• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
USA And The Future Of The World
<!--emo&Sad--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> The House version of the bill, which was passed on June 11, in its initial phases did mention this fact and imposed conditions that Pakistani soil would not be used to launch any terrorist attack in India was deleted after hue and cry from Islamabad and reservations expressed by the Obama Administration.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/U...how/4701066.cms <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Obama Administration pushes IMF gold sales through House by tieing it to security bill</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Obama administration has pushed a bill through the U.S. House of Representatives approving $106 billion in supplemental funding, primarily for the Iraq and Afghanistan 'security' efforts, but <b>attached to it was also an expanded credit facility for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) of a massive $108 billion which included an agreement to allow U.S,. members of the IMF Board to agree the proposed $13 billion sale of 400 tons of IMF gold to shore up its finances.</b>

In theory the US. approval of the IMF gold sale, which still has to pass through the U.S. Senate would be the final hurdle in the gold sale actually going ahead. <b>But despite this there was virtually little or no impact on the gold market. In part this may be because of scant publicity being given to this part of the funding approval, but also in that firstly the gold market has largely discounted the IMF gold sale anyway, and secondly in that the IMF has said it will dispose of its gold in an orderly manner through a system such as the Central Bank Gold Agreement which limits sales volumes in a given year.</b> 

Ever since the recession of the early 1980’s, I was expecting a marked decline in Americans standard of living. With globalization and NAFTA which shifted a great deal of manufacturing offshore and the sorry state of American education and the social disintegration that has accompanied it, it seemed to me our standard of living would have to fall.

I can identify at least five things that moderated, and to some extent, masked the decline:

1. The importation of cheap goods, which made declining incomes go farther.

2. Ultra-low interest rates that made borrowing easier.

3. Government programs that went hand in hand with low interest rates to encourage unwise borrowing.

4. A willingness on the part of most Americans to use debt as spackle to fill in the gaps created by the inevitable decline in their collective standard of living.

5. More families with two wage earners instead of one. Not everyone would agree, but in my opinion if two people must work to provide a standard of living that was once provided by one - there has been a noticeable decline in standard of living - feminism and women‘s liberation not withstanding.

In fact, if you look at the post World War II expansion and correlate it with the rising American national debt since then, it wouldn’t seem unreasonable to assert that the rising standard of American living since the Great Depression was almost wholly the result of deficit spending (if you exclude the period after World War II when a war-ravaged Europe and Asia were rebuilding their manufacturing which was virtually destroyed by the war.

So…what magic wabbit do you suppose the mini-mes in Washington are going to pull out of their bag of tricks this time? Bonnie Fwank just produced it. After the all that has transpired, he once again proposes “easing up on borrowing.“

Who are our nation’s dads? Facts and figures on dads on Father’s Day

Sonora Dodd of Spokane, Wash., conceived the idea of Father’s Day while she listened to a Mother’s Day sermon in 1909.

01-121-5-59-sm Dodd wanted a special day to honor her father, William Smart, a widowed Civil War veteran who was left to raise his six children by himself on a rural farm.

June was chosen for the first Father’s Day celebration – proclaimed for June 19, 1910, by Spokane’s mayor – because it was the month of William Smart’s birth.

The first presidential proclamation honoring fathers was issued in 1966 when President Lyndon Johnson designated the third Sunday in June as Father’s Day.

Father’s Day has been celebrated annually since 1972 when President Richard Nixon signed the public law that made it permanent.

On Sunday, millions of families will be gathering on Father's Day to recognize their dads and the contributions they are making and have made.

Who are these dads, how many children do they have, and how many are single dads?

Here are facts and figures about fathers and Father’s Day from the U.S. Census Bureau:

How many fathers

66.3 million
Estimated number of fathers across the nation today.

26.5 million
Number of fathers who are part of married-couple families with their own children under the age of 18.

Among these –

* 21 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old.

* 11 percent are under 30.

* 5 percent are 55 and older.

* 2 percent live in the home of a relative or a nonrelative.

* 65 percent have an annual family income of $50,000 or more.

2.3 million
Number of single fathers, up from 393,000 in 1970. Currently, among single parents living with their children, 18 percent are men.

