Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Money as Debt

A simple and entertaining explanation that serves as a great introduction to what can seem a very complicated and conviluted system.

Dont Buy Federal Reserve Notes.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Where Is My Money Going To Go?

In Case you wondered where the Largest Market Socialization in history was happening, or have been asleep for the last two weeks or so, you might find yourself asking:

"What happened?"

You see, the government, which, by definition has Zero Monies of its own has decided that the poor anti free market decisions they have been making, the huge risks that they promoted, well, those are your fault. The bad investments Global Banks made in supporting the biggest debt economy of all time? those are your fault too. and now, they have anounced they are finally going to make you pay for your Mortgage Crisis, and the damage wreaked by its involved and precarious global finance shell games.

So, now that the decided who is going to pay, you might wonder:

"Where is my money going to go?"

Ill admit, i havent been covering this from the front lines like i hoped i would, ive really sat back in shock and wondered, what, possibly, do they have the balls to do next. The following is a primarily a large hat tip to WesternRifleShooters,

who has been holding the line and reporting dutifuly, In fact this is only posted here for the convieneince of it, and for more information please go to his page and read the near volumes posted there.

So, this is where they decided your money is going:

Up to $700 billion to buy assets from struggling institutions. The plan is aimed at sopping up residential and commercial mortgages from financial institutions but gives Treasury broad latitude.
—Up to $50 billion from the Great Depression-era Exchange Stabilization Fund to guarantee principal in money market mutual funds to provide the same confidence that consumers have in federally insured bank deposits.
—The Fed committed to make unspecified discount window loans to financial institutions to finance the purchase of assets from money market funds to aid redemptions.
—At least $10 billion in Treasury direct purchases of mortgage-backed securities in September. In doubling the program on Friday, the Treasury said it may purchase even more in the months ahead.
—Up to $144 billion in additional MBS purchases by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.The Treasury announced they would increase purchases up to the newly expanded investment portfolio limits of $850 billion each. (On July 30, the Fannie portfolio stood at $758.1 billion with Freddie's at $798.2 billion.)
$85 billion loan for AIG, which would give the Federal government a 79.9 percent stake and avoid a bankruptcy filing for the embattled insurer. AIG management will be dismissed.
—At least $87 billion in repayments to JPMorgan Chase (JPM) for providing financing to underpin trades with units of bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers (LEH).
$200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Treasury will inject up to $100 billion into each institution by purchasing preferred stock to shore up their capital as needed. The deal puts the two housing finance firms under government control.
$300 billion for the Federal Housing Administration to refinance failing mortgage into new, reduced-principal loans with a federal guarantee, passed as part of a broad housing rescue bill.
$4 billion in grants to local communities to help them buy and repair homes abandoned due to mortgage foreclosures.
$29 billion in financing for JPMorgan Chase's government-brokered buyout of Bear Stearns in March. The Fed agreed to take $30 billion in questionable Bear assets as collateral, making JPMorgan liable for the first $1 billion in losses, while agreeing to shoulder any further losses.
—At least $200 billion of currently outstanding loans to banks issued through the Fed's Term Auction Facility, which was recently expanded to allow for longer loans of 84 days alongside the previous 28-day credits.

A quick check of the totals shows that is $1.809 trillion of your dollars that no one asked if you wanted to spend.

And they have no choice, they are told, Not the people, not the taxpayers, not their ellected officials, the ones in charge are now the ones who have been slowly manuvering, the Financial and Beaurocratic Elite. Power Players, who play with the power stolen from the people.

And you pay for every step they take.

Dick Fuld, CEO of the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers, walked off with $490 million for his term of office, but if you cant make your housing payment, you dont get to keep it. No, the government buys it with your tax money, and then they will sell it to another bank or corporation to sell back to you, at a small (inflationary) profit, as long as housing prices dont fall back to what they were before companies like Goldman Sachs set about selling toxic securities to unsuspecting pension funds, companies and individuals around the world, while at the same time selling “short” these securities, i.e., betting that their value would decrease. It is estimated that Goldman Sachs made billions of dollars on this scheme alone, which, if not constituting fraud, certainly borders on it. They Inflated these values with fraud, and now they will make you pay for your losses, not once, but twice.

