Does America really want a change?

[homedawg]

:beer2:

[homedawg]

Ahmadinejad Demands Apology for U.S. 'Crimes'

:puke:

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for "profound changes" in U.S. foreign policy on Wednesday, including giving up support for Israel, during an address to thousands of people in the western city of Kermanshah.

President Obama on Tuesday, in an interview with Arabic television, called for more dialogue with Iran to express difference and see "where there are potential avenues for progress."

Without mentioning President Barack Obama by name, Ahmadinejad Wednesday repeatedly referred to those who want to bring "change," a word used often in Obama's election campaign, and indicated that Iran would be looking to see if there would be substantive differences in U.S. policy.

"We welcome change but on condition that change is fundamental and on the right track," Ahmadinejad said. "When they say 'we want to make changes', change can happen in two ways. First is a fundamental and effective change... The second ... is a change of tactics."

Ahmadinejad also demanded the U.S. apologize for 'crimes' committed against Iran; specifically, criticizing and trying to block their nuclear program.

"Those who say they want to make change, this is the change they should make: they should apologize to the Iranian nation and try to make up for their dark background and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said.

[homedawg]

Somebody get Obama a factchecker. Now!
January 28, 2009 by Procrustes

Since The Unpresident “reached out to the Muslim world” January 26th on the Dubai-based Arabic language Al-Arabiya satellite television, there has been a variety of reactions.

Fouad Ajami wrote today in the Wall Street Journal:

“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” President Barack Obama said in his inaugural. But in truth, the new way forward is a return to realpolitik and business as usual in America’s encounter with that Greater Middle East. [...]

In his desire to be the ‘un-Bush,’ the new president fell back on an austere view of freedom’s possibilities. The foreign world would be kept at an emotional and cultural distance. [...]

But foreign challengers and rogue regimes are under no obligation to accommodate our mood and our needs. They are not hanging onto news of our financial crisis, they are not mesmerized by the fluctuations of the Dow. I know it is a cliché, but sooner or later, we shall be hearing from them. They will strip us of our illusions and our (new) parochialism.

The New York Times informed us today that administration officials said Obama “intends to adopt a tougher line toward Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, as part of a new American approach to Afghanistan that will put more emphasis on waging war than on development.”

However, the most interesting observation comes from Max Boot at Commentary Magazine, who first quotes from PSBHO’s Al-Arabiya interview:

“America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.”
After scratching his head (which is what RBO would have done had we the stomach to actually dissect PSBHO’s performance; yes, pun intended), Boot did a little fact checking on what was going on in the “Muslim world” 20 or 30 years ago. He writes:

It turns out that in 1989 U.S. fighters shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra. The last Soviet troops left Afghanistan, creating a vacuum that would eventually be filled by the Taliban. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie’s death for “blasphemy.” Hundreds died in Lebanon’s long-running civil war while Hezbollah militants were torturing to death U.S. Marine Colonel William “Rich” Higgins, who had been kidnapped the previous year while serving as a UN peacekeeper in Lebanon.

And 1979? That was an even darker year-in many ways a turning point for the worse in the Middle East. That was, after all, the year that the shah of Iran was overthrown. He was replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who launched a war against the West that is still unfolding. One of the first actions of this long struggle was the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran and all of its personnel as hostages. The same year saw the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the growth of the mujahideen, some of whom would later morph into Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This was also the year that Islamic militants temporarily seized control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, an event that drove the Saudi royal family to become ever more fundamentalist.

In other news in 1979, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan, was hanged by General Zia al-Hak, inaugurating a long period when Pakistan would be under the effective control of the army in alliance with Islamic militants. That year mobs also attacked U.S. embassies throughout the Muslim world from Kabul and Islamabad to Tripoli. The one bright spot in 1979 was the signing of the Camp David Accord between the US, Egypt, and Israel, which did not, unfortunately, auger a “new” Middle East as many optimists hoped.


Before telling you Boot’s response to what he found, here’s what we’d like to know here at RBO — Does The Unpresident have a clue? We didn’t think so. Carry on.

Boot then nails it:

So this is the sort of “partnership” between the U.S. and the Middle East that President Obama would like to see? If his predecessor had suggested any such thing he would by now be a subject of ridicule for late-night comedians and daytime talk show hosts, and rightly so.

This is actually a revealing slip. To wit, it reveals two things: First, Obama’s profound ignorance about most aspects of foreign policy, including the recent history of the Middle East. A second, and related point, is his tendency to blame the ills of the region on the previous administration-something that is only possible if you started following the Middle East around 2001 and have little idea of what came before. It is then all too easy to claim, as Obama did on the campaign trail, that it was George W. Bush’s “disengagement” from the peace process and his “disastrous” war with Iraq that messed up the Middle East. Only someone with a longer view would realize how profoundly messed up the region was long before Bush came into office.

Ah. But let’s look at what The One had to say on Al-Arabiya about his familiarity with the “Muslim world”:

In all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I’ve come to understand is that regardless of your faith – and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers – regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.
Oh, now we get it. It’s about “common hopes and common dreams”. Why bother with facts?

Michael van der Galien at PoliGazette also picked up on The One’s lack of historical knowledge: “This remark is shocking on different levels …. Obama’s interview should cause a major scandal. Words matter, especially words spoken by the president.”

