Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Paulson, Bernanke Put Bank Aid Ahead of Best Deal

By Rebecca Christie and Jody Shenn

Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke signaled that their priority is shoring up the nation's banks even if it means they don't get taxpayers the cheapest prices for the devalued assets the government buys.

Bernanke told lawmakers yesterday the government won't pay ``fire-sale prices'' for the mainly mortgage-related securities Paulson aims to buy in a proposed $700 billion rescue. Instead, officials want to set a long-term value on assets, intending to hold them until they mature or markets improve.

Insisting on paying higher prices may increase complaints from legislators, who will pepper Bernanke and Paulson with questions in a second day of hearings today, that the government is bailing out Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. At the same time, setting values too low may roil financial markets further and tip the economy into a deep recession.

``If the prices are too low, nothing will happen; if the prices are too high, you're going to end up with horrible losses for the taxpayer,'' said L. William Seidman, a former chairman of the Resolution Trust Corp., the agency that liquidated failed thrifts after the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s. ``I'm equally concerned in both directions.''

Three days after the first draft of the plan was released, Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee yesterday that policy makers still don't know the ``best design'' for executing it. The Fed chief testifies on the economic outlook from 10 a.m. at the congressional Joint Economic Committee, then appears at 2:30 p.m. with Paulson at the House Financial Services Committee.

Economy Warning

The government can help restore liquidity to the banking system by buying depreciated assets at ``a price close to the hold-to-maturity price,'' rather than the price they would fetch in the market today, Bernanke said. He also warned the economy will contract ``if the credit markets are not functioning.''

Seidman, who also served as Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairman, said a 1990s attempt by Japan to halt that nation's banking crisis failed because the government offered prices that would have drained companies' capital.

Paulson said the plan needs to be large, have few restrictions and leave open what the government would buy in order to have the biggest impact on stabilizing markets. Lawmakers balked at accepting Paulson's terms.

``I agree we need to act'' but ``I am not going to be stampeded into rubber-stamping this proposal,'' Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey said at yesterday's hearing. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate banking panel, told reporters Paulson understood his plan wouldn't speed through Congress.

Democrats to Gather

House and Senate Democratic staff plan to gather tomorrow to work out a counter-proposal to Paulson's presentation. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, who chairs the Joint Economic Committee, suggested an initial investment of $150 billion, rather than approving Paulson's full $700 billion.

Lawmakers yesterday also questioned Paulson and Bernanke on how the government would make the purchases. The Treasury chief said the fund would probably start with ``something simple like mortgage-backed securities'' and a ``smaller'' amount.

The Treasury plan would use ``market mechanisms'' to set prices as fairly and accurately as possible, Paulson said, in part through consulting with outside experts. One option is a reverse auction system, where the government would accept the lowest price offered by banks selling a type of asset.

`Biggest Problem'

``Right now, our biggest problem in this industry is that no one really knows what anything is worth,'' said Tim Ryan, head of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and former director of the Office of Thrift Supervision. ``People don't sell assets because they think the price is significantly different than they have it marked, or they just don't know what the price is.''

The Treasury would almost certainly pay more than ``bottom feeders,'' who right now represent the only market for many kinds of mortgage assets, said Alfred DelliBovi, president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York, who served on the RTC's five- member oversight board. The prices the government pays may end up better reflecting some assets' underlying values, because most borrowers are still paying their loans on time, he said.

With mortgage-bond prices at record lows amid the credit crisis, yields on the securities have risen to between 15 percent and 25 percent, according to Merrill Lynch & Co. That leaves room for taxpayers to make a profit buying the bonds, even at higher prices.

Dodd Proposal

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd has proposed that the Treasury potentially receive equity stakes in some companies that sell assets to the government. The stakes would ``vest'' in an amount equal to the 125 percent of the dollar value of the loss realized by the Treasury on the sale of the assets.

That type of ``loss participation'' proposal would endanger companies' ability to raise private capital afterwards, Jeffrey Rosenberg, head of credit strategy research at Bank of America Corp. in New York, wrote in a report yesterday. The consequence of a program seeking the lowest upfront prices is the program may be of little use to many banks, he wrote earlier this week.

Lawmakers insisted on strict oversight of the fund, a sentiment echoed by Seidman and DelliBovi. Scrutiny will need to extend to when the Treasury eventually sells off any assets, DelliBovi added.

``All of the crooks on Wall Street are still alive; they haven't all been shot,'' he said. ``They'll probably go into new businesses and try to pick up assets and you'll have to worry about that.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Rebecca Christie in Washington at Rchristie4@bloomberg.net; Jody Shenn in New York at jshenn@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: September 24, 2008 09:17 EDT

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a2SIJqKu58Co&refer=home

National Apostasy Will Be Followed By National Ruin



National Apostasy Will Be
Followed by National Ruin


When our nation, in its legislative councils, shall enact laws to bind the consciences of men in regard to their religious privileges, enforcing Sunday observance, and bringing oppressive power to bear against those who keep the seventh-day Sabbath, the law of God will, to all intents and purposes, be made void in our land, and national apostasy will be followed by national ruin.--7BC 977 (1888).

It is at the time of the national apostasy when, acting on the policy of Satan, the rulers of the land will rank themselves on the side of the man of sin. It is then the measure of guilt is full. The national apostasy is the signal for national ruin.--2SM 373 (1891).

Roman Catholic principles will be taken under the care and protection of the state. This national apostasy will speedily be followed by national ruin.--RH June 15, 1897.