Among these fathers –

* 10 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old.

* 42 percent are divorced; 38 percent have never married; 15 percent are separated; and 5 percent are widowed.

* 15 percent live in the home of a relative or a nonrelative.

* 21 percent have an annual family income of $50,000 or more.

Stay-at-home dads

Estimated number of “stay-at-home” dads. These are married fathers with children under 15 years old who have remained out of the labor force for more than one year primarily so they can care for the family while their wives work outside the home.

Among these stay-at-home dads –

* 29 percent had their own children under 3 years old living with them.

* 63 percent had two or more children.

* 40 percent had an annual family income of $50,000 or more


4.6 million
Number of fathers who provide child support. All in all, 84 percent of child-support providers are men, who provide median payments of $3,600 annually.

Remembering all dads

Neckties lead the list of Father’s Day gifts. Number of men’s clothing stores: 10,416.

Other items high on the list of Father’s Day gifts include tools such as hammers, wrenches, and screwdrivers. Number of hardware stores in the nation: 14,755. Number of home centers: 5,280.

Dads also often like items such as fishing rods and golf clubs. Number of sporting goods stores: 23,018.

Nearly 69 million Americans participated in a barbecue in the last year. Many of these may have taken place on Father’s Day.

Nearly 95 million
Number of Father’s Day cards expected to be given this year in the United States, making Father’s Day the fourth-largest card-sending occasion.

Fifty percent of all Father’s Day cards are purchased for dads. Nearly 20 percent are purchased for husbands, with the remaining bought for grandfathers, sons, brothers, uncles, and “someone special,” among other categories.

So happy Father’s Day to you fantastic 66.3 million dads in America. I hope your day is great and that you’re able to have a wonderful celebration.

My next post will be on “What to Buy a Baby Boomer Dad for Father’s Day.”
Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is the Federal Reserve Bank?

What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it?

by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999

The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.

There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."

Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.

In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.

Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued.

Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury.

This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811.

The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816.

The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion.

Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans.

Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money.

The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used as security for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then transferred to the central bank during the bust. And you always wondered how the big guys ended up with all the marbles.

Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late '20s and all through the '30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We all know the results that occurred from that action, don't we?

Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth. How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years?

Do you think they will do it again?

Just as an aside at this point, look at today's economy. Markets are declining. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses.

Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press releases?

Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.) How much money do you think these FED owners have made since they restricted the money supply at the top of this last current cycle?

Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks, central banks rule governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836.

Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank.

This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.

The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.

In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central banking corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.

Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.

Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.


Study finds widening generation gap in US

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Hope Yen, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 9 mins ago

WASHINGTON – From cell phones and texting to religion and manners, younger and older Americans see the world differently, creating the largest generation gap since the tumultuous years of the 1960s and the culture clashes over Vietnam, civil rights and women's liberation.

A new study released Monday by the Pew Research Center found Americans of different ages increasingly at odds over a range of social and technological issues. It also highlights a widening age divide after last November's election, when 18- to 29-year-olds voted for Democrat Barack Obama by a 2-to-1 ratio.

Almost eight in 10 people believe there is a major difference in the point of view of younger people and older people today, according to the independent public opinion research group. That is the highest spread since 1969, when about 74 percent reported major differences in an era of generational conflicts over the Vietnam War and civil and women's rights. In contrast, just 60 percent in 1979 saw a generation gap.

Asked to identify where older and younger people differ most, 47 percent said social values and morality. People age 18 to 29 were more likely to report disagreements over lifestyle, views on family, relationships and dating, while older people cited differences in a sense of entitlement. Those in the middle-age groups also often pointed to a difference in manners.

Religion is a far bigger part of the lives of older adults. About two-thirds of people 65 and older said religion is very important to them, compared with just over half of those 30 to 49 and 44 percent of people 18 to 29.

In addition, among adults 65 and older, one-third said religion has grown more important to them over the course of their lives, while 4 percent said it has become less important and 60 percent said it has stayed the same.

"Around the notion of morality and work ethic, the differences in point of view are pretty much felt across the board," said Paul Taylor, director of the Pew Social and Demographic Trends Project. He cited a greater tolerance among younger people on cultural issues such as gay marriage and interracial relationships.

