| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Ron Paul | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Ron Paul On The Daily Show 9/09
FDIC Fund Now In The Negative
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fdic-discloses-deposit-insurance-fund-now-negative
In an unprecedented disclosure, the FDIC has highlighted that it expects the DIF reserve ratio to be negative as of September 30. As there are a whopping 48 hours before that deadline, one can safely assume that the DIF is now well into negative territory: as of today depositors have no insurance courtesy of a banking system that has leeched out all the capital of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Let's pray there is no run on the bank soon.
FDIC's full memorandum outlining its failure can be found here.
In an unprecedented disclosure, the FDIC has highlighted that it expects the DIF reserve ratio to be negative as of September 30. As there are a whopping 48 hours before that deadline, one can safely assume that the DIF is now well into negative territory: as of today depositors have no insurance courtesy of a banking system that has leeched out all the capital of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Let's pray there is no run on the bank soon.
Pursuant to these requirements, staff estimates that both the Fund balance and the reserve ratio as of September 30, 2009, will be negative. This reflects, in part, an increase in provisioning for anticipated failures. In contrast, cash and marketable securities available to resolve failed institutions remain positive.Additionally, the FDIC has now raised its expectation for bank failure costs from $70 billion $100 billion. Feel free to expect this number to continue growing.
Staff has also projected the Fund balance and reserve ratio for each quarter over the next several years using the most recently available information on expected failures and loss rates and statistical analyses of trends in CAMELS downgrades, failure rates and loss rates. Staff projects that, over the period 2009 through 2013, the Fund could incur approximately $100 billion in failure costs. Staff projects that most of these costs will occur in 2009 and 2010. Approximately $25 billion of the $100 billion amount has already been incurred in failure costs so far in 2009. Staff projects that most of these costs will occur in 2009 and 2010.First Mary Schapiro has failed at her task of "regulating" anything on Wall Street, and now Sheila Bair presides over a newly insolvent institution. Chalk one up to Washington's success at "containing" the crisis. Zero Hedge wishes Ms. Bair all the luck in the world in returning the DIF to its statutory minimum requirement of 1.15% of all insured deposits (a shortfall of a mere hundred billion or so). Maybe she can convert the FDIC to a REIT and have Merrill Lynch do a concurrent IPO and follow-on offering (while Goldman raises it to a Conviction Buy which incorporates the firm's expectations for 10% GDP growth in 2010 coupled with projections for $1,000 per barrel of crude)?
FDIC's full memorandum outlining its failure can be found here.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Health Insurance Market Isn't Free
by Anton Batey | Posted on 9/29/2009 12:00:00 AM
With the government's healthcare plan looming above us, there has perhaps never been a better time for Americans to understand the excessive costs of health care, and the origins of these vast increases.
While many commentators have been quick to blame the free market for these costs, health insurance in America is not completely "free." For instance, in Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont, there are regulations called "guaranteed issues." These force insurance companies to accept all comers, regardless of preexisting conditions.
Likewise, more than 30 other states have lesser (but very similar) regulations forcing companies to accept all comers. Such regulations allow individuals to buy insurance as soon as they need a given type of high-cost care. This is like letting a driver who causes a major accident purchase the insurance after the accident and expect all his car repair bills to be paid.
In an effort to protect themselves, insurance companies would prefer to then charge more to the person who waited until he became sick to buy insurance. However, some people cannot afford these higher payments, so the government has imposed price controls.
There are also "community ratings," which require insurance companies to charge the same amount to all members of a pool. Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington are the most severe. These "community rating" laws effectively force insurance companies to finance people with preexisting conditions, and as a result they vastly increase the premiums for healthy people.
With community ratings in effect, an 18-year-old's premium is the same as 60-year-old's. Often, when a young and healthy person sees their premiums rise, he or she drops out of the insurance pool, which then leaves it more full of sick people, again increasing premiums for the remaining members. These community ratings contribute a great deal to the large number of uninsured, and are among the reasons why healthcare in New York and New Jersey is the most expensive in the country.
Another aspect that keeps insurance prices high is government-mandated coverage. The policies vary, but in some states, people who don't drink alcohol must purchase coverage for alcoholism, nonsmokers must purchase coverage for antismoking programs, non–drug users must purchase coverage for drug-abuse treatment, etc. Some states require consumers to purchase 50 or more types of mandated coverage. Special-interest groups are mainly behind these acts of legislation, which come from people in certain fields who want to expand the market for their services.
Government regulations also prohibit people from buying insurance from companies that are headquartered out of states that have a different set of regulations. This is an obvious barrier to entry, which decreases the supply of competing insurance companies and thus raises the price. As I noted before, each state determines the provisions that insurance companies must abide by. This means that the regulators essentially grant monopolies in each state, since insurance licenses must go through them. The barriers to entry in the health-insurance market are thus appalling.
So long as a market is highly competitive and has little or no barriers to entry, a particular firm acquiring significant market share will not always translate into greater market power. Were it easy for new health-insurance companies to enter into the market, surely we would be seeing a vast increase in them as a response to the record profits of the past few years. On the contrary, the number of health insurance companies has been on a consistent decline because of regulations and barriers to entry.
The current system of employer-provided health insurance traces back to domestic policy during the World War II era. Due to government policy, inflation grew both before and during WWII. As a "remedy," caps on wage increases were imposed by the government. In response, employers began to offer their employees health insurance to soften the blow and attract quality workers.
The federal government did not consider an increase in health benefits a violation of these wage controls, and in 1943 the IRS ruled that health benefits were tax exempt for workers. After the wage caps were abolished, health insurance benefits became seen as the norm and were not eliminated. For instance, by the early 1960s, General Motors was paying 100% of the healthcare bills for their employees (retirees included).
So, anyone who claims that the high costs of health insurance originated in the "free market" is either severely mistaken or lying.
There are certain groups that profit from these governmental policies: lobbyists, who obviously carry a significant amount of political clout, and the bureaucrats themselves. However, there are many more losers than winners under the current state of affairs; and adding more government provisions would only increase the costs for taxpayers and insurance consumers.
http://mises.org/story/3727
With the government's healthcare plan looming above us, there has perhaps never been a better time for Americans to understand the excessive costs of health care, and the origins of these vast increases.
While many commentators have been quick to blame the free market for these costs, health insurance in America is not completely "free." For instance, in Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont, there are regulations called "guaranteed issues." These force insurance companies to accept all comers, regardless of preexisting conditions.
Likewise, more than 30 other states have lesser (but very similar) regulations forcing companies to accept all comers. Such regulations allow individuals to buy insurance as soon as they need a given type of high-cost care. This is like letting a driver who causes a major accident purchase the insurance after the accident and expect all his car repair bills to be paid.
In an effort to protect themselves, insurance companies would prefer to then charge more to the person who waited until he became sick to buy insurance. However, some people cannot afford these higher payments, so the government has imposed price controls.
There are also "community ratings," which require insurance companies to charge the same amount to all members of a pool. Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington are the most severe. These "community rating" laws effectively force insurance companies to finance people with preexisting conditions, and as a result they vastly increase the premiums for healthy people.
With community ratings in effect, an 18-year-old's premium is the same as 60-year-old's. Often, when a young and healthy person sees their premiums rise, he or she drops out of the insurance pool, which then leaves it more full of sick people, again increasing premiums for the remaining members. These community ratings contribute a great deal to the large number of uninsured, and are among the reasons why healthcare in New York and New Jersey is the most expensive in the country.
Another aspect that keeps insurance prices high is government-mandated coverage. The policies vary, but in some states, people who don't drink alcohol must purchase coverage for alcoholism, nonsmokers must purchase coverage for antismoking programs, non–drug users must purchase coverage for drug-abuse treatment, etc. Some states require consumers to purchase 50 or more types of mandated coverage. Special-interest groups are mainly behind these acts of legislation, which come from people in certain fields who want to expand the market for their services.
Government regulations also prohibit people from buying insurance from companies that are headquartered out of states that have a different set of regulations. This is an obvious barrier to entry, which decreases the supply of competing insurance companies and thus raises the price. As I noted before, each state determines the provisions that insurance companies must abide by. This means that the regulators essentially grant monopolies in each state, since insurance licenses must go through them. The barriers to entry in the health-insurance market are thus appalling.
So long as a market is highly competitive and has little or no barriers to entry, a particular firm acquiring significant market share will not always translate into greater market power. Were it easy for new health-insurance companies to enter into the market, surely we would be seeing a vast increase in them as a response to the record profits of the past few years. On the contrary, the number of health insurance companies has been on a consistent decline because of regulations and barriers to entry.
The current system of employer-provided health insurance traces back to domestic policy during the World War II era. Due to government policy, inflation grew both before and during WWII. As a "remedy," caps on wage increases were imposed by the government. In response, employers began to offer their employees health insurance to soften the blow and attract quality workers.
The federal government did not consider an increase in health benefits a violation of these wage controls, and in 1943 the IRS ruled that health benefits were tax exempt for workers. After the wage caps were abolished, health insurance benefits became seen as the norm and were not eliminated. For instance, by the early 1960s, General Motors was paying 100% of the healthcare bills for their employees (retirees included).
So, anyone who claims that the high costs of health insurance originated in the "free market" is either severely mistaken or lying.
There are certain groups that profit from these governmental policies: lobbyists, who obviously carry a significant amount of political clout, and the bureaucrats themselves. However, there are many more losers than winners under the current state of affairs; and adding more government provisions would only increase the costs for taxpayers and insurance consumers.
http://mises.org/story/3727
Don't Believe The Iran Fearmongering
If I could go back in time, I wish I could have read something like this back before we invaded Iraq. I hope the Truth can reach a lot of people so that they can see through the thick layer of BS put on by the Obama administration.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts273.htmlby Paul Craig Roberts
Does anyone remember all the lies that they were told by President Bush and the "mainstream media" about the grave threat to America from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? These lies were repeated endlessly in the print and TV media despite the reports from the weapons inspectors, who had been sent to Iraq, that no such weapons existed.
The weapons inspectors did an honest job in Iraq and told the truth, but the mainstream media did not emphasize their findings. Instead, the media served as a Ministry of Propaganda, beating the war drums for the US government.
Now the whole process is repeating itself. This time the target is Iran.
As there is no real case against Iran, Obama took a script from Bush’s playbook and fabricated one.
First the facts: As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, Iran’s nuclear facilities are open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which carefully monitors Iran’s nuclear energy program to make certain that no material is diverted to nuclear weapons.
