Read most of my posts
You can read most of my recent articles at stevescomments.wordpress.com
Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact
Well here we go…..with executive orders..,…not laws from Congress!
Nov 9 03:51 PM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press Writer
President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.John Podesta, Obama’s transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush’s executive orders on those issue and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.
“There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that,” Podesta said. “I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set.”
Obama could use his executive powers to at least signal that Washington is changing.
“Obama’s advantage of course is he’ll have the House and the Senate working with him, and that makes it easier,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. “But even then, having an immediate impact is very difficult to do because the machinery of government doesn’t move that quickly.”
Presidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush’s first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn’t be surprising if Obama did the same.
Executive orders “have the power of law and they can cover just about anything,” Tobias said in a telephone interview.
Bush used his executive power to limit federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights who argue that destroying embryos is akin to killing a fetus. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Many moderate Republicans also support the research, giving it the stamp of bipartisanship.
On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.
“They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah,” Podesta said. “I think that’s a mistake.”
Two top House Republicans said there is a willingness to try to work with Obama to get things done. But they said to expect Republicans to serve as a check against the power held by Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.
“It’s going to be a cheerful opposition,” said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. “We’re going to carry those timeless principles of limited government, a strong defense, traditional values, to the American people.”
Pence, of Indiana, is expected to take over the No. 3 leadership post among House Republicans.
Also, Rahm Emanuel would not commit to a Democratic proposal to help the auto industry with some of the $700 billion approved by Congress to for the financial bailout. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a letter Saturday to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that the administration should consider expanding the bailout to include car companies.
Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution
The government we have today is something the Founders could never have imagined.
By ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
In a radio interview in 2001, then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama noted — somewhat ruefully — that the same Supreme Court that ordered political and educational equality in the 1960s and 1970s did not bring about economic equality as well. Although Mr. Obama said he could come up with arguments for the constitutionality of such action, the plain meaning of the Constitution quite obviously prohibits it.
![[Commentary]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CO796_napoli_D_20081028230507.jpg)
Getty Images
FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court.
Mr. Obama is hardly alone in his expansive view of legitimate government. During the past month, Sen. John McCain (who, like Sen. Obama, voted in favor of the $700 billion bank bailout) has been advocating that $300 billion be spent to pay the monthly mortgage payments of those in danger of foreclosure. The federal government is legally powerless to do that, as well.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed legislation that authorized the secretary of agriculture to engage in Soviet-style central planning — a program so rigid that it regulated how much wheat a homeowner could grow for his own family’s consumption — he rejected arguments of unconstitutionality. He proclaimed that the Constitution was “quaint” and written in the “horse and buggy era,” and predicted the public and the courts would agree with him. (Horse and buggy era….now that sounds familar doesn’t it! Now days they tell us the Constitution is flexible and can change with the times…..that’s not what the founding fathers thought.)
Remember that FDR had taken — and either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain will soon take — the oath to uphold that old-fashioned document, the one from which all presidential powers come.
Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.
All of this legislation — merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg — is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.
In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.
The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or “delegated”) powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.
What’s more, Congress can only use its delegated powers to legislate for the general welfare, meaning it cannot spend tax dollars on individuals or selected entities, but only for all of us. That is, it must spend in such a manner — a post office, a military installation, a courthouse, for example — that directly enhances everyone’s welfare within the 17 delegated areas of congressional authority.
And Congress cannot deny the equal protection of the laws. Thus, it must treat similarly situated persons or entities in a similar manner. It cannot write laws that favor its political friends and burden its political enemies.
There is no power in the Constitution for the federal government to enter the marketplace since, when it does, it will favor itself over its competition. The Contracts Clause (the states cannot interfere with private contracts, like mortgages), the Takings Clause (no government can take away property, like real estate or shares of stock, without paying a fair market value for it and putting it to a public use), and the Due Process Clause (no government can take away a right or obligation, like collecting or paying a debt, or enforcing a contract, without a fair trial) together mandate a free market, regulated only to keep it fair and competitive.
It is clear that the Framers wrote a Constitution as a result of which contracts would be enforced, risk would be real, choices would be free and have consequences, and private property would be sacrosanct.
The $700 billion bailout of large banks (click here) that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles. It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare. It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers? It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market. It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars) and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).
Perhaps the only public agreement that Jefferson and Hamilton had about the Constitution was that the federal Treasury would be raided and the free market would expire if the Treasury became a public trough. If it does, the voters will send to Congress those whom they expect will fleece the Treasury for them. That’s why the Founders wrote such strict legislating and spending limitations into the Constitution.
Everyone in government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But few do so. Do the people we send to the federal government recognize any limits today on Congress’s power to legislate? The answer is: Yes, their own perception of whatever they can get away with.
