This one really makes me want to vomit, badly.
Robert Prechter Explains The Fed, Part III
The world’s foremost Elliott wave expert goes “behind the scenes” on the Federal Reserve
October 26, 2011
By Elliott Wave International
Money, Credit and the Federal Reserve Banking System
Conquer the Crash, Chapter 10
By Robert Prechter
How the Federal Reserve Has Encouraged the Growth of Credit
Congress authorized the Fed not only to create money for the government but also to “smooth out” the economy by manipulating credit (which also happens to be a re-election tool for incumbents). Politics being what they are, this manipulation has been almost exclusively in the direction of making credit easy to obtain. The Fed used to make more credit available to the banking system by monetizing federal debt, that is, by creating money. Under the structure of our “fractional reserve” system, banks were authorized to employ that new money as “reserves” against which they could make new loans. Thus, new money meant new credit.
It meant a lot of new credit because banks were allowed by regulation to lend out 90 percent of their deposits, which meant that banks had to keep 10 percent of deposits on hand (“in reserve”) to cover withdrawals. When the Fed increased a bank’s reserves, that bank could lend 90 percent of those new dollars. Those dollars, in turn, would make their way to other banks as new deposits. Those other banks could lend 90 percent of those deposits, and so on. The expansion of reserves and deposits throughout the banking system this way is called the “multiplier effect.” This process expanded the supply of credit well beyond the supply of money.
Because of competition from money market funds, banks began using fancy financial manipulation to get around reserve requirements. In the early 1990s, the Federal Reserve Board under Chairman Alan Greenspan took a controversial step and removed banks’ reserve requirements almost entirely. To do so, it first lowered to zero the reserve requirement on all accounts other than checking accounts. Then it let banks pretend that they have almost no checking account balances by allowing them to “sweep” those deposits into various savings accounts and money market funds at the end of each business day. Magically, when monitors check the banks’ balances at night, they find the value of checking accounts artificially understated by hundreds of billions of dollars. The net result is that banks today conveniently meet their nominally required reserves (currently about $45b.) with the cash in their vaults that they need to hold for everyday transactions anyway. [1st edition of Prechter’s Conquer the Crash was published in 2002 — Ed.]
By this change in regulation, the Fed essentially removed itself from the businesses of requiring banks to hold reserves and of manipulating the level of those reserves. This move took place during a recession and while S&P earnings per share were undergoing their biggest drop since the 1940s. The temporary cure for that economic contraction was the ultimate in “easy money.”
We still have a fractional reserve system on the books, but we do not have one in actuality. Now banks can lend out virtually all of their deposits. In fact, they can lend out more than all of their deposits, because banks’ parent companies can issue stock, bonds, commercial paper or any financial instrument and lend the proceeds to their subsidiary banks, upon which assets the banks can make new loans. In other words, to a limited degree, banks can arrange to create their own new money for lending purposes.
Today, U.S. banks have extended 25 percent more total credit than they have in total deposits ($5.4 trillion vs. $4.3 trillion). Since all banks do not engage in this practice, others must be quite aggressive at it. For more on this theme, see Chapter 19 [of Conquer the Crash].
Recall that when banks lend money, it gets deposited in other banks, which can lend it out again. Without a reserve requirement, the multiplier effect is no longer restricted to ten times deposits; it is virtually unlimited. Every new dollar deposited can be lent over and over throughout the system: A deposit becomes a loan becomes a deposit becomes a loan, and so on.
As you can see, the fiat money system has encouraged inflation via both money creation and the expansion of credit. This dual growth has been the monetary engine of the historic uptrend of stock prices in wave (V) from 1932. The stupendous growth in bank credit since 1975 (see graphs in Chapter 11 [of Conquer the Crash]) has provided the monetary fuel for its final advance, wave V. The effective elimination of reserve requirements a decade ago extended that trend to one of historic proportion.
