Fifth graders have been receiving Gideon bibles at their school in Tennessee (story here). Handed out by their teacher, with the admonition that the kids weren’t required to take one. Yet being called up, in class assembled, row by row. Think there might be some peer pressure?
The ACLU, natch, has challenged this bible distribution as being unconstitutional. As a Baptist, my first reaction to this story was: what can possibly be wrong with handing out God’s Word? And to that hot, unpleasant place with the ACLU. On reflection, though, I have to agree with the ACLU on this one: religion must never be forced on anyone, least of all a child.
No, the children weren’t forced to take Bibles. Technically. Yet peer pressure is a powerful thing, and if all of your schoolmates take a bible, then you will too.
Again, as a Baptist, I stand for soul liberty. Likewise, as an American I stand for never, ever, having an agent of the state hand out a sectarian tract.
This will play into the hands of the more fanatical Islamists who are playing into the hands of the GramscoFabiaNazi fat-controllers.
If a woman is (a) either happy to wear a burkha, or (b) is fool enough to go along with her mail-chauvinist “partner” in being forced to wear one, it is no business of ours or Nicolas Sarkozy’s or of the French Government.
Personally, I think Burkhas are a very very silly and immature thing to want to wear. It signals nothing but distrust by men in other men, and in their own women. It is also impractical I think, if a woman wants to go to the toilet (I do not know.) It is a hangover from a barbarian pre-liberal age. But it’s not our business. However, murdering butchers, anywhere in the world, are and ought always to be our business whether or not we have any “vital interest”. Like Saddam, whom we happily caused to be hung some years ago.
The 1860s marked a period of great trial for our land. A bloody civil war resolved, at least nominally, some important issues. It was the period after Appomattox and after Reconstruction, however, which determined the true impact of our first civil war. The 1960s, which ended forty years ago, was the time of our second trial — our Second Civil War. It is a testament to its ferocity and its reach that the consequences of this internecine war for the soul of America remain undetermined.
Conservatives — those who wanted to conserve the values of America going into the 1960s — stood on one side of this battlefield. These Americans viewed our land as the best candle of hope in a stormy world. They strongly favored equal rights for blacks, despite an Orwellian rewriting of history painting them as racists. The Republican Party, the principle vehicle for conservatives, had a very long and clear record of opposing Jim Crow and the disenfranchisement and segregation of blacks.
However, the 1960s became a period in which the ideal of equality was deformed into the notion of eternal entitlement. The conservative America ideal — that merit, over time, lifts the lowly immigrant into success and status — fought the Marxist ideal that classes of victims and oppressors never change. Social justice (or injustice) replaced individual justice. The mindset of these Marxists was identical to that of the Klansman or the Nazi: All wanted “social” justice and permanent, rigid lines of separation.
Conservatives understood that American greatness rested foremost upon private and broad fidelity to Judeo-Christian moral traditions. The Founding Fathers warned that American government could work only if the people were imbued with those values (which included religious tolerance). This had little to do with the interaction of state and faith — when government was small, its attitude toward faith was trivial — but it had everything to do with the indispensable value of private faith among Christians and Jews, which concur broadly and clearly on the moral nature of the nation. Private, not government, action reined in motion pictures and comic books that strayed outside the boundaries of accepted decency.
The 1960s saw a loosening of corsets (which was simply a question of moderating the equipment of decency) evolve into a long cultural striptease that ended with rabid feminists burning their bras. The abiding faith of Christians and of Jews, which had stabilized families and restrained notions of sin in a healthy check on the direction of culture, began to be portrayed almost always as bigoted ignorance. Defying foundational faith was championed as heroic. God and sin, the left snarled, were false, or worse. Two generations of Americans have grown up in this gulag of godlessness. Now, faith in anything beyond the top bureaucrat or trust in anything above the most decorated sociologists is heresy against militant secularism.
The machinery of truth changed. Reasonable regard for nature and conservation became Orwellian obsession with grand lies like man-made global warming and the population bomb. Robotic ideologues like Michael Moore could actually look at the nightmare nation of Cuba and see some sort of coloring-book paradise. Instead of all important decisions in life being guided by faith and tradition, they were directed by the political truth of the moment — the party line.