Mr. Napolitano, who served on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is “A Nation of Sheep” (Nelson, 2007).
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT?
There is certainly nothing fair about the “fairness doctrine”….since posting this article I found several other good ones you might want to read along with this one:
| Nothing Fair About Fairness Doctrine |
Reject Orwellian Calls For Broadcast “Fairness”
By BRIAN C. ANDERSON
SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine – and to diminish conservatives’ influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.
Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn’t seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan’s FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats – including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore – strongly support the idea of mandating “fairness.” (That’s probably because liberal talk radio failed on it’s own.)
Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It’s doubtful.
The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It’s a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.
Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham’s, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don’t do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show.(That’s probably because the majority of Americans aren’t liberals.) Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.
Then there’s all the lawyers you’d have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged – like entertainment or sports coverage?
For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of “fairness” might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer “equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary,” with 39 percent opposed. (The 47% probably didn’t fully understand the consequences of the “fairness doctrine”, which is anything but fair.)
Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent (Yeah, that’s the only way they can stay on the air for any length of time), while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of “fairness” is seductive.
Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn’t sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.
He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters’ public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater “local accountability” on them – requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It’s a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.
Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.
It’s worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children’s programming.
Regrettably, media freedom hasn’t been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real – and profoundly disturbing
Cop Chokeholds, Arrests News Photographer at Newark N.J.
This is a very dangerous precedent (and unconstitutional I might add) to start setting……..arresting journalists !! We have the 1st amendment guarantee of “freedom of the press” especially when it’s on public property as this was. The reporter was just reporting the protests, which is perfectly legal. Arresting journalists is a bad sign of a society closing down.
Cop Chokeholds, Arrests News Photographer at Newark
WCBST
October 27, 2008
After a week of bloody shootings in the city of Newark, family members of the victims killed by gun violence marched in front of churches Sunday to ask the clergy for help.
The march ended, however, when a Newark police officer put a CBS 2 photographer in a choke hold, handcuffed him, and put him in the back of a police car.
What started as a peaceful demonstration by parents whose children were murdered on the streets of Newark turned violent.
“Put your hands behind your back,” the officer said. “He’s going with me. Put your hands behind your back.”
When CBS 2 HD’s reporter on the scene, Christine Sloan, protested and said he couldn’t arrest the cameraman, the officer said, “I can do whatever I want.” (No he can’t…he is bound by the Constitution and his oath to uphold it !)
The camera kept rolling, as the officer put CBS 2 photographer Jim Quodomine in the choke hold and placed him under arrest.
Witnesses took pictures of the incident and told CBS 2 HD what they saw.
“He went to put the camera down,” witness Latrice Smith said. “Before he had the opportunity to [do so], the police officer came and knocked it down.
“[The officer] just started grabbing him, putting handcuffs on him, grabbed him by the neck,” Smith said. “It was out of control for no reason.”
Day of fasting, prayer a prelude to Nov. 3rd
Day of fasting, prayer a prelude to Nov. 4
‘We are about to set a course that will affect our country for generations’
Posted: October 27, 2008
10:08 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The foundation launched in honor of famed Christian speaker, broadcaster and leader D. James Kennedy, who founded the Coral Ridge Ministries, has announced a day of prayer for Nov. 3.
“We are about to set a course that will affect our country for generations to come,” said a statement from Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy of the D. James Kennedy Foundation.
“For this reason we are calling on all Christian leaders and their congregations to join with us for a day of fasting and prayer the day before the election on Monday, November 3rd,” she said.
“Please join with us as God instructed us in 2 Chronicles 7:14,” she said, citing the Bible:
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
“We’re less than a week until the most important election in our lifetime. Must is at stake that is vital to our nation,” she said.
Among the issues on which the 2008 presidential election is expected to have a major impact are life issues such as abortion, Christian liberty (including speech rights) (I might add including Hate Speech), the federal judiciary, taxes, government spending, foreign policy, national security, defense, energy and broadcasting, she said.
James Dobson’s Focus on the Family Action recently released a “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America,” which targets the many evangelical Christians seeking “change,” particularly the young, who could tip the election in favor of the Illinois Democrat.
At the end of the letter, the fictional Christian laments that these people “simply did not realize Obama’s far-left agenda would take away many of our freedoms as a nation, perhaps permanently,” pointing to a new, liberal-majority Supreme Court unlikely to change for 30 more years.
“Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more,” the letter writer says.
Obama’s Mandate for Nationalized Same-Sex Marriage
Now as you read this remember “All” legislative powers are vested in the Congress, according to the U.S. Constitution. That means no legislative power is granted to the courts. Click here: Yet, over the past 50 years, judges have become increasingly activist, writing their own ideas and attitudes into the law…..which is unconstitutional!
