What is really important is that Rand Paul's idiocy is not forgotten. That is if he doesn't remind us with another of his outrageous gaffs.
Well at least you've learnt that the Fed is constitutional. Now you have to grasp the reason why the Fed exists. You see, if it didn't work, it wouldn't still be here. Simple really isn't it. You're not able to criticize the Fed, as exemplified by your call of high inflation in response to the Fed's action against the GFC, which hasn't occurred within the timeframe predicted, thus designating you wrong. This, and you're refusal to acknowledge it, warrants your exclusion from commenting on such maters.
Illiterate AND can't read. You must be thick as a brick. Yes, you must be because the President has explicit statutory authorization to accept foreign refugees into the US. Its called the Refugee Act of 1980. Why is this missing in the leading post?
The post deceivingly presents a definition that appears solely to apply to "religion".
The President may admit refugees if “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” such as the Syrian refugee crisis exists. Moreover, there exists a “broad discretion exercised by immigration officials” that the Supreme Court upheld in Arizona vs. United States, a.recent and major immigration case,
If I am wrong about your intellectual capabilities, I find it highly suspicious that you haven't recognized the obvious misrepresentation in the leading post.
Only a complete looney tune would see the Syrian refugees as all asylum seekers. The Paris attacks were calculated. Planting terrorists with the refugees induces exactly the kind on paranoid-fueled nonsense depicted in the above posts, and plays right into ISIS's hands.
We need to rid ourselves of the Federal Reserve, before there will be any LASTING change. Fractional reserve banking and debt of any sort without producing “robs Peter to pay Paul”.
Failure to recognize this was the fault of all who came before that did not in sufficient numbers protest the looming crisis caused by their failure to demand honest money in exchange for goods and services. To a large extent this was promoted by those who should have known better and had the ability to educate the public on what a bad idea it was to promote expanding debt levels in order to increase (?) the standard of living. Certainly Rep. Charles Lindbergh tried but all who came together at Jekyll Island in 1910 saw to it that their plan of plunder succeeded.
Apparently you are illiterate and can’t read. This law takes into account that Christians are being persecuted in the Middle East, by the usual suspects, and therefore this can also be taken into account for asylum requests.
Please do disclose your religious background or state that you are illiterate and will change your opinion based on that. This says nothing about excluding Muslims. In fact it also includes them if they are at odds with those that persecute their brethren because of their varying religious beliefs.
Either Obama is too stupid to recognize this interpretation of the law or he (and you) is deliberately trying to allow dangerous people into the country, since, if there are no restrictions on Muslims, we risk an event such as has taken place in France or with the Russian airliner. Obama needs to restate what he has said with no room for misinterpretation.
Obama’s words need to be carefully assessed. If he is deliberately endangering the country, that is definitely grounds for impeachment. Relative silence on the part of Congress is reprehensible.
An asylum seeker is someone who is seeking international protection but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been determined. In contrast, a refugee is someone who has been recognised under the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees to be a refugee.
No wonder you had a baffoon as your last president and no other choice for the next candidate.
President Obama denounced Republicans who suggested that the U.S. should admit Christian refugees fleeing persecution in Syria, but not Moo-slims from the same country. Obama called such a “religious test” “shameful” and “not American.”
"When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted … that’s shameful…. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion".
President Obama apparently is unaware of the controlling federal law, or maybe he just doesn’t care what the law says. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (Section 1101(a)(42)(A)) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:
The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion
The law requires a “religious test.” Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion.
In the case of this war ISIS is undeniably persecuting Christians. It is doing so, moreover, as a matter of doctrine. Those Christians the ISIS does not kill, it otherwise persecutes as called for by its construction of sharia (observe, for example, the ongoing rape jihad and sexual slavery). ISIS seeks to rule Moo-slims, not kill or persecute them.
Fiscal leadership won't solve anything of consequence. We need a reset, a Jubilee if you'd like to call it that.
Very good article. Thanks for the tip.