The Net Effect of Monetization
Although the Fed has almost wholly withdrawn from the role of holding book-entry reserves for banks, it has not retired its holdings of Treasury bonds. Because the Fed is legally bound to back its notes (greenback currency) with government securities, today almost all of the Fed’s Treasury bond assets are held as reserves against a nearly equal dollar value of Federal Reserve notes in circulation around the world. Thus, the net result of the Fed’s 89 years of money inflating is that the Fed has turned $600 billion worth of U.S. Treasury and foreign obligations into Federal Reserve notes.
Today the Fed’s production of currency is passive, in response to orders from domestic and foreign banks, which in turn respond to demand from the public. Under current policy, banks must pay for that currency with any remaining reserve balances. If they don’t have any, they borrow to cover the cost and pay back that loan as they collect interest on their own loans. Thus, as things stand, the Fed no longer considers itself in the business of “printing money” for the government. Rather, it facilitates the expansion of credit to satisfy the lending policies of government and banks.
If banks and the Treasury were to become strapped for cash in a monetary crisis, policies could change. The unencumbered production of banknotes could become deliberate Fed or government policy, as we have seen happen in other countries throughout history. At this point, there is no indication that the Fed has entertained any such policy. Nevertheless, Chapters 13 and 22 [of Conquer the Crash] address this possibility.
Understanding the Fed: How to protect yourself from the common and misleading myths about the U.S. Federal Reserve
It’s time to pull back the curtain on the Federal Reserve system. In this revealing 34-page ebook, you’ll learn how the Federal Reserve controls the money supply, you’ll pin-point a few critical points in Federal Reserve history, and you’ll uncover several important myths and misconceptions, like who owns the Federal Reserve Bank.
Representing more than 10 years of research by financial analyst Robert Prechter, this free report goes beyond Federal Reserve history and it’s government mandate and digs into the Fed’s real motivations for being the United States’ “lender of last resort.”
Take this important step toward understanding the Federal Reserve system — Download this FREE 34-page ebook now >>
I decided to drop that previous theme that I was running. The theme had some functional issues that I did not like, so I got rid of it and went back to a theme that I used before. Hopefully, all of the bugs are fixed with this theme.
Another thing, when I switched to this theme, my server started bogging down, I thought it was the new theme; it wasn’t. It was another costumer of my hosting provider, who was bogging the server. So, I brought back this theme.
Whew, long day of fiddling around with this silly thing. I’ll fix all the small stuff tomorrow.
This is a posting, which I have been meaning to write for a very long time; I just needed the right moment and the excuse to write it. As I wrote here earlier this week, President Barack Obama announced that American Military forces would be leaving the Country of Iraq at the end of 2011; which would essentially end the Country’s Military presence in the Nation of Iraq.
I am prayerfully considering the matter and I ask for your prayers going forward in it.
I went to the Church for a few services and I did decide to pass on the Church. What it boils down to is some personal preferences of mine; also, in addition, there were some issues with the Pastor as well. Therefore, I decided to pass on that Church. I thank the man, who was kind enough to invite me.
I do have another one in mind, however I will be very honest with you, and I am not in a great hurry to become involved with another Church again. I am still a bit gun-shy about attending a Church again; mainly because of my being burned here about 5 years ago, by a Pastor who preached one thing and did another in his personal dealings. When this occurred, I essentially said that I would most likely never get involved with another Church group. However, this man’s kindness and boldness to share the gospel with a total stranger captured my interest.
There is one thing that will not change around here and that is my walk with the Lord. I will not be posting secular music here any longer. Just because it does not look good for a person, who is supposed to be a Christian, of which the term means someone who is a follower of Christ — to be posting music on a blog, of which he is the owner. In other words, I will leave the music posting to the liberals who support that music and lifestyle it represents.
Another thing I need to point here is that I am fully aware of the fact that I have let myself go here in the last six years. When I was burned by that Pastor and a few other people involved in that whole situation back in 2006, I came home that day, put my Christianity on the back burner, and delved into the world of politics. I guess you could say that I needed a distraction from the recent events, which worked for me, because I did not want to dwell on what had happened too much, because I did not want to become bitter over it. Therefore, I just changed gears and started writing about politics. However, to gain more readers around here, I did some things, that now as I reflect on it more, might have not been expedient for someone who is a Christian. This was my own personal oversight and I take full responsibility for that.
