Global economic situation for liveaboard cruising yachties

Wallace and Vomit.....

Oh ......*****-****..............

 

Mark, Speaking of "***** ****", What compels you to continue to visit and read? As a retard you are way out ahead, or is your computer/internet acces restricted to this thread? well the other reason is - - Nah I won't go there...

Happy whatever holiday you have there, maybe your troubles will be over by then:?: and do yourself a favour and read this http://www.goldensextant.com/RKLSage.html#anchor1404 over the holiday break...

My interest is in consistency in value of MONEY and gold is just one of the many forms that are loosely referred to as MONEY...

Will you be yelling and spitting and crying and making more noise than necessary to hear you without internet or telephone right around the globe, if the US$ collapses to less than a quarter of its current purchasing power:?: - - Take a deep breath - - Not very long to wait:!:

 

There is also a PART 111.... I have merged all together into a 256KB pdf document... WOW....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GB0f47BMak

 

http://www.gata.org/node/8066 "University of Rochester student paper notices GATA" http://www.campustimes.org/the-fed-versus-the-gold-standard-1.2091052 The two comments are interesting - Reading material is "restricted" at university level WTF:?::?: - in the "land of the UN-free":?: The comments also usefully added to my USA history knowledge... (My USA history understanding was very limited and now growing very fast in my focus area, by necessity...)
2 comments - - JIm Lorenz - Sun Nov 22 2009 14:21
The 'quote' attributed to W. Wilson is not verified. It's widely accepted as it's what he should have said. He was supported by the Money Power to get the U.S. into the arms race and the coming conflict in Europe; and to support the Federal Reserve Act, written by the Banker's cabal in 1910 under great secrecy. Google, "The Creature From Jekyll Island," by Griffin for the complete story. It's an easy read, like science fiction, except it's sadly all true.
It is true that Wilson signed the still unconstitutional FRA of 1913 two days after it was 'passed' by a minimum quorum of Congress. The false 16th & 17th 'amendments' were also declared as ratified by his criminal administration. See http://www.uschronology.com/ It's a timeline/database of U.S. history; every entry is cited and verified. Much material that is NOT in your 'approved' government school textbooks. Jim Lorenz, Senior Editor, BA SJSC, 1960. - -

Ac Spac - - Sat Nov 21 2009 02:44 - Very good article Gabe.
Most people don't know that we haven't had true Capitalism in this country. I hope some people take interest in this as it is as important to our future as it is our past.
Here is a quote from Woodrow Wilson about the Fed: - - - Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence - - "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

http://www.gata.org/node/8067 "Fed under fire as public anger mounts"

http://www.gata.org/node/8068 "Bets rise on rich country bond defaults"

I watched the movie M-SHOOTER last night - interesting... A feeling for things to come? was my take...

 

Woodrow Wilson was one of the most tyrannical of the U.S. Presidents. He threw many political dissenters in jail for protesting his leftist policies. Libs love him. Conservatives, not so much. Most wars in which U.S. became involved, including those fomented by Expansionist conflicts of the early 19th century, happened while so-called Democrats were on watch. It was always left for the more conservative statesmen to clean up the mess that was made.

 

http://www.perthmint.com.au/metalPrices.aspx - - a worrying sign? - - Server Error in '/' Application. - - Server Too Busy - - - - 08:34 AEST

 

Mark,
Why take offense and feel hostile towards some of the folks here. Take a look at all the links on the page posted below, with all the internal problems going on here (USA) we have no business meddling in any other country's affairs what-so-ever. And remember most of this mess has affected other folks lives all over the rest of the world.

http://allamericangold.com/index.html

 

I fail to understand USA demonisation of one or the other side in internal politics... They are from the same country, they seem to support the same economic fundamentals (a strong focus and belief in Keynesian teachings and all key financial & academic people have the same, (proven wrong and 'tearfully admitted', to be WRONG by the previous FED chair Greenspan), Keynesian beliefs....

The "Liberal" or "Democrat" has no difference except in the "supporting names" - much like your two most liked sporting teams - one team each, from two of the following; football, basketball, basketball, baseball, soccer or whatever???? - NEVER to directly compete when "winners" of an election race...

- - - Divide is to split the voters and reduce your effectiveness in forcing them to "do as the voter elected - hold them accountable" is nigh impossible when by this divide, the ******** (politicians), know they can find a similar number to support the other view and create a stalemate, (so they can happily do nothing and rip off the society and the good citizens)...

An attitudinal change in the voter is necessary... everyone votes, whoever wins must mostly stand on their promises or face the venom of the WHOLE ELECTORATE... generally seems to operate in Australia - do not see why it cannot in USA?

