The Moral Unraveling of the EU, Bailouts and Central Banking
Slovakia has now approved the European debt-crisis bailout fund, but the problems Europe is experiencing are similar to those faced by America in the grip of the Fed's immense bailouts of the past two years.
Increasingly, these are seen as morally repugnant by citizens throughout the West. And this has significant consequences that the mainstream press declines to report.
Dominant social themes work by omission as well as commission; in this column, I want to re-examine potential ramifications. I've done it before, but I think it's worth repeating. Not enough commentators, even in the alternative media, point them out in my humble opinion.
Money continues to flood Western regimes and financial institutions with billions and billions that they don't deserve and cannot properly apply. Perhaps there is no alternative but to "kick the can down the road." On the other hand, perhaps the bailouts are part of a wider elite destabilization effort, one intended to generate chaos and misery that will pave the way for global governance and maybe a new world currency. This is the view of the more conspiratorially-minded among the alternative media.
For whatever reasons, the bailouts, against all logic, continue apace and are being increasingly resisted ... not merely for their Draconian impacts but because people are using technology to become more informed. This bailout saga, therefore, has been unusual, not only for the incalculable wealth that's been extended but also because it's played out in front of millions.
The ramifications continue to be felt in my view. The push-back began in the US with TARP and then continued with revelation of US$16 trillion-plus (probably more) in short-term loans extended by the US Federal Reserve to financial institutions – not just in America but around the world.
Now US Congressman Ron Paul is conducting the Federal Reserve's first "audit." Ben Bernanke speaks, but his pronouncements have nowhere near the power or authority of his predecessor Alan Greenspan. Occupy Wall Street and alternative journo Alex Jones are both holding organized protests outside Fed buildings. In Southern Europe, protests and riots (Greece) rise wherever the EU and its bankers attempt to impose "austerity."
The Internet has allowed people to see – finally – exactly what's going on. Prior to the Internet, the controlled mainstream news would have explained in unison that the Fed "made massive adjustments to the global financial fabric to ensure that systemic collapse was mitigated ..." or employed other nonsensical euphemisms. These sorts of non-explanations would have been repeated ad nauseum.
But in the era of the Internet, such gobbledygook has been effectively negated by literally millions of articles (and thousands of videos) explaining what central banking really is – monetary price fixing – and how central bankers "print money from nothing" to advantage their cronies at the expense of everyone else.
The system survived because it appeared so incomprehensible that it was beyond criticism. Not anymore. People around the world "get it" and the anger is breaching even the indolence of the political class. Eventually, if certain fundamental knowledge becomes widespread enough, the elites may have to take a "step back" as we have predicted they might. Resistance is spreading.
We can see this in Slovakia, where that Eastern European nation was the last holdout among euro-zone nations to approve the EU's most recent sovereign bailout fund. On Tuesday, the parliament rejected the fund and brought down the government of Prime Minister Iveta Radicova. On Thursday, the parliament voted FOR it, but the point had been made.
Even parliamentary representatives, notoriously resistant to the public sentiment they are supposed to be accommodating, are now beginning to reflect the animosity of their constituents. The Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard recently captured this sentiment in a column entitled, "EU bailout is racket for financial elites."
Twenty years ago, no mainstream paper in the world would have run such an article – even given today's extreme stress and provocation. But times have changed. The financial system has come in for criticism the likes of which has not been seen (or heard) for decades. Here's an excerpt from Evans-Pritchard's article:
What the Slovak debate has shown us yet again – as if the political storm in Germany over the past two months has not been enough – is that escalating bailouts are nearing their political limits. The traumatic affair almost brought down the German government. It has in fact brought down the Slovak government. You can't keep doing this. Democracies are not to be toyed with ...
Slovakia's cry of defiance has not been entirely pointless. Richard Sulik – the speaker of parliament – has caught a mood of popular disgust that goes far beyond his own country. His objections are unanswerable.
