Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
They're Not Even Trying to Hide It Any More: Communist Party USA Openly Collaborating With Obama Campaign, DNC and Unions #cpusa
Now this is rich. Communist Party USA collecting paper ballots in a box with an Obama Logo on it.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
"Given the current situation, companies have thought ahead and prepared for exchange rate fluctuations as well as an increase in labour costs," Chen said, according to the state-run China Business News.
"But because the issuance of dollars is out of control, and international commodities prices are continuing to rise, China is confronted with imported inflation, which has created major uncertainties for businesses," he said.
The comments came ahead of a meeting of the US Federal Reserve next week at which the central bank is expected to announce additional stimulus measures.
While critics in the United States accuse China of artificially undervaluing its currency to give exporters an unfair advantage, Beijing says Washington is foisting its economic woes on the rest of the world by printing more money.
Beijing pledged in June to let the yuan trade more freely and the currency has since strengthened slightly, but US and European policymakers say it could be undervalued by as much as 40 percent.
At the weekend, Group of 20 finance ministers meeting in South Korea pledged to "refrain from competitive devaluation of currencies" and aim for "more market-determined exchange rate systems".
Jittery financial markets were looking for a strong stand from G20 members against beggar-thy-neighbour currency policies, in the leadup to a November 11-12 summit in Seoul.
Chinese Finance Minister Xie Xuren urged "major reserve currency countries to take responsible economic policies", with the dollar sliding on expectations that the Federal Reserve would launch even bolder monetary easing.
China's central bank on Wednesday set the central parity rate at 6.6912, weaker than the 6.6762 on Tuesday. The yuan can trade up or down 0.5 percent from that mark.
Nevada voting machines automatically checking Harry Reid's name; voting machine technicians are SEIU members | Washington Examiner
It's worth noting that the voting machines in Nevada are maintained by SEIU, the Democratic Party Lap Dogs. The same people who beat a man at a St. Louis Tea Party for being a black conservative supporter of opposition to the current regime.
With the ground swell of anti incumbent, anti democrat sentiment in the USA right now, I fear if these machines are really being tampered with, things are going to get very ugly, very fast.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Ralph Hudgens, Republican candidate for Insurance Commissioner in Georgia on the left.
Hank Hill, Republican from Arlen, TX on the right.
They both sell propane and propane accessories.
Have you ever seen the two of them in the same room together? I thought not. It may be possible then that Ralph Hudgens is actually Hank Hill, and therefore a cartoon character. Actually, I'm sure he's not a cartoon character, but he is a career politician and part of the problem in government today. Mr. Hudgens has taken campaign contributions from lobbyists representing the very businesses he wishes to regulate as Insurance Commissioner. During the debates on GPB last Sunday, he even defended taking those contributions as not being any sort of conflict of interest. This makes his stance on the office a bit of a mockery, somewhat cartoonish, if you will.
This is why you should cast your vote for a real man, a man's man. Someone with principles founded in Liberty and the Free Market. No more back room dealings, no more bribes....uh, contributions from those he would be regulating.
In the Libertarian and Constitutional view, this argument only makes sense. In my recent article and interview with John Monds, Libertarian candidate for Governor of Georgia, Mr. Monds expressed his support of concealed carry on campus; providing the person carrying a weapon is legally entitled to under the laws of the state. Schools have no constitutional authority to infringe upon the Rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment.
If you want to stop "agencies" and "bureaus" from infringing on your rights, vote Libertarian. Vote John Monds on November 2nd.
Today there are reports from two other states, North Carolina and Nevada where the electronic machines picked candidates for the voter. In North Carolina, if you chose to vote the entire slate of Republicans, you got Democrats. In Nevada, if you try to vote for Sharon Angle, Harry Reid is already chosen for you.
Electronic Voting Machine fraud is going to be rampant as a last ditch effort of the Statist Quo to keep power in DC.
If you want to vote for principled candidates, maybe they shouldn't have a D or an R next to their names. Vote your conscience, Vote Libertarian.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The proverbial other shoe is about to fall. The government is in debt up to it's eyeballs, and the extended benefits for the millions of unemployed are beginning to run out. What to do? I think the best thing to be done is suspend income tax for two years and stop the benefits for the unemployed. In this recession, which is really about to become a depression, there is no way for government to keep artificially supporting the spending habits of the unemployed. Paying benefits on causes those without jobs to work a little less at finding one, instead of working harder to improve their situation.
