Thursday, January 28, 2010

The Temporal Goods Of The Church


Can. 1254 §1 The catholic Church has the inherent right, independently of any secular power, to acquire, retain, administer and alienate temporal goods, in pursuit of its proper objectives.

§2 These proper objectives are principally the regulation of divine worship, the provision of fitting support for the clergy and other ministers, and the carrying out of works of the sacred apostolate and of charity, especially for the needy.

Can. 1255 The universal Church, as well as the Apostolic See, particular Churches and all other public and private juridical persons are capable of acquiring, retaining, administering and alienating temporal goods, in accordance with the law.

Can. 1256 Under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, ownership of goods belongs to that juridical person which has lawfully acquired them.

Can. 1257 §1 All temporal goods belonging to the universal Church, to the Apostolic See or to other public juridical persons in the Church, are ecclesiastical goods and are regulated by the canons which follow, as well as by their own statutes.

§2 Unless it is otherwise expressly provided, temporal goods belonging to a private juridical person are regulated by its own statutes, not by these canons.

Can. 1258 In the canons which follow, the term Church signifies not only the universal Church or the Apostolic See, but also any public juridical person in the Church, unless the contrary is clear from the context or from the nature of the matter.
.http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/canonlaw/CANON1254-1258.html

.

The government's secret prayers


A centuries-old ritual still takes place in the Houses of Parliament, behind closed doors – praying


Leo Hickman

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 January 2010 18.00 GMT


There's a ritual that takes place every day at the Houses of Parliament which is said to have been common practice since 1567. Not that many outsiders would know about it, though, because it is conducted behind closed doors out of view of the public.

Before every session in both the Lords and the Commons, members stand, turn to face the wall behind them, and pray. Attendance is voluntary, but only Christian prayers are ever read out. This is the form of the Commons's main prayer, as read aloud by the speaker's chaplain:

Lord, the God of righteousness and truth, grant to our Queen and her government, to Members of Parliament and all in positions of responsibility, the guidance of your Spirit. May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind; so may your kingdom come and your name be hallowed. Amen.

The Houses of Parliament even has its very own, specially adapted Lord's Prayer. In particular, it asks that the royal family be blessed with "heavenly goods":

O Lord our heavenly Father, high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler of princes, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth; most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour to behold our most Gracious Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth; and so replenish her with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that she may always incline to thy will, and walk in thy way: Endue her plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant her in health and wealth long to live; strengthen her that she may vanquish and overcome all her enemies; and finally after this life she may attain everlasting joy and felicity, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Almighty God, the Fountain of all Goodness, We humbly beseech thee to bless Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Charles Prince of Wales and all the Royal Family: Endue them with thy Holy Spirit; enrich them with thy Heavenly Grace; prosper them with all happiness; and bring them to thine everlasting kingdom, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Comment is Free readers who see themselves both as republicans (the "down with monarchy" sort, rather than those who adore Sarah Palin) and atheists are probably beginning to feel pretty uncomfortable right now. In this day and age, do our parliamentarians really still need to perform this ritual? Personally, it's not my cup of tea either, but I see it as nothing more than a rather quaint bit of living history. In my view, the fact that it's voluntary and not conducted in sight of the public completely dissipates the need to take any possible offence that religion is still being intertwined with our state apparatus.

But things become a little harder to ignore when you examine the role religious rituals can still play in local government. A controversy is currently afoot at Helston town council in Cornwall because Pat Woodhouse, a member of public who says she's considering standing for a seat, has criticised the town council for holding "Christian-only" prayers at the beginning of each public meeting. The distinction between this situation and what happens at the Houses of Parliament seems to be that the prayers are conducted when members of the public are in attendance. Woodhouse is arguing that if prayers must take place then they should at least reflect other religions, too.

"Let's face it, we are supposed to be politically correct now," she is reported as saying in the West Briton, the local paper. "If anyone really took offence they could criticise the council. It isn't right … With respect to the reverend who opens the meeting with a prayer, is it politically correct to only have Christian prayers at the beginning of the meeting?"

Paul Phillips, the former mayor of Helston, isn't best pleased by her remarks and has hit back: "I don't know if Helston councillors have any other beliefs [than Christianity]. I think [her comment] is disgraceful. This country fought two world wars on Christian principles. It is up to the mayor to choose their chaplain and if the mayor is of a Christian background then it is natural he or she will choose a Christian chaplain."

The current mayor Niall Devenish has also chipped in, too: "As far as I was aware the UK is a Christian country so I was therefore surprised at this comment."

The National Association of Local Councils, which represents town and parish councils, says that because local councils are "independent, democratically accountable and free-standing bodies", they are free to make their own decisions about whether prayers are conducted at the beginning of public meetings. It added that there are "no specific guidelines on this matter".

In the US, there have been a number of cases over the years whereby judges have been asked to rule on whether religious prayers should be banned from being heard at council meetings. More often than not, judges rule that only nondenominational prayers should be tolerated. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is often behind efforts to strip prayers from state or federal institutions or events.

"The right to practice religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The ACLU works to ensure that this essential freedom is protected by keeping the government out of religion."

On this point, I wholeheartedly agree with the ACLU. However, I would slightly twist that final sentence around and expressly say that religion should, wherever possible, be kept out of all forms of government – even in a constitutional monarchy such as the United Kingdom, whereby, for right or wrong, the Queen currently acts as both head of state and the "supreme governor" of the Church of England.

.
.

Christians Rally to Defend Prayers in Jesus’ Name



Wednesday, 05 August 2009 07:07 PM EDT
Adrienne S. Gaines


A former military chaplain who battled the U.S. Navy over the right to pray in Jesus' name is waging a similar fight in Lodi, Calif., where the City Council in May temporarily banned sectarian prayers before meetings.