In closing, going forward here at this blog, which I do plan on writing about in detail here in another posting, I do plan to watch myself a bit more as a Christian. I also will find a Church, when I am ready for that. For now though, I just do not feel an overly compelling reason to be a part of one. It is a myth that Church attendance is a requirement for anything at all, least of all, one’s personal salvation. (Update: The posting that I spoke of, is now here.)
I will be the very first to confess that there are issues in politics that I very high disagree with Patrick J. Buchanan on. However, Mr. Buchanan does have a good idea of what Conservatism should be about; having said that, let me personally recommend this article here by Patrick Buchanan. Again, I have disagreed with the man, at times; but this is not one of them.
This article ought to be in the e-mail inbox of every darned last Conservative in America this morning.
Just a little taste of what you are going to read:
An opening statement is not evidence, merely a preview of the case the prosecution will mount in coming weeks based on testimony, forensics, wiretaps, documents and a plethora of photos. The crux of it: That parents and 18-year-old brother planned and executed the murders from outrage over the intolerable, the defiance of daughters and the alliance with them of a woman treated for years as a burden and a slave.
A disgrace and shame to their family, though, for behaviour unbecoming to Afghan [Muslim] females — the boyfriends and the disobedience, the brazen disrespect for traditions and refusal to wear the hijab — violations of decorum so grievous that they needed to be killed, eliminated, to purify family honour, their “treachery’’ insupportable.
Mass murder committed, a court heard Thursday, by the mother and father and brother of the sisters, homicides staged to look like an accident during a family vacation, with Zainab at the wheel, on one of her furtive joyrides.
Mohammad Shafia, Tooba Mohammad Yahya and their son Hamed Mohammed Shafia have all pleaded not guilty to four counts each of first-degree murder. Their jury trial began here Thursday with a 90-minute opening statement from Crown Attorney Laurie Lacelle that left observers in the courtroom stunned over details finally revealed and allegations of a diabolical plot that defy imagination.
From a wiretapped conversation Shafia had with Tooba and Hamed, 20 days after the bodies were discovered, Shafia in a fury recalling the revealing cellphone pictures of Zainab and Shahar: “Curse God on both of them. Is that what a daughter should be? Would a daughter be such a whore? May the devil s–t on their graves.”
And later, not long before the trio was arrested in Montreal, Shafia tells Hamed, as Lacelle quoted from another wiretap transcript: “Even if they hoist me up on to the gallows, nothing is more dear to me than my honour.”
To his wife, Shafia allegedly assured that the right actions had been taken: “I say to myself, you did well. Were they to come back to life, I would do it again. No Tooba, they messed up. There was no other way. They were treacherous. They betrayed us immensely. There can be no betrayal worse than this. They committed treason on themselves. They betrayed humankind. They betrayed Islam. They betrayed our religion. They betrayed everything.”
From the sisters, there appears no words were left behind. But Rona wrote in her diary, the Crown told the jury, what she was thinking, fearing, in the weeks, even years, before her death, anxieties she also shared with siblings overseas when she was able to get out of the house and make phone calls.
This was the murder weapon:
This was the family:
These are the people who did it:
All in the name of Islam.
Now you tell me that Islam is a Religion of peace? I call you a liar.
(H/T to Pamela)
Cross-posted @ Alexandra
Yesterday, I wrote about the Obama Administration pulling all of our troops out of Iraq. Despite the fact that it is not entirely true, it was also recorded that it was not the Obama Administrations choice, but Iraqi Governments decision. Well, this is why and I will let Foreign Policy tell the story, and I will get to the good part:
In July, Panetta urged Iraqi leaders to, “Dammit, make a decision” about the U.S. troop extension. In August, he told reporters that, “My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes.'” On Oct. 17, he was still pushing for the extension and said, “At the present time I’m not discouraged because we’re still in negotiations with the Iraqis.”