The IAEA has monitored Iran’s nuclear energy program and has announced repeatedly that it has found no diversion of nuclear material to a weapons program. All 16 US intelligence agencies have affirmed and reaffirmed that Iran abandoned interest in nuclear weapons years ago.
In keeping with the safeguard agreement that the IAEA be informed before an enrichment facility comes online, Iran informed the IAEA on September 21 that it had a new nuclear facility under construction. By informing the IAEA, Iran fulfilled its obligations under the safeguards agreement. The IAEA will inspect the facility and monitor the nuclear material produced to make sure it is not diverted to a weapons program.
Despite these unequivocal facts, Obama announced on September 25 that Iran has been caught with a "secret nuclear facility" with which to produce a bomb that would threaten the world.
The Obama regime’s claim that Iran is not in compliance with the safeguards agreement is disinformation. Between the end of 2004 and early 2007, Iran voluntarily complied with an additional protocol (Code 3.1) that was never ratified and never became a legal part of the safeguards agreement. The additional protocol would have required Iran to notify the IAEA prior to beginning construction of a new facility, whereas the safeguards agreement in force requires notification prior to completion of a new facility. Iran ceased its voluntary compliance with the unratified additional protocol in March 2007, most likely because of the American and Israeli misrepresentations of Iran’s existing facilities and military threats against them.
By accusing Iran of having a secret "nuclear weapons program" and demanding that Iran "come clean" about the nonexistent program, adding that he does not rule out a military attack on Iran, Obama mimics the discredited Bush regime’s use of nonexistent Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" to set up Iraq for invasion.
The US media, even the "liberal" National Public Radio, quickly fell in with the Obama lie machine. Steven Thomma of the McClatchy Newspapers declared the non-operational facility under construction, which Iran reported to the IAEA, to be "a secret nuclear facility."
Thomma, reported incorrectly that the world didn’t learn of Iran’s "secret" facility, the one that Iran reported to the IAEA the previous Monday, until Obama announced it in a joint appearance in Pittsburgh the following Friday with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkoszy.
Obviously, Thomma has no command over the facts, a routine inadequacy of "mainstream media" reporters. The new facility was revealed when Iran voluntarily reported the facility to the IAEA on September 21.
Ali Akbar Dareini, an Associated Press writer, reported, incorrectly, over AP: "The presence of a second uranium-enrichment site that could potentially produce material for a nuclear weapon has provided one of the strongest indications yet that Iran has something to hide."
Dareini goes on to write that "the existence of the secret site was first revealed by Western intelligence officials and diplomats on Friday." Dareini is mistaken. We learned of the facility when the IAEA announced that Iran had reported the facility the previous Monday in keeping with the safeguards agreement.
| |
Dareini’s untruthful report of "a secret underground uranium enrichment facility whose existence has been hidden from international inspectors for years" helped to heighten the orchestrated alarm.
There you have it. The president of the United States and his European puppets are doing what they do best – lying through their teeth. The US "mainstream media" repeats the lies as if they were facts. The US "media" is again making itself an accomplice to wars based on fabrications. Apparently, the media’s main interest is to please the US government and hopefully obtain a taxpayer bailout of its failing print operations.
Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a rare man of principle who has not sold his integrity to the US and Israeli governments, refuted in his report (September 7, 2009) the baseless "accusations that information has been withheld from the Board of Governors about Iran’s nuclear programme. I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member states, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith."
Just as the factual reports from the weapons inspectors in Iraq were ignored by the Bush Regime, the factual reports from the IAEA are ignored by the Obama Regime.
Like the Bush Regime, the Middle East policy of the Obama Regime is based in lies and deception.
Who is the worst enemy of the American people, Iran or the government in Washington and the media whores who serve it?
Private Police Force Patrolling Montana Streets
This is a very suspicious story in my opinion. Montana has moved towards state sovereignty, bucked Federal gun laws and has some of the most Constitutionally sound citizens of any state. It seems to me if civil unrest breaks out on a nationwide scale the US wants to have a presence in Montana.
A private security force whose biggest role is helping the U.S. government to “combat terrorism” is now patrolling the streets of a town in Montana, acting as law enforcement but accountable to nobody and operating completely outside the limitations of the U.S. constitution in a chilling throwback to the brownshirts of Nazi Germany.
The American Police Force organization is a paramilitary unit that “provides surveillance, investigative, and military services across the world,” according to its website, which shows men dressed in military fatigues carrying machine guns.
“As part of our mission, APF plays a critical role in helping the U.S. government meet vital homeland security and national defense needs. Within the last 5 years the United States has been far and away our #1 client. Technologies, programs, and services performed by APF have played a very important role in U.S. military and civilian efforts to protect our homeland and combat terrorism,” the website states.
APF were originally contracted to provide security at a previously empty detention center in Hardin, a small town in Montana, but are now patrolling the streets driving SUV’s with “Police Department” printed on them despite the fact that Hardin doesn’t have a police department. American Police Force has no jurisdiction in the area because it is a private organization, not a police force.According to Two Rivers Authority officials, having the private security force patrol the streets was not part of the contract. “I have no idea. I really don’t because that’s not been a part of any of the discussions we’ve had with any of them,” Two Rivers Authority’s Al Peterson told KULR 8 News. Peterson said that patrolling the streets was on the “wishlist” of APF’s Captain Michael.
The American Police Force is a shady outfit shrouded in suspicion. According to an Associated Press report, questions over the legitimacy of the organization abound.
“Government contract databases show no record of the company. Security industry representatives and federal officials said they had never heard of it. On its Web site, the company lists as its headquarters a building in Washington near the White House that holds “virtual offices.” A spokeswoman for the building said American Police Force never completed its application to use the address,” reports AP.
Furthermore, APF was tasked with filling the empty Hardin detention center with inmates, without any clear indication of where those prisoners would come from.
“It’s unclear where the company will get the inmates for the jail. Montana says it’s not sending inmates to the jail, and neither are federal officials in the state,” according to the report.
Maybe the inmates will be the local population of Hardin if American Police Force is allowed to continue to pose as a law enforcement outfit in the town, which is exactly what they intend to do for at least another month.
Having a private security force whose stated mission is to help the U.S. government “combat terrorism” patrol the streets of small towns in America without even having the authority to do so from local authorities is obviously a frightening pretext and harks back to the private paramilitary forces that helped Adolf Hitler rise to power in Nazi Germany.
Many fear that if martial law is declared in response to a flu pandemic or other emergency, private security forces such as APF will be used by the government to oppress citizens by operating outside of the law.
This is completely unconstitutional and a flagrant threat to the liberty and security of the population of Hardin. The County Sheriff is effectively breaking the law if he doesn’t immediately kick APF out of the area and end the occupation of the town by a private paramilitary army.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Breaking News: Obama Safe Schools Czar Promoted Pedophilia
New audio has been uncovered about soddomite Kevin Jennings who I reported to be degenerate filth back in June of this year (here and here). In this audio he is heard discussing a 24 year old homo colleague of his told him of molesting a 14 year old boy, Kevin Jennings response? "I hope you knew to wear a condom".
You just keep telling yourself that these "gays" are normal.
You just keep telling yourself that these "gays" are normal.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
What's In The Talmud?
1. 'We beg Thee, 0 Lord, inflict Thy wrath on the nations not believing in Thee. Take away, 0 Lord, all hope from them. Destroy all foes of Thy nation.' -Synagaga Judaica, p. 212. Minhagen, p. 23. Crach Chain, 480 Magah.
2. 'The teachings of the Talmud stand above all other laws. They are more important than the laws of Moses.' -- Rabbi Issael, Rabbi Chasbar, et. al.
3. "The decisions of the Talmud are words of the living God. Jehovah Himself asks the opinion of the earthly rabbis when there are difficult affairs in heaven." -- Rabbi Menechen Commentary on Fifth Book-
4. "Jehovah Himself studies the Talmud standing, he has such respect for that book." -- Tract Mechillo.
5. "It is more wicked to question the words of the rabbis than those of the Torah." -- Michna Sanhedryn 11:3.
6. 'It is forbidden to disclose the secrets of the law. He who would do it would be as guilty as though he destroyed the whole world." -- Jektat Chadasz, 171, 3.
7. "Every goy who studies the Talmud and every Jew who helps him in it, ought to die.', --Sanhedryn, 59a, aboda Zora 8-6, Szagiga 13.
8. "To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly." -- Libbre David 37.
9. "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death." -- Libbre David 37.
10. "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."--Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Via 17.
11. "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.,, -- Saba Mecia 114, 6.
12. "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." -- Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D.
13. "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night." -Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L.
14. "As soon as the King Messiah will declare himself, He will destroy Rome and make a wilderness of it. Thorns and weeds will grow in the Pope's palace. Then He will start a merciless war on non-Jews and will overpower them. He will slay them in masses, kill their kings and lay waste the whole Roman land. He will say to the Jews: 'I am the King Messiah for whom you have been waiting. Take the silver and gold from the goyim.' .. --Josiah 60, 6. Rabbi Abarbanel to Daniel 7, 13.
15. "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." -- ..9boda Sarah 37a.
16. "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl." -- &ad. Shas. 2:2.
17. "A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat." --Hadarine, 20, B; Schulchan 9ruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348.
18. "A Jew may misuse the non-Jewess in her state of unbelief." -- Maimonides, Jak. Chasaka 2:2.
19. " IF a goy kills a goy or a Jew he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy he is NOT responsible." --Tosefta. 9boda Za,-a 8, 5.
20. "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."--Schuichan Qruch, Choszen Hajpiszpat jog
21. "Thou shalt not do injury to thy neighbor (Bible), but it is not said, 'Thou shalt not do injury to a Goy.' " -- Mishna Sanhedryn 57.
22. "When you go to war do not go as the First, but as the last, so that you may return as the first. Five things has Kanaan recommended to his sons: 'Love each other, love the robbery, hate your masters and never tell the truth.' " -- Pesachis F. 113B.
23. "A Jew is permitted to rape, cheat and perjure himself; but he must take care that he is not found out, so that Israel may not suffer." -- Schulchan Aruch, Jore Dia.
24. "A Jew may rob a goy - that is,.he may cheat him in a bill, if unlikely to be perceived by him." -Schalchan Arach, Choszen Hamiszpat 348.
25. "If a goy wants a Jew to stand witness against a Jew in a Court of Law, and if the Jew could give fair evidence, he is forbidden to do it; but if a Jew wants a Jew to be a witness in a similar case against a goy, he may do it." -- Schalchan .9ruch, Choszen Hasiszpat 28, Art. 3 and 4.
26. "Those who do not confess the Torah and the Prophets must be killed. Who has the power to kill them, let them kill them openly with the sword. if not, let them use artifices, till they are done away with." -- Schulchan Qruch. Choszon Haviszpat 425.5.
