Group items tagged

"What the hell just happened? That is the question that many Americans should be asking themselves following the news conference where Obama unveiled his plan for destroying the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. At first glance it appeared to be a case of Obama shamelessly using the deaths of innocents, and some live children as a backdrop, to push for the passage of radical gun control measures by Congress. Most of these have no chance of passing, yet, Obama's signing of Executive orders initiating 23 so called Executive actions on gun control seemed like an afterthought. Unfortunately, that is the real story, but it is generally being overlooked. The fact is that with a few strokes of his pen Obama set up the mechanisms he will personally use to not only destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but also the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. It will not matter what Congress does, Obama can and will act on his own, using these Executive actions, and will be violating both the Constitution and his oath of office when he does it. Here are the sections of the Executive Order that he will use: "1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system." What exactly is relevant data? Does it include our medical records obtained through Obamacare, our tax returns, our political affiliations, our military background, and our credit history? I suggest that all of the above, even if it violates our fourth Amendment right to privacy will now be relevant data for determining if we are allowed to purchase a firearm. "2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system." This should be read in conjunction with section 16 of the order that says: "16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors

"Mr. Obama came to office without a conspicuous vision other than "bipartisanship" and a belief in the beneficent influence on America and the world of seeing a black man exercising the powers of the presidency. He wields his party's shibboleths like one who sees them mainly as levers for delivering the goods. His ideas about the exercise of politics, in fact, may be accurately reflected in the recent stimulus bill -- in office you supply the wish lists of those who put you there.

His will be a fascinating presidency to watch, not least because of his inexperience, his intellectual agility, and the crisis in which he finds himself. But his presidency will get really interesting in a year or two, or six months -- whenever he finally realizes that everything he thought he wanted to do is irrelevant. He'll then have to adapt an agenda for the world as it is, in which many childish things no longer have a place.

And, by the way, he kids himself if he believes he will be allowed, like FDR, to preside over a depression without being politically blamed for it. The public is different now -- the world is different -- and he will own the "Obama depression" sooner than he thinks.

Interview with Seth Lipsky, former Wall street Asia - NY Sun editor, and journalist.  Seth explains the constitutional requirements that Congress control and protect a hard currency.  He also explains his support for Ron Paul, the Paul-Perry-Cain "flat tax" proposals, and the Federal Reserve Bankster Cartel.  Hard to believe Seth worked for the Wall Street Journal, otherwise known as the globalist bankster voice.  IMHO, no one has done more to confuse the public with free market - capitalism posturing while promoting outrageous banksterism, crony capitalism and a militaristic global corporatism that threatens the sovereignty of the USA than the WSJ.  Seth however is great. excerpt: The founding fathers named the U.S. currency after a coin called a Spanish-milled dollar, which represented 371.25 grains of pure silver, and put protecting its value in the hands of Congress. "They meant the dollar to be a measure of value and in fact they gave Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof in the same sentence of the Constitution in which they gave Congress the power to fix the standards of weights and measures," Lipsky told Newsmax.TV. _________________________________________________________ Editor's note: To get 'It Shines for All' at a great price - Click Here Now. _________________________________________________________  "What the reform movement that we have been covering in The Sun wants Congress to do is to step up to that Constitutional responsibility to establish a proper value to the dollar, and then we wouldn't have to worry about inflation and rising prices," he said. "We would have to conduct the government's budgetary operations in a way that didn't result in a collapse in the value of our currency," said Lipsky. Under President Obama, the White House has enacted stimulus measures to incentivize job creation while the Federal Reserve has flooded the economy with money and swollen its balance sheet in an effort to spur