When benefits run out, and there has been nothing done to get government out of the way of business creation, you are going to see the numbers of unemployed skyrocket. No benefit money for them to spend, more businesses will fail without the artificial economy of the federal government. Hang on to your hats folks, it's going to be a rough road out of here.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Based on the his Feb, 2009 Fundraising Letter, Mr. Isakson’s prior statements and materials posted on his website, Mr. Isakson is a zealous fighter for financial responsibility, lower spending, tax simplification and free markets. However, his voting record (which can be found at www.votesmart.org) and other facts prove the opposite is true. The following facts indicate the opposite is true:
- Before the Democrats took control of Congress (in 2007), Mr. Isakson consistently voted for tremendous increases in the national debt.
- When the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House and spending increases averaged greater than 7 percent per year (while the economy was growing at slightly under 3 percent per year), Mr. Isakson consistently voted with the Republican Party’s leadership with respect to budget, spending and tax matters, including a period beginning on July 19, 2001 and ending on October 7, 2004 during which he never voted against a budget, spending or taxes bill (with 75 “yes” votes); during the 2001-2006 Republican controlled period, federal debt increased by approximately 50 percent.
- Every year Mr. Isakson has been in Congress, non-defense spending has grown, both in real dollar terms and in inflation adjusted terms (and Mr. Isakson has voted in favor of this growth all years his party has been in power).
- Mr. Isakson has never proposed, nor voted in favor of, a substantial cut in federal spending; however, he has voted in favor of: (a) many substantial increases in federal spending; and (b) tremendous annual deficits.
- Mr. Isakson voted in favor of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which added Medicare Part D; then Comptroller General David M. Walker (head of the GAO) called the legislation “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s”.
- Mr. Isakson has consistently voted in favor of farm subsidies (which are contrary to market forces), and has consistently voted against reducing subsidies for wealthy individuals.
- tax system changes Mr. Isakson has voted in favor of have greatly complicated the individual income tax system, as evidenced by the increase in time necessary to assemble an individual tax return from 2000-2007 (found in the instructions to Form 1040 for these years).
- Mr. Isakson voted against allowing negotiation of group discount rates with respect to drug purchases under Medicare Part D.
- Mr. Isakson voted against including future military expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan in the regular budget (where they belong) instead of in emergency supplemental bills.
- Mr. Isakson voted against creation of a special committee to investigate awarding of contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq taking into consideration: bidding, methods of contracting, subcontracting oversight procedures, allegations of wasteful practices, accountability and lessons learned.
- When the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, Mr. Isakson consistently voted against “pay-go” bills, which would have necessitated spending increases be coupled with spending decreases or tax increases to pay for the spending increases.
Recently, Mr. Isakson has said the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts need to be made permanent. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reported that making those cuts permanent without spending cuts would cause the national debt to increase by an additional $3.9 trillion (i.e. $3,900,000,000,000) over the next 10 years. By way of comparison, the federal government’s total revenue for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 was approximately $2.1 trillion. Prior to the TARP and the ARRA, the GAO foresaw our nation’s debts “spiraling out of control” under either major party’s leadership. Mr. Isakson’s voting record is what it is. If you believe our nation’s debts, government expansion and unfunded liabilities are significant problems, then having Mr. Isakson as one of our U.S. senators is a significant problem.
Mr. Isakson wishes for people to believe he respects the Constitution, including the rights provided by the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. His voting record provides otherwise. Evidence follows (all of which can be verified at www.votesmart.org). Mr. Isakson voted:
- in favor of the Patriot Act, which allows spying by the federal government on U.S. citizens without a search warrant; he later twice voted for reauthorization of the Patriot Act
- to allow the FBI to conduct roving wiretaps and access business records without a search warrant
- in favor of immunity for electronic communication surveillance providers
- against making the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) the exclusive means by which surveillance can be conducted on domestic wire, oral and electronic communications
- against a bill that would have required the Director of the CIA and others to report to congressional committees every three months on detention, interrogation and rendition programs.
Mr. Isakson desires people to believe he is a strong fighter against illegal immigration. In reality (based on his voting record), the only thing he has strongly fought for is a wall on the Mexican border with troops to man the wall. When it comes to setting up a system to stop employment of illegal aliens by penalizing companies that hire illegal aliens—an effective means of solving the existing problem and future problems—Mr. Isakson has consistently refused to do anything. Perhaps the money he draws from the companies prevents him from acting. Proof is available at www.votesmart.org.
So you can clearly see from his voting record that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Johnny and his Democratic Challenger, Michael Thurmond. If you want leadership that is really different, you have to vote differently. Vote Chuck Donovan, Libertarian Candidate for US Senate.
