| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:44 am Post subject: Mortgages and the Jewish Question |
| http://www.forward.com/articles/11392/
Mortgages and the Jewish Question
Fri. Aug 17, 2007
For most of us, the current crisis in America’s housing market is a distant echo, a barely understood series of headlines that might as well be in Greek, in a section of the newspaper often left unread. But the crisis is real. It threatens hundreds of thousands of American families who are in danger of losing their homes, and it threatens America’s status as a superpower on the world stage. It is the first payment for George Bush’s other mismanagement, the fiscal and financial wrong-headedness that so many, including this page, have warned about for years.
Article tools
Text size: Larger | Smaller
Print this article
Email this article
More in Editorial
Although this crisis consists of a complicated series of events, each leading to the next, it is not hard to understand. Thanks partly to the decline of America’s manufacturing-based economy, partly to the deregulation of banking and finance two decades ago, and partly to tax “reforms,” there’s been a tremendous growth in financial services — borrowing and lending for profit — as a share of our economy in recent years.
To the naked eye, this surge is most visible in a constant barrage of advertising, telemarketing and junk mail urging us to borrow — to acquire new credit cards, to apply for easy mortgages, to refinance our personal debt and then roll it over again. Financial institutions, under constant pressure for growth, have continually lowered the requirements for consumer credit, extending loans to people who may not be able to repay. Most insidious are “balloon” mortgages that start cheap, with higher payments promised somewhere down the road. Based largely on the availability of easy money, the housing industry has experienced a frenzy of building. It is the era of the McMansion.
Now we have arrived at that place somewhere down the road. Throughout the country, families are finding their mortgages ballooning — or their incomes declining, as factories flee — and cannot make payments. Lending institutions are finding themselves short of cash, and cannot pay their investors. Investment funds based on buying up debt — promising their investors great profits when the borrowers repay — are simply failing. The housing industry itself, one of the main engines of American economic growth in recent years, is slowing down. Not surprisingly, the economy’s growth in 2007 has been the slowest in four years, according to the Commerce Department. Slow growth lowers the value of the dollar on world markets, and so Americans — consumers and Uncle Sam alike — can buy less. Retail sales were alarmingly slow in July.
And now comes the big bomb: the failure of foreign funds that had invested in American credit, especially mortgages. Two big German institutions shut down trading in July to prevent a panicked sell-off. Last week, one of France’s biggest banks shut down three of its funds for the same reason. The European Central Bank stepped in by injecting $130 billion in new cash to prop up banks that are low on cash — because their American-based investments aren’t paying.
With the American economy in distress, foreign investors are shying away from the dollar and putting their money in other currencies. That pushes the value of the dollar further down. It also raises the price our federal government must pay to feed its constant appetite for borrowing instead of taxing. Reassuringly — or frighteningly, depending on where you stand — the overall world economy is not yet threatened by America’s crisis. As the respected British newsweekly The Economist noted recently, “Today, the world economy is growing strongly, despite the weakness in America.”
President Bush assured us last week that things are under control. “The fundamentals of our economy are strong,” Bush told a press conference August 9, the day after the three French banks shut their mortgage funds, sending the New York stock market tumbling in response.
“I am told there is enough liquidity in the system to enable markets to correct,” the president added. That is, Bush believes there’s enough cash to cover the current failures. The market is saying there isn’t.
Not coincidentally, the big news in Israel last week was the announcement that the Jewish state’s defense budget had to be slashed by a shocking 10%, suddenly and unexpectedly. The reason: Washington told Jerusalem it was not going to deliver an expected infusion of military aid, because Uncle Sam doesn’t have the money. The world economy may not be troubled by the weakness in America, but there’s one little corner of the world that’s terrified.
Fri. Aug 17, 2007 | |  | | medea | | Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | TEXT Ron Paul s Neo Conned Speech to the US House
Liberty Committee | July 10, 2003
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/160307_ronpaul_neoconned_text.html
The modern-day, limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Political party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.
Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?
Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.
One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.
The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced—and they certainly should have been—but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.
