Muslim Thieves Rape Girl When They Realize Victim is Christian

Muslim Thieves Rape Girl When They Realize Victim is Christian


The Washington-DC based human rights group, International Christian Concern (ICC) www.persecution.org has just learned that six unidentified men went on a robbing spree in a rural village in Pakistan on the night of January 10, and when they realized that one of the households they were robbing was Christian, they gang-raped a 14-year-old girl in front of her parents to violate their faith.

The six criminals, armed with guns, forced their way into two Muslim houses and three Christian homes, physically assaulted the residents, and took cash, TVs, cell phones and other valuables.

After robbing the homes, the six men returned to Rafiq Masih’s house and began mocking Rafiq and his wife for being Christians. Not satisfied with the damage they had already inflicted, the thieves then bound Rafiq and his wife and gang-raped Rafiq’s teenage daughter Naomi right in front of them.

The criminals left Naomi unconscious and in critical condition and escaped with the stolen items. Naomi was immediately taken to the hospital.

The local police have registered a case against the six men for robbery and for gang-raping Naomi. The thieves are still at large but police sources said that investigations are underway and pledged to track down the culprits.

The location they struck was Chak (village) # 17/11-L near Cheecha Watni in the southern part of Pakistan’s Punjab province. The three Christian homes belonged to brick kiln workers Saleem Masih, Rafiq Masih and Bashir Masih.

International Christian Concern

Raul Castro arrives in Russia to boost ties

Raul Castro arrives in Russia to boost ties
Jan 28 10:35 AM US/Eastern

MOSCOW (AP) – Cuban leader Raul Castro arrived in Russia on Wednesday for a visit intended to boost ties between the former Cold War allies.

Castro is scheduled to meet with President Dmitry Medvedev and other Russian officials during his eight-day trip.

The Soviet Union provided billions of dollars in trade and subsidies to Cuba before its 1991 collapse. Russia has sought recently to reinvigorate ties with Cuba and other Caribbean nations to challenge U.S. influence in the region.

Medvedev visited Cuba and several other nations in the region in November, and Russia also sent a navy squadron to the Caribbean. Russian navy ships held joint maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy and made port calls in several countries of the region, including Cuba.

Castro told the ITAR-Tass news agency before the trip that Cuba and Russia enjoy “wonderful relations” again after a lull in the 1990s.

In the interview, Castro backed Russia in its disputes with the U.S. over the Bush administration’s efforts to place missile defense facilities in Europe and to put ex-Soviet nations Ukraine and Georgia on track to join NATO.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he expected Castro’s visit to “mark an important milestone” in bilateral ties.

In an interview with the Cuban government press agency Prensa Latina posted Wednesday on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Web site, Lavrov said that that Castro and Russian leaders will discuss the global issues, including the situation in the Caribbean and efforts to increase economic ties.

Lavrov also reaffirmed Russia’s call for the United States to lift its trade embargo on Cuba. “We intend to firmly pursue our course for lifting the blockade, which we see as a vestige of the long gone era,” he said.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Ahmadinejad Demands Apology for U.S. ‘Crimes’

Ahmadinejad Demands Apology for U.S. ‘Crimes’

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

TEHRAN, Iran —  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for “profound changes” in U.S. foreign policy on Wednesday, including giving up support for Israel, during an address to thousands of people in the western city of Kermanshah.

President Obama on Tuesday, in an interview with Arabic television, called for more dialogue with Iran to express difference and see “where there are potential avenues for progress.”

Without mentioning President Barack Obama by name, Ahmadinejad Wednesday repeatedly referred to those who want to bring “change,” a word used often in Obama’s election campaign, and indicated that Iran would be looking to see if there would be substantive differences in U.S. policy.

“We welcome change but on condition that change is fundamental and on the right track,” Ahmadinejad said. “When they say ‘we want to make changes’, change can happen in two ways. First is a fundamental and effective change… The second … is a change of tactics.”

Ahmadinejad also demanded the U.S. apologize for ‘crimes’ committed against Iran; specifically, criticizing and trying to block their nuclear program.

“Those who say they want to make change, this is the change they should make: they should apologize to the Iranian nation and try to make up for their dark background and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation,” Ahmadinejad said.

Later Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that the U.S. administration is undertaking a wide-ranging and comprehensive survey of U.S. foreign policy options toward Iran.

Clinton also said Iran had a “clear opportunity” to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari, speaking in Athens, Greece, said Tuesday that it was too early to say whether relations with the United States would improve with Obama as president.

Washington is at odds with Tehran over Iran’s nuclear program and its Mideast policy that seeks to destroy Israel and supports the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas.

Related Stories

Photo Essays

The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the charge and refuses to give up uranium enrichment, saying it has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to produce nuclear fuel.

“Who has asked them (the United States) to come and interfere in the affairs of nations?” Ahmadinejad said.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Ayatollah Jannati: God Bless the President of Venezuela

Ayatollah Jannati: God Bless the President of Venezuela PDF Print E-mail

Americas Best Videos, ABV, is offering a fifty dollar award for the best video of a Predator Drone firing a missile at this miserable human scumbag - Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, and blowing this pig into smithereens….
January 27, 2009
No. 2214
Memri.org

In Friday Sermon, Iranian Guardian Council Chairman Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati Mocks Obama, Says He Wishes Someone Would “‘Waste’ a Bullet” on Israeli FM Tzipi Livni, and Incites Against Mubarak, Saying “Sometimes We See [Mubarak] Obeying America, And Sometimes We See That He Is an Ally of Israel”

In his Friday, January 16, 2009 sermon, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati gave the regime’s main sermon, at TehranUniversity. Jannati, who is secretary of the regime’s Guardian Council, holds a key regime post; in the capacity of his position, he has the power to reject candidates in elections, and can also reject laws that the Majlis has already approved if he thinks that they are not shari’a-compliant. Jannati is an official mouthpiece of the regime, and the views that he expresses in his sermons are explicitly those of the regime. [1]

Furthermore, it is known that the main themes and topics of the official Friday sermons given at Tehran University and elsewhere in the country are chosen in advance every week, by a committee headed by Iranian Expediency Council chairman Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani; the list is then distributed to the official regime preachers. The regime’s main weekly sermon is delivered at TehranUniversity, and is attended by thousands; it is also broadcast by Iranian TV.

The following are the highlights of the main regime sermon at TehranUniversity on Friday, January 16, 2009, delivered by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, as reported by the official Iranian news agency IRNA, the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), and Iranian TV’s Channel 1, all on January 16, 2009. It should be noted that while IRNA did not mention Jannati’s more extreme statements, ISNA and Channel 1 did: [2]

“God Bless the President of Venezuela”

Ayatollah Jannati said, “The matter [of Gaza] does not give rest to men of honor. It is impossible to view these sights, of children, the flowers of the land, and unarmed people, killed with such cruelty. Praised be the people across the world [who demonstrated], [and] the students [who entrenched themselves at Mehrabad airport in Tehran] and declared their support for the Gaza residents. The Majlis and the [Iranian] government outdid themselves, and sent messages to government heads and foreign ministers, and they are acting courageously. [Majlis speaker] Dr. [Ali] Larijani held meetings with the heads of other parliaments in the world, during which many of them condemned [the Gaza] matter – but who is listening to this?”

Referring to U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 1860, Jannati said: ‘How can they be called human beings? How can [anyone] see these wretched people and ignore them? Here begins our heavy obligation and responsibility, to show the corrupt superpowers, the corrupt, and those who defend the corruption that it is incumbent upon the Islamic Republic of Iran to be the savior, to gird [its] loins, and to advance with the knowledge that God will also help.

“Hizbullah, inspired by Islamic Iran, has successfully struck powerfully, with its masses, at Israel and America, and at the rest of the Western countries that supported Israel. Now the same situation is [recurring] in Gaza. Wherever Iran has toehold, it will save and rescue them.

“God bless the President of Venezuela, who enthusiastically and courageously expelled the Israeli ambassador. Shame on the useless Arab rulers who, unlike Venezuela – which is not even an Islamic country – have not severed political ties [with Israel]. Does this cost you anything? Are you afraid of America? You should be afraid, because you lack faith and courage, and your peoples have no respect for you. So why shouldn’t you be afraid? You fear for your positions. You should be afraid.”
“The Worst Are Saudi Arabia and Egypt – Because They Are the Great Regional Powers”

“But come and join your people. In every country, the people are ready… Of course, the worst are Saudi Arabia and Egypt, because they are the great regional powers.

“When a demonstration took place somewhere in Saudi Arabia, it was silenced. They do not give people room to breathe there. At least in Egypt, there were some [demonstrations], but even there, silence rules. Sometimes we see [Mubarak] obeying America, and sometimes, we see that he is an ally of Israel.

“What is left for the people to do? They should fear the day when the people’s revolution, the rage of God, and the rage of the people grab them by their clothes and drag them down to collapse.”