I believe in life. I believe in treasuring it as a mystery that will never be fully understood, as a sanctity that should never be destroyed, as an invitation to experience now what can only be remembered tomorrow. I believe in its indivisibility, in the intimate connection between the newest bud of spring and the flicker in the eye of a patient near death, between the athlete in his prime and the quadriplegic vet, between the fetus in the womb and the mother who bears another life in her own body.
I believe in liberty. I believe that within every soul lies the capacity to reach for its own good, that within every physical body there endures an unalienable right to be free from coercion. I believe in a system of government that places that liberty at the center of its concerns, that enforces the law solely to protect that freedom, that sides with the individual against the claims of family and tribe and church and nation, that sees innocence before guilt and dignity before stigma. I believe in the right to own property, to maintain it against the benign suffocation of a government that would tax more and more of it away. I believe in freedom of speech and of contract, the right to offend and blaspheme, as well as the right to convert and bear witness. I believe that these freedoms are connected — the freedom of the fundamentalist and the atheist, the female and the male, the black and the Asian, the gay and the straight.
I believe in the pursuit of happiness. Not its attainment, nor its final definition, but its pursuit. I believe in the journey, not the arrival; in conversation, not monologues; in multiple questions rather than any single answer. I believe in the struggle to remake ourselves and challenge each other in the spirit of eternal forgiveness, in the awareness that none of us knows for sure what happiness truly is, but each of us knows the imperative to keep searching. I believe in the possibility of surprising joy, of serenity through pain, of homecoming through exile.
And I believe in a country that enshrines each of these three things, a country that promises nothing but the promise of being more fully human, and never guarantees its success. In that constant failure to arrive — implied at the very beginning — lies the possibility of a permanently fresh start, an old newness, a way of revitalizing ourselves and our civilization in ways few foresaw and one day many will forget. But the point is now. And the place is America.
July 4, 2005 - Andrew Sullivan
Friday, October 22, 2010
In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising "is not the first option," but it is "on the table." That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks "inappropriate."
Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas' heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. Johnson's campaign declined to comment on Broden.
In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.
"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."
Read The Rest Here
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Worse than that, it was supposed to get about 50 miles on a charge and all GM has been able to get out of it is about 26-31.
Lies, Lies, Lies (and your tax money)
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Pilot Refuses Full-Body Scan, Says TSA Doesn’t Make Travel Safer « CBS New York – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of NY
CBS News has picked up the story! Of course they don't tell the whole story.
It's actually a lot worse. Note that CBS didn't mention TSA and Police officials admitting they were infringing on people's rights and that it was "irrelevant".
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
If you can't afford them, you can't have them. We can't afford them and China says No. What next?
"I find it increasingly more difficult each day to stomach the exclusion of Mr. John Monds from debates and for that matter even being recognized as a legitimate candidate. For the first time ever, Libertarians are on the ballot for every statewide office available and John Monds is the reason it's possible. When he ran in 2008, for Public Service Commission, John Monds collected 1.2 million votes from people that don't want to have the same ole same ole in state government. 1.2 Million people. 1.2 million Georgians that you are ignoring by your actions. I hope your advertisers understand that you are ignoring 1.2 million potential buyers of their products and services. Shame on you and your station for excluding him from the debate this evening. You are doing a true disservice to your community and the state of Georgia."
The reply came not from the WALB station in Albany, GA where I complained, but from some corporate big wig at Raycom Media.
"I was asked to email you to explain how we reached a decision to not include Mr. Monds in tonight's debate. When we made a decision to hold this debate, we set a standard that a candidate must be polling at 10% or higher to qualify for participation. We used the Rasmussen polling as our guide and at no point did your candidate meet our minimal required threshold.
The reasoning behind this decision is to ensure that we are not opening up our forum to non-viable candidates who's only interest is to further an agenda and not answer the questions being asked. While I'm sure your candidate would have fallen into that category, we have to set some sort of standard to be fair to all. I think you wouldn't have to look any further than last night's New York City mayor's debate to witness the mockery of process our rule is aimed at avoiding.
I hope this answers your questions regarding our decision. If not, feel free to contact me.
Regional News Director
My reply, and it's a damned good one too, if I might say so myself:
You mock a candidate and the country's third largest party by comparing him to Jimmy McMillan of NY. If you want to play gutter politics and business as usual, that's up to you. It is not your job to vet candidates based on Rasmussen polling data, the State of Georgia has already done the vetting for you. Your job is to present to the state an honest debate of all of the candidates, even if you don't think they can win. It's not up to you.