1. He told a Middle Eastern network that he considers America a “colonial power.” [which is going to come back to haunt him and all of us.]
2. It shows that Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about when dealing with foreign policy / the Middle East. Those who know their history well know that things were not great 30 years ago (1979-1989). It wasn’t all peace and happiness in the Middle East. [...] The Middle East has been a troubled region for the last 1.5 century.

[homedawg]

PRESIDENT HUSSEIN'S BILLIONS FOR PORK, WILL SLASH DEFENSE

12,656 Islamic attacks across the world since 911 and the plant is going to slash defense? The only reason we could suffer the reactionary tactics of leftards and Islamic apologists was because of our superior firepower and war posture.

These actions will not happen in a vacuum. There will be repercussions from President Hussein's seditious acts.

As we speak, the $825 billion socialist "stimulus" package is being considered by the House. 32 new government programs. Obama's payback to his thugs and gangstas and the fixers he owes. Free markets correct themselves; the government only makes things worse. Government is the problem. The case for doing nothing - the invisible hand of the economy.


Defense Cuts Coming, Gates Testifies

WASHINGTON -- Defense spending.......is going down and the Obama administration is preparing to make hard choices to end programs that exceed their budgets, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.
"The spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

The demands of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with the nation's economic crisis, require military planners to separate "those things that are desirable from those things that are truly needed" in the way of new weapons, Gates added.

He suggested that the new administration will avoid across-the-board spending reductions, "which inefficiently extend all programs," and will try to save money by eliminating unneeded programs.


Washington has a habit of passing legislation in
a crisis and suffering from morning-after regrets.

[homedawg]

Disarmament 2009
John Batchelor

The Obama Administration Launches the Disarming Offensive.
News that the Obama team is sending polite letters and signals in all directions to our well known adversaries now includes the logical development that the president is preparing a letter to the Holocaust-denying and hallucinatory Ahmadinejad of Iran. (Setting aside the
fact that the Obama camp has been whispering to Tehran for many, many months through cut-outs like Robert Malley.) It is familiar and hollow diplomacy and will come to grief. During the so-called Disarmament Conference (right) that started in 1932 and extended into 1933, FDR sent a message that was simple, blunt and absurd:


The way to disarm is to disarm. The way to prevent invasion is to make it impossible. I have asked for an agreement among nations on four practical and simultaneous steps: First, that through a series of steps the weapons of offensive warfare be eliminated; Second, that the first definite step be taken now; Third, that while these steps are being taken no nation shall increase existing armaments over and above the limitations of treaty obligations; Fourth, that subject to existing treaty rights no nation during the disarmament period shall send any armed force of whatsoever nature across its own borders...


Hitler assumed power from the decrepit Hindenberg at the end of January 1933 and by spring found a way to praise the FDR message. The scene I like is the president pushing his ear close to a short-wave radio in the White House to listen to a speech by the new chancellor. FDR translated Hitler's words with his credible German to his staff, including his close pal Missy LeHand. Delusional, sadistic Hitler said that he welcomed the new president's gestures to peace, and that everyone knew what was wrong with Europe was the cause of the corrupt and stupid Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919. The Disarmament Conference adjourned from June till October, when Germany found an excuse to drop out. FDR shrugged: too busy with his Nanny State of his pseudo-scientific NRA and the rules he liked for every business from sweater factories to railroads. Within thirty months, Hitler seized the Rhineland without need of many offensive weapons other than bluff. Catastrophe and Holocaust followed.


Ahmadinejad is Consciously Aping the Devils.
What was not clear these last years of looking for the analogy between the 1930s and now is that we did not see that we would re-experience the panic of the great depression that set up the weakness in liberty and confidence which the Devils Lenin, Trotsky, Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler exploited. Now we see it. The Obama administration aims to make a de facto truce with Tehran and its allies Hezballah, Hamas, and its hirelings and neighbors Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The explanation is that the president must focus on the broken US economy, no time for bullying foreigners to discover the joys of the Magna Carta. Same explanation FDR gave himself. Winston Churchill saw the Devils rising. FDR ignored them. They come for us all. The Devils are loose again, and this time they have the nukes we created to stop their last wave of terror. Mr. Obama writes a letter to Ahmadinejad seeking to disarm Tehran with dialogue. The price tag for this sort of conversation is very high.

[homedawg]

Dancing Among Landmines--The Obama Al-Arabiya Interview
Victor Davis Hanson

President Barack Obama is being praised for choosing an Arabic TV network for his first formal television interview on the Dubai-based, Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel. I think we can all appreciate the thinking behind such bold outreach, given that the media at home has chortled to the world that our new guy's unusual background, in sort of Zen-fashion, has befuddled the radical Islamic movement.

The subtext of our satisfaction has been that Obama--African-American, son of a Muslim father, erstwhile resident of Muslim Indochina, with Hussein as his middle name--makes it far harder for the Arab Islamic world to typecast America unfairly as the Great Satan than would be true in the case of an evangelical, Texas-drawling, hard-core conservative Chief Executive like good 'ole boy George Bush.

True enough, no doubt.

But triangulation is a touchy art and it takes the genius of a Dick Morris cum soulless Bill Clinton to pull off such disingenuousness. In less experienced hands it can be explosive and turn on its user. And Obama will soon learn the dangerous game he is playing. Consider:

1) When abroad it is not wise to criticize your own country and praise the antithetical world view of another--especially if yours is a democratic republic and the alternative is a theocratic monarchy that has a less than liberal record on human rights, treatment of women and homosexuals, and tolerance for religious plurality.

