Skip to main content

Home/ Socialism and the End of the American Dream/ Group items tagged who's-winning?

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Gary Edwards

Peter Beinart: How Ron Paul Will Change the GOP in 2012 - The Daily Beast - 2 views

  •  
    Not a big Peter Beinhart fan, but this article explains a large part of the Ron Paul phenom. After a life time as a big C Goldwater-Reagan Constitutional Conservative, this summer i made a full transition to big C Constitutional Libertarian. The tipping point for me was the GAO audit of the Federal Reserve, where they discovered $16.1 Trillion of taxpayer dollars missing from the Federal Reserve Bankster Cartel management books. It went to a who's who of international Bankster Cartel members. None of the taxpayer funded "financial collapse of 2008" bailout dollars went to the purposes chartered by their legislation. That includees the TARP $850 Billion, the Obama Stimulous $1 Trillion, and the mega FRBC $16.1 Trillion. No bad debts were purchased and retired. No rotting mortgage securities were swept up and restructured. No shovel ready jobs either. And no one in government or banksterism having caused the financial collapse went to jail. Instead, the perps feasted on the bailout dollars. The debt remains on the books of international Banksters, collecting interest, thirsting for foreclosure. The Bankster Cartel members are flush with cash, but not lending. By law (The Federal Reserve Act of December 23rd, 1913), FRBC members must keep a significant amount of their assets on "reserve" at the Federal Reserve, at 6% interest. In exchange for managing this process and the exploding money supply, the taxpayers of the USA are obligated by law to pay the FRBC 1% per year of (assets under management" (the money supply). Take note: the FRBC takes the 1% per year payment for their services in the form of GOLD!! They will not take payment in the form of paper notes labeled legal tender "Federal Reserve Notes". They only take GOLD. My transition to Constitutional Libertarian begins with a strct reading of the Constitution (the How), the Declaration of Independence, (the Why), and belief in the Rule of Law, not man. The concept of achievi
Paul Merrell

How our deep partisan split affects President Obama and terror fears - The Washington Post - 0 views

  • On Monday, CNN released a poll indicating that 40 percent of Americans think the terrorists are winning the war on terror. It's a grim, weird finding that offers more questions about perceptions of terror than answers. Why are people in rural areas slightly more concerned about being killed in a terror attack than people in cities, as the poll finds? It doesn't make much sense, given where terrorists usually find their targets. The poll also had some good news for the White House: More than half of the country has a great deal or a moderate amount of confidence in the administration to protect the country from future terrorist acts. Among Democrats, 83 percent have confidence in the administration's ability to tackle terrorism, compared to only 17 percent of Republicans. That's pretty close to President Obama's Gallup approval ratings by party, with Republicans a bit more confident in Obama's ability to protect us than they approve of his job performance. The "who's winning the war on terror" question is similarly split on party lines, though less dramatically. Seventy-five percent of Democrats think that either the U.S. is winning or there's no clear winner, while more than half of Republicans think the terrorists are winning.
  • With big splits like that, it's little wonder, then, that even something like the imminent threat of a terror attack is viewed through a partisan lens. Among Democrats, 61 percent are not too worried about being killed in an attack, according to that CNN/ORC poll. Fifty-nine percent of Republicans are. And that almost certainly answers our rural/urban terror question. People in rural areas are probably worried about terror attacks because they're Republican, not because of where they live. Partisanship soaked in deep.
Joseph Skues

United Grand Lodge of England » Who's Who - 0 views

  • Grand Master Prince Edward George Nicholas Paul Patrick was born in 1935, and educated at Eton and Le Rosey, Switzerland. He is a cousin both of the Queen and of the Duke of Edinburgh.
  • His father,
  • was the fourth son of King George V, and his mother, Princess Marina, was the daughter of Prince Nicholas of Greece.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • He has been the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England since he was first elected in 1967
  • Pro Grand Master Peter Lowndes was born in 1948 and educated at Eton. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
  • Jonathan Spence was born in 1960, and educated at the Mathematical School, Rochester and Trinity College, Oxford. After a career in banking, from which he retired in 2006 as Chief Executive of a London bank, he now holds a senior position in education.
  • He was appointed Grand Director of Ceremonies in 2003 and served in that office until his appointment as Deputy Grand Master on 11 March 2009.
  • Assistant Grand Master David Williamson was born in Bombay, India, in 1943 and educated at King Edward VI School, Lichfield, Queen Mary College, London and King’s College, Cambridge. He trained as a pilot, and was subsequently appointed as Training Captain and Assistant Flight Training Manager for British Airways until his retirement in 1998.
  • Appointed as Assistant Grand Director of Ceremonies in 1995,
  • Nigel Brown was born in 1948,
  • 12 years as a business consultant specialising in advising clients on winning competitive global tenders.
  •  
    He is the Queen's nephew and in line to the throne of Greece,(which is being robbed by the Goldman Sachs in the recession). CONNECT THE DOTS
Paul Merrell

As Syria civil war enters fourth year, rebels are clearly losing - latimes.com - 0 views

  • As the Syrian conflict enters its fourth year, one thing is clear: The U.S.-backed rebels are losing the war. Assad's army, once dismissed as inadequately equipped, ill-prepared for guerrilla fighting and of suspect loyalty, is chalking up victory after victory. Unlikely as it once seemed — and as unpalatable as it may be to U.S. policymakers and their allies — Assad could well end up the sole Middle East leader to remain in power after coming under threat from the so-called Arab Spring revolts. Assad has survived in large part because of disarray in the rebel ranks, including the rise of Islamist militants hostile to Syria's tradition of tolerant Islam; a steady flow of military and financial aid from Moscow and Tehran; and a revived Syrian military bolstered by local militiamen and Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon. The latter have proved a major asset, routing rebels close to the porous Lebanese border and providing a disciplined, well-trained force to take pressure off the overstretched military. Assad has also benefited from a sense of war-weariness that has prompted many insurgents to lay down their arms and civilians to turn against the struggle. Barring an unexpected development, such as Assad's death or direct foreign intervention, it's hard to fathom how the opposition can turn things around.
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20 items per page