Forget "what are we doing to our kids and grandkids?" How about: "what are we doing to ourselves?" Check it out.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
The Jewish Delusion (Part II)
A few weeks ago I wrote about the self-deception of American Jewswhen it comes to the Obama administration's approach to Israel. That Jews are deluded into thinking that Obama's Israel policy is benign was crystallized in the reaction of liberal Jews to Rahm Emanuel's selection as President Obama's Chief of Staff. It was said that Emanuel's pro-Israel credentials were "impeccable," and thus he would temper any inclination on Obama's part to pressure Israel unduly vis a vis the conflict with the Palestinians.
Events have quickly shown just how misplaced the Jews' faith in Emanuel is. Last week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came for his first audience before His Holiness Barack Obama, the Omniscient. It must have been humiliating for the experienced pol Netanyahu, in his second turn as his nation's leader, to bow and scrape to the young, callow yet arrogant fellow who now leads the country that has heretofore been Israel's closest ally and protector. Netanyahu's effusive praise for Obama's intelligence and leadership at the post-meeting press conference illustrated what a political pro Bibi really is, for only a professional could make such sickening sycophantism sound sincere.
A close read of the transcript of the press conference reveals just how large the chasm between Obama's agenda and geopolitical reality is. While both leaders acknowledged the threat that Iranian nukes would pose to Israel, the Middle east and the U.S., it was clear that the Iranian problem is secondary to Obama's desire for a Palestinian state. In answering a reporter's question about linkage of the Palestinian-Israeli "peace process" to stopping the Iranian nuclear program, Obama said, "to the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat."
Much was made also about Obama laying out a negotiating timetable with Iran. But according to Caroline Glick of The Jerusalem Post, talk of a timetable is a red herring designed to sucker Israel into non-action until it is too late. Obama's timetable would extend until December or January the appeasement negotiations with Iran, after which would begin the fruitless effort to win approval of international trade sanctions against Iran. By the time this effort is seen to be a dead end, Iran's nuclear program might well be unstoppable.
Thus, Obama's statements can be seen as either hopelessly naive (believing the absurdity that if Israel will only give away its security for the sake of a Palestinian state Iran will stand down) or craftily manipulative (holding Israel's fear of Iran as a sword of Damocles over it in order to force Israel into untenable territorial concessions). Whichever it is, the result is the same--a potentially fatal reversal of the priorities which common sense dictates should command the world's attention.
In other words, a relentless and successful effort to stop Iran's nuclear aspirations in its tracks is a prerequisite to ridding Fatah and Iran's proxies Hamas and Hezbullah of the belief that it could ever hope to vanquish Israel, which in turn is a sine qua non of Israel having the breathing space to actually consider "taking risks" for peace.
As for Bibi Netanyahu, according to Glick he survived his close encounter of the weird kind with Obama, in that he "succeeded in evading the policy traps Obama set for him. Netanyahu reserved Israel's right to act independently against Iran and he conceded nothing on the Palestinian issue." Indeed, late reports indicate that Bibi has already defied Obama's call for a building freeze in the West Bank. While for now Israel won't build new settlements, Bibi refuses to halt expansion of existing ones within "natural boundaries."
But this only sets the stage for a titanic battle of political will between Israel and the U.S. that Israel cannot win without deft maneuvering. Glick suggests that Bibi take steps to mitigate Obama's upcoming June 4th Cairo speech in which he will lay out his vision of Middle East peace by first announcing a new Israeli plan. In essence, the Glick-Bibi plan would call for immediate dialog between Israel and the Arab League or the Islamic Conference with a view towards quick normalization of Pan-Arab relations with Israel. This would be followed by implementation of a joint program for combatting terrorism, which in turn would lead to final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Of course Glick has no pretensions of success here. The point is to lay something on the table before Obama's June 4th speech that calls on the so-called "moderate" Arab states to put up or shut up. King Abdullah of Jordan and Obama both claim that the Arabs are willing to accept Israel. So why not test their seriousness with a serious offer to immediately conclude a recognition pact while at the same time press the case for action against Iran.
**********************************************************************
A more fundamental problem then the posture of the Obama administration vis a vis Israel is, according to journalist Aaron Klein, the political, social and religious dynamics within Israel herself. Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for Worldnetdaily, has written an essay called "The Late Great State of Israel," excerpted from his book of the same name. Klein concludes that there is an ongoing war between Israel's secular governing elites (Netanyahu included) and the national religious Jews who comprise the vast majority of the almost 500,000 "settlers" who live in towns and cities and enclaves in the West Bank:
Few have any idea how the country is being torn apart by an Israeli war against the "national religious" - a battle of Jew versus Jew in which those in power who want the country to resemble a secular, Europeanized state suppress a significant segment of the population that wants to keep Israel a Jewish country defined by its profoundly Jewish history, traditions, and character.
This ideological battle led to a succession of disasters in Israel since 2005, when Israel uprooted 9,000 of its citizens from their homes in Gaza, ho then saw how their beautiful villages were turned into wastelands by the Palestinians who took over. The 2006 defeat in Lebanon followed by the inconclusive incursion in Gaza in 2009 has left Israel on the brink of national disaster, with a governing elite "hell-bent on pursuing the same failed policies that have resulted time and again in large numbers of Jewish deaths and the handover of strategic land to terrorists, fueling a worldwide perception of Jewish weakness."
Klein wrote his book not as prophecy but as a warning against complacency and self-delusion. He intends the book to stimulate debate and action to change the disastrous policies that have led Israel into an existential crisis. Israel's leaders have led the country into a "calamitous downward spiral" that will be difficult to reverse. Says Klein, "while the Psalms reassure us that 'the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps,' the current leaders of Israel are fast giving away the land and strength with which the Jews have been blessed."
It is a sobering essay and its thesis heartbreaking to contemplate. But Mr. Klein, obviously a believer in the G-d of Israel, concludes with a mixture of hope and angst:
I trust and believe that Israel will ultimately survive - against all odds and in spite of the threats from within and without - only through the grace of God. But for now, things don't look good.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The True Moral Hazard of Bailouts
from Eric de Carbonnel, an admitted perma-bear and market skeptic:
Most commentators misunderstand the true moral hazard of bailouts. While bailouts might have an adverse effect on the future actions of individuals and businesses by encouraging risk taking, the real problem is their effects on future actions of the government. Specifically, each bailout makes it harder to say no to the next bailout. This pressure to fund future bailouts is made far worse if those receiving bailout money are truly undeserving. After all, if the government is going to give $45 billion to Citigroup (one of the banks responsible for our current mess) and insure $306 billion of its riskiest assets, then how can it say no to bailing out the state of California or South Carolina?