But here's what Obama said:

"... All too often the United States starts by dictating...in the past on some of these issues...and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen...Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia...I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage...to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace."

The end, if unintended, result is that the Saudi King comes across as courageous, while the U.S. President and State Department (e.g., "the United States") are portrayed as dictatorial-like ("dictating") in the region.

2) An unspoken rule of American statesmanship is not to be overtly partisan abroad. And in Obama's case it is high time to arrest the campaign mode, cease the implied "Bush did it" (which ipso facto has a short shelf life), and begin dealing with the world as it is, rather than the world you feel was unfairly presented to you by someone more blameworthy in the past. But again consider:

"But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task... And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs... but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well."

Perhaps. But once again, the impression comes across as 'past America bad /present and future America good.' (Even the senior George Bush learned that lesson at home with his serial "kinder, gentler nation" [e.g., kinder than what?]). And nothing is offered here (other than our lack of a colonial past) about the actual impressive record: amazing American good will in saving Kuwait, objecting to the Kuwaiti deportations of thousands of Palestinians, speaking out against Russia on behalf of the Chechens, trying to save the Somalis, bombing a Christian European Serbia to save the Kosovar and Bosnian Muslims, helping the Afghans against the Soviets, removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and trying to invest a $1 trillion in fostering democracy in their places, billions in disease relief for black (and often Muslim) Africa, timely help to the Muslim victims of the tsunami, and liberal immigration laws that welcome in millions of Arabs and/or Muslims. I could go on but you get the picture left out that America, far better than China, Russia, or Europe, has been quite friendly to the Muslim world.

Instead the supposition is that somehow the culpability is largely ours--and therefore ours to rectify. In fact, the widespread hatred in the Islamic world, manifested, and sometime applauded, on September 11, was largely a result of the failures of indigenous autocracy--whether in the past Pan-Arabist, Baathist, theocratic and Islamic, Nasserite, or pro-Soviet statism.

Such repression and failed economic policies, coupled with the sudden ability of a long-suffering populace in a globalized world to fathom that things were bad in the Middle East but no so bad elsewhere, led to growing anger and frustration. That state megaphones (in a devil's bargain with radical Islamists) preached that the real culprit of general Muslim misery was neither Islamic terrorism nor state dictators nor gender apartheid nor religious intolerance nor state-run economies, but solely the fault of America and the Jews hardly helped.

We should also remember that the Bush record was often quite good: we have not been hit in over seven years; Pakistan's nuclear proliferation was stopped; Libya gave up its nuclear program; Syria is out of Lebanon; Hamas and Hezbollah have suffered a great deal of damage as a result of their aggressions; there are constitutional governments at work in place of the Taliban and Saddam; the leadership of al Qaeda is scattered and depleted and its brand is diminished in Iraq. The fact that Middle East authoritarian governments might not like all of that; or that radical Muslims find this disturbing; or even that the spokesmen for the unfree populations of the Arab world object--simply does not change the truth. I wish President Obama better appreciated that simple fact, because he surely is a beneficiary of it.

3). Beware of the dangerous two-step. For nearly two years the unspoken rule of the campaign (ask former Senator Bob Kerry or Hillary Clinton herself or talk-show host Bill Cunningham) was that mentioning Obama's Muslim ancestry was taboo. It was illiberal to evoke his Muslim-sounding name or his Indonesian ancestry, as if one were deliberately trying to suggest his multicultural fides made him less appealing to the square majority in America. But Obama apparently himself is immune to such prohibitions--at least abroad. If he appreciates the off-limits landscape at home, overseas it is suddenly to be showcased to reemphasize his global, multicultural and less parochial credentials. E.g., it comes off as something like: 'between you and me--typical Americans could not relate to you the way I can--even though back in America to even suggest that I am not typical is sometimes the greatest of sins--albeit in the manner I adjudicate.' Consider again:

"Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries...The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams."

4) At some point, soaring rhetoric makes banality the harder to accept. For all the talking about path- breaking new/old envoy George Mitchell, and the new President's background, and the novel sensitivity, Obama offered nothing new on the Middle East and Iran, because (1) there is very little new to be offered; and (2) George Bush, apart from the caricatures, was by 2004 about as multilateral as one can be; consider the Quartet, the EU3, the UN efforts at international disarmament with Iran, the use of NATO forces in Afghanistan, the Coalition in Iraq, the efforts to promote constitutional government in the Middle East, and on and on.

There is a danger here that Obama's hope and change on the Middle East will start to resemble his hope and change on new governance in Washington: utopian promises about absolutely new ethics, followed by the same old, same old as exemplified by the ethical problems encountered by Geithner, Holder, Lynn, Richardson--and by extension Blago, Dodd, Frank, and Rangel. Again, saintly rhetoric only highlights earthly behavior.

I am glad Obama confounds the radical and hostile Islamic world, if it is in fact true that he does. But we are witnessing a delicate balancing act in which he seems to be saying to us "I am best representing you by distancing myself from you and your past".

Again, that may well work, but also in time may prove not to be what Americans thought they were voting for. So a final Neanderthal thought: some of us would like our President in calm, polite and diplomatic tones to emphasize the past positive Middle East work of his predecessor Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. He should make the case that the United States has tried hard and will try hard again to promote peace in the Middle East, but that certain fundamental facts make that awfully difficult, and often are beyond our control, resting largely in the decisions that others make for themselves--and the inevitable reactions that will follow from a liberal democracy like our own, faced with clear signs of religious intolerance, illiberality, violent aggression, and complicity in the promotion of terror as a political means. In other words, I think Syria, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Pakistan--and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others--know exactly what are they doing and thus the problems that arise between us transcend occasional and unfortunate smoke 'em out/bring 'em on lingo.

