POLITICALPYRO CONTRIBUTORS

When I first read this I kinda sat back and pondered what would I do with ‘Joe’ if I were the Obama Administration… Yep, Under the Obama Speeding Bus of Disaster! Awesome economic piece… makes you wonder who Obama is listening too, or what his real plans are for the US.

The Most Misunderstood Man in America

Joseph Stiglitz predicted the global financial meltdown. So why can’t he get any respect here at home?

By Michael Hirsh | NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 18, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jul 27, 2009

Anya Stiglitz was in the middle of a Pilates class in Central Park on an April morning when her cell phone rang. Glancing down, she saw “202″ pop up—no number attached—and knew it was the White House. An aide to Larry Summers ~ was on the line, looking for her husband, the Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Anya said she’d pass on the message to Joe—then went back to work on her abs. No big deal, she thought. People often call her when they want to talk to Joe, because even though he’s spent four decades figuring out how the global economy works, he hasn’t quite gotten the hang of voice mail. “He doesn’t listen to his messages, so if you want to talk to him, keep calling,” Anya says on his cell-phone recording.

Anya figured Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, was probably just calling to gripe about Joe’s latest op-ed in The New York Times. Joe Stiglitz and Larry Summers, two towering intellects with egos to match, are not each other’s favorite economist. “They respect each other, but they hate each other like poison,” says Bruce Greenwald, Stiglitz’s friend and academic collaborator at Columbia. (”I’ve got huge admiration for Joe as an economic thinker,” Summers told NEWSWEEK.) Stiglitz had been hammering at Obama’s economic team for its handling of the financial crisis. He wrote that the stimulus program was too small to be effective—a criticism that has since swelled into a chorus, though Obama says he’s not adding more money. Stiglitz also had called the administration’s bailout plan a giveaway to Wall Street, an “ersatz capitalism” that would save the banks’ investors and creditors and screw the taxpayers. “I thought, Larry—he’s just going to yell at Joe,” Anya recalls.

But Summers’s aide soon called back, and this time he said it was urgent: could Professor Stiglitz come to Washington for a dinner hosted by the president—that same night? Anya patched him through to Joe’s office at Columbia University~; Stiglitz accepted, and jumped on an early train. He was a little miffed: the other eminent economists attending the dinner, like Princeton’s Alan Blinder and Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff, had been invited the week before. Stiglitz, a former chairman of Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, had supported Barack Obama as a candidate as early as 2007. But until that day, four months into the administration, he had heard barely a word from the White House. Even now, when the president was making an effort to hear a range of economic voices, Stiglitz seemed to be an afterthought. (A White House spokesman said only that the president wished to include Stiglitz.)

Such is the lot of Joe Stiglitz. Even in the contentious world of economics, he is considered somewhat prickly. And while he may be a Nobel laureate, in Washington he’s seen as just another economic critic—and not always a welcome one. Few Americans recognize his name, and fewer still would recognize the man, who is short and stocky and bears a faint resemblance to Mel Brooks. Yet Stiglitz’s work is cited by more economists than anyone else’s in the world, according to data compiled by the University of Connecticut. And when he goes abroad—to Europe, Asia, and Latin America—he is received like a superstar, a modern-day oracle. “In Asia they treat him like a god,” says Robert Johnson, a former chief economist for the Senate banking committee who has traveled with him. “People walk up to him on the streets.”

Stiglitz has won fans in China and other emerging G20 nations by arguing that the global economic system is stacked against poor nations, and by standing up to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. He is also the most prominent American economist to propose a long-term solution to the imbalances in capital flows that have wreaked havoc, from the Asian contagion of the late ’90s to the subprime-investment craze. Beijing has more or less endorsed Stiglitz’s idea for a new global reserve system to replace the U.S. dollar as the world currency. Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao has been influenced by Stiglitz’s work, especially when “he talks about the economics of poor people,” says Fang Xinghai, the head of Shanghai’s financial-services office. But his stature is huge in Europe as well: French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently featured him at a conference on rethinking globalization. And earlier this month, while traveling to Europe and South Africa, Stiglitz received a call from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s office: could he return through London and help the P.M. get ready for the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh?

Stiglitz is perhaps best known for his unrelenting assault on an idea that has dominated the global landscape since Ronald Reagan: that markets work well on their own and governments should stay out of the way. Since the days of Adam Smith, classical economic theory has held that free markets are always efficient, with rare exceptions. Stiglitz is the leader of a school of economics that, for the past 30 years, has developed complex mathematical models to disprove that idea. The subprime-mortgage disaster was almost tailor-made evidence that financial markets often fail without rigorous government supervision, Stiglitz and his allies say. The work that won Stiglitz the Nobel in 2001 showed how “imperfect” information that is unequally shared by participants in a transaction can make markets go haywire, giving unfair advantage to one party. The subprime scandal was all about people who knew a lot—like mortgage lenders and Wall Street derivatives traders—exploiting people who had less information, like global investors who bought up subprime- mortgage-backed securities. As Stiglitz puts it: “Globalization opened up opportunities to find new people to exploit their ignorance. And we found them.”

Stiglitz’s empathy for the little guy—and economically backward nations—comes to him naturally. The son of a schoolteacher and an insurance salesman, he grew up in one of America’s grittiest industrial cities—Gary, Ind.—and was shaped by the social inequalities and labor strife he observed there. Stiglitz remembers realizing as a small boy that something was wrong with our system. The Stiglitzes, like many middle-class families, had an African-American maid. She was from the South and had little education. “I remember thinking, why do we still have people in America who have a sixth-grade education?” he says.

Those early experiences in Gary gave Stiglitz a social conscience—as a college student, he attended Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech—and led him to probe the reasons why markets failed. While studying at MIT, he says he realized that if Smith’s “invisible hand” always guided behavior correctly, the kind of unemployment and poverty he had witnessed in Gary shouldn’t exist. “I was struck by the incongruity between the models that I was taught and the world that I had seen growing up,” Stiglitz said in his Nobel Prize lecture in 2001. In the same speech he declared that the invisible hand “might not exist at all.” The solution, Stiglitz says, is to move beyond ideology and to develop a balance between market-driven economies—which he favors—and government oversight.