When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. For instance, future generations, or those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs – they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocations that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.
Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.
Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.
The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.
Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.
That remnant—imperfect as it may have been—was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the administration, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored—except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.
The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-11, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.
Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.
Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while total net worth of U.S. households is just over $40.6 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter—and especially for expanding the American empire—must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.
In spite of the floundering economy, the Congress and the administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.
How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?
Will the euphoria of grand military victories—against non-enemies—ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!
We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.
[There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the Republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.
Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.
The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process—where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy—is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington.
There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)
None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.
Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-op the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.
More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyists. Liberal Christopher Hitchins, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.
The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.
More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and
withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should
not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.
It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.
In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Early on, they urged war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.
The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.
The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.
Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation-building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?
At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.
It was recognized that a new era was upon us, and the neocons welcomed Frances Fukuyama’s “end of history” declaration. To them, the debate was over. The West won; the Soviets lost. Old-fashioned communism was dead. Long live the new era of neoconservatism. The struggle may not be over, but the West won the intellectual fight, they reasoned. The only problem is that the neocons decided to define the philosophy of the victors. They have been amazingly successful in their efforts to control the debate over what Western values are and by what methods they will be spread throughout the world.
Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders understood it. Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world.
Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. The breakup of the Soviet system may well have been an epic event, but to say that is a victory for the views of the neocons and all we need to do is wait for their implementation, is a capitulation to controlling the forces of history that many Americans are not yet ready to concede. There is surely no need to do so.
There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today’s policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.
Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same. In 1999, Ledeen titled his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.
In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machiavelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”
If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.
In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situation ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”
Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it’s obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace—believing peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.
The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man’s condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there’s no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man’s nature and that we can’t do much about it, so let’s use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.
Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten,” argues Ledeen. “It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington? The question Ledeen doesn’t answer is: “Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?”
Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: “lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.” What about the effects of lying on one’s own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.
Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries—because that’s the way it’s always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains: “Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle.”
Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man’s disputes. How can one call this progress?
Machiavelli, Ledeen and the neocons recognized a need to generate a religious zeal for promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. It’s been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God’s approval. Our side refers to a “crusade;” theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.
Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: “Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.” It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than eternal salvation of one’s soul. Ledeen adds: “Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws…to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular.”
It's of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their support.
I’d like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a “spectacular” state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the “spectacular state.”
He explains in eerie terms: “Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.” This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy.
Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.
Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999): “…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.”
Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”
Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but that this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling, is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.
The fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S. interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for an American world hegemony.
The current attention given neocons usually comes in the context of foreign policy. But there’s more to what’s going on today than just the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call “neoconism.” The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package.
We know those who lead us—both in the administration and in Congress—show no appetite to challenge the tax or monetary systems that do so much damage to our economy. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are off limits for criticism or reform. There’s no resistance to spending, either domestic or foreign. Debt is not seen as a problem. The supply-siders won on this issue, and now many conservatives readily endorse deficit spending.
There’s no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress. Foreign aid and internationalism—in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty—are championed on both sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.
Instead of the “end of history,” we are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation’s capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.
Neocons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both parties overwhelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the new approach called “compassionate conservatism” has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based initiative is a neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were neocons, but there’s nothing conservative about expanding the federal government’s role in welfare.
The supply-siders’ policy of low-marginal tax rates has been incorporated into neoconism, as well as their support for easy money and generous monetary inflation. Neoconservatives are disinterested in the gold standard and even ignore the supply-siders’ argument for a phony gold standard.
Is it any wonder that federal government spending is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?
Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one. In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another—whether or not it is done with good intentions.
I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all neocons don’t necessarily agree on all points—which means that in spite of their tremendous influence, most members of Congress and those in the administration do not necessarily take their marching orders from AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about and agitate for—with amazing success I might point out—would be at our own peril. This country still allows open discourse—though less everyday—and we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies. It is getting more difficult to get fair and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine for the hegemons to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American. We should all be thankful for C-SPAN and the Internet.
Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned early American history! It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.