“People Are Truly Amazed When They Watch a President [Obama]… Saying: ‘My Only Concern Is To Find a Dog for My Daughter’”

Jannati continued: “Evaluate yourself, your regime, Islam, the Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] and your leaders – because the world is on a steep decline towards collapse. People are truly amazed when they watch a president [Obama] laughing and saying: ‘My only concern is to find a dog for my daughter.’ Phooey on you and those who voted for you! Is this how it should be? A president is not ashamed to be thinking about a dog, rather than about [the Israeli] foreign minister? This is how it is – they want to rule the world.” [3]
“Every Time I See That Woman’s [Livni's] Face, I Wish Somebody Would ‘Waste’ a Bullet On Her”

“On the other hand, every time I see that woman’s face, I wish somebody would ‘waste’ a bullet on her. I watched her say… First, she goes and shakes hands with the Egyptian president. Shame on him for shaking the hand of a woman – especially an enemy.

Jannati continued, “This person [Livni] said that our [i.e. Israel's] war is a defense of values. See how a human being expresses themselves in such an insane way. Is killing children defense of values? Is destroying mosques and hospitals and using phosphorus bombs against humans [defense of values]?

“Nothing remains of the Security Council and the European Union. Under these conditions, the heads of the Arab Muslim regimes want to hold a conference, but again Saudi Arabia and Egypt object to participating and are trying also to influence others to refuse to participate. This is the time to act to carry out justice, for the love of God, and for fighting against the oppression and corruption.

“Thank God that our brave, heroic, and dear leader [Khamenei] stands at the head, and that his words of encouragement strengthen the soul and revive the hearts. His messages crosses the borders of Iran and inspires with these words: As long as Iran stands, people will protest.

“I hope that the day will come – as conveyed in a message by our dear leader – when we will all celebrate the victory of Hamas in Jerusalem, God willing.

“Bravo to the fighting spirit! Bravo – [because] even though the Palestinians are wallowing in their own blood, they have not surrendered and have held out for 20 days so far. [We] hope that God will protect them and will wreak the vengeance of the weak…”

——————————————————————————–

[1] IRNA, ISNA, Iranian TV Channel 1 (Iran), January 16, 2007. On January 17, 2007, in an article on the sermon, The Associated Press reported, “Statements made at Friday prayers do not represent government foreign policy, neither do they constitute official statements by the state.” The International Herald Tribune, January 17, 2009, http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/17/news/ML-Iran-Israel.php, and other sources.

[2] Another segment of the sermon, reported by IRNA, concerned Iran’s Five-Year Economic Development Plan (see http://www.thememriblog.org/iran/blog_personal/en/13161.htm ).

[3] In Iranian culture, dogs are considered filthy and are not kept as pets, except by outcasts.

Mexico:Death and Destruction Continue to Intensify

Mexico:Death and Destruction Continue to Intensify PDF Print E-mail

January 27, 2009

M3Report

El Universal (Mexico City) 1/24/09

In the past few hours, 34 murders by organized crime and narcotraffickers have been reported, 22 in Chihuahua state and the rest in six other states in Mexico.  Among those killed were two children, two businessmen and an agent of the Federal Agency of Investigations [equiv: FBI].  Also counted in the murders were two decapitations in Celaya, Guanajuato, the heads found with a narco-message from Los Zetas directed against the group called La Familia.

The Mexican Army and Federal Police in Tijuana, Baja California, arrested Santiago Meza Lopez, 45, known as “El Pozolero del Teo,” [roughly, Teo's soup  maker].  He is reportedly listed as number 20 on the FBI’s most wanted.  He has allegedly disposed of more than 300 bodies of those murdered by the Arellano Felix cartel in 2008. For his services, he was paid 600 dollars per week.   His alias alludes to his method of disposing of bodies by dissolving them in acid when he worked under the leadership of Teodoro Garcia Simental, “El Teo,” who now works for the Sinaloa cartel.

——-

Frontera (Tijuana, Baja California) 1/24/09

Following the arrest of Meza Lopez (above), who has admitted at least 300 body disposals, a citizens’ organization presented the Mexican department of justice (PGR) photographs from 30 families who are missing relatives.  They hope the PGR prisoner might help in identifying them.

——-

El Universal (Cartegena, Colombia) 1/24/09

The director of Colombian police, General Oscar Naranjo, said his men are not intimidated by an offer of 1,000 dollars (US) for each policeman killed, made by a major narcotrafficker.  The narco-boss,  Daniel Rendon Herrera, alias “Don Mario,” is the country’s most wanted and is under pressure from a police operation taking place in the northern section of Colombia.  General Naranjo said Don Mario’s offer indicates that the operation is accomplishing its purpose.  “This announcement has raised the morale of our police and has not frightened any of them,” he assured.  As a precaution, his forces have been instructed not to patrol alone and to take all meals within their military compounds.

——-
El Universo  (Guayaquil, Ecuador) 1/24/09

“A group of 104 Ecuadoran migrants deported by United States officials arrived last night (at the airport in) Guayaquil.”
[News research for the preparation of this report shows that, other than Mexico and Central American countries, Ecuador is the most prolific and frequent Western Hemisphere source of emigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.]
——-

La Hora  (Guatemala City, Guatemala) 1/24/09

An op/column by Roberto Arias titled “Rainbow : Eradicating violence?” begins as follows:

Eradicating violence in a country where organized crime, the maras [note: "MS13" gangs], narcotraffic, the judicial system, large sectors of private enterprise and widespread institutional and governmental segments are corrupt is not a task for one but for several governments in a row. It is impossible that just one person of limited resources could magically do away with what has become deeply rooted in Guatemala decades ago.
——-

Sunday 1/25/09

El Imparcial (Hermosillo, Sonora) 1/25/09

A family in Nogales, Sonora, was attacked by gunfire Saturday evening, killing two and gravely wounding a baby.  Witnesses said the attack happened at an intersection when the family’s car was blocked by another.  The attacker got out of his car with an AK47 assault rifle and shot the driver of the other car at pointblank range and then shot a woman trying to escape from the vehicle.  The vehicle had at least 20 impacts.  These homicides bring the total to double those for the same period last year in Nogales.

The “center of gravity” of the narco war in the Americas has shifted from Colombia to Mexico, according to General Oscar Naranjo, head of the Colombian national police.  He said that with the “disappearance” of the Colombian cartel, Norte del Valle, the Colombians are trying not to have conflicts with the Mexican bosses.  The general described two levels in the narco business: a subordinate one of supply and transport and the other, the relationship between the bosses of Colombia and Mexico.  In this arrangement, what he called the center of gravity of narco traffic, has shifted to Mexico.  General Naranjo emphasized that, after 30 years of efforts in the struggle against narco traffic, it is not possible to back down now that a change in direction has been achieved.  “Colombia is no longer the provider of 90% of the world’s cocaine, but rather 54%, the rest is contributed by Peru and Bolivia,” he pointed out.

——-

El Nuevo Diario (Managua, Nicaragua) 1/25/09

According to Nicaraguan federal police reports, Mexican police arrested 138 immigrants, among them a child of four years, traveling hidden in a truck in the state of Chiapas. The truck had no documentation and, for that reason was searched and the people discovered.  The group of immigrants was made up of Albanians, Brazilians and Central Americans.  According to Mexican immigration statistics, 40,050 undocumented immigrants were arrested in the state of Chiapas.

[This article was followed by two noteworthy reader comments, presumably from Central Americans.]

Mario Aguirre writes: The Mexicans have the cruelest immigration laws.  They arrest every immigrant arriving in their country en route to the US.  And they do it because they don’t want them to better themselves.  Only they, the Mexicans, want to immigrate to the US and take over the southern states of that country.  They are carrying out a silent invasion against the Americans.

Teo writes: All the Mexican leaders are hypocrites in regards to immigration policies.   They complain that their citizens are arrested and deported after having a trial before an immigration judge, while they deport Central Americans and Cubans within a few hours after being arrested and without having a hearing before a Mexican immigration judge.

——-

El Comercio  (Lima, Peru) 1/25/09

Some fifty aliens were expelled from Peru in 2008. The majority were Ecuadorians but there were also a couple from the U.S., Colombia and Venezuela plus a smattering from a number of other countries in Europe and one individual from Japan.
The Peruvian General who heads the Migrations and Naturalization Department said that the majority had either stayed longer than permitted, had entered with fraudulent documents or had become employed, “which is forbidden.”
——-

Monday 1/26/09

Frontera (Tijuana, Baja California) 1/26/09

An armed group attacked the police facility in Tijuana this morning where “El Pozolero” [above, Sunday] is detained.  The attack, carried out with from at least three vehicles with high powered weapons, resulted in only material damage to the building.  Officials surmise that the attack was in relation to the arrest of El Pozolero and two other other members of the Arellano Felix cartel arrested with him.

——-

El Universal (Mexico City) 1/26/09

The President of Guatemala is said to pray daily that the narcotrafficker Daniel Perez Rojas, “El Cachetes” has not escaped prison in his country.  Perez, a leader of Los Zetas, was arrested in April, 2008, in Guatemala after a battle between Mexican and Guatemalan drug gangs in which 11 were killed.  [M3 reports 4/16-17/08 and 10/9/08]  He is imprisoned in Guatemala under heavy guard.  Both Mexico and the US requested his extradition after his arrest.  The Guatemalan Secretary of Government, Salvador Gandara, said that every morning the President calls him asking “how are we doing with the jails?” and the Secretary answers that no one has escaped.  “Why don’t we turn him over to the Mexican authorities who have better facilities?” asks the Secretary.  Since his incarceration, security officials have detected seven attempts by “El Cachete” to escape.