Stiglitz has warned for years that pro-market zeal would cause a global financial meltdown very much like the one that gripped the world last year. In the early ’90s, as a member of Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, Stiglitz argued (unsuccessfully) against opening up capital flows too rapidly to developing countries, saying those markets weren’t ready to handle “hot money” from Wall Street. Later in the decade, he spoke out (without results) against repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which regulated financial institutions and separated commercial from investment banking. Since at least 1990, Stiglitz has talked about the risks of securitizing mortgages, questioning whether markets and authorities would grow careless “about the importance of screening loan applicants.” Malaysian economist Andrew Sheng says, “I think Stiglitz is the nearest thing there is to Keynes in this crisis.”

That would be John Maynard Keynes, the great 20th-century economist who rocketed to international renown in late 1919 when he published The Economic Consequences of the Peace. In his book, Keynes warned that the draconian penalties imposed on Germany after World War I would lead to political disaster. No one listened. The disaster he predicted turned out to be World War II. Like Stiglitz, Keynes was not a favorite at the White House. Keynes also believed that markets were imperfect: he invented modern macroeconomics—which calls for major government intervention to help ailing economies—in response to the Great Depression. But after meeting Keynes for the first time in 1934, FDR dismissed him as too abstract and intellectual, according to Robert Skidelsky, Keynes’s biographer. Keynes himself fretted that Roosevelt was not spending enough.

To his critics—and there are many—Stiglitz is a self-aggrandizing rock-thrower. Even some of his intellectual allies note that while Stiglitz is often right on the substance of issues, he tends to leap to the conclusion that government can make things better. Harvard economist Rogoff has called him intolerably arrogant—though he added that Stiglitz is a “towering genius.” In a letter to -Stiglitz published in 2002, Rogoff recalled a moment when the two of them were teaching at Princeton and former Fed chairman Paul Volcker’s name came up for tenure. “You turned to me and said, ‘Ken, you used to work for Volcker at the Fed. Tell me, is he really smart?’ I responded something to the effect of ‘Well, he was arguably the greatest Federal Reserve chairman of the 20th century.’ To which you replied, ‘But is he smart like us?’” (Stiglitz says he can’t remember the comment, but adds that he might have been referring to whether Volcker was an abstract thinker.)

Stiglitz’s defenders say one possible explanation for his outsider status in Washington is his ongoing rivalry with Summers. While they are both devotees of Keynes, Summers often has supported deregulation of financial markets—or at least he did before last year—while Stiglitz has made a career of mistrusting markets. Since the early ’90s, when Summers was a senior Treasury official and Stiglitz was on the Council of Economic Advisers, the two have engaged in fierce policy debates. The first fight was over the Clinton admin-is-tration’s efforts to pry open emerging financial markets, such as South Korea’s. Stiglitz argued there wasn’t good evidence that liberalizing poorly regulated Third World markets would make any one more prosperous; Summers wanted them open to U.S. firms.

The differences between them grew bitter in the late 1990s, when Stiglitz was chief economist for the World Bank and took issue with the way Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and Summers, who was then deputy secretary, were handling the Asian “contagion” financial collapse. After World Bank president James Wolfensohn declined to reappoint him in 1999, Stiglitz became convinced that Summers was behind the slight. Summers denies this, and maintains that no rivalry exists between them. Summers’s deputy Jason Furman says that Summers now “talks to [Stiglitz] a lot.” “A lot” is an exaggeration, Stiglitz responds. “We’ve talked one or two times,” he says.

Despite the Obama team’s occasional efforts to reach out to him, Stiglitz remains deeply unhappy about the administration’s approach to the financial crisis. Rather than breaking up or restructuring the big banks that failed, “the Obama administration has actually expanded the notion of ‘too big to fail,’ ” he says. In a veiled poke at his dubious standing in Washington, Stiglitz adds: “In Britain there is a more open discussion of these issues.” A senior White House official, responding to this critique, says that the Obama administration is most often criticized these days for intervening too much in the economy, not too little.

In other respects, Obama is embracing some of Stiglitz’s views, suggests Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget—and a former Stiglitz protégé (he worked for Stiglitz during the Clinton administration). One example: Obama’s new idea for reforming health care by creating a government-run program to compete with private-sector insurers. “There is an intellectual paradigm in health care that says you should move to purely private markets,” says Orszag. “Joe’s perspective would suggest major difficulties [with that]. That led to the thought that we need a mix: there is an important government role.”

Today, settled as a professor at Columbia, Stiglitz occasionally finds himself welcomed in the nation’s capital, though usually at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, to testify before Congress. While he had no great desire to go back into government, friends say he was deeply disappointed when an offer didn’t come from Obama last fall. Not surprisingly, Stiglitz believes his old rival was behind it, though Summers denies this. As for the invitation to dinner at the White House, there were a few theories kicked around the spacious Stiglitz household on Manhattan’s Upper West Side as to why it came at the last minute: one was that Obama, in an interview posted online that week by The New York Times, had cited Stiglitz as one of the critics he listens to, so it would have seemed strange if he hadn’t been invited to the dinner. While Stiglitz was flattered by the discussion over a dinner of roast beef and Michelle Obama’s homegrown lettuce, he can’t stop himself from complaining that an occasional meal with dissidents is not the best way for the president to formulate policy. “Some of the most difficult debates and judgments can’t really be hammered out in an hour-and-a-half meeting covering lots of topics,” he says. Stiglitz may a prophet without much honor in Washington, but he seems to be determined to keep the prophecies coming.

Tincture of Lawlessness
Obama’s Overreaching Economic Policies

By George F. Will
Thursday, May 14, 2009

Anyone, said T.S. Eliot, could carve a goose, were it not for the bones. And anyone could govern as boldly as his whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil — the rule of law. The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.

In February, California’s Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state’s fastest-growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly people and which cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that “loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester.”

But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.

Such a federal ukase (the word derives from czarist Russia; how appropriate) to a state legislature is a sign of the administration’s dependency agenda — maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government. For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is.

The SEIU says the cuts violate contracts negotiated with counties. California officials say the state required the contracts to contain clauses allowing pay to be reduced if state funding is.