[homedawg]

Bank Bailout Could Cost Up to $4 Trillion: Economists
Reuters 29 Jan 2009 04:35 PM ET



The cost of restoring confidence in U.S. financial firms may reach $4 trillion if President Barack Obama moves ahead with a "bad bank" that buys up souring assets.

The figure far exceeds even the most pessimistic estimates of how great the loan losses might be because there is so much uncertainty about default rates, which means the government may need to take on a bigger chunk of bank debt to ease concerns.

Goldman Sachs economists said ideally the public sector would step in to remove the hardest-to-value assets, which would alleviate nagging worries about future losses and hopefully help get lending going again.

"Unfortunately, with an unprecedented meltdown in mortgage credit and a deep recession in the broader economy, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the value of almost every asset," they wrote in a note to clients.

Obama and his economic advisers are expected to lay out their policy plan as early as next week. One idea that seems to be gaining traction is setting up an entity to buy troubled assets and hold them until they mature or resell them.

The hope is that once banks get rid of those bad loans, they can attract private investors, get back to the business of lending, and help revive the economy.

Biden: Stimulus Package Will Get Better With Changes

Obama: Wall Street Bonuses 'Outrageous'

Obama's First 100 Days: What He's Done So Far

Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was considering all options to restart normal lending, but that no decisions had been made.

Goldman Sachs estimated that it would take on the order of $4 trillion to buy troubled mortgage and consumer debt. That number could shrink if the program were limited to only certain loans or banks, but it could also grow if other asset classes such as commercial real estate loans were included.

New York Sen. Charles Schumer has said that a number of experts thought that up to $4 trillion may be needed to buy the bad assets, an estimate that a Senate aide said was based on informal conversations with people in the industry.

The Wall Street Journal said government officials had discussed spending $1 trillion to $2 trillion to help restore banks to health, citing people familiar with the matter.

At $4 trillion, that would be the equivalent of nearly 1/3 of U.S. gross domestic product. If the government had to fund that amount by issuing additional debt, it would intensify investor concerns about massive supply scaring off demand.

Depending on how the plan is structured, the government may not have to put up the full amount, and since the majority of people are still paying their mortgages and credit card bills, there is a reasonable expectation that taxpayers would recoup a substantial portion of the cost.

However, the potential loss is huge, and if more public money is needed to boost capital even after the bad assets are removed, the total would undoubtedly climb.

The International Monetary Fund said Wednesday that worldwide losses on U.S.-originated loans may hit $2.2 trillion, well above its October estimate of $1.4 trillion. It said banks in the United States, Europe and elsewhere probably needed to raise $500 billion to cover losses coming this year and next.

Cutting Out a Zero

For U.S. lawmakers who are already taking grief from voters over a $700 billion bailout approved last fall, passing another big spending measure carries significant political risk.


At the same time, Obama's team wants to take action that is bold enough to fix the problem once and for all, hoping to avoid the sort of ad hoc approach that has been criticized for adding to investor uncertainty.

Time is not on Obama's side. The more the economy weakens, the longer the list of potentially dodgy debt grows. That is why he faces enormous pressure from Wall Street to act fast.

The government would not necessarily have to spend the full $4 trillion to buy the assets. If it follows the model used in a Federal Reserve program to support consumer and small business loans, the government could potentially put up just 10 percent of the total.

Spending $400 billion would certainly be more palatable to Congress than $4 trillion. It may not even require that much additional funding. Economists estimate that perhaps $250 billion of what remains in the $700 billion bailout fund could be devoted to the "bad bank."

That money could buy bad assets, which would then be repackaged and sold to investors to raise more money which could then by recycled to buy more assets.

Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital, said although that sounds similar to the sort of financial engineering that spawned the credit crisis in the first place, it would be structured so that the central bank or whichever agency oversees the program is last in line to take losses.

"If things turn out so bad that the Fed ends up on the hook for $1 trillion in losses, then the financial sector, the economy, and everything else will be dead anyway," he said.

[homedawg]

MarketWatch: Consumers Hoarding Cash


<embed src="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/main.swf" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoGUID={1602CB47-5685-4FD8-96F0-AC40C342E213}&playerid=1000&plyMediaEnabled=1&conf igURL=http://wsj.vo.llnwd.net/o28/players/&autoStart=false” base="rtmpt://wsj.fcod.llnwd.net/a1318/o28/video" name="main" width="650" height="425" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>

[homedawg]

Prophesied cashless society: It's almost here
Hal Lindsey


When I read the headline to Jerome Corsi's story, Economic meltdown excuse for 'new world' at WorldNetDaily yesterday, my first thought was, "What took them so long?"

That thought was immediately followed by the realization that the timing is just about perfect. Corsi zeroed in on comments by Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – specifically, Schwab's comment that the global economic crisis was a "transformational crisis" useful in reshaping a "new world."

One of the scarier quotes in his piece was from a professor Nouriel Roubini who said the global banking system was "effectively insolvent," which, to my untrained ears, sounds a lot like "bankrupt."

