Please tell me which of these groups we must beat in order to declare victory.
Then tell me which is going to get on their flying carpets to come “over here” if we don’t beat them “over there”?
That’s what the news and the talking heads are giving us. From Laura Ingraham to Sean Hannity to Fox News, they are all focusing on Sen. Craig and that poor unfortunate Miss Teen America.
In the meantime, look at what the Fed is doing to our economy!(via Lew Rockwell) Why are the pundits and the press not doing their job by covering the economy? Why are they not discussing the costs of the war and our ever-increasing debt to China because of it.
Those of us who work hard and are not the elite will pay for this. But, we can do something about it:
Another great column by Dr. Ron Paul:
As markets went on a rollercoaster ride last week, our economy is coming close to a day of reckoning for loose credit policies being followed by the Federal Reserve Bank. Simply, foreign banks we have been relying on to buy our debt are waking up to the reality of much higher default rates than predicted, and many mortgage-backed securities have been reduced to “junk†ratings. Wall Street fears the possibility of tightening credit and the tightening of America’s belts. Why, they say, “if Americans spend only what they can afford, think of the ripple effects throughout the economy!†This is the cry, as the call comes for the fed to cut rates and bail out companies in trouble.
More inflation is, however, never the answer to inflation.
The truth is that business involves risk, and businesses that miscalculate risk should be liquidated, so their assets can be reallocated to businesses that correctly judge risk and make profits. Instead, the Fed has injected $64 billion into the jittery markets, effectively amounting to a bailout that keeps these malinvestments afloat, but eventually they will become the undoing of our economy.
Negotiating with Mexico and Canada regarding trade:
MONTEBELLO, Quebec (Reuters) – U.S. President George W. Bush met the leaders of Canada and Mexico at a luxurious cedar chateau on Monday to bolster economic and security ties, but protesters decried the gathering’s secrecy and shouted for Bush to go home.
Dubbed the “Three Amigos summit,” the two-day meeting of Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon was also expected to look at the credit crunch and turmoil gripping global financial markets.
Is he giving away the store?
A headline from Bloomberg:
Bernanke’s `Rookie Mistake’ Forces Fed to Shift Focus
Note this quote from the article:
“We’re getting a nice further look at the new Bernanke Fed,” said Ethan Harris, chief U.S. economist at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in New York. “He definitely wants to use the committee and these more formal directives,” as opposed to Greenspan’s preference for speeches laden with “code words.”
Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn’t they? It pays high dividends.
Not so long ago, I would have considered the above to be the rantings of a hippy. No more. Not since I read The Creature From Jekyll Island which I first wrote about here.
The “Creature” is our central bank, the Federal Reserve. It creates money–and when it does, it causes inflation. Inflation devalues the purchasing power of our money. It redistributes wealth from us to others.
How does it do this? It prints money. It lends out money that doesn’t exist. Then, after it lends out the non-existent money, it counts the debt to be serviced as new money. In other words, debt equals money that didn’t exitst before non-existent money is lent out.
Who is the biggest debtor to the international banks? Why, government of course. In our country’s case–the federal government.
What governmental activity causes a government to go deepest into debt?
War.
War is not financed by taxes. Our income taxes go solely to pay interest on the debt. That isn’t really even necessary when the Federal Reserve can print more money or make more money out of debt. Hence, the main reason for the income tax is to control us–not to raise funds for the government.
Who benefits from this? The people who have the new money first. The bankers and the government and other favored groups. It certainly isn’t us in the suburbs, the cities or the ghettos. Our standard of living is actually decreasing as the purchasing power of the dollar decreases.
Moreover, if you read this book, you will see the text of statements and text made by the Fabian socialists who populate the financial world. These men believe that patriotism is a quaint anachronism barring their way to complete centralization of the governance of the world.
You will see statements from these men making it clear that Americans must suffer a decrease in standard of living to wean us from our individualism, esteem of liberty and belief in our sovereignty. We are the biggest obstacle to their ambitions.
What better way to bring this about then an endless, expensive, draining war.
Read the book. Then see if you think that Major General Smedley was just some kind of pre- hippy.