Well written comparison of Roosevelt's Great Depression and Obama's Great Recession; and how the same policies and attitudes produced the same results of prolonged economic misery.  Good charts comparing USA Obama misery to the rest of the world. excerpt: This may not be your grandfather's Great Depression, but many aspects of today's situation would remind him of the 1930s. If the recession that officially ended a year ago feels uncomfortably surreal to you yet familiar to him, it's probably because the recovery went missing. During the average recovery since World War II, gross domestic product (GDP) surpassed the pre-recession high five quarters after the recession began. It has never taken longer than seven quarters. Yet today, after 11 quarters, GDP is still below what it was in the fourth quarter of 2007. The economy is growing at only about a third of the rate of previous postwar recoveries from major recessions. FDR rode the tide of history while President Obama strives mightily against it. The progressive vision that resonated in the 1930s foundered on the hard experience of the 20th century, and it has no broad appeal in the 21st. The recovery from the Great Depression did not occur until World War II was underway, but it appears, as of today, that voters will bring the latest experiment in American collectivism to an end on Nov. 2. A real economic recovery won't be far behind.

This out of control Obama fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don't come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the 1981-82 recession might be appropriate. Consider the job losses that Mr. Obama always cites. In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4 million jobs. That's a grim statistic for sure, but represents just 2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4 million jobs were lost -- fewer in number than today, but the labor force was smaller. So 1981-82 job losses totaled 2.2% of the labor force, the same as now. Good stats comparing the Roosevelt great depression years, the Carter recession years and the Obama recession years.

This just may be the speech in which Barack Obama's speechwriters managed to set a new record in presidential hypocrisy. It's long and a very depressing read for someone who is intimately familiar with the issues he discusses. I've tried to highlight only the tastiest meat of the beast. But it's worth reading the whole thing, from the traitor's pledge of undying allegiance to Israel through the announcement that nothing has changed in America other than a public that is demanding peace but won't get it from Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama's contempt for the U.N. Charter riddles his speech, a treaty that is enshrined in our own law through the Constitution's Treaty Clause, is remarkable. That charter of course forbids wars of aggression (and threats thereof) absent the authorization of all permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.  

Related: the top 45 lies in Obama's U.N. speech: http://warisacrime.org/content/top-45-lies-obamas-speech-un

Interview with former Assistant Treasury Secretary, Paul Craig Roberts. He comments on the relationship between the Debt Limit Crisis, and the "Continuity of Government Plan" that would be triggered by a catastrophic emergency. The triggering of the Continuity of Government plan would result in the end of our Constitution. There is no provision in the Constitution for any kind of "Continuity of Government" plan. Especially a plan that would suspend or infringe in any way on the rights and liberties of individual Americans. Nothing!! "You can forget about any default in the debt ceiling crisis.  Former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says, "The debt ceiling will be raised.  No government wants to lose its power or lose its ability to borrow.  So, if they don't raise the debt ceiling, it is just a way of Washington committing hari-kari.  It simply removes the United States as a super power."  Dr. Roberts goes on to say, "If they don't make a deal, one of two things will happen. . . . The Federal Reserve, on its own authority, lends the Treasury the money. . . . The other alternative, Obama . . . can simply declare a national emergency and raise the debt ceiling on his own initiative.  He could govern as a dictator." What would happen if the U.S. did default?  Dr. Roberts says, "The danger of default is the rest of the world dumps dollars.  If they dump dollars, the Fed loses control, the whole system blows up.  The banks fail.  The bond market collapses.  The stock market won't go down 1,500 points; it would be cut in half. " No matter what happens, there is still an enormous and growing debt.  Dr. Roberts contends, "The situation is unsustainable."  It will blow up at some point, and Dr. Roberts predicts, "It will be worse than the Great Depression because in the Great Depression, prices fell along with employment.  Now, prices will be rising and employment would be falling. . . . Gold and silver prices

What caused this recession? We still don't have a simple explanation. Such is the uncertainty sapping the country's confidence that in a recent Rasmussen Reports poll only 53% of Americans said they prefer capitalism to socialism; 27% were unsure and 20% preferred socialism. Before seeking political asylum in free-market Hong Kong, consider reading a new book that critiques what went wrong with capitalism, written in order to save it. Judge Richard Posner's "A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent into Depression" is noteworthy. As a longtime University of Chicago professor and father of the free-market-based law-and-economics movement, Judge Posner makes an unlikely critic of capitalism. But as author of some 40 books and as the most frequently cited federal appeals court jurist, he is also one of our most original and clearheaded thinkers. Who's to blame and who's responsible for the recession? Judge Posner, who calls it a depression, distinguishes between the roles played by government and the private sector. "Although financiers bear the primary responsibility for the depression," he writes, "I do not think they can be blamed for it -- implying moral censure -- any more than one can blame a lion for eating a zebra. Capitalism is Darwinian." A pragmatic explanation for behavior that looks irrational in retrospect shows that it was logical, based on incentives at the time. Blame lies elsewhere: "The responsibility for building the fences that prevent an economic collapse as a result of risky lending devolves on the government."

