When Congress approved $700 billion for TARP, it was supposed to buy troubled mortgage securities from banks. The bill’s language was broad, and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson decided in October he would use $250 billion to buy preferred stock in banks to bolster their capital. In late October, Paulson forced the nation’s nine largest banks to accept a total of $125 billion, regardless of their health.[17] This was former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s original vision for the TARP fund, but he switched course and decided to devote $250 billion to direct equity stake investments in banks before waffling again and heading back in the direction of asset purchases.[22] The Treasury has repeatedly said that TARP is not a bailout, and that it expects to eventually make money on the program. A study this month by the Congressional Budget Office found that, of the $247 billion the government had spent through Dec. 31, taxpayers were on the hook for about a quarter, or $64 billion. That amount represents the difference between what the Treasury paid for assets versus their market values. The Office of Management and Budget must submit semiannual reports on the costs of TARP, and the CBO must assess those reports.[1] Buying toxic assets was the original plan for government money until the Treasury shifted gears toward investments. “The first step has to be removing these toxic assets,” Kaufman said. He sees the government buying up bad loans similar to the way the Resolution Trust Corp. bought distressed homes from savings and loans nearly two decades ago. Just as the RTC wound up costing taxpayers less than one-half the original estimates, the public could be on the hook for less than the full $700 billion this time, Kaufman said. Toxic-asset purchases can be tricky when it’s hard to figure out a reasonable, fair price.[11] Parts of the discussion taking place within the government revolve around ways to leverage the remaining money in the TARP. The Fed already plans to use $20 billion from the TARP to set up a $200 billion program to support consumer and small business loans.[18]
…”
“…Until we start recognizing the losses, we’re just engaging in crony capitalism,” said Mason, who is also a banking industry consultant. Executives of banks that get federal support without being force to take adequate writedowns, he adds, are “using Congress as a piggybank.” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson used much of the first half of TARP to buy preferred shares in banks, using the rationale that banks’ capital shortfalls needed to be filled before they could be depended on to extend loans to expand the economy. Under the plan, big banks such as Citi, JPMorgan Chase ( JPM, Fortune 500 ) and Goldman Sachs ( GS, Fortune 500 ) got billions of dollars in federal funds with few strings attached. Paulson said the plan — which he adopted after regulators in the U.K. launched their own plan to buy banks’ preferred shares — resulted in a more stable financial system.[4] The program, which is similar to the ones that U.S. regulators have extended to Citigroup ( C, Fortune 500 ) and Bank of America ( BAC, Fortune 500 ), aims to “reinforce the stability of the financial system, to increase confidence and capacity to lend, and in turn to support the recovery of the economy,” the U.K. Treasury said in a statement. Offering loan guarantees to a broad array of banks is reportedly among the options being considered by incoming President Barack Obama as he seeks to restore economic growth.[4] …”
“…Instead of using the first payment of $350 billion to purchase troubled assets, as the name Troubled Asset Relief Program suggests, the money has been erratically and arbitrarily distributed in a monstrous act of government intervention and ownership over our financial markets.[25] More than 200 banks have gotten $191 billion in relief from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to Keefe Bruyette.[22] Two local banks have garnered millions from the controversial $700 billion Trouble Asset Relief Program, often called the banking bailout bill.[19]
Citigroup tops the list with $25 billion in TARP funding, while some smaller community banks have taken around $1 million. J.W. Davis, Carolina First chairman, said his company discussed the TARP program extensively before exchanging equity for money with the federal government. He said a tight credit market makes it difficult to raise capital, and the TARP program was an efficient and low-cost solution.[19] “I am convinced that our bank and many, many others are lending more than we would have if we hadn’t taken the TARP money, says Ken Wilcox, chief executive of SVB Financial, which operates Silicon Valley Bank in Palo Alto. Wilcox says his bank, which caters to startup and publicly held technology companies, was able to raise several billion in new deposits since it took $235 million in TARP funds in early December.[17] We’ve also in the interbank market we have had on average $40 billion or $50 billion out and into bank market, that is also a form of lending. All of this is helped by the TARP so we think it’s a valid question people to ask what are doing with the TARP money and we do say its hard to separate exactly what is TARP money because remember we’re making loans all the time but we are trying to follow the intent and spirit of TARP which is to help the economy of the United States recover and make sure we’re financing people.[27]
“…Critics, however, point to a lack of oversight surrounding the federal program and a shift in direction from the bill’s original intent.
Under the terms of the agreement with the Treasury, South Financial and Mountain First must pay the money back with interest. The banks are charged 5 percent annually for the first five years. After five years, the rate goes up to 9 percent.
“The reason we participated in that was we wanted to provide more services to Western North Carolina,” said Greg Gibson, Mountain First Bank and Trust CEO. “This TARP program offered the best alternative to offer credit to our customers.”
When Congress originally approved the TARP program, Treasurer Secretary Henry Paulson planned to purchase troubled loans from shaky financial institutions. Paulson quickly changed course, and the Treasury has used the money to purchase stock in nearly 300 banks, thrifts and finance companies. Citigroup tops the list with $25 billion in TARP funding, while some smaller community banks have taken around $1 million.
J.W. Davis, Carolina First chairman, said his company discussed the TARP program extensively before exchanging equity for money with the federal government. He said a tight credit market makes it difficult to raise capital, and the TARP program was an efficient and low-cost solution.
“We saw it as an opportunity to pad our capital,” Davis said. “Given the slowdown, we thought padding those ratios was good. We also want to take advantage of things in the marketplace.”
“…And where did the ultimately successful plan come from, anyway?Ten days ago it appeared that it was UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s idea (doubtless crafted for him by Bank of England Governor Mervyn King). True enough, Brown boldly and confidently tackled his banking crisis at its root. A cartoon in the Financial Times depicted leaders of other industrial nations following him along in a cheerful dance. There followed the standard paeans to John Maynard Keyes.
But the basic blueprints Brown adopted had been drawn up in Stockholm in late 1992, when central bankers in Sweden, Norway and Finland moved swiftly to rescue their big banks after the collapse of a property bubble. The rescue succeeded, though its aftermath lingered on for four years.
What were the channels through which Swedish influence flowed to London and Washington? This is an especially interesting question because of the experience of the early 1930s, when Gustav Cassel argued without success that overly restrictive American monetary policy was making matters worse, and Gunnar Myrdal devised budgetary policies implemented by the new Social Democratic government in 1933 that spared Sweden the worst of the Great Depression.
In other words, economists of the Stockholm School implemented successful macroeconomic policies several years before John Maynard Keynes published his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, even if they were unable to make the case for what they were doing to the wider world. The Swedes have taken economics very seriously ever since. Would they sit on their hands at a time when the world was threatened with another serious depression? What overtures would they make instead? …”
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Irresponsible Government Intervention Results In Huge and Continuing Government Failures–Shut Down Government Interventions–No More Bailouts! )
Art is a she-devil of a mistress, and if at times in earlier days she would not even stoop to my way of thinking, I have persevered and will so continue.
~Frederic Remington
Antoines Cabin, 1890
Banff Cascade Mountain, 1890
To celebrate over 100,000 views and 330 posts on the Pronk Palisades blog I have posted two videos of the art works of Frederic Remington on YouTube channel, A Pronk Video Studio:
I hope you enjoy the videos as I did in creating them.
Thank you for your comments and ratings.
Blandy, 1890-1900
The End of The Day, 1904
I knew the wild riders and the vacant land were about to vanish forever… and the more I considered the subject, the bigger the forever loomed. Without knowing how to do it, I began to record some facts around me, and the more I looked the more the panorama unfolded.
~Frederic Remington
Background Articles and Videos
Frederic Remington
“Frederic Sackrider Remington (October 4, 1861 – December 26, 1909) was an American painter, illustrator, sculptor, and writer who specialized in depictions of the Old American West, specifically concentrating on the last quarter of the 19th century American West and images of cowboys, American Indians, and the U.S. Cavalry. …”
Lou Dobbs Tonight Reports On Illegal Alien Stimulus Jobs
E-Verify Killed by Democrats, Stripped from Stimulus Bill, Illegal Aliens will get Stimulus Jobs
Looks like illegal immigration will increasingly become a major wedge issue as the unemployment rate increases and millions and millions of American citizens cannot find jobs.
Every day I pass several construction sites.
I closely look at who is working there.
Without fail over 50% are hispanic mostly Mexicans who do not speak English.
I suspect that if the construction company had to use E-Verify, most if not all of these workers would not pass a simple and fast E-verify check.
While many illegal aliens have returned home to Mexico and Central America, millions more are still working on construction sites and other manual labor occupations.
Yet Congress excluded funding for E-Verify and the border fence to placate their political base.
With the corruption and violence in Mexico continuing to spill over into United States, the American people are mad as hell.
Both political parties are to blame.
Many Republicans want campaign contributions from businesses that benefit from hiring cheap and complaint illegal aliens.
Most Democrats want “a pathway to citizenship” or amnesty for those illegal aliens working here now.
The Democrats assume that these illegal aliens will overwhelming become Democratic voters.
The majority of the American people want all illegal immigration to stop and limited legal immigration.
The next time the immigration issue goes into play in Congress, the fireworks will begin.
The American people are very mad at Congress who they hold in ill repute.
If Congress does not fund E-Verify and require its use in the hiring process as well as fund the completion of the border fence, there will be a day of reckoning.
The recent bringing up of the the Fairness Doctrine by a number of Democratic politicians is connected with the illegal immigration issue.
The Democrats would like to shut-up AM and Internet talk radio for the simple reason it was the listeners of talk radio that flooded Congress with telephone and e-mail messages when amnesty was included in the compreshensive immigration reform bill.
Any attempt to try to restore, even indirectly, the Fairness Doctrine, together with amnesty for illegal immigration, will cause a massive push-back and blowback from the American people.
Congress especially the Democratic Party are playing a very dangerous game.
Join the second American Revolution on April 15, 2009 in Washington D. C.:
Lou Dobbs – E-Verify & Border Fence may be canceled – Feb 16, 2009
MEXICO AND AMERICA’S COLLAPSE
Glenn Beck warns of the collapse of Mexico
Glenn Beck – 2-2-9 – US Mexico Border Violence
Glenn Beck Marching Towards Hell . Racist Rant , Mexico will meltdown !!!!
The Dangers of Unlimited Legal & Illegal Immigration
Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 1
Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 2
Tom Woods on Glenn Beck “Meltdown” 02/09/2009
Background Articles and Videos
E-Verify dropped from stimulus bill
By Alice Lipowic
“…The updated $789 billion economic stimulus package going to the House and Senate for votes today does not require E-Verify employment verification for contracts created with stimulus funding.