Anyway, the Obama administration, judging by its cavalier disregard of contracts between Chrysler and some of the lenders it sought money from, thinks contracts are written on water. The administration proposes that Chrysler’s secured creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them but that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in claims — and 55 percent of the company. This, even though the secured creditors’ contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union.

Among Chrysler’s lenders, some servile banks that are now dependent on the administration for capital infusions tugged their forelocks and agreed. Some hedge funds among Chrysler’s lenders that are not dependent were vilified by the president because they dared to resist his demand that they violate their fiduciary duties to their investors, who include individuals and institutional pension funds.

The Economist says the administration has “ridden roughshod over [creditors’] legitimate claims over the [automobile companies’] assets. . . . Bankruptcies involve dividing a shrunken pie. But not all claims are equal: some lenders provide cheaper funds to firms in return for a more secure claim over the assets should things go wrong. They rank above other stakeholders, including shareholders and employees. This principle is now being trashed.” Tom Lauria, a lawyer representing hedge fund people trashed by the president as the cause of Chrysler’s bankruptcy, asked that his clients’ names not be published for fear of violence threatened in e-mails to them.

The Troubled Assets Relief Program, which has not yet been used for its supposed purpose (to purchase such assets from banks), has been the instrument of the administration’s adventure in the automobile industry. TARP’s $700 billion, like much of the supposed “stimulus” money, is a slush fund the executive branch can use as it pleases. This is as lawless as it would be for Congress to say to the IRS: We need $3.5 trillion to run the government next year, so raise it however you wish — from whomever, at whatever rates you think suitable. Don’t bother us with details.

This is not gross, unambiguous lawlessness of the Nixonian sort — burglaries, abuse of the IRS and FBI, etc. — but it is uncomfortably close to an abuse of power that perhaps gave Nixon ideas: When in 1962 the steel industry raised prices, President John F. Kennedy had a tantrum and his administration leaked rumors that the IRS would conduct audits of steel executives, and sent FBI agents on predawn visits to the homes of journalists who covered the steel industry, ostensibly to further a legitimate investigation.

The Obama administration’s agenda of maximizing dependency involves political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of “economic planning” and “social justice” that somehow produce results superior to what markets produce when freedom allows merit to manifest itself, and incompetence to fail. The administration’s central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.

Thanks 2 George F. Will and The Washington Post

Michelle’s High Heel Sneakers:

Time Marks of Note:

0.22 ~ $540 Sneakers

1:07 ~ She gona break the budget

1:31 ~ Makes first Reference to ‘Fist Bumper’ and ‘The Mac Daddy’

1:52 ~ Big Feet and Shaq

2:05 ~ Black Folk Love Sneakers

2:30 ~ Black People rather wear Sneaker than a Coat In Sub-Zero Weather

4:15 ~ No Sneakers in My Church

4:46 ~ The Black Addiction to Sneakers

5:11 ~ The Queen of Sneakers

5:41 ~ Making His Case - Housing

6:11 ~ Making His Case - Underwear

6:21 ~ The Big Finish

Looks as if the Obama administration is taking a play out out the Kennedy play book. Better than slitting your wrists in a bath tub of warm water, the acting CFO of Freddie Mac was found hung in his home in what is being labeled as a suicide.

Here is the story…

The acting chief financial officer of troubled mortgage giant Freddie Mac was found dead in his Fairfax County home early this morning after apparently committing suicide, Fairfax police said.

Continue>>> Freddie Mac Official Dead in Apparent Suicide <<<

To Bow or Not to Bow:

I almost pissed my pants!

Swing Low, Sweet Cadillac GM is Dead:

The Hon. James David Manning dedicates a song to the dying century-old automobile industry giant General Motors. This message comes from The Manning Report Monday, 30 March 2009.

Only the way Manning can say it.

Poor People Will Pay Obama’s Ego Tax:

MORE TROOPS FORTHCOMING IN OBAMA’S BID TO BECOME DICTATOR

President Barack Obama has signed an executive order presidential determination allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to settle in the United States at American taxpayers’ expense. Sure, what can go wrong when we allow hundreds of thousands of people who have been, as Mark Steyn memorably described, “marinated” in a “sick death cult,” who voted for Hamas, and 55% of whom support suicide bombing/murders in the United States. By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinians. Egypt won’t take them. Jordan won’t take them. Syria won’t take them. Saudi Arabia won’t take them. All of the Arab countries - every one of them - has allowed the Palestinians to fester for over 60 years. Meanwhile, generation after generation have become more and more radicalized. Their lives are unproductive - they “live” to die as martyrs - yearning for the rewards of the world beyond. The “presidential determination” will allow hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States. The determination was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4. President Obama’s decision, according to the Register, was necessitated by “the urgent refugee and migration needs” of the “victims.” Few on Capitol Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006. Wonder how long it’ll be before the U.S. is labeled a rouge country that supports terrorism

OBAMA WANTS TO DESTROY AMERICA

While doing my job the other day, a co-worker and I began a conversation about our economy. Since the subject was brought up by my co-worker, I let them speak at length… with me just adding an occasional, yeah, uhuh, right… you get the idea. The basic premise that was being put forth by my co-worker is that ~deep breath~ Obama, has really at this point done nothing for the average American worker… now I stress WORKER and not potential or current governmental employee.

What he has done is implemented a bunch of government projects that in some cases end, and in others, produce things that only our government wants or has determined in the best interest of OUR country. You can not export clean air regulated by a government. You can not produce a product that other countries don’t want and for that matter, CARE ABOUT in the first place.

Prime example is nuclear energy. France is the leader in nuclear powered energy. WHY? Because it is cheaper, more efficient and yes… CLEANER than all other energy combined. But here, in the states, we care about the environment, and government regulations make it prohibitive for private industry to even TRY! TO EVEN TRY to produce a more efficient, cleaner way.

Now follow me if you can… If America could find a better way to produce nuclear power, that would be something that other countries would want, NOT GREENER CARS!

Its like the stupid freak n Superconducting Super Collider that they (United Stateds of Pork Gut Spending), started building out there in… what the hell what it… Waxahachie, Texas. After billions and billions of tax payer money and thousands of empty jobs the project was put on hold.

