Latin America plans US dollar replacement
Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:13:51 GMT

Leftist Latin American leaders have agreed on using a new intra- regional trading currency, dubbed as Sucre, instead of the US dollar.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, who hosted leaders of the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA), said that the “document is approved.”

During the seventh ALBA summit, the leaders agreed on the currency reform as well as approving plans to impose economic sanctions against the coup leaders in Honduras, AFP reported.

The currency, Sucre, is named after Jose Antonio de Sucre who fought for Spain's independence alongside Venezuelan hero Simon Bolivar in the early 19th century.

Sucre is scheduled to be rolled out in 2010 in a non-paper form.

The nine members of ALBA, conceived by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, are Cuba, Dominica, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Saint Vincent and Antigua, Bolivia and Barbuda.

The bloc also agreed to replace the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, which is in charge of arbitrating international disputes and has probed a large number of contract disputes between Western energy firms and members of ALBA.

ALBA, which has already lost many of its members, including Ecuador, is echoing the moves of the European Union and its introduction of euro.

MSD/SC/MD

I would say no more foreign aid for the countries who stop using the dollar....

Ignorance is Bliss
By U.S, Senate Candidate Peter Schiff

While all the talk at present is about economic corners turned and markets charging ahead, no one is paying much notice to an American economy deteriorating before our eyes. These myopic commentators seem to be simply moving past the now almost-universally held conclusion that before the crash of 2008, our economy was on an unsustainable course. If these imbalances had been corrected, then perhaps I too would be joining in the euphoria. But evidence abounds that we have not veered at all from that dangerous path.

Last week, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that consumer spending as a percentage of U.S. GDP has risen to 71%, a post-World War II record. This level is notably higher than other wealthy industrialized countries, and vastly higher than the levels sustained by China and other emerging economies. At the same time, our industrial output is contracting, our trade deficit is expanding once again (after contracting earlier in the year), and our savings rate is plummeting (after an early year surge).

The data confirms that government stimuli are worsening the structural imbalances underlying our economy. The recent ‘rebound’ in GDP is not resulting from increased economic output, but merely from the fact that we are borrowing more than ever. That is precisely how we got ourselves into this mess. An economy cannot grow indefinitely by borrowing more than it produces. Not only is such a course untenable, but the added debt ensures a deeper recession when the bills come due.

This soon-to-be-called depression will not end until the pendulum of consumer spending habits swings violently in the other direction. This will be a jarring change, but it is the splash of cold water that we need to return our economy to viability. I believe that consumer spending as a share of GDP will need to temporarily contract to roughly 50% of GDP, before eventually moving toward its historic mean of 65%. Such a move would indicate a restoration of our personal savings, a decline in borrowing and trade deficits, and an increased industrial output. That would be a real recovery.

In the meantime, the higher the spending percentage climbs, the more painful the ultimate decline becomes.

Consumers and governments must spend less so their savings can be made available to businesses for capital investments. Businesses, in turn, will produce more products and employ more people — increasing domestic prosperity. However, rather than allowing a painful cure to return our economy to health, the government prefers to numb the voting public with a toxic saline-drip of deficit spending and cheap money.

The primary factor that enables our government to peddle economic snake oil is the dollar’s unique role as the world’s reserve currency, and our creditors’ willingness to preserve its status. By buying up dollars and loaning them back to us through Treasury debt, productive countries give American politicians carte blanche to play Santa Claus.

Ironically, as foreign governments finance our spending spree, they are simultaneously scolding us for our low savings rate. At the recent G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, all agreed — including President Obama — that resolving the global economic imbalances was a top priority. By definition, this would require Americans to spend less and save more. However, with foreign central banks continuing to buy our debt, the President has shown no political will to encourage this change.

Normally, if politicians run up the government deficit, voters soon suffer the unpleasant consequences of higher inflation and rising interest rates. Yet, if foreign central banks keep supplying the funds, these consequences are indefinitely postponed. As a result, there is no need for American politicians to ever make the tough choices required to solve our problems.

Instead, the burden may fall squarely on the citizens of those governments doing all the lending. The conflict is that within the creditor states, a vocal minority actually benefits from this subsidy (owners of Chinese exporters, for example) while the overwhelming majority fails to make the connection. Thus, foreign politicians have the same incentives as ours to keep playing the game.

The bottom line is that foreign governments can lecture us all they want about the need for prudence but if they keep lending, we’ll keep spending. Any parent knows that if you give your child a curfew yet never impose any penalties when it’s violated, it will not be respected. My gut feeling is that foreign governments are tiring of our conduct and on the verge of finally imposing some discipline. That means the dollar’s days as the world’s reserve currency are numbered, and the days of American austerity are about to begin.
-----------
Peter Schiff, and his campaign for the U.S. Senate representing Connecticut, is endorsed by Ron Paul

Connect Direct with Peter's campaign at http://www.schiffforsenate.com/

Warren Harding and the Forgotten Depression of 1920

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Recently by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.: The Federal Reserve's Death Rattle?

It is a cliché that if we do not study the past we are condemned to repeat it. Almost equally certain, however, is that if there are lessons to be learned from an historical episode, the political class will draw all the wrong ones – and often deliberately so. Far from viewing the past as a potential source of wisdom and insight, political regimes have a habit of employing history as an ideological weapon, to be distorted and manipulated in the service of present-day ambitions. That’s what Winston Churchill meant when he described the history of the Soviet Union as “unpredictable.”

For this reason, we should not be surprised that our political leaders have made such transparently ideological use of the past in the wake of the financial crisis that hit the United States in late 2007. According to the endlessly repeated conventional wisdom, the Great Depression of the 1930s was the result of capitalism run riot, and only the wise interventions of progressive politicians restored prosperity. Many of those who concede that the New Deal programs alone did not succeed in lifting the country out of depression nevertheless go on to suggest that the massive government spending during World War II is what did it.1 (Even some nominal free-marketeers make the latter claim, which hands the entire theoretical argument to supporters of fiscal stimulus.)

The connection between this version of history and the events of today is obvious enough: once again, it is claimed, wildcat capitalism has created a terrific mess, and once again, only a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus can save us.

In order to make sure that this version of events sticks, little, if any, public mention is ever made of the depression of 1920–21. And no wonder: that historical experience deflates the ambitions of those who promise us political solutions to the real imbalances at the heart of economic busts. The conventional wisdom holds that in the absence of government countercyclical policy, whether fiscal or monetary (or both), we cannot expect economic recovery – at least, not without an intolerably long delay. Yet the very opposite policies were followed during the depression of 1920–21, and recovery was in fact not long in coming.

The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover – falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics – urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve’s activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, “Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.”2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

It is instructive to compare the American response in this period to that of Japan. In 1920, the Japanese government introduced the fundamentals of a planned economy, with the aim of keeping prices artificially high. According to economist Benjamin Anderson, “The great banks, the concentrated industries, and the government got together, destroyed the freedom of the markets, arrested the decline in commodity prices, and held the Japanese price level high above the receding world level for seven years. During these years Japan endured chronic industrial stagnation and at the end, in 1927, she had a banking crisis of such severity that many great branch bank systems went down, as well as many industries. It was a stupid policy. In the effort to avert losses on inventory representing one year’s production, Japan lost seven years.”3

The U.S., by contrast, allowed its economy to readjust. “In 1920–21,” writes Anderson, “we took our losses, we readjusted our financial structure, we endured our depression, and in August 1921 we started up again. . . . The rally in business production and employment that started in August 1921 was soundly based on a drastic cleaning up of credit weakness, a drastic reduction in the costs of production, and on the free play of private enterprise. It was not based on governmental policy designed to make business good.” The federal government did not do what Keynesian economists ever since have urged it to do: run unbalanced budgets and prime the pump through increased expenditures. Rather, there prevailed the old-fashioned view that government should keep spending and taxation low and reduce the public debt.4

Those were the economic themes of Warren Harding’s presidency. Few presidents have been subjected to the degree of outright ridicule that Warren Harding endured during his lifetime and continues to receive long after his death. But the conventional wisdom about Harding is wrong to the point of absurdity: even the alleged “corruption” of his administration was laughably minor compared to the presidential transgressions we have since come to take for granted.

In his 1920 speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination, Harding declared:

We will attempt intelligent and courageous deflation, and strike at government borrowing which enlarges the evil, and we will attack high cost of government with every energy and facility which attend Republican capacity. We promise that relief which will attend the halting of waste and extravagance, and the renewal of the practice of public economy, not alone because it will relieve tax burdens but because it will be an example to stimulate thrift and economy in private life.

Let us call to all the people for thrift and economy, for denial and sacrifice if need be, for a nationwide drive against extravagance and luxury, to a recommittal to simplicity of living, to that prudent and normal plan of life which is the health of the republic. There hasn’t been a recovery from the waste and abnormalities of war since the story of mankind was first written, except through work and saving, through industry and denial, while needless spending and heedless extravagance have marked every decay in the history of nations.

It is hardly necessary to point out that Harding’s counsel – delivered in the context of a speech to a political convention, no less – is the opposite of what the alleged experts urge upon us today. Inflation, increased government spending, and assaults on private savings combined with calls for consumer profligacy: such is the program for “recovery” in the twenty-first century.