When Protestant churches shall unite with the secular power to sustain a false religion, for opposing which their ancestors endured the fiercest persecution, then will the papal sabbath be enforced by the combined authority of church and state. There will be a national apostasy, which will end only in national ruin.--Ev 235 (1899).

When the state shall use its power to enforce the decrees and sustain the institutions of the church--then will Protestant America have formed an image to the papacy, and there will be a national apostasy which will end only in national ruin.--7BC 976 (1910).

Last Day Events, E. G. W., pp.133-134.

Stangers in the Sanctuary

5And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary.

6And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations,

7In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.

8And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.

Ezekiel 44: 5-8.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Blank Check Bail-out, or a Jamaica Switch?


This is not a question of when or if? It's simply a question of why and how.
How can the taxpayers pay for errors that Wall-mart-Street High Rollers committed now be thrown on the laps of the unsuspecting, uninvolved citizens? No ticket, no laundry; That's what they say in 'The City', not the strange financial headquarters in London.

When they had The Stimulus Effort checks earlier this year, which amounted to chump change for America's Working Class ranging from $300-$600 per taxpayer. This was really a pittance compared to what this Bail Out Formula will cost the public. When a person filed to receive this paltry amount, if they owed any federal taxes, that stimulus amount was retained and used (supposedly applied to the debt) to pay off such debt. Well, what's good for the gosling should be good for the Gander: The Goose that lays golden eggs can not pay for the foolish mistakes that the Gander made, it's not laissez-faire, it's not free enterprise, it's not survival of the fittest; Darwin's principle of "natural selection"; It's actually Counter-Evolutionary. It defies science. And we wouldn't want that after 12 years to 16 years of government (indoctrination) education in the benefits of The Evolutionary Theory? Would we?

So, I say let the bums suffer the consequences for their rash moves. Does Uncle Sam pick up the tab when Joe Public can't make his mortgage payments on their only home? No, they must find a means to pay that note, or get foreclosed and even become homeless. Why then should the government offer these CEO, and TRADERS, a free ride? So, they can go back to Greenwich Connecticut and celebrate another day they fooled the naive citizenry? So they can maintain their multiple home, bi-coastal, jet-set, Country Club, Ivy League, Platinum American Express Card standard of living? Vacationing in Bali, skiing in Vail Colorado, surfing in Belize, and going on safaris in Chad? Need I digress any further to prove the point? Joe Hackensack, or Sue Kalamazoo need financial help, yet, will their representative government come through for them, or you? No, they want to bail-out the guys that wait for their flights in VIP Lounges, and once on that aircraft, they sit in the front of that airplane behind that curtain called First Class. If there was ever a time to put your foot down and say "NO MAS", it's now. Bush is now Bum Rushing Congress like he did with Invading Iraq, The Surge, Staying The Course (my this a big dinner!), WMD's, etc; to give their nod of approval to deliver the goods to the waiting Billionaires and Millionaires who will benefit from the latest Con Game, The Jamaica Switch.*

This is just a good old boys ploy, a wink and a nod way to break the bank and continue the fleecing of the Economy.



Arsenio.


Monday, September 22, 2008

The Rage of the Previously Rich

Lehman trader copes with the sudden onset of income shrinkage.


(Photo: Joshua Lott/Reuters/Landov; Person in photograph not the subject of the story)

The ’97 Barbaresco was not supposed to be opened for this. Stashed under a desk on the third floor of Lehman Brothers’ Seventh Avenue headquarters, the bottle awaited an appropriate victory. Like food, wine pairs well with vast sums of money.

But on Friday, September 12, as Lehman’s stock flatlined at $3.65 per share, the Trader knew it was time to uncork the Santo Stefano. He was in his late thirties, at the prime of his earning potential, a standout in one of Lehman’s profitable trading divisions. When the stock price had fallen below $20 a share in July, the Trader knew things were bad but took solace in the prospect of one more bonus cycle. Things are bad; things will be bad for a while. We’ll hunker down and survive, he had thought then.

But the fact that the Trader’s desk met its targets in August meant nothing at Lehman, where cascading losses from a few epic bets on commercial real estate triggered a firmwide meltdown. As one recently laid-off Lehman staffer said, in characteristic Wall Street vernacular, “These axxxs on another floor completely dropped our pants.”

Around 5:30 p.m. on Friday, as the reality sank in, the Trader assembled his staff. With the weekend looming, this would likely be the last time they would gather at Lehman as a team. The eight colleagues, friends really, stood around glowing Bloomberg terminals as the $700 Barbaresco was poured into paper cups. A crowd formed. Champagne was brought out. What they didn’t know was that upstairs, Lehman lawyers and bankers were negotiating with counterparts at Barclays, Bank of America, and the Fed, piecing together a deal. After a few minutes, the Trader was called over to open the books for the counterparties. He brushed his teeth, scrubbing the scent of wine from his breath. Leaving work at nine that evening, the Trader knew that Lehman Brothers, as he’d known it, was at an end. The culture would change, inevitably. But at that moment, he couldn’t conceive of the firm’s actually going bankrupt.

The Trader had come to Lehman only a year ago, after being recruited from a rival firm. He’d studied physics as a grad student, then come to Wall Street as the tech bubble and the aggressive gentrification of the Giuliani years remade Manhattan into a banker’s playground, a place where a $2 million salary could seem like the norm.

