After reading Sose's report I can't help but wonder if Iran doesn't see the writing on the wall. The CIA has been successful in destabilizing Iran for an Israeli attack which is mutually beneficial to Israel and the U.S.
After all, the US invasion of Iraq was designed to neutralize Iran -- Iran was always the ultimate US/Israeli objective. But what became clear after reading this report is Russia's objective -- I see now that in the end Russia will betray Iran and share the spoils with the US and Israel.
Iran is weak and dependent on Russia's support against Iranian sanctions by the west as well as protection from the threat of a combined US/Israeli attack. From a geopolitical perspective, it seems logical for Russia to exploit Iran's weakness and ultimately double cross her. The Iranians must know they cannot trust Russia, but they really have no choice because of Iran's scathing world isolation. Iran's only faint hope for survival is China, and since the east/west flow of oil would be controlled by both Russia and the US, it's in China's interest to protect Iran's sovereignty. If and when Iran is defeated, alliances will form and a battle will ensue for control of what's left of the region.
The following report is by Keyser Soze:
Next Crisis
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Mystery of Billions in Smuggled U.S. Bonds Continues
Last June, Italian authorities seized more than $134 billion in U.S. treasuries found in a false bottom suitcase carried by two Japanese travelers attempting to cross into Switzerland. The two men somehow disappeared and the case is allegedly still under investigation. In June, a U.S. Treasury spokesman claimed the treasuries were fake.
How does it happen that two Japanese travelers caught with more than $134 billion worth of phony treasuries just disappear? But it doesn't end there.
Yesterday Bloomberg reported the Secret Service is examining more than $100 billion of U.S. government bonds confiscated in northern Italy in August, just two months after the $134 billion of allegedly fake securities were seized.
The Secret Service is analyzing whether the bonds taken in August may be counterfeit, said a spokeswoman for the U.S. embassy in Rome. Italy’s financial police in Varese, north of Milan, arrested two individuals carrying the securities in a briefcase, according to a person involved in the case.
The two men currently are in custody as prosecutors in the town of Busto Arsizio carry out their investigation. The seized notes include securities with face values of $500 million and $1 billion.
In June, Gregory Dail noted the following inconsistencies regarding the first $134 billion:
1. Although the smugglers have been identified in the press as “Japanese nationals”, there has yet to be any third party confirmations, formal charges made or a release of the culprit’s identities. Asian and Japanese press outlets are reporting the suspects were released shortly after they were detained.
2. A Bloomberg article regarding this story, the seized bearer bonds allegedly were dated as of 1934. Since bearer bonds in denominations of $500 million did not exist in 1934, the bonds were deduced as fake. The police are still waiting for a declaration regarding the bonds’ authenticity from the SEC, and the populous is speculation how to spend their 40% windfall.
Something smells about this declaration. How can the quality of the forged bearer bonds be so meticulous that they “are indistinguishable from the real ones”, yet the counterfeiters are so ill-informed as to not date the bearer bonds appropriately?
3. Bloomberg reported that there is no known existence of the alleged Billion-dollar Kennedy bonds. This defies any logical explanation. The expert counterfeiters would have made more of the $500 million denomination, indistinguishable from the real thing, instead of making 10 bonds in denominations of $1 billion a piece in a bearer bond that never existed.
4. On March 30, 2009, the US Treasury Department announced that USD $134.5 billion remained in its Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]. The same amount as the seized bearer bonds was $134.5 billion.
5. The two well-dressed Japanese men traveled a well known financial smuggling route where they would stick out like sore thumbs, defies logic.
6. Then we have this June 18 article from the Financial Times, that questions whether the men are really Japanese, as their passports declared, and may be the work of the Mafia.
7. Officials in Tokyo were nonplussed. Takeshi Akamatsu, a Japanese foreign ministry press secretary, said Italian authorities had confirmed that two men carrying Japanese passports had been questioned in the bond case but Tokyo had not been informed of their names or whereabouts.
“We don’t know where they are now,” Mr. Akamatsu said.
Kyodo News reported on June 19 that the two Japanese men had been released. The Japanese consulate general in Milan said...it has confirmed that the two men who were briefly detained by Italian police after attempting to enter Switzerland with $134 billion worth of U.S. bonds were Japanese citizens. The men were released later that day after an Italian lawyer provided fidelity guarantee for them.
The Italian authorities continue to probe how the two obtained the bonds and why they were trying to take the fake securities to Switzerland.
8. The Italians are now saying the forged bonds appeared shoddy and some of them had face values that were nonexistent. The Italian authorities said they wonder why the securities were produced because the bonds cannot be used even for fraud in view of their poor quality. In pictures the bonds appear new, crisp and clean!
They were first described as being “meticulous” work and “indistinguishable” from real ones but we are also to believe that they now “appeared shoddy.”
Turner Radio Network (TRN) announced June 20 that it had confirmed information the two Japanese nationals are “employees of the Finance Ministry of Japan.”
TRN has now confirmed the two men arrested were trying to secretly dump Bonds as ordered by the government of Japan because the Japanese government feared that the U.S. government would be unable to repay its debts. Despite the assurances from Japanese Finance Minister Kaoru Yosano that Japan has complete confidence in the U.S. Treasury has confirmed the upon the serial numbers of the Bonds, part of the $686 billion of U.S. debt officially held by Japan.
The last couple of days the Italian press was abuzz with suggestions on how to spend their forty-billion dollar windfall despite the claims [of the treasuries] being counterfeit.
Under Italian law Italy gets to keep forty percent (40%) of the smuggled bonds. Now TRN reports that the US and Japan are trying to negotiate with Italy for return of the Bonds but because of the astonishing amount of money involved and Italy is refusing to negotiate.
From the World’s perspective the U.S.A. can’t even identify its own bonds, has very nervous creditors, and U.S. mainstream media is unable to perform impartial journalism and are worthless as an honest and viable news source.
Max Keiser's Take on the Bonds.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Faith in the U.S. was sold by Congress to J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller
Image via Wikipedia
The Coming Anarchy
Is secession ever justified?
Mainstream conservatives and progressives often encourage it in other countries - remember Kosovo - even as they deify Abraham Lincoln for preventing it in the U.S.