Still, he noted that the generation gap in 2009 seems to be more tepid in nature than it was in the 1960s, when younger people built a defiant counterculture in opposing the Vietnam War and demanding equal rights for women and minorities.

"Today, it's more of a general outlook, a different point of view, a general set of moral values," Taylor said.

Among the study's other findings:

_Getting old isn't as bad as people believe in terms of health, but isn't as good when it comes to lifestyle. While more than half of those under 65 think they will experience memory loss when they are older, only one-quarter of people 65 and older say they do so. Older people reported fewer instances than expected of problems such as serious illness, not being able to drive, being less sexually active or depressed.

On the other hand, older adults end up having less leisure time than expected. While 87 percent of those under 65 think they will have more time for hobbies and other interests in older age, only 65 percent of older people report having it. Life at 65 and older also fell below expectations when it came to time with family, travel, having more financial security and less stress.

_Hispanics are more likely to report problems in old age. About 35 percent of Hispanics 65 and older say they have a serious illness, compared with 20 percent of whites and 22 percent of blacks in the same age group. More older Hispanics reported being depressed, lonely or a burden to others than did whites and blacks. They also were less likely to do volunteer work or be involved in their communities.

_Younger people are more likely to embrace technology. About 75 percent of adults 18 to 30 went online daily, compared with 40 percent of those 65 to 74 and about 16 percent for people 75 and older. The age gap widened over cell phones and text messaging. About 6 percent of those 65 and older used a cell phone for most or all of their calls; 11 percent sent or received text messages. That's compared with 64 percent of adults under 30 for cell phone use and 87 percent for texting.

_Americans differ on when old age begins. On average, they say 68. People under age 30 believe it begins at 60, while those 65 and older push the threshold to 74. Of all those surveyed, most said they wanted to live to 89.

Pew interviewed 2,969 adults by cell phone or landline from Feb. 23 to March 23. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points. In cases where older persons were too ill or incapacitated, their adult children were interviewed. Pew also used surveys conducted by Gallup, CBS and The New York Times to identify trends since 1969.

<b>Will Kashmir remain a part of India? </b>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Spread the word: Obama says he digs Urdu poetry

If you want to make high-brow small talk at one of President Barack Obama’s cocktail parties, don’t bother brushing up your Shakespeare. Try reading Urdu poetry.

As POLITICO’s Ben Smith points out in his blog, Obama showed off his intellectual flair by evoking a standard of Pakistani culture in a recent interview with Dawn, a popular English-language newspaper in Pakistan.

“‘I would love to visit. As you know, I had Pakistani roommates in college who were very close friends of mine. I went to visit them when I was still in college; was in Karachi and went to Hyderabad. Their mothers taught me to cook,’ said Mr Obama.

‘What can you cook?’

‘Oh, keema ... daal ... You name it, I can cook it. And so I have a great affinity for Pakistani culture and the great Urdu poets.’

‘You read Urdu poetry?’

‘Absolutely. So my hope is that I’m going to have an opportunity at some point to visit Pakistan,’ said Mr Obama.”

It may sound somewhat esoteric, but this ancient form of mystical and oft-times philosophical love poetry has been popular in Pakistan and parts of India for centuries. And there are a few things to know before you try to impress the poetry-lover-in-chief.

One of the most popular poets was Mirza Ghalib, whose work dates from the mid-19th century. The still-popular art form usually features the story of a lover scorned by his beloved. And there is almost never a happy ending. “Often the beloved is often a total witch,” says Gwen Kirk, a University of Texas master’s candidate in the subject of Urdu poetry. “She breaks the lover’s heart all the time; she neglects him. It’s all about the process of trying to get closer to the beloved, and it’s got a lot of Sufi and mystical elements as well.”

The ghazal is the most common form of Urdu poetry, and, like sonnets, it follows strict rules of form: four to 12 couplets with a meter and rhyme scheme. But the similarities end there. Couplets in an Urdu poem can sometimes be completely unrelated to each other, each delving into themes that range from unrequited love to the meaning of life.