What am I saying… this is what I’m saying. America needs to be producing something other then government mandated jobs and start putting money back into the private sector for real long term job creation that will produce products that the rest of the world wants to buy. We do not need any more governmental regulations that mandate that government money should produce a government product that is only viable in freak’n America.

And another thing… I don’t want me or my children and their children and their children’s, children to own any house that is not theirs. I do not want to take part in a multi-billion dollar bailout of every ass that bought a house they know that they could not afford. Not my responsibility pal. I look at it like this… Every one of us who had enough common sense, and did not buy something beyond our means is being punished for being prudent, cautious… or knowing that 1+1 will never equal anything but 2.

Thats enuff for now….

Now its MANNING TIME!

787 Billion Dollar Voodoo Bill:

I was trying to put together something on George Soros, but Joy Tiz says it better than I will ever be able to. (Val)

George Soros: International Man of Misery

By Joy Tiz Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The term “euphemism” refers to the substitution of a vague or milder term for one that may be considered harsh, offensive or blunt.
Example:

George Soros is a “philanthropist”.

If by “philanthropist” we mean one who creates chaos, destruction and financial ruin for his own personal gain, it’s a perfect fit. Calling Soros a philanthropist is rather like referring to the Nazi block wardens as Neighborhood Watch.

Soros certainly gives lots of money away. But a philanthropist acts to improve the human condition. Soros acts solely to improve the Soros condition. Despite the lofty sounding rhetoric about an Open Society, Soros’ objective is to wreck the United States. Actually Soros never really defines his Open Society. The concept arose in the 1930s with the notion of a moral code based on “universal principles”. After tweaking the concept to suit his own purposes, Soros adopted his own version of an Open Society which would be one in which the US has no power.

Soros was born in Hungary in 1930 to non practicing Jewish parents. His father, a lawyer was able to hide their identities and young George was recruited by the Judenrat to hand out flyers deceptively directing Jews to turn themselves in for deportation to the death camps. Soros later said he found the work exhilarating. Later passing himself as an official’s godson, he accompanied his benefactor confiscating valuables from innocent Jews. (David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party. 2006).

Soros would later tell Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes that he had no remorse about what he had done.

In fact, Soros doesn’t have remorse for much, if anything. In The Shadow Party (David Horowitz and Richard Poe, 2006), Soros is quoted as saying that conscience clouds an investor’s judgment.

Soros amassed his fortune by speculating in the currency markets. He got a lot of attention for tanking the British pound in 1992. More than once, Soros has used his status as an investor to manipulate markets. According to Horowitz and Poe, the great patriot Soros likely sold short after 9/11 when the rest of the nation was being urged to take whatever they could afford and buy some shares of their favorite stocks. Lots of patriotic Americans did exactly that.

To further jeopardize our national security, Soros told CNN that the market would react negatively if the US were to invade Afghanistan knowing his words would cause a global market reaction. Soros has stuck his nose in governments all over the world claiming a philanthropic motive. Yet like day into night, once he’s done, the local economy is in a shambles and Soros is richer.

The Clinton administration allowed Soros to run wild in the dying Soviet Union. The results were entirely predictable. Working in tandem with Strobe Talbott, “Russian Policy Czar” they set about playing games with government funds. Soros reveled in having so much access to the Clintons and fancied himself part of the “Clinton Team”.

According to journalist Anne Williamson, Soros appeared before the House Banking Committee in September, 1999 attempting to explain to stunned congressmen exactly how so many US taxpayer dollars had evaporated in Russia. The Clintons managed to shut that scandal down quickly thanks to their expertise in scandal control.

Soros was actually convicted of insider trading in France. His opinion moves markets. He is one of the most powerful people in the world entirely due to his ability to get other people to part with their money. His tentacles are everywhere. He uses numerous foundations and associations to keep money flowing and spread around. It’s no secret that George Soros is fond of deceit and subterfuge. He is a radical in the mold of Saul Alinsky. For all of the nonsensical blathering he does about how he can make the world a better place, he has no real plan to do any such thing. Soros loses interest in a project after the demo phase is over. According to Horowitz and Poe, Soros candidly admits he finds destruction easier than creation.

Thus it makes perfect sense that Soros is the de facto head of the Democratic Party in America now that it is a foaming-at-the-mouth rabid left wing Democratic Party. As Horowitz and Poe put it: “Soros and his Shadow Party did not invent the politics of demagoguery and racial division. They are merely practicing and expanding the politics familiar on the Democratic Left.”

In 2004 Soros made it his personal mission to defeat George W Bush. Not only did Bush not share his moral relativism and radical ideology, Soros was outraged about Afghanistan and Iraq. Soros opposed Bush’s War on Terror and provides funding to pro terror groups. Worse still from Soros’ point of view, after enjoying easy access to the Clintons, Bush was not equally impressed and failed to seek out his wise counsel on foreign policy.

John Kerry’s loss in 2004 was gasoline on the fire. “This is the Sorosization of the Democratic Party”, say Rachel Ehrenfelt and Shawn MacComber (Frontpagemagazine.com. October 28, 2004). “As we will see, this idea of “scruples” being for the other guy has been central to Soros’ philosophy in business, philanthropy, and foreign policy”.

Although Soros had a mutually beneficial relationship with the Clintons, he knew enough to hedge his bets in 2008 and back more than one candidate. The type of revolution Soros wants requires a charismatic figure that can create a mass movement. Soros himself actually dislikes publicity. Good oratory skills and personal charisma are what he needs. Soros himself prefers to stay below the radar and work his subterfuge behind the scenes. After all, “Soros’ main concern is that somebody be elected who is indebted enough to him to pick up the phone when he calls” (Ehrenfeld and MacComber).

Just the other day, I attended a speech by Peggy Noonan. The topic was presidents. She told funny stories and shared her insights into Presidents Bush, Reagan, Clinton and Obama. Noonan talked about Clinton’s personal charisma, “it was impossible not to look at him”. And his speeches were well delivered but remarkably lacking in substance. Is anyone seeing a pattern here? Noonan sees Obama as more like Clinton than anyone else, not only in his policies, but his presentation.