The incentive for loans has moved from productive ventures that have profits paying the loan service plus a return more than covering the risk to consumption. A loan for consumption by definition consumes wealth as the loan must be serviced from previously retain wealth. An example is a vacation paid via a credit card. This is not to say taking a vacation is bad, rather to point out there are inescapable consequences. The recent employment report that was "so good" supported this contention as about 10% on the new jobs were in wealth building disciplines. Another support for this contention is the rapid growth of public sector debt as percentage of total debt. Government's spend is virtually all consumption and the retained wealth that services the debt is from the tax payer, not the folks on the dole who receive a disproportionate ration of the largesse.
That buildup of debt has also brought forward economic activity as one reason for taking on debt is to pay for a good or service now rather than saving and paying for the same good or service in the future. Incremental to the items discussed in the article, debt is very destructive as the time of slowed economic activity resulting from incurring debt is the concurrent time additional tax revenues are required to service the debt. Less economic activity means less tax revenue leading to more borrowing to service the increasing debt or raising taxes or a combination of both, an economic death spiral. The federal government and local governments are currently borrowing to service debt, fund future liabilities such as pension funds, and provide current services. The governments have entered that death spiral. Sure it is a tough spiral to break, but putting it off only makes it tougher. This country is in dire need of fiscal leadership, something it will probably not get until it is forced on us by the market.
The following was an intended reply to “dhb39399”. We will no longer respond directly.
Who pays you to post on this and other message boards, “dhb39399”/”Mainst9” and similar others. Please excuse us if we missed any of your other screen names, assuming they exist because of similarities. State if you are part of some cabal. Please provide the details. By the way, asking another question in response to a question is a “cop-out”.
If you deny you are paid for your posts, what motivates you to exclude the obvious to many intelligent people; that being when an exchange takes place in a more honest environment it is equal value for equal value, and not paper currency for things many thousands of times more valuable. That is what took place in the barter system, which is what we may be reduced to if honesty continues to be absent from monetary systems. You seem to like to throw the word “stupid” around a lot, so apparently you are appealing to the stupid out there in support of fiat counterfeit funny monopoly money issued on behalf of governments by central banks.
Of course any who hold to the view that currencies issued by governments are legitimate is a one world government advocate that seeks control of all peoples, worldwide, through fiat monetary means.
We should ask one other question; was what happened in France a “false flag” event in furtherance of the one world government? How do you know? We believe that if governments are going to force people to accept dishonest money they are capable of most any reprehensible thing.
Now you can respond with your “conspiracy theory’ comeback with nothing to back it up.
Those of you that consider yourselves the farthest thing from the bankster cabal, note that the gain in the major averages filled the chart gaps today on their way down to unknown depths spawned by a blizzard of fiat money that can no longer manipulate markets upwards. Also, current gaps to be filled are on the downside. The noose tightens.
You are correct about the "winnowing"; the innocent are harmed right along with the guilty. But we look at the great sacrifices made by those who were signatories to the Declaration of Independence, many of whom died, or became paupers having sacrificed, as the Declaration states: "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor". This time the battle will be worldwide against government fiat monetary thieves; that said without regard to the stated types of governments involved. This issue transcends political persuasion and stated religious convictions because it is so basic.
We don't think so. They are still listening to the likes of "dhb39399" and "Mainst9". "Propaganda" is a powerful force that was brought into the Federal Government with the writings of Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud. (Wouldn't you know it?)
Any who wish to know how they are being manipulated can obtain this Nawzy Puerca's book called: "Propaganda" on Amazon or on the free book website, Archive Dat Org. If you are interested in a real “conspiracy theory” put into print in 1928 to destroy the US Constitution and hand manipulative power over people to the US Government, this will open your eyes. We recommend the free website rather than give one counterfeit dime to Amazon. It has been said this book has been a handbook for many politicians since its first printing.
Isn’t it interesting that this should come from a family background said to be Jewish, but more aligned with the thought processes of the Republican RINOs.
You're likely right. Retribution seems much more available outside the geographic confines of America. The people here have been dumbed down and successfully lied to for a long, long time now. The lies have been so deeply ingrained that they now spread them as gospel.
Collapse may be the only way to rectify the situation, but I fear there will be a great winnowing.
Silver is relative flat, but silver funds are down 3.5-4.5% . . . Why are they not in a similar track? I know the funds like slv and sil are leveraged, but silver closed down only about 0.35%--or 10-14 times less than what the funds did. What gives?