House and Senate conference negotiators dropped the E-Verify provisions in the 1,073-page final version of the legislation circulating today. Previously, the House had included in its stimulus bill a stipulation that all contracts paid for with stimulus funding must use E-Verify, but the Senate version had no E-Verify language.
E-Verify is an Internet-based program promoted by the Bush administration to allow employers to submit Social Security numbers for new hires and existing employees. If there is a match, the employee is eligible to work. If not, there are procedures for further assessments.
Currently, about 100,000 employers voluntarily use E-Verify, formerly known as Basic Pilot. Under an executive order issued by President George W. Bush, federal contractors are supposed to start using E-Verify in May, though business groups are challenging the order in court. …”
What’s missing from the White House porkulus propaganda album
By Michelle Malkin
“…The White House has published an official photo album documenting its fantasy-land version of the porkulus journey. From the photo album, it looks like it was all smooth sailing and easy back-slapping for President Obama.
Missing: Photos of the dissenting House Democrats and unanimous House Republicans who opposed the behemoth bill.
Missing: The Reid/Pelosi backroom brawls and power plays.
Missing: Obama’s “no earmarks” lie and the Democrats’ broken promises on transparency.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
“…The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime. It puts the head of the camel inside the tent and enables administration after administration to toy with TV or radio in order to serve its sordid or its benevolent ends. …Under our Bill of Rights people are entitled to have extreme ideas, silly ideas, partisan ideas. The same is true, I believe, of TV and radio. …”
~Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
U.S. Supreme Court
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING v. DEMOCRATIC COMM., 412 U.S. 94 (1973)
412 U.S. 94
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 71-863.Argued October 16, 1972
Decided May 29, 1973 *
President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech version 2
The above Representative and attorney would like to destroy the United States Constitution for which he swore an oath to defend and protect!
Sir, what do you not understand about the words “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or press…”
This is how Progressive Liberal Fascist subvert the US Constitution” as reported by the American Spectator in an article entitled In All Fairness by The Prowler:
“…Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Coppsheld meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee ChairmanHenry Waxmanto discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the “Fairness Doctrine” without actually calling it such.
Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. “It’s all about diversity in media,” says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. “Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them.”
“…One idea Waxman’s committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place “advisory boards” that would act as watchdogs to ensure “community needs and opinions” are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff. …”
Who I listen to on a AM or internet radio is none of your business or the business of other professional politicians.
If you do not like what is being said on talk radio or the internet, turn your radio or computer off or go to another station or site.
I turned off my TV off many years ago for the simple reason I was tired of the bias, distortions and lies of the liberal progressive socialists pretending to being objective.
I have also cancelled subscriptions to several magazines for the same reason.
If you think you are going to “shut-up” your political opponents, forget it.
Talk radio is now going after your censorship initiatives and guess what you deserve it for breaking your oath of office.
The hosts of talk radio will not shut-up and the listeners of talk radio will not stop listening.
This long list of AM and Internet talk radio hosts clearly illustrates that competition, freedom and independence is alive and well on both AM and Internet radio:
1Tammy Bruce
2Laura Ingraham
3Rush Limbaugh
4Michael Savage
5Glenn Beck
6Sean Hannity
7Mark Levin
8Neal Boortz
9Dennis Miller
10George Noory
11Monica Crowley
12Bill Bennett
13Michael Medved
14Bill O’Reilly
15MANCOW
16Dennis Prager
17Hugh Hewitt
18Dr. Laura
19Rusty Humphries
20Mike Gallagher
21Lan Lamphere – Patriot Brigade Radio
22The Lion’s Den – Plains Radio Network
23IMUS
24Jerry Doyle
25The Right Perspective
26Alex Jones
27Paranormal Radio
28Larry Elder
29Roger Hedgecock
30Quinn & Rose
31Michael Reagan
32John Batchelor
33Phil Hendrie
34Lou Dobbs
35Dave Ramsey
36Art Bell
37Lars Larson
38Kim Komando
39John Gibson
40Larry Kudlow
41Bill Cunningham
42Walton & Johnson
43Randi Rhodes
44G. Gordon Liddy
45Howie Carr
46Jay Severin
47Stephanie Miller
48Ed Schultz
49Robert Scott Bell
50Adam Carolla
51Outlaw Radio
52Bob Grant
53Bill Handel
54Roy Masters
55Al Rantel
56Clark Howard
57Brian and The Judge
58Bob Brinker
59Mark Simone
60Thom Hartmann
61The Captains AMERICA
62Bob & Tom
63Tom Sullivan
64Steve Malzberg
65Barbara Simpson
66Leo Laporte
67Ian Punnett
68Alan Colmes
69Jackie Mason
70Michael Smerconish
71Tom Leykis
72Armstrong & Getty
73Curtis Sliwa
74Dr. Joy Browne
75Mike McConnell
76BUBBA the love sponge
77Rachel Maddow
78Bruce Williams
79Bill Press
80Wake Up America
81Doug McIntyre
82Midnight Trucking
83Julie Briggs
84Mark Belling
85Pat Gray
86J.D. Hayworth
87Frosty, Heidi & Frank
88Jim Bohannon
89Joey Reynolds
90Janet Parshall
91Rollye James
92Rob, Arnie & Dawn Show
93Jon Arthur Live
94Chuck Harder
95Phil Valentine
96John & Ken
97Michael Graham
98Content Black Woman
99GUNNY BOB
100Michele McPhee
Shame on you Representative Waxman for trying to censor AM and Internet talk radio through the FCC with local political activists, aka censorship commissars, on advisory boards.
You are beginning to sound and act like a socialist from the past speaking on radio:
Suggest Mr. Waxman listen to the words of President John F. Kennedy in the above speech paying particular attention to the closing sentence and the words “born to be: free and independent.”
“…And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.”
Glenn Beck: What’s the Difference Between Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez?
Fairness Doctrine or Media Control Doctrine? | An In-Depth Discussion
Fairness Doctrine = Censorship Doctrine = World War III
O’Reilly Factor: Laura Ingraham On the Fairness Doctrine
“Fairness Doctrine” — Feinstein Outlawing Talk Radio
Kucinich Discusses Fairness Doctrine on Lou Dobbs
Bill Clinton On The Fairness Doctrine
Jackie Mason Vlog33 What’s Fair About The Fairness Doctrine?
Obama and The Fairness Doctrine
Sen. Charles Schumer – Fairness Doctrine
Will The Fairness Doctrine Return?
Background Articles and Videos
Thomas E Woods – Principles of 98
In All Fairness
“…The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. “Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we’re seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information,” says on committee staffer. “We’re at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities.”
“This isn’t just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven’t heard about,” says Democrat committee member. “The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we’ve established that broadband networks — the Internet — are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure.” …”
“Henry Arnold Waxman (born September 12, 1939 in Los Angeles, California) is an American politician. He has represented California’s 30th congressional district (map) in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1975. Waxman, a Democrat, is considered to be one of the most influential liberal members of Congress. His district includes much of the western part of the city of Los Angeles, as well as West Hollywood, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills. Before his election to Congress, he served six years in the California State Assembly.
With the Democrats’ victory in the 2006 midterm elections, Waxman became chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the principal investigative committee of the House. He was the committee’s ranking Democrat from 1997 to 2007. In 2009, he will begin serving as the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as a result of beating former chairman John Dingell in a 137-122 secret vote of House Democrats on November 20, 2008. …”
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat, defends his support of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine for broadcasting. The doctrine had required radio and television stations to cover controversial issues of public importance and give and opportunity for all sides to be heard.
The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987, but calls for reviving it had surfaced again recently. Harkin says it’s something he supports. Harkin says a few years ago he found out that the taxpayer funded Armed Forces Radio was running the Rush Limbaugh show, but weren’t running any “progressive” talk.
“So I came out and said if the taxpayers are paying for it, at least our armed services individuals ought to have at least the benefit of hearing the other side of the story, to quote Paul Harvey,” Harkin says. Conservatives like Iowa Congressman Steve King, a Republican, believe the move is an attempt to silence conservatives like Limbaugh. King issued a statement in response to Harkin saying information is now easily accessible in many forms and the Senator “wants to squelch your First Amendment rights in favor of Chinese-style censorship.”
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
~Thomas Jefferson
The short answer is financial institutions to avoid possible losses on their most liquid and supposively safe assets, their money market funds.
But was something else going on and if so who really was behind the run on the money market funds.
Watch the Front Line Documentary Inside the Meltdown on February 17, 2009 or online:
Congressman: US came within hours of economic collapse; Banks saw $550 billion withdrawn in 2 hours
1/3) Tom Woods: Meltdown (Lew Rockwell Show 2/11/09)
2/3) Tom Woods: Meltdown (Lew Rockwell Show 2/11/09)
3/3) Tom Woods: Meltdown (Lew Rockwell Show 2/11/09)
Turmoil in the Cash Markets: Did Enhanced Cash and Money Market Strategies Overdo Risk?
“…The recent event that had the greatest impact was the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy on September 15. Most financial markets experienced a tremendous shock and it had a profound ripple effect on money markets as well: it indirectly drove a very large money market fund to “break the buck.” The Reserve Primary Fund held over one percent in Lehman commercial paper and when investors got wind of it, they decided to redeem en masse. That same week, AIG, a major international insurance company, ran into trouble and was bailed out by the government.
Following these historic events, corporate spreads widened dramatically, especially in the financial and banking sector. The commercial paper issued by many large, high-quality issuers traded as though every financial was going out of business. Banks stopped lending to each other and the cash markets were frozen. Before this crisis, prime money market funds, which held mostly commercial paper, were thought to be just about the safest investments in the market. But investors quickly understood that prime funds were no longer immune to the credit crunch because of their corporate exposure, and they fled to only the safest assets – Treasuries.
Government Takes Action to Assist Money Markets
The U.S. government had to take dramatic steps to address the problems in the money market arena:
First, they needed to stop the run on the bank. Too many redemptions in prime money market funds would cause a feedback loop and more prime funds might break the buck. Therefore, the Treasury established a temporary money market guaranty program recently extended until April 30, 2009, and eligible to holdings held as of September 19 to stop the run. This program insures money market assets of those funds that enroll and pay a small premium of assets.
The next step was to create liquidity in the commercial paper markets: the Federal Reserve established the AMLF, or Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, which gives banks financing to buy high-quality ABCP from money market funds through January 2009.