Fear not if your Urdu — one of two official languages in Pakistan — is a little rusty. Obama likely reads one of the many translated compilations of the texts, according to Kirk. Or if he is a truly savvy Urdu poetry enthusiast, he may choose to listen to the poems recited or sung, as it is commonly performed in the region.

Obama’s admission that he shares an affinity with the “great Urdu poets” may get him further in the region than most think. The language and poetry are commonly associated with Pakistan’s and India’s Muslim population, according to Kirk, and it remains intensely popular in the region — poetry recitals sometimes attract gatherings of thousands of people.

“It does show a willingness to understand that part of the world,” says Kirk.

And in general, it gives Obama further credibility as a supporter of the arts. Not only is he one of three American presidents to have poetry read at their Inaugurations, but he reads the stuff, too!

Want to dig into Urdu poetry? Here’s an example of what awaits you:

To hell with all hindering walls and doors!

Love’s eye sees as feather and wing, walls and doors.

My flooded eyes blur the house

Doors and walls becoming walls and doors.

There is no shelter: my love is on her way,

They’ve gone ahead in greeting, walls and doors.

The wine of your splendor floods

Your street, intoxicating walls and doors.


In U.S. scandals, wives don't stand by their men
Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:02am EDT

By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Standing by your man suddenly seems to be going out of fashion for some American women in the public eye.

This month, the wives of at least two famous men caught cheating -- sexually and financially -- very openly declared that their spouses' behavior was actually quite scandalous.

Ruth Madoff, reacting to her husband Bernard being sentenced to 150 years in prison for bilking investors with a massive Ponzi scheme, said she felt "embarrassed," "ashamed" and "betrayed" by a man she had known for half a century.

"The man who committed this horrible fraud is not the man whom I have known for all these years," she said in a statement shortly after her husband's sentencing on Monday.

Last week, after South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford tearfully admitted to an affair with a woman in Argentina, his wife Jenny -- who was not by his side at his public confession -- left little doubt about her feelings.

"His career is not a concern of mine," she told reporters at a vacation home. "He's going to have to worry about that. I'm worried about my family and the character of my children."

Political analysts said the new attitude reflects generational and social change -- at least for some women in the United States.

"The old model didn't work," said Karlyn Bowman, an analyst of U.S. public opinion at the American Enterprise Institute.

The image of the tearful wife, hiding behind sunglasses, next to her husband while he unloaded his sins to the world, was "intensely embarrassing" and some women are deciding they do not have to follow that path, she said.

"It may be that women just feel that they can do whatever they want," Bowman said.

Of course, the quiet, supportive wife remains a public pillar for many scandal-hit men -- just look at former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's wife Silda, whose wordless turn at his side last year when he admitted visiting prostitutes drew some sharp commentary.

And it wasn't that long ago when Hillary Clinton, then first lady, weathered the storm beside her husband, President Bill Clinton, over his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky in the White House in the late 1990s.

More recently, Elizabeth Edwards, whose husband John Edwards ran for president as a Democrat last year, publicly spoke out about his infidelity while promoting her memoir "Resilience."

Edwards, who is battling cancer, told talk show host Oprah Winfrey of her shock at hearing from her husband that he had continued an affair with campaign worker Rielle Hunter after telling her in December 2006 he had slept with another woman.

"All the work we'd done, all the trust we had tried to build in the past year-plus, all thrown out the window," she said.

(Editing by John O'Callaghan)

DefendUSx March 21, 2009

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Peter F. Geithner, Treasury Secretary Geithner's father, worked for the Ford Foundation</b>.

No surprise here though, really. Obama and family are highly connected to the East Coast banking crime syndicate (Rockefellers, Soros, Ford Foundation etc.). In other words, Obama and family are highly connected to (Council on Foreign Relations) CFR banking family members, or better known as the Federal Reserve conglomerate.

The fairy-tale story that Obama delivered during the Democratic National Convention (the one with the Greek columns and the fireworks) about his mother living on food stamps was most probably just another little white lie that he told to the American people. Why? Stanley Ann Dunham was professionally connected to Tim Geithner's father, Peter. Please read this excerpt from the Economic Policy Journal:

"Who is Timothy Geithner?

