A Little Humor is Needed - I am so there!!!

THE ENTREPENEURIAL SPIRIT IS ALIVE AND WELL IN THE CRUISE LINE INDUSTRY....

I was checking cruise lines because I heard the rates are very cheap right now.

Look what I found. A Somali cruise package that departs from Sawakin (in the Sudan ) and docks at Bagamoya (in Tanzania ).

The cost is a bit high, but I didn't find that offensive. What was encouraging and enlightened is that the cruise encourages people to bring their 'high powered weapons' along on the cruise. If you don't have weapons you can rent them right there on the boat. They claim to have a master gunsmith on board and will have reloading parties every afternoon. The cruise lasts from 4-8 days and nights and costs a maximum of $3200 per person double occupancy (4 days). All the boat does is sail up and down the coast of Somalia waiting to get hijacked by pirates. Here are some of the costs and claims associated with the package.

* $800.00 US/per day double occupancy (4 day max billing)
* M-16 full auto rental $25.00/day. Ammo: 100 rounds of 5.56 armor piercing at $15.95
* Ak-47 rifle @ no charge. Ammo: 100 rounds of 7.62 com block ball at $14.95
* Barretta M-107 50 cal sniper riffle rental $55.00/day. Ammo: 25 rounds 50 cal armor piercing at $9.95
* Crew members will double as spotters for $30.00 per hour (spotting scope included).
* RPG's are available at 75 bucks, and 200 dollars for 3 standard loads

"Everyone gets use of free complimentary night vision equipment and coffee and snacks on the top deck from 7 PM - 6 AM."

Meals are not included but are priced reasonably. Most cruises offer a mini-bar

Plus, these gung-ho entrepreneurs offer......... get this..... "MOUNTED MINIGUN @ $450.00 per 30 seconds of sustained fire"

I'm calling my travel agent right away!

They advertise group rates and corporate discounts...... and claim "FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY", with a partial money back if not satisfied....here’s some text from the ad.

"We guarantee that you will experience at least two hijacking attempts by pirates, or we will refund half your money back including gun rental charges and any unused ammo (mini gun charges not included).. How can we guarantee you will experience a hijacking? We operate at 5 knots within 12 miles of the coast of Somalia. If an attempted hijacking does not occur, we will turn the boat around and cruise by at 4 knots. We will repeat this for up to 8 days making three passes a day along the entire length of Somalia . At night the boat is fully lit and bottle rockets are shot off at intervals with loud disco music beamed shore side to attract attention. Cabin space is limited so respond quickly. Reserve your package before May 29 and get 100 rounds of free tracer ammo in the caliber of your choice."

Plus if all that isn't enough to whet your appetite, here are a few testimonials from satisfied customers.

“I got three confirmed kills on my first trip. I'll never hunt big game in Africa again. I felt like the Komandant in Schindlers list!”---- Bernhardt -- Munich, Germany

"Six attacks in 4 days was more than I expected. I bagged three pirates, and my 12 yr old son sank two rowboats with the minigun. PIRATES 0 - PASSENGERS 32! Well worth the price. Just make sure your spotter speaks English" -- Ned, Salt Lake City, Utah

"I haven't had this much fun since flying choppers in NAM . Don’t worry about getting shot by pirates as they never even got close to the ship with the weapons they use, plus their shitty aim--reminds me of a drunken 'juicer' door gunner we picked up from the motor pool back in Nam" -- 'Chopper' Dan ----Toledo, OH.

"Like ducks in a barrel. The crew turned the ship around and we saw the pirates bleed and cry in the water like little girls. Saw one wounded pirate eaten by sharks--what a laugh riot!! This is a must do.--- Zeke Minnahaw -- Booneville, Kentucky

Finally, someone had the common sense to cash in AND solve a major problem. These folks deserve a medal!