If the neoconservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-government movement in Washington, the ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting the size and scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.
The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the administration’s proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that preemptive war—for almost any reason—is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.
In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington—with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building—there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job.
We’re at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I’m not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We’re all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money.
One thing is certain, no matter how morally justified the programs and policies seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being promised is limited, and those limits are becoming more apparent every day.
Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity. It hasn’t worked in Japan, and it isn’t working here either. As a matter of fact, it’s never worked anytime throughout history. A point is always reached where government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these old tools reviving an economy, as they do in the early stages of economic interventionism, they eventually become the problem. Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem—it’s a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps who champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it’s not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.
Once enough of us decide we’ve had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising—or more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people—we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for today’s problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected.
Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society.
| | | | | Philadelphian | | Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject: Even nature must abhore them |
| The 'Terrorized' Jew....."Even nature abhores us!"
 | | | | WINN | | Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:41 am Post subject: |
| | Well, a silver lining of decline is that the only-with-us-for-our-resources parasites will tend to go elsewhere, as they did vis-a-vis Britain. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:55 am Post subject: |
| Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Foppe"
Subject: Fwd: [APFT] WHAT DOES "FED PUMPS $68 BILLION INTO BANKING SYSTEM" ACTUALLY MEAN? Devvy Kidd explains....
It means exactly what it says, money was created.
This was done because money became scarce, anyone able to make his debtors repay loans did so, because anyone fears something like 1929.
At the time private bankers for some time injected money, into a soap bubble.
I fear that right now the same is happening.
It does not matter if federal institutions or private bankers pump created money into a system, once little men are panicking, as a S E Asian commentator stated right this morning, the monetary system collapses.
Contrary to popular opinion the monetary (and banking) system just is based on trust,
once trust vanishes the system collapses.
The first EU Bank President Duisenberg is his last interview, with a Spanish newspaper, stated 'that he prayed the fall of the dollar would be slow, so that the world could cope with it'.
He added 'that no country can permanently sustain a balance of payment deficit'.
The USA has such a deficit since WW II, I suppose.
Alex James <alexjamesnews2@gmail.com> wrote:
To: <total_truth_sciences@googlegroups.com>
From: "Alex James" <alexjamesnews2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:40:46 +0300
Subject: [APFT] WHAT DOES "FED PUMPS $68 BILLION INTO BANKING SYSTEM" ACTUALLY MEAN? Devvy Kidd explains....
Please check http://groups. google.com/ group/total_ truth_sciences/ topics/ for more real news posts and support the truth! (sorry but don't have time to email all posts) “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists”. J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1924-1972, quoted in The Elks Magazine (August 1956).
http://www.newswith views.com/ Devvy/kidd296. htm
Additional Titles
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Devvy belongs to no organization.
She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site (www.devvy.com) contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.
Devvy's website: www.devvy.com
Before you send Devvy e-mail, please take the time to check the FAQ section on her web site. It is filled with answers to frequently asked questions and links to reliable research sources.
E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink. net
Other
Devvy
Articles:
Vote Fraud: What They Aren't Telling You
Forced Mental Health Screening for Your Children
How the IRS Lies to Employers About Withholding
IRS Makes Chilling Proclamation
More
Devvy
Articles:
WHAT DOES "FED PUMPS $68 BILLION INTO BANKING SYSTEM" ACTUALLY MEAN?
PART 1 of 2
By: Devvy
August 13, 2007
© 2007 - NewsWithViews. com
Last week saw a bucking bronco ride in the stock market. The American people read headlines such as: Fed vows, then pumps massive funds to calm markets and Fed's $38 billion helps markets. I have written many columns the past several years as have hundreds of others warning of the coming financial tsunami. Far too many people scoffed at all the warnings, continued to rack up massive debt and pursued the American dream of owning their own home when their financial portfolio and credit history simply could not float the big boat they were taking out into the ocean. The first of the dominos began to teeter earlier in the week: Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- "American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. became the second-biggest residential lender to file for bankruptcy protection this year, adding to signs that late payments have spread to homeowners with good credit records."