Sullivan was one of 40 conservative foreign policy professionals who wrote to Obama in September to warn that even a residual force of 4,000 troops would “leave the country more vulnerable to internal and external threats, thus imperiling the hard-fought gains in security and governance made in recent years at significant cost to the United States.”
She said that the administration’s negotiating strategy was flawed for a number of reasons: it failed to take into account Iraqi politics, failed to reach out to a broad enough group of Iraqi political leaders, and sent contradictory messages on the troop extension throughout the process.
“From the beginning, the talks unfolded in a way where they largely driven by domestic political concerns, both in Washington and Baghdad. Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns,” said Sullivan.
As recently as August, Maliki’s office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.
Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.
“An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. “If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass.”
The main Iraqi opposition party Iraqiya, led by former U.S. ally and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, decided to tie that vote to two non-related issues. It said they would not vote for the troop extension unless Maliki agreed give them control of a high-level policy council and let them choose the minister of defense from their ranks. Maliki wasn’t about to do either.
“It was clear from the beginning that Maliki wasn’t going to make a move without the support of the other parties behind him,” Sullivan explained, adding that the Obama administration focused on Maliki and neglected other actors, such as Allawi. “There was a misunderstanding of how negotiations were unfolding in Iraq. The negotiations got started in earnest far too late.”
“The actions don’t match the words here,” said Sullivan. “It’s in the administration’s interest to make this look not like they failed to reach an agreement and that they fulfilled a campaign promise. But it was very clear that Panetta and [former Defense Secretary Robert] Gates wanted an agreement.”
So what’s the consequence of the failed negotiations? One consequence could be a security vacuum in Iraq that will be filled by Iran.
“It’s particularly troubling because having some sort of presence there would have really facilitated our policy vis-a-vis the Iranians and what’s going on in Syria. The Iranian influence is going up in Iraq,” said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It makes it harder for us to play our cards, and that’s a real setback. We’ve spent a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq. And these days, stability in that region is not what it used to be.”
So there you have it folks, when Iraq goes to pot and Iran fills that leadership vacuum and starts war with the Saudi’s; and your gas goes over 10 dollars a gallon — you will know who to blame. Let me give you hint, it will not be Bush.
Of course, this points to a President and President Administration that is much in over its head and is clueless of how to deal with the Middle East. Something that we bloggers, who rejected the Democratic Party utopian vision of “Hope and Change” said in 2008, when that floppy eared jack ass mounted the pulpit outside the White House and proceeded to royally butcher the oath of office. We knew it then and we know it now. We will also know it come 2012, when that socialist piece of human excrement leaves the oval office for the last time; when he is totally defeated by someone who actually knows how to be a leader.
I’m going to be removing stuff from the sidebars and getting of crap that is not paying… too much clutter.
Remember what I wrote earlier about Iraq?
Well, it seems that our fearless leader might just be trying to pull a con game.
I will say one thing about the writer I just linked to; he is a liberal Democrat, I will say that, but he is a very consistent, Spencer Ackerman went after Bush and his handling of Iraq during the Bush era and now he is doing it with the Obama Administration. For this, he does get some credit, although, I doubt he would want to hear it from my quarters.
I give him props, at least he is a bit more brave than the MSM.
This should be really interesting:
The Obama administration has decided to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year after failing to reach an agreement with the Iraqi government that would have left several thousand troops there for special operations and training.
President Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spoke Friday morning to cement that agreement in a scheduled telephone call.
The two leaders also agreed to continue informally discussing the need for and the terms of a U.S. military presence in Iraq into next year, people familiar with the agreement said. As a result, the only U.S. military presence that will remain in Iraq after the end of the year will be the roughly 150 troops needed to protect the large U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and its thousands of American diplomats and other personnel, as well as provide training related to new military sales and other tasks.
“The rest of our troops in Iraq will come home at the end of the year,” Obama said Friday at the White House. “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.”
I have some very mixed feelings on this little news story. In fact, my entire basis for returning to writing since my childhood days; as I was very good in English in school – and for my foray into the world of political blogging in the first place — was this subject right here —- Iraq.