Like many on Wall Street, the Trader’s career was moving along briskly. By 2006, he had settled into a new $2 million house in Connecticut with a pool, and kept a pied-à-terre in Manhattan. With two young children, he had private-school tuition to cover. He had recently completed a home renovation, and now there was talk of a new porch with a built-in stainless-steel barbecue. The Trader estimated that he was two years from making enough money to retire and never have to work again.

But by Saturday, September 13, Lehman Brothers teetered on the precipice of bankruptcy after Barclays and Bank of America walked away from a deal. The Trader was certain of little, except that he was a lot poorer. The unvested stock from his previous year’s bonus, once worth $3 million, was now reduced to a scant $6,000. And on Wall Street, self-worth and net worth can amount to the same thing. “The hardest thing in my mind is to have your compensation cut,” a veteran Wall Street executive says. “It’s almost like you’re a bad person.”

At a dinner party in Darien that evening, the conversation was a mix of denial and panic. An executive from UBS lamented what the Lehman meltdown would mean for Wall Street. “This is going to be a disaster,” the executive said. The executive’s wife nervously tried to steer the topic toward lighter subjects. She kept talking about summer vacation. And then she turned to the Trader and asked, “What do you do?”

The collapse of the world’s most powerful wealth-creating engine required everyone to take stock of their financials. One Lehman executive in Rye Brook, fretting about paying off a Hamptons summer house and a ski chalet in Vermont, panicked on Monday morning and laid off her nanny, who had been with the Westchester family for nine years. “The nanny called me crying,” says Marla Sanders, who runs Advance Nannies and staffs Lehman homes. “One of the children she had brought home from the hospital.” Sanders knows more cuts for her clients are on the way. “They’re going to have to sell homes. The question is, will the homes sell? They’re cutting some of the children’s activities out, dance class, acting class. Are they going to have flowers delivered every day to their homes? I don’t think so!”

Source: http://nymag.com/news/businessfinance/50523/

P.S. xxx censored for vulgarity.

Georgetown: Condolences to Our Deep-Pocketed Alumni


9/22/08 at 1:30 PM

This weekend a touching missive went out from Georgetown University to "Greater New York–Area Alumni" impacted by last week's events in the financial sector, i.e. the people who write the university checks every year. Quoth James M. Langley, the university's vice-president for "advancement":

In light of the extraordinary events that have rocked global financial markets this week, I write to express my deepest sympathy and concern for all members of the Georgetown University community impacted by the upheaval.


Our thoughts and prayers are with you as the crisis continues and details of remedial efforts are announced. I intend to spend the coming months learning how our friends have been impacted and provide whatever support the University can.


On behalf of President DeGioia and our entire Georgetown community, I extend my hopes for a swift recovery and a brighter future.

Ew, dude. You're reaching into the recesses of your heart and pulling out your "deepest sympathy" for this? Your "thoughts and prayers" are with the afflicted? Hello. It's not like anyone died. The Georgetown alumni for whom this e-mail is intended probably didn't even lose their homes. Their second homes, maybe.

Defiant Brown prepares to face down Labour rebels


  • Defiant Brown prepares to face down the rebels

  • Prime minister to announce series of new measures in crucial speech


The Guardian,


Tuesday September 23 2008


Article history


Gordon Brown will seek to end the corrosive speculation surrounding his premiership today with a speech in which he will promise to extend the welfare state, close the digital divide and steer Britain through the global fiscal turmoil.


In what is seen as the most important speech of his career after months of criticism, the prime minister will not directly attack the rebels calling for his removal, but will seek to show he has the grit, intellect and grasp of the future to take the party to a fourth term. One aide said: "The speech's subtext is to prove there is no other politician than Brown that has the knowledge and experience to take the country through last week's threats to the whole edifice of British banking."


Rather than dwelling on the setbacks and mistakes of the past 12 months, Brown will unveil a series of initiatives specifically aimed at lifting families and pensioners who are most vulnerable to the steep economic downturn, including:


· Computers and free broadband access for children deprived of internet usage.


· Extended help for carers who are looking after sick or elderly relatives.


· A £1bn extension of childcare for children as young as two.


Brown's speech, described as highly personal by his aides, has already been set as a vital test by some disillusioned MPs, who doubt whether he can ever communicate a clear vision of what Labour is offering the country. The prime minister began writing his first draft on his summer holiday, but the text has been through substantial redrafts as the scale of the global financial crisis has grown.


In a touch supposed to underline his seriousness, as opposed to what he considers to be the shallow showmanship of David Cameron, he will speak from a lectern, and not roam the stage speaking without notes. He will tell delegates that to "ensure we are prepared for the times to come" he will spend £300m over the next three years giving 1.4 million children access to the internet with free broadband and computers. Vouchers worth between £100 and £700 will be offered to unconnected households to provide broadband, software, and, if necessary, computers. They will be distributed by schools. OECD research has shown lack of access to the internet badly disadvantages children because they cannot use open learning techniques or equip themselves for work. IT skills are required in 90% of jobs.


The government also believes the programme will help teachers in the move towards increased contact with parents via the internet on issues such as homework, their child's progress and discipline. Increasingly ministers want parent-teacher contact to be via regular internet contacts not once-a-term meetings.


The money for the programme has been found by the schools minister, Jim Knight, who has made savings elsewhere in the children department's budget. Knight said it showed that even in tough economic times the government could find resources to reduce inequality and improve the life chances of millions.