The 1960s saw the prevailing sentiment of America — profound gratitude for the freedom and prosperity bestowed by brave and noble predecessors — transformed by the left into a rude ingratitude, a mocking deconstruction of everything good in America, and an embrace of each imperfection as proof of some capital crime. Conservatives saw America as the place where everyone wanted to be, the one great nation which never had an emigration problem, the refugee country of all oppressed peoples. When GIs fought in Korea or in Vietnam, conservatives saw that the policy mission may have been foolish and the strategies unwise, but the underlying purpose — to preserve freedom — was never in question. The left, by contrast, seemed in the 1960s to adopt the belief that the people of South Korea would actually have been better off if they had been incorporated into the vast concentration camp which is North Korea. America in the 1960s became instead Amerika — a fascist police state.
Forty years ago, our nation survived a rebellion against the existence and the ideal of America. What was the left, and those who were “liberals,” changed in the 1960s. The New Left, the Marxist left, emerged as the political commissar of everything which claimed to be on the left. Honorable intentions were cast aside, and the left became as savage as the Vietcong. Hubert Humphrey shepherded the civil rights legislation through Congress, assuring the nation that what we call affirmative action would be just as wrong as Jim Crow. The Marxist left abandoned him. Martin Luther King appealed, very directly, to the God of Christians and of Jews for the foundation of his movement. The God he cherished became an unperson to the Marxist left. It was JFK, icon of the left, who said that America would bear any price for freedom in the world. His vision of America as the Great Emancipator has been roughly cast aside.
The very concept of principled negotiations within the framework of a great goodness — America — is rejected by a Marxist left who pretended that the Berlin Wall never fell and the manifest failure of Marxism was (again) simply a failure of tactics and not of strategy. The Marxist left continues our Second Civil War because it exists in a smothering cocoon of relative truth, invented values, and faith in a purely material existence. This group, perhaps eight percent of the population, has influence far out of proportion to its numbers in America. It cannot be ignored, no matter how silly it seems. This Civil War for the soul of America must be won
If Greece could default, then what happens to us (Gordon sold all our Gold, remember, in advance, so he could destroy us later! The Great Helmsman-Planner that he is.)
Perhaps, while his eye was being fixed…libertarians shhould have been awake.
if libertarianism ever gets off the ground as a way of organising polities, then we shall have to be much, much more careful about who gets to be a living adult in such civilisations.
We may have learnt something about the world, from this last 500 years, but I’m not sure that it’s what real libertarians, who are mostly and violently pacifists, want to have think that they have wanted to have learned.
It’s 5th Jan so I thought I would just torment you all with feelings of pacifism, for a laugh. What’s more important: the people or the ideology?
Thanks to Fishleg for the links. This is a post I want to make especially for my pal JC. You know what’s up.
So, lately, it’s been quite clear that when the liberals see someone speaking out against the current resident of the White House; Barack Hussein Obama, even the most innocent of statements can be “taken to mean something else” – the original statement, no matter how valid it may have been – is twisted. Contorted. Misconstrued. This is something the liberals tend to rely on when it comes to opposing those who are against their chosen leaders. Especially here lately in the era of BHussein Obama. Even conservative/anti-Obama blogs will delete comments and “tread lightly” so they don’t hurt the feelings of the Obamatrons, Liberals, and Obama supporters. Sometimes they do this because they’ve received threats. Sometimes they do this because they’re tired of the overwhelming amount of PRO-bama spam they get in their e-mails. But, tell me this, why don’t the liberals give conservatives or republicans the same respect? Why is it okay (and even ENCOURAGED) to “go against” the leaders? How is it that they can come RIGHT out and straight up THREATEN THE LIFE of… oh, say, President Bush? No beating around the bush. No “implying”. Nothing like that.
This is America, right? Freedoms of speech. Freedom of expression. Liberty. That’s what it’s all about. So long as nothing is a direct threat to the safety of our Commander in Chief (in this case Occupant of the White House)… or so I thought.
Fishleg found this article that sums my point up just nicely.
Bush Death Threats – How Quickly The Democrats Forget Monroe Rising
You can BUY this as a sticker and support HahaYoureDead.net over there in the sidebar! *shameless*
Here’s what the liberal/progressive/radicals and the biased liberal media were screaming about recently. Some college kid made the photo but someone took it and added “socialism” to the bottom. It ended up on the blogs, made national news and was met with intense criticism from the left. How dare someone make a poster like this! How dare someone question the left’s god-President! How dare people get upset over the very real threat of socialism this president wants to force upon our nation. How dare he and how dare you.