Not surprisingly, many modern economists who have studied the depression of 1920–21 have been unable to explain how the recovery could have been so swift and sweeping even though the federal government and the Federal Reserve refrained from employing any of the macroeconomic tools – public works spending, government deficits, inflationary monetary policy – that conventional wisdom now recommends as the solution to economic slowdowns. The Keynesian economist Robert A. Gordon admitted that “government policy to moderate the depression and speed recovery was minimal. The Federal Reserve authorities were largely passive. . . . Despite the absence of a stimulative government policy, however, recovery was not long delayed.”5 Another economic historian briskly conceded that “the economy rebounded quickly from the 1920–21 depression and entered a period of quite vigorous growth” but chose not to comment further on this development.6 “This was 1921,” writes the condescending Kenneth Weiher, “long before the concept of countercyclical policy was accepted or even understood.”7 They may not have “understood” countercyclical policy, but recovery came anyway – and quickly.

One of the most perverse treatments of the subject comes at the hands of two historians of the Harding presidency, who urge that without government confiscation of much of the income of the wealthiest Americans, the American economy will never be stable:

The tax cuts, along with the emphasis on repayment of the national debt and reduced federal expenditures, combined to favor the rich. Many economists came to agree that one of the chief causes of the Great Depression of 1929 was the unequal distribution of wealth, which appeared to accelerate during the 1920s, and which was a result of the return to normalcy. Five percent of the population had more than 33 percent of the nation’s wealth by 1929. This group failed to use its wealth responsibly. . . . Instead, they fueled unhealthy speculation on the stock market as well as uneven economic growth.8

If this absurd attempt at a theory were correct, the world would be in a constant state of depression. There was nothing at all unusual about the pattern of American wealth in the 1920s. Far greater disparities have existed in countless times and places without any resulting disruption. In fact, the Great Depression actually came in the midst of a dramatic upward trend in the share of national income devoted to wages and salaries in the United States – and a downward trend in the share going to interest, dividends, and entrepreneurial income.9 We do not in fact need the violent expropriation of any American in order to achieve prosperity, thank goodness.

It is not enough, however, to demonstrate that prosperity happened to follow upon the absence of fiscal or monetary stimulus. We need to understand why this outcome is to be expected – in other words, why the restoration of prosperity in the absence of the remedies urged upon us in more recent times was not an inconsequential curiosity or the result of mere happenstance.

First, we need to consider why the market economy is afflicted by the boom-bust cycle in the first place. The British economist Lionel Robbins asked in his 1934 book The Great Depression why there should be a sudden “cluster of error” among entrepreneurs. Given that the market, via the profit-and-loss system, weeds out the least competent entrepreneurs, why should the relatively more skilled ones that the market has rewarded with profits and control over additional resources suddenly commit grave errors – and all in the same direction? Could something outside the market economy, rather than anything that inheres in it, account for this phenomenon?

Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek both pointed to artificial credit expansion, normally at the hands of a government-established central bank, as the non-market culprit. (Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974 for his work on what is known as Austrian business cycle theory.) When the central bank expands the money supply – for instance, when it buys government securities – it creates the money to do so out of thin air. This money either goes directly to commercial banks or, if the securities were purchased from an investment bank, very quickly makes its way to the commercial banks when the investment banks deposit the Fed’s checks. In the same way that the price of any good tends to decline with an increase in supply, the influx of new money leads to lower interest rates, since the banks have experienced an increase in loanable funds.

The lower interest rates stimulate investment in long-term projects, which are more interest-rate sensitive than shorter-term ones. (Compare the monthly interest paid on a thirty-year mortgage with the interest paid on a two-year mortgage – a tiny drop in interest rates will have a substantial impact on the former but a negligible impact on the latter.) Additional investment in, say, research and development (R&D), which can take many years to bear fruit, will suddenly seem profitable, whereas it would not have been profitable without the lower financing costs brought about by the lower interest rates.

We describe R&D as belonging to a “higher-order” stage of production than a retail establishment selling hats, for example, since the hats are immediately available to consumers while the commercial results of R&D will not be available for a relatively long time. The closer a stage of production is to the finished consumer good to which it contributes, the lower a stage we describe it as occupying.

On the free market, interest rates coordinate production across time. They ensure that the production structure is configured in a way that conforms to consumer preferences. If consumers want more of existing goods right now, the lower-order stages of production expand. If, on the other hand, they are willing to postpone consumption in the present, interest rates encourage entrepreneurs to use this opportunity to devote factors of production to projects not geared toward satisfying immediate consumer wants, but which, once they come to fruition, will yield a greater supply of consumer goods in the future.

Had the lower interest rates in our example been the result of voluntary saving by the public instead of central-bank intervention, the relative decrease in consumption spending that is a correlate of such saving would have released resources for use in the higher-order stages of production. In other words, in the case of genuine saving, demand for consumer goods undergoes a relative decline; people are saving more and spending less than they used to. Consumer-goods industries, in turn, undergo a relative contraction in response to the decrease in demand for consumer goods. Factors of production that these industries once used – trucking services, for instance – are now released for use in more remote stages of the structure of production. Likewise for labor, steel, and other nonspecific inputs.

When the market’s freely established structure of interest rates is tampered with, this coordinating function is disrupted. Increased investment in higher order stages of production is undertaken at a time when demand for consumer goods has not slackened. The time structure of production is distorted such that it no longer corresponds to the time pattern of consumer demand. Consumers are demanding goods in the present at a time when investment in future production is being disproportionately undertaken.

Thus, when lower interest rates are the result of central bank policy rather than genuine saving, no letup in consumer demand has taken place. (If anything, the lower rates make people even more likely to spend than before.) In this case, resources have not been released for uss in the higher-order stages. The economy instead finds itself in a tug-of-war over resources between the higher- and lower-order stages of production. With resources unexpectedly scarce, the resulting rise in costs threatens the profitability of the higher-order projects. The central bank can artificially expand credit still further in order to bolster the higher-order stages’ position in the tug of war, but it merely postpones the inevitable. If the public’s freely expressed pattern of saving and consumption will not support the diversion of resources to the higher-order stages, but, in fact, pulls those resources back to those firms dealing directly in finished consumer goods, then the central bank is in a war against reality. It will eventually have to decide whether, in order to validate all the higher-order expansion, it is prepared to expand credit at a galloping rate and risk destroying the currency altogether, or whether instead it must slow or abandon its expansion and let the economy adjust itself to real conditions.

It is important to notice that the problem is not a deficiency of consumption spending, as the popular view would have it. If anything, the trouble comes from too much consumption spending, and as a result too little channeling of funds to other kinds of spending – namely, the expansion of higher-order stages of production that cannot be profitably completed because the necessary resources are being pulled away precisely by the relatively (and unexpectedly) stronger demand for consumer goods. Stimulating consumption spending can only make things worse, by intensifying the strain on the already collapsing profitability of investment in higher-order stages.

Note also that the precipitating factor of the business cycle is not some phenomenon inherent in the free market. It is intervention into the market that brings about the cycle of unsustainable boom and inevitable bust.10 As business-cycle theorist Roger Garrison succinctly puts it, “Savings gets us genuine growth; credit expansion gets us boom and bust.”11

This phenomenon has preceded all of the major booms and busts in American history, including the 2007 bust and the contraction in 1920–21. The years preceding 1920 were characterized by a massive increase in the supply of money via the banking system, with reserve requirements having been halved by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and then with considerable credit expansion by the banks themselves. Total bank deposits more than doubled between January 1914, when the Fed opened its doors, and January 1920. Such artificial credit creation sets the boom-bust cycle in motion. The Fed also kept its discount rate (the rate at which it lends directly to banks) low throughout the First World War (1914–18) and for a brief period thereafter. The Fed began to tighten its stance in late 1919. Economist Gene Smiley, author of The American Economy in the Twentieth Century, observes that “the most common view is that the Fed’s monetary policy was the main determinant of the end of the expansion and inflation and the beginning of the subsequent contraction and severe deflation.”12 Once credit began to tighten, market actors suddenly began to realize that the structure of production had to be rearranged and that lines of production dependent on easy credit had been erroneously begun and needed to be liquidated.

We are now in a position to evaluate such perennially fashionable proposals as “fiscal stimulus” and its various cousins. Think about the condition of the economy following an artificial boom. It is saddled with imbalances. Too many resources have been employed in higher order stages of production and too few in lower-order stages. These imbalances must be corrected by entrepreneurs who, enticed by higher rates of profit in the lower-order stages, bid resources away from stages that have expanded too much and allocate them toward lower-order stages where they are more in demand. The absolute freedom of prices and wages to fluctuate is essential to the accomplishment of this task, since wages and prices are indispensable ingredients of entrepreneurial appraisal.

In light of this description of the post-boom economy, we can see how unhelpful, even irrelevant, are efforts at fiscal stimulus. The government’s mere act of spending money on arbitrarily chosen projects does nothing to rectify the imbalances that led to the crisis. It is not a decline in “spending” per se that has caused the problem. It is the mismatch between the kind of production the capital structure has been misled into undertaking on the one hand, and the pattern of consumer demand, which cannot sustain the structure of production as it is, on the other.

And it is not unfair to refer to the recipients of fiscal stimulus as arbitrary projects. Since government lacks a profit-and-loss mechanism and can acquire additional resources through outright expropriation of the public, it has no way of knowing whether it is actually satisfying consumer demand (if it is concerned about this at all) or whether its use of resources is grotesquely wasteful. Popular rhetoric notwithstanding, government cannot be run like a business.13

Monetary stimulus is no help either. To the contrary, it only intensifies the problem. In Human Action, Mises compared an economy under the influence of artificial credit expansion to a master builder commissioned to construct a house that (unbeknownst to him) he lacks sufficient bricks to complete. The sooner he discovers his error the better. The longer he persists in this unsustainable project, the more resources and labor time he will irretrievably squander. Monetary stimulus merely encourages entrepreneurs to continue along their unsustainable production trajectories; it is as if, instead of alerting the master builder to his error, we merely intoxicated him in order to delay his discovery of the truth. But such measures make the eventual bust no less inevitable – merely more painful.