Many at the conference are hoping to hear not just a strong condemnation of the culture of City bonuses in Brown's speech, but also some intimation of action, or even a hint that taxes on the very rich will rise.


In his speech yesterday the chancellor, Alistair Darling, warned that "huge bonuses can distort the way decisions" are made by banks, but he later indicated that he was not planning any early legislation or taxes. He stressed that any solution would probably need to be global.


Darling is acutely aware that with so many jobs depending on financial services, he cannot afford to allow the rhetorical attacks on the City to get out of hand.


Richard Lambert, the CBI director general, said he had been given assurances by the party leadership yesterday that the left were "whistling in the dark" if they thought an ideological sea change towards City regulation was taking place at the top of the party.


Darling did continue to pave the way for higher borrowing, claiming the government's handling of the economy had enabled it "to let borrowing rise to support the economy and the families when they need it most".


In contrast, Miliband tried to lift the mood by saying "these Tories are beatable", adding: "Just as I hate defeatism about our country, I hate defeatism about our party." The mood of the Brown camp was lifted by the Miliband speech , which the prime minister's allies believed did not represent a threat to his grip on power.


Meanwhile the leadership brushed aside two defeats when delegates backed a windfall tax on utilities, and called for an end to the opt-out on the 48-hour working week in the working-time directive. Both resolutions will be sent to the party's policy forum for further consideration.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/23/gordonbrown.labourleadership

Ready for The Fall?

Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1



3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army

By Gina Cavallaro - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Sep 8, 2008 6:15:06 EDT

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.”

The command is at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo., but the soldiers with 1st BCT, who returned in April after 15 months in Iraq, will operate out of their home post at Fort Stewart, Ga., where they’ll be able to go to school, spend time with their families and train for their new homeland mission as well as the counterinsurgency mission in the war zones.

Stop-loss will not be in effect, so soldiers will be able to leave the Army or move to new assignments during the mission, and the operational tempo will be variable.

Don’t look for any extra time off, though. The at-home mission does not take the place of scheduled combat-zone deployments and will take place during the so-called dwell time a unit gets to reset and regenerate after a deployment.

The 1st of the 3rd is still scheduled to deploy to either Iraq or Afghanistan in early 2010, which means the soldiers will have been home a minimum of 20 months by the time they ship out.

In the meantime, they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

“I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered,” said Cloutier, describing the experience as “your worst muscle cramp ever — times 10 throughout your whole body.

“I’m not a small guy, I weigh 230 pounds ... it put me on my knees in seconds.”

The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced “sea-smurf”).

“I can’t think of a more noble mission than this,” said Cloutier, who took command in July. “We’ve been all over the world during this time of conflict, but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home ... and depending on where an event occurred, you’re going home to take care of your home town, your loved ones.”

While soldiers’ combat training is applicable, he said, some nuances don’t apply.

“If we go in, we’re going in to help American citizens on American soil, to save lives, provide critical life support, help clear debris, restore normalcy and support whatever local agencies need us to do, so it’s kind of a different role,” said Cloutier, who, as the division operations officer on the last rotation, learned of the homeland mission a few months ago while they were still in Iraq.

Some brigade elements will be on call around the clock, during which time they’ll do their regular marksmanship, gunnery and other deployment training. That’s because the unit will continue to train and reset for the next deployment, even as it serves in its CCMRF mission.

Should personnel be needed at an earthquake in California, for example, all or part of the brigade could be scrambled there, depending on the extent of the need and the specialties involved.

Other branches included

The active Army’s new dwell-time mission is part of a NorthCom and DOD response package.

Active-duty soldiers will be part of a force that includes elements from other military branches and dedicated National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams.

A final mission rehearsal exercise is scheduled for mid-September at Fort Stewart and will be run by Joint Task Force Civil Support, a unit based out of Fort Monroe, Va., that will coordinate and evaluate the interservice event.

In addition to 1st BCT, other Army units will take part in the two-week training exercise, including elements of the 1st Medical Brigade out of Fort Hood, Texas, and the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade from Fort Bragg, N.C.

There also will be Air Force engineer and medical units, the Marine Corps Chemical, Biological Initial Reaction Force, a Navy weather team and members of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

One of the things Vogler said they’ll be looking at is communications capabilities between the services.

“It is a concern, and we’re trying to check that and one of the ways we do that is by having these sorts of exercises. Leading up to this, we are going to rehearse and set up some of the communications systems to make sure we have interoperability,” he said.

“I don’t know what America’s overall plan is — I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they’re called,” Cloutier said. “It makes me feel good as an American to know that my country has dedicated a force to come in and help the people at home.”

Source: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

Nowhere To Hide

Killer drones that can see through walls.


UAV heads up display. Click image to expand.

For the last couple of days, in the Human Nature blog, I've been looking into a breakthrough cryptically reported in Iraq and Afghanistan: the ability of U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles to identify and track human targets "even when they are inside buildings." Several recently reported technologies might account for it, but Slate reader fozzy suggests looking for the answer in a military research field called STTW, usually translated as "sense-through-the-wall." Has this ability been extended to a distance that allows it to be used by aerial drones?

