Experts Forecast 25 Year Depression?!?

But Financial Bubble Euphoria Marches On!?!

We know what caused this crisis. The West kept short-term interest rates too low for a quarter century, luring society into debt: and the East held down long-term rates by flooding bond markets as a side-effect of their mercantilist strategy (ie suppressing currencies to gain export share).

The outcome was over-investment, excess capacity, and too much debt among those supposed to buy the goods. Has any of this changed? No. Have we cleared the excess plant? No. [/] Jeff Wenniger from Harris Private Bank says an army of baby-boomers have seen their old age plans shattered by the housing bust. Their nightmare is here. They will have to spend less, and save more. "Generational destruction of a society's balance sheet [does] not rectify itself in a matter of months". [/] How about a quarter century? [My emphasis]

From a Telegraph [UK] article, Our quarter-century penance is just starting, more below:

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is International Business Editor for the London Telegraph, Europe’s biggest daily newspaper. Fifteen years ago, as the Telegraph’s man in Washington, Evans-Pritchard was way ahead of the local talent in investigating Clinton crimes. In the last few years, Evans-Pritchard has accurately predicted the global financial meltdown.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from "Our quarter-century penance is just starting":

Our quarter-century penance is just starting [/] Never in modern times has there been such a flat contradiction between the euphoria of markets and the stern warnings of officialdom at central banks and financial watchdogs. [/] By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard [/] Published: 10:00PM BST 29 Aug 2009

Corporate credit has seen the steepest rally in almost a hundred years, according to Morgan Stanley. Hedge funds are reviving the final bubble play of early 2007, writing put options on long-dated "volatility" contracts to wring out extra profit. [/] It is as if the Great Contraction – as the Bank of England now calls it – was just a random shock, as if we should naturally expect "V-shaped" resurgence to take us back to where we were. Yet that is what precisely we are being told will not and cannot happen.

"The current financial crisis is unlike any others," says the Bank for International Settlements. Lasting damage has been done. The "cumulative output loss" is likely to reach 20pc of GDP in the major economies. [/] The message is the same at the International Monetary Fund. "The world is not in a run of the mill recession. The crisis has left deep scars. In advanced countries, the financial systems are partly dysfunctional," said Olivier Blanchard, the Fund's chief economist. [/] Mr Blanchard said an IMF study of post-War banking crises led to an unpleasant finding. "Output does not go back to its old trend path, but remains permanently below it."

Then the sting: we are exhausting the limits of fiscal stimulus. "The average ratio of debt to GDP in the G-20 economies was high before the crisis, and is forecast to exceed 100pc in the next few years". [/] We cannot add debt, so the IMF says we must draw down our future pensions and future health spending to keep today's economy afloat. "A modest cut in the growth rates of entitlements can buy substantial fiscal space for continuing stimulus." [/] Shouldn't bulls be sobered that the bastion of hard-nosed orthodoxy feels the need to talk in such terms, or that White House officials are preparing the ground for another round of emergency spending even as it reveals that fiscal deficits will reach $9 trillion over the next decade. This is $2 trillion worse than feared in March, and based on rosy growth assumptions. [/] It has certainly alarmed US retail tycoon Howard Davidowitz. "As a country we are out of control, we're in a death spiral," he said.

All that has happened over this crisis is that huge private losses have been dumped on society: but the losses are still there, smothering the economy. Taxes must rise. Debts must slowly be purged. "As long as economic growth relies on the state, you cannot talk about durable recovery," said European Central Bank member, Yves Mersch.

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said the US needs another fiscal blast for "political reasons", alluding to the Great Depression. It was Phase II from late 1931 to early 1933 that tipped half Europe into fascism and brought America soup kitchens. Although such a fate has been averted this time by government action, the Atlanta Fed says the true rate of US unemployment is already 16pc (not 9.4pc), worse than early 1931 levels. Official youth unemployment is 34pc in Spain, 28pc in Latvia, 25pc in Italy, 24pc in Sweden, Hungary, and Greece. [/] I have some sympathy with the Krugman view, but entirely disagree over methods. The key is to prevent a debt deflation trap – note that producer prices have fallen 8.5pc in Japan, 7.8pc in Germany, and 6.8pc in the US. The least dangerous medication is Quantitative Easing a l'outrance (ie printing money), as the Bank's Mervyn King clearly thinks. This does not add debt. It prevents the real value of existing debt from rising. [/] Mr Krugman undermined his case by citing Italy as a country that faced public debt of 118pc of GDP in the early 1990s without disaster. Actually, it has caused disaster, even if it has taken this recession to expose the damage. Debt will rocket to 125pc next year (IMF forecasts), and then -- one fears – off the charts. [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Unprecedented Socio-Economic Turmoil Ahead!?!

Indicators Show Continuing Downturn!!!

End of Cheap Energy = End of Growth?!?

“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist
adjusts the sails” [/] I find it alarming the extent to which our political elite is fixated with the idea that the wind will change. The reality is that the wind is almost certainly blowing us towards unprecedented socio-economic turmoil in the coming years, […] [/] We have now entered the beginning of the end of mankind’s era of cheap energy and with it the end of relentless, reliable economic growth. […] - Comment by Mark on Aug 27th, 2009 at 1:15 pm [My ellipses and emphasis]

From a Telegraph [UK] Finance Blog, Can the soufflé really rise again?, International Business Editor’s top of thread post below.

Free societies can grow despite rapid technological change. Statist societies will go the way of National Socialist Germany, Fascist Socialist Italy, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its satellites, once thriving Cuba and Venezuela, etc. Growth in the era of automation will not depend on cheap energy but on economic freedom from government influence. Prosperity depends upon giving true freedom of choice to consumers, charities, entrepreneurs, investors, researchers, inventors, developers, engineers, programmers, and educators.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from a Telegraph [UK] Finance Blog, Can the soufflé really rise again?:

Can the soufflé really rise again? [/] Wednesday 26 August 2009 [/] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

[Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has covered world politics and economics for 25 years, based in Europe, the US, and Latin America. He joined the Telegraph in 1991, serving as Washington correspondent and later Europe correspondent in Brussels. He is now International Business Editor in London.]

