U.S.D. R.I.P.
"The call for more money to fix the financial markets comes just as global inflation is beginning to cause real mischief...”
EVEN IN DEATH, it seems you're no longer safe from the iniquities of inflation.
In Cheshire, England, a man has just been charged with stealing 400 bronze memorial plaques from his local crematorium. Bronze is 90% copper, and thanks to the price of copper quadrupling inside four years, the melt value of those RIPs now stands above 145,000 pounds — some $290,000 at today's exchange rate.
Outside the Garden of Remembrance, beware the evils of inflation at dinnertime, too. Fishmongers in Thailand have been disguising meat from the deadly, and therefore worthless, puffer fish as salmon, reports the Associated Press, killing 15 people in the last three years.
Health and safety officials in Beijing, in the meantime, just raided a "recycled" chopsticks factory. It has been selling up to 100,000 pairs of used disposable bamboo chopsticks per day, without using any kind of disinfectant first.
In the United States, "My wife came back from Wal-Mart," writes a reader of my Whiskey & Gunpowder colleague Mike Shedlock's Global Economic Analysis, "complaining about her favorite major brand chicken breast patties going from 15 per pack about a year ago to 12 this winter to 10 per package at the same price recently."
Also here at Whiskey, Fred Sheehan notes the same trend — the trend of $1 buying less stuff with each day that passes. General Mills, the giant U.S. food maker behind Lucky Charms and Cheerios, warned back in March that "input costs" were due to rise. Now the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports, "Customers will actually see lower prices per box, but the cereal boxes will be smaller, so the effect is a price increase of a few percent."
This kind of creeping inflation — route No. 1 to giving you less stuff in return for each dollar, pound, euro, or yen that you spend — is nothing new, of course. On the shelves of the candy store just next-door to our offices here at BullionVault in London, the king-size Mars Bar ain't what it used to be. It ain't even what the standard Mars Bar used to be, either.
"Among the things money can't buy is what it used to," as Max Kauffman, the comedian, joked in the 1950s. But U.S. consumers have since lost their sense of humor. The dollar has dropped another 86% of its purchasing power since then.
So where next for the flight to safety? Here in the United Kingdom, and despite the pound sterling breaking back above $2 already this week, the cost of living has risen 30 times over since 1945.
Put another way, the pound — strongest of the world's five major currencies in 2007 — now buys only 3.3% of the "stuff" that it bought at the end of the World War II. With the U.K. money supply still growing by 13% year over year, the trade-off between quantity and quality has only become clearer.
Less stuff per pound or dollar is as plain a definition of inflation as you'll ever find. It works when prices rise — the common-or-garden use of the word — and it also works when rising prices are hidden by shrinking the size of what money buys.
In the inflation-crazed '70s, corporations "discovered that they could increase profits and expand market share by degrading their product, advertising relentlessly, packaging it in a different form, and raising its unit price," reports David Hackett Fisher in The Great Wave, his grand history of price revolutions across the last eight centuries. But less stuff per dollar wasn't just a corporate strategy. It became a necessity as input prices rose across manufacturing, home building, transport, and, most crucially, the consumer goods sector.
David Slawson, a U.S. economist, made a study of this "competitive inflation" in the price of chocolate bars. They rose sevenfold between the late 1950s-1983 in a series of small 5 cent increments. "Each increase was disguised by making the bar larger at the same time," he found, "the size of the bar having been gradually decreased since the time of the last price rise."
Fast-forward 25 years, and what price a midmorning Snickers as summer '07 drips through the guttering? The spot market in cocoa has taken a tumble so far this month, after forecasts of an oversized surplus in the 2007-2008 season. But the price of drinking a cup of tea in England rose by 5.5% in the year to July, according to the official government data.
At the sillier end of the hot beverages market, rising prices have finally forced me to swap my favorite cup of overpriced foam for an inferior bucket of what passes for coffee. The government's statisticians might call this "substitution" — and as I'm now getting more liquid for less money, they might call the net result a drop in my cost of living, too!
But mud-flavored water — like secondhand chopsticks, unwashed and resold — does not mean the value of the cash in my wallet has risen.
"Governments are often tempted to answer the cry for more purchasing power by simply creating more money," Jerry L. Jordan — a central banker, of all people — wrote in a recent issue of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. "But in so doing, the opposite effect is achieved — the purchasing power of money is actually reduced."
"The result," Jordan continues, "is inflation: a rise in the number of dollars required to purchase a given standard of living."
Put another way, the current crisis in world investment markets will only increase the quantity of money — not its quality — even if fresh central bank lending somehow manages to bail out the world's biggest investment banks. (Bailing out U.S. homeowners, whether through a dramatic return to the "emergency" interest rates of 2003 or by creating new money — out of thin air — to refinance their mortgage debt, will do just the same.)
One defense that cash savers and hard-put investors might choose is gold bullion. No one's credit-backed promise, and impossible to create at will, gold remains as far from today's mountain of complex financial junk as an investor can get.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Way To Go, H2O
Be a Smart Investor, Own Water
By Chris MayerAugust 23, 2007
It’s no surprise to you that we have been seeing one of the most volatile markets of this century. It should also be no surprise to you that it takes sound investments to actually make money in times like these. I’d like to share with you one way to navigate around the falling share prices of late.
In the rising tide of market volatility, the sinking level of worldwide water supply provides us with a fundamentally sound investment theme. Simply put, water is precious, especially when you don't have it.
The New York City pipe explosion last month gave us a sneak preview of what the problems here in the U.S. are. Pipes that stretch across the entire U.S. like are ready to burst like the one on 41st and Lexington did. And, to my surprise, people still haven’t put it together. Water companies are still trading for unbelievably low prices.
The water theme has many facets. There are water pipemakers and filtration companies, irrigation equipment, water pumps and more. The facet I want to focus on here is just the basic resource itself — owning actual water — because the investment backdrop for a rising water price looks pretty good from here.
The Financial Times recently highlighted the salient population-based facts. Take a look at this chart:
The chart shows how water use has grown faster than population growth. In fact, annual world water use rose six-fold — more than double the rate of population growth. What does it mean? The FT opines, "One unavoidable consequence will be that the price of water will rise substantially."
I would agree. When you study where population growth is greatest, you come to find out that it is in areas where water is most scarce. Look at the U.S., for example. The two fastest-growing populations in the country are those of Nevada and Arizona. Projections from the U.S. Census Bureau show that shouldn't change anytime soon.
The American West is already a dry and arid place. This past spring was the sixth driest on record. In some states — such as Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi — it was the driest spring in 113 years. Drought conditions persist into summer in many parts of the country. About two-thirds of the Southwest is in some form of drought.
Wildfires have devoured hundreds of thousands of acres of valuable timberland. (A recent fire in the Lake Tahoe basin was the worst in half a century.) Crop losses start to add up. And now drought threatens the Midwest, the heart of the ethanol boom and home to record levels of corn acreage. It should only get drier as the years roll by. No matter what you believe about what's causing this pretty little blue and green planet of ours to warm, it is nonetheless warming. And everyone seems to agree that certain places will get drier and hotter.
As the Financial Times noted: "By the year 2070, Stockholm and Oslo will have 'moved' in terms of weather to central Spain, while Mediterranean resorts will suffer conditions comparable to Saharan Africa today." Likewise, the already arid American West will get even drier and hotter. The year 2070 is a long way off, of course. I like to think of myself as a long-term investor, but I ain't that long term! Still, these trends provide a powerful backdrop for rising water prices.
Right now, there are some absurd anomalies in water markets around the world, because governments provide, or heavily regulate, most of the water consumers use. So you have situations in which water costs 90% more in Barcelona than in Valencia (which is farther down the Spanish coast), even though water is far scarcer in Valencia than Barcelona. And you have absurdities such as those that occur in California. Farmers consume 80% of California's water.
California's infamous alfalfa growers drink up 25% of the state's water. However, because of government subsidies, they pay between $2-20 per acre-foot for water — that's only about 10% of the water's full economic cost. There is little incentive to cut water use when rates are this low. [An acre-foot is basically what it takes to flood a plain of one acre to a depth of one foot. One acre-foot can supply enough water for one family of four for a whole year.]
In Europe, the government still provides two-thirds of the water supply. In America, it's 85%. In Asia, it's 95%. Water has been too cheap for too long. And years of government ownership have, not surprisingly, led to neglect of these systems.
In the U.K., "where the water sector is mainly privately owned," the FT says, "and prices probably reflect costs more accurately, prices are the third highest in the world — 66% above those in the U.S." We'll pay more for our water one way or another, or we won't have it.
In certain Western states, you can see how much people pay for water by looking at contracts between the owner of water rights and utilities (and other end-users). The price per acre-foot is tens of thousands of dollars in some places.
The price of water has nowhere to go but up.
It’s no surprise to you that we have been seeing one of the most volatile markets of this century. It should also be no surprise to you that it takes sound investments to actually make money in times like these. I’d like to share with you one way to navigate around the falling share prices of late.
In the rising tide of market volatility, the sinking level of worldwide water supply provides us with a fundamentally sound investment theme. Simply put, water is precious, especially when you don't have it.
The New York City pipe explosion last month gave us a sneak preview of what the problems here in the U.S. are. Pipes that stretch across the entire U.S. like are ready to burst like the one on 41st and Lexington did. And, to my surprise, people still haven’t put it together. Water companies are still trading for unbelievably low prices.
The water theme has many facets. There are water pipemakers and filtration companies, irrigation equipment, water pumps and more. The facet I want to focus on here is just the basic resource itself — owning actual water — because the investment backdrop for a rising water price looks pretty good from here.
The Financial Times recently highlighted the salient population-based facts. Take a look at this chart:
The chart shows how water use has grown faster than population growth. In fact, annual world water use rose six-fold — more than double the rate of population growth. What does it mean? The FT opines, "One unavoidable consequence will be that the price of water will rise substantially."
I would agree. When you study where population growth is greatest, you come to find out that it is in areas where water is most scarce. Look at the U.S., for example. The two fastest-growing populations in the country are those of Nevada and Arizona. Projections from the U.S. Census Bureau show that shouldn't change anytime soon.
The American West is already a dry and arid place. This past spring was the sixth driest on record. In some states — such as Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi — it was the driest spring in 113 years. Drought conditions persist into summer in many parts of the country. About two-thirds of the Southwest is in some form of drought.
Wildfires have devoured hundreds of thousands of acres of valuable timberland. (A recent fire in the Lake Tahoe basin was the worst in half a century.) Crop losses start to add up. And now drought threatens the Midwest, the heart of the ethanol boom and home to record levels of corn acreage. It should only get drier as the years roll by. No matter what you believe about what's causing this pretty little blue and green planet of ours to warm, it is nonetheless warming. And everyone seems to agree that certain places will get drier and hotter.
As the Financial Times noted: "By the year 2070, Stockholm and Oslo will have 'moved' in terms of weather to central Spain, while Mediterranean resorts will suffer conditions comparable to Saharan Africa today." Likewise, the already arid American West will get even drier and hotter. The year 2070 is a long way off, of course. I like to think of myself as a long-term investor, but I ain't that long term! Still, these trends provide a powerful backdrop for rising water prices.
Right now, there are some absurd anomalies in water markets around the world, because governments provide, or heavily regulate, most of the water consumers use. So you have situations in which water costs 90% more in Barcelona than in Valencia (which is farther down the Spanish coast), even though water is far scarcer in Valencia than Barcelona. And you have absurdities such as those that occur in California. Farmers consume 80% of California's water.
California's infamous alfalfa growers drink up 25% of the state's water. However, because of government subsidies, they pay between $2-20 per acre-foot for water — that's only about 10% of the water's full economic cost. There is little incentive to cut water use when rates are this low. [An acre-foot is basically what it takes to flood a plain of one acre to a depth of one foot. One acre-foot can supply enough water for one family of four for a whole year.]
In Europe, the government still provides two-thirds of the water supply. In America, it's 85%. In Asia, it's 95%. Water has been too cheap for too long. And years of government ownership have, not surprisingly, led to neglect of these systems.
In the U.K., "where the water sector is mainly privately owned," the FT says, "and prices probably reflect costs more accurately, prices are the third highest in the world — 66% above those in the U.S." We'll pay more for our water one way or another, or we won't have it.
In certain Western states, you can see how much people pay for water by looking at contracts between the owner of water rights and utilities (and other end-users). The price per acre-foot is tens of thousands of dollars in some places.
The price of water has nowhere to go but up.
Gold Is All You Really Need To Know
What You Probably Didn’t Know About the U.S. Dollar and Gold
The collapse of the “strong dollar policy” of that period formed one of the major premises of my case for gold at the time. However, by early 2005, as the currency reached my original target and began bouncing off its long-term lows, I recommended that clients no longer bet against the dollar, because I felt that the dollar would level off. Still, I wrote, gold prices were going to make their biggest move yet. As subsequent events proved, I had that one right.
Now, the gold story is this: The value of money is in danger of dropping precipitously again, and it is increasingly likely that the world monetary system will have another brush with hyperinflation akin to what occurred in the 1970s, except this time, worse.
The evidence supporting this thesis is devastating, yet this story is scarcely factored into gold values, let alone financial markets. That is, we have seen a rush to gold when the foreign exchange value of the U.S. dollar has crumbled, whenever some geopolitical boiling point has been reached, when other commodities have left the station, because the Chinese and Indian economies were heating up, and so on. But there has yet to be a significant enough deterioration of confidence in central banking institutions, or the quasi-fiat money they produce, to herald the kind of buying in which a person is “anxious to swap his money against ‘real’ goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them,” according to Ludwig von Mises.
The evidence suggests we are headed there, but it also suggests that the most spectacular part of the bull market in gold must still lie ahead of us.
But the most interesting part about these “spectacular” moves in gold, where the market’s spotlight focuses entirely on the gold story (the greatest story never told), is the behavior of the currency markets.
What Most Investors Don’t Know About Gold and the U.S. Dollar
The biggest moves in the gold price occur when the foreign exchange value of the U.S. dollar is stable.
Did you get that? It may initially sound counterintuitive, but after reading this article, it shouldn’t.
Consider first the fact that the largest moves in gold's free-trading history occurred in four brief periods each lasting two-three years: 1973-1975, 1978-1980, 1985-1987, and 2005-? We know that the first two of these occurred during bull markets in gold, the third one in a bear market rally, and the last one we believe to be a bull market move, which can hardly be considered arguable at this point. As a matter of fact, the two former periods and the last (current) one have something important in common — they saw the lowest (inverse) correlations with the currency. That is, they occurred when the U.S. dollar had reached some level of relative stability following a two-three year collapse in its foreign exchange rate.
Since we are still in the midst of the final period, I used the current gold and dollar price for the table, while measuring all the other periods from trough to peak.
But if we take the high in gold prices last year as our peak, the gain in gold was actually 70%, and the U.S. dollar lost just 2% in this period — instead of the 51% and 0% originally in the table — hence making it more substantial than the bear market rally of 1985-1987, when the U.S. dollar dropped more precipitously…and nothing yet suggests those trends have ended.
Since its 1971 fix, the price of gold is up some 1,750%, or 18.5-fold.
Everyone will notice the general inverse relationship between the dollar and the gold price that can be seen in the chart, but it is not a well-known fact that the gains in the price of gold that occurred in the top three bull market moves alone (shaded regions in the above data series), where exchange rates were most stable, explain nearly two-thirds of this whole move in gold prices — more than $400 of the gain from $35 to $650 — while the U.S. dollar’s foreign exchange rate fell less than 5% net.
If we apply the 1970s model to the current move that started in 2005, we would suggest that it could end in late 2007 with a run in gold prices to somewhere between $900-1,200, and the dollar might well be only a few points from where it is today when it all blows over. Both of the instances of dollar stability in the ’70s saw the most spectacular gains in the gold price, and by all counts, the same factors are at play today. Investors were surely just as surprised by it then as they will be today.
There are a lot of strong arguments for why the dollar should continue to new lows. For instance:
It is no longer an intrinsically viable reserve currency
China may buy fewer dollars
The size of the U.S. trade deficit still suggests that it is cheaper to import goods than produce in U.S.
The trend in interest rate differentials probably favors the foreign currencies in the medium term.
But these arguments may already be factored in the medium-term (three-18 months) currency outlook, and attention should perhaps be drawn to the overlooked bullish arguments favoring the U.S. dollar.
For some of these arguments have potency, yet are least considered.
Here are two very important arguments for this time horizon:
Money supply inflation by international central banks has exceeded the Fed’s for four years
Risk premiums have more upside adjustment in foreign currencies than in the U.S. dollar
Don’t worry if you don’t understand these things.
The main point of this article is to illustrate the historical precedent behind a potentially bullish gold price explosion, regardless of whether the U.S. dollar makes new lows or not.
The historical fact is that gold’s biggest moves occur when the U.S. dollar is relatively stable.
Now you know what few people do.
The collapse of the “strong dollar policy” of that period formed one of the major premises of my case for gold at the time. However, by early 2005, as the currency reached my original target and began bouncing off its long-term lows, I recommended that clients no longer bet against the dollar, because I felt that the dollar would level off. Still, I wrote, gold prices were going to make their biggest move yet. As subsequent events proved, I had that one right.
Now, the gold story is this: The value of money is in danger of dropping precipitously again, and it is increasingly likely that the world monetary system will have another brush with hyperinflation akin to what occurred in the 1970s, except this time, worse.
The evidence supporting this thesis is devastating, yet this story is scarcely factored into gold values, let alone financial markets. That is, we have seen a rush to gold when the foreign exchange value of the U.S. dollar has crumbled, whenever some geopolitical boiling point has been reached, when other commodities have left the station, because the Chinese and Indian economies were heating up, and so on. But there has yet to be a significant enough deterioration of confidence in central banking institutions, or the quasi-fiat money they produce, to herald the kind of buying in which a person is “anxious to swap his money against ‘real’ goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them,” according to Ludwig von Mises.
The evidence suggests we are headed there, but it also suggests that the most spectacular part of the bull market in gold must still lie ahead of us.
But the most interesting part about these “spectacular” moves in gold, where the market’s spotlight focuses entirely on the gold story (the greatest story never told), is the behavior of the currency markets.
What Most Investors Don’t Know About Gold and the U.S. Dollar
The biggest moves in the gold price occur when the foreign exchange value of the U.S. dollar is stable.
Did you get that? It may initially sound counterintuitive, but after reading this article, it shouldn’t.
Consider first the fact that the largest moves in gold's free-trading history occurred in four brief periods each lasting two-three years: 1973-1975, 1978-1980, 1985-1987, and 2005-? We know that the first two of these occurred during bull markets in gold, the third one in a bear market rally, and the last one we believe to be a bull market move, which can hardly be considered arguable at this point. As a matter of fact, the two former periods and the last (current) one have something important in common — they saw the lowest (inverse) correlations with the currency. That is, they occurred when the U.S. dollar had reached some level of relative stability following a two-three year collapse in its foreign exchange rate.
Since we are still in the midst of the final period, I used the current gold and dollar price for the table, while measuring all the other periods from trough to peak.
But if we take the high in gold prices last year as our peak, the gain in gold was actually 70%, and the U.S. dollar lost just 2% in this period — instead of the 51% and 0% originally in the table — hence making it more substantial than the bear market rally of 1985-1987, when the U.S. dollar dropped more precipitously…and nothing yet suggests those trends have ended.
Since its 1971 fix, the price of gold is up some 1,750%, or 18.5-fold.
Everyone will notice the general inverse relationship between the dollar and the gold price that can be seen in the chart, but it is not a well-known fact that the gains in the price of gold that occurred in the top three bull market moves alone (shaded regions in the above data series), where exchange rates were most stable, explain nearly two-thirds of this whole move in gold prices — more than $400 of the gain from $35 to $650 — while the U.S. dollar’s foreign exchange rate fell less than 5% net.
If we apply the 1970s model to the current move that started in 2005, we would suggest that it could end in late 2007 with a run in gold prices to somewhere between $900-1,200, and the dollar might well be only a few points from where it is today when it all blows over. Both of the instances of dollar stability in the ’70s saw the most spectacular gains in the gold price, and by all counts, the same factors are at play today. Investors were surely just as surprised by it then as they will be today.
There are a lot of strong arguments for why the dollar should continue to new lows. For instance:
It is no longer an intrinsically viable reserve currency
China may buy fewer dollars
The size of the U.S. trade deficit still suggests that it is cheaper to import goods than produce in U.S.
The trend in interest rate differentials probably favors the foreign currencies in the medium term.
But these arguments may already be factored in the medium-term (three-18 months) currency outlook, and attention should perhaps be drawn to the overlooked bullish arguments favoring the U.S. dollar.
For some of these arguments have potency, yet are least considered.
Here are two very important arguments for this time horizon:
Money supply inflation by international central banks has exceeded the Fed’s for four years
Risk premiums have more upside adjustment in foreign currencies than in the U.S. dollar
Don’t worry if you don’t understand these things.
The main point of this article is to illustrate the historical precedent behind a potentially bullish gold price explosion, regardless of whether the U.S. dollar makes new lows or not.
The historical fact is that gold’s biggest moves occur when the U.S. dollar is relatively stable.
Now you know what few people do.
Agriculture........It's All Agriculture
The Next Great Black Blizzard Is on Its Way
By Chris MayerAugust 30, 2007
A darkness blacker than night is how it was often described. At least one could pierce the black veil of night. Not so with this kind of darkness. It was opaque. People were afraid. It was only midmorning. They had never seen anything like it.
If you ventured outside into the cold and biting wind, sand would get in your nose and mouth and ears. You would hurry back inside and cough up black. While inside, people soaked sheets and towels. They would try to stuff them around windowsills and doorframes. But it didn't help much. Choking dust still filtered in. It spread out in little ripples on the floor and seeped through windowsills.
It was November 11, 1933 — Armistice Day, South Dakota.
When it was finally over, families would stumble out of their farmhouses and peer out at a new surrealist landscape. The fields were gone. The trees were no more. Just mounds of sand and eddies of dust swirling in the light autumn breeze. There were no roads. No tractors or machinery, no fences. All of it laid buried in sand. As one observer said, “The roofs of sheds stuck out through drifts deeper than a man is tall.”
The great Black Blizzard of 1933 destroyed acres of farmland stretching from the Texas Panhandle all through the Great Plains and clear to the Canadian border. The following day, the skies darkened over Chicago. A steady stream of filth fell on the city like snow. Even people as far east as Albany, New York could see the menacing dark clouds roll their way across the horizon. That winter, red snow fell softly on New England.
Yet 1933 was “only a prelude to disaster.” as Frederick Lewis Allen wrote in his panorama of the 1930s, Since Yesterday. In 1934 and 1935, the dust storms destroyed thousands and thousands of acres of farmland. The lives of more than half a million Americans changed forever. Many hit the road, forced to wander like refugees in their own land. Most headed west, looking for a new start.
The Dust Bowl was a seminal event in American history. Unlike a natural disaster such as a hurricane, “There was a long story of human error behind it,” as Allen wrote. After World War I, there was a great demand for wheat. Mechanized farming also became common. Farmers tore up the sod that covered the plains and farms expanded. Production soared.
The Great Plains was a region of high winds and light rainfall. Yet the 1920s were pretty forgiving in terms of drought. There were warnings, though, such as stories of topsoil blowing in Kansas after a stretch of dry, hot weather. But in the 1930s, we had some real droughts in these places. The combination of drought and desiccated farmland would create the epic Dust Bowl. “Retribution for the very human error of breaking the sod of the Plains had come in full measure,” Allen wrote.
I recently spent some time looking over pictures of the aftermath of these blizzards. They are incredible and simply hard to believe. Yet I see how something like this could happen again. Except this time, it will be bigger. And it will happen in China. But don't think it won't affect what happens in America. Plumes of dust emanating from northern China have already hit the U.S. mainland.
As Lester Brown, author of Outgrowing the Earth, explains: “With little vegetation remaining in parts of northern and western China, the strong winds of late winter and early spring can remove literally millions of tons of topsoil in a single day — soil that can take centuries to replace.” These dust storms are so strong that they can peel the paint off cars. They often force the closure of schools, airports and stores — even in places as far away as South Korea and Japan.
As with the Great Plains, northern China is dry and farmed intensely. Already, China's farmland is turning to desert at an alarming rate. Estimates peg the loss at more than 900 square miles per year. And Chinese farmers already struggle to meet the demands of the Chinese people.
There is limited arable land in northern China. So the Chinese rely more on fertilizers to boost yield. Currently, fertilizer use in China is more than three times the global average.
China's ability to produce the fertilizers it needs — in particular, potassium and phosphate — is limited. As a result, China is one of the largest importers of these fertilizers. This is one of the reasons companies (especially small caps that fill this niche market) like UAP Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: UAPH) thrive today.
So you have chunks of Chinese farmland turning into desert every year. You've got limited water resources in a dry region. Already you've got dust storms that kick up plumes of dust that travel thousands of miles. All of this is reminiscent of the U.S. in the 1930s.
We all have a stake in what happens in China. If China relied on the rest of the world for even 20% of its grain needs, there would be an incredible strain on the world's grain producers.
Many of the challenges China faces exist in the world at large already. Grain production per person is falling worldwide. So is cropland acreage per person. We are also approaching the limits of what fertilizers can do in terms of boosting crop yields. Plus, strong demand for biofuels — like ethanol — now competes with food demand.
By some estimates, we'll need to produce about 136 million tons of grain in 2007 to prevent grain stocks from falling again (they fell in 2006). Yet annual increases in grain production have averaged only about 20 million tons since 2000. That gives you something of a snapshot of the hurdle in front of us.
The investment conclusion from all this seems to be that we are in a long bull market for grains. Expect the prices of corn and wheat to keep rising. Expect the price of meat to rise. It also seems that fertilizer producers should continue to do well. Other ancillary ideas also come to mind — shippers of dry goods (i.e., grains) and manufacturers of farm equipment.
The potential for another 1930s-style Dust Bowl only adds to the power and durability of these trends.
A darkness blacker than night is how it was often described. At least one could pierce the black veil of night. Not so with this kind of darkness. It was opaque. People were afraid. It was only midmorning. They had never seen anything like it.
If you ventured outside into the cold and biting wind, sand would get in your nose and mouth and ears. You would hurry back inside and cough up black. While inside, people soaked sheets and towels. They would try to stuff them around windowsills and doorframes. But it didn't help much. Choking dust still filtered in. It spread out in little ripples on the floor and seeped through windowsills.
It was November 11, 1933 — Armistice Day, South Dakota.
When it was finally over, families would stumble out of their farmhouses and peer out at a new surrealist landscape. The fields were gone. The trees were no more. Just mounds of sand and eddies of dust swirling in the light autumn breeze. There were no roads. No tractors or machinery, no fences. All of it laid buried in sand. As one observer said, “The roofs of sheds stuck out through drifts deeper than a man is tall.”
The great Black Blizzard of 1933 destroyed acres of farmland stretching from the Texas Panhandle all through the Great Plains and clear to the Canadian border. The following day, the skies darkened over Chicago. A steady stream of filth fell on the city like snow. Even people as far east as Albany, New York could see the menacing dark clouds roll their way across the horizon. That winter, red snow fell softly on New England.
Yet 1933 was “only a prelude to disaster.” as Frederick Lewis Allen wrote in his panorama of the 1930s, Since Yesterday. In 1934 and 1935, the dust storms destroyed thousands and thousands of acres of farmland. The lives of more than half a million Americans changed forever. Many hit the road, forced to wander like refugees in their own land. Most headed west, looking for a new start.
The Dust Bowl was a seminal event in American history. Unlike a natural disaster such as a hurricane, “There was a long story of human error behind it,” as Allen wrote. After World War I, there was a great demand for wheat. Mechanized farming also became common. Farmers tore up the sod that covered the plains and farms expanded. Production soared.
The Great Plains was a region of high winds and light rainfall. Yet the 1920s were pretty forgiving in terms of drought. There were warnings, though, such as stories of topsoil blowing in Kansas after a stretch of dry, hot weather. But in the 1930s, we had some real droughts in these places. The combination of drought and desiccated farmland would create the epic Dust Bowl. “Retribution for the very human error of breaking the sod of the Plains had come in full measure,” Allen wrote.
I recently spent some time looking over pictures of the aftermath of these blizzards. They are incredible and simply hard to believe. Yet I see how something like this could happen again. Except this time, it will be bigger. And it will happen in China. But don't think it won't affect what happens in America. Plumes of dust emanating from northern China have already hit the U.S. mainland.
As Lester Brown, author of Outgrowing the Earth, explains: “With little vegetation remaining in parts of northern and western China, the strong winds of late winter and early spring can remove literally millions of tons of topsoil in a single day — soil that can take centuries to replace.” These dust storms are so strong that they can peel the paint off cars. They often force the closure of schools, airports and stores — even in places as far away as South Korea and Japan.
As with the Great Plains, northern China is dry and farmed intensely. Already, China's farmland is turning to desert at an alarming rate. Estimates peg the loss at more than 900 square miles per year. And Chinese farmers already struggle to meet the demands of the Chinese people.
There is limited arable land in northern China. So the Chinese rely more on fertilizers to boost yield. Currently, fertilizer use in China is more than three times the global average.
China's ability to produce the fertilizers it needs — in particular, potassium and phosphate — is limited. As a result, China is one of the largest importers of these fertilizers. This is one of the reasons companies (especially small caps that fill this niche market) like UAP Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: UAPH) thrive today.
So you have chunks of Chinese farmland turning into desert every year. You've got limited water resources in a dry region. Already you've got dust storms that kick up plumes of dust that travel thousands of miles. All of this is reminiscent of the U.S. in the 1930s.
We all have a stake in what happens in China. If China relied on the rest of the world for even 20% of its grain needs, there would be an incredible strain on the world's grain producers.
Many of the challenges China faces exist in the world at large already. Grain production per person is falling worldwide. So is cropland acreage per person. We are also approaching the limits of what fertilizers can do in terms of boosting crop yields. Plus, strong demand for biofuels — like ethanol — now competes with food demand.
By some estimates, we'll need to produce about 136 million tons of grain in 2007 to prevent grain stocks from falling again (they fell in 2006). Yet annual increases in grain production have averaged only about 20 million tons since 2000. That gives you something of a snapshot of the hurdle in front of us.
The investment conclusion from all this seems to be that we are in a long bull market for grains. Expect the prices of corn and wheat to keep rising. Expect the price of meat to rise. It also seems that fertilizer producers should continue to do well. Other ancillary ideas also come to mind — shippers of dry goods (i.e., grains) and manufacturers of farm equipment.
The potential for another 1930s-style Dust Bowl only adds to the power and durability of these trends.
Funny, This Stuff Was Never In My History Books.........
How Britain put Nazis' top men to work
Stewart PayneLondon TelegraphThursday Aug 30, 2007
German scientists and technicians were abducted at the end of the Second World War and made to work in Britain as part of a secret programme to plunder the defeated nation's trade secrets and intellectual assets, declassified government documents have revealed.
An elite British Army unit captured hundreds of Germans in possession of Nazi scientific and technical know-how and transported them across the Channel to work in government ministries and private companies.
Others were forced to travel to Britain, where they were interviewed by commercial rivals and detained if they did not reveal trade secrets.
The unit, known as T-Force, was lightly armed and highly mobile.
Following the D-Day landings it was tasked with seizing anything of scientific or military value.
The purpose was two-fold. Initially the scramble to uncover Nazi military secrets in the dying days of the war was seen as helpful in ending the conflict in the Far East and a method by which Britain could benefit from German knowledge to give it a commercial edge as it rebuilt its war-ravaged economy.
As the Cold War developed, it was also part of a campaign to prevent the Soviet Union from benefiting from Nazi scientific and industrial assets.
The Foreign Office papers, marked "top secret" and discovered at the National Archives at Kew, show that, in addition to those Germans believed to have volunteered to work in Britain, hundreds more were rounded up and transported to the UK against their will.
The documents concede that methods used resembled those of the Gestapo, Nazi Germany's secret police.
A memo written by a civil servant working with the British military in Germany in August 1946 explained the procedure. "Usually an NCO arrives without notice at the house or office of the German and warns that he will be required.
He does not give him any details of the reasons, nor does he present his credentials.
"Some time later the German is seized (often in the middle of the night) and removed under guard."
"This procedure savours very much of the Gestapo methods and, quite apart from causing great and unnecessary inconvenience to the individual and to the industry employing him, it is bound to create feelings of alarm and insecurity."
The abductions were carried out in the British-controlled zone of post-war Germany on the orders of two organisations.
One, the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee (Bios) was made up of armed forces and Whitehall representatives, and was answerable to the Cabinet.
The other was the Field Information Agency (Technical), or Fiat, a joint Anglo-American military intelligence unit that earmarked scientists for "enforced evacuation" from US and French zones, and from Berlin.
Both had offices in London from where investigators would be sent to Germany, looking for human resources as well as machinery that could be shipped back to Britain. Representatives from leading companies such as ICI, BSA Tools, and Courtaulds were included in the teams.
After the war, T-Force was formed into the Enemy Personnel Exploitation Section, which escorted Bios and Fiat investigators, and took away the scientists and technicians identified as being in possession of knowledge useful to the UK.
After interrogation, which could last for months, they were either released or put to work in Britain. Those who worked were paid 15 shillings (75p) a week.
The files suggest that up to 1,500 scientists and technicians were identified for removal to the UK "whether they are willing or not".
All the occupying powers used various methods to loot Germany of its scientific and technical know-how. By 1947 there was concern that this was impeding Germany's reconstruction, and the programmes were stopped.
The policy of forcing scientists to work in the UK changed to offering them contracts, with many taking up work with British aerospace and armaments companies.
Stewart PayneLondon TelegraphThursday Aug 30, 2007
German scientists and technicians were abducted at the end of the Second World War and made to work in Britain as part of a secret programme to plunder the defeated nation's trade secrets and intellectual assets, declassified government documents have revealed.
An elite British Army unit captured hundreds of Germans in possession of Nazi scientific and technical know-how and transported them across the Channel to work in government ministries and private companies.
Others were forced to travel to Britain, where they were interviewed by commercial rivals and detained if they did not reveal trade secrets.
The unit, known as T-Force, was lightly armed and highly mobile.
Following the D-Day landings it was tasked with seizing anything of scientific or military value.
The purpose was two-fold. Initially the scramble to uncover Nazi military secrets in the dying days of the war was seen as helpful in ending the conflict in the Far East and a method by which Britain could benefit from German knowledge to give it a commercial edge as it rebuilt its war-ravaged economy.
As the Cold War developed, it was also part of a campaign to prevent the Soviet Union from benefiting from Nazi scientific and industrial assets.
The Foreign Office papers, marked "top secret" and discovered at the National Archives at Kew, show that, in addition to those Germans believed to have volunteered to work in Britain, hundreds more were rounded up and transported to the UK against their will.
The documents concede that methods used resembled those of the Gestapo, Nazi Germany's secret police.
A memo written by a civil servant working with the British military in Germany in August 1946 explained the procedure. "Usually an NCO arrives without notice at the house or office of the German and warns that he will be required.
He does not give him any details of the reasons, nor does he present his credentials.
"Some time later the German is seized (often in the middle of the night) and removed under guard."
"This procedure savours very much of the Gestapo methods and, quite apart from causing great and unnecessary inconvenience to the individual and to the industry employing him, it is bound to create feelings of alarm and insecurity."
The abductions were carried out in the British-controlled zone of post-war Germany on the orders of two organisations.
One, the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee (Bios) was made up of armed forces and Whitehall representatives, and was answerable to the Cabinet.
The other was the Field Information Agency (Technical), or Fiat, a joint Anglo-American military intelligence unit that earmarked scientists for "enforced evacuation" from US and French zones, and from Berlin.
Both had offices in London from where investigators would be sent to Germany, looking for human resources as well as machinery that could be shipped back to Britain. Representatives from leading companies such as ICI, BSA Tools, and Courtaulds were included in the teams.
After the war, T-Force was formed into the Enemy Personnel Exploitation Section, which escorted Bios and Fiat investigators, and took away the scientists and technicians identified as being in possession of knowledge useful to the UK.
After interrogation, which could last for months, they were either released or put to work in Britain. Those who worked were paid 15 shillings (75p) a week.
The files suggest that up to 1,500 scientists and technicians were identified for removal to the UK "whether they are willing or not".
All the occupying powers used various methods to loot Germany of its scientific and technical know-how. By 1947 there was concern that this was impeding Germany's reconstruction, and the programmes were stopped.
The policy of forcing scientists to work in the UK changed to offering them contracts, with many taking up work with British aerospace and armaments companies.
Oh Boy! More Fireworks!
The next war?
Arnaud De Borchgrave
UPIThursday Aug 30, 2007
After a brief interruption of his New Hampshire vacation to meet President Bush in the family compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, French President Nicolas Sarkozy came away convinced his U.S. counterpart is serious about bombing Iran's secret nuclear facilities. That's the reading as it filtered back to Europe's foreign ministries:Addressing the annual meeting of France's ambassadors to 188 countries, Sarkozy said either Iran lives up to its international obligations and relinquishes its nuclear ambitions or it will be bombed into compliance.
Sarkozy also made clear he did not agree with the Iranian-bomb-or-bombing-of-Iran position, which reflects the pledge Bush made to his loyalists and endorsed by GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman.
But Sarkozy recognized unless Iran's theocrats stop enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels under International Atomic Energy Agency inspection, we will all be "faced with an alternative that I call catastrophic."
(Article continues below)
A ranking Swiss official, speaking privately, said, "Anyone with a modicum of experience in the Middle East knows that any bombing of Iran would touch off at the very least regional instability and what could be an unmitigated disaster for Western interests."
Leaks about the Bush administration's plan to brand Iran's 125,000-strong Revolutionary Guards a global terrorist organization are widely interpreted as a major step on the escalator to military action.
Belatedly, Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, has signed a contract with Lockheed Martin for the training of 35,000 elite guards to be assigned to the protection of the kingdom's widely scattered oil installations.
With 25 percent of the world's oil reserves, Riyadh has earmarked $5 billion to train and field what will be a high-tech force ASAP. Eighteen months ago the desert kingdom was jolted by an al-Qaida terrorist squad that managed to penetrate the first two layers of defenses at Abqaiq, the nerve center of the entire oil infrastructure.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has now stated publicly his country holds the key to the conditions of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, much criticized by the United States for his lack of leadership and deserted by half his Cabinet, is much praised in Tehran, where he has gone twice in 11 months to confer with Iranian leaders. Ahmadinejad also says Iran is ready to fill the power vacuum in Iraq following a U.S. withdrawal.
"The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," he said, "and soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region." The United States is not alone in trying to prove Ahmadinejad's geopolitical weather forecast wrong.
Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Cooperation Council allies in the Gulf, Egypt and Jordan are terrified at the idea of Iraq falling under Iranian domination. Hoping to head off a U.S.-Iran military confrontation, European countries are still pinning their hopes on major Iranian concessions at the IAEA in Vienna. Iran is back to cooperating with the IAEA -- but only one comma or semicolon at a time.
The three EU countries acting as U.S. surrogates on nuclear matters with Iran and IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei detect progress where the United States sees only stalling. Iran is still resisting short-notice inspections of sites that are not officially declared nuclear facilities and where secret nuclear work is believed to be taking place.
Tehran's only objective at the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council is to head off further economic sanctions by its major EU trading partners -- thus, the mantra that its only interest in nuclear matters is as an alternative source of energy in a country already awash in oil taxes credulity.
Both the Bush administration and Israel are painstakingly fashioning a casus belli with Iran. For Israel, the training and weapons support Iran furnishes Hezbollah in Lebanon (now with more rockets of all kinds than it had before the 2006 war when it fired 4,000 into Israel) and Hamas in Gaza (now equipped with Katyusha rockets and a range of 10.6 miles), coupled with Ahmadinejad's existential threats against the Jewish state, are sufficient evidence to justify airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.
And for the White House, there is daily evidence of Iran's Revolutionary Guards meddling in Iraq, from improvised explosive devices made in Iran to behind-the-scenes dominance in the affairs of the oil-rich south.
Arnaud De Borchgrave
UPIThursday Aug 30, 2007
After a brief interruption of his New Hampshire vacation to meet President Bush in the family compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, French President Nicolas Sarkozy came away convinced his U.S. counterpart is serious about bombing Iran's secret nuclear facilities. That's the reading as it filtered back to Europe's foreign ministries:Addressing the annual meeting of France's ambassadors to 188 countries, Sarkozy said either Iran lives up to its international obligations and relinquishes its nuclear ambitions or it will be bombed into compliance.
Sarkozy also made clear he did not agree with the Iranian-bomb-or-bombing-of-Iran position, which reflects the pledge Bush made to his loyalists and endorsed by GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman.
But Sarkozy recognized unless Iran's theocrats stop enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels under International Atomic Energy Agency inspection, we will all be "faced with an alternative that I call catastrophic."
(Article continues below)
A ranking Swiss official, speaking privately, said, "Anyone with a modicum of experience in the Middle East knows that any bombing of Iran would touch off at the very least regional instability and what could be an unmitigated disaster for Western interests."
Leaks about the Bush administration's plan to brand Iran's 125,000-strong Revolutionary Guards a global terrorist organization are widely interpreted as a major step on the escalator to military action.
Belatedly, Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, has signed a contract with Lockheed Martin for the training of 35,000 elite guards to be assigned to the protection of the kingdom's widely scattered oil installations.
With 25 percent of the world's oil reserves, Riyadh has earmarked $5 billion to train and field what will be a high-tech force ASAP. Eighteen months ago the desert kingdom was jolted by an al-Qaida terrorist squad that managed to penetrate the first two layers of defenses at Abqaiq, the nerve center of the entire oil infrastructure.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has now stated publicly his country holds the key to the conditions of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, much criticized by the United States for his lack of leadership and deserted by half his Cabinet, is much praised in Tehran, where he has gone twice in 11 months to confer with Iranian leaders. Ahmadinejad also says Iran is ready to fill the power vacuum in Iraq following a U.S. withdrawal.
"The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," he said, "and soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region." The United States is not alone in trying to prove Ahmadinejad's geopolitical weather forecast wrong.
Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Cooperation Council allies in the Gulf, Egypt and Jordan are terrified at the idea of Iraq falling under Iranian domination. Hoping to head off a U.S.-Iran military confrontation, European countries are still pinning their hopes on major Iranian concessions at the IAEA in Vienna. Iran is back to cooperating with the IAEA -- but only one comma or semicolon at a time.
The three EU countries acting as U.S. surrogates on nuclear matters with Iran and IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei detect progress where the United States sees only stalling. Iran is still resisting short-notice inspections of sites that are not officially declared nuclear facilities and where secret nuclear work is believed to be taking place.
Tehran's only objective at the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council is to head off further economic sanctions by its major EU trading partners -- thus, the mantra that its only interest in nuclear matters is as an alternative source of energy in a country already awash in oil taxes credulity.
Both the Bush administration and Israel are painstakingly fashioning a casus belli with Iran. For Israel, the training and weapons support Iran furnishes Hezbollah in Lebanon (now with more rockets of all kinds than it had before the 2006 war when it fired 4,000 into Israel) and Hamas in Gaza (now equipped with Katyusha rockets and a range of 10.6 miles), coupled with Ahmadinejad's existential threats against the Jewish state, are sufficient evidence to justify airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.
And for the White House, there is daily evidence of Iran's Revolutionary Guards meddling in Iraq, from improvised explosive devices made in Iran to behind-the-scenes dominance in the affairs of the oil-rich south.
It's A Test, Right?
Russian Far East naval exercises no threat to neighbors - Pacific Fleet
RIA NovostiThursday Aug 30, 2007
Naval exercises being held off Russia's Far East coast are defense-oriented and pose no threat to any neighboring Asian state, a Navy official said Thursday.
The weeklong exercises, which began Wednesday, are being conducted by the Primorye flotilla of the Pacific Fleet in the Russian sector of the Sea of Japan. The maneuvers involve over 20 surface ships, submarines and supply vessels, as well as about a dozen aircraft.
Captain 1st rank Roman Martov, the head of the Pacific Fleet press center, said these are scheduled combat exercises of diversified forces.
"These exercises will become the longest and most comprehensive maneuvers ever held in south Primorye waters," said Martov.
Besides missile and gunnery firing, and torpedo attacks, the exercises will feature missile interceptions by two large Anti-Submarine Warfare ships, the Admiral Panteleyev and Admiral Tributs [NATO codename Udaloy I].
RIA NovostiThursday Aug 30, 2007
Naval exercises being held off Russia's Far East coast are defense-oriented and pose no threat to any neighboring Asian state, a Navy official said Thursday.
The weeklong exercises, which began Wednesday, are being conducted by the Primorye flotilla of the Pacific Fleet in the Russian sector of the Sea of Japan. The maneuvers involve over 20 surface ships, submarines and supply vessels, as well as about a dozen aircraft.
Captain 1st rank Roman Martov, the head of the Pacific Fleet press center, said these are scheduled combat exercises of diversified forces.
"These exercises will become the longest and most comprehensive maneuvers ever held in south Primorye waters," said Martov.
Besides missile and gunnery firing, and torpedo attacks, the exercises will feature missile interceptions by two large Anti-Submarine Warfare ships, the Admiral Panteleyev and Admiral Tributs [NATO codename Udaloy I].
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Bye Bye Gonzales! Oh and FUCK YOU!
So Long Mr. Gonzales, and Don't Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out!
For what they may be worth, these are my thoughts on the announced resignation of U.S. Attorney General Gonzales.
During the Gonzales tenure, I have been highly critical of many of his decisions and actions that I and many others believe repeatedly have violated the laws and Constitution of the United States.
I agree with Timothy Lynch, director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, who also has been one of Gonzales's longtime critics. He noted the resignation as welcome news for two reasons.
First, Gonzales has given the President terribly wrong legal advice on a range of constitutional and legal issues, from habeas corpus to military tribunals to the PATRIOT Act. Second, Gonzales has relayed a pattern of misleading statements on a host of issues to Congress, the courts, and the public.