If you think Liberty and the Rights of you as a Georgia Voter, or hell any US Citizen for that matter are being infringed upon by the arbitrary bias of some minor market television wannabes, then by all means -
Feel Free To Contact Larry At The Above Address!
Monday, October 18, 2010
October 15, 2010 – My name is Michael Roberts, and I am a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., based in Houston (that is, I still am for the time being). This morning as I attempted to pass through the security line for my commute to work I was denied access to the secured area of the terminal building at Memphis International Airport. I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident. Today, however, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at this checkpoint were using one of the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems that are currently being deployed at airports across the nation. These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). Travelers refusing this indignity may instead be physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them on their way in what is being touted as an "alternative option" to AIT. The following is a somewhat hastily drafted account of my experience this morning.
As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I’ve not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: "We got an opt-out!" and also reported the "opt-out" into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had "opted out" of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job.
Eventually the airport police were summoned. Several officers showed up and we essentially repeated the conversation above. When it became clear that we had reached an impasse, one of the more sensible officers and I agreed that any further conversation would be pointless at this time. I then asked whether I was free to go. I was not. Another officer wanted to see my driver’s license. When I asked why, he said they needed information for their report on this "incident" – my name, address, phone number, etc. I recited my information for him, until he asked for my supervisor’s name and number at the airline. Why did he need that, I asked. For the report, he answered. I had already given him the primary phone number at my company’s headquarters. When I asked him what the Chief Pilot in Houston had to do with any of this, he either refused or was simply unable to provide a meaningful explanation. I chose not to divulge my supervisor’s name as I preferred to be the first to inform him of the situation myself. In any event, after a brief huddle with several other officers, my interrogator told me I was free to go.
As I approached the airport exit, however, I was stopped again by a man whom I believe to be the airport police chief, though I can’t say for sure. He said I still needed to speak with an investigator who was on his way over. I asked what sort of investigator. A TSA investigator, he said. As I was by this time looking eagerly forward to leaving the airport, I had little patience for the additional vexation. I’d been denied access to my workplace and had no other business keeping me there.
"Am I under arrest?" I asked.
"No, he just needs to ask you some more questions."
"But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?"
"We just need to hold you here so he can…"
"Hold me in what capacity?" I insisted.
"Detain you while we…"
Okay, so now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility.
We stood there awkwardly, waiting for the investigator while he kept an eye on me. Being chatty by nature, I asked his opinion of what new procedures might be implemented if someday someone were to smuggle an explosive device in his or her rectum or a similar orifice. Ever since would-be terrorist Richard Reid set his shoes on fire, travelers have been required to remove their footwear in the security line. And the TSA has repeatedly attempted to justify these latest measures by citing Northwest flight 253, on which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab scorched his genitalia. Where, then, would the evolution of these policies lead next?
"Do you want them to board your plane?" he asked.
"No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society."
"Yeah, I know," he said. And then, to my amazement, he continued, "But somebody’s already taken those away."
"Maybe they have," I conceded, watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards.
As a side note, I cannot refrain here from expressing my dismay and heartbreak over a civil servant’s personal resignation to the loss of civil liberty among the people by whom he is employed to protect and serve. If he no longer affirms the rights and freedom of his fellow citizens, one can only wonder exactly what he has in view as the purpose of his profession.
The TSA investigator arrived and asked for my account of the situation. I explained that the agents weren’t allowing me to pass through the checkpoint. He told me he had been advised that I was refusing security screening, to which I replied that I had willingly walked through the metal detector with no alarms, the same way I always do when commuting to work. He then briefed me on the recent screening policy changes and, apparently confused, asked whether they would be a problem for me. I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty.
His reply: "That’s irrelevant."
It wasn’t irrelevant to me. We continued briefly in the conversation until I recognized that we were essentially repeating the same discussion I’d already had with the other officers and agents standing by. With that realization, I told him I did not wish to keep going around and around with them and asked whether he had anything else to say to me. Yes, he said he did, marching indignantly over to a table nearby with an air as though he were about to do something drastic.
"I need to get your information for my report," he demanded.
"The officer over there just took my information for his report. I’m sure you could just get it from him."
"No, I have to document everything separately and send it to TSOC. That’s the Transportation Security Operations Center where we report…"
"I’m familiar with TSOC," I assured him. "In fact, I’ve actually taught the TSA mandated security portion of our training program at the airline."