This “me too” phenomenon will get much worse after the treasury market collapses, and the fed starts monetizing the treasuries that were sold to fund the current bailouts. If the Fed printed money to bail out the banks, why shouldn’t it print more money to fund unemployment benefits? Politically speaking, you can’t bail out the irresponsible and then let the responsible sink, which means Congress isn’t going to be saying no to a lot of the bailout requests this year. Unfortunately, these bailouts will become increasingly meaningless because, when you bail everyone out, you bail no one out, as you destroy your currency.
That was an excerpt from Eric's "Ten Major Threats Facing The Dollar In 2009" for the full treatment. It was written in January, and the bailouts and takeovers have only accelerated since then, as have the attacks on the status of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.
We are in a brave new world. We are going to have to educate ourselves about debt, currency and monetary policy. And gold, silver and other "physicals." Watch the stock market if you're worried about your retirement. But it's what happens to the money supply, the bond markets and the currency markets that is going to determine our standard of living in the not distant future.
Most commentators misunderstand the true moral hazard of bailouts. While bailouts might have an adverse effect on the future actions of individuals and businesses by encouraging risk taking, the real problem is their effects on future actions of the government. Specifically, each bailout makes it harder to say no to the next bailout. This pressure to fund future bailouts is made far worse if those receiving bailout money are truly undeserving. After all, if the government is going to give $45 billion to Citigroup (one of the banks responsible for our current mess) and insure $306 billion of its riskiest assets, then how can it say no to bailing out the state of California or South Carolina?
This “me too” phenomenon will get much worse after the treasury market collapses, and the fed starts monetizing the treasuries that were sold to fund the current bailouts. If the Fed printed money to bail out the banks, why shouldn’t it print more money to fund unemployment benefits? Politically speaking, you can’t bail out the irresponsible and then let the responsible sink, which means Congress isn’t going to be saying no to a lot of the bailout requests this year. Unfortunately, these bailouts will become increasingly meaningless because, when you bail everyone out, you bail no one out, as you destroy your currency.
That was an excerpt from Eric's "Ten Major Threats Facing The Dollar In 2009" for the full treatment. It was written in January, and the bailouts and takeovers have only accelerated since then, as have the attacks on the status of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.
We are in a brave new world. We are going to have to educate ourselves about debt, currency and monetary policy. And gold, silver and other "physicals." Watch the stock market if you're worried about your retirement. But it's what happens to the money supply, the bond markets and the currency markets that is going to determine our standard of living in the not distant future.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
"Inflate or Die"
WARNING: the subject matter of this post is the economy, monetary policy and the financial system. Reading this may lead to eyes glazing over, sudden fatigue and loss of wakefulness.
Many years ago I wrote that the fate of the US will be expressed in three words--INFLATE OR DIE. We are there now. Printing trillions of dollars of Federal Reserve Notes must end in inflation.-- Richard Russell, Dow Theory Letters, May 13, 2009
In a speech he gave in 2002 when he was a Governor of the Federal Reserve, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke signalled his preference for aggressive Fed action to counter asset deflation should it occur on a sustained scale in the United States: "If we do fall into deflation," said Bernanke, "we can take comfort that the logic of the printing press...must assert itself, and sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation." In short, Bernanke argued that when traditional monetary actions to stimulate demand, i.e., reducing the short-term interest rates at which banks borrow money from the Fed, are exhausted, the Fed could and should "drop money from a helicopter" if necessary to increase (inflate) the number of dollars in circulation and effectively raise the dollar price of goods and services. This then-theoretical policy prescription earned Bernanke the nickname "Helicopter Ben."
In early March 2009, Bernanke's theory met reality. With the Fed funds rate practically "zero bound," the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced it was going to buy--monetize-- up to $750 billion of agency mortgage securities (i.e., securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and $300 billion in long-term (30-year) Treasury bonds. The implications of this are manifold. First, the Fed doesn't have the money to buy over a trillion dollars of assets, so it has to "create" it out of thin air. This is accomplished by the Fed "borrowing" electronic credits from the Treasury which is then used to buy the assets. The issuance of these electronic credits is the digital equivalent of printing money.
Second, the debt instruments the Fed is buying are financing the "stimulus" and all of the other deficit spending of the last year and this year. In essence the Fed is soaking up the inventory of these instruments and thus keeping their prices up. This has the effect of keeping interest rates low (a bond's yield typically falls as its price rises), which in turn (theoretically) stimulates mortgage and commercial borrowing. But this comes with a price: the artificial creation of a "bubble" in bond prices, which cannot be sustained indefinitely.
Third, the monetization of agency debt and Treasuries poses a significant risk to relations with our trading partners, who get get nervous when they see what looks like the intentional debasement of our currency. An over supply of fiat dollars lessens the value of all dollars in the system. China holds more than a trillion dollars of dollar-denominated bonds in its reserves purchased with dollar surpluses from its exports to the U.S. They are rightly concerned that those reserves will lose value if our dollar is trashed, and so they are already curtailing their U.S. debt purchases. This will lead to higher interest rates forcing the Fed to come in and buy up even more debt with more printing press money, further debasing the dollar.
A devalued dollar will make our exports more attractive than those of our competitors in Europe and Asia, leading them to devalue their own currencies to save their economies. This sort of competitive devaluation leads to trade wars, which often lead to something more deadly.
It is instructive to note that although Bernanke in 2002 believed in the Fed's ability to cure deflation by injecting liquidity into the system, he believed even more in the Fed's ability to prevent deflation in the first place. Judging from the Fed's actions of late we are already past the point of prevention and now trying to effect a cure. Can it not be said that the Fed's anti-deflation policy has already failed, and that the policy prescription of printing fiat (paper) money and debt monetization is a last ditch effort to save the system?
Ah, you ask, hasn't the deflation risk been wiped away with the "green shoots" of the economic recovery we've been hearing about? And with the financial system awash with all this fiat money, shouldn't we turn our concern to inflation, maybe even super-inflation? Well, no. And yes.
In fact, some analysts calculate that the 15 largest banks have experienced reductions on their balance sheets of $3.6 trillion, with another $2 trillion more yet to be written off this year. And the problem may be worse in Europe. The IMF believes that European banks have written off less than half of total losses related to the credit crisis.