But consider what the federal government has done to us over the past century:
- Fractional-reserve banking backed up by the Federal Reserve Board - creating a culture based on credit rather than saving
- Relentless meddling in other countries - through war or coercion (forced "cooperation") - in order to expand markets for American corporations.
- Prohibition or regulation of inexpensive or superior alternatives to corporate products - resulting in everything from the War on Drugs to the War on Hemp to the decline of small farms and small business.
More could be added to this list. My point is that, for anyone not blinded by nationalism, any of the three provide solid grounds for peaceful secession of the states from the Union. Together, they make a compelling case.
It could be asked if things would not be even worse after a formal break-up. The answer is that no one knows for sure. But some things are likely:
- The Federal Reserve would be put to an end. States that want to attract business and create jobs would have to figure out a better financial system for themselves.
- The wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq would end, as well as all of the overseas occupations, and no state would have the ability to wage non-defensive war. There'd be as much reason for terrorists to target American states as they do Norway or Luxembourg.
- There would be no more federal medical marijuana raids or BATFE sieges.
- Special interests and corporations would find it more difficult to bribe 50 state legislatures than just one Congress.
But nationalism makes neither peaceful nor violent secession likely. Over the past century the nationalists have effectively instilled their propaganda through public schools and in more subtle ways, such as placing the Flag of the United States in church sanctuaries. They have also effectively persuaded the people that a pro-secession argument is a pro-slavery argument. This is completely illogical, but it sticks. In any case, anyone who loses their faith in Washington DC is certainly not going to place it in Sacramento or Springfield or Albany.
But it is quite possible they'll lose their faith in DC. The American Empire is falling apart. Recall that in the last year of his Administration, Bush was unable to make war on Iran or stand up to Russia, as he desperately wanted to do. The country was simply too weak. And it is weaker now, diverting resources from the failed Iraq experiment into Afghanistan. Just as the USSR's empire imploded shortly after it ended its failed incursion in Afghanistan, the same might happen to the USA.
The USA is also weak financially. It doesn't have the money to pay for Medicare and Social Security. If Obama's domestic plans like Cap & Trade and Health Care "Reform" pass Congress, we will likely see a deepening recession alongside rampant inflation.
If the increasing numbers of jobless see the price of food and fuel soar, we could see civil unrest. If and when U.S. military troops are called in to suppress rioters - whether by this President or the next, whether in the inner city or at Tea Party-like protests - the end of the USA will be all but official.
There probably won't be any secession even at that time. Hard-line progressives and conservatives will still hold out hope that if the "right people" are in charge, things can get fixed.
But the foundation of the political system will be shaken forever. This foundation is the faith which the majority of the people have in the system. Their faith was actually sold by Congress to J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. More and more of the people are realizing it now, but they're still in the minority.
If the unemployment rate and/or the inflation rate soars, and if the government becomes heavy-handed in controlling unrest, more and more Americans will lose their faith at an increasingly rapid rate.
When people lose their faith in a system they can not control, their only viable option is to drop out of it when possible and game it when necessary. They will seek allies with which to barter goods or services. They will reject Federal Reserve dollars when they can, or accept payments only in cash without reporting the income. A system of bribery based on special favors of "friends of friends" who work for the government will flourish. It might not be as brazen as in third-world countries, but could become equally rampant.
The "cheaters" and tax evaders would be so numerous that the government couldn't possibly catch them all.
Soon, people will form their own schools, as funding from DC will dry up. No longer will the USA threaten and coerce other countries. As soon as state and local police lose federal funding, they will stop providing SWAT back-ups of federal raids.
This future will be anarchy, not because there won't be a nominal government, but because the people will have lost faith in politics and thereby lose whatever trust they had in government. The people will treat it as an obstacle in their lives, to be worked around when possible and dealt with when necessary. But they'll stop voting and stop volunteering to put their lives at risk for the Flag.
This coming anarchy actually exists today. The world is the product of our beliefs, upon which we act. We let ourselves be governed only because we believe the government is more right than wrong, more good than bad. There is no "authority," there is only people with uniforms and guns, and you obey them either because you believe in what they do, or because you fear them. Either way, it's just your beliefs. But the less we admire or sacrifice for the government, and the more we comply out of fear and self-interest, the less the effective the State will be. Sooner or later, alternative institutions will spring up to provide security, legal adjudication, even money.
Even if the U.S. never faces a Berlin Wall moment, the people, by their beliefs and actions, can make the government increasingly irrelevant to their lives. And that doesn't have to begin at some future turning point, it can begin today.
About the Author:
James Leroy Wilson is author of Ron Paul Is A Nut (And So Am I). (Click here to get an autographed copy.) He blogs at Independent Country and writes for DownsizeDC.org. Opinions expressed here do not represent the views of DownsizeDC.org.
Companies With the Greatest Risk of Bankruptcy Over the Next 12 Months
Image via Wikipedia
Rite Aid Corporation
Sirius XM Radio Inc.
AMR Corporation
Federal-Mogul Corporation
Textron Inc.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Continental Airlines, Inc.
CBS Corporation
Las Vegas Sands Corp.
Liberty Media Corporation
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Macy's, Inc.
Mylan Inc.
Apartment Investment and Management Co.
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
Redwood Trust, Inc.
Oshkosh Corporation
Amkor Technology, Inc.
Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.
Sprint Nextel Corporation
Many age groups poorer than they were 40 years ago
Image by Marc :"" En el Pais de los sueños..."" via Flickr
The incomes of the young and middle-aged — especially men — have fallen off a cliff since 2000, leaving many age groups poorer than they were even in the 1970s, a USA TODAY analysis of new Census data found. People 54 or younger are losing ground financially at an unprecedented rate in this recession, widening a gap between young and old that had been expanding for years.
While the young have lost ground, older people have grown more prosperous over the years and the decades. Older women have done best of all.
The dividing line between those getting richer or poorer: the year 1955. If you were born before that, you're part of a generation enjoying a four-decade run of historic income growth. Every generation after that is now sinking economically.
Household income for people in their peak earning years — between ages 45 and 54 — plunged $7,700 to $64,349 from 2000 through 2008, after adjusting for inflation. People in their 20s and 30s suffered similar drops. Older people enjoyed all the gains.
