Killing the Currency

First under the Bush Administration and even more so under President Obama, the federal government has been seizing power and spending money as it hasn’t done since World War II. But as bold as the Executive Branch has been during this financial crisis, the innovations of Fed chairman Ben Bernanke have been literally unprecedented. Indeed, it is entirely plausible that before Obama leaves office, Americans will be using a new currency.

Bush and Obama have engaged in record peacetime deficit spending; so too did Herbert Hoover and then Franklin Roosevelt (even though in the 1932 election campaign, FDR promised Americans a balanced budget). Bush and Obama approved massive federal interventions into the financial sector, at the behest of their respective Treasury secretaries. Believe it or not, in 1932 the allegedly “do-nothing” Herbert Hoover signed off on the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), which was given billions of dollars to prop up unsound financial institutions and make loans to state and local governments. And as with so many other elements of the New Deal, FDR took over and expanded the RFC that had been started under Hoover.

In the past year, the government has seized control of more than half of the nation’s mortgages, it has taken over one of the world’s biggest insurers, it literally controls major car companies, and it is now telling financial institutions how much they can pay their top executives. On top of this, the feds are seeking vast new powers over the nation’s energy markets (through the House Waxman-Markey “Clean Energy and Security Act” and pending Kerry-Boxer companion bill in the Senate) and, of course, are trying to “reform” health care by creating expansive new government programs.

For anyone who thinks free markets are generally more effective at coordinating resources and workers, these incredible assaults on the private sector from the central government surely must translate into a sputtering economy for years. Any one of the above initiatives would have placed a drag on a healthy economy. But to impose the entire package on an economy that is mired in the worst postwar recession, is a recipe for disaster.

Debt and Inflation

Conventional economic forecasts for government tax receipts are far too optimistic. The U.S. Treasury will need to issue far more debt in the coming years than most analysts now realize. Yet even the optimistic forecasts are sobering. For example, in March the Congressional Budget Office projected that the Obama administration’s budgetary plans would lead to a doubling of the federal debt as a share of the economy, from 41 percent of GDP in 2008 to 82 percent of GDP by 2019. The deficit for fiscal year 2009 (which ended Sept. 30) alone was $1.4 trillion. For reference, the entire federal budgetwas less than $1.4 trillion in the early years of the Clinton administration.

Clearly the U.S. government will be incurring massive new debts in the years to come. The situation looks so grim that economist Jeffrey Hummel has predicted that the Treasury will default on its obligations, just as Russia defaulted on its bonds in 1998. But another scenario involves the Federal Reserve wiping out the real burden of the debt by writing checks out of thin air to buy up whatever notes the Treasury wants to issue.

Many analysts are worried about Fed chairman Ben Bernanke’s actions during the financial crisis; Marc Faber is openly warning of “hyperinflation.” To understand what the fuss is about, consider some facts about our monetary and banking system.

The United States has a fractional reserve banking system. When someone deposits $100 in a checking account, most of that money is lent out again to other bank customers. Only a fraction—typically around 10 percent—needs to be held “on reserve” to back up the $100 balance of the original depositor. A bank’s reserves can consist of either cash in the vault or deposits with the Federal Reserve itself. For example, suppose a given bank has customer checking accounts with a combined balance of $1 billion. Assuming a 10 percent reserve requirement, the bank needs $100 million in reserves. It can satisfy this legal requirement by keeping, say, $30 million in actual cash on hand in its vaults and putting $70 million on deposit in the bank’s account with the Fed.

Normally, the Fed expands the money supply by engaging in “open market operations.” For example, the Fed might buy $1 billion worth of government bonds from a dealer in the private sector. The Fed adds the $1 billion in bonds to the asset side of its balance sheet, while its liabilities also increase by $1 billion. But Bernanke faces no real constraints on his purchasing decisions. When the Fed buys $1 billion in new bonds, it simply writes a $1 billion check on itself. There is no stockpile of money that gets drained because of the check; the recipient simply deposits the check in his own bank, and the bank in turn sees its reserves on deposit with the Fed go up by $1 billion. In principle, the Fed could write checks to buy every asset in America.

Monetary Catastrophe

Since the start of the present financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has implemented extraordinary programs to rescue large institutions from the horrible investments they made during the bubble years. Because of these programs, the Fed’s balance sheet more than doubled from September 2008 to the end of the year, as Bernanke acquired more than a trillion dollars in new holdings in just a few months.

If Bernanke has been so aggressive in creating new money, why haven’t prices skyrocketed at the grocery store? The answer is that banks have chosen to let their reserves with the Fed grow well above the legal minimum. In other words, banks have the legal ability to make new loans to customers, but for various reasons they are choosing not to do so. This chart from the Federal Reserve shows these “excess reserves” in their historical context.

U.S. depository institutions have typically lent out their excess reserves in order to earn interest from their customers. Yet currently the banks are sitting on some $850 billion in excess reserves, because (a) the Fed began paying interest on reserves in October 2008, and (b) the economic outlook is so uncertain that financial institutions wish to remain extremely liquid.

The chart explains why Faber and others are warning about massive price inflation. If and when the banks begin lending out their excess reserves, they will have the legal ability to create up to $8.5 trillion in new money. To understand how significant that number is, consider that right now the monetary aggregate M1—which includes physical currency, traveler’s checks, checking accounts, and other very liquid assets—is a mere $1.7 trillion.

What does all this mean? Quite simply, it means that if Bernanke sits back and does nothing more, he has already injected enough reserves into the financial system to quintuple the money supply held by the public. Even if Bernanke does the politically difficult thing, jacking up interest rates and sucking out half of the excess reserves, there would still be enough slack in the system to triple the money supply.

The End of the Dollar?

Aware of the above considerations, central banks around the world have been quietly distancing themselves from the U.S. dollar. Over the summer, officials in India, China, and Russia opined publicly on the desirability of a new global financial system, anchored on a basket of currencies or even gold.

We thus have in motion two huge trains of supply and demand, and the result will be an inevitable crash in the value of the dollar. Just as the Federal Reserve is embarking on a massive printing spree, the rest of the world is looking to dump its dollar holdings. It’s impossible to predict the exact timing, but sooner or later the dollar will fall very sharply against commodities and other currencies.

A crashing dollar will translate immediately into huge spikes in the price of gasoline and other basic items tied to the world market. After a lag, prices at Wal-Mart and other stores will also skyrocket, as their reliance on “cheap imports from Asia” will no longer be possible when the price of the dollar against the Chinese yuan falls by half.