How can there be any justification for a state of affairs where a poor but rule-abiding EMU state must bail out a serial violator with twice the per capita income, and triple the level of the pensions – a country which is in any case irretrievably bankrupt? How can it be that the no-bail clause of the Lisbon Treaty has been ripped up?
But he also touched on the most neuralgic issue, reminding everybody that the EFSF is 'mainly for saving foreign banks'. These are French, German, British, Dutch, and Belgian banks, of course ... 'I'd rather be a pariah in Brussels than have to feel ashamed before my children,' Sulik said ... Bravo.
"Bravo," writes Evans-Pritchard, summing up the New Age's defiance to establishment ways. We began to write about this back in August of 2009 when The Market Oracle's Stewart Dougherty – a financial consultant – sent us a column entitled "The Metastasis of Moral Hazard and its Effect on Gold." He wanted us to see what he'd written. Here's an excerpt:
The colossal miscalculation made by Washington and Wall Street is that they could control the moral hazard genie once they removed it from the bottle. They believed they could use the genie to enrich themselves with trillions of dollars' worth of taxpayer money, and then replace it in the bottle before its magic spell of immorality metastasized throughout society at large. They assumed that the people would be too stupid to see what was going on. And that even if the people did figure things out, they would willingly wear the thick, choking chains of debt being welded to their necks by the financial elite and its Washington enablers.
Instead, thanks to the Internet and the democracy of information and insight it affords, the people were instantly wise to what was happening, and it stirred them. The concept of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," harkens to the Bible. And perhaps Shylock was speaking for all of humanity when he said, "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? If you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"
We thought then, and believe now, that Dougherty wrote one of the decade's most profound columns, capturing the MORAL dimension of the fraud of "bailouts" and the impact of their fundamental – even obscene – unfairness. We wrote about his column (you can see it here: Have the Immoral Actions of Central Bankers Precipitated the Decline of the West?) and commented:
Dougherty has written a REAL article of REAL observations about the end of Western civilization. Sheesh, ... Spengler's Decline of the West in three darn pages ... He's right, he has gotten the morality right. It's not just the culture of the West, or its promotions, or even its social organization that is finished.
You CANNOT, as a society, witness a couple of guys pull a trillion out of their back pockets without feeling, well ... snookered. And after feeling snookered, something else begins to percolate. "Hey," you say, "wait a minute. I sit here with my debts and my job and my house in foreclosure and this guy – THIS GUY – throws around trillions? Wait a minute. WHEN DO I GET MINE!"
Now the rage spreads.
The Internet Reformation is a process, not an episode.
Posted by Jeanna on 10/17/11 06:20 PM
I appreciate the response, and you've given me much to study. I'll continue cogitating. Thanks.
Posted by Bischoff on 10/17/11 01:26 PM
CORRECTION in my Response to Jeanna:
The part of the sentence, "While the word 'fief' means a 'right in law to the use of land', ...
Should read: "While the word 'fee' means a 'right in law to the use of land',...
Posted by Bischoff on 10/17/11 12:19 PM
I would hardly call you a simple minded creature. Your thinking process touches on all the right questions, in my opinion.
The definitions for "allodial title" and "fee simple title" wander all over the place in dictionaries and in Wikipedia explanations. Consulting court decisions over land issues going back hundreds of years does not help to clarify the matter.
To the extent that "allodial title" is called a "free hold", I interpret allodial as 'free from taxation or any other legal claim'. I DO NOT interpret 'allodial title' as an 'absolute' ownership title. I defend my interpretation against differing definitions, including that of Blackstone. 'Absolute' ownership title can only be had for 'wealth' legitimately obtained.
In contrast to your opinion, allodial title cannot be "claimed". Neither can allodial title be "purchased". Allodial title is evidenced by the occupation of land by a sovereign entity such as a Kingdom, a State or a Nation (the people therein). The only way allodial title can be acquired is through transactions between sovereigns, i.e. the Louisiana and Alaska Purchase or by conquest, i.e. Western lands conquered by the U.S. Cavalry from the American Indians. This concept of having or obtaining allodial title to lands is well accepted in international law.
