Following the lead of Russia and China, the International Monetary Fund’s head, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, recently called for an alternative to the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency and appeared to second their suggestion of using IMF’s internal accounting unit to facilitate the move. As it stands now, the whole international monetary system depends on the policies and conditions of a single country. (That would be the U.S. or us.)
While such policies are being considered and debated, according to a Mail Online article by Karl West, “a secretive group of Wall Street hedge fund bosses are said to be behind a plot to cash in on the decline of the Euro.” Calling him the “man who broke the Bank of England,” West puts George Soros at the center of this plot. In 1992, Mr. Soros made more than $1 billion through currency speculation when the pound was removed from the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Soros has a history of bringing financial woes to the country in which he resides and thrives. England was the first free country to fall prey to his twisted sense of economics. Soros enjoys the fruits of capitalism while promoting socialism for the rest of us. It has long been his desire to see a single world currency and he is now manipulating forces in governments to bring this about. His goal is to downgrade the dollar and, with cooperation from Washington, is well on his way to achieving it.
The group now expects the euro to sink to parity with the dollar, citing Greece’s failed economy as the first EU domino to fall. We should note these hedge fund vultures failed to mention that Greece had also struggled as a result of speculators who were betting on the currency’s decline based on a history of massive social spending and soaring debt. This could make the hedge funds hundreds of millions. In the meantime, Germany stepped in with assistance to Greece leaving them still shaky and very ungrateful, unwilling to do anything to help themselves. Soros and his ilk are standing in the wings waiting for the financial collapse of Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland—countries whose future looks almost as bleak as that of Greece. The EU offered only political support to Greece but if four more of its members fail, the value of the euro will drop dramatically earning the hedge fund speculators huge profits.
How will all of this affect the United States? Fast forward to Obama’s borrow and spend formula (subsidize and unionize) proceeding as planned; our dollar would be at peril—a perfect time for the “alternative” to the U.S. dollar to step up to the plate. China and/or Russia would take over our number one status and we might, if we are lucky, slip only to third place. How is that for a “presidential legacy” for Mr. Obama? It might hurt Barack Obama’s massive ego but as Soros’ candidate of choice for president, he will likely land on his feet. After all, Mr. Obama still dances to the tune Soros is playing.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
OBAMA, ET AL vs. ALITO
I have waited awhile to comment on President Obama’s complete lack of decorum and the blatant partisanship displayed when he publicly chastised the Supreme Court on their recent campaign finance ruling. The president has a way of sounding knowledgeable about history and government but I questioned the substance of his knowledge. As an aside, I have seen no media questioning the President's decorum but a great deal of commentary about the judge's. Obviously, no one expects decorum from that office.
On closer review, which took less than an hour’s time on the internet, it seems that the accusation of setting aside one hundred years of precedent spouted by Obama, Schumer, and all the liberal press was patently untrue. The 1907 Tillman Act banning direct corporate and union contributions was left untouched. In fact, when Judge Alito shook his head and mouthed “Not true,” he was silently commenting on Obama’s uninformed reference to that very act. The cases ruled upon, however, were Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), and McConnell v. FEC, (2003). I don’t know about you, but simple subtraction tells me the ruling affected no more than 20 years—max. To be fair, however, there is a possibility it might affect the 1947 ruling. As to corporations whose holdings extend to foreign countries, the ruling did not address that subject. I'd expect that issue to become another case.
The one-sided publicity about the recent Supreme Court decision has unleashed hundreds of “judicial activism” charges against the justices in the majority of this ruling. Again, I believe those making such charges have a twisted sense of what this term means. It is obvious to most thinking people that “judicial activism” is the upholding or striking down of existing laws based on personal opinion or personal preference (the Roosevelt Court, the Warren Court, et al). But a huge band of liberal politicians, so-called nonprofit organizations, media, and the uninformed are using that term to describe a decision based on upholding the Constitution, to be more specific—the Bill of Rights (free speech). Sadly, a label like that seems to stick—forget the truth!
Has any major media outlet reported Alito’s side of his understandable body language expressed during the president’s tirade? You know the answer to that one.
On closer review, which took less than an hour’s time on the internet, it seems that the accusation of setting aside one hundred years of precedent spouted by Obama, Schumer, and all the liberal press was patently untrue. The 1907 Tillman Act banning direct corporate and union contributions was left untouched. In fact, when Judge Alito shook his head and mouthed “Not true,” he was silently commenting on Obama’s uninformed reference to that very act. The cases ruled upon, however, were Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), and McConnell v. FEC, (2003). I don’t know about you, but simple subtraction tells me the ruling affected no more than 20 years—max. To be fair, however, there is a possibility it might affect the 1947 ruling. As to corporations whose holdings extend to foreign countries, the ruling did not address that subject. I'd expect that issue to become another case.
The one-sided publicity about the recent Supreme Court decision has unleashed hundreds of “judicial activism” charges against the justices in the majority of this ruling. Again, I believe those making such charges have a twisted sense of what this term means. It is obvious to most thinking people that “judicial activism” is the upholding or striking down of existing laws based on personal opinion or personal preference (the Roosevelt Court, the Warren Court, et al). But a huge band of liberal politicians, so-called nonprofit organizations, media, and the uninformed are using that term to describe a decision based on upholding the Constitution, to be more specific—the Bill of Rights (free speech). Sadly, a label like that seems to stick—forget the truth!
Has any major media outlet reported Alito’s side of his understandable body language expressed during the president’s tirade? You know the answer to that one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