The media and many investors may be buying the "green shoots" spin, but clearly Bernanke is not. He has access to all the Fed's data and then some, and so he must know that another wave of the credit crisis approaches. Delinquencies on Alt-A and adjustable mortgages are accelerating, and prime and jumbo loans are now starting to suffer. And rumor has it that commercial real estate loans are the next shoe to drop. Another wave of losses means that more banks fail, credit gets tighter, businesses contract, layoffs accelerate and spending plummets.
That we are in deflation now may not be apparent in the prices of goods and services--yet--but is evident by the fact that the Fed is risking massive inflation in order to reflate the economy. Bernanke is frightened to death of deflation, because it is so devastating and so hard to climb out of. It is an economic death spiral of sorts. The Fed is doing everything it can to prop up the monetary system, by dropping money into it while at the same time propping up the bond market by buying medium and long-term Treasuries.
What if it doesn't work? Bernanke's theory as expressed in 2002 didn't anticipate a concurrent banking crisis, at the heart of which is a credit crisis caused by toxic assets of unknown value sitting like a cancer on the balance sheets of the banks. The data suggest that the injection of money into the financial system by the Government (through bailouts, guarantees, preferred stock purchases and mortgage purchases) is still trapped in the financial system. The banks are leaving their electronic money in the electronic vaults of the Fed because they are afraid to lend to one another. This means that all that created money has no "velocity," and doesn't have the stimulative effect intended by the Fed. Thus the country risks sinking further into the deflation trap.
And inflation? It is coming, sooner or later. The Fed's "inflate or die" policy ensures that it will do whatever it takes to get out of the deflation ditch, and eventually we'll recover. The question is, what impact will the government's deficits and the Fed's money policy have on our currency and on the rating of our bonds? According to the IMF the US has racked up almost 12 trillion dollars in debt with another 45 billion in off-balance sheet obligations, not to mention multi-trillion dollar annual deficits for years to come. Medicare and Social Security will go bust before 2017, threatening even more debt in the out years. Surely this will have consequences.
My guess, and its just a guess, is that we will end up defaulting on our debt. This will be done by cheapening the dollar through super- or hyper-inflation to the point that our creditors may as well forgive their loans to us. This may be less bad then it sounds because most other nations will be in the same boat. But the price we will pay for this is the loss of King Dollar as the world's reserve currency. Whatever else that means, it certainly means the loss of our economic sovereignty.
So what happens next is anyone's guess, but for clues keep your eye on the bond market. Thats where the real money is. Yields on 10-year Treasuries, which anchor mortgage rates, are over 3%. The Fed will try to suppress these rates with more debt purchases, but at some point they will run out of bullets. If and when that happens, rising rates will threaten the bond market.
I don't know quite what would follow a crash of the bond market. But I suspect it wouldn't be pretty.
Many years ago I wrote that the fate of the US will be expressed in three words--INFLATE OR DIE. We are there now. Printing trillions of dollars of Federal Reserve Notes must end in inflation.-- Richard Russell, Dow Theory Letters, May 13, 2009
In a speech he gave in 2002 when he was a Governor of the Federal Reserve, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke signalled his preference for aggressive Fed action to counter asset deflation should it occur on a sustained scale in the United States: "If we do fall into deflation," said Bernanke, "we can take comfort that the logic of the printing press...must assert itself, and sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation." In short, Bernanke argued that when traditional monetary actions to stimulate demand, i.e., reducing the short-term interest rates at which banks borrow money from the Fed, are exhausted, the Fed could and should "drop money from a helicopter" if necessary to increase (inflate) the number of dollars in circulation and effectively raise the dollar price of goods and services. This then-theoretical policy prescription earned Bernanke the nickname "Helicopter Ben."
In early March 2009, Bernanke's theory met reality. With the Fed funds rate practically "zero bound," the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced it was going to buy--monetize-- up to $750 billion of agency mortgage securities (i.e., securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and $300 billion in long-term (30-year) Treasury bonds. The implications of this are manifold. First, the Fed doesn't have the money to buy over a trillion dollars of assets, so it has to "create" it out of thin air. This is accomplished by the Fed "borrowing" electronic credits from the Treasury which is then used to buy the assets. The issuance of these electronic credits is the digital equivalent of printing money.
Second, the debt instruments the Fed is buying are financing the "stimulus" and all of the other deficit spending of the last year and this year. In essence the Fed is soaking up the inventory of these instruments and thus keeping their prices up. This has the effect of keeping interest rates low (a bond's yield typically falls as its price rises), which in turn (theoretically) stimulates mortgage and commercial borrowing. But this comes with a price: the artificial creation of a "bubble" in bond prices, which cannot be sustained indefinitely.
Third, the monetization of agency debt and Treasuries poses a significant risk to relations with our trading partners, who get get nervous when they see what looks like the intentional debasement of our currency. An over supply of fiat dollars lessens the value of all dollars in the system. China holds more than a trillion dollars of dollar-denominated bonds in its reserves purchased with dollar surpluses from its exports to the U.S. They are rightly concerned that those reserves will lose value if our dollar is trashed, and so they are already curtailing their U.S. debt purchases. This will lead to higher interest rates forcing the Fed to come in and buy up even more debt with more printing press money, further debasing the dollar.
A devalued dollar will make our exports more attractive than those of our competitors in Europe and Asia, leading them to devalue their own currencies to save their economies. This sort of competitive devaluation leads to trade wars, which often lead to something more deadly.
It is instructive to note that although Bernanke in 2002 believed in the Fed's ability to cure deflation by injecting liquidity into the system, he believed even more in the Fed's ability to prevent deflation in the first place. Judging from the Fed's actions of late we are already past the point of prevention and now trying to effect a cure. Can it not be said that the Fed's anti-deflation policy has already failed, and that the policy prescription of printing fiat (paper) money and debt monetization is a last ditch effort to save the system?
Ah, you ask, hasn't the deflation risk been wiped away with the "green shoots" of the economic recovery we've been hearing about? And with the financial system awash with all this fiat money, shouldn't we turn our concern to inflation, maybe even super-inflation? Well, no. And yes.