The consequences will be so dramatic that what now may sound like a “conspiracy theory” could become possible. Fed officials might use such an opportunity to wean Americans from the U.S. dollar. Influential groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations have discussed the desirability of coordination among the North American governments. For example, CFR president Richard N. Haas wrote in the foreword to a 2005 Task Force report titled, “Building a North American Community”:

The Task Force offers a detailed and ambitious set of proposals that build on the recommendations adopted by the three governments [Canada, the U.S., and Mexico] at the Texas summit of March 2005. The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.

The “Texas summit of March 2005” refers to the “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America,” which came out of a meeting in Waco, Texas between President George W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and Mexican President Vicente Fox. For the record, the federal government’s website has a special section devoted to refuting the (alleged) myths of the SPP, including the claim that the SPP is a prelude to a North American Union, comparable to the European Union. Yet despite the official protestations to the contrary, the global trend toward ever larger political and monetary institutions is undeniable. And there is a definite logic behind the process: with governments in control of standing armies, the only real check on their power is the ability of their subjects to change jurisdictions. By “harmonizing” tax and regulatory regimes, various countries can extract more from their most productive businesses. And by foisting a fiat currency into the pockets of more and more people, a government obtains steadily greater control over national—or international—wealth.

But if indeed key players had wanted to create a North American Union with a common currency, up till now they would have faced an insurmountable barrier: the American public would never have agreed to turn in their dollars in exchange for a new currency issued by a supranational organization. The situation will be different when the U.S. public endures double-digit price inflation, even as the economy still suffers from the worst unemployment since the Great Depression. Especially if Obama officials frame the problem as an attack on the dollar by foreign speculators, and point to the strength of the euro, many Americans will be led to believe that only a change in currency can save the economy.

For those who consider such a possibility farfetched, remember that one of FDR’s first acts as president was to confiscate monetary gold held by U.S. citizens, under threat of imprisonment and a huge fine. Yet nowadays, that massive crime is described as “taking us off the gold standard” which “untied the Fed’s hands and allowed it to fight the Depression.” The same will be said in future history books, when they explain matter-of-factly the economic crisis that gave birth to the amero.

What Can One Man Do?

If events play out as described, what should average investors do right now to protect themselves? First and most obvious, they should rid themselves of dollar-denominated assets. For example, government and corporate bonds promising to make a fixed stream of dollar payments will all become virtually worthless if huge price inflation occurs. (In contrast, holding U.S. stocks is not a bad idea from the point of view of inflation; a stock entitles the owner to a portion of the revenue stream from a company’s sales, which themselves will rise along with prices in general.)

Second, investors should acquire an emergency stockpile of gold and silver. If and when dollar-prices begin shooting through the roof, there will be a lag for most workers: They will see the prices of milk, eggs, and gasoline increasing by the week, yet their paychecks will remain the same for months or longer. If the dollar crashes in the foreign exchange markets, gold and silver would see their prices (quoted in U.S. dollars) increase in the opposite direction.

We can’t know the timing of the impending monetary catastrophe, but it is coming. Smart investors will minimize their dependence on the dollar before it crashes. At this late date, no one should trust the government and media “experts” who assure us that the worst is over.

By Robert P. Murphy
Robert P. Murphy has a Ph.D. in economics from New York University. He is an economist with the Institute for Energy Research and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal.

Banks: We'll 'step up now'

Facing White House pressure to increase lending, bank CEOs plan to tell President Barack Obama in a meeting on Monday that they are ready to “step up” and take additional steps to promote economic recovery, industry officials tell POLITICO.

“Every CEO that’s participating is ready to a) listen and b) step up,” said an industry executive familiar with plans for the meeting. “Everybody’s goal is to come out of the meeting with actionable, constructive and measurable things that the industry can do to spur recovery.”

Obama will take a measured tone with the bankers, telling them he wants to have a candid and constructive conversation and doesn’t want to vilify anyone, according to administration officials. But the president will tell the banks that they have a special responsibility to help spur recovery because of the extraordinary bailout assistance they received last year.

The president will acknowledge the industry concern that regulators are overcorrecting and have become overzealous. And he’ll call for a dialogue about the issue.

Still, Obama wants the CEOs to send a signal to loan officers that they’ll not be rewarded for turning down loans. The president will say that lending is critical to the recovery and that he hears story after story about creditworthy borrowers who haven’t missed a payment but have been cut off.

Lucas van Praag, a Goldman Sachs managing director who is the firm’s global head of corporate communications, said: “Coming into this meeting, we are focused on helping our clients to protect and grow their businesses. Clients are at the heart of our business. And whether it is helping a client restructure debt, raise equity [or] make a strategic acquisition, helping a U.S. aircraft manufacturer to finance the export of American-made planes or underwriting Build America bonds so that municipalities can build schools, roads and hospitals, meeting clients’ needs is the role we play in bringing a broad-based economic recovery closer for all Americans.”

The meeting comes as public anger about the Wall Street bailout — and the federal deficit spending necessary to finance it — is becoming a major political challenge for the Obama administration. At a time when unemployment is at 10 percent, the administration has expressed frustration that the big banks have been slow to lend to the small businesses that can generate job growth.

Major Wall Street players say they are caught between the urging of the White House to lend and the equally forceful guidance from federal regulators not to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers. It was willy-nilly lending to unqualified subprime mortgage customers, after all, that triggered the global economic meltdown. The bankers say they’ve learned their lesson and are trying to avoid a repeat of that fiasco.

Obama has suggested in public comments that the pendulum has swung too far, hurting small firms that can’t get credit to finance growth.

The bankers — including the heads of Goldman Sachs, American Express, JPMorgan, Capital One, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Wells Fargo — will not present a specific industry plan. Instead, they’ll talk about their own organizations’ plans, especially to help small businesses, a key White House focus.

The industry executive said that ideas that come out of this meeting could include more lending for small business and an extension of Treasury’s Build America bonds program, a stimulus measure that was designed to lower borrowing costs for state and local governments in getting infrastructure projects moving.

“There’s a very strong understanding that we have to work constructively on financial regulatory reform that will provide markets with certainty,” the executive said. “The industry is perceived as recalcitrant because it has raised issues with particular details of reform. However, as a general matter, all of the firms at the table recognize that reforms are necessary to prevent future crises, reestablish confidence in the system and provide certainty. Markets crave certainty.”

Rob Nichols, president and COO of the Financial Services Forum, said: “We are in agreement with the administration that we need reform and modernization of the U.S financial supervisory framework. We are committed to the important task of creating an efficient and flexible 21st century regulatory architecture that ensures the safety and soundness of financial institutions, and protects the interests of investors, depositors, and customers. A safe, sound, and efficient financial sector is critical to the health of the U.S. economy, our recovery prospects, and job creation.”