In "Gonzales Must Go," an op-ed written in May, Lynch said: "Truth be told, Gonzales's tenure is more scandalous even than the mess he created by firing eight federal prosecutors. ...Even outside of the context of the war against al-Qaeda, Alberto Gonzales has been an embarrassment. In area after area - from habeas corpus to separation of powers to executive responsibility - he has sought to strip out the limits that the Constitution places on presidential power. His fiasco regarding the firing of federal prosecutors is a petty offense when compared to the legal advice that he has conveyed to the President. The real scandal is his disregard for constitutional principles." (You can read his full views yourself by clicking here .)
What also needs to be said is that while Gonzales himself can and should be faulted, the responsibility for his actions and for the repeated violations of the Constitution must be attributed to President Bush, who nominated him and who has acquiesced in these acts and events.
We can only hope that whoever succeeds Gonzales, the United States Department of Justice and the government as a whole will return to the rule of law from which this administration has deviated in ways unprecedented in our nation's history.
For what they may be worth, these are my thoughts on the announced resignation of U.S. Attorney General Gonzales.
During the Gonzales tenure, I have been highly critical of many of his decisions and actions that I and many others believe repeatedly have violated the laws and Constitution of the United States.
I agree with Timothy Lynch, director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, who also has been one of Gonzales's longtime critics. He noted the resignation as welcome news for two reasons.
First, Gonzales has given the President terribly wrong legal advice on a range of constitutional and legal issues, from habeas corpus to military tribunals to the PATRIOT Act. Second, Gonzales has relayed a pattern of misleading statements on a host of issues to Congress, the courts, and the public.
In "Gonzales Must Go," an op-ed written in May, Lynch said: "Truth be told, Gonzales's tenure is more scandalous even than the mess he created by firing eight federal prosecutors. ...Even outside of the context of the war against al-Qaeda, Alberto Gonzales has been an embarrassment. In area after area - from habeas corpus to separation of powers to executive responsibility - he has sought to strip out the limits that the Constitution places on presidential power. His fiasco regarding the firing of federal prosecutors is a petty offense when compared to the legal advice that he has conveyed to the President. The real scandal is his disregard for constitutional principles." (You can read his full views yourself by clicking here .)
What also needs to be said is that while Gonzales himself can and should be faulted, the responsibility for his actions and for the repeated violations of the Constitution must be attributed to President Bush, who nominated him and who has acquiesced in these acts and events.
We can only hope that whoever succeeds Gonzales, the United States Department of Justice and the government as a whole will return to the rule of law from which this administration has deviated in ways unprecedented in our nation's history.
The Canadian Side Of The NAU Superhighway
The Reality of Canadian Planning for the NAFTA Superhighway
By Larry Greenley
On August 21 both the "Three Amigos" at the SPP Summit in Montebello and a FoxNews panel laughed off any notions of the reality of the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway.
Follow this link to the original source: "'Special Report' Panel on Low Approval Ratings for Democratic Congress; 'North American Union'"
COMMENTARY:
At a press conference at the SPP Summit on August 21, the "Three Amigos" laughed off any notion that a North American Union and a NAFTA Superhighway are being planned and developed (transcript and video). Later the same day a FoxNews panel laughed off the same ideas with one of the panelists comparing concern over a North American Union with belief that Elvis is still alive (transcript; video).
One of the FoxNews panelists, Juan Williams, went so far as to say: "In fact, that map that you showed ... there is some reality to the highway from Mexico going up through Texas into Oklahoma. But there is no reality to those red veins at the northern part, there is just no reality to it yet." Comparison of the FoxNews map with a more detailed NAFTA Superhighway map from the John Birch Society (also on pp. 24-25 of this 5 MB pdf) shows that one of those northern "red veins" scoffed at by Williams goes through Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec, Canada's prime NAFTA trade corridor.
Remember that no one is saying that the NAFTA Superhighway is already constructed, or that most of it is under construction. Rather, what many individuals and organizations, such as the John Birch Society, are saying is that the NAFTA Superhighway is being planned by government agencies and non-governmental organizations in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada with some construction already occurring in Texas on the Trans-Texas Corridor.
So let's see if there is any evidence that the Canadian portion of the NAFTA Superhighway is being planned. Well, here's one very interesting document, "Embracing the Future: The Atlantic Gateway and Canada's Trade Corridor," a study prepared last year for the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. It states:
Since the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement was signed with the US, later expanded to become NAFTA, Canadians have reoriented their trade links away from a national focus (east-west) to a North American focus (north-south).... As globalization proceeds, not as an offset to US-Canada trade or NAFTA enlargement and integration, but as a close complimentary advantage, Canada must adjust its thinking and design transportation strategies accordingly....
Notice that this study is saying that NAFTA has led Canadians to a new focus on North American north-south trade, which requires Canada to adjust its thinking and design transportation strategies in accordance with NAFTA enlargement and integration.
Next, consider that on July 30 this year the governments of Canada, Ontario, and Quebec announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the development of the Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway and Trade Corridor. The official press release stated:
Canada's New Government has developed a National Policy Framework for Strategic Gateways and Corridors to advance the competitiveness of the Canadian economy in the rapidly changing field of global commerce.... Future federal gateway and corridor strategies will be guided by this framework, focused on transportation systems of road, rail, marine and air infrastructure of national significance to international commerce.
This planned Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway, which corresponds to the northeastern "red vein" in the Canadian portion of the FoxNews NAFTA Superhighway map, mimics closely the integrated highway and railroad structure of the Trans-Texas Corridor, the widely acknowledged first segment of the NAFTA Superhighway in the U.S.
An article in MIT's Technology Review magazine, for June 30, 2006, provides in-depth insight as to how the Spanish company Cintra has become a leading player in superhighway toll road projects in both Canada and the U.S. It turns out that in 1999 Cintra, working in conjunction with Australia's Macquarie Bank, won a 99-year contract to operate Toronto's Highway 407 toll road, now already built and operating in 2007, which just so happens to run along Canada's premier NAFTA trade corridor.
Next, according to one commentator, "They've used the success of this very risky venture as a horse to ride through the U.S...." First, the Cintra combine bagged a 99-year deal to operate the Chicago Skyway in 2004, then a 75-year deal to operate the Indiana Toll Road. More recently and more notoriously, Cintra is partnering with the state of Texas for the development and operation of the Trans-Texas Corridor toll roads, the pioneering segment of the NAFTA Superhighway in the U.S.
The nervous laughter of the "Three Amigos" and FoxNews notwithstanding, planning for the northeastern "red vein" Canadian segment of the NAFTA Superhighway is very real indeed.
By Larry Greenley
On August 21 both the "Three Amigos" at the SPP Summit in Montebello and a FoxNews panel laughed off any notions of the reality of the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway.
Follow this link to the original source: "'Special Report' Panel on Low Approval Ratings for Democratic Congress; 'North American Union'"
COMMENTARY:
At a press conference at the SPP Summit on August 21, the "Three Amigos" laughed off any notion that a North American Union and a NAFTA Superhighway are being planned and developed (transcript and video). Later the same day a FoxNews panel laughed off the same ideas with one of the panelists comparing concern over a North American Union with belief that Elvis is still alive (transcript; video).
One of the FoxNews panelists, Juan Williams, went so far as to say: "In fact, that map that you showed ... there is some reality to the highway from Mexico going up through Texas into Oklahoma. But there is no reality to those red veins at the northern part, there is just no reality to it yet." Comparison of the FoxNews map with a more detailed NAFTA Superhighway map from the John Birch Society (also on pp. 24-25 of this 5 MB pdf) shows that one of those northern "red veins" scoffed at by Williams goes through Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec, Canada's prime NAFTA trade corridor.
Remember that no one is saying that the NAFTA Superhighway is already constructed, or that most of it is under construction. Rather, what many individuals and organizations, such as the John Birch Society, are saying is that the NAFTA Superhighway is being planned by government agencies and non-governmental organizations in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada with some construction already occurring in Texas on the Trans-Texas Corridor.
So let's see if there is any evidence that the Canadian portion of the NAFTA Superhighway is being planned. Well, here's one very interesting document, "Embracing the Future: The Atlantic Gateway and Canada's Trade Corridor," a study prepared last year for the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. It states:
Since the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement was signed with the US, later expanded to become NAFTA, Canadians have reoriented their trade links away from a national focus (east-west) to a North American focus (north-south).... As globalization proceeds, not as an offset to US-Canada trade or NAFTA enlargement and integration, but as a close complimentary advantage, Canada must adjust its thinking and design transportation strategies accordingly....
Notice that this study is saying that NAFTA has led Canadians to a new focus on North American north-south trade, which requires Canada to adjust its thinking and design transportation strategies in accordance with NAFTA enlargement and integration.
Next, consider that on July 30 this year the governments of Canada, Ontario, and Quebec announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the development of the Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway and Trade Corridor. The official press release stated:
Canada's New Government has developed a National Policy Framework for Strategic Gateways and Corridors to advance the competitiveness of the Canadian economy in the rapidly changing field of global commerce.... Future federal gateway and corridor strategies will be guided by this framework, focused on transportation systems of road, rail, marine and air infrastructure of national significance to international commerce.
This planned Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway, which corresponds to the northeastern "red vein" in the Canadian portion of the FoxNews NAFTA Superhighway map, mimics closely the integrated highway and railroad structure of the Trans-Texas Corridor, the widely acknowledged first segment of the NAFTA Superhighway in the U.S.
An article in MIT's Technology Review magazine, for June 30, 2006, provides in-depth insight as to how the Spanish company Cintra has become a leading player in superhighway toll road projects in both Canada and the U.S. It turns out that in 1999 Cintra, working in conjunction with Australia's Macquarie Bank, won a 99-year contract to operate Toronto's Highway 407 toll road, now already built and operating in 2007, which just so happens to run along Canada's premier NAFTA trade corridor.
Next, according to one commentator, "They've used the success of this very risky venture as a horse to ride through the U.S...." First, the Cintra combine bagged a 99-year deal to operate the Chicago Skyway in 2004, then a 75-year deal to operate the Indiana Toll Road. More recently and more notoriously, Cintra is partnering with the state of Texas for the development and operation of the Trans-Texas Corridor toll roads, the pioneering segment of the NAFTA Superhighway in the U.S.
The nervous laughter of the "Three Amigos" and FoxNews notwithstanding, planning for the northeastern "red vein" Canadian segment of the NAFTA Superhighway is very real indeed.
FreedomFest 2007 The BIG Debate 4of7 Doug Casey
Please, please look up the other installments of this debate on YouTube.com Every intelligent American should be required to view these great minds in intelligent debate.
Doug Casey: The End of the World As You Know It
Fantastic speech by Doug Casey discussing the issues of the world and America. Watch and learn, the man is a genius of epic strength!
One Choice: Ron Paul
Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice in 2008
Chuck BaldwinLew Rockwell.comWednesday Aug 29, 2007
Let's cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal.
No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three-dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious.
For an ongoing review of the major presidential aspirants, I invite readers to visit this web page often.
The more that conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the GOP's "top tier" candidates, the more they will dislike them. This fact does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election should one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W. Bush has forever wasted the antiquated "lesser of two evils" philosophy. As they say here in the south, "That dog won't hunt." Not anymore.
On the whole, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders above the aforementioned "top tier" candidates, especially on the very important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed to so-called "free trade" agreements, and they are both pro-Second Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive war, however, and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment. I confess to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man and was a bulldog in fighting Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens proposal. However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on the life issue, but they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother issues. All that said, it is Ron Paul alone who contains the "whole package."
He has a twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is virtually unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative's support.
In fact, Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills offered by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol Hill as "Dr. No." This moniker comes from both his "no" votes and the fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN physician who has delivered more than four thousand babies.
If one wants a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes on conservative, constitutional issues, the best place to look is the Freedom Index in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always ranks as the most conservative congressman from either chamber or either party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does it routinely.
See the Freedom Index here.
Ron Paul's commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond rhetoric. He is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005." Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the Religious Right's pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)
In addition to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Another critical issue in next year's election is the gun issue (it is always a critical issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue, Ron Paul stands atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the Constitution, he truly supports "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners would have the best friend they ever had.
For a comprehensive review of the presidential contenders' records on the Second Amendment, go here.
Regarding the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a traditional conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert Taft. Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran), Paul subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy, Ron Paul stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American statesman.
Unlike his neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent America. He believes that it is not America's responsibility to police the world. He believes America's political leaders are duty-bound to protect the interests of the United States, not the interests of internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and preemptive invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position.
In fact, those conservatives who have followed President Bush's preemptive war doctrine are the ones who have abandoned historical conservative principles. Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape, conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, mostly subscribed to Augustine's "just war" theory regarding accepted protocols for the conduct of war. Today, however, many professing conservatives have foolishly followed Bush's "preemptive war" theory, which, before now, was practiced mostly by pagan emperors. Not so with Ron Paul. As a Christian, he still subscribes to "just war."
Of course, Ron Paul believes in protecting America from terrorists. He authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."
If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 3,500 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.
And speaking of Christianity, Ron Paul's testimony is clear. He has publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And for Paul, this is not political posturing, it is a genuine personal commitment. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that he does not wear his Christianity on his sleeve, as do so many politicians (of both parties).
Just recently, Ron Paul said these words, "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."
Could conservative Christians ask for a testimony that is any clearer?
Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, he would almost certainly win the general election. His constitutional, common-sense ideals would be attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare say that he would win a landslide victory, no matter who the Democrats nominated. Conservatives, independents, libertarians, union members, and even some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in Iraq and Bush's Big Brother schemes) would support Ron Paul. The challenge is winning the Republican nomination.
Face it: the big money interests, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the international bankers and GOP hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul. He is too honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too independent for their liking. Therefore, the only chance Ron Paul has of winning the Republican nomination is for every Christian, every conservative, and every constitutionalist within the GOP to get behind him.
Conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Ron Paul.
Chuck BaldwinLew Rockwell.comWednesday Aug 29, 2007
Let's cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal.
No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three-dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious.
For an ongoing review of the major presidential aspirants, I invite readers to visit this web page often.
The more that conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the GOP's "top tier" candidates, the more they will dislike them. This fact does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election should one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W. Bush has forever wasted the antiquated "lesser of two evils" philosophy. As they say here in the south, "That dog won't hunt." Not anymore.
On the whole, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders above the aforementioned "top tier" candidates, especially on the very important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed to so-called "free trade" agreements, and they are both pro-Second Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive war, however, and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment. I confess to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man and was a bulldog in fighting Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens proposal. However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on the life issue, but they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother issues. All that said, it is Ron Paul alone who contains the "whole package."
He has a twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is virtually unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative's support.
In fact, Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills offered by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol Hill as "Dr. No." This moniker comes from both his "no" votes and the fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN physician who has delivered more than four thousand babies.
If one wants a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes on conservative, constitutional issues, the best place to look is the Freedom Index in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always ranks as the most conservative congressman from either chamber or either party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does it routinely.
See the Freedom Index here.
Ron Paul's commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond rhetoric. He is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005." Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the Religious Right's pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)
In addition to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Another critical issue in next year's election is the gun issue (it is always a critical issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue, Ron Paul stands atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the Constitution, he truly supports "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners would have the best friend they ever had.
For a comprehensive review of the presidential contenders' records on the Second Amendment, go here.
Regarding the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a traditional conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert Taft. Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran), Paul subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy, Ron Paul stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American statesman.
Unlike his neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent America. He believes that it is not America's responsibility to police the world. He believes America's political leaders are duty-bound to protect the interests of the United States, not the interests of internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and preemptive invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position.
In fact, those conservatives who have followed President Bush's preemptive war doctrine are the ones who have abandoned historical conservative principles. Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape, conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, mostly subscribed to Augustine's "just war" theory regarding accepted protocols for the conduct of war. Today, however, many professing conservatives have foolishly followed Bush's "preemptive war" theory, which, before now, was practiced mostly by pagan emperors. Not so with Ron Paul. As a Christian, he still subscribes to "just war."
Of course, Ron Paul believes in protecting America from terrorists. He authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."
If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 3,500 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.
And speaking of Christianity, Ron Paul's testimony is clear. He has publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And for Paul, this is not political posturing, it is a genuine personal commitment. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that he does not wear his Christianity on his sleeve, as do so many politicians (of both parties).
Just recently, Ron Paul said these words, "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."
Could conservative Christians ask for a testimony that is any clearer?
Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, he would almost certainly win the general election. His constitutional, common-sense ideals would be attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare say that he would win a landslide victory, no matter who the Democrats nominated. Conservatives, independents, libertarians, union members, and even some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in Iraq and Bush's Big Brother schemes) would support Ron Paul. The challenge is winning the Republican nomination.
Face it: the big money interests, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the international bankers and GOP hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul. He is too honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too independent for their liking. Therefore, the only chance Ron Paul has of winning the Republican nomination is for every Christian, every conservative, and every constitutionalist within the GOP to get behind him.
Conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Ron Paul.
Like Everything Associated With The SPP, Criminal Acts Abound
Bush administration's SPP-linked North American Competitiveness Council is criminal under Federal Anti-Trust Law
The Canadian
Tuesday Aug 28, 2007
The Bush Administration's North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) appears to be in profound criminal violation of U.S. Anti-Trust Law (as well as, for example Competition Law in Canada). The NACC could be viewed to be the largest ever criminal conspiracy against the marketplace in United States (as well as in Canada). The NACC, is a grab to seize control over the human and natural resources of North America, that is designed to subvert vital consumer rights which are associated with the affirmation of a fair and competitive marketplace.
It is apparent that the name "Competitiveness", was a clever attempt to disguise the substantive violation by this entity, of U.S. law that is designed to protect the American people from attempts by large corporations to engage in organized criminal "collaborations" for commercial profit. The NACC, is substantively an anti-competitive alliance of the largest corporations in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. This alliance, through "Public-Private Partnerships", is seeking to "carve up" Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, into regionally controlled monopolies linked to SPP "stakeholders", affirmed by a system of government preferentialism/favouritism. A more accurate name for NACC would indeed be the "North American Anti-Competitiveness Council".
In the NACC, affiliated Big Business interests provide support to the corrupted politicians who are "stakeholders" in the SPP. This includes, for example, funnelling lots of money from wealthy donors to political campaigns which secretively endorse the SPP, to providing media coverage aimed at protecting SPP-related interests. Politicians in the U.S. (and Canada), that expect to be get the funding and other support during re-election, are required to pass laws, and engage in other activities which support corporate commercial profiteering interests.
In return, the corporate executives who are stakeholders in the NACC, expect that the politicians will make sure that SPP-linked corporations, will be awarded government contracts via Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). Indeed PPPs help enable NACC corporate members to avoid the "hassle" of the competitive bidding process. Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Centers exposed, PPPs as the creation of private monopolies, against a free marketplace.
The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act[1], July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7), was the first U.S. government action to limit monopolies, and forms the intellectual legal basis of modern U.S. antitrust laws. The Sherman Act provides: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal". The Act also provides: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ..." The Act put responsibility upon government attorneys and district courts to pursue and investigate trusts, companies and organizations suspected of violating the Act.
Critically acclaimed author Jerome Corsi says, about the Bush administration's SPP related initiative, "The White House press release references no U.S. law or treaty under which the NACC was organized."
That is because the NACC operates essentially, a criminal conspiracy under U.S. law. The NACC is analogous to a bunch of bank robbers being able to perpetrate a bank robbery, right in front of a group of police, who turn a blind eye to it, while waiting for their "cut" of the money.
NACC, changes the role of government, from representing the people to ensure that laws are being upheld on labour rights to environmental rights, into government as a colluding partner with Big Business interests.
The Bush Administration, through its apparent Executive government sabotage of U.S. Anti-Trust laws, appears to seek with the support of "politician stakeholders", to convert America from "free enterprise", to an economy where executive interests connected with the NACC will be able to pillage America, along with Canada and Mexico.
The NACC, which is a Bush Administration White House initiative under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), is creating collusive trade relationships and monopolies under the misnomer of "PPPs", involving Big Business interests "across state lines" and with "foreign nations". This clearly appears to be in criminal violation of U.S. Anti-Trust Law. Furthermore, the attempt by the Bush administration to circumvent U.S. Congressional oversight could be interpreted as an attempt to wilfully pursue a criminal conspiracy as defined by U.S. anti-trust law, and that would be an abuse of the Office of President.
The NACC is an official tri-national working group of the SPP. It was "officially" created at the second summit of the SPP in Cancún, Mexico, in March 2006. However, under U.S. trade law, as well as Congressional approval requirements under U.S. constitutional law, the NACC profoundly operates outside the boundaries of legality.
The SPP currently operates as a clandestine agreement between U.S. President Bush, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and the President of Mexico, with 30 other trans-national Big Business interests in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, to work towards a "North American Union." (NAU). The SPP is implementing a process to create the NAU by 2010, and it is itself an anti-democratic process, that is in accompanying violation of both U.S. and Canadian constitutional law.
The Canadian
Tuesday Aug 28, 2007
The Bush Administration's North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) appears to be in profound criminal violation of U.S. Anti-Trust Law (as well as, for example Competition Law in Canada). The NACC could be viewed to be the largest ever criminal conspiracy against the marketplace in United States (as well as in Canada). The NACC, is a grab to seize control over the human and natural resources of North America, that is designed to subvert vital consumer rights which are associated with the affirmation of a fair and competitive marketplace.
It is apparent that the name "Competitiveness", was a clever attempt to disguise the substantive violation by this entity, of U.S. law that is designed to protect the American people from attempts by large corporations to engage in organized criminal "collaborations" for commercial profit. The NACC, is substantively an anti-competitive alliance of the largest corporations in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. This alliance, through "Public-Private Partnerships", is seeking to "carve up" Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, into regionally controlled monopolies linked to SPP "stakeholders", affirmed by a system of government preferentialism/favouritism. A more accurate name for NACC would indeed be the "North American Anti-Competitiveness Council".
In the NACC, affiliated Big Business interests provide support to the corrupted politicians who are "stakeholders" in the SPP. This includes, for example, funnelling lots of money from wealthy donors to political campaigns which secretively endorse the SPP, to providing media coverage aimed at protecting SPP-related interests. Politicians in the U.S. (and Canada), that expect to be get the funding and other support during re-election, are required to pass laws, and engage in other activities which support corporate commercial profiteering interests.
In return, the corporate executives who are stakeholders in the NACC, expect that the politicians will make sure that SPP-linked corporations, will be awarded government contracts via Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). Indeed PPPs help enable NACC corporate members to avoid the "hassle" of the competitive bidding process. Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Centers exposed, PPPs as the creation of private monopolies, against a free marketplace.
The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act[1], July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7), was the first U.S. government action to limit monopolies, and forms the intellectual legal basis of modern U.S. antitrust laws. The Sherman Act provides: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal". The Act also provides: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ..." The Act put responsibility upon government attorneys and district courts to pursue and investigate trusts, companies and organizations suspected of violating the Act.
Critically acclaimed author Jerome Corsi says, about the Bush administration's SPP related initiative, "The White House press release references no U.S. law or treaty under which the NACC was organized."
That is because the NACC operates essentially, a criminal conspiracy under U.S. law. The NACC is analogous to a bunch of bank robbers being able to perpetrate a bank robbery, right in front of a group of police, who turn a blind eye to it, while waiting for their "cut" of the money.
NACC, changes the role of government, from representing the people to ensure that laws are being upheld on labour rights to environmental rights, into government as a colluding partner with Big Business interests.
The Bush Administration, through its apparent Executive government sabotage of U.S. Anti-Trust laws, appears to seek with the support of "politician stakeholders", to convert America from "free enterprise", to an economy where executive interests connected with the NACC will be able to pillage America, along with Canada and Mexico.
The NACC, which is a Bush Administration White House initiative under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), is creating collusive trade relationships and monopolies under the misnomer of "PPPs", involving Big Business interests "across state lines" and with "foreign nations". This clearly appears to be in criminal violation of U.S. Anti-Trust Law. Furthermore, the attempt by the Bush administration to circumvent U.S. Congressional oversight could be interpreted as an attempt to wilfully pursue a criminal conspiracy as defined by U.S. anti-trust law, and that would be an abuse of the Office of President.
The NACC is an official tri-national working group of the SPP. It was "officially" created at the second summit of the SPP in Cancún, Mexico, in March 2006. However, under U.S. trade law, as well as Congressional approval requirements under U.S. constitutional law, the NACC profoundly operates outside the boundaries of legality.
The SPP currently operates as a clandestine agreement between U.S. President Bush, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and the President of Mexico, with 30 other trans-national Big Business interests in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, to work towards a "North American Union." (NAU). The SPP is implementing a process to create the NAU by 2010, and it is itself an anti-democratic process, that is in accompanying violation of both U.S. and Canadian constitutional law.
Yeah, The UN Can Really Help
PREMEDITATED MERGER
U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency
Bush's SPP power grab sets stage for military to manage flu threats
Posted: August 28, 200711:15 p.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
David Nabarro is new U.N. system influenza coordinatorThe Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America summit in Canada released a plan that establishes U.N. law along with regulations by the World Trade Organization and World Health Organization as supreme over U.S. law during a pandemic and sets the stage for militarizing the management of continental health emergencies.
The "North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza" was finalized at the SPP summit last week in Montebello, Quebec.
At the same time, the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, has created a webpage dedicated to avian flu and has been running exercises in preparation for the possible use of U.S. military forces in a continental domestic emergency involving avian flu or pandemic influenza.
With virtually no media attention, in 2005 President Bush shifted U.S. policy on avian flu and pandemic influenza, placing the country under international guidelines not specifically determined by domestic agencies.
The policy shift was formalized Sept. 14, 2005, when Bush announced a new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza to a High-Level Plenary Meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, in New York.
(Story continues below)
The new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza was designed to supersede an earlier November 2005 Homeland Security report that called for a U.S. national strategy that would be coordinated by the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Agriculture.
The 2005 plan, operative until Bush announced the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza, directed the State Department to work with the WHO and U.N., but it does not mention that international health controls are to be considered controlling over relevant U.S. statutes or authorities.
Under the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza, Bush agreed the U.S. would work through the U.N. system influenza coordinator to develop a continental emergency response plan operating through authorities under the WTO, North American Free Trade Agreement and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.
WND could find no evidence the Bush administration presented the Influenza Partnership plan to Congress for oversight or approval.
The SPP plan for avian and pandemic influenza announced at the Canadian summit last week embraces the international control principles Bush first announced to the U.N. in his 2005 International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza declaration.
The SPP plan gives primacy for avian and pandemic influenza management to plans developed by the WHO, WTO, U.N. and NAFTA directives – not decisions made by U.S. agencies.
The U.N.-WHO-WTO-NAFTA plan advanced by SPP features a prominent role for the U.N. system influenza coordinator as a central international director in the case of a North American avian flu or pandemic influenza outbreak.
In Sept. 2005, Dr. David Nabarro was appointed the first U.N. system influenza coordinator, a position which also places him as a senior policy adviser to the U.N. director-general.
Nabarro joined the WHO in 1999 and was appointed WHO executive director of sustainable development and health environments in July 2002.
In a Sept. 29, 2005, press conference at the U.N., Nabarro made clear that his job was to prepare for the H5N1 virus, known as the avian flu.
Nabarro fueled the global fear that an epidemic was virtually inevitable.
In response to a question about the 1918-1919 flu pandemic that killed approximately 40 million people worldwide, Nabarro commented, "I am certain there will be another pandemic sometime."
Nabarro stressed at the press conference that he saw as inevitable a worldwide pandemic influenza coming soon that would kill millions.
He quantified the deaths he expected as follows: "I'm not, at the moment at liberty to give you a prediction on numbers, but I just want to stress, that, let's say, the range of deaths could be anything from 5 to 150 million."
In a March 8, 2006, U.N. press conference that was reported on a State Department website, Nabarro predicted an outbreak of the H5N1 virus would "reach the Americas within the next six to 12 months."
On Feb. 1, 2006, NORTHCOM hosted representatives of more than 40 international, federal and state agencies for "an exercise designed to provoke discussion and determine what governmental actions, including military support, would be necessary in the event of an influenza pandemic in the United States."
NORTHCOM and other governmental websites document the growing role the Bush administration plans for the U.S. military to be involved in continental domestic emergencies involving health, including avian flu and pandemic influenza.
NORTHCOM participated in a nationwide Joint Chiefs of Staff-directed exercise – code-named Exercise Ardent Sentry 06 – to rehearse cooperation between Department of Defense and local, state and federal agencies, as well as the Canadian government.
A pandemic influenza crisis was one of the four scenarios gamed in Exercise Ardent Sentry 06, involving a scenario of a plague in Mexico reaching across the border into Arizona and New Mexico.
As has been customary in SPP documents and declarations, the Montebello, Canada, announcement of the North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza acknowledges in passing the sovereignty of the three nations.
The announcement says, "The Plan is not intended to replace existing arrangements or agreements. As such, each country's laws are to be respected and this Plan is to be subordinate and complementary to domestic response plans, existing arrangements and bilateral or multilateral agreements."
Still, the SPP plan argues the risk from avian and pandemic influenza was so great to North America that the leaders of the three nations were compelled "to work collectively and with all levels of government, the private sector and among-non-governmental organizations to combat avian and pandemic influenza."
Moreover, the SPP plan openly acknowledges, "The WHO's international guidance formed much of the basis for the three countries' planning for North American preparedness and response."
WND previously reported NORTHCOM has been established with a command center at Peterson Air Force Base, tasked with using the U.S. military in continental domestic emergency situations.
WND also has reported President Bush signed in May two documents, National Security Presidential Directive-51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-20, which give the office of the president extraordinary powers to declare national emergencies and to assume near-dictatorial powers.
Following the Montebello summit last week, the SPP North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza was published on a made-over SPP homepage redesigned to feature agreements newly reached by trilateral bureaucratic working groups.
Posted: August 28, 200711:15 p.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
David Nabarro is new U.N. system influenza coordinatorThe Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America summit in Canada released a plan that establishes U.N. law along with regulations by the World Trade Organization and World Health Organization as supreme over U.S. law during a pandemic and sets the stage for militarizing the management of continental health emergencies.
The "North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza" was finalized at the SPP summit last week in Montebello, Quebec.
At the same time, the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, has created a webpage dedicated to avian flu and has been running exercises in preparation for the possible use of U.S. military forces in a continental domestic emergency involving avian flu or pandemic influenza.
With virtually no media attention, in 2005 President Bush shifted U.S. policy on avian flu and pandemic influenza, placing the country under international guidelines not specifically determined by domestic agencies.
The policy shift was formalized Sept. 14, 2005, when Bush announced a new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza to a High-Level Plenary Meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, in New York.
(Story continues below)
The new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza was designed to supersede an earlier November 2005 Homeland Security report that called for a U.S. national strategy that would be coordinated by the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Agriculture.
The 2005 plan, operative until Bush announced the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza, directed the State Department to work with the WHO and U.N., but it does not mention that international health controls are to be considered controlling over relevant U.S. statutes or authorities.
Under the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza, Bush agreed the U.S. would work through the U.N. system influenza coordinator to develop a continental emergency response plan operating through authorities under the WTO, North American Free Trade Agreement and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.
WND could find no evidence the Bush administration presented the Influenza Partnership plan to Congress for oversight or approval.
The SPP plan for avian and pandemic influenza announced at the Canadian summit last week embraces the international control principles Bush first announced to the U.N. in his 2005 International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza declaration.
The SPP plan gives primacy for avian and pandemic influenza management to plans developed by the WHO, WTO, U.N. and NAFTA directives – not decisions made by U.S. agencies.
The U.N.-WHO-WTO-NAFTA plan advanced by SPP features a prominent role for the U.N. system influenza coordinator as a central international director in the case of a North American avian flu or pandemic influenza outbreak.
In Sept. 2005, Dr. David Nabarro was appointed the first U.N. system influenza coordinator, a position which also places him as a senior policy adviser to the U.N. director-general.
Nabarro joined the WHO in 1999 and was appointed WHO executive director of sustainable development and health environments in July 2002.
In a Sept. 29, 2005, press conference at the U.N., Nabarro made clear that his job was to prepare for the H5N1 virus, known as the avian flu.
Nabarro fueled the global fear that an epidemic was virtually inevitable.
In response to a question about the 1918-1919 flu pandemic that killed approximately 40 million people worldwide, Nabarro commented, "I am certain there will be another pandemic sometime."
Nabarro stressed at the press conference that he saw as inevitable a worldwide pandemic influenza coming soon that would kill millions.
He quantified the deaths he expected as follows: "I'm not, at the moment at liberty to give you a prediction on numbers, but I just want to stress, that, let's say, the range of deaths could be anything from 5 to 150 million."
In a March 8, 2006, U.N. press conference that was reported on a State Department website, Nabarro predicted an outbreak of the H5N1 virus would "reach the Americas within the next six to 12 months."
On Feb. 1, 2006, NORTHCOM hosted representatives of more than 40 international, federal and state agencies for "an exercise designed to provoke discussion and determine what governmental actions, including military support, would be necessary in the event of an influenza pandemic in the United States."
NORTHCOM and other governmental websites document the growing role the Bush administration plans for the U.S. military to be involved in continental domestic emergencies involving health, including avian flu and pandemic influenza.
NORTHCOM participated in a nationwide Joint Chiefs of Staff-directed exercise – code-named Exercise Ardent Sentry 06 – to rehearse cooperation between Department of Defense and local, state and federal agencies, as well as the Canadian government.
A pandemic influenza crisis was one of the four scenarios gamed in Exercise Ardent Sentry 06, involving a scenario of a plague in Mexico reaching across the border into Arizona and New Mexico.
As has been customary in SPP documents and declarations, the Montebello, Canada, announcement of the North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza acknowledges in passing the sovereignty of the three nations.
The announcement says, "The Plan is not intended to replace existing arrangements or agreements. As such, each country's laws are to be respected and this Plan is to be subordinate and complementary to domestic response plans, existing arrangements and bilateral or multilateral agreements."
Still, the SPP plan argues the risk from avian and pandemic influenza was so great to North America that the leaders of the three nations were compelled "to work collectively and with all levels of government, the private sector and among-non-governmental organizations to combat avian and pandemic influenza."
Moreover, the SPP plan openly acknowledges, "The WHO's international guidance formed much of the basis for the three countries' planning for North American preparedness and response."
WND previously reported NORTHCOM has been established with a command center at Peterson Air Force Base, tasked with using the U.S. military in continental domestic emergency situations.
WND also has reported President Bush signed in May two documents, National Security Presidential Directive-51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-20, which give the office of the president extraordinary powers to declare national emergencies and to assume near-dictatorial powers.
Following the Montebello summit last week, the SPP North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza was published on a made-over SPP homepage redesigned to feature agreements newly reached by trilateral bureaucratic working groups.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Nicely Said....................
"Laws are laws only because government can use coercion against anyone who violates them." -Sharon Harris
Bill Bonner With An Interesting Rant
Governments used to talk of providing ‘safety nets’ for citizens in trouble. That meant offering assistance to people on the margins of society. A man who lost his job would get unemployment compensation. One who was injured would get workman’s comp. Poor people were offered food stamps...and surplus food from government farm support programs.
Now, the feds offer a safety net for people with money – a kind of rich man’s Marxism – in the form of protection against financial losses.
On August 17th, U.S. stocks were selling at just 8.25% below their all-time high. Yet, the rich were already bellowing for a bailout. And along came the Fed with a cut in the discount rate. According to Fortune Magazine, the Fed also bent its rules to help two major banks – Citigroup (NYSE: C ) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC ).
So great was investors’ confidence in these rescue efforts that it was soon back business as usual on Wall Street. Stocks seemed to be on the road to recovery last week – with another solid increase on Friday. The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond is back at 4.89%. Gold has returned to $677. The dollar is falling again.
We can now announce with confidence that ‘all is well.’
The logic of the safety net – whether used to catch a poor man or a rich one – is that whatever mess you’ve gotten yourself into, someone else pays for it. You forget to save money...you lose your job; bingo...someone else provides emergency assistance. During the ’70s and ’80s, Americans began to realize that providing unlimited assistance to the poor had its drawbacks; many people actually seemed to prefer a life of easy poverty to a life of hard work. Many were ‘hooked’ on public assistance, with several generations of welfare recipients in a single family. We recall, in the early ’80s, asking a young woman in the ghetto of Baltimore what she did for a living.
“I get a check,” was her reply.
Poor thing. She never knew the pleasure and pride of a job well done. She never enjoyed the boost to her confidence and self-esteem that minimum wage employment can give.
Later, the Reagan administration reformed the welfare system. We don’t know if it did any good or not; but people stopped getting so many checks...and stopped talking about it. Now what they are talking about is the safety nets for the rich – and everyone is in favor of them. So far, we’ve seen the central bank act with remarkable speed to help bankers, speculators and hedge fund managers. Stockholders have been given a boost too. And if the housing slump worsens, government will probably rush out some safety nets for homeowners.
Now, capitalists, proles, and the bourgeoisie all get checks. Is that progress...or what?
“The whole secret to the rental business is getting good tenants,” said a man sitting opposite us on Saturday night. The affair was a celebration of a neighbor’s 40th wedding anniversary. He invited about 100 people to dinner to mark the occasion.
“I was a car salesman,” continued our dinner companion. “Actually, I worked my way up so that I was in charge of marketing Renault cars in Toulouse. It was a good job. I loved it. And I was very good at it. So I won about a dozen trips. You know, incentive bonuses. On one of them I got a trip to Florida. What a great time! We went to Cape Canaveral...and toured around the whole state.
“But when I was 55, Renault decided to cut back its sales staff; so they offered me such a nice early retirement, I couldn’t refuse. And then, I began to buy up houses in the Toulouse area. It’s a great city...the center of research and the aeronautical industry in France. And the second biggest student population after Paris.
“I realized that you had to get good tenants. Otherwise, they damage your place...or they miss payments. All it takes is one missed payment per year and your revenue goes from plus to minus. Each month’s rent is 8% of annual revenue. So if you’re running at 8% positive yield and a renter misses a payment, your profit for the year is erased.
“Obviously, you try to build a few missed payments – and vacancies – into your figures. But if you can eliminate them...with no vacancies...and no problems from tenants...then you can operate more efficiently and more profitably...and you can acquire more property.
“So, all I did was to ask more questions. I want to see bank statements. I want guarantees. I want cancelled checks. I want tax returns. I check references. I always meet the people. And if I don’t like them, I don’t rent to them.
“It’s work...but I’m retired. I enjoy it. And it pays off...
“Well...it paid off so well that the French tax authorities came after me. They’re awful. I think they monitor my bank accounts, because they seem to know a lot more than they should. And they tax me so heavily that I wonder why I bother. Now, at my age, all I’m trying to do is to build up some wealth so I can pass it on to my children. But it’s very hard to do. They take so much away...
“I let my daughter live in one of my apartments, for example. They claimed that I would have to pay tax on the amount of money that the apartment should rent for. I told them to ‘drop dead.’ But of course, they always have the last word.
“I think France is headed for ruin. People with ambition...rich people...and young people...are all leaving the country. And I’d leave too if I were younger.”
Now, the feds offer a safety net for people with money – a kind of rich man’s Marxism – in the form of protection against financial losses.
On August 17th, U.S. stocks were selling at just 8.25% below their all-time high. Yet, the rich were already bellowing for a bailout. And along came the Fed with a cut in the discount rate. According to Fortune Magazine, the Fed also bent its rules to help two major banks – Citigroup (NYSE: C ) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC ).
So great was investors’ confidence in these rescue efforts that it was soon back business as usual on Wall Street. Stocks seemed to be on the road to recovery last week – with another solid increase on Friday. The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond is back at 4.89%. Gold has returned to $677. The dollar is falling again.
We can now announce with confidence that ‘all is well.’
The logic of the safety net – whether used to catch a poor man or a rich one – is that whatever mess you’ve gotten yourself into, someone else pays for it. You forget to save money...you lose your job; bingo...someone else provides emergency assistance. During the ’70s and ’80s, Americans began to realize that providing unlimited assistance to the poor had its drawbacks; many people actually seemed to prefer a life of easy poverty to a life of hard work. Many were ‘hooked’ on public assistance, with several generations of welfare recipients in a single family. We recall, in the early ’80s, asking a young woman in the ghetto of Baltimore what she did for a living.
“I get a check,” was her reply.
Poor thing. She never knew the pleasure and pride of a job well done. She never enjoyed the boost to her confidence and self-esteem that minimum wage employment can give.
Later, the Reagan administration reformed the welfare system. We don’t know if it did any good or not; but people stopped getting so many checks...and stopped talking about it. Now what they are talking about is the safety nets for the rich – and everyone is in favor of them. So far, we’ve seen the central bank act with remarkable speed to help bankers, speculators and hedge fund managers. Stockholders have been given a boost too. And if the housing slump worsens, government will probably rush out some safety nets for homeowners.
Now, capitalists, proles, and the bourgeoisie all get checks. Is that progress...or what?
“The whole secret to the rental business is getting good tenants,” said a man sitting opposite us on Saturday night. The affair was a celebration of a neighbor’s 40th wedding anniversary. He invited about 100 people to dinner to mark the occasion.
“I was a car salesman,” continued our dinner companion. “Actually, I worked my way up so that I was in charge of marketing Renault cars in Toulouse. It was a good job. I loved it. And I was very good at it. So I won about a dozen trips. You know, incentive bonuses. On one of them I got a trip to Florida. What a great time! We went to Cape Canaveral...and toured around the whole state.
“But when I was 55, Renault decided to cut back its sales staff; so they offered me such a nice early retirement, I couldn’t refuse. And then, I began to buy up houses in the Toulouse area. It’s a great city...the center of research and the aeronautical industry in France. And the second biggest student population after Paris.
“I realized that you had to get good tenants. Otherwise, they damage your place...or they miss payments. All it takes is one missed payment per year and your revenue goes from plus to minus. Each month’s rent is 8% of annual revenue. So if you’re running at 8% positive yield and a renter misses a payment, your profit for the year is erased.
“Obviously, you try to build a few missed payments – and vacancies – into your figures. But if you can eliminate them...with no vacancies...and no problems from tenants...then you can operate more efficiently and more profitably...and you can acquire more property.
“So, all I did was to ask more questions. I want to see bank statements. I want guarantees. I want cancelled checks. I want tax returns. I check references. I always meet the people. And if I don’t like them, I don’t rent to them.
“It’s work...but I’m retired. I enjoy it. And it pays off...
“Well...it paid off so well that the French tax authorities came after me. They’re awful. I think they monitor my bank accounts, because they seem to know a lot more than they should. And they tax me so heavily that I wonder why I bother. Now, at my age, all I’m trying to do is to build up some wealth so I can pass it on to my children. But it’s very hard to do. They take so much away...
“I let my daughter live in one of my apartments, for example. They claimed that I would have to pay tax on the amount of money that the apartment should rent for. I told them to ‘drop dead.’ But of course, they always have the last word.
“I think France is headed for ruin. People with ambition...rich people...and young people...are all leaving the country. And I’d leave too if I were younger.”
The IRS Has A Lot To Say
Your Citizenship and the IRS
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
According to the IRS, a taxpayer can be "out of compliance" for any number of reasons: checking the wrong box, taking a disputed deduction, misinterpreting a regulation, etc. Tax experts cannot agree among themselves what actions are "in" or "out of" compliance. Indeed, the IRS code is the most compli-cated and convoluted tax legislation in the world. Do you have reason to believe that you are "out of com-pliance with the law" from either a civil or criminal standpoint? Most of us are not tax experts and, there-fore, few of us would presumably be able to determine whether or not we are "in compliance" anyway.
Nevertheless, let's take notice of four recent cases where non-filers were found to be innocent of charges brought against them by the IRS: (1) on June 27, 2005, former IRS special agent Joseph Banister, CPA was acquitted by a jury in U.S. District Court in Sacramento (Case No. S-04-435, E.D. Calif.) of charges surrounding conspiracy to defraud and assisting with the improper filing of income tax returns-note: Joe Banister does not file an income tax return, (2) on August 8, 2003, Federal Express pilot Vernice Kuglin was acquitted by a jury in U.S. District Court in Memphis for willful failure to file a tax return (Case No. 03-20111, W.D. Tenn.), (3) on July 9, 2007, Tom Cryer of Shreveport was found not guilty for "willful failure to file an income tax return" by a 12-0 jury decision in U.S. District Court (Case No. 06-C-2176, W.D. La.), and (4) on May 12, 2006, the U.S. Attorney filed an emergency motion in U.S. Dis-trict Court in Peoria to drop the charges of failure to file and tax evasion against Robert Lawrence-just three days before his trial was to start (Case No. 06-CR-10019, C.D. Ill.). Isn't it curious that important verdicts like these are not widely reported in the standard reporters like the Federal Reporter (F.2d)? Nevertheless, the news media has picked them up, as a simple Google search will show. Take a look!
One term of interest for non-filers is the meaning of "United States Citizen". Here are a couple of key questions that we might all ask ourselves: (a) "Do you know of a statute that requires that all United States citizens who earn an income must file an Income Tax Return with the IRS?" and (b) "How do you contemplate the term "United States Citizen" as used in the Internal Revenue Code?"
That term was a source of significant controversy, resulting in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling In Re the Slaughterhouse Cases (1872), 83 U.S. 36 (Wall.) and many similar rulings afterwards. The Four-teenth Amendment (1868) had granted-rather than recognized-rights to life, liberty and property to certain people, mainly blacks and perhaps Chinese Coolies, who while having been born in one of the several States were not citizens and had no fundamental rights. They had been slaves-the property of other men. On the other hand, while white Americans born prior to passage of that Amendment were con-sidered citizens merely as a matter of being born in one of the States. Black people were not. That legal doctrine was one of the more repugnant and widely-known aspects of the famous decision Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), 60 U.S. 393. The Fourteenth Amendment did not confer or grant upon white Americans any new right of citizenship or any fundamental right. White people already held such rights "naturally". That Amendment conferred citizenship and rights on recently freed slaves.