The powerful stock market rally over the last two months has created the illusion of market and economic recovery. But it is well to remember that the rally was powered by the surprisingly strong first quarter bank earnings released in early April. A look behind the numbers, though, reveals two things. First, the banks benefited from a change in FASB Rule 157(e), allowing the banks to manipulate the balance sheet value of their assets. Second, the banks benefited from the low cost of borrowed funds as a result of the Fed's suppression of the Fed funds rate and the monetization policy. According to investment guru John Mauldin, this is the "equivalent of the US government reducing the cost of goods to zero for the embattled car companies and then going on to buy--courtesy of the US taxpayer--a couple of million cars that nobody really needs." In that environment anyone can show a profit.
Whenever you hear the financial mass media promoting "green shoots" and stoking a new bull market, it is wise to be cautious if not downright skeptical. If the financial pundits of CNBC say something, the opposite is likely true. The sobering fact is that the U.S. may be slipping further towards "outright deflation, just as Japan did," according to Albert Edwards of Societe Generale, the large French bank. Companies and consumers are retrenching en masse, with the former laying off workers and the latter hoarding cash and paying down debt.
In fact, some analysts calculate that the 15 largest banks have experienced reductions on their balance sheets of $3.6 trillion, with another $2 trillion more yet to be written off this year. And the problem may be worse in Europe. The IMF believes that European banks have written off less than half of total losses related to the credit crisis.
The media and many investors may be buying the "green shoots" spin, but clearly Bernanke is not. He has access to all the Fed's data and then some, and so he must know that another wave of the credit crisis approaches. Delinquencies on Alt-A and adjustable mortgages are accelerating, and prime and jumbo loans are now starting to suffer. And rumor has it that commercial real estate loans are the next shoe to drop. Another wave of losses means that more banks fail, credit gets tighter, businesses contract, layoffs accelerate and spending plummets.
That we are in deflation now may not be apparent in the prices of goods and services--yet--but is evident by the fact that the Fed is risking massive inflation in order to reflate the economy. Bernanke is frightened to death of deflation, because it is so devastating and so hard to climb out of. It is an economic death spiral of sorts. The Fed is doing everything it can to prop up the monetary system, by dropping money into it while at the same time propping up the bond market by buying medium and long-term Treasuries.
What if it doesn't work? Bernanke's theory as expressed in 2002 didn't anticipate a concurrent banking crisis, at the heart of which is a credit crisis caused by toxic assets of unknown value sitting like a cancer on the balance sheets of the banks. The data suggest that the injection of money into the financial system by the Government (through bailouts, guarantees, preferred stock purchases and mortgage purchases) is still trapped in the financial system. The banks are leaving their electronic money in the electronic vaults of the Fed because they are afraid to lend to one another. This means that all that created money has no "velocity," and doesn't have the stimulative effect intended by the Fed. Thus the country risks sinking further into the deflation trap.
And inflation? It is coming, sooner or later. The Fed's "inflate or die" policy ensures that it will do whatever it takes to get out of the deflation ditch, and eventually we'll recover. The question is, what impact will the government's deficits and the Fed's money policy have on our currency and on the rating of our bonds? According to the IMF the US has racked up almost 12 trillion dollars in debt with another 45 billion in off-balance sheet obligations, not to mention multi-trillion dollar annual deficits for years to come. Medicare and Social Security will go bust before 2017, threatening even more debt in the out years. Surely this will have consequences.
My guess, and its just a guess, is that we will end up defaulting on our debt. This will be done by cheapening the dollar through super- or hyper-inflation to the point that our creditors may as well forgive their loans to us. This may be less bad then it sounds because most other nations will be in the same boat. But the price we will pay for this is the loss of King Dollar as the world's reserve currency. Whatever else that means, it certainly means the loss of our economic sovereignty.
So what happens next is anyone's guess, but for clues keep your eye on the bond market. Thats where the real money is. Yields on 10-year Treasuries, which anchor mortgage rates, are over 3%. The Fed will try to suppress these rates with more debt purchases, but at some point they will run out of bullets. If and when that happens, rising rates will threaten the bond market.
I don't know quite what would follow a crash of the bond market. But I suspect it wouldn't be pretty.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Bulletin: Liberal Asserts Cheney Could Be Right!
Sometimes the liberal Richard Cohen of the Washingpon Post offers a point of view that surprises. In this case it is that the hated Dick Cheney may, for the first time in his 40-year career as a public servant be right: enhanced interrogation works.
In the sanest paragraph I've seen written by a certified member of the MSM on the "torture" memos, Cohen says:
Cheney says he once had the memos in his files and has since asked that they be released. He's got a point. After all, this is not merely some political catfight conducted by bloggers, although it is a bit of that, too. Inescapably, it is about life and death -- not ideology, but people hurling themselves from the burning World Trade Center. If Cheney is right, then let the debate begin: What to do about enhanced interrogation methods? Should they be banned across the board, always and forever? Can we talk about what is, and not just what ought to be?
Cohen also wonders whether these memos might shed some light on whether Nancy Pelosi is lying about her insistence that she wasn't briefed about these techniques.
In calling for release of the memos which Cheney says vindicate the Bush administration policy on interrogation post 9/11, Cohen argues: "The Obama administration ought to call Cheney's bluff, if it is that, and release the memos. If even a stopped clock is right twice a day, this could be Cheney's time."
I recalling praising Cohen in these pages on some other issue, since forgotten. Maybe even liberals are right twice a...life.
In the sanest paragraph I've seen written by a certified member of the MSM on the "torture" memos, Cohen says:
Cheney says he once had the memos in his files and has since asked that they be released. He's got a point. After all, this is not merely some political catfight conducted by bloggers, although it is a bit of that, too. Inescapably, it is about life and death -- not ideology, but people hurling themselves from the burning World Trade Center. If Cheney is right, then let the debate begin: What to do about enhanced interrogation methods? Should they be banned across the board, always and forever? Can we talk about what is, and not just what ought to be?
Cohen also wonders whether these memos might shed some light on whether Nancy Pelosi is lying about her insistence that she wasn't briefed about these techniques.
In calling for release of the memos which Cheney says vindicate the Bush administration policy on interrogation post 9/11, Cohen argues: "The Obama administration ought to call Cheney's bluff, if it is that, and release the memos. If even a stopped clock is right twice a day, this could be Cheney's time."
I recalling praising Cohen in these pages on some other issue, since forgotten. Maybe even liberals are right twice a...life.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Michelle Malkin: Battered Hedge Fund Managers’ Syndrome
A hedge fund manager risks his career by calling out Obama's cheap political trick of demonizing the same financial industry heavyweights who got him elected in the first place.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Was Pelosi Briefed On "Enhanced Interrogations"?