Dr. Edwin Vieira is arguably the foremost authority in this country on the central bank and the history of our monetary system. His monumental tomes, CrashMaker (fiction) and Pieces of Eight (non-fiction) are the quintessential teaching tools towards understanding this complex issue and making it understandable for average Americans like me. I bring this up because over the weekend I had a long telephone discussion with Edwin about the market last week. We both agree that the clock is ticking and all the bombastic gas let loose by financial guru's like FAUX's (FOX) Neil Cavuto, is just that because all the kings horses and all the kings men will not be able to fix this one. Not for a long time.
The government's plunge protection team (PPP) galloped in this past week and dumped almost $70 billion "dollars" into the banking system to save themselves. Creating "billions" out of thin air. Worldwide, central banks were scrambling and issuing more worthless paper to the tune of triple digit billions. The big neon billboard has been lit up with a message no one wanted: the stock market growing more fearful about tightening credit after years of free for all liquidity. High Times at Mortgage Express. Investors who don't have in-depth knowledge or real understanding of our monetary system and the FED, trying to figure out what's going to happen to their investments. The subprime mortgage market free fall has been building for years. These are loans made to people who have less than ideal credit - all being done during a housing market that began it's slumpalmost two years ago.
On August 9, 2007, the privately owned Federal Reserve pumped "$24 billion in temporary reserves to the banking system amid an increase in demand for cash from banks roiled by U.S. subprime loan losses." The next day, the FED infused the dying patient on the operating table three different injections: $38 billion. Some say this won't be nearly enough to stop the hemorrhaging. This latest "rescue" by the central bank is going to be short lived and many experts not on the government's payroll predict the FED will have to reverse it's decision last week to leave interest rates alone and instead, announce an emergency drop in rates. The wise folks over at urbansurvival. com said it best last Friday: "When up to a third of a trillion dollars being dumped into financial market's in 36-hours doesn't stem the tide, even the financially ignorant can sense something has changed. That's pouring money into the financial system at a rate equivalent to all of Canada's Annual GDP every four days. And what did we get? A 31-point Dow loss anyway!"
The government announced on August 10, 2007, that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will not be allowed to acquire any more mortgage debt. Banks and lending institutions have for too long been making bad loans and despite the gigantic warnings signs, greed carried them through the years, but now foreclosures packages are spitting out more paper than the Pentagon. Let me give you an example. Go to: www.foreclosure. com On the left side, just pick California (state) and Los Angeles (county). Look at just this one list of houses in foreclosure. There are other sites I've browsed with page after page after page of houses in foreclosure just in the LA area alone; they range from $250,000-$1. 8 million. Foreclosures were already hitting record numbers by June 2007.
The inventory of available housing continues to stack up like Uncle Sam's IOUs to the world. The "dominant media" continues to dress up the naked mannequin in little better than see-through clothing; the numbers tell the real story. During the roaring re-fi years of low interest rates, Americans took the equity out of their homes and enjoyed the good life. Then came the unpleasant taste of fear when their homes were no longer worth what they paid for them, inventory in their areas can't be sold and the final shocker: subprime loans in numbers enough to gag a planet suddenly went bad as consumers could no longer make those payments. Where do these folks go when they are forced out because of foreclosure? Rental apartments, family or in their cars. They contribute nothing to the economy because any disposable income they might have goes just for the basics of survival.
As Edwin said in our recent conversation, the system has to keep propping itself up in an attempt to fend off hyper inflation like what hit Argentina where people once able to prosper were eating out of garbage cans. Unfortunately, and sadly, most Americans simply have little or no understanding of the subject matter, but to not understand what's happening will be deadly for millions. How will this affect the average American out there already dying under the weight of credit cards debt insufficient household income (despite two working people, sometimes with three paychecks) and taxes in all forms taking disposable income?