Is it possible then that Bill Clinton was supposed to fulfill the role of George Soros’ cult leading Messiah but simply failed at it?

Soros can’t wreak his havoc alone. He needs his cult leader.

It’s important to understand that George Soros doesn’t want to “change” America. He wants to destroy it. America in its current state is anathema to Soros. The current Oval Office Occupant is not particularly fond of America either. His association with America hating radicals should be enough for most people but let’s not overlook the fact that his very first sit down interview after becoming president was to al Arabyia News Channel. Obama took the opportunity to share his views with the Muslim world that America has behaved very badly and we can be expected to change our ways so our relationship with Muslims will be like it was “twenty or thirty years ago”. This is a bit perplexing unless Obama either knows less about history than we thought or he longs for the days when Islamofascists led by Khomeini were holding 52 American hostages. I daresay the Muslim world was cheered to learn that our new president plans to take us back to the happy halcyon days of the Carter Administration. Soros is actually working toward a plan to completely overhaul the US Constitution.

When Soros gets hold of power in any government, he makes money. It is difficult to find examples of Soros invasions that leave the target country better off. But that is not Soros’ concern. Obama’s monstrous “Stimulus Bill” (euphemisms again) fits neatly into Soros’ paradigm. You can read Soros’ economy recovery plan on the Huffington Post (February 12, 2009).

For all the posturing Soros does about creating his Marxist Utopia there is no actual plan to create a new social order, an open one or otherwise. Soros, for all of his rambling hasn’t thought it through that far and he is not going to. His interest begins and ends with his potential to exploit whomever he can to grab money and power. He actually makes garden variety dopey liberals rather endearing by comparison. At least some of them believe in their unrealistic vision of socialism.

Keeping in mind that Soros will always act in ways that provide maximum benefit to Soros what are his plans for Obama? It’s clear he found the cult leader he needed. Obama is performing correctly with his daily catastrophizing and power grabbing. But what would benefit Soros more: a successful Obama presidency or a failed one? Success would give Soros four to eight years to work in the Shadows to destroy America and grab what spoils he can. But a failed presidency could offer even more. Obama and his Ministry of Propaganda have managed to create fear and panic in the population. His policies, if implemented cannot but lead to economic trouble and eventual shortages and rationing. Nobody knows more about how to destroy a currency than Soros. We have assumed that the peculiar short selling patterns and over hyped economic “collapse” were staged to get Obama elected. If an inept, inexperienced and radical president has his way, which Obama surely will, the net result is pretty predictable. Is that kind of social and economic chaos designed to open up a power vacuum that a guy like Soros just can’t resist?

Freedom of Choice, Fairness Doctrine, Rights of the Child
Obama and this congress offer Socialist, Marxist cogs in the change wheel!

By Dr. Laurie Roth Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Already we are seeing the Socialist, Marxist cogs in the change wheel manipulating away our freedoms and money. Congress and this President have wasted no time from the executive orders to the manipulative speeches and attachments on the ‘stimulus’ bill that insult and betray the American people.

Don’t you love the endless speeches and statements by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama regarding the URGENT need to pass the stimulus bill or our country will go down in heaping flames? Naturally, we all understand the EXTREME emergency choices added to the bill such as $650 million for digital TV coupons; $99,600 for doorbells in Laurel, MS; $3,450,000 to ‘rehabilitate’ sidewalks in Alexandria, VA; $500,000 for a dog park in Chula Vista, CA; $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees; and how could we forget Nancy Pelosi’s favorite: $30 million to restore wetlands in the San Francisco Bay region of course to save the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. There is too much ridiculous fat and nonsense that has been thrown into this rape bill to even mention here. If you want a longer list of the absurd, read Frank Salvato’s Feb 13th article at Thenewmediajournal.us.

What is the change agenda of this administration and democrats in congress? It is becoming vividly clear already the goal is socialism and Marxism. Freedoms have to boldly go while control has to dramatically grow in all areas for this to happen. Surely no one will notice. After all, half the country wanted change! The other half can be seduced and distracted into silence…….or can we?

Karl Marx said it first: Marx stated that Socialism is not a form of government but is a state, a policed and engineered state in which a nation takes on while in “Transition” from a Capitalist to a Communist society while the “Communist Utopia” is the ultimate desired outcome of the full transition; a world with no police, no property, no religion, no classes, even no need for government, no war…a fantasy land of everlasting harmony…”From Hitler, Socialism and the Racial Agenda” Justin Stamm, The Epoch Times.

What are the sucking sounds draining our freedoms and setting us up for this new world?

Freedom of speech must be controlled and severally dampened!

Watch the Fairness Doctrine reemerge with a different name and directly attack conservative and Christian talk radio. Senior FCC staff have already been having meetings with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. They are pondering ways to create openings for the FCC to place the Fairness Doctrine back into existence without really calling it that. Freedom loving Waxman is also looking at controlling the Internet. I guess there is too much freedom of speech there as well.

The Fairness Doctrine crowd hides behind “diversity” and “freedom of speech” terms when in reality it is Government censorship and communist behavior at it’s finest. Liberals and progressives have always had the same freedoms to speak and do shows with all kinds of media. They already dominate in the media with NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS on and on. Then there is the endless domination with print media. It isn’t conservative Talk Radio’s fault that the liberal talk radio network has crashed and burned. It is however, most typical that the far left progressives can’t face their business failures but instead must try and murder the competition and promote a dictatorship heralding their opinions and side only.

On the larger Governmental level, this Government wants talk radio muted into silence because they and the Internet are the last real place for freedom of speech where the masses can actually be heard. Talk radio is a grass roots entertainment media where folks and their concerns can still be rallied and directed. That is most threatening to a Government that wants more control and socialism! Watch this fight unfold.

Another cog in this anti freedom train is nationalized health care.

We have seen the beginning of nationalized health care deceitfully attached to the stimulus bill with no national discussion on it. The critical part of this nightmare already is that the language changes the treatment terms in Medicaid and Medicare from what is thought of as safe and effective to “cost effective.” They model their new formula for figuring out this new conditional care on age and cost. They will divide the cost of treatment by the number of years the patient will likely benefit.