The industry executive said the message of the meeting appears to be “half woodshed and half help us move forward.”

The White House said Obama “will meet with members of the financial services industry to discuss our shared interest in economic recovery, the need to increase small-business lending and the administration’s plans for financial regulatory reform."

The president told CBS’s “60 Minutes” in an interview aired Sunday night: “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers. ... What’s really frustrating me right now is that you’ve got these same banks who benefited from taxpayer assistance who are fighting tooth and nail ... against financial regulatory control.”

The administration official said that in the meeting, Obama is expected to compliment banks that have moved toward more stock-based compensation that’s held for the long term — an indirect reference to Goldman Sachs’s announcement last week that it would convert the bonuses of its top executives from cash to stock.

The president will ask more banks to move in that direction, but there’s little the administration can do to force changes in compensation at the banks. Still, “pay czar” Ken Feinberg announced dramatic pay cuts last week for firms that still have not repaid bailout funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Feinberg has no legal authority to impose similar measures on banks that the government no longer controls. For them, Obama must use the bully pulpit.

The Goldman spokesman, van Praag, said: “Our compensation principles are founded on the idea that our employees’ interest should be directly aligned with our shareholders’ best interest. Supporting a shareholder vote on executive compensation is a logical extension of the compact we have with our shareholders. The announcement that our most senior executives will receive all their discretionary compensation in equity, which will be ‘at risk’ and which they won’t be able to sell for five years, is a recognition of their responsibilities and the circumstances under which we are operating.”

An administration official said a dozen top executives will attend Monday’s meeting at the White House: Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs; Ken Chenault, president and CEO of American Express; Richard Davis, chairman, president and CEO of US Bancorp; Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase; Richard Fairbank, chairman and CEO of Capital One; Bob Kelly, chairman and CEO of Bank of New York Mellon; Ken Lewis, president and CEO of Bank of America; Ron Logue, chairman and CEO of State Street Bank; John Mack, chairman and CEO of Morgan Stanley; Dick Parsons, chairman of Citigroup; Jim Rohr, chairman and CEO of PNC; and John Stumpf, president and CEO of Wells Fargo.

Also attending will be Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and three top White House officials: senior adviser Valerie Jarrett; Christina Romer, chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers; and National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers.

In November, Goldman Sachs launched 10,000 Small Businesses, a five-year, $500 million commitment, in development for nearly a year, that was modeled on the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women Initiative.

Also last month, JPMorgan told Reuters that it was raising its lending to small businesses by $4 billion this year and hiring more than 300 new bankers to cater to these businesses.

Bankers 'whacked' in arcade game

An arcade game that allows people to vent their anger at bankers has proved so popular the owner keeps having to replace worn out mallets.

Inventor Tim Hunkin introduced "Whack a Banker", which is based on the older "Whack a Mole" game, at his arcade on Southwold pier in Suffolk.

Instead of players hitting pop-up moles with a mallet, within a set time, the target is pop-up bald figures.

Mr Hunkin said the game was "proving very popular".

"I keep having to replace worn-out mallets," he said.

"The bankers are bald and all look the same because that's how I think people see bankers, as faceless."

Players, who are promised a "truly rewarding banking experience", pay 40p to hit as many bankers as they can in 30 seconds.

When a customer wins a voice says: "You win. We retire. Thank you very much to the taxpayer for paying our pensions."

To Know the End from the Beginning.

Dog Poet Transmitting.......

I was trying to explain to someone once about what happens when you go too far down the road with alcohol and certain drugs. It’s no different than what happens with the intoxication of power; the pursuit of sexual satisfaction, gold fever and whatever obsession might come to mind. I was telling this fellow that it was similar to the way the water swirls in a toilet bowl. At first you encounter certain events and phenomena and there may be an exception that occurs once or twice. As you continue down, what was an exception becomes commonplace and then a new exception will occur. Then this exception becomes common place. The lower you swirl on the side of the bowl the more the environment changes until it suddenly gets very dark and then stays that way.

You can think about domestic altercations; a bar fight, a DWI, a blackout, divorce, job loss, homelessness, insanity or prison and then… death. The usual descent is gradual. This is how people will come to some point of desperation and wonder how they arrived there.

Surfers and divers experience a particular condition that can be caused by extreme wave action or some other factors where they no longer know which way is up or down. So it is that people climbing up the ladder of personal power and personal influence might actually be climbing downward in a cosmic sense which would, sooner or later, become personal. Sometimes people think that steps they are taking are going to protect them and find that they succeeded only in putting themselves in greater danger. Some people think having a lot of money will make them rich when it winds up making them poor in everything that counts.

Men and women born with great physical beauty often come to rely on it and never develop the other qualities that actually make them attractive in an enduring way. Once their looks are gone, it’s a sad affair. This is the judgment of Nature. However, it is possible that when one kind of beauty would ordinarily fade, it becomes illuminated with another kind of beauty. There are realities about life that it is valuable to become aware of, unfortunately most people never do.

What happened to Berlusconi yesterday is a watershed moment. This won’t be the general impression. In most minds this will come across as an anomaly and one of the things that happen now and then to those who are in the public eye and whose public actions have a certain amount of controversy to them. It could be said that all public figures have a certain amount of controversy attached to them, just from being public figures.

The very rich and powerful have put themselves in a most undesirable position. Instead of making sure that the underclass has enough to get by and then keeping all the usual distractions in operation, they have overstepped themselves. Their greed and lust for power and wealth and their disdain for public opinion, which they demonstrate by their arrogant disregard for what others think; believing themselves to be above the reach and judgment of those they consider beneath them, is going to come back on them with a fury. The King Louis and Marie Antoinette mindset never goes out of style with those driven mad by vanity and self-interest. It comes with the territory.

Most of the time, they can keep this in check and go right on living their privileged lives by recognizing the limits to which they can abuse the ordinary lives. In this age of material darkness they have lost their perspective. They have over reached themselves. They have put themselves in peril by placing themselves too far above their fellows and basically… sucking the oxygen out of the living room of life.

They have continued to steal when they already had more than they could ever need or ever spend. They made public displays of their wealth, while showing a calloused indifference to the plight of the people they stole their money from. They have awakened a beast in the hearts of the populace. This beast has its own intelligence outside of the minds of those in which it has been kindled. They are only the means. The beast is the awareness that drives the means to the end. This is how unruly mobs suddenly coalesce as if they were possessed of intelligent purpose. All of a sudden they have leaders and a structure. It seems to come out of nowhere but it does not. It is the natural response to conditions set into being by people who should have known better and did not.