The line between the haves and have-nots runs through the middle of the Baby Boom, the population explosion 1946-64.
"The second half of the Baby Boom may be in the worst shape of all," says demographer Cheryl Russell of New Strategist Publications, a research firm. "They're loaded with expenses for housing, cars and kids, but they will never generate the income that their parents enjoyed."
Over 1.5 million unemployed will have exhausted all resources by Christmas
Image via Wikipedia
These days I can't seem to look at numbers anymore without asking myself what's behind them. Hey, who can? 90% of them are embellished crappahola, and we're still stuck trying to figure out what they mean if we want to know what lies ahead. Wouldn't a be nice to have a government that's transparent, and doesn't try to pull a fast one on you every chance it gets? Yeah, dream on; here goes another round of number rumbling:
The headline may claim that "initial unemployment claims dip", but in reality they have hardly moved at all through summer. As for continuing claims numbers, they are not only up, they're increasingly devoid of meaning, as increasing numbers of people fall off the far end, beyond the duration of unemployment benefits. The worst hit states, where unemployment is highest, and hence tax revenues drop most, will have to pony up the most in additional benefits, as an estimated 1.5 million people will have exhausted all resources by Christmas. For some states, this must cause nightmares already. Especially since it won't stop in 2009; not even the most rose colored forecasters see a significant improvement in jobless numbers any time soon.
If you look at the speed at which benefits are running out right now, going from almost zero to 1.5 million "clients" in just a few months, we could see millions of long-time, structurally unemployed soon. A true underclass.
Also, the discrepancy between initial claims and official job loss numbers begins to look ridiculous. A slight difference is fine, but 300% is crazy. Then again, that label applies to most US government data. Read More...
Pelosi Confuses Washington with Hollywood
Pelosi warns of violence. "I think we all have to take responsibility for our actions and our words. We are a free country and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance," she said.
"I saw,"-- she said, choking back tears -- "I saw this myself in the late seventies in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening and it gave--it created a climate in which violence took place."
How pathetic. Nancy is confusing Washington with Hollywood, but wait, there's really no difference now is there? She'd love to substitute America's collective disgust of government with the Race Card. Deep down she senses the impeding collapse of the Federal Government and loss of power.Thursday, September 17, 2009
Gold: “We may be in the midst of a perfect storm"
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
Kinross Gold Corp., Canada’s third- largest producer of the precious metal, said the gold industry is facing a crisis of declining reserves as investor demand outpaces supply.
“We may be in the midst of a perfect storm in terms of price and industry dynamics,” Tye Burt, chief executive officer of the Toronto-based company, said at a conference in Denver today. “Globally production has been in decline since the peak of 81 million ounces in 2001 to 77 million ounces last year, and we see that decline continuing long term.”
Gold climbed to an 18-month high in New York and London today on concern that a global economic recovery may stoke inflation and on a drop by the dollar that boosted demand for the metal as an alternative investment. Gold for December delivery advanced as much as $17 to $1,023.30 an ounce on the New York Mercantile Exchange’s Comex division. The precious metal reached a record $1,033.90 an ounce on March 21, 2008.
Kinross said in June that it’s considering as many as 50 investments in all countries where the company has operations, including Russia. The company wants to acquire “development- stage” or “active” projects and is likely to take on local partners for any investments in Russia, Vice President James Crossland said in a June 4 interview.
Kinross rose 14 cents to C$24.74 at 4:15 p.m. in Toronto Stock Exchange trading. The shares have gained 10 percent this year.
Acquisitions
Kinross sold shares valued at $414.6 million in the first quarter to pay for acquisitions and take advantage of investors’ interest in gold as a haven from economic turmoil.
The company’s producing assets are distributed evenly in the U.S., Russia and South America, and the company wants to maintain that geographical balance, Crossland said in June.
Kinross and Barrick Gold Corp., the world’s largest gold producer, will conclude a study “very soon” on their Cerro Casale deposit, Burt said today. Cerro Casale may produce about 400,000 ounces a year if put into production, he said. Kinross assumed 50 percent control as part of its $3 billion acquisition of Bema Gold Corp. in 2007. Barrick owns the remainder.
In the first half of this year, gold-equivalent production, which includes silver output, rose 47 percent to 1.09 million ounces. For the full year, Kinross predicts 2.3 million to 2.4 million ounces of gold equivalent production, Burt said today.
Maxine Waters Wants Tea Party Racist Probes
Maxine Waters wants TEA parties, conservative rallies and similar functions probed by the media in an effort to find and confront racists. She may have to put her racist witch hunt on sold since she's under investigation by the House Ethics panel over her husband's ties to a bank that received federal bailout funds.
Reporting from Washington - The House Ethics Committee is investigating Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), who has come under scrutiny because of her husband's ties to a bank that received federal bailout funds.
The panel's chairwoman and ranking member announced the committee was extending by 45 days a determination on whether it would conduct a more thorough review of Waters' conduct, but they declined to say what was being investigated. Waters, one of Los Angeles' most enduring liberal politicians, also declined to comment.
Word of the investigation came as the committee announced that it was delaying an inquiry into whether Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) or his representatives tried to secure the Senate seat vacated by President Obama by promising to raise campaign cash for disgraced former Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich. The panel cited an ongoing federal investigation in Chicago.
Both matters were referred to the committee, evenly divided between Democratic and Republican lawmakers, by the Office of Congressional Ethics, created by the House last year in response to criticism that lawmakers have been reluctant to vigorously investigate their own. The new office -- which can initiate reviews of alleged misconduct on its own or in response to allegations brought to its attention by the public -- refers matters to the committee if it determines they warrant further investigation.
Waters was in the spotlight earlier this year because Massachusetts-based OneUnited Bank received $12 million in bailout funds, three months after the congresswoman, a senior member of the congressional committee that oversees banking, helped arrange a meeting between officials of the bank and other minority-owned financial institutions and Treasury Department representatives.
Waters' husband, Sidney Williams, served on the bank board until early last year and held at least $350,000 in investments in the bank last year, according to the congresswoman's most recent financial disclosure report.