1. The middle class has been destroyed by unconstitutional trade agreements; our most productive and important job sectors decimated - agriculture, manufacturing, industrial. Wages have not kept up with the cost of goods and services; the illegals invasion sucking the lifeblood out of this country by stealing jobs (like meat packing at good wages) and sending BILLIONS "home." Pile on the continued sacking of the people's purse by thieves in one Congress after another and a five year undeclared war being funded through borrowing slapped on their backs, has left the American family broke. Seniors living on social security and investments will see those dwindle and will have to keep tapping whatever savings they might have accumulated over their lifetimes. One "rainy day" will drown them.
2. Growing numbers of Americans refuse to buy Made in Communist China; I am one who has been doing it since 1994 when NAFTA was unconstitutionally signed into law. I don't even own a toaster. I go without when I can't find what I need, but I can generally find what I want by taking the time; see Made in USA. If you can't find it there, do a www.scroogle. org search and you will get results. This does not help our economy or retailers, but I'm sorry. I will not give my money to an enemy of my country just for "things." And, remember this: there's a good chance the fur in your sweater, parka and even doll clothes comes from dogs skinned alive in Communist China.
3. In the real world, parents across this country are scrambling to get their children new clothes, books and other trappings because summer break ends for most schools the end of this month. Cash strapped, they go for credit cards. Too many are already maxed out and as credit tightens by the banks, the situation becomes even more dire. Heap the bankruptcies on top of foreclosures (July 2007: Ariz. bankruptcies up 60%; credit-card debt, higher mortgage payments cited) and we're no longer talking chump change here, we're talking about a dreadful scenario for our nation.
4. In a couple of months you will start to see hints of Thanksgiving and Christmas decorations begin to hit the big box stores. Retailers depend on the grotesque spending spree every December called Christ-mas for their big earnings boost. But what's going to happen this year? It's difficult to buy Christmas presents - especially all that 'bling' when your house is in foreclosure, you're one of two SUV payments behind and child care is running you $150 a week. Johnny needs braces, Sally wants ballet lessons, both kids want to go to Disneyland and you would just love a week in the French countryside. However, when the financial squeeze starts to keep you awake at night, the first thing to go is non-essential services like entertainment, eating out in restaurants 2-3 nights a week, vacations and those $75 seats at the Cowboys game. Savings in this country is almost extinct and for the poor, the only place they have to go is ever expanding food banks which are hurting in many major cities throughout the country. For part 2 click below.
Click here for part -----> 2,
WHAT DOES "FED PUMPS $68 BILLION INTO BANKING SYSTEM" ACTUALLY MEAN?
PART 2 of 2
By: Devvy
August 13, 2007
© 2007 - NewsWithViews. com
What's going to happen next year when the first wave of baby boomers begin to retire? At the sake of repeating myself, Comptroller General David Walker has been touring the U.S. trying to warn the American people what's going to happen and it isn't pretty: "What they don't talk about is a dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows, or at least should. The vast majority of economists and budget analysts agree: The ship of state is on a disastrous course, and will founder on the reefs of economic disaster if nothing is done to correct it." The only presidential candidate addressing the issue of the FED and our economy is Congressman Ron Paul, a man now hated by his own party (GOP) and marginalized by the MSM (mainstream media) and cable networks as if one of the great constitutionalists of our time is nothing more than a "maverick and semi-crank." (Look at this exquisite ad for Dr. Paul). The tax and spend Democrats (who replaced the tax and spend Republicans) have been in office eight months and what have they accomplished? Zippo, yet the one man who can do what has to be done (along with the right Secretary of Treasury, say Dr. Edwin Vieira) is being treated like a disease.
5. It isn't just the house that doesn't sell causing major financial problems, it's also the construction industry itself. Every house has a faucet, carpeting, light fixtures - but all industries suffer when houses aren't built or remodeling stops because of a recession or depression. That means major home improvement stores like Home Depot, lays off and the domino effect starts to rattle already jittery investor nerves. Investors don't like "lower than expected" earnings and anyone who has done enough research knows the feds have been cooking the books for decades thereby deceiving investors. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost. Local municipalities suffer because contractors are charged a percentage of the project for schools, parks and other revenue generating enterprises. Tax bases from a dozen sources dry up. Every related industry from mortgage loan brokers, realtors to escrow companies all begin to feel the noose. Tensions heat up as tribalism takes over as a matter of survival and crime increases in these massive, over crowded metropolitan cities. It's not a pretty picture when one sits down and lists all the ingredients for financial and societal melt down.