If the Austrian view is correct – and I believe the theoretical and empirical evidence strongly indicates that it is – then the best approach to recovery would be close to the opposite of these Keynesian strategies. The government budget should be cut, not increased, thereby releasing resources that private actors can use to realign the capital structure. The money supply should not be increased. Bailouts merely freeze entrepreneurial error in place, instead of allowing the redistribution of resources into the hands of parties better able to provide for consumer demands in light of entrepreneurs’ new understanding of real conditions. Emergency lending to troubled firms perpetuates the misallocation of resources and extends favoritism to firms engaged in unsustainable activities at the expense of sound firms prepared to put those resources to more appropriate use.

This recipe of government austerity is precisely what Harding called for in his 1921 inaugural address:

We must face the grim necessity, with full knowledge that the task is to be solved, and we must proceed with a full realization that no statute enacted by man can repeal the inexorable laws of nature. Our most dangerous tendency is to expect too much of government, and at the same time do for it too little. We contemplate the immediate task of putting our public household in order. We need a rigid and yet sane economy, combined with fiscal justice, and it must be attended by individual prudence and thrift, which are so essential to this trying hour and reassuring for the future. . . .

The economic mechanism is intricate and its parts interdependent, and has suffered the shocks and jars incident to abnormal demands, credit inflations, and price upheavals. The normal balances have been impaired, the channels of distribution have been clogged, the relations of labor and management have been strained. We must seek the readjustment with care and courage. . . . All the penalties will not be light, nor evenly distributed. There is no way of making them so. There is no instant step from disorder to order. We must face a condition of grim reality, charge off our losses and start afresh. It is the oldest lesson of civilization. I would like government to do all it can to mitigate; then, in understanding, in mutuality of interest, in concern for the common good, our tasks will be solved. No altered system will work a miracle. Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration of our proven system.

Harding’s inchoate understanding of what was happening to the economy and why grandiose interventionist plans would only delay recovery is an extreme rarity among twentieth-century American presidents. That he has been the subject of ceaseless ridicule at the hands of historians, to the point that anyone speaking a word in his favor would be dismissed out of hand, speaks volumes about our historians’ capabilities outside of their own discipline.

The experience of 1920–21 reinforces the contention of genuine free-market economists that government intervention is a hindrance to economic recovery. It is not in spite of the absence of fiscal and monetary stimulus that the economy recovered from the 1920–21 depression. It is because those things were avoided that recovery came. The next time we are solemnly warned to recall the lessons of history lest our economy deteriorate still further, we ought to refer to this episode – and observe how hastily our interrogators try to change the subject.

Notes
On the fallacy of “wartime prosperity” during the Second World War, see Robert Higgs, Depression, War, and Cold War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). Kenneth E. Weiher, America’s Search for Economic Stability: Monetary and Fiscal Policy Since 1913 (New York: Twayne, 1992), 35. On Japan, see Benjamin M. Anderson, Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914–1946 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1979 [1949]), 88–89, 90. Ibid., 92. Robert Aaron Gordon, Economic Instability and Growth: The American Record (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), 21–22, cited in Joseph T. Salerno, “An Austrian Taxonomy of Deflation – With Applications to the U. S.,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 6 (Winter 2003): 89. Robert A. Degen, The American Monetary System: A Concise Survey of Its Evolution Since 1896 (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1987), 41. Weiher, America’s Search for Economic Stability, 36. Eugene P. Trani and David L. Wilson, The Presidency of Warren G. Harding (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1977), 72. C. A. Phillips, T. F. McManus, and R. W. Nelson, Banking and the Business Cycle: A Study of the Great Depression in the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1937), 76. The Austrian theory also applies to cases in which no central bank was present and artificial credit expansion took place by other means. Government intervention is at fault in these cases as well. See Jesús Huerta de Soto, Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, trans. Melinda A. Stroup (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006). Roger W. Garrison, “The Austrian Theory: A Summary,” in The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and Other Essays, comp. Richard M. Ebeling (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1996), 99. Gene Smiley, “The U.S. Economy in the 1920s,” EH.Net Encyclopedia, ed. Robert Whaples, March 26, 2008. Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1944).

The above piece comes from the Fall 2009 issue of The Intercollegiate Review. If you are a student or faculty member you can receive The Intercollegiate Review for FREE by clicking here. Otherwise you can subscribe to this flagship journal of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

October 14, 2009

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [visit his website; send him mail] is the author of nine books, including two New York Times bestsellers: Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Read Congressman Ron Paul's foreword to Meltdown.

RICO Action filed against President Obama

The Points of the Filing..

18 U.S.C. §1346: Intangible Rights Fraud—

Request for Judicial Notice that Individual Damages

Are not Required in Public Sector Mail & Wire Political Corruption

Come now the Plaintiffs with this Request for Judicial Notice that Individual Damages are not required in public sector mail & wire fraud relating to political corruption under 18 U.S.C. §1346, together with notice of filing expanded report by Susan Daniels.

During this Court’s hearing on October 5, 2009, the Court searchingly examined counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the sole threshold question of “standing.” Plaintiffs’ provided arguments of Flast v. Cohen taxpayer standing or else 9th Amendment reserved rights to Petition for Redress of Grievances concerning a clear violation of the Constitution’s clearly demarcated qualifications for the Presidency, as well as Oath taker standing per Allen v Board of Education and USA v Clark . l

Plaintiffs have, in the course of their investigations during the past year, accumulated a substantial amount of evidence concerning the Mr. Obama’s fraudulent manipulation of his own identity, and the legal identity of others. To this end Plaintiffs have previously submitted the Affidavit and Independent Investigative Report of Former Scotland Yard Inspector Neal Sankey and now submit the expanded Report of Ohio Private Investigator Susan Daniels.

These two private investigation reports, although slightly duplicative, show beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of manipulation of Barack Hussein Obama’s identity, employment, and residence information. The use of a multitude of social security numbers alone is indicative that Mr. Obama appears to have committed a substantial number of felony violations, including but not limited to violations of 42 U.S.C. §408(a)(7)(B). which shows dishonest political advantage during 2008 election. Plaintiffs submit again that “the American People Reserve the Right to know”. Furthermore, the examination and decipherment of the trail of deception so casually left by this successful candidate will (1) lead ultimately to discovery of the truth about his origins and citizenship, (2) reveal the nature of the scheme to defraud by which this Mr. Barack Hussein Obama became President, and (3) show the degree and nature of the collusion of other people and parties in the scheme of defraud leading to his election, including but not limited to the other Defendants.

The Plaintiffs have repeatedly alleged that the election of 2008 was procured by fraud. Acquisition of high public office by and through implementation of a scheme to defraud regarding material facts regarding a candidate’s qualifications and identity is a species of public sector fraud. Such a scheme to defraud is actionable by private parties under 18 U.S.C. §1346, in that each instance of the use of interstate wires or mail delivery facilities counts as an individual predicate act under Civil R.I.C.O., 18 U.S.C. §§1961, 1962(a)-(d), and 1964(c).

Plaintiffs request the Court to take note that the United States Congress’ express purpose in enacting 18 U.S.C. §1346 was to ensure that corruption by both (even paired) public and private sector defendants (such as Defendants Barack and Michelle Obama were from the Illinois Senatorial Election 2004-up-through January 20, 2009 individualized damages were not required to obtain convictions under 18 U.S.C. §1346. It logically follows that Civil RICO actions relating to public and private sector corruption which would utilize predicate acts of criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. §1346 could likewise be brought without proof of individualized damages or “standing” in the civil sense. Plaintiffs accordingly submit that the principles of prosecutions of public corruption based on 18 U.S.C. §1346 be applied to evaluate the standing of the Plaintiffs in the present above-entitled-and-numbered case Barnett v. Obama.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court take Judicial Notice of the doctrine of the people’s intangible right to honest services based on 18 U.S.C. §1346, and consider the significance for the standing of the people to bring suit under Civil RICO (18 U.S.C. §1964(c)), that the criminal predicate acts for RICO which may be substantiated under this title do not require specific personalized injury to business or property interests. Accordingly, the people of the United States may sue for Civil RICO for the fraudulent denial of their intangible right to honest services without showing individualized specific injury, and this case should be allowed to go forward, albeit with Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint allowed to be filed, and considered as a fundamental (complementary) element of citizen standing.

Respectfully submitted,

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Telephone Company Is Arm of Government, Feds Admit in Spy Suit

* By Ryan Singel
* October 8, 2009

The Department of Justice has finally admitted it in court papers: The nation’s telecom companies are an arm of the government — at least when it comes to secret spying.

Fortunately, a judge says that relationship isn’t enough to squash a rights group’s open records request for communications between the nation’s telecoms and the feds.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation wanted to see what role telecom lobbying of Justice Department played when the government began its year-long, and ultimately successful, push to win retroactive immunity for AT&T and others being sued for unlawfully spying on American citizens.