Texas House Bill 1863 - I pray it passes

81R9687 DAK-F

By: Berman H.B. No. 1863


A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to exempting the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a
firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. (a) The Legislature of the State of
Texas makes findings as stated in this section.
(b) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to
the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves
to the state and people of Texas certain powers as they were
understood at the time that Texas was admitted to statehood in 1845.
The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the
state and people of Texas and the United States dating from the time
Texas became a state.
(c) The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and
reserves to the people of Texas certain rights as they were
understood at the time that Texas became a state. The guaranty of
those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of
Texas and the United States dating from the time Texas became a
state.
(d) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the
states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution if not expressly preempted by federal law. The United
States Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of
intrastate commerce relating to the manufacture on an intrastate
basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(e) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right
was understood at the time that Texas became a state, and the
guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and
people of Texas and the United States dating from the time Texas
became a state.
(f) Section 23, Article I, Texas Constitution, clearly
secures to Texas citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This
constitutional protection is unchanged from the date the
constitution was adopted in 1876.
SECTION 2. DECLARATION. The Legislature of the State of
Texas declares that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition
manufactured in Texas, as described by Chapter 2003, Business &
Commerce Code, as added by this Act, that remains within the borders
of Texas:
(1) has not traveled in interstate commerce; and
(2) is not subject to federal law or federal
regulation, including registration, under the authority of the
United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
SECTION 3. Title 99, Business & Commerce Code, is amended by
adding Chapter 2003 to read as follows:
CHAPTER 2003. INTRASTATE MANUFACTURE OF A FIREARM, A FIREARM
ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION
Sec. 2003.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Firearm accessory" means an item that is used in
conjunction with or mounted on a firearm but is not essential to the
basic function of a firearm. The term includes a telescopic or
laser sight, magazine, flash or sound suppressor, folding or
aftermarket stock and grip, speedloader, ammunition carrier, and
light for target illumination.
(2) "Generic and insignificant part" means an item
that has manufacturing or consumer product applications other than
inclusion in a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition. The
term includes a spring, screw, nut, and pin.
(3) "Manufacture" includes forging, casting,
machining, or another process for working a material.
Sec. 2003.002. MEANING OF MANUFACTURED IN THIS STATE. (a)
For the purposes of this chapter, a firearm, a firearm accessory, or
ammunition is manufactured in this state if the item is
manufactured:
(1) in this state from basic materials; and
(2) without the inclusion of any part imported from
another state other than a generic and insignificant part.
(b) For the purposes of this chapter, a firearm is
manufactured in this state if it is manufactured as described by
Subsection (a) without regard to whether a firearm accessory
imported into this state from another state is attached to or used
in conjunction with it.
Sec. 2003.003. NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION. (a) A
firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in
this state and remains in this state is not subject to federal law
or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority
of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
(b) A basic material from which a firearm, a firearm
accessory, or ammunition is manufactured in this state, including
unmachined steel and unshaped wood, is not a firearm, a firearm
accessory, or ammunition and is not subject to federal regulation
under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate
interstate commerce as if it actually were a firearm, a firearm
accessory, or ammunition.
Sec. 2003.004. EXCEPTIONS. This chapter does not apply to:
(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one
person;
(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1.5
inches and that uses smokeless powder and not black powder as a
propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using
an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the
firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles
with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Sec. 2003.005. MARKETING OF FIREARMS. A firearm manufactured
and sold in this state must have the words "Made in Texas" clearly
stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Sec. 2003.006. ATTORNEY GENERAL. (a) The attorney general
shall defend a citizen of this state whom the federal government
attempts to prosecute, claiming the power to regulate interstate
commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the
manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm
accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in this state.
(b) On written notification to the attorney general by a
citizen of the citizen's intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm
accessory, or ammunition to which this chapter applies, the
attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from a federal
district court in this state that this chapter is consistent with
the United States Constitution.
SECTION 4. This Act applies only to a firearm, a firearm
accessory, as that term is defined by Section 2003.001, Business &
Commerce Code, as added by this Act, and ammunition that is
manufactured on or after the effective date of this Act.
SECTION 5. This Act takes effect September 1, 2009.

Water well

Here are a few pictures from the solar well installation at the compound. Still so much to do. So little time and money though.





























At some point the 1500 gallon tank will arrive - for now we just have a 325 gallon stock trough.

Time for a Round Up!!!!

Latinos debate whether immigration reform rallies are wise right now

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/447901

Pat Schneider
April 21, 2009

Energized by a renewed prospect of success, Latinos in Dane County and across the country are planning to go to the streets again on May 1 to hold President Barack Obama to his assurances that immigration reform is on the way.

Publicity for a Madison march on the Capitol on May Day -- a traditional labor holiday -- trumpets a "march for the poor, workers and immigrants." A poster for the event circulated by the organizer, Madison-based Immigrant Workers Union, records a laundry list of demands, from rolling back local Metro bus fare increases to universal health care to amnesty for immigrant workers.

Meanwhile, organizers with the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, which is staging marches in cities across the country, are framing their message to say "humane" immigration reform will benefit all workers and not just immigrants. "A pro-worker immigration reform bill will benefit both native and foreign workers who are more vulnerable in this weak economy to abuse by bad employers," said Christine Neumann-Ortiz of Milwaukee-based Voces de la Frontera.

That political tack is aimed at defusing political backlash like the kind that came after massive nationwide rallies in 2006 put a spotlight on immigration reform. And it is that potential that has led some advocates for immigrant rights to advise tempering the rhetoric this season.

Peter Munoz, executive director of Centro Hispano, Dane County's premier agency serving Latinos, warned that the heady marches that brought out hundreds of thousands three years ago in support of immigration reform eroded popular and political support and unleashed workplace raids that led to the detention and deportation of workers and the separation of immigrant families.

"We stupidly followed opportunistic, self-appointed leaders and left-pandering politicians in their limelight quest," Munoz wrote on the e-mail Listserv of Latino Support Network, a consortium of Dane County health, community and social service organizations. "We accomplished nothing but to bring great harm to our hardworking immigrant community."