The left is calling for civility. They want people to not be mean to their president. If you oppose Obama and his policies, you are branded unAmerican, a racist and a Nazi.
It’s horrible that someone would create a poster like this. Check out what Philip Kinnicut had to say about this in the Washington Post. Please, read the entire article and try not to puke. Here’s a snippet:
Superimpose that idea, through the Joker’s makeup, onto Obama’s face, and you have subtly coded, highly effective racial and political argument. Forget socialism, this poster is another attempt to accomplish an association between Obama and the unpredictable, seeming danger of urban life. It is another effort to establish what failed to jell in the debate about Obama’s association with Chicago radical William Ayers and the controversy over the racially charged sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Obama, like the Joker and like the racial stereotype of the black man, carries within him an unknowable, volatile and dangerous marker of urban violence, which could erupt at any time. The charge of socialism is secondary to the basic message that Obama can’t be trusted, not because he is a politician, but because he’s black.
So the left and the liberal media calls this offensive. The left and the liberal media says this is unAmerican. The left and the liberal media says this is unacceptable and has no place in public debate. Obama’s supporters say this is “mean spirited and dangerous.”
Hmm, ok. Well what does the left and the liberal media think about these?
(Click any of the images to enlarge in a new window)
At the time this was going on, the left and Democrat leaders in government were telling young people that it was patriotic to go after President Bush. Hell, local liberal bloggers right here in Rochester stated that it was the public’s duty to “question and challenge” Bush and Republican elected officials. This was the product of that patriotic questioning and challenging.
Any of you liberal/progressive/radicals care to discuss this? Please feel free, but no “well, it was different then because…” crap.
People are now upset with this President’s policies and they want to question and challenge him and Democrat elected officials. But they’re just yelling and screaming, not biting off the other side’s fingers.
Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) — Taxpayer losses from supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will top $400 billion, according to Peter Wallison, a former general counsel at the Treasury who is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
“The situation is they are losing gobs of money, up to $400 billion in mortgages,” Wallison said in a Bloomberg Television interview. The Treasury Department recognized last week that losses will be more than $400 billion when it raised its limit on federal support for the two government-sponsored enterprises, he said.
The U.S. seized the two mortgage financiers in 2008 as the government struggled to prevent a meltdown of the financial system. The debt of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks grew an average of $184 billion annually from 1998 to 2008, helping fuel a bubble that drove home prices up by 107 percent between 2000 and mid-2006, according to the S&P/Case- Shiller home-price index.
The Treasury said on Dec. 24 it would provide an unlimited amount of assistance to the companies as needed for the next three years to alleviate market concern that the government lifeline for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the largest source of money for U.S. home loans, could lapse or be exhausted.
Lax regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac led to the mortgage companies taking on too many risky loans, Wallison said.
“It turns out it was impossible to regulate them,” he said. “They were too powerful.” He said no one knows how much will be needed to keep the companies solvent.
From 1990 to 1999, Wallison served on the board of directors of MGIC Investment Corp., the largest U.S. mortgage insurer, including a stint on the audit committee, according to Bloomberg data and company filings.
The continued government support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac makes buying their debt a good investment, Wallison said.
“It was always safe to buy these notes,” he said. The U.S. government was always going to stand behind them. They’re as good as Treasury notes.”
Then there’s Rep. Barney Frank’s (D) “Financial Reform” legislation:
Here are some of the nuggets I gleaned from days spent reading Frank’s handiwork:
– For all its heft, the bill doesn’t once mention the words “too-big-to-fail,” the main issue confronting the financial system. Admitting you have a problem, as any 12- stepper knows, is the crucial first step toward recovery.
– Instead, it supports the biggest banks. It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for “no-more-bailouts” talk. That is more than twice what the Fed pumped into markets this time around. The size of the fund makes the bribes in the Senate’s health-care bill look minuscule.
– Oh, hold on, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Secretary can’t authorize these funds unless “there is at least a 99 percent likelihood that all funds and interest will be paid back.” Too bad the same models used to foresee the housing meltdown probably will be used to predict this likelihood as well.
More Bailouts
– The bill also allows the government, in a crisis, to back financial firms’ debts. Bondholders can sleep easy — there are more bailouts to come.
– The legislation does create a council of regulators to spot risks to the financial system and big financial firms. Unfortunately this group is made up of folks who missed the problems that led to the current crisis.
– Don’t worry, this time regulators will have better tools. Six months after being created, the council will report to Congress on “whether setting up an electronic database” would be a help. Maybe they’ll even get to use that Internet thingy.