"Well, if you’re an instructor, then you should know better," he barked.
"Really? What do you mean I ‘should know better’? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?"
"I’m not saying you’ve done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility."
"Understood. I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly."
Finishing up, he asked me to confirm that I had been offered secondary screening as an alternative "option" to ATS, and that I had refused it. I confirmed. Then he asked whether I’d "had words" with any of the agents. I asked what he meant by that and he said he wanted to know whether there had been "any exchange of words." I told him that yes, we spoke. He then turned to the crowd of officers and asked whether I had been abusive toward any of them when they wanted to create images of my naked body and touch me in an unwelcome manner. I didn’t hear what they said in reply, but he returned and finally told me I was free to leave the airport.
As it turned out, they did reach the chief pilot’s office in Houston before I was able to. Shortly after I got home, my boss called and said they had been contacted by the TSA. I suppose my employment status at this point can best be described as on hold.
It’s probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged. This took place today (now yesterday, when I wrote all this down), 15 October 2010. Anyone who reads this is welcome to contact me for confirmation of the details or any additional information I can provide. The dialog above is quoted according to my best recollection, without embellishment or significant alteration except for the sake of clarity. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for legal counsel – preferably a firm with a libertarian bent and experience resisting this kind of tyrannical madness. This is not a left or right, red or blue state issue. The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don’t let it be taken from us without a fight.
Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium
Michael S. Roberts
3794 Douglass Ave.Memphis, TN 38111
October 18, 2010
Michael S. Roberts [send him mail] is a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines.
Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Friday, October 15, 2010
More "Hope and Horse Shit". Prepare to be one of the poorest nations on the planet.
By David Oakley and Peter Garnham in London and Michael Mackenzie in New York
The dollar tumbled against most major currencies on Thursday, prompting warnings that the weakness of the world’s reserve currency could destabilise the global economy and push other countries into retaliatory devaluations to underwrite their exports.
Increasing expectations the Federal Reserve will pump more money into the US economy next month under a policy known as quantitative easing sent the dollar to new lows against the Chinese renminbi, Swiss franc and Australian dollar. It dropped to a 15-year low against the yen and an eight-month low against the euro.
The dollar index, which tracks a basket of currencies, reached its lowest level this year.
A senior European policy-maker, who asked not to be named, said a further aggressive round of monetary easing by the US Federal Reserve would be “irresponsible” as it made US exports more competitive at the expense of its rivals.
Simon Derrick, chief currency strategist for BNY Mellon, said: “In narrow terms, the US is winning the currency wars as a weaker dollar will help its economy, but it could damage the other big economic blocs of China, Japan and Europe.”
The dollar’s fall was given fresh impetus after the Monetary Authority of Singapore surprised the market when it tightened policy by widening the trading band for its currency, allowing it to appreciate. The move by the Singapore authorities, responding to fears over inflation, helped push up other Asian currencies.
Russia’s finance minister Alexei Kudrin, in a meeting with European Union officials, blamed the US – and others – for global currency instability.
He said one reason for exchange rate turmoil “is the stimulating monetary policy of some developed countries, above all the United States, which are trying to solve their structural problems in this way”.
Commodities, which are mostly traded in dollars, were boosted by the US currency’s slide. Copper hit a two-year high of $8,490 per tonne at one point, while gold surged to a record of $1,387 per troy ounce.
The twice-yearly US Treasury currency report, to be published on Friday, could ramp up the debate, although it is likely to stop short of accusing China of manipulating its currency.
However, turbulence was contained in the currency markets, as equities are benefiting from expectations of more QE. Investors hope that the fresh flood of money will find its way into stocks.
The QE factor and the strong start to the US earnings season propelled the FTSE All World Index to highs last seen around the time of the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. This index has risen 20 per cent since the start of July.
Robert Parkes, equity strategist at HSBC, said: “The equity bull run, which started in March last year, will go on.”
US inflation expectations for the next 10 years also continued to climb, reaching 2.09 per cent, up from 1.90 per cent in the past week.
The dollar fell to Rmb6.6493 against the Chinese renminbi, dropped to SFr0.9461 against the Swiss franc and fell to $0.9993 against the Australian dollar, just shy of parity. The Canadian dollar reached parity with the US currency, last seen in April. The US dollar fell below Y81 against the Japanese yen and tumbled to $1.4121 against the euro. The dollar index dropped nearly 1 per cent at one point to 76.259, its lowest since December.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
First lady Michelle Obama appears to have violated Illinois law -- when she engaged in political discussion at a polling place!