Another step was needed to create liquidity in the unsecured commercial paper market. The New York Fed launched the Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF), a special purpose vehicle funded by the Fed which will buy highly rated asset-backed and unsecured commercial paper directly from U.S. issuers. So far, this facility has helped add liquidity for direct issuers and reduce the LIBOR-OIS spread.
These steps still hadn’t addressed the sale of commercial paper in the secondary market, so the Fed also agreed to provide up to $540 billion in loans to money market funds beset by redemptions. This program, the Money Market Investor Funding Facility (MMIFF), launched in late November and helps mutual funds sell term commercial paper on the secondary market. We expect this to free up more liquidity.
Money funds (or money market funds, money market mutual funds) are mutual funds that invest in short-term debt instruments.
“…Explanation
Money market funds, also known as principal stability funds, seek to limit exposure to losses due to credit, market and liquidity risks.[clarification needed] Money market funds, in the United States, are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Investment Company Act of 1940. Rule 2a-7 of the act restricts investments in money market funds by quality, maturity and diversity. Under this act, a money fund mainly buys the highest rated debt, which matures in under 13 months. The portfolio must maintain a Weighted Average Maturity (WAM) of 90 days or less and not invest more than 5% in any one issuer, except for government securities and repurchase agreements.
Eligible money market securities include commercial paper, repurchase agreements, short-term bonds or other money funds. Money market securities must be highly liquid and have a stable value.
Breaking the buck
“…Money market funds seek a stable $1.00 net asset value (NAV); they aim to never lose money. If a fund’s NAV drops below $1.00, one says that the fund “broke the buck”.
This has rarely happened; however, as of 16 September 2008, two money funds have broken the buck (in the 37 year history of money funds) and from 1971 to 15 September 2008, there was only one failure.
The Community Bankers US Government Fund broke the buck in 1994, paying investors 96 cents per share. This was the first failure in the then 23 year history of money funds and there were no further failures for 14 years. The fund had invested a large percentage of its assets into adjustable rate securities. As interest rates increased, these floating rate securities lost value. This fund was an institutional money fund, not a retail money fund, thus individuals were not directly affected.
No further failures occurred until September 2008, a month that saw tumultuous events for money funds.
September 2008
See also: Financial crisis of 2007-2008
The week of 15 September 2008 to 19 September 2008 was very turbulent for money funds and a key part of financial markets seizing up.[1]
“…Events
On Monday, 15 September 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy.
On Tuesday, 16 September 2008, Reserve Primary Fund, the oldest money fund, broke the buck when its shares fell to 97 cents, after writing off debt issued by Lehman Brothers.[2]
On the same day, BNY Institutional Cash Reserves, which was not a money fund, but a securities lending fund run by BNY Mellon, also broke the buck – its NAV fell to 99.1.cents – also due to Lehman holdings.[3]
The resulting investor anxiety almost caused a run on the bank for money funds, as investors redeemed their holdings and funds were forced to liquidate assets or impose limits on redemptions: through Wednesday, institutional funds saw net outflows of $173 billion to $2.17 trillion, a withdrawal of over 7%.[4][5] Retail funds saw net inflows of $4 billion, for a net capital outflow from all funds of $169 billion to $3.4 trillion (5%).[4] The lack of retail outflows is attributed to the lag required for individuals to open a new account, to transfer their funds out and retail funds expected significant withdrawals the following week.[citation needed]
On Thursday, 18 September 2008, Putnam Investments’ Prime Money Market Fund, a $15 billion institutional fund, announced that it was liquidating, due to redemption pressures.[6]
In response, on Friday, 19 September 2008, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced an optional program to “insure the holdings of any publicly offered eligible money market mutual fund — both retail and institutional — that pays a fee to participate in the program.” The insurance will guarantee that if a covered fund breaks the buck, it will be restored to $1 NAV.[5][7] This program is similar to the FDIC, in that it insures deposit-like holdings and seeks to prevent runs on the bank.[1][8] The guarantee is backed by assets of the Treasury Department’s Exchange Stabilization Fund, up to a maximum of $50 billion. It is very important to realize that this program only covers assets invested in funds before 19 September 2008 and those who sold equities, for example, during the recent market crash and parked their assets in money funds, are at risk.
The program immediately stabilized the system and stanched the outflows, but drew criticism from banking organizations, including the Independent Community Bankers of America and American Bankers Association, who expected funds to drain out of bank deposits and into newly insured money funds, as these latter would combine higher yields with insurance.[1][8]
Analysis
The crisis almost developed into a run on the shadow banking system: the redemptions caused a drop in demand for commercial paper,[1] preventing companies from rolling over their short-term debt, potentially causing an acute liquidity crisis: if companies cannot issue new debt to repay maturing debt, and do not have cash on hand to pay it back, they will default on their obligations, and may have to file for bankruptcy. Thus there was concern that the run could cause extensive bankruptcies, a debt deflation spiral, and serious damage to the real economy, as in the Great Depression.[citation needed]
The drop in demand resulted in a “buyers strike”, as money funds could not (because of redemptions) or would not (because of fear of redemptions) buy commercial paper, driving yields up dramatically: from around 2% the previous week to 8%,[1] and funds put their money in Treasuries, driving their yields close to 0%.
This is a bank run in the sense that there is a mismatch in maturities, and thus a money fund is a “virtual bank”: the assets of money funds, while short term, nonetheless typically have maturities of several months, while investors can request redemption at any time, without waiting for obligations to come due. Thus if there is a sudden demand for redemptions, the assets may be liquidated in a fire sale, depressing their sale price.
An earlier crisis occurred in 2007–2008, where the demand for asset-backed commercial paper dropped, causing the collapse of some structured investment vehicles. …”
Recent Money market collapse almost drove the world into another great depression
This development could have significant ramifications for the entire money market mutual fund industry, which is based on confidence in the complete safety of the “buck.” Jeff Bobroff, mutual-fund consultant in Rhode Island, stated, “This is going to unsettle investors and probably create further runs on other money funds.” Experts fear that investors’ concern about the sanctity of money market funds could result in widespread withdrawals that would further aggravate the global credit crisis. Money market funds are major buyers of short-term debt issued by corporations and financial companies and significant withdrawals from money market funds could severely disrupt that market.
Over the past year, various money market funds have actually seen their assets’ value fall below $1/share but money market fund sponsors have provided capital infusions to avoid the money market funds’ “breaking the buck.” Legg Mason, SunTrust, Morgan Stanley, Charles Schwab, Wachovia, Bank of America, and Credit Suisse are among the firms that have supported their money market funds in this manner.
“…On Tuesday, the Reserve Primary Fund, a giant money market fund whose parent helped invent that investment, said its customers would lose money. Instead of each share being worth a dollar for every dollar invested, it said its customers’ shares were worth only 97 cents. In Wall Street parlance, it “broke the buck,” a rare occurrence.
So far, it appears that no other money market funds have fallen below a dollar a share. And other money market managers have hastened to reassure investors that their money is safe. But the Primary Fund’s announcement did raise this question: What, in today’s world, is truly safe?
After all, the Primary Fund’s troubles did not occur in isolation. They followed the disappearance of both Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, not to mention the government bailouts of the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the insurance company American International Group. And if you haven’t already forgotten, there was the failure of the California thrift IndyMac in July.
And that’s why, in this market, financial advisers agreed on Wednesday, consumers need to become their own chief investment officers, even when it comes to something as simple as finding a place to put their cash. …”
“…But the scarcity of truly crappy subprime-mortgage bonds no longer mattered. The big Wall Street firms had just made it possible to short even the tiniest and most obscure subprime-mortgage-backed bond by creating, in effect, a market of side bets. Instead of shorting the actual BBB bond, you could now enter into an agreement for a credit-default swap with Deutsche Bank or Goldman Sachs. It cost money to make this side bet, but nothing like what it cost to short the stocks, and the upside was far greater.
The arrangement bore the same relation to actual finance as fantasy football bears to the N.F.L. Eisman was perplexed in particular about why Wall Street firms would be coming to him and asking him to sell short. “What Lippman did, to his credit, was he came around several times to me and said, ‘Short this market,’ ” Eisman says. “In my entire life, I never saw a sell-side guy come in and say, ‘Short my market.’”
And short Eisman did—then he tried to get his mind around what he’d just done so he could do it better. He’d call over to a big firm and ask for a list of mortgage bonds from all over the country. The juiciest shorts—the bonds ultimately backed by the mortgages most likely to default—had several characteristics. They’d be in what Wall Street people were now calling the sand states: Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada. The loans would have been made by one of the more dubious mortgage lenders; Long Beach Financial, wholly owned by Washington Mutual, was a great example. Long Beach Financial was moving money out the door as fast as it could, few questions asked, in loans built to self-destruct. It specialized in asking homeowners with bad credit and no proof of income to put no money down and defer interest payments for as long as possible. In Bakersfield, California, a Mexican strawberry picker with an income of $14,000 and no English was lent every penny he needed to buy a house for $720,000. …”
“I don’t think I could sleep at night knowing you were not in Washington.”
~Franklin D Roosevelt
“His standards of character, conduct, and efficiency inspired the entire Army, the nation, and the world. To him, as much as to any individual, the United States owes its future. He takes his place at the head of the great commanders of history…The more I see and talk to him the more certain I am he’s the great one of the age. I am surely lucky to have his friendship and support.”
~Harry Truman
“…what a joy it must be to [Marshall] to see how the armies he called into being by his own genius have won immortal renown. He is the true ‘organizer of victory.’”
“In war he was as wise and understanding in counsel as he was resolute in action. In peace he was the architect who planned the restoration of our battered European economy and, at the same time, laboured tirelessly to establish a system of Western Defense. He has always fought victoriously against defeatism, discouragement, and disillusion. Succeeding generation must not be allowed to forget his achievements and his example.”
~Winston Churchill
“Americans have never been so deeply indebted to any other soldier.”
~Dwight Eisenhower
I have very few heroes.
George C. Marshall is one of the few.
Unfortunately, very few Americans under forty know who George Catlett Marshall was.
A college student just asked me a question about web site optimization and search engines.
This lead to a discussion of keywords or search terms.
I mentioned that for the last several months, George C. Marshall keeps popping up as one of the top search terms on my blog site.
Usually that means that the name was mentioned either on television, talk radio, newspapers, magazines, a recent book or article, or on the web and YouTube.
I asked the student did he know who George Marshall was?
No, never heard of him.
I told him he was General of the Army, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
I brought up my blog site and looked at todays search terms.
Right at the top was–George C. Marshall.
While I have in the past blogged about him, I believe a updated post on him is in order and timely.