Let us recall that such racial issues (which strike us as so repulsive today) were commonplace in caselaw during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. For instance, all southern states had myriad cases and decisions on how much "black blood" a man could have and yet still be considered "white" (usually one-sixteenth). Like it or not, such decisions form a part of southern heritage.
The regulations for the U.S. tax code refer to United States citizens and imply the meaning of the term as contemplated in the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, it is interesting to note that in trying to interpret who owes the income tax under Title 26, the Code of Federal Regulations 1.1-1(c) states: "Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citi-zen." Compare that statement to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Do you think it is fair to say that the CFR is effectively quoting (or at least paraphrasing) the Fourteenth Amendment in its definition of a citizen of the United States? Do you think that CFR 1.1-1(c) thus implies the meaning of that term as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in The Slaughterhouse Cases-which ruling has never been overturned? Is it fair to say, therefore, that having a rudimentary understanding of citizenship is important for a primary understanding who must file a tax return?
Considerations of citizenship should give all of us some food for thought. And they might even change the way you file your taxes.
According to the IRS, a taxpayer can be "out of compliance" for any number of reasons: checking the wrong box, taking a disputed deduction, misinterpreting a regulation, etc. Tax experts cannot agree among themselves what actions are "in" or "out of" compliance. Indeed, the IRS code is the most compli-cated and convoluted tax legislation in the world. Do you have reason to believe that you are "out of com-pliance with the law" from either a civil or criminal standpoint? Most of us are not tax experts and, there-fore, few of us would presumably be able to determine whether or not we are "in compliance" anyway.
Nevertheless, let's take notice of four recent cases where non-filers were found to be innocent of charges brought against them by the IRS: (1) on June 27, 2005, former IRS special agent Joseph Banister, CPA was acquitted by a jury in U.S. District Court in Sacramento (Case No. S-04-435, E.D. Calif.) of charges surrounding conspiracy to defraud and assisting with the improper filing of income tax returns-note: Joe Banister does not file an income tax return, (2) on August 8, 2003, Federal Express pilot Vernice Kuglin was acquitted by a jury in U.S. District Court in Memphis for willful failure to file a tax return (Case No. 03-20111, W.D. Tenn.), (3) on July 9, 2007, Tom Cryer of Shreveport was found not guilty for "willful failure to file an income tax return" by a 12-0 jury decision in U.S. District Court (Case No. 06-C-2176, W.D. La.), and (4) on May 12, 2006, the U.S. Attorney filed an emergency motion in U.S. Dis-trict Court in Peoria to drop the charges of failure to file and tax evasion against Robert Lawrence-just three days before his trial was to start (Case No. 06-CR-10019, C.D. Ill.). Isn't it curious that important verdicts like these are not widely reported in the standard reporters like the Federal Reporter (F.2d)? Nevertheless, the news media has picked them up, as a simple Google search will show. Take a look!
One term of interest for non-filers is the meaning of "United States Citizen". Here are a couple of key questions that we might all ask ourselves: (a) "Do you know of a statute that requires that all United States citizens who earn an income must file an Income Tax Return with the IRS?" and (b) "How do you contemplate the term "United States Citizen" as used in the Internal Revenue Code?"
That term was a source of significant controversy, resulting in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling In Re the Slaughterhouse Cases (1872), 83 U.S. 36 (Wall.) and many similar rulings afterwards. The Four-teenth Amendment (1868) had granted-rather than recognized-rights to life, liberty and property to certain people, mainly blacks and perhaps Chinese Coolies, who while having been born in one of the several States were not citizens and had no fundamental rights. They had been slaves-the property of other men. On the other hand, while white Americans born prior to passage of that Amendment were con-sidered citizens merely as a matter of being born in one of the States. Black people were not. That legal doctrine was one of the more repugnant and widely-known aspects of the famous decision Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), 60 U.S. 393. The Fourteenth Amendment did not confer or grant upon white Americans any new right of citizenship or any fundamental right. White people already held such rights "naturally". That Amendment conferred citizenship and rights on recently freed slaves.
Let us recall that such racial issues (which strike us as so repulsive today) were commonplace in caselaw during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. For instance, all southern states had myriad cases and decisions on how much "black blood" a man could have and yet still be considered "white" (usually one-sixteenth). Like it or not, such decisions form a part of southern heritage.
The regulations for the U.S. tax code refer to United States citizens and imply the meaning of the term as contemplated in the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, it is interesting to note that in trying to interpret who owes the income tax under Title 26, the Code of Federal Regulations 1.1-1(c) states: "Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citi-zen." Compare that statement to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Do you think it is fair to say that the CFR is effectively quoting (or at least paraphrasing) the Fourteenth Amendment in its definition of a citizen of the United States? Do you think that CFR 1.1-1(c) thus implies the meaning of that term as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in The Slaughterhouse Cases-which ruling has never been overturned? Is it fair to say, therefore, that having a rudimentary understanding of citizenship is important for a primary understanding who must file a tax return?
Considerations of citizenship should give all of us some food for thought. And they might even change the way you file your taxes.
Sovereign? That's A Funny Name For Private Money.........
800 Pound Market Gorillas
Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
As if the prevalence of hedge funds, automated computer trading "black boxes" wasn't' enough to deal death-blow from the blue to unwitting individual investors in today's marketplace, now comes another omnivore able to crush just about everything in its path – the "sovereign fund."
As if the prevalence of hedge funds, automated computer trading "black boxes" wasn't' enough to deal death-blow from the blue to unwitting individual investors in today's marketplace, now comes another omnivore able to crush just about everything in its path – the "sovereign fund."
Scotiamocatta.com, a member of Scotia Bank Group, in its June report discusses this concept, noting: "Another potentially dollar bearish development is the growing interest by governments to set up sovereign funds. So far, as mentioned above, dollar diversification has focused on a few central banks spreading their reserves across a basket of currencies, but the next wave of diversification is likely to focus on commodities and other alternative investments. As China's move to set up a $300b sovereign-wealth fund to diversify away from the dollar, other countries are following suit."...Some estimates reckon that by the end of 2007, the assets in these types of funds could reach $2.5 trillion dollars. This compares to the estimated 1.6 trillion dollars that hedge funds have under management. In addition, it is thought that these funds could grow by $450bn a year. David Galland, editor of Casey Research writes:"Not only can the new money-bags move markets, up or down, in a big way… but, as commented on in a recent edition of this column, the attempt to unload some of their cash for tangible assets can and already is causing some serious talk of protectionism. We mention this again here, because it is a powerful new force in the market and one to keep a very close eye on." Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network
Nicely Said.............
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [It] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." -Franklin Pierce
Reco From The Boys At AGORA.
Expensive Food, Cheap Stock
By Chris Mayer
China's last emperor, Pu Yi, loved his soybeans. They were a staple of the Manchurian diet in Northern China. In the 1930s, a forward-thinking Brazilian friend asked Pu Yi if he could take some soybeans back to Brazil. Pu Yi agreed. The beans eventually made their way to bustling Rio de Janeiro.
In Brazil's fertile soils, soybeans found a welcome new home. Over the ensuing decades, they would become one of Brazil's most important crops. Today, soybeans are Brazil's largest export.
So there are historical roots for the boom in trade between China and South America. Trade between the countries has really surged in recent years. For example, China gets about one-third of its food supply from South America - with a good chunk of that from Brazil's vast farmlands. It's a natural, too. Not just for China, but for the world.
In Brazil and Argentina, you have one of the few places left in the world where you can acquire large tracts of land in temperate climates with plenty of rainfall to support large-scale agriculture. Already, the two countries produce about one-third of the world's agricultural commodities. As China is the world's workshop and India its back office, so has South America become its breadbasket.
Brazil is already the world's largest producer of coffee, sugar cane, ethanol and fruit juice. It is also near the top in soybeans, beef, poultry and tobacco. Brazil's agricultural sector alone has grown at a 5%-plus clip since 1999. That's pretty good for such a big sector. Agriculture represents about 8% of the economy, employs one-quarter of its work force and supports some 8 million enterprises. Likewise, Argentina is also a leader in beef and grains - it is the largest consumer of beef on a per capita basis in the world. In beef production, Argentina is behind only Brazil and Australia. Argentina is big on soybeans, wheat, sorghum, rice and barley. Argentina also produces an abundance of fruits - lemons, apples, peaches, pears and more.
But - as hard as this may be to fathom - there is the potential for so much more. The rise in the living standards of hundreds of millions of people in China and India, the resulting shift in dietary habits and the global push for alternative fuels derived from agricultural products put South America in the catbird seat.
The agricultural markets are abuzz these days. The prices of corn, barley, soybeans, coffee and cocoa are all well above their averages over the past five years. Meat and poultry prices are also on the upswing. You can see it, too, in the behavior of the companies involved. Dannon recently announced it would boost prices for its dairy products. That follows on the heels of similar announcements by Nestlé, Unilever and Cadbury Schweppes, Kellogg's, General Mills and others.
As an investor, I think I'd like to own companies that make the stuff that everybody else wants to pay more for. So it's not hard to see why I should gaze at those lush farmlands in South America.
Historically, the productive capacity of this region is underdeveloped - despite its chart-topping production. Some 90% of Brazil's fertile and productive land has not yet been cultivated. Similarly, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that farmers have cultivated only 3% of Argentina's fertile land. So there is lots of land to accumulate and turn into a top-notch farming operation.
Only in the last decade or so have producers in these countries applied cutting-edge technologies in managing their farms. The result has been a great expansion in crop yields. In today's markets, farmers in Argentina and Brazil are highly competitive in the global market for corn, wheat, soybean, sugar and other products. In fact, some of the success in Argentina and Brazil has come at the expense of American farmers - especially in the area of soybeans, for example.
Brazil and Argentina have something else of great value: water. Take a look at the chart, which shows that South America has about 26% of the world's water supply, but only 6% of the world's population. Asia, by contrast, has many more people to support with its water supply. Then again, this chart makes things look better than they are. Most of China's water supply is in the south, while most of its people live in the north.
In any case, Brazil alone holds 14% of the world's supply of fresh water. I remember, too, visiting a ranch in Argentina and having the owner proudly show me how water generously bubbles out of the ground from underground streams and then waters acres of crops. Quite a natural advantage.
Perhaps it goes without saying that the biggest risk down here is the populist and interventionist policies of governments. That is a risk one takes everywhere these days -even in America, and even in Canada (remember the income trust fiasco?). Political risk seems to be on the rise the globe over, something we should expect after a long period of fat years. People get complacent and take economic growth for granted.
While the political risks of South America bear watching, I believe the investment merits of owning farmland down here outweigh the political risks.
The best way to own South American farmland, short of hopping on a plane and bringing a bag full of money to a settlement table, is to buy shares of Cresud (CRESY:nasdaq).
Cresud is a big agricultural concern in Argentina. It has operations in beef cattle, grain and milk. It also has a large stake in the Argentine developer IRSA. And the real kicker - the thing that could make a mint for shareholders over the next few years - is its investment in BrasilAgro. BrasilAgro is what prompts me to write this update, as I believe that Cresud's investment in BrasilAgro could eventually exceed the size of Cresud's existing Argentine operations.
Cresud and some local investors started BrasilAgro in May 2006. The idea was to use Cresud's expertise and replicate its successful business model in Brazil. Since BrasilAgro's initial public offering, it has been busy acquiring farmland throughout Brazil. By April of this year, it had gone through about 40% of its IPO proceeds. Cresud owns about 10% of BrasilAgro.
When I was in Argentina earlier this year, I met with the management team at Cresud. I remember the team's excitement about the long-term prospects of BrasilAgro. It is easy in Brazil to acquire vast tracts of farmland. It is also relatively cheap. Finally, the business environment in Brazil is generally thought somewhat friendlier than in Argentina.
I expect the value of BrasilAgro to increase significantly in the years ahead. In the meantime, Cresud itself still looks cheap and has great trends behind it. Even the investment banking firms that are neutral on the shares still come up with a net asset value of $25 per share – 25% above the current quote. The downside on Cresud looks low here. I think the worst case is that a year from now, this stock still lingers around $20 per share. Basically, we ought to get our money back. But in the best case, you've got lots of potential catalysts for a move higher.
Cresud remains a buy.
China's last emperor, Pu Yi, loved his soybeans. They were a staple of the Manchurian diet in Northern China. In the 1930s, a forward-thinking Brazilian friend asked Pu Yi if he could take some soybeans back to Brazil. Pu Yi agreed. The beans eventually made their way to bustling Rio de Janeiro.
In Brazil's fertile soils, soybeans found a welcome new home. Over the ensuing decades, they would become one of Brazil's most important crops. Today, soybeans are Brazil's largest export.
So there are historical roots for the boom in trade between China and South America. Trade between the countries has really surged in recent years. For example, China gets about one-third of its food supply from South America - with a good chunk of that from Brazil's vast farmlands. It's a natural, too. Not just for China, but for the world.
In Brazil and Argentina, you have one of the few places left in the world where you can acquire large tracts of land in temperate climates with plenty of rainfall to support large-scale agriculture. Already, the two countries produce about one-third of the world's agricultural commodities. As China is the world's workshop and India its back office, so has South America become its breadbasket.
Brazil is already the world's largest producer of coffee, sugar cane, ethanol and fruit juice. It is also near the top in soybeans, beef, poultry and tobacco. Brazil's agricultural sector alone has grown at a 5%-plus clip since 1999. That's pretty good for such a big sector. Agriculture represents about 8% of the economy, employs one-quarter of its work force and supports some 8 million enterprises. Likewise, Argentina is also a leader in beef and grains - it is the largest consumer of beef on a per capita basis in the world. In beef production, Argentina is behind only Brazil and Australia. Argentina is big on soybeans, wheat, sorghum, rice and barley. Argentina also produces an abundance of fruits - lemons, apples, peaches, pears and more.
But - as hard as this may be to fathom - there is the potential for so much more. The rise in the living standards of hundreds of millions of people in China and India, the resulting shift in dietary habits and the global push for alternative fuels derived from agricultural products put South America in the catbird seat.
The agricultural markets are abuzz these days. The prices of corn, barley, soybeans, coffee and cocoa are all well above their averages over the past five years. Meat and poultry prices are also on the upswing. You can see it, too, in the behavior of the companies involved. Dannon recently announced it would boost prices for its dairy products. That follows on the heels of similar announcements by Nestlé, Unilever and Cadbury Schweppes, Kellogg's, General Mills and others.
As an investor, I think I'd like to own companies that make the stuff that everybody else wants to pay more for. So it's not hard to see why I should gaze at those lush farmlands in South America.
Historically, the productive capacity of this region is underdeveloped - despite its chart-topping production. Some 90% of Brazil's fertile and productive land has not yet been cultivated. Similarly, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that farmers have cultivated only 3% of Argentina's fertile land. So there is lots of land to accumulate and turn into a top-notch farming operation.
Only in the last decade or so have producers in these countries applied cutting-edge technologies in managing their farms. The result has been a great expansion in crop yields. In today's markets, farmers in Argentina and Brazil are highly competitive in the global market for corn, wheat, soybean, sugar and other products. In fact, some of the success in Argentina and Brazil has come at the expense of American farmers - especially in the area of soybeans, for example.
Brazil and Argentina have something else of great value: water. Take a look at the chart, which shows that South America has about 26% of the world's water supply, but only 6% of the world's population. Asia, by contrast, has many more people to support with its water supply. Then again, this chart makes things look better than they are. Most of China's water supply is in the south, while most of its people live in the north.
In any case, Brazil alone holds 14% of the world's supply of fresh water. I remember, too, visiting a ranch in Argentina and having the owner proudly show me how water generously bubbles out of the ground from underground streams and then waters acres of crops. Quite a natural advantage.
Perhaps it goes without saying that the biggest risk down here is the populist and interventionist policies of governments. That is a risk one takes everywhere these days -even in America, and even in Canada (remember the income trust fiasco?). Political risk seems to be on the rise the globe over, something we should expect after a long period of fat years. People get complacent and take economic growth for granted.
While the political risks of South America bear watching, I believe the investment merits of owning farmland down here outweigh the political risks.
The best way to own South American farmland, short of hopping on a plane and bringing a bag full of money to a settlement table, is to buy shares of Cresud (CRESY:nasdaq).
Cresud is a big agricultural concern in Argentina. It has operations in beef cattle, grain and milk. It also has a large stake in the Argentine developer IRSA. And the real kicker - the thing that could make a mint for shareholders over the next few years - is its investment in BrasilAgro. BrasilAgro is what prompts me to write this update, as I believe that Cresud's investment in BrasilAgro could eventually exceed the size of Cresud's existing Argentine operations.
Cresud and some local investors started BrasilAgro in May 2006. The idea was to use Cresud's expertise and replicate its successful business model in Brazil. Since BrasilAgro's initial public offering, it has been busy acquiring farmland throughout Brazil. By April of this year, it had gone through about 40% of its IPO proceeds. Cresud owns about 10% of BrasilAgro.
When I was in Argentina earlier this year, I met with the management team at Cresud. I remember the team's excitement about the long-term prospects of BrasilAgro. It is easy in Brazil to acquire vast tracts of farmland. It is also relatively cheap. Finally, the business environment in Brazil is generally thought somewhat friendlier than in Argentina.
I expect the value of BrasilAgro to increase significantly in the years ahead. In the meantime, Cresud itself still looks cheap and has great trends behind it. Even the investment banking firms that are neutral on the shares still come up with a net asset value of $25 per share – 25% above the current quote. The downside on Cresud looks low here. I think the worst case is that a year from now, this stock still lingers around $20 per share. Basically, we ought to get our money back. But in the best case, you've got lots of potential catalysts for a move higher.
Cresud remains a buy.
Another Reason Mitt Romney Sucks
“There’s nothing wrong with not serving in the military… The irony is that the five Romney brothers are campaigning around Iowa in a bus emblazoned with the words “Five Brothers.” In Iowa, five brothers means the five Sullivan Brothers who died when the USS Juneau was sunk in World War II. The Romney campaign makes a flippant remark about his sons’ lack of military service at the same time it uses the epitome of a family’s military sacrifice.”
- Sioux City (Iowa) Journal
- Sioux City (Iowa) Journal
Some Good Advice About Investing In The Silver Miners
Silver Mining Companies: The Rise of Bootstrap Mining
by S.R. Nunnally, Editor, Commodities & Resources Report
For the past several months, I’ve been working on a special report that traces the Mexican mining industry back before Cortés set foot on Nueva España. In just a few days’ time, I’ll be releasing this report, but I’ve gotten special permission to publish a few pages of the research that lead to my exclusive report….
Modern mining techniques were late coming to Mexico. For 300 years, miners just dug the ore they found near the surface until digging became too hard. Then, Mexico was thrown into more than 100 years of wars (including a war for independence, a civil war, war with the U.S., and the Mexican Revolution) and the country was facing financial ruin.
It wasn’t until midway through the first half of the 20th century that mining picked up again.
For a while, under the law, any mining company had to have been majority owned by Mexican nationals. In many instances, the government owned large stakes in the companies. In some ways, it was like the Royal Three-Fifths: Giant corporations were allowed to rule the mining industry because of that law that forced companies to be owned by Mexican nationals.
But in 1992, a change in the laws allowed direct foreign investment in both mines and mining companies. In fact, the law allowed up to 100% ownership of the capital stock of a company. This immediately pumped investment dollars into Mexican mines, and by 1999, foreign investment in Mexico’s mining industry reached $800 million!
More than 440 foreign companies are currently investing in Mexico’s mines, and an estimated 360 of them are American or Canadian companies.
These foreign companies have it easy coming into Mexico. According to Trey Wassler of III-D Capital, “In 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented and the peso was devalued. Low metal prices and a devalued peso caused many mines to be shut down. Many already enriched families ‘threw in the towel’ and moved on to other businesses.”
What these mines left behind were existing reserves and infrastructure.
Much of the time and money a small company spends is on exploration and infrastructure. After that, the actual mining of minerals is a relatively cost-effective prospect. “Bootstrap mining” is when a company moves in and reopens an existing mine.
Let me give you an example…
On February 27, 2007, Endeavor Silver Corp. (EDR:Toronto) (EXK:AMEX) acquired exploitation contracts for Unidad Bolanitos, a group of 13 properties (totaling 2,071 hectares) with three currently operating silver and gold mines and several “past-producing” silver and gold mines.
By acquiring high-potential properties at a low price, Endeavor immediately boosts reserves, production and cash flow. It’s easy for a company to raise investment capital when it knows it’s already sitting on mineral reserves.
As always, junior mining companies have strong speculative overtones. With the draw of huge potential with these bootstrap mines, tiny companies are almost a dime a dozen. Due diligence is an absolute necessity. And though prospects for a profitable company are stronger now than 10 years ago, beware of the shell company.
Your best bet is to find a stock with mines already in production in addition to acquiring bootstrap mines.
For the past several months, I’ve been working on a special report that traces the Mexican mining industry back before Cortés set foot on Nueva España. In just a few days’ time, I’ll be releasing this report, but I’ve gotten special permission to publish a few pages of the research that lead to my exclusive report….
Modern mining techniques were late coming to Mexico. For 300 years, miners just dug the ore they found near the surface until digging became too hard. Then, Mexico was thrown into more than 100 years of wars (including a war for independence, a civil war, war with the U.S., and the Mexican Revolution) and the country was facing financial ruin.
It wasn’t until midway through the first half of the 20th century that mining picked up again.
For a while, under the law, any mining company had to have been majority owned by Mexican nationals. In many instances, the government owned large stakes in the companies. In some ways, it was like the Royal Three-Fifths: Giant corporations were allowed to rule the mining industry because of that law that forced companies to be owned by Mexican nationals.
But in 1992, a change in the laws allowed direct foreign investment in both mines and mining companies. In fact, the law allowed up to 100% ownership of the capital stock of a company. This immediately pumped investment dollars into Mexican mines, and by 1999, foreign investment in Mexico’s mining industry reached $800 million!
More than 440 foreign companies are currently investing in Mexico’s mines, and an estimated 360 of them are American or Canadian companies.
These foreign companies have it easy coming into Mexico. According to Trey Wassler of III-D Capital, “In 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented and the peso was devalued. Low metal prices and a devalued peso caused many mines to be shut down. Many already enriched families ‘threw in the towel’ and moved on to other businesses.”
What these mines left behind were existing reserves and infrastructure.
Much of the time and money a small company spends is on exploration and infrastructure. After that, the actual mining of minerals is a relatively cost-effective prospect. “Bootstrap mining” is when a company moves in and reopens an existing mine.
Let me give you an example…
On February 27, 2007, Endeavor Silver Corp. (EDR:Toronto) (EXK:AMEX) acquired exploitation contracts for Unidad Bolanitos, a group of 13 properties (totaling 2,071 hectares) with three currently operating silver and gold mines and several “past-producing” silver and gold mines.
By acquiring high-potential properties at a low price, Endeavor immediately boosts reserves, production and cash flow. It’s easy for a company to raise investment capital when it knows it’s already sitting on mineral reserves.
As always, junior mining companies have strong speculative overtones. With the draw of huge potential with these bootstrap mines, tiny companies are almost a dime a dozen. Due diligence is an absolute necessity. And though prospects for a profitable company are stronger now than 10 years ago, beware of the shell company.
Your best bet is to find a stock with mines already in production in addition to acquiring bootstrap mines.
Uranium Drops Back, Time To Buy
{Here at Sound Of Cannons, We advocate quality uranium stock investments as much as your speculative funds will allow. This will be like shooting fish in a barrel when yellowcake bounces back and beyond!~Ed.}
“In early August, uranium bulls were drawing up plans for a march on $200,” writes Dan Denning of Port Phillip Publishing in Australia. “Since then, the uranium price has fallen over 35%, which also happens to be a standard technical correction in a long-term bull market.” Hmmn…
“The correction in the market took all the wind out of the sails of uranium juniors. But we think that's a good thing. Apart from some speculative forecasts on increased production in Kazakhstan, the fundamentals for uranium supply and demand are still bullish.”
“The correction in the market took all the wind out of the sails of uranium juniors. But we think that's a good thing. Apart from some speculative forecasts on increased production in Kazakhstan, the fundamentals for uranium supply and demand are still bullish.”
Joe Consumer Is In Trouble
Consumer credit rose at an annual rate of 6.5% in June, to a record $2.45 trillion. As they did in 2001-2002 when the stock market “wealth effect” dried up, consumers are turning to their credit cards to keep up appearances.
By no coincidence, at all, we’re sure… the rate of defaults on credit cards in the first half of 2007 rose 30% over the same time the year before. Late payments are on the rise, as well. Bank of America, Citigroup and Capital One have all raised fees and interest rates in response.
By no coincidence, at all, we’re sure… the rate of defaults on credit cards in the first half of 2007 rose 30% over the same time the year before. Late payments are on the rise, as well. Bank of America, Citigroup and Capital One have all raised fees and interest rates in response.
My Own House Is Now Worth Approximately $3.........
U.S. homeowners, buyers and sellers have officially endured an entire year of falling home prices. The median American home cost $228,900 in July, down 0.6% from the month before… the 12th consecutive month of tumbling home prices.
All told, home prices fell 3.2% across the country in second quarter -- the steepest rate since the S&P started its Home Price Index in 1987.
"The pullback in the U.S. residential real estate market is showing no signs of slowing down," writes Robert Schiller, one of the architects of the S&P Home Price Index.
"The year-over-year decline reported in the second quarter of 2007 for the National Home Price Index is the lowest point in its reported history. On a regional level, 17 of 20 metro areas are showing declines in their annual growth rate from what was reported in May."
We remember talking to radio hosts and listeners in 2005-2006 after our book Empire of Debt came out. We warned at the time that housing and real estate “don’t always go up.” At that time, even that subtle rebuke was met with utter disdain. What happens now, when it looks like we were right?
All told, home prices fell 3.2% across the country in second quarter -- the steepest rate since the S&P started its Home Price Index in 1987.
"The pullback in the U.S. residential real estate market is showing no signs of slowing down," writes Robert Schiller, one of the architects of the S&P Home Price Index.
"The year-over-year decline reported in the second quarter of 2007 for the National Home Price Index is the lowest point in its reported history. On a regional level, 17 of 20 metro areas are showing declines in their annual growth rate from what was reported in May."
We remember talking to radio hosts and listeners in 2005-2006 after our book Empire of Debt came out. We warned at the time that housing and real estate “don’t always go up.” At that time, even that subtle rebuke was met with utter disdain. What happens now, when it looks like we were right?
Wow! I Need To Sell And Start Renting
More homes are on the market now than at any other time in U.S. history.
4.5 million units are currently for sale, the most in sheer quantity ever. In more relative terms of current population, the current 9.6 month supply is the largest housing glut since 1991. Supply rose over 5% since June, yet another signal that the worst of the housing bust might still lie ahead.
4.5 million units are currently for sale, the most in sheer quantity ever. In more relative terms of current population, the current 9.6 month supply is the largest housing glut since 1991. Supply rose over 5% since June, yet another signal that the worst of the housing bust might still lie ahead.
Subprime, subprime, subprime..........It's Driving Me Nuts
The Fed’s Subprime Solution
By JAMES GRANTOp-Ed ContributorAugust 26, 2007
THE subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 is, in fact, a credit crisis — a worldwide disruption in lending and borrowing. It is only the latest in a long succession of such disturbances. Who’s to blame? The human race, first and foremost. Well-intended public policy, second. And Wall Street, third — if only for taking what generations of policy makers have so unwisely handed it.
Possibly, one lender and one borrower could do business together without harm to themselves or to the economy around them. But masses of lenders and borrowers invariably seem to come to grief, as they have today — not only in mortgages but also in a variety of other debt instruments. First, they overdo it until the signs of excess become too obvious to ignore. Then, with contrite and fearful hearts, they proceed to underdo it. Such is the “credit cycle,” the eternal migration of lenders and borrowers between the extreme points of accommodation and stringency.
Significantly, such cycles have occurred in every institutional, monetary and regulatory setting. No need for a central bank, or for newfangled mortgage securities, or for the proliferation of hedge funds to foment a panic — there have been plenty of dislocations without any of the modern-day improvements.
Late in the 1880s, long before the institution of the Federal Reserve, Eastern savers and Western borrowers teamed up to inflate the value of cropland in the Great Plains. Gimmicky mortgages — pay interest and only interest for the first two years! — and loose talk of a new era in rainfall beguiled the borrowers. High yields on Western mortgages enticed the lenders. But the climate of Kansas and Nebraska reverted to parched, and the drought-stricken debtors trudged back East or to the West Coast in wagons emblazoned, “In God we trusted, in Kansas we busted.” To the creditors went the farms.
Every crackup is the same, yet every one is different. Today’s troubles are unusual not because the losses have been felt so far from the corner of Broad and Wall, or because our lenders are unprecedentedly reckless. The panics of the second half of the 19th century were trans-Atlantic affairs, while the debt abuses of the 1920s anticipated the most dubious lending practices of 2006. Our crisis will go down in history for different reasons.
One is the sheer size of the debt in which people have belatedly lost faith. The issuance of one kind of mortgage-backed structure — collateralized debt obligations — alone runs to $1 trillion. The shocking fragility of recently issued debt is another singular feature of the 2007 downturn — alarming numbers of defaults despite high employment and reasonably strong economic growth. Hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities would, by now, have had to be recalled if Wall Street did business as Detroit does.
Benjamin Graham and David L. Dodd, in the 1940 edition of their seminal volume “Security Analysis,” held that the acid test of a bond or a mortgage issuer is its ability to discharge its financial obligations “under conditions of depression rather than prosperity.” Today’s mortgage market can’t seem to weather prosperity.
A third remarkable aspect of the summer’s troubles is the speed with which the world’s central banks have felt it necessary to intervene. Bear in mind that when the Federal Reserve cut its discount rate on Aug. 17 — a move intended to restore confidence and restart the machinery of lending and borrowing — the Dow Jones industrial average had fallen just 8.25 percent from its record high. The Fed has so far refused to reduce the federal funds rate, the main interest rate it fixes, but it has all but begged the banks to avail themselves of the dollars they need through the slightly unconventional means of borrowing at the discount window — that is, from the Fed itself.
What could account for the weakness of our credit markets? Why does the Fed feel the need to intervene at the drop of a market? The reasons have to do with an idea set firmly in place in the 1930s and expanded at every crisis up to the present. This is the notion that, while the risks inherent in the business of lending and borrowing should be finally borne by the public, the profits of that line of work should mainly accrue to the lenders and borrowers.
It has not been lost on our Wall Street titans that the government is the reliable first responder to scenes of financial distress, or that there will always be enough paper dollars to go around to assist the very largest financial institutions. In the aftermath of the failure of Long-Term Capital Management, the genius-directed hedge fund that came a cropper in 1998, the Fed — under Alan Greenspan — delivered three quick reductions in the federal funds rate. Thus fortified, lenders and borrowers, speculators and investors, resumed their manic buying of technology stocks. That bubble burst in March 2000.
Understandably, it’s only the selling kind of panic to which the government dispatches its rescue apparatus. Few object to riots on the upside. But bull markets, too, go to extremes. People get carried away, prices go too high and economic resources go where they shouldn’t. Bear markets are nature’s way of returning to the rule of reason.
But the regulatory history of the past decade is the story of governmental encroachment on the bears’ habitat. Under Mr. Greenspan, the Fed set its face against falling prices everywhere. As it intervened to save the financial markets in 1998, so it printed money in 2002 and 2003 to rescue the economy. From what? From the peril of everyday lower prices — “deflation,” the economists styled it. In this mission, at least, the Fed succeeded. Prices, especially housing prices, soared. Knowing that the Fed would do its best to engineer rising prices, people responded rationally. They borrowed lots of money at the Fed’s ultralow interest rates.
Now comes the bill for that binge and, with it, cries for even greater federal oversight and protection. Ben S. Bernanke, Mr. Greenspan’s successor at the Fed (and his loyal supporter during the antideflation hysteria), is said to be resisting the demand for broadly lower interest rates. Maybe he is seeing the light that capitalism without financial failure is not capitalism at all, but a kind of socialism for the rich.
In any case, to all of us, rich and poor alike, the Fed owes a pledge that it will do what it can and not do what it can’t. High on the list of things that no human agency can, or should, attempt is manipulating prices to achieve a more stable and prosperous economy. Jiggling its interest rate, the Fed can impose the appearance of stability today, but only at the cost of instability tomorrow. By the looks of things, tomorrow is upon us already.
A century ago, on the eve of the Panic of 1907, the president of the National City Bank of New York, James Stillman, prepared for the troubles he saw coming. “If by able and judicious management,” he briefed his staff, “we have money to help our dealers when trust companies have [failed], we will have all the business we want for many years.” The panic came and his bank, today called Citigroup, emerged more profitable than ever.
Last month, Stillman’s corporate descendant, Chuck Prince, chief executive of Citigroup, dismissed fears about an early end to the postmillennial debt frolics. “When the music stops,” he told The Financial Times, “in terms of liquidity, things will get complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance. We’re still dancing.”
What a difference a century makes.
James Grant, the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, is the author of “Money of the Mind.”
By JAMES GRANTOp-Ed ContributorAugust 26, 2007
THE subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 is, in fact, a credit crisis — a worldwide disruption in lending and borrowing. It is only the latest in a long succession of such disturbances. Who’s to blame? The human race, first and foremost. Well-intended public policy, second. And Wall Street, third — if only for taking what generations of policy makers have so unwisely handed it.
Possibly, one lender and one borrower could do business together without harm to themselves or to the economy around them. But masses of lenders and borrowers invariably seem to come to grief, as they have today — not only in mortgages but also in a variety of other debt instruments. First, they overdo it until the signs of excess become too obvious to ignore. Then, with contrite and fearful hearts, they proceed to underdo it. Such is the “credit cycle,” the eternal migration of lenders and borrowers between the extreme points of accommodation and stringency.
Significantly, such cycles have occurred in every institutional, monetary and regulatory setting. No need for a central bank, or for newfangled mortgage securities, or for the proliferation of hedge funds to foment a panic — there have been plenty of dislocations without any of the modern-day improvements.
Late in the 1880s, long before the institution of the Federal Reserve, Eastern savers and Western borrowers teamed up to inflate the value of cropland in the Great Plains. Gimmicky mortgages — pay interest and only interest for the first two years! — and loose talk of a new era in rainfall beguiled the borrowers. High yields on Western mortgages enticed the lenders. But the climate of Kansas and Nebraska reverted to parched, and the drought-stricken debtors trudged back East or to the West Coast in wagons emblazoned, “In God we trusted, in Kansas we busted.” To the creditors went the farms.
Every crackup is the same, yet every one is different. Today’s troubles are unusual not because the losses have been felt so far from the corner of Broad and Wall, or because our lenders are unprecedentedly reckless. The panics of the second half of the 19th century were trans-Atlantic affairs, while the debt abuses of the 1920s anticipated the most dubious lending practices of 2006. Our crisis will go down in history for different reasons.
One is the sheer size of the debt in which people have belatedly lost faith. The issuance of one kind of mortgage-backed structure — collateralized debt obligations — alone runs to $1 trillion. The shocking fragility of recently issued debt is another singular feature of the 2007 downturn — alarming numbers of defaults despite high employment and reasonably strong economic growth. Hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities would, by now, have had to be recalled if Wall Street did business as Detroit does.
Benjamin Graham and David L. Dodd, in the 1940 edition of their seminal volume “Security Analysis,” held that the acid test of a bond or a mortgage issuer is its ability to discharge its financial obligations “under conditions of depression rather than prosperity.” Today’s mortgage market can’t seem to weather prosperity.
A third remarkable aspect of the summer’s troubles is the speed with which the world’s central banks have felt it necessary to intervene. Bear in mind that when the Federal Reserve cut its discount rate on Aug. 17 — a move intended to restore confidence and restart the machinery of lending and borrowing — the Dow Jones industrial average had fallen just 8.25 percent from its record high. The Fed has so far refused to reduce the federal funds rate, the main interest rate it fixes, but it has all but begged the banks to avail themselves of the dollars they need through the slightly unconventional means of borrowing at the discount window — that is, from the Fed itself.
What could account for the weakness of our credit markets? Why does the Fed feel the need to intervene at the drop of a market? The reasons have to do with an idea set firmly in place in the 1930s and expanded at every crisis up to the present. This is the notion that, while the risks inherent in the business of lending and borrowing should be finally borne by the public, the profits of that line of work should mainly accrue to the lenders and borrowers.
It has not been lost on our Wall Street titans that the government is the reliable first responder to scenes of financial distress, or that there will always be enough paper dollars to go around to assist the very largest financial institutions. In the aftermath of the failure of Long-Term Capital Management, the genius-directed hedge fund that came a cropper in 1998, the Fed — under Alan Greenspan — delivered three quick reductions in the federal funds rate. Thus fortified, lenders and borrowers, speculators and investors, resumed their manic buying of technology stocks. That bubble burst in March 2000.
Understandably, it’s only the selling kind of panic to which the government dispatches its rescue apparatus. Few object to riots on the upside. But bull markets, too, go to extremes. People get carried away, prices go too high and economic resources go where they shouldn’t. Bear markets are nature’s way of returning to the rule of reason.
But the regulatory history of the past decade is the story of governmental encroachment on the bears’ habitat. Under Mr. Greenspan, the Fed set its face against falling prices everywhere. As it intervened to save the financial markets in 1998, so it printed money in 2002 and 2003 to rescue the economy. From what? From the peril of everyday lower prices — “deflation,” the economists styled it. In this mission, at least, the Fed succeeded. Prices, especially housing prices, soared. Knowing that the Fed would do its best to engineer rising prices, people responded rationally. They borrowed lots of money at the Fed’s ultralow interest rates.
Now comes the bill for that binge and, with it, cries for even greater federal oversight and protection. Ben S. Bernanke, Mr. Greenspan’s successor at the Fed (and his loyal supporter during the antideflation hysteria), is said to be resisting the demand for broadly lower interest rates. Maybe he is seeing the light that capitalism without financial failure is not capitalism at all, but a kind of socialism for the rich.
In any case, to all of us, rich and poor alike, the Fed owes a pledge that it will do what it can and not do what it can’t. High on the list of things that no human agency can, or should, attempt is manipulating prices to achieve a more stable and prosperous economy. Jiggling its interest rate, the Fed can impose the appearance of stability today, but only at the cost of instability tomorrow. By the looks of things, tomorrow is upon us already.
A century ago, on the eve of the Panic of 1907, the president of the National City Bank of New York, James Stillman, prepared for the troubles he saw coming. “If by able and judicious management,” he briefed his staff, “we have money to help our dealers when trust companies have [failed], we will have all the business we want for many years.” The panic came and his bank, today called Citigroup, emerged more profitable than ever.
Last month, Stillman’s corporate descendant, Chuck Prince, chief executive of Citigroup, dismissed fears about an early end to the postmillennial debt frolics. “When the music stops,” he told The Financial Times, “in terms of liquidity, things will get complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance. We’re still dancing.”
What a difference a century makes.
James Grant, the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, is the author of “Money of the Mind.”
The Truth About Tax Havens
You may not have noticed the few recent items about tax havens. But that's one of the many reasons the Sound Of Cannons exists - to keep you abreast of offshore developments and to explain how events may affect you, your wealth and your freedoms.
One interesting item was from Gibraltar's chief minister, Peter Caruana. Mr. Caruana predicted that tax havens will cease to exist within 10 years because of what he calls "international scrutiny and pressures." Of course, the Rock is both a semi-independent British overseas territory and a certified tax haven.
The busybody, left-leaning Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) once listed Gibraltar as a harmful tax haven. But since then, Gibraltar has reformed its laws to become more "transparent" - a favorite word the anti-tax haven crowd uses to refer to tax information exchange about individuals among governments. Or in other words, "transparency" means the end of financial privacy.
Of course, Mr. Caruana sang praise for his own jurisdiction. But he might just as well have praised almost the entire offshore financial community, including all tax havens.
Tax Havens Already Cleaned Out Their Dirty Money
In the last decade, almost every offshore jurisdiction has adopted stringent new anti-money laundering and "know your customer" laws.
These offshore regions have also imposed obligations to report suspicious financial activity. These laws are aimed specifically at drug and terrorism money. In fact, most of them are far tougher and are better enforced than those in the major centers of dirty money - including the United States and the United Kingdom.
The real source behind all the pressure and manufactured media hullabaloo against tax havens has been the tax collectors of major welfare state nations. These collectors are a miserly group that is convinced everyone and anyone who does business offshore is automatically a tax evader.
The IRS and British Inland Revenue hate the fact that tax havens offer tax-free profits and statutory guarantees of bank and financial secrecy. They refuse to accept the fact that tax competition among nations helps the world economy because it keeps taxes lower, increases profits and creates jobs.
Proof that tax havens have improved comes from none other than the notorious OECD group, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The OECD sidekicks in the FATF are the self-appointed blacklisters of all tax havens, from Switzerland to the Cayman Islands. Earlier this month, the FATF announced that the Marshall Islands has been removed from the OECD's list of so-called "harmful tax havens." The announcement came after this tiny Pacific island jurisdiction committed to improving transparency and establishing exchange of tax information.
Interestingly, the only "uncooperative" tax havens still on the FATF hit list are Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco - all nations with strict financial secrecy laws that they refuse to waive in the face of FATF bullying. And God bless them!
Hypocrites Should Check Their Stories
What must be understood is that the decade old anti-tax haven campaign is really all about tax collectors using phony reasons (anti-drug, anti-money laundering, anti-terrorism) as public relations covers for curbing the right of individuals to bank, invest and do business anywhere in the world they wish.
These phony political attacks run counter to all modern economic trends of globalization, expanded world trade, international investment and free exchange of funds among nations.
For some of the major protagonists, such as the U.S. and the U.K., it is sheer hypocrisy, because these two haven bashers are also major tax havens for foreigners who invest there. For example, wealthy "non-domiciled" residents of London pay virtually no taxes on income earned elsewhere, and even those who are paid in the U.K. have a special tax break that greatly reduces their taxes compared to U.K. citizens.
But bashing tax havens has become an international sport among leftist politicians who have always preached "soak the rich" themes in trying to appeal to the poor, hard working masses. It's called demagoguery.
Not to be outdone, the Democrats who now control the U.S. Congress are already passing new restrictions and levying new taxes on offshore financial activity, and I'll have more to say about that stupidity shortly. (President Bush, get out your courage and your veto pen!)
Who Eggs Benedict?
It's reported that Pope Benedict XVI is working on an encyclical that strongly condemns wealthy individuals from using tax havens and offshore bank accounts. The Times of London reports that the Pope will argue that tax avoidance and evasion is morally unjust because it supposedly prevents governments from collecting revenues to help society's least fortunate people. ("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's...")
This is one Catholic who wishes the Pope had better economic advisors so that he might understand the beneficial role tax havens play in the world economy. (According to the Council of Vienne [1311], a person who charged interest on a loan was to be punished as a heretic committing a mortal sin).
Notwithstanding the continuing leftist onslaught against tax havens, I predict they will survive and prosper, just as they have been doing since this battle began 10 years or more ago.
One interesting item was from Gibraltar's chief minister, Peter Caruana. Mr. Caruana predicted that tax havens will cease to exist within 10 years because of what he calls "international scrutiny and pressures." Of course, the Rock is both a semi-independent British overseas territory and a certified tax haven.
The busybody, left-leaning Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) once listed Gibraltar as a harmful tax haven. But since then, Gibraltar has reformed its laws to become more "transparent" - a favorite word the anti-tax haven crowd uses to refer to tax information exchange about individuals among governments. Or in other words, "transparency" means the end of financial privacy.
Of course, Mr. Caruana sang praise for his own jurisdiction. But he might just as well have praised almost the entire offshore financial community, including all tax havens.
Tax Havens Already Cleaned Out Their Dirty Money
In the last decade, almost every offshore jurisdiction has adopted stringent new anti-money laundering and "know your customer" laws.
These offshore regions have also imposed obligations to report suspicious financial activity. These laws are aimed specifically at drug and terrorism money. In fact, most of them are far tougher and are better enforced than those in the major centers of dirty money - including the United States and the United Kingdom.
The real source behind all the pressure and manufactured media hullabaloo against tax havens has been the tax collectors of major welfare state nations. These collectors are a miserly group that is convinced everyone and anyone who does business offshore is automatically a tax evader.
The IRS and British Inland Revenue hate the fact that tax havens offer tax-free profits and statutory guarantees of bank and financial secrecy. They refuse to accept the fact that tax competition among nations helps the world economy because it keeps taxes lower, increases profits and creates jobs.
Proof that tax havens have improved comes from none other than the notorious OECD group, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The OECD sidekicks in the FATF are the self-appointed blacklisters of all tax havens, from Switzerland to the Cayman Islands. Earlier this month, the FATF announced that the Marshall Islands has been removed from the OECD's list of so-called "harmful tax havens." The announcement came after this tiny Pacific island jurisdiction committed to improving transparency and establishing exchange of tax information.
Interestingly, the only "uncooperative" tax havens still on the FATF hit list are Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco - all nations with strict financial secrecy laws that they refuse to waive in the face of FATF bullying. And God bless them!
Hypocrites Should Check Their Stories
What must be understood is that the decade old anti-tax haven campaign is really all about tax collectors using phony reasons (anti-drug, anti-money laundering, anti-terrorism) as public relations covers for curbing the right of individuals to bank, invest and do business anywhere in the world they wish.
These phony political attacks run counter to all modern economic trends of globalization, expanded world trade, international investment and free exchange of funds among nations.
For some of the major protagonists, such as the U.S. and the U.K., it is sheer hypocrisy, because these two haven bashers are also major tax havens for foreigners who invest there. For example, wealthy "non-domiciled" residents of London pay virtually no taxes on income earned elsewhere, and even those who are paid in the U.K. have a special tax break that greatly reduces their taxes compared to U.K. citizens.
But bashing tax havens has become an international sport among leftist politicians who have always preached "soak the rich" themes in trying to appeal to the poor, hard working masses. It's called demagoguery.
Not to be outdone, the Democrats who now control the U.S. Congress are already passing new restrictions and levying new taxes on offshore financial activity, and I'll have more to say about that stupidity shortly. (President Bush, get out your courage and your veto pen!)