27. "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general' "--Schalchan arach. Choszen Hasisxpat 348.
28. "Should a Jew inform the goyish authorities that another Jew has much money, and the other will suffer a loss through it, he must give him emuneration."--Schalchan Oruch, Choszen Maipiszpat 388
29. 'How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."--Tosefta, Qbda Zara VIRZ, 5.
30. "On the house of the goy one looks as on the fold of cattle." -- Tosefta, Erabin VZZ, 1.
31. "All vows, oaths, promises, engagements, and swearing, which, beginning this very day or reconciliation till the next day of reconciliation, we intend to vow, promise, swear, and bind ourselves to fulfill, we repent of beforehand; let them be illegalized, acquitted, annihilated, abolished, valueless, unimportant. Our vows shall be no vows, and our oaths no oaths at all." -- Schulchan 9ruch, Edit. 1, 136. (The Jewish Kol Nidre ['All Vows"] Oath has been set to a morbid Jewish music, and is often heard on the radio. it is sung as a chant at each Yom Kippur [Jewish New Year] service [September 17].)
32. "Everything a Jew needs for his church ritual no goy is permitted to manufacture, but only a Jew, because this must be manufactured by human beings and the Jew is not permitted to consider the goyim as human beings." -- Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaiw 14, 20, 32, 33, 39. TaIDud Jebamoth 61.
33.. "A Jewish mid-wife is not only permitted but she is compelled to help a Jewish mother on Saturday (Jewish Sabbath) and when so doing to do anything which otherwise would desecrate the Saturday. But it is forbidden to help a non-Jewish woman even if it should be possible to help her without desecrating the Saturday, because she is to be considered only as an animal." -- Schulchan gruch, Orach Chaim 330.
34. "At the time of the Cholhamoed the transaction of any kind of business is forbidden. But it is permitted to cheat a goy, because cheating of goyim at any time pleases the Lord." --Chuichan Qruch, Orach ChaiD 539.
35. "The Jews are strictly Forbidden to cheat their brothers and it is considered cheating already if onesixth of the value has been taken away from him. Whoever has cheated his brother has to return it to him. Naturally all that only holds towards the Jew, to cheat a goy he is permitted and he is not permitted to return to him what he cheated him out of. Because the Bible says: 'Thou shalt not cheat thy next brother,' but the non-Jews are not our brethren, but as mentioned above, worse than dogs." -- aruch hoszen Haniszpat 227.
Download this site before you can't: http://www.come-and-hear.com/download.html
2. 'The teachings of the Talmud stand above all other laws. They are more important than the laws of Moses.' -- Rabbi Issael, Rabbi Chasbar, et. al.
3. "The decisions of the Talmud are words of the living God. Jehovah Himself asks the opinion of the earthly rabbis when there are difficult affairs in heaven." -- Rabbi Menechen Commentary on Fifth Book-
4. "Jehovah Himself studies the Talmud standing, he has such respect for that book." -- Tract Mechillo.
5. "It is more wicked to question the words of the rabbis than those of the Torah." -- Michna Sanhedryn 11:3.
6. 'It is forbidden to disclose the secrets of the law. He who would do it would be as guilty as though he destroyed the whole world." -- Jektat Chadasz, 171, 3.
7. "Every goy who studies the Talmud and every Jew who helps him in it, ought to die.', --Sanhedryn, 59a, aboda Zora 8-6, Szagiga 13.
8. "To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly." -- Libbre David 37.
9. "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death." -- Libbre David 37.
10. "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."--Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Via 17.
11. "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.,, -- Saba Mecia 114, 6.
12. "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." -- Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D.
13. "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night." -Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L.
14. "As soon as the King Messiah will declare himself, He will destroy Rome and make a wilderness of it. Thorns and weeds will grow in the Pope's palace. Then He will start a merciless war on non-Jews and will overpower them. He will slay them in masses, kill their kings and lay waste the whole Roman land. He will say to the Jews: 'I am the King Messiah for whom you have been waiting. Take the silver and gold from the goyim.' .. --Josiah 60, 6. Rabbi Abarbanel to Daniel 7, 13.
15. "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." -- ..9boda Sarah 37a.
16. "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl." -- &ad. Shas. 2:2.
17. "A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat." --Hadarine, 20, B; Schulchan 9ruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348.
18. "A Jew may misuse the non-Jewess in her state of unbelief." -- Maimonides, Jak. Chasaka 2:2.
19. " IF a goy kills a goy or a Jew he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy he is NOT responsible." --Tosefta. 9boda Za,-a 8, 5.
20. "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."--Schuichan Qruch, Choszen Hajpiszpat jog
21. "Thou shalt not do injury to thy neighbor (Bible), but it is not said, 'Thou shalt not do injury to a Goy.' " -- Mishna Sanhedryn 57.
22. "When you go to war do not go as the First, but as the last, so that you may return as the first. Five things has Kanaan recommended to his sons: 'Love each other, love the robbery, hate your masters and never tell the truth.' " -- Pesachis F. 113B.
23. "A Jew is permitted to rape, cheat and perjure himself; but he must take care that he is not found out, so that Israel may not suffer." -- Schulchan Aruch, Jore Dia.
24. "A Jew may rob a goy - that is,.he may cheat him in a bill, if unlikely to be perceived by him." -Schalchan Arach, Choszen Hamiszpat 348.
25. "If a goy wants a Jew to stand witness against a Jew in a Court of Law, and if the Jew could give fair evidence, he is forbidden to do it; but if a Jew wants a Jew to be a witness in a similar case against a goy, he may do it." -- Schalchan .9ruch, Choszen Hasiszpat 28, Art. 3 and 4.
26. "Those who do not confess the Torah and the Prophets must be killed. Who has the power to kill them, let them kill them openly with the sword. if not, let them use artifices, till they are done away with." -- Schulchan Qruch. Choszon Haviszpat 425.5.
27. "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general' "--Schalchan arach. Choszen Hasisxpat 348.
28. "Should a Jew inform the goyish authorities that another Jew has much money, and the other will suffer a loss through it, he must give him emuneration."--Schalchan Oruch, Choszen Maipiszpat 388
29. 'How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."--Tosefta, Qbda Zara VIRZ, 5.
30. "On the house of the goy one looks as on the fold of cattle." -- Tosefta, Erabin VZZ, 1.
31. "All vows, oaths, promises, engagements, and swearing, which, beginning this very day or reconciliation till the next day of reconciliation, we intend to vow, promise, swear, and bind ourselves to fulfill, we repent of beforehand; let them be illegalized, acquitted, annihilated, abolished, valueless, unimportant. Our vows shall be no vows, and our oaths no oaths at all." -- Schulchan 9ruch, Edit. 1, 136. (The Jewish Kol Nidre ['All Vows"] Oath has been set to a morbid Jewish music, and is often heard on the radio. it is sung as a chant at each Yom Kippur [Jewish New Year] service [September 17].)
32. "Everything a Jew needs for his church ritual no goy is permitted to manufacture, but only a Jew, because this must be manufactured by human beings and the Jew is not permitted to consider the goyim as human beings." -- Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaiw 14, 20, 32, 33, 39. TaIDud Jebamoth 61.
33.. "A Jewish mid-wife is not only permitted but she is compelled to help a Jewish mother on Saturday (Jewish Sabbath) and when so doing to do anything which otherwise would desecrate the Saturday. But it is forbidden to help a non-Jewish woman even if it should be possible to help her without desecrating the Saturday, because she is to be considered only as an animal." -- Schulchan gruch, Orach Chaim 330.
34. "At the time of the Cholhamoed the transaction of any kind of business is forbidden. But it is permitted to cheat a goy, because cheating of goyim at any time pleases the Lord." --Chuichan Qruch, Orach ChaiD 539.
35. "The Jews are strictly Forbidden to cheat their brothers and it is considered cheating already if onesixth of the value has been taken away from him. Whoever has cheated his brother has to return it to him. Naturally all that only holds towards the Jew, to cheat a goy he is permitted and he is not permitted to return to him what he cheated him out of. Because the Bible says: 'Thou shalt not cheat thy next brother,' but the non-Jews are not our brethren, but as mentioned above, worse than dogs." -- aruch hoszen Haniszpat 227.
Download this site before you can't: http://www.come-and-hear.com/download.html
Bikini Vs. Burka
By: Henry Makow
On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka.
Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini.
One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called "civilizations."
The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about stripping Muslims of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.
I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.
For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her.It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere.
The Muslim woman's focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband.
In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time.
In America, the cultural measure of a woman's value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.)
As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" furtively rather than to demand patient courtship, love and marriage. As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband's seed.
The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason.
Feminism deceives women to believe femininity has resulted in "oppression" and they should adopt male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.
This is the goal of the NWO social engineers: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," women are not supposed to be mothers and progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered, autonomous sex objects.
Liberating women is often given as an excuse for the war in Afghanistan. Liberating them to what? To Britney Spears? To low-rise "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America? If they really cared about women, maybe they'd end the war.
Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God's surrogates: creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for marriage. We are to remain single: stunted, sex-starved and self-obsessed.
We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are meant to remain lonely and isolated, in a state of perpetual courtship, dependent on consumer products for our identity.
This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," she is not likely to find a permanent mate.
Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority.
Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.
I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman's consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.
The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
The Founding Fathers On Gun Control
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What did they really mean? What were they thinking?... Read on to learn what our founding fathers really said about the right to keep and bear arms.
TO TAKE ARMS AGAINST THE BRITISH
From "A Journal of the Times", calling the citizens of Boston to arm themselves in response to British abuses of power, 1769:
"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature and have been carried to so great lengths as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense, and as Mr. Blackstone observes it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
ASSAULT RIFLES, COLONIAL STYLE
George Mason's Fairfax County Militia Plan, 1775:
"And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, and to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, and always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, and a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls."
GIVE ME FLINTLOCKS OR GIVE ME DEATH
Patrick Henry, 1775:
"They tell us that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us."
THOUGHTS ON DEFENSIVE WAR
Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:
The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."
SOUND BITES FROM BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION
Samuel Adams:
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
WE HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY AND HE IS US
Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
TREAD LIGHTLY
Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15 year-old nephew:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
Noah Webster, 1787:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
ON THE ROLE OF THE MILITIA
James Madison, "The influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, "46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29,1788:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 6-8-1789
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia,
composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
Alexander Hamilton, "Concerning the Militia," 29 Federalist Daily Advertiser, January 10, 1788:
"There is something so far fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery. Where, in the name of common sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular states are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the states ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia."
Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that
army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."
Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters form the Federal Farmer, 1788:
"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Trench Coxe, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:
"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Thomas Jefferson
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."
Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, "Debates in the Several State Conventions" 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia,
1836
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
ANTECEDENTS Connecticut gun code of 1650:
"All persons shall bear arms, and every male person shall have in continual readiness a good musket or other gun, fit for service."
Article 3 of the West Virginia state constitution:
"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use."
Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason:
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
A proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, as passed by the Pennsylvania legislature:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own states or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."
ROUGH DRAFT
An amendment to the Constitution, proposed by James Madison:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
THE FINAL DRAFT
The Second Amendment, as passed September 25, 1789:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
TO TAKE ARMS AGAINST THE BRITISH
From "A Journal of the Times", calling the citizens of Boston to arm themselves in response to British abuses of power, 1769:
"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature and have been carried to so great lengths as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense, and as Mr. Blackstone observes it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
ASSAULT RIFLES, COLONIAL STYLE
George Mason's Fairfax County Militia Plan, 1775:
"And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, and to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, and always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, and a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls."
GIVE ME FLINTLOCKS OR GIVE ME DEATH
Patrick Henry, 1775:
"They tell us that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us."
THOUGHTS ON DEFENSIVE WAR
Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:
The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."
SOUND BITES FROM BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION
Samuel Adams:
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
WE HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY AND HE IS US
Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
TREAD LIGHTLY
Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15 year-old nephew:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
Noah Webster, 1787:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
ON THE ROLE OF THE MILITIA
James Madison, "The influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, "46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29,1788:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 6-8-1789
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia,
composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
Alexander Hamilton, "Concerning the Militia," 29 Federalist Daily Advertiser, January 10, 1788:
"There is something so far fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery. Where, in the name of common sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular states are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the states ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia."
Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that
army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."
Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters form the Federal Farmer, 1788:
"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Trench Coxe, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:
"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Thomas Jefferson
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."
Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, "Debates in the Several State Conventions" 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia,
1836
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
ANTECEDENTS Connecticut gun code of 1650:
"All persons shall bear arms, and every male person shall have in continual readiness a good musket or other gun, fit for service."
Article 3 of the West Virginia state constitution:
"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use."
Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason:
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
A proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, as passed by the Pennsylvania legislature:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own states or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."
ROUGH DRAFT
An amendment to the Constitution, proposed by James Madison:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
THE FINAL DRAFT
The Second Amendment, as passed September 25, 1789:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Barack Hussein Obama Starts Em Off Young
You gotta hand it to the commies, they use the 10th plank to their full advantage.
Friday, September 25, 2009
G20 Police Shove Girl On A Bike
How long will you let this type of action continue America? Will you wait until it is your wife or your daughter?
Ted Kennedy's Funeral Cost Taxpayers $431,000
That fat prick is still screwing us from hell.
The city of Boston spent $431,000 on overtime costs to deploy 629 police officers, 48 firefighters, and a raft of other workers for the funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, according to information released to the Globe yesterday under a public records request.
City officials said a federal grant for “urban areas security’’ would cover $400,000 of the cost.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/25/kennedy_funeral_cost_city_431000/
The city of Boston spent $431,000 on overtime costs to deploy 629 police officers, 48 firefighters, and a raft of other workers for the funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, according to information released to the Globe yesterday under a public records request.
City officials said a federal grant for “urban areas security’’ would cover $400,000 of the cost.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/25/kennedy_funeral_cost_city_431000/
White Guilt Awarness Day
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33641
by Caroline Rushing
09/22/2009
If you are straight, white, and male, please stand up. Congratulations, you are more privileged than you probably ever realized. Because of your blessed birth, you are responsible for the victimization of thousands of your underprivileged peers. You may not be aware, but implicitly you hate, resent, and distrust everyone who does not look like you. How does this make you feel? No, do not answer. Instead, allow us to tell you how you should be feeling. You should be feeling extremely guilty and ashamed, and in order to move past your racist tendencies and make amends for being born privileged, you should apologize to those you victimize daily. Now, tell us how you feel.
The above sums up the way the Left deals with diversity. I have witnessed this firsthand during “diversity day” for a leadership conference just this past summer at the University of Virginia, where I am a rising third-year student. This kind of indoctrination from the Left is not unique to my school.
Allow me to walk you through the day I call “white guilt awareness day.” Liberals want to make whites -- men especially -- feel guilty for being white, and to feel responsible for centuries of oppressing minorities. They want to show them that deep down whites inherently resent and hate blacks and other minorities, and college professors and administrators have taken it upon themselves to “help” students discover these deeply-rooted feelings.
During breakfast, we took a “privilege assessment” to gauge how much more advantaged white people are than everyone else. The measure of privilege was split up into three categories: Gender and Sexual Orientation, Race, and Nationality. Here are some of the criteria used to assess us in the “race” category:
1) Most hair stylists know how to work with your hair.
2) You can choose blemish cover or “flesh” color bandages that more or less match your skin tone.
3) You have never been asked if you are the hired help.
These are just a few of the statements that were used to award “privilege” points. It is no surprise that white males turned out to be the most privileged according to this assessment. When we moved to discussion, we talked about how our privilege -- or lack thereof -- made us feel. The faculty attempted to provoke white students into saying how “shocked and guilty” we felt and how we “had never thought of these things during day-to-day activities.” Upon being made aware of our “white privilege,” we were immediately sent on a guilt trip.
Next, we moved to a lecture discussing an article titled "The Central Frame of Color-Blind Racism." In his remarks, the professor essentially told the class that implicit feelings of resentment and hatred are engrained in all white people. Now, not only did the white students feel guilty, but also the minority students felt victimized and resentful.
The last infuriating activity was a personal reflection activity. We were given web-charts with eight stems in the web. Each stem was to be filled with the following categories: race, gender, sexual preference, socio-economic status, religion, disability, and two characteristics of our choice. We then were asked to discuss, in small groups, a time we were proud and a time we were ashamed to identify with one of these characteristics. A “privileged” man in my group fed right into the liberal agenda of the activity and explained he has been ashamed of being a white man when he sees the terrible things that white men have done, the injustices in the world, and how he has so much while others have so little. This poor guy took the diversity day bait hook, line, and sinker.
“White guilt” is the politically correct agenda taught by the Left on college campuses today. That is why colleges such as Bryn Mawr and Mt. Holyoke have started student organizations called “Whiteness Awareness Allies Group,” and “Mt. Holyoke Anti-Racism Coalition.” These groups were formed so that white students can sit around and “facilitate dialogue about whiteness,” “deconstruct white privilege,” feel guilty about being white, and find ways to apologize to society for the injustices whites have inflicted upon other cultures.
Sadly, this is exactly what the politically correct elitists on the Left want. White guilt perpetuates the victimization of minorities by convincing them of how terrible their existence is. As long as we keep telling people they are victims, the Left will continue their reign over the oppressed, students will be forced to be more politically correct in order to avoid further injustice, and white students will continue to be ashamed of themselves and find ways to apologize to society. White hate groups are just one of a few different means used at universities to battle the “privileged.”
Welcome to the politically correct world of higher education -- allow them to tell you how you should feel.
Ms. Rushing is a third-year student at the University of Virginia and interned with the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute.
by Caroline Rushing
09/22/2009
If you are straight, white, and male, please stand up. Congratulations, you are more privileged than you probably ever realized. Because of your blessed birth, you are responsible for the victimization of thousands of your underprivileged peers. You may not be aware, but implicitly you hate, resent, and distrust everyone who does not look like you. How does this make you feel? No, do not answer. Instead, allow us to tell you how you should be feeling. You should be feeling extremely guilty and ashamed, and in order to move past your racist tendencies and make amends for being born privileged, you should apologize to those you victimize daily. Now, tell us how you feel.
The above sums up the way the Left deals with diversity. I have witnessed this firsthand during “diversity day” for a leadership conference just this past summer at the University of Virginia, where I am a rising third-year student. This kind of indoctrination from the Left is not unique to my school.
Allow me to walk you through the day I call “white guilt awareness day.” Liberals want to make whites -- men especially -- feel guilty for being white, and to feel responsible for centuries of oppressing minorities. They want to show them that deep down whites inherently resent and hate blacks and other minorities, and college professors and administrators have taken it upon themselves to “help” students discover these deeply-rooted feelings.
During breakfast, we took a “privilege assessment” to gauge how much more advantaged white people are than everyone else. The measure of privilege was split up into three categories: Gender and Sexual Orientation, Race, and Nationality. Here are some of the criteria used to assess us in the “race” category:
1) Most hair stylists know how to work with your hair.
2) You can choose blemish cover or “flesh” color bandages that more or less match your skin tone.
3) You have never been asked if you are the hired help.
These are just a few of the statements that were used to award “privilege” points. It is no surprise that white males turned out to be the most privileged according to this assessment. When we moved to discussion, we talked about how our privilege -- or lack thereof -- made us feel. The faculty attempted to provoke white students into saying how “shocked and guilty” we felt and how we “had never thought of these things during day-to-day activities.” Upon being made aware of our “white privilege,” we were immediately sent on a guilt trip.
Next, we moved to a lecture discussing an article titled "The Central Frame of Color-Blind Racism." In his remarks, the professor essentially told the class that implicit feelings of resentment and hatred are engrained in all white people. Now, not only did the white students feel guilty, but also the minority students felt victimized and resentful.
The last infuriating activity was a personal reflection activity. We were given web-charts with eight stems in the web. Each stem was to be filled with the following categories: race, gender, sexual preference, socio-economic status, religion, disability, and two characteristics of our choice. We then were asked to discuss, in small groups, a time we were proud and a time we were ashamed to identify with one of these characteristics. A “privileged” man in my group fed right into the liberal agenda of the activity and explained he has been ashamed of being a white man when he sees the terrible things that white men have done, the injustices in the world, and how he has so much while others have so little. This poor guy took the diversity day bait hook, line, and sinker.
“White guilt” is the politically correct agenda taught by the Left on college campuses today. That is why colleges such as Bryn Mawr and Mt. Holyoke have started student organizations called “Whiteness Awareness Allies Group,” and “Mt. Holyoke Anti-Racism Coalition.” These groups were formed so that white students can sit around and “facilitate dialogue about whiteness,” “deconstruct white privilege,” feel guilty about being white, and find ways to apologize to society for the injustices whites have inflicted upon other cultures.