And everything is going to plan.;oref=slogin

Its not hard to see who the winners are:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
That sounds like it belongs in a constitutional republic, doesnt it?

Its not that hard to see who the losers are either:

And to see how the view looked from 2006, see if we are that much closer, yet:

Paulson looks a little like Putin, ill admit.

And they want to tell us who is to blame? hah, i laugh, at all of them, and hope, we never forget who took us this far, even as i never stop hoping that we can make it back to where we once were.



There is much that can be done, but not to save this ship.

To build our own


Nine Principles of Policing

Sir Robert Peel, the architect of Nineteenth Century English police process (and from whom English “bobbies” get their name), established the following nine principles as a guide to reorganizing and refocusing the London Metropolitan Police:

Peel’s Nine Principles of Policing:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Take particular notice of principle number 7:

“[T]he police are the public and the public are the police.” Too often police are placed on a pedestal of infallibility and privilege. Likewise “regular citizens” are demoted to a lower rung on the ladder where they are assumed to be incapable of handling responsibility and unworthy of trust. (Citizens in certain neighborhoods are placed even lower.)

Frederick Bastiat, one of the most influential philosophers of the Revolutionary period, dedicated a substantial treatise to the subject of the law, who the police are, and what is the source of their authority. His conclusion; they are us, and they derive their authority from us. Perhaps more importantly, Bastiat concludes that in giving police their authority, we do not remove that authority from ourselves.

The argument and logic is simple: Each individual has the right – the authority – to defend their own life and property and the responsibility, and authority, to defend our neighbor’s life and property. As society develops and populations grow, it becomes practical to pool our individual authority and lend it to hired servants who can focus on those obligations of society while we focus on other pursuits. Such servants can have no more authority than is held by the masters who hire them, and those masters have no less authority and obligation than they did before they hired the servants.

The United States of America was founded on this philosophy. The Constitution was written as a framework for executing this philosophy. The Bill of Rights was added as a bulwark against dilution of this philosophy. Any politician or public servant who shows any indication of not understanding this philosophy should be immediately sent down from any position of authority and reminded that all authority of government is drawn from the authority of the governed.

Tragically, the British have completely forgotten this lesson which they once tenuously grasped. They now prosecute citizens for resisting criminals, even for defending themselves against physical attack. Many in the States are forgetting too. A man in Massachusetts recently found two aggressive drug users in a neighbor’s shed. When they advanced threateningly on him, he drew a gun and held them until the police arrived. The police then took the good neighbor into custody and higher-ups attempted to get his concealed carry permit revoked for “taking the law into his own hands.” They have clearly forgotten that his hands are where the law belongs, where it comes from, and where it ultimately resides. Every citizen has the same authority that any police officer has. We have agreed, for the sake of order, to place certain rules upon our exercise of that authority, but we have never abdicated it.

In the face of our police becoming more militarized, it is more important than ever that individual police officers, police agencies, and their political overseers understand the source of their powers and return to their roots – to Peel’s Nine Principles.

Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted provided this credit is included. Text is available at To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108.
©Copyright 2008 Neal Knox Associates

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

How Far to Fall Before We Aren't "Too Big To Fail"

Goldman Sachs fell 25% so far today

This is the lowest price it has ever carried since its Initial Public Offering.

Morgan Stanley dropped 46%

NY state is letting banks borrow money from themselves, and the FED helped private banks set up a special 70 billion dollar private cush fund, while taking over AIG for 85 billion yesterday.

In 11 days, The Government has taken over both of the two largest mortgage lenders in the World, The fourth largest investment Bank, and the Largest Insurance Company in the World.

in less than two weeks.