The question of "Land Patents" is not relative to the question of allodial title.
As regards "fee simple" title, "fee" in this case means a right in law to the use of land; i.e. a fief. "Simple" means that the use of the land is unconstrained, meaning:
1. without limit to inheritance of the title by heirs;
2. without restriction as to transfer of the title.
While the word 'fief' means a 'right in law to the use of land', in Anglo Saxon Law it means that the 'use of land' is administered by the local community granting equal access, while in Feudal Law it means that the "use of the land" is granted by the sovereign feudal lord.
'Are we getting into issues of strawman vs sovereign citizens?'
Not at all. The Letter about the Sovereignty of British America written by Thomas Jefferson to King George is revealing. In it, Jefferson makes clear that the colonists conquered or bargained for their lands in North America without the military help or coin from the British Crown. When the colonists resigned British or other citizenship to become citizens of a new state in North America, the constitutions they accepted required that the allodial titles be transferred to the sovereign states. The searching of 'land patents' and the re-claiming of 'allodial title' is an exercise in futility. It frankly serves no good purpose.
As to the 16th Amendment, I claim that the banks supported its ratification, because of their intent to monetize government bonds in the future. Bond purchasers want guarantee of ability to pay interest and to return principal. The income tax amendment assures revenue to the government to service its bonds.
As to the 17th Amendment, you are correct. The banks and real estate interests financed the 'popular' elections of U.S. Senators. The majority of the U.S. Senate is owned by these interests. With the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the states removed their voice in the affairs of the federal government. The passage of the Banking Act of 1935 was only possible, because the states had no way to object.
I reject the explanation that the bankers plotted the 1907 Depression to force the Congress to pass legislation in their favor. I maintain that public pressure forced the Congress had to act to curb the real estate speculation by the banks. The meeting and consorting by the bankers to influence Congress resulted out of fear that the Congress could do them great harm with new legislation to regulate the banks.
Therefore, thinking and plotting ahead, the mega banks supported the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s which fought for more equal distribution of wealth by demanding an 'Income Tax' Amendment. (16th Amendment) This movement also wanted to eliminate the corruption in the selection of U.S. Senators by state legislators. The movement demanded 'greater democracy' in the choice of U.S. Senators through popular elections. (17th Amendment).
You must evaluate the "Occupy Wall Street" movement in the same light as the "Progressive Movement" of the early 1900s.
Both of them were used by the bankers and real estate interests for their own purposes.
The bankers and real estate speculators always saw a foe in the individual states. It was the states which denied the big the NY banks the control over the Federal Reserve System. Instead, the original FRA of 1913 split the system into twelve autonomous regions.
MSBs are of course directly related to real estate speculation. However, I fully agree that it is the central banking system itself and compound interest which put the government and the Fed banking system on the ropes. One way to escape their problems was by means of MSBs.
Yes, these MSBs could only be sold with the attachment of interest rate swaps or derivatives. It puzzles me to no end, why anybody in their right mind would buy these instruments? Interest rate swaps are insurance or a hedge against interest rate fluctuations. But, who sets the interest rate? The Fed does. Who is the Fed? The Fed is a bunch of bankers, who as humans make decisions as to the interest rate.
When people hedge in the commodity markets, they do so to insure themselves against 'Acts of God'.
What is the actuarial model to insure against decisions by humans? The people who sold these interest rate swaps must have known that they could never pay off. The proof is the inability of AIG to pay Lehman and Bear, Stearns. Yet, people today still deal in these very same idiotic derivatives, giving proof to the correctness of the view by P.T. Barnum as it regards people.
You may disagree with me about the ownership of land, and I can understand that. It is basic human nature to consider that which nature offers up free of work should belong to them just as much as anything they worked for. However, that basic human instinct evolved for a life in an environment which was different than living on the ground. To survive on the ground, human behavior was forced to change, but basic human instinct did not.