When radical leaders over the last 2,500 years have sought to enforce equality of results, their prescriptions were usually predictable: redistribution of property; cancellation of debts; incentives to bring out the vote and increase political participation among the poor; stigmatizing of the wealthy, whether through the extreme measure of ostracism or the more mundane forced liturgies; use of the court system to even the playing field by targeting the more prominent citizens; radical growth in government and government employment; the use of state employees as defenders of the egalitarian faith; bread-and-circus entitlements; inflation of the currency and greater national debt to lessen the power of accumulated capital; and radical sloganeering about reactionary enemies of the new state. The modern versions of much of the above already seem to be guiding the Obama administration - evident each time we hear of another proposal to make it easier to renounce personal debt; federal action to curtail property or water rights; efforts to make voter registration and vote casting easier; radically higher taxes on the top 5 percent; takeover of private business; expansion of the federal government and an increase in government employees; or massive inflationary borrowing. The current class-warfare "them/us" rhetoric was predictable. Usually such ideologies do not take hold in America, given its tradition of liberty, frontier self-reliance, and emphasis on personal freedom rather than mandated fraternity and egalitarianism. At times, however, the stars line up, when a national catastrophe, like war or depression, coincides with the appearance of an unusually gifted, highly polished, and eloquent populist. But the anointed one must be savvy enough to run first as a centrist in order later to govern as a statist.

"What's really remarkable is that we've seen the biggest drop in the burden of government spending since the end of World War II. Heck, the fiscal restraint over the past five years has resulted in a bigger drop in the relative size of government in America than what Switzerland achieved over the past ten years thanks to the "debt brake." At this point, some readers may be wondering who or what deserves credit for this positive development. I'll offer a couple of explanations. The first two points are about why we shouldn't overstate what's actually happened. 1. The good news is somewhat exaggerated because we had a huge spike in federal spending in 2009. To use an analogy, it's easy to lose some weight if you first go on a big eating binge for a couple of years. 2. Some of the fiscal discipline is illusory because certain revenues that flow to the Treasury, such as TARP repayments from banks, actually count as negative spending. I explained this phenomenon when measuring which Presidents have been the biggest spenders. But there also are some real reasons why we've seen genuine spending restraint. 3. The "Tea Party" election of 2010 resulted in a GOP-controlled House that was somewhat sincere about controlling federal outlays. 4. The spending caps adopted as part of the debt limit fight in 2011 have curtailed spending increases as part of the appropriations process. 5. In the biggest fiscal loss President Obama has suffered, we got a sequester that reduced the growth of federal spending. 6. Many states have refused to expand Medicaid, notwithstanding the lure of temporary free money from Uncle Sam. 7. Government shutdown fights may be messy, but they tend to produce a greater amount of fiscal restraint. And there are surely other reasons to list, including the long-overdue end of seemingly permanent unemployment benefits and falling defense outlays as forces are withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. The bottom line is that the past