I wish everyone could subscribe to LeMetropolecafe. com. Their writers are exceptional. Their knowledge of this subject matter is easy to understand and not sanitized for votes, i.,e., this recent post by Neville Bennett on Credit contamination: "The sub-prime mortgages offered by U.S. institutions have been sliced, diced and repackaged to get them off U.S. bank balance sheets. They have contaminated global credit markets. Very strong metaphors are appropriate. To some extent, it is poison. It is also a virus, virulent and contagious. 49 European banks and financial institutions needed support last week.
"It could be more this week as uncertainty spreads. Banks can discount good news, they can discount bad news, but one report rightly says, “they cannot discount what they do not know.” My take is that they do not know the present value of their assets. The packages of U.S. housing debt, sold under a variety of names, were syndicated and accepted because they had a credit rating and a good anticipated yield. However, there have been more sub prime defaults than anticipated and escalating defaults. It is increasingly difficult value these packages. Many large hedge funds are admitting a 25% fall in value. This is often wildly optimistic. The Street is predicting a 90% fall.
"Rather than discuss generalities, this article will explore the recent difficulties of BNP Paribas, France’s largest bank. The Bank caused mayhem in Europe by suspending three investment funds worth 2 bn euros, saying it was impossible to value certain assets, because of the “complete evaporation “of liquidity in some markets. It said a valuation would be made “when liquidity returned to the market.” The ECB responded to the crisis made $130 b of loans available. These were on the same scale as the intervention on 9/11. What impressed me was that 49 banks and financial institution grasped the ECB’s lifeline. 49 banks needing support!
"Paribas’s statement is very scary. It confirms that the two-way movement of bonds and derivatives associated with the U.S. housing market is seizing up. I have heard that $3 trillion of derivatives have been written in this market. There will be massive repercussions. The scariest aspect could be that the massive French bank declined to buy these investments from investors who want to sell. It suspended activity. It could have bought them at fair value, and have held the bonds until maturity. It did not. This suggests the bonds are toxic...Paribas apparently invested also in asset-backed securities (ABS) which are bundles of loans, (credit card loans, car loans etc) that were packaged together into bonds. These are now frozen. The mounting crisis is reflected in the soaring LIBOR (London interbank offered rate). The LIBOR is regarded a risk-free investment made on overnight loans. It is important to realize how fast the credit storm is developing."
How is the average Joe and Mary out in America trying to put food on the table and fill up their gas tank at $50 - $75 bux a pop going to understand all this, much less react to it? The media continues to gloss things over with carefully crafted word smithing while a gallon of milk climbs towards $4.00. Dr. Edwin Vieira began warning Americans a couple of years ago in his columns, i.e., Are Monetary and Banking Crises Inevitable in the Near Future?
As always, I highly recommend you get your assets protected by investing at least part of your portfolio into gold. I'm not a gold dealer, broker or retailer. However, it makes me sick to see my fellow Americans being led down the path of ruin. I have studied the history of our money, banking, the crash of '29 and I know what's coming. It's going to be a bumpy ride through the rest of this year. Next year is a presidential election and every effort will be made to see things don't blow up until after the inauguration in January 2009, and then as Edwin told me on the phone: all bets are off. 2009 is the same year the feds will try to push a National ID on everyone even though almost two dozen states have already said no; the North American Union is supposed to go on line with its first steps towards ending the United States of America; likely a massive push to shove an Amero form of currency down our throats and in between, we have to worry about the lunatic in the White House bombing Iran. If you would like to learn more about gold ownership and protecting your assets now, you might call my friend Harvey Gordin, El Dorado Gold, at 623.434.3343.