——-

El Diario en Linea (Chihuahua) 1/26/09

Five men in a vehicle were killed by gunfire in Chihuahua city yesterday afternoon.  Another murder occurred yesterday morning bringing the total to 14 killed over the weekend just in the capital city of Chihuahua.  All this action took place despite “intensive patrols” by elite military units and Federal Police.  The five killed in the car were being chased by another vehicle when they crashed into an obstacle and came to a stop, giving the pursuing vehicle the opportunity to finish them off at close range with about 100 rounds before fleeing.

In Cd. Juarez, Chihuuahua, five men on motorcycles were gunned down together last evening.  No further details were given.

——-

El Debate (Sinaloa) 1/26/09

The Mexican immigration agency (INM) predicts the repatriation of an estimated 100,000 Mexicans from the US in January alone.  The INM identified the period from January to March as the most intensive in deportations and this year the special circumstances in the US – immigration raids and unemployment – would influence the statistics.  At present, the agency reports that some 3,000 Mexicans repatriate daily, mostly “involuntarily.”

——-

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORMER BORDER PATROL OFFICERS
Visit our website: http://www.nafbpo.org
Foreign News Report

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) extracts and condenses the material that follows from Mexican and Central and South American on-line media sources on a daily basis. You are free to disseminate this information, but we request that you credit NAFBPO as being the provider.

Big Inflation Coming and The Scariest Chart Ever

If this doesn’t give you pause, nothing will. From East Coast Economics:

Here is a chart of federal borrowing through Dec. 2007.

Now, same chart through December 2008.

Anyone still think there are not some rough patches down the road?

Big Inflation Coming

Late 2008’s stock panic has certainly had a complex and multifaceted impact on popular psychology. Mindsets and outlooks that were scoffed at as recently as 6 months ago have suddenly become fashionable. One of the more intriguing is the meteoric rise to prominence of the deflation thesis.

The growing legions of deflationists see an unstoppable depression-like deflationary spiral approaching like a freight train. They cite some convincing data. The stock markets have been cut in half in just a year. In the past 6 months, some key commodities prices fell farther and faster than they did in the entire Great Depression. House prices are down by double digits across the nation, with no bottom in sight. And credit is a lot harder to come by today than in any other time in modern memory.

In light of these universal falling prices, how could we not be entering a sustained deflationary period? The case may seem airtight, but I’d like to offer a contrarian view in this essay. Believe it or not, despite 2008’s price collapse there is plenty of overlooked evidence suggesting big inflation is coming. You won’t hear much about this on CNBC, but it could have a big impact on your investments in the years ahead.

Inflation and deflation are purely monetary phenomena. Inflation is not just a rise in prices, lots of things can drive prices higher. Inflation is the very specific case of a rise in general price levels driven by an increasing money supply. If the money in an economy grows at a faster rate than the pool of goods and services on which to spend it, general prices are bid higher as a result. Only money creates inflation.

Consider this example. You live in a small town in rural Texas with 10k people and 3k houses. A small local explorer discovers a gigantic new oilfield, an elephant. Within months your town’s population swells to 20k as a major oil company partners with the explorer to start developing the find. House prices skyrocket as 20k people compete for only 3k houses. Is this inflation? No, it is pure supply and demand. Its driver was not monetary in nature.

Similarly deflation is not just falling prices, but falling prices driven by a contraction in the money supply. It is true that most modern economists would add contracting credit to this definition as well, but money is very different from credit. Would you rather receive a gift of $100k cash or a new $100k credit line? While you can spend both, money is very different from credit, which is short-term debt.

Carrying the Texas town illustration farther, imagine oil prices fall by 90% in the years after the big discovery. The oilfield work dries up and there is a mass exodus of people. House prices collapse. Is this deflation? Of course not, it is pure supply and demand as well. Lower local demand for houses drove down prices, not a contraction in the greater money supply. This distinction is very important to keep in mind.

We witnessed a stock panic in late 2008, an exceedingly rare event. The dictionary definition of this is “a sudden widespread fear concerning financial affairs leading to credit contraction and widespread sale of securities at depressed prices in an effort to acquire cash.” Panics are bubbles in fear which drive investors to liquidate everything they can at any price. They get so scared they only want to hold cash.

When all investment assets are sold heavily in a short period of time, prices naturally collapse. But this is not deflation if it is not driven by a contraction in the money supply. For stocks, commodities, and houses, prices fell sharply in the second half of 2008 because there was a sudden huge oversupply relative to demand. Many more investors wanted out than wanted in, so prices plunged. They had to fall until a new equilibrium was reached, low enough to retard supply (investors too disgusted to sell anymore) and raise demand (from other bargain-hunting investors).

Now the deflation argument is strongest for houses because most buyers borrow to buy houses. So the stock panic’s impact on credit availability definitely hurt the housing market. But the degree of impact is debatable. Sure, borrowers needed to be more creditworthy and put more cash down in late 2008 than in 2006. But the stock panic scared people so much that they may have slowed house purchases anyway even if banks were begging to give them easy loans like in 2006. Panics breed extreme economic fear, and extreme economic fear greatly slows big purchases no matter how easily they could be made.

Acknowledging that debt-financed house prices are a special case that may indeed be deflationary (contraction of credit), I am focusing on stocks and commodities in this essay. From October 2007 to November 2008, the flagship S&P 500 stock index plunged 51.9%. About 4/7ths of these losses snowballed in just 9 weeks during the stock panic. From July 2008 to December 2008, the flagship Continuous Commodity Index plummeted 46.7%. Almost half of this mushroomed during the stock panic.

Deflationists argue these price drops are proof of deflation, and most people today believe this. But they are only deflationary if they were driven by a contraction in the money supply. Stocks and commodities are generally cash markets. Credit such as stock margin can be used, but it is trivial relative to the market sizes. And real commodities purchased for industrial uses are paid for in cash or near-cash (short-term trade loans), not multi-decade loans like houses. So the money supply during 2008’s slides is the key.

If available money to spend indeed contracted, then the deflationists are right about seeing deflation in 2008. But if the money supply fell by less than stocks and commodities plunged, was flat, or even grew, then deflationists are wrong. When prices fall simply because demand declines (too much fear to buy anything immediately), this is merely supply and demand. If money didn’t drive it, then it isn’t deflation.

This first chart is updated from an inflation essay I wrote last May (where it was explained in depth). It shows the broad MZM money supply (yellow), the annual growth in MZM (blue), and the annual growth in the Consumer Price Index (red). There are all kinds of problems with the CPI, but it remains the most-accepted definition of “inflation” on Wall Street even though it measures prices and not the money supply.

click to enlarge

Since the deflationists believe the plunges in stocks (since October 2007) and commodities (since July 2008) are deflation, this time frame is where we will focus. MZM, or money of zero maturity, is a broad measure of the liquid money supply in the economy. It measures all currency, checking accounts, savings accounts, and money market funds redeemable on demand. It does not include CDs and other time deposits.

Starting in October 2007, when the US stock markets began sliding into cyclical-bear mode, year-over-year MZM growth was running 11.9%. There were 11.9% more US dollars available to spend in October 2007 than in October 2006. This soared to 16.4% YoY growth by March 2008. The growth rate then slowed considerably in Q3’08 to 9.0% at worst, and then accelerated again during the panic to 12.6% in late December. Overall, average annual MZM growth since the stock slide started measured 13.1%!

Since the commodities slide started in July 2008, annual MZM growth on a weekly basis has averaged 11.6%. It never shrunk! If the broad US money supply always grew by at least 9% over the period of these sharply lower prices the deflationists cite, and averaged 12% to 13%, then how on earth could the stock slide or commodities slide be deflationary? Prices didn’t fall because there was less money available to spend on stocks and commodities, but because demand plunged relative to supply.

Deflation is exclusively monetary in nature. And since mid-2007, when the general credit crunch started unfolding, the Fed has grown broad money by the fastest annual rates seen since the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This fact is indisputable. Without a shrinking money supply, negative growth rates, there is no basis for declaring deflation. Redefining “deflation” to mean something it is not doesn’t make it so. I can rail all day about the sun really being black, not white, but that doesn’t make the sun black.

Now if you work on Wall Street, you probably believe the CPI gospel. Surely our benevolent government wouldn’t lie to us about inflation, would it? Actually it has huge incentives to underreport inflation. Inflationary expectations hurt the stock markets, and weak stock markets hurt the economy as the stock panic abundantly proved. Scared citizens are not only harder to rule over, but they won’t vote for politicians’ reelections and they won’t be able to shoulder as big of tax burden to pay for politicians’ grand spending plans.

And then there are those pesky income-redistribution entitlements that take away spending from politicians’ pet projects. Most of these are indexed to CPI inflation. Politicians want to bribe constituents for votes with pork, not pay more of “their” money in mandatory transfer payments. A higher reported CPI means higher non-discretionary spending on social security and other entitlements. So the government has all kinds of reasons to underreport inflation and it does.

Thus the CPI is a joke, riddled with statistical sleights of hand deliberately designed to downplay rising prices. In addition, it measures the effect, rising prices, and not the cause, a growing money supply. True monetary inflation is almost always higher than the CPI’s custodians lead investors to believe. Nevertheless, Wall Street wants to believe the CPI nonsense so the CPI still has mainstream credibility even when it should have none.