When you set about repressing people’s freedom of speech and movement, you have created a problem. When you make their jobs and their savings disappear you have created another problem. When you send men and women to fight wars for profit or to serve the interest of a foreign nation that sees them as less than human, you have created another problem. When you fail to see to the aftercare of these soldiers you have created yet another problem. These are only a few of the problems.

Many times, the rich and the powerful have considered themselves above the law and secure behind their walls and under the protection of their guards. Very often this proves to be untrue. Often enough the danger is behind the walls with you already and simmers in the hearts of those charged with your protection.

The rich and the powerful could go on indefinitely were it not for their arrogance and sense of impunity. It’s not rocket surgery to understand that you have to make sure that ‘the people’ have enough to get by on. No sane leader would let the banks take away the homes of the people when they caused the problem in the first place. The worst of times in which to behave this way is during the presence of an apocalypse because it is then- due to a little understood working of the laws of Nature- that we become exposed for what we are. We get seen at what we are doing. We wind up at another level in the swirling bowl and the exception becomes the rule.

Though it may not be apparent at the moment, I believe we will look back on this Berlusconi incident and say, “That’s when it started.” Some might say it started in Copenhagen or it started in East Anglia. You can go way back and say it started there or even say that it hasn’t started yet but… I think this event has set a number of wheels turning in the collective mind where the beast is laying with one eye open. World leaders would do well to consider reversing the course of their self-serving ways. The rich and privileged would do well to consider their behavior and how vulnerable they are.

The bankers and Wall Street clowns should seriously consider a sea change in their day to day relentless, buggery of the lumpen proles. Once critical mass has been reached, you don’t get any ‘do-overs’ …and you don’t get to rewind the tape. As Omar Khayyam said; “The moving finger, having writ, moves on and not all your piety can lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all your tears wash out a word of it". World leaders and international bankers are not calling me on the phone and asking, “visible, what should I do here?” They are not consulting with any of us who might do them some good. They would prefer to pay those who will tell them what they want to hear and how they can get out of this with everything they have and still more. It’s not going to happen.

Those richly deserving it are about to reap the whirlwind and it does not have to happen… yet they insist upon it. Have it your way and welcome to the cosmic Burger King where you are on the menu. There are people closely placed to all of these people, in critical positions, who do not like what they are up to and will betray them without regret when the opportunity comes. I do not envy those who think themselves impervious to the storm. In other time they could simply throw a few of their fellows to the crowd. These are not those other times.

A hard rain is going to fall, as a poet once said. Times of great change are filled with a combustible unpredictability. The degree of severity is still in question and much could be done to militate against the worst case scenario. Will an epiphany fall upon those who need it the most? Will they push their chips to the center of the table and declare that they are all in? Will they actually believe that where a certain amount of force is not working that they only need to apply more force? Will they listen or must they feel? I don’t have the answer to that. One can only hope that somehow they will find one before it really is too late.

Peter Schiff and Dr. Ron Paul on U.S. Economy.

Click this link ..... http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8925

新加坡‧攜151萬入新加坡沒呈報‧大馬籍錢幣兌換商坐牢罰款

（新加坡）一名大馬籍年輕錢幣兌換商攜帶總值63萬元（151萬2000令吉）的超額現款和現金支票入境，卻沒有據實呈報，被法庭判坐牢兩週和罰款3萬元（7萬2000令吉）。

被告劉建仁（譯音），26歲。

他面對30項控狀，其中29項指他於今年5月21日至6月15日，前後10多次攜帶超額款項進出新加坡，卻沒有呈報。另一項指他虛報數額。

法律規定，任何人攜帶超過3萬元（包括現款或支票）進出新加坡，都必須呈報，否則將被控抵觸貪污、販毒和其他嚴重罪行（充公利益）法令。

20多次進出獅城沒呈報

主控官說，今年6月15日下午3時50分，被告從兀蘭關卡入境時，執法人員從他的汽車司機座位下搜到一個黑色袋子，內有總數合折63萬6982新元的現款和現金支票，包括新幣7萬5628元、馬來西亞令吉689元，以及10張總值135萬余令吉的現金支票。

被告沒有呈報攜帶這一大筆超額款項入境，過後被執法人員查問時，還虛報只攜帶5萬3500元現款入境。

調查顯示，被告在案發前，也曾將同樣的10張現金支票藏在車上，前後總共20多次進出新加坡卻沒有呈報。

被告向法官求情說，他是幫朋友把錢帶來新加坡，錢被當局扣留後，朋友曾去騷擾他在大馬的父母，他父母因此還得用積蓄還錢給朋友。

澳洲‧漂澳冰山裂成數百塊‧威脅航經船隻

（澳洲‧悉尼）澳洲冰河專家今日（週二，12月15日）表示，漂向澳洲西南部的龐大冰山，在進入較暖的水域時，不斷發生斷裂，目前經已分裂成數百塊冰塊，對航經此區域的船隻構成潛在威脅。

這座代號為B17B的冰山原面積達140平方公里，約為香港島的兩倍大。

不過，冰河學家尼爾．揚表示，這座冰山的面積目前已縮小至115平方公里，但仍然相當巨大。

他指出，這座龐大冰山已經分裂出許多較小的冰塊，其中一些達數公里寬，分布在1000多公里的海面上。

他還說，這座冰山有可能完全溶解，但是他無法預測會在甚麼時候。

香港‧365億打造世界最長跨海大橋‧港珠澳大橋動工

（香港）連接香港、澳門及廣東珠海的“港珠澳大橋”今日（週二，12月15日）動工，將建成世界最長跨海大橋，預料可進一步促進珠江三角洲的經濟整合及發展。

大橋工程總投資逾人民幣730億元（約馬幣365億令吉），預計2016年全線通車。

廣東一帶的土地日益珍貴，價格也越來越高昂，這座長達50公里的大橋預料能為廣東西部發展較緩慢的地區帶來實質的經濟利益。

這座大橋的主體工程“海中橋隧”長達35公里，也將是世界最長的跨海大橋。

通車20年可帶來225億利益

據香港預測，一旦大橋通車後，在20年內，將可帶來港幣450億元（約馬幣225億令吉）經濟利益。

根據1月公佈的地區建設藍圖顯示，珠三角包含香港及澳門，有望在2020年以前成為世界首要經濟核心。

主持建橋動工儀式的香港特首曾蔭權表示，興建港珠澳大橋為三地經濟融合邁出重要一步，希望三地政府共同確保大橋能依時落成，亦要儘量降低大橋收費，增加車流量，發揮最大經濟效益。