I also highly recommend you get Edwin Vieira's book, 'Constitutional Homeland Security: A Call for Americans to Revitalize the Militia of the Several States. Volume I, The Nation in Arms.' Reconstituting the state militias under the control of the state legislatures has got to become a top priority in this country. We all saw what happened after Katrina when law and order broke down. When the have nots go after the haves and the illegals go berserk, Americans had better be prepared because Marxist Hillary Clinton, slick, flim-flam man, Mitt Romney or the nitwit Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, will not be there to save you or your family. You can money to the bank on that - if you have any left. For part 1 click below.
Click here for part -----> 1,
Important Information:
1, Mortgage meltdown contagion - U.S. government continues to downplay the danger
2, Short video GATA - audit of gold reserves
3, Fed Chairman: Delusional or Deceptive?
4, Our "Strong Economy:" A Powder key waiting to blow
5, Writings on Money (Scroll down to: The Works of Dr. Edwin Vieira)
6, Economy Master List
7, Is the Fed an Inflation Fighter or Creator?
8, The Gold Problem
© 2007 - NewsWithViews. com - All Rights Reserved
Important Information:
1, Mortgage meltdown contagion - U.S. government continues to downplay the danger
2, Short video GATA - audit of gold reserves
3, Fed Chairman: Delusional or Deceptive?
4, Our "Strong Economy:" A Powder key waiting to blow
5, Writings on Money (Scroll down to: The Works of Dr. Edwin Vieira)
6, Economy Master List
7, Is the Fed an Inflation Fighter or Creator?
8, The Gold Problem
© 2007 - NewsWithViews. com - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Devvy belongs to no organization.
She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site (www.devvy.com) contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.
Devvy's website: www.devvy.com
Before you send Devvy e-mail, please take the time to check the FAQ section on her web site. It is filled with answers to frequently asked questions and links to reliable research sources.
E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink. net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: |
| Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Foppe Dykstra" <foppe.dykstra@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fwd: [APFT] Bush Neocon/Zionists have borrowed over a $Trillion by 2005, more than past 42 Presidents; Banking Dynasties are laughing while we support the debt
Roosevelt also borrowed more than all presidents that preceded him.
1. John T. Flynn, ´The Roosevelt Myth, A critical account of the New Deal and its creator’, New York 1948, 1949
Roosevelt seems to have believed, he understood nothing about banking and/or economics, that the federal debt is not a debt.
Right now the federal debt is near 9.000 trillion dollars.
Of course the USA states also have debts.
I've never seen the addition, or what part of this addition is debt to foreign countries, and what part is debt within the USA.
What seems sure is that the USA will never be able to repay it's foreign debt, what also is sure that right now nobody is prepared to pull the plug on the USA, nobody wants to be accused of destroying wealth.
Of course this apparent wealth is just a soap bubble, but as with the new clothes of the emperor nobody dares to say what the child said.
So we continue until something like 1929 happens.
The 2006 national income of the USA was $ 13 trillion.
So the present federal debt is some 700 times the national income.
Let us assume the USA can save 5% of it's national income to pay back the federal debt, from 1938 on the USA never saved anything, on the contrary, it borrowed all the time.
Then, assuming the unimaginable, the USA would need twenty times 700 = 14 thousand years to pay back the debt.
Alex James <alexjamesnews2@gmail.com> wrote:
To: <total_truth_sciences@googlegroups.com>
From: "Alex James" <alexjamesnews2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:19:36 +0300
Subject: [APFT] Bush Neocon/Zionists have borrowed over a $Trillion by 2005, more than past 42 Presidents; Banking Dynasties are laughing while we support the debt
Please check http://groups. google.com/ group/total_ truth_sciences/ topics/ for more real news posts and support the truth! (sorry but don't have time to email all posts) “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists”. J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1924-1972, quoted in The Elks Magazine (August 1956).
http://eteraz. org/2007/ 08/14/us- comptroller- slams-us- economic- inequity/
http://digg. com/business_ finance/Bush_ has_borrowed_ more_than_ all_previous_ 42_Presidents_ Combined
According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.
By the way, that was in 2005.