Read more at: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/att-doj-foia/

FROM: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/President-Obama_s-_Redacted_-transparency-8361610-63795067.html

President Obama's [Redacted] transparency
Examiner Editorial
October 9, 2009

Everything you should know about government transparency and accountability under President Obama and the Democratic Congress was made crystal clear by two events this week. In a key Senate committee, the majority voted against the timely publication of their massive health care bill before it receives a final vote in the upper chamber. The actual text of the bill still has not been written, and no one knows for sure which provisions will be included when it is finally composed. In fact, we won't know for sure what was approved until well after the roll call. Call it the Democrats' "verdict first, then evidence" strategy.

Also this week, the Obama administration refused to release pertinent details on the controversial $18 million contract it signed for redesigning Recovery.Gov., the government website for tracking spending under the Obama economic stimulus program. Pro Publica, a non-profit news organization, filed a Freedom of Information request for a copy of the contract and its supporting documentation, but what the administration released contained massive redactions of the key provisions. Smartronix, an obscure Maryland-based defense contractor with little prior web site design experience, won the contract. Smartronix president, Mohammed Javaid, vice president Alan Parris, and partner John Parris have together given $19,000 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D) since 1999. A Hoyer spokesman vehemently denied any impropriety in connection with the contract award.

Redesigning a website and the user interface with the database isn't rocket science, and there are undoubtedly hundreds of technically qualified people out there who would perform the work for considerably less than $18 million. Odds are we will never know all the facts about this contract, however, because entire sections on "site navigation," "user experience," pricing and warranty issues were blacked out in the documents released by the government.

That is not to say the unredacted portion of the document doesn't provide a useful insight into what is going on here. There is, for example, this description of what will be found on the redesigned site: "We will watch the YouTube video of a father who has finally gotten back to work - working on an ecologically friendly transportation project that cannot be outsourced - as he speaks about the pride he feels coming home to his family after a long days work building a new transportation infrastructure."

In other words, Recovery.gov is a propaganda resource for the Obama stimulus package's imaginary successes. Thus is transparency in the age of Obama.

The Real Reasons Behind Fed Secrecy - by Ron Paul

Last week I was very pleased that the Financial Services Committee held a hearing on the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, HR 1207. The bill has 295 cosponsors and there is also strong support for the companion bill in the Senate. This hearing was a major step forward in getting the bill passed.

I was pleased that the hearing was well-attended, especially considering that it was held on a Friday at nine o’clock in the morning! I have been talking about the immense, unchecked power of the Federal Reserve for many years, while the attention of Congress was always on other things. It was gratifying to see my colleagues asking probing questions and demonstrating genuine concern about this important issue as well.

The witness testifying in favor of HR 1207 made some very strong points, which was no surprise considering the bill is simply common sense. It was also no surprise that the witness testifying against the bill had no good arguments as to why a full audit should not be conducted promptly. He attempted to make the case that the fed is already sufficiently accountable to Congress and that the current auditing policy is adequate. The fact is that the Fed comes to Congress and talks about only what it wants to talk about, and the GAO audits only what the current laws allow to be audited. The really important things however, are off limits. There are no convincing arguments that it is in the best interests of the American people for anything the Fed does to be off limits.

It has been argued that full disclosure of details of funding facilities like TALF and PDCF that enabled massive bailouts of Wall Street would damage the financial position of those firms and destabilize the economy. In other words, if the American people knew how rotten the books were at those banks and how terribly they messed up, they would never willingly invest in them, and they would fail. Failure is not an option for friends of the Fed. Therefore, the funds must be stolen from the people in the dark of night. This is not how a free country works. This is not how free markets work. That is crony corporatism and instead of being a force for economic stabilization, it totally undermines it.

If the Fed gave its actual arguments against a full audit, they would not have mentioned anything about political independence or economic stability. Instead they would admit they don’t want to be audited because they enjoy their current situation too much. Under the guise of currency control, they are able to help out powerful allies on Wall Street, in exchange for lucrative jobs or who-knows-what favors later on. An audit would expose the Fed as a massive fraud perpetrated on this country, enriching a privileged few bankers at the top of our economic food chain, and leaving the rest of us with massively devalued dollars which we are forced to use by law. An audit would make people realize that, while Bernie Madoff defrauded a lot of investors for a lot of money, the Fed has defrauded every one of us by destroying the value of our money. An honest and full accounting of how the money system really works in this country would mean there is not much of a chance the American people would stand for it anymore.

Fractional Reserve Banking Made Easy

by Terence Gillespie

The paper bills in our wallet are not money. And they are not Notes as in "Federal Reserve Note" written on the top of the bill. They are actually just Tokens. Federal Reserve Tokens, if you like, is what should be written on top of the bills. They are not redeemable for anything other than themselves. And they represent only one thing: Your belief in their value. Hopefully, your belief extends to the next person you try to give them to.

The only real use for them is paying your taxes to either the state or federal government. You can be sure, however, that both will stop accepting them as payment even for taxes if you and I stop believing in the paper bills.

Paper money, or fiat, was originally accepted because you could redeem the paper for gold upon request. When people got used to the paper they felt more and more comfortable and were less likely to redeem it for their gold. They knew that they could redeem it at any time and the paper is lighter, more convenient and can be denominated in much smaller increments so that everyday transactions are made more practical.

By the time the gold imparts this trust to the paper the people storing the gold start using it for other purposes. The primary other purpose is to start using the gold as someone else’s money in addition to yours. When that happens the banker has now, in effect, doubled the amount of gold in his vault and is only in trouble if you decide to reclaim your gold. By that time many more people are storing their gold with the banker and he found that only a small percentage of people ever reclaimed their gold.

Now, at this point in the story nothing wrong has happened as long as:

* You are told that your gold deposit is being lent out.
* You are paid for storing your gold.
* Your are not charged under the guise of a storage fee because the gold is no longer being stored by the banker.
* There is a 1-to-1 relationship between the gold you lent the banker and the gold the banker has lent out.

Christians do not believe in charging interest to other Christians. But, even the Bible describes the business of lending while warning that "The borrower is a slave of the lender."

In the business of lending the difference between what you receive for the use of your gold and what the banker receives for lending it out is his legitimate profit. After all, if you don’t want the banker to lend it out then you can lend it out yourself and do all the work associated. More importantly, the gold is not taken out of circulation and can be used as legitimate capital for the borrower to invest in his ideas to create even more value for everyone.

As you might suspect, this is not how the story goes.

When the number of people who were likely to reclaim their gold was discovered then the banker could start to guess the amount of gold to keep on hand to make all his depositors believe he was storing their gold. This number becomes his required reserve ratio and fractional reserve banking is born.

The banker has used a combination of your gold, your trust in him and your infrequent need to reclaim your gold to pretend he has many times more money than the amount of gold that is actually stored with him. And since he is most likely not fulfilling the four requirements, above, he is probably charging you a storage fee, not paying you, not telling you he’s lent it out and is lending out much more gold than his depositors have deposited.

Even worse, the banker lends out gold that doesn’t exist and charges interest on the loan. The banker is now generating interest income on gold that he doesn’t have and that doesn’t exist. Fractional reserve lending is born. Here’s a video that describes how money is loaned into existence in today’s world. Start at 22:00 if you want to skip right to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE

There are three major problems with fractional reserve lending. The first problem is when the banker lends money that doesn’t exist to people who then use that money to purchase real goods then the money actually does now exist. The banker has loaned into existence new currency. The banker used to have to at least go to the trouble of printing up the actual paper bills. But, with computers he can even bypass that unpleasant task. This would be impossible if the banker had to attempt to fabricate the actual gold.

And that leads to the second major problem with fractional reserve lending: There is no longer any gold in the bankers vault. The "money" is just blips on a computer screen that can be typed in and deleted, as needed, to adhere to an extremely low, but legal, reserve requirement.

The third major problem with fractional reserve lending is that most of the deposits don’t come from people who received the money by creating real value. The majority of the deposits come from other loans that came from either the Federal government or the loaned out portion of another fractional reserve lending bank.

This leads back to the original point of this article: There is nothing backing the paper bills in our wallet but our belief in them. They are mere tokens redeemable for nothing and backed by nothing.

Although it may be convenient for the US, and the entire world, to continue believing in the US dollar there is actually no historical basis for the success of any fiat currency. That’s because no fiat currency has EVER survived in the history of the world. You read that correctly: It's not a matter of studying the good ones and seeing what they did right or wrong to make them succeed. None of them has ever survived.

Since the probability of any paper fiat currency collapsing is 100% then we can switch our focus on trying to guess when, not if it will fail.

For more on Fractional Reserve Banking and Lending and the history of many currencies around the world check out Larry Parks on YouTube or go to his website.

September 30, 2009

Press Release: DALE v. UNITED STATES (dba corporation) Could Place All Federal Corporate Charters In Jeopardy
=====

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 9.28.09

AIB News Service through Post Oak Public Relations

DALE v. UNITED STATES (dba corporation)
Could Place All
Federal Corporate Charters In Jeopardy

Washington, D.C. -- A potential landmark case was filed into the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 500 Indiana Ave. NW, Room JM-170, Washington, DC 20001 on July 29, 2009. The case seeks, among other multiple remedies, the nullification of all Federal Corporate Charters, and is quietly gaining traction as the numerous named Defendants continue to default Court protocol and procedure.

The named, lead Defendant is Eric H. Holder, Jr, Attorney General of the UNITED STATES, in his corporate capacity.

Summonses were formally ordered by Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield and issued by the Plaintiff starting on July 30, 2009 for Mr. Holder at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20530.