據悉，港珠澳大橋完工後，由香港開車到珠海及澳門，將從現在的4、5個小時縮短至30分鐘左右。大橋起點是香港大嶼山，經大澳，跨越珠江口，最後分成Y字形，一端連接珠海，一端連接澳門。

當天，除了曾蔭權，中共中央政治局常委、國務院副總理李克強，中共廣東省委書記汪洋，廣東省省長黃華華，以及澳門特首何厚鏵等都出席了大橋的開工儀式。

美國‧“跟我上床還發短訊給女人”‧“老虎”情婦6號爆姦情

（美國‧紐約）老虎渥斯的“情婦6號”在電視節目中哭訴，渥斯跟她上床時，仍不忘發手機短訊給別的情婦。

31歲單親媽媽里斯，被編為渥斯的“情婦6號”，在紐約曼哈頓地區擔任夜店女郎。

渥斯的“情婦6號”里斯週一（12月14日）接受美國NBC節目訪問時，坦露與渥斯的姦情。（圖：美聯社）

她週一（12月14日）上美國“全國廣播公司（NBC）今日（週二，12月15日）秀”節目，聲稱她是於2006年在曼哈頓一家夜店跟渥斯邂逅，“他當時非常自然，我認為他根本不擔心別人看到。他拉著我的手離開，一切就此開始”。

後來，渥斯一到紐約，就會有人替里斯訂下渥斯所住套房的隔壁房間，讓她可以進入渥斯房間偷情而不被發現；渥斯還經常出機票讓她飛到各地與他約會。

里斯透露，她知道渥斯有跟別的女人暗通款曲，她經常半夜醒來時，發現渥斯正在用手機傳短信給別的女人，“我問他在幹甚麼，他說在回郵件。我知道肯定不會那麼單純。”

談到渥斯給她的影響時候，克里流下了眼淚，她說：“我不得不坐下來，給我的孩子解釋，真是太尷尬了”

她說，渥斯每次找她只為了上床，但由於她還要照顧7歲大的兒子，經常挪不出時間與渥斯約會，渥斯就甩了她。

據悉，他們保持了6個月的性關係，而友情卻維持了2年多，最後一次是今年9月份。

日本‧在皇宮進行約20多分鐘‧日皇會晤習近平

（日本‧東京）在日本朝野就日皇破例會見來訪的中國國家副主席習近平爆發舌戰聲中，日皇明仁今日（週二，12月15日）上午在皇宮宮殿“竹之間”會見了習近平。

據宮內廳透露，始於上午11時的會見進行了約20多分鐘。習近平對日皇在百忙之中特地安排此次會見深表感謝，並對日皇即位20年表示祝賀。

日皇對此回應說：“希望此次訪問能進一步加深兩國間的理解與友好。”此外他還詢問了四川大地震災區的重建情況。

1998年4月，日皇曾會見過當時作為中國國家副主席對日本進行訪問的胡錦濤。

日本輿論批評鳩山政府向宮內廳施壓，媒體報導，宮內廳原本因中方未按慣例在1個月前提出會面申請，而拒絕今次會面，但首相鳩山由紀夫兩度施壓，才破例作出今次安排。

鳩山否認利用日皇

鳩山承認曾要求宮內廳打破慣例，因為習近平是一位重要的客人，並且可能是中國未來的國家領導人，因此應舉國歡迎。

但他否認政治利用日皇，對今次出現政治風波感到遺憾，並且批評宮內廳“一刀切，的作風，在外交問題上是否恰當。

鳩山重申，由於中日關係重要，又在日皇健康允許的情況下，這一決定沒有錯。

小澤促宮內廳長官辭職

民主黨幹事長小澤一郎也炮轟宮內廳長官羽毛田信吾，對內閣政策說三道四是荒唐，要求他辭職。

小澤指出，如果天皇的身體欠佳，不參加優先度較低的活動就行了。他還說，如果問天皇本人的話，他認為天皇還是會答應見面。

在野自民黨則批評鳩山做法是為個人私利。

自民黨籍前首相安倍晉三猜測，這是小澤一郎對剛剛訪問中國時所受到的禮遇所給予的回報。

據報導，中國外交部則感謝“日本政府周到安排”。

Social Security Will Go Bust in 2010

For the third time in my life, the Social Security System will go belly-up.

The first time was in 1977 – well, almost. To head off the bust, Jimmy Carter got Congress to pass a major FICA tax increase – sorry, "contribution" increase – in order to save Social Security. The rate would be hiked in phases from 2% to 6.15% (times two: employee and employer). He promised: "Now this legislation will guarantee that from 1980 to the year 2030, the Social Security funds will be sound." (http://tinyurl.com/ybksxs4)

Carter's projection was off by a Georgia country mile. In 1983, the SSA program technically went bankrupt. Reagan signed a law that speeded up Carter's rate increases, added Congressional employees to Social Security, and delayed the age of eligibility. (http://tinyurl.com/ybksxs4)

Unless there is another Social Security tax increase in 2010, the system will go into red ink mode and stay there.

The public has not been informed of this, which comes as no surprise. There have been a few scattered stories on the Web, but nothing sustained. The media do not want to admit that the jointly operated Social Security program and Medicare program are going to bankrupt the Federal government if they are not cut back drastically.

They are never cut back. They always expand.

Medicare's Hospital Insurance program has been in red ink mode for two years. The public does not know this, either. To cover the program's insolvency, the government is quietly funding the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund with bailouts from the general fund.

Politically, this creates a problem. When the Treasury taps the general fund, the expenditure appears on the budget – the on-budget budget – as an expenditure. This immediately adds to the deficit, meaning the visible deficit, the one that gets recorded on those wonderful U.S. debt clocks.

When revenues flow into the four Social Security and Medicare trust funds, the money is instantly handed over to the Treasury, which issues non-marketable long-term IOU's to the trust funds. These IOU's are listed as assets by the funds. But, through the wonders of government accounting, they are not listed as liabilities on the government's on-budget budget. They are liabilities only on the off-budget budget, which most Americans are unaware of. This chicanery has been going on ever since the Johnson Administration (Lyndon's, not Andrew's).

The problem facing the politicians is this: when a trust fund is no longer showing a surplus of revenues over expenditures, it has to sell its assets back to the Treasury. The Treasury's non-listed liabilities must be converted into money to send to the legal recipients. This is a red alert of hidden red ink. The public finds out. The debt clocks speed up.

The Treasury has no money in reserve. Every dollar that it takes in immediately flows out. So, it must get Congress to provide the money for the deficit-running trust funds, either by taxing or by borrowing (increasing the legal debt ceiling).