Living in an environment to which humans are condemned to live, requires an acknowledgement that every human should have equal access to land. This can only be done through a land value tax. While the valuation of land is the job of the elected County Assessor, the amount of tax is totally the decision of the local community after public input. If people do not want government services, they do not have to tax themselves. It's as simple as that.
On the other hand, if you don't like a bunch of people around you, try to move to a desolate location. However, to exist in the environment in which humans must exist, and to enjoy a high living standard, requires cooperation and the adherence to laws to overcome basic human instincts which are detrimental, if not harmful to living peacefully on the ground.
There is no 'private' ownership in land, not in law and not in equity. 'Private' ownership relates only to 'wealth'. Title to exclusive 'use of land' in perpetuity, aka 'fee simple' title is all you will ever have. There is no logical argument to the contrary, unless of course you believe that 'all men are NOT created equal by their Creator'.
Posted by laceja on 10/17/11 11:23 AM
The Rothchilds are determined to wring out every last drop of value from Europe... especially southern Europe. That takes time and they are a very patient family.
Posted by Danny B on 10/17/11 10:43 AM
2 more tiny additions. I believe that Texas only agreed to join the union if all it's government lands were retained by the state rather than by the federal GOV.
That is part of the reason that the U of Texas was recently able to buy $ 1 billion in gold.
A few years ago, some researcher did research at all the statehouses. He concluded that a few states CLAIMED that the 16th amendment had been ratified when it had in fact NOT received adequate approval.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Yes, many states did not apparently ratify the 16th amendment which was nonetheless, "declared."
Posted by Jeanna on 10/17/11 06:39 AM
I am a simple minded creature, and it takes a little time to absorb a new concept. So, please bear with me.
Freehold (allodial) title can still be claimed, I believe through perfecting the original Land Patent description and making a claim as the assignee and then re-recording the title so that it is no longer fee simple (feudal). Most people do not know they can, and I have not done so. I'll do some more research, especially into the sovereign settlers. But are we getting into issues of strawman vs sovereign citizens?
Are you alluding to the abused and misunderstood definition of a US Citizen in the 16th Amendment that is allowed and encouraged to stand today in order to force the income tax upon all residents of the sovereign states vs the US Corporate DC and US territories? I can only guess that the reference to the 17th Amendment concerns lobbying and buying off US Senators. I am not sure I see any other connection with these to monetizing the debt. And if so, would not their passage in 1913 point out the intent of the bankers and the FRA of 1913?
But, RE Speculation is not the sole reason the bankers are in trouble, and have asked their governments to nationalize their losses. The huge positions they have undertaken with the derivatives on Sovereign states debts, as well as MBS, are nothing more than bets placed with bookies who cannot cover them.
I disagree with you on the ownership of land as I abhor the continued taxation for "use" fees, and it violates the private property principles we claim are necessary for a free society. I also abhor all taxation.
Posted by Summer on 10/17/11 04:41 AM
Wars, rendition, injustice and exploitation - occurring and yet, unfortunately, the pangs of morality only strike some when it affects their wallets. What does this say for the moral fabric of the world?!
Solution: return to an all-encompassing conception of morality - a rediscovery of true religions - they do exist!!!
Posted by Bischoff on 10/17/11 02:34 AM
The Panic of 1907 was the result of a bust in real estate values which until then occurred in 18 to 20 year cycles. Bust in real estate value necessarily effect the productive economy.
The theory put forth by G. Edward Griffin in his book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" that the monetary elite manufactured the Panic of 1907 to get the Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act is not all believable.
To the contrary, the monetary elite in fact was very much concerned that the Congress would bow to public pressure to reign in the banks from speculating in real estate. Therefore, the monetary elite, specifically the NY bankers wanted to be in charge of whatever banking system reform the Congress came up with. They absolutely didn't get their way with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. I can refute every argument by G. Edward Griffin that they did.