Waters defended her efforts as in keeping with her longtime work to promote opportunity for minority-owned businesses and lending in underserved communities. She said that OneUnited received bailout funds based on the merits of its request, not political influence, and she said that she had disclosed her husband's ties to the bank.
In its announcement on Jackson, the ethics panel made public for the first time allegations that he used his congressional staff in Chicago and Washington to mount a "public campaign" for the open seat in possible violation of federal law and House rules.
The Justice Department asked the committee to hold off from pursuing a full-blown inquiry of Jackson until after Blagojevich's trial, scheduled for next year, saying it would "pose a significant risk of interfering with the pending criminal proceedings and ongoing investigation."
Blagojevich was indicted on federal corruption charges in April. Jackson's name first surfaced in December after Blagojevich's arrest, with the then-governor secretly recorded saying that an emissary from Jackson had offered to raise $1 million for Blagojevich's reelection campaign if he appointed Jackson to the Senate seat that eventually went to Roland W. Burris.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
FOIA documents reveal cap and trade law would cost taxpayers $200 billion a year
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.
A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.
A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."
The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.
These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats' cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June -- the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to "no" -- and it faces significant opposition in the Senate.
One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."
One difference is that while Heritage's numbers are talking about 26 years in the future, the Treasury Department's figures don't have a time limit.
"Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately," says Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request. "It's nice to see they're not spinning each other behind closed doors."
"They're not telling you the cost -- they're not telling you the benefit," says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. "If they don't tell you the cost, and they don't tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They're just talking about global salvation."
The FOIA'd document written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department's Office of Environment and Energy in January 2009, says: "Given the administration's proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually." (Obviously, any final cap-and-trade system may be different from what Obama had proposed, and could yield higher or lower taxes.)
Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.
One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX." The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.
The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption (nor, for that matter, should federal agencies be in the business of possibly suppressing dissenting climate change voices). You'd hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the "most open and transparent in history" would be more forthcoming than this.
Forget Wilson: Obama should publicly apologize to Congress
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
Obama asked to apologize for 'lies to entire country'
An immigration enforcement organization is calling on President Barack Obama to publicly apologize to Congress, the media, and the entire nation for lying about illegal immigrants not having access to healthcare reform benefits. The grassroots group is standing behind Congressman Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina), who shouted "You lie!" during the president's healthcare speech last week.
Even though Wilson apologized to the president, House Democrats are demanding that he apologize again -- this time on the House floor. And if he refuses, they are planning to introduce a resolution of disapproval. Wilson has said he has no plans to apologize further, and last week rejected requests from GOP leaders that he take to the House floor and apologize.
"I believe one apology is sufficent," Wilson told The Associated Press over the weekend. "As the White House indicated, we need to go ahead with a civil discussion of the issues -- and I appreciate [that] the president accepted my apology [and] the vice president accepted the apology."
"More important than whether Congressman Wilson was rude or not is the fact that when the president of the United States lies to the entire country -- as Obama did when he made the incorrect claim that his reform legislation would not benefit illegal aliens -- then that's a much more serious thing," he contends. "And that is why ALIPAC is calling on the president to apologize to the nation."
Gheen says he finds it quite interesting that the U.S. Senate is moving to close the very loopholes that Obama said do not exist for illegal aliens. And he says Wilson's "You lie!" comment may also have stymied Senator Chuck Schumer's (D-New York) plan to introduce amnesty legislation this past week.
Israeli Attack on Iran Inches Closer
Image via Wikipedia
This from the Israeli News Service YNet News:
Sarkozy: France certain Iran working on nuclear arms
French intelligence agencies are certain that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program, President Nicolas Sarkozy said Tuesday. "We cannot let Iran acquire nuclear" weapons because it would also be a threat to Israel, Sarkozy said during a meeting at the Elysee presidential palace with lawmakers from his conservative UMP party.
"It is a certainty to all of our secret services. Iran is working today on a nuclear (weapons) program," he said. The French leader also said he would not "shake the hand of someone who wants to wipe Israel off the map", referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Also Tuesday, US President Barack Obama discussed with Sarkozy ways to bring Iran "into compliance" with UN resolutions on its nuclear program ahead of diplomatic talks, the White House said.
"The two leaders discussed the status of diplomatic efforts to bring Iran into compliance with its international obligations on its nuclear program," a statement said after Obama spoke by telephone Tuesday with Sarkozy. France and the four other permanent members of the UN Security Council - Britain, China, Russia and the United States - as well as Germany will hold talks with Iran on its nuclear program on October 1.
Rep. Alan Grayson Announces Hearing to Audit FED
Rep. Alan Grayson announces there will be a hearing in late September on the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. If this bill passes, it will be the first time the central bank has been independently audited.
Four Financial Related Deaths in 24 hours
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
(Reuters) – James McDonald, chief executive officer of investment management firm Rockefeller & Co, committed suicide on Sunday in Massachusetts, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter.
(LATimes) – Newport Beach financier Danny Pang died early Saturday at a local hospital, according to the Orange County coroner’s office. The cause of death has not been determined and an autopsy is planned for Sunday, said Larry Esslinger, supervising deputy coroner.
(Inquisitr) – Ex-CEO of Beneficial Corp. Finn H.W. Casperson was found dead in an apparent suicide behind an office building in Westerly, Rhode Island.
(CNN) – Police are investigating the death of the former chief fundraiser for ex-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich as a “death-suicide,” an Illinois mayor said Sunday.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Poll: Public Distrust in Media At All Time High
Image via Wikipedia
Last December, for the first time in a Pew Research Center survey, more people said they got most of their national and international news from the internet than said newspapers were their main source.
Pew Research reports:
The public's assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americans' views of media bias and independence now match previous lows.
Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate. In the initial survey in this series about the news media's performance in 1985, 55% said news stories were accurate while 34% said they were inaccurate. That percentage had fallen sharply by the late 1990s and has remained low over the last decade.
Similarly, only about a quarter (26%) now say that news organizations are careful that their reporting is not politically biased, compared with 60% who say news organizations are politically biased. And the percentages saying that news organizations are independent of powerful people and organizations (20%) or are willing to admit their mistakes (21%) now also match all-time lows.Republicans continue to be highly critical of the news media in nearly all respects. However, much of the increase in negative attitudes toward the news media over the last two years is driven by increasingly unfavorable evaluations by Democrats.