The information in this book is why Ron Paul advocates abolishing the Federal Reserve. It’s one reason why I will vote for Ron Paul.
UPDATE:
For a better explanation of the book, go here to a speech by the author.
The United States Constitution
Article I
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
…
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Congress has the power to declare war and to mount reprisals. This power does not reside in the President. So, does the recent White House statement of policy regarding Iran conflict with this?
Amendments on Iran: The Administration strongly opposes amendments to the bill to restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively with the threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran, including Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The Administration also notes that provisions of law that purport to direct or prohibit international negotiations, covert action, or use of the armed forces are inconsistent with the Constitution’s commitment exclusively to the presidency of the executive power, the function of Commander-in-Chief, and the authority to conduct the Nation’s foreign policy. If the bill were presented to the President with provisions that would prevent the President from protecting America and allied and cooperating nations from threats posed by Iran, the President’ senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Does this mean that the President thinks he has the right to start a war with Iran? Will Congress, again, transfer its authority to the President to do such a thing rather than following the Constitution and declaring war or issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal?
Gary North thinks (subscription needed) that it is inevitable that Bush will start war with Iran because of the above policy announcement combined with an amendment to a defense appropriations bill by Lieberman.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Senators Lieberman, McCain, Kyl, Graham, and Coleman today introduced a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, confronting the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.
The amendment details the publicly available evidence put forward over the past year by General David Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force Iraq, and others about Iran’s violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq.The amendment states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-coalition activity in Iraq.
“For many months, our military commanders and diplomats have warned us that the Iranian government has been training, equipping, arming, and funding proxies in Iraq who are murdering our troops,” said Senator Lieberman. “This amendment is a common sense, common ground statement of the Senate to Tehran: we know what you are doing, and you must stop.”
“American officials attest that the government in Teheran seeks to bleed the United States and render unsuccessful our efforts to bring about a stable and self-governing in Iraq,” said Senator McCain. “This amendment will send a clear signal: Iran’s activities in Iraq are wrong, and they must end immediately.”
“The Iranians are attempting to thwart our policies in the Middle East by actively supporting terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq,” said Senator Kyl. “It is time we acknowledge this hostility against us, and this amendment tells the Iranians we will not tolerate any actions which threaten our troops or allies.”
“The evidence is increasingly clear the Iranian government is working to destabilize the Iraqi government,” said Senator Graham. “It is long past time for Congress to speak out about this destructive behavior by Iran. We need one voice, and I expect it will be a unified bipartisan voice, speaking out and condemning these actions by the Iranian government.”
“The United States will not tolerate Iran’s hostile attempts to sabotage our efforts in the Middle East region,” said Senator Coleman. “On my last trip to Iraq, our Minnesota troops in Southern Iraq showed me Iranian-made explosives that were used against them on convoy missions. This crucial amendment makes it clear to the Iranian government, and any other government in the region that seeks to harm our soldiers, that providing any form of support to Iraqi insurgents will not be tolerated and must cease immediately.”
Will this be used as Constitutional authority allowing Bush to go into Iran? I hope not. Bush doesn’t have the backing of the country to do something like this. Our elected representatives should follow the Constitution, debate this issue and vote. They should do the job the Constitution set out for them.
I have become convinced that the actions of Congress in not debating and declaring war on Iraq was cowardice. The members are too cowardly to go on the record.
If the Constitution is followed, the chances of the US ever going to war would be much less. Wasn’t that one of the purposes of the division of powers? Our Founders, after all, saw European autocrats constantly mounting wars against each other.
I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t believe a word the Administration is saying about the government of Iran being behind anything. It should have to convince the American people through the institutions laid out the in the Constitution–debating and voting in Congress.
A couple of months ago, I was creating a Medicare Part D presentation for pharmacists. I was doing research on the impact of this monstrosity on pharmacists when I ran across one of the funniest blogs on the internet, The Angry Pharmacist.
Here are the posts I found about Medicare Part D (with the profanity bleeped a bit–although I understand why he was cussing). My audience loved it when I read these snippets–they all thought that Medicare Part D is stupid too.