The NY Fed violated the 1913 FRA and caused the collapse of the monetary system established with the 1913 FRA. The Federal Reserve of today is an entirely different animal. It was created by standing the original legislation on its head in modifying it with the Banking Act of 1935.
The book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" fails to point out that it was the 16th and 17th Amendments, ratified in 1913 just months prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, which made it possible for the Congress in 1935 to pass legislation to legally create currency by monetizing government debt. So much for that.
Today, banks and loan brokers peddle real estate mortgages that intimate that you can "buy" the house and the land on which the house stands. Yes, you can buy the house to "own", but you can only acquire a title to "use" the land on which the house stands.
I take issue with the contention of people that land can be "owned". Under long standing law, land can only be "used", it cannot be owned.
There is an "allodial title" to lands which is held by sovereigns, but this means that no other sovereign can tax any of the "allodial" lands held by another sovereign. Allodial title cannot be acquired, except through transactions among sovereigns or by conquest. Under the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of the sovereign states, all legal cases claiming possession of allodial title by individuals have so far been thrown out of court.
Lands in the original thirteen states were acquired by "sovereign" settlers either through trade or conquest from American Indians. They rejected the claim of the British Crown to allodial title over lands in the American Colonies on the basis that it wasn't the Crown which purchased or conquered the lands. When the "sovereign" settlers voted for state constitutions upon declaring independence to become citizens of the new states , they transferred their "allodial" titles to the original thirteen states under a form of constitution that was modeled on Anglo-Saxon law. All states within the Union have such constitutions by Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.
Property "owned" by the federal government within the original thirteen was placed by them into the jurisdiction of the federal government and removed from the states' allodial title. It is for that reason, that you find relatively little acreage on the East Coast "owned" by the federal government.
In contrast, much of the land in the West was conquered from the American Indians by the U.S. Cavalry. Therefore, large acreage in the West, which was not opened for settlement by the federal government, is still under allodial title to it.
The sovereign states, holding allodial title, have a responsibility to administer those lands for "use" by their residents. Under the state constitutions, the counties as sub-divisions of the state have an elected County Assessor to value lands registered under "fee simple" title. "Fee simple" title grants individuals the "use" of specific lands into perpetuity, to include passing the title on to descendants. The valuation by County Assessors is open to appeal. Once a valuation list is finalized, local communities use it to calculate a mil rate based on voted budgets to arrive at individual tax bills.
All individual "property owners" within a state possess only a "fee simple" title to the land they call "their property". This applies to the location (land) only. The improvements upon the land are considered "personal property" under law, and title to them is absolute.
A "fee simple" title can be sold by using the prevailing interest rate to capitalize the annual land value tax. The resultant amount is the "sales" price for the "fee simple" title. The problem is that the application of land value taxes in California has been restricted by Prop 13. This caused the "prices" for "land" to shoot up and let the banks and mortgage companies treat "land" as if it was personal property which could be "owned".
Now that real estate values are dropping, banks on repossession find out that they are holding "fee simple" titles, the value of which can only be found in the "use" of the land. With businesses leaving California for other states by the drove, the use value of California land is dropping precipitately.
Unless banks and real estate speculators can promote Prop 13 changes in the constitutions of the remainder of the 49 states, many of the banks and mortgage companies will be bankrupt, and California will become insolvent.
What is happening in the U.S. is mirrowed in the Eurozone, China, etc... .
Posted by Bischoff on 10/16/11 10:41 PM
Thank you for the nice comment. I take the time to write in the hope that someone might find my ideas helpful in their thinking. Also, I appreciate critiques of my ideas.
Thanks again, Dan.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 10/16/11 10:20 PM
Sorry I did not get back to you earlier, but Lucy and I were out doing our ballroom dancing lessons . . . she loves it (me too - especially the look of serenity on her face as we dance.)
The red pill is for the truth, but the blue pill is what you are already taking so you can clean your carpets, do your laundry, and work your garden . . . and still be happy. When you've gone deep down the rabbit hole, do you really want to stay there? Taking the blue pill is not going back to where you were, but custom tailoring where you are now and in the future.