On several measures, Democratic criticism of the news media has grown by double-digits since 2007. Today, most Democrats (59%) say that the reports of news organizations are often inaccurate; just 43% said this two years ago. Democrats are also now more likely than they were in 2007 to identify favoritism in the media: Two-thirds (67%) say the press tends to favor one side rather than to treat all sides fairly, up from 54%. And while just a third of Democrats (33%) say news organizations are "too critical of America," that reflects a 10-point increase since 2007.
The partisan gaps in several of these opinions, which had widened considerably over the past decade, have narrowed. There are some notable exceptions to these trends, however, as Republicans increasingly see news organizations as influenced by powerful people and organizations and not professional, while Democrats' views have changed little.
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press' biennial media attitudes survey, conducted July 22-26 among 1,506 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, finds that even as the party gaps in several criticisms of the press have lessened over the past few years, views of many individual media sources are deeply divided along party lines.
Democrats hold considerably more positive views than Republicans of CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and the news operations of the broadcast networks, and their views of National Public Radio are somewhat more favorable than those of Republicans. By contrast, views of Fox News -- and to a lesser extent The Wall Street Journal -- are more positive among Republicans than Democrats.
Partisan differences in views of Fox News have increased substantially since 2007. Today, a large majority of Republicans view Fox News positively (72%), compared with just 43% of Democrats. In 2007, 73% of Republicans and 61% of Democrats viewed Fox News favorably. Three-quarters (75%) of Democrats assess CNN favorably, while just 44% of Republicans do so, which is little changed from two years ago. MSNBC also rates substantially higher among Democrats (60%) than among Republicans (34%).
But the starkest partisan division is seen in assessments of The New York Times. Although most Americans are not familiar enough with the Times to express an opinion, Republicans view The New York Times negatively by a margin of nearly two-to-one (31% to 16%), while Democrats view it positively by an almost five-to-one margin (39% to 8%). More independents rate the Times favorably (29%) than unfavorably (18%).
More favorable Republican ratings are reserved for The Wall Street Journal. Within the GOP, the balance of favorable to unfavorable assessments of the Journal is second only to that for Fox News. Democratic and independent assessments of The Wall Street Journal are also, on balance, positive. And the balance of opinion regarding National Public Radio is favorable across the board; however, Democratic opinions of NPR are somewhat more positive than those of Republicans (50% favorable vs. 39% favorable).
The poll finds that television remains the dominant news source for the public, with 71% saying they get most of their national and international news from television. More than four-in-ten (42%) say they get most of their news on these subjects from the internet, compared with 33% who cite newspapers. Last December, for the first time in a Pew Research Center survey, more people said they got most of their national and international news from the internet than said newspapers were their main source.
However, online news lags behind newspapers as a source for news about local issues. As with national and international news, most people (64%) cite television as their main source for local news. Yet despite declines in newspaper readership over the last several years, about four-in-ten people (41%) turn to newspapers for news about issues and events in their local area, more than twice the number that turn to the internet for local news (17%).
The public's impressions of which news organizations do the most to uncover local news stories largely mirror the top sources for local news. More than four-in-ten (44%) say that local television stations do the most to uncover and report on important local issues, while a quarter (25%) identify local newspapers as the primary sources of local news reporting. Far fewer people identify local independent online organizations (11%) or radio stations (10%) as responsible for uncovering most local news stories. Even among those who get most of their local news from newspapers, about as many say most original local reporting is done by television stations (41%) as by newspapers (38%).
Long-Term Views of Press Performance
The public has long been critical of the press in several areas: in 1985, majorities said that news organizations tried to cover up mistakes, tended to favor one side on political and social issues and were influenced by the powerful.
However, in that initial survey on press performance, conducted by the Times-Mirror Center, most people (55%) said that news organizations "get the facts straight," while 34% said stories were often inaccurate.
Opinions about the accuracy of news stories fluctuated over the next decade, but by the late 1990s majorities said that news stories are often inaccurate. That has been the case for the past decade as well, with the exception of a brief period in fall 2001, when coverage of 9/11 and terrorism boosted the press's positive ratings. In the current survey, 63% say news stories are often inaccurate.
Similarly, the proportion saying news organizations "try to cover up their mistakes" has reached a high of 70%, up from 63% two years ago. In 1985, a smaller majority (55%) said news organizations tried to cover up their mistakes. And while most Americans (59%) see news organizations as "highly professional," the proportion expressing this view also has slipped since 2007 (66%). In 1985, 72% said news organizations were highly professional.
The pattern is the same regarding public attitudes about whether the press is biased, deals with all sides fairly, and is independent.
In 1985, fewer than half (45%) said news organizations were politically biased, while 36% said they were careful to avoid bias. Today, by greater than two-to-one (60% to 26%), more say the press is biased.
Nearly three-quarters (74%) say news organizations tend to favor one side in dealing with political and social issues, while just 18% say they deal fairly with all sides. The proportion saying the press favors one side has risen eight points since 2007 (from 66%). In 1985, a much smaller majority (53%) said the press favored one side.
There has been a comparable shift in views of the press's independence. Nearly three-quarters (74%) now say news organizations are influenced by powerful people and organizations compared with 20% who say they are pretty independent. In 1985, by a far smaller margin, more said that news organizations were influenced by the powerful than said they were pretty independent (53% to 37%).
Notably, the balance of opinion about whether news organizations are liberal or conservative has changed little since 1985. At that time, about twice as many said the press was liberal than conservative (40% vs. 19%). That continues to be the case today (50% vs. 22%), although somewhat more people offer an opinion about this issue than did so then.
Continue reading the full report at people-press.org.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e6fe6aec-9682-4cae-b8a0-fbb429b214da)
Gold firm and will continue to Skyrocket into 2010
Image via Wikipedia
Gold seen above $1,100 in 2010 on cenbank buying
The price of gold could rise above $1,110 an ounce in 2010 as central banks diversify their reserves into gold due to a faltering dollar, economist Martin Murenbeeld told the Denver Gold Forum on Tuesday.