The last time this happened was in 1933, forcing the federal government to ban private ownership of gold so it could be confiscated and used to satisfy the government's creditors.

That was the national bankruptcy that predicated the Great Depression, which allowed Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration to ram through the socialist "New Deal" policies that economic historians say made the Depression both longer and deeper than it needed to be.

During the Depression, FDR had more or less unhindered ability to push through whatever socialist legislation he deemed necessary. People were in pain and were willing to accept almost anything the government proposed if it would make it stop.

It was this same economic pain that convinced the Germans to go along with Adolf Hitler's madness during the 1930s.

After more than a decade of economic depression, as long as Hitler's policies were keeping factories busy and the economy humming along, he was free to do whatever else he pleased.

One of the first things I expect to see introduced as a consequence of this "transformational crisis" is the elimination of cash as a medium of exchange. This is a step that governments and banks have been trying to take for almost two decades without success.

There are good and logical reasons for the elimination of cash. It will essentially wipe out the cash dependent drug trade. It will remove the incentive behind most petty crimes. Paper money is dirty, spreads diseases and it is expensive to print and expensive to handle.

Electronic money addresses all of these issues in a single stroke. The difficulty rests in overcoming public resistance to the idea. But desperate times call for desperate measures, as the saying goes, and when the times get desperate enough, public resistance will evaporate like summer rain.

The Book of the Revelation foretells the events that will take place during the final seven years of human government before the Second Coming of Christ. It records the judgments of what popular culture has come to call the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

One of these judgments is symbolized by the rider on the black horse: "When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, 'Come!' I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, 'A quart of wheat for a day's wages and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!" (Revelation 6:5-6 NIV)

The symbols of wheat and barley are representative of a day's food and a denari was a day's wage for an average worker. The oil and the wine are symbolic of a wealthy man's food. So in that day, it will cost all of a workingman's wages to buy a day's food. However, the wealthy will be relatively unaffected during this judgment. This is a textbook description of a modern economic depression.

During Revelation's predicted Tribulation period, the global system will be presided over by a single political authority in the person of the antichrist. The Apostle John forewarns that his control over the economy will be absolute: "He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name." (Revelation 13:16-17 NIV)

This is one of the most famous prophecies of Scripture, especially today. Even in 1969, when I wrote in my book "The Late Great Planet Earth" about the Mark of the Beast and the numerical value of his name – 666 – it was difficult to understand just how such control over every individual on earth could be accomplished.

However, it is only in the light of the exponential leap in today's technology that this crucial end-time prophecy can be fully comprehended.

The one necessary element for which I have been looking for more than 50 years that would make this prophecy possible is now becoming clear. It was the mystery of just how the economies of the world would be forced under the central control of one small group.

So now let us return to the enormous relevance of Klaus Schwab's above-mentioned comment that "the global economic crisis" is a "transformational crisis" useful in reshaping "a new world."

If the present economic crisis continues to spiral downward into a world depression, as experts reluctantly admit will happen, it can indeed be the "transformational crisis" that forces the world to accept a totally centralized control of a cashless society. All that remains, then, is for the anointed leader the Bible calls the antichrist to step forward and take over.

The Apostle John, under the inspiration of God's Spirit, predicted these things 2,000 years ago on the small island of Patmos. Now what seemed impossible for nearly 20 centuries is developing right before our eyes.

It is important to remember that all of these predictions were linked with a series of events that lead to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. He is coming very soon. It is time for everyone to receive the gift of pardon He died to purchase for us. As Jesus promised, "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18 NIV)

[homedawg]

Everywhere you look, it’s MoveOn.org
Procrustes
:puke:

It seems that Organizing for America or Obama 2012 is not the only tool available in The Unpresident’s toolbox to hammer disobedient members of Congress into submission.

An RBO tipster sent along this interesting little tidbit from MoveOn.org:

Can you chip in to pass Obama’s economic recovery plan?

If we don’t raise the heat on swing-vote Republican senators, then the plan is likely to fail—or get gutted. That’s why we put together a powerful new TV ad targeting Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Charles Grassley (R-IA).

Although the email that accompanied the link only asked for $25, the action page asks for $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1000, $2000 or “Other $”.

As we asked in our November 18, 2008, article reposted below, is this a “Coincidence or not?” It certainly raises a number of questions.

Loudon: Obama File 26 — William McNary, Yet Another Obama Radical? « RBO

Why, if Organizing for America was formed to help drive home PSBHO’s agenda using his mega list of campaign contacts, is it necessary for MoveOn.org to be emailing its list begging for dollars?

Besides, where’s PSBHO’s post-partisan Congress? You know, the one that was going to work as one-aisle-united and hand him everything he needs.

Most importantly, if PSBHO’s economic recovery plan is a shoo-in for Democrats to pass in the Senate, why the full-court financial press — to raise funds to harrass Republicans?

We are reposting our November 18, 2008, article because it provides linkage to hundreds of thousands of names available through other MoveOn.org entities. RBO began with the following Caveat, which applies just as much now as it did three months ago:

By now we should all be used to the idea that lines cross, criss cross, and cross over again any time one attempts to trace a direct pathway between Barack Obama and anyone else. If you have tried to do this, you thoroughly understand the complexity — and frustration — of the task.

In this particular instance, the starting point had nothing to do with the destination. This article began as RBO continued to poke around in that declassified, highly-redacted August 1976 FBI report on the Weather Underground. It was completely unexpected that we would arrive where we did.