What's a Congress to do?

HIDING THE BUST

The Congressional Budget Office released a report in July on the condition of the Social Security trust finds. There are two funds: Old Age Insurance and Disability Insurance. Think of them as "geezers and gimps." Combined, they are called OASDI. The report offered a table of numbers showing inflow and outflow. It is here.

The table is tricky to interpret. This is deliberate. The political strategy has always been concealment. But if we think through what is being reported in this table, we can spot the ringer.

The ringer is interest payments to the trust funds. The Treasury issued the IOU's, so it must pay the trust funds interest.

Think: "Where does the Treasury get the money?"

Answer: "The general fund." Up go the debt clocks.

Look at the figures projected for 2009. Income from revenues (FICA) is $653 billion. Total income is $808 billion. Where did the extra income come from? Three sources.

Taxes on benefits: $21 billion
Federal employer share: $14 billion
Interest: $120 billion

This means that the U.S. government has to pony up an extra $134 billion to pay to itself: $14 billion in taxes paid on behalf of Federal workers plus $120 billion in interest. This is counted as revenue for the OASDI Trust Fund, but it is red ink for the government.

Neat!

Now let's do a reality check. Subtract $134 billion from the $808 billion reported as total income to the OASDI Trust Fund. Why subtract it? Because this is not income coming from outside the government. We get $674 billion.

What is the expected outgo? $670 billion. The official budget surplus for the OASDI Trust Fund: $138 billion ($808b minus $670b). This is reported by the CBO under "Surplus." This looks pretty good. For the Trust Fund, it is pretty good.

For the government, the real figure is barely in the black. The official on-budget, count-the-subsidy-as-a-subsidy OASDI surplus for the U.S. government: $4 billion ($674b minus $670b).

This is never mentioned by the CBO. We are expected to figure this out. No one does. It took me several minutes to spot the ringer.

Now let us look at the projections for 2010. Income for the trust funds: $811 billion.

Taxes on benefits: $20 billion
Federal employer share: $15 billion
Interest: $118 billion

Let us remove the U.S. government's payments into the fund: $133 billion ($15b + $118b). This must be covered by the general fund. Subtract this from total income to the OASDI fund: $811b minus $133b = $678b.

The expected outgo is $703 billion.

The deficit for the OASDI program in 2010 will be $25 billion ($703b minus $678b).

Some people will regard the "Federal employer share" as non-subsidy: $15 billion. I'll concede this in practice, although I still think this is money extracted by taxes paid into the general fund. Even with this money removed, Social Security will run a $10 billion deficit in 2010.

Social Security will go bust in 2010, if CBO projections are correct.

What do I mean by "bust"? I mean technically insolvent – you know, like the nation's biggest banks in September 2008, before the government's bailout and the Federal Reserve's swap at face value of T-bills for toxic debt held by the banks.

I mean by "bust" the inability of the Social Security System to pay its bills by means of money extracted from the public by way of FICA "contributions."

Think of the Social Security System as Oliver Twist in the workhouse, gruel bowl in hand. "Please, sir, may I have some more?" Unlike Bumble, the Treasury dips its ladle into the gruel and then fills up the bowl. For how long? Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.

THE ACCOUNTING DECEPTION WORKS

The accounting scam of the Social Security Trust Fund has worked politically for a generation. It is not just the voters who are fooled. The best and the brightest in the media have been taken in. Here is an exchange that took place on the PBS show, Nightly Business Report, on March 25, 2009.

GERSH: A negative cash flow does not mean Social Security is in crisis. The program has built up an enormous trust fund over two decades. Barbara Kennelly is president of the Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. She says the trust fund is more than enough to cover any short-term financial hit.

BARBARA KENNELLY, PRES., NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE: The trustees look at it every single year, the report is going to come out at the end of this month. And you're going to still see that we can pay those benefits way out. Say it's not 2041, it's 2040 or 2039. But we have that money. There is $2.5 trillion in the trust fund for Social Security.

No problem! There is a $2.5 trillion asset base. The OASDI Trust Fund need only sell a few of these assets each year.

The interviewer with PBS never batted an eye. He did not say, "Don't try to pull the wool over my eyes, sister. I wasn't born yesterday." Yes, he was, and the scam worked just as well yesterday as it does today.

She said: "We can pay those benefits way out." How? By selling trust fund assets.

You know the old line from the financial world. "Sell!" "To whom?"

To sell an asset, there must be a market. Here is the punch line, taken directly from the 2009 Report of the Trustees: "Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs." (In a printout, this appears on page 4.)

The Department of the Treasury invests program revenues in special non-marketable securities of the U.S. Government on which a market rate of interest is credited. The trust funds represent the accumulated value, including interest, of all prior program annual surpluses and deficits, and provide automatic authority to pay benefits.

What, exactly, are "non-marketable securities"? They are IOU's issued by the Treasury on behalf of the U.S. government. As I mentioned, these IOU's are not recorded in the government's on-budget account. The revenues that purchase these IOU's are.

But wait! There's more! Pay attention to these words: "on which a market rate of interest is credited." The Treasury applies a market rate of interest to a non-marketable security. There is no such rate. The Treasury can make it up as it goes along.

So, the trust funds are filled with assets: non-marketable IOU's from the government, issued to a government agency. The trust funds are treated as marketable assets. They are indeed marketable: to the Treasury. The bill is passed along to Congress whenever the trust fund sells any of these assets.

There are lots and lots of these IOU's in the Social Security OASDI Trust Fund. No problem!

This is a scam. It is an accounting trick to deceive the public. Does it work? Better than Congress could have dreamed back in late 1968, when the change in accounting took place. (http://tinyurl.com/yeh5sm5)

According to the lady representing the special interest group promoting Social Security and Medicare, Judgment Day is a depleted trust fund. That will take place is 2040, give or take a couple of years. Politically, a date this far out is irrelevant. Congress has been playing kick the can on this issue for a generation. There is no sense of urgency by the public, so there is no sense of urgency in Congress.

Judgment Day is 2010, when the general fund must start paying for those cashed-in non-marketable assets.

Let's see if Congress will kick the can some more. Let's see if Congress passes hikes in the FICA tax rates in 2010, or extends the wage base that pays the tax beyond today's $106,800 limit. My guess: Congress will kick the can. The deficit will grow.

"HOW BAD IS IT?"

Those were Ed McMahon's four words to Johnny Carson, decade after decade, setting up Carson's punch line.

Here is the punch line – lines, actually – as delivered by the notoriously humorless trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.