Better not to make waves and to let Obama work toward building the coalition needed to put immigration reform through Congress, Munoz counseled.

He was among leaders of Dane County's Latinos United for Change and Advancement, LUChA, to vote to join the labor, political left and peace and justice organizations endorsing the local march Monday. But they were not without misgivings.

LUChA member Dan Guerra said strident rhetoric forces politicians friendly to immigration reform to move to the right or center. "These are issues that need to be dealt with behind closed doors; rallies do nothing but energize the opposition."

Alfonso Zepeda Capistran said LUChA had no choice but to support the march, despite its strategic shortcomings. "I don't think we'll get a good proposal without raising the voice of the community," he said.

Clearly the stage is set for a major national debate on immigration reform.

Speaking last week from Mexico, where he met with President Felipe Calderon, Obama committed to fixing the United States' "broken immigration system." He gave no details, but tied immigration reform to "bottom-up" economic growth in Mexico and border security.

Just days earlier, organized labor's major federations, AFL-CIO and the rival Change to Win, agreed for the first time to join forces in support of comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented workers.

The unified voice is significant, said Jim Cavanaugh, president of the Madison-based South Central Federation of Labor. Protecting the rights of immigrant workers in particular is essential in the foundering economy, he said. "They have less to fall back on if management comes by with a hatchet."

He said that the union rank-and-file supports immigrant workers rights even as all jobs are jeopardized by layoffs. "To their credit, they're not looking for scapegoats, and if they are, they're not looking at their fellow workers."

Cavanaugh sees a show of support for immigration reform as a key part of the strategy. "Demonstrating in numbers in favor of your cause provides additional support for a friendly elected official," he said.

But as hundreds took to the streets in early rallies last week in Western states, the anticipated backlash against a renewed call for immigration reform emerged.

In California, a state initiative was circulated to issue special birth certificates to the children of illegal immigrants and deny them publicly funded health benefits. That happened at the same time a new Pew Research Center report revealed that 4 million children who are U.S. citizens have at least one parent who entered the country without authorization.

On the national political front, a spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a pro-business lobby, warned organized labor that it can't "push through" immigration reform without the support of business. Citing a labor shortage, the chamber favors "guest worker" proposals that would allow some immigrants to work legally and to start on a path to permanent residence, but critics say those proposals give immigrant workers too little security.

And even though no details about plans for immigration reform have come from either the Obama administration or organized labor, U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has already said their efforts will not adequately address border security or the need for a guest worker program.

And those responses were generated by ideas that some in the pro-immigration movement say don't go far enough.

Alex Gillis of Madison's Immigrant Workers Union says progress toward immigration reform is hampered by the unwillingness of establishment Democrats to talk about underlying issues.

"The party doesn't want us to go farther than their agenda," he said. "They don't want us to talk about minority workers, about economic justice, about poverty."

Still, he is certain that even for the limited issues on the agenda, action in the street is the only way to move forward -- and everybody knows it.

"Obama knows there has to be a movement from below," he said.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Labor shortage? My butt....I have no problem with legal immigration but here we go again with illegals demanding things that are not available to most American citizens. Until the borders are closed and all illegals are repatriated we can not have immigration reform. As the economy continues to deteriorate there will be more anger and possible rage vented against minority members from other countries. Though I do not condone it, it is very normal for citizens to vent their anger on a perceived class of invaders.

Obama to seek ratification of arms treaty

Obama to seek ratification of arms treaty
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer
17 mins ago

MEXICO CITY – Confronting a security threat on the America's doorstep, President Barack Obama arrived Thursday in Mexico for a swift diplomatic mission to show solidarity on drugs and guns with a troubled neighbor — and to prove the U.S. is serious about the battle against trafficking.

After a meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama planned to announce he would support an inter-American weapons treaty meant to take on the bloody drug trade. Officials described the plan on the condition of anonymity so they wouldn't pre-empt the announcement.

The regional treaty, adopted by the Organization of American States, was signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1997 but never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Officials said Obama would push lawmakers to act on it — an opening gesture for meetings that also would include discussion of the economic crisis and possibly clean energy.

Among the other touchy points are disagreement over a lapsed U.S. assault weapons ban, a standoff over cross-border trucking, and immigration.

Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama also would tell Mexican officials that he has asked Congress to provide money for Black Hawk helicopters to help Mexico in its drug war.

The escalating drug fight in Mexico is spilling into the United States, and confronting Obama with an international crisis much closer than North Korea or Afghanistan. Mexico is the main hub for cocaine and other drugs entering the U.S., and the United States is the primary source of guns used in Mexico's drug-related killings.

Calderon's aggressive stand against drug cartels has won him the aid of the United States and the prominent political backing of Obama — never as evident as on Thursday, when the new president was to stand with Calderon in Mexico's capital city.