[homedawg]

Congress sued to remove prez from White House
'Defendants had to ensure the Constitution is upheld'
January 31, 2009




A new lawsuit is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and this one targets Congress as a defendant for its "failure" to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.

The new case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

It is being brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. and names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution?

As WND has reported, dozens of lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president. Many have been dismissed while others remain pending.

The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several details of Obama's past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family's move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama's family about his place of birth.
Perhaps the most perplexing detail, however, has been Obama's refusal to allow the public release of a signed "vault" copy of his original birth certificate.

The new case was launched in New Jersey, and focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution.

That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

In provides, the lawsuit said, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified."

"Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them," the lawsuit said.

The defendants "violated" the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements," the lawsuit said.

In the Russian publication Pravda, commentator Mark S. McGrew addressed the subject:

"The United States Congress is required, under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, to count the Electoral College votes for president and vice president, ask if any member of Congress objects to the count and hear that Congressman's objection. This is under Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, 'Upon such reading of any such certificate of paper, the president of the Senate shall call for objections, if any,'" he wrote.

Several of the cases – including those brought by Orly Taitz, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Philip Berg, already have been discussed in conference at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has failed to have a hearing on any of the merits involved.

Taitz, in fact, is requesting information from the Supreme Court about a meeting eight of its justices held with Obama, a defendant in her case, before the justices reviewed the issues of the case in a private conference.

Several of the cases not scheduled for hearings at the Supreme Court still remain active at lower court levels, from which emergency requests to the high court were launched.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.

A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as president is below:

Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.


Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.


Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.


In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.


In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.


In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.


Private investigator Douglas Hagmann of HomelandSecurityUS.com reported earlier he found 13 cases challenging Obama's eligibility still active or semi-active.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.


In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.


In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.


In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.


In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. A one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birth place in Kenya already was recognized and honored.

[homedawg]

Nuclear disarmament — Obama “yes”, Pentagon “not so fast”, Congress “skeptical”
February 2, 2009
Procrustes

In his July 2008 Berlin speech The UnPres set a “goal of a world without nuclear weapons,” and “promised to strengthen [the] nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and secure loose nuke materials from terrorists.”

Steve Shippert at ThreatsWatch.Org wrote November 23, 2008:

Still atop the Foreign Policy page at BarackObama.com is the #1 listed priority; a fanciful pledge of securing “all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years” and banning all new nuclear weapons production. In the real world, the former is a wholly unattainable ideal rather than an achievable pledge, and the latter is achievable only unilaterally.
The Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (right), is “leaning in a seemingly contradictory direction” — a modernized nuclear arsenal. Agence France Presse reported yesterday:

The new administration has signalled its intent to swiftly engage Russia in negotiations on deeper cuts in their respective arsenals, with the ultimate aim of reducing them to zero.
It seems, however, that Gates began “arguing in the final months of the previous administration that deeper cuts must be underpinned by production of a new warhead to replace an ageing nuclear stockpile.” In an October 28, 2008, speech at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, Gates said:

“To be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.”
Gates is not alone. AFP reports Gen. Kevin Chilton (left), head of the US Strategic Command, “warns that the United States is ‘living today off the largesse of an industrial base and a concept that was developed to support the Cold War which is many years in the rear view mirror right now’.”

Melanie Kirkpatrick wrote November 21, 2008, in the Wall Street Journal:

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear weapons program has suffered from neglect. Warheads are old. There’s been no new warhead design since the 1980s, and the last time one was tested was 1992, when the U.S. unilaterally stopped testing. Gen. Chilton, who heads U.S. Strategic Command, has been sounding the alarm, as has Defense Secretary Robert Gates. So far few seem to be listening.

The U.S. is alone among the five declared nuclear nations in not modernizing its arsenal. The U.K. and France are both doing so. Ditto China and Russia. “We’re the only ones who aren’t,” Gen. Chilton says. Congress has refused to fund the Department of Energy’s Reliable Replacement Warhead program beyond the concept stage and this year it cut funding even for that.

See The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background and Current Developments last updated September 12, 2008, by the Congressional Research Service.
The nuclear weapons modernization plan predates Gates’s tenure, of course. Walter Pincus reported March 4, 2006, in the Washington Post:

The Bush administration is developing plans to design and deploy refurbished or replacement warheads for the nuclear stockpile, and by 2030 to modernize the production complex so that, if required, it could produce new generations of weapons with different or modified capabilities. [...]

The first step in the long-range plan is focused around the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program that was approved last year. That program contemplates designing new components for previously tested nuclear packages that would make the resulting bombs and warheads safer and more reliable over the long term than older stockpiled weapons that are being refurbished. [...]

Under current plans, the number of deployed U.S. warheads on submarines, missiles and bombers would be reduced to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. There would be an additional number, said to exceed 2,000, that would remain in a strategic reserve, and it would be the latter that could be further reduced under the RRW program.

Pincus next reported May 3, 2007, that a House Armed Services subcommittee voted the day before “to establish a year-long, bipartisan commission to reevaluate the U.S. nuclear strategic posture for the post-9/11 world.”

In setting funding levels at $51.4 billion for strategic programs in the fiscal 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, the strategic forces subcommittee’s new chairwoman, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), said, “This commission is designed to help frame the debate over the future direction of our nuclear weapons program and place it in the context of related strategic consideration.”