Do you all get it yet? That means you are in deep water if you are older!!! Is this not age discrimination and actual denial of needed health care and payment for our baby boomers? Beyond that, is this not another way to assert control over the country and economy by wiping out the greatest generation, the baby boomers who have fought to defend our freedom, constitution and country? Now that they finally enter retirement and need paid medical care, we will thank them for all their service by making life a costly, non-treatment oriented, living hell? Health care control will kill people!

Another freedom suckage sound is taking away parents rights?

Dr. Michael Farris of parentalrights.org recently came on my show and reminded us of the UNCRC, The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Sen. Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and others are supportive of this nightmare. Boxer has asked for a 60-day timeframe for review so the Senate can move toward ratification of the UNCRC. Not really hearing about this on the news, you may be wondering what is the big deal with securing children’s rights. As with the other freedom suck age attacks, this is not what it seems. If ratified, all states and parents across our land would have to submit to international law. Spanking would instantly become illegal. Give a love pat to your unruly child and you could lose your child. Making your children go to your church would be considered abuse if little Joey didn’t want it. The bottom line is that someone in Geneva would run your family, not you!!! Courtrooms would be filled and children would be yanked from wonderful, God-fearing homes.

Once again, you certainly don’t want children growing up with morals, guidelines and parents. The state…..excuse me…..the international community knows better! Parentalrights.org is trying to campaign for a constitutional amendment protecting parents rights from international meddling. I can’t believe anyone in our congress would be for such a betrayal to parents and frankly, children! We need you to help fight with this one!

What else has Obama been talking about with this congress that will suck away freedom?

FOCA, Freedom of Choice act. We can all scream and yell about abortion. To me it is murder at any age, but regardless as to how you deal with this issue, FOCA would force any Doctor anywhere along with even Catholic hospitals to give abortions. It would also trump all state laws rendering abortion or partial birth abortion illegal. Once again, we see a total disregard for states, rights, hospitals rights, Doctors rights, voters rights…..FOCA is evil and communist at its core!

There are too many cogs unraveling our freedoms to cover them all in this paper, but watch for more lies and increased taxes designed to stop global warming and control carbon emissions. Neither of which are real, but instead are excuses for Government control and stealing.

Finally, prepare for more manipulation, regulation, taxation and idiot rules to be thwarted on the gun industry. Watch for persecution against gun shops and gun shows. Further, we will see restrictive, protective devises on guns that are in homes, demonizing certain types of guns and using information like mental health records and medical records to keep people from being able to get guns. This push is already happening. Just research the voting record of Obama regarding guns and who he has appointed for attorney general, Eric Holder. This man is a living nightmare regarding gun control. Aggressive gun control always morphs into place when you are trying to manipulate a republic into a Marxist Government. Freedom doesn’t work but Big Government does.

It’s called Marxism and will eventually be communism if we don’t fight these freedom and constitutional encroachments to the best of our abilities! This is not the time for you to sit and watch. Call your congressperson and senator and follow the issues closely.

THANKS MIKE

[Senator Coburn recently gave this speech on the floor of the Senate]

We are going in exactly the wrong direction. We ought to be standing on the principles that made this country great.

There ought to be a review of every program in the Federal Government that is not effective, that is not efficient, that is wasteful or fraudulent, and we ought to get rid of it right now. We ought to say, Gone, to be able to pay for a real stimulus plan that might, in fact, have some impact.

I would be remiss if I didn’t remind everybody that next week we are going to hear from the Obama administration wanting another $500 billion. Outside of this [”stimulus” bill], they are going to want another $500 billion to handle the banking system.

I want to make sure the American people know what is in this Stimulus bill. I think once they know what is in this bill, they are going to reject it out of hand. Let me read for my colleagues some of the things that are in this bill.

The biggest earmark in history is in this bill. There is $2 billion in this bill to build a coal plant with zero emissions. That would be great, maybe, if we had the technology, but the greatest brains in the world sitting at MIT say we don’t have the technology yet to do that.

Why would we build a $2 billion power plant we don’t have the technology for that we know will come back and ask for another $2 billion and another $2 billion and another $2 billion when we could build a demonstration project that might cost $150 million or $200 million? There is nothing wrong with having coal-fired plants that don’t produce pollution; I am not against that. Even the Washington Post said the technology isn’t there. It is a boondoggle. Why would we do that?

We eliminated tonight a $246 million payback for the large movie studios in Hollywood .

We are going to spend $88 million to study whether we ought to buy a new ice breaker for the Coast Guard. You know what. The Coast Guard needs a new ice breaker. Why do we need to spend $88 million? They have two ice breakers now that they could retrofit and fix and come up with equivalent to what they needed to and not spend the $1 billion they are going to come back and ask for, for another ice breaker, so why would we spend $88 million doing that?

We are going to spend $448 million to build the Department of Homeland Security a new building. We have $1.3 trillion worth of empty buildings right now, and because it has been blocked in Congress we can’t sell them, we can’t raze them, we can’t do anything, but we are going to spend money on a new building here in Washington .

We are going to spend another $248 million for new furniture for that building; a quarter of a billion dollars for new furniture. What about the furniture the Department of Homeland Security has now? These are tough times. Should we be buying new furniture? How about using what we have? That is what a family would do. They would use what they have. They wouldn’t go out and spend $248 million on furniture.

How about buying $600 million worth of hybrid vehicles? Do you know what I would say? Right now times are tough; I would rather Americans have new cars than Federal employees have new cars. What is wrong with the cars we have? Dumping $600 million worth of used vehicles on the used vehicle market right now is one of the worst things we could do. Instead, we are going to spend $600 million buying new cars for Federal employees.

There is $400 million in here to prevent STDs. I have a lot of experience on that. I have delivered 4,000 babies. We don’t need to spend $400 million on STDs. What we need to do is properly educate about the infection rates and the effectiveness of methods of prevention. That doesn’t take a penny more. You can write that on one piece of paper and teach every kid in this country, but we don’t need to spend $400 million on it. It is not a priority.

How about $150 million for a Smithsonian museum? Tell me how that helps get us out of a recession. Tell me how that is a priority. Would the average American think that is a priority that we ought to be mortgaging our kids’ future to spend another $150 million at the Smithsonian?