Murenbeeld, president of Canada-based consultant DundeeWealth Economics, forecast gold could rise to an average of $1,116 an ounce in 2010.
Spot gold XAU= was trading at around $1,002 an ounce on Tuesday. Bullion closed above $1,000 for the first time last Friday on the back of dollar weakness.
In a keynote speech at the Gold Forum, an annual industry get-together, Murenbeeld said that there was a positive change in central banks' attitudes toward gold as an investment and a key part of their reserves.
"The central banks and the G20 (countries) have complained more precipitously about the U.S. dollar and the U.S. monetary and fiscal policies, which leads them to think more and more about shifting their reserves," he said.
"They don't have a lot of options for shifting their reserves, and gold is being mentioned more frequently as an important asset."
Recently, China and other emerging economic powers have signaled growing interest in gold rather than stockpiling their currency reserves in U.S. dollar-denominated assets.
In addition, Murenbeeld, who is also an adjunct professor for the MBA program at the University of Victoria, said that gold is becoming increasingly used in investment portfolios for performance and lowering overall risks.
"More and more portfolio managers are starting to think gold and commodities as an asset class," he said.
Murenbeeld also said it was possible that a geopolitical event or crisis could drive gold prices sharply higher.
"Slowly but surely, gold is going back to its days where it was being held in a precautionary form by people worry about currency debasement, inflation, whatever you worry about," he said.Ron Paul discusses his new book "End The Fed"
Congressman Ron Paul discusses his new book "End The Fed," as well as other economic issues and Federal Reserve-related topics on CNN's "American Morning."
Monday, September 14, 2009
"Way to go, Joe!"
CNN Capitol Hill correspondent Lisa Desjardins does a live report from the National Mall in Washington on the day of a huge Taxpayer March or "tea party protest" against the government.
At the start of the interview, anchor Fredricka Whitfield "forewarns" the audience that there might be some yelling during the report.
Desjardins struggles to get through the interview in front of chants of "tell the truth" and "go home, CNN". After Whitfield asks Desjardins to "give it one more shot," the tea partyers start chanting Glenn Beck's name, lol.
The brave reporter then attempts to ask the protesters a question: "What do you think of Congressman Joe Wilson?" The crowd reacts with applause, then starts chanting, "Way to go, Joe."
Central Banks to Buy 10Million Ounces of Gold Annually
Image via Wikipedia
Jeffrey Christian, managing director of CPM Group, told the Denver Gold Forum on Monday that central banks are expected to buy 6 million to 10 million ounces of gold annually due to currency uncertainties after being net sellers in past decades. Christian gave what he said was a conservative forecast for gold to average $914 an ounce over the next 10 years.
"What we are seeing is that central banks are making the transition from large net sellers to large net buyers," Christian said. "You will see a net buying of 6 (million) to 10 million ounces per year by central banks, and that is an extremely conservative projection," he said.
Christian said that European central banks appeared to be done with their gold selling, and that central banks in emerging countries which have been building up foreign reserves were now diversifying into gold due to volatility in the dollar and other major currencies. Recently, China and other emerging economies have signaled growing interest in gold rather than stockpiling their currency reserves in U.S. dollar-denominated assets.
What Ship Owners and Govt Economists Don't Want You to See
Image via Wikipedia
MailOnline
Here, on a sleepy stretch of shoreline at the far end of Asia, is surely the biggest and most secretive gathering of ships in maritime history. [see photo] Their numbers are equivalent to the entire British and American navies combined; their tonnage is far greater. Container ships, bulk carriers, oil tankers - all should be steaming fully laden between China, Britain, Europe and the US, stocking camera shops, PC Worlds and Argos depots ahead of the retail pandemonium of 2009. But their water has been stolen.
![[see photo]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/09/08/article-1212013-06435781000005DC-710_634x403.jpg){kind=link}
They are a powerful and tangible representation of the hurricanes that have been wrought by the global economic crisis; an iron curtain drawn along the coastline of the southern edge of Malaysia's rural Johor state, 50 miles east of Singapore harbour.
It is so far off the beaten track that nobody ever really comes close, which is why these ships are here. The world's ship owners and government economists would prefer you not to see this symbol of the depths of the plague still crippling the world's economies.So they have been quietly retired to this equatorial backwater, to be maintained only by a handful of bored sailors. The skeleton crews are left alone to fend off the ever-present threats of piracy and collisions in the congested waters as the hulls gather rust and seaweed at what should be their busiest time of year.
Local fisherman Ah Wat, 42, who for more than 20 years has made a living fishing for prawns from his home in Sungai Rengit, says: 'Before, there was nothing out there - just sea. Then the big ships just suddenly came one day, and every day there are more of them.
'Some of them stay for a few weeks and then go away. But most of them just stay. You used to look Christmas from here straight over to Indonesia and see nothing but a few passing boats. Now you can no longer see the horizon.'
The size of the idle fleet becomes more palpable when the ships' lights are switched on after sunset. From the small fishing villages that dot the coastline, a seemingly endless blaze of light stretches from one end of the horizon to another. Standing in the darkness among the palm trees and bamboo huts, as calls to prayer ring out from mosques further inland, is a surreal and strangely disorientating experience. It makes you feel as if you are adrift on a dark sea, staring at a city of light.
Ah Wat says: 'We don't understand why they are here. There are so many ships but no one seems to be on board. When we sail past them in our fishing boats we never see anyone. They are like real ghost ships and some people are scared of them. They believe they may bring a curse with them and that there may be bad spirits on the ships.'
As daylight creeps across the waters, flags of convenience from destinations such as Panama and the Bahamas become visible. In reality, though, these vessels belong to some of the world's biggest Western shipping companies. And the sickness that has ravaged them began far away - in London, where the industry's heart beats, and where the plummeting profits and hugely reduced cargo prices are most keenly felt.The Aframax-class oil tanker is the camel of the world's high seas. By definition, it is smaller than 132,000 tons deadweight and with a breadth above 106ft. It is used in the basins of the Black Sea, the North Sea, the Caribbean Sea, the China Sea and the Mediterranean - or anywhere where non-OPEC exporting countries have harbours and canals too small to accommodate very large crude carriers (VLCC) or ultra-large crude carriers (ULCCs). The term is based on the Average Freight Rate Assessment (AFRA) tanker rate system and is an industry standard.