January 2, 2006
Medicare Part D – Day 1In the words of my boss:
“More people will die because of MediCare Part D than Hurricane Katrina”.In the words of me:
“This is a complete and utter clusterf&%#”.
January 3, 2006
Medicare Part D – Day 2Day two of the MediCare part D fiasco has come and gone.
I must say, that this is the biggest clusterf&%$ in the last 40 years of pharmacy.
January 9, 2006
Medicare Part D – Week 2Welcome to the start of Week 2 of hell, er.. Medicare Part Diaster!
January 10, 2006
Medicare Part Disaster.The saga continues. After a nice relaxing dinner, a few drinks and a puff of some fine pipe tobacco, i’m ready to bitch more about Medicare Part D(iaster).
February 26, 2006
Medicare Part D – AftermathSorry I havent been posting much. This medicare part D bull^&$ has finally stopped hitting the fan, so now I have a breather.
January 2, 2007
Medicare Part D – 1 year laterIf you’re a pharmacist, and reading this, you’re probably drunk (or hung over). I just had about 5 shots and a bottle of wine with a dentist friend of mine, so this might not make too much sense (im pretty hammered). But you’ll understand why (if you’re not a pharmacist) if you read this entry.
Needless to say, today was chaos, hell, and a bit of clusterf$%@ all rolled into one. Words cannot describe it. All I can say is that if you were working in pharmacy 1 year ago (when Medicare part D sh&^ hit the fan) it was like Deja Vu.
I just stopped over there, and the AP has some hilarious posts up. I particularly like this one, Showers Are Your Friend.
Debbie Schlussel has the answer. They were prevented from doing their jobs during the protests:
We got word from ICE agents in Michigan and Ohio that they wanted to attend the rallies (which, in Detroit, were RIGHT in front of their building, the McNamara Federal Bldg.). They were ordered by their boss, Michigan/Ohio ICE Special Agent in Charge Brian Moskowitz a/k/a “Abu Moskowitz” to stay away from the rallies.
And then, just as has happened in Great Britain, Canada, Australia and Italy, will our leaders impose upon us anarcho-tyranny? In other words, will they continue to refuse to control the criminal, allowing anarchy among the illegals, and, instead control and tyrannize the innocent?
Well, the proper authorities were prevented from controlling and interdicting the illegals as Debbie Schlussel reveals, it appears they may, instead, be tyrannizing a lawful citizen for exercising his rights:
A Tucson man was arrested Tuesday for his role in the burning of a Mexican flag as part of a counterprotest at a pro-immigration rally.
Quite frankly, I think that American citizens are screwed. It appears that the politicians and business interests want to replace us with new constituencies.
It would be one thing if we were getting a bunch of Einsteins or Mozarts or truly exceptional new constituents. Instead, we are getting a people who will live paycheck to paycheck and who will be particularly vulnerable to economic downturns. If one of those happens, they will be living on the dime of the American citizen–that is, the American citizens who aren’t forced into economic straits due to things like this.
Another good question, will these new constituencies become beneficiaries of affirmative action set-asides despite the fact that none of them were here to be discriminated against in times past? Vdare dares to ask.
Yep, we’re screwed.