She claimed she wasn't. But according to the CIA, she was among the first members of Congress to be briefed on the harsh interrogation tactics being used on Al-Qaeda prisoners, way back in September 2002.
Either Pelosi is a liar, or an idiot. Or both. (I vote for "both.") Nancy Pelosi is surely the most corrupt, disingenuous and craven politician in Congress today. Of course with Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry and Dick Durban in the Senate and Charles Rangel and Barney Frank in the House its a pretty close contest.
Lets see how much scrutiny Pelosi's lies get in the media in the days ahead. My guess is: not much.
Either Pelosi is a liar, or an idiot. Or both. (I vote for "both.") Nancy Pelosi is surely the most corrupt, disingenuous and craven politician in Congress today. Of course with Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry and Dick Durban in the Senate and Charles Rangel and Barney Frank in the House its a pretty close contest.
Lets see how much scrutiny Pelosi's lies get in the media in the days ahead. My guess is: not much.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Jewish Delusion (Part I).
I found it curious that after the November election so many liberal Jews rationalized their vote for Barack Obama by touting his selection of the Jewish congressman from Illinois, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff. We were told that Emanuel’s pro-Israel credentials are impeccable. "Rep. Emanuel is…a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening [praying] at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools," said a top Jewish community spokesman, William Daroff, when Emanuel’s appointment was announced. (The Irgun was the right-wing military faction headed by the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin during Israel’s War of Independence). The clear implication was that Rahm Emanuel’s elevation to Obama’s chief aide proved that Jews had no reason to fear the new president’s policies towards Israel.
It seems rather odd to justify a vote for a political candidate based on an action taken by him after the vote is taken. No voter had the slightest idea who Obama would pick as his chief aide before pulling the lever for him, and frankly could care less. But obviously some Jews felt a wee bit defensive about suggestions that Obama would be hard on Israel and soft on its enemies, and thus played the “Rahmbo” card to convince others and perhaps themselves that the chief of staff would stand athwart any attempt by Obama to sell Israel to the Arab wolves. They and we had reason for nervousness well before the election, in light of the surfacing of audio recordings of the all-time greatest hits of Jew-hatred spewed from the pulpit of Obama’s (former) pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as well as revelations of Obama’s associations with radical Arabs like Rashid Khalidi, the anti-Israel professor and acolyte of the late Edward Said, the polemicist/apologist for Palestinian terror against Jews. None of this prevented liberal Jews from voting for Obama, but they must have had some qualms nonetheless. Emanuel’s rise to chief of staff no doubt settled them.
That a well-placed Jew in the White House could or would be able to change the policy of a determined president is laughable. History is replete with examples of well-positioned Jews who succumbed to the blandishments of title, honor and position and willingly did the bidding of their rulers regardless of the consequences to their co-religionists. As a result of this, Jews may be the only people on earth with mixed feelings when one of their own seeks and/or obtains high government position. (During the 2000 presidential contest even Jews who admired Joe Lieberman fretted over whether having him as the first Jewish vice president would be “good for the Jews.”)
On Sunday Mr. Emanuel, the putative guardian of Jewish interests in the Administration, weighed in on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the Iranian nuclear threat. The occasion is the AIPAC policy conference taking place this week in Washington, where thousands of pro-Israel activists are gathered to hear speeches by U.S. and Israeli leaders, lobby Congress to support efforts to stop Iran from going nuclear, and network with their fellow activists. According to The Jerusalem Post, Emanuel said in a closed-door meeting of 300 top AIPAC donors and board members that “it will be easier” to recruit Arab nations to oppose Iranian nukes if “progress” is made on the Israel-Palestinian track, meaning that Israel ought to first make concessions to the Palestinians before Arab countries will support sanctions against Iran. This echoed Hillary Clinton, who in April “warned Israel that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.”
Mr. Emanuel’s defenders in the press point out that some who attended the meeting with Emanuel said he didn’t actually “link” the two issues—i.e., Israeli concessions to Palestinians and American efforts to stop Iran-- as had been reported on Israeli TV. Perhaps he didn’t, but that’s not the point. Taken together with President Obama’s stated belief that the creation of a Palestinian state is the key to addressing Arab and Muslim grievances in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and south Asia, Emanuel’s remarks and Clinton’s warnings can be seen as a blunt threat to Israel: concede to the Palestinian Arabs’ demands for the West Bank, the Golan and Jerusalem first, then we’ll see if we can cajole the “moderate” Arabs to support sanctions against Iran.
This is obviously a dangerous and dastardly game for several reasons. First, it flies in the face of logic and history to suggest that Israel retreat to borders that are known to be indefensible. The so-called 1967 borders, in place for 19 years following the War of Independence, were unstable and constantly probed and breached by the Arabs. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s Jordanian and Egyptian gangs from the West Bank and Gaza plotted and staged terror attacks inside Israel proper, killing dozens of Jews. Syrian troops regularly rained rockets and artillery down on Israel from their perch on the Golan Heights. Jewish access to the Jewish holy sites like the Western Wall and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem or Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem was denied. And this was before the so-called "occupation;" before Palestinians had been fully radicalized by the likes of Yasser Arafat; and before they had access to sophisticated weapons like Kassam or Katyusha rockets.
Only a fantasist could believe that a retreat by Israel to the old borders would lead to a better result.
Second, the Administration makes no reference to the realities of Palestinian polity. George Bush wanted a Palestinian State, to be sure, but not at the expense of Israeli security needs and certainly not without reform of Palestinian institutions. Bush’s talk of two states “living side by side in peace” always implied the establishment of democratic institutions in Palestine as a prerequisite to peace. Bush may have been naïve in his belief that the Palestinians were capable of accomplishing this, but at least he understood that it was a sine qua non of Palestinian statehood. That’s why once the radical Hamas took over in Gaza Bush more or less turned his back on the whole enterprise.
Not so Obama. There is almost no talk by him or his emissaries of Palestinian institution-building as a predicate for peace. In fact it is quite the opposite. On her first visit to the region as State secretary, Hillary Clinton pledged $900 million dollars for Gaza reconstruction virtually without conditions, assuring that the money will be controlled by the Islamist terror group in charge of Gaza, Hamas. She then travelled to Jerusalem where she took Jerusalem’s mayor to task for demolishing illegal Arab buildings. She “urged” Israel to ease up on border closings and allow humanitarian aid to Gaza, as though Israel and not the Palestinians were responsible for the human crisis inside that fetid strip.