Even though it is perpetually understated, the CPI still makes a mockery of the deflationists’ arguments on the recent sharp stocks and commodities declines. Since October 2007, the CPI has averaged 3.9% annual growth. It peaked at a very inflationary 5.6% year-over-year in July 2008 as commodities prices topped. While it did plunge in the panic, it was still positive throughout the whole thing. 4.9% YoY in September, 3.7% in October, 1.1% in November, and 0.1% in December.

Per the CPI, the rate of headline inflation is slowing. This is not deflation. Deflation is shrinkage. Slowing yet still growing inflation is disinflation. They are very different beasts. The deflationists not only want to redefine deflation as falling prices independent of money, which is silly based on many centuries of history that defined it as purely monetary, but they have confused disinflation with deflation. They ought to buy some dictionaries to see what words really mean before they embarrass themselves further.

Regardless, if you consider inflation from a monetary-growth cause standpoint or a CPI effect standpoint, there has not yet been a single data point of deflation despite stock prices and commodities prices getting sliced in half. We may see deflation yet, anything can happen in the markets. But so far it is a myth. It was plunging demand driven by a bubble in fear that hit prices, not a shrinking money supply.

Another relevant misconception along these lines is that falling investment prices reduce money. This isn’t true. The money supply is totally independent of investment levels. Plunging asset prices do not destroy money despite some fringe deflationists actually making this argument. They claim that since stock, commodities, and house prices have fallen, money is being destroyed. But this is not how money works in the real world.

Imagine an investor buys stock for $10k. To receive his shares, his broker transfers $10k of money from his account to the seller’s. The seller now has $10k, the buyer now has shares. The money simply changed hands. Then a stock panic hits and the shares plunge 50%. The investor’s fear gets the best of him so he frantically liquidates these shares for $5k. A new buyer’s broker transfers $5k from the buyer’s account to the investor’s. Did the investor’s original $10k of cash get destroyed in this stock plunge?

Of course not. The original seller could have taken that $10k and parked it in a bank. He could still have the $10k if he wasn’t in the assets that plunged in price when demand evaporated during the stock panic. Money is a medium of exchange. Rising asset prices don’t create it in an aggregate sense and falling asset prices don’t destroy it. Sure, you can get a bigger share of the overall money pool if your assets are rising in price, but only the central bank can affect the size of that money pool. You and I can’t.

Which brings us to the title of this essay, big inflation coming. While the deflation thesis is easily refuted for stocks and commodities, the actual money-supply data the deflationists perpetually ignore offers more insights. During the stock panic, central banks around the world panicked. They fear deflation too, so they started cranking up the printing presses at phenomenal rates. The epic deluge of money they unleashed is going to filter into the real economy and drive up general price levels.

You can see this above in MZM growth. The US economy is shrinking thanks to the panic, there are less goods and services on which to spend money. Yet simultaneously the Fed is recklessly ramping broad money at double-digit rates. Sooner or later relatively more money will be bidding for relatively less goods and services, which will drive up prices. You simply can’t have 10%+ MZM growth without seeing big inflation eventually. The Fed last did this in late 2001 (panicking after 9/11) which helped initially kick start the commodities bulls.

As if 13%+ annual growth in broad money wasn’t inflationary enough, I can’t believe what is happening in narrow money. M0, the narrowest measure, is usually called the monetary base. It is simply currency (coins and paper dollars) in circulation and in bank vaults plus reserves commercial banks have on deposit with the Fed. These reserves are critical because they are the base from which all other forms of money such as checking accounts are created. The monetary base directly controls the ultimate size of fractional-reserve banking.

Until late 2008, I hadn’t looked at M0 for years. Why? Even the Fed isn’t foolish enough to change it too much. For decades it has traveled in a tight range between about 2% and 10% annual growth, with a pre-panic average since 1960 of 6.0%. M0 growth less real economic growth is one of the most basic measures of inflation. If M0 grows at 6% and the underlying economy at 3%, then there is relatively 3% more money available to spend on goods and services. This is inflation.

I was reading a book last month that discussed the monetary base’s direct impact on inflation. So I decided to take a look at M0 again. I could not believe what the data showed, I almost fell out of my chair it was so mind-blowing. Per the Fed’s own data, we have just witnessed the most inflationary event in modern history. This crazy monetary base chart will make even the most rabid deflationist very uneasy.

M0 has gone parabolic! Year-over-year in December 2008, it was up 98.9%! This is so shocking it defies belief. In late September as the stock panic started, it had grown by 9.9% over the past year. By October, this rate ballooned to an all-time high of 36.7%. In November, it rocketed again to 73.0%. And in December, it surged up to the staggering 98.9% you can see above. Ben Bernanke’s Fed has doubled the monetary base in a single year! Holy cow.

Between January 1960 and August 2008, the 48-year pre-panic average M0 growth rate was 6.0% and the range was pretty tight as you can see above. 10% growth rates were rare and often preceded sharp gains in commodities prices (mid-1970s, late 1970s). The Y2k scare led to the highest monetary-base growth rate ever to that point, 15.8% as the Fed prepared for an expected run on currency. Yet that is now dwarfed by the unprecedented parabolic explosion in M0 seen during late 2008’s stock panic.

That Y2k spike’s aftermath is interesting too. By January 2000, the Fed knew the world wasn’t going to end. Yet it took it over a year to try and take out some of that excess liquidity, and it was a feeble effort. M0 growth didn’t go negative until December 2000, and this modest and brief 2-month episode was the only shrinkage seen in the monetary base since 1961. So even if the Fed tries to reverse its doubling of M0 after it stops being scared of deflation, it isn’t going to happen overnight. The money supply will be much larger going forward.

How did such a crazy inflation spike happen? After Bernanke’s Fed foolishly ran interest rates to zero to try and force investors out of Treasuries and back into stocks, it ran out of conventional ammunition to fight the panic. So it started buying securities directly, which is purely inflationary. When you buy a bond, you have to first raise the cash to do it. When the Fed buys a bond, it literally creates the money out of thin air with the stroke of a keyboard. Every security the Fed buys is paid for with pure inflation, new money.

Sure, the Fed can shrink the monetary base if it resells these securities. When the Fed sells back a bond, the buyer pays the Fed money which then effectively vanishes. It shrinks M0. So while the Fed could undo this inflationary superspike, Bernanke’s dismal pro-inflation record suggests it is highly unlikely to happen. This easy-money Fed is loath to ever shrink money even when the economy is contracting, so I don’t have any hopes that this doubling of M0 is going to be undone anytime soon, if ever.

When a central bank doubles the monetary base in a matter of months, a lot more money is going to be flooding into the real economy. It will compete for finite goods, services, and investments, driving up prices. And even if the Fed awakens from its madness and starts shrinking M0 rapidly, there is still going to be a lot more money around in 2009 than there was in 2007 or 2008. Major inflation is coming.

So what’s an investor or speculator to do? Ride the coming inflationary wave. Some of this deluge of new money will flow into beaten-down stocks and commodities. I like both since they were driven to such irrational prices in 2008. And of course the champion investment in inflationary times is gold. It has phenomenal supply-and-demand fundamentals of its own totally independent of this coming inflation which will be like throwing rocket fuel on a fire.

At Zeal we refuse to drink the deflationist Kool-Aid as long as central banks are rapidly growing money supplies. We are positioning our capital for the big inflation the money supplies are portending, not some deflationist fantasy. We’ve been aggressively buying gold, silver, and the stocks of their best producers since the depths of the stock panic in late October. The gains have already been excellent, but are nothing compared to what will happen once Wall Street finally realizes inflation is what it should have been fearing all along.

We publish an acclaimed monthly newsletter that distills all our ongoing research into real-world trading recommendations. Subscribe today and learn how to thrive in these challenging markets. We also just published a deep new fundamental report profiling our 12 favorite gold-producing stocks. With this sector still very undervalued relative to gold today because of this silly deflation scare, the opportunities in gold stocks now are awesome. Buy your report today and start getting deployed ahead of the mainstream herd!

The bottom line is inflation and deflation are and always have been purely monetary in nature. Supply and demand can drive prices all over the place, but it is only a changing money supply that can truly spawn inflation or deflation. And the money-supply data is crystal clear. The Fed is growing the fiat-dollar supply by frightening rates, all the way from double-digit broad-money growth down to a scary doubling of the monetary base!

This means big inflation is coming, it’s already baked into the pipeline. Too distracted by deflationists who have no dictionaries and hence don’t even know what the word “deflation” really means, Wall Street hasn’t realized the real threat is inflation yet. But when it does, capital should rapidly flood into investments that thrive in inflationary times. Of these, gold remains the king. Its bullish potential in the years ahead is vast.

Contemplating the Demise of Bank of America, Citi and JPMorgan

Prudent Speculations

About this author:

Watchlist.author_header_on_article_page__add_to_watchlist_button_initiator(‘prudent-speculations’);

The collapse in the share prices of our country’s three largest money center banks over the last week has been truly stunning and is assuredly a crisis of confidence. What started out as a growing unease that the losses of the past year would continue into late 2009 and early 2010 for Bank of America (BAC), J.P. Morgan (JPM) and Citigroup (C) has now snowballed into utter fear that these banks, along with their European peers, could potentially face nationalization as government regulators strive to save a financial system that is still on the brink of cataclysmic failure.