Two facts that should give pause for thought.

1) Japanese data released on Thursday showed that exports fell yet again in July. They are down 39.5pc to the US, and 26.5pc to China. [/] Japan is the world’s second biggest economy. It lives on exports. It is also a key part of the supply chain for the Chinese economy. How can this hard data be reconciled with the extreme V-shaped recovery already priced in by the markets? [/] By the way, Toyota is suspending a key production line at its Takaoka plant in central Japan. It is cutting global capacity by 1m vehicles.

2) The Baltic Dry Index measuring freight rates for bulk goods and commodities has been falling almost continuously for eleven weeks, dropping from 4,290 to 2,778 on Thursday. [/] Is this just a glut of ships or is this telling us what the Shanghai market is also telling us, that credit tightening by the Chinese government is pulling the rug from underneath the latest commodity bubble? [/] There is something wrong with the entire recovery tale, which ignores the fact that excess plant is still at the highest level since the Great Depression (capacity use is 70pc in Europe, 68pc in the US, 65pc in Japan, and as low as 50pc in some countries, according to the World Bank’s Justin Lin). Companies will have to cut jobs and investment. [/] Soaring “confidence” indicators have decoupled from reality. The world economy is still prostrate. GDP has shrunk 4pc, 6pc, 8pc, even 12pc or more in a large group of countries. There it more or less sits, like a deflated soufflé.

An end to technical recession in France, Germany, and Japan because Q2 ( and undoubtedly Q3 to come) ekes out a rise from a collapsed base does not mean anything – except that zero interest rates worldwide, and a massive fiscal stimulus that is pushing public debts towards 100pc across the OECD states (and cannot easily be repeated once the first sugar rush subsides), has mercifully prevented the Great Contraction from turning into an immediate catastrophe. [/] As the Bank of England’s Governor Mervyn King puts it: “It’s the level, stupid”. The level of economic activity is years away from full recovery.

The Bundesbank’s Axel Weber says it will take until 2013 for Germany to get back to where it was. He also warns, by the way, that there will be a second wave of the credit crisis as Germany’s home-grown troubles come to the fore. Round one was imported havoc from the US: round two will be rising defaults at home and a credit squeeze as ratings downgrades force banks to set aside fresh capital. (I enclose the Weber link for German readers http://www.sueddeutsche.de/finanzen/916/484353/text/ )

I have no idea when stock markets and commodities – especially base metals – will reflect the hard facts on the ground (ie, an end to the Chinese construction bubble). Timing is not my forte. Nor is the market.

But I am absolutely convinced that those who think we can return to the status quo ante of the credit bubble as if nothing has happened are delusional. As almost every central banker in Jackson Hole reminded us over the weekend, it is going to be a very long hard slog. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Stocks Up Because Dollar Down!?!

Takes a lot more dollars to buy slightly improved stocks!?!

What we have is not a stock market rally but an adjustment to global market prices. Fully 80% of the movement in the S&P can be explained by the movement in the dollar index. [/] That is a profile well known to emerging market investors. Whenever the Brazilians would pull another currency devaluation, stock prices rose to compensate, as tradeable assets floated up to world market prices. The bank bailout has made Americans poorer relative to the rest of the world and created the illusion of a stock market recovery. [My emphasis]

From a Asia Times blog post by Spengler, If Asset Prices Are Dropping, Why Are Banks Rising?, more below:

Our author made quite a few dollars for himself and for his then employer, the Bank of America, a few years back. As Spengler of the Asia Times he has been a top notch explainer of Obama.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from a Asia Times blog post by Spengler, If Asset Prices Are Dropping, Why Are Banks Rising?

If Asset Prices Are Dropping, Why Are Banks Rising? [/] Stock Market Rally or Dollar Devaluation? [/] August 21st, 2009 [/] By David Goldman [aka Spengler]

[[See chart at above link.]] The chart below shows the SPX (vertical scale) vs the dollar bullish ETF UUP (horizontal scale) for the year to date: [/] Fully 80% of the movement in the S&P can be explained by the movement in the dollar index.

Statistical analysis confirms the visual impression that the two variables are moving in lockstep. In the chart below [[See chart at above link.]] we see the rolling three-month correlation between daily returns to SPX and the dollar bullish ETF UUP, which mimics the dollar index DXY. [/] Something ominous is at work here. Typically, a stronger dollar goes together with a stronger stock market. That is what we observe prior to the bank bailout last fall. Starting in the third quarter of 2008 and going to the present, the correlation turns sharply and persistently negative. A cheaper dollar means higher stock prices, as US assets are marked down for global investors.

What we have is not a stock market rally but an adjustment to global market prices. Fully 80% of the movement in the S&P can be explained by the movement in the dollar index. [/] That is a profile well known to emerging market investors. Whenever the Brazilians would pull another currency devaluation, stock prices rose to compensate, as tradeable assets floated up to world market prices. The bank bailout has made Americans poorer relative to the rest of the world and created the illusion of a stock market recovery.

That does not necessarily mean that inflation will return to the US, as some analysts believe. Foreign investors are not likely to buy homes in Cleveland (although the dollar devaluation certainly should help real estate prices in New York or San Francisco). And the combination of high unemployment and deferred retirement (greeter jobs at Wal-Mart will be in great demand) will keep wages down. The price of international tradeables, though, will affect US inflation, which is why I continue to recommend classic commodity hedges (including gold and oil) rather than TIPS. […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

The “Death Panel” Marches On!!!

Sarah Palin has forced the Senate to remove “Death Panel” support from the Health Care bill senate version, but the Porkulus bill has already established a “Death Panel”, and the President has suitably appointed “Dr. Death” as a prominent member!?!