The George C. Marshall Foundation has a series of short videos on George C Marshall that are on YouTube:
Soldier and Statesman (Part 1)
Soldier and Statesman (Part 2)
George C. Marshall: Legacy of Leadership, Chapter 1: Questions
“…Historical re-enactment films commissioned by the George C. Marshall Foundation. In Chapter 1, George Marshall has just received the Nobel Prize for Peace. A reporter accosts him with questions, asking how a five-star general could possibly deserve a peace citation. These films were part of a seminar on corporate ethics offered by the Marshall Foundation. John Scott Gunnoe as George Marshall, David Colatosti as the reporter. …”
George C. Marshall: Legacy of Leadership, Chapter 2: Candor
“…Historical re-enactment films commissioned by the George C. Marshall Foundation. In Chapter 2, Captain George Marshall must decide whether to speak the truth to General Pershing during a crucial moment in World War I. These films were part of a seminar on corporate ethics offered by the Marshall Foundation. John Scott Gunnoe as George Marshall, James Galloway as Pershing, Michael Ridenhour as Gen. Sibert. …”
George C. Marshall: Legacy of Leadership, Chapter 3: Selflessness
“…Historical re-enactment films commissioned by the George C. Marshall Foundation. In Chapter 3, Marshall meets with FDR and outlines his readiness plan for the coming war — a plan that includes his resignation. These films were part of a seminar on corporate ethics offered by the Marshall Foundation. John Scott Gunnoe as George Marshall, Paul Stober as FDR, James Honaker, Jr., as Harry Hopkins. …”
George C. Marshall: Legacy of Leadership, Chapter 4: Commitment
“…Historical re-enactment films commissioned by the George C. Marshall Foundation. In Chapter 4, Marshall proposes mobilizing African-American, Japanese-American and women troops to the front lines. Despite a wartime need, Congressman Carl Vinson opposes the plan. Marshall sticks to his guns, with help from the leader of the Tuskegee Airmen. These films were part of a seminar on corporate ethics offered by the Marshall Foundation. John Scott Gunnoe as George Marshall, Ed Easterling as Carl Vinson, James Wise, Jr., as Benjamin Davis, Jr., Fred Anderson as Gen. Thomas Handy. …”
George C. Marshall: Legacy of Leadership, Chapter 5: Integrity
“…Historical re-enactment films commissioned by the George C. Marshall Foundation. In Chapter 5, three Republican senators discuss the Marshall Plan and its $17 billion price tag. Only Marshall’s reputation for honesty can sway them. These films were part of a seminar on corporate ethics offered by the Marshall Foundation. Charlie Boswell, Dan Naff, Ross Laguzza as the senators. …”
George C. Marshall: Legacy of Leadership, Chapter 6: Courage
“…Historical re-enactment films commissioned by the George C. Marshall Foundation. In Chapter 6, Joseph McCarthy attacks Marshall, now Secretary of Defense, for unAmerican activities. A conversation with his wife provides the support Marshall needs to answer (or not) the smear campaign. John Scott Gunnoe as Marshall, Ron Stone as McCarthy, Anne Cooney as Katherine Marshall. …”
George C. Marshall: Legacy of Leadership, Chapter 7: Answers
“…Historical re-enactment films commissioned by the George C. Marshall Foundation. In the final chapter, Marshall answers all the reporter’s questions. John Scott Gunnoe as Marshall, David Colatosti as the reporter. …”
“It is not enough to fight. It is the spirit which we bring to the fight that decides the issue. It’s morale that wins the victory.”
“I don’t want you fellows sitting around asking me what to do. I want you to tell me what to do.”
“Don’t fight the problem, decide it.”
~George C. Marshall
“In a war unparalleled in magnitude and horror, millions of Americans gave their country outstanding service;
General of The Army George C. Marshall gave it victory.”
~President Harry S Truman
Background Articles and Videos
George Catlett Marshall
“…George Catlett Marshall (December 31, 1880 – October 16, 1959) was an American military leader, Chief of Staff of the Army, Secretary of State, and the third Secretary of Defense. Once noted as the “organizer of victory” by Winston Churchill for his leadership of the Allied victory in World War II,[1] Marshall served as the U.S. Army Chief of Staff during the war and as the chief military adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. As Secretary of State his name was given to the Marshall Plan, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953.[2]
Roosevelt, Winston Churchill speeches – Andrew Roberts – Waterstone’s
George C. Marshall
The Nobel Peace Prize 1953
“…In his position as chief of staff, Marshall urged military readiness prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, later became responsible for the building, supplying, and, in part, the deploying of over eight million soldiers. From 1941 he was a member of the policy committee that supervised the atomic studies engaged in by American and British scientists. The war over, Marshall resigned in November, 1945.
But Marshall could not resign from public service; his military career ended, he took up a diplomatic career. He had been associated with diplomatic events while chief of staff, for he participated in the conference on the Atlantic Charter (1941-1942), and in those at Casablanca (1943), Quebec (1943), Cairo-Teheran (1943), Yalta (1945), Potsdam (1945), and in many others of lesser import. In late 1945 and in 1946, he represented President Truman on a special mission to China, then torn by civil war; in January, 1947, he accepted the Cabinet position of secretary of state, holding it for two years. In the spring of 1947 he outlined in a speech at Harvard University the plan of economic aid which history has named the “Marshall Plan”.
For one year during the Korean War General Marshall was secretary of defence, a civilian post in the U. S. Cabinet. Having resigned from this post in September, 1951, three months before his seventy-first birthday, he retired from public service, thereafter performing those ceremonial duties the public comes to expect of its famous men. …”
George C. Marshall’s Dodona Manor, Leesburg, VA Loudoun
Arlington National Cemetery Website
George Catlett Marshall
General of the Army
“…George Catlett Marshall was one of the great American statesmen of the century. He played a crucial role in international affairs from 1939 to 1951 — the years that shaped the second half of the century. Until 1945, he was in the military service of the United States. As Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army from 1939 to 1945 he was, in the words of Winston Churchill, the “true architect of victory” in the West European arena of World War II.
Marshall was born on December 31, 1880, in Uniontown, Pennsylvania. He graduated from the Virginia Military Institute in 1901; afterwards, he was commissioned a Second Lieutenant. On September 1, 1939, he was promoted to Chief of Staff with the rank of General. Marshall was named General of the Army on December 16, 1944.
In a succession of positions of great responsibility between 1945 and 1951, Marshall devoted his efforts to the cause of international peace and security. He spent a year in China in 1945-46 as President Truman’s representative, attempting — without success — to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict between the nationalists and the communists. As Secretary of State from 1947 to 1949, he developed an economic program, the Marshall Plan, that turned the tide of Communism in war-ravaged Western Europe.
As Europeans endured unemployment, dislocation, and starvation in the wake of World War II’s devastation, the Marshall Plan embodied Marshall’s conviction that economic recovery and stability were vital underpinnings to the successful rebuilding of a democratic Europe. Marshall’s belief that America’s security and continued economic growth were inextricably linked to Europe’s well-being, which formed the cornerstone of his Plan. With the assistance of the Marshall Plan, Western Europe began to recover from the ravages of war. Marshall’s effort to include the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in this grand design was rejected by Moscow. As Western Europe rebuilt, Europe was divided both economically and ideologically, and conflicting politics soon laid the ground for another war — The Cold War.
When it became evident that the gap between Eastern and Western Europe would not be bridged, and that the Western European states feared for their safety, Marshall was one of the leaders who created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which would ensure the security of the West. The establishment of NATO in 1949 achieved a balance of power in Europe that endured until the end of the Cold War.
In the last official position as Secretary of Defense during 1950-51, Marshall oversaw the formation of an international force, under the United Nations, that turned back the North Korean invasion of South Korea.
Although he spent most of his life in the U.S. military, Marshall is best remembered as a true internationalist who sought peace for the world through cooperation and understanding among nations. It was a fitting tribute to a splendid career spent pursuing this ideal that Marshall received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1953.
George Catlett Marshall died on October 16, 1959, and he was buried in Section 7 of Arlington National Cemetery.
On March 15, 1960, President Eisenhower announced that the space complex within the borders of Redstone Arsenal would become known as George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. As part of the formal dedication ceremony, held on September 8, 1960, for the new Marshall Center, a bust of General Marshall was unveiled by Mrs. Marshall and President Eisenhower. Today, the bust is still on display at the space center.
The Secret Service also has code names for the President:
Secret Service code name
“The United States Secret Service uses code names for U.S. presidents, first ladies, and other prominent persons and locations.[1] The use of such names was originally for security purposes and dates to a time when sensitive electronic communications were not routinely encrypted; today, the names simply serve for purposes of brevity, clarity, and tradition.[2][3] The Secret Service does not choose these names, however. The White House Communications Agency assigns these names.[4] WHCA was originally created as the White House Signal Detachment under Franklin Roosevelt.
The WHCA, an agency of the White House Military Office, is headquartered at Anacostia Navy Yard and consists of six staff elements and seven organizational units. WHCA also has supporting detachments in Washington, D.C. and various locations throughout the United States of America.
According to established protocol, ‘good’ codewords are unambiguous words that can be easily pronounced and readily understood by those who transmit and receive voice messages by radio or telephone regardless of their native language. Traditionally, all family members’ code names start with the same letter.[5]
The code names change over time for security purposes, but are often publicly known. For security, codenames are generally picked from a list of such ‘good’ words, but avoiding the use of common words which could likely be intended to mean its normal definition. …”
Presidents of the United States and their families
Harry S. Truman – General[4]
Dwight Eisenhower – Scorecard[1] or Providence[6]
Mamie Eisenhower – Springtime[6]
John F. Kennedy – Lancer[6]
Jacqueline Kennedy – Lace[6][7]
Caroline Kennedy – Lyric[6]
John F. Kennedy, Jr. – Lark[8]
Rose Kennedy – Coppertone[9]
Lyndon Johnson – Volunteer[6]
Lady Bird Johnson – Victoria[6]
Lynda Bird Johnson – Velvet[6]
Luci Baines Johnson – Venus[6]
Richard Nixon – Searchlight[6]
Pat Nixon – Starlight[6]
Gerald Ford – Pass Key[6]
Betty Ford – Pinafore[6]
Susan Ford – Panda[6]
Michael Ford – Professor[6]
Jack Ford – Packman[6]
Jimmy Carter – Deacon[6]
Rosalynn Carter – Dancer[6]
Amy Carter – Dynamo[6]
Chip Carter – Diamond[9]
Jack Carter – Derby[9]
Jeff Carter – Deckhand[9]
Ronald Reagan – Rawhide[6][10]
Nancy Reagan – Rainbow[6]
Maureen Reagan – Rhyme, Rosebud[11]
Michael Reagan – Riddler[11]
Patti Davis – Ribbon[6]
Ron Reagan – Reliant[6]
Doria Reagan – Radiant[6]
George H. W. Bush – Timberwolf[6]
Barbara Bush – Snowbank[12] or Tranquility[6]
Marvin Bush – Tuner[9]
Neil Bush – Trapline[9]
Jeb Bush – Tripper[9]
Bill Clinton – Eagle[6]
Hillary Rodham Clinton – Evergreen[6]
Chelsea Clinton – Energy[6]
George W. Bush – Tumbler[13] or Trailblazer[10][6]
I am really LOL under Obama’s–Renegade–I was hoping they would select Radical–close but no cigar!