The drama began after Mrs. Obama stopped off at the Martin Luther King Center on the south side of Chicago to cast an early vote.
After finishing at the machine, Obama went back to the desk and handed in her voting key.
She let voters including electrician Dennis Campbell, 56, take some photos.
"She was telling me how important it was to vote to keep her husband's agenda going," Campbell said.
According to the pool reporter at the scene, the conversation took place IN the voting center not far from the booths.
Illinois state law -- Sec. 17-29 (a) -- states: "No judge of election, pollwatcher, or other person shall, at any primary or election, do any electioneering or soliciting of votes or engage in any political discussion within any polling place, within 100 feet of any polling place."
A top Ilinois State Board of Elections official tells the DRUDGE REPORT how Mrs. Obama may have simply been ignorant of the law and thus violated it unintentionally.
"You kind of have to drop the standard for the first lady, right?" the official explained late Thursday. "I mean, she's pretty well liked and probably doesn't know what she's doing."
WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS ELECTIONEERING
When questioned about the brazen nature of Mrs. Obama's campaigning, press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the action.
"I don't think it would be much to imagine, the First Lady might support her husband's agenda," Gibbs smiled.
The issue isn't whether or not she supports her husband's agenda, it's where. And to think that she didn't know what she was doing is almost comical. I mean she is married to The President Of USA, a once State and US Senator which means he's run in at least 3 elections and let's not forget that she was also an Attorney in Illinois!! For the love of God, stop giving these people a pass!
I want the US Department of Justice to look into this, as soon as they finish with the voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, The Birth Certificate, The Sealed School Records from Columbia and Harvard, The Real Estate Deals with the now convicted Tony Rezko and well, I'm sure you can think of some others, Like Unconstitutional Punative Taxation against AIG Executives. You see where this is going, right?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Federal Reserve Bank is currently involved in Quantitative Easing; i.e. money printing, in order to relieve our debts. If you or I did that it would be called countfeiting and we would be thrown in prison.
Monetizing the debt of a nation is the first major step in the permanent unravelling of the economy. This practice is the start of the death (debt) spiral.
Today, the president finally admitted "there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects”.
NO SUCH THING AS SHOVEL READY PROJECTS! Are you listening now? What did every conservative and libertarian tell you when this crap started? The president and every Democratic member of Congress has lied to you about where that money was going. It was going to line the pockets of politicians and their friends, and WE are going to have to pay for it.
Throw every incumbent out of DC, no matter which party they belong to. They are all party to what is likely the biggest theft and fraud in history from the American people.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
You know, the Bitter Patriot doesn't ever come right out and Endorse a candidate, often, but if you want a small government, liberty minded fellow handling your insurance needs and options, driven by the Free Market, well then, you can't go wrong voting for the Libertarian Candidate, Shane Bruce.
Don't worry that his FPG/C status is rooted only in his first class travels around the globe on production companies dimes while making films, or dealing with the hassles of owning property on Lake Como in Italia.
I'm sure it will all work out for the best, I mean, after all, Batman is on the case.
Is this what our Foreign Policy has become?
Libertarian Candidate for Labor Commisioner, Will Costa, Receives The Georgia Tea Party's Ronald Reagan Award!
Hot off the presses over at Bludgeon and Skewer
Costa Wins “Ronald Reagan” Job Creator Award
This is what happens when you owe trillions to foreign countries. The article says it is a multibillion dollar deal to lay claim to about 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas. I believe what is more likely is multibillion dollars worth of debt forgiveness to China's government. They will own all of the United States' resources before it's over. You cannot borrow beyon your means forever. Sooner or later you have to pay the money back, one way or another.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Can anyone explain the very strange behavior that we are seeing in world financial markets right now? Corporate insiders are bailing out of the U.S. stock market at a very alarming rate. Investors are moving mountains of money into gold and other commodities. In fact, there is such a rush towards gold that shortages are starting to be reported in some areas. Meanwhile, some very, very unusual option activity has started to show up. In particular, someone is making some incredibly large bets that the S&P 500 is going to absolutely tank during the month of October. Central banks around the world have caught a case of "loose money fever" and are apparently hoping that a new flood of paper money will shock the global economy back to life. Meanwhile, the furor over the foreclosure procedure abuses of the major U.S mortgage companies threatens to bring even more turmoil to the U.S. housing industry.
There are some very ominous signs that something is just not right in world financial markets right now. Some of the signs listed below may be related. Others may not be. That is for you to decide.