H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. [...] Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. [/] Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept "hopeless diagnoses." [/] [...] Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.

Who is on the Council? [...] Dr. Death himself Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel's views on care of the elderly should frighten anyone who is or ever plans on being old. He explains the logic behind his discriminatory views on elderly care as follows: [/] Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.

On average 25-year-olds require very few medical services. If they are to get the lion's share of the treatment, then those 65 and over can expect very little care. Dr. Emanuel's views on saving money on medical care are simple: don't provide any medical care. The loosely worded provisions in H.R 1 give him and his Council increasing power to push such recommendations. [My elipses and emphasis]

From an American Thinker .com article, 'Death panel' is not in the bill... it already exists, more below:

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from an American Thinker .com article, 'Death panel' is not in the bill... it already exists:

'Death panel' is not in the bill... it already exists [/] By Joseph Ashby [/] August 15, 2009

Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin has come under fire for her Facebook post accusing President Obama and the Democrats of including a "death panel" provision the health care bill. The Associated Press recently ran a ‘Fact Check' article rebutting Palin's claim. [/] [...] The New York Times has joined in the death panel bashing. [/] [...] What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.

H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council's purpose.

Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept "hopeless diagnoses." [/] McCaughey goes on to explain: [/] Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.

[...] Similarly hazy language will no doubt be used in the health care bill. What may pass as a 1,000 page health care law will explode into perhaps many thousands of pages of regulatory codes. The deliberate vagueness will give regulators tremendous leverage to interpret its provisions. Thus Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein will play a major role in defining the government's role in controlling medical care.

How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as "quality-adjusted life years." Meaning, the government decides whether a person's life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual's duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.

Ultimately it was Obama himself, in answer to a question on his ABC News infomercial, who said that payment determination cannot be influenced by a person's spirit and "that at least we (the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research) can let doctors know and your mom know that...this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."/[...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Health Care Bill **FACTS**

If you cannot trust a Duke classics professor’s analysis …

Which just goes to show that just about anyone can figure out what is in the healthcare bill, if they just take the time to read it.[/] In any case, Mr. Lewis represents the best of Americans being citizens – and, alas, citizen journalists. [My emphasis]

From a Sweetness – Light .com blog post, What The Health Care Bill Actually Says, more below:

A regular little shop of horrors, actually. Does the Lord High Executioner have a little list of those who never will be missed? Life continues to imitate art.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from a What The Health Care Bill Actually Says:

What The Health Care Bill Actually Says[/] Here is a long but we believe helpful analysis of HR 3200 from the site, Classical Ideals, by John David Lewis:[/] The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says John David Lewis[/] August 6, 2009

What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissio0ner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.

This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.

We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.

[...] WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?[/] This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.[/] and, under “Definitions”:[/] (A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . . and:[/]

(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.
and:[/] (6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .[/] (C) the measures of readmissions . . .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:[/] 1. This section amends the Social Security Act[/] 2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”[/] 3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.[/] 4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.[/] 5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.[/] 6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.[/] 7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?[/]

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:[/] (a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—[/] (1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over[/] (2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .[/]

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:[/] 1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.[/] 2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.[/] 3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

[...] Mr. Lewis is a professor of classics at Duke University.[/] Which just goes to show that just about anyone can figure out what is in the healthcare bill, if they just take the time to read it.[/] In any case, Mr. Lewis represents the best of Americans being citizens – and, alas, citizen journalists.[/] This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, August 12th, 2009 at 12:16 am. You can leave a response. [\] 9 Responses to “What The Health Care Bill Actually Says” [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Taking Tea with Terrorists?!?

Is it always good to talk?!?

I have a soft spot for people who can't sweet-talk to save their lives. "His heart's his mouth," Menenius Agrippa, the patrician Roman, says about his friend Coriolanus. "What his breast forges, that his tongue must vent." [/] [...] The scene in which Coriolanus endeavours to answer mildly is high comedy. The tribune Sicinius has only to accuse him of being a traitor to the people, and Coriolanus is off. "How! Traitor!" "Nay, temperately!" Menenius reminds him. "Your promise." But it's an ineluctable progression to another of Coriolanus's great rants [...] and 10 lines later, to the delight of the citizenry, he has turned his back on Rome, boasting, "There is a world elsewhere." [/] Yes! [/] Except that it's no. For there isn't, of course, a world elsewhere. It's the sure fact of there being nowhere else to go, [...] [My elipses and emphasis]

From an Independent [UK] article, In these days of taking tea with terrorists , more below:

1 John 2:15-17 KJV Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from an Independent [UK] article, In these days of taking tea with terrorists :

Howard Jacobson: In these days of taking tea with terrorists, it isn't always good to talk [/] A wise government has two faces. It’s the new chitti-chattiness I’m worried about [/] August 8, 2009

[...] It must be 10 years or more since that ad campaign went off the air, but suddenly it's good again to talk. There is is absolutely no one we aren't up for having a conversation with. The Taliban, Hamas, Hizbollah, Kim Jong-il of North Korea. Why, we have even just sent our second most senior diplomat in Tehran to the ceremonial endorsement of a president we don't actually believe should be endorsed, in the hope that even if Ahmadinejad didn't have the opportunity to converse with us he might at least notice we were there and wave.

This is the Obama effect, partly. After Bush and his Axis of Evil, we can't wait to be talking to everyone and everybody. Evil? What evil? That's metaphysics; whereas what we need right now is diplomacy. Any bright young man or woman wondering how to earn a crust could do worse than consider a career in diplomacy. We are going to see a lot of it. Forget banking, unless you want to burn in h%%%. Diplomacy's the coming thing. Making chums with the enemy because there is no enemy.