Background Articles and Videos
Presidential Code Names
secret service
Barack Obama’s new Secret Service code name: Renegade
FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS
“…President-elect Barack Obama — aka Renegade — had a say in choosing the code name that his protectors use when they’re whispering into those microphones in their sleeves. He was given his choice of several names starting with R.
And in keeping with the tradition of having all family members’ code names start with the same letter, future first lady Michelle Obama is Renaissance, and daughters Sasha and Malia are known as Rosebud and Radiance, respectively.
As for President George W. Bush and wife, Laura, whatever else their new lives hold for them, they can take their alternate identities as Trailblazer and Tempo with them. They’re still entitled to Secret Service protection.
Lists of possible code names for those who receive Secret Service protection are drawn up by the White House Communications Agency, a branch of the military that serves the White House and Secret Service. …”
The Democratic Great Communicator Isn’t Always: As good as he is delivering a speech, Obama is not a good extemporaneous speaker. It’s been rare in his political career you get to see him doing both back to back and the contrast is stunning. The conference was, frankly, boring and long-winded. His answer to the first question was an unforgivably meandering and pointless 10 minutes.
Names Please: The President kept referencing people that believe in “doing nothing” as a response to the economic crisis. And this “tax cuts alone can’t solve our economic problems” business is nonsense. Congressional Republicans are far from closed to the idea of government spending as a fiscal stimulus — it’s the size and scope of the current bill they disagree with. Framing things as if the debate is doing something versus doing nothing is calculated political prestidigitation.
He favors using the taxes paid by millions of Americans to subsidize ethanol production to be used as a biofuel in our cars and trucks.
Why is President Obama wrong on ethanol?
Who do you think were very big contributors to his political campaign?
Ethanol producers and farmers were two groups that contributed significant amounts of money to his campaign.
Archer Daniels Midland Company Profile
This is called pay to play.
The American farmers and ethanol producers pay campaign contributions to professional politicians of both political parties to play or support tax credits and subsidies for ethanol.
The big winners are the farmers and ethanol producers.
Ethanol Boom Affecting Farms, Gas Pump
The big losers are the American people who pay not only taxes but higher prices for corn, milk, wheat and other farm products at the grocery store.
The American people and those abroad who depend upon the United States for their wheat and corn are facing significantly rising food prices.
For example several years ago you could buy on sale 4 cans of corn for $1.
Then a few years back you could buy 3 cans of corn for $1.
Today the price of 1 can of corn is between 69 cents and $1.
Why? Ethanol.
I for one would like to eat my corn and buy unleaded gasoline without ethanol.
This is not change that the American people hoped for.
Repeating the mistakes of former President Bush on ethanol is not change.
Global Pulse: Biofuel – Another Flawed Policy?
Ethanol also reduces gas mileage and increases smog.
Furthermore, ethanol may damage older cars and trucks and smaller engines as the percentage of ethanol added to the gasoline increases above 10% requiring costly repairs.
This is change the American people especially those unemployed or under-employed cannot afford–higher food prices, higher gas prices, lower gas mileage, more smog, and expensive car repairs.
Thanks a lot Mr. President.
Hope you enjoyed your Valentine’s dinner in Chicago.
Could President Obama be just as wrong about the stimulus package?
Yes he can!
Talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
Obama and Ethanol
Biofuels & Ethanol: The Real Story
Glenn Beck: Food vs Fuel
Biofuels scandal + food prices. Biofuel crisis, biofuel oil, biofuel production, cars, algae, systems and basics introduction to facts about biofuels. Conference keynote speaker Patrick Dixon
Food vs Fuel–No one wins
The True Cost of Corn Ethanol
Subsidies for Biofuels
1/24/09: President Obama’s Weekly Address
LOL: Something Scientific: Ethanol
How To Make Ethanol Work – Presented by The Auto Channel
Ethanol Boom Affecting Farms, Gas Pump
Pitfalls of Ethanol Fuel
Marlo Lewis on the problems with Ethanol
Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great
Background Articles and Videos
Ethanol
“Ethanol, also called ethyl alcohol, pure alcohol, grain alcohol, or drinking alcohol, is a volatile, flammable, colorless liquid. It is a psychoactive drug, best known as the type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages and in modern thermometers. Ethanol is one of the oldest recreational drugs known to man. In common usage, it is often referred to simply as alcohol or spirits.
Ethanol is a straight-chain alcohol, and its molecular formula is C2H5OH. Its empirical formula is C2H6O. An alternative notation is CH3-CH2-OH, which indicates that the carbon of a methyl group (CH3-) is attached to the carbon of a methylene group (-CH2-), which is attached to the oxygen of a hydroxyl group (-OH). It is a constitutional isomer of dimethyl ether. Ethanol is often abbreviated as EtOH, using the common organic chemistry notation of representing the ethyl group (C2H5) with Et.
The fermentation of sugar into ethanol is one of the earliest organic reactions employed by humanity. The intoxicating effects of ethanol consumption have been known since ancient times. In modern times, ethanol intended for industrial use is also produced from by-products of petroleum refining.[1]
Ethanol has widespread use as a solvent of substances intended for human contact or consumption, including scents, flavorings, colorings, and medicines. In chemistry, it is both an essential solvent and a feedstock for the synthesis of other products. It has a long history as a fuel for heat and light and also as a fuel for internal combustion engines. …”
Transportation obstacles: like other alcohols (and unlike gasoline, natural gas and oil), ethanol absorbs water and chemicals. For that reason, ethanol cannot travel through the established pipelines and tanks that move petroleum products without picking up excess water. Furthermore, as gasoline travels through pipelines or tanks, it leaves some solids that ethanol will pick up and dissolve into itself if it flows through the same pipeline or tank. Ethanol also corrodes pipelines, making the fuel unusable. To remain uncontaminated, ethanol must be transported by land separately from gasoline and it must be blended with gasoline just before distribution. This lack of infrastructure for shipping and blending ethanol with gasoline adds cost to the end product and eats away at profits.
Logistics: most ethanol plants are situated in the Midwest corn belt (Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and Indiana) due to the close proximity of the feedstock. The further a region is from the corn belt, the higher the shipping costs and the higher the price at the pumps. This is a major reason for the push to develop technology that can economically produce ethanol from cellulosic vegetation.
Tight market: increased demand for ethanol has created a tight ethanol market in some areas. Distribution may be temporarily limited by production capacity as well as the cost and difficulties involved in moving very large volumes of ethanol on demand.
E85 infrastructure: only a small portion of the 168,000 service stations in the U.S. pump E85. Even with E85 incentives in place, the scarcity of E85 fueling stations means that most flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) owners end up filling their tanks with gasoline instead of ethanol.
Lower fuel economy: while prices for E85 may currently be less per gallon than regular unleaded gasoline (due to current tax incentives), mileage also is lower. Typically vehicles consume 1.4 gallons of E85 for every gallon of regular gasoline they would otherwise use. Additionally, even with its tax incentives ethanol is often more expensive than gasoline.
Corrosion: because the alcohol in ethanol corrodes aluminum, FFV components are made of stainless steel and E85 pumps must be modified or manufactured with stainless steel to prevent corrosion. Repeated exposure to E85 also corrodes the metal and rubber parts in older engines (pre-1988) designed primarily for gasoline.
“…Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.
In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.”
Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, “he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy.”
Mr. Obama’s lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Mr. Daschle and Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland. …”
“…More smog, infinitely worse gas mileage, huge problems in distribution, and skyrocketing prices for gasoline. Maybe now that we’re witnessing the third act in America’s ethanol play, the upcoming epilogue will close this show forever. Even great advertising works only if the product does. …”
Fuel blend, already implicated in high food prices, linked to rise in repairs
“…Although the Web is rife with complaints from car owners who say ethanol damaged their engines, ethanol producers and automakers say it’s safe to use in cars. But smaller engines — the two-cycle utility engines in lawnmowers, chain saws and outboard boat motors — are another story.
Benjamin Mallisham, owner of a lawnmower repair shop in Tuscaloosa, Ala., said at least 40 percent of the lawnmower engines he repairs these days have been damaged by ethanol.
“When you put that ethanol in here, it eats up the insides or rusts them out,” Mallisham said. “All the rubber gaskets and parts — it eats those up.”
The sludge problem Auto mechanics say the same thing takes place in car engines, where debris dislodged by ethanol in gas station fuel tanks can gum things up. But car engines are highly sophisticated; especially in later models, they’re equipped to comfortably handle the fallout of ethanol-blended gas, mechanics said. …”
The Manufacture and Distribution of Corn-Based Fuel Grade Ethanol
“…As of now (2007), there are ~ 110 operating corn-based ethanol plants in the US with 56 more under construction. IA has the most, at 26, with also the most currently under construction, at 13. The greatest concentration is in the midwest (the cornbelt), but ethanol plants can also be found in a few other areas with more new construction in the works. Most midwestern ethanol plants receive their corn locally, via truck, but those farther away also receive shipments via railroad covered hopper cars (each with a capacity of 3,800 bushels).
On arrival, the corn is ground to a powder, then mixed with water and enzymes. The enzymes will break the corn’s starch into even-chain sugars, such as glucose and dextrose. The sugars are then mixed with yeast, which breaks them down into CO2 and ethyl alcohol (ethanol). Some plants release the CO2 into the atmosphere while others capture it and ship it out by railroad tank car. The ethanol at this point is only about 13% of the resulting mix and must be distilled, which separates the alcohol from everything else. The remainder is 95% alcohol which is then vaporized and run through a dryer to yield 200 proof fuel-grade ethanol.