Interviewed Wednesday by CNN en Espanol, Obama said Calderon was doing a "heroic job" in his battle with the cartels.

As for the U.S. role, Obama said, "We are going to be dealing not only with drug interdiction coming north, but also working on helping to curb the flow of cash and guns going south."

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said consultations with Mexico are "not about pointing fingers, it's about solving a problem: What can we do to prevent the flow of guns and cash south that fuel these cartels?"

Obama's overnight Mexican stop came on the way to the Summit of the Americas in the two-island Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, where he hopes to set a new tone for relations with Latin America.

"We will renew and sustain a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and our common security," he wrote in an Op-ed column printed in a dozen newspapers throughout the region.

In the past, Obama said, America has been "too easily distracted by other priorities" while leaders throughout the Americas have been "mired in the old debates of the past."

More than 10,000 people have been killed in Mexico in drug-related violence since Calderon's stepped-up effort against the cartels began in 2006. The State Department says contract killings and kidnappings on U.S. soil, carried out by Mexican drug cartels, are on the rise as well.

A U.S. military report just five months ago raised the specter of Mexico collapsing into a failed state with its government under siege. It named only one other country in such a worst-case scenario: Pakistan. The assertion incensed Mexican officials; Obama's team disavowed it.

Indeed, the Obama administration has gone the other direction, showering attention on Mexico.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Mexico City that the U.S. shared responsibility for the drug war. She said America's "insatiable demand" for illegal drugs fueled the trade and that the U.S. had an "inability" to stop weapons from being smuggled south.

Obama has dispatched hundreds of federal agents, along with high-tech surveillance gear and drug-sniffing dogs, to the Southwest to help Mexico fight drug cartels. He sent Congress a war-spending request that made room for $350 million for security along the U.S.-Mexico border. He added three Mexican organizations to a list of suspected international drug kingpins. He dispatched three Cabinet secretaries to Mexico. And he just named a "border czar."

The Justice Department says such Mexican drug trafficking organizations represent the greatest organized crime threat to the United States.

The White House is vowing more enforcement of gun laws. But it is not pursuing a promise Obama made as a candidate: a ban on assault-style weapons.

That ban on military-style guns became law during the Clinton administration in 1994 but expired under the Bush administration in 2004. When Attorney General Eric Holder raised the idea of reinstating the ban this year, opposition from Democrats and Republicans emerged quickly.

Reopening the debate on gun rights is apparently a fight the White House does not want to take on right now.

"I think that there are other priorities that the president has," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said this week.

Mexican leaders, though, say the ban saved lives.

The swooning economy, blamed largely on failures inside the United States, has taken a huge toll on Mexico. About 80 percent of Mexico's exports — now in decline — go to the United States.

Obama and Calderon are likely to tout the value of that trade, but a spat between their countries remains unresolved. Mexico has raised tariffs on almost 90 American products, a retaliation for a U.S. decision to cancel access to Mexican truckers on U.S. highways despite the terms of a free trade agreement.

On immigration, Obama is expected to make clear he is committed to reforms. The effort is likely to start this year but won't move to the top of his agenda.

"It's important because of the human costs," Obama said in the CNN en Espanol interview. "It's something that we need to solve."

Oathkeepers Meeting in Gonzales

Images provided by Ye Old Furt.

Be aware. Be informed. be prepared.

Riverwalker

Here we go again - guess we are terrorists

http://www.americanpatrol.com/DHS/2008-UP/PDF/AmericanTerrorists090412.pdf

See linked document. It is apparent that we are starting to worry the PTB. Otherwise, why make local police scared of us.

Pickdog out.

Endgame

Endgame

By Isaac MacMillen

The Red Queen broke the silence by saying, to the White Queen, “I invite you to Alice's dinner-party this afternoon.”
The White Queen smiled feebly, and said “And I invite you.” “I didn't know I was to have a party after all,” said Alice; “but, if there is to be one, I think I ought to invite the guests.”
“We gave you the opportunity of doing it,” the Red Queen remarked; “but I daresay you've not had many lessons in manners yet.”—Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, Chapter IX.

The Federal Treasury has reached its endgame. And some of the banks on the losing end didn't even know they were invited to the party.

At the very inception of the economic crisis that has engulfed the nation, the government manufactured an “emergency”—government policies to expand home ownership, coupled with an expansive monetary policy, helped trigger the housing bubble. And then, that bubble popped, causing the banks to run into the government's waiting arms.

Only now they are too late discovering that the government's hold is not easily relaxed. What started as a (seemingly) warm embrace is now turning into a vice-grip of death. An Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal laid out the trap in which the banks are finding themselves, describing how banks are unable to return Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds.

Back in September, one of the nation's top banks was pressured into taking $1 billion in TARP funds. The CEO argued against it. The bank was in good shape, no bad debt, no reason for 'needing' government money, he argued. But he was overruled by the Board of Directors, which was swayed by the government's threat of a public audit, a costly PR negative, even though he was confident the bank would come out clean.