Who Eggs Benedict?
It's reported that Pope Benedict XVI is working on an encyclical that strongly condemns wealthy individuals from using tax havens and offshore bank accounts. The Times of London reports that the Pope will argue that tax avoidance and evasion is morally unjust because it supposedly prevents governments from collecting revenues to help society's least fortunate people. ("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's...")
This is one Catholic who wishes the Pope had better economic advisors so that he might understand the beneficial role tax havens play in the world economy. (According to the Council of Vienne [1311], a person who charged interest on a loan was to be punished as a heretic committing a mortal sin).
Notwithstanding the continuing leftist onslaught against tax havens, I predict they will survive and prosper, just as they have been doing since this battle began 10 years or more ago.
Monday, August 27, 2007
A VIABLE Alternative Fuel?
Here’s some interesting news on the alternative energy front. Earlier this summer, British Petroleum dumped $90 million dollars into research of a weed known as jatropha.
Here’s what BP found: The jatropha plant is a large shrub filled with golf ball-size oily green fruit. It can grow almost anywhere, doesn’t require an abundant water supply, it’s inedible, resistant to pesticides and is essentially worth squat to those surrounded by it. In India, they use the plant to build hedges.
But as it turns out, jatropha oil can be poured right into a biodiesel tank. Making it “potentially” one of the first truly low-impact, high efficiency, natural biofuel sources. And it’s cheap…
Thanks WSJ
At $43 per barrel, that makes jatropha fuel almost half as cheap as oil. A highly efficient, easy-to-grow biofuel source that has no direct effect on the global food supply? We expect more money will be flowing in this direction very soon.
Here’s what BP found: The jatropha plant is a large shrub filled with golf ball-size oily green fruit. It can grow almost anywhere, doesn’t require an abundant water supply, it’s inedible, resistant to pesticides and is essentially worth squat to those surrounded by it. In India, they use the plant to build hedges.
But as it turns out, jatropha oil can be poured right into a biodiesel tank. Making it “potentially” one of the first truly low-impact, high efficiency, natural biofuel sources. And it’s cheap…
Thanks WSJ
At $43 per barrel, that makes jatropha fuel almost half as cheap as oil. A highly efficient, easy-to-grow biofuel source that has no direct effect on the global food supply? We expect more money will be flowing in this direction very soon.
Commodities Go Ever Skyward
After hovering at an 11-year high for months, wheat busted through to $7.50 per bushel last week -- its highest price ever.
Canada -- the world’s second largest exporter -- announced this year’s crop would be 20% smaller than previously expected.
Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries has announced that it will increase domestic prices for the second time since 1983 -- by a staggering 10%. Instant noodle maker Nissin Food Products has already publicly expressed interest in raising prices for the first time in 17 years.
In Europe, where wheat prices have nearly doubled this year alone, Italy’s Association of Pasta Manufacturers recently announced its products would cost 20% more in the coming months. French patisseries have united and agreed on a nationwide 5-7% hike on the venerable baguette.
Canada -- the world’s second largest exporter -- announced this year’s crop would be 20% smaller than previously expected.
Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries has announced that it will increase domestic prices for the second time since 1983 -- by a staggering 10%. Instant noodle maker Nissin Food Products has already publicly expressed interest in raising prices for the first time in 17 years.
In Europe, where wheat prices have nearly doubled this year alone, Italy’s Association of Pasta Manufacturers recently announced its products would cost 20% more in the coming months. French patisseries have united and agreed on a nationwide 5-7% hike on the venerable baguette.
Y'Know, I Thought Bill Gross Had Lost His Mind......
“A quick look at Pimco's Total Return Fund shows the top 5 positions are all Fannie Mae and 40% of the fund is in mortgages,” writes Mish Shedlock, commenting on Bill Gross’ bizarre letter last week calling for the president to jump in and bail out mortgage companies.
The Total Return Fund, Gross’s flagship bond fund, has maintained a depressing 3.83% annual return since 2005… one that could easily be beaten by a simple high-yield savings account or CD. Of interesting note, Morningstar rates it a 5-star fund.
“The logical conclusion is that Bill Gross is overweight mortgages and wants a taxpayer bailout of Pimco,” suggests Mish.
And isn’t this ironic? Robert Merton, co-founder of the Long-Term Capital Management Fund, has said he will be re-entering the asset management business and will once again run his own hedge fund. Merton, a Nobel Prize winner, made this announcement on the ninth anniversary of the LTCM crisis, which he himself helped ignite. Good timing, Bob.
The Total Return Fund, Gross’s flagship bond fund, has maintained a depressing 3.83% annual return since 2005… one that could easily be beaten by a simple high-yield savings account or CD. Of interesting note, Morningstar rates it a 5-star fund.
“The logical conclusion is that Bill Gross is overweight mortgages and wants a taxpayer bailout of Pimco,” suggests Mish.
And isn’t this ironic? Robert Merton, co-founder of the Long-Term Capital Management Fund, has said he will be re-entering the asset management business and will once again run his own hedge fund. Merton, a Nobel Prize winner, made this announcement on the ninth anniversary of the LTCM crisis, which he himself helped ignite. Good timing, Bob.
The Stormwatch Continues..................
“The terrible financial tempest that I see breaking,” writes ShadowStats.com’s John Williams, “is one where massive dollar selling will trigger or exacerbate a major sell-off in U.S. stocks and bonds
Williams sees the Fed’s rhetoric about letting the market clean up the subprime mess…as applicable when convenient. But “Now that the banking system is flailing for a life preserver, the Fed will do whatever they can to preserve the same system that allows them to survive, the U.S. dollar be damned.” For example, the Fed agreed to bend a longstanding rule last week to help bail out two of the country’s largest banks. Bernanke exempted Citigroup and Bank of America from rules that would limit the amount of lending their bank arms can float to brokerage affiliates. In other words, Citi and BoA need to lend more money than is legally permissible to their respective mortgage operations in order to keep them from imploding.
Previous regulations permitted banks to float up to 10% of their capital to troubled affiliates. Now Citigroup and BoA can lend up to 30% of their capital to mortgage units in desperate need of a bailout. That means each bank needed more than $8 billion in to relieve their distressed lenders… the current cap will allow each to loan about $25 billion.
“Beyond any near-term covert central bank currency intervention,” Williams concludes, “rigged economic data or other machinations imposed on the markets, the proximal trigger for the dollar's sell-off could be any one of a number of factors ranging from an official Fed easing to expanded U.S. military activity in the Middle East.”
Williams sees the Fed’s rhetoric about letting the market clean up the subprime mess…as applicable when convenient. But “Now that the banking system is flailing for a life preserver, the Fed will do whatever they can to preserve the same system that allows them to survive, the U.S. dollar be damned.” For example, the Fed agreed to bend a longstanding rule last week to help bail out two of the country’s largest banks. Bernanke exempted Citigroup and Bank of America from rules that would limit the amount of lending their bank arms can float to brokerage affiliates. In other words, Citi and BoA need to lend more money than is legally permissible to their respective mortgage operations in order to keep them from imploding.
Previous regulations permitted banks to float up to 10% of their capital to troubled affiliates. Now Citigroup and BoA can lend up to 30% of their capital to mortgage units in desperate need of a bailout. That means each bank needed more than $8 billion in to relieve their distressed lenders… the current cap will allow each to loan about $25 billion.
“Beyond any near-term covert central bank currency intervention,” Williams concludes, “rigged economic data or other machinations imposed on the markets, the proximal trigger for the dollar's sell-off could be any one of a number of factors ranging from an official Fed easing to expanded U.S. military activity in the Middle East.”
Sunday, August 26, 2007
That's A Lodda Lettuce!
The four biggest banks in the U.S. -- Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wachovia –-- each borrowed $500 million from the Federal Reserve yesterday.
Hmnn… why these banks? Why the same amount on the same day?
Hmnn… why these banks? Why the same amount on the same day?
That's A Lodda Money Fer A Li'l Fence
Bush put on spot: Where's the fence? Despite $800 million in funding, only 18 of 854 miles completed
Posted: August 23, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
With only a small fraction of the border fence between the U.S. and Mexico complete, California congressman and Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter is warning President Bush the construction mandated by the Secure Fence Act is falling drastically behind schedule.
"Unless construction is promptly accelerated," Hunter wrote in a letter to Bush, "deadlines for the completion of fencing will not be met."
Hunter's letter was written Monday to be delivered to the White House during the Security and Prosperity Partnership third annual summit that concluded Tuesday in Montebello, Quebec.
His criticism that the Bush administration is making no significant progress constructing a fence takes added importance given Bush's refusal to deny that a hidden SPP agenda was in the works to advance North American economic and political integration with the goal of creating a European Union-style North American Union.
(Story continues below)
The Bush administration's unwillingness to build a border fence, even when mandated by a law Bush signed as recently as Oct. 26, 2006, questions the credibility of Bush's denial, especially when the border with Mexico remains wide open today, nearly six years since the Bush administration declared war on terrorism.
Hunter's letter points out the Secure Fence Act calls for completing 392 miles of fencing from Calexico, Calif., to Douglas, Ariz., by May 30, 2008.
Additionally, the act mandates 30 miles of fencing be completed in the Laredo, Texas, sector by Dec. 31, 2008.
"It is my understanding that approximately $800 million is currently available for the installation of border infrastructure," Hunter's letter continued. "Despite this funding, only 17.9 of the 854 miles of fencing called for in the Secure Fence Act have been completed as of Aug. 10, 2007."
Hunter emphasized, "This lack of progress is unacceptable, especially when adequate funding is available to earnestly proceed with fence construction."
The leaders of the U.S., Canada and Mexico conferred this week over the Security and Prosperity Partnership in Montebello, Quebec
He recommended President Bush "immediately direct the Department of Homeland Security to execute contracts in a way that all fencing locations identified in the Secure Fence Act are constructed concurrently."
Hunter's letter, crafted before Bush attempted at Tuesday's news conference to dismiss SPP criticism by ridicule, anticipated that Bush's denials would not be credible.
"Not only is our open and unprotected Southern land border a major exposure in the War on Terrorism," Hunter wrote, "but large and increasing numbers of illegal aliens, as well as dangerous criminal populations, continue to move freely across the border."
Hunter politely demanded action on building the fence.
"For the security of the United States and the safety of our nation's citizens," Hunter pleaded, "I respectfully request that border fence construction be immediately accelerated."
None of the three leaders at Tuesday's news conference made any references to the Secure Fence Act or the legislative mandate it creates for specific construction of border-security fencing by specific dates.
Hunter is widely credited with being the driving force leading to building a border-security fence in San Diego County.
"Since the construction of the San Diego Border force began in 1996," Hunter wrote in an article posted on Hunter's House website, "the smuggling of people and narcotics has dropped drastically, crime rates have been reduced by half according to FBI statistics, vehicle drug drive-throughs have been eliminated and apprehensions have decreased as the result of fewer crossing attempts."
Posted: August 23, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
With only a small fraction of the border fence between the U.S. and Mexico complete, California congressman and Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter is warning President Bush the construction mandated by the Secure Fence Act is falling drastically behind schedule.
"Unless construction is promptly accelerated," Hunter wrote in a letter to Bush, "deadlines for the completion of fencing will not be met."
Hunter's letter was written Monday to be delivered to the White House during the Security and Prosperity Partnership third annual summit that concluded Tuesday in Montebello, Quebec.
His criticism that the Bush administration is making no significant progress constructing a fence takes added importance given Bush's refusal to deny that a hidden SPP agenda was in the works to advance North American economic and political integration with the goal of creating a European Union-style North American Union.
(Story continues below)
The Bush administration's unwillingness to build a border fence, even when mandated by a law Bush signed as recently as Oct. 26, 2006, questions the credibility of Bush's denial, especially when the border with Mexico remains wide open today, nearly six years since the Bush administration declared war on terrorism.
Hunter's letter points out the Secure Fence Act calls for completing 392 miles of fencing from Calexico, Calif., to Douglas, Ariz., by May 30, 2008.
Additionally, the act mandates 30 miles of fencing be completed in the Laredo, Texas, sector by Dec. 31, 2008.
"It is my understanding that approximately $800 million is currently available for the installation of border infrastructure," Hunter's letter continued. "Despite this funding, only 17.9 of the 854 miles of fencing called for in the Secure Fence Act have been completed as of Aug. 10, 2007."
Hunter emphasized, "This lack of progress is unacceptable, especially when adequate funding is available to earnestly proceed with fence construction."
The leaders of the U.S., Canada and Mexico conferred this week over the Security and Prosperity Partnership in Montebello, Quebec
He recommended President Bush "immediately direct the Department of Homeland Security to execute contracts in a way that all fencing locations identified in the Secure Fence Act are constructed concurrently."
Hunter's letter, crafted before Bush attempted at Tuesday's news conference to dismiss SPP criticism by ridicule, anticipated that Bush's denials would not be credible.
"Not only is our open and unprotected Southern land border a major exposure in the War on Terrorism," Hunter wrote, "but large and increasing numbers of illegal aliens, as well as dangerous criminal populations, continue to move freely across the border."
Hunter politely demanded action on building the fence.
"For the security of the United States and the safety of our nation's citizens," Hunter pleaded, "I respectfully request that border fence construction be immediately accelerated."
None of the three leaders at Tuesday's news conference made any references to the Secure Fence Act or the legislative mandate it creates for specific construction of border-security fencing by specific dates.
Hunter is widely credited with being the driving force leading to building a border-security fence in San Diego County.
"Since the construction of the San Diego Border force began in 1996," Hunter wrote in an article posted on Hunter's House website, "the smuggling of people and narcotics has dropped drastically, crime rates have been reduced by half according to FBI statistics, vehicle drug drive-throughs have been eliminated and apprehensions have decreased as the result of fewer crossing attempts."
What The Average American Can Do With Their Money In These Troubled Times
Do you know Joe – or Jane – Smith?
Joe is an average American guy. He lives in a three-bedroom home in the suburbs with a couple of children.
Joe has a solidly middle class occupation. So does his wife Jane – they both have to work to pay the bills.
Joe and Jane don't worry much about asset protection, privacy and have never invested a dime outside the United States. One day, they read an article that says more than 50,000 lawsuits are filed every day in the United States. But they ignore it, because they "know" there's nothing "average people" can do to protect their savings.
That's a glaring misconception. Joe and Jane, and almost every other "average American," can benefit from an integrated program of wealth protection, and protect their privacy to boot. And they don't need to spend a fortune to enjoy these benefits – either domestically or offshore.
"Free" Asset Protection in the United States
While the United States is a very "creditor-friendly" country, there are numerous opportunities for wealth preservation, particularly at the state level. These laws vary considerably state-to-state as to what assets are protected and under what conditions. If you live in a state with strong asset protection laws, they may provide an important first line of defense to protect your wealth. Here's a brief summary of what's available:
Liability Insurance: If you have a family, you should purchase liability insurance for your home and especially, your vehicles. Don't stop at the minimum limits, either. If you can purchase an "umbrella" policy with limits of US$1 million or more, do so.
However, liability insurance will not cover against intentional torts, such as libel, slander or harassment. This also doesn't cover punitive damages, or damages or injuries resulting from your violation of any law or regulation.
Homestead Laws: Most states have homestead laws. If your state has such a law, you won't lose your home, even if you lose a judgment or declare bankruptcy, as long as you own it or keep any mortgage current, up to whatever dollar limits are in effect. These limits are very low in some states with only US$5,000 or US$10,000 protected. Other limits are higher, but still unrealistically low. A few states, such as Texas and Florida, protect your home from the claims of creditors, with no limit to total value.
There are important limitations to homestead laws. Mortgages are exempt. In many states, so are criminal fines, punitive damages awards, and certain intentional wrongs such as deceit, fraud or libel.
State homestead laws also do not protect against federal, civil or criminal forfeiture proceedings, claims by the IRS or claims under federal bankruptcy provisions that make alimony, maintenance and child support non-dischargeable.
In addition, the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Law limits the value of any state homestead exemption to US$125,000 if you have owned the residence for fewer than 1,215 days (three years and four months) before filing for bankruptcy.
Safety Vehicles for Your Hard-Earned Wealth
Life Insurance and Annuities: Almost every state protects the death benefit of a life insurance policy from creditors where a spouse or child is the beneficiary. However, the cash value of a life insurance policy may or may not be exempt. Similarly, stocks or other investments purchased through life insurance policies may or may not be protected from creditors.
Annuity payments are protected by most states. But the proceeds must generally be payable to someone other than the contract owner; such as your spouse or partner. Again, there are limitations. The protection may not extend to alimony or child support, criminal fines, punitive damages, or federal tax claims, among other possible exemptions.
Pension and Retirement Plans: Federal bankruptcy law exempts pensions, employer-sponsored retirement plans, Social Security and other benefits tied to age, illness or disability from attachment by creditors. But the protection exists only if you declare bankruptcy.
There is no limit on the amount that can be protected from bankruptcy in retirement funds, except that amounts accumulated in IRAs are limited to US$1 million.
There are important limits to this protection. The funds protected are the funds "reasonably necessary" for your support and your dependents' support. So protection for plans much larger than US$1 million may largely be misleading. Further, spousal and child support claims are not exempted. Nor are claims from the IRS. IRAs may also be seized in criminal forfeiture cases.
Domestic trusts: An irrevocable domestic trust can provide significant asset protection. The greatest protection is in a properly drafted irrevocable spendthrift discretionary trust , in which you're not named as a beneficiary. So long as the assets remain in trust, the creditors of your trust's beneficiaries can't reach them.
State legislators have created various exceptions to the spendthrift trust rule. Both the states and federal government may be able to attach a beneficiary's interest in a spendthrift trust to satisfy that beneficiary's tax obligations. Many states also provide exceptions for alimony or child support payments.
Avoid Fraudulent Conveyance
Creditors can challenge transfers of assets to a trust, partnership, insurance policy, etc. under state or federal fraudulent conveyance statutes. In a fraudulent conveyance suit, the burden of proof is on the creditor to demonstrate that the purpose of the transfer was to "hinder, delay, or defraud" its collection of an existing or known future obligation.
If you can't demonstrate a legitimate reason for the transfer, other than spiriting your assets away from your creditors, a court may set aside the transfer and order you to pay the money owed to a creditor. The court order may be reinforced with fines, foreclosures, seizure of substitute property, and occasionally, even civil contempt citations; i.e., pay the creditor or go to jail.
Finally: I can't stress this enough – it's absolutely critical that you obtain the advice of a qualified professional when transferring personal assets into any of the structures discussed in this article.
Joe is an average American guy. He lives in a three-bedroom home in the suburbs with a couple of children.
Joe has a solidly middle class occupation. So does his wife Jane – they both have to work to pay the bills.
Joe and Jane don't worry much about asset protection, privacy and have never invested a dime outside the United States. One day, they read an article that says more than 50,000 lawsuits are filed every day in the United States. But they ignore it, because they "know" there's nothing "average people" can do to protect their savings.
That's a glaring misconception. Joe and Jane, and almost every other "average American," can benefit from an integrated program of wealth protection, and protect their privacy to boot. And they don't need to spend a fortune to enjoy these benefits – either domestically or offshore.
"Free" Asset Protection in the United States
While the United States is a very "creditor-friendly" country, there are numerous opportunities for wealth preservation, particularly at the state level. These laws vary considerably state-to-state as to what assets are protected and under what conditions. If you live in a state with strong asset protection laws, they may provide an important first line of defense to protect your wealth. Here's a brief summary of what's available:
Liability Insurance: If you have a family, you should purchase liability insurance for your home and especially, your vehicles. Don't stop at the minimum limits, either. If you can purchase an "umbrella" policy with limits of US$1 million or more, do so.
However, liability insurance will not cover against intentional torts, such as libel, slander or harassment. This also doesn't cover punitive damages, or damages or injuries resulting from your violation of any law or regulation.
Homestead Laws: Most states have homestead laws. If your state has such a law, you won't lose your home, even if you lose a judgment or declare bankruptcy, as long as you own it or keep any mortgage current, up to whatever dollar limits are in effect. These limits are very low in some states with only US$5,000 or US$10,000 protected. Other limits are higher, but still unrealistically low. A few states, such as Texas and Florida, protect your home from the claims of creditors, with no limit to total value.
There are important limitations to homestead laws. Mortgages are exempt. In many states, so are criminal fines, punitive damages awards, and certain intentional wrongs such as deceit, fraud or libel.
State homestead laws also do not protect against federal, civil or criminal forfeiture proceedings, claims by the IRS or claims under federal bankruptcy provisions that make alimony, maintenance and child support non-dischargeable.
In addition, the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Law limits the value of any state homestead exemption to US$125,000 if you have owned the residence for fewer than 1,215 days (three years and four months) before filing for bankruptcy.
Safety Vehicles for Your Hard-Earned Wealth
Life Insurance and Annuities: Almost every state protects the death benefit of a life insurance policy from creditors where a spouse or child is the beneficiary. However, the cash value of a life insurance policy may or may not be exempt. Similarly, stocks or other investments purchased through life insurance policies may or may not be protected from creditors.
Annuity payments are protected by most states. But the proceeds must generally be payable to someone other than the contract owner; such as your spouse or partner. Again, there are limitations. The protection may not extend to alimony or child support, criminal fines, punitive damages, or federal tax claims, among other possible exemptions.
Pension and Retirement Plans: Federal bankruptcy law exempts pensions, employer-sponsored retirement plans, Social Security and other benefits tied to age, illness or disability from attachment by creditors. But the protection exists only if you declare bankruptcy.
There is no limit on the amount that can be protected from bankruptcy in retirement funds, except that amounts accumulated in IRAs are limited to US$1 million.
There are important limits to this protection. The funds protected are the funds "reasonably necessary" for your support and your dependents' support. So protection for plans much larger than US$1 million may largely be misleading. Further, spousal and child support claims are not exempted. Nor are claims from the IRS. IRAs may also be seized in criminal forfeiture cases.
Domestic trusts: An irrevocable domestic trust can provide significant asset protection. The greatest protection is in a properly drafted irrevocable spendthrift discretionary trust , in which you're not named as a beneficiary. So long as the assets remain in trust, the creditors of your trust's beneficiaries can't reach them.
State legislators have created various exceptions to the spendthrift trust rule. Both the states and federal government may be able to attach a beneficiary's interest in a spendthrift trust to satisfy that beneficiary's tax obligations. Many states also provide exceptions for alimony or child support payments.
Avoid Fraudulent Conveyance
Creditors can challenge transfers of assets to a trust, partnership, insurance policy, etc. under state or federal fraudulent conveyance statutes. In a fraudulent conveyance suit, the burden of proof is on the creditor to demonstrate that the purpose of the transfer was to "hinder, delay, or defraud" its collection of an existing or known future obligation.
If you can't demonstrate a legitimate reason for the transfer, other than spiriting your assets away from your creditors, a court may set aside the transfer and order you to pay the money owed to a creditor. The court order may be reinforced with fines, foreclosures, seizure of substitute property, and occasionally, even civil contempt citations; i.e., pay the creditor or go to jail.
Finally: I can't stress this enough – it's absolutely critical that you obtain the advice of a qualified professional when transferring personal assets into any of the structures discussed in this article.
Absurdity At It's Highest
Information Office Not Subject to FOIA
Friday, August 24, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
The Bush administration argued in court papers this week that the White House Office of Administration, which handles requests made under the Freedom of Information Act, is no longer subject to that act, according to The Washington Post.Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, remarked to The Post that this could be a move intended to keep secret the details of how millions of White House e-mails suddenly went missing. This new argument from the White House appears to contradict policy outlined on its own Web site. "The Office of Administration's (OA) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Office is responsible for responding to requesters who are seeking OA records under the FOIA," according to whitehouse.gov. Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network
The Bush administration argued in court papers this week that the White House Office of Administration, which handles requests made under the Freedom of Information Act, is no longer subject to that act, according to The Washington Post.Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, remarked to The Post that this could be a move intended to keep secret the details of how millions of White House e-mails suddenly went missing. This new argument from the White House appears to contradict policy outlined on its own Web site. "The Office of Administration's (OA) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Office is responsible for responding to requesters who are seeking OA records under the FOIA," according to whitehouse.gov. Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network
Click On The Links For Examples
The Privileged Class
So I guess once you're elected to Congress, you're immune from drunk driving laws; you can stash the evidence that you've committed a crime in your office, because investigators aren't allowed to search it; if you kill someone because you've got a lead foot and blew a stop sign, the taxpayers will cover your financial liability; and, we learn today, you can commit whatever Internet-related crimes you please, because the police aren't allowed to search your computer.
Meanwhile, the same Congress that has immunized itself from much of the law is also responsible for the ever-expanding federal criminal code, which we can thank for our shamefully enormous and still-soaring prison population, which is by far and away the largest in the world.
You have lawmakers who feel they're above the law. And who at the same time are criminalizing anything and everything they find tacky, repugnant, or immoral.
Forgive the lofty language, but you know what? This isn't healthy for our republic.
So I guess once you're elected to Congress, you're immune from drunk driving laws; you can stash the evidence that you've committed a crime in your office, because investigators aren't allowed to search it; if you kill someone because you've got a lead foot and blew a stop sign, the taxpayers will cover your financial liability; and, we learn today, you can commit whatever Internet-related crimes you please, because the police aren't allowed to search your computer.
Meanwhile, the same Congress that has immunized itself from much of the law is also responsible for the ever-expanding federal criminal code, which we can thank for our shamefully enormous and still-soaring prison population, which is by far and away the largest in the world.
You have lawmakers who feel they're above the law. And who at the same time are criminalizing anything and everything they find tacky, repugnant, or immoral.
Forgive the lofty language, but you know what? This isn't healthy for our republic.
Another Mogambo Rant........Good stuff!
Unlawful Economic Stupidity
By: Richard Daughty, The Mogambo Guru
-- Posted Friday, 24 August 2007
If you grow tired of always saying, "That Mogambo! What an idiot!" and you want another example…here is one for you, fresh from the lips of David Viniar of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE:GS).
He says that the markets are producing "25-standard deviation events, several days in a row." Hahaha! 25 standard deviations! Hahahaha!! Hell, three standard deviations contains 99.99999% of all probable events, and here this doofus is talking about 25 standard deviations! Not 26 (which is too high!) or 24 (which is too low!), but 25! Hahaha!
Justice Litle, Editor of the Consilient Investor, derives a "Quant's Law" from an entry for "Goodwin's Law" via Wikipedia as "Whenever a quantitative fund manager makes reference to a '100 year storm (or flood),' a '10,000 year event,' or an 'X standard deviation occurrence,' where X is any double-digit number, the probability of devastating financial loss approaches one." Hahaha!
As Benny Hill would look into the camera and say, "It's been proved!"
And keeping with the humorous side, he also adds a "Corollary to Quant's Law" which is that, "In the financial markets, '10,000 year events' generally occur every 5 to 7 years." Again, "Hahaha!"
JMR George P. looked it up, and reports that at Sachs, he is not employed as a "clueless weenie", but as a "Chief Financial Officer, Head of the Operations, Technology & Finance Division, Executive Vice President and Managing Director", who apparently has Total Annual Compensation of $21,119,219, as of Fiscal Year 2006, plus "Other Long-term Compensation" at $11,561,816.
So, this answers the question, "What kind of person do you get for $32 million a year who can lose everything you have saved and invested because he thinks that the bell curve is permanent, that events happen only with prescribed probability according to standard equations, that the whole concept of Black Swan is a load of hooey, and he is willing to bet all your money on his stupid opinion that what history shows is so obviously wrong over the long term that you have to laugh 'Hahaha!'?"!
And it also answers the question of Antal Fekete at the Gold Standard University, who asks, "Here is a question for the discriminating observer. How is it that interest-rate derivatives do not obey the Law of Supply and Demand? The more there are of them, the more they are in demand."
As evidence of that surprising "economic laws don't apply here" statement, he merely has to note that almost $500 trillion in financial derivatives exist ("In comparison," he writes "the U.S. GNP is a paltry 13 trillion") and the number of derivatives "is increasing at the rate of 40 percent per annum. At that rate volume doubles about every other year."
And how big is the derivatives market now? Jim Willie of the Hat Trick Letter says, "The scope of the CDO bond fraud is gigantic. In 2002, $84 billion in CDO bonds were issued. In all of 2006, $503 billion were issued. The parade has not ended! In 1Q2007, an incredible $251 billion were issued, on track for a cool $1,000 billion annually." Heading for a trillion bucks a year!
I know that true Junior Mogambo Rangers are gagging on their own vomit and blood at the thought of that much of an increase in debt, because they know that catastrophe looms as a result. So I will immediately change the subject to "how big will the fallout be?" now that this CDO thing is reversing?
It was at this point that I had planned to premier the new musical-comedy version of my famous "Inflationary Flames of Hell" tirade, which I was pretty excited about, as it contained the delightful aria "Inflation means that you will die a painful economic death with the screams of your children in your ears."
But there was some problem with the musician's union accepting a postdated check on an out-of-state bank that nobody ever heard of, and Bill Bonner at DailyReckoning.com got tired of waiting for the labor negotiations to work out, and says that "how big" is estimated by the dictum, "The force of a correction is equal and opposite to the deception that proceeded it."
Equal and opposite reaction? For a second there I thought of Isaac Newton and flashed back to high school physics class, and it suddenly makes sense! But before I could ponder the ramifications, Mr. Bonner continued that an idea of the sheer magnitude of "how much" may be gleaned from the fact that "Never before in the history of the world have so many people believed so many things that couldn't be true. Now, they owe more money to more people than ever before. And it could take a long, painful correction…or worse…to straighten things out."
Mr. Willie says the same thing, and that "The detonation of the CDO & MBS bond market is a truly powerful and devastating process. It will burn bigger and brighter and longer and more powerfully than any bond debacle in modern history."
Naturally, I grow impatient, rise to my feet and demand to know, "Who needs this qualitative crap? How much in quantitative dollars and cents? Do you understand dollars and cents, or are you going to persist in indeterminate generalities? Because if you are, then I got some indeterminate generalities of my own, like how I generally don't pull out a handgun and start blasting the hell out of the place when people waste my freaking time with this kind of crap when all what I want is facts, facts, facts which may enable me to make some money. Lots of money. And pronto!"
Mr. Willie, knowing exactly what kind of lunatic he is dealing with, immediately complies with my demand for facts and says, "Expect the $1.4 trillion in subprime mortgage bonds to almost all suffer total loss", and that we should expect "deep losses" from "the majority of CDO bonds."
At which point I, the Ever Foolishly Pessimistic And Paranoid Mogambo (EFPAPM), say it will even be worse, much worse than that, as Chaos Theory proves that all things are connected to all things, and things are going down, down, down, as matches my frightened, paranoid mood ("We're freaking doomed!"), thus explaining why you were specifically instructed to sit with your hands on the table at all times, so that I can see them, and to not make any sudden moves that might startle me and my trembling trigger finger.
By: Richard Daughty, The Mogambo Guru
-- Posted Friday, 24 August 2007
If you grow tired of always saying, "That Mogambo! What an idiot!" and you want another example…here is one for you, fresh from the lips of David Viniar of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE:GS).
He says that the markets are producing "25-standard deviation events, several days in a row." Hahaha! 25 standard deviations! Hahahaha!! Hell, three standard deviations contains 99.99999% of all probable events, and here this doofus is talking about 25 standard deviations! Not 26 (which is too high!) or 24 (which is too low!), but 25! Hahaha!
Justice Litle, Editor of the Consilient Investor, derives a "Quant's Law" from an entry for "Goodwin's Law" via Wikipedia as "Whenever a quantitative fund manager makes reference to a '100 year storm (or flood),' a '10,000 year event,' or an 'X standard deviation occurrence,' where X is any double-digit number, the probability of devastating financial loss approaches one." Hahaha!
As Benny Hill would look into the camera and say, "It's been proved!"
And keeping with the humorous side, he also adds a "Corollary to Quant's Law" which is that, "In the financial markets, '10,000 year events' generally occur every 5 to 7 years." Again, "Hahaha!"
JMR George P. looked it up, and reports that at Sachs, he is not employed as a "clueless weenie", but as a "Chief Financial Officer, Head of the Operations, Technology & Finance Division, Executive Vice President and Managing Director", who apparently has Total Annual Compensation of $21,119,219, as of Fiscal Year 2006, plus "Other Long-term Compensation" at $11,561,816.
So, this answers the question, "What kind of person do you get for $32 million a year who can lose everything you have saved and invested because he thinks that the bell curve is permanent, that events happen only with prescribed probability according to standard equations, that the whole concept of Black Swan is a load of hooey, and he is willing to bet all your money on his stupid opinion that what history shows is so obviously wrong over the long term that you have to laugh 'Hahaha!'?"!
And it also answers the question of Antal Fekete at the Gold Standard University, who asks, "Here is a question for the discriminating observer. How is it that interest-rate derivatives do not obey the Law of Supply and Demand? The more there are of them, the more they are in demand."
As evidence of that surprising "economic laws don't apply here" statement, he merely has to note that almost $500 trillion in financial derivatives exist ("In comparison," he writes "the U.S. GNP is a paltry 13 trillion") and the number of derivatives "is increasing at the rate of 40 percent per annum. At that rate volume doubles about every other year."
And how big is the derivatives market now? Jim Willie of the Hat Trick Letter says, "The scope of the CDO bond fraud is gigantic. In 2002, $84 billion in CDO bonds were issued. In all of 2006, $503 billion were issued. The parade has not ended! In 1Q2007, an incredible $251 billion were issued, on track for a cool $1,000 billion annually." Heading for a trillion bucks a year!
I know that true Junior Mogambo Rangers are gagging on their own vomit and blood at the thought of that much of an increase in debt, because they know that catastrophe looms as a result. So I will immediately change the subject to "how big will the fallout be?" now that this CDO thing is reversing?
It was at this point that I had planned to premier the new musical-comedy version of my famous "Inflationary Flames of Hell" tirade, which I was pretty excited about, as it contained the delightful aria "Inflation means that you will die a painful economic death with the screams of your children in your ears."
But there was some problem with the musician's union accepting a postdated check on an out-of-state bank that nobody ever heard of, and Bill Bonner at DailyReckoning.com got tired of waiting for the labor negotiations to work out, and says that "how big" is estimated by the dictum, "The force of a correction is equal and opposite to the deception that proceeded it."
Equal and opposite reaction? For a second there I thought of Isaac Newton and flashed back to high school physics class, and it suddenly makes sense! But before I could ponder the ramifications, Mr. Bonner continued that an idea of the sheer magnitude of "how much" may be gleaned from the fact that "Never before in the history of the world have so many people believed so many things that couldn't be true. Now, they owe more money to more people than ever before. And it could take a long, painful correction…or worse…to straighten things out."
Mr. Willie says the same thing, and that "The detonation of the CDO & MBS bond market is a truly powerful and devastating process. It will burn bigger and brighter and longer and more powerfully than any bond debacle in modern history."
Naturally, I grow impatient, rise to my feet and demand to know, "Who needs this qualitative crap? How much in quantitative dollars and cents? Do you understand dollars and cents, or are you going to persist in indeterminate generalities? Because if you are, then I got some indeterminate generalities of my own, like how I generally don't pull out a handgun and start blasting the hell out of the place when people waste my freaking time with this kind of crap when all what I want is facts, facts, facts which may enable me to make some money. Lots of money. And pronto!"
Mr. Willie, knowing exactly what kind of lunatic he is dealing with, immediately complies with my demand for facts and says, "Expect the $1.4 trillion in subprime mortgage bonds to almost all suffer total loss", and that we should expect "deep losses" from "the majority of CDO bonds."
At which point I, the Ever Foolishly Pessimistic And Paranoid Mogambo (EFPAPM), say it will even be worse, much worse than that, as Chaos Theory proves that all things are connected to all things, and things are going down, down, down, as matches my frightened, paranoid mood ("We're freaking doomed!"), thus explaining why you were specifically instructed to sit with your hands on the table at all times, so that I can see them, and to not make any sudden moves that might startle me and my trembling trigger finger.
CFR Seeks End of US Currency?
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86308/benn-steil/the-end-of-national-currency.html?mode=print
Too big to post this on SOC, but well worth all the time to read. Amazing that the CFR forecasts their moves, but no one really counters them.
Too big to post this on SOC, but well worth all the time to read. Amazing that the CFR forecasts their moves, but no one really counters them.
One Of The GATA Boys Weighs In
Country's top decisions made in secret by Fed
By Chris Powell
Most of the important public policy decisions in the country now are being made not in any public forum nor even by elected officials. They are being made in secret by unelected officials -- the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. While the governors are nominated by the president and appointed by the Senate, that is pretty much where accountability ends, since the governors serve 14-year terms, which is close to the life tenure of federal judges. There is a little more accountability for the board's chairman and vice chairman, who are nominated by the president from among the board's members and appointed by the Senate for four-year terms of leadership.
This structure is said to take politics out of the management of the money supply and interest rates. In practice it has only replaced public politics with private politics -- and in regard to issues that have the greatest bearing on the country's prosperity and economic opportunity and equality or inequality. The president and Congress spend most of their time on issues far less relevant to daily life than the issues that have been forfeited to the Federal Reserve.And look how the Fed is functioning amid the turmoil in the world financial system that has been prompted by the collapse in the market for "subprime" mortgage bonds.As it always does in crisis, the Fed has responded with secret meetings and telephone conferences with the great financial houses, deciding in secret whether to increase the money supply and government lending to financial houses and to raise or reduce interest rates. Such actions by the Fed will change the value of every dollar around the world. They will change the price of labor, goods, services, and real estate, as well as the return on savings.But there will be no public hearings or public meetings at which the basis for the Fed's actions will be examined and those actions explained. It all will be accomplished in secret, with a vague communique issued afterward. And who constitutes the Fed's Board of Governors and the officials of the regional Federal Reserve banks? Mostly people from the financial industry. So it is no wonder that the Fed usually seems to be operating more for the benefit of financial interests than for the country generally -- just as it seemed when, in 1999, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan persuaded Congress not to require government regulation of the sort of financial instruments, called derivatives, that have upended the markets lately. While derivatives always posed a risk to the financial system and the economy, they also promised great profits to financial houses.In any case, however the Fed's power is used, it is the power to influence and even rig markets and to decide all winners and losers in the economy. It is the ultimate patronage. And the exercise of that power, the monetary power of the United States -- the power to determine what money is, how much there is, its price, and the terms of its circulation -- is completely undemocratic, which is exactly why it is exercised in secret. For its exercise cannot bear scrutiny. A few participants in the system occasionally have acknowledged as much, as when the Fed's vice chairman, Alan Blinder, remarked on national television in 1994: "The last duty of a central banker is to tell the public the truth."Some of its critics consider the Fed unconstitutional. After all, the Founders opposed central banking, and the Constitution says Congress "shall have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin." But whether Congress can delegate its power over money creation is less important than the Constitution's assertion that the decisions of the monetary power are among the most profound of government.Of course Congress well may not want the political responsibility that comes with the monetary power. The Fed can be a convenient scapegoat for what is really the irresponsibility of the rest of the government. But Wall Street wants the monetary power and does not have to bear any political responsibility for it, and that is the system the United States now has -- a system in which the monetary power has been turned over to what used to be called the Money Power. And this insult to public sovereignty over the most important issues of government is praised as the "independence" of central banking.As the country faces another disaster engineered by the Money Power, it's time for Congress to remake the Federal Reserve System into something democratic, open, and accountable, or to reclaim the monetary power itself.
North American Union Write-Up
SPP Summit Hangover – The North American Union Agenda Continues
Dana GabrielStop Lying Friday Aug 24, 2007
The Security and Prosperity Partnership summit has come and gone, and for many it was the first time they had heard of the SPP or a North American Union. Some in the Canadian media did expose the SPP's lack of transparency, while others continue to downplay its importance. Awareness and opposition in Canada is at an all time high, and we must ensure that this issue remains at the forefront. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is at a disadvantage with a minority government, therefore it remains in his best interest to keep the SPP process as secretive as possible. This may be increasingly more difficult to do as it has seen the light of day. Just as the Free Trade Agreement was the defining issue in the 1988 Federal election, the SPP could make or break Harper and the Conservatives. Unfortunately, little would change under a Liberal government as it was then former Prime Minister Paul Martin who first agreed to the SPP initiative. Although some of the names have changed, the agenda remains the same.
We are living in the first stages of a NAU, and the police state images from the summit were disturbing. We can expect more of the same if we don't defeat this evil. The scenes were reminiscent of a fascist tyrannical state with police in riot gear and checkpoints everywhere. Intimidation was used to try and quell dissent, and as a result many were discouraged from protesting and exercising their right to free speech. Just as some had warned of the possibility of provocateurs, including myself, it appears as if a video on You Tube lays proof to this claim. It shows a small crowd of mostly middle-aged peaceful protesters holding a line and exposing some anarchist as possible provocateurs. One of the so called anarchists had a rock in his hand, and there can be little doubt that his intentions were to provoke an incident. CEP union president Dave Coles is the one at the center of the video and said, “I accused them of being police, and every time I yelled at them that they were police, you could tell by their facial expressions that they were really troubled.” If a riot or other violence would have occurred, at that point police would have had their excuse to move in break up all protests and begin arresting and beating up the demonstrators. Some of the other anarchists also began pointing out three individuals as police. What was Harper's response to all the protests? “I've heard it's nothing,” and he went on to say, “A couple hundred? It's sad.” There were also protests and rallies held all across Canada, and you can be sure that the next time demonstrations will be even bigger. What's really sad, Stephen, is how this whole traitorous process has been kept a secret, and how Canadians have been lied to by you and other elected officials.
With the SPP summit being held in Canada and the media frenzy it created, it forced the Liberals to break their silence on this issue. They released their blueprint for the SPP. After almost eight months as leader, and now Stephane Dion is suddenly concerned about Canadian sovereignty and bulk water exports. It was hardly convincing, and his criticism of the Harper government is hypocritical, since it was his own party who began this process over three years ago. Some of the faces have changed, but the goal of a NAU continues. The SPP hasn't missed a beat under the Harper government, and in regards to its agenda, it was an almost seamless transition. Harper follows in the line of other Prime Ministers like Mulroney, Chretien, and Martin, who have all played their part in selling out Canada. Under a Liberal government, nothing would really change.
The SPP is the framework in which a NAU is being created, and it is the bureaucrats along with working groups who are making it happen. There is no mistake about the fact that it is being driven by the corporate elite. Bob Marlow of the Council of Canadians, said, “This is not about security for people, social security, security for the poor, environmental security. This is about security for big corporations for North America.” It was reported that the multinational business agenda would be a driving force at the summit. A NAU will only further deepen deregulation, undermine labor rights, and lead to the privatization of our social programs and natural resources. It is the final push in the corporate takeover of North America. Those who support this agenda because they think that it is purely economic integration are misinformed. They need to look at the example of the European Union and how it was created.
Like a drunk who has went on a two-day bender, I woke up the other day with an SPP hangover. Hundreds of articles were written in the last week, and for the first time some key issues and concerns did see the light of day. There has been a rash of letters to the editor warning of the dangers of the SPP and a NAU. The dam has broken, and even those attempting to pooh-pooh this whole agenda have been forced to break their silence. Those in the alternative media and bloggers alike must keep the NAU front and center. At the closing press conference in Montebello, Bush dismissed the NAU and called it a conspiracy theory. Harper talked about a common jellybean for all of North America. It appears as if the strategy is to further downplay, spin, and deny its very existence, continuing to ridicule and intimidate those who believe that a NAU is being created. Hopefully we can build upon this new momentum and continue to wakeup and educate the public to the horrors of a NAU.
We might not know the specifics of what was discussed at the SPP summit, but what we do know is that it still remains a threat to our sovereignty. This greed-driven corporate agenda will further shape our lives politically, economically, socially, and environmentally. Just the fact that it is clouded in secrecy should be enough to serve as a warning. Those exposing the NAU are often accused of fear- mongering by the very same people who are doing likewise with terrorism and now global warming. If anything, I understate things, and I know that they are far worse than I or others report. The enemies of freedom, sovereignty, and national independence are many, but by defeating the North American Union, it will go a long way in trying to reverse the destructive cycle of globalization.
Dana GabrielStop Lying Friday Aug 24, 2007
The Security and Prosperity Partnership summit has come and gone, and for many it was the first time they had heard of the SPP or a North American Union. Some in the Canadian media did expose the SPP's lack of transparency, while others continue to downplay its importance. Awareness and opposition in Canada is at an all time high, and we must ensure that this issue remains at the forefront. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is at a disadvantage with a minority government, therefore it remains in his best interest to keep the SPP process as secretive as possible. This may be increasingly more difficult to do as it has seen the light of day. Just as the Free Trade Agreement was the defining issue in the 1988 Federal election, the SPP could make or break Harper and the Conservatives. Unfortunately, little would change under a Liberal government as it was then former Prime Minister Paul Martin who first agreed to the SPP initiative. Although some of the names have changed, the agenda remains the same.
We are living in the first stages of a NAU, and the police state images from the summit were disturbing. We can expect more of the same if we don't defeat this evil. The scenes were reminiscent of a fascist tyrannical state with police in riot gear and checkpoints everywhere. Intimidation was used to try and quell dissent, and as a result many were discouraged from protesting and exercising their right to free speech. Just as some had warned of the possibility of provocateurs, including myself, it appears as if a video on You Tube lays proof to this claim. It shows a small crowd of mostly middle-aged peaceful protesters holding a line and exposing some anarchist as possible provocateurs. One of the so called anarchists had a rock in his hand, and there can be little doubt that his intentions were to provoke an incident. CEP union president Dave Coles is the one at the center of the video and said, “I accused them of being police, and every time I yelled at them that they were police, you could tell by their facial expressions that they were really troubled.” If a riot or other violence would have occurred, at that point police would have had their excuse to move in break up all protests and begin arresting and beating up the demonstrators. Some of the other anarchists also began pointing out three individuals as police. What was Harper's response to all the protests? “I've heard it's nothing,” and he went on to say, “A couple hundred? It's sad.” There were also protests and rallies held all across Canada, and you can be sure that the next time demonstrations will be even bigger. What's really sad, Stephen, is how this whole traitorous process has been kept a secret, and how Canadians have been lied to by you and other elected officials.