Morgan Reynolds, who served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush's first term, has done a little fact checking on the new Treasury Secretary:

Who is Geithner? He is a creature of the eastern banking establishment and ruling class through and through. His résumé nicely matches his actions in handing out government money and guarantees to the "right people." Geithner’s father Peter is director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation, a New World Order operation. Peter Geithner oversaw the "microfinance" programs developed in Indonesia by Ann Dunham-Soetoro, Barack Obama’s mother. Geithner’s maternal grandfather, Charles F. Moore, was an adviser to President Eisenhower and vice president of Ford Motor Company, according to Wikipedia. Geithner’s wife Carole Marie, like Geithner a 1983 graduate of Dartmouth College (Ivy League), is daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Albert Sonnenfeld of Princeton, N.J., a professor of French and comparative literature at Princeton University (Ivy League) for 27 years."

Thus, Obama and Tim Geithner most probably were childhood friends. Remember Tony Rezko? Obama used Rezko to launder about $100 million of taxpayer dollars while Obama was still a State Senator. Geithner is Obama's right hand in accessing the Tony Rezkos (people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates) of the national level for Obama and the Democrats while he's President. That's why that with all this trouble about AIG, Obama is still not going to get rid of Geithner. Geithner is a valuable tool for them to rob this country through its national policies.
Peter Geithner (Tim's Father) was director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation, a New World Order (NWO) operation. Peter Geithner oversaw the "microfinance" programs developed in Indonesia by Ann Dunham-Soetoro, Barack Obama’s mother.

Note: As many of you may already know, the Clintons also have strong ties to the Indonesia Microfinance program. They have been to Indonesia several times to "take care of their business". It is the hub of the New World Order micro-finance scheme. The same scheme that was adopted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to trigger the collapse of the housing market. It was first instantiated by Carter (a NWO puppet), and then made increasingly effective by Clinton (another NWO puppet) by removing almost all restrictions. The Ford Foundation are partners with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Did you know that when Son of Stanley was going to school in Los Angeles, he went with a Pakistani friend to visit his mother in Indonesia, who was working for Peter Geithner at that time. After this, he spent a couple weeks in Pakistan, before he abruptly transferred to Columbia in New York where Peter Geithner was headquartered

A little more about Peter Geithner and his ties to known NWO operations:

<b>Peter F. Geithner is an advisor to the Asia Center at Harvard University and a consultant to the Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium, Rockefeller Foundation, Sasakawa Peace Foundation, and other organizations. He serves on the boards of the National Committee on United States-China Relations, the China Center for Economic Research (Peking University), the Center for the Advanced Study of India (University of Pennsylvania), Clemente (Holdings) Asia, Inc., and the Institute of Current World Affairs. </b>

Peter Geithner's obviously rather unconventional style, gives him a lot in common with Stanley Ann, considered to be a pioneer in the field of anthropological microfinance for underprivileged Asian women. Though from far different backgrounds, both parents afforded their sons with globe-trotting, exotic childhoods, culminating in Peter’s Son playing Robin to Stanley Ann’s OBatMan. Small world, huh?

According to The Atlantic, young Timmy Giethner's experiences at Dear Old Dad’s knee in Asia, even in China during the Tiananmen Square uprising, greatly influenced his life choices:

"First, his Asia background. Geithner’s father, Peter Geithner, was a development specialist who opened the Ford Foundation’s China office - the first foreign NGO here, under a special agreement that continues to this day. That was just before Tiananmen Square, and the father was part of the Foundation’s difficult but, ultimately, undoubtedly correct decision to remain engaged. Tim apparently also studied Chinese, was posted in Tokyo for Treasury, and focused on Asia studies as undergraduate and graduate student. This is all great background for Treasury’s international dealings in the coming years."

<b>Now you can see why China is lending us all this money for Socialist/Marxist agendas? China knows that if the US is to become Socialist/Marxist, our country will no longer lead the world in innovation and technology. China has their own plans for world "hemogany". In fact, Chinese leaders know that Communism doesn't work, and this is why they have adopted a simulation model of Western government through their "Strategic Moderization Objective".