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt expects several hundred people-some from out of state-to join him tonight at 6 p.m. for a "Stand Up for Jesus" prayer rally protesting a city policy requiring all prayers to be "non-sectarian and non-denominational."
"Jesus is not an illegal word, the Bible is not a banned book, and evangelistic speech is not a crime," Klingenschmitt wrote in an online petition that collected more than 5,000 signatures, half of them from Californians. The charismatic chaplain plans to present the petition at tonight's rally.

Although based in Colorado, Klingenschmitt has led similar rallies in Virginia and Pennsylvania through his national Pray in Jesus Name Project. He founded the organization after he was court-martialed in 2006 for appearing in uniform at an event outside the White House to protest a Navy prohibition against publicly praying in Jesus' name. Congress later overturned that regulation, and in 2007 he was honorably discharged.

Klingenschmitt said the situation in Lodi is bigger than one city. "This is a national issue because what happens in Lodi will happen across California, and what happens in California will happen across the U.S," he told Charisma.

For years the Lodi City Council opened its meetings with prayer that invoked the name of Jesus. But in May, representatives from the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent the council a letter complaining about the practice, saying the prayers "lead a reasonable observer to believe that the Council is endorsing not only religion over nonreligion but also Christianity over other faiths."

The council and Lodi Mayor Larry Hansen now are considering discontinuing the prayers, limiting them or offering a moment of silence, the Sacramento Bee reported.

Although the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation has not filed suit, Klingenschmitt has pledged to raise $10,000 to help the City Council defend itself against any legal action. He said the Alliance Defense Fund is willing to represent the council pro bono, but the money would be available to pay for damages if the foundation prevailed in a lawsuit.

Klingenschmitt argues that praying in Jesus' name is constitutional, and he supports allowing Muslims, Buddhists and people of other faiths to also pray sectarian prayers at City Council meetings.

"We advocate for 100 percent inclusion," Klingenschmitt said. "Let the Muslims pray to Allah. Let the Buddhists pray to a false God."

Klingenschmitt's petition calls on the Lodi City Council to adopt a policy that declares the pre-meeting prayers to be private and not government speech, or allows them to be said during optionally attended time.

"Please do not cave-in to atheist intimidation by the enemies of religious liberty, including Americans United and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who are threatening to sue to silence all prayers," the petition states. "Please conform your decision to First Amendment precedent which allows Jesus prayers among other rotating diverse prayers."

Klingenschmitt has led similar campaigns in Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Pennsylvania, where last week the state House agreed to no longer review the content of prayers given before legislative sessions. Previously, Klingenschmitt led 1,000 people to rally outside the Virginia Governor's Mansion, to protest a state policy barring police chaplains from praying in Jesus' name.

"Many cities are threatened with lawsuits, but they're empty threats and they lose in court," Klingenschmitt said. "We encourage pastors to publicize these threats because when the name of Jesus is stamped out in one place, He spreads like wildfire everywhere else. And this causes revival among the people. The governments will vote the right way if people speak out."

A group of atheists will be hosting a counter-demonstration tonight beginning at 5:15 p.m. Lodi resident David Diskin, who is organized the opposing demonstration, told The Record newspaper he believes invocations "should be omitted from the agenda, or there should be a moment of silence, allowing everybody to pray to their own personal god or to no god at all."

The prayer policy is not scheduled to be discussed at tonight's council meeting, but Klingenschmitt hopes to address the subject when the council opens the floor to public comments.

.
Source:http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/22834-christians-rally-tonight-to-defend-prayers-in-jesus-name-
.

P.S.
  1. Highlights added.
  2. Now why can't so-called Christian Seventh-day Adventist Chaplains follow this faithful man of God's example?

.

Freedom in Christ - Life by the Spirit


Galatians 5


1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

7Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

8This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.

9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

10I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.

11And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

12I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

15But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

26Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Republicans Fault Obama on Transparency

January 27, 2010, 8:23 pm — Updated: 8:41 pm -->
Republicans Fault Obama on Transparency
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN


Not even two hours before President Obama was to arrive at the Capitol to give his State of the Union speech, House Republicans were not letting up the pressure one bit. In a letter to the president, they accused him of carrying out secretive negotiations on health care legislation (PDF) and urged him to renounce any further backroom deals.



Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press
Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader.





In a news release, the Republicans accused Mr. Obama of repeatedly breaking a campaign pledge to let C-Span film talks on the health care legislation and of turning the White House into a “hub of backroom deals.”

“If the deals cut at the White House and on Capitol Hill are signed into law, millions of seniors will see their Medicare benefits cuts, while countless other Americans will see their premiums increase, their taxes increase, and even lose their current health insurance,” Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the senior Republican on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement.

A dozen senior Republicans signed the letter, including Mr. Camp and the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio.

“During the campaign you repeatedly promised to hold care negotiations on C-SPAN. Monday, however, in an interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer you admitted that: ‘There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have like,’” the Republicans wrote.

“In light of your admission, and ongoing secret health care negotiations among Democrats in Congress, we ask you to again make clear to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid that you will not sign a health care bill crafted in a backroom deal,” they wrote, adding: “Republicans firmly support changing the way Congress works and giving the American people the access to the health care debate you promised and that they deserve.”

Republicans have opposed the Democrats’ efforts to overhaul the nation’s health care system from the moment Mr. Obama identified it as his top domestic priority last year, and the bill is now stalled mainly because Republicans have vowed to filibuster it in the Senate.
.
.
Source:http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/republicans-fault-obama-on-transparency/
.
Note: Highlights added.
.

Green Jobs on the Horizon


iPad - More Weapons of Mass Distraction


A Plan to Fix the Budget Process


Washington Matters
A Plan to Fix the Budget Process


The current process doesn't work. Here's a plan to fix it.
By Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

January 8, 2010


Early next month, President Obama will release a massive budget document proposing all types of federal spending for the 2011 fiscal year beginning Oct 1. It will be some 2,000 pages long and cover nearly $4 trillion in planned spending. That’s trillion with a t.