Obama’s Mandate for Nationalized Same-Sex Marriage
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Appearing Monday on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” Joe Biden made the most high-profile statement yet of the Obama-Biden position on same-sex marriage.
DeGeneres asked where he stands on California’s Proposition 8, a 14-word proposal that says, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Those exact words were enacted originally as a California statute in 2000, when 61 percent of voters approved Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act. This May, in a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court threw out Proposition 22, declaring same-sex marriage a “right” under the California Constitution. (Remember that courts don’t have the Constitutional right of making law…just judging their Constitutionality ……..even tho they have been making law for 50 years…the Constitution does not give them that right!)
Proposition 8 would amend that constitution to include the 14 words Proposition 22 originally made state law. If Proposition 8 wins, same-sex marriage will be prohibited in California. If Proposition 8 loses, same-sex marriage will be permitted. In other words, if you are against same-sex marriage, you want Proposition 8 to win. If you are for same-sex marriage, you want Proposition 8 to lose. There is no middle ground.
In the vice presidential debate, moderator Gwen Ifill asked Biden directly whether he supports same-sex marriage. “Do you support gay marriage?” she asked.
“No, Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage,” said Biden. “We do not support that.”
Were this actually Biden and Obama’s position, they would be for Proposition 8. But they are not.
“If I lived in California, I’d clearly vote against Prop. 8,” Biden told DeGeneres.
The actual Obama-Biden position on same-sex marriage goes beyond merely opposing Proposition 8. In fact, their position sets the stage for liberal federal judges to impose same-sex marriage nationwide by forcing states that have passed their own acts in defense of marriage to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in states such as California, where state judges declare a state “right” to same-sex marriage.
In June, Obama sent a letter to the San Francisco-based Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club. It was read at the club’s June 29 meeting and reprinted in full in the July 2 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle under the headline “Obama opposes proposed ban on gay marriage.”
Yet that was not all Obama said he opposes—or supports—in this letter. He also declared that he opposes all state constitutional amendments that limit marriage to a man and a woman, that he opposes a federal amendment that would prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages, that he wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and that he wants to fully open the military to gays.
“I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks,” Obama wrote. “I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”
To make clear that he wants no distinction in law between traditional married couples and same-sex couples—including in laws regarding the adoption of babies—Obama sent a second letter Aug. 1 to the Family Equality Council, a group that says it envisions “a country that celebrates a diversity of family constellations.”
“We also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT families,” Obama told this council. “And that’s why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws.”
The federal Defense of Marriage Act that Obama wants repealed does two things. It defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman, and it says states will not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states, as they ordinarily would under the Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit Clause.”
The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires all states to recognize the judicial acts of other states but says, “Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
If the policies Obama supports come to pass, California will have same-sex marriage, and the federal law protecting other states from recognizing California’s same-sex marriages will be repealed.
Then it would be up to the sort of federal judges Obama would appoint to decide whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause—barring an act of Congress saying otherwise—would require every other state in the union to accept California’s marriage law as their own.
RealClearPolitics – Video – GOP Rep: Health Care Reform Bigger Threat To US Than A Terrorist
BELL TOLLING for the Swine Flu (CAMPANAS por la gripe A) subtitled on Vimeo
TERESA FORCADES, doctor in Public Health, reflects on the history, and gives scientific data, of A type flu and lists all the irregularities related to this subject.
She explains the consequences of the declaration of a PANDEMIC, the political consequences from this declaration and makes a proposal to keep calm. She calls for an urgent activation of all legal mechanism and the participation of all citizens in this matter.
Big thanks to Marta Cobos (gripeArtificial), Marina, Paula Hernandez and Amalia, whose help made it possible to publish this version with English subtitles.
Available at:
timefortruth.es
vimeo.com/ALISH
youtube.com/1ALISH
Interview With Rep. Hensarling: Tim Geithner, TARP & Team Obama – Money and Politics Blog – CNBC.com
Crossroad Baptist Church – Live Streaming
Watch Chuck Baldwin Live Sunday 10:35am CST
Donald Driver’s dad beaten by Houston police after dispute
Another example of some police out of control…….we know the police are now hiring felons
HOUSTON — The father of Green Bay Packers wide receiver Donald Driver was beaten by Houston, Texas, police officers as they arrested him for outstanding traffic warrants, Driver’s family members claimed Wednesday.
As they beat him and forced him to swallow something, the officers told Marvin Driver Jr. he was “going to see Jesus,” according to relatives and community activist Quanell Evans, who identified himself as Quanell X.
The two officers involved in the dispute with Donald Driver’s father remain on duty, pending further investigation
“Mr. Marvin Driver Jr. is now at Hermann Hospital in ICU where he can’t even speak,” relatives said in a statement. “Doctors say there is some bleeding on his brain from blunt force trauma.”