We are told diplomacy is forever at work behind the scenes, even in places where we pretend we don't have a syllable to exchange. I think this is a good thing. Not letting the right hand know what the left hand's doing. A wise government has two faces. It's the new overt chitti-chattiness I'm uneasy about. It assumes the relative reasonableness, not to say inherent decency, of every bent regime and murderous grievance movement on the planet. Only talk and we'll discover how nice they really are. Whether they are interested in discovering how nice we really are is another matter. It would seem to be the legitimatising effect of talk that they most care about; which is fine by us because we are of a mind, post-Bush, to throw legitimacy around like confetti.

[...] But then if the alternative is war without end, why not talk? Where tanks fail, diplomacy might just succeed. There's a cringing part of me that agrees with this. Just chat on equal terms with the Brigade for the Destruction of Western Civilisation and Everything Else We Have Ever Held Dear and the world will be a safer place. But there's another, less accommodating part of me that finds this sickening. What's the point of holding what we hold dear if we don't hold it dear?

[...] So don't trust me when I say we shouldn't be seen speaking to people whose existence we would not grace with notice if we were men of honour. We shouldn't, but honour, as Coriolanus learns the hard way, is a moral cul-de-sac. The world is now so dangerous there is no principled way left to behave in it. We kowtow to tyrants and take tea with terrorists. [… I]t isn't always good to talk. Talk can just as often demean us and destroy us. It just happens to be our last resort. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Romans 10:9-10 KJV That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Dissent Out!?! Conformity In?!?

The National Community Needs More Organization?!?

But a sick, deranged, un-American mob has put an end to all that moderate and reasonable steamrollering by showing up and yelling insane, out-of-control questions like, "Awfully sorry to bother you, your Most Excellent Senatorial Eminence, but I was wondering if you could tell me why you don't read any of the laws you make before you make them into law?" [/] The community is restless. The firm hand of greater organization is needed. [My emphasis]

From an Orange County Register article, Mark Steyn: Conformity is now the new dissent, more below:

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from Mark Steyn (link above):

Mark Steyn: Conformity is now the new dissent [/] Community Organizer wants to organize us all. [/] Mark Steyn [/] Syndicated columnist [/] Friday, August 7, 2009

DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTI… No, wait, that bumper sticker expired January 20th. Under the stimulus bill, there's a new $1.3 trillion bills-for-bumpers program whereby, if you peel off old slogans now recognized as environmentally harmful ("QUESTION AUTHORITY"), you can trade them in for a new "CELEBRATE CONFORMITY" sticker, complete with a holographic image of President Obama that never takes his eyes off you.

"The right-wing extremist Republican base is back!" warns […]. These right-wing extremists have been given their marching orders by their masters: They've been directed to show up at "thousands of events," told to "organize," "knock on doors" … [/ …] That's the e-mail I got from Mitch Stewart, Director of "Organizing for America" at BarackObama.com. But that's the good kind of "organizing." Obama's a community organizer. We're the community. He organizes us. What part of that don't you get?

When the community starts organizing against the organizer, the whole rigmarole goes to h[%%%]. Not that these extremists showing up at town hall meetings are real members of the "community." Have you noticed how tailored they are? Dissent is now the haut est form of coutur ism. Senator Barbara Boxer has denounced dissenters from Obama's health care proposals as too "well-dressed" to be genuine. Only the Emperor has new clothes. Everyone knows that. [/] Thankfully, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, has seen through the "manufactured anger" of "the Brooks Brothers brigade." […] Apparently, the health care debate now has a dress code. Soon you won't be able to get in unless you're wearing Barack Obama mom-jeans, manufactured at a converted GM plant by an assembly line of retrained insurance salesmen. Any day now, Hollywood will greenlight a new movie in which an insane Sarah Palin figure picks out her outfit for spreading disinformation (The Lyin', The Witch And The Wardrobe).

[...] White House Web site drew attention to the alarming amount of "disinformation about health insurance reform." "These rumors often travel just below the surface," warned Macon Phillips, Chief Commissar of the Hopenstasi …whoops, I mean White House Director of New Media, "via chain e-mails or through casual conversation." [/] "Casual conversation," eh? Why can't these "dissenters" just be like normal people and read off the teleprompter? [/] "Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help," [… /] "If you get an e-mail or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Reporting dissent is the highest form of patriotism! Is your neighbor suspiciously "well-dressed"? Is he mouthing off about cancer survival rates under socialized medical systems while wearing a cravat? Give us his name, and we'll give you his spats! Just go to flag@whitehouse.gov, not to be confused with [...] Go to flange@whitehouse.gov if you need parts for your new government car, or your new government hip replacement. […] Go to flatulent@whitehouse.gov if you'd like to report your neighbor's cow for excessive CO2 emissions.

Better yet, just send everything on everyone to the White House. Unsure about that old hippie artist across the street? […] He seems to be starting to entertain impure thoughts about the Dear Leader's plans for us, doesn't he? And yet, […] one couldn't really describe him as a snappy dresser, could one? It's a tough call. So best be on the safe side, and report everyone. The Administration can hire people to sift through it all, and that will stimulate the economy even more than […]

The Washington Post's Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite […] says "the town hall demolition derby" is "cynically designed and carried out in order to destroy real debate in the public square over health insurance reform." Decrying the snarling, angry protesters, liberal talk-show host Bill Press […] says that "Americans want serious discussion" on health care. If only we'd stuck to the President's August timetable and passed a gazillion-page health care reform entirely unread by the House of Representatives or the Senate (the world's greatest deliberative body) in nothing flat, we'd now have all the time in the world to sit around having a "serious discussion" and "real debate" on whatever it was we just did to one-sixth of the economy.

But a sick, deranged, un-American mob has put an end to all that moderate and reasonable steamrollering by showing up and yelling insane, out-of-control questions like, "Awfully sorry to bother you, your Most Excellent Senatorial Eminence, but I was wondering if you could tell me why you don't read any of the laws you make before you make them into law?" [/] The community is restless. The firm hand of greater organization is needed. [/] © Mark Steyn [/] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama Probably NOT Born In Kenya?!?