The case is officially designated as DALE, RODNEY Vs. UNITED STATES, Case No. 2009 CA 005391 B, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and is docketed for an Initial Scheduling Conference at 9:30 am on Friday, November 6, 2009 before Judge Brian F. Holeman in Courtroom A-49, 515 5th Street NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20001. Judge Holeman's Chambers' phone number is 202-879-7815.

The case is styled, by the Court, as a "Complaint for Fraud" on behalf of the American people and places ALL interlocking Corporate Charters in this country in question. This means that the Federal Corporate charters, on down to the smallest political subdivisions (city or town), are in jeopardy and alleged to be in violation of their written and enumerated Fiduciary duties.

In addition, because of the style of the Plaintiff's filing, ALL courts in the 50 states, including the United States Supreme Court, have been interlocked as parties to this suit.

Rodney Dale Class of High Shoals, North Carolina filed the case in conjunction with Carl Weston of Oklahoma with both serving as Private Attorneys General on behalf of the American people. Both Mr. Class and Mr. Weston are serving as Private Attorneys General under seals of both North Carolina and Oklahoma. In addition, their status is recognized by the Senate Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Sen. John Conyers, Jr. (D - MI).

You may follow the docketing history at https://www.dccourts.gov/pa by searching under DALE, RODNEY at the link, or, you may call the Court directly for status updates by contacting either Derrick Monroe, Branch Chief of the Court at (202) 879-1143 or Clerk of the Court, Duane B. Delaney at (202) 879-1400.

One other interesting twist to this case is that Mr. Class styled his name in the initial complaint as Rodney-Dale; Class. The Court then styled the official name of the case as DALE, RODNEY Vs. UNITED STATES...thus converting Mr. Class' middle name to his last name in the Court records !

We are still assessing the implications of this action.

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

Sibel Edmonds and Philip Giraldi
The American Conservative
September 23, 2009

Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. She appealed her termination, but was more alarmed that no effort was being made to address the corruption that she had been monitoring.

A Department of Justice inspector general’s report called Edmonds’s allegations “credible,” “serious,” and “warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI.” Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. “60 Minutes” launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds’s revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.

John Ashcroft’s Justice Department confirmed Edmonds’s veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.”

read more here: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov /01/00006/

Ron Paul & Arianna Huffington discussion on Morning Joe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjVpr3zIr8E

wadada

Happy Constitution Day!...

If you haven't done so recently - it's time to get out the Constitution and give it a read! If you don't have one you can find an online version here....

http://constitutionus.com/

Peter Schiff Runs for Senate against Chris Dodd...

http://dutchpatriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/brzezinski_bin_laden_aka_tim_osman.gif

A Somber Warning on Afghanistan

Herald Tribune
ALISON SMALE

Published: Monday, September 14, 2009 at 5:18 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, September 14, 2009 at 5:18 a.m.

GENEVA — Western powers now in Afghanistan run the risk of suffering the fate of the Soviet Union there if they cannot halt the growing insurgency and an Afghan perception that they are foreign invaders, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former U.S. national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter.

In a speech opening a weekend gathering of military and foreign policy experts, Mr. Brzezinski, who was national security adviser when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late 1979, endorsed a British and German call, backed by France, for a new international conference on the country. He also set the tone for a weekend of somber assessments of the situation.

He noted that it took about 300 U.S. Special Forces — fighting with Northern Alliance troops — to overthrow Taliban rule after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

Now, however, with about 100,000 U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan, those forces are increasingly perceived as foreign invaders, much as the Soviet troops were from the start, Mr. Brzezinski said.

For President Barack Obama, Afghanistan is the foreign policy issue that has “perhaps the greatest need for strategic review,” said Mr. Brzezinski, who met with Mr. Obama during the presidential campaign last year, and endorsed his candidacy but was not a formal adviser.

“We are running the risk of replicating — obviously unintentionally.. — the fate of the Soviets,” Mr. Brzezinski said in his speech Friday night.

The presence of so many foreign troops underpins an Afghan perception that the Americans and their allies are hostile invaders and “suggests transformation of the conflict is taking place,” he added.

A new international conference would help devise a more refined strategy, Mr. Brzezinski said in a brief interview Sunday. Using the military to support a development strategy would help prolong the European presence, he suggested — “our European friends are less likely to leave us in the lurch.”

If the United States is left alone in Afghanistan, Mr. Brzezinski said Friday night, “that would probably spell the end of the Alliance.”

A discussion on Afghanistan on Saturday featured, among others, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British foreign secretary’s special representative for Afghanistan and a former British ambassador to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

“All is not doom and gloom in Afghanistan,” Sir Sherard told the conference, the Global Strategic Review of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, a nongovernment organization. But “walking away would destroy everything that has been achieved.”

“The pullout option is not one that any government could responsibly follow,” he added, emphasizing, that America’s role was crucial. “While Obama remains committed, we remain committed.”

In calling last weekend for a conference on Afghanistan, Britain and Germany seemed anxious both to dispel the tension that has arisen surrounding the election there last month, in which foreign observers say there were clear incidents of fraud, and to shift emphasis away from the rising numbers of foreign troops.

Sir Sherard suggested the solution lay in devolving political power back to tribal elders who have traditionally held sway in Afghanistan, and funneling money for development through them.

With 68,000 troops from the United States expected by the end of the year and some 40,000 from other countries, numbers — and the rising number of deaths and casualties — are going to influence not only hostile Afghans but Western public support for the Afghan mission.

Speakers at the conference said that Americans are unlikely for long to support maintaining many times the number of troops from Britain, Germany and France, the three European allies who have sent the most soldiers to Afghanistan.

What is needed now is “the intelligent application of military force” alongside long-promised development strategies, Sir Sherard said, evoking what he called a dream that, by 2011, a truckload of pomegranates would be able to pass unhindered from Afghanistan through Pakistan and into India, that Western students could study Afghan archaeological ruins, and that posters in the Pashto language inviting Pashtuns to “come on over” from the Taliban would be tattered remnants — unneeded rather than unheeded — on the roadsides of southern Afghanistan.

“That,” he stressed, “is the dream.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6iWom6R5Io
Mike Ruppert (CIA LAPD whistleblower) about Brzezinski (2001) : part 1 of 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZB__Yy_2qQ
Ruppert about Brzezinski (2001) : part 2 of 2

YO Uncle Ben The Recession is likely over...

Don’t be surprised to see more bank failures
Closures have been relatively slow, but FDIC is accelerating shutdowns
By Ben Steverman
updated 5:50 p.m. ET, Tues., Sept . 15, 2009
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32864659/ns/business-businessweekcom
By most measures, the past year has been the worst financial crisis in a lifetime. But not by one significant measure: Bank failures.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has closed 92 banks so far in 2009, after seizing 25 ailing banks last year. By contrast, during the last banking crisis, 381 banks were seized in 1990, 268 in 1991, and 179 in 1992. Still, the pace of bank failures is accelerating. In recent days, three banks failed, including Illinois-based Corus Bank, doomed by $3.2 billion in construction loans, mostly to condominium developers.

The relatively slow pace of bank failures during the crisis is partly the result of government decisions to keep ailing banks open for as long as possible, says Louisiana State University banking professor Joseph Mason.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Now, it appears, the FDIC is shutting down the bad banks at a faster rate. Since July 1, the FDIC has shuttered 47 banks, amounting to more than half of the FDIC's financial losses on the bad banks this year. The consensus among banking experts is that two to three times more banks could fail during this crisis, for a total of 200 to 300, says independent market strategist Doug Peta.

Put simply, the problem for banks is bad loans. Institutions have been hit by one type of problem loan after another, says Keefe, Bruyette & Woods analyst Frederick Cannon. First, it was bad residential real-estate loans, including the notorious subprime mortgages. The biggest bank failure of the crisis occurred on Sept. 25, 2008, when the FDIC closed down Washington Mutual and arranged for it to be bought by JPMorgan Chase. Another big failure was on July 11, 2008, when the FDIC, at a cost of $10.7 billion, took over IndyMac, a specialist in risky, so-called Alt-A residential loans.

Mortgage problems persist, but banks specializing in loans to developers have been hit hard in 2009. KBW data show that, of banks that have failed since 2007, an average of 28.8 percent of loans outstanding were construction loans, compared to 9.8 percent for the industry as a whole. At Corus, which failed on Sept. 11, 88 percent of its lending was construction loans. "This year is dominated by construction lenders," Cannon says.

Good for the survivors
The next problem for banks is likely to be commercial real estate and other commercial and industrial loans, Cannon says. A healthy banking industry is a key ingredient to an economic recovery. Small businesses especially rely on bank financing, which has been hard to get recently.

However, an accelerating cascade of bank failures isn't all bad news for the banking industry as a whole. For one thing, bank "seizures are good for the survivors," Peta says. "[Failures] reduce the number of institutions indulging in 'Hail Mary' banking." In other words, a desperate, troubled bank is likely to offer high rates to attract depositors. That lures customers from strong banks to weak banks.

Also, when banks fail, their stronger competitors can gobble up their branches and depositors "on the cheap," Peta says. For example, BB&T Corp. became one of the nation's top-10 banks this month by asset size, according to rankings by SNL Financial. The reason: BB&T acquired Colonial Bank, which has $22 billion in assets, after its closure by the FDIC on Aug. 14.