The 2009 report begins: "The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging." I worked on Capitol Hill as Ron Paul's first research assistant back in 1976. The code word "challenging" means "politically unsolvable at the present time, so Congress will kick the can."

To this assessment, add the first sentence in the Conclusion: "The financial difficulties facing Social Security and Medicare pose serious challenges." What does "serious challenge" mean? Think of December 7, 1941, on board the U.S.S. Arizona. Imagine this sound: "Aye-oo-ga! Aye-oo-ga! Abandon ship! Abandon ship!"

We are assured that Social Security's problem is merely difficult. ("Yellow alert! Yellow alert!")

For Social Security, the reform options are relatively well understood but the choices are difficult.

The Social Security options are very well understood by Congress, but not the public. These options have been understood by Congress ever since 1983, when Reagan hiked FICA taxes.

The political choice was difficult in 1983, back when Reagan still thought he could balance the budget without vetoing spending bills sent up by Congress, which he usually signed into law. That was the year that the on-budget deficit hit $200 billion, a year before my 1977 prediction that it would hit $200 billion in 1984.

Reagan knew that red ink from the sale of Social Security Trust Fund assets back to the Treasury would push his on-budget budget even deeper into the red. He hiked FICA taxes to keep this from happening. Ever since then, Congress has played kick the can.

We ain't seen nothin' yet! The Conclusion concludes:

Medicare is a bigger challenge. Its cost growth can be contained without sacrificing quality of care only if health care cost growth more generally is contained. But despite the difficulties – indeed, because of the difficulties – it is essential that action be taken soon, particularly to control health care costs.

CONCLUSION

We are on board a replica of a 19th-century Mississippi paddle wheel steamboat. Nostalgia is always popular. The illusion of the good old days still sells. The engine is chugging faster and faster. The captain and crew decided long ago never to put the engine into reverse.

We are floating down the fiscal river of no return. We are moving faster and faster. Some of us can hear the falls ahead. The sound gets louder and louder. But our companions on board say, "Let's party!" They head for the dining room. After that, they will head for the slot machines.

Americans respond favorably to these words: "Free" and "all you can eat." That is what politicians promise.

Either the falls will get us (deflationary depression) or else an explosion of the overheated engine will (hyperinflation).

Our companions are still in the dining room or heading toward the slot machines. You and I should begin to move toward the lifeboats.

OUTRAGE AT 2,000% LOANS

GREEDY lenders are exploiting struggling families by offering Christmas loans with crippling annual interest rates of 2,350 per cent.

Families hit by the credit crunch are turning to so-called payday loans because they cannot access extra money from high street banks.

National TV adverts for one loan firm hit screens last week just as Office of Fair Trading research revealed a worrying increase in expensive short-term borrowing. And last night there were calls for the Government to clamp down on the loan firms amid fears that thousands of families could be plunged into spiralling debt.

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said: “At a time when official interest rates are close to zero and inflation is very low or negative it is unbelievable that people are being charged thousands or hundreds of per cent in interest.

“Much of this can be attributed to the withdrawal of credit from struggling households who can no longer use banks and are being driven into these extreme and extortionate forms of credit.

“These findings by the Daily Express underline the need for the Government to match its rhetoric with firm action to regulate these extortionate credit markets.”

Payday loans typically charge interest at an Annual Percentage Rate of between 1,000 and 2,000 per cent. Borrowers usually pay £25 interest for every £100 cash advance which the lender redeems after 30 days via a post-dated cheque for the amount borrowed plus fees and interest.

Internet lender QuickQuid.co.uk is advertising its services this month on national and local TV channels including SkySportsNews, Dave, Channel 5 and MTV. It offers a typical APR of a staggering 2,356 per cent while another major internet lender, PayDayUK, says its typical APR is 1,737 per cent.

A person borrowing £1,000 at 2,356 per cent APR would end up paying back £3,824 over 12 months.

Damon Gibbons, chair of campaign group Debt on our Doorstep, called on the Government to impose a cap on payday loan interest rates.

“This is a market that needs to have a price cap in place. Typically, people become trapped in a dependent relationship one month to the next. They often have to borrow again to pay off the loans they’ve taken out and it becomes a spiral of indebtedness,” he warned. Payday loans were invented in America and launched in the UK just over a decade ago.

QuickQuid’s website advertises same-day cash advances up to £1,500 for existing customers and £400 for new customers in a service it describes as a “hassle-free solution” to household bills or short-term money needs.

Rival service Payday UK’s website offers loans from £80 to £750 payable within 48 hours. John Lamidey, chief executive of trade body the Consumer Finance Association which represents payday loan firms, said: “The APR isn’t the cost of the loan, the APR is the rate. What you have to look at is the cost of the credit – how much is it going to cost you and how much you will pay back.

“Typically, what you are looking at with a payday loan is £200 and one month later you might pay back £250. So you pay back one and a quarter times what you borrow.” He added that internet lenders’ fees tended to be higher than shop-based lenders’ fees because they needed to carry out rigorous expensive credit checks before handing over money.

A spokeswoman for watchdog Consumer Focus warned: “This is an area that needs a light really shining on it.”

And consumer group Which? said: “At the moment it looks as though they are preying on those people who can’t get borrowing elsewhere.”

by political definition the US is now fascist, not a constitutional republic

Look in any textbook or encyclopedia and compare US policy (not rhetoric) to the definitions of fascism and constitutional republic. I’ll explain it here, but check my work. If at the end of your consideration, you agree that the United States of America is now a fascist state, please speak-up about it. Also, consider the policy requests at the end of the article.

Please read this article like a prima facie legal argument; that means unless you can refute the facts, they stand as our best understanding of the issue. Here, if you can’t refute the evidence that the US is now a fascist state, then accept this as your best understanding. As time passes, if evidence is brought forward to further the case for fascism or refute it, your comprehensive understanding improves. Here we go:

Definitions:

The definition of “fascism” has some academic variance, but is essentially collusion among corporatocracy, authoritarian government, and controlled media and education. This “leadership” is only possible with a nationalistic public accepting policies of war, empire, and limited civil and political rights.

“Constitutional republic” is a political philosophy of limited government, separated powers with checks and balances to ensure the federal government’s power stays limited within the Constitution, protected civil liberties, and elected representatives responsible to the people who retain the most political power. In the US we also embrace inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence, and creative independence to cooperatively compete for our nation’s best ideas to move forward and be rewarded.

History:

The United States was structured as a constitutional republic. Before we consider the US present condition, let us contextualize our concern from the nation’s Founders’ grave admonishments and doubts as to Americans’ ability to retain it. If you honor America at all, give their most serious warnings your full attention for the next 1,000 words spanning from Ben Franklin to Abraham Lincoln.