Often, just before something really bad happens, you can actually see the rats leaving a sinking ship if you know where to look. The truth is that if things are going to go south it is the insiders who know before anyone else.
So are some of the signs below actually clues for what we should expect in the months ahead?
You make your own call.
But it is becoming hard to deny that there are some serious danger signs out there at this point....
#1 Corporate insiders are getting out of the U.S. stock market at an absolutely blinding pace. It is being reported that the ratio of corporate insider selling to corporate insider buying last week was 1,411 to 1, and this week the ratio has soared even higher and is at 2,341 to 1.
#2 Many of the world's wealthiest people are buying absolutely massive quantities of gold right now.
#3 It is being reported that J.P. Morgan is gobbling up the rights to as much physical gold as it possibly can.
#4 The United States Mint has announced that it has run out of 1-ounce, 24-karat American Buffalo gold bullion coins and that it will not be selling any more of them in 2010.
#5 It is becoming increasingly difficult to explain the unusually high option volume that we are witnessing right now.
#6 Some very large investors are making massive bets that the S&P 500 is going to take a serious tumble during the month of October.
#7 On Tuesday, the Bank of Japan shocked world financial markets by cutting interest rates even closer to zero and by setting up a 5 trillion yen quantitative easing fund.
#8 The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago are both publicly urging the Fed to do much more to stimulate the U.S. economy, including beginning a new round of quantitative easing, even if it means a significant rise in the U.S. inflation rate.
#9 Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz told reporters on Tuesday that the loose monetary policies of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank are throwing the world into "chaos".
#10 At the end of September, federal regulators announced a $30 billion bailout of the U.S. wholesale credit union system.
#11 Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and GMAC Mortgage have all suspended foreclosures in many U.S. states due to serious concerns about foreclosure procedures. Now, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is actually demanding that all mortgage servicing companies in the state of Texas immediately suspend all foreclosures, the selling of foreclosed properties and the eviction of people living in foreclosed properties until they have completed a review of their foreclosure procedures.
#12 Not only that, but Nancy Pelosi and 30 other members of Congress are requesting a federal investigation of the foreclosure practices of U.S. mortgage lenders. Needless to say, this controversy has the potential to turn the entire U.S. mortgage industry into an absolute quagmire.
So are dark days ahead for world financial markets?
Well, yeah, but it is incredibly hard to predict exactly when things are going to fall apart.
The truth is that there are going to be a whole lot more "crashes" and "collapses" in the years ahead.
The important thing, as discussed yesterday, is to keep your eye on the long-term trends.
The U.S. economy is undeniably in decline. The only thing keeping the economy going at this point is a rapidly growing sea of red ink. Debt is literally everywhere. It is what our entire financial system is based on in 2010.
In the months and years to come, the major players are going to try very hard to keep all the balls in the air and to continue the massive shell game that is going on, but in the end the whole thing is going to collapse like a house of cards.
Unfortunately, we have been destroying the U.S. economy for decades and there is simply not going to be a happy ending to this story.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Saying that high prices constitute inflation is like calling downed trees a hurricane. Hurricanes *cause* downed trees, but in and of themselves, downed trees do not constitute a weather event.
...Same with rising prices. There is a cause for rising prices, and it is called inflation. Inflation, as the name suggests, involves an increase — in this case, in the number of currency units in circulation.
Here's a personal and timely example: when I moved to my current residence some five years ago, I was delighted to find a Wendy's a mile or so away. For me, that was a near annual "treat" (more accurately, a not entirely unpleasant convenience), and the possibility of making it bi-annual was seen as a reasonable alternative for those evenings involving the odious prospect of cooking a meal after 9p. At that time, a half-pounder with cheese was a little over $4.50 including fries and a medium beverage. The other day it was almost $7.80 for the same item. Same burger. Same cheese. Same bun. Same fries. Same cup. Same diet soda.
There is an enormous amount of additional dollars now in circulation that were issued in 2007, 2008 and 2009 that are finally reaching the consumer marketplace. Initially intended to bail out (i.e., indemnify) the bad loans and faulty reasoning of politically-connected bankers, this money is now swirling around like leaves in a windstorm.
Our central bank, the Federal Reserve, controls the amount of units in circulation at any given time; its decision-making process is quintessentially political. So to provide the "illusion of affluence," greater money in circulation enables people to experience a false sense of security and a false sense of wealth, because they measure wealth by counting single units. (I will not get into the reality that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation functioning as a government-backed industry cartel for now.)