With the SPP summit being held in Canada and the media frenzy it created, it forced the Liberals to break their silence on this issue. They released their blueprint for the SPP. After almost eight months as leader, and now Stephane Dion is suddenly concerned about Canadian sovereignty and bulk water exports. It was hardly convincing, and his criticism of the Harper government is hypocritical, since it was his own party who began this process over three years ago. Some of the faces have changed, but the goal of a NAU continues. The SPP hasn't missed a beat under the Harper government, and in regards to its agenda, it was an almost seamless transition. Harper follows in the line of other Prime Ministers like Mulroney, Chretien, and Martin, who have all played their part in selling out Canada. Under a Liberal government, nothing would really change.
The SPP is the framework in which a NAU is being created, and it is the bureaucrats along with working groups who are making it happen. There is no mistake about the fact that it is being driven by the corporate elite. Bob Marlow of the Council of Canadians, said, “This is not about security for people, social security, security for the poor, environmental security. This is about security for big corporations for North America.” It was reported that the multinational business agenda would be a driving force at the summit. A NAU will only further deepen deregulation, undermine labor rights, and lead to the privatization of our social programs and natural resources. It is the final push in the corporate takeover of North America. Those who support this agenda because they think that it is purely economic integration are misinformed. They need to look at the example of the European Union and how it was created.
Like a drunk who has went on a two-day bender, I woke up the other day with an SPP hangover. Hundreds of articles were written in the last week, and for the first time some key issues and concerns did see the light of day. There has been a rash of letters to the editor warning of the dangers of the SPP and a NAU. The dam has broken, and even those attempting to pooh-pooh this whole agenda have been forced to break their silence. Those in the alternative media and bloggers alike must keep the NAU front and center. At the closing press conference in Montebello, Bush dismissed the NAU and called it a conspiracy theory. Harper talked about a common jellybean for all of North America. It appears as if the strategy is to further downplay, spin, and deny its very existence, continuing to ridicule and intimidate those who believe that a NAU is being created. Hopefully we can build upon this new momentum and continue to wakeup and educate the public to the horrors of a NAU.
We might not know the specifics of what was discussed at the SPP summit, but what we do know is that it still remains a threat to our sovereignty. This greed-driven corporate agenda will further shape our lives politically, economically, socially, and environmentally. Just the fact that it is clouded in secrecy should be enough to serve as a warning. Those exposing the NAU are often accused of fear- mongering by the very same people who are doing likewise with terrorism and now global warming. If anything, I understate things, and I know that they are far worse than I or others report. The enemies of freedom, sovereignty, and national independence are many, but by defeating the North American Union, it will go a long way in trying to reverse the destructive cycle of globalization.
For A One-World Order Asshole, He Sure Is A Fuckwad
Robert Pastor Called for a NAFTA Superhighway System in 2005
Larry GreenleyJBSThursday, August 23, 2007
In the context of the rapidly escalating national debate over the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the North American Union, The Nation chose the closely-related topic of the NAFTA Superhighway for the cover story of its August 27 issue. Superimposed on a full-bleed graphic of a mega-highway against a background of blue sky and white clouds are the words: "The NAFTA Superhighway -- It’s Big. It’s Scary. But Is It Real?" According to the article’s summary, "The NAFTA Superhighway is a total myth." The author, Christopher Hayes, then goes on in the article to refer to the John Birch Society (JBS) as "one of the leading purveyors of the highway myth."
While Hayes is correct that the JBS is one of the leading organizations warning Americans about the plans for a NAFTA Superhighway system, he is wrong about the NAFTA Superhighway being a "total myth." For an example of what the Society has been saying about the planned North American highway system, see "'SuperSlab' Paves the Way," which includes a two-page graphic of the proposed NAFTA Superhighway system, by Kelly Taylor on pages 21-24 of The New American, October 2, 2006 (5 MB pdf).
Interestingly, Hayes recently weakened his case against the JBS by setting up a straw man scenario never promoted by the Society. Writing in his personal blog, Hayes stated on August 16: "When people at townhalls in Iowa ask about the 'NAFTA Superhighway,' it’s clear they’re conceiving of an actual plan that is in the works and expect to see a bulldozer in their cornfield any day now. That’s the mythology I was trying to debunk." So, apparently Hayes is now saying that the NAFTA Superhighway myth he charges the JBS with spreading, and which he was trying to debunk in his Nation article, consists of giving people in Iowa (and many other states, of course) the idea that they can expect to see NAFTA Superhighway bulldozers in their states sometime soon.
As the colorful old saying has it, "That dog won’t hunt." That is to say, the John Birch Society has never given people the idea that they’re about to see NAFTA Superhighway bulldozers in their backyards. Actually, according to Society literature virtually the entire NAFTA Superhighway system is in the planning stage, so it's way too early for bulldozers to show up in Iowa cornfields. As the subtitle of the article "'SuperSlab' Paves the Way" in the Society's newsmagazine The New American for October 2, 2006 (5 MB pdf) put it: "The NAFTA Super Highway, nicknamed 'SuperSlab' by some, is a planned system of roads, rail lines, and more that will speed up the unification of North America." (emphasis added)
Even Robert "I never proposed a North American Union" Pastor, who has been routinely interviewed for the recent spate of articles debunking concerns about a North American Union and a NAFTA Superhighway system, called for such a superhighway system plan in testimony before a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2005:
The North American Council should develop an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure that includes new North American highways and high-speed rail corridors. (Robert Pastor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony, June 9, 2005.)
You can quibble about terms, but Pastor was clearly calling for the development of an integrated, continental plan for North American highways and high speed rail corridors, which is just about as close to a definition of the NAFTA Superhighway system as you can get.
Larry GreenleyJBSThursday, August 23, 2007
In the context of the rapidly escalating national debate over the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the North American Union, The Nation chose the closely-related topic of the NAFTA Superhighway for the cover story of its August 27 issue. Superimposed on a full-bleed graphic of a mega-highway against a background of blue sky and white clouds are the words: "The NAFTA Superhighway -- It’s Big. It’s Scary. But Is It Real?" According to the article’s summary, "The NAFTA Superhighway is a total myth." The author, Christopher Hayes, then goes on in the article to refer to the John Birch Society (JBS) as "one of the leading purveyors of the highway myth."
While Hayes is correct that the JBS is one of the leading organizations warning Americans about the plans for a NAFTA Superhighway system, he is wrong about the NAFTA Superhighway being a "total myth." For an example of what the Society has been saying about the planned North American highway system, see "'SuperSlab' Paves the Way," which includes a two-page graphic of the proposed NAFTA Superhighway system, by Kelly Taylor on pages 21-24 of The New American, October 2, 2006 (5 MB pdf).
Interestingly, Hayes recently weakened his case against the JBS by setting up a straw man scenario never promoted by the Society. Writing in his personal blog, Hayes stated on August 16: "When people at townhalls in Iowa ask about the 'NAFTA Superhighway,' it’s clear they’re conceiving of an actual plan that is in the works and expect to see a bulldozer in their cornfield any day now. That’s the mythology I was trying to debunk." So, apparently Hayes is now saying that the NAFTA Superhighway myth he charges the JBS with spreading, and which he was trying to debunk in his Nation article, consists of giving people in Iowa (and many other states, of course) the idea that they can expect to see NAFTA Superhighway bulldozers in their states sometime soon.
As the colorful old saying has it, "That dog won’t hunt." That is to say, the John Birch Society has never given people the idea that they’re about to see NAFTA Superhighway bulldozers in their backyards. Actually, according to Society literature virtually the entire NAFTA Superhighway system is in the planning stage, so it's way too early for bulldozers to show up in Iowa cornfields. As the subtitle of the article "'SuperSlab' Paves the Way" in the Society's newsmagazine The New American for October 2, 2006 (5 MB pdf) put it: "The NAFTA Super Highway, nicknamed 'SuperSlab' by some, is a planned system of roads, rail lines, and more that will speed up the unification of North America." (emphasis added)
Even Robert "I never proposed a North American Union" Pastor, who has been routinely interviewed for the recent spate of articles debunking concerns about a North American Union and a NAFTA Superhighway system, called for such a superhighway system plan in testimony before a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2005:
The North American Council should develop an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure that includes new North American highways and high-speed rail corridors. (Robert Pastor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony, June 9, 2005.)
You can quibble about terms, but Pastor was clearly calling for the development of an integrated, continental plan for North American highways and high speed rail corridors, which is just about as close to a definition of the NAFTA Superhighway system as you can get.
They Want To Avoid Congressional Hearings
Bilderberg Pushes American Superstate
James P. Tucker Jr.American Free PressSaturday, August 25, 2007
Leaders of Bilderberg have gathered the appropriate flunkies at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello, about 50 miles outside Quebec, to accomplish a North American Union without congressional action.
Bilderberg met at the same site in 1983. The Aug. 20-21 session of the unknown Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is struggling to define its goal of a borderless union of the United States, Mexico and Canada as something Americans will welcome, after it has been accomplished.
On the agenda is a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which is being translated into Spanish and French so all three governments can celebrate it together. The report explains how “hemispheric integration” will be a blessing for all and not a surrender of sovereignty. It is to be presented to the three governments in September.
The trustees of CSIS who are attending this closed meeting include Henry Kissinger, Bilderberg and Trilateral; Zbigniew Brzezinski, Trilateral; and Harold Brown, former defense secretary and Trilateral. Also participating is Richard Armitage, Bilderberg. Other Bilderberg-Trilateralists may be attending but have not been identified.
The “North American Future 2025 Project” report stresses “economic integration” and “labor mobility.” It calls for the “international migration of labor” and “international movement not only of goods and capital, but also of people.” It stresses the “free flow of people across national borders.” It calls for action to “integrate governments.” The three nations are to work on “harmonizing legislation” and regulations.
Bilderberg is fighting back from severe setbacks in its long-range goal of dividing the world into three great regions for the administrative convenience of a world government under the United Nations. The European Union was to have been fully integrated into a single state by 2000, but seven years later, there is strong resistance in France, Germany and Britain.
NAFTA was to quickly expand throughout the Western Hemisphere with an “American Union” emerging. Now, there is great resistance to NAFTA itself among voters and, consequently, congressmen.
President Bush started the country on the road to integration on April 22, 2001, when he signed the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a “commitment to hemispheric integration.” Participants claim it can be accomplished without legislation and their final agreement would not be a “treaty” requiring Senate ratification.
But when this “agreement” is sprung on the American people, Congress will feel compelled to react to the outrage.
James P. Tucker Jr.American Free PressSaturday, August 25, 2007
Leaders of Bilderberg have gathered the appropriate flunkies at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello, about 50 miles outside Quebec, to accomplish a North American Union without congressional action.
Bilderberg met at the same site in 1983. The Aug. 20-21 session of the unknown Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is struggling to define its goal of a borderless union of the United States, Mexico and Canada as something Americans will welcome, after it has been accomplished.
On the agenda is a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which is being translated into Spanish and French so all three governments can celebrate it together. The report explains how “hemispheric integration” will be a blessing for all and not a surrender of sovereignty. It is to be presented to the three governments in September.
The trustees of CSIS who are attending this closed meeting include Henry Kissinger, Bilderberg and Trilateral; Zbigniew Brzezinski, Trilateral; and Harold Brown, former defense secretary and Trilateral. Also participating is Richard Armitage, Bilderberg. Other Bilderberg-Trilateralists may be attending but have not been identified.
The “North American Future 2025 Project” report stresses “economic integration” and “labor mobility.” It calls for the “international migration of labor” and “international movement not only of goods and capital, but also of people.” It stresses the “free flow of people across national borders.” It calls for action to “integrate governments.” The three nations are to work on “harmonizing legislation” and regulations.
Bilderberg is fighting back from severe setbacks in its long-range goal of dividing the world into three great regions for the administrative convenience of a world government under the United Nations. The European Union was to have been fully integrated into a single state by 2000, but seven years later, there is strong resistance in France, Germany and Britain.
NAFTA was to quickly expand throughout the Western Hemisphere with an “American Union” emerging. Now, there is great resistance to NAFTA itself among voters and, consequently, congressmen.
President Bush started the country on the road to integration on April 22, 2001, when he signed the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a “commitment to hemispheric integration.” Participants claim it can be accomplished without legislation and their final agreement would not be a “treaty” requiring Senate ratification.
But when this “agreement” is sprung on the American people, Congress will feel compelled to react to the outrage.
1984 And Orwell Is Laughing
Smile, You're on Candid (Speed) Camera!
Wilton D. AlstonJBSSunday, August 26, 2007
It's a brave new world... in Arizona. In other news, George Orwell just phoned from Australia, and he wants his 1984 back.
Word has it that the State is embracing technology in ways that Orwell predicted quite some time ago. It's a veritable smorgasbord of Orwell's "big brother" come to life: fixed cameras that catch speeders as they go past "troublesome" locations; roaming cameras that record license plates to check for outstanding warrants; traffic light cameras that dispense tickets when people "crowd" the "box junctions" (all the rage in Scotland); car-based systems that warn the driver, or take more direct action, if he disobeys posted speed limits.
The latest innovation planned for Oz: a car-borne system that will actually prohibit the driver from speeding! As someone very familiar with the latest innovations in positive train control (PTC), I understand very well that safety is a concern worth having. Systems that monitor and impose speed restrictions are not at all uncommon in the transit world. It was just a matter of time, in my view, before the thinking behind these systems was applied to the much less controlled world of automobiles. That much is certain. And certainly any improvement in safety would be hard to argue with, even from the standpoint of individual freedom.
Still, something about all this makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I see wording related to these proposals that says things like: "...any law enforcement purpose as requested by the DPS (department of public safety) designee." One is reminded of certain provisions in the USAPatriot Act that allow for certain long-standing provisions of privacy to be usurped when law enforcement has a suspicion, and only a suspicion. Moreover, these technologies are often dependent upon vast databases and it is wise to remember that whenever a database is created and maintained for one purpose - no matter how innocuous that purpose might be - one can be sure that the data will be: a) used for other purposes; and/or b) compromised.
It's not that I want scofflaws and random speeders prowling the highway and byways unfettered by reasonable restriction. Far from it. I just don't want some database that was built for an ostensibly good purpose to find its way into the wrong hands. Call me paranoid, but I figure the hands of the State are always the wrong hands. The reason for this should be relatively obvious. In a free market, if a firm misuses data gathered from its customers, that firm suffers the consequences: lost credibility, leading to lost customers and therefore lost revenue. When a similar event happens to the State - and we know it will - we get an "oops!" at best. Then we end up paying even more money for additional bureaucrats to oversee the misanthropes. Such a deal.
The other problem I have is my impression that the motivation behind many of these "advances" is misplaced. Simply put, if the State can up its income from traffic violations by installing a camera, I believe they will do it, regardless of whether or not the cameras result in more safety. I base this assumption on the absolute fact that I would act in exactly the same way if I were in their position! The incentives clearly drive this action. So even when Governor Janet Napolitano cites reduced speeding and accident rates on a portion of the Arizona State Route 101 freeway in Scottsdale as the justification for traffic cameras, I still have my doubts. That said, who am I to argue with progress if it means more safety?
Maybe it is the fact that one of the nagging complaints about speed cameras is that they are "too objective" that drives my suspicions. Says retired state trooper turned professor Dennis Duane Bryde: "Off-duty law enforcement officers and even some elected officials pulled over for speeding often are accorded 'professional courtesy' and given informal warnings, but that wouldn't happen under an automated system." He thinks this issue would represent a short-coming of the new systems.
So if the systems catch every speeder but let the bureaucrats go free, we can all proclaim, "mission accomplished" huh? I should have known.
Wilton D. AlstonJBSSunday, August 26, 2007
It's a brave new world... in Arizona. In other news, George Orwell just phoned from Australia, and he wants his 1984 back.
Word has it that the State is embracing technology in ways that Orwell predicted quite some time ago. It's a veritable smorgasbord of Orwell's "big brother" come to life: fixed cameras that catch speeders as they go past "troublesome" locations; roaming cameras that record license plates to check for outstanding warrants; traffic light cameras that dispense tickets when people "crowd" the "box junctions" (all the rage in Scotland); car-based systems that warn the driver, or take more direct action, if he disobeys posted speed limits.
The latest innovation planned for Oz: a car-borne system that will actually prohibit the driver from speeding! As someone very familiar with the latest innovations in positive train control (PTC), I understand very well that safety is a concern worth having. Systems that monitor and impose speed restrictions are not at all uncommon in the transit world. It was just a matter of time, in my view, before the thinking behind these systems was applied to the much less controlled world of automobiles. That much is certain. And certainly any improvement in safety would be hard to argue with, even from the standpoint of individual freedom.
Still, something about all this makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I see wording related to these proposals that says things like: "...any law enforcement purpose as requested by the DPS (department of public safety) designee." One is reminded of certain provisions in the USAPatriot Act that allow for certain long-standing provisions of privacy to be usurped when law enforcement has a suspicion, and only a suspicion. Moreover, these technologies are often dependent upon vast databases and it is wise to remember that whenever a database is created and maintained for one purpose - no matter how innocuous that purpose might be - one can be sure that the data will be: a) used for other purposes; and/or b) compromised.
It's not that I want scofflaws and random speeders prowling the highway and byways unfettered by reasonable restriction. Far from it. I just don't want some database that was built for an ostensibly good purpose to find its way into the wrong hands. Call me paranoid, but I figure the hands of the State are always the wrong hands. The reason for this should be relatively obvious. In a free market, if a firm misuses data gathered from its customers, that firm suffers the consequences: lost credibility, leading to lost customers and therefore lost revenue. When a similar event happens to the State - and we know it will - we get an "oops!" at best. Then we end up paying even more money for additional bureaucrats to oversee the misanthropes. Such a deal.
The other problem I have is my impression that the motivation behind many of these "advances" is misplaced. Simply put, if the State can up its income from traffic violations by installing a camera, I believe they will do it, regardless of whether or not the cameras result in more safety. I base this assumption on the absolute fact that I would act in exactly the same way if I were in their position! The incentives clearly drive this action. So even when Governor Janet Napolitano cites reduced speeding and accident rates on a portion of the Arizona State Route 101 freeway in Scottsdale as the justification for traffic cameras, I still have my doubts. That said, who am I to argue with progress if it means more safety?
Maybe it is the fact that one of the nagging complaints about speed cameras is that they are "too objective" that drives my suspicions. Says retired state trooper turned professor Dennis Duane Bryde: "Off-duty law enforcement officers and even some elected officials pulled over for speeding often are accorded 'professional courtesy' and given informal warnings, but that wouldn't happen under an automated system." He thinks this issue would represent a short-coming of the new systems.
So if the systems catch every speeder but let the bureaucrats go free, we can all proclaim, "mission accomplished" huh? I should have known.
We See You.............
Globalist Meetings Secret No More
Jason SnowAmerican Free PressSunday, August 26, 2007
It was a wild and exciting August 20th in the small Quebec town of Montebello as GeorgeW. Bush, the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico met in the town’s exclusive Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello resort.
With a protest expected, many residents closed shop for the day and some even boarded up their businesses. The leaders were meeting at the posh resort for secretive talks regarding the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP—a Bilderberg linked initiative to merge the United States, Canada and Mexico into one entity).
A massive fence was erected around the Chateau property and police on ATVs and motorcycles were abundant. A large turnout of anti-globalist protesters showed up around noon. I was there to document the impressive caravan of buses and cars that rolled into the tranquil town, most bus occupants chanting, “George Bush go home, George Bush go home…”
The buses and cars briefly stopped in front of a field area just outside of town designated by the police as the protest grounds. Apparently, the protest in the field was to be broadcast to the leaders in the far-off chateau. Not surprisingly, the protesters were not convinced.
It started quickly.A group of ironworkers began to walk toward Montebello and the buses, cars and others on foot quickly followed their lead. They made their way past the main entrance of the chateau (which the police had said was a prohibited area) to the center of town. The buses stopped at what looked like a community center and unloaded.
The number of people gathered had to be about 2,000 —maybe more. Others continued to arrive, music started to play on a loudspeaker and the anti-SPP chants began.
Earlier in the day, I heard one of the protest leaders talking to the police. He said in no uncertain terms that they were going to march right to the entrance of the hotel—avoiding the “suggested” field (called “the pen”). So it came as no surprise after a few angry speeches that the group moved down the road toward the hotel.
It was a diverse crowd—communists, nationalists, feminists, unionists and even some Ron Paul supporters. And it was people of all ages—from young children to the elderly.
I was taking pictures and filming the march, so I neglected to see the police in full-riot gear ahead until I almost stumbled upon them. The show of force was impressive—with more troops quickly being added to the initial line—marching in military formation to the entrance area.
The police did not secure the entire entrance immediately. I think that the speed of the march had surprised them somewhat, but it did not take long for it to be cleared.
And then it got really tense. The protesters were right in the faces of the fully equipped cops (helmets with face shields, full riot shields and batons). They yelled and chanted wildly at the stoic troops. A second wave of cops behind the main line put on their gas masks and soon yet another complement of troops came—many with plastic bullet guns. A police helicopter came quite close to the area, adding to the drama. It looked like things were going to get ugly fast. However, about 1 p.m., the situation calmed and the battle lines were drawn for the day.
From 1 p.m. until about 5 there was a strange kind of street party. People danced all over town, there were circus type performers entertaining the crowd—including a man with a Bush mask and suit holding a sign saying “Send Canada to Irak” and “Buy more gaz.”All of this was overshadowed by the presence of riot-police threatening chaos.
At around 5 p.m., the demonstration started to heat up again. It was a long hot day in Montebello, and tempers were flaring.
The more radical parts of the crowd (many with their own improvised shields and body armor and holding large pieces of lumber) began to throw whatever they could at the police who responded with pepper spray, tear gas and, finally, plastic bullets. The organizers called a retreat and the day was done.
Later, many media outlets claimed that there were only a couple of hundred people at the protest. Anyone stating this is a flat-out liar. The turnout was in the thousands. And the press showed up in force as well—with the result being extensive coverage of the event and the issues surrounding it. By the evening of that August day, this secret meeting was not so secret.
Jason SnowAmerican Free PressSunday, August 26, 2007
It was a wild and exciting August 20th in the small Quebec town of Montebello as GeorgeW. Bush, the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico met in the town’s exclusive Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello resort.
With a protest expected, many residents closed shop for the day and some even boarded up their businesses. The leaders were meeting at the posh resort for secretive talks regarding the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP—a Bilderberg linked initiative to merge the United States, Canada and Mexico into one entity).
A massive fence was erected around the Chateau property and police on ATVs and motorcycles were abundant. A large turnout of anti-globalist protesters showed up around noon. I was there to document the impressive caravan of buses and cars that rolled into the tranquil town, most bus occupants chanting, “George Bush go home, George Bush go home…”
The buses and cars briefly stopped in front of a field area just outside of town designated by the police as the protest grounds. Apparently, the protest in the field was to be broadcast to the leaders in the far-off chateau. Not surprisingly, the protesters were not convinced.
It started quickly.A group of ironworkers began to walk toward Montebello and the buses, cars and others on foot quickly followed their lead. They made their way past the main entrance of the chateau (which the police had said was a prohibited area) to the center of town. The buses stopped at what looked like a community center and unloaded.
The number of people gathered had to be about 2,000 —maybe more. Others continued to arrive, music started to play on a loudspeaker and the anti-SPP chants began.
Earlier in the day, I heard one of the protest leaders talking to the police. He said in no uncertain terms that they were going to march right to the entrance of the hotel—avoiding the “suggested” field (called “the pen”). So it came as no surprise after a few angry speeches that the group moved down the road toward the hotel.
It was a diverse crowd—communists, nationalists, feminists, unionists and even some Ron Paul supporters. And it was people of all ages—from young children to the elderly.
I was taking pictures and filming the march, so I neglected to see the police in full-riot gear ahead until I almost stumbled upon them. The show of force was impressive—with more troops quickly being added to the initial line—marching in military formation to the entrance area.
The police did not secure the entire entrance immediately. I think that the speed of the march had surprised them somewhat, but it did not take long for it to be cleared.
And then it got really tense. The protesters were right in the faces of the fully equipped cops (helmets with face shields, full riot shields and batons). They yelled and chanted wildly at the stoic troops. A second wave of cops behind the main line put on their gas masks and soon yet another complement of troops came—many with plastic bullet guns. A police helicopter came quite close to the area, adding to the drama. It looked like things were going to get ugly fast. However, about 1 p.m., the situation calmed and the battle lines were drawn for the day.
From 1 p.m. until about 5 there was a strange kind of street party. People danced all over town, there were circus type performers entertaining the crowd—including a man with a Bush mask and suit holding a sign saying “Send Canada to Irak” and “Buy more gaz.”All of this was overshadowed by the presence of riot-police threatening chaos.
At around 5 p.m., the demonstration started to heat up again. It was a long hot day in Montebello, and tempers were flaring.
The more radical parts of the crowd (many with their own improvised shields and body armor and holding large pieces of lumber) began to throw whatever they could at the police who responded with pepper spray, tear gas and, finally, plastic bullets. The organizers called a retreat and the day was done.
Later, many media outlets claimed that there were only a couple of hundred people at the protest. Anyone stating this is a flat-out liar. The turnout was in the thousands. And the press showed up in force as well—with the result being extensive coverage of the event and the issues surrounding it. By the evening of that August day, this secret meeting was not so secret.
Ron Paul: Still Catching On!
CNN hosts shocked when Republican guest picks Ron Paul
Raw StorySunday, August 26, 2007
Rick Sanchez and Kiran Chetry appear not to expect the answer they got from a Republican college student on a special "College Week" edition of CNN's American Morning.
Laura Elizabeth Morales, a Republican and a junior at the University of Texas appears with Rachel Moore, Democrat and a senior at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania.
On being asked who she thinks the GOP candidate will be for the 2008 Presidential election, Morales puts her support behind Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
"I really think he's a sound traditional conservative," says Morales. "I really think he really sticks to the Constitution, and really stands for what conservatives believe in."
A surprised Sanchez asks: "What are you trying to say?"
Chetry follows up to ask if there is any, as she puts it, 'top tier' GOP candidate that Morales would support because, she says, "if I was a betting woman I'd say Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, unfortunately for you."
Chetry asks if there is a "lack of enthusiasm" over the 'top tier' GOP candidate.
"Having been the idealistic betting candidate," says Morales, "I'd say Ron Paul's got the chance. Idealistically. As far as the 'top tier' candidates, I don't really think they stand for what traditional conservatives believe in.
You've got Giuliani out there, who's really an anti-gun Republican who's going to lose a strong base, especially here in the South. And then Mitt Romney kind of flip-flops on his issues. John McCain, I think, is pretty much just 'out,' but we really need a strong, solid conservative..."
Democrat Rachel Moore weighs in for her side: "It doesn't really matter who gets the ticket because anybody could be a better president than President Bush at this point, and let's focus on just a Democrat winning in 2008, and put aside everything pre-primary politics."
"That's not the question," interjects Sanchez. "If you had to pick somebody, who would you pick?"
"I'd pick a Democrat," responds Moore, to the hosts' amazement. "Let's face it..."
"You're going to make a great senator one day," quips Sanchez.
"All of the College Democrats," says Moore, "we're so behind just winning a Democrat in 2008. If you look at all the Republican candidates -- the Democrats are such a diverse group, and all the Republican candidates -- every one of them, they've said they'd commute Scooter Libby, they said they would stay in Iraq and turn it into the next Korea..."
Sanchz follows up: "If it was Porky Pig, would you vote for him just because he's a Democrat?"
"Now, that's taking it a little far," says Moore.
Sanchez: "So you do consider who the person is, right?"
"I didn't say that, sir," says Moore.
"It's time for a Democrat to win. Let's focus on that first."
Moving on to the "most important issue," Morales brings up Social Security, saying that her generation stands to be robbed of funds currently being put into the government, and that the issue needs to be at the forefront of the 2008 election.
Moore says she stands with the Democrats on the environment, student aid, and universal health care, "among other things."
"We really can't be pegged to one issue at this point. We're so educated and ready to go."
"You can't nail her down this morning," says Chetry of Moore, citing "interesting perspectives" from the guests.
Raw StorySunday, August 26, 2007
Rick Sanchez and Kiran Chetry appear not to expect the answer they got from a Republican college student on a special "College Week" edition of CNN's American Morning.
Laura Elizabeth Morales, a Republican and a junior at the University of Texas appears with Rachel Moore, Democrat and a senior at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania.
On being asked who she thinks the GOP candidate will be for the 2008 Presidential election, Morales puts her support behind Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
"I really think he's a sound traditional conservative," says Morales. "I really think he really sticks to the Constitution, and really stands for what conservatives believe in."
A surprised Sanchez asks: "What are you trying to say?"
Chetry follows up to ask if there is any, as she puts it, 'top tier' GOP candidate that Morales would support because, she says, "if I was a betting woman I'd say Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, unfortunately for you."
Chetry asks if there is a "lack of enthusiasm" over the 'top tier' GOP candidate.
"Having been the idealistic betting candidate," says Morales, "I'd say Ron Paul's got the chance. Idealistically. As far as the 'top tier' candidates, I don't really think they stand for what traditional conservatives believe in.
You've got Giuliani out there, who's really an anti-gun Republican who's going to lose a strong base, especially here in the South. And then Mitt Romney kind of flip-flops on his issues. John McCain, I think, is pretty much just 'out,' but we really need a strong, solid conservative..."
Democrat Rachel Moore weighs in for her side: "It doesn't really matter who gets the ticket because anybody could be a better president than President Bush at this point, and let's focus on just a Democrat winning in 2008, and put aside everything pre-primary politics."
"That's not the question," interjects Sanchez. "If you had to pick somebody, who would you pick?"
"I'd pick a Democrat," responds Moore, to the hosts' amazement. "Let's face it..."
"You're going to make a great senator one day," quips Sanchez.
"All of the College Democrats," says Moore, "we're so behind just winning a Democrat in 2008. If you look at all the Republican candidates -- the Democrats are such a diverse group, and all the Republican candidates -- every one of them, they've said they'd commute Scooter Libby, they said they would stay in Iraq and turn it into the next Korea..."
Sanchz follows up: "If it was Porky Pig, would you vote for him just because he's a Democrat?"
"Now, that's taking it a little far," says Moore.
Sanchez: "So you do consider who the person is, right?"
"I didn't say that, sir," says Moore.
"It's time for a Democrat to win. Let's focus on that first."
Moving on to the "most important issue," Morales brings up Social Security, saying that her generation stands to be robbed of funds currently being put into the government, and that the issue needs to be at the forefront of the 2008 election.
Moore says she stands with the Democrats on the environment, student aid, and universal health care, "among other things."
"We really can't be pegged to one issue at this point. We're so educated and ready to go."
"You can't nail her down this morning," says Chetry of Moore, citing "interesting perspectives" from the guests.
Pro-NAU Rabble: Liars And Cheats, All Of Them
NAU deniers: Ignorant, or deceitful?
Posted: August 25, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Henry Lamb
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007
There is a difference between stupid and ignorant. The talking heads at Fox News are not stupid. But the three guests on Brit Hume's Tuesday night telecast who snickered at the "conspiracy nuts" who are concerned about the emergence of a North American Union are either ignorant, or deceitful. Here's the question: Is the NAU fact, or fiction?
Ridicule is a time-proven way to discredit opponents and redirect attention away from the issue at hand. Consider how President Bush avoided answering a direct question during a press conference in Canada Tuesday. When asked, "Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union?" Bush didn't say yes or no; he hemmed and hawed and told reporters: "I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and by what some are trying to say takes place."
Were the meetings not held in secret and were the press allowed to observe and report, the president would certainly not be amused. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch secured documents from a previous meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partners, and learned that in secret, the participants discussed "... evolution by stealth," referring to the advancement of the SPP. But the president insisted that references to a North American Union were nothing but "political scare tactics."
The president is not ignorant about what the SPP is doing; he and the other heads of state, the prime minister of Canada and Mexico's president, are the current contractors charged with building the NAU. The chief architect is one Robert Pastor and the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force.
(Column continues below)
Michael Medved, a talk-show host who calls those concerned about the NAU a "shameless collection of lunatics and losers, crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists," is also either ignorant, or deceitful. He also claims, "[Robert] Pastor is a loony leftist, slightly unhinged professor at American University ... who bears no connection whatever to the Bush administration or the dreaded Security and Prosperity Partnership ... an addled academic with zero power in the government."
The FOIA documents secured by Judicial Watch from the secret SPP meeting revealed that in September 2005, Pastor conducted a seminar for the participating agencies of the three governments on "The Future of North America." Obviously, Pastor was invited by the Bush administration. Obviously, Medved was either ignorant of this fact, or he is deliberately trying to deceive his audience.
Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, said: "There's not going to be any NAFTA Superhighway connecting the three nations, and it's not going to go interplanetary, either."
But Canada's deputy minister of transportation, Andrew Horoskok, is a regional vice president of the North American SuperCorridor Coalition, along with other prominent Canadians.
Is Harper ignorant, or deceitful?
In his defense of the secret SPP meetings, and in an effort to further distract attention from the NAU, President Bush told reporters that NAFTA generated $884 billion in trade. But he failed to report that last year alone, NAFTA also produced a U.S. trade deficit of $136.1 billion. Is Mr. Bush ignorant of this fact, or deceitful?
Bush, Harper, Medved and the three talking heads at Fox News can deny all they want, but it does not alter the facts on the ground. NAFTA is the legal framework upon which Robert Pastor's North American Community is being constructed. The Security and Prosperity Partnership provides a mechanism for accelerating the progress.
Few people are aware that the NAFTA Commission consists of three appointed individuals – the trade representative, or equivalent, from each country – who are charged with implementing the NAFTA Agreement. The Commission appoints a secretariat to oversee the details. Article 511 requires that each nation adopt NAFTA's "Uniform Regulations" by 1994, and that changes or additions to these Uniform Regulations be adopted by each nation, within 180 days.
In plain English, this means that appointed individuals are creating trade policy, and elected officials must conform laws to NAFTA's "Uniform Regulations" within 180 days. Shouldn't this be the other way around? To wit: Mexican trucks will deliver freight throughout the United States, despite the efforts of Congress to prevent it, because NAFTA's international dispute resolution machinery has ordered the U.S. to allow Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways.
Every day, working groups consisting of appointed individuals from the agencies of these three governments meet to find ways to "harmonize" and "integrate" the policies, rules and laws of the three nations. This is a major objective of Pastor's North American Community.
Another of Pastor's goals is the creation of a North American Advisory Council. President Bush and the other two "contractors" created the North American Competitiveness Council in 2006.
Pastor also wants annual "North American Summits," which have occurred each year since the creation of the SPP.
Pastor's plan calls for a single security border around all three nations, which is a good explanation for why only 18 miles of the more than 800 miles of border fence have been built. The goal of the NAU – or the North American Community, if you prefer – is to effectively erase the borders between Mexico and Canada, not strengthen them.
Pastor also wants a North American Parliamentary group. Hmm ... what could possibly be the purpose of a tri-lateral parliamentary body if it is not to create legislation for all three nations?
The deniers can deny all they wish. If they are not ignorant, they must be deceitful. If it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk, it's probably a skunk – regardless of what you call it.
By Henry Lamb
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007
There is a difference between stupid and ignorant. The talking heads at Fox News are not stupid. But the three guests on Brit Hume's Tuesday night telecast who snickered at the "conspiracy nuts" who are concerned about the emergence of a North American Union are either ignorant, or deceitful. Here's the question: Is the NAU fact, or fiction?
Ridicule is a time-proven way to discredit opponents and redirect attention away from the issue at hand. Consider how President Bush avoided answering a direct question during a press conference in Canada Tuesday. When asked, "Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union?" Bush didn't say yes or no; he hemmed and hawed and told reporters: "I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and by what some are trying to say takes place."
Were the meetings not held in secret and were the press allowed to observe and report, the president would certainly not be amused. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch secured documents from a previous meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partners, and learned that in secret, the participants discussed "... evolution by stealth," referring to the advancement of the SPP. But the president insisted that references to a North American Union were nothing but "political scare tactics."
The president is not ignorant about what the SPP is doing; he and the other heads of state, the prime minister of Canada and Mexico's president, are the current contractors charged with building the NAU. The chief architect is one Robert Pastor and the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force.
(Column continues below)
Michael Medved, a talk-show host who calls those concerned about the NAU a "shameless collection of lunatics and losers, crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists," is also either ignorant, or deceitful. He also claims, "[Robert] Pastor is a loony leftist, slightly unhinged professor at American University ... who bears no connection whatever to the Bush administration or the dreaded Security and Prosperity Partnership ... an addled academic with zero power in the government."
The FOIA documents secured by Judicial Watch from the secret SPP meeting revealed that in September 2005, Pastor conducted a seminar for the participating agencies of the three governments on "The Future of North America." Obviously, Pastor was invited by the Bush administration. Obviously, Medved was either ignorant of this fact, or he is deliberately trying to deceive his audience.
Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, said: "There's not going to be any NAFTA Superhighway connecting the three nations, and it's not going to go interplanetary, either."
But Canada's deputy minister of transportation, Andrew Horoskok, is a regional vice president of the North American SuperCorridor Coalition, along with other prominent Canadians.
Is Harper ignorant, or deceitful?
In his defense of the secret SPP meetings, and in an effort to further distract attention from the NAU, President Bush told reporters that NAFTA generated $884 billion in trade. But he failed to report that last year alone, NAFTA also produced a U.S. trade deficit of $136.1 billion. Is Mr. Bush ignorant of this fact, or deceitful?
Bush, Harper, Medved and the three talking heads at Fox News can deny all they want, but it does not alter the facts on the ground. NAFTA is the legal framework upon which Robert Pastor's North American Community is being constructed. The Security and Prosperity Partnership provides a mechanism for accelerating the progress.
Few people are aware that the NAFTA Commission consists of three appointed individuals – the trade representative, or equivalent, from each country – who are charged with implementing the NAFTA Agreement. The Commission appoints a secretariat to oversee the details. Article 511 requires that each nation adopt NAFTA's "Uniform Regulations" by 1994, and that changes or additions to these Uniform Regulations be adopted by each nation, within 180 days.
In plain English, this means that appointed individuals are creating trade policy, and elected officials must conform laws to NAFTA's "Uniform Regulations" within 180 days. Shouldn't this be the other way around? To wit: Mexican trucks will deliver freight throughout the United States, despite the efforts of Congress to prevent it, because NAFTA's international dispute resolution machinery has ordered the U.S. to allow Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways.
Every day, working groups consisting of appointed individuals from the agencies of these three governments meet to find ways to "harmonize" and "integrate" the policies, rules and laws of the three nations. This is a major objective of Pastor's North American Community.
Another of Pastor's goals is the creation of a North American Advisory Council. President Bush and the other two "contractors" created the North American Competitiveness Council in 2006.
Pastor also wants annual "North American Summits," which have occurred each year since the creation of the SPP.
Pastor's plan calls for a single security border around all three nations, which is a good explanation for why only 18 miles of the more than 800 miles of border fence have been built. The goal of the NAU – or the North American Community, if you prefer – is to effectively erase the borders between Mexico and Canada, not strengthen them.
Pastor also wants a North American Parliamentary group. Hmm ... what could possibly be the purpose of a tri-lateral parliamentary body if it is not to create legislation for all three nations?
The deniers can deny all they wish. If they are not ignorant, they must be deceitful. If it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk, it's probably a skunk – regardless of what you call it.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
It's Where The Intelligence Of Liberals Has Been Disappearing To For Decades
Astronomers Find Huge Hole in Universe
By SETH BORENSTEIN,
AP
Posted: 2007-08-25 23:05:48
Filed Under: Science News
(Aug. 24) - Astronomers have stumbled upon a tremendous hole in the universe. That's got them scratching their heads about what's just not there. The cosmic blank spot has no stray stars, no galaxies, no sucking black holes, not even mysterious dark matter. It is 1 billion light years across of nothing. That's a giant expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of emptiness, a University of Minnesota team announced Thursday.
NASA / AP
Galaxies in deep space are captured in a photograph by the Hubble Space Telescope in 2005. Scientists announced Thursday that they found a void in the universe that's far bigger than they ever imagined.
1 of 11
Astronomers have known for many years that there are patches in the universe where nobody's home. In fact, one such place is practically a neighbor, a mere 2 million light years away. But what the Minnesota team discovered, using two different types of astronomical observations, is a void that's far bigger than scientists ever imagined. "This is 1,000 times the volume of what we sort of expected to see in terms of a typical void," said Minnesota astronomy professor Lawrence Rudnick, author of the paper that will be published in Astrophysical Journal. "It's not clear that we have the right word yet ... This is too much of a surprise." Rudnick was examining a sky survey from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, which essentially takes radio pictures of a broad expanse of the universe. But one area of the universe had radio pictures indicating there was up to 45 percent less matter in that region, Rudnick said. The rest of the matter in the radio pictures can be explained as stars and other cosmic structures between here and the void, which is about 5 to 10 billion light years away. Rudnick then checked observations of cosmic microwave background radiation and found a cold spot. The only explanation, Rudnick said, is it's empty of matter. It could also be a statistical freak of nature, but that's probably less likely than a giant void, said James Condon, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. He wasn't part of Rudnick's team but is following up on the research. "It looks like something to be taken seriously," said Brent Tully, a University of Hawaii astronomer who wasn't part of this research but studies the void closer to Earth. Tully said astronomers may eventually find a few cosmic structures in the void, but it would still be nearly empty. Holes in the universe probably occur when the gravity from areas with bigger mass pull matter from less dense areas, Tully said. After 13 billion years "they are losing out in the battle to where there are larger concentrations of matter," he said. Retired NASA astronomer Steve Maran said of the discovery: "This is incredibly important for something where there is nothing to it."
By SETH BORENSTEIN,
AP
Posted: 2007-08-25 23:05:48
Filed Under: Science News
(Aug. 24) - Astronomers have stumbled upon a tremendous hole in the universe. That's got them scratching their heads about what's just not there. The cosmic blank spot has no stray stars, no galaxies, no sucking black holes, not even mysterious dark matter. It is 1 billion light years across of nothing. That's a giant expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of emptiness, a University of Minnesota team announced Thursday.
NASA / AP
Galaxies in deep space are captured in a photograph by the Hubble Space Telescope in 2005. Scientists announced Thursday that they found a void in the universe that's far bigger than they ever imagined.
1 of 11
Astronomers have known for many years that there are patches in the universe where nobody's home. In fact, one such place is practically a neighbor, a mere 2 million light years away. But what the Minnesota team discovered, using two different types of astronomical observations, is a void that's far bigger than scientists ever imagined. "This is 1,000 times the volume of what we sort of expected to see in terms of a typical void," said Minnesota astronomy professor Lawrence Rudnick, author of the paper that will be published in Astrophysical Journal. "It's not clear that we have the right word yet ... This is too much of a surprise." Rudnick was examining a sky survey from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, which essentially takes radio pictures of a broad expanse of the universe. But one area of the universe had radio pictures indicating there was up to 45 percent less matter in that region, Rudnick said. The rest of the matter in the radio pictures can be explained as stars and other cosmic structures between here and the void, which is about 5 to 10 billion light years away. Rudnick then checked observations of cosmic microwave background radiation and found a cold spot. The only explanation, Rudnick said, is it's empty of matter. It could also be a statistical freak of nature, but that's probably less likely than a giant void, said James Condon, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. He wasn't part of Rudnick's team but is following up on the research. "It looks like something to be taken seriously," said Brent Tully, a University of Hawaii astronomer who wasn't part of this research but studies the void closer to Earth. Tully said astronomers may eventually find a few cosmic structures in the void, but it would still be nearly empty. Holes in the universe probably occur when the gravity from areas with bigger mass pull matter from less dense areas, Tully said. After 13 billion years "they are losing out in the battle to where there are larger concentrations of matter," he said. Retired NASA astronomer Steve Maran said of the discovery: "This is incredibly important for something where there is nothing to it."
GW The Liar
Bush denies superstate rumors
By Jon WardAugust 22, 2007
President Bush, along with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (center) and Mexican President Felipe Calderon yesterday in Montebello, Quebec, denied they were planning a regional alliance similar to the European Union. Mr. Bush described rumors of a North American Union as "political scare tactics."
MONTEBELLO, Quebec — President Bush and the leaders of Canada and Mexico yesterday ridiculed the notion that their countries are conspiring to create a regional supergovernment similar to the European Union.
"I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and by what some are trying to say takes place," said Mr. Bush, responding to concerns raised by conservative and liberal groups and some U.S. lawmakers.
"It's quite comical actually, to realize the difference between reality and what some people on TV are talking about."
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper joked that a superhighway rumored to be in the works linking the three countries could also be "interplanetary."
The two leaders and Mexican President Felipe Calderon spoke at a press conference here in a countryside resort, halfway between Ottawa and Montreal, to cap two days of meetings.
Mr. Bush said it is important for the U.S. to work with Canada and Mexico on facilitating trade while securing their borders, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), a series of negotiations started in 2005.
Mr. Bush said the charges of a plot to form a North American Union were "political scare tactics."
"You lay out a conspiracy and then force some people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate," Mr. Bush said.
By Jon WardAugust 22, 2007
President Bush, along with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (center) and Mexican President Felipe Calderon yesterday in Montebello, Quebec, denied they were planning a regional alliance similar to the European Union. Mr. Bush described rumors of a North American Union as "political scare tactics."
MONTEBELLO, Quebec — President Bush and the leaders of Canada and Mexico yesterday ridiculed the notion that their countries are conspiring to create a regional supergovernment similar to the European Union.
"I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and by what some are trying to say takes place," said Mr. Bush, responding to concerns raised by conservative and liberal groups and some U.S. lawmakers.
"It's quite comical actually, to realize the difference between reality and what some people on TV are talking about."
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper joked that a superhighway rumored to be in the works linking the three countries could also be "interplanetary."