Fozzy cites a March 2008 Army technical report on the latest progress in STTW radar methods. (Warning: Most of the documents I'm linking to here are PDFs, and some take a long time to open.) With a few more clicks, I pulled up an April 2008 report from the same research team. Both reports focus on "detecting and identifying humans enclosed in building structures." "Through-the-wall sensing is currently a topic of great interest to defense agencies both in the U.S. and abroad," says the April report. "The U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has been active in all these fields of investigation, approaching these issues both through hardware design and radar measurements and through computer simulation of various STTW scenarios."

STTW has been around for a while. A 2006 report from the National Defense University mentions a DARPA system that can "detect the presence of personnel within rooms (stated to be successful through 12 inches of concrete)," as well as a commercially developed system with a "30-foot standoff capability." The next step, to protect U.S. personnel, is to put the technology on "unattended" mobile devices. Since the initial context is urban warfare, the pioneering client is the Army, and the introductory platform is unmanned ground vehicles. But the goal is to increase "standoff distance" and spread the technology to other platforms.

Meanwhile, up in the air, drone designers have been struggling with a similar problem: seeing through "darkness, bad weather, and tree canopies." The crucial contribution drones have made in Iraq—providing instant, on-demand customized video to ground forces—doesn't work where the drones' cameras can't see. So American engineers are developing radar that penetrates outdoor obstacles.

What seems to be happening is that these two projects—STTW and UAVs—are converging. In other words, unmanned vehicles that can see through walls. In some planning documents, the merger is explicit. A 2006 "Operational Needs Statement" from the military's Joint Urban Operations Office calls for a "STTW sensor mountable on both manned and unmanned vehicles," including "UAV platforms." A Navy bulletin calls for the same thing.

Conceptually, the merger serves every tactical objective. It increases standoff distance and mobility. It makes aerial drones useful in bad weather and urban settings. It also integrates them into a more ambitious plan: to see the enemy through every wall, not just one. A 2005 DARPA report, for example, proposes to "image through multiple walls and even penetrate whole buildings using distributed sensors on or around buildings," with UAVs assisting ground forces. A 2007 Army Research Lab study explores the ability of ground sensors, working with UAVs, to capture "images from different angles," thereby providing "intelligence on the configuration, content, and human presence inside enclosed areas (buildings)."

Three years ago, according to a defense contractor, the goal was to extend STTW capability to "distances in excess of 100 m," which would start to bring UAVs into the game. Boeing was in discussions to put STTW radar into a UAV. The Army was seeking "a suitable lightweight and compact imaging sensor to be hosted by the Camcopter-small UAV, capable of lifting 65 lbs of payload." The requirement for true aerial mobility was to make the system "lightweight (less than 30 lbs) and portable (less than 4 cubic feet)."

That sounds a lot like the mystery devices now being placed aboard drones in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the Los Angeles Times describes them, "The devices are roughly the size of an automobile battery, but are heavy enough that outfitted Predators in some cases carry only one Hellfire missile instead of two." The effect of these devices, according to a former U.S. military official interviewed by the Times, is that insurgents, even indoors, "are living with a red dot on their head."

Cool, huh? Except that if their walls are now transparent, so are yours. As fozzy astutely asks: "What happens when the government 'brings this technology home'?" And do you think our government is the only one merging STTW with UAVs? Heck, even the Canadians are well into it. "We will put the UWB radar on mobile platforms such as robots or unmanned airborne vehicle," says a 2002 report from Defence R&D Canada. "We are confident that a through-the-roof surveillance capability could be implemented using UWB radars installed on helicopters or small UAV."

Congratulations. The good news is, we might win in Iraq and Afghanistan after all. The bad news is, now we all have red dots on our heads.

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2200292/?GT1=38001

Ron Paul: This Bailout Won't Be the Last

The Home Front by Alex Markels
September 19, 2008 05:35 PM ET Luke Mullins Permanent Link

I recently chatted with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) about the gigantic financial bailout that the government is preparing to undertake.

Some excerpts from the interview:

What's your take on this huge financial bailout?
"It's more of the same. More debt and more inflation and more pressure on the dollar. Ultimately, although the markets are responding very favorably at the moment, I think it is going to be devastating to the dollar and to our financial situation in this country."

But don't we need to get these toxic assets off banks' balance sheets?
"Sure, they need to be removed. Somebody needs to suffer the consequences [but] not the taxpayer. Everybody knows that they have to be removed. They are priced too high. The assets don't have real value—some have zero and some have 10 cents on the dollar.

The people who had been making profits for all these years and dealing in all of this debt creation and derivatives—that now is becoming unwound—are claiming that it would be so painful if somebody went bankrupt and therefore we have to put so much burden on the taxpayer and on the dollar because the alternative is worse. But quite frankly, if they destroy the dollar and the dollar system, then they have a much bigger problem that they are going to have to deal with and it would be the collapse of the whole international monetary system—which is conceivable."

So instead of having taxpayers buy the bad debt, the market should take care of it by itself?
"Sure, prices need to go down. Bad debt needs to be eliminated. The taxpayer ought to be protected. Taxes ought to be lowered...We are following the same routine that we did in the Depression, and that is artificially try to keep prices up. People were starving in the Depression and the only thing they did was try to keep wages artificially high and keep food prices high. We are doing the same thing now—we are trying to keep housing prices high. Low prices for houses mean poor people could buy a house. This is the most important part of a free market economy and that is free market pricing. Without free market pricing, the market can't work. And this is in a way a major effort to price fix."