Release of the budget is the start of the federal budget process, probably the easiest step in a long, byzantine and largely busted routine that consumes months of Congress’ time each year, with most of the work conducted outside of the public view. The annual budget tends to be in the news only when some examples of outrageous pork projects bubble up to the surface. And annual earmarked funding for pet projects is barely newsworthy as all of the pork combined amounts to less than a half of one percent of the budget. Truly a smidgen.

This year will be no different. The modern budget process began with the Budget Reform Act of 1974, which was aimed at bringing some sense and light to a then very secretive annual budget operation that had almost no brakes on spending. It didn’t work. Instead, the process has gotten steadily worse, especially in recent years. Congress almost never finishes its budget work on time, having to rely to Band-Aid measures each year to keep the government from shutting down.

Maybe the strangest thing is how the budget process creates multilayered and duplicative debates. Many of the same budget issues are fought over at great lengths. The first time is in the annual congressional budget resolution that serves as a general spending blueprint. Many of the same budget issues return in full force in authorization bills that essentially say it’s OK for money to be spent by all the various federal agencies, sub-agencies and programs. Then the very same debates are rejoined a third time in the annual appropriations bills and supplemental budget bills that unleash the real money.

The budget resolution -- the spending guide -- is supposed to pass by April 15, a deadline so routinely missed it might as well be removed from the books altogether. Sometimes a budget resolution is not even agreed to at all because of partisan showdowns or because the votes are not there to pass it. It’s nonbinding anyhow -- no power of law. It has limited ultimate affect, except in proposing spending limits in general areas, such as defense, science research and social welfare.

The 12 regular spending bills covering the entire federal bureaucracy and federal programs in every state are all supposed to be signed into law by Oct. 1, just weeks after Congress’ monthlong August recess. Usually only a handful of appropriation bills -- often the easies ones -- make it past the finish line on time.

Other stuck spending bills are then rolled into giant omnibus or catchall measures, often several thousand pages and containing hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of spending. No one really reads omnibuses before they vote on them. They check for a few provisions they care about and then vote without knowing the vast majority of details. Sometimes the omnibuses are not approved until four, five and even six months into the very same fiscal year they are supposed to apply. That leaves federal agencies in limbo, not knowing how much they have to spend. Invariably they spend less the first half of the year, then rush more money out the door in haste to catch up.

Here’s two simple changes to the budget process that could do a world of good. One would be to change the date of the fiscal year, making it the same as the calendar year. Instead of Oct. 1, it would be Jan. 1. Three months of additional time could give members a little more opportunity to understand the trillions of dollars they are approving. But couple this with an ban on the stop-gap measures used to keep the government going when Congress misses the deadline. Require that the government be shut down unless all the bills are passed before Congress goes home for Christmas.

A second would be to change the whole authorization and appropriation process. Congress could easily agree to make most authorization bills multiyear bills and to make the appropriations bills cover more years than only the next fiscal year. That would free up congressional committees to do more pressing work before the nation. If special circumstances require more money after a two-year spending bill is passed, Congress could pass an addendum or a supplemental. No big deal.

Retired Sen. Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., a longtime Budget Committee chairman respected for his knowledge of all types of budget arcana, once urged Congress to adopt biennial budgets to help unclog the budget process and allow committees to tackle other work.

He was almost laughed at by his colleagues.

A two year system would mean less leverage, power and influence for chairmen and members of the powerful appropriations committee – the people who hold the purse strings. They rather like hauling agency heads and others before their panels each and every year to let them know who’s boss.

The same is found in the truly bizarre way Congress goes about authorizing funding for the Homeland Security Department, which was created by merging nearly two dozen distinct federal programs and offices. A mind-boggling 88 committees and subcommittees have jurisdiction over some part or other of the department that was created after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

There was an early effort by House and Senate leaders to have just one panel in charge of overseeing the department. That went over in lead balloon fashion. It made eminent sense to have one committee handle the new department, but that would have meant all those other panel chairmen and panel members would be stripped of some of their power. That’s a good way to put a chairman in a foul mood.

It’s too bad Domenici’s idea for two-year budgets went nowhere. It would have eased the entire process and given federal agencies some time to plan and execute programs, no doubt improving performance. It seems a bit selfish and self-important and overly territorial for lawmakers to have to hang on to every bit of power they have, even if it is on a small subcommittee. Then again, this is Washington. Clear, logical and straightforward solutions to vexing problems can quickly be killed off in Congress if it means power would be taken away from someone. .


.

The 1 Eye Worship Religion (cao dai)

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpE0j8_jLZo

TheKilluminati786
September 13, 2009(more info)
less info)
The resemblance was not a coincidence: French-educated Vietnamese officials like Ngo Minh Chieu knew a great deal about Freemasonry, which was widespread in Indochina. The Masons were attractive to the Caodaists for two reasons: they could influence the French government, and they were historically opposed to the Catholic Church, which meant that they were, at least theoretically, in favor of religious freedom.
.
Religion is called Cao dai from the BBC Documentary Around the world in 80 faiths
.

Americans elected a visionary, not a fighter



By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, January 27, 2010

In the run-up to Barack Obama's State of the Union address, the so-called narrative question is whether the president will be -- pick a curtain -- party leader, president, conciliator or fighter.

Depending on whose head is talking, the president's problem is that he's been: (a) playing party politics and not leading the nation; (b) stuck in community-organizer mode, seeking consensus rather than fighting.

So agitated have SOTU speculators become that some have resorted to counting the number of times Obama uses the word "fight," or some variation thereof, in recent gatherings and speeches.

At a Monday morning meeting of his Middle Class Task Force, Obama said: "We're going to keep fighting to renew the American dream." Later, he said, "Joe [Biden] and I are going to keep on fighting for what matters to middle-class families." By one reporter's count, Obama used the word "fight" or "fighting" four times in a seven-minute speech.

In Ohio last week, according to another tabulator, the president used fighting words more than 20 times: "I won't stop fighting to open up government," he said. "I won't stop fighting to bring back jobs here." And, "I'll never stop fighting."