Friedrich von Hayek won the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics for demonstrating the political foundations of the business cycle in central banking practices.
If you want to see what happens when this situation picks up pace, when the political pressures to make "payments" is seen as a "solution" to a political problem, you can read about what transpired in 1922-1923 during the Weimar Republic (as well as in the new Austrian Republic during the same years)...
OR you can sit down and open up your Monopoly game.
Instead of issuing everyone the amount of money stipulated by the rules, divide up the ENTIRE bank, and then start playing.
What happens is the almost immediate appearance of a feeding frenzy — players feel rich and ready to assume risk. The prices on the board were established to work with a fixed amount of money. Once players realize that they have to buy everything they land on, if only for defensive purposes, you begin to see how things devolve. This is a rough approximation of the current reigning mentality among flush investment pros, hedge fund managers, and bankers.
As the game unfolds, luck determines who lands on premium properties and when they can accumulate houses and hotels. It also determines who falls through the cracks. Pretty soon, all it takes is one or two "visits" to a property with a hotel, and one player is wiped out. The inevitable end is a WEALTH TRANSFER. And it is a wealth transfer that punishes thrift, industry, and all the virtues that make a close-knit, loving family hard to keep together.
Right now, our bipartisan ruling class is effectively running a wealth transfer game, and political clout up for sale to the highest bidder: you can rig your own market by writing the "regulation" and pretending it is for "socially responsible" causes (such as race, health care, gender, environment, whatever...).
There is no "luck" to this game. It is rigged by the exchange of favors, and cheap money for power. And as we have seen, year after year, generation after generation, politicians are had for pennies on the dollar. They can be had super-cheap! And the great thing is, they "sell" the rigging as a "liberal" benefit! That is, it is all done in the name of "the people."
The cynicism is so awful that it sours my stomach just to listen to the neo-Dickensian idiots complaining about "the rich." It is not a class warfare that is going on — it is a political élite that has written the rules to suit it's own agenda. While extolling the needs for a generous and prosperous middle class, our statist élites are systematically demolishing the working classes of this country through the strangulation of regulatory legislation.
To return to the main point of this exercise, the primary reason why gold and silver are rising in price is that it has become painfully evident to those same élites that there is a precipitous rupture in the purchasing power of each unit of money, and that gold — precisely because it can NOT be inflated (there is an objective, geological as opposed to political reality that obtains with precious metals) — can allow them to hold on to what they own and not let the wind blow away their leaves. Gold has returned to its 6,000 year role as a stable fixture on the shifting landscape of exchange — a repository of value.
THAT is what money IS.
Or what it is supposed to be.
Our currency is no longer money. The dollar is a "money coupon" — you can buy money with our currency, but you can buy less and less as time goes on, and the Fed's dollar Ponzi scheme unwinds.
Wealth WILL be transferred to people who own commodities that either maintain value through sustained demand (oil, wheat) or through limited supply (gold, silver, uranium). You still have a small choice in this matter, believe it or not.
My personal guess is that gold will sling up to its inflation adjusted price of the previous historic price high (ca. 1980), which is around $2,400 in no time at all, perhaps a year or two. Perhaps sooner.
If you want to imagine related future scenarios that make this look mild, Google the ERISA laws and contemplate how a legally mandated Boomer selling frenzy of 401k's starting in 2016 will impact commodity prices.
Here's why I am such an ardent proponent of a gold-backed money supply: only such a system offers us protection from the political manipulation of the symbol of our labors, our time, our sweat, our efforts, our planning, our self-sacrifice, our love for our children, our concern and respect for our parents, and our care for our own physical selves.
Money is a symbol of everything we value in life — and we have outsourced our money since 1913, and lost over 97% of the value of what our ancestors enjoyed.
Just some thoughts about our politically-contrived wealth destruction machine in Washington.
Contributed by Iconologist 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
But what about the actual absolute price increase in bonds skeptics will say? Well, since the dollar peak, the 10 Year has increased by "only" 5.75%, meaning that the real loss is more than double the capital appreciation (we ignore the fact that Treasury's expressed in gold have lost 5% year to date: that would really piss of Beijing).
If you owe a loan-shark, say, $15 grand -- and come up short one week -- odds are that three thick-set men wearing leather coats will show up in your living room at 3am. And then the best possible outcome is a broken leg. I mean, I'm just guessing here, not that I know first-hand. Seriously. No, I mean it.
So what happens when your economic policies cost your loan-shark $100 billion, President Obama?
Read More Here