A couple days ago on the RushLimbaugh show he was interviewing Vice-President Cheney. Twice he asked Mr. Cheney where the monty to do these bailouts was coming from, citing numerous requests from listeners concerned about it.
both times Mr. Cheney talked about all other aspects of the bailouts, but not once did he address the question so deftly presented by Rush Limbaugh.
so, where does the money come from?
The term, "conpspiracy theorist" is a tag that public figures shy away from like the plague. But, in things political and monetary, it is no hokey-pokey idea to be shrugged off so easily. We Americans have an interesting monetary system. It is debt based, not gold standard based. If money is needed, the Treasury orders it from the Federal Reserve Bank.
If you've been thinking that is just another pocket of cash that the government holds, then think again. Ever wonder why, and to whom, the interest figure in the national budget is owed? Oh, sure, a lot of it is owed out on Treasury bills and bonds held by citizens, foreigners and foreign governemnts. Eventually, it all comes down to owing the Federal Reserve.
To pay off the national debt, our money supply--available cash in the economy--would have to be reduced--take what is collected from citizens in taxes and return it to the Federal Reseerve. Or, borrow more money to pay off the older debt. M-1 and M-2 are the labels given to the money supply.
So, the money to bail out those companies must come from the Federal Reserve. About 1820 or so, Nathan Rothchild stated that "give him control of a nation's money supply and he would not care what the country's laws are."
The Federal Reserve System is not U.S. Federal. It is a system of private banks owned by elite banking families of the world. It was begun in a conspiratorial gettogether of those banking folks back in 1913 at an island off the coast of the Carolinas and called the Federal Reserve System to mislead the American people into accepting it by law as the monetary system of the USA.
I understand that if Congress prints currency, it then sells the printed bills to the Federal Reserve at 10 cents on the dollar. Then the US buys them back at face value to put into our treasury. However, coinage is pressed and sold to the Feds at face value. Strange workings, eh?
Probably, we would not have had the economic expansion of the 20th century under any other, tighter system, but one can see how it has gotten us into great financial difficulty in relation to the world community of nations. And, sad to say, he who holds the gold, rules.
Mr. Cheney did not answer Limbaugh's questions because the answer would create more questions than answers are allowable at this point.
Gene Lawley
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
President Bush Has Stood Solid
I get tired of the self-styled, know-it-all writers, both nationally and locally, who declare Presidnent Bush a dumbell and absent of intelligent--now compared to the brilliant intelligence of President-elect Obama.
Its a lot like the critics of Abraham Lincoln in his day. He was fixed on saving the nation from permanent separation, showing great strength of character in the face of terrible conditions and opposition. President Bush declared on the day after 9/11 that the threat of terrorism was worldwide and he would lead the effort to overcome it wherever it may be, including those who harebored terrorists, supplied them, and hid them. He said then that it would not be a quick, short-term effort. Everyone was for it, backing the President. Liberals soon forgot.
Liberals have wanted to classify the 9/11 attack as a mere police action and not a war, thus accusing Mr. Bush of not going after bin Laden directly. They would not have done it. Clinton never did, nor any before him. Jimmy Carter could not get our citizens out of Iran's captivity. He was putty before Iran.
Critics launch attacks at Mr. bush as if they had sat in on national security briefings and new all the facts about a situation, so their wisdom, so--called--is so much better than the President's. The conclusion that Iraq never did have weapons of mass destruction because none were discovered there is one of the most stupid, ill-informed conclusions to come out of this era. All intelligence before Mr. Bush came into office was that they had WMDs; they had used them against Iran earlier.
They were capable of supplying and hiding terrorists, given the attitude of Saddam Hussien and his ignoring of UN resolutions. Thus, the move into Iraq was within Mr. Bush's declaration on September 12, 2001. He has stood on principle.
The liberal left, led by the liberal news media, have developed in this nation a disdain and hatred for President George W. Bush that is ill-founded, based on lies and fiction. Liberal writers, like those of the New York Times, write of Bush's "failed policies" in a blanket sttement, yet can they name any of them?
Here are some that did not fail: 1) Tax cuts stimulated the economy and increased and sustained employment; 2) The war in Iraq was right, the surge worked, and all would have been done much sooner had the liberal faction put the nation ahead of their socialistic and anti-American agenda. I am not afraid to call a spade a spade: many of those liberals and Bush-haters are clearly
unpatriotic, and some are traitors!
In the matter of Mr. Obama's intelligence being so much better than George Bush's, do you wonder about what motivates the news media leaders? On the night of October 31, 2008, on the Charlie Rose program on National Public Television, he and Tom Brokaw were asking each other what they really knew about Obama. About his foreign policy positions and other high-level issues of critical national importance. Neither of them could come up with anything. Both of them admitted they knew very little about lMr. Obama, though they had delighted in embracing and promoting his candidacy throughout the campaign. THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT HIM!
Why did they not think of asking for his records of his schooling, his law school teaching, writing, positions, etc.; his associations with political and radical figures in Illinois; his records of birth? Mr. Obama has seen that all those records have been locked up. Why? The next day after Sara Palin was nominated, the media went to work to dig up anything tey could find about her that could be used to dishonor her before the public. They did the same on "Joe, the Plumber" and he was not even running for office! I see great effort for DECEPTION in all of this.