The two leaders and Mexican President Felipe Calderon spoke at a press conference here in a countryside resort, halfway between Ottawa and Montreal, to cap two days of meetings.
Mr. Bush said it is important for the U.S. to work with Canada and Mexico on facilitating trade while securing their borders, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), a series of negotiations started in 2005.
Mr. Bush said the charges of a plot to form a North American Union were "political scare tactics."
"You lay out a conspiracy and then force some people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate," Mr. Bush said.
Ron Paul:Even Though The Media Won't Admit It
Ron Paul Sweeping More Straw Polls
Saturday, August 25, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
The Ron Paul campaign website carries a release focusing on the candidate's little noted success (by the mainstream press) in GOP straw polls over the last few months.====="Coming off the Iowa Straw Poll the momentum for the Ron Paul 2008 campaign continues to build. Congressman Ron Paul has finished in the top 5 in 16 of the last 17 straw polls and can claim 1st place victories in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Washington, and Alabama. In comparing results head-to-head, Congressman Paul has blown away most of the field, defeating Rudy Giuliani in 15 of the 17 polls and John McCain in 15 of the 16 polls."See: http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/08/ron-paul-in-the.html=====FMNN's August 20, 2007 article "Ron Paul Tops Straw Poll Trend?" alerted readers to Ron Paul's straw poll success. Other articles on alternative news sites - and now Ron Paul's own site - have developed the theme since then. Will a high finish in the upcoming straw poll in Texas, Ron Paul's home state, finally drive mainstream coverage of Ron Paul's exceptional straw poll results?See: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=47579
The Ron Paul campaign website carries a release focusing on the candidate's little noted success (by the mainstream press) in GOP straw polls over the last few months.====="Coming off the Iowa Straw Poll the momentum for the Ron Paul 2008 campaign continues to build. Congressman Ron Paul has finished in the top 5 in 16 of the last 17 straw polls and can claim 1st place victories in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Washington, and Alabama. In comparing results head-to-head, Congressman Paul has blown away most of the field, defeating Rudy Giuliani in 15 of the 17 polls and John McCain in 15 of the 16 polls."See: http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/08/ron-paul-in-the.html=====FMNN's August 20, 2007 article "Ron Paul Tops Straw Poll Trend?" alerted readers to Ron Paul's straw poll success. Other articles on alternative news sites - and now Ron Paul's own site - have developed the theme since then. Will a high finish in the upcoming straw poll in Texas, Ron Paul's home state, finally drive mainstream coverage of Ron Paul's exceptional straw poll results?See: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=47579
BIG Bureaucracy Builds Bigger Government
Homeland Security Builds NA Union?
Thursday, August 23, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
President George Bush recently denied that there was any effort to build a North American Union of Canada, Mexico and the United States that would rival the European Union. http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=47666But reports in the alternative media illustrate fairly definitively a pattern of continual "integration." Now comes word that the Department of Homeland Security is adding to the push for "integration" of the Americas - one that will "strengthen homeland security throughout the Americas."
President George Bush recently denied that there was any effort to build a North American Union of Canada, Mexico and the United States that would rival the European Union. http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=47666But reports in the alternative media illustrate fairly definitively a pattern of continual "integration." Now comes word that the Department of Homeland Security is adding to the push for "integration" of the Americas - one that will "strengthen homeland security throughout the Americas."
Here's the link and the announcement:=====http://lachss.com/
We are happy to announce that the long anticipated event that brings together the Latin American Caribbean region and the United States to discuss National Security has finally arrived. The goal of this conference is to stimulate an open dialog between the United States and the Latin American and Caribbean countries to improve existing security policies and and establish innovative new systems and programs.
=====Alternative news site "Axis of Logic" provides the following analysis:=====http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_25135.shtmlWhat the hell is going on here? Our New Homeland is already expanding? We just got her in 2001. We can't defend our current borders, yet Homeland Security sees another network to tap. ...Special note: print advertisement [for the conference] in Foreign Affairs reads:"A stitch in time saves nine. So the saying goes. When that stitch saves lives. it's imperative that immediate action is take ... Your presence will signal not only your concern, but also your readiness to fight. To fight for a more secure life. Let's together, put up a fight for the values we stand for. Those very values are threatened. This threat will not got away with words. Let's, therefore, make a stand. Together. Bringing Homeland Security to all Americas."The attempt to blow up JFK International Airport in New York, its fuel supplies and pipeline systems, along with half of Queens, New York's largest borough, in May 2007, was a warning shot. You heard it. We count on you. Take your stand. Make history."Check out their website and be completely shocked for yourself.
Nicely Said.................
"An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits." -John F. Kennedy
Why the IMF Won’t Make Our Day
If this Fair Currency Act does become law, it won’t take effect until January 2008. Only in spring will the process even begin, with Hank Paulson’s “findings.” Then we have 180 days to wait for China to respond with correcting policies. But if it doesn’t (and why would it) we must enlist the IMF.
On IMF’s heels would follow formal proceedings with the World Trade Organization. The WTO’s legal approval of our trade penalties would not happen until late 2010.
Now hear this: The IMF’s role is essentially null. It hopes to “shame” any currency-manipulating nation into changing its practices. Shame? That’s right. Despite a recent review of IMF procedure for monitoring monetary policies, it neglected to adopt new methods of enforcing its rulings. In the IMF’s June press release, it only announced a tightening up of the definitions set down in haste during the Post-Bretton Woods fallout in 1973.
Not having any widely excepted economic theory on how to manage exchange rates is a big part of the problem. And in fact, the same Articles of Agreement the senators wish to invoke are written so broadly that they give immense leeway for how countries choose to handle exchange rates. The only mechanism the IMF has in its arsenal is the “supplemental consultation.” This is a special investigation of a country’s interest rate problems.
Moral Suasion: Pressure Without Force
The supplemental consultation has been invoked only two times in 29 years: Sweden in 1982 and South Korea in 1987. The result: not successful. The U.S. failed to get the IMF to agree that South Korea’s account surplus should be reduced by half, from $10 billion. And post-IMF consultation, that account surplus actually grew to $14 billion.
In today’s case, the IMF does want the yuan to move, but says the timing should be left to China. All in all, the only tactic the IMF has is “moral suasion.” A consultation with Investopedia offered a stunning definition replete with examples: “closed-door meetings with bank directors, increased severity of inspections, appeals to community spirit, or vague threats.” Those last two are my favorite. The “good example” they provided: When the Fed chairman speaks, stocks fly or fall. Wow, and do we ever cave in to that pratfall.
Too bad the IMF’s suasion won’t be so effective. Especially since our own stance on IMF intervention is confounded. We, against the majority of Europe, championed the idea that China (as well as India and Turkey) needed to have more power in the IMF…not less.
This struck me as counterintuitive until I read the rationale of one Treasury undersecretary, Timothy D. Adams:
“I would urge that by re-engineering the IMF and giving China a bigger role, China will have a greater sense of responsibility for the institution’s missions.”
Now, it strikes me as just plain stupid (however much an appeal to “community spirit” that it is). That’s like saying our founding role in the U.N., with all its attendant power, makes the United States more likely to feel its responsibility to all the members of the U.N. and to its unified cause and mission.
So shame and responsibility are to save the day? That’s like saying corporations should have “feelings” simply because they are legally classified as “persons.”
But the decision to give China more veto power doesn’t fall into our lap. It belongs to the likely successor to the current IMF managing director: Frenchman Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
So how’s the preliminary “shaming” going? Back in April, the People’s Bank of China rejected the IMF’s yuan advice — emphasizing the importance of stability within member countries. So I wouldn’t hold my breath for IMF action. And in fact, our legislative pressure hardly seems to bristle the Chinese media.
How China Reacted to the Fair Currency Threat
Frankly, Xinhua made it seem about as consequential as swatting a fly. Before the Senate legislation gained its finance and banking following, the general line was that Hank Paulson knows the real story. The legislation is foolish. Hank is on our side.
Then, on Aug. 8, Mr. Ambrose-Evans-Pritchard screamed the headline, “China Threatens ‘Nuclear Option’ of Dollar Sales” from his privileged U.K. Telegraph view. The source was “state media.” But none of the phrasings of the officials he cited ran quite that way. The finance chief at the Development Research Center, Xia Bin, called the foreign reserves a “bargaining chip.” And that, folks, is simply moral suasion right back at you.
Supposed “NUCLEAR OPTION” Would Be Sinocidal
Call me a fool, but I believe the People’s Bank of China officials were speaking the truth when they resoundingly denied a huge treasury sell-off in response to Mr. Pritchard’s outcry.
After all, it’s really NOT in China’s interest. And since China has yet to return to true “empire” status, it doesn’t have the swollen balls to make a point outside of fiscal interest…
When you’ve got $1.33 trillion in greenbacks, you’re not going to sell them off en masse. It would be “Sinocidal.” China could only dump a tiny fraction of the reserves on the market, or else its remaining reserves would take a huge hit in value. Secondly, the yuan is not yet unpegged from the dollar, which is why buying Treasury reserves works so well for China in the first place. This limits the yuan from rising — by propping up the dollar.
Truth is China doesn’t have to do much of anything. Aren’t we already imploding?
Don’t Place the Entire Trade Deficit on the Yuan’s Doorstep
My personal favorite post-Senate approval remark comes from the chief economist of Hong Kong’s BNP Paribas Peregrine Securities. It didn’t get much press:
“They have stuck to their anti-China stance simply to win over voters.”
With this, the Asian chief economist shrugged. His conclusion: This nation of deficits will suffer from its own detrimental behavior, no matter what happens with China.
What “We the People” don’t fritter away on higher-cost consumer goods from China we’ll lose snapping goods up from lower-cost nations. And besides, China’s labor costs are so low that there will be no shot in the arm for American manufacturing. It’ll go to China’s increasingly competitive neighbors!
So what really is all this China business but a waving of a red flag in front of a bull? (That is, a flagging bull coming to the edge of easy-money pastures.) How else to divert Americans from the clear and present dangers in the economy? For example, the recent $120 billion liquidity injection from our fearless central bankers? Instead, we ask for a good old “enemy.”
Because surely the recent “consumer confidence” numbers for August at their “highest in five months” aren’t enough to keep us buoyant. Nor do we see in them the chastisement I think we deserve.
Exercise Your Way to a Healthy Economy
Hmm…our less than 1% savings rate compared with China’s personal savings at 40% of an individual’s income. Believe it or not, we have some liberty to “vote” with our dollars.
Hillary Clinton recently got her panties in a bunch over this yuan game, preaching the prevention of America’s being “held hostage to economic decisions being made in Beijing, Shanghai, or Tokyo.” What you’re not allowed to say on the campaign trail is the truth: “You are held hostage by your own purchase of gewgaws, SUVs, and houses you couldn’t pay for…”
Sure, you can say, “We were tricked into thinking they [the houses, at least] would appreciate so much.” But you, dear reader, surely needn’t be pointing that finger.
And if we all acted like Sara Bongiorni, the business writer who penned A Year Without "Made in China”: One Family's True Life Adventure in the Global Economy, at least we could have a high horse to ride into the China Currency War on.
Bet you could do it. One of Ms. Bongiorni’s big complaints was not having a coffee maker once the old one broke. Try boiling water in a saucepan on the stove. Add grounds. Strain if desired. Or better yet, forget the coffee. Take a shot of good ol’ American bourbon whiskey — we’re gonna need it in the coming months.
I agree with the Hong Kong economist. Don’t let the congressmen yank our chains. To take the words straight from the China Currency Coalition’s press release on the Fair Currency Act of 2007:
“American manufacturing workers, their industries, and their communities are counting on Congress to act.”
But as I hope we’ve uncovered above, this is an act promising no action. Let’s not forget that Bush is keen to veto it anyway. This would be one of the better moves in the twilight of his presidency.
To paraphrase the character Vizzini, from my generation’s cult classic film The Princess Bride: The most famous classic blunder is never get involved in a land war in Asia…And (I add) only slightly less well known, never get involved in a currency war where you have no weapons — just IOUs.
Here’s how that battle unfolds. Send out a spokesman, say, Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary Mark Sobel. This ersatz “rear admiral” tells Congress:
“While China's currency policy is critical to the United States and to China, currency movement alone will not significantly reduce China's trade surplus nor eliminate the distortions in the Chinese economy. China's trade surpluses are rooted in the structure of the Chinese economy and are not solely the result of currency policy. China needs to restructure its economy so that household consumption, rather than exports and excess investment, powers growth…Vibrant domestic consumption is key to the welfare of the Chinese population and is the only way that China can grow without generating huge trade surpluses.”
In fact, that’s exactly what Sobel said in May 2007, in his testimony on how currency manipulation affects U.S. workers. Hmmm…that’s all he’s got?
How far are we really going to get by telling China to become like America? We, with our oh-so-well-oiled economic machine.
Since currency talk has “gone nuclear,” let’s call America’s weapon of spreading the gospel of household consumption “bioterrorism.” Because the urge to consume, nicknamed “keeping up with the Joneses (or Chens),” is surely the result of some overactive gene.
So let’s leave off with the revised headline “Bioterrorist U.S. Bids China CONSUME.”
Till Congress makes its next blunder, SOC will be there!
If this Fair Currency Act does become law, it won’t take effect until January 2008. Only in spring will the process even begin, with Hank Paulson’s “findings.” Then we have 180 days to wait for China to respond with correcting policies. But if it doesn’t (and why would it) we must enlist the IMF.
On IMF’s heels would follow formal proceedings with the World Trade Organization. The WTO’s legal approval of our trade penalties would not happen until late 2010.
Now hear this: The IMF’s role is essentially null. It hopes to “shame” any currency-manipulating nation into changing its practices. Shame? That’s right. Despite a recent review of IMF procedure for monitoring monetary policies, it neglected to adopt new methods of enforcing its rulings. In the IMF’s June press release, it only announced a tightening up of the definitions set down in haste during the Post-Bretton Woods fallout in 1973.
Not having any widely excepted economic theory on how to manage exchange rates is a big part of the problem. And in fact, the same Articles of Agreement the senators wish to invoke are written so broadly that they give immense leeway for how countries choose to handle exchange rates. The only mechanism the IMF has in its arsenal is the “supplemental consultation.” This is a special investigation of a country’s interest rate problems.
Moral Suasion: Pressure Without Force
The supplemental consultation has been invoked only two times in 29 years: Sweden in 1982 and South Korea in 1987. The result: not successful. The U.S. failed to get the IMF to agree that South Korea’s account surplus should be reduced by half, from $10 billion. And post-IMF consultation, that account surplus actually grew to $14 billion.
In today’s case, the IMF does want the yuan to move, but says the timing should be left to China. All in all, the only tactic the IMF has is “moral suasion.” A consultation with Investopedia offered a stunning definition replete with examples: “closed-door meetings with bank directors, increased severity of inspections, appeals to community spirit, or vague threats.” Those last two are my favorite. The “good example” they provided: When the Fed chairman speaks, stocks fly or fall. Wow, and do we ever cave in to that pratfall.
Too bad the IMF’s suasion won’t be so effective. Especially since our own stance on IMF intervention is confounded. We, against the majority of Europe, championed the idea that China (as well as India and Turkey) needed to have more power in the IMF…not less.
This struck me as counterintuitive until I read the rationale of one Treasury undersecretary, Timothy D. Adams:
“I would urge that by re-engineering the IMF and giving China a bigger role, China will have a greater sense of responsibility for the institution’s missions.”
Now, it strikes me as just plain stupid (however much an appeal to “community spirit” that it is). That’s like saying our founding role in the U.N., with all its attendant power, makes the United States more likely to feel its responsibility to all the members of the U.N. and to its unified cause and mission.
So shame and responsibility are to save the day? That’s like saying corporations should have “feelings” simply because they are legally classified as “persons.”
But the decision to give China more veto power doesn’t fall into our lap. It belongs to the likely successor to the current IMF managing director: Frenchman Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
So how’s the preliminary “shaming” going? Back in April, the People’s Bank of China rejected the IMF’s yuan advice — emphasizing the importance of stability within member countries. So I wouldn’t hold my breath for IMF action. And in fact, our legislative pressure hardly seems to bristle the Chinese media.
How China Reacted to the Fair Currency Threat
Frankly, Xinhua made it seem about as consequential as swatting a fly. Before the Senate legislation gained its finance and banking following, the general line was that Hank Paulson knows the real story. The legislation is foolish. Hank is on our side.
Then, on Aug. 8, Mr. Ambrose-Evans-Pritchard screamed the headline, “China Threatens ‘Nuclear Option’ of Dollar Sales” from his privileged U.K. Telegraph view. The source was “state media.” But none of the phrasings of the officials he cited ran quite that way. The finance chief at the Development Research Center, Xia Bin, called the foreign reserves a “bargaining chip.” And that, folks, is simply moral suasion right back at you.
Supposed “NUCLEAR OPTION” Would Be Sinocidal
Call me a fool, but I believe the People’s Bank of China officials were speaking the truth when they resoundingly denied a huge treasury sell-off in response to Mr. Pritchard’s outcry.
After all, it’s really NOT in China’s interest. And since China has yet to return to true “empire” status, it doesn’t have the swollen balls to make a point outside of fiscal interest…
When you’ve got $1.33 trillion in greenbacks, you’re not going to sell them off en masse. It would be “Sinocidal.” China could only dump a tiny fraction of the reserves on the market, or else its remaining reserves would take a huge hit in value. Secondly, the yuan is not yet unpegged from the dollar, which is why buying Treasury reserves works so well for China in the first place. This limits the yuan from rising — by propping up the dollar.
Truth is China doesn’t have to do much of anything. Aren’t we already imploding?
Don’t Place the Entire Trade Deficit on the Yuan’s Doorstep
My personal favorite post-Senate approval remark comes from the chief economist of Hong Kong’s BNP Paribas Peregrine Securities. It didn’t get much press:
“They have stuck to their anti-China stance simply to win over voters.”
With this, the Asian chief economist shrugged. His conclusion: This nation of deficits will suffer from its own detrimental behavior, no matter what happens with China.
What “We the People” don’t fritter away on higher-cost consumer goods from China we’ll lose snapping goods up from lower-cost nations. And besides, China’s labor costs are so low that there will be no shot in the arm for American manufacturing. It’ll go to China’s increasingly competitive neighbors!
So what really is all this China business but a waving of a red flag in front of a bull? (That is, a flagging bull coming to the edge of easy-money pastures.) How else to divert Americans from the clear and present dangers in the economy? For example, the recent $120 billion liquidity injection from our fearless central bankers? Instead, we ask for a good old “enemy.”
Because surely the recent “consumer confidence” numbers for August at their “highest in five months” aren’t enough to keep us buoyant. Nor do we see in them the chastisement I think we deserve.
Exercise Your Way to a Healthy Economy
Hmm…our less than 1% savings rate compared with China’s personal savings at 40% of an individual’s income. Believe it or not, we have some liberty to “vote” with our dollars.
Hillary Clinton recently got her panties in a bunch over this yuan game, preaching the prevention of America’s being “held hostage to economic decisions being made in Beijing, Shanghai, or Tokyo.” What you’re not allowed to say on the campaign trail is the truth: “You are held hostage by your own purchase of gewgaws, SUVs, and houses you couldn’t pay for…”
Sure, you can say, “We were tricked into thinking they [the houses, at least] would appreciate so much.” But you, dear reader, surely needn’t be pointing that finger.
And if we all acted like Sara Bongiorni, the business writer who penned A Year Without "Made in China”: One Family's True Life Adventure in the Global Economy, at least we could have a high horse to ride into the China Currency War on.
Bet you could do it. One of Ms. Bongiorni’s big complaints was not having a coffee maker once the old one broke. Try boiling water in a saucepan on the stove. Add grounds. Strain if desired. Or better yet, forget the coffee. Take a shot of good ol’ American bourbon whiskey — we’re gonna need it in the coming months.
I agree with the Hong Kong economist. Don’t let the congressmen yank our chains. To take the words straight from the China Currency Coalition’s press release on the Fair Currency Act of 2007:
“American manufacturing workers, their industries, and their communities are counting on Congress to act.”
But as I hope we’ve uncovered above, this is an act promising no action. Let’s not forget that Bush is keen to veto it anyway. This would be one of the better moves in the twilight of his presidency.
To paraphrase the character Vizzini, from my generation’s cult classic film The Princess Bride: The most famous classic blunder is never get involved in a land war in Asia…And (I add) only slightly less well known, never get involved in a currency war where you have no weapons — just IOUs.
Here’s how that battle unfolds. Send out a spokesman, say, Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary Mark Sobel. This ersatz “rear admiral” tells Congress:
“While China's currency policy is critical to the United States and to China, currency movement alone will not significantly reduce China's trade surplus nor eliminate the distortions in the Chinese economy. China's trade surpluses are rooted in the structure of the Chinese economy and are not solely the result of currency policy. China needs to restructure its economy so that household consumption, rather than exports and excess investment, powers growth…Vibrant domestic consumption is key to the welfare of the Chinese population and is the only way that China can grow without generating huge trade surpluses.”
In fact, that’s exactly what Sobel said in May 2007, in his testimony on how currency manipulation affects U.S. workers. Hmmm…that’s all he’s got?
How far are we really going to get by telling China to become like America? We, with our oh-so-well-oiled economic machine.
Since currency talk has “gone nuclear,” let’s call America’s weapon of spreading the gospel of household consumption “bioterrorism.” Because the urge to consume, nicknamed “keeping up with the Joneses (or Chens),” is surely the result of some overactive gene.
So let’s leave off with the revised headline “Bioterrorist U.S. Bids China CONSUME.”
Till Congress makes its next blunder, SOC will be there!
NAU Stuff From Earlier This Week
Leaders of 3 nations meet for SPP confab
Bush, Harper, Calderon talking behind closed doors
Posted: August 21, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Police try to control protesters at SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec
MONTEBELLO, Quebec – Leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico have begun their discussions of the Security and Prosperity Partnership behind closed doors here at the five-star Fairmont Le Chateau resort in Montebello, Quebec.
President Bush arrived at mid-afternoon yesterday, with the presidential helicopter landing on the club's golf course, as Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was waiting to greet him.
As the two met, Harper commented that Bush appeared to travel with his own security army of Secret Service.
Mexico's President Felipe Calderon arrived later, and could be the first to depart as forecasters estimated Hurricane Dean is pressing on a southern route headed toward the Yucatan peninsula.
(Story continues below)
Ottawa, Canada's nearby capital city, appeared militarized for the meetings, with police squad cars visible on virtually every downtown corner and cross-street.
All roads leading to Montebello were blocked off by military-like roadblocks, with the local police backed up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada's national police force, in charge.
A last-minute court decision forced the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Sûreté du Québec, the provincial police, to allow protesters to be close enough to the Montebello resort to be seen.
But a security fence surrounded the Le Chateau resort to keep out the growing number of protesters who were confronted by Canadian police armed in full riot gear.
Protesters at several different perimeter security lines advanced yesterday toward police lines and were driven back by provincial police in riot gear, including batons and shields, using pepper gas and pellet bullets.
Harper brushed off the protesters when greeting Bush, who, in a comment recorded by cameras, noted the numbers.
Harper shrugged to Bush, "A couple of hundred? It's sad."
WND estimates put the protesters at several thousand, mixing radical anarchists with protesters whose message appeared more partisan, aimed at the Harper government's efforts to use the meetings to advance a North American integration message they opposed.
In Ottawa, hundreds of more subdued political protesters carried banners and chanted slogans in peaceful protest marches around the city's distinctive parliament buildings.
Only those with proper accreditation issued by the Canadian government after Royal Canadian Mounted Police security checks had any chance of getting within Montebello resort grounds.
The only "civilians" actually scheduled to attend the SPP closed-door sessions were representatives of the 30 multi-national corporations appointed by the Chambers of Commerce of the three nations to constitute the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC.
Today's confidential sessions are scheduled to involve top-level trilateral working group bureaucrats meeting with NACC business members.
The U.S. Department of Commerce has set up the NACC to serve as the chief policy adviser to the 20 SPP trilateral working groups that have been "integrating" and "harmonizing" North American administrative laws and regulations across a wide spectrum of public policy issues.
As WND previously reported, the NACC is expected to dominate the SPP agenda.
"The SPP is pursuing an agenda to integrate Mexico and Canada in closed doors sessions that are getting underway today in Montebello," Howard Phillips, the chairman of the Coalition to Block the North American Union, told a press conference in Ottawa.
"We are here to register our protest," Phillips added, "along with the protests of thousands of Americans who agree with us that the SPP is a globalist agenda driven by the multi-national corporate interests and intellectual elite who together have launched an attack upon the national sovereignty of the United States, Canada and Mexico."
Connie Fogel, head of the Canadian Action Party, agreed with Phillips.
"Canadians are complaining that the SPP process lacks transparency," Fogel told the press conference. "Transparency is a major issue, but even if the SPP working groups were open to the public, we would still object to their goal to advance the North American integration agenda at the expense of Canadian sovereignty."
Posted: August 21, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Police try to control protesters at SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec
MONTEBELLO, Quebec – Leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico have begun their discussions of the Security and Prosperity Partnership behind closed doors here at the five-star Fairmont Le Chateau resort in Montebello, Quebec.
President Bush arrived at mid-afternoon yesterday, with the presidential helicopter landing on the club's golf course, as Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was waiting to greet him.
As the two met, Harper commented that Bush appeared to travel with his own security army of Secret Service.
Mexico's President Felipe Calderon arrived later, and could be the first to depart as forecasters estimated Hurricane Dean is pressing on a southern route headed toward the Yucatan peninsula.
(Story continues below)
Ottawa, Canada's nearby capital city, appeared militarized for the meetings, with police squad cars visible on virtually every downtown corner and cross-street.
All roads leading to Montebello were blocked off by military-like roadblocks, with the local police backed up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada's national police force, in charge.
A last-minute court decision forced the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Sûreté du Québec, the provincial police, to allow protesters to be close enough to the Montebello resort to be seen.
But a security fence surrounded the Le Chateau resort to keep out the growing number of protesters who were confronted by Canadian police armed in full riot gear.
Protesters at several different perimeter security lines advanced yesterday toward police lines and were driven back by provincial police in riot gear, including batons and shields, using pepper gas and pellet bullets.
Harper brushed off the protesters when greeting Bush, who, in a comment recorded by cameras, noted the numbers.
Harper shrugged to Bush, "A couple of hundred? It's sad."
WND estimates put the protesters at several thousand, mixing radical anarchists with protesters whose message appeared more partisan, aimed at the Harper government's efforts to use the meetings to advance a North American integration message they opposed.
In Ottawa, hundreds of more subdued political protesters carried banners and chanted slogans in peaceful protest marches around the city's distinctive parliament buildings.
Only those with proper accreditation issued by the Canadian government after Royal Canadian Mounted Police security checks had any chance of getting within Montebello resort grounds.
The only "civilians" actually scheduled to attend the SPP closed-door sessions were representatives of the 30 multi-national corporations appointed by the Chambers of Commerce of the three nations to constitute the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC.
Today's confidential sessions are scheduled to involve top-level trilateral working group bureaucrats meeting with NACC business members.
The U.S. Department of Commerce has set up the NACC to serve as the chief policy adviser to the 20 SPP trilateral working groups that have been "integrating" and "harmonizing" North American administrative laws and regulations across a wide spectrum of public policy issues.
As WND previously reported, the NACC is expected to dominate the SPP agenda.
"The SPP is pursuing an agenda to integrate Mexico and Canada in closed doors sessions that are getting underway today in Montebello," Howard Phillips, the chairman of the Coalition to Block the North American Union, told a press conference in Ottawa.
"We are here to register our protest," Phillips added, "along with the protests of thousands of Americans who agree with us that the SPP is a globalist agenda driven by the multi-national corporate interests and intellectual elite who together have launched an attack upon the national sovereignty of the United States, Canada and Mexico."
Connie Fogel, head of the Canadian Action Party, agreed with Phillips.
"Canadians are complaining that the SPP process lacks transparency," Fogel told the press conference. "Transparency is a major issue, but even if the SPP working groups were open to the public, we would still object to their goal to advance the North American integration agenda at the expense of Canadian sovereignty."
Somebody Else's Problem..............
“An SEP… is something that we can’t see, or don’t see or our brain doesn’t let us see, because we think it’s somebody else’s problem. That’s what SEP means. Somebody else’s problem. The brain just edits it out.”
— Ford Prefect in Douglas Adams’ Life, the Universe and Everything
In a scene from Douglas Adams’ Life, the Universe and Everything, Arthur Dent and his alien friend Ford Prefect end up at a cricket match in modern-day England. A crowd of spectators is enjoying the game when a giant spaceship descends from the sky and hovers directly over the field. But only Arthur and Ford notice the ship.
Ford explains that the ship is using a “Somebody Else’s Problem field generator.” Essentially, the device makes people think the spaceship isn’t their concern — effectively rendering it invisible. Ford and Arthur can see it because they know what they’re looking for… while the crowd remains completely oblivious.
That’s how I feel sometimes when sifting through the big financial news sources. The pages and airwaves have stories loaded with opportunities, but few people seem to be paying attention. Investors see headlines but assume they’re someone else’s problem… letting thousands — even millions — of dollars in potential profits slip by.
Take, for instance, stories about stock spinoffs. A spinoff is simply when a business creates a separate company from one of its existing divisions. It’s like a new company without an IPO. Shares get distributed to insiders and shareholders.
Spinoffs usually don’t make the front-page news. They’re usually sidebar items — where people looking for stock ideas are most likely to pass right over them. The lack of coverage is intentional — companies usually don’t like to announce spinoffs because, historically, the stocks of both companies take a dive.
The parent company is literally extracting a portion of its value, so the price takes a hit. Meanwhile, investors in the parent company suddenly find themselves holding shares in a company they didn’t ask for. If they don’t want the shares — or, in the case of mutual funds or ETFs — can’t hold them, the shares are immediately sold back into the market… thus lowering the price.
But to people who know what they’re looking for, this is the best time to strike. That’s because while the funds and old shareholders are shedding the spinoff stock, the new company formed by the spinoff is reinventing itself. Managers start getting stock options and incentives they didn't have in the parent company. Business gets focused. Costs get cut. Marketing and products get fixed. Value gets "unlocked."
— Ford Prefect in Douglas Adams’ Life, the Universe and Everything
In a scene from Douglas Adams’ Life, the Universe and Everything, Arthur Dent and his alien friend Ford Prefect end up at a cricket match in modern-day England. A crowd of spectators is enjoying the game when a giant spaceship descends from the sky and hovers directly over the field. But only Arthur and Ford notice the ship.
Ford explains that the ship is using a “Somebody Else’s Problem field generator.” Essentially, the device makes people think the spaceship isn’t their concern — effectively rendering it invisible. Ford and Arthur can see it because they know what they’re looking for… while the crowd remains completely oblivious.
That’s how I feel sometimes when sifting through the big financial news sources. The pages and airwaves have stories loaded with opportunities, but few people seem to be paying attention. Investors see headlines but assume they’re someone else’s problem… letting thousands — even millions — of dollars in potential profits slip by.
Take, for instance, stories about stock spinoffs. A spinoff is simply when a business creates a separate company from one of its existing divisions. It’s like a new company without an IPO. Shares get distributed to insiders and shareholders.
Spinoffs usually don’t make the front-page news. They’re usually sidebar items — where people looking for stock ideas are most likely to pass right over them. The lack of coverage is intentional — companies usually don’t like to announce spinoffs because, historically, the stocks of both companies take a dive.
The parent company is literally extracting a portion of its value, so the price takes a hit. Meanwhile, investors in the parent company suddenly find themselves holding shares in a company they didn’t ask for. If they don’t want the shares — or, in the case of mutual funds or ETFs — can’t hold them, the shares are immediately sold back into the market… thus lowering the price.
But to people who know what they’re looking for, this is the best time to strike. That’s because while the funds and old shareholders are shedding the spinoff stock, the new company formed by the spinoff is reinventing itself. Managers start getting stock options and incentives they didn't have in the parent company. Business gets focused. Costs get cut. Marketing and products get fixed. Value gets "unlocked."
Just Add Water....
Now Available: Instant Online Corporations
Following Anguilla's successful example, the Republic of Panama now has an Internet website that allows you to instantly establish a Panama corporation.
Before this innovation, it could take days or even weeks to set up a Panama corporation - waiting for the human bureaucracy to process documents and issue a corporate charter. This new website saves you the waiting period, and it cuts out the need for a local lawyer or incorporation service, which usually charged around US$1,000 for incorporation.
The new website is far more successful than expected. The Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) in Panama predicted this new website would create about 1,500 incorporations online within a year.
This new website opened for business on July 1st, and by mid-July there were already 2,132 incorporations - for businesses ranging from beauty shops to financial services. Under the old paperwork method, 6,062 incorporations were registered from January to July 2007.
Panama's business corporations Law No. 32 of 1927, is modeled after the U.S. State of Delaware's corporation-friendly statutes. There are about 400,000 corporations registered in Panama, second only to Hong Kong's 450,000.
A Panama corporation can maintain its own corporate bank account and credit cards for world management of investments, mutual funds, precious metals, real estate, and trade. Corporate income free of Panamanian taxes can be spent for business purposes worldwide.
Also these corporations are attractive because Panama only levies taxes on a "territorial" basis. That means Panama only taxes business activity and income earned within the borders of Panama. Whether you are a Panamanian or a foreigner living in Panama, this also means your offshore business and profits are, for the most part, tax-free.
These rules apply to both residents and nonresidents, as well as to corporations, trusts or other entities registered in Panama and operating within Panama or overseas.
Thus, corporations used for offshore purposes are not liable for income tax in Panama, unless they actually generate income within Panamanian territory. And, as an added tax-free bonus, interest-bearing accounts paid by Panama banks are not taxable as income in Panama.
But a word of caution: There is a serious downside to offshore corporations when it comes to U.S. taxes. For U.S. persons who control the shares in a foreign corporation there are major limitations on U.S. tax benefits that would otherwise be available to a corporation formed in the United States.
That's because a foreign corporation is what is known as the IRS "per se" list of foreign corporations, which appears in IRS regulations, section 301.7701-2(b)(8)(i). The listed per se corporations are barred from numerous U.S. tax benefits. This means that U.S. persons cannot file an IRS Form 8832 electing to treat the corporation as a "disregarded entity" or a foreign partnership, either of which is given much more favorable tax treatment.
Under IRS rules, the foreign corporation that engages in passive investments is considered a "controlled foreign corporation," which requires the filing of IRS Form 5471 describing its operations. U.S. persons also must file IRS Form 926 reporting transfers of cash or assets to the corporation.
A U.S. person who controls a foreign financial account of any nature that has in it US$10,000 or more at any time during a calendar year must report this to the IRS on Form TD F 90-22.1. There are serious fines, penalties and even possible criminal charges if you don't file these IRS returns. As a general rule, U.S. persons can be guilty of the crime of "falsifying a federal income tax return" by failing to report offshore corporate holdings.
Any eventual capital gains an IRS-listed per se corporation may make are not taxed in the U.S. under the more favorable capital gains tax rate of 15%, but rather as ordinary income for the corporate owners, which can be a much higher tax up to 35%. There is also the possibility of double taxation if the a foreign corporation makes investments in the U.S., in which case there is a 30% U.S. withholding tax on the investment income at the U.S. source.
Under U.S. tax rules, no annual losses can be taken on corporate investments by a foreign corporation, which must be deferred by the U.S. owners until the foreign corporation is liquidated. However, compared to these IRS restrictions, there may be offsetting considerations, such as exemption from foreign (in this case, Panamanian) taxes, which may be more important in your financial planning.
Therefore, it is extremely important that U.S. persons obtain an authoritative review of the tax implications before forming a foreign corporation for any purpose, including holding title to personal or business real estate.
Marc Faber Says.............
Every market is a public spectacle. And every public spectacle follows a certain pattern. It begins with lies and humbug – ‘emergency’ low lending rates from the Fed...faith-based currency...stocks for the long-run. Then, it progresses into farce – hedge funds...low-doc mortgage loans...and ‘cove-lite’ LBO financing. And finally, it ends in disaster.
We have seen plenty of humbug and farce. The disaster phase is beginning now. Countrywide Financial (NYSE: CFC ) – America’s largest mortgage lender – may be facing bankruptcy, according to Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER ). The stock has been cut in half so far.
More importantly, both Home Depot (NYSE: HD ) and Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT ) – America’s largest retailers – are warning that earnings ain’t what they used to be. Could this be the long-awaited signal that the consumer is finally cutting back? Maybe.
Excerpts from CNBC-TV18’s exclusive interview with Marc Faber:
Q: How do you read the events as they have unfolded in the past fortnight? How do you think this might shape up?
A: Basically as you know, the U.S. market went up until July 16. The Dow peaked out on July 17 above 14,000 and then it started to slide, mainly driven this time by financial stocks and by what people call a crisis in the subprime lending sector and the CDO and the BS markets. The question obviously is where do we go from here? Is it like ’98, where we dropped first and then recovered strongly towards the end of the year? Or is it something more serious? I think it’s something more serious.
Q: If you had to predict...since your view is bearish, what percentage fall would you expect in emerging market equities, on an average, over the next foreseeable period?
A: Well, I think the S&P has a very good chance to decline by 20-30% and emerging economy stock markets, I think they could drop by 40%. That may not mean that the bull market in emerging market is over for good, because in ’87 we had drops in Taiwan of 50% and then the market went up another four times; so you can have big corrections and still be in a bull market.
But if someone came to me and said, “What is the upside on, say, the S&P?” We had 1,452; the high was 1,555. I would say the upside and the big resistance in the market is, say, between 1,520 and 1,530 – so the upside is limited. But what about the risks?
What I noticed is investors are far more concerned to miss the next leg in the bull market on the upside, than about the risks of losing a lot of money. And I think, gradually this will change, and that will mean lower equity prices...and also prices of other assets such as commodities can go down substantially and obviously home prices around the world.
(Watch the entire interview with Marc Faber here. )
We have seen plenty of humbug and farce. The disaster phase is beginning now. Countrywide Financial (NYSE: CFC ) – America’s largest mortgage lender – may be facing bankruptcy, according to Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER ). The stock has been cut in half so far.
More importantly, both Home Depot (NYSE: HD ) and Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT ) – America’s largest retailers – are warning that earnings ain’t what they used to be. Could this be the long-awaited signal that the consumer is finally cutting back? Maybe.
Excerpts from CNBC-TV18’s exclusive interview with Marc Faber:
Q: How do you read the events as they have unfolded in the past fortnight? How do you think this might shape up?
A: Basically as you know, the U.S. market went up until July 16. The Dow peaked out on July 17 above 14,000 and then it started to slide, mainly driven this time by financial stocks and by what people call a crisis in the subprime lending sector and the CDO and the BS markets. The question obviously is where do we go from here? Is it like ’98, where we dropped first and then recovered strongly towards the end of the year? Or is it something more serious? I think it’s something more serious.
Q: If you had to predict...since your view is bearish, what percentage fall would you expect in emerging market equities, on an average, over the next foreseeable period?
A: Well, I think the S&P has a very good chance to decline by 20-30% and emerging economy stock markets, I think they could drop by 40%. That may not mean that the bull market in emerging market is over for good, because in ’87 we had drops in Taiwan of 50% and then the market went up another four times; so you can have big corrections and still be in a bull market.
But if someone came to me and said, “What is the upside on, say, the S&P?” We had 1,452; the high was 1,555. I would say the upside and the big resistance in the market is, say, between 1,520 and 1,530 – so the upside is limited. But what about the risks?
What I noticed is investors are far more concerned to miss the next leg in the bull market on the upside, than about the risks of losing a lot of money. And I think, gradually this will change, and that will mean lower equity prices...and also prices of other assets such as commodities can go down substantially and obviously home prices around the world.
(Watch the entire interview with Marc Faber here. )
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
So Silly I Had To Post This:
The average commuter in Houston spends over 20% of their annual household income on “getting to work,” says a survey released today by the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. In other words, the average commuter in the Texas city spends more on getting to work than any other expense, including home ownership. Why? 94% of all workers in the Houston area drive to work, mostly from one of Houston’s rapidly growing suburban communities. In a given year, the partnership estimates the average Houstonian commuter spends 64 hours a year stuck in traffic jams. Crazytown. Houston’s ridiculous expenses topped the partnership’s most expensive commutes list… Cleveland, Detroit and Tampa were very close behind. As you might imagine, condensed cities with active mass transit, such as New York and San Francisco, scored the best. What a twisted world we live in, when the cost of getting to work outweighs putting a roof over your head.
Chinese Demographics:Fraut With Peril
“I wonder if anyone else has noticed,” wrote a reader in response to our incredible animated (borrowed) chart that depicted a Chinese demographic crisis “that along about 2015 China will have one very large population cohort at about age 45 -- the peak of industrial and commercial productivity -- and another one at age 20-25, ideal military age.
“The second peak is very heavily biased toward males, many of whom will never find a mate, due to the abortion of so many girls during the most virulent 'one-child' years. This would seem to be an extraordinarily dangerous demographic configuration.”
“The second peak is very heavily biased toward males, many of whom will never find a mate, due to the abortion of so many girls during the most virulent 'one-child' years. This would seem to be an extraordinarily dangerous demographic configuration.”
Less Money Across The Board
And there’s this pressure, too: The average American earned less in 2005 than they did in 2000, says the IRS.
The Average Joe made $55,238 in 2005, down nearly $500 from the inflation-adjusted average 2000 salary of $55,714. The slump in salaries marks the first multiyear period of decreasing total income since World War II.
The White House, curiously, blamed inflated tech wages during the tech boom. Not a word about global wage rates being driven down by competition. The only income growth during this period was enjoyed by people who earn more than $1 million a year. “These individuals,” says the NYTimes “who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000.” That fact will no doubt be made a source of contention by “progressive” candidates in the coming election year.
The Average Joe made $55,238 in 2005, down nearly $500 from the inflation-adjusted average 2000 salary of $55,714. The slump in salaries marks the first multiyear period of decreasing total income since World War II.
The White House, curiously, blamed inflated tech wages during the tech boom. Not a word about global wage rates being driven down by competition. The only income growth during this period was enjoyed by people who earn more than $1 million a year. “These individuals,” says the NYTimes “who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000.” That fact will no doubt be made a source of contention by “progressive” candidates in the coming election year.
Check Out THIS Inflation Rate
The “hard spot” faced by the Fed, as we pointed out yesterday , is the fact that the market forced the fed funds rate down 3/4 of a point last week in response to the credit crisis on Wall Street.
Now, the “granite facade”: inflation.
Our friend John Williams from ShadowStats.com recently applied 1980s style accounting methods to the current inflation stats and, well… it’s a doozie:
The blue line shows inflation if you used traditional methods for measuring inflation going back to 1980, before the Bureau of Labor starting monkeying with “hedonic” price adjustments.
Here’s the rub. If the Fed continues to buckle to Wall Street’s demand for cheaper credit, inflation will continue to rise unabated. The victim in all this is sitting in your wallet with a smiling George Washington printed on it in green.
Now, the “granite facade”: inflation.
Our friend John Williams from ShadowStats.com recently applied 1980s style accounting methods to the current inflation stats and, well… it’s a doozie:
The blue line shows inflation if you used traditional methods for measuring inflation going back to 1980, before the Bureau of Labor starting monkeying with “hedonic” price adjustments.
Here’s the rub. If the Fed continues to buckle to Wall Street’s demand for cheaper credit, inflation will continue to rise unabated. The victim in all this is sitting in your wallet with a smiling George Washington printed on it in green.
Some Gold Stats
Gold ETFs Global Price Driver?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
The gold Exchange Trade Fund has become a roaring success. Traded on the NYSE under the symbol GLD, each 10 shares represent one troy ounce of .999 fine gold, with prices rising and falling according to investor demand and the price of gold itself. Investors can buy and sell it just like a stock, without paying the two to 6 percent premiums associated with buying physical gold. As Gene Arensberg, writing in Resource Investor says:"By the time that new order has fully evolved, it is conceivable that gold ETFs will become the most powerful pricing influence in the global gold supply/demand/liquidity equilibrium."At 490 tons of gold, the fund, even when compared to central banks, now ranks as the 11th largest holder of gold in the world."Yiannis Mostrous, writing in The Silk Road Investor confirms:"Are your investment returns becoming stagnant? Or worse yet, have you lost money on Wall Street during the last five years? Isn't it about time you refused to settle for measly investment returns with the "Dogs of the Dow" on Wall Street that barely cover the rising rate of inflation...?"Whether you're a beginning investor, or you simply want a well-rounded, large-cap portfolio with the finest companies on earth, I'd urge you to pull the trigger and take advantage of this special opportunity. If history is any guide, this run will last for many years, handing investors the chance for life-changing profits. You could be one of them." Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network
The gold Exchange Trade Fund has become a roaring success. Traded on the NYSE under the symbol GLD, each 10 shares represent one troy ounce of .999 fine gold, with prices rising and falling according to investor demand and the price of gold itself. Investors can buy and sell it just like a stock, without paying the two to 6 percent premiums associated with buying physical gold. As Gene Arensberg, writing in Resource Investor says:"By the time that new order has fully evolved, it is conceivable that gold ETFs will become the most powerful pricing influence in the global gold supply/demand/liquidity equilibrium."At 490 tons of gold, the fund, even when compared to central banks, now ranks as the 11th largest holder of gold in the world."Yiannis Mostrous, writing in The Silk Road Investor confirms:"Are your investment returns becoming stagnant? Or worse yet, have you lost money on Wall Street during the last five years? Isn't it about time you refused to settle for measly investment returns with the "Dogs of the Dow" on Wall Street that barely cover the rising rate of inflation...?"Whether you're a beginning investor, or you simply want a well-rounded, large-cap portfolio with the finest companies on earth, I'd urge you to pull the trigger and take advantage of this special opportunity. If history is any guide, this run will last for many years, handing investors the chance for life-changing profits. You could be one of them." Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network
Ron Paul Is a Straight-Shooter
Ron Paul Confirms NAFTA Superhighway Goal
Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
"The chief project thus far of the SPP is the so-called NAFTA superhighway which would connect Mexico, the United States and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City," warned Republican Congressman Ron Paul in a statement read at one of the morning news events in Ottawa yesterday. "Millions would be displaced by this massive undertaking which would require the eminent domain actions [expropriations] on an unprecedented scale. ... A Spanish construction company, it is said, plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road."http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/08/ron-paul-on-naf.html
"The chief project thus far of the SPP is the so-called NAFTA superhighway which would connect Mexico, the United States and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City," warned Republican Congressman Ron Paul in a statement read at one of the morning news events in Ottawa yesterday. "Millions would be displaced by this massive undertaking which would require the eminent domain actions [expropriations] on an unprecedented scale. ... A Spanish construction company, it is said, plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road."http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/08/ron-paul-on-naf.html
A Guy From Pittsburgh Knows Laissez-Faire Economics?