Complaints about transparency
At the same time, the problems at big banks might be giving smaller institutions a chance to win back market share, says Christine Barry, research director at the Aite Group. In her recent survey of almost 800 community banks, she found that more than half reported adding customers and deposits during the financial crisis. "While a lot of these banks are faced with big challenges, many of them are actually seeing a lot of opportunities," she says.

Since the beginning of the financial crisis, investors have complained about a lack of transparency from banks. Without knowing what bad loans or toxic assets sit on bank balance sheets, it's difficult to assess how risky those banks really are. "The one thing the industry needs is information for investors to sort out who is strong and who is weak," Mason says. Regulators are still reluctant to release this data, for fear of scaring investors, he says. But he believes this approach is counterproductive and could prolong the recession.

Still, banking stocks have rebounded strongly this year, with the KBW Bank Index up 141 percent since its low on Mar. 6. (But the index is still down 56 percent from two years ago.) What has boosted investor confidence isn't information, but the implication that many large banks are too big to fail, Mason says. "They're still living off the life support of various government programs," he says.

A cure for ailing banks is time. With interest rates low, this should be a profitable time for many banks, Peta notes. The housing market is showing signs of recovery, with the most recent Case-Shiller Home Price index rising 1.4 percent from May to June. That's a good sign for a banking industry with many loans related to real estate. "We are making some progress," Peta says.

If they make the right moves, some troubled banks can survive long enough, and earn enough now, to make up for losses of the past few years. But for hundreds of less fortunate institutions, time is quickly running out.

To all real Americans. Ron Paul and his rabid supporters are undermining the legal government of the UNITED States of the American. Their weapon of choice is "spamming" the Internet. Using the Internet they flood the blogs and other sites with their propaganda all to make Ron Paul look like the savor of American. That is not the truth. Ron Paul is not the savor, but the would be destroyer of the American way of life. Ron Paul is wrong for the UNITED States of American.

At a community center, a number of real Americans were shown the list of extremist groups who have given Ron Paul support and some of the things that his supporters have done including rallies and cyber attacks on real Americans. Here are just some of their comments and concerns.

Arron G. Sherman Oaks: ". . . they are just brown shirts with computers"

Marion M. Encino: "We have to worry about terrorists attacking us, now we have to worry about attacks from inside our own country, from our own people?"

Nancy S. Encino: "This is very disturbing. A Congressmen getting support from neo-Nazi's."

David R. North Hills: "This is going on? It's just wrong. Everyone should know about this . . . "

Ron Paul is not what he seems. Real Americans are working hard to get this message out to other real Americans. Ron Paul is wrong for the UNITED States of American. Save the American way of life by helping get this message out other real Americans.

Malcolm Xism of the day-

"You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it!"

Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve Bank and the economy from CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ws31FGvdeI

Stiglitz Says Banking Problems Are Now Bigger Than Pre-Lehman

By Mark Deen and David Tweed

Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize- winning economist, said the U.S. has failed to fix the underlying problems of its banking system after the credit crunch and the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

“In the U.S. and many other countries, the too-big-to-fail banks have become even bigger,” Stiglitz said in an interview today in Paris. “The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis.”

Stiglitz’s views echo those of former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who has advised President Barack Obama’s administration to curtail the size of banks, and Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, who suggested last month that governments may want to discourage financial institutions from growing “excessively.”

A year after the demise of Lehman forced the Treasury Department to spend billions to shore up the financial system, Bank of America Corp.’s assets have grown and Citigroup Inc. remains intact. In the U.K., Lloyds Banking Group Plc, 43 percent owned by the government, has taken over the activities of HBOS Plc, and in France BNP Paribas SA now owns the Belgian and Luxembourg banking assets of insurer Fortis.

While Obama wants to name some banks as “systemically important” and subject them to stricter oversight, his plan wouldn’t force them to shrink or simplify their structure.

Stiglitz said the U.S. government is wary of challenging the financial industry because it is politically difficult, and that he hopes the Group of 20 leaders will cajole the U.S. into tougher action.

G-20 Steps

“We aren’t doing anything significant so far, and the banks are pushing back,” he said. “The leaders of the G-20 will make some small steps forward, given the power of the banks” and “any step forward is a move in the right direction.”

G-20 leaders gather next week in Pittsburgh and will consider ways of improving regulation of financial markets and in particular how to set tighter limits on remuneration for market operators. Under pressure from France and Germany, G-20 finance ministers last week reached a preliminary accord that included proposals to claw-back cash awards and linking compensation more closely to long-term performance.

“It’s an outrage,” especially “in the U.S. where we poured so much money into the banks,” Stiglitz said. “The administration seems very reluctant to do what is necessary. Yes they’ll do something, the question is: Will they do as much as required?”

Global Economy

Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank and member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said the world economy is “far from being out of the woods” even if it has pulled back from the precipice it teetered on after the collapse of Lehman.

“We’re going into an extended period of weak economy, of economic malaise,” Stiglitz said. The U.S. will “grow but not enough to offset the increase in the population,” he said, adding that “if workers do not have income, it’s very hard to see how the U.S. will generate the demand that the world economy needs.”

The Federal Reserve faces a “quandary” in ending its monetary stimulus programs because doing so may drive up the cost of borrowing for the U.S. government, he said.

“The question then is who is going to finance the U.S. government,” Stiglitz said.

You are welcome Tristan, and I see what you mean about the attacks. Zol zion mit Mazel.

Another Communist in Obama’s Orb
Meet Michael Klonsky, Obama's "social justice" education expert.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

The mainstream press steadfastly refuses to delve into Barack Obama’s radicalism, his Leftist revolutionary collaboration with self-identified communists from Frank Marshall Davis to Bill Ayers. The McCain campaign, moreover, has contributed mightily to the whitewash by ineptly seizing on the issue’s least important aspect: Obama’s abject dishonesty about the depth of his relationships with committed Leftists — e.g., the portrayal of Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”

(Petrified of being smeared as a racist, McCain has never mentioned Davis, whom Obama identifies only as “Frank” in his memoir. And, of course, utterance of Jeremiah Wright’s name is verboten in McCain circles, notwithstanding that his Trinity Church, where Obama was a 20-year member, is a font of Marxist Black Liberation Theology and thus critical to our understanding of Obama’s invocations of “change” and “spreading the wealth.”)

With what little media oxygen there has been sucked out by the largely uninformative discussion of Ayers (and his wife and Weather Underground ally, Bernadine Dohrn) — in which the mantra “unrepentant terrorist” has been a pale substitute for the critical matter of the Ayers’s ideology that Obama plainly shares — much has been missed. Significantly, that includes another key Obama contact, Mike Klonsky.

Here’s what you need to know. Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website.

To be clear, as it seems always necessary to repeat when Obamaniacs, in their best Saul Alinsky tradition, shout down the opposition: This is not about guilt by association. The issue is not that Obama knows Klonsky … or Ayers … or Dohrn … or Wright … or Rashid Khalidi …

The issue is that Obama promoted and collaborated with these anti-American radicals. The issue is that he shared their ideology.

Klonsky’s communist pedigree could not be clearer. His father, Robert Klonsky, was an American communist who was convicted in the mid-Fifties for advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government — a violation of the Smith Act, anti-communist legislation ultimately gutted by the Supreme Court. In the Sixties, Klonsky the younger teamed with Ayers, Dohrn, and other young radicals to form the Students for a Democratic Society. It was out of the SDS that Ayers and Dohrn helped found the Weatherman terrorist group.

Klonsky took a different path, albeit one that led inexorably to a new partnership with Ayers, which Obama mightily helped underwrite. Upon splitting off from the SDS, Klonsky formed a Maoist organization, first known as the “October League,” which ultimately became the “Communist Party (Marxist Leninist).”

Klonsky was CP(ML)’s chairman. He was so highly thought of by Mao’s regime that he was among the first Americans invited to visit Communist China. When he was feted there in 1977, a year after Mao’s death, the communist leadership hailed Klonsky’s party as “reflecting the aspirations of the proletariat and working people.”

Klonsky was a regular guest of the Chicoms until 1981, when the relationship soured over the post-Mao leadership’s free-market reforms. (Yes, Klonsky is apparently more committed to communism than China’s own Communist Party.) So what was a Leftist radical without platform to do? Why, what else? He became an American college professor specializing in education.

After getting his doctorate, Klonsky eventually made his way to Chicago and hooked up with his old SDS comrade (and self-professed “small ‘c’ communist”) Bill Ayers. Together, they co-founded the Small Schools Workshop in 1991. The goal — as Ayers has repeatedly made clear, most prominently in a 2006 speech before Hugo Chavez at an education forum in Caracas — is to bring the same Leftist revolution that has always galvanized them into the classroom.

The concept may be called small schools, but Klonsky and Ayers uniquely grasp the force-multiplier effect. In a small class, the teacher preaching the “social justice” gospel that American capitalism is a racist, materialist, imperialist cauldron of injustice can have greater impact on the students he seeks to mold into his conception of the “good citizen” — and on the teachers he is teaching to be preachers. Writing trenchantly about how this system of “critical pedagogy” short-changes the basic education needs of disadvantaged children, the City Journal’s Sol Stern observes that theorists like Klonsky and Ayers:

nurse a rancorous view of an America in which it is always two minutes to midnight and a knock on the door by the thought police is imminent. The education professors feel themselves anointed to use the nation’s K-12 classrooms to resist this oppressive system. Thus … teachers [are urged] not to mince words with children about the evils of the existing social order. They should portray “homelessness as a consequence of the private dealings of landlords, an arms buildup as a consequence of corporate decisions, racial exclusion as a consequence of a private property-holder’s choice.” In other words, they should turn the little ones into young socialists and critical theorists.