Too many conflicting views is really too many conflicting truths, so after a while you will wonder what to believe. Sure, you can dig deep on a particular subject . . . for example, understanding the physics behind thermite, thermate, marmite, and wiring 1 or 2 . . . or 7 tall buildings for security systems, but the PE have been playing games with our heads since the Mesopotamian times, so . . . what to do, dotti . . . what to do?
You should read the DB articles here for the week leading up to October 13, 2010. Operation Blue Balls. Aliens. I was "Weeble" back then. Our "leaders" had their chains yanked . . . and they didn't like it one bit . . . or is it byte? Do any of them talk about aliens now?
PS: I read every one of your comments and enjoy them too! You speak from your heart.
Click to view link
Posted by Jeanna on 10/16/11 09:43 PM
Essentially, I don't think the CBs can stop their monetary expansion. It is the only way they are preventing bank runs, and bank failures. At this point, their purpose is all about saving the banks. Contrary to their pretty words, they are not concerned about saving the people, nor the people's savings.
Therefore, any cessation in monetary expansion is only temporary or hidden in the current fashion of Operation Twist, to give lip service to the protests of the people. And, as the bankers have yet to mark down their bad assets, or are continuing to hide them with windfall profits from CDO swaps as JPM just did, they are hoarding as much as they can to build their reserves. When the day comes that all of this monetary expansion starts circulating through the market place, it can only be inflationary.
That is why I don't think devaluation will have a chance to occur. They are trying a controlled landing, because they know what their actions are doing. If the can save their favorite banks, they will have considered their job a success.
Posted by Danny B on 10/16/11 06:30 PM
Bischoff, I for one, really appreciate the things that I learn from you. Thanks, Dan
One tiny little addition to current arguments; The FED is forbidden by law from paying higher interest on deposited funds than it's prime rate. It currently pays about 10 times the prime interest rate on excess reserves than it is legally allowed. Surprising that Ron Paul hasn't mentioned this.
Posted by Bischoff on 10/16/11 05:09 PM
"If an economy is created on debt, that means that currency in some form--in this case, fiat--goes into the economy via debt instruments. The "real goods", whether real estate or cars or whatever, are held on the books of the creditor at the value as determined at the time of the loan."
Real estate, meaning only the bare land, the location, not including the improvements like a building, paved parking lot, etc., is something totally different than what you call "real goods" which in economic parlance is called "wealth".
The "value" of "wealth" comes from its production and its utility.
Real estate has no production cost. The value of "real estate" is created by improvement and activities that occur around it.
Wealth can be "owned". It can be acquired via savings or via debt. Wealth "depreciates", granted at differing rates. Real estate "cannot be owned". It can only be used. Real estate "does not depreciate".
These are the fundamental differences between what in Law is called "real property" and "personal property".
As a basis for loans (mortgages), banks prefer "real estate". The "real estate" loans on the books of a banks are assets which are treated no differently than loans for "personal property" acquisition. Banks much prefer to make real estate loans, because real estate "does not depreciate".
If land values are taxed, the "price" of real estate is kept down. If on the other hand local communities are prevented from levying taxes on land values, as happened with Proposition 13 in California, the "price" of real estate can sky rocket.
Proposition 13 changed California's constitution to limit local land value taxation. It was heavily backed by real restate interests and the big banks. The increase in California real estate values due to Prop 13 has spread to other parts of the U.S.
As California residents "sold" real estate to move to other States, the high real estate "prices" in California caused "prices" of real estate in other States to increase, as well. The "inflation" of real estate "prices" in those other states can only be checked by the proper application of land value taxes.
As you can deduce from what I wrote sofar, it is in the banks' interest to do everything to prevent the drop of real estate "prices".
How will they do this? They will try to "con" the rest of the 49 States into changing their constitutions ala Prop 13 in California. It's not that they haven't tried before, but so far the attempt has been unsuccessful. For the sake of this country and the U.S. Constitution, let's hope they will remain unsuccessful.