« Bush’s Rich-Favoritism & Crash of US Middle Class Housing
Howard Dean is smart. »
US Comptroller Slams US Economic Inequity
The US Comptroller, head of the Government Accounting Office, which is the investigative arm of Congress, warns that America must take lessons from the end of the Roman Empire. Says the two top issues affecting the internal health of America are “fiscal responsibility and inter-generational equity.”
Over at Financial Times:
In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Walker said he had mentioned some of the issues before but now wanted to “turn up the volume”. Some of them were too sensitive for others in government to “have their name associated with”.
“I’m trying to sound an alarm and issue a wake-up call,” he said. “As comptroller general I’ve got an ability to look longer-range and take on issues that others may be hesitant, and in many cases may not be in a position, to take on.
“One of the concerns is obviously we are a great country but we face major sustainability challenges that we are not taking seriously enough,” said Mr Walker, who was appointed during the Clinton administration to the post, which carries a 15-year term.
The fiscal imbalance meant the US was “on a path toward an explosion of debt”.
“With the looming retirement of baby boomers, spiralling healthcare costs, plummeting savings rates and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks,” said Mr Walker, a former senior executive at PwC auditing firm.
Current US policy on education, energy, the environment, immigration and Iraq also was on an “unsustainable path”.
“Our very prosperity is placing greater demands on our physical infrastructure. Billions of dollars will be needed to modernise everything from highways and airports to water and sewage systems. The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a sobering wake-up call.”
Mr Walker said he would offer to brief the would-be presidential candidates next spring.
“They need to make fiscal responsibility and inter-generational equity one of their top priorities. If they do, I think we have a chance to turn this around but if they don’t, I think the risk of a serious crisis rises considerably”.
Bush’s America? Not fiscally responsible.
Bush borrowed more than all previous 42 Presidents. Combined. Rome, here we come:
According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.
By the way, that was in 2005.
Explosion of debt? Didn’t we just discuss that.
*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only ***
to receive email at another address, please reply with subject line “CHANGE”
to receive multiple daily news updates, please reply with subject line "DAILY MULTIPLE"
to receive single daily news updates, please reply with subject line "DAILY SINGLE"
to receive weekly updates only, please reply with "WEEKLY"
to be removed from the list, please reply with the subject line "REMOVE"
NOTE: Some links may require cut and paste into your Internet Browser.
Most emails posted at
http://groups. google.com/ group/total_ truth_sciences/ topics
http://blogs. albawaba. com/alexanderjam es/
http://www.lulu. com/content/ 165077;
http://bb.domaindlx .com/alexjames99 9
http://blogs. albawaba. com/Alexanderjam es/page/links
*** Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes only. *** Welcome to Real News Edited excerpts, non-partisan, pro-truth-honesty- peace, and anti-war-lies- crime. The purpose is to expose corruptions, frauds, deceptions, lies, criminal plans, cover-ups and free-speech silencing by powerful people in governments, foundations, corporations and media, which are done using the name of democracy, human rights, false interpretations of religions, cults, occults, patriotism, economy, business, media, elections, justice, charity, etc., and are used to trick the public into hatred & wars and out of their lives, money and freedoms, while the propaganda we are subjected to makes us believe that we have evolved to where such things cannot happen [remember slavery, apartheid…]. Please share what you learn with others who do not have access to the internet. This is only a tip of the iceberg. Stop the hatred that is used to promote the dehumanization of the victims of aggressions; spread the truth;free your mind from being a Zioncon occupied territory of the neo-feudal lords by rejecting the mainstream news propaganda. Caution: real news may induce a kind of schizophrenia because it provides a true vision of reality which is so different from the one we are presented by the mass media spins. Latest real infonews available at alternate news. ***** Check whatreallyhappened . com & other alternative news sites for latest news flashes. In Truth We Trust! The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of the recipient, disseminator or others mentioned in the information. These are offered as a means to stimulate dialogue and discussion.
__._,_.___ | | | | medea | | Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: |
| | economic gyrations were the precipitating cause for Hitler's rise to dominance, for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