By Monday morning, Politico's Mike Allen was quoting a White House official who said key themes of the SOTU would include "creating good jobs, addressing the deficit, changing Washington, and fighting for middle-class families."

Not to leap to conclusions, but it would seem that Obama intends to fight. Like The Narrator in "Fight Club," he has tired of hugging victims and wants to punch the daylights out of . . . somebody. But didn't Obama run on just the opposite?

We're not a nation of red states or blue states, he told us. We are the United States of America. Except we're not -- and that's the problem Obama faces Wednesday night. The emergence of Obama's heretofore-absent pugilist merely adds another layer to the real challenge before him. Is he trustworthy?

For a year now, Obama's visionary, unifying words haven't matched the results. It isn't entirely his fault, but his leftward agenda took him far from center field where he was when optimistic Americans watched his pregame warmup. Since last January, watching him has been like watching a movie where the soundtrack hasn't been synchronized with the actors' lips.

Meanwhile, we have become not a purple, but a Brown nation. As in Scott. Like Obama himself, Brown -- an imperfect candidate under any other circumstances -- was the right man in the right place at the right time.

Brown's unlikely Senate election hinged most likely as much on the X-factor of trust as on his promise to be the 41st vote against health-care reform. Voters may not have known the finer points of his résumé, but they "knew" him. They recognized him from the sandlot. They'd seen his truck. They trusted his regular-guyness.

The Obama administration has taken note, and so the new war whoop is populism. Having noticed that Americans are most concerned about jobs and out-of-control government spending, the president is suddenly riveted by middle-class despair. And, of course, the anger.

Everybody's ticked, if for different reasons. Tea-party activists are enraged by expanding government, higher taxes (even though many of those in the throng received tax cuts as part of the stimulus package) and health-care reform that, though comprehensive, managed to leave out tort reform. The left is angry because Obama wasn't tough enough to push through legislation despite Democratic majorities in both houses.

Even Obama, the usually imperturbable sphinx -- the man with the straight face and the light-switch smile -- is getting hot under the collar. He doesn't mind a good fight, he says. Perchance, to bring 'em on?

It is traditional for presidents to paint a rosier picture of circumstances than reality warrants, and Obama isn't likely to veer from that script. The hope-and-change agent can hardly wear a sad face as he appraises his first year. But neither can he portray himself as a slugger in chief.

Americans didn't elect a fighter; they elected a visionary who promised a new spirit of cohesion, cooperation and community. While some now may view their romance with hope as a one-night stand, voters are reliably fickle. They can be courted and persuaded, but first they have to trust.

Regaining trust is Obama's real challenge, and being true to his own character is fundamental to that end. Americans know a faux fighter when they see one. If Obama comes out swinging, he is likely to lose.

kathleenparker@washpost.com


.


.

He's no Dr. Pepper!


As the president prepares to give his first State of the Union address, the news media is chock full of anticipation on what he will say. Will he say this or that? Meanwhile, on the radio ( a peak from the administration), the following sound byte gives us a hint:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said expect to see the president at times “feisty” within his speech this evening.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/from-sunlen-millerpresident-obama-will-spend-his-day-today-behind-closed-doors-preparing-for-tonights-state-of-the-union-a.html .

President Obama recently has sounded belligerent, bellicose and sometimes obnoxious. I think that he might think that he's the president of a banana republic. His "exigente" demeanor is more fitting for Juan Valdez. He sometimes sounds condescending as he lectures Americans on what he will do, and what needs to be changed.
I think Obama's getting his advice on how to be president reading Canon Law.
..
What's this now, the Fight Club?

He's beginning to sound more like Muhammad Ali, or Macho Camacho, rather than the chief executive of last bastion of freedom in the world. We see a change alright, from a eloquent lawyer, to a brawler.

Where's all the anger coming from? "You can't always get what you want"...as the song says...
Down boy, Down boy!

President Obama vows to continue fight against economic woes at ...
New York Daily News -
Kenneth R. Bazinet - ‎Jan 23, 2010‎
"I'm not going to win every round," Obama told the audience in Elyria, Ohio. "I can promise you there will be more fights in the days ahead. ...


I think that the president forgets that he was the lesser of two evils.
He may think that he won a popularity contest which entitles him to do whatever he wants; But, he is forgetting that what took place in November, 2008 was something similar to the Cola Taste Test.
Coke vs Pepsi...
.
Obama is not Tab, or the un-Cola - 7Up. No, he's not Royal Crown Cola, either.
Again, he's not Minute Maid, or Sunny De lite. He forgets we could have had a V8!

Dr. Pepper may have originally been one of those concoctions that snake oil salesmen sold as a cure-all, a panacea. No, the president is not Dr. Pepper or Doctore Papa.
If there is an American papa? That title and office probably belongs to Cardinal William Joseph Levada, the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (previously the Office of the Holy Inquisition).

Let's get ready to stumble: And in this corner...Not Marvin "the Brawler" Haggler, or
Dwight Braxton AKA Muhammad Qawi.
.
You call this "change"?

In this corner.......in the smoke gray Armani suit, at 6'3", weighing 150 pounds: Yoohoo!

No substance, no nutritional value:

Just water, bubbles and dyes...

Arsenio.
.

Media Execs Predict End Of Free Internet Content


Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 2009, 07:32 CDT

IAC/InteractiveCorp chairman and CEO Barry Diller said the era of free Internet content is coming to an end.

Speaking at the Fortune Brainstorm conference in Pasadena, California, Diller challenged traditional Internet business models in which consumers pay for Internet access while content is provided free of charge.

In the future, he said revenue will be generated from advertising, subscriptions and transactions.

“It is not free, and is not going to be,” said Diller, adding that Web users will have to pay for the content they watch and use.

The transition will not be smooth, he said, and the years ahead will not be easy for content providers.

"We are transitioning from an old form to a new form and those things are always bloody," said the media and technology executive, who also serves as chairman of Expedia Inc. and Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc.