There is also a solid link between the Islamic Banking Cooperative, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, The Ford Foundation, Devron Bank of Chicago and the Bank of Indonesia (Stanley A. Dunham was a research coordinator at this bank and a program officer for the Ford Foundation). </b>

Devron began selling Islamic home refinancing products for Muslims to Freddie Mac (see below).

CHICAGOLAND, ILLINOIS – Devon Bank today announced it would begin selling its Islamic home financing products to Freddie Mac, effectively expanding opportunities for Muslims living in Illinois and nine other states to become homeowners while observing traditional Islamic restrictions on paying interest on mortgages and other types of debt. Based in McLean, Va., Freddie Mac is one of the nation's largest investors in mortgages and Islamic home financing products. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
more on link<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mr. Geithner was with The Ford Foundation for 28 years, where he held program management positions mainly concerned with Asia. He was Director of Asia Programs from 1990 to 1996. Prior to assuming that position, he served for two and a half years as the Foundation’s first representative in Beijing, China. His earlier assignments with the Foundation included Program Officer in Charge, Developing Country Programs (New York), Representative for Southeast Asia (Bangkok), Deputy Head, Asia Pacific (New York), and <b>Deputy Representative for India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka (New Delhi</b>).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
California on the brink
California's financial troubles can be traced back to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978

<!--QuoteBegin-HareKrishna+Jul 2 2009, 01:32 PM-->QUOTE(HareKrishna @ Jul 2 2009, 01:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->California on the brink
<b>California's financial troubles can be traced back to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978</b>
Problem are democrats/liberals and spending or supporting illegal and long list of people on welfare. In so many cases, same people are getting welfare from multiple agencies.
Majority of Single mother and kids are under welfare. Over 930,000 kids are on welfare.
Couple live together with kids and never get married just to get subsidize home, govt pay utility, medical , school and pays mother who is not working but had time to get nails or hair color or night out in bar. My suggestion, single mother with one kid should be supported in case they fall under low income. If woman had another kid without father supporting, government should not support. Now single mother with 2-16 kids are supported by government. Encourage woman to get married and let father support kids not me and other tax paying citizens. Get tube tied, I don't want to support them. In California, 3 tax paying citizens are supporting 5 people (including illegals, scams ....)

We pay second highest tax and if there is no check, these fools will raise tax again. Even voters rejected tax hike, these democrats had found another loop hole, just increase fees on everything.
Do you know they are testing equipments to monitor how much miles people are driving so that they can tax based on miles driven because as revenue from Oil tax are drying up much faster because of efficient cars. In place of taxing people they should fix Social problem they are creating.

Proposition 13 in 1978 is only hope to keep check on democrats.
<b>Dollar's Days of Dominance Dead</b>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->While it may not constitute the final “nail in the coffin”, India commemorated the 4th of July by joining China and Russia in announcing they were seeking “alternatives” to the U.S. dollar (as “reserve currency”). With yet one more “prop” removed from the gangrenous greenback, this left only the submissive Japanese as the last major holder of U.S. dollars who strongly supports its continued status.

Bloomberg reported Saturday that the economic advisor to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has publicly and explicitly recommended that India reduce the U.S. dollar component of its currency reserves. “The major part of India reserves [totaling $264 billion] is in U.S. dollars – that is something that's a problem for us,” said Suresh Tendulkar.

These remarks come only one day after China's former Vice Premier, Zeng Peiyan stated, “There should be a system to maintain the stability of the major reserve currencies.”

Several comments need to be made with reference to this remark. First, China commonly uses “voices” of those associated to but not in the government to indirectly reveal its thoughts on issues. Thus the fact that Zeng is a former Vice Premier should not be taken to mean that his remark is not indicative of the position of the Chinese government.

Second, there were two subtleties which should cause Americans (and the Obama regime) serious concern. First, Zeng spoke of “major reserve currencies” - making it explicitly clear that he (and China) no longer consider the dollar the sole “reserve currency” today. The other point to ponder is Zeng's reference of a “system to maintain stability” in currency markets. The U.S. dollar was that system.