As my about me page does say, I was not always a blogger on the right. I still do not consider myself a “Republican,” although I do find myself voting for them now, more than I do Democrats. This is because the Democrats are on the wrong side of the argument, polices that the Democrats have tried have failed miserably, as bloggers as myself predicted that they would. However, when I came into this thing called “blogging,” I was not in the camp of the Conservative thought. I came into this thing called blogging with fierce anger at President George W. Bush.
I was right then about George W. Bush and I still feel that I am; however, I am a bit more educated into what the motivating forces were behind the invasion of Iraq and I no longer believe the idiotic nonsense peddled by the far left about Bush and the invasion of Iraq. Put simply, we invaded Iraq, based upon some very bad intelligence from Germany. There was not plan to lie to the American people, so that we could invade Iraq to please Israel, which is what the far left believes in this Country. Which is a talking point that is rooted in fallacy and in an Anti-Jewish and Anti-Israel bias that exists on the far left and in some quarters of the far right as well.
The main underlining factor in the decision to go into Iraq was a foreign policy stance that I feel is one of the worst ever conceived by man — Wilsonian foreign policy. I believed that the day I pressed the “Create Blog” button over on blogger.com to create my first blog originally called “The Populist Moderate” and I still believe that today. Although, at the time, I did not know what it was called, I just knew something was not right and I felt the need to speak out about it.
AllahPundit over at HotAir.com notes some very interesting ramifications over this decision by the President’s decision to pull our troops out of Iraq. The political angle is that Obama actually wants to be reelected in 2012. Not that this will help him at all; the liberal left still will not vote again for him, because the economy is still in the proverbial toilet. I said back in 2010 that we were just making it a little harder for Iran to invade and overthrow Iraq; and it appears that I was at least partially correct. Like AllahPundit said, with this new terrorist plot being uncovered against an official of the Saudi Government, it looks like Iraq might be the new battleground for a proxy war between Iran and the Saudi Government.
Overall, it essentially looks as if Obama decided that if he could not get what he wanted from the Iraqi Government; that he essentially said, “Screw them, and let them deal with their own problems.” Which at first glance, might be a good thing, but when you really look at it, it does not look good at all. All the world would need right now is a horrible war between the Saudis and the Iranians. You think the gas shortage of the 1970’s was bad; you wait until the Saudis and Iranians go to war! We will all be driving bikes everywhere. Gas and other such fuels will become luxury items quick. The only people that are most likely breathing a sigh of relief are the Syrians, who are most likely glad that this proxy war will not be fought in their backyards.
So my bottom line is this: While this might be a minor victory for the liberal left; in the long run, this is going to be major pain various places, including our wallets in the very long run.
Update: As I also suspected, but did not write about, because I was not too sure whether it was true or not — we are leaving and it is IRAQ’S idea, not ours:
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, for instance, is a hugely pro-American politician who believes Iraq’s security forces will be incapable of protecting the country without sustained foreign assistance. But in a recent interview, he refused to endorse a U.S. troop extension and instead indicated that they should leave.
“We have serious security problems in this country and serious political problems,” he said in an interview late last month at his heavily guarded compound in Baghdad. “Keeping Americans in Iraq longer isn’t the answer to the problems of Iraq. It may be an answer to the problems of the U.S., but it’s definitely not the solution to the problems of my country.”
Welcome to Post-Iraq Middle East; it is going to be an interesting next few years. 😯
This ought to be a lesson to every last Democrat who voted for Obama and Biden.
With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work.
Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the job of assembling the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car has been outsourced to Finland.
“There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle,” the car company’s founder and namesake told ABC News. “They don’t exist here.”
Henrik Fisker said the U.S. money so far has been spent on engineering and design work that stayed in the U.S., not on the 500 manufacturing jobs that went to a rural Finnish firm, Valmet Automotive.
“We’re not in the business of failing; we’re in the business of winning. So we make the right decision for the business,” Fisker said. “That’s why we went to Finland.”