Why does a bank robber pull a silk stocking or ski mask over his head when he goes into the bank? Because it's stylish? Or, maybe his face is cold? No, it's to hide his true identity.
October 31, the night of ghostly things, and Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, with seemingly little concern, disclosed a very scary thing!
That's my take on things political.
Gene Lawley
Its a lot like the critics of Abraham Lincoln in his day. He was fixed on saving the nation from permanent separation, showing great strength of character in the face of terrible conditions and opposition. President Bush declared on the day after 9/11 that the threat of terrorism was worldwide and he would lead the effort to overcome it wherever it may be, including those who harebored terrorists, supplied them, and hid them. He said then that it would not be a quick, short-term effort. Everyone was for it, backing the President. Liberals soon forgot.
Liberals have wanted to classify the 9/11 attack as a mere police action and not a war, thus accusing Mr. Bush of not going after bin Laden directly. They would not have done it. Clinton never did, nor any before him. Jimmy Carter could not get our citizens out of Iran's captivity. He was putty before Iran.
Critics launch attacks at Mr. bush as if they had sat in on national security briefings and new all the facts about a situation, so their wisdom, so--called--is so much better than the President's. The conclusion that Iraq never did have weapons of mass destruction because none were discovered there is one of the most stupid, ill-informed conclusions to come out of this era. All intelligence before Mr. Bush came into office was that they had WMDs; they had used them against Iran earlier.
They were capable of supplying and hiding terrorists, given the attitude of Saddam Hussien and his ignoring of UN resolutions. Thus, the move into Iraq was within Mr. Bush's declaration on September 12, 2001. He has stood on principle.
The liberal left, led by the liberal news media, have developed in this nation a disdain and hatred for President George W. Bush that is ill-founded, based on lies and fiction. Liberal writers, like those of the New York Times, write of Bush's "failed policies" in a blanket sttement, yet can they name any of them?
Here are some that did not fail: 1) Tax cuts stimulated the economy and increased and sustained employment; 2) The war in Iraq was right, the surge worked, and all would have been done much sooner had the liberal faction put the nation ahead of their socialistic and anti-American agenda. I am not afraid to call a spade a spade: many of those liberals and Bush-haters are clearly
unpatriotic, and some are traitors!
In the matter of Mr. Obama's intelligence being so much better than George Bush's, do you wonder about what motivates the news media leaders? On the night of October 31, 2008, on the Charlie Rose program on National Public Television, he and Tom Brokaw were asking each other what they really knew about Obama. About his foreign policy positions and other high-level issues of critical national importance. Neither of them could come up with anything. Both of them admitted they knew very little about lMr. Obama, though they had delighted in embracing and promoting his candidacy throughout the campaign. THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT HIM!
Why did they not think of asking for his records of his schooling, his law school teaching, writing, positions, etc.; his associations with political and radical figures in Illinois; his records of birth? Mr. Obama has seen that all those records have been locked up. Why? The next day after Sara Palin was nominated, the media went to work to dig up anything tey could find about her that could be used to dishonor her before the public. They did the same on "Joe, the Plumber" and he was not even running for office! I see great effort for DECEPTION in all of this.
Why does a bank robber pull a silk stocking or ski mask over his head when he goes into the bank? Because it's stylish? Or, maybe his face is cold? No, it's to hide his true identity.
October 31, the night of ghostly things, and Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, with seemingly little concern, disclosed a very scary thing!
That's my take on things political.
Gene Lawley
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The One-Sided Stupidity of Leftists
My Dad had a saying I heard from time to time over the years: "Some folks don't have the sense God gave a goose!"
America has not won a war, really, since World War II. In that one, the nation pulled together as one, garnered its resources and manpower, and paid the price for freedom. Since then, internal opposition from leftists has splintered our ability to get the job done. Political expediency plays a part, as well as a lack of moral integrity and strength of character in the liberal segment of our nation.
Yes, that's right. Our local newspaper, The Times News, consistently publishes columnists associated with the most liberal media in the nation--New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, etc. They drop in a column from Cal Thomas quite often, but rarely anyone else not identified with liberal mindsets.
Those columnists are consistently down on President Bush, directly or indirectly, and fail to show the courage of convictions that are right and true. For instance, in a column some months ago by Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times surmised that he would rather contend with an Iran with threatening nuclear capabilities than to confront them head-on! Given the types of threats coming out of that regime, that is like a puppy dog rolling over on its back and wetting on itself in pre-mature self-defeat.
The Times News opinion page article by Paul Krugman (yes, he writes for the New York Times) on July 12, 2008, is about as one-sided as they get, though he seems to say things are not President Bush's fault while saying they really are his fault. He compares the likelihood of Bush leaving office with a record of only 5 million job gains, while Clinton "presided over" a gain of 22 million jobs. What he doesn't tell us, with the use of the words, "presided over", is that it was a Republican-controlled Congress that provided that gain, and without an overriding terrorist threat and a rising military resistance to it for most of his two terms.