Bank of America, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan have all reported results over the last week and they have ranged from being appalling and awful to just plain bad. One bright spot has been that each of these banks appears to have reduced their exposure to various mortgage securities and derivatives to acceptable levels when compared to where they were in 2007; however, this has come at an enormous cost. Primarily in the form of vast infusions of dilutive government capital that these banks have been required to take since the passage of the first half of the U.S. government’s TARP program.

While losses associated with Bank of America’s, Citigroup’s and J.P. Morgan’s exposure to securities tied to the credit market has likely peaked, each of these banks still face enormous pressures from the rapid economic deterioration that has engulfed the United States and the world. In essence, the banks that toiled in credit market sensitive instruments are facing a double blow; as they must now deal with deterioration in the core of their balance sheets as loans to consumer across the United States begin to deteriorate in quality.

What began with subprime mortgage backed securities and spread to the credit market and its alphabet soup of credit derivative products is on the verge of engulfing Main St. U.S.A. and the bread and butter of these institutions’ productive assets. Whereas the regional banks received TARP money to bolster their balance sheets for what was widely viewed as a coming storm, it is painfully apparent that the TARP money received by Bank of America, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan was only used to help the companies recover partially from the implosion of the credit markets. This has left them acutely exposed to a worsening U.S. economy.

As it stands now, the big three U.S. money center banks are clearly unprepared to deal with a severe and deep recession. Had Bank of America, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan found themselves in a position where they did not have to worry about a deteriorating macroeconomic environment, the TARP money that they have already received would have been more than enough; however, this is not the case as December’s unemployment data shows. With unemployment creeping up to 7.2% from 6.2% in September and with no sign of any improvement in payrolls we can be assured that the statement made recently by the Chicago Fed Board president that unemployment will rise significantly throughout 2009 and into 2010 is accurate.

For Bank of America, Citigroup & J.P. Morgan such a rise will likely be a deathblow as their significant earnings power will be unable to catch up to surging defaults in their consumer banking divisions. Given their current reserves and their own acknowledged expectations for unemployment rates going forward the balance sheets of these banks will begin to become impaired yet again as the unemployment rate rises above 7.5% and it is likely that they will face near catastrophic stress should the unemployment approach 8.5% – 9%. As a result, it is without a doubt that a significant portion of the second half of the TARP will be designated to these banks, as their capital bases will likely become impaired beyond self-repair in 2009.

In September, J.P. Morgan stated that the bank would face nearly $56 billion in loan losses should unemployment rise to 8% and $42 billion in losses should unemployment rise to 7.5%, yet in its most recent quarterly report, J.P. Morgan stated that it is only likely to experience $32 – $36 billion in losses going forward. This is curious as such a loss projection pays little attention to their past expectations and most importantly to the recent surge in the unemployment rate.

Instead of breaking out their losses in relation to the unemployment rate, as they did previously, the bank is now correlating their losses to a decline in housing prices. Such a correlation is surprising as home prices could easily stabilize before the unemployment rate. Given the bank’s $81 billion in tangible capital and $136 billion in tier 1 capital it is clear that it could survive under its current expectations but increasingly doubtful should the unemployment rate approach and pass 8.5%. If we use the bank’s September numbers as a guide, J.P. Morgan could face an additional $10 billion in losses for each .5% rise in the unemployment rate above 8%.

In looking at Bank of America and Citigroup, one must be a little more creative as neither of these two banks are as open as J.P. Morgan is about their balance sheets and their potential exposures to assets that are in danger of becoming impaired. As a result, we must look at their current loss rates on important sections of their loan portfolios.

For Bank of America the key figure is the fact that the bank only had $1.3 billion of reserves tied to $255 billion in first lien mortgages or about .56%. Such a low reserve amount is shocking and will likely be the point by which Bank of America faces the worst pain going forward. The bank’s total managed consumer portfolio was better, yet still only had reserves of 2.83% on a $694 billion portfolio. In addition, its total commercial portfolio of $380 billion only had reserves amounting to 1.96%.

In comparison, Citigroup sports a larger loan loss reserve pool that will be needed to support a portfolio that is performing significantly worse than either of its larger domestic peers. In a cruel twist of fate, Citigroup’s more global operations could very well prepare it better to deal with a surge in unemployment in the United States.

The future of Bank of America, J.P. Morgan & Citigroup is unquestionably tied to the rise of the unemployment rate in the United States. Should it peak at 8%, the current valuations on these companies make them the buy of a lifetime. On the other hand, should the economy deteriorate significantly and unemployment rise well above 8%, these three titans will become the primary recipients of the second half of the TARP fund.

The United States, despite acting faster than its European peers to battle the credit crisis, is dangerously close to following them down the path of nationalization and must take whatever measures necessary to avoid such an event. With the inauguration of a new administration in Washington we can only hope that Obama’s massive stimulus plan will be expanded, that a national moratorium on foreclosures becomes a reality and that the idea of an “aggregator bank,” as proposed by the head of the FDIC, is given serious credence as these are likely the only steps that will limit federal ownership of Bank of America, J.P. Morgan and Citigroup to current levels.

The Monster in the Closet – The monster is in the form of bad debts on bank balance sheets

The Monster in the Closet


It is again rumored that there IS a monster in the closet, and this one is bigger and badder than any previously imagined. The monster is in the form of bad debts on bank balance sheets — creating an insolvent US banking system with “$2.5 trillion” worth of bad debt. I’d say that’s a scary situation to be in.

There are a number of potential remedies to dealing with the monster — the UK may choose to go the route of nationalization, which is apparently favored by Shelia Bair (currently head of the FDIC). The danger of nationalization is the destruction of shareholder value that would ensue and the further loss of investor confidence.

In anticipation of this worst-case scenario, today we saw the stock market acting as if nationalization were likely to occur – creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of plunging share and asset prices, which itself increases the risk of banking collapse. Such psychological positive feedback loops don’t stop unless some signal is given by the government (or a credibly strong authority) that nationalization is not likely to occur. Because we’re in the midst of a momentous political transition, such information probably won’t come this week. Which sets us up for a very volatile week.

Psychologically speaking, there are a few things we can do when we think there’s a $2.5 trillion monster in the closet, which roughly parallel the “freeze, fight, or flight” response:

1. FREEZE: We can hide under the covers and hope it goes away (hasn’t worked so far).
2. FIGHT: We can grab a baseball bat and run into the closet swinging. (This seems to be the TARP method, but too many blows have missed the monster and hit us on the other arm — ouch – which makes parents (i.e. taxpayers) angry and reduces our monster-fighting motivation).
3. FLIGHT: We can jump out of the bed, sprint to the light switch with a pounding heart, fumble to find the switch in a panic, turn on the light, and slowly turn to face the monster. (Just shedding light on the monster reduces the uncertainty and fear we feel.) If instead of turning on the light we fled from the house, then we’d be homeless and the monster would get our Serta, which isn’t tolerable for most of us.

Right now we’re hiding under the covers, and the monster has been growing bigger and more bold.

I’m concerned that in the next rescue – Part 4 – the government may destroy shareholder value via nationalization. To do so would further undermine confidence in the stock market, at a delicate time, and in my opinion it could delay the economic recovery. The lower asset prices go due to nationalization, the more forced liquidations and underfunded pensions we’ll see. That may be inevitable in the course of this unwinding, but it’s not economically desirable.

If we turned the light on the monster, had a long honest talk with it, gave it it’s own bedroom (the “good bank, bad bank” method), and let it find a job on its own time, then we might make it through without being eaten. Seems like the best option so far.

We may have to live with a stinky expensive monster for a while, but that’s better than ignoring it and having crippling anxiety attacks and insomnia which ultimately undermine our ability to get on with life.

And don’t forget that the banking system was insolvent in the early 1980s as well, and it made it through that storm intact.

A Very Real New World Order – and what will be the rebirth of the True Republic of American States.

A Very Real New World Order

By Chuck Baldwin

It is hard to believe, but a majority of Americans (including Christians and conservatives) seem oblivious to the fact that there is a very real, very legitimate New World Order (NWO) unfolding. In the face of overwhelming evidence, most Americans not only seem totally unaware of this reality, they seem unwilling to even remotely entertain the notion.

Locust says: Duh Americans are in general stupid.  most would rather watch American Idolatry, then tune in to a Presidential debate.  We deserve whats coming, the social, political, and economic collapse of this nation.  We cannot stop what is coming, only prepare for it, buy guns and ammo, food and water, you will need them.  I think this is great, the real America was overthrown with the 1960′s revolution, what we are now witnessing is the collapse of the monster that was America by name alone, and what will be the rebirth of the True Republic of American States.

On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even “conservative” commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective programs, these “conservative” hosts usually resort to insulting the caller as being some kind of “conspiracy kook.” One host even railed that if anyone questions the government line on 9/11, we should “lock them up and throw away the key.” So much for freedom of speech!

This is an area–perhaps the central area–where liberals and conservatives agree: they both show no patience or tolerance for anyone who believes that global government (in any form) is evolving. One has to wonder how otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people can be so brain dead when it comes to this issue. It makes one wonder who is really pulling their strings, doesn’t it?