Tauscher said she wanted to slow down spending on the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and on related plans to modernize the aging nuclear weapons complex, which refurbishes older weapons and dismantles retired warheads and bombs. Rep. Terry Everett (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, said the reduction in the RRW program would allow “a measured, knowledge-based approach.”

Congress was not only “skeptical of the need for the RRW” but also “balked” at the Bush administration’s proposal for it, the AFP reports. The bipartisan commission appointed by Congress in March 2008 is now expected to “weigh in” in April 2009.

Wade Boese wrote in the April 2008 issue for the Arms Control Association:

On March 19, lawmakers announced the dozen experts making up the bipartisan commission. Its chairman is William Perry, a former secretary of defense for the Clinton administration, and the vice chairman is James Schlesinger, a former secretary of defense under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Other members include former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), former Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio), and Fred Ikle, a former director of the defunct Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. The group is supposed to make their recommendations on “the most appropriate strategic posture and most effective nuclear weapons strategy” to Congress and the president by Dec. 1.
AFP adds that a “Pentagon advisory panel led by former defense secretary James Schlesinger warned this month of a weakening US deterrent.” Later this year the Pentagon will “undertake its own review.”

The opposition? The usual suspects, according to the AFP. In a January 15, 2008, Wall Street Journal op-ed, former secretaries of state Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz, former defense secretary William J. Perry (right) and former Senator Sam Nunn “called for a ‘world free of nuclear weapons’” and now say nuclear weapons are “increasingly ineffective as a deterrent.” Note that Perry is among those to report to Congress in April.

Also, in August 2008, then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (left) declined to “formally endorse an interagency ‘white paper’ on nuclear deterrence strategy.”

The roughly 30-page document, which has yet to be publicly released, is intended to expand on a four-page statement about nuclear weapons policy issued jointly in July 2007 by three Cabinet secretaries: Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. The unclassified version of the new paper has been delayed several times but should be unveiled in the next few weeks, according to Bush administration officials.

The State Department was consulted on the white paper and supports its contents, but has stopped short of officially sponsoring it, Rice’s staff officially confirmed. Aides said Rice opted to leave it to her defense and energy counterparts to issue the new document because it is more technical than last year’s statement, and thus lies outside her diplomatic purview.

The 2007 statement emphasized a need for a smaller, more modern U.S. nuclear arsenal in the face of increased capability among “rogue states” as well as weapons improvements by other “established nuclear powers.”

The three secretaries argued in favor of moving forward with the development of a new nuclear weapon, the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Proponents say the weapon concept, which has drawn little support from the Democratic-controlled Congress, would offer gains in safety, security, reliability and maintainability, compared to today’s stockpile.

Bottom line? AFP reports that Gates “has not had a chance yet to discuss his ideas on nuclear issues with Obama.”

However, the Democratic-controlled Congress has not been on-board with nuclear weapons modernization; the bipartisan commission scheduled to report to Congress in April includes RRW opponent former SecDef Perry; and PSBHO and VP Biden are on record with a “goal of a world without nuclear weapons.”

As Jan Kristensen, an analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, told AFP, Gates’s October 28, 2008, speech at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, was “an attempt to set a bottom line.”

In Kristensen’s view, the secretary’s message was:

“You can cut the numbers, but below that we need to have a strong capability, not only to maintain what we have, but also to build up if we need to.”

Kristensen added: “That is the big clash.”

A clash, a trainwreck or a stalemate?

[homedawg]

What in the world is Alcee thinking?
February 2, 2009
Procrustes


One has to wonder what Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) had in mind when he introduced H.R. 645 in the House of Representatives on January 22, 2009. To date, the bill does not have any co-sponsors.

The bill, the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, is purposed “To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.”

Purpose of National Emergency Centers - The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure:

to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;
to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Note the language. It is a directive. Preference, Hastings stipulated, should be given to closed military installations.

As The Final Hour blog points out:

If Congress passes this bill, the Department of Homeland Security will be REQUIRED to establish national emergency centers (FEMA camps) on closed military bases.
What old military base would Hastings suggest using in his district?

Hastings’ Florida District 23 (left) is located inland, tracking to the west of the Treasure Coast. The only proximate military installation is at Homestead, located in the 18th District, which belongs to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (D-Fla.). Now the Homestead Air Reserve Base, formerly Homestead Air Force Base, which was almost completely destroyed August 1992 in Hurricane Andrew, it stations the Air Force Reserve Command which is one of ten Major Commands (MAJCOMS) in the U.S. Air Force. A breakdown of available or currently leased surplus federal property at Homestead has not been located although there are a number of articles online discussing disposal.

Again, The Final Hour blog writes:

Please note that the law REQUIRES that at least one of these FEMA camps be established in [six] specific FEMA regions.

Which FEMA region do YOU live in?

If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations other than closed military installations as national emergency centers.

This part of the bill actually requires the use of an active military base for a FEMA camp if there are not enough closed military bases to do the job.

The Final Hour post concludes:

Where do you think the FEMA camp closest to your house will be established?

Are you ready to go to a “national emergency center” when the government declares martial law?

What will your response be if they come to put you on a train that will take you and your family to one of these camps?

But you know what one of the saddest things is?

The machinery of martial law is being put into place, and the American people are hardly uttering a peep in protest.

The breadth of the American people’s ignorance on this subject, including The Final Hour blog, can be demonstrated by the fact there are already a plethora of acts and executive orders to institute and carry out martial law which far exceed this new bill’s purpose.