Oh well, you folk will have to figure out a way.... I still maintain, compulsory voting is a good move - - vote for whoever, - or, - "informally" - - (to stuff up your vote so it does not count - a sad waste of effort), ~ ~ ~ but to vote, is each voter's responsibility, and the duty to your country, is to make sure your vote counts :!: :!: and your right as a voting citizen is to expect and ensure your politician does as was promised, or suffer and endure the wrath of the electorate...

 

http://www.gata.org/node/8069 "Who'll get the PR account to explain the Fed's gold swaps?"

Now where was it I heard the music theme for "what will we do with a drunken sailor...." ? Oh yes, another flashback to a baptism of the fleet with dignitaries of the churches in full regalia on a seemingly overloaded "rescue boat", and ashore "the band played on" - - not a good choice of tunes but perhaps that is all they knew? quite strange to have such a show at 14:00 or so today (Monday 23 Nov) ???

 

Today is "be good humoured" day and I would like a week or more of this feeling please, so I pray for gold to add 10% a day (ON THE AUSSY $ price) and then hold for a while... That would be really nice, don't you think:?: - - Got your gold yet?

 

Eisenhover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush older, forrest gump, all republicans, most of the wars happened because of them too. Just under their watch over 10 million of people died from usanian bullets. That is on par with Stalin.

 

Mas I really can't answer your question in any real terms. Both parties are in any real since are one anymore and both are a good old boys network of I'll scratch yours if you'll scratch mine. Both parties hold national conventions where the respective parties decide who they are going to support and promote and deliver up as the only electrical choice for the voters. Often they are already owe too many favors to to many special interest and are already corrupted and tainted before they're even voted in. Such is our political system anymore. Maybe what I've posted below explains it best.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.


545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then
campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are
against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and
high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on
appropriations; the House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme
Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are
directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic
problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem
was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private,
central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.
They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a
congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if
they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the
power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is
the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what
they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con
regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an
excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a
Speaker, who stood up and criticized the previous President for creating
deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the
Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole
responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving
appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi..
She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members,
not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president
vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace
545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and
irresponsibility.. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not
traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain
truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it
must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it’s because they want them in IRAQ.
(And Afghanistan)

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite
retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire
and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they
can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and
from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you
into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the
economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take
an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are
their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it is up to you.


This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no
national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed
home to raise the kids.

What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!! YOU can help it
get there!!!
GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!!

 

November 22, 2009
Which America Do Americans Want?

Philosophically speaking, there are two Americas, each with a founding father. The first man, born five hundred years ago last July, was the theologian John Calvin. Should this sound incredible, bear in mind that this has been the contention of more than a few historians in the past.

In his book Christianity and the Constitution, John Eidsmoe lists several reasons to agree with this estimation. First, at the time when America became a country, about two-thirds of the population had a religious affiliation at least partly Calvinistic in doctrine. In fact, it was the persecution of that particular religious inclination that drove many (if not most) of the immigrants across the Atlantic and into the often harsh environs of the New World in the first place.

The reformed doctrine that Calvin systematized was a central force in shaping not only the religious perspective of early America, but also the very structure of its government. For example, the fledgling American government's acceptance of Calvin's teaching that every aspect of man is sinful by nature led the colonial leaders to reject the utopian ideas forwarded by the French philosophers of that time.

It was the French Revolution, not ours, that followed the edicts of the Enlightenment, and with cataclysmic results. America's founders focused instead on creating a balance of power between government and the individual in order to avoid the opposing evils of anarchy and despotism. This they accomplished by decentralizing government -- in a manner resembling the Presbyterian form of church government that Calvin had long before instituted -- and by divesting its power into three separate branches.

Eidsmore goes on to point out that the priesthood of all believers, a protestant doctrine that Calvin expounded on, led to the education of nearly all America's citizens, since all believers are responsible for seeking to know what God says to them in the Bible. This widespread literacy allowed the democratic system to operate, given the relative isolation of towns back then and the lack of mass media beyond the printed word.

In addition, Calvin exhorted believers to work hard while declaring secular occupations to be every bit as holy as those of the pulpit. These teachings together with his view on the limitations of government set the philosophical stage for capitalism. Given all of these factors, one can see just how profound an influence Calvin has had on the social and political formation of the United States of America.

The founder of the other America (which, compared of the first one, might well be considered the anti-America) also had a major anniversary this year, having been born in 1809. Though his discipline was science, the theory of origins that he formulated from his observation of plants and animals has had enormous implications in America's social and political realms as well. I am, of course, referring to Charles Darwin.

In his article entitled "Progressivism and the New Science of Jurisprudence," Bradley C. S. Watson lists six core ideas that social Darwinists in the 20th century came to have with respect to politics in general and constitutional government in particular.