The Internet is still in its infancy, and while content was initially provided at no charge to the user, the goal was always to find a way in time to generate revenue, he said.

Diller’s comments echo those of other media moguls, such as Liberty Media Corp.’s John Malone and Walt Disney Co. CEO Robert Iger, who say that Web users will have to pay for the content they watch and use.

Diller, 67, whose IAC/Interactive runs the Ask.com search engine and the Match.com dating service, called the view of the Internet as a system of free communications a “mythology”.

He said his own news Web site, “The Daily Beast”, has "done a very good early job" creating compelling content.

The site is not difficult to finance, but "it's going to have to earn its way,” he said.

Burbank, California-based Disney is working on a subscription-based Internet product that the company believes will expand its opportunities in Web sales, Iger said. The product will allow improvements in online advertising by allowing marketers to target consumers by tracking their activities and interests.

“We have ample evidence both in traditional and new media that people are willing to pay for quality, to pay for choice and to pay for convenience,” said Iger, speaking at the conference on July 22.

“And they are willing to pay for what they perceive as value.”

News Corp., publisher of the Wall Street Journal and owner of the Fox TV and film studios, is also looking to generate revenue through its Internet businesses by charging customers for news and entertainment, according to a Bloomberg report citing remarks from Jonathan Miller, chief executive officer of News Corp.’s Digital Media Group and News Corp.’s chief digital officer.

The Wall Street Journal already charges customers for online subscriptions.

In the future, some companies will offer content that users are willing to pay for, while others won’t, said Miller, and online journalism will increasingly transition to a “paid model”.

News Corp.’s interactive revenue fell 11 percent to $187 million during the first quarter of this year, led by a 16 percent drop in advertising at sites such as MySpace.

---


.

The reproofs and warnings of God's Holy Spirit



In every age there is given to men their day of light and privilege, a probationary time in which they may become reconciled to God. But there is a limit to this grace. Mercy may plead for years and be slighted and rejected; but there comes a time when mercy makes her last plea. The heart becomes so hardened that it ceases to respond to the Spirit of God. Then the sweet, winning voice entreats the sinner no longer, and reproofs and warnings cease.

That day had come to Jerusalem. Jesus wept in anguish over the doomed city, but He could not deliver her. He had exhausted every resource. In rejecting the warnings of God's Spirit, Israel had rejected the only means of help. There was no other power by which they could be delivered.

The Jewish nation was a symbol of the people of all ages who scorn the pleadings of Infinite Love. The tears of Christ when He wept over Jerusalem were for the sins of all time. In the judgments pronounced upon Israel, those who reject the reproofs and warnings of God's Holy Spirit, may read their own condemnation.

In this generation there are many who are treading on the same ground as were the unbelieving Jews. They have witnessed the manifestation of the power of God; the Holy Spirit has spoken to their hearts; but they cling to their unbelief and resistance. God sends them warnings and reproof, but they are not willing to confess their errors, and they reject His message and His messenger. The very means He uses for their recovery becomes to them a stone of stumbling.

The prophets of God were hated by apostate Israel because through them their hidden sins were brought to light. Ahab regarded Elijah as his enemy because the prophet was faithful to rebuke the king's secret iniquities. So today the servant of Christ, the reprover of sin, meets with scorn and rebuffs. Bible truth, the religion of Christ, struggles against a strong current of moral impurity. Prejudice is even stronger in the hearts of men now than in Christ's day. Christ did not fulfill men's expectations; His life was a rebuke to their sins, and they rejected Him. So now the truth of God's word does not harmonize with men's practices and their natural inclination, and thousands reject its light. Men prompted by Satan cast doubt upon God's word, and choose to exercise their independent judgment. They choose darkness rather than light, but they do it at the peril of their souls. Those who caviled at the words of Christ, found ever-increased cause for cavil, until they turned from the Truth and the Life. So it is now. God does not propose to remove every objection which the carnal heart may bring against His truth. To those who refuse the precious rays of light which would illuminate the darkness, the mysteries of God's word remain such forever. From them the truth is hidden. They walk blindly, and know not the ruin before them.

Christ overlooked the world and all ages from the height of Olivet; and His words are applicable to every soul who slights the pleadings of divine mercy. Scorner of His love, He addresses you today. It is "thou, even thou," who shouldest know the things that belong to thy peace. Christ is shedding bitter tears for you, who have no tears to shed for yourself. Already that fatal hardness of heart which destroyed the Pharisees is manifest in you. And every evidence of the grace of God, every ray of divine light, is either melting and subduing the soul, or confirming it in hopeless impenitence.

Christ foresaw that Jerusalem would remain obdurate and impenitent; yet all the guilt, all the consequences of rejected mercy, lay at her own door. Thus it will be with every soul who is following the same course. The Lord declares, "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself." "Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto My words, nor to My law, but rejected it." Hosea 13:9; Jer. 6:19.


The Desire of Ages (1898), E. G. White, pp.587-588.
.

The High Priest of a New Covenant


Hebrews 8


The High Priest of the Heavenly Sanctuary


1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

3For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

4For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

A New Covenant


6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Georgetown on my mind!


Every time I turn around I hear another politician speaking at Georgetown University, or an expert from Georgetown Univ. giving his professional opinion about the economy, or about the geopolitical situation of the world, and the like.

It's as if when a politician has an idea, he must first run it past the authorities at Georgetown University to see if it will fly...

  1. Why is that such a desirable venue to make yourself heard?

  2. Why is this institution of higher-learning, so prolific?

  3. Why are they so knowledgeable?

The lastest incident of a political figure speaking at this bastion of wisdom in Washington District of (st.) Columba, is retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:


"In invalidating some of the existing checks on campaign spending, the majority in Citizens United has signaled that the problem of campaign contributions in judicial elections might get considerably worse and quite soon," O'Connor said at a symposium at Georgetown Law Center. She noted that each election cycle brings new spending records, especially in state supreme court races that have become special-interest battlegrounds.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012603322.html?hpid=topnews


On another note; when it's not the Jesuit Georgetown University that is mentioned it's the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations or some 'think tank'.