Ethanol plants aren’t licensed to ship out beverage-grade alcohol so the product must be denatured. A common denaturant is natural gasoline, a byproduct of the natural gas refining process. This is delivered to the ethanol plant using railroad tank cars. The final product is 95 to 98% pure ethanol and ready to be legally shipped to a distribution point.
An additional byproduct of the process ought to be mentioned for the sake of completeness. After the enzymes extract starch from the corn, there are wet, ground up bits rich in proteins, left over; they’re called distillers grains and some of it will be sold directly to local farmers for feed. The bulk of it is dried, shipped out by railcar, and sold in distant feed markets. …”
“…It was an American dream that has failed to become a reality. For much of the last decade, enthusiasts from President George W. Bush down have touted corn-based ethanol as something approaching a superfuel, a home-grown alternative to foreign oil that would help cut smog and bring hope to struggling farmers.
It has not worked out that way. Instead, the ethanol industry has undergone a great boom and bust in which a Financial Times analysis has found investors as savvy as Bill Gates, Microsoft’s founder, have collectively lost billions of dollars.
Despite the billions more in taxpayers’ dollars that was spent to subsidise it, ethanol now eats up nearly one-quarter of the US corn crop without so far fulfilling the hopes held for its beneficial effect either on the environment or US dependence on foreign energy.
It may have helped keep gasoline prices lower in the world’s wealthiest nation, but a growing band of influential critics say it has also contributed to higher food prices in the world’s poorest countries. So far, the only sure beneficiaries from the ethanol promise have been the investors clever enough to get into the industry early and the corn farmers who have enjoyed a lucrative new market for their grain. …”
By Kevin Allison in San Francisco and Stephanie,Kirchgaessner in New York
“…Investor losses come as taxpayers have paid billions to support the ethanol industry. More than $11.2bn has been spent since 2005 on tax breaks for companies that blend ethanol into petrol. Billions more have been spent on direct state and federal subsidies for US ethanol production.
“We’re looking at an industry that’s cost $80bn to get to this point,” said Bob Starkey, a fuels analyst at Jim Jordan & Associates, a research group in Houston.
However, ethanol has disappointed many who saw it as a wonder product that could reduce the US’s dependence on foreign oil while cutting down on pollution. Worse, a growing number of influential critics now say ethanol is helping raise the price of food. …”
Surprise: Government Mandates Behind Ethanol ‘Bubble’
By Nathan Burchfiel
“…The mandates “absolutely” lead to higher corn prices, which lead to higher prices for food, even contributing to global hunger crises in poor nations, according to George Mason University professor and Business & Media adviser Don Boudreaux.
Boudreaux addressed ethanol in “America 2012,” BMI’s new Special Report on economic issues in the presidential campaign.
“Farmers, especially corn farmers, made out like bandits because now there’s this artificial market enhancement for their product and so they’re receiving higher returns causing the price of corn products to rise, the price of foods that are close substitutes for corn to rise, and of course it’s … one element in the rise of the price of gasoline.”
Ethanol as an alternative source of energy is one of the major issues in the presidential campaign. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has supported ethanol, calling it “only the beginning.” His GOP opponent, Sen. John McCain, has criticized ethanol subsidies.
Small Producer Credit Sought in Economic Stimulus Bill
“… Ethanol proponents are seeking to include an amended small ethanol producer tax credit in the economic stimulus package being debated in Congress. The Coalition’s, Chairman, Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns, recently sent a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley of Iowa requesting their support. “The credit was created as an incentive for farmers who invested in small ethanol production facilities. At present, this credit works as a disincentive to farmers organized as a cooperative. The addition of the small ethanol producer credit for farmer cooperatives will make available an incentive that is important to the nation’s ethanol plant development efforts, especially in rural areas of our states,” Johanns said.
“If included in the economic stimulus package, this provision will be a timely incentive for farmer cooperatives that are facing significant economic challenges,” Johanns said. “The addition of farmer-owned ethanol cooperative incentives will help to stimulate the economy of areas in which the plants are located, and the new production will increase domestic ethanol production capacity. This combination of value-added agri-processing and production of renewable ethanol from domestic resources will serve to strengthen the economic stimulus package and will allow farmer cooperatives to participate in the growth of the ethanol industry.” …”
“There’s one piece of advice my dad gave me when he dropped me off at college. He said, “You’ve got the talent. You can sing and play guitar. That doesn’t make you any better than anyone else.””
~John Denver
John Denver – Rocky Mountain High
John Denver – Annie´s Song
John Denver – Eagles And Horses
john denver-sunshine on my shoulder
Thank God I’m a Country Boy: John Denver
John Denver – How Can I Leave You Again (1978) [6/8]
John Denver – Peace
John Denver Like A Sad Song
John Denver – Leaving on a Jet Plane
John Denver Sweet Surrender
John Denver – For You
john denver- a song for all lovers
Whispering Jesse – John Denver
John Denver …Poems Prayers and Promises..
John Denver & Olivia Newton-John “Fly Away” (1975)
John Denver – Live in Australia 77 – Calypso
John Denver: Yellowstone Coming Home
John Denver The Eagle and the Hawk Live
John Denver in concert in London at Wembley Arena, 1979
John Denver – The Wildlife Concert (Complete and High Quality)
John Denver
John Denver Windstar symposium 1995
John Denver Remembered documentary FULL
Perhaps love is like a resting place, A shelter from the storm, It exists to give you comfort, It is there to keep you warm, And in those times of trouble, When you are most alone, The memory of love will bring you home”
~John Denver
Background Articles and Videos
John Denver
John Denver (December 31, 1943 – October 12, 1997), born Henry John Deutschendorf, Jr., was an American Country Music/folk singer-songwriter and folk rock musician. He was one of the most popular acoustic artists of the 1970s in terms of record sales,[1] recording and releasing around 300 songs, about half composed by himself. He was named Poet Laureate of Colorado in 1977. Songs such as “Leaving on a Jet Plane” (1967), “Take Me Home, Country Roads” (1971), “Rocky Mountain High” (1972), “Sunshine on My Shoulders” (1973), “Thank God I’m a Country Boy” (1974), “Annie’s Song” (1974), and “Calypso” (1975) are popular worldwide. Denver has been referred to as “The Poet for the Planet”, “Mother Nature’s Son” (based on The Beatles song he covered) and “A Song’s Best Friend”.
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of
government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in
the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should
focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.
“…According to Mr Biden: “Every economist… from conservative to liberal, acknowledges that direct government spending on a direct program now is the best way to infuse economic growth and create jobs.”
Barack Obama said earlier this month that: “There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy.”
But the economists who signed the advert, funded by the Cato Institute in Washington DC, say that: “we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s.”
They propose instead that: “To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”
Bigger Government Did Not Work for Bush, and It Will Not Work for Obama
by Daniel J. Mitchell, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
“…During the Bush years, so-called stimulus legislation based on “Keynesian” theory was enacted in both 2001 and 2008.1
It was hoped that putting money in people’s pockets would lead to more consumer spending and thus give the economy a positive jolt. Those episodes of Keynesian policy were ineffective, but that has not dimmed enthusiasm for the approach. The Obama economic team is pushing a similar approach, but on a much bigger scale—more than $800 billion of new spending and temporary tax cuts, a figure that climbs above $1 trillion when interest costs are included. And that may be just the starting point since the promise of additional spending has set off a feeding frenzy on Capitol Hill.
“…Doing more of a bad thing is not a recipe for growth. Government spending generally is a burden on the economy. Whether financed by debt or taxes, government spending requires a transfer of money from the productive sector of the economy. Moreover, most forms of government spending result in the misallocation of labor and capital, causing even further damage.
Although many factors influence economic performance, the negative impact of government spending is one reason small-government jurisdictions such as Hong Kong have higher growth rates than nations that have medium-sized government, such as the United States. The same principle explains in part why the United States enjoys faster average growth than a big-government country such as France. Figure 1 shows average economic growth rates in France and Hong Kong since 1980. …”
“… President Obama’s new economic stimulus ploy is to declare that no dissent on the need for massive government action exists.
He is wrong.
Via Cato Institute: Here are 200 economists, including Nobel Laureates, who oppose the Generational Theft Act of 2009. The open letter is running as an ad in the NY Times, Washington Post and Roll Call this week.
And here, via Hans Bader at Open Market, are more skeptics.
Perhaps they’ll drag Joe Biden out of the closet to call the dissenters…unpatriotic. …”
The Impending Obama Meltdown [Victor Davis Hanson]
“…And the result of all this?
At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.
Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama’s world view of “Bush did it/but I am the world”: The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say “shut up” about Kashmir and the Euros order no more “buy American”).
This is quite serious. I can’t recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton’s initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn’t quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.”
Ten Foreign Policy Questions for the Next President Introduction)
Ten Foreign Policy Questions for the Next President (1 of 8)
Ten Foreign Policy Questions for the Next President (2 of 8)
Ten Foreign Policy Questions for the Next President (3 of 8)
Ten Foreign Policy Questions for the Next President (4 of 8)
Ten Foreign Policy Questions for the Next President (5 of 8)
Ten Foreign Policy Questions for the Next President (6 of 8)
Ten Foreign Policy Questions for the Next President (7 of 8)
Ten Foreign Policy Questions for the Next President (8 of 8)
Background Articles and Videos
Michael F. Scheuer
“…Michael F. Scheuer is a former CIA employee. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka “Alec Station”), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.
Not much is known about his personal history, though Scheuer was an analyst at the CIA and not a covert field operations officer. Scheuer graduated from Canisius College in 1974, and went on to earn an M.A. from Niagara University in 1976 and another M.A. from Carleton University in 1981.[1] He also received a Ph.D. in British Empire-U.S.-Canada-U.K. relations from the University of Manitoba in 1986.[2]
Scheuer is now known to be the anonymous author of both Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and the earlier anonymous work, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America.[3]
Osama bin Laden stated in his September 7, 2007 message:
“If you want to understand what’s going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer.” [3][4]
Scheuer’s latest book, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq was released on February 12, 2008.
In the 9/11 Commission Report, Scheuer is featured in Chapter 4, where his name is given only as “Mike”. He is portrayed as being occasionally frustrated with his superiors’ failure to aggressively target bin Laden.
Scheuer resigned in 2004. He is currently a news analyst for CBS News and a terrorism analyst for The Jamestown Foundation’s online publication Global Terrorism Analysis.[4] He also makes radio and television appearances and teaches a graduate-level course on Al-Qaeda at Georgetown University. He also participates in conferences on terrorism and national security issues, such as the New America Foundation’s December 2004 conference, “Al Qaeda 2.0: Transnational Terrorism After 9/11.” [5]
He that lieth down with Dogs, shall rise up with Fleas.