Klonsky himself confirms that this is precisely the goal (italics mine):

[S]uccessful social justice education ensures that teachers strike a balance between debating sociopolitical problems that affect children’s lives and teaching them academic basics on which they will be tested. A science teacher can plant an urban garden, allowing students to learn about plant biology, the imbalance in how fresh produce is distributed and how that affects the health of community residents. An English teacher can explore misogyny or materialism in American culture through the lens of hip-hop lyrics. Or as Rico Gutstein, a professor of mathematics education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, suggests, a math teacher can run probability simulations using real data to understand the dynamics behind income inequality or racial profiling. These are “examples of lessons where you can really learn the math basics,” he says, “but the purpose of learning the math actually becomes an entree into, and a deeper understanding of, the political ramifications of the issue.”

When Obama and Ayers collaborated together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) education-reform project, with Obama chairing the board that oversaw funding decisions, CAC underwrote the Klonsky/Ayers Small Schools Workshop with a whopping $1,056,162. And that’s not all. Nearly another million dollars was steered to the Small Schools Workshop by the Joyce and Woods Funds when Obama sat on their boards. The grand total comes to $1,968,718.

Furthermore, as education remains one of Obama’s core areas of concern — a fact that should frighten you — he gave Klonsky a microphone during the campaign. On the Obama campaign’s official website, Klonsky ran a blog for the candidate, as Klonsky put it, on “education politics and teaching for social justice.” He ran it, that is, until blogger Steve Diamond called attention to it back in June. A that point, the campaign scrubbed the site of all Klonsky traces — a fitting Stalinesque purge, described by Diamond here (and reminiscent of similar efforts to erase the campaign’s false claims about Obama’s relationship with ACORN).

Of course, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” John Stuart Mill called conservatives “the stupid party.” For countless American intellectuals, including many eventual giants of the Right, disdain for bourgeois values led to a ruinous infatuation with the Soviet Union — the audacity of their hope for perfecting mankind blinding them to the unremitting misery wrought by communist ideology.

In 1951, the legendary liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas insisted that, though communism might be a threat abroad, the movement in this country was a mere “bogeyman” that had been “thoroughly exposed” and “crippled as a political force.” We now know that even as he wrote those words, communists had covertly infiltrated the U.S. government at high levels and that, as a political force, the movement was just getting started. The Klonskys and Ayers were still on the horizon.

Now today’s elites, including some prominent conservative intellectuals, thumb their noses once again at the stupid party. They look longingly at the putatively cerebral Obama, a fit more to their liking even if his politics are, they hope, just a tad wayward. But the Leftist revolutionaries are under no such illusions. In Obama, they see the fulfillment of their dreams to remake America. As Klonsky has explained, “My own support for Obama is … a recognition that the Obama campaign has become a rallying point for young activists and offers hope for rebuilding the civil rights and antiwar coalitions that have potential to become a real critical force in society.”

So get ready for Klonsky’s “social justice.” It’s what Barack Obama calls “change.”

— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy chairs the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’s Center for Law & Counterterrorism and is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books 2008).

— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008).

To all real Americans. You can see how the Ron Paul supporters have stepped up their attacks on me here because my message on how Ron Paul is wrong for the UNTIED States of American and for real Americans has reached one person here. They don't want that message to get out. Ask yourself WHY? Don't let extremists take over this great country. I don't support any one candidate. I only ask you to support a candidate who is a real American (that person could be from either party) one who is NOT supported by extremists. One who is for the UNTIED States of American and for real Americans and the American way of life. Why do Ron Paul supporters want to stop that message? Ask those questions.

To all true and real Americans. Ask yourself why is it that rabid and fanatical supports of Ron Paul work so hard to stop the message of real Americans? Attacking us at every turn, calling us names and worse. Even now I am being attacked for using my rignt to free speech here. To get my message out that Ron Paul is wrong for American. This great country still has the freedom of free speech. Ron Paul's supporters would take that away. They ask for proof, show the real Americans out there the proof that extremists do not support Ron Paul. That he has not taken money from extremists. The answer to that is they can't, because it's true. Support the UNITED States of American. Don't let Ron Paul and his extremists supportes take away your American way of life, your freedoms. Ron Paul is wrong for the UNTIED States of America, he is wrong for all real Americans. Thank you.

President Obama Fully supported by the Communist Party
The following is a speech given by Communist Party National Chair Sam Webb, at the PWW?s Better World Awards banquet in New York City, May 17, 2009.

"So both the new president and new congress need our help. Our responsibility is support them as well as prod and constructively take issue with them when we have differing views.

But more importantly - and this is the nub of the problem - we have to reach, activate, unite and turn millions of Americans into change agents who can make the political difference in these struggles.

http://pww.org/article/view/15732/

More lies from Tristan...

Present your proof other then just your own personal words..

Israel is a Nuclear power..

The 2 Top U.S. Foreign Aid Recipient Countries

Are Israel and Egypt..

These 2 countries receive one-third of the total aid, the majority of which pays for armaments. Yet, neither is a "developing" country.
One-third of ALL US AID goes to Israel and Egypt.

Foreign Aid is for keeping the Industrial Military Complex bankrolled in keeping the war machine going...

"Addicted to War - Why the U.S. Can't Lick Militarism"
Read the Book here: http://www.addictedtowar.com/atw1a.html

wadada

Sharon M. I'm the one who should say thank you for helping to get the word out about Ron Paul. His supporters will tell you that he surrounds himself with people who are Jewish, but that is just a smoke screen. He gets his real support and advice from the extremists groups that want him in power. You much remember, Ron Paul wants the this to be a Christian only country. Where would that leave all the non Christians here? What do you think his extremists supporters would want done with Jews here? Would we see camps set up again? Ask yourself, if Ron Paul became president, and David Duke had the ear of that president, what would he say about the Jews? Ron Paul would offer no support to Israel. He would leave Israel to fend for herself, which is something else his extremists supporters want. Anti-Semitism has grown here, there have been more hate crimes directed at Jews. James von Brunn, the alleged Holocaust Museum shooter was a Ron Paul supporter. And who was the one of the first persons he shot, a black security guard. This Ron Paul support was out to kill Jews no question about it. I guess killing a black man was a bonus in his sick mind. That is type of person who supports Ron Paul. Ask yourself, why do these extremists love Ron Paul so much. They must see something in him that they see in themselves. Again I think you for helping to get the word out about Ron Paul, that he is not what his rabid supporters say he is. Ron Paul is wrong for the UNITED States of American, and he is wrong for real true Americans.

Sharon M.

Ron Paul is far from being anti-Semite..

Those who claim that he is anti-Semitic always bring up that Ron Paul doesn't support foreign aid to Israel so thus he is anti-Semitic..

But they fail to say that Dr. Paul is against all foreign aid in that this aid is not authorized by the US Constitution..

Once again the late Kent Snyder Dr. Paul campaign manager was Jewish... Peter Schiff also Jewish was his economic adviser.. Ron Paul called Ludwig von Mises, a Jewish immigrant, his “economic mentor.” Also Paul gets his Fed-hating straight from Murray Rothbard also Jewish.. How is it that Dr. Paul surrounds himself with those of the Jewish faith and has mentors who are Jewish make him an anti-Semite...

Because the truth is that he is not anti-Semite..

Are Jews anti-Semites? The Semitic people also include the Arabs Seems the Jews hate Arabs so are they anti-Semites?

Remember, The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern people originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites.

wadada

Been there

If you have up to date virus protections you don't have to worry much...

FYI: Beware of YouTube, FaceBook and MySpace links placed by Individuals you don't know on blog sites. They could install a nasty worm in your PC computer.

Thank you Tristan for providing another view of Rep. Ron Paul. You gave me something to think about. As a Jew, I take anti-Semitism with great concern, especially if it involves a member of Congress. I will pass your message along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8SW0-d4V1g

If Ron Paul and his followers are in such strong support of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Then why do they work so hard at trying to stop real Americans who dare speak out against Ron Paul? To deny them of their right to free speech? Do an Internet search and you will see that anyone who dares speak out against Ron Paul is attacked? What are they afraid of? Why do they go to such lengths to quiet real Americans? And why do they brush over the fact that Ron Paul is supported by extremists groups as nothing. Well, it's not nothing. It a big something. I'm not here to support any one candidate. I don't care if that person is a republican or a democrat. I just care that that person is a real and true American. One who supports the UNITED States of American. Look at any bill in your wallet. On it you will find the words United States of American. The key word there is UNITED. Fifty states that is united into one country. And as the UNITED States of American we have fought wars. As the UNITED States of American we have become a seat of power for democracy. Then why does Ron Paul want his state to secede from that union? And he would want others as well. Is this the actions of someone who is a real American? Would a real American weaken our country? Would a real American take the support of extremists who would nothing better than change the Constitution that this country was founded on and remove the rights to those who are differ in skin color, beliefs and life style? Ron Paul wants this to be a Christian only country. What about all the non Christians? Are they to rounded up and put in camps? Are they to become non citizens? What about their rights? I and others like me will continue to get the word out. His followers will try and stop us. But you can't stop real Americans. The message will continue. Ron Paul is not what he seems.

Tristan wrote:

"Ron Paul hates the UNITED States of America."

what documented proof do you have of this...

this is a might big statement without any documented proof...