A couple of years ago these ships would be steaming back and forth. Now 12 per cent are doing nothing
You may wish to know this because, if ever you had an irrational desire to charter one, now would be the time. This time last year, an Aframax tanker capable of carrying 80,000 tons of cargo would cost £31,000 a day ($50,000). Now it is about £3,400 ($5,500).
This is why the chilliest financial winds anywhere in the City of London are to be found blowing through its 400-plus shipping brokers.
Between them, they manage about half of the world's chartering business. The bonuses are long gone. The last to feel the tail of the economic whiplash, they - and their insurers and lawyers - await a wave of redundancies and business failures in the next six months. Commerce is contracting, fleets rust away - yet new ship-builds ordered years ago are still coming on stream.
World shipping is tracked by satellite service Vesseltracker - See Photo
Just 12 months ago these financiers and brokers were enjoying fat bonuses as they traded cargo space. But nobody wants the space any more, and those that still need to ship goods across the world are demanding vast reductions in price.
Do not tell these men and women about green shoots of recovery. As Briton Tim Huxley, one of Asia's leading ship brokers, says, if the world is really pulling itself out of recession, then all these idle ships should be back on the move.
'This is the time of year when everyone is doing all the Christmas stu ff,' he points out.
'A couple of years ago those ships would have been steaming back and forth, going at full speed. But now you've got something like 12 per cent of the world's container ships doing nothing.'
Aframaxes are oil bearers. But the slump is industry-wide. The cost of sending a 40ft steel container of merchandise from China to the UK has fallen from £850 plus fuel charges last year to £180 this year. The cost of chartering an entire bulk freighter suitable for carrying raw materials has plunged even further, from close to £185,000 ($300,000) last summer to an incredible £6,100 ($10,000) earlier this year.
Business for bulk carriers has picked up slightly in recent months, largely because of China's rediscovered appetite for raw materials such as iron ore, says Huxley. But this is a small part of international trade, and the prospects for the container ships remain bleak.
Some experts believe the ratio of container ships sitting idle could rise to 25 per cent within two years in an extraordinary downturn that shipping giant Maersk has called a 'crisis of historic dimensions'. Last month the company reported its first half-year loss in its 105-year history.
Martin Stopford, managing director of Clarksons, London's biggest ship broker, says container shipping has been hit particularly hard: 'In 2006 and 2007 trade was growing at 11 per cent. In 2008 it slowed down by 4.7 per cent. This year we think it might go down by as much as eight per cent. If it costs £7,000 a day to put the ship to sea and if you only get £6,000 a day, than you have got a decision to make.
'Yet at the same time, the supply of container ships is growing. This year, supply could be up by around 12 per cent and demand is down by eight per cent. Twenty per cent spare is a lot of spare of anything - and it's come out of nowhere.'
These empty ships should be carrying Christmas over to the West. All retailers will have already ordered their stock for the festive season long ago. With more than 92 per cent of all goods coming into the UK by sea, much of it should be on its way here if it is going to make it to the shelves before Christmas.
But retailers are running on very low stock levels, not only because they expect consumer spending to be down, but also because they simply do not have the same levels of credit that they had in the past and so are unable to keep big stockpiles.
Stopford explains: 'Globalisation and shipping go hand in hand. Worldwide, we ship about 8.2 billion tons of cargo a year. That's more than one ton per person and probably two to three tons for richer people like us in the West. If the total goes down by five per cent or so, that's a lot of cargo that isn't moving.'
The knock-on effect of so many ships sitting idle rather than moving consumer goods between Asia and Europe could become apparent in Britain in the months ahead.
'We will find out at Christmas whether there are enough PlayStations in the shops or not. There will certainly be fewer goods coming in to Britain during the run-up to Christmas.'
Three thousand miles north-east of the ghost fleet of Johor, the shipbuilding capital of the world rocks to an unpunctuated chorus of hammer-guns blasting rivets the size of dustbin lids into shining steel panels that are then lowered onto the decks of massive new vessels.
As the shipping industry teeters on the brink of collapse, the activity at boatyards like Mokpo and Ulsan in South Korea all looks like a sick joke. But the workers in these bustling shipyards, who teem around giant tankers and mega-vessels the length of several football pitches and capable of carrying 10,000 or more containers each, have no choice; they are trapped in a cruel time warp.
There have hardly been any new orders. In 2011 the shipyards will simply run out of ships to build
A decade ago, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung (who died last month) issued a decree to his industrial captains: he wished to make his nation the market leader in shipbuilding. He knew the market intimately. Before entering politics, he studied economics and worked for a Japanese-owned freight-shipping business. Within a few years he was heading his own business, starting out with a fleet of nine ships.
Thus, by 2004, Kim Dae-jung's presidential vision was made real. His country's low-cost yards were winning 40 per cent of world orders, with Japan second with 24 per cent and China way behind on 14 per cent.
But shipbuilding is a horrendously hard market to plan. There is a three-year lag between the placing of an order and the delivery of a ship. With contracts signed, down-payments made and work under way, stopping work on a new ship is the economic equivalent of trying to change direction in an ocean liner travelling at full speed towards an iceberg.
Thus the labours of today's Korean shipbuilders merely represent the completion of contracts ordered in the fat years of 2006 and 2007. Those ships will now sail out into a global economy that no longer wants them.
Maersk announced last week that it was renegotiating terms and prices with Asian shipyards for 39 ordered tankers and gas carriers. One of the company's executives, Kristian Morch, said the shipping industry was in uncharted waters.
As he told the global shipping newspaper Lloyd's List only last week: 'You have a contraction of oil demand, you have a falling world economy and you have a contraction of financing capabilities - and at the same time as a lot of new ships are being delivered.'Demand peaked in 2005 when, with surplus tonnage worldwide standing at just 0.7 per cent, ship owners raced to order, fearing docks and berths at major shipyards would soon be fully booked. That spell of 'panic buying' has heightened today's alarming mismatch between supply and demand.