Zanibar Much More Likely!?!

This document purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth for Barack Obama, allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961 [/] But an authentic 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate obtained by WND shows distinct differences. [/] The verified 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate is described at the top as a "Government of Kenya" document. It includes: Where Born; Name or names; Sex; Father's occupation and rank; Father's nationality; Name and maiden name for mother; Mother's Occupation; Mother's nationality; Signature, description and residence of information; Date of birth; Date of registration; Baptismal name if added or altered after registration of birth; Reference to register.

Kenyan government officials interviewed by WND sources in Kenya have pointed out a key difference in the Taitz document. In 1961, Mombasa was a part of Zanzibar, not the Coast Province of Kenya. The area was later ceded to Kenya.

[…] THE FULL STORY: See listing of more than 200 exclusive WND reports on the eligibility issue [My elipses and emphasis]

From a World Net Daily .com article, Bill would force Obama to reveal birth documents, more below:

Birth Location Irrelevant!?! - British Subject Father Constitutionally Disqualifies Obama?!? – See Adult Christian thread or Christian AAA thread "Obama Not Natural Born?!?".

Flash - Hawaii State Democratic Senator’s Bill Would Force Obama To Reveal Birth Documents!!!

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a World Net Daily .com article, Bill would force Obama to reveal birth documents:

Bill would force Obama to reveal birth documents [/] State senator: 'Why wouldn't they be available to the public?' [/] Posted: August 07, 2009 12:30 am Eastern [/] By Jerome R. Corsi [/] WorldNetDaily [/] Friday, August 07, 2009 [/] BORN IN THE USA? [/] WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has confirmed plans to introduce legislation through which the state's lawmakers would force the public disclosure of all President Obama's birth documents held by the Hawaii Department of Health, including President Obama’s long-form original birth certificate.

Espero told WND his bill is aimed at "giving citizens access to birth records" under a standard of government transparency which would permit journalists to request in writing the public disclosure of vital birth records including long-form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii. He said it would include the release of birth records on those previously born in Hawaii. [/] "My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama's birth records and the lingering questions," Espero said. [/] Espero told WND that he believes President Obama was born in Hawaii.

"My motivation is strictly to promote transparency," he said. "When I found out that Hawaii birth records were not available to the public my first thought was, 'Why wouldn't they be available to the public?' [/] "As far as I am concerned, records regarding whether a person was born here or not should be in the public domain," he said. [/] Asked specifically about Obama's birth records, including the original long-form birth certificate, Espero said, "Whatever birth records regarding President Obama that the Hawaii Department has on file should be made public."

[…] WND has also reported the Hawaiian Department of Health declined to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama's short-form "Certification of Live Birth," posted online – one image produced by the Obama campaign and the other produced by FactCheck.org.

Okubu also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino's initial press release in her position as chief of the health department last October and subsequent press release on July 27 avoided declaring the posted images to be authentic documents.

[...] WND has reported the Kenyan birth document released by California attorney Orly Taitz is probably not authentic, according to WND's investigative operatives in Africa. [/] That's even though officials in Nairobi do not rule out the possibility President Obama may indeed have been born in their country.

[…] This document purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth for Barack Obama, allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961 [/] But an authentic 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate obtained by WND shows distinct differences.

The verified 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate is described at the top as a "Government of Kenya" document. It includes: Where Born; Name or names; Sex; Father's occupation and rank; Father's nationality; Name and maiden name for mother; Mother's Occupation; Mother's nationality; Signature, description and residence of information; Date of birth; Date of registration; Baptismal name if added or altered after registration of birth; Reference to register.

Kenyan government officials interviewed by WND sources in Kenya have pointed out a key difference in the Taitz document. In 1961, Mombasa was a part of Zanzibar, not the Coast Province of Kenya. The area was later ceded to Kenya.

[...] WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." [/] Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time. [/] Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions. [/] WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Recession Forever?!? Top Ten Reasons!?!

David P. Goldman, First Things editor, aka Spengler of the Asia Times, onetime big money maker (tens of billions of financial derivative profits per year) for the Bank of America, tells it as he sees it, and --- I believe --- with maximal credibility.

And Dave’s Number One reason the recession will last forever is: [/] 1. Barack Obama! [/] Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, thought in effect, "Let’s get economic growth so I can tax it and pay for all my toys and games." That was the "New Democrat" approach. Obama knows that if the economy crumbles and he’s the only one left with a checkbook, then everyone has to come to him. Where is the independent base of entrepreneurial business to which the Republicans might to to raise money against Obama? The banks, the hedge funds, the manufacturers, the municipalities, in fact everyone who is left standing in the economy is beholden to Obama. This is Chicago city politics writ large. Leave aside all of the individual things that Obama is doing that harm economic growth: Obama is the first American president (with the possible exception of FDR) to actually benefit from economic weakness. [My emphasis]

From an Asia Times blog post, Dave’s Top 10 Reasons the Recession Will Last Forever, more below:

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from an Asia Times blog post, Dave’s Top 10 Reasons the Recession Will Last Forever:

Dave’s Top 10 Reasons the Recession Will Last Forever [/] August 5th, 2009 [/] By David Goldman

10. No innovation. As Nobel Prize Laureate Edmund Phelps told Bloomberg News Aug. 2, "I’m not convinced that there’s going to be another wave of innovation in the offing."

9. Speaking of innovation, the US is [not] getting the clever immigrants it used to. Remember that almost half of Silicon Valley during the tech bubble peak was Asian.

8. China will hold its own but its economy is too small to act as a locomotive for the rest of the world (maybe for Korea).

7. The US only can finance its nearly $2 trillion annual borrowing requirement if banks and households buy Treasury securities rather than riskier corporate securities or mortgages. If the rest of the economy starts competing with the Treasury for capital, interest rates rates will rise immediately and suppress economic activity.

