Are You A Terrorist?

By Dan McLaughlin, on April 1st, 2009

You may have heard of the report of the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) called “The Modern Militia Movement.” The MIAC is “fusion center”, combining the Department Of Homeland Security with local organizations. It has created a stir because there are a few people who resent being called domestic terrorist suspects. Who knows, even you may even qualify. You might want to check before you go to Missouri. With involvement by DHS, the same is likely in other states. It just hasn’t been leaked to the press yet.

The Missouri State Police have been issued the report to make them more aware of what to look for to determine potential domestic terrorists. They include characteristics such as Christian religious ideology, anti-abortionist, tax resistance or anti-immigration beliefs. It’s comforting to know that you may be joined on that list of terrorists by some very well known and respected citizens.

According to the report, those who have concerns about the new world order should be watched carefully. They may have terrorist tendencies. Indeed, President Bush, the elder, must be one of the top suspects, because almost two decades ago, he discussed openly and publicly about the “New World Order”, or NWO, and has been pursuing the idea actively. He has been joined by many national and international politicians in discussing the idea of a NWO over many years. Of course, he will be a leader of the new order, so he probably won’t be harassed too much.

There are countless ways to qualify, however. If you don’t like President Obama, you may qualify as a white supremacist. If you resent the idea that the president refused, and continues to refuse, to present a valid birth certificate to prove that he is eligible for the presidency, you may be a terrorist.

If you believe that “President Obama is tight on gun control” and may enact firearms confiscations, or if you happen to think that the strong correlation between gun control laws and violent crime might be worth considering, you may be a dangerous criminal. If you think that the Ammunition Accountability Act is an abuse of power, you may have latent terrorist tendencies. President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel will have to be tagged as a potential terrorist, because he definitely believes gun control and confiscations are coming, and is actively working to make it happen.

If you believe that there may be a severe economic and political crisis that may cause violence, be careful what you say, you may be watched. If you are concerned with the plans for the formation of a North American Union by former Assistant Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, all of the intellectuals of the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations and countless other organizations and politicians, you are probably a crazed lunatic. None of that wild talk of the Amero unified currency or the NAFTA Superhighway through the heart of America. Robert Pastor and Andres Rosenthal, contributors to the book “The Future Of Integration”, have said “NAFTA is not enough” and the integration will “create the most powerful, single economic entity on earth.” Bush the younger and the presidents of Canada and Mexico can also be added to the list of suspects for their silly talk about the Union in their planning session.

Your unfounded concern that the government may institute mandatory national service may land you on the list also. You should be joined there by the 535 congressmen who are presently attempting to pass the euphemistically named “Generations Invigorating Volunteeerism and Education (GIVE) Act”, which directs the study of the feasibility of mandatory service requirements. It is a goal stated by the president and various administration officials, so theoretically, they should also be on the list.

If you exercised your political rights but had the bad judgment to support politically incorrect presidential candidate Ron Paul or third party libertarian candidates Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin, the jigs up. You had better scrape those bumper stickers off your car.

It’s a good thing for us non-terrorists that we are being protected against all of those wacko people who don’t adore the politicians or believe that they may be corrupt and sell out the citizens of this country to the highest bidder. We won’t have to worry about all of those crazy Christians and patriotic constitution-lovers. The police are now aware of all of those dangerous bible toting thugs and freedom loving patriots. There now, don’t you feel safer?

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts


Leave a comment   Politics and Government   , , , , , , ,  

2009: The Year of Sustainability?

By Cheryl Grey, on April 1st, 2009

Pundits have referred to 2007 as The Year of the Crash and 2008 as The Year of Deleveraging. Both are appropriate and with the initiation of 2009, as the aftereffects of the crash and its subsequent deleveraging continue to dominate economic reality, we look for hints as to what the next four quarters may hold.

One recurrent theme among the many New Year prognosticators is that of sustainability. While this theme is obviously appropriate in discussions of environmental concerns, its applicability to economics isn’t necessarily as immediately clear. But consider sustainability—

—in energy. T. Boone Pickens has done the United States a service by demonstrating the economic unsustainability of current energy usage patterns. While everybody certainly has the right to use (and waste) energy if they can afford to, consider the boost for the domestic economy from reduced imports of crude oil, replaced by renewable energy sources or those domestically available, such as nuclear power or natural gas. Narrowing the trade gap can only strengthen the economy at a fundamental and sustainable level.

—in consumerism. The U.S. consumer cannot support the entire planet and manufacturers in emerging economies must base their anticipated growth elsewhere while households in the States retrench and pay off loans. The current ratio of household debt to after-tax income stands at 139% and in 2007, consumer spending was fully 70% of U.S. gross domestic product, above the historical average of 66%. While four percent may not sound like much, that’s an estimated $550 billion of spending per year, much of it enabled by credit rather than income.

Central banks, including the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, regularly survey loan officers, and the results of these surveys show that credit remains tight and may tighten further. Many households in developed economies (not only the U.S.) will therefore have no choice but to continue deleveraging before going on another spending spree, reducing debt-income ratios and levels of consumer spending to sustainable levels.

—in real estate. All markets, including housing, should be driven by demand, not by investors or builders. So-called “house flippers” who purchase residential real estate, slap on a coat of paint and plant a few shrubs, then resell within months, do little for the market beyond driving up prices. In the most heavily overbuilt and overpriced areas of the nation, such as Florida, California, Arizona, and Nevada, these short-term investors accounted for as much as 33% of the prime loans in default and 25% of the subprime ones, pushing the first round of foreclosures in those areas. (The second round is being driven by fundamental factors such as lost employment.)

Even more telling is the regional ratio between the average monthly mortgage payment and the average monthly income. In Houston, one of the most residentially affordable metropolitan areas in the nation, this ratio is 16.6; however, in Reno it’s 30.2, in Miami it’s 46.8, and in Los Angeles it’s 63.5. Such levels are not sustainable and it’s possible housing prices in these areas have further to fall.

—in financial markets, including currencies and commodities. This is too obvious to require discussion. The most egregious examples are crude oil at $150 per barrel and the yen trading at such high levels against the U.S. dollar that Toyota registers its first operating loss in 70 years and the market invites intervention by the Bank of Japan.

The overindulgences of the U.S. economy are best summarized by the single term consumer. Beloved of economists and widely utilized (mea culpa) for its simplicity and clarity, it nevertheless reduces people to a biological and need-driven level rather than a human or reasoning one; after all, bacteria are consumers, too.

Perhaps its all-too-common usage by economists and the media has convinced us that consumption is the true meaning of our financial existence. Perhaps the change most needed by the U.S. economy isn’t in political parties or governmental administrations. Perhaps it’s in our view of ourselves.



Leave a comment   U.S. Economics   , , , , ,  
« Newer Entries