How about $1 billion for the 2010 census? So everybody knows, the census is so poorly managed that the census in 2010 is going to cost twice what it cost 10 years ago, and we wasted $800 million on a contract because it was no-bid that didn’t perform. Nobody got fired, no competitive bidding, and we blew $800 million.

We have $75 million for smoking cessation activities, which probably is a great idea, but we just passed a bill, the SCHIP bill, that we need to get 21 million more Americans smoking to be able to pay for that bill. That doesn’t make sense.

How about $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges? I mean, did we talk with Dell and Hewlett-Packard and say, How do we make you all do better? Is there not a market force that could make that better? Will we actually buy on a true competitive bid?

No, because there is nothing that requires competitive bidding in anything in this bill. There is nothing that requires it. It is one of the things President Obama said he was going to mandate at the Federal Government, but there is no competitive bidding in this bill at all.

We have $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. Well, that will put 10 or 15 people to work. Is that a priority for us right now?

There is $6 billion to turn Federal buildings into green buildings. That is a priority, versus somebody getting a job outside of Washington , a job that actually produces something, that actually increases wealth?

How about $500 million for State and local fire stations? Where do you find in the Constitution us paying for local fire stations within our realm of prerogatives? None of it is competitively bid.

Next is $1.2 billion for youth activities. Who does that employ? What does that mean?

How about $88 million for renovating the public health service building? You know, if we could sell half of the $1.3 trillion worth of properties we have, we could take care of every Federal building requirement and backlog we have.

Then there’s $412 million for CDC [Centers for disease Control] buildings and property. We spent billions on a new center and headquarters for CDC. Is that a priority? If we are going to spend $412 million on building buildings, let’s build one that will produce something, one that will give us something.

How about $850 million for that most “efficient'’ Amtrak that hasn’t made any money since 1976 and continues to have $2 billion or $3 billion a year in subsidies?

Here is one of my favorites: $75 million to construct a new “security training'’ facility for State Department security officers. We already have four other facilities already available to train them. But they want theirs. By the way, it is going to be in West Virginia . I wonder how that got there.

So we are going to build a new training facility that duplicates four others that we already have that could easily do what we need to do. But because we have a stimulus package, we are going to add in oink pork.

How about $200 million in funding for a lease - not buying, but a lease - of alternative energy vehicles on military installations?

We are going to bail out the States on Medicaid. Total all of the health programs in this, and we are going to transfer $150 billion out of the private sector and we are going to move it to the Federal Government. You talk about backdooring national health care.

Henry Waxman has to be smiling big today. He wants a single-payer Government-run health care system. We are going to move another $150 billion to the Federal Government from the private sector.

We are going to eliminate fees on loans from the Small Business Administration. You know what that does? That pushes productive capital to unproductive projects. It is exactly the wrong thing to do.

We are going to spend $524 million for information technology upgrades that the Appropriations Committee claims will create 388 jobs. If you do the math on that, that is $1.5 million a job. Don’t you love the efficiency of Washington thinking?

We are going to create $79 billion in additional money for the States, a “slush fund,'’ to bail out States and provide millions of dollars for education costs. How many of you think that will ever go away?

Once the State education programs get $79 billion over 2 years, do you think that will ever go away? The cry and hue of taking “our money” away, even though it was a stimulus and supposed to be limited, it will never go away. So we will continue putting that forward until our kids have grandkids of their own.

There is about $47 billion for a variety of energy programs that are primarily focused on renewable energy. I am fine with spending that. But we ought to get something for it. There ought to be metrics. There are no metrics. It is pie in the sky, saying we will throw some money at it.

Let me conclude by saying we are at a seminal moment in our country. We will either start living within the confines of realism and responsibility or we will blow it and we will create the downfall of the greatest nation that ever lived.

This bill is the start of that downfall. To abandon a market-oriented society and transfer it to a Soviet-style, government-centered, bureaucratic-run and mandated program, that is the thing that will put the stake in the heart of freedom in this country.

I hope the American people know what is in this bill. I am doing everything I can to make sure they know. But more important, I hope somebody is listening who will treat the “pneumonia'’ we are faced with today, which is the housing and mortgage markets. It doesn’t matter how much money we spend in this bill. It is doomed to failure unless we fix that problem first.

Failing that, we will go down in history as the Congress that undermined the future and vitality of this country. Let it not be so

Flag this message
Fw: Re: A big first step — thank you
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:19 PM

My reply to Obama: Think i will get hacked again..
When you get your adversary really pissed of it’s easier to defeat him.
I’m just fighting mad, I want Obama insane with rage

From: marion valentine
Subject: Re: A big first step — thank you
To: info@barackobama.com
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 6:44 PM

By: Marion Valentine
February 12, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Change You can believe in.

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE, BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED
But some people are so mentally immature they need a NANNY to care for them. Some of us don’t.(Val)

“We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”— Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1965

Most Americans have swallowed those “small doses” and are like hungry baby birds in the nest with their beaks open for the final dose. (VAL)

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already, for the last twenty-five years, actually it’s over-fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success, most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards.

*****As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to access true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I showered him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures — even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him a concentration camp — he will refuse to believe it.******

The words above of Yuri Bezmenov a KGB agent who defected in 1978. Says in an interview recorded in 1984.(VAL)

I believe those words from years ago, because my eyes and ears tell me the events they forcast have already been fulfilled. Not many people believe Obama is a Communist. I DO (Val)

— On Tue, 2/17/09, President Barack Obama wrote:

From: President Barack Obama
Subject: A big first step — thank you
To: “Marion Valentine”
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 6:28 PM

Marion —

Today, I signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law.

This is a historic step — the first of many as we work together to climb out of this crisis — and I want to thank you for your resolve and your support.

You organized thousands of house meetings. You shared your ideas and personal stories. And you informed your friends and neighbors about the need for immediate action. You continue to be a powerful voice for change throughout the country.

The recovery plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs, provide tax cuts for working and middle-class families, and invest in health care and clean energy.

It’s a bold plan to address a huge problem, and it will require my vigilance and yours to make sure it’s done right.