Keith Wallis, East Asia editor of Lloyd's List, says, 'There was an ordering frenzy on all types of vessel, particularly container ships, because of the booming trade between Asia and Europe and the United States. It was fuelled in particular by consumer demand in the UK, Europe and North America, as well as the demand for raw materials from China.'
Orders for most existing ships to be delivered within the next six to nine months would be honoured, he predicted, and the ships would go into service at the expense of older vessels in the fleet, which would be scrapped or end up anchored off places like southern Malaysia.But, says Wallis, 'some ship owners won't be able to pay their final instalments when the vessels are completed. Normally, they pay ten per cent down when they order the ship and there are three or four stages of payment. But 50 to 60 per cent is paid on delivery.'
South Korean shipyard Hanjin Heavy Industries last week said it had been forced to put up for sale three container ships ordered at a cost of £60 million ($100 million) by the Iranian state shipping line after the Iranians said they could not pay the bill.
'The prospects for shipyards are bleak, particularly for the South Koreans, where they have a high proportion of foreign orders. Whole communities in places like Mokpo and Ulsan are involved in shipbuilding and there is a lot of sub-contracting to local companies,' Wallis says.
'So far the shipyards are continuing to work, but the problems will start to emerge next year and certainly in 2011, because that is when the current orders will have been delivered. There have hardly been any new orders in the past year. In 2011, the shipyards will simply run out of ships to build.'
Christopher Palsson, a senior consultant at London-based Lloyd's Register-Fairplay Research, believes the situation will worsen before it gets better.
'Some ships will be sold for demolition but the net balance will be even further pressure on the freight rates and the market itself. A lot of ship owners and operators are going to find themselves in a very difficult situation.'
The current downturn is the worst in living memory and more severe even than the slump of the early Eighties, Palsson believes.
'Back then the majority of the crash was for tankers carrying crude oil. Today we have almost every aspect of shipping affected - bulk carriers, tankers, container carriers... the lot.
'It is a much wider-spread situation that we have today. China was not a major player in the world economy at that time. Neither was India. We had the Soviet Union. We had shipbuilding in the United Kingdom and Europe.
'But then, back in those days the world was a very different place.'
US Media Downplays D.C Tea Party Rally - Pictures Worth a 1000 Words
The U.S. media has grossly down played the millions who marched to the Capital on Saturday in protest of Obama.
Mail Online reports:
Up to two million people marched to the U.S. Capitol today, carrying signs with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" as they protested the president's health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending. The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency.
People were chanting "enough, enough" and "We the People." Others yelled "You lie, you lie!" and "Pelosi has to go," referring to California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. Demonstrators waved U.S. flags and held signs reading "Go Green Recycle Congress" and "I'm Not Your ATM." Men wore colonial costumes as they listened to speakers who warned of "judgment day" - Election Day 2010. Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam War veteran and former Teamster, came from Michigan. He said health care needs to be reformed - but not according to President Barack Obama's plan.
"My grandkids are going to be paying for this. It's going to cost too much money that we don't have," he said while marching, bracing himself with a wooden cane as he walked. FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey, organized several groups from across the country for what they billed as a "March on Washington." Organizers say they built on momentum from the April "tea party" demonstrations held nationwide to protest tax policies, along with growing resentment over the economic stimulus packages and bank bailouts.
Many protesters said they paid their own way to the event - an ethic they believe should be applied to the government. They say unchecked spending on things like a government-run health insurance option could increase inflation and lead to economic ruin. Terri Hall, 45, of Florida, said she felt compelled to become political for the first time this year because she was upset by government spending.
"Our government has lost sight of the powers they were granted," she said. She added that the deficit spending was out of control, and said she thought it was putting the country at risk. Anna Hayes, 58, a nurse from Fairfax County, stood on the Mall in 1981 for Reagan's inauguration. "The same people were celebrating freedom," she said. "The president was fighting for the people then. I remember those years very well and fondly." Saying she was worried about "Obamacare," Hayes explained: "This is the first rally I've been to that demonstrates against something, the first in my life. I just couldn't stay home anymore."
Like countless others at the rally, Joan Wright, 78, of Ocean Pines, Md., sounded angry. "I'm not taking this crap anymore," said Wright, who came by bus to Washington with 150 like-minded residents of Maryland's Eastern Shore. "I don't like the health-care [plan]. I don't like the czars. And I don't like the elitists telling us what we should do or eat." Republican lawmakers also supported the rally. "Republicans, Democrats and independents are stepping up and demanding we put our fiscal house in order," Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said.
"I think the overriding message after years of borrowing, spending and bailouts is enough is enough." Other sponsors of the rally include the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Ayn Rand Center for Individuals Rights. Recent polls illustrate how difficult recent weeks have been for a president who, besides tackling health care, has been battling to end a devastatingly deep recession. Fifty percent approve and 49 percent disapprove of the overall job he is doing as president, compared to July, when those approving his performance clearly outnumbered those who were unhappy with it, 55 percent to 42 percent.
Just 42 percent approve of the president's work on the high-profile health issue. The poll was taken over five days just before Obama's speech to Congress. That speech reflected Obama's determination to push ahead despite growing obstacles. "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it," Obama said on Wednesday night. "I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.
"If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we'll call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution." Prior to Obama's speech before Congress U.S. Capitol Police arrested a man they say tried to get into a secure area near the Capitol with a gun in his car as President Barack Obama was speaking. Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said Thursday that 28-year-old Joshua Bowman of suburban Falls Church, Virginia, was arrested around 8 p.m. Wednesday when Obama was due to speak.
Bowman's intentions were unclear, police said. Today's protests imitated the original Boston Tea Party of 1773, when colonists threw three shiploads of taxed tea into Boston Harbour in protest against the British government under the slogan 'No taxation without representation'. The group first began rising to prominence in April, when the governor of Texas threatened to secede from the union in protest against government spending. Waves of tea party protests have crossed America since.
Today's rally, the largest grouping of fiscal conservatives to march on Washington, comes on the heels of heated town halls held during the congressional August recess when some Democratic lawmakers were confronted, disrupted and shouted down by angry protestors who oppose President Obama's plan to overhaul the health care system.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)