Sadly, this is exactly what the politically correct elitists on the Left want. White guilt perpetuates the victimization of minorities by convincing them of how terrible their existence is. As long as we keep telling people they are victims, the Left will continue their reign over the oppressed, students will be forced to be more politically correct in order to avoid further injustice, and white students will continue to be ashamed of themselves and find ways to apologize to society. White hate groups are just one of a few different means used at universities to battle the “privileged.”
Welcome to the politically correct world of higher education -- allow them to tell you how you should feel.
Ms. Rushing is a third-year student at the University of Virginia and interned with the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Quote of the Week
Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western exploration, science, and conquest that have reveled the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of western power long after colonialism, imperialism and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles Whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don't grasp what it really means: humiliation. The White man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't conscious of it. Superiority excites envy. Destroying White civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call "minorities.
Joseph Sobran, 1997
Joseph Sobran, 1997
Japan Cutting Ties With America?
For over 50 years, one party ruled Japan virtually uninterrupted. During that time, Japan remained a loyal ally and supporter of U.S. policy. This month, a historic event took place.
Japan has new leadership. In a landslide victory, a new party has done the seemingly impossible. A new freshman class of leaders now governs the Land of the Rising Sun. The effects are already rippling across the Pacific toward America.
Yukio Hatoyama is Japan’s new leader. He officially took office last Wednesday, and he is already threatening to split with the United States.
Hatoyama blames America for the global economic crisis and says that the U.S. is responsible for “the destruction of human dignity.” He campaigned on protecting traditional Japanese economic activities and reducing U.S.-led globalization.
During the run-up to the election, Hatoyama’s finance minister told the bbc he was worried about the future value of the dollar, and that if his party were elected in the upcoming national elections, it would refuse to purchase any more U.S. treasuries unless they were denominated in Japanese yen.
Japan is the world’s second-largest economy. It is also America’s second-most-important creditor. The U.S. government owes Japan over $724 billion! The only nation America owes more money to is China ($800 billion). The U.S. also imports $140 billion worth of goods from Japan each year.
If Japan were to follow through with its threat to only lend in yen, the dollar would probably fall hard. What would that mean? America gets more expensive consumer goods, higher unemployment, and currency inflation. If other nations like China follow suit, we would be looking at a currency crisis—Zimbabwe-style.
The new government in Japan has also pledged to diversify its foreign currency reserves away from the dollar. This means that at some point, it will need to dramatically reduce how much money it lends to America. America is planning to borrow record amounts over the next couple of years, so something isn’t adding up here. Where will the money come from?
“The financial crisis has suggested to many that the era of U.S. unilateralism may come to an end,” Hatoyama wrote in an August 26 New York Times article titled “A New Path for Japan.” “It has also raised doubts about the permanence of the dollar as the key global currency.”
But Hatoyama isn’t just charting a separate economic course for Japan. His campaign also promised a more “independent” foreign policy from Washington, and closer relations with Japan’s Asian neighbors.
More alarming for American policymakers, Hatoyama has authorized a wide-ranging review of the U.S. military presence on Japanese soil. He is reexamining the agreement that permits U.S. warships to dock at Japanese ports, and has said Japan should take a second look at why it is spending billions to house and transfer U.S. troops between its islands. Hatoyama has also moved to quickly end Japan’s fueling support for the U.S. naval anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
On Wednesday, an even bigger torpedo hit. Both U.S. and Japanese officials confirmed that discussions were underway to remove all U.S. fighter aircraft from Japan.
So many alarm bells have been clanging in Washington that the Australian reports the U.S. administration has requested “immediate clarifying discussions” on just how far Japan wants to take the disengagement. But there may not be too much America can do if Japan is intent on reducing America’s presence in Japanese territory. Regarding the U.S.-Japan security relationship, Richard Armitage, former U.S. deputy secretary of state, said: “If the government of Japan asked us to change things, we’d argue, we’d kick and scream, but ultimately we’d have to do it.”
Japan is a major platform for American power projection. Losing it would be devastating to U.S. security.
Japan is America’s most important forward base in the Pacific. It is an unsinkable aircraft carrier from which American task forces can operate to secure the flow of trade and resources across the Pacific.
At a time when China is increasingly challenging American authority in the East and South China Sea, when North Korea is brandishing nuclear weapons, and Islamic terrorism is on the upswing in the Philippines and Southeast Asia, America can ill afford to lose Japanese military and logistical support.
But it is losing it.
In his New York Times article, Prime Minister Hatoyama asked, “How should Japan maintain its political and economic independence and protect its national interest when caught between the United States, which is fighting to retain its position as the world’s dominant power, and China, which is seeking ways to become dominant?” (emphasis mine throughout).
Being allied with America has become a problem for Japan.
The new prime minister is no doubt asking himself: How do I protect Japan’s interests? The distant Americans sit 5,500 miles across the Pacific Ocean. One billion Chinese could fly to Tokyo for breakfast, Taiwan for lunch, and back home for kung pao dinner before America’s fastest jets could make it much past Hawaii.
In the same article, Hatoyama answered his own question: “[W]e must not forget our identity as a nation located in Asia,” he said. “I believe that the East Asian region, which is showing increasing vitality, must be recognized as Japan’s basic sphere of being.”
“I also feel that as a result of the failure of the Iraq war and the financial crisis, the era of U.S.-led globalism is coming to an end ….” Hatoyama even said that Japan must “spare no effort to build the permanent security frameworks” essential to creating a new anti-dollar regional Asian currency shared by China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
Hatoyama doesn’t just think America’s economy and power are fading fast, he’s publishing it in the New York Times! He sees Japan’s future as being with Asia. And he’s right.
There is a bold movement occurring in Asia. Old animosities are being forgotten, or resolved. “I believe that regional integration and collective security is the path we should follow,” Hatoyama reiterated. Only “by moving toward greater integration” can Asia’s problems be solved, he said.
This movement toward greater Asian cooperation will soon speed up drastically. Not only do the facts prove it, biblical prophecy forecasts it. A major military alliance between Russia, China and Japan is about to be locked in. (Read about this specific prophecy in Russia and China in Prophecy.)
Prime Minister Hatoyama may be the most pro-Asian Japanese prime minister yet. He has pledged to ignore Japan’s World War ii shrine that honors the country’s war dead, to avoid offending Korea. His only son is attending a prestigious Russian engineering university. And he is the first Japanese prime minister to receive election coverage by any Chinese print media—and it was front-page news in the Communist Party’s People’s Daily. Also, for the first time, a Chinese television station provided live coverage of the election that saw Hatoyama take power.
Japan’s new policy is focused on Asia—and winning friends on the Asian continent.
America is about to lose its Japanese ally. “The U.S. has been critical of new trends in Japan, but we are not a colony of Washington and we should be able to say what we want,” said Makoto Watanabe, a professor of media and communication at Hokkaido Bunkyo University in Japan. “[W]hile under previous governments Japan had become a yes-man to the U.S., this suggests to me that healthy change is taking place.”
But that change will not be healthy—especially for America.
The Bible describes a time when America will be besieged by its former trade partners. This siege, warned about in Deuteronomy 28:52, is both economic and military in nature. “And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.”
America is about to be blockaded. For this to occur, Japan would need to take a radical turn from its recent historical political and economic persuasions.
It is radically turning. Today we are witnessing a dramatic fulfillment of this prophecy. America is about to become perilously isolated. The nation with the single largest merchant fleet in the world will turn its back on an economically waterlogged America. And America, without its most important military bases in Asia, will be one step closer to being pushed right out of the Asia Pacific altogether.
America’s ship of state is sinking. Japan’s lifeboat has already left.
Japan has new leadership. In a landslide victory, a new party has done the seemingly impossible. A new freshman class of leaders now governs the Land of the Rising Sun. The effects are already rippling across the Pacific toward America.
Yukio Hatoyama is Japan’s new leader. He officially took office last Wednesday, and he is already threatening to split with the United States.
Hatoyama blames America for the global economic crisis and says that the U.S. is responsible for “the destruction of human dignity.” He campaigned on protecting traditional Japanese economic activities and reducing U.S.-led globalization.
During the run-up to the election, Hatoyama’s finance minister told the bbc he was worried about the future value of the dollar, and that if his party were elected in the upcoming national elections, it would refuse to purchase any more U.S. treasuries unless they were denominated in Japanese yen.
Japan is the world’s second-largest economy. It is also America’s second-most-important creditor. The U.S. government owes Japan over $724 billion! The only nation America owes more money to is China ($800 billion). The U.S. also imports $140 billion worth of goods from Japan each year.
If Japan were to follow through with its threat to only lend in yen, the dollar would probably fall hard. What would that mean? America gets more expensive consumer goods, higher unemployment, and currency inflation. If other nations like China follow suit, we would be looking at a currency crisis—Zimbabwe-style.
The new government in Japan has also pledged to diversify its foreign currency reserves away from the dollar. This means that at some point, it will need to dramatically reduce how much money it lends to America. America is planning to borrow record amounts over the next couple of years, so something isn’t adding up here. Where will the money come from?
“The financial crisis has suggested to many that the era of U.S. unilateralism may come to an end,” Hatoyama wrote in an August 26 New York Times article titled “A New Path for Japan.” “It has also raised doubts about the permanence of the dollar as the key global currency.”
But Hatoyama isn’t just charting a separate economic course for Japan. His campaign also promised a more “independent” foreign policy from Washington, and closer relations with Japan’s Asian neighbors.
More alarming for American policymakers, Hatoyama has authorized a wide-ranging review of the U.S. military presence on Japanese soil. He is reexamining the agreement that permits U.S. warships to dock at Japanese ports, and has said Japan should take a second look at why it is spending billions to house and transfer U.S. troops between its islands. Hatoyama has also moved to quickly end Japan’s fueling support for the U.S. naval anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
On Wednesday, an even bigger torpedo hit. Both U.S. and Japanese officials confirmed that discussions were underway to remove all U.S. fighter aircraft from Japan.
So many alarm bells have been clanging in Washington that the Australian reports the U.S. administration has requested “immediate clarifying discussions” on just how far Japan wants to take the disengagement. But there may not be too much America can do if Japan is intent on reducing America’s presence in Japanese territory. Regarding the U.S.-Japan security relationship, Richard Armitage, former U.S. deputy secretary of state, said: “If the government of Japan asked us to change things, we’d argue, we’d kick and scream, but ultimately we’d have to do it.”
Japan is a major platform for American power projection. Losing it would be devastating to U.S. security.
Japan is America’s most important forward base in the Pacific. It is an unsinkable aircraft carrier from which American task forces can operate to secure the flow of trade and resources across the Pacific.