Clinton and special envoy George Mitchell have placed almost unrelenting pressure on Israel to curry favor with the Arabs on the Iran issue by caving in to their demands for an immediate commitment to give the Palestinians a state, no matter its character. Meanwhile the Administration and Europe hints at opening a “dialogue” with the Hamas, which rules Gaza with an iron fist and threatens Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas’ hold on the West Bank.
Third, Obama gives every indication of backing away from the bipartisan “special relationship” with Israel. According to unconfirmed reports, Israeli intelligence has warned Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu that Obama wishes to “incrementally diminish U.S. strategic cooperation” with Israel. Even if this report is unfounded, Obama has given every indication that he favors closer relations with Syria and Iran. He has made no secret of his desire to engage Iran, and he has sent emissaries to Syria to feel them out about improved ties. In fact, Jimmy Carter proudly boasted to the Israeli daily Haaretz that he expects full ties between Syria and Washington to be established this year. Who can doubt that Syria’s price for full diplomatic relations with the U.S. is a total repudiation by Obama of the “special relationship” with Israel?
None of this is a surprise to staunch supporters of Israel who opposed Obama. They understood Obama’s world view because they understood those of the radicals he hung around with. What is surprising (and dismaying) is the continuing refusal of liberal Jews to see the danger posed to the Jewish State and therefore to worldwide Jewry by the reckless and frankly depraved anti-Israel policy being pursued by Obama, Clinton, and Mitchell (with the apparent full support of their guard-dog, Rahm Emanuel). Undoubtedly many well-intentioned Jews believe a “two-state” solution is in Israel’s ultimate best interests. But even they must have gotten the lesson from the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza war of 2008-09, to wit: territory surrendered by Israel to its enemies is soon converted into staging areas for rockets and missiles fired against its citizens.
The Jews who offered Rahm Emanuel’s elevation to Chief of Staff as proof that Barack Obama is committed to Israel’s security ought to take a second look at Obama’s Israel policy. In his first media interview after his inauguration (to Arab television), Barack Obama lauded the so-called “Saudi Peace Plan,” the terms of which demand that Israel retreat to borders cynically called the “Auschwitz” borders precisely because they are indefensible. Israel is now being pressured by the U.S. into accepting this “plan,” with some changes from the original, as the basis for negotiations with the Arabs, while the ticking time bomb of Iran’s nuclear program is held over its head like a sword of Damocles. Taking advantage of an ally’s existential fears in order to extract deadly concessions to an unrepentant enemy is not only audacious, it is immoral.
American Jews need to snap out of their Obama-induced delusion and see the world as it really is. Their lives depend on it.
It seems rather odd to justify a vote for a political candidate based on an action taken by him after the vote is taken. No voter had the slightest idea who Obama would pick as his chief aide before pulling the lever for him, and frankly could care less. But obviously some Jews felt a wee bit defensive about suggestions that Obama would be hard on Israel and soft on its enemies, and thus played the “Rahmbo” card to convince others and perhaps themselves that the chief of staff would stand athwart any attempt by Obama to sell Israel to the Arab wolves. They and we had reason for nervousness well before the election, in light of the surfacing of audio recordings of the all-time greatest hits of Jew-hatred spewed from the pulpit of Obama’s (former) pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as well as revelations of Obama’s associations with radical Arabs like Rashid Khalidi, the anti-Israel professor and acolyte of the late Edward Said, the polemicist/apologist for Palestinian terror against Jews. None of this prevented liberal Jews from voting for Obama, but they must have had some qualms nonetheless. Emanuel’s rise to chief of staff no doubt settled them.
That a well-placed Jew in the White House could or would be able to change the policy of a determined president is laughable. History is replete with examples of well-positioned Jews who succumbed to the blandishments of title, honor and position and willingly did the bidding of their rulers regardless of the consequences to their co-religionists. As a result of this, Jews may be the only people on earth with mixed feelings when one of their own seeks and/or obtains high government position. (During the 2000 presidential contest even Jews who admired Joe Lieberman fretted over whether having him as the first Jewish vice president would be “good for the Jews.”)
On Sunday Mr. Emanuel, the putative guardian of Jewish interests in the Administration, weighed in on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the Iranian nuclear threat. The occasion is the AIPAC policy conference taking place this week in Washington, where thousands of pro-Israel activists are gathered to hear speeches by U.S. and Israeli leaders, lobby Congress to support efforts to stop Iran from going nuclear, and network with their fellow activists. According to The Jerusalem Post, Emanuel said in a closed-door meeting of 300 top AIPAC donors and board members that “it will be easier” to recruit Arab nations to oppose Iranian nukes if “progress” is made on the Israel-Palestinian track, meaning that Israel ought to first make concessions to the Palestinians before Arab countries will support sanctions against Iran. This echoed Hillary Clinton, who in April “warned Israel that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.”
Mr. Emanuel’s defenders in the press point out that some who attended the meeting with Emanuel said he didn’t actually “link” the two issues—i.e., Israeli concessions to Palestinians and American efforts to stop Iran-- as had been reported on Israeli TV. Perhaps he didn’t, but that’s not the point. Taken together with President Obama’s stated belief that the creation of a Palestinian state is the key to addressing Arab and Muslim grievances in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and south Asia, Emanuel’s remarks and Clinton’s warnings can be seen as a blunt threat to Israel: concede to the Palestinian Arabs’ demands for the West Bank, the Golan and Jerusalem first, then we’ll see if we can cajole the “moderate” Arabs to support sanctions against Iran.
This is obviously a dangerous and dastardly game for several reasons. First, it flies in the face of logic and history to suggest that Israel retreat to borders that are known to be indefensible. The so-called 1967 borders, in place for 19 years following the War of Independence, were unstable and constantly probed and breached by the Arabs. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s Jordanian and Egyptian gangs from the West Bank and Gaza plotted and staged terror attacks inside Israel proper, killing dozens of Jews. Syrian troops regularly rained rockets and artillery down on Israel from their perch on the Golan Heights. Jewish access to the Jewish holy sites like the Western Wall and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem or Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem was denied. And this was before the so-called "occupation;" before Palestinians had been fully radicalized by the likes of Yasser Arafat; and before they had access to sophisticated weapons like Kassam or Katyusha rockets.