6. The rest of the world is full up on US Treasury securities. Asia won’t dump its existing holdings (it would be the biggest loser) but will try to diversify out of dollars. That’s why the Euro is trading at the ridiculous level of $1.40. There won’t be enough Europeans left working in thirty years to pay taxes to cover the interest on newly issued long-term government bonds. But the Euro has diversification value against the dollar and its parity is exaggerated. So revert to Point 5: the US is on its own financing the deficit.

5. The US consumer can’t get out of a hole. The bloggers have been all over the personal income data for June, which shows that household finances continue to deteriorate. I don’t need to reiterate what others have documented; see for example

The U.S. Consumer’s Pain Will Continue Until 2010 by John Lounsbury

Personal Income and Savings: The Double Whammy by Tyler Durden

Where’s the Consumer? by Karl Denninger

4. American demographics look suspiciously like Japan’s in 1990, at the beginning of the "Lost Decade." Japan’s elderly dependent ratio jumped from 18% to 26% over the 10 years; between 2010 and 2020, America’s will rise from 19% to 25%. In other words, a huge component of the labor force is nearing retirement. They have no savings to speak of and what they thought was their nest egg (home equity) just vaporized. Their savings requirements are bottomless. The combination of demographic and wealth shocks should produce a loop-de-loop in the "marginal propensity to save" such as we have never seen before, except, of course, in Japan.

3. More taxes are en route, to pay for health care, the interest on the federal debt, or whatever. No country ever taxed its way out of a recession.

2. The rule of law has been severely weakened in financial transactions, through heavy-handed White House intervention into the bankruptcies of the auto sector, through mortgage renegotiation, and so forth.

And Dave’s Number One reason the recession will last forever is: [/] 1. Barack Obama!

Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, thought in effect, "Let’s get economic growth so I can tax it and pay for all my toys and games." That was the "New Democrat" approach. Obama knows that if the economy crumbles and he’s the only one left with a checkbook, then everyone has to come to him. Where is the independent base of entrepreneurial business to which the Republicans might to to raise money against Obama? The banks, the hedge funds, the manufacturers, the municipalities, in fact everyone who is left standing in the economy is beholden to Obama. This is Chicago city politics writ large. Leave aside all of the individual things that Obama is doing that harm economic growth: Obama is the first American president (with the possible exception of FDR) to actually benefit from economic weakness. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Honky Faces Vengeance from On High!?!

Essential Redneck Transportation Targeted As Prices Will Rise for Clunkers and Clunker Engines!?!

Engines Killed With Liquid Glass!!! --- Big Government Science Marches On!!!

Will Senior Citizens Become Part of the Clunker Cash Flow?!?

What Mr. Mueller discovered is that sodium silicate is the designated agent of death for cars surrendered under the federal cash-for-clunkers program. To receive government reimbursement, auto dealers who offer rebates on new cars in exchange for so-called clunkers must agree to "kill" the old models, using a method the government outlines in great detail in its 136-page manual for dealers: Drain the engine of oil and replace it with two quarts of a sodium-silicate solution. [...] [/] Often called liquid glass, sodium-silicate solution has been better known for being used to save motors rather than killing them: It is used to stop leaks in the gaskets that seal cylinder heads to engine blocks. [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

From a Wall Street Journal article, The Killer App for Clunkers , more below:

Communism possesses a language which every people can understand. Its elements are hunger, envy, death. - Heinrich Heine

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from a Wall Street Journal article, The Killer App for Clunkers :

The Killer App for Clunkers Breathes Fresh Life Into 'Liquid Glass' [/] Rebate Program Prescribes Chemical to Stop Car Engines -- for Good; Mechanics 'Can't Wait' [/] PAGE ONE AUGUST 4, 2009 [/] By KEVIN HELLIKER

Robert Mueller deals in chemicals for a living -- things that can unstick glue, thin paint, make plastic -- but he'd never seen an order like the one he got for sodium silicate. [/] The compound is typically used to repel bugs or seal concrete, but this buyer's online order form betrayed a whole different intent: "To Kill Car Engines." [/] "That worried me a little, so I picked up the phone and called the gentleman," recalls Mr. Mueller, an owner of chemical-firm CQ Concepts Inc. in suburban Chicago.

What Mr. Mueller discovered is that sodium silicate is the designated agent of death for cars surrendered under the federal cash-for-clunkers program. To receive government reimbursement, auto dealers who offer rebates on new cars in exchange for so-called clunkers must agree to "kill" the old models, using a method the government outlines in great detail in its 136-page manual for dealers: Drain the engine of oil and replace it with two quarts of a sodium-silicate solution.

"The heat of the operating engine then dehydrates the solution leaving solid sodium silicate distributed throughout the engine's oiled surfaces and moving parts," says the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration publication. "These solids quickly abrade the bearings causing the engine to seize while damaging the moving parts of the engine and coating all of the oil passages."

In a nation packed with experts on how to keep cars running, the engine-killing powers of sodium silicate are a well-kept secret. "I, like, have so not even ever heard of this before," said Robert Lutz, new marketing chief and renowned "car guy" at General Motors Co., in an email.

Often called liquid glass, sodium-silicate solution has been better known for being used to save motors rather than killing them: It is used to stop leaks in the gaskets that seal cylinder heads to engine blocks.

At dealerships across America, mechanics accustomed to fixing engines are battling for the chance to ruin them. "Everybody wants to go first, so I'm probably going to have to make them draw straws," says Jim Burton of Randy Curnow Buick Pontiac GMC in Kansas City, Kan. As service manager, however, he might reserve that thrill for himself. "I can't wait," he says. [/] Over the weekend, half a dozen mechanics gathered around three clunkers marked for death at Jim Clark Motors in Lawrence, Kan. As Loris Brubeck Jr., the dealership's president, held a stopwatch, the sodium-silicate solution took two minutes flat to kill a 2002 Ford Windstar, and just a few seconds more to kill a 1999 Jeep. But a 1988 Dodge van lasted more than six minutes.