At a time when China is increasingly challenging American authority in the East and South China Sea, when North Korea is brandishing nuclear weapons, and Islamic terrorism is on the upswing in the Philippines and Southeast Asia, America can ill afford to lose Japanese military and logistical support.
But it is losing it.
In his New York Times article, Prime Minister Hatoyama asked, “How should Japan maintain its political and economic independence and protect its national interest when caught between the United States, which is fighting to retain its position as the world’s dominant power, and China, which is seeking ways to become dominant?” (emphasis mine throughout).
Being allied with America has become a problem for Japan.
The new prime minister is no doubt asking himself: How do I protect Japan’s interests? The distant Americans sit 5,500 miles across the Pacific Ocean. One billion Chinese could fly to Tokyo for breakfast, Taiwan for lunch, and back home for kung pao dinner before America’s fastest jets could make it much past Hawaii.
In the same article, Hatoyama answered his own question: “[W]e must not forget our identity as a nation located in Asia,” he said. “I believe that the East Asian region, which is showing increasing vitality, must be recognized as Japan’s basic sphere of being.”
“I also feel that as a result of the failure of the Iraq war and the financial crisis, the era of U.S.-led globalism is coming to an end ….” Hatoyama even said that Japan must “spare no effort to build the permanent security frameworks” essential to creating a new anti-dollar regional Asian currency shared by China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
Hatoyama doesn’t just think America’s economy and power are fading fast, he’s publishing it in the New York Times! He sees Japan’s future as being with Asia. And he’s right.
There is a bold movement occurring in Asia. Old animosities are being forgotten, or resolved. “I believe that regional integration and collective security is the path we should follow,” Hatoyama reiterated. Only “by moving toward greater integration” can Asia’s problems be solved, he said.
This movement toward greater Asian cooperation will soon speed up drastically. Not only do the facts prove it, biblical prophecy forecasts it. A major military alliance between Russia, China and Japan is about to be locked in. (Read about this specific prophecy in Russia and China in Prophecy.)
Prime Minister Hatoyama may be the most pro-Asian Japanese prime minister yet. He has pledged to ignore Japan’s World War ii shrine that honors the country’s war dead, to avoid offending Korea. His only son is attending a prestigious Russian engineering university. And he is the first Japanese prime minister to receive election coverage by any Chinese print media—and it was front-page news in the Communist Party’s People’s Daily. Also, for the first time, a Chinese television station provided live coverage of the election that saw Hatoyama take power.
Japan’s new policy is focused on Asia—and winning friends on the Asian continent.
America is about to lose its Japanese ally. “The U.S. has been critical of new trends in Japan, but we are not a colony of Washington and we should be able to say what we want,” said Makoto Watanabe, a professor of media and communication at Hokkaido Bunkyo University in Japan. “[W]hile under previous governments Japan had become a yes-man to the U.S., this suggests to me that healthy change is taking place.”
But that change will not be healthy—especially for America.
The Bible describes a time when America will be besieged by its former trade partners. This siege, warned about in Deuteronomy 28:52, is both economic and military in nature. “And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.”
America is about to be blockaded. For this to occur, Japan would need to take a radical turn from its recent historical political and economic persuasions.
It is radically turning. Today we are witnessing a dramatic fulfillment of this prophecy. America is about to become perilously isolated. The nation with the single largest merchant fleet in the world will turn its back on an economically waterlogged America. And America, without its most important military bases in Asia, will be one step closer to being pushed right out of the Asia Pacific altogether.
America’s ship of state is sinking. Japan’s lifeboat has already left.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Israeli Ads Warn Against Marrying Non-Jews
Of course it is fantastic for the goyim to race mix but you must always keep the jew bloodlines pure.
By Jonathan Cook
08 September, 2009
Countercurrents.org
Nazareth: The Israeli government has launched a television and internet advertising campaign urging Israelis to inform on Jewish friends and relatives abroad who may be in danger of marrying non-Jews.
The advertisements, employing what the Israeli media described as “scare tactics”, are designed to stop assimilation through intermarriage among young diaspora Jews by encouraging their move to Israel.
The campaign, which cost $800,000, was created in response to reports that half of all Jews outside Israel marry non-Jews. It is just one of several initiatives by the Israeli state and private organisations to try to increase the size of Israel’s Jewish population.
According to one ad, voiced over by one of the country’s leading news anchors, assimilation is “a strategic national threat”, warning: “More than 50 per cent of diaspora youth assimilate and are lost to us.”
Adam Keller, of Gush Shalom, an Israeli peace group, said this was a reference both to a general fear in Israel that the Jewish people may one day disappear through assimilation and to a more specific concern that, if it is to survive, Israel must recruit more Jews to its “demographic war” against Palestinians.
The issue of assimilation has been thrust into the limelight by a series of surveys over several years carried out by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a think-tank established in Jerusalem in 2002 comprising leading Israeli and diaspora officials.
The institute’s research has shown that Israel is the only country in the world with a significant Jewish population not decreasing in size. The decline elsewhere is ascribed both to low birth rates and to widespread intermarriage.
According to the institute, about half of all Jews in western Europe and the United States assimilate by intermarrying, while the figure for the former Soviet Jewry is reported to reach 80 per cent.
Israel, whose Jewish population of 5.6 million accounts for 41 per cent of worldwide Jewry, has obstructed intermarriage between its Jewish and Arab citizens by refusing to recognise such marriages unless they are performed abroad.
The advertising campaign is directed particularly at Jews in the United States and Canada, whose combined 5.7 million Jews constitute the world’s largest Jewish population. Most belong to the liberal Reform stream of Judaism that, unlike Orthodoxy, does not oppose intermarriage.
One-third of Jews in the diaspora are believed to have relatives in Israel.
According to the campaign’s organisers, more than 200 Israelis rang a hotline to report names of Jews living abroad after the first TV advertisement was run on Wednesday. Callers left details of email addresses and Facebook and Twitter accounts.
The 30-second clip featured a series of missing-person posters on street corners, in subways and on telephone boxes showing images of Jewish youths above the word “Lost” in different languages. A voiceover asks anyone who “knows a young Jew living abroad” to call the hotline. “Together, we will strengthen their connection to Israel, so that we don’t lose them.”
The campaign supports a government-backed programme, Masa, that subsidises stays and courses in Israel of up to one year in a bid to persuade Jews to immigrate and become citizens. About 8,000 diaspora Jews attend its programme each year.
The government has been trying to develop Masa alongside a rival programme, Birthright Israel, which brings nearly 20,000 diaspora youngsters to Israel each year on sponsored 10-day trips to meet Israeli soldiers and visit sites in Israel and the West Bank promoted as important to the Jewish people.
Although Birthright is regarded as useful in encouraging a positive image of Israel, officials fear it has only a limited effect on attracting its mainly North American participants to move to Israel. Many regard it as an all-paid holiday.
Differences in the approach of the two programmes were underlined in July when a Birthright director, Shlomo Lifshittz, resigned and moved to Masa after telling the Israeli media he had been forbidden from urging Birthright participants to migrate to Israel and shun intermarriage.
In launching the campaign, Masa’s chief executive, Ayelet Shilo-Tamir, warned that assimilation worldwide was putting Jews “on the verge of negative growth”.
Masa officials said young Jews who participate in their projects strengthened their Jewish identity and were more likely to become politically and socially active on behalf of Israel-related issues.
The campaign quickly provoked a storm of debate on Jewish blog sites, especially in the United States, with some terming it “divisive” and an insult to Jewish offspring of intermarriage. A link to Masa’s “Lost” campaign had been dropped from the front page of its website yesterday, possibly in response to the backlash.
The campaign will probably strike a chord in Israel, however, where a poll in 2007 found that 46 per cent of Israeli Jews believed all Jews should live in Israel because it was “the only way Israel and the Jewish people will be strengthened”.
That position has been echoed by Israel’s leaders, though most have been careful not to upset the delicate balance of relations with diaspora communities.
Former prime minister Ariel Sharon was widely regarded as having overstepped those bounds in 2004 during a visit to France when he urged French Jews to come to Israel because France was experiencing “the spread of the wildest anti-semitism”.
Sharon had been outspoken in wanting one million Jews to immigrate to Israel to counter a “demographic threat” from the rapid growth of the Palestinian populations in both Israel and the occupied territories. Numerical parity between Jews and Palestinians living in the region is expected to be reached within a decade.
That theme has been picked up by his successors, Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu.
There is growing concern in Israel that immigration rates have steadily declined since a large wave of one million Jews arrived from the former Soviet Union through the 1990s. The absorption figure for last year – at 16,500 – was the lowest since the 1980s. It is also believed that there is a growing trend of better-off Jews leaving Israel to live abroad, though figures are not publicised.
Mr Keller, of Gush Shalom, said few Jews in the United States or Europe, the main target of the campaign, needed to come to Israel for material reasons. “They come from ideological motives, and many of them are right-wing nationalists who can be encouraged to settle in the West Bank.”
The Israeli government and various organisations subsidise the immigration of diaspora Jews to Israel.
Last year the Jewish Agency handed over responsibility for locating new immigrants to Nefesh B’Nefesh, a private organisation that promotes a dozen settlements in the West Bank on its website, including hardline communities such as Kedumim, near Nablus, and Efrat, near Bethlehem.
“Last week Israeli TV showed a group of immigrants arriving in Israel to go to Efrat,” said Mr Keller. “They were shown being greeted at the airport by a large clapping crowds of Israelis waving flags in support.”
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.
By Jonathan Cook
08 September, 2009
Countercurrents.org
Nazareth: The Israeli government has launched a television and internet advertising campaign urging Israelis to inform on Jewish friends and relatives abroad who may be in danger of marrying non-Jews.
The advertisements, employing what the Israeli media described as “scare tactics”, are designed to stop assimilation through intermarriage among young diaspora Jews by encouraging their move to Israel.
The campaign, which cost $800,000, was created in response to reports that half of all Jews outside Israel marry non-Jews. It is just one of several initiatives by the Israeli state and private organisations to try to increase the size of Israel’s Jewish population.
According to one ad, voiced over by one of the country’s leading news anchors, assimilation is “a strategic national threat”, warning: “More than 50 per cent of diaspora youth assimilate and are lost to us.”
Adam Keller, of Gush Shalom, an Israeli peace group, said this was a reference both to a general fear in Israel that the Jewish people may one day disappear through assimilation and to a more specific concern that, if it is to survive, Israel must recruit more Jews to its “demographic war” against Palestinians.
The issue of assimilation has been thrust into the limelight by a series of surveys over several years carried out by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a think-tank established in Jerusalem in 2002 comprising leading Israeli and diaspora officials.