Jesuit controlled global government is being promoted in the mainstream media without shame. We've really reached a milestone when the enemy of our liberties no longer has to hide in the shadows or manipulate things from behind the scenes; No; he is doing everything in plain sight.
All politicians, dignitaries, and judges (Supreme Court has 6 Roman Catholics out of a total of 9) must pass the litmus test of Georgetown to be validated.

Prophecy is being fulfilled at an ever increasing speed.

Peek a boo, Jesuits we see you!
.
Come out, come out, where ever you are!
.

Jesuits


More on SCJ Sandra Day O'Connor's chat at the Hoya Spot:

O'Connor Calls Citizens United Ruling 'A Problem'
ABC News -
Retired US Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivers the keynote speech during a conference at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington ...


O'Connor: 'Don't know' if Bush v. Gore the right decision
Washington Post (blog) -
By Robert Barnes Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was at Georgetown Law Center Tuesday to talk about judicial elections and her worry that the Supreme ...
.
O'Connor Mildly Criticizes Court's Campaign Finance Decision New York Times (blog)
O'Connor talks politics, judicial independence CNN Political Ticker (blog)
Coon Rapids ECM Publishers (blog)


Georgetown 2008:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/webstory/10.3.08.html mmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmm .....

High stakes, pressure in Davos

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Listen to the show

World Economic Forum 2010
High stakes, pressure in Davos


More than 2,500 people will gather for the World Economic Forum in the Swiss ski town of Davos to discuss how to fix the global economy. Stephen Beard reports on what attendees and observers can expect.





Alpenhorn players Dirk Schneider, left, and Andy Rechts prepare to entertain visitors to Davos, Switzerland, for the 40th annual World Economic Forum. (Stephen Beard / Marketplace)




TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: The weather forecast for Davos, Switzerland, this week is a chance of snow and no small amount of hot air. The World Economic Forum will be taking over the tiny Alpine ski town starting tomorrow. More than 2,500 people, top politicians and corporate executives alike, are going to be there discussing how to fix the global economy. Our European bureau chief Stephen Beard is in Davos this week as well. And we asked him to find out what attendees and observers might expect.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STEPHEN BEARD: As presidents, prime ministers and billionaires arrive in Davos, a pair of locals are laying on a traditional, Swiss welcome.

Dirk Schneider and Andy Rechts are limbering up on a couple of 20-foot alpine horns. Cattle herders once used this instrument to call in their cows from the mountainside. Now musicians like Andy and Dirk use them to entertain the tourists.

Dirk Schneider and Andy Rechts: You don't hear it everywhere and that makes it so special, so individual. You need to have plenty of wind to play this instrument. Yes, you do, definitely. You need a lot of wind, yes.

Cynics might say the same about the summit held every year in Davos. It is a huge talking-shop. A massive gabfest for the rich and powerful.

TONY BLAIR: This is a new world, but actually we've been taught a very old lesson, which is that values matter.

That's former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair at Davos last year. Every January, the small Alpine retreat is heaving with Russian oil tycoons, Chinese billionaires, head honchos from the U.S. and Europe. Just being here is a heady experience, says Lord Digby Jones a former British Trade Minister.

DIGBY JONES: You can be in a reception, and Bill Gates is on other side of the room. And Warren Buffet's over there, and it's a great ego massager. You feel that you're important.

All the leaders of the group of 20 nations are invited, though not all attend. Media chiefs and certain academics are invited too. And there's a sprinkling of movie stars.

Yes, a bit of a celebrity fest, but says Oxford University Professor Tim Garton-Ash, worthwhile, all the same.

TIM GARTON-ASH: The conference center for four days is a hive of networking. Quite a good thing, I think. Better that the leaders of the world should get to know each other than that they don't.

Davos enthusiasts claim these annual gatherings helped the former communist countries eastern Europe move to capitalism and helped ease China's emergence as a major economy.

Martin Wolf of the Financial Times says contacts forged at Davos may well have helped us weather the current economic crisis.

MARTIN WOLF: I think one of the reasons our world hasn't collapsed quite in the way that it did in the first half of the 20th century is that people just keep talking. I happen to believe that talking is quite a good thing to do.

The theme of this year's seminars and discussions is: Rethink, Redesign, and Rebuild. It will tackle issues like: how do we avoid the next crisis, how do we reform global institutions like the International Monetary Fund, how do we deal with China, how do we improve the state of the world? But these issues may not be uppermost in the minds of some of the summiteers.

EVAN NEWMARK: I did go there with the intent of helping the world, yeah. But my first priority was kind of to help myself.

Evan Newmark, now a columnist with the Wall Street Journal, has been to Davos as a businessman. Business pays for the forum. While politicians, media chiefs and academics attend for free, business delegates pay around $60,000 each. Worth every cent, says Evan.
.
NEWMARK: It was just a great place to meet and greet clients or potential clients. It was a place to do business. If you ask me how much did I contribute to improving the state of the world, I'm afraid my scorecard may be pretty empty.

Critics of Davos say the summit has self interest at its core. This year the summiteers are under pressure as never before to prove the critics wrong and to answer the question: How do we really improve the state of the world?

In Davos, this is Stephen Beard for Marketplace.
.
.
Source:http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/01/26/pm-davos-setup/
.

A Few Questions About The Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis, The Economy...


I wonder about what is really behind the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis?

Does the current Sub prime Mortgage situation have anything to do with the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals (MGD)? After all, the primary focus of the MDG is to transfer the wealth of the mainly Protestant industrialized nations to the third word.

Was the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP15), and its Global Warming/Climate Change pretext, also a part of this Robin Hood tactic to tap the lifeblood from the U.S. Economy?