– This group, among its many powers, can restrict the ability of a financial firm to trade for its own account. Perhaps this section should be entitled, “Yes, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., we’re looking at you.”
Managing Bonuses
– The bill also allows regulators to “prohibit any incentive-based payment arrangement.” In other words, banker bonuses are still in play. Maybe Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. shouldn’t have rushed to pay back Troubled Asset Relief Program funds.
– The bill kills the Office of Thrift Supervision, a toothless watchdog. Well, kill may be too strong a word. That agency and its employees will be folded into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Further proof that government never really disappears.
– Since Congress isn’t cutting jobs, why not add a few more. The bill calls for more than a dozen agencies to create a position called “Director of Minority and Women Inclusion.” People in these new posts will be presidential appointees. I thought too-big-to-fail banks were the pressing issue. Turns out it’s diversity, and patronage.
– Not that the House is entirely sure of what the issues are, at least judging by the two dozen or so studies the bill authorizes. About a quarter of them relate to credit-rating companies, an area in which the legislation falls short of meaningful change. Sadly, these studies don’t tackle tough questions like whether we should just do away with ratings altogether. Here’s a tip: Do the studies, then write the legislation.
Consumer Protection
– The bill isn’t all bad, though. It creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren, currently head of a panel overseeing TARP. And the first director gets the cool job of designing a seal for the new agency. My suggestion: Warren riding a fiery chariot while hurling lightning bolts at Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
– Best of all, the bill contains a provision that, in the event of another government request for emergency aid to prop up the financial system, debate in Congress be limited to just 10 hours. Anything that can get Congress to shut up can’t be all bad.
Even better would be if legislators actually tackle the real issues stemming from the financial crisis, end bailouts and, for the sake of my eyes, write far, far shorter bills.(David Reilly is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
So did it happen, you speculate. Well here is a report synopsis:
The analysis details how powerful Democrats in Congress insisted that government-subsidized housing be geared to serve the purposes of social justice at the expense of sound lending.
Here are some highlights of Rep. Issa’s blow-by-blow account as reported by IBD July 10,2009:
• With an implicit subsidy to American homeowners in the form of reduced mortgage rates, Fannie Mae and its sister government sponsored enterprise, Freddie Mac, squeezed out their competition and cornered the secondary mortgage market. They took advantage of a $2.25 billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury.
• Congress, by statute, allowed them to operate with much lower capital requirements than private-sector competitors. They “used their congressionally-granted advantages to leverage themselves in excess of 70-to-1.”
*** Sound like the “Health Care Exchanges” anyone? Anyone??
• The two GSEs (government-sponsored enterprises) were the only publicly traded corporations exempt from SEC oversight. All their securities carried an implicit AAA rating regardless of the quality of the mortgages.
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development set quotas for GSE investment in affordable housing.
• Encouraged by an inaccurate 1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study charging racial discrimination in mortgage lending, the two GSEs were strongly pressured to “lower their underwriting standards, particularly on the size of down payments and the credit quality of borrowers.”
• In 1992, Congress directed HUD to establish multiple quotas requiring mortgage quotes for low-income families.
• In 1995, the Clinton administration issued a National Homeownership Strategy, loosening Fannie and Freddie’s lending standards and insisting that lenders “work collaboratively to reduce homebuyer downpayment requirements.”
• The administration complained that in 1989 only 7% of mortgages had less than a 10% downpayment. By 1994, it wanted that raised to 29%.
• Reduced underwriting standards spread into the entire U.S. mortgage market to those at all income levels.
• A complete decoupling of home prices from Americans’ income fed the growth of the housing bubble as borrowers made smaller down payments and took on higher debt.
• Wall Street firms specializing “in packaging and investing in the lowest-quality tranches of mortgage-backed securities, profited hugely from the increased volume that government affordable lending policies sparked.”
• Wall Street firms, homebuilders and the GSEs used money, power and influence to block attempts at reform. Between 1998 and 2008, Fannie and Freddie spent over $176 million on lobbyists.
• In 2006, Freddie paid the largest fine in Federal Election Commission history for improperly using corporate resources to hold 85 fundraisers for congressmen, raising a total of $1.7 million.
As the Issa report points out, “the real tragedy of the government’s affordable housing policy is the impact on average Americans, particularly those of modest means.