The list of notable personalities who have openly referenced or called for some kind of global government or New World Order is extremely lengthy. Are all these people “kooks” or “conspiracy nuts”? Why would world leaders–including presidents, secretaries of state, and high government officials; including the media, financial, and political elite–constantly refer to something that doesn’t exist? Why would they write about, talk about, or openly promote a New World Order, if there is no such thing?

Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much about an emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the students of Texas A&M University, “Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations.”

Later, Bush, Sr. said, “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.”

Bush, Sr. also said, “What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea–a new world order.”

Bush, Sr. further said, “The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . .”

What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind? Was he hallucinating?

England’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said, “We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not.” He continued saying, “On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organizing our international institutions.” He also said, “Today the impulse towards interdependence is immeasurably greater. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community.”

In 1999, Tony Blair said, “Globalization has transformed our economies and our working practices. But globalism is not just economic. It is also a political and security phenomenon.”

What is Tony Blair talking about, if there is no emerging New World Order? What does he mean by “a new doctrine of international community”? What does he mean by “new world”? How can one have globalism, which includes “a political and security phenomenon,” without creating a New World Order? Is Tony Blair hallucinating?

Likewise, former President George W. Bush penned his signature to the Declaration of Quebec back on April 22, 2001, in which he gave a “commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people.”

By “our people,” Bush meant the people of the Western Hemisphere, not the people of the United States. Phyllis Schlafly rightly reminded us that G.W. Bush “pledged that the United States will ‘build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order.’”

Remember, too, that it was G.W. Bush who, back in 2005, committed the United States to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which is nothing more than a precursor to the North American Community or Union, as outlined in CFR member Robert Pastor’s manual, Toward a North American Community.

If there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order, what was G.W. Bush talking about when he referred to “a hemispheric family” and an “international order”?

The public statements of notable world leaders regarding an emerging New World Order are copious. Consider the statements of former CBS newsman, Walter Cronkite.

In his book, A Reporter’s Life, Walter Cronkite said, “A system of world order–preferably a system of world government–is mandatory. The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty . . .” Cronkite told BBC newsman Tim Sebastian, “I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law.” He added, “We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law.” Cronkite also said, “American people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law.”

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is Walter Cronkite talking about? Can there be any doubt that Cronkite is talking about global government? Absolutely not!

Now, when Bush, Sr. talks about fulfilling “the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders,” he was talking about the same thing former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was talking about when he said, “The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty . . . has passed.”

The United Nations has been on the forefront of promoting the New World Order agenda since its very inception. In 1995, the UN released a manual entitled, “Our Global Neighborhood.” It states, “Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systematic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance.”

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is “global governance” all about?

“Who are the movers and shakers promoting global government?” you ask. Obviously, it is the international bankers who are the heavyweights behind the push for global government. Remember, one cannot create a “global economy” without a global government to manage, oversee, and control it.

In a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

“Old Hickory” did his best to rid the United States from the death grip that the international bankers were beginning to exert on this country. He may have been the last President to actually oppose the bankers. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, “Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.”

Unfortunately, the international bankers proved themselves to be too formidable for President Jackson. And in 1913, with the collaboration of President Woodrow Wilson, the bankers were given charge over America’s financial system by the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Ever since the CFR and Trilateral Commission were created, they have filled the key leadership positions of government, big media, and of course, the Federal Reserve.

In his book, With No Apologies, former Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater wrote, “The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power– political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future.” Was Goldwater a prophet or what?

And again, the goals of the global elite have been publicly stated. Back in 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

How could Rockefeller be any plainer? He acknowledged the willful assistance of the major media in helping to keep the elitists’ agenda of global government from the American people. To this day, the major media has not deviated from that collaboration. And this includes the aforementioned “conservative” talking heads. They know if they want to keep their jobs, they dare not reveal the New World Order. The NWO, more than anything else, is the “Third Rail” to the national media.

Is it any wonder that President Barack Obama has stacked his government with numerous members of the CFR? Among these are Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano, Eric Shinseki, Timothy Geithner, and Tom Daschle. Other CFR members include CFR President Richard Haass, CFR Director Richard Holbrooke, and founding member of the Trilateral Commission and CFR member Paul Volcker. Obama even asked a CFR member, Rick Warren, to deliver the inaugural prayer.

Still not convinced? Just a few days ago, when asked by a reporter what he thought the most important thing was that Barack Obama could accomplish, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, “I think his task will be develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It’s a great opportunity; it isn’t just a crisis.”

This is the same Henry Kissinger, you will recall, who said back in 1991, “Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were [sic] an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”

Even Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, wrote an editorial expressing his support for world government. In his column he said,

“I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. . . . But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

“A ‘world government’ would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

“So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.”[And now for a world government, By Gideon Rachman ,December 8, 2008]

Rachman then goes on to explain the reasons why he believes world government is plausible.

Do you now see why it does not matter to a tinker’s dam whether it is a Republican or Democrat who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? For the most part, both major parties in Washington, D.C., have been under the dominating influence of the international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, the CFR, and the Trilateral Commission. And this is also why it does not matter whether one calls himself conservative or liberal. For the most part, both conservatives and liberals in Washington, D.C., are facilitating the emerging New World Order. It is time we wake up to this reality.

Presidents Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton, and Bush, Jr. have thoroughly set the table for the implementation of the NWO, as surely as the sun rises in the east. All Obama has to do is put the food on the table–and you can count on this: Barack Obama will serve up a New World Order feast like you cannot believe!

That a New World Order is emerging is not in question. The only question is, “What will freedom-loving Americans do about it?” Of course, the first thing they have to do is admit that an emerging New World Order exists! Until conservatives, Christians, pastors, constitutionalists, and others who care about a sovereign, independent United States acknowledge the reality of an emerging New World Order, they will be incapable of opposing it. And right now, that is exactly what they are not doing.

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He hosts a weekly radio show. His website is here.

GOP: Time To Get Things Undone

GOP: Time To Get Things Undone

By Michelle Malkin

President Obama thinks he knows what the primary objective of Republicans in Washington should be: to “get things done.” Bashing Rush Limbaugh last week, Obama urged GOP lawmakers to ignore the voices of obstructionism and sign on to his behemoth stimulus package: “We shouldn’t let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done.” Meeting with GOP leaders on Tuesday, Obama repeated his entreaty: “I don’t expect 100 percent agreement from my Republican colleagues, but I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people’s business right now.”

Since when did it become the Republican Party’s top priority to “get things done”? It was as annoying a campaign platitude when John McCain adopted it as it is now coming from Obama’s lips.

History has shown us that “Get Things Done” is mindless liberal code for passing ineffective legislation and expanding government for government’s sake. “Reaching across the political aisle” and “putting politics aside” always entail selling out the right and putting conservative principles aside. How about preventing the damage done by Democratic meddlers trying to get their “things done”? How about getting more things undone?

For the past year, I’ve chronicled the inevitable lard-up of bipartisan bailouts and stimulus boondoggles—and the predictable Chicken Little dance in Washington when these massive emergency “fixes” have fallen short. Contrary to the belief that Obama is America’s Lightworker who can defy political gravity, H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, guarantees more of the same old borrow-spend-panic-repeat cycle that got us into our current mess in the first place. This is not an investment in America’s future. It’s an unprecedented mortgaging of America’s future—which is why the bill is forever known in my book as the Generational Theft Act of 2009.

The ruckus over Nancy Pelosi’s contraception funding (which still may sneak its way into the bill) is the tip of the iceberg. Despite Obama’s vow to prevent earmarks from bogging down the bill, the package is stuffed with goodies for every special interest group from left-wing fraudsters ACORN and other subprime shakedown activists ($4 billion for “neighborhood stabilization”) to Hollywood ($246 million in new targeted tax breaks) to universal health care promotion ($600 million) to dubious “green job” projects ($24 billion). More fundamentally, there is no there there.

On Monday night, the Congressional Budget Office sent out a full analysis of the House stimulus bill. The new report elaborates on what last week’s partial analysis disseminated by Republican Hill sources illuminated: The vaunted infrastructure spending will take years and years and years to kick in. Just 7 percent of the total $800 billion-plus stimulus funding would enter the economy by the end of this year.

The nonpartisan CBO tells eternal truths about government spending in the past, present and future:

“Frequently in the past, in all types of federal programs, a noticeable lag has occurred between sharp increases in budget authority and the resulting increases in outlays. Based on such experiences, CBO expects that federal agencies, along with states and other recipients of that funding, would find it difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to expend the added funds as quickly as they expend the resources provided for their ongoing programs. .

“Brand-new programs pose additional challenges. Developing procedures and criteria, issuing the necessary regulations, and reviewing plans and proposals would make distributing money quickly even more difficult—as can be seen, for example, in the lack of any disbursements to date under the loan programs established for automakers last summer to invest in producing energy-efficient vehicles. Throughout the federal government, spending for new programs has frequently been slower than expected and rarely been faster.”

Translation: They can’t spend the stimulus money fast enough to actually stimulate anything other than campaign coffers, media buzz and bureaucratic paperwork.

Obama asserted that there is no disagreement on the need to Do Something. He’s wrong. Two hundred economists spoke up this week in an open letter disseminated by the libertarian Cato Institute: “More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s,” they said. “More government spending did not solve Japan’s ‘lost decade’ in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today.”