I’ve assigned a team of managers to oversee the implementation of the recovery act. We are committed to making sure no dollar is wasted. But accountability begins with you.

That’s why my administration has created Recovery.gov, a new website where citizens can track every dollar spent and every job created. We’ll invite you and your neighbors to weigh in with comments and questions.

Our progress will also be measured by the tens of thousands of personal stories submitted by people who are struggling to make ends meet. If you haven’t already, you can read stories from families all across the country:

http://my.barackobama.com/yourstories

Your stories are the heart of this recovery plan, and that’s what I’ll focus on every day as President.

With your continued support, we’ll emerge a stronger and more prosperous nation.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Former President Claims He Could’ve Prevented Economic Crisis

This just in… … … … Terry Lanciotti says he could have created the Universe if the powers that be hadn’t got to it first… … … …

So let me understand this… … … … Bill Clinton could have prevented a Global Economic Meltdown… … … … This just in… … … … Marion Valentine Says he could have cured the common cold but… … … were all better off getting it…

This all makes me sick!

I need a reality check… Its MANNING TIME!

RNC Chairman Michael Steele Delivers Weekly Republican Address

An Awesone News Site: Memeorandum check it out!

The Obama Hymn of the Republic (with apologies to Julia W. Howe)

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is named Barrack Obama and “No Comment!” is his sword;
His disciples out in Hollywood are down upon their knees;
His truth is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.

He is a child of Kenya, or maybe Indonesia;
He claims to be American, but he won’t prove it to ya;
The American Constitution does not apply to him;
His truths will bury all.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Obama! His truths will bury all.

He says he’s bringing hope to us, but gives us Hillary;
He says he’s bringing change to us, but gives us Joseph Biden;
He learned all his politics in the school of Blagojevich;
And we must trust them all.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Obama!
Glory! Glory! Obama! And we must trust them all.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of Barrack;
For forty years he’s done nothing, but they love him in Iraq;
The terrorists, the feminists, the socialists rejoice;
For he has screwed us all.
Glory! Glory! Obama! Glory! Glory! Obama!
Glory! Glory! Obama! For he has screwed us all.

“Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.”

No Barry… forty-three. Grover Cleveland is only one man. We’re watching you. Don’t screw up again…

No Introduction…

The Great Recession:

Partial Transcript:

0:38 ~ Let me explain to you that this Great Recession started 1998 and will run to the year 2012.

1:48 ~ George Bush, who’s leaving office now, when he came into office in the year 2000 he inherited a recession, ahh, the beginning of a recession.. ahh, from the president at the time William Jefferson Clinton, and he issued a stimulus package in 2001 to offset the ahh, sti..thb, thb, problem with the economy.

2:10 ~ The 911 event cause the market to sag even further.

2:21 ~ And then the war with Iraq in 2003 began to boost the economy.

3:28 ~ The money (for economic stimulus) comes from the Wizard of OZ. It has no real cumulative, economic stimulus action, and though the packages make people feel good for a brief period of time.

3:55 ~ By the year 2010 America will be facing 10 to 12 percent unemployment roles.

4:16 ~ America will be in the grips of the worst financial situation that the world has ever seen and the only thing that will stop it will be a war.

4:41 ~ Israel as a nation must aggressively now, ahh, seek to divert and divest itself from American approval and it must bomb Tehran.

6:52 ~ The Reagan administration was able to have peace time prosperity, the logest and the fullest under lower tax cuts.. what Reagan called… and under also lower capital gains which fueled increased production.

Barack Obama will make Jackson and Sharpton efforts to make money through promising something for nothing a game of tiddlywinks’s. Get ready America… Its our weekly check in on the “Honorable James Manning PhD”

Obama Creates the Greatest Poverty Pool:

Partial Transcript…

1:28 ~ I want you to understand something today, umm, this report was in Dick Morris’s, ahhh commentary from a couple days ago… where he states that 50% of US tax payers, pay a total of 30.6 billion dollars in federal income taxes, on a combined income of about one trillion dollars.
So, about three percent of all federal income tax payment come from the poorest half of the country, the poorest 50 percent of the country. The poorest 50 percent of populace pay only 3 percent that make up all the taxes, around 14 trillion dollar budget. The top 1 percent of, of people in America, only 1 percent and there at the top, one percent pay 40 percent of all the taxes. Lets get this straight 50 percent of the tax payers pay less than 3 percent, however 1 percent of the tax payers at the top pay 40 percent, and 25 percent of tax payers pay 85 percent of all income taxes.

In Moscow, Igor Panarin’s Forecasts Are All the Rage; America ‘Disintegrates’ in 2010

By ANDREW OSBORN

MOSCOW — For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument — that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. — very seriously. Now he’s found an eager audience: Russian state media.

Igor Panarin

In recent weeks, he’s been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. “It’s a record,” says Prof. Panarin. “But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger.”

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

But it’s his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin’s views also fit neatly with the Kremlin’s narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

“There’s a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur,” he says. “One could rejoice in that process,” he adds, poker-faced. “But if we’re talking reasonably, it’s not the best scenario — for Russia.” Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces — with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin’s ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country’s top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin’s English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.

Mr. Panarin’s apocalyptic vision “reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today,” says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. “It’s much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union.”

Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin’s predictions. “Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people,” says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin’s theories don’t hold water.

Mr. Panarin’s résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB’s successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.

The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are “classified.”

In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.

“When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise,” he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. “They didn’t believe me.”

At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls “The Californian Republic,” and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of “The Texas Republic,” a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an “Atlantic America” that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls “The Central North American Republic.” Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

“It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time.” A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. “It’s not there for no reason,” he says with a sly grin.

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia’s biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt “a pyramid scheme,” and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington’s role as a global financial regulator.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama “can work miracles,” he wrote. “But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

The article prompted a question about the White House’s reaction to Prof. Panarin’s forecast at a December news conference. “I’ll have to decline to comment,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino’s response was significant. “The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully,” he says.

The professor says he’s convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union — 15 years beforehand. “When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him,” says Prof. Panarin.

We at Pyro have also found this video:

Related Posts:

Destroyed From Within: America’s Final Days of Freedom

America In Peril: The Communist Plan to Take Over the United States From Within