Laissez faire is best medicine
By Donald J. Boudreaux Wednesday, August 22, 2007
I'm writing these words only days after the Federal Reserve injected several million additional dollars into the economy. The recent steep decline in stock values, apparently sparked by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, has lots of people plenty worried.
They worry not only that bears will populate Wall Street for an extended stay but that all this bearishness will drag the economy into a deep and long recession. And a recession -- with lots of unemployment and sluggish (or even negative) growth in output -- spells hardship for many ordinary Americans.
I, too, am a bit worried. But my worry is not about the market's ability to handle the consequences of bubbling housing prices and bankrupt mortgage lenders. It is about how government will react to these events.
The ever-present demand to "do something" is unfortunately immune to the wisdom counseling that there are some problems best left to sort themselves out. Government efforts to "solve" market adjustments and dislocations typically -- and at best -- supply only short-run relief while making the longer-run situation more dire.
story continues below
');
-->
on error resume next
MM_FlashCanPlay = ( IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash." & MM_contentVersion)))
The most famous such intervention is Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Still commonly regarded as saving America from the Great Depression, this spasm of interventionist government did no such thing.
On the eve of entering World War II in 1941, America's economy was still quite depressed -- as it had been for more than a decade. And as economic historian Robert Higgs shows in his 2006 book, "Depression, War, and Cold War," New Deal policies and the prevailing climate of ideas from which they sprang suppressed investment.
The New Deal and the genuine risk of outright socialization of industry in the 1930s kept the American economy in deep doldrums for a much longer time than would have been the case if Uncle Sam just said "laissez faire" and had conspicuously ignored all the Very Smart People who clamored for socialism. No investor, after all, wants to put his assets at stake in a country whose government might tax away or outright confiscate these assets.
And just before FDR won his first term in the White House, Congress passed, and President Herbert Hoover signed, the now-infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff. This tariff hike in June 1930 raised tariffs to heights not seen before or since. The idea was to stimulate employment in America by making it much more expensive for consumers in the U.S. to buy goods from abroad.
It backfired.
Most economists agree that the Smoot-Hawley tariff deepened the Depression. It raised the cost to American factories of supplies bought from abroad, thus causing many factories to further reduce their outputs. It also prompted other governments to "retaliate" with their own substantial tariff hikes, thus reducing the demand for American exports. And Smoot-Hawley, like any tariff, forced domestic consumers to pay more for goods and services.
The extra dollars that consumers paid for the things they bought were dollars no longer able to be spent on other goods and services. The demand for these other goods and services fell, causing those industries to contract. Fortunately, Congress began to undue Smoot-Hawley just a few years later.
As soon as it became reasonably clear in the years immediately after World War II that America would not move down the road to fuller-fledged socialism, investors regained enough confidence in the U.S. to begin again to invest here. Only then can we say that the Great Depression was over.
While I don't see on the horizon any ideas as bad as those of the 1930s, there are nevertheless some troubling signs.
The hysteria over climate change is not good for investment, especially for investment in the fossil-fuel sector. (If you had a few dozen million bucks to invest, how eager would you be to build a new gasoline refinery when hordes of people today scream about how awful it is that consumers leave "carbon footprints"?)
Even worse is the distressing new rejection of free trade. The Democratic Party, with its new-found power on Capitol Hill, huffs and puffs about "fair trade" and "balanced trade" and other euphemisms for trade restrictions.
History is clear that freer trade means more opportunity and greater and more widespread prosperity. That Uncle Sam might be losing his taste for freer trade is very frightening.
Given the stock markets' wild swings lately, I have no idea what will happen by the time this column is printed. I'm confident only that, if government would find the resolve not to intervene, things will work out fine. Not so if Uncle Sam succumbs to the itch to meddle further.
By Donald J. Boudreaux Wednesday, August 22, 2007
I'm writing these words only days after the Federal Reserve injected several million additional dollars into the economy. The recent steep decline in stock values, apparently sparked by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, has lots of people plenty worried.
They worry not only that bears will populate Wall Street for an extended stay but that all this bearishness will drag the economy into a deep and long recession. And a recession -- with lots of unemployment and sluggish (or even negative) growth in output -- spells hardship for many ordinary Americans.
I, too, am a bit worried. But my worry is not about the market's ability to handle the consequences of bubbling housing prices and bankrupt mortgage lenders. It is about how government will react to these events.
The ever-present demand to "do something" is unfortunately immune to the wisdom counseling that there are some problems best left to sort themselves out. Government efforts to "solve" market adjustments and dislocations typically -- and at best -- supply only short-run relief while making the longer-run situation more dire.
story continues below
');
-->
on error resume next
MM_FlashCanPlay = ( IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash." & MM_contentVersion)))
The most famous such intervention is Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Still commonly regarded as saving America from the Great Depression, this spasm of interventionist government did no such thing.
On the eve of entering World War II in 1941, America's economy was still quite depressed -- as it had been for more than a decade. And as economic historian Robert Higgs shows in his 2006 book, "Depression, War, and Cold War," New Deal policies and the prevailing climate of ideas from which they sprang suppressed investment.
The New Deal and the genuine risk of outright socialization of industry in the 1930s kept the American economy in deep doldrums for a much longer time than would have been the case if Uncle Sam just said "laissez faire" and had conspicuously ignored all the Very Smart People who clamored for socialism. No investor, after all, wants to put his assets at stake in a country whose government might tax away or outright confiscate these assets.
And just before FDR won his first term in the White House, Congress passed, and President Herbert Hoover signed, the now-infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff. This tariff hike in June 1930 raised tariffs to heights not seen before or since. The idea was to stimulate employment in America by making it much more expensive for consumers in the U.S. to buy goods from abroad.
It backfired.
Most economists agree that the Smoot-Hawley tariff deepened the Depression. It raised the cost to American factories of supplies bought from abroad, thus causing many factories to further reduce their outputs. It also prompted other governments to "retaliate" with their own substantial tariff hikes, thus reducing the demand for American exports. And Smoot-Hawley, like any tariff, forced domestic consumers to pay more for goods and services.
The extra dollars that consumers paid for the things they bought were dollars no longer able to be spent on other goods and services. The demand for these other goods and services fell, causing those industries to contract. Fortunately, Congress began to undue Smoot-Hawley just a few years later.
As soon as it became reasonably clear in the years immediately after World War II that America would not move down the road to fuller-fledged socialism, investors regained enough confidence in the U.S. to begin again to invest here. Only then can we say that the Great Depression was over.
While I don't see on the horizon any ideas as bad as those of the 1930s, there are nevertheless some troubling signs.
The hysteria over climate change is not good for investment, especially for investment in the fossil-fuel sector. (If you had a few dozen million bucks to invest, how eager would you be to build a new gasoline refinery when hordes of people today scream about how awful it is that consumers leave "carbon footprints"?)
Even worse is the distressing new rejection of free trade. The Democratic Party, with its new-found power on Capitol Hill, huffs and puffs about "fair trade" and "balanced trade" and other euphemisms for trade restrictions.
History is clear that freer trade means more opportunity and greater and more widespread prosperity. That Uncle Sam might be losing his taste for freer trade is very frightening.
Given the stock markets' wild swings lately, I have no idea what will happen by the time this column is printed. I'm confident only that, if government would find the resolve not to intervene, things will work out fine. Not so if Uncle Sam succumbs to the itch to meddle further.
Didn't Mitt "Fuckface" Romney Have Something To Do With This?
At Least 500 Big Dig Leaks
Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
About 500 leaks in Big Dig tunnels are awaiting repair, and that number doesn't include leaks being handled by the project's contractors, according to state officials who warn that future leaks are inevitable. Project manager Michael Lewis also told the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority board Tuesday that the leak-repair program is "effective," and should be viewed separately from new evidence indicating water continues to leak steadily into the Interstate 93 Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. tunnel. Repairs of existing leaks will continue through next spring, Lewis said, after successfully lobbying the board to add $2.3 million to an existing $5 million contract for repair crews. -AP
About 500 leaks in Big Dig tunnels are awaiting repair, and that number doesn't include leaks being handled by the project's contractors, according to state officials who warn that future leaks are inevitable. Project manager Michael Lewis also told the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority board Tuesday that the leak-repair program is "effective," and should be viewed separately from new evidence indicating water continues to leak steadily into the Interstate 93 Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. tunnel. Repairs of existing leaks will continue through next spring, Lewis said, after successfully lobbying the board to add $2.3 million to an existing $5 million contract for repair crews. -AP
Nicely Said....................
"If a nation expects to ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."-Thomas Jefferson
Extradition - Could It Happen to You?
Just in case you didn't hear, recently Austria refused to extradite Kazakhstan's former ambassador back to Kazakhstan to face trial for an alleged kidnapping.The ambassador, Rakhat Aliyev told Austrian authorities that he thinks his life would be in danger if he returned to Kazakhstan. He also said the case against him is politically motivated because he has considered running for president. Therefore, the Austrian court ruled that it could not guarantee Rakhat Aliyev a fair trial if he returned home.
As Ambassador Aliyev now knows all too well, extradition is when authorities surrender and transfer alleged fugitives or criminals from one state, nation or authority to another. Under the Fourth Amendment, one U.S. state is obliged to extradite a wanted fugitive to another state.
But what if you move "offshore" and make your home in another country? How likely is it you'd be extradited to face tax or criminal charges in another country?
Until now, the answer has been "highly unlikely" - unless you were wanted for a violent crime. But if Big Brother governments have their way, the list of extraditable offenses will expand to include "tax" and "fiscal" offenses. That's on top of politically motivated extraditions.
The Strict Safeguards that Supposedly Protect Freedom SeekersBut protection for tax exiles and freedom seekers still can be found in a well-established body of international law - if politics doesn't get in the way.Governments jealously guard the right to govern extraditing criminal suspects from their own country. Most countries have treaties with strict safeguards that govern official extradition. However, most extraditions are done informally. For instance, in America and other nations an illegal immigrant is not usually entitled to a hearing before being sent home.
Immigration officials may arrest a "fugitive" working without a legal permit. Then they can hand the accused over to police across the border or put him on a plane home. There has been a lot of that sort of "informal" extradition in the U.S. news lately.
In other "informal" extraditions, fugitives have been abducted from a foreign country and taken to another nation for trial and/or punishment.
A famous example occurred in 1960, when Israeli agents kidnapped Adolf Eichmann from Argentina. He was returned to Israel to stand trial for Nazi war atrocities committed during World War II, convicted and later executed.
Extradition by Kidnapping is LegalDon't be too shocked, but the United States has used kidnapping as a judicially approved extradition method. In 1990, agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) kidnapped Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain from his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico to stand trial in Los Angeles for the alleged murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena Salazar.
U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie denounced the government's weak case and found the kidnapping violated the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty. The judge concluded that Dr. Alvarez-Machain was abducted at gunpoint in Mexico by "paid agents" of the United States, tortured by his abductors and injected with mind-altering drugs.The Mexican attorney general demanded the extradition of two DEA agents on charges of kidnapping, but the United States ignored the demand. The abduction was widely criticized internationally. In 1990, Judge Rafeedie dismissed the case against Dr. Alvarez. The government appealed, and in 1992, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. But by then, the doctor was home in Mexico.The Court ruled, in effect, that barring language specifically banning kidnapping in the relevant U.S. extradition treaty, it is legal to kidnap criminal suspects for extradition to the United States.
"Formal" ExtraditionFormal extradition, by comparison, is a complex process governed by the terms of bilateral treaties between the nations involved.Unless the host nation is willing to relinquish a fugitive, it can be impossible to retrieve this person - unless the requesting government resorts to kidnapping or other the coercive methods I have described.Formal extradition begins when a diplomatic agent asks the host nation to surrender the fugitive. Even if there is an extradition treaty between the two nations, the sanctuary nation will not always surrender the individual. The decision will depend on its interpretation of the treaties, as judged by its own courts, as in the recent case in Austria.
The legal principle of "specialty" requires that when extradition is granted, the requesting State may put the fugitive on trial only for those specific offenses on which the request was based. Of course, once fugitives are returned to the country that wants them, there is little a foreign government can do. All they can do is protest, if the extradited person is tried for additional crimes, or suffers punishment not permitted in the host country, especially capital punishment.
Another important principal is "dual criminality," which allows extradition only when the fugitive's alleged acts are recognized as statutory crimes in both countries. Violations of this principle are a common basis for refusal of formal extradition requests.
Any "Safe Havens" Left?To avoid extradition, a fugitive can flee to a jurisdiction with no extradition treaties with the country that is in pursuit. Civil law countries may be protective, since many of them ban extradition of their own citizens.But don't count on the United States to be a safe haven. The U.S. government has the authority to arrest and detain a foreign citizen for extradition without an independent showing of "probable cause" in a U.S. court that the accused committed a crime abroad.All that's required is a statement from the requesting country merely alleging probable cause exists. On this basis, the U.S. government can hold a foreigner in jail for extradition.
What About You?At the present time, it is relatively easy to avoid extradition unless you've committed a serious crime listed as grounds for extradition in the relevant extradition treaty, if one even exists. This list of extraditable crimes, however, is growing rapidly.The United States is at the forefront of this expansion movement. When it lacks solid grounds for its extradition demands, the U.S. government often uses as justification catch-all criminal "tax fraud" or "mail/wire fraud" provisions of its extradition treaties. More recently, "racketeering" and "money laundering" are the crimes alleged.A leading international tax consultant in Washington, D.C. told me (off the record, since he must deal with the IRS constantly) that most nations are reluctant to extradite anyone from their countries for alleged tax offenses.Foreign tax laws usually apply criminal penalties only to intentional tax fraud, such as false filings. Many countries treat failure to file as negligence rather than evasion or fraud, since their systems require filing of an estimated income statement. On that statement, the government bases tax bills that are sent later.
If you find yourself in such a situation, you may have little recourse but to relocate to a country without an extradition treaty with your home country, or one that excludes the particular crime or crimes of which you're accused.
As Ambassador Aliyev now knows all too well, extradition is when authorities surrender and transfer alleged fugitives or criminals from one state, nation or authority to another. Under the Fourth Amendment, one U.S. state is obliged to extradite a wanted fugitive to another state.
But what if you move "offshore" and make your home in another country? How likely is it you'd be extradited to face tax or criminal charges in another country?
Until now, the answer has been "highly unlikely" - unless you were wanted for a violent crime. But if Big Brother governments have their way, the list of extraditable offenses will expand to include "tax" and "fiscal" offenses. That's on top of politically motivated extraditions.
The Strict Safeguards that Supposedly Protect Freedom SeekersBut protection for tax exiles and freedom seekers still can be found in a well-established body of international law - if politics doesn't get in the way.Governments jealously guard the right to govern extraditing criminal suspects from their own country. Most countries have treaties with strict safeguards that govern official extradition. However, most extraditions are done informally. For instance, in America and other nations an illegal immigrant is not usually entitled to a hearing before being sent home.
Immigration officials may arrest a "fugitive" working without a legal permit. Then they can hand the accused over to police across the border or put him on a plane home. There has been a lot of that sort of "informal" extradition in the U.S. news lately.
In other "informal" extraditions, fugitives have been abducted from a foreign country and taken to another nation for trial and/or punishment.
A famous example occurred in 1960, when Israeli agents kidnapped Adolf Eichmann from Argentina. He was returned to Israel to stand trial for Nazi war atrocities committed during World War II, convicted and later executed.
Extradition by Kidnapping is LegalDon't be too shocked, but the United States has used kidnapping as a judicially approved extradition method. In 1990, agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) kidnapped Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain from his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico to stand trial in Los Angeles for the alleged murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena Salazar.
U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie denounced the government's weak case and found the kidnapping violated the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty. The judge concluded that Dr. Alvarez-Machain was abducted at gunpoint in Mexico by "paid agents" of the United States, tortured by his abductors and injected with mind-altering drugs.The Mexican attorney general demanded the extradition of two DEA agents on charges of kidnapping, but the United States ignored the demand. The abduction was widely criticized internationally. In 1990, Judge Rafeedie dismissed the case against Dr. Alvarez. The government appealed, and in 1992, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. But by then, the doctor was home in Mexico.The Court ruled, in effect, that barring language specifically banning kidnapping in the relevant U.S. extradition treaty, it is legal to kidnap criminal suspects for extradition to the United States.
"Formal" ExtraditionFormal extradition, by comparison, is a complex process governed by the terms of bilateral treaties between the nations involved.Unless the host nation is willing to relinquish a fugitive, it can be impossible to retrieve this person - unless the requesting government resorts to kidnapping or other the coercive methods I have described.Formal extradition begins when a diplomatic agent asks the host nation to surrender the fugitive. Even if there is an extradition treaty between the two nations, the sanctuary nation will not always surrender the individual. The decision will depend on its interpretation of the treaties, as judged by its own courts, as in the recent case in Austria.
The legal principle of "specialty" requires that when extradition is granted, the requesting State may put the fugitive on trial only for those specific offenses on which the request was based. Of course, once fugitives are returned to the country that wants them, there is little a foreign government can do. All they can do is protest, if the extradited person is tried for additional crimes, or suffers punishment not permitted in the host country, especially capital punishment.
Another important principal is "dual criminality," which allows extradition only when the fugitive's alleged acts are recognized as statutory crimes in both countries. Violations of this principle are a common basis for refusal of formal extradition requests.
Any "Safe Havens" Left?To avoid extradition, a fugitive can flee to a jurisdiction with no extradition treaties with the country that is in pursuit. Civil law countries may be protective, since many of them ban extradition of their own citizens.But don't count on the United States to be a safe haven. The U.S. government has the authority to arrest and detain a foreign citizen for extradition without an independent showing of "probable cause" in a U.S. court that the accused committed a crime abroad.All that's required is a statement from the requesting country merely alleging probable cause exists. On this basis, the U.S. government can hold a foreigner in jail for extradition.
What About You?At the present time, it is relatively easy to avoid extradition unless you've committed a serious crime listed as grounds for extradition in the relevant extradition treaty, if one even exists. This list of extraditable crimes, however, is growing rapidly.The United States is at the forefront of this expansion movement. When it lacks solid grounds for its extradition demands, the U.S. government often uses as justification catch-all criminal "tax fraud" or "mail/wire fraud" provisions of its extradition treaties. More recently, "racketeering" and "money laundering" are the crimes alleged.A leading international tax consultant in Washington, D.C. told me (off the record, since he must deal with the IRS constantly) that most nations are reluctant to extradite anyone from their countries for alleged tax offenses.Foreign tax laws usually apply criminal penalties only to intentional tax fraud, such as false filings. Many countries treat failure to file as negligence rather than evasion or fraud, since their systems require filing of an estimated income statement. On that statement, the government bases tax bills that are sent later.
If you find yourself in such a situation, you may have little recourse but to relocate to a country without an extradition treaty with your home country, or one that excludes the particular crime or crimes of which you're accused.
Bigger Mess Than We Really Think, Despite The CNBC "Global Economy" Cheerleaders
“Money market fund managers are panicking out of the commercial paper market,” Dan Amoss tells us, “fearing that these securities may contain subprime CDOs -- and are piling into 3-month Treasury bills at an alarming, unprecedented rate. The 3-month T-bill yield has plummeted all the way to 2.85%, down from 4.8% just one month ago.
“This is the market’s way of screaming that the Fed needs to cut the target for their fed funds rate quickly and aggressively, perhaps before their next meeting in early September.”
And lest you think the Fed could paper over the CDO crackup, here’s news: Fitch Ratings warned they’re placing $92.1 billion of securities backed by subprime residential mortgages “under analysis” this morning. That’s their first step toward rating downgrades.
Fitch has already hinted that at least $4.2 billion of these bonds are sure to be downgraded, bringing the total this year to over $17 billion in CDO downgrades from Fitch alone. Even if the Fed does accommodate Wall Street ne’er-do-wells, the source of this panic runs deep.
“This is the market’s way of screaming that the Fed needs to cut the target for their fed funds rate quickly and aggressively, perhaps before their next meeting in early September.”
And lest you think the Fed could paper over the CDO crackup, here’s news: Fitch Ratings warned they’re placing $92.1 billion of securities backed by subprime residential mortgages “under analysis” this morning. That’s their first step toward rating downgrades.
Fitch has already hinted that at least $4.2 billion of these bonds are sure to be downgraded, bringing the total this year to over $17 billion in CDO downgrades from Fitch alone. Even if the Fed does accommodate Wall Street ne’er-do-wells, the source of this panic runs deep.
The underlying asset for those damaged CDOs isn’t getting healthier any time soon. Take a look at this chart from our colleagues John Mauldin and RBS Greenwich:
RBS Greenwich anticipates that $27 billion per month of subprime loans will hit their first reset over the next 12 months. That’s $27 billion -- per month. Ay yi yi. Financial stocks all over the globe are going to be reeling from this mess for years.
RBS Greenwich anticipates that $27 billion per month of subprime loans will hit their first reset over the next 12 months. That’s $27 billion -- per month. Ay yi yi. Financial stocks all over the globe are going to be reeling from this mess for years.
A Chinese first: Citizens allowed to trade in Hong Kong… 2.2 trillion reasons why this is a big deal
For the first time, Chinese citizens will be allowed to purchase shares on the Hong Kong exchange. Domestic investors can now open accounts at the Bank of China and trade all aspects of the Hong Kong market.
This is, potentially, a big deal: The Chinese have $2.2 trillion in savings… which can now be deployed in the market. Chinese traders no longer have to jump through the mainland’s bureaucratic hoops when moving money internationally.
“It is sometimes hard to believe,” Chris Mayer tells us, “but the impact of China on the world economy could still be much greater as the economy liberalizes further and as it gets larger. Right now, China has a lot of money. And where it ultimately invests that money could have a major effect on market prices.”
This is, potentially, a big deal: The Chinese have $2.2 trillion in savings… which can now be deployed in the market. Chinese traders no longer have to jump through the mainland’s bureaucratic hoops when moving money internationally.
“It is sometimes hard to believe,” Chris Mayer tells us, “but the impact of China on the world economy could still be much greater as the economy liberalizes further and as it gets larger. Right now, China has a lot of money. And where it ultimately invests that money could have a major effect on market prices.”
Ron Paul Must Be Doing Something Right, All The Wrong People Are Against Him
Socialists and Neocons Versus Ron Paul
Wednesday Aug 22, 2007
From my experience, people who attack libertarians such as Ron Paul are often not serious about ideas. I have noticed the individuals who deride Dr. Paul do so mostly with shallow and dishonest attacks.
Take the various socialists and welfare-statists who attack Ron Paul. I understand they support nationalizing healthcare while generally being against the occupation of Iraq. Because they oppose the occupation, they should find a powerful ally in someone as principally opposed to it as Ron Paul. Take also the neoconservatives in the mass (minded) media such as Faux News who attack and omit Dr. Paul. I understand they support the occupation of the Middle East but also believe government should be strictly limited in accordance with traditional conservative ideas (right? right???). In Ron Paul, they have a great opportunity to highlight these at least rhetorical parallels while simultaneously expressing reasonable disagreements. Because of these considerations, I believe it reasonable to expect a certain amount of give and take among the three camps, if only for practical reasons.
What I have experienced instead has been a surreal and dishonest two-front attack against Ron Paul. No argument seems to be too trivial or irrelevant for the anti-Paulians to make. They seem to be bringing up every possible issue (real or imagined) against Ron Paul in the hopes something – anything – will stick.
Consider:
While the President gets dictatorial power to spy on and indefinitely kidnap innocent Americans, socialists and neocons speculate wildly about Ron Paul supporters "spamming" internet polls.
While thousands of men, women, and children violently die in Iraq and Afghanistan, socialists and neocons misrepresent Ron Paul's refusal to fund stem cell research.
While the Bush administration plots to drop nuclear weapons on Iran, socialists and neocons spin every single Ron Paul victory to be meaningless or nonexistent.
While people suffer without healthcare because government intervention makes it unaffordable to the poor, socialists and neocons distort a decade-old mishap Ron Paul had with one of his previous ghostwriters.
Where they manage to attack Dr. Paul’s ideas directly, they do so with increasingly ineffective arguments. Consider further:
While the Constitution is trashed and mocked by all three branches, socialists and neocons talk about how Ron Paul's message of rule of law is anachronistic.
While government at all levels rob the people blind, socialists and neocons sneer at Ron Paul’s suggestion to get rid of the Federal income tax.
While the American economy further implodes due to the boom and bust cycle created by the Federal Reserve, socialists and neocons talk about how Ron Paul's anti-Fed proposals are "irrelevant."
While the prices of essential goods dramatically increase via inflation, socialists and neocons talk about how Ron Paul's hard-money ideas are unrealistic.
While Ron Paul educates Americans on economics, socialists and neocons spread discredited Keynesian and Marxist myths which undermine liberty and prosperity.
While Ron Paul plans to help reintegrate America with the world through peaceful trade and foreign policy, socialists and neocons smear him as "isolationist."
While Ron Paul gains more supporters every day, socialists and neocons criticize his lack of name recognition in land-line phone polling – yet at the same time groan about how fanatical and pervasive his supporters are...
Something isn't right. There is honest disagreement, and then there is demagoguery. There is mutual respect, and then there is mud-slinging. I cannot name one person who Dr. Paul has disparaged as badly as most of his critics see fit to disparage him. This says a lot about all said parties involved.
What is it then about Ron Paul that inspires such fevered attacks? I will say what I believe. I believe the battle for freedom takes place not only in the upcoming election, but also in the arena of ideas. In this arena, I believe Ron Paul’s message is more powerful than any political shenanigans that can be put against him. I believe also the embittered detractors have good reason to be up in arms. With every Ron Paul victory, they have found their intellectual weaponry to be unexpectedly brittle and ineffective against the message of freedom.
Wednesday Aug 22, 2007
From my experience, people who attack libertarians such as Ron Paul are often not serious about ideas. I have noticed the individuals who deride Dr. Paul do so mostly with shallow and dishonest attacks.
Take the various socialists and welfare-statists who attack Ron Paul. I understand they support nationalizing healthcare while generally being against the occupation of Iraq. Because they oppose the occupation, they should find a powerful ally in someone as principally opposed to it as Ron Paul. Take also the neoconservatives in the mass (minded) media such as Faux News who attack and omit Dr. Paul. I understand they support the occupation of the Middle East but also believe government should be strictly limited in accordance with traditional conservative ideas (right? right???). In Ron Paul, they have a great opportunity to highlight these at least rhetorical parallels while simultaneously expressing reasonable disagreements. Because of these considerations, I believe it reasonable to expect a certain amount of give and take among the three camps, if only for practical reasons.
What I have experienced instead has been a surreal and dishonest two-front attack against Ron Paul. No argument seems to be too trivial or irrelevant for the anti-Paulians to make. They seem to be bringing up every possible issue (real or imagined) against Ron Paul in the hopes something – anything – will stick.
Consider:
While the President gets dictatorial power to spy on and indefinitely kidnap innocent Americans, socialists and neocons speculate wildly about Ron Paul supporters "spamming" internet polls.
While thousands of men, women, and children violently die in Iraq and Afghanistan, socialists and neocons misrepresent Ron Paul's refusal to fund stem cell research.
While the Bush administration plots to drop nuclear weapons on Iran, socialists and neocons spin every single Ron Paul victory to be meaningless or nonexistent.
While people suffer without healthcare because government intervention makes it unaffordable to the poor, socialists and neocons distort a decade-old mishap Ron Paul had with one of his previous ghostwriters.
Where they manage to attack Dr. Paul’s ideas directly, they do so with increasingly ineffective arguments. Consider further:
While the Constitution is trashed and mocked by all three branches, socialists and neocons talk about how Ron Paul's message of rule of law is anachronistic.
While government at all levels rob the people blind, socialists and neocons sneer at Ron Paul’s suggestion to get rid of the Federal income tax.
While the American economy further implodes due to the boom and bust cycle created by the Federal Reserve, socialists and neocons talk about how Ron Paul's anti-Fed proposals are "irrelevant."
While the prices of essential goods dramatically increase via inflation, socialists and neocons talk about how Ron Paul's hard-money ideas are unrealistic.
While Ron Paul educates Americans on economics, socialists and neocons spread discredited Keynesian and Marxist myths which undermine liberty and prosperity.
While Ron Paul plans to help reintegrate America with the world through peaceful trade and foreign policy, socialists and neocons smear him as "isolationist."
While Ron Paul gains more supporters every day, socialists and neocons criticize his lack of name recognition in land-line phone polling – yet at the same time groan about how fanatical and pervasive his supporters are...
Something isn't right. There is honest disagreement, and then there is demagoguery. There is mutual respect, and then there is mud-slinging. I cannot name one person who Dr. Paul has disparaged as badly as most of his critics see fit to disparage him. This says a lot about all said parties involved.
What is it then about Ron Paul that inspires such fevered attacks? I will say what I believe. I believe the battle for freedom takes place not only in the upcoming election, but also in the arena of ideas. In this arena, I believe Ron Paul’s message is more powerful than any political shenanigans that can be put against him. I believe also the embittered detractors have good reason to be up in arms. With every Ron Paul victory, they have found their intellectual weaponry to be unexpectedly brittle and ineffective against the message of freedom.
Smarter People Weigh In On North American Union
Leading Conservatives Denounce Bush on 'North American Union'
Nathan BurchfielCNSNews.comTuesday Aug 21, 2007
President Bush is meeting with other world leaders in Canada this week to establish, in part, a "New World Order" that subverts national sovereignty, according to some leading American conservatives who have taken a hard stance against the president over the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).
President Bush is meeting in Quebec Monday and Tuesday with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon to discuss the SPP, which the U.S. government's Web site describes as a cooperative effort among Canada, the United States, and Mexico to "increase security and enhance prosperity ... through greater cooperation and information sharing."
Yet Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, said at a news conference in Ottawa Monday that Bush is trying to develop a "New World Order" of centralized world government controlled by super-national bureaucracies. Phillips said some of the bureaucracies already exist, including the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and United Nations.
Nathan BurchfielCNSNews.comTuesday Aug 21, 2007
President Bush is meeting with other world leaders in Canada this week to establish, in part, a "New World Order" that subverts national sovereignty, according to some leading American conservatives who have taken a hard stance against the president over the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).
President Bush is meeting in Quebec Monday and Tuesday with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon to discuss the SPP, which the U.S. government's Web site describes as a cooperative effort among Canada, the United States, and Mexico to "increase security and enhance prosperity ... through greater cooperation and information sharing."
Yet Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, said at a news conference in Ottawa Monday that Bush is trying to develop a "New World Order" of centralized world government controlled by super-national bureaucracies. Phillips said some of the bureaucracies already exist, including the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and United Nations.
Why Would You Ask Such A Question, Congressman?
Congressman inquires if it's legal to use spy satellites on Americans
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
A Democratic congressman is seeking answers after revelations that the US plans to use spy satellites against American citizens.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), who chairs a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, has written Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to ask a series of detailed questions about the new spying initiative. The congressman's letter, which was first reported by Secrecy News, outlines a string of inquiries about the legality of the domestic spying program and seeks assurances that American civil rights will be protected once the program becomes operational.
"Recent media reports of an unprecedented expansion of access to imagery from United States satellites for domestic surveillance purposes raise significant questions about the scope of this new program, its legal basis...the privacy safeguards in place to prevent abuse and related issues," the letter begins.
Markey goes on to ask why current spy satellite protocols, which according to press reports grant U.S security officials access to satellite images on a case-by-case basis, are inadequate. "How many of these requests were denied, if any?" he asks.
"How does the [Department of Homeland Security] plan to ensure Americans' privacy and civil rights are protected once this new program becomes operational?" the congressman continues later in the letter, requesting a copy of materials that explain what "policies and procedures are currently used to guide the use and dissemination of information obtained through the use of spy satellites."
Eyeing the legality of the proposed spy plan, Congressman Markey inquires as to what "memoranda, opinions or analyses have been prepared" to evaluate the new program, and asks specifically if the spying would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which regulates the use of the U.S. military for non-military purposes.
"If reviews of the program uncover improper usage of the program in a manner that undermines Americans' privacy and civil liberties," Markey asks, "will the Department convey such information to the Congress and the public? If not, why not?"
A copy of the Aug. 16 letter, which requests a response from the Department of Homeland Security no later than Sept. 7, can be found at this PDF link.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
A Democratic congressman is seeking answers after revelations that the US plans to use spy satellites against American citizens.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), who chairs a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, has written Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to ask a series of detailed questions about the new spying initiative. The congressman's letter, which was first reported by Secrecy News, outlines a string of inquiries about the legality of the domestic spying program and seeks assurances that American civil rights will be protected once the program becomes operational.
"Recent media reports of an unprecedented expansion of access to imagery from United States satellites for domestic surveillance purposes raise significant questions about the scope of this new program, its legal basis...the privacy safeguards in place to prevent abuse and related issues," the letter begins.
Markey goes on to ask why current spy satellite protocols, which according to press reports grant U.S security officials access to satellite images on a case-by-case basis, are inadequate. "How many of these requests were denied, if any?" he asks.
"How does the [Department of Homeland Security] plan to ensure Americans' privacy and civil rights are protected once this new program becomes operational?" the congressman continues later in the letter, requesting a copy of materials that explain what "policies and procedures are currently used to guide the use and dissemination of information obtained through the use of spy satellites."
Eyeing the legality of the proposed spy plan, Congressman Markey inquires as to what "memoranda, opinions or analyses have been prepared" to evaluate the new program, and asks specifically if the spying would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which regulates the use of the U.S. military for non-military purposes.
"If reviews of the program uncover improper usage of the program in a manner that undermines Americans' privacy and civil liberties," Markey asks, "will the Department convey such information to the Congress and the public? If not, why not?"
A copy of the Aug. 16 letter, which requests a response from the Department of Homeland Security no later than Sept. 7, can be found at this PDF link.
Most American Adults Are Raging Idiots.......This Just In
Most US adults in the dark about world politics
AFPWednesday, August 22, 2007
Two-thirds of US adults admit to being in the dark about political issues outside the United States, and only a third are well-versed in US politics, the results of a poll published Tuesday showed.
Candidates in the US presidential primaries "may have their work cut out for them as they work to get people interested in the election," wrote the Harris Poll group, which surveyed 2,225 adults between July 6 and 13 for the poll.
A separate survey gave New York Senator Hillary Clinton a healthy lead over her main rival Barack Obama for the Democratic primary race.
More than 40 percent of those who would vote in a Democratic primary or caucus would vote for Clinton while 27 percent said they would vote for Obama, the poll showed.
In the Republican race for the candidacy, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has a three-percentage point lead over ex-senator Fred Thompson, who hasn't yet declared that he is running, that poll, which surveyed 2,870 adults in the first week of August, showed.
Global political knowledge was miniscule, with just three percent of women and 14 percent of men saying they are extremely knowledgeable on world politics.
One reason for the knowledge gap is lack of interest, according to the poll.
"Well over half (57 percent) say they do not like learning about political issues in other countries," and 32 percent expressed a lack of interest for homespun politics, the Harris Poll group said.
AFPWednesday, August 22, 2007
Two-thirds of US adults admit to being in the dark about political issues outside the United States, and only a third are well-versed in US politics, the results of a poll published Tuesday showed.
Candidates in the US presidential primaries "may have their work cut out for them as they work to get people interested in the election," wrote the Harris Poll group, which surveyed 2,225 adults between July 6 and 13 for the poll.
A separate survey gave New York Senator Hillary Clinton a healthy lead over her main rival Barack Obama for the Democratic primary race.
More than 40 percent of those who would vote in a Democratic primary or caucus would vote for Clinton while 27 percent said they would vote for Obama, the poll showed.
In the Republican race for the candidacy, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has a three-percentage point lead over ex-senator Fred Thompson, who hasn't yet declared that he is running, that poll, which surveyed 2,870 adults in the first week of August, showed.
Global political knowledge was miniscule, with just three percent of women and 14 percent of men saying they are extremely knowledgeable on world politics.
One reason for the knowledge gap is lack of interest, according to the poll.
"Well over half (57 percent) say they do not like learning about political issues in other countries," and 32 percent expressed a lack of interest for homespun politics, the Harris Poll group said.
Actually, I Didn't Think America Was This Smart
Congress Approval Rating Matches Historical Low
Just 18% approve of job Congress is doing
by Jeffrey M. Jones
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.
That 18% job approval rating matches the low recorded in March 1992, when a check-bouncing scandal was one of several scandals besetting Congress, leading many states to pass term limits measures for U.S. representatives (which the Supreme Court later declared unconstitutional). Congress had a similarly low 19% approval rating during the energy crisis in the summer of 1979.
Americans' evaluations of the job Congress is doing are usually not that positive -- the vast majority of historical approval ratings have been below 50%. The high point was 84% approval one month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when Americans rallied behind the federal government. Since then, Congress' approval ratings have generally exhibited the same downward trajectory seen in those for President George W. Bush. Currently, 32% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president, a far cry from the record-high 90% he received in September 2001. Bush's current job approval rating is just three percentage points above his lowest.
There was a slight interruption in the downward trend in congressional approval ratings at the beginning of this year when party control changed hands from the Republicans to the Democrats following last fall's midterm elections. In January 2007, 35% of Americans approved of Congress, a significant increase from the 21% who approved of Congress in December 2006. That December rating tied the lowest in the 12 years the Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 to 2006.
But that "honeymoon" period for the new Democratically controlled Congress was brief, as its job ratings dropped below 30% in March 2007 and have now fallen below where they were just before the Democrats took over.
Frustration with Congress spans the political spectrum. There are only minor (but not statistically meaningful) differences in the approval ratings Democrats (21%), Republicans (18%), and independents (17%) give to Congress. Typically, partisans view Congress much more positively when their party is in control of the institution, so the fact that Democrats' ratings are not materially better than Republicans' is notable.
The nine-point drop in Congress' job approval rating from last month to this month has come exclusively from Democrats and independents, with Democrats' ratings dropping 11 points (from 32% to 21%) and independents' ratings dropping 13 points (from 30% to 17%). Republicans' 18% approval rating is unchanged from last month.
The decline in congressional job approval could merely reflect the cessation of any public good will it engendered when the new leadership arrived in January, since the current 18% rating is similar to what it was in December 2006 (21%).
But, it could also reflect disappointment with the new Congress' performance (especially among Democrats) and economic unease.
Americans elected the Democrats as the majority party in Congress in November 2006's midterm election in large part due to frustration with the Iraq war and an ineffective and scandal-plagued Republican-led Congress. But any hopes that the elections would lead to change have not been realized as Democrats' repeated attempts to force a change in Iraq war policy have been largely unsuccessful due to presidential vetoes, disagreements within their own party, and the inability to attract Republican support for their policy proposals. Also, many of the Democratic leadership's domestic agenda items have not become law even though some have passed one or both houses of Congress.
As the trend in congressional approval makes clear, ratings of Congress usually suffer during times of economic uncertainty, as during the late 1970s and early 1990s. While Americans' ratings of current economic conditions are not near historical lows, there is a great deal of concern about the direction in which the economy is headed. The latest poll finds a record 72% of Americans saying the economy is "getting worse."
Just 18% approve of job Congress is doing
by Jeffrey M. Jones
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.
That 18% job approval rating matches the low recorded in March 1992, when a check-bouncing scandal was one of several scandals besetting Congress, leading many states to pass term limits measures for U.S. representatives (which the Supreme Court later declared unconstitutional). Congress had a similarly low 19% approval rating during the energy crisis in the summer of 1979.
Americans' evaluations of the job Congress is doing are usually not that positive -- the vast majority of historical approval ratings have been below 50%. The high point was 84% approval one month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when Americans rallied behind the federal government. Since then, Congress' approval ratings have generally exhibited the same downward trajectory seen in those for President George W. Bush. Currently, 32% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president, a far cry from the record-high 90% he received in September 2001. Bush's current job approval rating is just three percentage points above his lowest.
There was a slight interruption in the downward trend in congressional approval ratings at the beginning of this year when party control changed hands from the Republicans to the Democrats following last fall's midterm elections. In January 2007, 35% of Americans approved of Congress, a significant increase from the 21% who approved of Congress in December 2006. That December rating tied the lowest in the 12 years the Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 to 2006.
But that "honeymoon" period for the new Democratically controlled Congress was brief, as its job ratings dropped below 30% in March 2007 and have now fallen below where they were just before the Democrats took over.
Frustration with Congress spans the political spectrum. There are only minor (but not statistically meaningful) differences in the approval ratings Democrats (21%), Republicans (18%), and independents (17%) give to Congress. Typically, partisans view Congress much more positively when their party is in control of the institution, so the fact that Democrats' ratings are not materially better than Republicans' is notable.
The nine-point drop in Congress' job approval rating from last month to this month has come exclusively from Democrats and independents, with Democrats' ratings dropping 11 points (from 32% to 21%) and independents' ratings dropping 13 points (from 30% to 17%). Republicans' 18% approval rating is unchanged from last month.
The decline in congressional job approval could merely reflect the cessation of any public good will it engendered when the new leadership arrived in January, since the current 18% rating is similar to what it was in December 2006 (21%).
But, it could also reflect disappointment with the new Congress' performance (especially among Democrats) and economic unease.
Americans elected the Democrats as the majority party in Congress in November 2006's midterm election in large part due to frustration with the Iraq war and an ineffective and scandal-plagued Republican-led Congress. But any hopes that the elections would lead to change have not been realized as Democrats' repeated attempts to force a change in Iraq war policy have been largely unsuccessful due to presidential vetoes, disagreements within their own party, and the inability to attract Republican support for their policy proposals. Also, many of the Democratic leadership's domestic agenda items have not become law even though some have passed one or both houses of Congress.
As the trend in congressional approval makes clear, ratings of Congress usually suffer during times of economic uncertainty, as during the late 1970s and early 1990s. While Americans' ratings of current economic conditions are not near historical lows, there is a great deal of concern about the direction in which the economy is headed. The latest poll finds a record 72% of Americans saying the economy is "getting worse."
I Don't Like Him Or His Politics, But The Man Knows An Opportunity
Countrywide lifts on talk that Warren Buffett will pounce
By David Litterick, in New York
Last Updated: 12:11am BST 22/08/2007
Playing his cards right: Buffett invested heavily in financial services groups
At almost every one of his annual meetings in Omaha for the past few years, Warren Buffett has talked of his desire to get back into the market with some major deals.
But by the time the next Berkshire Hathaway jamboree comes round, the company's cash pile remains unspent.
As he sought out attractive acquisitions, so too did the private equity companies that fought to land the next record buy. Asset prices soared, taking them out of reach of the Sage of Omaha who rarely shies away from expressing his distaste at the slash, burn and sell tactics of the private equity industry.
As a result, he now has almost $50bn (£25bn) to spend and, with stocks falling fast and private equity unable to borrow the cash they need, Mr Buffett's time may have come. Shares of Countrywide Financial, the largest US mortgage lender hamstrung by the sub-prime crisis and credit crunch, enjoyed a rare lift yesterday on speculation Mr Buffett may be ready to pounce.
advertisement
Countrywide's debt-servicing business and portfolio of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities may be attractive to Mr Buffett, who has invested heavily in financial services groups with exposure to the US mortgage market even as others flee. Earlier this month, Mr Buffett's investment company Berkshire Hathaway disclosed an investment in Bank of America, one of the six largest US mortgage lenders. Berkshire is a long-time shareholder in Wells Fargo, the second-largest US mortgage lender.
"I can spend money faster than Imelda Marcos when things are right," he told The Wall Street Journal, and last week said the worsening credit and housing markets may present "real" investment opportunities.
Speculation is mounting that Mr Buffett has been contacted by several struggling mortgage lenders and backers of private equity deals. He has a history of helping alleviate financial problems by offering help to distressed companies.
In 1991, he took over as chief executive of Salomon Brothers, then in the midst of a criminal probe for a scandal involving the Treasury market. Many credit him today for shepherding Salomon back into the good graces of securities regulators and investors.
He came close to bailing out hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management but changed his mind because he wanted its stocks, bonds and other securities not its management company and complex partnership structure. "This is Berkshire Hathaway's market," Thomas Russo, partner at investment fund Gardner Russo & Gardner, told The Journal.
Mr Buffet said recently: "I'm definitely more popular than I was a few months ago. But I started from a low base." By David Litterick in New York
AT almost every one of his annual meetings in Omaha for the past few years, Warren Buffett has talked of his desire to get back into the market with some major deals.
But by the time the next Berkshire Hathaway jamboree comes round, the company's cash pile remains unspent. As he sought out attractive acquisitions, so too did the private equity companies who fought each other to land the next record buy. Asset prices soared, taking them out of reach of the Sage of Omaha who rarely shies away from expressing his distaste at the slash, burn and sell tactics of the private equity industry.
As a result, his cash pile has only grown higher. He now has close to $50bn (£25bn) to spend and with stocks falling fast, and private equity unable to borrow the cash they need, Mr Buffett's time may have come.
Shares of Countrywide Financial, the biggest US mortgage lender now hamstrung by the sub-prime crisis and subsequent credit crunch, enjoyed a rare lift yesterday on speculation Mr Buffett may be ready to pounce.
Countrywide's debt-servicing business and its portfolio of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities may be attractive to Mr Buffett, who has been investing heavily in financial services groups with exposure to the US mortgage market even as others flee.