~ Benjamin Franklin
When President Barack Obama nominated Republican Senator Judd Gregg as his Commerce Secretary, he became the first president since Theodore Roosevelt to appoint three members of the opposing party to his cabinet.
President Obama & Commerce Secretary Nominee Senator Gregg
Senator Gregg Calls for More American Energy Now
Many were surprised given Senator Gregg ‘s previous advocacy of eliminating the Department of Commerce.
Senator Gregg just withdrew from the nomination giving two primary reasons, first the transfer of control over the Census to the White House and second his differences over the stimulus package with President Obama.
Fox News All stars discuss a proposed change to deny Judd Gregg oversight
Was Senator Gregg pressured to either vote for the stimulus package or he would lose the nomination?
Looks like President Obama’s political base wanted Senator Gregg’s nomination withdrawn and pressured President Obama.
True to form President Obama threw him under the bus.
Rachel Maddow Show – Rep. Barbara Lee discusses the nomination of Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary
Tell Senator Gregg to Support President Obama’s Economic Recovery Plan
Why were the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus affraid of the Gregg nomination and pressured President Obama to withdraw the Gregg nomination for Commerce Secretary?
Senator Gregg understood the financial crisis and who was responsible:
Judd Gregg on cause of Credit Crisis
SHOCKER! Dems Defend Fannie May/Freddie Mac
Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the “Family” and “Conscience” of Fannie Mae
Who’ Guilty in Fannie May Freddie Mercury Scandal
Lesson to all Republicans–President Obama has a long record of lying and throwing people under the bus when it would impact his electability–do not trust anything this President says.
Any Republican voting for this stimulus package should be defeated in the next election.
As they say in Texas this dog does not hunt.
Better yet any Senator voting for this bill should be drummed out of the Republican Party.
The stimulus package will wreck the economy and destroy jobs not create them.
Ben Franklin the author of the above quote wrote many aphorisms found in “Poor Richard’s Almanack.
Franklin created a list of 13 virtures to live ones life by and wrote many of the aphorisms illustrating these virtures:
Temperance
Silence
Order
Resolution
Frugality
Industry
Sincerity
Justice
Moderation
Cleanliness
Tranquility
Chastity
Humility
Congressman John Fleming on Glenn Beck – Part 1
Congressman John Fleming on Glenn Beck – Part 2
Senator Gregg fortunately saw the virtues of cleanliness, frugality and moderation were more important than a cabinet position.
I could not agree more with his decision to withdraw as well as his views on energy production and the causes of the financial crisis.
Thank you Senator Gregg.
There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government.
~Benjamin Franklin
Background Articles and Videos
Senator Gregg Statement on His Withdrawal from Consideration of U.S. Commerce Secretary
February 12, 2009
“…Sen. Gregg stated, “I want to thank the President for nominating me to serve in his Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. This was a great honor, and I had felt that I could bring some views and ideas that would assist him in governing during this difficult time. I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle.
“However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.
“Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives. …”
“Judd Alan Gregg (born February 14, 1947) is a former Governor of New Hampshire and current United States Senator serving as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. He is a member of the Republican Party and was a businessman and attorney in Nashua before entering politics. Senator Gregg was nominated for Secretary of Commerce in the Cabinet by President Barack Obama,[1] but withdrew his name on February 12, 2009.[2]
“…In 1992, he decided to run for the United States Senate instead of running for governor again. He successfully defeated Democrat John Rauh, and Gregg has been a United States Senator since 1993. He was reelected to a second term in 1998 after defeating George Condodemetraky, and ran for a third term in the U.S. Senate election, 2004. That year he defeated campaign finance activist Doris “Granny D” Haddock, the then-94-year-old Democratic nominee, by 66% to 34%.
In January 2005, Gregg was elected to chair the U.S. Senate Committee on Budget by the Senate Republican Conference. While chairman of this committee Gregg has been a steadfast supporter of lower spending.[4] Throughout his Senate career he has been highly supportive of lower taxes as well.
Gregg has a moderate record on social issues. In June 2006 he joined six of his fellow Republicans in voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment. In April 2007 he was among the breakaway Republicans to support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. However, his record on the issue of abortion is a solidly pro-life one. Gregg has voted for some gun control measures and against others. He voted against the Brady Bill, but in recent years has voted for trigger control locks on firearms and in favor of the ban on assault weapons.
During the 2004 Presidential Election, Gregg stood in for John Kerry during practice sessions held by George W. Bush in preparation for the 2004 United States Presidential Election Debates. Four years earlier he had played the part of Al Gore for the same purpose.
On October 29, 2007, Gregg endorsed Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States. …”
However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census, there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.
Judd Gregg has more backbone than anyone in politics today. He did his best to cross over and help Pres. Obama. But as Gregg and I discussed in a recent CNBC interview, the senator has a long and outstanding record as a tax-cutter, budget-cutter, deficit-cutter, and debt-cutter. All of these principles have been badly violated in the so-called stimulus package. And of course the White House move to steal the Census Bureau during a crucial political-reapportionment period was a low blow.
But how many major public figures would have simply drawn a line in the sand and said, No, I simply cannot cross that line? That’s what Gregg just did. …”
“…According to a breaking news alert from MSNBC, Judd Gregg has withdrawn from his nomination as Commerce Secretary. If so, this makes the third Cabinet appointment from Barack Obama to fail, and the second one at Commerce. Tom Daschle withdrew at HHS over his tax evasion, and Bill Richardson preceded Gregg as Commerce Secretary-designate before withdrawing over a pay-for-play corruption scandal in New Mexico.
Gregg took a bit of heat from fellow Republicans for resigning from the Senate during a point when conservatives needed every ally they can find. What touched off Gregg’s withdrawal? He couldn’t support the stimulus: …”
Michelle Malkin – “Obama Followers Think Pork & Kool Aid Will be Pouring From the Sky”
Congressional Black Caucus
“The Congressional Black Caucus is an organization representing the African American members of the United States Congress. Membership is exclusive to African Americans (although not 100% blood quantium)[1] and its chair in the 111th Congress is Representative Barbara Lee of California.
The Caucus describes its goals as “positively influencing the course of events pertinent to African-Americans and others of similar experience and situation,” and “achieving greater equity for persons of African descent in the design and content of domestic and international programs and services.”
The CBC encapsulates these goals in the following priorities: Closing the achievement and opportunity gaps in education, assuring quality health care for every American, focusing on employment and economic security, ensuring justice for all, retirement security for all Americans, and increasing equity in foreign policy.[2]
Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Tx., has said:
“The Congressional Black Caucus is one of the world’s most esteemed bodies, with a history of positive activism unparalleled in our nation’s history. Whether the issue is popular or unpopular, simple or complex, the CBC has fought for thirty years to protect the fundamentals of democracy. Its impact is recognized throughout the world. The Congressional Black Caucus is probably the closest group of legislators on the Hill. We work together almost incessantly, we are friends and, more importantly, a family of freedom fighters. Our diversity makes us stronger, and the expertise of all of our members has helped us be effective beyond our numbers.”
Mark Anthony Neal, a professor of African-American studies and popular culture at Duke University, wrote a column in late 2008 regarding the relevancy of the Congressional Black Caucus and other organizations such as the NAACP in the wake of Barack Obama being elected to the United States presidency. Neal wrote that he believes the Congressional Black Caucus and other African-American-centered organizations are still needed, but they must adapt to a changing political atmosphere and take advantage of “the political will that Obama’s campaign has generated.”[3] …”
“…The CPC was founded in 1991 by the independent Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who remains a member as Senator. It represents about a third of the House Democratic Caucus (with 71 members). Of the twenty standing committees of the House, eleven are chaired by members of the CPC.
Ideology
According to their website, the CPC advocates “universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare,” fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in strike actions and collective bargaining, the abolition of significant portions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of gay marriage, strict campaign finance reform laws, a complete pullout from the war in Iraq, a crackdown on free trade and corporate welfare, an increase in income tax on the wealthy, tax cuts for the poor, and an increase in social welfare spending by the federal government.
Supporting organizations
An array of national progressive organizations will work to support the efforts of the caucus, including the Institute for Policy Studies, The Nation magazine, MoveOn.org, National Priorities Project, Jobs with Justice, Peace Action, Americans for Democratic Action, and Progressive Democrats of America. Also co-sponsoring the kickoff event were the NAACP, ACLU, Progressive Majority, League of United Latin American Citizens, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, National Council of La Raza, Hip Hop Caucus, Human Rights Campaign, Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, and the National Hip Hop Political Convention. In 2000, the Democratic Socialists of America expressed solidarity with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, since they both shared “operative social democratic politics.”[1]
STAR PARKER “WE HAVE NOT SEEN OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE”
Jonah Goldberg on Glenn Beck Explaining the Socialist Agenda Behind the Stimulus Bill
Author Jonah Goldberg on Glenn Beck 2/20 – Liberal Fascism
Star Parker on Glenn Beck – “Obama Will Bring us into Communism”
Part 2 Glenn Beck talks New Deal, or Raw Deal
Glenn Beck, ‘Marching Toward Hell’
Background Articles and Videos
Liberal Fascism (1) — Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED **
Liberal Fascism (2) — Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED **
Liberal Fascism (3) — Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED **
Liberal Fascism (4) — Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED **
Liberal Fascism (5) — Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED **
Liberal Fascism Q-A (1)
Liberal Fascism Q-A (2)
Liberal Fascism Q-A (3)
Rise and Fall of the National Industrial Recovery Act
National Recovery Administration (NRA) Promo
Thomas Sowell – Obama’s Vision
Dennis Prager & Thomas Sowell – Part 3/3
Amity Shlaes speaks at ALEC. Part 1
Amity Shlaes speaks at ALEC. Part 2
Amity Shlaes speaks at ALEC. Part 3
Amity Schlaes – The Forgotten Man
The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 1:
The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 2:
The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 3:
The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 4:
The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 5:
The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 6:
The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 7:
The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 8:
The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 9:
The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 10:
The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 11:
The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 12:
Barack Obama at the 2008 DNC
Why you should care about A.C.O.R.N
Obama, Acorn, And Election Fraud
Barack Obama – ACORN Will Shape My Domestic Policy
OBAMA’S ACORN EXPOSED PART 1 OF 2
OBAMA’S ACORN EXPOSED PART 2 OF 2
Yes We Can – Barack Obama Music Video
Socialism and Fascism (1/3)
Socialism and Fascism (2/3)
Socialism and Fascism (3/3)
Fahrenheit 451
Triumph des Willens (Full movie – English subbed)
Triumph of the Will
“Triumph of the Will (German: Triumph des Willens) is a propaganda film made by Leni Riefenstahl. It chronicles the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. The film contains excerpts from speeches given by various Nazi leaders at the Congress, including portions of speeches by Adolf Hitler, interspersed with footage of massed party members. Hitler commissioned the film and served as an unofficial executive producer; his name appears in the opening titles. The overriding theme of the film is the return of Germany as a great power, with Hitler as the True German Leader who will bring glory to the nation.