Daniel Henninger Says Blaming Capitalism for the Crisis Overlooks the Housing Bubble - WSJ.com: "Heads of state, perplexed finance ministers, inflated retinues and journalists from 20 nations arrived in London yesterday to address "the greatest financial crisis since the Depression." By 4 p.m. London time today they will hold a press conference and go home." "Beware of real-estate salesmen. The housing bubble that floated into view in 2007 is turning into the blob that ate the world. Real-estate mortgages and their derivative securities are a significant problem. That discrete problem, however, has been pumped up to an historic "crisis of capitalism." Capitalism didn't tank the U.S. economy. Overbuilt housing did. Overbuilt housing tanked the economies of the U.K. and Ireland and Spain. If little else, we've learned that artificially cheap housing sets loose limitless moral hazard." "In a normal environment, the problems revealed by the crisis in mortgage finance would produce fixes relevant to the problem, such as resetting the ratios of assets to capital for banks and hedge funds, or telling the gnomes of finance to rethink mark-to-market and the uptick rule. More energetic reformers might consider Gary Becker's suggestion that as financial institutions expand in size, their capital requirements tighten, so that compulsive eaters like Citigroup can fit inside their capital base." "Two signal events in history are shaping the politics of the current economic crisis: the Great Depression and the Reagan presidency (and in Europe, Thatcherism)." "The Depression put in motion an historic tension between public and private sectors over who sets a nation's course. After 50 years of public dominance, Reagan's presidency tipped the scales back toward private enterprise. The economic life of the ensuing 35 years became "the American model." Every waking hour of this economically liberal era, the losing side has wanted to tip the balance back toward public-sector

The "progressive" left slowly awakes to the fact that Obama is a long-time corporatist neocon. This article points to those few pundits on the left who saw who Obama's constituency really was before he ran for President. 

Harry Binswanger defends laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand Objectivism.

The major problem with Ayn Rand Objectivism is that it's an "ism." The Utopian ideal it is based on has never existed in reality and likely never will; its principles have never been tested. Moreover, I will argue that Binswanger is incorrect in arguing that the anti-capitalist phenomenon in America began with creation of the Federal Reserve; it dates much farther back. The economic basis for the Revolutionary War was largely the Crown-granted monopolies granted to the first great British "companies" (corporations), which had the effect of forcing North American colonists to pay monopoly rents for common goods and kept American ship owners from importing those goods from elsewhere to sell at a lower price. The Founding Fathers were strongly against privately-owned corporations and government-granted monopolies, with only two exceptions, copyrights for literary works and patents for inventions. The Constitution's prohibition against government-granted monopolies is implicit in its allowance for only two narrowly-defined types. The Founding Fathers' writings explicitly discussed the difference between "natural" monopolies and those created by government or anti-competitive conduct. During the early years of the nation corporations were permitted by the States, but only for public purposes, usually for public works such as bridges or roads for which there was a need to amass capital. These early American corporations were usually chartered only for the time required to complete the public work and to recover the invesment and a small profit, e.g., from tolls for using a bridge or road. Many of the early state constitutions explicitly limited the lifetime of corporations. However, such early opposition to corporations gradually eroded; corporate purposes were expanded, corporations were granted perpetual life, and the corporate form of doing business became much more widespread. Here, it is important to recognize that corporations are market artificialities c

Henry Blodgett picks up Paul Volkers comments on inflation ".....The government would quietly but desperately love to inflate our way out of this mess--destroying the dollar so the real burden of our mountain of debt shrivels to a molehill.  This remedy, of course, would punish everyone who has saved up a nest egg or lives on a fixed-income, but they're likely to be considered an expendable minority...." There is also a link on this page to the Aron Task interview with Peter Schiff, "The stimulous bill will lead to unmitigated disaster." http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/2/peter-schiff-stimulus-bill-will-lead-to-unmitigated-disaster Peter compares Bush to Hoover and Obama to Roosevelt, predicting an unmitigated disaster; a depression with hyperinflation. He argues that the great depression was tempered by the fact that government spending and intervention was limited by the godl standard. Today, the Federal Reserve has no such limitation!