As we see our economy go down the drain, and hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs systematically; I wonder if all this is playing into the New World Order design of a globalized planet in which even your personal possessions become the property of the state which can do with it what it desires? I can see how all these procedures would expedite the MDG, NWO government, Bio-Fuels Carbon TAX, loss of sovereignty to a Global Federation, etc. The Sub- Prime Mortgage Crisis started the recent downward slide, and it has deteriorated to a full blown "rECESSION". Yesterday, I heard that industrialized nations will quite possibly need to stop all growth to be able to stem climate change. Will we be required to commit suicide for the greater good of the planet? Our country's economy is falling apart, our infrastructure is eroding. Come on, now! Before you can help anyone else, you must help yourself. Self preservation is an innate tendency for survival.


Without a job you can't pay a mortgage, or pay rent for that matter!



As I observe the present conditions; I wonder how much of this is a coordinated effort to achieve that magic U.N. target date 2015? As a new Summit begins at Davos a.k.a. World Economic Forum of global wheeler dealers, traders and traitors....

All these constant maneuverings remind me of a popular president's words:


"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way."


Franklin D. Roosevelt



Just replace the word politics, with economy....

Arsenio.
..

The Ten Commandments : The Character of God


Source: http://www.instonebrewer.com/bpg2009/Free/Pics/10_Comm.gif

1And God spake all these words, saying,

  1. 2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
  2. 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
    5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
    6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
  3. 7Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
  4. 8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
    9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
    10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
    11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
  5. 12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
  6. 13Thou shalt not kill.
  7. 14Thou shalt not commit adultery.
  8. 15Thou shalt not steal.
  9. 16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
  10. 17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Exodus 20:1-17.
.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789





Deutsch: Repräsentation der Erklärung der Menschen- und Bürgerrechte von 1789
Ελληνικά: Απεικόνιση της Διακήρυξης των Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου και του Πολίτη το 1789
English: Representation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789
Español: Representación de la Declaración de los Derechos del Hombre y del Ciudadano de 1789
Euskara: 1789ko Gizonaren eta Herritarraren eskubideen Adierazpenaren irudikapena
Français : Représentation de la Declaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789
日本語: 1789年の「人間と市民の権利の宣言(フランス人権宣言)」の図
Nederlands: Voorstelling van de Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens en de Burger uit 1789
Português: Representação da Declaração dos Direitos do Homem e do Cidadão de 1789
Русский: Изображение Декларации прав человека и гражданина 1789 года
Tiếng Việt: Thể hiện Tuyên ngôn Nhân quyền và Dân quyền năm 1789

العربية: تصوير لـإعلان حقوق الانسان والمواطنة 1789


Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Declaration_of_Human_Rights.jpg


Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

To obtain this file as a WordPerfect document, download here


Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789


The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:

Articles:

1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.

16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.
..

Source: http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html

.

Unless the LORD protects a city


Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.


Psalm 127:1
.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Doug Casey: Stock Market Set to Crash


Doug Casey interviewed by Louis James
Editor, International Speculator
Jan 21, 2010

Louis: So, what's on your mind this week, Doug? I understand you've had a "guru moment."

Doug: Well, it's nothing but a gut feeling, but I think the stock market is riding for a big fall this year.

Everyone was afraid the world was going to come to an end a year ago, and it almost did. But governments all around the world stepped in and printed up trillions of their various currency units - it's not just the United States. And still, retail price inflation hasn't blossomed. It seems that governments are bent on keeping asset prices up to avert panic. They focus on controlling perception instead of fixing the problem. It stems from an economic version of the theory that all we need to fear is fear itself. As long as we have the right psychology, everything is going to be okay - total nonsense.

L: That old saw: as long as there's confidence, all is well.

Doug: Yes. It's the Wile E. Coyote theory of economics. As long as you never look down after running off a cliff chasing the roadrunner, you can keep treading air. Unfortunately, although the power of positive thinking may help in many ways, it's of zero use if you continue living above your means and making stupid decisions.

L: Insolvency doesn't seem to matter; as long as everyone has confidence that things will keep going, the experts believe they will. But in the real world, you can't remain insolvent for long, even if "you" are the United States as a whole society.

Doug: Exactly. My thinking about the stock market is this: corporations have done as "well" as they have mainly by cutting expenses. Laying people off, that sort of thing. So the bottom lines have not fallen as far as we might expect - but the top line has been hit. Revenues are falling for corporations across the board.

L: And the market has to notice this reality sooner or later.

Doug: Yes. The world's financial system has to adjust to a new reality, one with lower levels of consumption and differing types of production. The legions of unemployed are not going to go back to work anytime soon, at least not doing anything like what they were doing before the bubble burst. The economy is going to continue deleveraging. There's going to be less debt to allow the purchase of all this stuff people have been buying, resulting in lower corporate earnings. So it's hard to see revenues doing anything but continue to spiral downwards for years to come.

And then there are financial "accidents" waiting to happen.

L: Like the bank failures the government has admitted it expects this year? The FDIC says there will be more bank failures in 2010 than in 2009, with the spin being that 2010 will be the peak of the crisis.

Doug: Sure. But I also expect corporate bond failures. And there are other things out there. As Porter Stansberry (whose style as an analyst I really like) has pointed out, General Electric - which is really just a hedge fund disguised as an industrial concern at this point - is leveraged thirty to one. It's a dead man walking. It's the next AIG. When something like that happens, it really shakes Wall Street to its foundations.

So, I've been bearish on general equities for years, based on fundamentals. Whether they go up is no longer a reflection of prosperity - it's a reflection of how much money the government creates and where it goes. But I am feeling particularly strongly bearish on Wall Street right now. That's my gut. The social mood of the country is going to turn ugly and gloomy; people won't want to call their brokers and "get into the market."

The Greater Depression is going to be really serious. I can't see buying stocks until dividend yields are in the 6-12% range. And people have forgotten the market even exists. Anyway, Baby Boomers, who own most stocks directly and indirectly, are going to be selling them to support themselves in retirement.

L: Would you recommend shorting GE?