Fast-forward to today. The bank—still anonymous, for fear of repercussions—has been attempting to give the money back to the government—with interest. But the Obama Administration is icily refusing to accept the cash, going so far as to threaten the CEO if he continues attempting to repay.

It was Milton Friedman who stated that “nothing is so permanent as a 'temporary government program.'” The veracity of that statement has been demonstrated throughout the financial crisis. The steps that brought us to this point in time, to this—endgame,' if you will—are as clear as a Dantesque descent into the inferno:

1. First, the manufacture of a crisis. Whether itw as natural (i.e., cyclical) or artificial, it was sold to the American people as absolutely devastating. This was done many times by those in power during last fall's financial meltdown—the people were threatened with a “depression greater than the Great Depression.”

2. Second, a “quick fix” must be introduced. After the fear-inducing claims regarding the crisis were laid out, the “solution” was presented as 'man's last hope.' Once popular opinion was seemingly behind the measure, those in power forced it upon those who they deemed 'needed' the 'help,' regardless of rational minds that objected. This was all to be done hastily—much like the stimulus, upon which the very “survival” of civilization depended, one would think, after the intense, coordinated political assault launched on its behalf.

3. Third, tighten the jaws of death. Once the government had a foot in the door, they refused to remove it, claiming that doing so would result in crisis all over again. To be sure, some smaller banks are being allowed to return their TARP funds. But the big banks are being forced to hold onto the taxpayer funds. And many politicians are no doubt salivating over the opportunities for increased power that exist through the bailout funds.

Already the auto industry is reeling from the tightening grip of government's mailed fist. Last week, President Obama fired GM's CEO. Now, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is pledging to give government “assistance” to banks, and force a “change in management and the board,” if required. Of course, its already too late for those banks that agreed to government oversight via TARP. They are now finding that money from Washington does indeed come with strings—no, make that a noose—attached.

This de facto nationalization—the endgame of all the bailouts and fear mongering—will ineluctably result in the biggest destruction of a nation's economy ever seen in such a short period in history.

And yet the blame does not solely lie at the feet of the federal government; the bankers too played a role in their own demise. The very Federal Reserve whose bailout actions doomed them to live as pawns of the government was at one time viewed as a mechanism by which the banks could influence the government. Then, the tables were turned.

Indeed, a quick look at the New York Federal Reserve—which, under Mr. Geithner, delivered the first of the bailouts to give $29 billion to JP Morgan to purchase Bear Stearns and $85 billion in initial loans to AIG—reveals a large number of banks represented. Of the seven members of the NY Fed's Board of Directors, a disproportionate number are high profile bankers. Stephen Friedman, the retired chairman of Goldman Sachs and present chair of another financial institution, was appointed by the Board of Governors to the Fed's Board of Directors, to “represent the public.” He also currently serves as chairman of the NY Fed.

The three board members elected by “member banks” to represent their interests are bank CEOs. Richard Carrion is “chairman and chief executive officer of Banco Popular de Puerto Rico,” as well as its holding company. Charles Wait is the “president, chief executive officer and chairman of the board of The Adirondack Trust Company.” Jamie Dimon is the “chairman of the board and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co.”

And Mr. Geithner's replacement, as president of the NY Fed, William Dudley, served for over 20 years at Goldman Sachs, including as its chief US economist for 10 years, and later a “partner and managing director.”

Similarly, the Fed itself was founded by the largest banks of its day nearly 100 years ago. Top associates of financial giants such as J. P. Morgan and William Rockefeller, and institutions such as the National City Bank of NY and First National Bank of NY were among those who met together with Senator Nelson Aldrich in secret to draw up the plans for the Federal Reserve.
No doubt the banks, now chafing under Big Government's rigid lash, hoped that their marriage to the government would enable them to impact economic policy in a way that would be favorable to their own interests. But, unfortunately for the banks, they are learning the hard way that, once the tables are turned and control is given to the federal government, the Leviathan's appetite proves insatiable.

So as the banks complain of the federal government's dictatorial involvement, they must examine themselves in the mirror of history and acknowledge that they are merely reaping what they sowed.

Still and all, the worst may be yet to come. As the chess match between the banks and government reaches its endgame, and the final pieces are held by the Treasury, soon the American people may find themselves receiving their own mandatory “invitations” to the party in the mail—with a massive confiscatory tax bill from a ravenous IRS.

Isaac MacMillen is a Contributing Editor of ALG News Bureau.

ALG CTA: Once again the Treasury painting a catastrophic picture in order to justify excessive regulation and outright seizure of financial institutions. The national dependency on government bailouts must end now! The Administration is enjoying unparalleled power over the overall economy. Help us enlighten the White House by calling the President's Chief of Staff directly at 202-456-6797. Help us in asking the White House to allow banks without the threat of government seizure!