Now that real estate "prices" are dropping, the banks who seek to repossess "real estate" find themselves in trouble with counties which by state constitutions register "fee simple" titles, and administer the "use" of real estate. A "fee simple" title, is a title for exclusive use in perpetuity. It is not a title of "ownership", as you would have with a title for a car.
Therein lies the problem for the banks. Banks don't want to end up with titles for exclusive "use" of real estate. They want to be able to sell "ownership" titles. Monetizing mortgages to "buy" real estate over and over again, at higher and higher "prices", is the game in which the banks love to engage. Once this game stops, the banks are in fact stuck with "fee simple" titles, the value of which can only be found in the "use" for the real estate.
What does that mean... ??? It means that the asset value in the form of mortgage loans on the books of the banks plummet. Couple this with the increases in liquidation value of "personal property" loans due to the constant lowering of interest rates by the Fed, and the banks are bankrupt.
This is happening in the U.S., in the Eurozone, in China, as well in other places in the world.
The central banks want a hyperinflationary outcome to be able to establish a "New World Order". What we need is a deflationary collapse and a repeal of the 17th Amendment to allow the return of redeemable currency and the gold standard.
Posted by Danny B on 10/16/11 01:18 PM
Dottie, no dirt on the turkeys. The pit is covered by steel sheet and then buried. This may sound a bit off topic but it isn't,,, entirely.
I expect petroleum deliveries to be interrupted. I hope to be in a position to help people. Western Oregon is over run with deer. I've seen homeless families who have found a road-kill but can't use it. I'm building a pit BBQ that would be available to anyone. I'd do anything to help kids. I'll build with brick. Here's one with dirt;
Click to view link
The meat is NOT barbecued. It is steamed. That is why you dunk it in water before throwing it in. The turkeys were barbecued,,, but they died happy:)
Reply from The Daily Bell
Posted by Agent Weebley on 10/16/11 12:37 PM
Excellent. No problem on me buying. I'll even buy you dinner, so we metabolize the Guinness or [insert drink of choice here] more slowly. Down periscope on this subject until I speaking steganographically to you about it in early mid November. Actually, let's plan for early November.
Posted by rossbcan on 10/16/11 11:39 AM
From the movie "They Live"
HOSS, I prefer the contacts, confuses "them" as to what they are dealing with.
Posted by dotti on 10/16/11 11:38 AM
Jeanna, I appreciate your post. You seem to know a lot about these things.
However, I don't think I understand one of your points:
"But, so much money has been created throughout the world economy in the last three years and is being held by banks to shore up their reserves, especially in light of their derivatives, that hasn't yet circulated. If the banks suspend further monetary expansion, I am not sure any further devaluation will have a chance to occur."
Are you saying that if monetary expansion ceases, the dollar will maintain its value and the effect will be deflation? real estate will not recover?
Thanks for your post!
Posted by dotti on 10/16/11 11:17 AM
Posted by dotti on 10/16/11 11:16 AM
Okay. So there is a red pill for truth; a blue pill for fantasy.
I must have taken a yellow one--for confusion.
I surely don't feel that I have a grasp on Truth--too many conflicting views.
But at least I am on the road to Truth--I haven't taken the blue pill.
But sometimes I decide not to take the red pill for a few days. Forget about how things really are for a bit. Clean my carpets. Do my laundry. Work my garden.
Thanks for the reply! I enjoy your posts.
Posted by dotti on 10/16/11 11:11 AM
Thanks for the reply and the link. I watched the turkey cookoff. I couldn't imagine digging up those turkeys without the shovel tearing the al foil--even if it is extremely heavy duty! I thought it was pretty cool otherwise--I just couldn't get over that idea about dirt in the turkey after the foil accidentally got split!
Here is a link back for you:
Click to view link
Obama says: Take the blue pill.
Ignorance or blatant doublespeak???