Of the $6.84 Trillion in bank deposits, the total cash on hand at banks is a mere $273.7 Billion. unless im retarded at math, thats 4%. so something as close as 2-3% of the population could cause a massive bank run and economic failure, unless of course they increase the cash supply artificially, which would lead to massive hyperinflation.

the other 96% of deposit obligations are deposited in off ballance SIV's Freefall morgatge markets, AltA fraud loans and other three card monty, lets hide the money schemes designed to make banks more money, but in fact make financial solvency impossible.

not unlikely, impossible

at least the way i can see it.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Terror at Hilton Head Island!

From David Codrea's War on Guns, and too classic to pass by, and just angry enough to let pass without additional comment:

Terror at Hilton Head Island!

A 10-year-old Hilton Head Island boy has been suspended from school for having something most students carry in their supply boxes: a pencil sharpener.

The problem was his sharpener had broken, but he decided to use it anyway.
So they called the cops. They filled out a police report. They suspended him. And best of all:
The boy -- a fourth-grader described as a well-behaved and good student -- cried during the meeting with his mom, the deputy and the school's assistant principal.
HA! They broke him! That has to be done first, before the rebuilding can be done, you know.

They couldn't just throw it away, offer him use of one of their pencil sharpeners, and send him home with a note to his mom saying he needed a new one?
District spokesman Randy Wall said school administrators are stuck in the precarious position between the district's zero tolerance policy against having weapons at school and common sense.

"We're always going to do something to make sure the child understands the seriousness of having something that could potentially harm another student, but we're going to be reasonable," he said.
Bullshit, Randy. There was no "common sense" applied here. There was nothing "precarious" about this, nothing "reasonable." If you maintain otherwise, you're just an ass-covering liar, an enabler of insidious evil, and a punk.

"The school year has begun with zest!" exclaims Principal Jill McAden, who thought the hysteria also warranted a warning letter to inmate-in-training parents.

I'll say.

I did some checking on this school. It's "mission statement":
To ensure excellence in education for every learner that prepares each with the knowledge, skills and personal responsibility to succeed in a rapidly changing global society.
Which of course, means traditional American values are vulgar and regressive. Global values are where it's at. Just add a dash of "tolerance and diversity" (for everything that is approved for collective indoctrination).

One other thing, and I really don't give a damn if this "appears" sexist: the entire school is run by women, and "liberal" ones at that, I think it's safe to assume. In 10 minutes I found only four guys--two phys-ed teachers and a third and fifth grade teacher. It's part of the feminizing boys agenda--make them cry in fear of police authority for having a 3/4" x 1/4" pencil sharpener blade. If that doesn't work, if they still insist on acting out their natures, we can always prescribe psychopharmaceuticals.

And then, when a percentage of them finally snap and go apeshit violent after years of brainwashing, repression and chemical intervention, and when some of those use guns, why we can use that to further justify defanging, declawing and tranquilizing everybody else to fit into the new global order of things. Because you know they'd like all schools to be run like this.

The school, of course, is but a symptom. Primary fault must rest with the parents who allow this to happen, and who then side with the "authorities" instead of defending their young--the true sign that an animal has been domesticated.

Just like with our greater society--the fault lies with every one of us who is not engaged in guarding their own freedom. Thinking someone is going to come along and save us, and do the hard work, take the hits and pay the price for us, is lazy, cowardly and contemptible.

No wonder our masters think they can get away with just about any new outrage their Marxist little minds can dream up.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

When did the idea of freedom become a political orphan?,0,5991702.column

When did the idea of freedom become a political orphan?
Steve Chapman
September 7, 2008

"We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom. "—Barry Goldwater, accepting the 1964 Republican presidential nomination

This year's Republican National Convention had a different theme for each day. Monday was "Serving a Cause Greater than Self." Tuesday was "Service," Wednesday was "Reform" and Thursday was "Peace."So what was missing? Only what used to be held up as the central ideal of the party. The heirs of Goldwater couldn't spare a day for freedom.