Police said Driver was arrested for outstanding traffic warrants and was found to be “unresponsive” upon his arrival at jail. Paramedics transported him to the hospital, they said. The Houston Police Department said in a written statement it takes the assault allegations “very seriously, and will begin a thorough investigation into the matter.”
The two officers involved remain on duty pending further investigation, police said. However, relatives and Evans called for the officers involved to be suspended or placed on administrative leave until the investigation is complete.
The incident began late Sunday when Driver was dropping his brother, Winston Driver, off after the two had moved furniture, family members said.
Officers stopped Marvin Driver Jr. in front of his mother’s home, relatives said. An argument took place between police and Driver’s family, as well as between Driver and officers over the language police were using, according to the written statement issued by family members.
Police told relatives Driver was being taken to jail for the outstanding warrants, relatives said. “Later, the family found out he never made it to the jail,” the statement said.
Relatives at first alleged Driver was picked up several blocks away by paramedics and that he was lying bloody and unconscious in the street. However, Evans told reporters Wednesday afternoon he had spoken to paramedics, and they had told him they had picked Driver up at the jail, and that he was injured, semiconscious and unresponsive when they arrived.
Houston Fire Department spokesman Omero Longoria told CNN Driver was picked up at a police substation and taken to the hospital. He said he did not know when Driver arrived at the jail or what his condition was when paramedics arrived.
Evans showed reporters paper towels upon which he said Driver had written his account. On them, he said Driver wrote that the police took him behind a Valero gas station and beat him. The officers kneed Driver and elbowed him in the throat, Evans said. They also made him swallow something, he said, telling him he was “going to see Jesus” and made disparaging remarks about his family, including “one particular family member.”
One officer parked his cruiser behind the station and watched the beating, the activist alleged. Evans showed reporters photographs he said depicted Driver lying a hospital bed with a tube in his mouth.
One of the officers named in the arrest report is Hispanic and has a history of harassing African-Americans, Evans said. Driver also wrote on the paper towels that he knows the officer who beat him, Evans said. Winston Driver said at the news conference that after his brother dropped him off, he saw flashing lights from the house and went back outside.
“The officer I spoke with, he was real rude,” he said. “The guy was out of control, basically.” He said he searched for his brother for two days, only to be told he wasn’t in the system. “I got totally upset about it,” he said. Nothing in the police report indicates Driver was being combative or resisting arrest, Evans said.
“It is a shame how this man was treated. This is a man that was being arrested supposedly for only having traffic warrants, and traffic warrants turned into a severe beating of this magnitude.”
He said he had spoken to Donald Driver, but would not divulge details of the conversation, saying only that “he is absolutely concerned about the condition of his father.”
Another of Driver’s sons, Michael, told reporters, “if we can’t trust these people, who can we trust? … I think that my father was targeted for being black.”
Jim Rogers Says Massive inflation is Coming
In this Oct. 24, 2008 in a Bloomberg interview, Jim Rogers predicts massive inflation is coming.
- We are going to have an inflation nightmare.
- Whenever people have printed a lot of money, six months to two years later, you have terrible inflation.
- People all over the world are printing money like mad.
- Massive inflation is coming and the only way to protect yourself is to be out of paper assets and in hard assets like gold and other commodities. (US Treasury Rates)
Jim says he is currently in short term treasuries but expects to get out soon and go short more government long term bonds.
He also says commodities are still in a bull market, he has used this downturn to add to commodities, especially gold, and he expects to make the most money in agriculture in the years ahead.
Jim is buying commodities and Swiss Francs.
Jim says we should abolish the US Federal Reserve and the guys on Wall Street with the fancy cars need to learn to drive tractors and the farmers in the years ahead will be buying the fancy cars.
Jim also showed two gold coins he bought in Zurich. The woman interviewing him said individual investors are having a hard time getting gold coins to which Jim said that is often the sign of a top.
“There has been a run on gold….. The public, the odd lotters, are sometimes the last ones in.
Jim says Paulson, Bernanke and the “idiot at the NY Fed” are never right and making it worse because they are not letting people/banks fail. Jim thinks they could turn this into another depression. Jim brought up what happened in Japan and blamed it on not letting banks fail in Japan.
Jim, didn’t Japan have massive deflation during that period where they let banks mark assets to market to show they failed?
Jim says “propping people up has never worked in the history of the World.”
Jim says the competent people should be taking market share from the incompetent, but we are seeing the reverse due to government interaction. Banks that make bad loans are getting more money from the governments to make more bad loans rather than let them fail.
Jim says the inventory of food is the lowest in 50 years. There is a shortage of farmers, tractors, tractor tires, seeds, etc.. Too many stockbrokers, journalists and investment bankers.
-
Archives
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)
- March 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (1)
- November 2008 (2)
- October 2008 (11)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