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1102

Jesse's Café Américain - Money Talks, BS Walks

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/04/credit-bubble-was-ponzi-scheme-enabled.html


They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Here is a picture of the US credit bubble, with the deleveraging which has just begun.

It is/was a Ponzi scheme, enabled by the advantages of controlling the reserve currency of the world, pure and simple.

It was the US dollar that was monetized, or more specifically US debt obligations, which are now substantially worthless and will have to take a significant haircut in real terms. This is similar to the Japanese experience in which they monetized their real estate.

Ironically, those expecting this deleveraging to result in a stronger dollar could not be more mistaken. The Obama Administration is scrambling to obtain relief from Europe and Asia, getting them to inflate their own currencies through 'stimulus,' in order to continue to hide the unalterable truth - the US must partially default on its debt as expressed in the dollar and the Bond.

This is the inevitable outcome of all Ponzi schemes. Several smaller, private schemes already have collapsed. The big one is yet to come down. And when it does, the foundations of democracy will shake, several governments will fall, and we will once again experience the kind of uncertainty more familiar to those who lived in the first half of the twentieth century.

The sad truth is that the Obama Administration has barely begun the real work of rebuilding the economy. Everything to date is simple looting, paper-hanging, and the rewriting of history.

Until the median wage improves significantly in real terms, and the economy is put back on a productive basis without relying on the unsupported expansion of credit, there will be no recovery, merely sound byte opportunities for the smoke and mirror crowd.

This is the reality.

Recent Republic Magazine

Wow... The response has been great for the new issue (#14).
Here's your digital copy in both our interactive format and
in downloadable PDF.

Don't forget that you can zoom in on the interactive version by
clicking on the page.

The 2nd Amendment is our last line of defense against a
government that is out of control, please spread this magazine
and it's message FAR and WIDE!

Interactive Version:
http://www.republicmagazine.com/magazines/issue14

PDF Download
http://www.republicmagazine.com/magazines/Republic-Magazine14.pdf


I KNOW... no one like to be sold something, but I have to say it..
Since we are totally supported by orders of activist copies and
subscriptions, please consider getting copies to give or encourage
others to subscribe to Republic.
http://www.republicmagazine.com/subscribe/

Activist Copies:
http://www.republicmagazine.com/

I don't always say it but, know that I AM PROUD to stand beside
you on the front lines in this hour to restore freedom and
prosperity to this nation.

Although the majority of the sleeping masses are uninterested in
securing their liberty, the children, grandchildren and great-
grandchildren of these souls of whom you may never meet, will one
day look upon you with admiration for being among the second wave
of American Patriots and appreciate your sacrifice.

This is what keeps me going... "Duty, Honor and Country" does not
only apply to paid servicemen/women but to every American of the
Constitutional Militia.

United We Stand,
George

P.S. I almost forgot to mention, we now have our own patriot
TV station online with f.r.e.e on demand, full-length films:

FREEDOM TV
http://www.freedom.tv

Gathering In Gonzales

Howdy folks! Pickdog wanted me to pass this along..... Many, many thanks to YeOldFurt for spearheading this! The Oath Keepers will muster in Gonzales on April 19th. All preppers/Patriots are invited to attend! There will be speakers, and I'm not sure what else, but it will be an excellent opportunity to get together with like minded folks, and make some new friends. Friends who will have your back when the going gets rough.

Watch Texas Prepper's Network, YeOldFurt's blog, and Keep It Simple Survival for more details in the coming days, and make plans to join us in Gonzales April 19th!

Banks Did the ECB Save COMEX from Gold Default? Important!

By: Avery Goodman


On Tuesday morning, gold derivatives dealers, who had sold short in the face of a fast rising gold price, faced a serious predicament. Some 27,000 + contracts, representing about 15% of the April COMEX gold futures contracts remained open. Technically, short sellers are required to give “notice” of delivery to long buyers. However, in reality, buyers are the ones who control the amount of gold to be delivered. They “demand” delivery of physical gold by holding futures contracts past the expiration date. This time, long buyers were demanding in droves.

In normal times, very few people do this. Only about 1% or less of gold contracts must be delivered. The lack of delivery demand allows the casino-like world of paper gold futures contracts to operate. Very few short sellers actually expect or intend to deliver real gold. They are, mostly, merely playing with paper. It was amazing, therefore, when March 30, 2009 came and passed, and so many people stood for delivery, refusing to part with their long gold futures positions.

On Tuesday, March 31st, Deutsche Bank (DB) amazed everyone even more, by delivering a massive 850,000 ounces, or 850 contracts worth of the yellow metal. By the close of business, even after this massive delivery, about 15,050 April contracts, or 1.5 million ounces, still remained to be delivered. Most of these, of course, are unlikely to be the obligations of Deutsche Bank. But, the fact that this particular bank turned out to be one of the biggest short sellers of gold, is a surprise. Most people presumed that the big COMEX gold short sellers are HSBC (HBC) and/or JP Morgan Chase (JPM). That may be true. However, it is abundantly clear that they are not the only game in town.