"Sometimes those old engines, they're the hardest to kill," says Mr. Brubeck.

The automotive death sentences are meant to ensure that gas-guzzling old models make no return to the road. As sodium silicate disables an entire generation of junkyard-bound cars, the price of used engines will likely skyrocket, predicts Michael Wilson, executive vice president of the Automotive Recyclers Association. "It's the law of supply and demand."

Before settling on sodium silicate, the government considered other methods of execution, including drilling a hole in the engine block and running the engine without oil. But it concluded that sodium silicate was safest for mechanics and for the environment. In its instructions to dealers, the government says that the federal Food and Drug Administration classifies sodium silicate as GRAS -- "generally regarded as safe."

[...] But while manufacturers have plenty on hand, the government failed to warn distributors about the impending onslaught of demand from car dealers. [/] "It's like the government decided to put every old car in America in mothballs without giving any heads up to mothball" suppliers, says John See, owner of the ChemistryStore.com near Columbia, S.C.

[...] But within moments of learning about its new purpose, Mr. See ordered enormous supplies and purchased prime space on Google, so that his company popped up in searches for sodium silicate. Last week, he sold 4,600 gallons of it, and the rush is continuing. "We're working 16 hour days, and we've got friends and family helping out filling orders," says Mr. See.

[...] Long an obscure item in the CQ Concepts catalog, sodium silicate has become "the best-selling product of the year," says Mr. Mueller. [/] Write to Kevin Helliker at kevin.helliker@wsj.com [/] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama Not Natural Born?!?

British Subject Father Disqualifies President Wherever He Was Born?!?

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
[My emphasis]

From a Federalist Blog .us article, Defining Natural-Born Citizen , more below:

It looks like the majority of the “birthers” have been barking up the wrong tree. If Obama were born in Hawaii, as alleged, he would be merely native born, not natural born. Constitutional eligibility for the office of President seems to require that the father be an American citizen. Proper interpretation of the Constitution often requires a modicum of common sense.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Federalist Blog .us article, Defining Natural-Born Citizen :

Defining Natural-Born Citizen [/] By P.A. Madison on November 18, 2008 [/] UPDATED 3/4/09

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason

What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.

What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean [/] Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth? [/] Unlikely in the strict sense because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were generally referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

[...] Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance and citizenship. After independence each State was free to establish their own maxims on the subject. James Madison’s own State of Virginia adopted a birthright law authored by Thomas Jefferson that recognized parentage (citizenship of father) in determining citizenship of the child, as well as recognizing the right of expatriation - something unheard of under the common law. States that were slow in enacting laws over acquiring citizenship through birth forced courts to adjudicate citizenship disputes under common law rules.

[...] Fourteenth Amendment [/] Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States - a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” [/] This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.

[...] What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father. [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama’s Birth *FACTS* *PLUS* *CONCLUSIONS* !!!

Challenge: Can any poster disprove any fact or conclusion in this article?!?

Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers” [:]

Along with Millions of Americans, not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot's fight! [My emphasis]

From a Canada Free Press .com article, Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers”, more below:

Please link to the full article. I have attempted to provide a succinct extract below, but have missed much that is of value. The recent announcement by an Hawaiian official regarding Obama’s birth does not significantly change the situation. Documentation that provides verifiable details should be provided. Only such details as precise place of birth make the assertions provable or disprovable. And, as reasoned below, birth on U.S. soil to a U.S. mother may not of itself meet constitutional requirements.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from a Canada Free Press .com article, Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers”:

Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers” [:]

Along with Millions of Americans, not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot's fight!

By JB Williams Saturday, August 1, 2009

The label of “birther” is fast becoming a noble badge of honor for millions of Americans who are not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot’s fight! [/] The leftist Obama propaganda press would love for you to believe that “birthers” are just a bunch of “crazy racists” that number in the hundreds, and that they have NO basis to demand proof of whom and what Barack Hussein Obama really is…

But the “birthers” actually number in the millions and the basis for their demands were set in stone by the men who wrote and ratified the US Constitution. If millions of American “birthers” are “right-wing nuts,” they are in good company with men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Ben Franklin.

[...] Since ALL Obama records remain SEALED, what files did O’Reilly and others investigate in order to draw their absolute conclusion that Obama is legit and millions of Americans are nuts?

What’s all of the stink about? [/] US Law establishes that while there are several ways one can become a US citizen, there are actually only three different types of US Citizens with three very different sets of qualifications and citizen rights. [/] A US Citizen [/] A Native Born Citizen [/] A Natural Born Citizen

[...] A foreign born immigrant, who has successfully navigated the naturalization process, is a legal US citizen with all of the Constitutional rights afforded a US Citizen with the exception of one, the right to be President of the United States. As a matter of Constitutional case law, - 94 ”Whatever the term ‘’natural born’’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘’naturalized.’’

In this regard, the issue of Obama’s adoption by Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro is also of consequence, as Obama could only be a US citizen by way of “naturalization.” There is no record of Obama naturalizing as a U.S. citizen upon returning from Indonesia.

All of this is at the heart of the debate over where Barack Hussein Obama II was born. [...] [/] But since he has refused to open up his official birth records in Hawaii, nobody knows for certain where Barack Hussein Obama II was born. Contrary to leftist attempts to spin, the mere fact that such a constitutional requirement exists implies that one must provide proof of compliance, if and when asked to do so.

[...] If Barack Hussein Obama II was indeed born in Hawaii, and this can be verified by authenticating his official birth records alleged to exist in Hawaii, then he could be a “US Citizen” and maybe even a “Native Born Citizen” having been born on American soil. To date, no such evidence has been made available for purposes of authentication. [/] However, one can be both a “US citizen” and a “Native Born citizen”” and still NOT be a “Natural Born Citizen.”