And that must be the message of gimlet-eyed fiscal conservatives in Washington who should wear the “obstructionist” badge proudly. Obstructionism in the name of fiscal sanity is no vice. Panicked profligacy in the name of blind bipartisanship is no virtue.

Memo to President Obama: Add Immigration Moratorium to the Economic Stimulus Package

Memo to President Obama: Add Immigration Moratorium to the Economic Stimulus Package

[See also: So You Want To Boost The Economy? End Affirmative Action!, by Steve Sailer]

Dear Mr. President: What if government spending can’t turn things around? What if the banks continue hoarding TARP funds, and deny loans to deserving companies and individuals? Now think: what would happen if after years of monstrous fiscal deficits the U.S. is still mired in unemployment and slow growth?

The last time that happened—in the 1930s – the outcome was…. Well, you know how that played out. But even without Smoot-Hawley and beggar–thy-neighbor policy mistakes, the U.S. could face a similar fate today.

Consider this: Two to three percent GDP growth is needed just to absorb new entrants to the labor force.

In times of buoyant demand, this is no problem. In times of collapsing private spending, as now—it is a huge one. Even unbelievably large fiscal deficits—10 percent of GDP or more –will not stimulate enough growth to prevent unemployment from continuing to rise through the next two years. [Choices made in 2009 will shape the globe’s destiny, By Martin Wolf, Financial Times, January 7, 2009.]

One reason for our predicament: immigration is swelling the U.S. labor force beyond the ability of fiscal policy to generate jobs.

During the decade of the 1990s, 47 percent of U.S. civilian labor force growth was due to immigration. This represented the largest influx of foreign workers ever to enter the U.S. in a given decade—substantially exceeding the number who came here during the Great Wave of 1890 to 1910. [Andrew Sum, et al., Foreign Immigration and the Labor Force of the U.S., [PDF] Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University, July 2004.]

But records are made to be broken, and nowhere more so than in immigration. Over the period 2000 to 2007 foreign-born individuals accounted for:

  • 38 percent of U.S. population growth
  • 51 percent of U.S. labor force growth
  • 56 percent of U.S. employment growth. (In other words, immigrants displaced Americans).

(Please see Chart 1 for the underlying numbers.)

All of which raises an obvious question: Why not impose a moratorium on immigration? By cutting labor force growth in half, this would allow our weakened economy to absorb a greater fraction of new—native-born American—entrants.

The unemployment rate would fall. And, equally important, average incomes would rise as jobs currently going to low wage immigrants would be filled by U.S.-born workers.

What would an immediate moratorium do? I have run the numbers for 2008.

You will recall that the unemployment rate was 7.2 percent in December 2008, up from 4.9 percent in December of 2007. Over that period unemployment rose by 3.6 million, swelled by job losers as well as new labor force entrants.

The civilian labor force grew by 611,000 last year, from 153.836 million in December 2007 to 154.447 million December 2008. Had a moratorium been in effect, about 305,000 fewer people would be looking for jobs.

That may not sound like a lot at a time when jobs are disappearing by more than 500,000 per month. But 305,000 fewer job seekers is equal to about 9 percent of last year’s stunning unemployment increase, the biggest for 22 years.

Implication: a one-year moratorium would reduce by at least 9 percent the stimulus spending required to restore the economy to its pre-meltdown state. That translates to $90 billion of federal savings.

Of course, if the moratorium were extended for several years, its effects would compound.

Plus, when (and if) the economy bounces back, employment of native-born Americans would increase that much faster.

You might consider a more sweeping change in immigration policy: enforcing the immigration laws. Neglecting them has permitted from 8 to 10 million illegal aliens to work in the United States. (That’s the official estimate. Private estimates are as high as double that).

Escort just half of them to the border and you will have rolled-back last year’s entire unemployment spike—and then some…

Their employers will squeal like stuck pigs. So will the ethnic lobbies and the religious Left.

But in this economy, no one can say the illegals are doing jobs that Americans won’t do.

Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis.

Six out of 10 Mexican women have suffered some form of violence inflicted by their spouses or partners

Mexico Finds It’s Not Easy to End Violence Against Women

More news stories on Mexico and Latin America


{snip}

Every day thousands of Mexican women suffer physical and psychological abuse at the hands of their spouses, despite a federal law passed over a year ago to protect them. Nearly one-third of the country’s 31 states still haven’t adopted the law, which requires Mexican law enforcement to punish acts of violence against women. Even where the law has been adopted, it’s not being applied, say legislators and activists.

That’s because, despite an official push to move beyond the cliche image of macho, Mexico is still very much a man’s world when it comes to violence against women.

Mexico City’s Commission on Human Rights recently reported that complaints by women against Mexico City law enforcement agencies for failing to respond to complaints increased more than 12 percent after the law’s passage.

{snip}

But progress is hard to come by in a country where just a few years ago the punishment for killing a cow in some states was greater than for killing a woman.

A rapist in Mexico can still escape punishment in 21 states by claiming he was seeking to satisfy an erotic fantasy. He can escape punishment in 19 states if he later marries the victim.

{snip}

Contreras [Marisela Contreras Julian, president of the Commission on Fairness and Gender in Mexico’s] lower house of Congress.said women who report crimes are turned away or persuaded not to file charges.

“They say, ‘You’re going to forgive your husband, aren’t you?’ ” she said. “It’s the culture. . . . And some of these men are abusers themselves. Therefore, they look for a way to justify the actions.”

Six out of 10 Mexican women have suffered some form of violence inflicted by their spouses or partners, according to government studies. In 2006, more than 80 percent of women who were murdered were killed in their own homes.

The National Institute for Women in Mexico reports that twice as many Mexican women suffer abuse than the worldwide average.

{snip}

Original article

Indigenous Bolivians ‘Back New Anti-White Constitution’

Indigenous Bolivians ‘Back New Anti-White

Constitution’

More news on the Ethnic communist movment in South America

BBC News, January 26, 2009

Bolivians have backed a new constitution that aims to empower the country’s indigenous majority, partial results from a referendum show.

With about 30% of the vote counted, some 53% of the voters supported the changes, electoral officials said.

But at least four of Bolivia’s nine regions voted “No”.

President Evo Morales claimed victory in the referendum that would also allow Bolivia’s first indigenous leader to stand for a second consecutive term.

Addressing supporters outside the presidential palace, he said the result marked the birth of a new Bolivia.

“Brothers and sisters, the colonial state ends here,” President Morales, an Aymara Indian, told crowds in front of the presidential palace in La Paz after results emerged.

“Now Bolivia is being re-founded,” he said.

“Here we begin to reach true equality for all Bolivians.”

Support for Mr Morales was highest in the western highlands where indigenous people form the majority.

“A new era is starting now in which indigenous people will be the citizens of this country. I think this is the most important part of this constitution,” said Elisa Canqui, who represents one of the Indian communities in La Paz.

Only some 50 years ago Indians of Aymara and Quechua descent were not allowed to walk in the central square of La Paz.

Now the new charter will give sweeping rights to Bolivia’s 36 indigenous groups in the areas of government, the judiciary and land holdings.

Opponents

But the polarisation that has dogged the country since Mr Morales took office in 2006 is unlikely to diminish, says BBC Latin America analyst James Painter.

Many Bolivians of European or mixed-race descent in the fertile eastern lowlands, which hold rich gas deposits and are home to extensive farms, rejected the charter.

The referendum was badly defeated in the opposition strongholds of Santa Cruz, Tarija, Beni and Pando, early results suggested.

“The ‘No’ vote has put the brakes on the fools who wanted to destroy our country,” said opposition leader and Santa Cruz Governor Ruben Costas.

The original draft of the constitution was more radical but Mr Morales made concessions after violent protests against his rule, including a promise that he would not try to win a third term in 2014.

Elections are set for December, when the president, vice-president and Congress will be chosen.

Under pressure from wealthy ranchers, who feared their farms would be broken up and handed over to the poor, Mr Morales also revised the charter so that limits on land holdings will only apply to future land sales.

The new constitution enshrines state control over key economic sectors, and grants greater autonomy not only for the nine departments but also for indigenous communities.

But these clauses regarding layers of autonomy could lead to a raft of competing claims, correspondents say.

The exact implementation of the new charter is also far from certain.

Several articles have to be approved in Congress where Mr Morales does not have a majority in the Senate.

Analysts say that another problem facing the Morales administration is that in the last three years it has benefited from the commodity boom but is now facing a major fall in the price of its main exports, minerals and gas.

Final results are expected in about 10 days.

SIDEBAR: Key Reforms

Re-election: Allows Mr Morales to stand for re-election in Dec 2009

Indigenous rights: Stresses importance of ethnicity in Bolivia’s make-up. A whole chapter devoted to indigenous rights

Autonomy: Power decentralised, four levels of autonomy—departmental, regional, municipal and indigenous

Resources: Sets out state control over key economic sectors, state sovereignty over vast natural gas fields

Judiciary: Indigenous systems of justice same status as official existing system. Judges will be elected, and no longer appointed by Congress.

Land: New limit on ownership 5,000 hectares (12,355). But measure not retroactive.

bolivia
Probably supports new constitution.

Original article

(Posted on January 27, 2009)



Comments

“Addressing supporters outside the presidential palace, he said the result marked the birth of a new Bolivia.”