Prove it....

wadada

One would have to wonder why all these groups like right-wing extremists, white separatists, neo-Nazis, and conspiracy theorists who believe that “the Zionists” were behind 9/11, and other extremists support Ron Paul? Is Ron Paul the lunatic they say he is? Or is he a someone with a greater plan? One that would give these extremists the power they crave so badly. These are not main stream groups. If they were in your neighborhood you would be worried. Why would you want someone they want in elected office or worse the White House? Contrary to what his rabid and fanatic supporters want you to believe. The extremists support IS behind Ron Paul and that should worry every real American. Fanatics are what put Hitler in power and we all know what happen there. Ron Paul hates the UNITED States of America. Do you see anyone else supporting secession like Ron Paul does? Everything Ron Paul does, every bill puts him closer to the goal that his extremists supporters want. Don't believe his supporters, Ron Paul is not what he seems. I ask you good people to throw your support behind real Americans. You will know who they are when Ron Paul's supporters start attacking them. There are real Americans in both parties. Men or women who believe in the UNITED States of American. But Ron Paul is not a real American, nor are his supporters. They want to destroy the UNITED States of American and the American way of life. Remember, just ask yourself why do these extremists support Ron Paul over anyone else? Why are his supporters so fanatical? We have all seen what fanaticism can do in the Mid east. Do you want that here? Why the rallies? This is very much like Germany in the 1930s. Is Ron Paul the new Hitler for the 21st Century? I don't want to find out. Do you? Support the American way of life, support the UNITED States of American, support a candidate who is a real American.

I think that Emmy winner Jerry Day has more credibility then Frank Weltner

Jerry Day: Media & Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdriCrjGIaY

http://www.jerryday.com/

Big deal $500 compared to millions from wall street that Obama received... Who recevied the bailout? wall street and the banks not main street..

Top Contributor of Obama campaign
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
UBS AG $543,219
Morgan Stanley $514,881
Source: opensecrets.org

You think that $500 is going to influence a candidate? you've got to be kinding...

I personally donated more then this little $500.... So i guess i would have more influence i gave the max even my girlfriend gave more then $500...

Oh and by the way which is it Trestan or Tristan? SO are you hiding behind a fake name also?

SO you bring up this jewish hate group that supports Ron Paul...

So what, Kent Snyder Campaign Manager for Ron Paul was Jewish, Peter Schiff economic adviser to Ron Paul also Jewish... SO i guess Dr. Paul doesn't acquiesce to those views...

You can't control what other people write..

Maybe i should start posting what members of the Communist party are saying about the current president and what they are saying in support of a president who is a fabian socalist..

That is right the current president is a fabian socalist...

Ron Paul stands for Freedom and Liberty of all Americans, but He also stands for the rule of law He stands up for the US Constitution..

The current president violates it the Constitution(Presidential Signing statements, Treaty with Russia without advice and consent of Senate and 2/3rds of Senate concurring)..

wadada

Ron Paul has become the most popular candidate among right-wing extremists, including white separatists, neo-Nazis, and conspiracy theorists who believe that “the Zionists” were behind 9/11. This group includes Frank Weltner, creator of the antisemitic website JewWatch.com, who in a YouTube video, accuses the “Zionist-controlled media” of attacking Paul’s candidacy. Paul has also received favorable coverage from the Vanguard News Networt, a White Nationalist news organ, members of Stormfront, an online neo-Nazi community, as well as the National Alliance, the “mainstream” White Nationalist group featured prominently in Marc Levin’s 2005 film Protocols of Zion.

Of course, Congressman Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of his extremist supporters, unless he publicly acquiesces to those views. Yet, when his extremist supporters begin providing a substantial amount of campaign funds, things get a bit dicier. And that’s Paul’s biggest problem.

According to the Lone Star Times, White Nationalists have become a noticeable source of financial contributions to the Paul campaign. Indeed, even Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, and one of the most notorious neo-Nazis in America, has personally contributed $500 to Paul’s campaign.

Is this someone you want sponsoring bills in Washington? Does he have the best interest for ALL Americans? I think not.

And today, give a moment of thought to those who lost their lives in 9/ll.

Support bills from true Americans. No matter what party they belong to. True supporters of the UNITED states of American. Ron Paul is NOT a true American. He is not what he seems.

I repeat, ANY bill that Ron Paul sponsors is wrong for American and loyal Americans. Ron Paul is not out to help American, he hates the UNITED States of American. He and his followers want to destroy the UNITED STATES of American and the American way of life. Yes, to Dr. No is a vote for civil war, chaos and destruction. Contact your elected Representatives and tell them to vote down this bill, any bill from Ron Paul. Say no to Dr. No.

Trestan

What are wrong with these bills?...

H.RES.216: Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that Members have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will be voted upon. ( i think that it is good that those who are voting on bill have the time to read them properly before voting on them is a good thing)

H.J.RES.48: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens. ( thus the workers would get to keep the money they make thus being able to save it or spend it into the economy and there is nmore money spent into the economy the econmy grows)

H.R.161: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits. (SO that seniors are not taxed on benefits that they have already paid income taxes on thus stop the double taxatin on seniors)

H.R.163 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the purchase of prescription drugs by individuals who have attained retirement age, and to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the importation of prescription drugs and the sale of such drugs through Internet sites. (Seniors get rebates on their perscription drug costs thus lowering the cost of perscription drugs for seniors)

H.R.164 : To provide greater health care freedom for seniors. (Seniors have more of a choice in the health care)

H.R.219 : To amend title II of the Social Security Act to ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust funds by requiring the Managing Trustee to invest the annual surplus of such trust funds in marketable interest-bearing obligations of the United States and certificates of deposit in depository institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and to protect such trust funds from the public debt limit. ( To make sure Congress doesn't dip into the SS Trust fund to as they have done THus preserving the funds for SS benefits)

H.R.779 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that tips shall not be subject to income or employment taxes. ( Those lower income makers who make their living from tips get to keep more of their money thus providing more for their families or improving their standard of living)

What are wrong with these bills?

wadada

What's all the hullabaloo about? Please have respect for the President of the United States, and for yourself. Barack Obama was elected to the office of President.

Trestan

So you are saying there doesn't need to be an audit of the FED and they can do whatever they want with your tax dollars and that you don't have a right to know what they are do with your money?...

And you are saying that opening the books and the promise of transparency during the campaign can now be overlooked is that what you are saying?

wadada

Any bill that Ron Paul sponsors is wrong for American and loyal Americans. Ron Paul and his fanatic followers are out to destroy this country, to destroy the American way of life. Contact your elected Representatives and tell them to vote down this bill. I have. Save your American way of life, save your freedoms, say no to Dr. No.

Shocking statements made about RP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvzsiESqVss

And back to the school speech, i still think that parents should have had a part of this event..

I saw a church that took in the parents and their children to watch the speech because the school district was not going to show it... I thought this was great becasue the community would get together and talk about it...

I just don't see something from the government executive office that should only be information wise for one segment of the community of citizens...

i guess we have a different ways of seeing things..

And jozielee we know this and we agree to disagree...

wadada

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has officially agreed to hold hearings on HR 1207! The hearings are tentatively scheduled for Friday, September 25 at 9:00 am.

Beside neo-Nazi's and White Supremacists Ron Paul is supported by:
Anti Semites.
Holocaust deniers, which should make him rather popular in Iran and Gaza.
Isolationist
Non-interventionists
Conspiracy theorists who shriek incoherent about Neocons, liberals, the NWO and the Federal Reserve.
Urban terrorist: James von Brunn, the alleged Holocaust Museum shooter was a Ron Paul supporter.
Anti-American supporters.
Antigovernment supporters.
Right to Life supporters.
Homophobics.
Non evolutionists.
People against stem cell research.
Just about any nut case who has a beef with the government.
And the list continues to grow.
Is this the type of people you want running the country? I don't.

mike

I'd like to know where all this money is going to come from..

i wonder if the President is even taking these facts into consideration..

David Walker on CBS 60 Minutes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7461407498377956300
12:21 - 2 years ago
David Walker, the US Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), is interviewed about the National Debt, Deficits, Entitlement Spending, Health Care, Medicare and the pending financial crisis facing the United States. The Social Security Program will eventually stop producing surpluses and will start going negative in 2018. Currently, those surpluses are being absorbed into enormous Unified Deficits. These deficits are increasing our total National Debt at an alarming rate and more of our debt is being sold to foreign entities. If this present trend is not stopped, our tax dollars will barely cover the interest on the National Debt by 2040. Drastic action needs to be taken now, otherwise we will mortgage our future and leave our children with huge debt burdens with severe economic consequences. For more information, please visit: www.gao.gov and www.concordcoalition.org

Rev Roy

Rivers of Babylon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-5E6_qtXAw

hope you like this song....

wadada

Mr. President,

You will address the people of this country to explain your health care plan. Stand strong against your distracters. Know that God is with you. The devil works in the shadow of deception, the light of truth will show that deception. I believe the people will see the truth and join you. God bless American, God bless you Mr. President.

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

Psalm 19:14

Jared -

It will be interesting to hear if the president talks about personal responsibility during tonight's speech as he did with the school children.

I would also like to hear how he proposes to pay for all this additional coverage for people while at the same time lowering costs for others. I'm still curious as to why the "public option" is the best solution when the government is broke. Where is this money coming from to pay for all these wonderful solutions?

I think the President is learning that there is a difference between campaign promises and dealing with the reality of facts and figures. But, I do hope he will listen to the majority of people that do not want forced government changes when it comes to their health care.

-m