“Millions of these borrowers, who were supposed to have been helped by federal affordable housing policy, have now been forced into delinquency and foreclosure, destroying their asset base, their credit, and in some cases their families.”
And isn’t nice they learn from their mistakes.
“Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result.”–President Obama
The Congress has to vote on Jan 20th to raise the Debt ceiling yet again. As if $12,400,000,000,000 wasn’t enough.
And we still have Cap & trade.
Health Care “reform”.
Amnesty.
A “Jobs” Bill
And 2010 re-election Bribes.
Isn’t it comforting to know the Government has your back?
I don’t know how I managed to stumble onto the web site Mr. Christopher Story on 12/31/09, but after scanning through it, I posted on my “News Lit Up section” (Pippi’s Clipboard) the following:
“Christopher Story web site entry for 12/03/09: “Recall that we have stated that the entire architecture of deception would be pulled down. Here is one element of the deception that is collapsing before your eyes. Those whose funds have been stolen via Ponzi operations in the United States have been systematically fed lies, diversionary claptrap and cruel deceptions FOR MANY YEARS by the DVD: inter alia, to protect the big German banks which have accumulated a colossal mountain of worthless assets that they can’t pay out.” “We can provide one further clue as to the current state of affairs: the seven aircraft referenced in this report contained, in addition to the categories specified, qualified banking accountants, who were sworn in with the others at the US Department of Justice. The effect of this swearing-in is that in the event of any deviation from what is required by a banker/expert who has been sworn in, that person will himself (or herself) be arrested on the spot by US Marshals and/or Interpol personnel.”
Of course, this piqued my curiosity because just weeks after Mr. Story’s 12/03/09 entry, it was widely reported that, “President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force (Interpol) immune from the restraints of American law.“
Since I had never heard of Mr. Christopher Story, I did some research to learn more about him, especially since the information he provides is provocative to say the least. I’m never comfortable when an article states ”reliable” or “trusted” sources speaking “on condition of anonymity”, without any reference to a reliable independent source, but since what he claims is of great import, it should be confirmed or denied. Firstly,
Who is Christopher Story? Wikipedia on Christopher Story
My first impression of Mr. Story was that, although I was a little taken aback by some of his pointed phrasing, he appears to be a learned and prominent figure within the European Union. That said, I decided to start this blog to see if there is signs are manifesting and emerging publically that might back up his narratives. So I begin:
Below are excerpts from Mr. Story’s 12/28/09:
“FOREIGN SUITS’ CONDUCTING AUDITS INSIDE THE FED On 18th December it was reported to us that a female accountant based in Dallas who had been working as a consultant for the Federal Reserve Board conducting internal audits, was called back from Texas to Washington, DC, where she was bluntly informed that there was no longer any need for her services, and that no funds were available any longer to pay her for consultancy work. “ “By way of explanation, Federal Reserve officials told her that there were ‘suits in town’ who were ‘doing the books’ (8).” “This was a reference to the audit that has been going on since the massive force of international enforcement, audit and related personnel descended on Washington aboard the seven aircraft on 2nd December. The consultant was also openly informed by Federal Reserve officials, to her face, that ‘Geithner is history’ – which is consistent with the fact that Geithner, as we have reported, is under a form of house arrest and has had a monitor attached to him given his resistance to his obligations under the World Court Writ of Enforcement and the requirements of the Lien Holders.”
Can this be verified? Well, the only other sources of this information are basically just copying his material without any independent report attached. The only news reports I have been able to find so far that might signal such a move?
03/18/09: The Business Insider Obama’s Coded Message To Geithner: You’re Fired
12/02/09: The Industry Standard Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner resigns by Dec. 2009?
12/23/09: National Review More on Obama’s InterPol Executive Order: This is an obviously anti-Obama article and I prefer sites who present objective reporting, but the important piece of information for me from this article is, “ (Interpol) works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes—.”
From my perspective, the only way such a claim as a “Geithner, as we have reported, is under a form of house arrest” can only be a solid and Truthful [to the best of their knowledge] claim with:
A direct announcement by the White House or by Geithner’s family…but even if that occurred, how would we know for sure?
That the “female accountant based in Dallas who had been working as a consultant for the Federal Reserve Board” comes forward and backs up the claim made [above].
So until there is an independent and truly trusted [and stated] source to verify this claim, it is unsubstantiated IMO.