Yeah, and this “new” Bolivia will be about half the size and have about 1/4 of the wealth of the old one once the eastern states finally say “enough is enough” and officially break off. I would pay close attention to this story if I were you. This could be the future of America playing out right before our eyes.

Posted by Anonymous at 6:04 PM on January 27


The people who now are approaching the threshold of Bolivian rule are the same people that would sell their 14 year old daughters into marriage with their 18 year hold cousins for a truckload of beer and $16K in cash.

Posted by Flaxen-headed Strumpet at 7:15 PM on January 27


You know when will the anti-racist speak up for white people. Wether its in South Africa, Bolivia, Zimbabwe or here in America the so called anti-racist activist always seem to support the racist. I have not heard one anti-racist activist speak out against the white genocide in Zimbabwe or South Africa. I haven’t heard them speak out against racist laws like affirmative action.

Posted by thoughts at 8:46 PM on January 27


I support President Morales and the new Bolivian Constitution.
It not only recognizes the indigenous population (Indians) it promises health care and free education to all Bolivians. That is a worthy goal. We might want that in our country also.
And if we, as White men and women, do not support self-determination for others, how can we honestly demand it for ourselves?
Now, if Socialism is a poor model Morales’ plans may fall short and his country may suffer. But what the Bolivians decide to do is their business.

Posted by Steve at 10:01 PM on January 27


What’s the saying, democracy will only last until the populus realizes they can vote themselves money?

That’s akin to what we’re seeing here. The indigenous people will vote to take what others have built before them. It’s a short term strategy however. You can take what others have built but if you can’t build it or maintain it yourself, it will eventually crumble.

The only question is how long will it take for Bolivia to return to pre-Colombian standards?

One generation or two?

Posted by sbuffalonative at 10:32 PM on January 27


If you support self-determination, do you agree that Bolivia has the right to keep unwilling white citizens as part of their country, to be taxed and controlled into oblivion by a hostile majority?

Posted by Diamed at 1:20 AM on January 28


“Brothers and sisters, the colonial state ends here,”

If Bolivians know anything of African history, those words are sure to send them doubling over in fear.

Posted by SouthernJew at 2:17 AM on January 28


The Indians are the majority, as they are in Paraguay and some of the other South American countries too. They’re not newcomers, they were there first. Let them have their country, they really have been exploited for centuries. Otherwise, drop the pretense of elections, openly declare the Indians a subject people, and make it stick. I’ve always felt that honesty is a White virtue.

Posted by Anonymous at 2:28 AM on January 28


These Indians stopped evolving intellectually and socially eons ago and are therefore perfect candidates for communism. Lets see how they like being enslaved by their own race by leaders evangelizing an alien political ideology…

Posted by Anonymous at 8:24 AM on January 28


I agree with Anonymous. We’re hypocrites if we don’t support this. After all, they’re just overthrowing their elites. And the white elites of any country are not our friends either.

Posted by GetBackJack at 10:09 AM on January 28


I support the move to empower all genetically distinct peoples—including white people. It’s time to end the homogenization of nations, peoples and religions and have self—identification and self-determination for all genetically distinct peoples.

White lands for white people. Black lands for black people. Brown lands for brown people. Red lands for red people. Yellow lands for yellow people.

Posted by RPT at 10:21 AM on January 28

Murder Factory, Part 1: 64130, The ZIP Code of Notoriety in Missouri

Murder Factory, Part 1: 64130, The ZIP Code of

Notoriety in Missouri

More news stories on Crime

Tony Rizzo, Kansas City Star, January 24, 2009

Behind every pull of the trigger there is a story.

In the Kansas City ZIP code 64130, there are a lot of stories to tell.

Its eight square miles, straddling Brush Creek downstream from the Country Club Plaza, is home to 101 convicted murderers incarcerated in Missouri prisons.

No other ZIP code in Kansas City, St. Louis or any other part of the state comes close. Though its 26,000 residents make up about 6 percent of the city’s population, it accounts for 20 percent of Kansas Citians in prison for murder or voluntary manslaughter.

If society set out to design an assembly line for producing killers, it’s hard to imagine a model any more efficient than what exists inside its boundaries, stretching from 39th to 63rd streets and bordered by Woodland and Topping avenues. It has become a murder factory that spans generations.

In an unprecedented effort to better understand the destructive paths these inmates chose, The Star sent surveys to all 101 killers who listed 64130 as their home ZIP code with the Missouri Department of Corrections. To compare their experiences with others, The Star also sent surveys to about 270 other convicted killers from across the state.

{snip}

Although the majority of 64130’s residents live lawfully, few interviewed said their families have been untouched by the violence. Longtime residents can point out where someone was killed, where drugs are sold or where a neighbor’s kid lived before he went to prison.

{snip}

Though each inmate has a unique story, many shared common experiences.

Born mostly into poor families, nearly 60 percent of survey respondents grew up without fathers. As young men they were thrust into a prevailing street mentality that demanded a violent response to any insult. Guns could be obtained as cheaply and easily as illegal drugs. Two-thirds of survey respondents possessed guns as teenagers and nearly three-fourths were regular users of drugs and alcohol.

{snip}

At the time they killed, they ranged in age from 13 to 55. One-fifth committed murder as teenagers. Most already had criminal records when they killed in their 20s and 30s.

{snip}

Bad influences

Many who became killers said they had few examples of legitimate success to follow in their neighborhoods.

Instead they were drawn to the fast life of hustling, stealing and dealing drugs. Jewelry, wads of cash and flashy cars, often displayed by older family members, lured them.

{snip}

Again and again, 64130’s murderers said the area offers little in the way of positive alternatives.

{snip}

Broken homes, domestic violence and absent or drug-addicted parents also affected their upbringing.

Mothers who tried to raise boys alone say the necessity to work and support their families prevented them from watching their children as closely as they wanted.

{snip}

But even when two adults were in the home, many of the ZIP code’s killers experienced harmful influences. For example, more than half of the survey’s respondents said they witnessed domestic violence growing up.

{snip}

At least 15 of the 64130 killers were convicted of domestic violence homicides.

“Growing up, you’re conditioned to think that a physical fight will at times take place between two people who love and care about each other, especially when you see them continue to stay together,” said inmate Benjamin Franklin Jr., who was 22 when he stabbed his estranged wife to death.

The home turf

Single-family residences dominate 64130, a ZIP code that many outsiders see only when they zoom through on Bruce R. Watkins Drive or Emanuel Cleaver II Boulevard.

Pockets of middle-class stability—such as Sheraton Estates and the Citadel Center development—have the look and feel of typical Johnson County suburbs.

But vacant houses, trash-strewn lots and weed-choked yards plague many blocks. A large percentage of residents live in poverty. Decades of relentless violence have left too many feeling under siege and cut off from the wider community.

{snip}

6413
Concerned residents of 64130. A special multimedia section, including a photo gallery, accompanies this story here.

Original article

After Less Than a Week in Office, Barack Obama’s Approval Rating Plunges 15 Points

After Less Than a Week in Office, Barack Obama’s

Approval Rating Plunges 15 Points

More news stories on Barack Obama

David Gardner, Daily Mail (London), January 26, 2009

Barack Obama might have been in office for less than a week, but the euphoria is beginning to wane.

The new President’s approval ratings have fallen from a stratospheric 83 per cent to a more modest—although still impressive—68 per cent.

Washington analysts said the scale of the drop in the Gallup poll underlines the immense challenges Mr Obama faces in trying to turn round the U.S.’s battered fortunes.

He still remains vastly more popular than his predecessor George Bush—who left office with around 25 per cent approval.

But there were signs yesterday that reality has set in following the wave of optimism surrounding his inauguration last Tuesday.

Mr Obama is facing an ugly battle with Republicans over his plans to bail out the economy with £515billion of taxpayers’ cash. Opposition leaders claim the rescue package relies too much on government spending and not enough on tax relief for families and small businesses.

In a radio address at the weekend Mr Obama gave details of his plan for the first time, saying he wants to double the nation’s use of wind and solar power within three years and modernise 10,000 schools to help combat the ‘unprecedented crisis’ faced by the country.

The address was also broadcast on YouTube, where it drew 450,000 views and 3,000 comments—most of them positive—in just one day.

But the President’s top financial adviser Larry Summers, head of the National Economic Council, risked angering Republicans last night by refusing to rule out yet another influx of government money to prop up the ailing U.S. banks.

He said: ‘What ultimately will be necessary is something that will play out over time.’ Mr Obama’s hopes of enacting the bailout with bipartisan support next month appeared to be fading last night with Republican leader John Boehner warning that his party could vote against it.

Senator John McCain, Mr Obama’s opponent in the November presidential contest, also said he did not believe the package did enough to create jobs.

‘There have to be major rewrites if we want to stimulate the economy. . . . As it stands now I can’t vote for it,’ McCain told Fox television.

The President’s new focus in the war on terror is also causing controversy.

While he plans to shift all combat troops out of Iraq over the next 16 months, many soldiers will find themselves in the thick of a new battle in Afghanistan.

Vice President Joe Biden warned that Americans should expect casualties as up to 30,000 more U.S. troops are sent there to fight the resurgent Taliban.

In a TV interview yesterday, he said the additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan will be engaging the enemy more.

Asked if that means the public should expect more deaths, he said: ‘I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick.’

{snip}

Original article

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30 other followers