So you think the government should not have bailed out any companies during this crisis?
"That would have been the best thing. It would have been painful, but housing prices would have come down sharper and faster, and it would have been over by now. But this whole idea of price fixing—that's what they are doing—has been trying to keep housing prices up and trying to stimulate home building. Well, if you have 100 percent more homes than the market really wants, you can't keep prices up and you can't stimulate home building. If the prices go down, then people will go out and buy homes again. So they should allow the liquidation of debt.

Before the Depression, [the government] generally allowed these kinds of problems to unwind. They were very severe. They would last six months or a year—a lot of liquidation of debt would be wiped off the books. And then it would go back to work again. What we've been doing now—especially since 1971—is preventing the real liquidation of the malinvestment and the excess of debt... If this process continues, we're going to own General Motors and Ford, then we will have to own the airlines. We are socializing our country without even a vote by the Congress. It's a horrible situation."

Will this bailout stabilize the crisis?
"I personally don't think so. It might be temporary, but no, there is much more involved. I mean, we are talking about trying to unwind trillions of dollars of derivatives . . . You have to get rid of all that stuff."

Will this bailout be the last?
"No, no. This won't be the last one. There will be something else later on. But that doesn't mean you might not have a few months of a reprieve. But it will continue."

Will we have to bail out the auto makers?
"Oh I think so. We are not going to let them fail. Our policy is such that everybody gets bailed out. It's like a drug addict, they've got to take their fix. It's too tough getting off these drugs. And the drug here is easy credit.

Source: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2008/09/19/ron-paul-this-bailout-wont-be-the-last.html

A Time To Choose

by Michael S. Rozeff

It is useful at this point to step back for a moment and think about the meaning of the past several weeks’ financial crises. The government has been bailing out banks, a large insurance company, investment banks, overseas central banks, and money market funds. The amounts of money involved are stupendous.

The government’s bailout is our bailout. Every last cent of the cost will be borne by Americans who pay taxes.

The government’s actions indict government itself. We are seeing the failures within our system of government showing up as failures in the banking and financial system. These are not failures of free markets or free enterprise or free banking. We do not have free markets or free enterprise or free banking, and we haven’t had them for a very long time.

This is a time to look at matters carefully and decide: Do you favor free markets or do you favor the State? Do you think that these failures are failures of the free market or do you think they are failures of the State?

The same questions arose when the Great Depression occurred. The government blamed that on speculators, on the stock market crash, on greed, on over-consumption, on under-consumption, on sticky prices and wages, etc. But the real causes of the Great Depression and the real failures owed to government. The government created the Federal Reserve system, and it was the Fed that created the deflation. The government regulated banks and supported unit (isolated) banks, and it was these isolated banks that failed in the thousands. It was the government that raised taxes and tariffs and choked off economic activity. Then, having begun the depression, it was the New Deal that prolonged it. It was the New Deal that over-regulated and cartelized the economy. It was the New Deal that started up a new devaluation of the dollar.

This is a time to look carefully and choose up sides: free markets or the State? There is no in between. Freedom vs. slavery. Which is it?

A free market is not a lawless market. It is governed by natural law and judges and juries administering that law. It is governed by agreements that merchants make among themselves, and judges and juries that handle disputes that arise. It is governed by the consumer who has the say-so of whether or not to buy a product or service. Liability is assigned to those who are responsible. Losses, when they occur, are borne by those who are responsible. They are not spread to taxpayers by edict or force. A free market is not chaos. It has governance, but it does not stem from the variable and fickle authority of legislators who take bribes and lobbyist money. It stems from jurists who follow a body of jurisprudential principles.

A free market is definitely not a State-regulated and State-controlled market. Once the State starts legislating markets, the consumer’s say-so disappears. Merchant agreements become targets for anti-trust. Product innovation deteriorates. Once the State starts legislating markets, the weak sisters petition the State to halt the successful companies in their tracks. When the EU fines Microsoft an unbelievable amount of money and diddles around with the details of what Microsoft may or may not include in its operating system, there is no free market any longer.

Once the State gets into the act, it plays favorites. Some businesses that have losses are bailed out. The business does not pay the price of its errors. The losses are shifted to taxpayers. That is what is happening today. This is the opposite of a free market.

When we have a central bank that controls the amount of high-powered money in the economy and when such a bank can bail out at its own discretion whatever financial institutions it pleases and in whatever amounts it pleases, we definitely do not have a free market in money or banking. When bank deposits are insured, we have no free market in banking. When we have government-sponsored enterprises with direct lines of credit to the U.S. Treasury that buy mortgages, we do not have a free market in banking or mortgage lending or housing.

Free enterprise means that losses are borne by those responsible for them. When the U.S. government plays favorites and bails out the institutions with losses that it selects, there is no free market.

In sum, government forces wealth transfers by uncalled for violence, whereas persons exchange goods and services without such violence in a free market. The one is criminal in nature, the other peaceful. The one makes slaves of persons, the other respects their liberty.

Too many of us hold to a middle-of the-road wishy-washy position. Some of us are naïve and misguided. There are also many who want to support government anyway and are anti-free market. They typically choose one instance where the State deregulated. Ah-hah, they say, look at how badly the industry performed thereafter! They completely overlook that the government’s basic regulatory framework is still in place, and that piecemeal deregulation often acts perversely. It makes no sense whatever, for example, to deregulate banks and allow them to engage in gross speculations while at the same time insuring their deposits.