Here is the real-world translation to that last line in that story; we did not want to have to deal with the labor unions in this United States, so we moved our manufacturing overseas.
Take note my Democratic Party friends who happen to read this blog, all two of you. This is what happens to the Democrats and their union counterparts, when they elect internationalist Democrats, who really do not give a care about what happens to American workers. Internationalist Democrats and their Republican counterparts, the globalists — like Richard Nixon, who do not care about American workers, they are corporatists, who support crony capitalism.
This right here is a perfect example of why the relations between the Democratic Party and the labor unions are frosty at best. That is because the Democratic Party for the last few instances that they have won elections, have been putting internationalist Democrats into the White House. This type of a Democrat talks a nice game, and puts out platitudes to the American autoworkers and their representatives in the unions; but when the “Rubber hits the road” so to speak, things change. They begin showing their true colors and start doing things to kick dirt in the face of the American worker.
I do not write this as a Conservative mocking the left, goodness no. I write this as someone who has a father, who is a retired General Motors worker, who is a member of the UAW. If anyone would know how the Democratic Party has treated the American autoworker in the last 30 years, it would be me. There was a time in this Country, when the Democratic Party used to respect the American autoworker and would literally step in front a train to defend them. Sadly, that time has passed, as the unions have lost their influence amongst the Democratic Party.
The loss of that influence in the Democratic Party is partially due to the actions of the internationalist Democrats, like Bill Clinton, who signed into law NAFTA and TAFTA. Some of that loss of influence is also due to the declining membership roles within the UAW and other said unions. Either way, it is sad transition in America, when our politicians in Washington D.C. put interests abroad before interests here at home.
Some of my readers, all three of you, might be shocked to see that I do not take a more mocking tone on stories like this and here is why I do not; Pat Buchanan said it best once, on one issue that I actually agree with him on — the American worker. Pat once said, “As goes Detroit, goes the Nation,” and you know what? Pat Buchanan is right about that, the United States of America used to be a manufacturing marvel. We produced everything ourselves, and other Countries used to come here to see how we did it all. Sadly, those times have come and gone, due to many reasons, a list of which is longer than the length of this blog entry will permit.
What is solution you ask, I know what it is; but most of the people who will come here to read, will not agree with it. However, I will give the solution. Firstly, the solution is NOT to bust up the unions, as they have as much right to proper representation, as the company owners have a right to make a profit. The solution to the problem is to get rid of these idiotic so-called “Free Trade” agreements. Secondly, the solution is to impose strict tariffs on EVERYTHING and I do mean everything that is manufactured overseas and imported into our Country.
These actions would do a couple of things; firstly it would protect the American workers from the globalists who want to undercut the American worker to make a quick dollar on the backs of cheap sweatshop labor in foreign countries like China. Secondly, it would solve our Nation’s revenue problem by creating a reliable source of income; one of which we did have in this Country for a very long time, before the globalists ripped it out, in favor of trade agreements.
Further, the solution is in whom we elect; Republicans and Democrats alike need to elect those who put America’s interests first, and not the interests who those abroad. To be fair, Republicans have done this too in this past and we as Americans need to watch what these new crop of Republicans really represent; do they represent the interests of the crony capitalists or do they have the American people’s interests in mind? Supposedly, the Tea Party movement brought some of this “America First” type of populism to the Conservative movement, but as of late, it seems that the Tea Party was nothing more than a passing fad. I just hope the people, who went to these protests, use the principles that were promoted at the Tea Party rallies, at the ballot box come November 2012.
Others: Michelle Malkin, New York Times, New York Magazine, The Heritage Foundation, Questions and Observations, Fantastical Andrew Fox, RedState, The Strata-Sphere, Hot Air, Sky Dancing, Conservatives4Palin, americanthinker.com, Big Government, Weasel Zippers, Fire Andrea Mitchell!, JammieWearingFool and Betsy’s Page
I’m over here looking at Robert Stacy McCain’s blog and once again, he’s whining about hits.
Hey McCain let me show you a few things okay?