Closely connected institutions, it seems, do not have to worry about acting irresponsibly, in taking on more obligations than they can fulfill. Mysteriously, on the very same day that gold was due to be delivered to COMEX long buyers, at almost the very same moment that Deutsche Bank was giving notice of its deliveries, the ECB happened to have “sold” 35.5 tons, or a total of 1,141,351 ounces of gold, on March 31, 2009. Convenient, isn’t it? Deutsche Bank had to deliver 850,000 ounces of physical gold on that day, and miraculously, the gold appeared out of nowhere.

The announcement of the ECB sale was made, as usual, dryly, without further comment. There was little more than a notation of a sale, as if it were a meaningless blip in the daily activity of the central bank. But, it was anything but meaningless. It may have saved a major clearing member of the COMEX futures exchange from defaulting on a huge derivatives position. We don’t know who the buyer(s) was, but we don’t leave our common sense at home. The ECB simply states that 35.5 tons were sold, and doesn’t name any names. Common sense, logic and reason tells us that the buyer was Deutsche Bank, and that the European Central Bank probably saved the bank and COMEX from a huge problem. What about the balance, above 850,000 ounces? What will happen to that? I am willing to bet that Deutsche Bank will use it, in June, to close out remaining short positions, or that it will be sold into the market, at an opportune time, if it hasn’t already been sold on Tuesday, to try to control the inevitable rise of the price of gold.

Circumstantial evidence has always been a powerful force in the law. It allows police, investigators, lawyers and judges to ferret out the truth. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in any court of law to prove a fact. It is used all the time, both when we initiate investigations, and once we seek indictments and convictions. We do this because we deal in a corrupt world, filled with suspicious actions and lies, and the circumstances are often suspicious enough to give rise to a strong inference that something is amiss. Most of the time, when the direct evidence is insufficient to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence fills the void, and gives us the conviction. We even admit evidence of the circumstances to prove murder cases. In light of that, it certainly seems appropriate to use circumstantial evidence in evaluating possible regulatory violations. The size and timing of the delivery of Deutsche Bank’s COMEX obligation is suspicious, to say the least, when taken in conjunction with the size and timing of the ECB’s gold sale. It is circumstantial evidence that the gold used by Deutsche Bank to deliver and fulfill its COMEX obligations, came directly or indirectly, from the ECB.

I’d sure like to know what the ECB’s “alibi” is. If I were an investigator for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), assigned to determine whether or not gold short sellers are knowingly violating the 90% cover rule, I’d be questioning the hell out of the ECB staffers, as well as employees in the futures trading division of Deutsche Bank. There is certainly enough evidence to raise “reasonable suspicion”. Reasonable suspicion is all that one needs to start a criminal investigation. It should be more than sufficient to prompt the CFTC, as well as European market regulators, to start a commercial investigation of the potential violation of regulatory rules by both the ECB and one of the world’s major banking institutions. That is, of course, if and only if, the CFTC staff really wants to regulate, rather than simply position themselves for more lucrative jobs inside the industry they are supposed to be regulating, after they leave government service.

It is quite important to determine whether or not Deutsche Bank was bailed out by the ECB because that will answer a lot of questions about allegations of naked short selling on the COMEX. If the ECB knew that its gold would be used as post ipso facto “cover” for uncovered shorting, staffers at the central bank might be co-conspirators. At any rate, if the German bank did sell short on futures contracts without having enough vaulted gold it sold a naked short. It also means that the ECB has facilitated a major rule violation in a jurisdiction (the USA) with which Europe is supposed to have extensive joint regulatory agreements, any number of which may have been violated by this action of the ECB. At the very least, naked short selling is a blatant violation of CFTC regulations, which require 90% cover of all deliverable metals contracts. If the delivered gold came directly, or indirectly, from the ECB, it means that Deutsche Bank’s gold short contracts were “naked” at the time they were entered into.

The 90% cover rule is very old rule, designed to prevent fraud on the futures markets. Its origin dates back into the 19th century. Farmers, in that simpler age, were complaining that big bank speculators were downwardly manipulating grain prices on the futures exchanges. Nowadays, the CFTC has a predilection toward categorizing banks as so-called “commercials” or “hedgers”, rather than as the speculators that they really are. Traditionally, only miners and gold dealers whose business involves a majority of PHYSICAL trade in gold should qualify as commercials. However, the CFTC has ignored this for a long time, and qualified numerous banks and other financial institutions, whose main gold business is derivatives, as “commercial” entities, immunizing them from position limits and other constraints. As a result, just like the farmers of the 19th century, today’s gold “cartel” conspiracy theorists revolve their theory around an allegation of downward manipulation, and heavy short selling concentration.