There is much more at stake here than economic prestige. As the Obama regime floods the world with trillions of dollars more in U.S. Treasuries, the Federal Reserve has already been forced to buy-up a significant part of those Treasuries (i.e. monetizing debt). Monetizing debt alone guarantees the steady decline of the U.S. dollar versus other currencies (with the exception of the British pound and Japanese yen) because other economies have not been weakened to the point of such desperation.

However, as major economies continue diversification out of the U.S. dollar, even as economic growth in these other countries produces growing budget surpluses once again, few if any of those surpluses will be channeled into U.S. dollars.

The process is already well underway. China alone has engaged in currency swaps and trade agreements which by itself, reduces the demand for U.S. dollars by hundreds of BILLIONS per year. Many other countries are also engaged in similar measures – with varying speeds.

Countries either indifferent or antagonistic to the U.S. (Russia, Iran and Venzuela) come to mind, are already well-advanced in practically eliminating the use of dollar in their foreign trade. However, even many of the U.S.'s “allies” (with the Western-dominated Persian Gulf countries coming to mind) are also well down the path of reducing the U.S. dollar to merely one of their major currency holdings.

Indeed, the combination of rapid, extreme dilution of the U.S. dollar, along with rapidly diminishing demand mean there is no “floor” visible for the dollar – at any price level.

Reinforcing a future of endless declines for the dollar are the U.S.'s totally unsustainable mountains of debt ($57 TRILLION in total public/private debt + another $70+ TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. In comparison, real U.S. GDP is a puny $11.5 trillion/year – not nearly enough to even keep up the payments on the debt (let alone ever actually paying-off a dollar).

The only possible way for the U.S. to delay national default on these debt-mountains is to devalue the U.S. dollar to such an extreme that the real value of all those trillions in debt becomes sustainable. This will obviously necessitate at least a 75% decline in the dollar's grossly-inflated current value – and even then the viability of the U.S. economy is extremely dubious, unless there are huge reductions in spending to accompany the massive devaluation of the dollar.

Keep in mind that due to the success of the U.S.'s relentless propaganda-machine, most other countries are just beginning to comprehend the dynamics of the U.S.'s unsupportable debts. As that awareness grows, the decline of the U.S. dollar is certain to accelerate rapidly.
Themes: U.S. dollar, U.S. economy<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Le Monde, France
<b>Is the American Model of Management Effective?</b>
By Armand Hatchuel
Translated By Mulanga Diane
30 Juin 2009
Edited by Alex Zhao
France - Le Monde - Original Article (French)
With the financial crisis still raging, the American model of management has come under greater scrutiny. The financial crisis was preceded by several corporate scandals (Enron, WorldCom, etc.) and the bankruptcy of the American auto industry. In contrast, many companies from developing countries succeeded in sustaining successful international growth while having little conformity with the doctrines of management in force across the Atlantic. Is this the end of the American model of management? Is it the birth of alternative models? Or is it a sign of the critical decline and need for innovation in management?

The history of management is inseparable from the American model, and the doctrines of management from the United States are attractive. But the realities in the business world often lag behind those doctrines.

After World War II, American firms were used to the techniques of support planning and bureaucratic management. But during 1970s this model was challenged by the success of Japanese companies, which revolutionized the methods of industrial production by introducing lean management and a participatory organization of work.

In the early 1990s, the United States came back on scene with the Silicon Valley model, which combined entrepreneurial dynamism, innovation, venture capital and strong public investment in research. The example was no longer General Motors, but rather a company like Intel or Google. This success through cooperative innovation allowed the United States to spread a vision throughout the financial and shareholder world, a mix of flexible technical and commercial competencies intended to provide a short-term competitive advantage.

This approach contributed to the current financial crisis. It also masked the patterns of growth and globalization of companies from developing countries which, however, did not have competitive advantages compared to major Western companies (Mauro F.Guillen and Esteban Garcia-Canal, “The American model of the multinational firm and the “new” multinationals from emerging economies,” Academy of Management Perspectives 3/2, May 2009). The new multinational corporations of Latin America (Embraer, Natura Cosméticos, Tenaris, etc.), China (Haier, Huawei, Lenovo), South Korea (Hyundai, LG, Samsung) and India (Infosys, Tata, Wipro, etc.) developed despite “lower management,” knowing that they have to overcome their weaknesses as much by imitation and learning as through innovation. They then looked for rapid international expansion opportunities based on adaptation to local markets, especially in developing countries. They emphasized alliances with more technologically advanced partners, while trying to find original management methods.