The Fed has been in bed with investment bankers who also act as government bond dealers and distribute the government’s bonds. This elite group has always used high leverage in its operations because the Fed supported the market during bond issues. After bailing out a hedge fund like Long Term Capital Management, is it any wonder that these investment bankers have used excessive financial leverage in many of their speculations?

None of this is what a free market is. The State is out of the picture altogether in a free market. The free market does not need the State to exist, as some think and claim. The State kills the free market. They are opposites. One must choose. Are you pro-free market? Then you must be anti-State regulation of free markets. Once a State regulates a free market, that is no longer a free market.

The New Deal in the 1930s is usually chosen as one clear time period when free enterprise went by the boards. One can find others. But certainly, since the 1930s the movement away from free enterprise and toward big government is unmistakable. No one on any side of the political spectrum can deny that.

The State has taken it upon itself to govern and regulate industry after industry. Its regulation of banking goes back nearly to the founding of the U.S.A. The First and Second Banks of the United States came in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The National Bank system came in the mid and late 1800s. The Federal Reserve System came in 1913.

Central banks are always in bed with States. This is a marriage made in Hell. Control of money and finance is absolutely essential to a State. The Bank of England was begun in 1694 explicitly to support the government. In the U.S. case, that control is one of several key props that hold up the Empire and the ability of the State to wage incessant warfare. Another main prop is the efficient tax-collecting system. The tax system and the money system work together. Bonds cannot be issued unless there are tax revenues to pay the interest on the bonds. Behind the tax revenues are the basically decent and hard-working American people. They are being taken for a ride. There are many more props, but I will stop here.

I am at a loss to know what term to use to describe this octopus of the State’s control over finance and industry. Call it socialism, or fascism, or communism, or democracy, or democratic socialism, or regulatory socialism, or statism, or authoritarianism, or collectivism, or centralization, or nationalism. The failures we are seeing right now are failures of all of these ideas, every last one of them. None of them work. They all are the antithesis of free markets, which is the only institutional framework that does work in conjunction with appropriate arrangements to maintain natural law, to assign liability to those who damage others, and to uphold legitimate agreements.

In functional terms, what we have now is authoritarian centralization. This system is mistakenly supported by the nationalistic sentiment of a good many Americans. The national government is held in a regard that it totally fails to deserve. It has successfully shifted the blame for its own failures to business enterprise. It blames Americans for its own faults. The two presidential candidates blame the greed of Americans for the current debacle. This is a Big Lie, one of the Biggest. The same Lie has been used in the past to blame oil companies for high oil prices. Politicians are inveterate liars because their lies are believed. They are also in many cases economic and financial illiterates, although they know enough to line their own pockets. Love of country should never be confused with love and support of national government.

The national government’s modus operandi is to centralize decision-making and to impose it by law. It does this in areas where there is not the slightest justification for it. Money and banking is one such area. The government’s control over money and banking, essential to its own growth and survival, has now failed so badly that the debacle is making daily headlines.

Authoritarian centralized decision-making and control is doomed to failure. The big guys don’t know what they are doing. They are full of hot air. They are con-men. They are fakes. They are out for themselves. They could care less about you and me. They have the power, and they will use that power to paper over their failures. They will use their power to print money and make loans to cover over the failures of the State-controlled money and banking system that America is saddled with.

This is why it is a time to get off the fence and choose. Do you favor free markets and its methods of governance, or do you favor the State and its authoritarian centralized government?

September 22, 2008

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff222.html

Ceremony Minded Its Own Business, Not the World’s

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
Published: September 22, 2008

It’s always a little disconcerting — and even irritating — when stars at awards shows, dripping in Chopard jewelry and self-regard, try to banter about current events. But there is at least one reassuring point to it: if television actors feel free to make light of dark events then things must not yet be that bad. It’s when comedians stay silent that you know things are really dire — think of the frothy escapist Busby Berkeley musicals and screwball comedies that distracted audiences during the Great Depression.

Skip to next paragraph
Kevin Winter/Getty Images

From left, Tom Bergeron, Heidi Klum and Howie Mandel at the opening of an Emmy Awards show that had five hosts. More Photos »

By that standard, then, Sunday night’s 60th Primetime Emmy Awards were not all that reassuring. The funniest stars there — Stephen Colbert, Ricky Gervais and Steve Martin — were very funny but didn’t make any jokes about the looming financial crisis. Even Alec Baldwin, not known for restraint, held back. Tina Fey did, though, thank NBC for sticking with her show despite “the turkey burger economy.”

It was the unamusing Howie Mandel, the host of the NBC game show “Deal or No Deal,” who took it head on.

He and his four fellow reality-show M.C.’s opened the show by telling the audience they had no prepared material. “It’s like we are on Sarah Palin’s Bridge to Nowhere,” Mr. Mandel mugged. The audience laughed less when Mr. Mandel went on to the Treasury Department’s $700 billion bail-out proposal — the ultimate “Deal or No Deal” — saying, “The government can’t even bail us out of this.”

Live award shows always have found it awkward hitting the right note in uncertain times — the contrast between the glitz and celebrity self-celebration and war or hurricane devastation is too acute.

(The Emmys were delayed twice after Sept. 11; they were low-key and mournful when they did take place that November, and included the singing of “America the Beautiful.”)

This year, the awards show tried for a self-deprecating tone, poking fun at television (Josh Groban singing a medley of television theme songs like “Love Boat” and “Happy Days”) while keeping references to the real world solemn and subdued. Oprah Winfrey, who opened the show, was somber about both. “These have not been easy times in the world of television, or in the world generally for that matter,” she said.