On September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Benjamin Franklin met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin: “A republic, if you can keep it.” In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished: “This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” The Quotable Founding Fathers, pg. 39

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant, in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than to hang a robber, or kill a flea. But killing one tyrant only makes way for worse, unless the people have sense, spirit and honesty enough to establish and support a constitution guarded at all points against the tyranny of the one, the few, and the many. Let it be the study, therefore, of lawgivers and philosophers, to enlighten the people's understandings and improve their morals, by good and general education; to enable them to comprehend the scheme of government, and to know upon what points their liberties depend; to dissipate those vulgar prejudices and popular superstitions that oppose themselves to good government; and to teach them that obedience to the laws is as indispensable in them as in lords and kings.” - John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government (1787), Ch. 18.

“A mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits (of government) is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.” - James Madison, Federalist Paper #48, 1788.

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, "Political Observations" (1795-04-20); also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491.

“It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolution (1798. ME 17:388)

“A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring, it is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” – James Madison, Letter to W.T. Barry (1822-08-04)

Washington made the topic of the Farewell Address he had printed and distributed as the culmination of his advice to Americans to “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion…

Lincoln spoke in honor of the few still-living veterans of the Revolutionary War in the concise power we ascribe as one of history’s most powerful.

The following six paragraphs are from Abraham Lincoln in his Lyceum Address, January 27 1838.

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide...

I know the American People are much attached to their Government;--I know they would suffer much for its sake;--I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.

The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.

…Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws.”

What is the evidence for American fascism in the present?

The US brazenly violates our laws of war, both demanded by the Constitution and the UN Charter, with open invasion of Afghanistan in abject violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and their government’s agreement to help extradite Osama bin Laden upon US presentment of evidence that he was involved in any crime of UN and/or international law. The US refused both the Afghan standard legal requirement of extradition and the UN resolution for cooperation under law and attacked. The new administration of Obama does not acknowledge this illegal history, but expands the invasion and attacks Pakistan. This policy is fascist, not limited by US law.

The US openly lied about reasons to justify an attack upon Iraq, destroying any semblance of argument of “self-defense.” The Obama administration won’t acknowledge the disclosed history from our own House and Senate investigations, and violates his oath of office to prosecute clear crimes. This policy is authoritarian, fascist, and does not hold equality under just laws. It is an un-American policy by definition.

The US tortured, with Obama refusing to prosecute and giving empty rhetoric to end it. The destruction of civil liberties to enforce authoritarian government is fascist, not American.

The US lies for more war with Iran, rejecting inalienable and legal rights for Iranians. Obama continues this policy of unlawful aggression, including official policy for first-strike nuclear weapons upon conclusion that Iran poses a possible future threat to the US and/or our allies. Political leaders and corporate media ignore the ignoble history of US vicious domination of Iranian government through coup and backed invasion. Fascist policy; un-American.

The US violates numerous treaty law with WMD, and hypocritically asserts our war targets' alleged violations justify US armed attack. This rejection of limited government under the law is a fascist empire on the loose, not a law-abiding neighbor. Added hypocrisy is the psychopathic front of American political leaders as Christians.

American corporatocracy is dominated by Enron-like cartels, headed by banks receiving the transfer of TRILLIONS of our tax dollars to pay-off their gambling debts in exotic derivative markets the federal government regulates only in more empty rhetoric. This socialization of corporate-insiders’ losses is fascist, and fundamentally in opposition of the American ideal of cooperative competition on a level playing field. Obvious financial solutions for the public good are ignored in their corporate and not public policy commitment.

While our government's official line is respect for Islam, their wars betray this analysis. If extremists were the small minority, why not peacefully cooperate to marginalize and arrest those in violation of just laws? Muslims as a group are often demonized in US media, and often the entire group is branded as terrorists. For example, consider this segment from the radio talk show of Michael Savage.

The corporate media will not present such disturbing facts and analysis. Their outright lies of commission and omission are prima facie evidence of a controlled media, supported by revealed documentation from whistle-blowers. American freedom of the press is left to independent websites and those few media outlets who tolerate reporting such as you read now.

Yeah, but we’re not totally fascist! Saying the US is fascist is just not right!!!

Yes, I’ve made the case for fascism only in the area of tens of trillions of our tax dollars in the economy, Wars of Aggression based on objective lies, authoritarian disregard for crucial laws and treaties of war and moral conduct, expansion of new unlawful war into Pakistan with rhetoric leading to more war with Iran, and a corporate press who won’t communicate these “emperor has no clothes” facts until the public breaks free of their cognitive blindness to clearly embrace our new American political reality.

We still vote for Republicans and Democrats in elections, yes, in a monied system with a virtual lock against 3^rd party candidates given the costs of advertising and breaking the inertia of a two-party system.

We still have Internet press where authors such as I can point to the obvious, but with documented government-organized opposition in PSYOPS to ridicule challenging voices while counting of public cognitive blindness to keep the fascism unconcealed.

Policy response: Gandhi and Martin Luther King advocated public understanding of the facts and non-cooperation with evil. I’m among hundreds who advocate:

1. Understand the laws of war. These were legislated after WW2 and are crystal-clear that only self-defense, in a narrow legal meaning, can justify war. This investment of your time takes less than an hour and empowers you to legally stand for ending these Wars of Aggression.
2. Communicate. Trust your unique, beautiful, and powerful self-expression to share powerful information as you feel appropriate. Understand that while many people are ready to embrace difficult facts, many are not. Anticipate your virtuous response to being attacked and give it in the spirit of competition, just as you do in other fields.
3. Refuse and end all orders and acts associated with these unlawful wars and constant violation of treaties. Those involved with US military, government, and law enforcement have an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. Unlawful acts only move forward with sufficient cooperation and public tolerance. Stop cooperating with the most vicious crime a nation can commit: war.
4. Prosecute the war leaders for obvious violation of the letter and spirit of US war laws. You can only understand how these wars are specifically unlawful by investing the time to do so. Because the crimes are so broad and deep, I recommend Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) to exchange full truth and return of stolen US assets for non-prosecution. This is the most expeditious way to understand and end all unlawful and harmful acts. Those who reject T&R either by volunteering their name and/or responding when named are subject to prosecution after the window of T&R closes.

I conclude with the 5-minute powerful video from PuppetGov: Had enough?

Please share this article with all who can benefit. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please use my archive of work to help build a brighter future.

Had Enough? from PuppetGov on Vimeo.