Manipulation can only take place when there is a disconnect between supply, demand, and trading activity on the futures exchanges. The 90% cover rule attempts to force a direct tie between the futures market and the availability of particular commodities, so that supply and demand become primary even on paper based futures markets, just as it is in trading the real commodity. Unfortunately, the modern CFTC has ignored or misinterpreted the purpose of the 90% cover rule for a very long time. This regulatory failure has allowed the current free-for-all “casino-like” atmosphere that now prevails at futures exchanges.

It would be helpful if some of my colleagues, within the public prosecutor and securities regulatory offices, in Europe, as well as the CFTC in America, filed complaints for discovery, to ferret out the truth. In the interest of transparent markets, the ECB should be forced to disclose who purchased the gold they sold in the morning of March 31, 2008 and why the sale was timed in a way that corresponded to the exact moment in time that Deutsche Bank had a desperate need for gold bullion.

Was it yet another bank bailout? Has another bank sucked up precious resources belonging, in this case, to the people of Europe? Gold is needed to bring confidence to the Euro currency, as often noted by Germany’s Bundesbank, which seems to be less kind to German banks than the ECB. Why should the ECB be permitted to sell gold to closely connected derivatives dealers, if the primary purpose is to save those dealers from the bad decisions they have made, and the end result is to reinforce moral hazard? Should banks like Deutsche Bank be allowed to take on more derivative risk than they can afford without involving publicly owned assets? Did Deutsche Bank issue naked short positions? Have innocent European citizens now had their currency placed at more risk, and some of their gold stolen from them, simply to enrich private hands? All of these questions are begging for answers.

European regulators are quick to condemn the Federal Reserve for its incestuous relationship to client “primary dealer” banks, special treatment of favored institutions at the expense of other non-favored institutions, propensity toward injecting dollars to artificially stimulate the stock market, seemingly endless bailouts of closely connected banks, and, now, the seemingly unlimited printing of new dollars. I’ll not attempt to excuse the Fed for its failures. Indeed, I believe that it is in the best interest of the American people to close down that malevolent institution, permanently. However, if any of the questions I have posed are answered in the positive, people might begin to understand that special favors, nepotism, corruption, and a failure to properly regulate are not confined to America. The real estate bubble, for example, was allowed to become much bigger in the U.K., Ireland, Spain, and eastern Europe, than it ever was in the USA. The collapse of real estate, in those countries, is going to be more severe, even though it is more recent in origin than the pullback in the USA. America happened to be the first nation affected, but it did not cause the world economic collapse. That was caused by the joint irresponsible policies in almost every major nation in the world.

Those who rely on the good faith of Angela Merkel, to keep the Euro inviolate, certainly have a right to get answers from the ECB and from Deutsche Bank. The answers will tell us a lot about the real proclivities of the ECB. As the U.S. dollar is progressively debased, in coming years, will the Euro be any better? Is the ECB merely a European copy of the Federal Reserve “slush fund”, utilized by well connected European banks, for the purpose of private financial gain, much as the Federal Reserve’s assets are utilized by its primary dealers? If the ECB is willing to bail out a major trading institution from the mismanagement of its derivatives operations, who could honestly claim that it would hesitate to competitively debase the Euro against the dollar? Having the answers to the questions I have posed would give everyone the knowledge needed to make important decisions. That is exactly the reason that, in all likelihood, we will never get these answers. Maybe, Europeans and others ought to be dumping Euros just as fast as they are now dumping dollars, and buy gold and silver, instead.

Aside from the regulatory issues, if we did discover that Deutsche Bank got its gold from the ECB, one glaringly strong inference arises. When a major derivatives dealer goes begging for gold, to the ECB, it is very strong circumstantial evidence that not enough physical gold is available for purchase on the OTC wholesale market. Up until now, bearish gold commentators have steadfastly denied that wholesale gold shortages exist. Instead, they have insisted that all shortages are confined to retail forms of gold. Now, when combined with the circumstantial evidence, however, common sense tells us that they are wrong.

Decision: There is sufficient evidence for this case to go to a full scale investigation. The CFTC and similar securities regulators in Europe need to properly investigate the gold conspiracy allegations. That has never been done to date. They must determine who is buying central bank gold and whether or not it is simply being sold into the open market, or channeled into the hands of favored financial institutions who then use it to cover naked short selling. The investigation must include detailed vault audits and explore all paper trails.

Disclosure: Long on gold

Our Masked Marine Speaks Again: "Give me liberty or give me DEATH"!

God Bless this Patriot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D680st4cRIM

His description of this video: "Inspired by an incredible speech given March 23, 1775, by Patrick Henry at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia. It saddens me how easily the words of our founders can be applied to today.

Website for all military and police that defend the constitution"www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com

MSNBC Obammy Poll - Not that it really matters

Since few of us watch MSNBC, we need to get this sent around to our friends so MSNBC will know what people really think of him. Otherwise, they will report everyone is happy. (If we are not happy I am sure the poll will not be reported.)

VOTE and send it on to your friends. MSNBC has a live poll to grade Obama's performance as President, and we need to get some conservative voices showing up in the results!

Here is the site: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093/