Is the American model of management in decline? It would be more plausible to believe that such a model has never really existed and that in the United States, as elsewhere, many designs have been developed and tested.

However, the doctrinal primacy of American management served better the reputations of “business schools” than the American companies which have succumbed to this delusion. Because in management, past knowledge is only useful if one is aware that future challenges will require the invention of new models. It is therefore necessary for management science not to disseminate false universal doctrines. Instead, it must become a scientific field which illuminates the variety of models, while helping to repair the broken ones.
People's Daily, China
America and the Taliban Fight Over the Internet
By Zou Zhipeng
Translated By Crystal Jin
23 June 2009
Edited by Jessica Boesl
As The Associated Press reported, U.S. forces in Afghanistan have launched a Facebook page, a Twitter page, and a YouTube page in an effort to combat the Taliban's growing use of internet propaganda by communicating their missions in Afghanistan to the world via cyberspace.

Since President Obama entered the White House, dealing with the safety problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan has become critical. International political analysts believe America’s old anti-terrorism methods did not work well, as the Taliban has become active again. The Washington Post reports that the internet has made Taliban militants increasingly powerful.

According to research, there are more than 4,000 terrorist websites, and still more under construction. The Taliban are inclined to control and command “invisible terrorists” all over the world via the internet, and to launch new attacks at any time. They search for targets and information, enlist recruits, and raise money over the internet. Furthermore, they use the internet as a “virtual rehearsal base” to train new terrorists. They also discuss how to produce or detonate bombs, how to carry out suicide attacks, and so on, over the internet. More and more frequently, the Taliban release their own statistics on American military casualties and citizen death tolls on the internet following air and other attacks. They also announce true or false terrorist information, playing mind games.

Although America has highly developed skills in the use of the internet, it has been placed in a disadvantageous position in this “information battle.” High-ranking American officials previously announced that American forces lost the “information battle” to the Taliban, and America’s old, reserved propaganda obviously has “paled in comparison.” The U.S. magazine Foreign Affairs reports that the Taliban is on the A-list tech-wise, trying many new internet tools to control multi-language broadcasts and rapidly propagandize their opinions on the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A battle between the Taliban and America has begun, without the smoke of gunpowder. In the face of the Taliban’s massive information attack and the prompt, wide coverage of the internet, American troops in Afghanistan have realized the special importance of seizing the higher ground in this internet battle. Former U.S. defense secretary Rumsfeld said that America must generate strategies for this internet battle. America can achieve ultimate victory in the war against terrorism only if it can win the battle of propaganda. It has been said that America has been forced to commence building its internet capabilities to gain command of this virtual territory.

Some military experts predict that, in the future, virtual information flow, rather than flying bullets, will become a key weapon in the battle to control the war. It’s obvious that it will become increasingly important in the future to control more information and gain more social influence on the internet so as to maintain power.
<img src='http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9711/usforeignpolicyflowchar.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Chinanews.com.cn, China
<b>Upcoming Talks Among China, Japan and the U.S.</b>
By Shao pu Wang
Translated By Shanshan Zhu
2 July 2009
so much for the dollar <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev pulls new world currency from his pocket

Mr Medvedev, who has been seeking ways to displace the dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency, produced a sample coin of what he described as a 'united future world currency'.

“Here it is,” Mr Medvedev said, according to Bloomberg. “You can see it and touch it.” The coin, which was minted in Belgium, was presented to all the G8 leaders attending the summit and bears the words 'unity in diversity.'


Le Figaro, France
<b>Barack Obama Discovers the Russian Giant</b>
By Laure Mandeville
It appears that the Russians are, across the world, among the most skeptical of the Obama phenomenon.
People's Forum, China
<b>America to be the World’s Center as English Enters an Outbreak Era</b>

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)