From the back end of my blog:
Click to make bigger
Some more from my back end:
Even more from my back end, my stats page:
Why is McCain whining again?
You know what that translates too, right? This:
Now I will most likely have to mooch off my folks for my refill on my Meds. and yet, McCain is whining.
Oh, there’s more:
Oh, there’s more, but I think you get my point. I’m having a drought here for hits, and this guy is whining — because he didn’t get invited somewhere. What a moronic tool….
Oh no, no terrorism here folks!
Ali Reza Shahsauri, from Indialantic, Florida, was arrested at the airport on a charge of interference.
An emergency call to the flight tower at the Texas airport initially reported that the 29-year-old passenger was trying to get into the flight deck.
However Amarillo Aviation Director Patrick Rhodes later said he was ‘not trying to break into the cockpit, but was unruly and had confronted the cabin crew’.
Passengers claimed he stood at the back of the plane and shouted: ‘You’re all going to die. you’re all going to hell. Allahu Akbar.’
However, the FBI said the incident did not appear to be terrorism related.
A spokesman said: ‘The FBI continues to investigate, but initial indications are that there was no terrorist intent. This guy is a U.S. citizen.’
Another passenger Doug Oerding told the Amarillo Globe-News that Shahsavari started screaming obscenities at fellow travellers during the flight.
Attendants attempted to calm Shahsavari but he went to a bathroom at the rear of the plane and started making a commotion.
Mr Oerding said: ‘All of us guys were looking at him like are we going to have to do something.’
The suspect’s father Mohammad Shahsavari confirmed the suspect was his son but that he had no idea what lead to the incident.
Mr Shahsavari told the Associated Press: ‘I don’t know what to say
Nothing to see here, just another peaceful Muslim, nothing to see at all.
When you get jolted out of a deep sleep, from the sound of your iPod touch going, “Blip! Bloop! Bing! Blip!” something big is going on! Good grief! Why couldn’t they off this guy at a decent hour?!?!
Anyhow, the world’s ugliest snappy dresser is with his 72 virgins now. The Lockerbie Bombing victims now have some closure.
As always Ed Morrissey has some sobering analysis:
The death of a terrorist-supporting tyrant cannot be bad news, if indeed Qaddafi’s death is confirmed. If he has died in a military action, it might have been the best end for which either side could hope. Qaddafi will end up being remembered by his small cadre of supporters not as a Saddam Hussein, diminished in captivity and finally humiliated on the gallows by the people he oppressed, but as someone who at least fought to the end. The new government doesn’t have to worry about holding Qaddafi and putting him on trial with the world watching, with the risk of him becoming a symbol of opposition that undermines their attempts to unite the country.
But unite the country into what, exactly? It still remains to see whether Libya has indeed been “liberated” and will now pursue the path of a liberal, pluralistic democracy — or whether the Libyans will follow the path of Egypt and a military/Islamist regime. At least the Libyans have an opportunity to make that choice for themselves now that the tyrant has been defeated and removed from the equation.
Which has been the concern of the right, with this whole thing in Libya and this whole Arab spring concept in the first place; it is not that we on the right dislike freedom, it is the fact that some of us are worried that the United States might actually be funding and supporting an Israeli nightmare. Besides all that, the best we will get out of this, is an plutocratic Government with another front man. The idea that we will have a Republican or even a free democracy in Libya is a pipe dream.
The very idea that Libya will ever be a free country, with a religion, such as Islam, is a myth.
Cross-posted at Alexandria
UPDATE: Video: (WARNING EXTREMELY GRAPHIC! NOT SAFE FOR KIDS, WORK, WIVES!….)
Update #2: Longer Video via Gateway Pundit:
Remember what I said about Islamofacism being a problem? This right here, is what am referring to.
This comes via Facebook:
Now, do I agree with what this guy is saying? Pretty much, yes. he is correct about the moderate Muslims and their cowardice.