Political commentary, and there was quite a bit of it, focused on the presidential elections, and was delicately put. Laura Linney, accepting her award for the HBO mini-series “John Adams,” took a small swipe at the Republican convention for mocking Senator Barack Obama’s résumé. She thanked “the ‘community organizers’ that helped form our country.” Mr. Colbert and Jon Stewart made a more coy reference to the presidential contest. While Mr. Stewart spoke, Mr. Colbert munched on prunes, and deadpanned “Right now America needs a prune.” Lest anyone miss the metaphor for Senator John McCain he added, “This dried-up old prune has the experience we need.”

But mostly, there were earnest footnotes throughout the evening, including a cameo by Tommy Smothers, who said that there was nothing scarier than watching “ignorance in action.” Martin Sheen, from a replica of his old “West Wing” set, implored viewers to vote.

Oddly, there were not many jokes about Governor Palin. Ryan Seacrest, one of the M.C.’s, who also interviewed Ms. Fey for the red-carpet ceremony on E!, didn’t even mention the actress’s recent impersonation of the Alaska governor on “Saturday Night Live.” At the end, Ms. Fey thanked Mr. Seacrest for not mentioning Ms. Palin. “I was told not to,” he replied flatly.

It could be that Hollywood stars are afraid to further inflame the right by being snooty about their gun-toting heroines. Or they worry about their own glass houses. It seems that qualifications aren’t a big deal in show business, either: even Lauren Conrad, a cast member of the reality show “The Hills,” was a presenter.

All genres of reality were on display at the Emmys except, of course, the one keeping the nation — and that includes the entertainment industry — on the verge of an economic breakdown.

.Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/arts/television/22watch.html

Play it again, Sam!


Warren Jeffs May 2008




November 2007


Sam = Uncle Sam

In a New York Minute: News Flashes in a Pan


This morning on CBS's the Early Show, Live from New York City: The Heart Beat of The Nation, I saw a few News Sound Bytes that were revealing at best, and cryptic at the same time. Several Talking Heads delivered descriptive lines about the times in which we live; Some of the faces were familiar, and were identifiable, others were just garden variety flash in the pan characters. The headlines were focused on the Treasury Department's proposal for a $700 Billion Bail- Out. The One-Liners were immediately etched on my mind; And if they startled me, I suppose that it probably shook-up others as well.
  • "Capitalism without Bankruptcy is like Religion without Hell'. Mentioned an unidentified young man before the Television Camera. The segment was referring to the $700 Billion Plan to keep the boat economy afloat. They played the roulette, why should we pay? To me this made so much sense I decided, I'd write about it.
  • 'They'll be rioting on the streets if something isn't done'. This is somewhat the words that Senator Chris Dodd D-Connecticut, used to explain what would happen if the proposed $700B, or some other amount weren't allocated to prevent further deterioration to the economy. Rioting in the Streets? So, it's out in the open, there have been rumors on the NET for months that Congress has been having Closed-Door Sessions. Speculators can only suggest that what they've been discussion is just what the Senator alluded to. The situation is not as rosy as the president previously assured the public! This is truly going to be a HOT Day on Wall Street, and in Washington D.C, the propaganda capital of 'the good economy'.
  • "We're lucky to have jobs in this Turkey Burger Economy". Actress Tina Fey, one of the Emmy winners, said in a nano-second segment, while receiving an award. This is the tip of the iceberg, when a well to do yuppie actor lets out a sour note about the economy. Bravo for Tina Fey! If it's hard for the jet-set, it's got to be pretty tough for the rest of the citizens. Note, I am a vegetarian and have no use for flesh foods (not to blow my horn), but when Turkey becomes a sign of the times, it's not the leanness of the meat that she was referring to; But, the low-fat economy. Hunger is in the wings. Where's the beef? It (Merrill Lynch) ain't bullish no more. It's Open Season on Turkey! It's like the 70's all over again, except now the Turkey's in the White House, and on the Pantry.

1. 2. 3. Three Strikes in a row! You're out!..................Economymiester.

Arsenio.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

$700,000,000,000.00 Loose-Loose Proposition




Note: Focus on the name on the wall paper behind Henry "Hank" Paulson.
Georgetown Law ,'nuf said!

Mission Accomplished: Economy ruined

The Bush Administration
(An oxymoron)
He boasted that "The Mission" had been accomplished,
Well it has, we're finally more broke than a see-saw off its fulcrum.
We thought that he was referring to his brain-child, The War On Terror,
But, we missed the true meaning of the conclusion of the mission,
The accomplished task was the devastation of the American Economy,
Whether intentional or just coincidental,* the nation is beyond repair,
He wanted to make a name for himself,
Well, that name is 'Destroyer Of Our Wealth'.
It's and undeniable fact,
On his watch the train fell of the track.
He wounded Achilles' heel,
Tell's us W? How does it feel?
u
You're either with us, or with the terrorists?
Eight years of errors; And, who knows what lies before us?
.
.
Arsenio.
.
* I truly doubt it.

Love and Judgment

12And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.

13And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

14Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,

15Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,

16And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

17And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;

18And they that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed.

19And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all.

20And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

21Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.

22Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

23Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

24But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

25Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.

26Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

37Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

38Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

39And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

40The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

41And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

42Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

43For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

44For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

45A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

46And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

47Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

48He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

49But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Luke 6: 12-49.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

The Vine

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

John 15:5.