The institute’s research has shown that Israel is the only country in the world with a significant Jewish population not decreasing in size. The decline elsewhere is ascribed both to low birth rates and to widespread intermarriage.
According to the institute, about half of all Jews in western Europe and the United States assimilate by intermarrying, while the figure for the former Soviet Jewry is reported to reach 80 per cent.
Israel, whose Jewish population of 5.6 million accounts for 41 per cent of worldwide Jewry, has obstructed intermarriage between its Jewish and Arab citizens by refusing to recognise such marriages unless they are performed abroad.
The advertising campaign is directed particularly at Jews in the United States and Canada, whose combined 5.7 million Jews constitute the world’s largest Jewish population. Most belong to the liberal Reform stream of Judaism that, unlike Orthodoxy, does not oppose intermarriage.
One-third of Jews in the diaspora are believed to have relatives in Israel.
According to the campaign’s organisers, more than 200 Israelis rang a hotline to report names of Jews living abroad after the first TV advertisement was run on Wednesday. Callers left details of email addresses and Facebook and Twitter accounts.
The 30-second clip featured a series of missing-person posters on street corners, in subways and on telephone boxes showing images of Jewish youths above the word “Lost” in different languages. A voiceover asks anyone who “knows a young Jew living abroad” to call the hotline. “Together, we will strengthen their connection to Israel, so that we don’t lose them.”
The campaign supports a government-backed programme, Masa, that subsidises stays and courses in Israel of up to one year in a bid to persuade Jews to immigrate and become citizens. About 8,000 diaspora Jews attend its programme each year.
The government has been trying to develop Masa alongside a rival programme, Birthright Israel, which brings nearly 20,000 diaspora youngsters to Israel each year on sponsored 10-day trips to meet Israeli soldiers and visit sites in Israel and the West Bank promoted as important to the Jewish people.
Although Birthright is regarded as useful in encouraging a positive image of Israel, officials fear it has only a limited effect on attracting its mainly North American participants to move to Israel. Many regard it as an all-paid holiday.
Differences in the approach of the two programmes were underlined in July when a Birthright director, Shlomo Lifshittz, resigned and moved to Masa after telling the Israeli media he had been forbidden from urging Birthright participants to migrate to Israel and shun intermarriage.
In launching the campaign, Masa’s chief executive, Ayelet Shilo-Tamir, warned that assimilation worldwide was putting Jews “on the verge of negative growth”.
Masa officials said young Jews who participate in their projects strengthened their Jewish identity and were more likely to become politically and socially active on behalf of Israel-related issues.
The campaign quickly provoked a storm of debate on Jewish blog sites, especially in the United States, with some terming it “divisive” and an insult to Jewish offspring of intermarriage. A link to Masa’s “Lost” campaign had been dropped from the front page of its website yesterday, possibly in response to the backlash.
The campaign will probably strike a chord in Israel, however, where a poll in 2007 found that 46 per cent of Israeli Jews believed all Jews should live in Israel because it was “the only way Israel and the Jewish people will be strengthened”.
That position has been echoed by Israel’s leaders, though most have been careful not to upset the delicate balance of relations with diaspora communities.
Former prime minister Ariel Sharon was widely regarded as having overstepped those bounds in 2004 during a visit to France when he urged French Jews to come to Israel because France was experiencing “the spread of the wildest anti-semitism”.
Sharon had been outspoken in wanting one million Jews to immigrate to Israel to counter a “demographic threat” from the rapid growth of the Palestinian populations in both Israel and the occupied territories. Numerical parity between Jews and Palestinians living in the region is expected to be reached within a decade.
That theme has been picked up by his successors, Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu.
There is growing concern in Israel that immigration rates have steadily declined since a large wave of one million Jews arrived from the former Soviet Union through the 1990s. The absorption figure for last year – at 16,500 – was the lowest since the 1980s. It is also believed that there is a growing trend of better-off Jews leaving Israel to live abroad, though figures are not publicised.
Mr Keller, of Gush Shalom, said few Jews in the United States or Europe, the main target of the campaign, needed to come to Israel for material reasons. “They come from ideological motives, and many of them are right-wing nationalists who can be encouraged to settle in the West Bank.”
The Israeli government and various organisations subsidise the immigration of diaspora Jews to Israel.
Last year the Jewish Agency handed over responsibility for locating new immigrants to Nefesh B’Nefesh, a private organisation that promotes a dozen settlements in the West Bank on its website, including hardline communities such as Kedumim, near Nablus, and Efrat, near Bethlehem.
“Last week Israeli TV showed a group of immigrants arriving in Israel to go to Efrat,” said Mr Keller. “They were shown being greeted at the airport by a large clapping crowds of Israelis waving flags in support.”
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.
The Economy Is A Lie, Too
By Paul Craig Roberts
September 21, 2009 "Information Clearing House" --- Americans cannot get any truth out of their government about anything, the economy included. Americans are being driven into the ground economically, with one million school children now homeless, while Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke announces that the recession is over.
The spin that masquerades as news is becoming more delusional. Consumer spending is 70% of the US economy. It is the driving force, and it has been shut down. Except for the super rich, there has been no growth in consumer incomes in the 21st century. Statistician John Williams of shadowstats.com reports that real household income has never recovered its pre-2001 peak.
The US economy has been kept going by substituting growth in consumer debt for growth in consumer income. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan encouraged consumer debt with low interest rates. The low interest rates pushed up home prices, enabling Americans to refinance their homes and spend the equity. Credit cards were maxed out in expectations of rising real estate and equity values to pay the accumulated debt. The binge was halted when the real estate and equity bubbles burst.
As consumers no longer can expand their indebtedness and their incomes are not rising, there is no basis for a growing consumer economy. Indeed, statistics indicate that consumers are paying down debt in their efforts to survive financially. In an economy in which the consumer is the driving force, that is bad news.
The banks, now investment banks thanks to greed-driven deregulation that repealed the learned lessons of the past, were even more reckless than consumers and took speculative leverage to new heights. At the urging of Larry Summers and Goldman Sachs’ CEO Henry Paulson, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Bush administration went along with removing restrictions on debt leverage.
When the bubble burst, the extraordinary leverage threatened the financial system with collapse. The US Treasury and the Federal Reserve stepped forward with no one knows how many trillions of dollars to “save the financial system,” which, of course, meant to save the greed-driven financial institutions that had caused the economic crisis that dispossessed ordinary Americans of half of their life savings.
The consumer has been chastened, but not the banks. Refreshed with the TARP $700 billion and the Federal Reserve’s expanded balance sheet, banks are again behaving like hedge funds. Leveraged speculation is producing another bubble with the current stock market rally, which is not a sign of economic recovery but is the final savaging of Americans’ wealth by a few investment banks and their Washington friends. Goldman Sachs, rolling in profits, announced six figure bonuses to employees.
The rest of America is suffering terribly.
The unemployment rate, as reported, is a fiction and has been since the Clinton administration. The unemployment rate does not include jobless Americans who have been unemployed for more than a year and have given up on finding work. The reported 10% unemployment rate is understated by the millions of Americans who are suffering long-term unemployment and are no longer counted as unemployed. As each month passes, unemployed Americans drop off the unemployment role due to nothing except the passing of time.
The inflation rate, especially “core inflation,” is another fiction. “Core inflation” does not include food and energy, two of Americans’ biggest budget items. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) assumes, ever since the Boskin Commission during the Clinton administration, that if prices of items go up consumers substitute cheaper items. This is certainly the case, but this way of measuring inflation means that the CPI is no longer comparable to past years, because the basket of goods in the index is variable.
The Boskin Commission’s CPI, by lowering the measured rate of inflation, raises the real GDP growth rate. The result of the statistical manipulation is an understated inflation rate, thus eroding the real value of Social Security income, and an overstated growth rate. Statistical manipulation cloaks a declining standard of living.
In bygone days of American prosperity, American incomes rose with productivity. It was the real growth in American incomes that propelled the US economy.
In today’s America, the only incomes that rise are in the financial sector that risks the country’s future on excessive leverage and in the corporate world that substitutes foreign for American labor. Under the compensation rules and emphasis on shareholder earnings that hold sway in the US today, corporate executives maximize earnings and their compensation by minimizing the employment of Americans.
Try to find some acknowledgement of this in the “mainstream media,” or among economists, who suck up to the offshoring corporations for grants.
The worst part of the decline is yet to come. Bank failures and home foreclosures are yet to peak. The commercial real estate bust is yet to hit. The dollar crisis is building.
When it hits, interest rates will rise dramatically as the US struggles to finance its massive budget and trade deficits while the rest of the world tries to escape a depreciating dollar.
Since the spring of this year, the value of the US dollar has collapsed against every currency except those pegged to it. The Swiss franc has risen 14% against the dollar. Every hard currency from the Canadian dollar to the Euro and UK pound has risen at least 13 % against the US dollar since April 2009. The Japanese yen is not far behind, and the Brazilian real has risen 25% against the almighty US dollar. Even the Russian ruble has risen 13% against the US dollar.
What sort of recovery is it when the safest investment is to bet against the US dollar?
The American household of my day, in which the husband worked and the wife provided household services and raised the children, scarcely exists today. Most, if not all, members of a household have to work in order to pay the bills. However, the jobs are disappearing, even the part-time ones.
If measured according to the methodology used when I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the unemployment rate today in the US is above 20%. Moreover, there is no obvious way of reducing it. There are no factories, with work forces temporarily laid off by high interest rates, waiting for a lower interest rate policy to call their workforces back into production.
The work has been moved abroad. In the bygone days of American prosperity, CEOs were inculcated with the view that they had equal responsibilities to customers, employees, and shareholders. This view has been exterminated. Pushed by Wall Street and the threat of takeovers promising “enhanced shareholder value,” and incentivized by “performance pay,” CEOs use every means to substitute cheaper foreign employees for Americans .
Despite 20% unemployment and cum laude engineering graduates who cannot find jobs or even job interviews, Congress continues to support 65,000 annual H-1B work visas for foreigners.
In the midst of the highest unemployment since the Great Depression what kind of a fool do you need to be to think that there is a shortage of qualified US workers?
September 21, 2009 "Information Clearing House" --- Americans cannot get any truth out of their government about anything, the economy included. Americans are being driven into the ground economically, with one million school children now homeless, while Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke announces that the recession is over.
The spin that masquerades as news is becoming more delusional. Consumer spending is 70% of the US economy. It is the driving force, and it has been shut down. Except for the super rich, there has been no growth in consumer incomes in the 21st century. Statistician John Williams of shadowstats.com reports that real household income has never recovered its pre-2001 peak.