Neither could the Democrats. Their daily topics this year were "One Nation," "Renewing America's Promise" and "Securing America's Future." The party proclaimed "an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights." Expanding and upholding individual liberty? Not so much.

Forty-four years after Goldwater's declaration, it's clear that collectivism, not individualism, is the reigning creed of Republicans as well as Democrats. Individuals are not valuable and precious in their own right but as a means for those in power to achieve their grand ambitions.

You will scour the presidential nominees' acceptance speeches in vain for any hint that your life is rightfully your own, to be lived in accordance with your beliefs and desires and no one else's. The Founding Fathers set out to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but Barack Obama has a different idea.

The "essence of America's promise," he declared in Denver, is "individual responsibility and mutual responsibility"—rather than, say, individual freedom and mutual respect for rights. The "promise of America," he said, is "the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper."

In reality, that fundamental belief is what you might call the promise of socialism. What has set this country apart since its inception is not the notion of obligations but the notion of rights."All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself," wrote the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. "The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals."

That idea got lost somewhere between Thomas Jefferson and John McCain. What do Republicans believe in? McCain told us Thursday: "We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law . . . We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities."

Would it be too much to mention that what sustains the American vision of those things is freedom? That without it, personal responsibility becomes hollow and service is servitude?Apparently it would. Republicans are big on promoting freedom abroad, but in this country, the term encompasses a lot of things they don't like—the right to a "homosexual lifestyle," the right to protest the Iraq war, the right to privacy, the right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and more. Conservatives who once thought Americans had too little freedom now sometimes think they have too much.Liberals, on the other hand, are wary of embracing freedom precisely because of its historic importance to the right. They fear it means curbing the power of a government whose reach they want to expand.

While they value many personal liberties, they have no great attachment to forms of freedom that involve buying, selling, trading and accumulating. Those, after all, can involve selfishness, and Democrats, like Republicans, don't want to protect selfishness.But freedom isn't freedom without the right to pursue what you value—money or knowledge, pleasure or sacrifice, God or atheism, community or misanthropic solitude—rather than what others think you should value. It includes the right to go to hell, and the right to tell others to do the same.The latter is a valuable prerogative that we have not yet lost. After watching the conventions, if you have the urge to use it on either of the two major parties, feel free. If he were alive, Barry Goldwater might join you.

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. He blogs at and his e-mail address is

Monday, September 1, 2008

Judging Chavez

A few days ago I wrote about the Regime of Hugo Chavez, in which i stated that the media states that he is a military dictator, heavy handed and oppressive, with goals of exploitation and domination.

I do in no way wish to imply that is reality. What the media portrays, and what is real, is often two very very different things. And no-one should understand that better than Chavez. President Chavez has a very interesting relationship with the media, both relying on it for his populist support, and very nearly being destroyed by it and those whose control it.

As was stated here not to long ago in reference to Russia, "You arent paranoid, if they are trying to kill you." Venezuela also experiences that same volatile mixture of intense nationalism and paranoia. Like Russia, Its rulers, whatever their labels, take it as read that their country exists under permanent threat of encirclement by its enemies. Now, again, here's the tricky part: there is nothing currently to suggest that they are mistaken. Surrounded by the media, international banking interests, International trade agreements that are designed to import poverty, not prosperity, and "Government interests" from around the world (and mostly from here) that equivocally state that any variance from their game plan is to be viewed and treated as a threat. Surrounded he is, there is no question about that.

While i do not agree with a good number of Chavez's Economic policies, as i think they lack the sustainability a similar plan endowed with liberty would be able to generate, and in fact do come off as "heavy handed" I do not wish to, in any form, condemn him, or the people of Venezuela who chose him as their leader. And there is one thing, if you were to watch the following video, i do agree with him on, to no end. You may oppose him, or his policies, but you, and all the power, money, and control in the world can never oppose the will of the people, and no matter the opinion i have of any leader, i will defend to no end the right of any and all people to self-determination.

Experto Ne Crede