Earlier this month, Buffett's investment company Berkshire Hathaway disclosed an investment in Bank of America, one of the six largest US mortgage lenders. Berkshire is also a long-time shareholder in Wells Fargo the second largest U.S. mortgage lender after Countrywide which is known for its conservative lending standards.
"I can spend money faster than Imelda Marcos when things are right," he told The Wall Street Journal, and just last week insisted that the worsening credit and housing markets may present some "real" investment opportunities.
Speculation is mounting that Mr Buffett, as one of the last men standing, has been contacted in recent weeks by a host of sellers - including struggling mortgage lenders and backers of private-equity deals.
He has a history of helping alleviate financial problems by offering help to distressed companies.
In 1991, he took over as chief executive of Salomon Brothers, then in the midst of a criminal probe for a scandal involving the Treasury market. Many credit Mr Buffett today for shepherding Salomon back into the good graces of securities regulators and investors.
He also came close to bailing out hedge-fund Long-Term Capital Management but eventually changed his mind because he wanted the firm's assets - its stocks, bonds and other securities - not its management company and its complex partnership structure.
"This is Berkshire Hathaway's market," Thomas Russo, partner at investment fund Gardner Russo & Gardner, told The Journal.
"I'm definitely more popular than I was a few months ago," Mr Buffet said recently. "But I started from a low base."
Last Updated: 12:11am BST 22/08/2007
Playing his cards right: Buffett invested heavily in financial services groups
At almost every one of his annual meetings in Omaha for the past few years, Warren Buffett has talked of his desire to get back into the market with some major deals.
But by the time the next Berkshire Hathaway jamboree comes round, the company's cash pile remains unspent.
As he sought out attractive acquisitions, so too did the private equity companies that fought to land the next record buy. Asset prices soared, taking them out of reach of the Sage of Omaha who rarely shies away from expressing his distaste at the slash, burn and sell tactics of the private equity industry.
As a result, he now has almost $50bn (£25bn) to spend and, with stocks falling fast and private equity unable to borrow the cash they need, Mr Buffett's time may have come. Shares of Countrywide Financial, the largest US mortgage lender hamstrung by the sub-prime crisis and credit crunch, enjoyed a rare lift yesterday on speculation Mr Buffett may be ready to pounce.
advertisement
Countrywide's debt-servicing business and portfolio of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities may be attractive to Mr Buffett, who has invested heavily in financial services groups with exposure to the US mortgage market even as others flee. Earlier this month, Mr Buffett's investment company Berkshire Hathaway disclosed an investment in Bank of America, one of the six largest US mortgage lenders. Berkshire is a long-time shareholder in Wells Fargo, the second-largest US mortgage lender.
"I can spend money faster than Imelda Marcos when things are right," he told The Wall Street Journal, and last week said the worsening credit and housing markets may present "real" investment opportunities.
Speculation is mounting that Mr Buffett has been contacted by several struggling mortgage lenders and backers of private equity deals. He has a history of helping alleviate financial problems by offering help to distressed companies.
In 1991, he took over as chief executive of Salomon Brothers, then in the midst of a criminal probe for a scandal involving the Treasury market. Many credit him today for shepherding Salomon back into the good graces of securities regulators and investors.
He came close to bailing out hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management but changed his mind because he wanted its stocks, bonds and other securities not its management company and complex partnership structure. "This is Berkshire Hathaway's market," Thomas Russo, partner at investment fund Gardner Russo & Gardner, told The Journal.
Mr Buffet said recently: "I'm definitely more popular than I was a few months ago. But I started from a low base." By David Litterick in New York
AT almost every one of his annual meetings in Omaha for the past few years, Warren Buffett has talked of his desire to get back into the market with some major deals.
But by the time the next Berkshire Hathaway jamboree comes round, the company's cash pile remains unspent. As he sought out attractive acquisitions, so too did the private equity companies who fought each other to land the next record buy. Asset prices soared, taking them out of reach of the Sage of Omaha who rarely shies away from expressing his distaste at the slash, burn and sell tactics of the private equity industry.
As a result, his cash pile has only grown higher. He now has close to $50bn (£25bn) to spend and with stocks falling fast, and private equity unable to borrow the cash they need, Mr Buffett's time may have come.
Shares of Countrywide Financial, the biggest US mortgage lender now hamstrung by the sub-prime crisis and subsequent credit crunch, enjoyed a rare lift yesterday on speculation Mr Buffett may be ready to pounce.
Countrywide's debt-servicing business and its portfolio of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities may be attractive to Mr Buffett, who has been investing heavily in financial services groups with exposure to the US mortgage market even as others flee.
Earlier this month, Buffett's investment company Berkshire Hathaway disclosed an investment in Bank of America, one of the six largest US mortgage lenders. Berkshire is also a long-time shareholder in Wells Fargo the second largest U.S. mortgage lender after Countrywide which is known for its conservative lending standards.
"I can spend money faster than Imelda Marcos when things are right," he told The Wall Street Journal, and just last week insisted that the worsening credit and housing markets may present some "real" investment opportunities.
Speculation is mounting that Mr Buffett, as one of the last men standing, has been contacted in recent weeks by a host of sellers - including struggling mortgage lenders and backers of private-equity deals.
He has a history of helping alleviate financial problems by offering help to distressed companies.
In 1991, he took over as chief executive of Salomon Brothers, then in the midst of a criminal probe for a scandal involving the Treasury market. Many credit Mr Buffett today for shepherding Salomon back into the good graces of securities regulators and investors.
He also came close to bailing out hedge-fund Long-Term Capital Management but eventually changed his mind because he wanted the firm's assets - its stocks, bonds and other securities - not its management company and its complex partnership structure.
"This is Berkshire Hathaway's market," Thomas Russo, partner at investment fund Gardner Russo & Gardner, told The Journal.
"I'm definitely more popular than I was a few months ago," Mr Buffet said recently. "But I started from a low base."
Why? the British Are Bigger Communists Than Russia Now..........
RAF Eurofighters intercept Russian bomber
By Richard Holt
Last Updated: 8:06pm BST 21/08/2007
RAF fighter jets were sent to intercept a Russian bomber which was heading towards British air space over the North Atlantic, it emerged this evening.
Eurofighter intercepts the bomber
Two Typhoons were sent from RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire to meet the Bear-H aircraft after the early warning radar system detected it heading towards UK territory, according to the Ministry of Defence.
It is the first time the Typhoon Eurofighters have been scrambled since they took on operational duties on June 29.
No more details have been released about the incident, which took place last week, but it is bound to heighten tensions after a number of assertive acts by Moscow.
President Vladimir Putin announced this week that Russia has resumed long-range patrols by its bomber planes for the first time since the end of the Cold War.
advertisement
Relations with both Europe and the United States have been deteriorating as Russia, buoyed by booming energy prices, has shaken off the post-Soviet malaise of the 1990s.
Western criticism has mounted as Mr Putin curtailed freedoms in Russia and imposed economic punishments on ex-Soviet neighbours who had pursued a pro-Western course.
In June The Kremlin was angered by US plans to move missile systems into eastern Europe.
Mr Putin threatened to aim Russian nuclear missiles at European cities in retaliation.
While Washington insists that the missiles are directed at the growing threat of Iran and North Korea, the Kremlin is convinced they are directed at Russia.
Earlier this month Sergei Ivanov, the hawkish Russian defence minister seen as a possible successor to Mr Putin when he stands down next year, announced an eight-year £100 billion military upgrade.
Defence spending has quadrupled since Mr Putin came to power in May 2000.
Last Updated: 8:06pm BST 21/08/2007
RAF fighter jets were sent to intercept a Russian bomber which was heading towards British air space over the North Atlantic, it emerged this evening.
Eurofighter intercepts the bomber
Two Typhoons were sent from RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire to meet the Bear-H aircraft after the early warning radar system detected it heading towards UK territory, according to the Ministry of Defence.
It is the first time the Typhoon Eurofighters have been scrambled since they took on operational duties on June 29.
No more details have been released about the incident, which took place last week, but it is bound to heighten tensions after a number of assertive acts by Moscow.
President Vladimir Putin announced this week that Russia has resumed long-range patrols by its bomber planes for the first time since the end of the Cold War.
advertisement
Relations with both Europe and the United States have been deteriorating as Russia, buoyed by booming energy prices, has shaken off the post-Soviet malaise of the 1990s.
Western criticism has mounted as Mr Putin curtailed freedoms in Russia and imposed economic punishments on ex-Soviet neighbours who had pursued a pro-Western course.
In June The Kremlin was angered by US plans to move missile systems into eastern Europe.
Mr Putin threatened to aim Russian nuclear missiles at European cities in retaliation.
While Washington insists that the missiles are directed at the growing threat of Iran and North Korea, the Kremlin is convinced they are directed at Russia.
Earlier this month Sergei Ivanov, the hawkish Russian defence minister seen as a possible successor to Mr Putin when he stands down next year, announced an eight-year £100 billion military upgrade.
Defence spending has quadrupled since Mr Putin came to power in May 2000.
They're Powerful, But Still Cowards At Heart
PREMEDITATED MERGER
SPP Summit ends with 'conspiracy' denial
Meeting considers agenda of secret multi-national business coalition
Posted: August 22, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
"The Late Great USA" discusses the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and its impacts
President Bush used the occasion of the first Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America summit in Waco, Texas, in 2005 to call The Minuteman Project "vigilantes." Yesterday, at the third SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, he charged that anyone who was concerned the SPP was advancing a North American Union agenda or supporting NAFTA Superhighways was a "conspiracy theorist."
Such accusations likely will end up being the most memorable moments of their respective meetings, as other meetings, agendas and decisions have been cloaked in secrecy.
As the Montebello event closed, Bush, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper joined to state that the national sovereignty of the three nations was not at risk, even though under SPP North American integration had advanced to the point where national independence was being balanced by international interdependence.
The leaders then accepted questions, responding to inquiries about Iraq, and finishing with the three leaders declaring that Mexico's failed war on narco-terrorist drug lords was such a continental crisis that U.S. military aid might be required to fight the threat.
The entire Montebello confab took less than 24 hours, barely time for the leaders to fly to the remote Canadian resort in the Quebec woods, have dinner, sleep, hold a press conference and leave.
Calderon openly professed that he needed to return to Mexico to attend to the crisis of Hurricane Dean.
But an underlying reason may have been that all three leaders were so weak in their own countries that none of them really wanted to take on publicly the burden of openly advancing the SPP North American integration agenda when that agenda was increasingly under vocal opposition, especially in Canada and the United States.
Twice during the press conference, Harper took pains to profess that SPP was really not his idea, but a deal he inherited from his liberal predecessor, Paul Martin.
The meeting Bush defended from nameless "conspiracy theorists" was largely held behind closed doors where top bureaucrats from the three governments spent their limited meeting time listening, evidently to the complaints that the multi-national business leaders of the North American Competitiveness Council had about jelly bean regulations, according to Harper's comments at the press conference.
The leaders affirmed that border security was discussed, yet there was no mention of plans to stem the tide of illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States, or about congressionally-approved plans to build a barricade fence.
They expressed concern that should another 9/11 crisis happen some future politicians may have a knee-jerk reaction to close the borders, and assumed that would be detrimental to the SPP's agenda, the continued prosperity of North American multi-national corporations.
Members of the media were bused each day more than an hour from Ottawa and carefully monitored by security during the meetings.
In front of the cameras, the leaders professed how important such annual in-person SPP meetings are, but press observers noted that the three shuttled away in their helicopters after the press conference without even a final lunch together.
Posted: August 22, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
"The Late Great USA" discusses the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and its impacts
President Bush used the occasion of the first Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America summit in Waco, Texas, in 2005 to call The Minuteman Project "vigilantes." Yesterday, at the third SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, he charged that anyone who was concerned the SPP was advancing a North American Union agenda or supporting NAFTA Superhighways was a "conspiracy theorist."
Such accusations likely will end up being the most memorable moments of their respective meetings, as other meetings, agendas and decisions have been cloaked in secrecy.
As the Montebello event closed, Bush, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper joined to state that the national sovereignty of the three nations was not at risk, even though under SPP North American integration had advanced to the point where national independence was being balanced by international interdependence.
The leaders then accepted questions, responding to inquiries about Iraq, and finishing with the three leaders declaring that Mexico's failed war on narco-terrorist drug lords was such a continental crisis that U.S. military aid might be required to fight the threat.
The entire Montebello confab took less than 24 hours, barely time for the leaders to fly to the remote Canadian resort in the Quebec woods, have dinner, sleep, hold a press conference and leave.
Calderon openly professed that he needed to return to Mexico to attend to the crisis of Hurricane Dean.
But an underlying reason may have been that all three leaders were so weak in their own countries that none of them really wanted to take on publicly the burden of openly advancing the SPP North American integration agenda when that agenda was increasingly under vocal opposition, especially in Canada and the United States.
Twice during the press conference, Harper took pains to profess that SPP was really not his idea, but a deal he inherited from his liberal predecessor, Paul Martin.
The meeting Bush defended from nameless "conspiracy theorists" was largely held behind closed doors where top bureaucrats from the three governments spent their limited meeting time listening, evidently to the complaints that the multi-national business leaders of the North American Competitiveness Council had about jelly bean regulations, according to Harper's comments at the press conference.
The leaders affirmed that border security was discussed, yet there was no mention of plans to stem the tide of illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States, or about congressionally-approved plans to build a barricade fence.
They expressed concern that should another 9/11 crisis happen some future politicians may have a knee-jerk reaction to close the borders, and assumed that would be detrimental to the SPP's agenda, the continued prosperity of North American multi-national corporations.
Members of the media were bused each day more than an hour from Ottawa and carefully monitored by security during the meetings.
In front of the cameras, the leaders professed how important such annual in-person SPP meetings are, but press observers noted that the three shuttled away in their helicopters after the press conference without even a final lunch together.
Robert's On The Silver Train
A Silver Lining for Nervous Investors
by Robert KiyosakiThe subprime mess is widespread, and it seems to be getting worse. It's certainly worse if you're about to lose your home.
The stock market is schizoid -- up one day and down the next. If you're a day trader, this volatility is pure heaven; if you're getting ready to retire, it's likely to give you a heart attack.
Big Deal
As for commercial real estate, it's a great market. I just bought a 350-unit apartment house in Tulsa with an assumable loan at a 4.9 percent interest rate. Rents are low, the oil business is creating jobs, and demand for apartments is high.
As with any market, the real estate business is terrible for some people and couldn't be better for others (like me).
But as much as I love real estate, I believe the biggest opportunity today is in silver. I think this precious metal is about to become the most spectacular investment in recent history -- bigger than oil, even bigger than Google.
All That Glitters
Let me give you some reasons why:
• Silver is a consumable industrial commodity.
It's used in computers, cells phones, and electrical relays. This means that as countries like China, India, and Vietnam, and regions like Eastern Europe, become more modernized, the demand for silver will increase.
Silver is also applied in medicine. One little-known use is as a bactericide, a role silver has filled throughout history. Today, medical devices such as catheters and stethoscopes use silver, and every hospital in the western world uses silver sulfadiazine to prevent infections.
• Silver is scarcer than gold.
Gold is hoarded. It's estimated that 95 percent of all gold ever mined is still around. The exact opposite is true of silver: An estimated 95 percent of all silver ever mined has been consumed.
Forty-five percent of all silver mined is burned up in industrial uses. Jewelry accounts for 28 percent, and 20 percent has been consumed in photography. Only 5 percent is in coins.
• Silver supplies are down.
In 1900, it was estimated that the world had 12 billion ounces of silver. By 1990 it had dropped to 2.2 billion ounces. By 2007, the supply was down to 300 million ounces.
Some of the more pessimistic forecasts estimate that the world will be out of silver in about 10 years. This could be catastrophic to the world economy. In 10 years, silver might have as much of an impact on the world economy as $200-a-barrel oil.
A Safe Haven?
As a precious metal, silver is also money. And as the U.S. dollar drops, gold and silver are seen as a hedge against a loss of value. As more and more people wake up to the reality that their cash is trash, real estate is a gamble, and the stock market is too volatile, silver may be a great safe haven.
As I write, silver is approximately $13 an ounce. If industrial consumption continues and monetary panic sets in, who knows how high the price will go? Between 1979 and 1980, silver went to $48 an ounce. In today's dollars, that would be the same as $80 an ounce.
And recently, exchange traded funds in silver have been added as a way for investors to hold silver. The reason I find the silver ETF so intriguing is because an ETF represents real money -- not fake money like the U.S. dollar.
The ETF Solution
Prior to 1963, a U.S. dollar was real money that could conceivably be exchanged for silver. After 1963, it became a Federal Reserve note that was no longer backed by silver. A silver ETF is similar to old-time money, then, and as the U.S. dollar continues to drop in purchasing power these new ETFs may become the "new old money."
The significance of the new silver ETF is that it makes owning silver simple and convenient for the general public. Owning silver ETFs is easier than owning physical silver, which is heavy and requires security such as a safe. And owning silver ETFs is safer than buying a silver mining stock, which can be risky.
Silver ETFs are also pretty straightforward: If silver is $13 an ounce, you buy so many ounces at that price. If the price of silver goes up, you make money; if the price goes down, you lose money. The risk is minimized because you're buying physical silver -- you aren't buying a share of a silver company, which can go bust. As long as the ETF is honorable and protects your silver, your investment is secure. (A caveat: Silver ETFs haven't proven reliable yet, so use caution if you take this route.)
A Rich Find for Investors
My prediction is that the industrial demand for silver will continue to go up as the wider world becomes more modernized. At the same time, as the dollar drops in purchasing power, the average investor will wake up to the convenience of owning silver ETFs and start to buy them.
Consequently, the ETF side will dry up the silver supply for the industrial side. Someday in the near future, then -- maybe in two to five years from now -- these two forces will collide and the price of silver will go up faster than anything on the market today.
The Birth of a Silver Bug
I personally became interested in silver in 1957 as a 10-year-old boy, when I began collecting coins. I became a true silver bug when, in 1965, the federal government took silver coins out of circulation and reduced the silver content of a silver dollar from 90 percent to 40 percent. I immediately began getting bags of coins from my local bank and scratching through them looking for real silver coins.
Little did I know that I was simply behaving according to Gresham's Law, which states that good money goes into hiding when bad money enters the system. Today, I still have the silver coins I socked away as a kid.
While it's true that I could've profited more by putting my money into investments other than coins, my love of silver caused me to watch and understand the silver market. After five decades of doing so, I'm quite certain that silver will soon emerge as not just a good investment, but a spectacular one -- maybe even a once-in-a-lifetime investment. Of course, I've been saying that for 50 years now, so take my advice with a shot of tequila.
Buying In
Anyway, there are three ways to play silver:
• Buy coins from a coin dealer
• Buy shares in silver mining companies
• Cautiously buy silver ETFs through your stockbroker
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Like Iraq and Afghanistan Aren't Enough
All U.S. presidents eventually become lame ducks, though the lameness of any particular duck depends on the amount of power he has left to wield. It not only is an issue of the president's popularity, but also of the opposition's unity and clarity. In the international context, the power of a lame duck president depends on the options he has militarily. Foreign powers do not mess with American presidents, no matter how lame one might be, as long as the president retains military options.The core of the American presidency is in its role as commander in chief. With all of the other presidential powers deeply intersecting with those of Congress and the courts, the president has the greatest autonomous power when he is acting as supreme commander of the armed forces. There is a remarkable lot he can do if he wishes to, and relatively little Congress can do to stop him -- unless it is uniquely united. Therefore, foreign nations remain wary of the American president's military power long after they have stopped taking him seriously in other aspects of foreign relations. There is a school of thought that argues that President George W. Bush is likely to strike at Iran before he leaves office. The sense is that Bush is uniquely indifferent to either Congress or public opinion and that he therefore is likely to use his military powers in some decisive fashion, under the expectation and hope that history will vindicate him. In that sense, Bush is very much not a lame duck, because if he wanted to strike, there is nothing legally preventing him from doing so. The endless debates over presidential powers -- which have roiled both Republican and Democratic administrations -- have left one thing clear: The courts will not intervene against an American president's use of his power as commander in chief. Congress may cut off money after the fact, but as we have seen, that is not a power that is normally put to use.The problem for Bush, of course, is that he is fighting two simultaneous wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. These wars have sucked up the resources of the U.S. Army to a remarkable degree. Units are either engaged in these theaters of operation, recovering from deployment or preparing for deployment. To an extraordinary degree, the United States does not have a real strategic reserve in its ground forces, the Army and the Marines. A force could probably be scraped up to deal with a limited crisis, but U.S. forces are committed and there are no more troops to scatter around.The United States faces another potential theater of operations in Iran. Fighting there might not necessarily be something initiated by the United States. The Iranians might choose to create a crisis the United States couldn’t avoid. That would suck up not only what little ground reserves are available, but also a good part of U.S. air and naval forces. The United States would be throwing all of its chips on the table, with few reserves left. With all U.S. forces engaged in a line from the Euphrates to the Hindu Kush, the rest of the world would be wide open to second-tier powers. This is Bush's strategic problem -- the one that shapes his role as commander in chief. He has committed virtually all of his land forces to two wars. His only reserves are the Air Force and Navy. If they were sucked into a war in Iran, it would limit U.S. reserves for other contingencies. The United States alone does not get to choose whether there is a crisis with Iran. Iran gets to vote too. We don’t believe there will be a military confrontation with Iran, but the United States must do its contingency planning as if there will be.Thus, Bush is a lame-duck commander in chief as well. Even if he completely disregards the politics of his position, which he can do, he still lacks the sheer military resources to achieve any meaningful goal without the use of nuclear weapons. But his problem goes beyond the Iran scenario. Lacking ground forces, the president's ability to influence events throughout the world is severely impaired. Moreover, if he were to throw his air forces into a non-Iranian crisis, all pressure on Iran would be lifted. The United States is strategically tapped out. There is no land force available and the use of air and naval forces without land forces, while able to achieve some important goals, would not be decisive. The United States has entered a place where it has almost no room to maneuver. The president is becoming a lame duck in the fullest sense of the term. This opens a window of opportunity for powers, particularly second-tier powers, that would not be prepared to challenge the United States while its forces had flexibility. One power in particular has begun to use this window of opportunity -- Russia. Russia is not the country it was 10 years ago. Its economy, fueled by rising energy and mineral prices, is financially solvent. The state has moved from being a smashed relic of the Soviet era to becoming a more traditional Russian state: authoritarian, repressive, accepting private property but only under terms it finds acceptable. It also is redefining its sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union and reviving its military.For example, a Russian aircraft recently fired a missile at a Georgian village. Intentionally or not, the missile was a dud, though it clearly was meant to signal to the Georgians -- close allies of the United States and unfriendly to Russian interests in the region -- that not only is Russia unhappy, it is prepared to take military action if it chooses. It also clearly told the Georgians that the Russians are unconcerned about the United States and its possible response. It must have given the Georgians a chill.The Russians planted their flag under the sea at the North Pole after the Canadians announced plans to construct armed icebreakers and establish a deepwater port from which to operate in the Far North. The Russians announced the construction of a new air defense system by 2015 -- not a very long time as these things go. They also announced plans to create a new command and control system in the same time frame. Russian long-range aircraft flew east in the Pacific to the region of Guam, an important U.S. air base, causing the United States to scramble fighter planes. They also flew into what used to be the GIUK gap (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) probing air defenses along the Norwegian coast and in Scotland.Most interestingly, they announced the resumption of patrols in the Atlantic, along the U.S. coast, using Blackjack strategic bombers and the old workhorse of the Russian fleet, the Bear. (The balance does remain in U.S. favor along the East Coast). During the Cold War, patrols such as these were designed to carry out electronic and signal intelligence. They were designed to map out U.S. facilities along the Eastern seaboard and observe response time and procedures. During the Cold War they would land in Cuba for refueling before retracing their steps. It will be interesting to see whether Russia will ask Cuba for landing privileges and whether the Cubans will permit it. As interesting, Russian and Chinese troops conducted military exercises recently in the context of regional talks. It is not something to take too seriously, but then they are not trivial.Many of these are older planes. The Bear, for example, dates back to the 1950s -- but so does the B-52, which remains important to the U.S. strategic bomber fleet. The age of the airframe doesn't matter nearly as much as maintenance, refits, upgrades to weapons and avionics and so on. Nothing can be assumed from the mere age of the aircraft.The rather remarkable flurry of Russian air operations -- as well as plans for naval development -- is partly a political gesture. The Russians are tired of the United States pressing into their sphere of influence, and they see a real window of opportunity to press back with limited risk of American response. But the Russians appear to be doing more than making a gesture.The Russians are trying to redefine the global balance. They are absolutely under no illusion that they can match American military power in any sphere. But they are clearly asserting their right to operate as a second-tier global power and are systematically demonstrating their global reach. They may be old and they may be slow, but when American aircraft on the East Coast start to scramble routinely to intercept and escort Russian aircraft, two things happen. First, U.S. military planning has to shift to take Russia into account. Second, the United States loses even more flexibility. It can't just ignore the Russians. It now needs to devote scarce dollars to upgrading systems along the East Coast -- systems that have been quite neglected since the end of the Cold War. There is a core assumption in the U.S. government that Russia no longer is a significant power. It is true that its vast army has disintegrated. But the Russians do not need a vast army modeled on World War II. They need, and have begun to develop, a fairly effective military built around special forces and airborne troops. They also have appeared to pursue their research and development, particularly in the area of air defense and air-launched missiles -- areas in which they have traditionally been strong. The tendency to underestimate the Russian military -- something even Russians do -- is misplaced. Russia's military is capable and improving.The increased Russian tempo of operations in areas that the United States has been able to ignore for many years further pins the United States. It can be assumed that the Russians mean no harm -- but assumption is not a luxury national security planners can permit themselves, at least not good ones. It takes years to develop and deploy new systems. If the Russians are probing the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic again, it is not the current threat that matters, but the threat that might evolve. That diverts budget dollars from heavily armored trucks that can survive improvised explosive device attacks, and cuts into the Air Force and Navy. The Russians are using the window of opportunity to redefine, in a modest way, the global balance and gain some room to maneuver in their region. As a result of their more assertive posture, American thoughts of unilateral interventions must decline. For example, getting involved in Georgia once was a low-risk activity. The risk just went up. Taking that risk while U.S. ground forces are completely absorbed in Iraq and Afghanistan is hard for the Americans to justify -- but rather easy for the Russians.This brings us back to the discussion of the commander in chief's options in the Middle East. The United States already has limited options against Iran. The more the Russians maneuver, the more the United States must hold what forces it has left -- Air Force and Navy -- in reserve. Launching an Iranian adventure becomes that much more risky. If it is launched, Russia has an even greater window of opportunity. Every further involvement in the region makes the United States that much less of a factor in the immediate global equation.All wars end, and these will too. The Russians are trying to rearrange the furniture a bit before anyone comes home and forces them out. They are dealing with a lame duck president with fewer options than most lame ducks. Before there is a new president and before the war in Iraq ends, the Russians want to redefine the situation a bit.
GW Didn't Even Have The Guts To Admit It......Coward
.jpg)
PREMEDITATED MERGER
Bush doesn't deny plans for N. American Union
President avoids question, ridicules 'conspiracy theorists' who believe it
Posted: August 21, 20075:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico conferred over the Security and Prosperity Partnership
MONTEBELLO, Quebec – President Bush today sidestepped a direct question about whether he'd be willing to categorically deny there is a plan to create the North American Union.
Instead, he ridiculed those who believe that is taking place as conspiracy theorists.
The exchange came at a news conference held by Bush, Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who met at a resort in the rural woods outside of Ottawa, Quebec, to discuss their latest work on the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
After the trio presented their prepared statement about the SPP, several reporters who had been selected in advance were allowed to ask questions.
When it came time for a question from a Fox News reporter, Bush was asked if he would be willing to categorically deny that there is a plan to create a North American Union, or that there are plans to create NAFTA Superhighways.
"As you three leaders meet here, there are a growing number of people in each of your countries who have expressed concern about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This is addressed to all three of you. Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union? Are there plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all three countries? And do you believe all of these theories about a possible erosion of national identity stem from a lack of transparency from this partnership?" was the question, according to a White House transcript.
Reporters at the news conference said he sidestepped, instead adopting the tactic that those who are arguing the European Union model of integrating nations into a larger continental union is being used in North America should be ridiculed.
He called it an old political scare tactic, to try to create a wild conspiracy and then demand that those who "are not engaged" prove that it isn't happening.
Bush's answer was:
"We represent three great nations. We each respect each other's sovereignty. You know, there are some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples. I just believe they're wrong. I believe it's in our interest to trade; I believe it's in our interest to dialogue; I believe it's in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people.
"And I'm amused by some of the speculation, some of the old – you can call them political scare tactics. If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate. I'm here representing my nation. I feel strongly that the United States is a force for good, and I feel strongly that by working with our neighbors we can a stronger force for good.
"So I appreciate that question. I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place. It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about."
Harper joined in. There's not going to be any NAFTA Superhighway connecting the three nations, he said, and it's "not going to go interplanetary either," he said.
Harper said the SPP discussions that were held concerned such pressing issues as jelly beans. He said the business interests expressing their desires for progress on the SPP noted there were different standards in the United States and Canada, and there was a discussion about whether those standards could be made uniform for the U.S. and Canada.
Bush's comments echoed the comments published just a day earlier in the Ottawa Citizen by David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador to Canada.
"While conspiracy theories abound, you can take it to the bank that no one involved in these discussions is interested in, or has ever proposed, a 'North American Union,' a 'North American super highway,' or a 'North American currency,'" he wrote.
"The United States, Canada and Mexico are three distinct, sovereign countries that practice democracy differently," he wrote. "Each proudly defends its own interests. But our leaders also recognize that we share a continent in this post-Sept. 11 world, where terrorism is but one threat. We have a vested interest in working together to prevent potential threats outside North America – like those posed by pandemic flu or improperly labeled foods, for example – from penetrating our borders.
Wilkins wrote that the nations also are "exploring ways to detect radiological threats and coordinating emergency efforts along our borders in the event of a man-made or natural disaster. It just makes sense when you share thousands of miles of common border to share a common emergency-management plan."
He said another goal is to reduce the cost of doing business across national borders.
"The Late Great USA," which was criticized by President Bush at the conclusion of the SPP summit in Quebec
However, Jerome Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D. whose newly published book, "The Late Great USA," uses the government's own documentation to show the advance of a North American Union, said ridicule is the "last resort of someone who is losing an argument."
Such tactics, Corsi said, "underestimate the intelligence of people listening, and people realize that the argument wasn't answered."
At the news conference, he noted, Bush failed to respond to the Fox News question with a denial of the plans for a North American Union.
And, Corsi said, "Bush did not address the fact that Texas Gov. Rick Perrry vetoed a two-year moratorium on the Trans-Texas Corridor project," believed to be the starting point for an eventual continent-wide grid of NAFTA Superhighways.
"Just to ridicule the idea, when he had a change to categorically deny it, raises doubts in peoples' minds, especially when these meetings aren't transparent," Corsi added.
The meeting this week, which focused on economic issues, was attended by representatives of dozens of multinational corporations anxious to have their manufacturing and sales processes smoothed.
However, Corsi said, "not one person who objects is permitted inside the room."
At the same time, Bush did affirm that there is a plan under consideration for the United States to provide military assistance to Mexico's military in its battles in the drug war, although officials were not ready to announce what that plan includes.
The three national leaders simply affirmed that drug trade is a continental problem and would demand a continental solution.
The formal statement from the three leaders referred to the "opportunities and challenges facing North America and [the need] to establish priorities for our further collaboration."
They said the three nations already have agreed to a North American plan for avian and pandemic influenza, a "Regulatory Cooperation Framework," an intellectual property action strategy and a "Trilateral Agreement for Cooperation in Energy Science and Technology."
"The North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), announced last year in Cancun, has provided us with thoughtful recommendations on how we could strengthen the competitive platform for business," the statement said.
The statement said the Regulatory Cooperation Framework will allow various rules to be streamlined across borders.
"In the coming year, we ask our ministers to consider work in areas, such as the chemicals, automotive, transportation, and information and communications technology sectors," the statement said.
And the Intellectual Property Action Strategy "also gives us an invaluable tool for combating counterfeiting and piracy, which undermine innovation, harm economic development and can have negative public-health and safety implications," the three said.
Food safety and border security also were discussed. "Our governments will continue to address the safety of food and products imported into North America, while facilitating the significant trade in these products that our countries already have and without imposing unnecessary barriers to trade," the leaders said.
"It is sometimes best to screen goods and travelers prior to entry into North America. We ask our ministers to develop mutually acceptable inspection protocols to detect threats to our security, such as from incoming travelers during a pandemic and from radiological devices on general aviation," the statement said.
But protesters who staged events in Ottawa as the meetings were moving forward, warned of the integration and harmonizing the SPP seeks.
"The SPP is pursuing an agenda to integrate Mexico and Canada in closed-door sessions that are getting underway today in Montebello," Howard Phillips, the chairman of the Coalition to Block the North American Union, told an earlier press conference in Ottawa.
"We are here to register our protest," Phillips added, "along with the protests of thousands of Americans who agree with us that the SPP is a globalist agenda driven by the multi-national corporate interests and intellectual elite who together have launched an attack upon the national sovereignty of the United States, Canada and Mexico."
Connie Fogel, head of the Canadian Action Party, agreed with Phillips.
"Canadians are complaining that the SPP process lacks transparency," Fogel told the press conference. "Transparency is a major issue, but even if the SPP working groups were open to the public, we would still object to their goal to advance the North American integration agenda at the expense of Canadian sovereignty."
Posted: August 21, 20075:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico conferred over the Security and Prosperity Partnership
MONTEBELLO, Quebec – President Bush today sidestepped a direct question about whether he'd be willing to categorically deny there is a plan to create the North American Union.
Instead, he ridiculed those who believe that is taking place as conspiracy theorists.
The exchange came at a news conference held by Bush, Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who met at a resort in the rural woods outside of Ottawa, Quebec, to discuss their latest work on the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
After the trio presented their prepared statement about the SPP, several reporters who had been selected in advance were allowed to ask questions.
When it came time for a question from a Fox News reporter, Bush was asked if he would be willing to categorically deny that there is a plan to create a North American Union, or that there are plans to create NAFTA Superhighways.
"As you three leaders meet here, there are a growing number of people in each of your countries who have expressed concern about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This is addressed to all three of you. Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union? Are there plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all three countries? And do you believe all of these theories about a possible erosion of national identity stem from a lack of transparency from this partnership?" was the question, according to a White House transcript.
Reporters at the news conference said he sidestepped, instead adopting the tactic that those who are arguing the European Union model of integrating nations into a larger continental union is being used in North America should be ridiculed.
He called it an old political scare tactic, to try to create a wild conspiracy and then demand that those who "are not engaged" prove that it isn't happening.
Bush's answer was:
"We represent three great nations. We each respect each other's sovereignty. You know, there are some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples. I just believe they're wrong. I believe it's in our interest to trade; I believe it's in our interest to dialogue; I believe it's in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people.
"And I'm amused by some of the speculation, some of the old – you can call them political scare tactics. If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate. I'm here representing my nation. I feel strongly that the United States is a force for good, and I feel strongly that by working with our neighbors we can a stronger force for good.
"So I appreciate that question. I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place. It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about."
Harper joined in. There's not going to be any NAFTA Superhighway connecting the three nations, he said, and it's "not going to go interplanetary either," he said.
Harper said the SPP discussions that were held concerned such pressing issues as jelly beans. He said the business interests expressing their desires for progress on the SPP noted there were different standards in the United States and Canada, and there was a discussion about whether those standards could be made uniform for the U.S. and Canada.
Bush's comments echoed the comments published just a day earlier in the Ottawa Citizen by David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador to Canada.
"While conspiracy theories abound, you can take it to the bank that no one involved in these discussions is interested in, or has ever proposed, a 'North American Union,' a 'North American super highway,' or a 'North American currency,'" he wrote.
"The United States, Canada and Mexico are three distinct, sovereign countries that practice democracy differently," he wrote. "Each proudly defends its own interests. But our leaders also recognize that we share a continent in this post-Sept. 11 world, where terrorism is but one threat. We have a vested interest in working together to prevent potential threats outside North America – like those posed by pandemic flu or improperly labeled foods, for example – from penetrating our borders.
Wilkins wrote that the nations also are "exploring ways to detect radiological threats and coordinating emergency efforts along our borders in the event of a man-made or natural disaster. It just makes sense when you share thousands of miles of common border to share a common emergency-management plan."
He said another goal is to reduce the cost of doing business across national borders.
"The Late Great USA," which was criticized by President Bush at the conclusion of the SPP summit in Quebec
However, Jerome Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D. whose newly published book, "The Late Great USA," uses the government's own documentation to show the advance of a North American Union, said ridicule is the "last resort of someone who is losing an argument."
Such tactics, Corsi said, "underestimate the intelligence of people listening, and people realize that the argument wasn't answered."
At the news conference, he noted, Bush failed to respond to the Fox News question with a denial of the plans for a North American Union.
And, Corsi said, "Bush did not address the fact that Texas Gov. Rick Perrry vetoed a two-year moratorium on the Trans-Texas Corridor project," believed to be the starting point for an eventual continent-wide grid of NAFTA Superhighways.
"Just to ridicule the idea, when he had a change to categorically deny it, raises doubts in peoples' minds, especially when these meetings aren't transparent," Corsi added.
The meeting this week, which focused on economic issues, was attended by representatives of dozens of multinational corporations anxious to have their manufacturing and sales processes smoothed.
However, Corsi said, "not one person who objects is permitted inside the room."
At the same time, Bush did affirm that there is a plan under consideration for the United States to provide military assistance to Mexico's military in its battles in the drug war, although officials were not ready to announce what that plan includes.
The three national leaders simply affirmed that drug trade is a continental problem and would demand a continental solution.
The formal statement from the three leaders referred to the "opportunities and challenges facing North America and [the need] to establish priorities for our further collaboration."
They said the three nations already have agreed to a North American plan for avian and pandemic influenza, a "Regulatory Cooperation Framework," an intellectual property action strategy and a "Trilateral Agreement for Cooperation in Energy Science and Technology."
"The North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), announced last year in Cancun, has provided us with thoughtful recommendations on how we could strengthen the competitive platform for business," the statement said.
The statement said the Regulatory Cooperation Framework will allow various rules to be streamlined across borders.
"In the coming year, we ask our ministers to consider work in areas, such as the chemicals, automotive, transportation, and information and communications technology sectors," the statement said.
And the Intellectual Property Action Strategy "also gives us an invaluable tool for combating counterfeiting and piracy, which undermine innovation, harm economic development and can have negative public-health and safety implications," the three said.
Food safety and border security also were discussed. "Our governments will continue to address the safety of food and products imported into North America, while facilitating the significant trade in these products that our countries already have and without imposing unnecessary barriers to trade," the leaders said.
"It is sometimes best to screen goods and travelers prior to entry into North America. We ask our ministers to develop mutually acceptable inspection protocols to detect threats to our security, such as from incoming travelers during a pandemic and from radiological devices on general aviation," the statement said.
But protesters who staged events in Ottawa as the meetings were moving forward, warned of the integration and harmonizing the SPP seeks.
"The SPP is pursuing an agenda to integrate Mexico and Canada in closed-door sessions that are getting underway today in Montebello," Howard Phillips, the chairman of the Coalition to Block the North American Union, told an earlier press conference in Ottawa.
"We are here to register our protest," Phillips added, "along with the protests of thousands of Americans who agree with us that the SPP is a globalist agenda driven by the multi-national corporate interests and intellectual elite who together have launched an attack upon the national sovereignty of the United States, Canada and Mexico."
Connie Fogel, head of the Canadian Action Party, agreed with Phillips.
"Canadians are complaining that the SPP process lacks transparency," Fogel told the press conference. "Transparency is a major issue, but even if the SPP working groups were open to the public, we would still object to their goal to advance the North American integration agenda at the expense of Canadian sovereignty."
Sunday, August 19, 2007
NAU Meeting In Quebec, Yeah That's Canada
GLOBALISTS TRASH BORDERS
Bilderberg Pushes American Superstate
By James P. Tucker Jr.
Leaders of Bilderberg have gathered the appropriate flunkies at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello, about 50 miles outside Quebec, to accomplish a North American Union without congressional action. Bilderberg met at the same site in 1983. The Aug. 20-21 session of the unknown Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is struggling to define its goal of a borderless union of the United States, Mexico and Canada as something Americans will welcome, after it has been accomplished.On the agenda is a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which is being translated into Spanish and French so all three governments can celebrate it together. The report explains how “hemispheric integration” will be a blessing for all and not a surrender of sovereignty. It is to be presented to the three governments in September.The trustees of CSIS who are attending this closed meeting include Henry Kissinger, Bilderberg and Trilateral; Zbigniew Brzezinski, Trilateral; and Harold Brown, former defense secretary and Trilateral. Also participating is Richard Armitage, Bilderberg. Other Bilderberg-Trilateralists may be attending but have not been identified.The “North American Future 2025 Project” report stresses “economic integration” and “labor mobility.” It calls for the “international migration of labor” and “international movement not only of goods and capital, but also of people.” It stresses the “free flow of people across national borders.” It calls for action to “integrate governments.” The three nations are to work on “harmonizing legislation” and regulations. Bilderberg is fighting back from severe setbacks in its long-range goal of dividing the world into three great regions for the administrative convenience of a world government under the United Nations. The European Union was to have been fully integrated into a single state by 2000, but seven years later, there is strong resistance in France, Germany and Britain. NAFTA was to quickly expand throughout the Western Hemisphere with an “American Union” emerging. Now, there is great resistance to NAFTA itself among voters and, consequently, congressmen. President Bush started the country on the road to integration on April 22, 2001, when he signed the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a “commitment to hemispheric integration.” Participants claim it can be accomplished without legislation and their final agreement would not be a “treaty” requiring Senate ratification. But when this “agreement” is sprung on the American people, Congress will feel compelled to react to the outrage.
Bilderberg Pushes American Superstate
By James P. Tucker Jr.
Leaders of Bilderberg have gathered the appropriate flunkies at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello, about 50 miles outside Quebec, to accomplish a North American Union without congressional action. Bilderberg met at the same site in 1983. The Aug. 20-21 session of the unknown Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is struggling to define its goal of a borderless union of the United States, Mexico and Canada as something Americans will welcome, after it has been accomplished.On the agenda is a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which is being translated into Spanish and French so all three governments can celebrate it together. The report explains how “hemispheric integration” will be a blessing for all and not a surrender of sovereignty. It is to be presented to the three governments in September.The trustees of CSIS who are attending this closed meeting include Henry Kissinger, Bilderberg and Trilateral; Zbigniew Brzezinski, Trilateral; and Harold Brown, former defense secretary and Trilateral. Also participating is Richard Armitage, Bilderberg. Other Bilderberg-Trilateralists may be attending but have not been identified.The “North American Future 2025 Project” report stresses “economic integration” and “labor mobility.” It calls for the “international migration of labor” and “international movement not only of goods and capital, but also of people.” It stresses the “free flow of people across national borders.” It calls for action to “integrate governments.” The three nations are to work on “harmonizing legislation” and regulations. Bilderberg is fighting back from severe setbacks in its long-range goal of dividing the world into three great regions for the administrative convenience of a world government under the United Nations. The European Union was to have been fully integrated into a single state by 2000, but seven years later, there is strong resistance in France, Germany and Britain. NAFTA was to quickly expand throughout the Western Hemisphere with an “American Union” emerging. Now, there is great resistance to NAFTA itself among voters and, consequently, congressmen. President Bush started the country on the road to integration on April 22, 2001, when he signed the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a “commitment to hemispheric integration.” Participants claim it can be accomplished without legislation and their final agreement would not be a “treaty” requiring Senate ratification. But when this “agreement” is sprung on the American people, Congress will feel compelled to react to the outrage.
Nicely Said........................
"The rascals in Washington bask in the imagined glory of being a "superpower" but does it buy you or me anything? It buys us not a damn thing! We support it with our sons and our treasure." -Michael Peirce
Today Was The Day......Where Was The Media?
NAU Protest Storm?
Sunday, August 19, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
This small, southwestern Quebec village of 1,110 people is bracing itself for a storm of police, protesters and television cameras for the next three days. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon will be huddling behind the fenced-in Chateau Montebello tomorrow and Tuesday for an annual summit that has drawn the ire of protesters across the continent. Staff Selections - Links
Sunday, August 19, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
This small, southwestern Quebec village of 1,110 people is bracing itself for a storm of police, protesters and television cameras for the next three days. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon will be huddling behind the fenced-in Chateau Montebello tomorrow and Tuesday for an annual summit that has drawn the ire of protesters across the continent. Staff Selections - Links
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Hugo Is Stoked Up Again..............
Our favorite South American dictator is back in the news. Hugo Chavez announced he plans to change Venezuelan law so that he could remain “president” for life. What a shocker. Who could have seen that coming?
Seriously, Hugo… lay off the crack.
Of his 33 proposed changes, highlights include dividing Venezuela into federal districts governed by “communal councils of worker cooperatives,” a nationwide six-hour workday policy, ramping up the Venezuelan military, shifting the economy to rely more heavily on oil revenues and abolishing Venezuela’s maximum presidential incumbency of two six-year terms in favor of seven-year terms with infinite re-election potential.
"I doubt there is any country on this planet with a democracy more alive than the one we enjoy in Venezuela today," said Chavez after revealing his plan for constitutional reform. Right.
Seriously, Hugo… lay off the crack.
Of his 33 proposed changes, highlights include dividing Venezuela into federal districts governed by “communal councils of worker cooperatives,” a nationwide six-hour workday policy, ramping up the Venezuelan military, shifting the economy to rely more heavily on oil revenues and abolishing Venezuela’s maximum presidential incumbency of two six-year terms in favor of seven-year terms with infinite re-election potential.
"I doubt there is any country on this planet with a democracy more alive than the one we enjoy in Venezuela today," said Chavez after revealing his plan for constitutional reform. Right.