Only a fantasist could believe that a retreat by Israel to the old borders would lead to a better result.
Second, the Administration makes no reference to the realities of Palestinian polity. George Bush wanted a Palestinian State, to be sure, but not at the expense of Israeli security needs and certainly not without reform of Palestinian institutions. Bush’s talk of two states “living side by side in peace” always implied the establishment of democratic institutions in Palestine as a prerequisite to peace. Bush may have been naïve in his belief that the Palestinians were capable of accomplishing this, but at least he understood that it was a sine qua non of Palestinian statehood. That’s why once the radical Hamas took over in Gaza Bush more or less turned his back on the whole enterprise.
Not so Obama. There is almost no talk by him or his emissaries of Palestinian institution-building as a predicate for peace. In fact it is quite the opposite. On her first visit to the region as State secretary, Hillary Clinton pledged $900 million dollars for Gaza reconstruction virtually without conditions, assuring that the money will be controlled by the Islamist terror group in charge of Gaza, Hamas. She then travelled to Jerusalem where she took Jerusalem’s mayor to task for demolishing illegal Arab buildings. She “urged” Israel to ease up on border closings and allow humanitarian aid to Gaza, as though Israel and not the Palestinians were responsible for the human crisis inside that fetid strip.
Clinton and special envoy George Mitchell have placed almost unrelenting pressure on Israel to curry favor with the Arabs on the Iran issue by caving in to their demands for an immediate commitment to give the Palestinians a state, no matter its character. Meanwhile the Administration and Europe hints at opening a “dialogue” with the Hamas, which rules Gaza with an iron fist and threatens Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas’ hold on the West Bank.
Third, Obama gives every indication of backing away from the bipartisan “special relationship” with Israel. According to unconfirmed reports, Israeli intelligence has warned Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu that Obama wishes to “incrementally diminish U.S. strategic cooperation” with Israel. Even if this report is unfounded, Obama has given every indication that he favors closer relations with Syria and Iran. He has made no secret of his desire to engage Iran, and he has sent emissaries to Syria to feel them out about improved ties. In fact, Jimmy Carter proudly boasted to the Israeli daily Haaretz that he expects full ties between Syria and Washington to be established this year. Who can doubt that Syria’s price for full diplomatic relations with the U.S. is a total repudiation by Obama of the “special relationship” with Israel?
None of this is a surprise to staunch supporters of Israel who opposed Obama. They understood Obama’s world view because they understood those of the radicals he hung around with. What is surprising (and dismaying) is the continuing refusal of liberal Jews to see the danger posed to the Jewish State and therefore to worldwide Jewry by the reckless and frankly depraved anti-Israel policy being pursued by Obama, Clinton, and Mitchell (with the apparent full support of their guard-dog, Rahm Emanuel). Undoubtedly many well-intentioned Jews believe a “two-state” solution is in Israel’s ultimate best interests. But even they must have gotten the lesson from the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza war of 2008-09, to wit: territory surrendered by Israel to its enemies is soon converted into staging areas for rockets and missiles fired against its citizens.
The Jews who offered Rahm Emanuel’s elevation to Chief of Staff as proof that Barack Obama is committed to Israel’s security ought to take a second look at Obama’s Israel policy. In his first media interview after his inauguration (to Arab television), Barack Obama lauded the so-called “Saudi Peace Plan,” the terms of which demand that Israel retreat to borders cynically called the “Auschwitz” borders precisely because they are indefensible. Israel is now being pressured by the U.S. into accepting this “plan,” with some changes from the original, as the basis for negotiations with the Arabs, while the ticking time bomb of Iran’s nuclear program is held over its head like a sword of Damocles. Taking advantage of an ally’s existential fears in order to extract deadly concessions to an unrepentant enemy is not only audacious, it is immoral.
American Jews need to snap out of their Obama-induced delusion and see the world as it really is. Their lives depend on it.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Richard Russell on the Markets
Richard Russell, in his mid-80s, has been writing The Dow Theory Letter for 51 years. I recently became a subscriber and am fascinated by the economic and cultural insights of this veteran of the markets and of life.
Russell is a technical rather than a fundamental analyst. And yet he has a solid grasp of the fundamentals-- of economics, debt, money and life. He is not a perma-bear...in fact he has called several bull markets accurately...but he remains bearish notwithstanding the powerful market rally since early March.
What follows are excerpts from Russell's May 5 daily remark. You may agree or disagree but you at least ought to consider the musings of this old World War II combat veteran. His kind won't be around too much longer.
(Bold highlights are added by me).
"May 5, 2009
"A sound banker, alas, is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame him." John Maynard Keynes, 1931.
As the market works higher, bullish economists are falling victim to mass "brain washing." Every hint in the economy that "bad" is becoming "less bad" is leaped upon as "proof" that the worst has been seen and is past. Now bold predictions of a "rising second half of 2009" are heard. The worst crime that an analyst can commit is remaining bearish in the face of a rising market. Besides, aren't we in "a new bull market."
…
My opinion is that the economy is not fated to turn up towards the end of 2009 as widely predicted, nor will it turn up in 2010. I believe we are entering into the land of unintended consequences. We are now watching a deadly battle between deflation and over-creation of fiat money, meaning future inflation or even hyper-inflation. Making the picture even more confusing, there are increasing doubts about the viability of the US dollar and whether it can keep it reserve status.
…
Now, while everybody's fascinated by the stock market, I want to discuss a few other areas that you may not be looking at. The 30-year Treasury Bond…is very sensitive to the viability of the dollar and to inflation or deflation. The bond is in a steep decline, which means that long interest rates are moving higher (this is the last thing the Fed wants, but the Fed does not control long rates).
…
Right now, many central banks (and the IMF) are selling a portion of their gold, while other central banks (Russia, China) are buying gold. The IMF has announced that it wants to sell up to $100 billion of gold. Now why in the world would they announce their intention to sell gold unless they wanted to put pressure on gold? It doesn't matter because China is drooling to buy the whole lot, if only the IMF receives permission to place their gold on the market.
If you want to know what's happening in the world, then there's only one rule, and it's "follow the money." And in case you weren't aware of it -- gold is money.
The central banks system was invented and put in place in order to turn the power over to the world's bankers. Who controls a nation's money controls that nation. Gold is the public's defense against the bankers. Try as they might, the bankers can't control gold, which is why the bankers don't want gold in the hands of the public. Since the bankers can't keep gold out of the hands of the public, they do the next best thing -- they denounce gold and try to manipulate gold's price down.