[...] It was the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;” [/] They based this clause on the following; “Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ‘’the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .’’ 96 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown.”

So, had both of Obama’s parents been US citizens, he would indeed be a “natural born citizen” of the US, even if he had been born in Kenya. By way of “natural law,” he inherited the name and citizenship of his father, in Kenya, not the US. [/] As his father was not a US citizen, but rather a citizen of Kenya, Obama inherited by birthright, natural law, his fathers name and citizenship. He is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the US, no matter where he was born.

[...] There are TWO reasons why the “birther” movement is EXPLODING instead of going away, despite daily attacks and name calling from the lamestream press.

[...] Sooner or later, Obama is going to have to prove that he is legitimate. The longer it takes for him to come forward and do so, the more dangerous the situation will become, as citizens grow increasingly angry [...] [/] The truth exists in Obama’s official birth, adoption, college and passport records. Nobody hides the truth unless the truth will expose a lie… [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Remembering Reverend Ike

His message was very clear and very effective. - ToK

From time to time his financial dealings attracted the unwelcome attentions of the Internal Revenue Service, but his church somehow managed to retain its tax-exempt status and continues to this day. Its website describes its founder as a man whose teachings "are accepted as universal truths". Sadly for Christianity, they probably are. [My emphasis]

From an outstanding source of well written obituaries, a Telegraph [UK] article, The Reverend Ike, more below:

It is interesting to find that the Right Reverend Doctor Eikerenkoetter was, as his last name suggests, of Dutch descent. At the risk of sounding bigoted, it seems to me that the Dutch can always be depended upon to make money.

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

More from a Telegraph [UK] article, The Reverend Ike:

The Reverend Ike [/] Published: 5:20PM BST 30 Jul 2009

The Rt Rev Dr Frederick J Eikerenkoetter II, who died on July 28 aged 74, was a pioneer preacher of what has become known as the "Prosperity Gospel"; this is based on the claim that the root of all evil is not the love of money, but the lack of it.

The Reverend Ike, as he was known to his followers, offered to open people's hearts to the love of God: "But it won't be the God you learned about in Sunday School. It won't be that stingy, hard-hearted, hard-of-hearing God-in the-Sky." Instead it would be a God who teaches that salvation lies in being rich.

"Close your eyes and see green," he exhorted his followers. "Money up to your armpits, a roomful of money and there you are, just tossing around in it like a swimming pool." Or alternatively: "Don't wait for your pie in the sky, by and by. Say I want my pie right now – and I want it with ice cream on top!"

There was no point in prayer and repentance: "When you kneel down to pray, you put yourself in a good position to get a kick in the behind." And there was absolutely no virtue in self-denial: "If it's that difficult for a rich man to get into heaven, think how terrible it must be for a poor man to get in. He doesn't even have a bribe for the gatekeeper."

The way to salvation was through a self-help philosophy which the Reverend Ike called "positive self-image psychology" or "thinkonomics", and his approach was to interpret the Bible "psychologically, rather than theologically". "This is the do-it-yourself church," he proclaimed. "The only saviour in this philosophy is God in you."

The main beneficiary of this approach was the Reverend Ike himself. As well as founding no fewer than three churches, he was one of the first evangelists to exploit the power of television. At the height of his success, in the 1970s, he reached an audience estimated at 2.5 million.

In return for spiritual guidance, he requested cash donations – notes, preferably, rather than coins ("Change makes your minister nervous," he claimed). He also sold a range of merchandise, including guides on issues such as to "How to have surplus instead of shortage"; "How to make people love to do exactly what you want"; and "Enemy Fixer", a guide to "getting rid of your enemies without getting into trouble".

Since money was "God in action" and its accoutrements a sign of Divine Grace, the Reverend Ike had no qualms about flaunting it with luxurious homes in New York and Hollywood, a huge rhinestone-encrusted wardrobe, drawers full of flashy jewellery and a fleet of Cadillacs, Bentleys and Rolls-Royces. "My garages runneth over," as he put it.

Frederick Joseph Eikerenkoetter II was born on June 1 1935 at Ridgeland, South Carolina. His father was a Baptist minister of Dutch-Indonesian extraction, his mother an African-American schoolteacher. [/] He began his career as a teenage preacher at his father's church and, after leaving school, took a degree in Theology at the American Bible College in Chicago. After two years in the US Air Force as an assistant chaplain, he returned to Ridgeland, where he founded his first church, the United Church of Jesus Christ for All People.

Somehow, though, the traditional Christian message did not seem to offer the answers the Reverend Ike was looking for, and in 1964 he moved to Boston where he founded the United Christian Evangelistic Association and set himself up as a faith healer. Two years later he moved to New York City to establish the Christ Community United Church, setting up shop in an old cinema in Harlem. It was here that he began to tailor his message to appeal to a more prosperous audience.

In 1965 he devised the "Blessing Plan", under which the faithful were exhorted to give whatever they could afford to the Reverend Ike, with the promise that it would be returned with interest to those of sufficient faith.

In 1969 the fruits of the Blessing Plan enabled him to pay $600,000 for the old Loew's 175th Street movie theatre, a 1930s extravaganza described as being built in the "Byzantine-Romanesque-Indo-Hindu-Sino-Moorish-Persian-Eclectic-Rococo-Deco style". He made it his headquarters, calling it the Palace Cathedral. By the mid-1970s the Reverend Ike was touring the country and preaching on 1,770 radio stations and on major television networks.

From time to time his financial dealings attracted the unwelcome attentions of the Internal Revenue Service, but his church somehow managed to retain its tax-exempt status and continues to this day. Its website describes its founder as a man whose teachings "are accepted as universal truths". Sadly for Christianity, they probably are.

The Reverend Ike married, in 1962, Eula May Dent. They had a son, Xavier F Eikerenkoetter, who inherits the ministry. [/] Published July 30 2009 [/] [My ellipses and emphasis]