This threat of worldwide terrorism came to a head on 9/11, mainly because of liberal passivity, political opposition and lack of the courage of conviction in administrations since the Reagan era. Terrorists have been nibbling at our military outposts, embassies, and even the World Trade Center in New York during those years, yet no real "stand up and be counted" resistance came forth. Sure, we resisted Iraq's intended takeover of its neighbor in the first Bush administration, but the job was not completed, and it was not a direct response to terrorism attacks on America.
Prior to Reagan, President Carter could not get our captives freed from Iran, but as soon as Reagan was in office the issue was resolved. Carter was soft as putty in that arena, as well as on economic issues, yet he won a Nobel peace prize, just like Clinton wanted to do.
Here is a quote from Krugman's opinion column: "And what does Bush have to say about his dismal record? 'I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they'll recognize tax cuts work.' Clueless to the end." Krugman clearly comes under my Dad's categorization for stupidity. By his summation statement, Krugman tells us he is for increasing taxes, as if that would solve economic problems! Blind stupidity just cannot embrace reality, for what kind of thinking is it that believes taking funds out of the economy through heavier taxing and running them through Washington will increase economic expansion, greater job opportunities and financial well-being of the citizens?
Had the liberal left been supportive in this war on terror instead of showing constant hatrid for President Bush, most of the foreign and domestic problems would be under control now. Our enemies see a divided country and relish in their success at our expense. Yet, how many attacks on American soil or our foreign embassies can you count since 9/11 when Mr. Bush stood up and declared "we will pursue terrorists wherever they go as well as those who support them"? Liberals have a lot to learn and I am not at all donfident they will succeed in the process, for history has taught them nothing.
Krugman and all of his like-minded colleagues fit my Dad's caustic description of mental deficiecy, and I have no use for their kind of thinking.
Gene Lawley
America has not won a war, really, since World War II. In that one, the nation pulled together as one, garnered its resources and manpower, and paid the price for freedom. Since then, internal opposition from leftists has splintered our ability to get the job done. Political expediency plays a part, as well as a lack of moral integrity and strength of character in the liberal segment of our nation.
Yes, that's right. Our local newspaper, The Times News, consistently publishes columnists associated with the most liberal media in the nation--New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, etc. They drop in a column from Cal Thomas quite often, but rarely anyone else not identified with liberal mindsets.
Those columnists are consistently down on President Bush, directly or indirectly, and fail to show the courage of convictions that are right and true. For instance, in a column some months ago by Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times surmised that he would rather contend with an Iran with threatening nuclear capabilities than to confront them head-on! Given the types of threats coming out of that regime, that is like a puppy dog rolling over on its back and wetting on itself in pre-mature self-defeat.
The Times News opinion page article by Paul Krugman (yes, he writes for the New York Times) on July 12, 2008, is about as one-sided as they get, though he seems to say things are not President Bush's fault while saying they really are his fault. He compares the likelihood of Bush leaving office with a record of only 5 million job gains, while Clinton "presided over" a gain of 22 million jobs. What he doesn't tell us, with the use of the words, "presided over", is that it was a Republican-controlled Congress that provided that gain, and without an overriding terrorist threat and a rising military resistance to it for most of his two terms.
This threat of worldwide terrorism came to a head on 9/11, mainly because of liberal passivity, political opposition and lack of the courage of conviction in administrations since the Reagan era. Terrorists have been nibbling at our military outposts, embassies, and even the World Trade Center in New York during those years, yet no real "stand up and be counted" resistance came forth. Sure, we resisted Iraq's intended takeover of its neighbor in the first Bush administration, but the job was not completed, and it was not a direct response to terrorism attacks on America.
Prior to Reagan, President Carter could not get our captives freed from Iran, but as soon as Reagan was in office the issue was resolved. Carter was soft as putty in that arena, as well as on economic issues, yet he won a Nobel peace prize, just like Clinton wanted to do.
Here is a quote from Krugman's opinion column: "And what does Bush have to say about his dismal record? 'I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they'll recognize tax cuts work.' Clueless to the end." Krugman clearly comes under my Dad's categorization for stupidity. By his summation statement, Krugman tells us he is for increasing taxes, as if that would solve economic problems! Blind stupidity just cannot embrace reality, for what kind of thinking is it that believes taking funds out of the economy through heavier taxing and running them through Washington will increase economic expansion, greater job opportunities and financial well-being of the citizens?
Had the liberal left been supportive in this war on terror instead of showing constant hatrid for President Bush, most of the foreign and domestic problems would be under control now. Our enemies see a divided country and relish in their success at our expense. Yet, how many attacks on American soil or our foreign embassies can you count since 9/11 when Mr. Bush stood up and declared "we will pursue terrorists wherever they go as well as those who support them"? Liberals have a lot to learn and I am not at all donfident they will succeed in the process, for history has taught them nothing.
Krugman and all of his like-minded colleagues fit my Dad's caustic description of mental deficiecy, and I have no use for their kind of thinking.
Gene Lawley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)