$15 billion southbound dollars — much of it from illegals — forms one of Mexico’s largest sources of “legitimate” revenue
According to the Inter-American Development Bank, more than $30.1 billion is remitted to countries south of the border by Latino immigrants in the U.S. If even half of this money is destined for Mexico (it’s likely far more), this $15-plus billion yearly revenue stream rivals Mexico’s largest single source of revenue — oil, at roughly $21 billion in 2004 (IEA estimates). Immigrants’ dollars sent home blow away tourism’s $10 billion in Mexican revenues. There’s another source of cash that’s even bigger, but nobody’s talking about it…
· Revenues from crimes perpetrated by illegals likely funnels another $20 billion or more into Mexico every year — off the books
According to Wikipedia, as much as 25% of Mexico’s GDP comes from crime. Depending on how you calculate GDP, that totals up to between $175-250 billion. Drug trafficking is, by far, the largest single source of criminal revenue, and of course, a large percentage of these drugs are destined for the United States. Using even conservative numbers ($200 billion in crime-related Mexican GDP, 50% from drugs, with only 60% of sales coming from the United States), it’s still no great stretch to conclude that at least $60 billion in American cash is making its way into Mexico per year from illicit drug sales. Exactly how much of this cash flow is facilitated by illegals would be hard to pin down. But since they’re surely used as border-runners, drug mules, dealers, or enforcers more often than legal Latino immigrants, it’s safe to estimate that illegals must facilitate at least $20 billion worth of the Mexico/U.S. drug trade every year. And it’s probably far more…
Keep in mind that all of that American dinero is propping up Mexico’s economy, enabling (relative) prosperity without a single additional penny being expended by the Mexican government for business assistance, infrastructure development, social programs, or aggressive re-engineering of the commercial climate toward production and profitability — ostensibly the goals of NAFTA and other trade policies. In short, every U.S. dollar that flows into Mexico without being in exchange for a good, service, or commodity weakens our economy, while doing nothing to spur our southern neighbor’s advancement into the First World and ultimately into a position where more substantial and meaningful trade agreements might be forged (especially for oil).
Is it possible that, rather than assimilating, the hordes of illegals poring over our border will continue to balkenize, continue to refuse to learn English or to give allegiance to the United States? Is it possible that they will continue to demand “their rights” to stay and to government services and will do so through economic and physical intimidation and perhaps violence? Will that create competition between them and American unskilled labor that will threaten our very country?
As the American people continue to rouse themselves from their good natured tolerance, will they take note of this competition and try to assert themselves by voicing opinions and insisting that their leaders do something?
And then, just as has happened in Great Britain, Canada, Australia and Italy, will our leaders impose upon us anarcho-tyranny? In other words, will they continue to refuse to control the criminal, allowing anarchy among the illegals, and, instead control and tyrannize the innocent?
Finally, what happens if the housing industry where a huge percentage of the illegals work has a significant downturn? What happens if that ripples through the economy? What happens if our economy goes to hell and we have these huge enclaves of unassimilated, unskilled labor?
Will Americans then become tax slaves to fund the survival of illegal aliens and their families back in Mexico?
Update:
For an example of anarcho-tyranny, go to Aussie News & Views. The immigrants there have taken over the streets of Sydney, the innocent bear the brunt. And in Australia as noted above, those who speak out are prosecuted. Here’s an even better example from the same site. Australia breaks up a terror plot, and an Iman wants the government there to come down on the “rednecks”. Scroll down and get a load of the anarchy those people have unleashed on the streets of Victoria.
Things I feel sick about:
So what if we liberated women? Look at what this “liberated Afghan woman jailer” says about freedom of relgion,
“We will cut him into little pieces,” said Hosnia Wafayosofi, who works at the jail, as she made a cutting motion with her hands. “There’s no need to see him.”
Hosnia, baby, a few years ago, you would have been shot for working outside the home.
To hell with these people. I want my tax money that was used to rebuild Afghanistan back. I say that we leave and if they lift their heads to support anyone who tries to hurt us, we make their country into nuclear glass.
Not one of our soldiers should die to support these people’s “rights”.
Another rant,
What the hell have we wrought over there? What kind of judiciary that purports to be fair includes judges who say the following about a case THAT HAS NOT EVEN YET BEEN TRIED?
Judge Ansarullah Mawlawizada, who is handling the case, said he normally takes two months to decide on cases. But because this case is so serious, he expected to hold another hearing within the next week and make a decision.
Mawlawizada, who kept Rahman’s green Bible on his desk, said he respected all religions. He emphasized that he did not favor the aggressiveness of the Taliban, who cut the hands and feet off criminals in a soccer stadium. But he said Rahman had to repent.
“If he doesn’t regret his conversion, the punishment will be enforced on him,” the judge said. “And the punishment is death.”
The Afghans can rot in hell as far as I’m concerned.
I just finished reading Empire of Debt : The Rise Of An Epic Financial Crisis by William Bonner and Addison Wiggin . I could hardly put it down this past weekend. It is both funny and terrifying. It challenged all my assumptions and positions.