 the underlying issue is that the U.S. has borrowed too much, and now has a higher debt to GDP ratio than it has ever -- and because the U.S. will inevitably borrow even MORE because 1. everyone believes that lower taxes and stimulus are needed to stimulate growth and 2. if we don't, growth in the U.S. will depress -- the reality is that our lifestyle (individuals and the government spending what they don't have) is unsustainable. He says: "In addition to balancing the budget and growing the economy, I think we have to accept that the coming decades are likely to see U.S. standards of living decline relative to the rest of the world. Unless our goods offer a better cost/benefit bargain, there's no reason why American workers should continue to enjoy the same lifestyle advantage over workers in other countries. I just don't expect to hear many politicians own up to this reality on the stump." His other big points: ..... "The dollar can no longer be the reserve currency" without unflinching adherence to the associated responsibilities. ..... The debt ceiling "solution" is unlikely to represent much fundamental progress; for the most part it'll just kick the can down the road because politicians are too concerned about getting re-elected to compromise....... "We have no choice but to raise the debt ceiling and keep borrowing in the short-term."....... "Washington's spending has recently been higher as a percentage of the nation's economic output than at any time since World War II. But by the same measure, Washington's revenues are the lowest in more than 60 years." ..... When asked about conservatives' insistence on a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, President Obama replied, "We don't need a constitutional amendment to do that [balance the budget]; what we need to do is to do our jobs." But clearly we do need some enforced discipline, because the years in which we haven't run a deficit have been by far the exception of late, n

Porter discusses inflation and the disastrous impact the Federal Reserve Bankster Cartel is having on the wealth of Americans.  An interesting chart he provides is the one pricing the Stock Market in GOLD.  Everything should be priced and evaluated in terms of GOLD instead of Federal Reserve paper.  The world would be a better place. there are only two repubican presidential candidates calling for an end of the Bankster Cartel; Ron Paul and Rick Perry.  The rest are with Obama, deep in the Bankster pocket.  Very sad.  But then, the Occupy Wall Street movement is camped out on Wall Street, while the Tea Party movement is Occupying the heart of the Bankster criminal empire - the Federal Reserve Banks.  Both movements seem to be protesting the same criminal Bankster problem.  But OWS has been fooled by the ol "nothing up my sleeve" illusion. excerpt: Here's the fact: America's standard of living is falling at a faster pace today than at any time since the Great Depression. Specifically, the real median income is down 9.8% since the fall of 2008. Additionally, Americans have lost roughly $5.5 trillion in asset value, or about 8.6% of their wealth. When you talk about a depression, what you're really talking about is a collapse in the standard of living. That's what's happening today, right now, in our country. But people continue to go about their lives as though nothing is happening. Certainly, our politicians don't want to draw attention to the problem. Instead, they are behind the campaign to "paper over" these losses with schemes like "quantitative easing." These schemes do nothing to make our economy more productive. They're designed instead to make prices rise so people (hopefully) won't notice how poor they're becoming. If you've been reading my newsletters since 2008, none of this is a surprise to you. I've been warning month after month, year after year, that the government's efforts to paper over our bad debts won't work. And they won't work for tw

"The first world war... Look back with angst ... Thanks to its military, economic and soft power, America is still indispensable, particularly in dealing with threats like climate change and terror, which cross borders. But unless America behaves as a leader and the guarantor of the world order, it will be inviting regional powers to test their strength by bullying neighbouring countries. The chances are that none of the world's present dangers will lead to anything that compares to the horrors of 1914. Madness, whether motivated by race, religion or tribe, usually gives ground to rational self-interest. But when it triumphs, it leads to carnage, so to assume that reason will prevail is to be culpably complacent. That is the lesson of a century ago. - Economist Magazine Dominant Social Theme: Beware the coming wars ... Free-Market Analysis: You can't make this stuff up. The top men in the globalist community have been hard at work building wars and potential wars, and now it's time to let 'er rip. This is one dominant social theme we saw coming miles away. We've been writing about its imminence for years, and predicting war and more war as internationalists try to blunt the effect of the Internet Reformation. After the Gutenberg press blew up the Middle Ages and the Roman Catholic Church besides, the globalists of the era used economic chaos, war and the invention of copyright to fight back. We predicted they would use the same tools this time around and have no reason to revise our predictions thus far. The only thing we've consistently pointed out that has not yet been addressed is the inability of the top men to launch a full-out world war because that would involve nuclear weapons. And lacking a full-out war, we have questioned how successful the strategy can be. Obviously, the top elites see something we don't. Or perhaps they are willing to risk an all-out war anyway - as they retreat into reported fully-stocked, underground "cities." Here's more fro