First, there is the denial of fixed or eternal principles that might aid the wise course of any government. Next is the notion that continual growth is the goal of the state, and never-ending change is a means to that end. Third, social Darwinists stress experimentation with government institutions and laws from a utilitarian perspective. Thus, the only valid way to determine good policy from bad is the particular consequences of its implementation.

The fourth core belief, according to Watson, is the history of a government as an "inevitable process" rather than merely a cause-and-effect chain of events. Of course, if it is a process, then despite temporary setbacks, the state on the whole will continue to improve. The fifth idea is that an elite class is needed to supervise the steering of government's great ship through the obstacles of obsolete institutions, laws, and ideas. The final belief is that truth and moral rightness are relative to the particular position in a government's history.

It's not hard to distinguish which of the two philosophies President Obama adheres to. Change was half of his campaign mantra, offered as a virtue in itself. "I am someone who is no doubt progressive," he proudly proclaimed. He is also an elitist, as evident from the fact that he never denounced the messianic laurels that were so lovingly placed at his feet. Moreover, since the election, the president and his ever-expanding court of czars have, through their never-ending quest to takeover private industry, shown no regard for the limitations of power the Constitution has drawn. It is clear that their highest regard is for themselves as America's neo-monarchy.

As for Obama's other partners in crime, the reigning Congress, Barney Frank is a particularly glaring example of elitism. We see it all too clearly in the belligerent manner in which he's answered both protesting citizens and conservative commentators such as O'Reilly. When the banking crisis hit just over a year ago, Frank unabashedly expressed the mentality of those currently running the country with the following statement:

I think there are a lot of very rich people whom we can tax down the road, and recover some of this money.


Thus, whatever funds private citizens are able to amass belongs to the federal government, to be gathered and dispensed in whatever way the federal government sees fit. They alone are capable of wisely redirecting such "resources" as they chart America on a new and far more glorious course.

Finally, as for denying objective truth (let alone eternal principles), the only truth the reigning Democrats concern themselves with can be found in fluctuating polls. To them, good and evil are obsolete notions that only intellectual Neanderthals bother about. They may refer to such concepts to pacify the masses, as after the 9/11 attacks; or to slander opponents, as when Pelosi compared Tea Party protesters to Nazis; but they do so without genuine conviction. Their only rudder in directing our nation is an insatiable appetite for control. The multitude of deceptions they have to commit in order to accomplish this end amounts to nothing in their jaded eyes.

Due to our ethnic diversity and the foggy halls of public education that most citizens have trudged through, the picture is less than clear as to which current of thought the American public stands in. This is evident from the fact that while most Americans consider themselves Christian, a majority also say that truth is relative. Yet according to a 2004 CBS poll, most Americans don't believe Darwin's theory. And it seems clear that an even greater majority have come to regard the social Darwinism employed by Obama and his congressional cronies as a bust.

Ironically, the very utilitarianism that progressives hold up as their standard inevitably works against them. They may not be intellectually consistent, but Americans in general are correspondingly pragmatic. As such, they can see that rather than bringing about positive change, the progressive politicians are dismantling our present quality of life and destroying our country's chances for future prosperity. And Americans will vote accordingly in 2010.
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/which_america_do_americans_wan.html

Our only hope is that somehow someway about 500 new uncorrupted faces can be put into office that aren't owned by special interest groups and are willing to stand up and do whats right and moral in behalf of national and international interests. But I'm afraid it's highly unlikely to ever happen.

 

Can an "independent" in nearly the true sense of the world put his name on a ballot paper and campaign for votes? or is there a substantial "pre-approval" process that would eliminate that person (such thing as a HUGE nomination fee, proof of xxxxxx registered voter support or such other bureaucratic function to prevent a "surprise" getting voted into office?)...

Then use "PEOPLE POWER" and flood the ballot with "independents"....


http://www.gata.org/node/8070 "Bloomberg TV's Lo cites Murphy interview again" - - The message is getting through overseas... people of USA, promote blogs that you know of by printing a list and head it with "GET THE TRUTH in TODAYS NEWS from HERE" and sticking it up in local noticeboards & shop windows....
http://www.gata.org/node/8071 "Morgan Chase CEO touted as Geithner's replacement" Is he another Keynesean failed economist? - I don't know? - if so no, No NO:!:
http://www.gata.org/node/8072 "MoneyWeb interviews Jim Sinclair" go listen - &/or - read here - http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page295799?oid=332225&sn=2009 Detail&pid=299364
http://www.gata.org/node/8073 "James Turk: Welcome to Stage 2 of gold's bull market" http://www.kitco.com/ind/Turk/turk_oct232009.html

 

Too right, but look at the home grown? a-holes who put us in this fix. Those are the ones we should be angry with, not the foreigners who are in some part seeing us without the biases we possess.