For example, the subject of American concentration camps is not a new one.

In October 2006, KBR was constructing “a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of Bush’s ‘unlawful enemy combatants,’” Marjorie Cohn wrote in AlterNet. “Americans are certain to be among them,” she said.

Additionally, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 — which may or may not be suspended — was passed September 29, 2006. It “provides the basis for the President to round-up both aliens and U.S. citizens he determines have given material support to terrorists,” Cohn wrote.

Marjorie Cohn’s name may be familiar to regular RBO readers. She is the president of the National Lawyers Guild, the group for which unrepentant Communist terrorist Bernardine Dohrn worked in the late 1960s while at the same time she agitated on campuses for anti-war demonstrations.
Prior to that, however, beginning in April 2005, the “aptly-christened” Operation FALCON — the acronym for “Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally” — was the “massive roundup of 10,000 American citizens” in a “massive clandestine dragnet that involved hundreds of state, federal and local law-enforcement agencies. The brainchild of then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, it was the largest criminal-sweep in the nation’s history. Only 10% of these individuals have been identified, leaving the fate of the remaining 9,000 unknown — were they processed or released?

There have been a number of these raids, some large and some quite small.

It is obvious that the government’s power already exists to declare martial law, as well as round up and control American citizens for a variety of reasons. This brings us back full circle to Rep. Hastings’ legislation.

Why? What or who is behind it?

Some folks are extremely alarmed about this, as they should be. Turn down the volume a bit to quiet the over-the-top music. But don’t ignore the message.

FEMA CAMPS ARE HERE!! DEFINITIVE PROOF
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k4Qh-X4993g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k4Qh-X4993g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
H.R. 645 The Time Has Come

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cdZzXJsN2Do&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cdZzXJsN2Do&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

FEMA takeover it is in the works!!!!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AQezQCdnjIc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AQezQCdnjIc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Note: The video for the alleged Beech Grove, Indiana “FEMA camp” cannot be verified. Information suggests that discussion about it has been circulating since the 1990s.
The proof of what The Unpres has at his disposal is already written in the law. This most recent piece of legislation may or may not go anywhere other than to molder on the shelf of one more overtaxed Congressional committee. There are no co-sponsors — yet. This bill has a long way to go.

What the bill does accomplish is to drag these dirty little secrets out into the light — where they belong.

Lastly, as we do not know why Rep. Hastings has submitted this bill, RBO suggests that you contact him here and ask. Please let us know what you find out. Thanks.

[homedawg]

I'm giving my eyes & brain a rest, just reading the headlines is enough for me today! :nuts:



Feb. 3, 2009 Headlines (2wks in):

Obama suffers embarrassment

Another Obama official bites dust with tax problems

Obama budget official withdraws over tax flap

Obama performance chief Killefer out, citing taxes

Obama Officials Still Struggling Over 'Bad Bank' Plan

Americans Oppose Obama's First Two Executive Orders

58 Percent Oppose Obama Executive Order on Abortion

Americans Oppose Obama Ending Ban on Funds to Overseas Groups Backing Abortion

Obama rips on Jessica Simpson

Obama Makes Exceptions to Promises

Obama's Bailout Plan Will Fail Unless it Stops House Price Depreciation


:puke:

[homedawg]

Marketwatch: Restricting Bonuses on Wall Street
February 4, 2009

Obama Unveils New Rules To Curb Executive Pay
:puke:



Simon Constable and John Batchelor enjoy the unavoidable Schadenfreude of watching super-rich bankers scrambling as they prepare to live without their multimillion dollar annual bonuses. (More follows.)

<embed src="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/main.swf" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoGUID={A094E364-EC0A-4AC4-80A1-FC7A684ABC38}&playerid=2000&plyMediaEnabled=1&conf igURL=http://wsj.vo.llnwd.net/o28/players/&autoStart=false” base="rtmpt://wsj.fcod.llnwd.net/a1318/o28/video" name="main" width="512" height="363" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>

All those Westchester and Monmouth county estates, those exploited staffs, dream vacation compounds, ghastly yachts, gun-stuffed hunting lodges and convenient Maybachs soon to be dumped on the high net worth market. Sotheby’s Real Estate to be flooded with Downeast beachfront.

Within hours of our polite mention of how Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill’s notion to limit all executive pay in firms on the federal dole is walking in the footsteps of the wondrous populist Louisiana Senator Huey “Kingfish” Long and the rollicking “Share OurWealth” phenomenon of 1935, the President announced “guidelines” for the “exceptional” firms now on federal life-support.





The Obama administration “guidelines” do not carry the weight of a law.

These “exceptional” firms are not listed. Who in the unlisted companies is to be capped and who is not to be capped is not delineated. And the idea that these capped would receive shares of their enterprises that cannot be redeemed until some time in the distant future when all money is paid back to the government is left so vague that it invites an immediate Comedy Central sitcom, “Hobo Billionaire.”

This is just the beginning of litigation, negotiation, arbitration and incineration — and perhaps the establishment of the Bonus Czar at the White House and the Ministry of Riches at Treasury.

And now we learn that Connecticut’s Chris Dodd vows to get the bonus money back from the plunderers! And New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is targetting John Thain for repossession of his 2008 bonus!

Who is writing this script? Well done! Keep going! Don’t wait for Ayn Rand. John Galt is hunting deer for food; he’ll be down from the Rockies come the Spring thaw.