The public has little or no knowledge of money. This ignorance extends to our Congressmen and women. Ask your Congressman or Senator where your dollars (Federal Reserve Notes) come from. The odds are that they can't tell you. Ask them how the Federal reserve was formed and when it was voted on by Congress. Ask them anything about money and the odds are that they will be clueless. Don't even bother to ask the average American the same questions because all you'll get is a blank look. Hey, even ask your local banker, and it'll be the same. Americans have no idea of money or where it comes from, which is why bankers can get away with "financial murder." In fact, ask Barack Obama about money and I guarantee you'll get a blank look. The Obama answer -- "Yeah, I know about money, you take it from the "rich" and give it to the other Americans. And if you have any money left over after taxes,"you give it to the bankers."
What could those clever Chinese be up to? While the other central banks are selling their gold, the Chinese are loading up on gold as fast as they can. Aw, what do the Chinese know. That's the big (and maybe) frightening question.…
This government will stop at nothing even including manipulation. What the Fed does not want is a swooning stock market, surging gold, or sinking bonds. I think all three are now being manipulated. Pressure from various sources continues on gold, and we know the Fed is buying bonds. When an item is manipulated, the aftermath always ends unpleasantly. I expect "unpleasantness" ahead.
...
Despite the usual manipulative efforts, the Dow closed down 16. Despite yesterday being a 90% upside day, the market failed to extend the rally. My impression is that the market is tired, and that the big money remains on the sidelines. The Dow has been up 8 out of the last 9 weeks, and the market could be ready to correct.Flash -- NYSE volume exploded to over 11 billion today -- The market is "churning," and the battle of bulls versus bears is raging.
Russell is a technical rather than a fundamental analyst. And yet he has a solid grasp of the fundamentals-- of economics, debt, money and life. He is not a perma-bear...in fact he has called several bull markets accurately...but he remains bearish notwithstanding the powerful market rally since early March.
What follows are excerpts from Russell's May 5 daily remark. You may agree or disagree but you at least ought to consider the musings of this old World War II combat veteran. His kind won't be around too much longer.
(Bold highlights are added by me).
"May 5, 2009
"A sound banker, alas, is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame him." John Maynard Keynes, 1931.
As the market works higher, bullish economists are falling victim to mass "brain washing." Every hint in the economy that "bad" is becoming "less bad" is leaped upon as "proof" that the worst has been seen and is past. Now bold predictions of a "rising second half of 2009" are heard. The worst crime that an analyst can commit is remaining bearish in the face of a rising market. Besides, aren't we in "a new bull market."
…
My opinion is that the economy is not fated to turn up towards the end of 2009 as widely predicted, nor will it turn up in 2010. I believe we are entering into the land of unintended consequences. We are now watching a deadly battle between deflation and over-creation of fiat money, meaning future inflation or even hyper-inflation. Making the picture even more confusing, there are increasing doubts about the viability of the US dollar and whether it can keep it reserve status.
…
Now, while everybody's fascinated by the stock market, I want to discuss a few other areas that you may not be looking at. The 30-year Treasury Bond…is very sensitive to the viability of the dollar and to inflation or deflation. The bond is in a steep decline, which means that long interest rates are moving higher (this is the last thing the Fed wants, but the Fed does not control long rates).
…
Right now, many central banks (and the IMF) are selling a portion of their gold, while other central banks (Russia, China) are buying gold. The IMF has announced that it wants to sell up to $100 billion of gold. Now why in the world would they announce their intention to sell gold unless they wanted to put pressure on gold? It doesn't matter because China is drooling to buy the whole lot, if only the IMF receives permission to place their gold on the market.
If you want to know what's happening in the world, then there's only one rule, and it's "follow the money." And in case you weren't aware of it -- gold is money.
The central banks system was invented and put in place in order to turn the power over to the world's bankers. Who controls a nation's money controls that nation. Gold is the public's defense against the bankers. Try as they might, the bankers can't control gold, which is why the bankers don't want gold in the hands of the public. Since the bankers can't keep gold out of the hands of the public, they do the next best thing -- they denounce gold and try to manipulate gold's price down.
The public has little or no knowledge of money. This ignorance extends to our Congressmen and women. Ask your Congressman or Senator where your dollars (Federal Reserve Notes) come from. The odds are that they can't tell you. Ask them how the Federal reserve was formed and when it was voted on by Congress. Ask them anything about money and the odds are that they will be clueless. Don't even bother to ask the average American the same questions because all you'll get is a blank look. Hey, even ask your local banker, and it'll be the same. Americans have no idea of money or where it comes from, which is why bankers can get away with "financial murder." In fact, ask Barack Obama about money and I guarantee you'll get a blank look. The Obama answer -- "Yeah, I know about money, you take it from the "rich" and give it to the other Americans. And if you have any money left over after taxes,"you give it to the bankers."
What could those clever Chinese be up to? While the other central banks are selling their gold, the Chinese are loading up on gold as fast as they can. Aw, what do the Chinese know. That's the big (and maybe) frightening question.…
This government will stop at nothing even including manipulation. What the Fed does not want is a swooning stock market, surging gold, or sinking bonds. I think all three are now being manipulated. Pressure from various sources continues on gold, and we know the Fed is buying bonds. When an item is manipulated, the aftermath always ends unpleasantly. I expect "unpleasantness" ahead.
...
Despite the usual manipulative efforts, the Dow closed down 16. Despite yesterday being a 90% upside day, the market failed to extend the rally. My impression is that the market is tired, and that the big money remains on the sidelines. The Dow has been up 8 out of the last 9 weeks, and the market could be ready to correct.Flash -- NYSE volume exploded to over 11 billion today -- The market is "churning," and the battle of bulls versus bears is raging.
Friday, May 1, 2009
"Change" You Can't Even See, Much Less Believe In
When Barack Obama exhorted his cabinet to cut 100 million dollars from their collective budgets, even the lovesick media snickered that it was not a very impressive cut given the size of the proposed Obama budget. Still, some did suggest that at least the proposed cuts "are a start."
Well, think again. View this short demonstration and you'll see that like so much of Obama's rhetoric the proposed cuts are much less than meets the eye.
Well, think again. View this short demonstration and you'll see that like so much of Obama's rhetoric the proposed cuts are much less than meets the eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)