Update: Cross-posted @ Alexandria
I really hate having to compose posts like this, but when I see rank hypocrisy coming from somewhere, I have to speak out about it. It appears that good old BlogAds.com has finally gotten a good dose of its own medicine. As some of you might recall, I was unceremoniously dumped by BlogAds.com a good long while back, because I dared to gripe and complain about a ridiculously slow server that controlled the editing of my ads on my site. One night, after being fed up with their idiotic slow server; I in some very colorful language, told them that their server was too slow and asked them to fix it. I posted it on their facebook page, which of course made them look like rank buffoons. For this I was dropped; there we no second chance, there was no, “Hey, can we talk about this on the phone?” None of that, just a tersely worded e-mailed that said, “Were not selling you anymore” and that was the end.
So, to the people at BlogAds.com —-hey, how does it feel to get the door slammed in your face? To be honest, it could not have happened to some better people, if you ask me. Maybe this will make the reconsider their rather rude way of dealing with me. I admit that my site does not have the hits that some of the other bigger political blogs might have, but that does not excuse the way I was treated, because it was THEIR product, that caused the problem in the first place. I do realize that these guys are not obligated to give anyone access to their service, but I believe that their “blogger relations” person has a lot to learn when dealing with the public and people like me, who make a living at their writings.
So, again, to people at BlogAds.com —- How does it feel?
Another thing too; to put a bit of politics into this, BlogAds.com has what are called Liberal and Conservative “Ad Hives,” and the liberal hive is like twice the size of the Conservative Hive. What does that tell you? Who do you think they really promote? You have two guesses and the first one does not count. What does it say when Perez Hilton, a morally degenerate liberal gets more promotion on that Advertising Company’s website —- than say, Ann Althouse? I am just saying, you are what you promote and in BlogAds.com’s case, it is not a pro-American, Conservative business.
However, I will say this; and as much as I hate linking to this blog, because of it’s douche-bag owner. I saw the following this morning and I literally laughed out loud…:
RICK SANTORUM: I am Catholic. And Angry! I am an Angry Catholic Conservative! RAWR!
If that does not nail Rick Santorum to a peg, I do not know what does. 😀 Although I must say, I never saw it as “anger,” but more of this idiotic bandying around his Catholic Faith. Between him and Romney’s whack job Mormonism, I fear for what this Country could become. If either of these two is picked for the nominee, I will be voting Libertarian Party again. I will repeat, what is on my About Me page and, I think, is on my About This Blog Page; and that is that my loyalty is not to the Republican Party —- but rather to principles. If I feel that the Republican Party is going to pick a big Government establishment Conservative, as George W. Bush was, I will vote Libertarian Party.
Some of you might be asking, “If you’re a Christian and a Fundamental Baptist, who do you dislike someone who is running as a Christian Conservative?” To this, I answer the following: My issues with Roman Catholicism aside —- While I think that it is great that there is a President candidate, who is a Christian and is not afraid to represent that, I just feel that Religion should not be the core or center issue in an election. This Nation is facing some serious issues, related to fiscal matters, not social; social Conservatism is a battle that the Republicans and the Conservative Christian community fought — and ultimately lost — back in the 1980’s. The Republican Party does not need to fight that battle again. I am very sorry to say this, but as much as I am a Christian and a defender of those beliefs. I do not believe that it is the right of anyone, to force his or her religious beliefs on anyone at all A logical fallacy drove the Christian Conservative movement of “God and Country” in the 1980’s and essentially, it was a dismal flop. This is because the philosophy of Senator Barry Goldwater was correct; which said you could not legislate morality.
This is why I tend to separate myself from the extreme religious right in this Country. This is what people like Ed Brayton tend to misunderstand about me. I am not an extremist at all. Just because I happen to think that Islamo-facism is a bit a problem and I happen to defend American values, does not make me someone who is alignment who is agreement with the far religious right, who believes in Christian domination. I just do not believe that any belief should be dominated over any other. I believe that ALL faiths should be able to practice their faiths in peace, without fear of persecution from Government or other rival faiths. I also happen to believe that if someone decides that he or she wishes to refrain from subscribing to that faith, that he or she has the right to be left alone as well.
This, my friends, is the true definition of freedom.