Triumph of the Will was released in 1935 and rapidly became one of the better-known examples of propaganda in film history. Riefenstahl’s techniques, such as moving cameras, the use of telephoto lenses to create a distorted perspective, aerial photography, and revolutionary approach to the use of music and cinematography, have earned Triumph recognition as one of the greatest films in history. Riefenstahl won several awards, not only in Germany but also in the United States, France, Sweden, and other countries. The film was popular in the Third Reich[1] and elsewhere, and has continued to influence movies, documentaries, and commercials to this day.[2] …”
“…The film begins with a prologue, the only commentary in the film. The following text appears against a gray background: On 5 September 1934, …20 years after the outbreak of the World War… 16 years after the beginning of our suffering… 19 months after the beginning of the German renaissance… Adolf Hitler flew again to Nuremberg to review the columns of his faithful followers…
‘Day 1‘: The film opens with shots of the clouds above the city, and then moves through the clouds to float above the assembling masses below, with the intention of portraying beauty and majesty of the scene. The shadow of Hitler’s plane is visible as it passes over the tiny figures marching below,[3] accompanied by music from Richard Wagner’s Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, which slowly turns into the Horst-Wessel-Lied. Upon arriving at the Nuremberg airport, Hitler emerges from his plane to thunderous applause and a cheering crowd. He is then driven into Nuremberg, through equally enthusiastic people, to his hotel where a night rally is later held.
‘Day 2‘: The second day begins with a montage of the attendees getting ready for the opening of the Reich Party Congress, and then footage of the top Nazi officials arriving at the Luitpold Arena. The film then cuts to the opening ceremony, where Rudolf Hess announces the start of the Congress. The camera then introduces much of the Nazi hierarchy and covers their opening speeches, including Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Fritz Todt, Robert Ley, and Julius Streicher. Then the film cuts to an outdoor rally for the Reichsarbeitsdienst (Labor Service), which is primarily a series of pseudo-military drills by men carrying shovels. This is also where Hitler gives his first speech on the merits of the Labor Service and praising them for their work in rebuilding Germany. The day then ends with a torchlight SA parade.
‘Day 3‘: The third day starts with a Hitler Youth rally on the parade ground. Again the camera covers the Nazi dignitaries arriving and the introduction of Hitler by Baldur von Schirach. Hitler then addresses the Youth, describing in militaristic terms how they must harden themselves and prepare for sacrifice. Everyone present then assembles for a military pass and review, featuring Wehrmacht cavalry and various armored vehicles. That night Hitler delivers another speech to low-ranking party officials by torchlight, commemorating the first year since the Nazis took power and declaring that the party and state are one entity.
‘Day 4‘: The fourth day is the climax of the film, where the most memorable of the imagery is presented. As the soundtrack plays themes from Wagner’s Götterdämmerung, Hitler, flanked by Heinrich Himmler and Viktor Lutze, walks through a long wide expanse with over 150,000 SA and SS troops standing at attention, to lay a wreath at a World War I Memorial. Hitler then reviews the parading SA and SS men, following which Hitler and Lutze deliver a speech where they discuss the Night of the Long Knives purge of the SA several months prior. Lutze reaffirms the SA’s loyalty to the regime, and Hitler absolves the SA of any crimes committed by Ernst Röhm. New party flags are consecrated by touching them to the “blood banner” (the same cloth flag said to have been carried by the fallen Nazis during the Beer Hall Putsch) and, following a final parade in front of the Nuremberg Frauenkirche, Hitler delivers his closing speech. In it he reaffirms the primacy of the Nazi Party in Germany, declaring, “All loyal Germans will become National Socialists. Only the best National Socialists are party comrades!” Hess then leads the assembled crowd in a final Sieg Heil salute for Hitler, marking the close of the party congress. The film fades to black as the entire crowd sings the “Horst-Wessel-Lied”. …”
“It is a cruel thought, that, when we feel ourselves standing on the firmest ground in every respect, the cursed arts of our secret enemies, combining with other causes, should effect, by depreciating our money, what the open arms of a powerful enemy could not.”
~Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, 1779. ME 4:298, Papers 2:298
ABBA – Money Money Money (Abba-dabba-doo)
The Federal Reserve helicopter that drops money to failed investment and commercial bank executives needs to be replaced due to overuse:
Altoona Curve Money Drop
The new helicopter will be purchased from Red Bull as part of the Stimulus Package:
Red Bull Helicopter does back flips!
Now if the Federal Reserve could only find and rescue the “missing and run-away” M3 money supply:
Maybe the Fed needs search and rescue helicopter for financial disasters like this one:
Awesome Helicopter Rescue!
Add it to the stimulus bill.
The Beatles – Taxman
“The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled and the pubic debt should be reduced. The arrogance of public officialdom should be tempered and controlled. And the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest we become bankrupt.”
~Cicero, 63 B.C.
Background Articles and Videoes
More wheeling, dealing, and backroom scheming
By Michelle Malkin
“…Just an update on the porkulus negotiations still underway in Washington.
Yes, it’s sunlight-evading, earmark-stuffing business as usual there.
The buzz on the Hill is that Mitch McConnell is ready to fold, three more Senate Republicans may be joining the Turncoat Caucus, and the House may break a promise it made yesterday to make this process transparent and delay any vote until the final conference agreement had been posted onlin for 48 hours: …”
“Last year, we lamented the passing of M3 reporting. This broadest of money supply measures had shown a discomforting increase in liquidity, far greater than what M2 was revealing.
At the time of the M3 announcement, we suspected the Fed was attempting to cover their tracks, disguising an ongoing increase in money supply and an unstated “easing” in Fed bias. Since that time, we have learned: the Treasury Department was also adding liquidity — a duty they have assumed, in part, in addition to the same performed by the Fed. Indeed, based on the credit growth data Doug Noland published last month (October Credit Review), it appears that the Fed has – despite increasing interest rates – actually eased over the last two years.
In light of all this excess cash sloshing around, we wondered what M3 might look like if it were still being reported.
In March 2006, the Board of Governors ceased publishing the M3 monetary aggregate.
The Federal Reserve System and public- and private-sector analysts have long monitored the growth of the money supply because of the effects that money supply growth is believed to have on real economic activity and on the price level. Over time, the Fed has tried to achieve its macroeconomic goals of price stability, sustainable economic growth, and high employment in part by influencing the size of the money supply. In the past few decades, however, the relationship between growth in the money supply and the performance of the U.S. economy has become much weaker, and emphasis on the money supply as a guide to monetary policy has waned.
Money Supply Measures The Federal Reserve publishes weekly and monthly data on two money supply measures M1 and M2. The money supply data, which the Fed reports at 4:30 p.m. every Thursday, appear in some Friday newspapers, and they are available online as well. The Fed publishes measures of large time deposits on a quarterly basis in the Flow of Funds Accounts statistical release.
The money supply measures reflect the different degrees of liquidity—or spendability—that different types of money have. The narrowest measure, M1, is restricted to the most liquid forms of money; it consists of currency in the hands of the public; travelers checks; demand deposits, and other deposits against which checks can be written. M2 includes M1, plus savings accounts, time deposits of under $100,000, and balances in retail money market mutual funds.
The chart below shows the relative sizes of the two monetary aggregates. In April 2008, M1 was approximately $1.4 trillion, more than half of which consisted of currency. While as much as two-thirds of U.S. currency in circulation may be held outside the United States, all currency held by the public is included in the money supply because it can be spent on goods and services in the U.S. economy. M2 was approximately $7.7 trillion and largely consisted of savings deposits. …”
“…In March 2006, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors ceased publication of the M3 monetary aggregate. M3 did not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that was not already embodied in M2. Consequently, the Board judged that the costs of collecting the data and publishing M3 outweigh the benefits.
“In economics, money supply, or money stock, is the total amount of money available in an economy at a particular point in time.[1] There are several ways to define “money”, but each includes currency in circulation and demand deposits.[2][3]
Money supply data are recorded and published. Public- and private-sector analysts have long monitored changes in money supply because of its possible effects on the price level and the nominal or real value of output.[4] That relation is historically associated with the quantity theory of money and evidence of a direct empirical relation between long-term price inflation and money-supply growth. These underlie reliance on monetary policy as a means of controlling inflation.[5][6]
Money is used in final settlement of a debt and as a ready store of value. Its different functions are associated with different empirical measures of the money supply. Since most modern economic systems are regulated by governments through monetary policy, the supply of money is broken down into types of money based on how much of an effect monetary policy can have on each. Narrow measures include those more directly affected by monetary policy, whereas broader measures are less closely related to monetary-policy actions.[6] Each measure can be classified by placing it along a spectrum between narrow and broad monetary aggregates. The different types of money are typically classified as Ms. The number of Ms usually range from M0 (narrowest) to M3 (broadest) but which Ms are actually used depends on the system. The typical layout for each of the Ms is as follows:
M0: currency (notes and coins) in circulation and in bank vaults, plus reserves which commercial banks hold in their accounts with the central bank (minimum reserves and excess reserves). M0 is usually called the monetary base – the base from which other forms of money (like checking deposits, listed below) are created – and is traditionally the most liquid measure of the money supply. [7]
M1: currency in circulation + checkable deposits (checking deposits, officially called demand deposits, and other deposits that work like checking deposits) + traveler’s checks. M1 represents the assets that strictly conform to the definition of money: assets that can be used to pay for a good or service or to repay debt. Although checks linked to checking deposits are gradually becoming less popular, debit cards linked to these deposits are becoming more popular. Like checks, debit cards, as a means to complete a transaction through their links to checkable deposits, can also be considered as a form of money.[8]
M2: M1 + savings deposits, time deposits less than $100,000 and money market deposit accounts for individuals. M2 represents money and “close substitutes” for money. [9] M2 is a key economic indicator used to forecast inflation.[10]
M3: M2 + large time deposits, institutional money-market funds, short-term repurchase agreements, along with other larger liquid assets. M3 is no longer measured by the US central bank.[11] …”
Pronk Palisades 
You must be logged in to post a comment.