The US economy has been kept going by substituting growth in consumer debt for growth in consumer income. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan encouraged consumer debt with low interest rates. The low interest rates pushed up home prices, enabling Americans to refinance their homes and spend the equity. Credit cards were maxed out in expectations of rising real estate and equity values to pay the accumulated debt. The binge was halted when the real estate and equity bubbles burst.
As consumers no longer can expand their indebtedness and their incomes are not rising, there is no basis for a growing consumer economy. Indeed, statistics indicate that consumers are paying down debt in their efforts to survive financially. In an economy in which the consumer is the driving force, that is bad news.
The banks, now investment banks thanks to greed-driven deregulation that repealed the learned lessons of the past, were even more reckless than consumers and took speculative leverage to new heights. At the urging of Larry Summers and Goldman Sachs’ CEO Henry Paulson, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Bush administration went along with removing restrictions on debt leverage.
When the bubble burst, the extraordinary leverage threatened the financial system with collapse. The US Treasury and the Federal Reserve stepped forward with no one knows how many trillions of dollars to “save the financial system,” which, of course, meant to save the greed-driven financial institutions that had caused the economic crisis that dispossessed ordinary Americans of half of their life savings.
The consumer has been chastened, but not the banks. Refreshed with the TARP $700 billion and the Federal Reserve’s expanded balance sheet, banks are again behaving like hedge funds. Leveraged speculation is producing another bubble with the current stock market rally, which is not a sign of economic recovery but is the final savaging of Americans’ wealth by a few investment banks and their Washington friends. Goldman Sachs, rolling in profits, announced six figure bonuses to employees.
The rest of America is suffering terribly.
The unemployment rate, as reported, is a fiction and has been since the Clinton administration. The unemployment rate does not include jobless Americans who have been unemployed for more than a year and have given up on finding work. The reported 10% unemployment rate is understated by the millions of Americans who are suffering long-term unemployment and are no longer counted as unemployed. As each month passes, unemployed Americans drop off the unemployment role due to nothing except the passing of time.
The inflation rate, especially “core inflation,” is another fiction. “Core inflation” does not include food and energy, two of Americans’ biggest budget items. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) assumes, ever since the Boskin Commission during the Clinton administration, that if prices of items go up consumers substitute cheaper items. This is certainly the case, but this way of measuring inflation means that the CPI is no longer comparable to past years, because the basket of goods in the index is variable.
The Boskin Commission’s CPI, by lowering the measured rate of inflation, raises the real GDP growth rate. The result of the statistical manipulation is an understated inflation rate, thus eroding the real value of Social Security income, and an overstated growth rate. Statistical manipulation cloaks a declining standard of living.
In bygone days of American prosperity, American incomes rose with productivity. It was the real growth in American incomes that propelled the US economy.
In today’s America, the only incomes that rise are in the financial sector that risks the country’s future on excessive leverage and in the corporate world that substitutes foreign for American labor. Under the compensation rules and emphasis on shareholder earnings that hold sway in the US today, corporate executives maximize earnings and their compensation by minimizing the employment of Americans.
Try to find some acknowledgement of this in the “mainstream media,” or among economists, who suck up to the offshoring corporations for grants.
The worst part of the decline is yet to come. Bank failures and home foreclosures are yet to peak. The commercial real estate bust is yet to hit. The dollar crisis is building.
When it hits, interest rates will rise dramatically as the US struggles to finance its massive budget and trade deficits while the rest of the world tries to escape a depreciating dollar.
Since the spring of this year, the value of the US dollar has collapsed against every currency except those pegged to it. The Swiss franc has risen 14% against the dollar. Every hard currency from the Canadian dollar to the Euro and UK pound has risen at least 13 % against the US dollar since April 2009. The Japanese yen is not far behind, and the Brazilian real has risen 25% against the almighty US dollar. Even the Russian ruble has risen 13% against the US dollar.
What sort of recovery is it when the safest investment is to bet against the US dollar?
The American household of my day, in which the husband worked and the wife provided household services and raised the children, scarcely exists today. Most, if not all, members of a household have to work in order to pay the bills. However, the jobs are disappearing, even the part-time ones.
If measured according to the methodology used when I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the unemployment rate today in the US is above 20%. Moreover, there is no obvious way of reducing it. There are no factories, with work forces temporarily laid off by high interest rates, waiting for a lower interest rate policy to call their workforces back into production.
The work has been moved abroad. In the bygone days of American prosperity, CEOs were inculcated with the view that they had equal responsibilities to customers, employees, and shareholders. This view has been exterminated. Pushed by Wall Street and the threat of takeovers promising “enhanced shareholder value,” and incentivized by “performance pay,” CEOs use every means to substitute cheaper foreign employees for Americans .
Despite 20% unemployment and cum laude engineering graduates who cannot find jobs or even job interviews, Congress continues to support 65,000 annual H-1B work visas for foreigners.
In the midst of the highest unemployment since the Great Depression what kind of a fool do you need to be to think that there is a shortage of qualified US workers?
Hard Times Ahead
by Chuck Baldwin
Let's face it: most Americans live in a world of false security. This is somewhat understandable, given the fact that the majority of the U.S. population was born after 1945. Few remember the dangers and hardships of World War II; fewer still remember the Great Depression. Few Americans know what it's like to not have some sort of "supercenter" nearby with shelves stocked with every kind of food imaginable, twenty-four hours a day. Few know what life was like before there were restaurants of all sizes and types on virtually every street corner in America. And only a handful remembers when most roads were unpaved, or when sports were truly a pastime and not a megabuck obsession.
Let's face it: most Americans live in a world of false security. This is somewhat understandable, given the fact that the majority of the U.S. population was born after 1945. Few remember the dangers and hardships of World War II; fewer still remember the Great Depression. Few Americans know what it's like to not have some sort of "supercenter" nearby with shelves stocked with every kind of food imaginable, twenty-four hours a day. Few know what life was like before there were restaurants of all sizes and types on virtually every street corner in America. And only a handful remembers when most roads were unpaved, or when sports were truly a pastime and not a megabuck obsession.
Modern living within the world's only "superpower" has created a giant unsuspecting, soft, lackadaisical, and lethargic society. We expect the government to keep our streets safe, our roads paved, our stores stocked, our jobs secure, and our enemies at bay. However, in the desire to make government the panacea for all our problems, we have sold not only our independence, but also our virtue.
Where the federal government was contracted (via the U.S. Constitution) to accept limited power for the overall good of both states and people, it has become a monster of gargantuan proportions, claiming authority over virtually every liberty and right known to man. And in the process, it decided it didn't need God, either.
It is no hyperbole to say that the U.S. federal government has been on a "Ban God" bandwagon for the past 50 years. Whether it kicks prayer and Bible reading out of school, bars military chaplains from praying in Jesus' name, burns Bibles in Iraq, removes state supreme court chief justices from their positions for posting the Ten Commandments, or threatens high school principals with jail for asking the blessing, the federal government has invoked the judgment of Heaven upon our country as surely as did Old Testament Israel.
Although the comfortable, sports-crazed, TV addicts probably aren't paying attention, this country is on the verge of an implosion like you cannot believe. For anyone who cares to notice, the signs are everywhere.
First of all, Israel and Iran are on the verge of war. And right now, I'm not concentrating on the "why" or "who's right or wrong" of the equation. I'm simply telling you, war between Israel and Iran could break out at any time. And when it does, the chances that it will not become nuclear and not become global are miniscule. Yes, I am saying it: the prospects for nuclear war have never been greater. The CBS-canceled TV show, JERICHO, could become a reality in these United States in the very near future. (I strongly urge readers to purchase both seasons of JERICHO and watch them, because this could be our future.)
Secondly, America is on the verge of total financial collapse. By the end of this year, America's budget deficit will stand at around $2 trillion. The debt gap is many trillions more than that. But the nail in the coffin for America's fiscal health will be the decision by China to dump the U.S. dollar. Ladies and gentlemen, this will be the death knell for our financial stability (and a painful lesson in sowing and reaping).
It is estimated that China owns around one-third of all U.S. debt. If and when China dumps the U.S. dollar, there would be nothing left to stabilize it, and Weimar Republic/Zimbabwe-style inflation will ensue. America will be thrust into financial chaos. (If one doubts that China is planning to dump the dollar, consider that China is currently purchasing and stockpiling gold at an unprecedented level. This is why gold has suddenly surged to over $1,000 per ounce and why it will continue to rise.)
Third, the paranoia regarding the Swine Flu being demonstrated by both government and media spokesmen begs a giant push for some type of "government solution." If they keep hyping this "pandemic," mass hysteria and fear (created by the government and its lackeys in the media) will result. This would, no doubt, necessitate some form of forced vaccination, quarantine (maybe this is what all those internment camps will be used for), and martial law.
Exactly how and when all of the above will actually materialize is yet to be seen. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that within the next few months, the world that we know today is going to vanish. And most Americans are totally unprepared for what's coming.
If you are able to get out of debt, do it. If you need to scale down your lifestyle in order to be better prepared for difficult days, do it. If you don't have guns and ammo, buy them. If you have not prepared some sort of preserved food pantry, do it. If you don't have some kind of survival plan in place for you and your family, get one. If you are not physically fit, get in shape. If you are able to move to a more secure, out-of-harm's-way location, do it. (During any kind of financial or societal meltdown, urban areas will quickly turn into war zones. Can anyone say, "New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina"?) In other words, get your nose out of the boob tube, get your bottom off the easy chair, and get busy.
Am I worried or discouraged? Absolutely not! (But I am preparing.) The potential good that may result from all of the above is that perhaps God will protect and raise up a remnant of people who would be willing to rebuild a place where Natural Law is respected, constitutional government is revered, and where a ubiquitous, loathsome, overbearing federal government is far, far away. You know, like America's Founding Fathers did 233 years ago.
In the meantime, get ready. It's going to be a rocky road.
Sibel Edmonds Under Oath
Part 1 (51 Minutes)
Part 2 (35 Minutes)
Part 3 (17 minutes)
Part 4 (43 minutes)
Part 5 (54 minutes)
Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 1 of 5 from Velvet Revolution on Vimeo.
Part 2 (35 Minutes)
Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 2 of 5 from Justice Through Music on Vimeo.
Part 3 (17 minutes)
Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 3 of 5 from Justice Through Music on Vimeo.
Part 4 (43 minutes)
Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 4 of 5 from Justice Through Music on Vimeo.
Part 5 (54 minutes)
Sibel Edmonds Deposition, 8/8/09: PART 5 of 5 from Justice Through Music on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)