__________
Mr. Story also has written that Henry Kissinger is “missing”—
“We continue to suspect that Dr Henry (‘Heinz’) Kissinger is ‘no longer with us’, as all enquiries on this subject are routinely met with: ‘Nobody wants to talk about Kissinger’ – for the fairly obvious prospective reason that he’s either in jail or has been horizontalised. For the time being, however, we can only reiterate that this DVD triple agent is missing.”
—which is what I read on Canadian investigative reporter Benjamin Fulford’s 12/18 blog entry stating in part:
“On a related note we can confirm from multiple reliable sources that Nazi power broker Henry (Heinz) Kissinger has been missing for several days. He could be either dead or hiding in an underground base.”
So, is Henry Kissinger indeed missing?
According to the Douglas Hannat NY Social Diary for 12/10/09, “The room was full of heavy hitters of the Establishment sort. Even Jacob Rothschild was there, introducing his friend, the beautiful Natalie Portman around to friends including Henry Kissinger.
If he was indeed there, then “going missing” would have to have taken place after that date. I have scoured the web for sources independent of Mr. Story and Mr. Fulford but unfortunately again, all I find are sites that merely copy the claims without further inquiry or, interestingly, several “UFO” or “Galactic” sites [in light of this report coming after the "Norway Spiral" event]. I have not been able to find any solid identifiable sources to back up their claims that “Kissinger is missing”; either in jail, death by natural cause, or by being ”horizontalized.” That does not mean it is not so but I can only view it as conjecture until I am presented clear evidence of such.
Next reported by Mr. Story:
WHY THE COPENHAGEN LIE-FEST COLLAPSED “That ‘collapse’ can be linked DIRECTLY to the obtuse determination of criminal operatives ‘working for’ the US Secretary of State, Mrs Hillary Clinton (Queen Melusina), a senior CIA operative with a notorious background and reputation.” Specifically, we learned on 18th December that four of Mrs Clinton’s senior personal aides had been arrested on 17th December and were accused of wire fraud, a felony which, on conviction, entitles the recipient to 20 years in jail. These operatives had been surreptitiously moving money, on the direct instructions of Mrs Clinton who, as Secretary of State, is in charge of ‘international economic development’.”
Is this report substantiated independently?
I have found no independently sourced evidence. Again, this does not mean it did not occur, as we have recently seen financial fraud in general aggressively pursued by investigators.
The reader can certainly read the charges reported by Mr. Story and do their own research. If anyone is able to provide solid independently sourced information, please let me know.
All that said, there do seem to be alot of reports in the news lately, which collectively give the appearance that some kind of shake up in Washington D.C. and abroad is taking place:
12/31/09:
FIREDOGLAKE Kucinich to Investigate Fannie/Freddie Bailout “If the White House thought they could slip the bailout of Fannie and Freddie through by announcing it in a Christmas Eve news dump, think again.”
TPMMuckraker/AP 2009 Was The Year Of The Collapsing Ponzi Scheme: “The spike in Ponzi collapses was caused by the tough economic situation, which robbed scamsters of new investors and the money necessary to prolong their schemes.”
BBC NEWS 12/17/09 Tony Blair to give Iraq Inquiry testimony ‘in public’ : Sir John [Chilcot] said: “This is a serious inquiry and we are not here to provide public sport or entertainment.”
“We’ve been asking fair questions, and been expecting and getting full and truthful answers.”
“He added that he expected to begin seeking the declassification of relevant documents concerning the war early in the new year.”
12/15/09:
SF Chronicle: Israeli officials routinely face UK legal threats: “It’s not likely that any Israeli officials will be coming to London this holiday season. Not because British Airways may go on strike, but because they face the threat of arrest while giving speeches, shopping or visiting friends.”
” ‘We cannot talk tough on terrorism and be weak on war crimes,’ [Chris]Doyle said. ‘So I think the use of universal jurisdiction in these cases is a good thing. Parties in Israel must realize there is a consequence to their behavior. For decades they’ve violated Security Council resolutions and international law with little or no consequence,’ he said.”
The Grilling of Timothy Geithner;
__________
I have started this blog in order to follow up on assertions made on this potential issue of Interpol being given a “pass” for the purpose of arresting “Financial Terrorists.” I think it is important to track these stories and before we just accept what we read, encourage research and veracity of these bold charges. So, I hope to hear from those who can confirm or deny [with identifiable sources] and will update this blog with ongoing signs of manifestation of a Showdown in Progress in Washington D.C. and Abroad.