Here is an excerpt from the back of the cover,
In America, we know what we have to do. We have an empire to run. Outlying places to police. People to boss around. Sabres to rattle. And an economy that has to remain Numero Uno. Unfortunately, history shows that running an empire is a disastrously expensive business. You pay in cash. You pay in blood. And you pay with your own soul.
The book is part history, part economics, part finance. It traces our empire building back to Wilson. You will cringe at Wilson’s expressions about his grand ideas. Or, perhaps our empire building started with Teddy Roosevelt.
Regardless, the authors point out that we are a funny kind of empire. The Roman Empire made money through empire building. The Romans extracted loot and tribute. Instead, we spent money on our outliers–making some of them rich enough to become our biggest competitors.
If that’s not absurd enough, think about this. The authors point out that our biggest creditor is China. China has loaned us billions of dollars. They sell us products that we don’t make anymore and then take the dollars and loan them back to us. We take those dollars and spend them on such ventures as bringing democracy to and rebuilding Iraq.
Think of it this way. We are borrowing the savings of some of the poorest people on Earth and spending them to “make Muslims in Iraq like us”. Is it possible that this is absurd?
This book makes a strong argument that we need to spend a little time on the financial mess in our country, rather than trying to improve the countries of others.
I highly recommend it.
I hope it’s not the taxpayers or someone who loses their property to eminent domain.
Austin’s already got the world’s best cyclist. Why not add a world-class indoor bicycle racing track?
Or think bigger — move the headquarters of the national governing body for the sport here and create a museum dedicated to seven-time Tour de France winner and hometown hero Lance Armstrong. Along the way, grow the top program for up-and-coming cyclists, from youths to Olympians to the pro ranks.
A nonprofit group, the Austin Velodrome Project, is pushing to build a $35 million indoor velodrome in the city. The proposed facility, which has the support of Armstrong, would seat 5,000 people around a banked, 250-meter wooden track, where coaches could closely watch athletes. It would provide a place for uninterrupted, year-round training.
“It would make Austin the center of the cycling universe,” said Todd Reed, a corporate attorney and director of the board of the Austin Velodrome Project.
If the velodrome gets built in Austin, Gerard Bisceglia, head of USA Cycling, which oversees all amateur and professional bike racing in the U.S., says he would consider moving the group’s headquarters — along with the national and Olympic cycling teams — from the Olympic Training Center site in Colorado Springs, Colo., to Austin. Cyclists now train on an outdoor track at the center but travel elsewhere to ride during the cold, snowy months.
Hmmmm…
The Austin group has its eye on four possible sites for the velodrome complex. Major national companies, which Reed declines to name, have been approached for corporate sponsorships to help build the velodrome, he says, but none has committed pending a site decision. Other money for the project could come from government grants such as the Texas Enterprise Fund, an economic development program, Reed says.
Is that one of thoses types of economic development programs that are often behind eminent domain actions?
Back to the story,
One proposed site is part of a privately owned tract in Central Austin. Reed says a local developer bidding on this undisclosed tract has told him a 4- or 5-acre velodrome complex could be incorporated into the larger site. The other three proposed sites are on public land. One is at the southeast corner of MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) and Town Lake, at the site of an old landfill now used for overflow parking during events at Zilker Park.
Another possible site is the Butler baseball fields on Toomey Road, west of Zachary Scott Theatre Center. Velodrome proponents have suggested sharing parking facilities with the theater or including new city Parks and Recreation Department offices in the project. Those offices now front South Lamar Boulevard on the east end of the site.
“We’re supportive, but neutral,” said Ann Ciccolella, managing director of Zachary Scott, which operates on public parkland. A November bond issue election includes money to expand and rebuild the theater.
I think that Ann Ciccolella should be a little worried about this.
I would hate to see businesses or parks or ballfields that Austin residents have been enjoying for years, swept away to attract outsiders. It seems to me that “economic development” helped along by the State is often at the expense of long time residents and for the benefit of outsiders.
I am very wary of this project.