Doug: It should be an easy bet, but the government is certain to try to prop it up, as it has other dinosaurs pursuing business models that no longer work, like General Motors - although it didn't help their shareholders. "Too big to fail." That makes shorting riskier. But GE still has a $179 billion market cap, so it should fall quite a bit from here, if not all the way to zero.

L: No way out for the stock market?

Doug: Well, the government has been suppressing interest rates for a long time now, which is exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. These artificially low interest rates discourage people from saving and encourage them to gamble, hoping to outrun inflation. But eventually the market will force interest rates to go higher, and that will kill the stock market, because the stock market does tend to fluctuate inversely with interest rates. High interest rates almost always mean a low stock market, and low interest rates tend to mean a high stock market. So it seems to me that there simply is no good news on the economic front. Interest rates are headed way up, both out of a need for capital and as a reflection of the high price inflation ahead.

L: This doesn't sound like a guru moment - a flash of the famous Casey inspiration. This sounds more like a well-reasoned argument to me.

Doug: Well, when you get a really strong gut feeling, it's usually because you intuit many things that are out there, subconsciously if not analytically. Look, dividends are dropping across the board. Top line earnings are dropping. Where net earnings have been maintained, it's been by expense cutting.

L: Even if margins are maintained, the companies are getting smaller, and people are making less money, on the whole.

Doug: Right. And interest rates are at all-time lows. That's the short sale of the decade, if you want to short something. Bet against bonds. And there's more.

[Doug Casey is one of the few investment visionaries whose forecasts have been spot-on. Don't miss what Doug predicts for 2010 - to read the rest of this FREE interview, sign up here.]

###

Jan 20, 2010
Casey Archives

321gold Ltd
.
Source:http://www.321gold.com/editorials/casey/casey012110.html
.

Banks shut in Fla., Mo., NM, Ore., Wash.


Jan 22, 10:19 PM (ET)By MARCY GORDON


WASHINGTON (AP) - Regulators shut down banks Friday in Florida, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington, bringing to nine the number of bank failures so far in 2010, following 140 closures last year in the toughest economic environment since the Great Depression.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. took over the five banks: Charter Bank, based in Santa Fe, N.M., with $1.2 billion in assets and $851.5 million in deposits; Miami-based Premier American Bank, with $350.9 million in assets and $326.3 million in deposits; Bank of Leeton in Leeton, Mo., with $20.1 million in assets and $20.4 million in deposits; Columbia River Bank, based in The Dalles, Ore., with $1.1 billion in assets and $1 billion in deposits; and Seattle-based Evergreen Bank, with $488.5 million in assets and $439.4 million in deposits.

Beal Financial Corp., based in Plano, Texas, agreed to assume the deposits and assets of Charter Bank. In addition, the FDIC and Beal Financial agreed to share losses on $805.5 million of the failed bank's loans and other assets.

Columbia State Bank, based in Tacoma, Wash., agreed to buy the deposits and assets of Columbia River Bank. The FDIC and Columbia State Bank agreed to share losses on $697.4 million of its loans and other assets.

Umpqua Bank, based in Roseburg, Ore., is assuming the deposits and assets of Evergreen Bank. The FDIC and Umpqua Bank agreed to share losses on $379.5 million of its loans and other assets.

"Evergreen's capital has been depleted by large loan losses," Brad Williamson, director of the banks division in Washington state's Department of Financial Institutions, said in a statement. "Like many banks across the state and country, Evergreen's real-estate construction and development portfolio has suffered tremendously as real estate values have fallen."

The federal regulators used a novel procedure for Premier American Bank, employing the first so-called "shelf charter" to give preliminary approval to a group of investors to obtain a national bank charter before acquiring a specific troubled institution. The shelf charter was inactive until the acquisition was made.

A new bank with a national charter was set up, to be called Premier American Bank N.A., to assume the deposits and assets of the failed bank. The investment firm Bond Street Holdings LLC got preliminary approval with a shelf charter on Oct. 23, and final approval was granted Friday by the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks.

Also, the FDIC and the new bank agreed to share losses on $300 million of Premier American's loans and other assets.

Sunflower Bank, based in Salina, Kan., agreed to assume the deposits of Bank of Leeton. The FDIC will retain most of its assets for later sale.

The failure of Charter Bank is expected to cost the deposit insurance fund $201.9 million; that of Columbia River Bank is expected to cost $172.5 million; Premier American Bank, $85 million; Evergreen Bank, $64.2 million; Bank of Leeton, $8.1 million.

As the economy has soured, with unemployment rising, home prices tumbling and loan defaults soaring, bank failures have accelerated and sapped billions out of the federal deposit insurance fund. It fell into the red last year.

The 140 bank failures last year were the highest annual tally since 1992, at the height of the savings and loan crisis. They cost the insurance fund more than $30 billion. The failures compare with 25 in 2008 and three in 2007.

The number of bank failures is expected to rise further this year. The FDIC expects the cost of resolving failed banks to grow to about $100 billion over the next four years.

The agency last year mandated banks to prepay about $45 billion in premiums, for 2010 through 2012, to replenish the insurance fund.

Depositors' money - insured up to $250,000 per account - is not at risk, with the FDIC backed by the government. Besides the fund, the FDIC has about $21 billion in cash available in reserve to cover losses at failed banks.

Banks have been especially hurt by failed real estate loans, both residential and commercial. Banks that had lent to seemingly solid businesses are suffering losses as buildings sit vacant. As development projects collapse, builders are defaulting on their loans.

If the economic recovery falters, defaults on the high-risk loans could spike. Many regional banks hold large concentrations of these loans. Nearly $500 billion in commercial real estate loans are expected to come due annually over the next few years.

This week, President Barack Obama called for limits on the size and investments of big Wall Street banks to help stave off a fresh economic meltdown. Obama's proposal, which would need Congress' approval to take effect, includes barring banks that take deposits from also trading securities for their own profit. It also would separate commercial banks from investment banks, a line that was blurred a decade ago by legislation reversing Depression-era restraints.
.

.