Grexit? A flesh wound compared to Frexit (exit of France from EU)

by Don Hank  June 30, 2015

 

The Telegraph reports this morning that Greek economic minister Varoufakis now threatens to sue in a higher court if the EU attempts to force Greece to leave the EU (our thanks to G. in the UK for this tip).

The article quotes French President François Hollande as follows:

 

“What is at stake is whether or not Greeks want to stay in the eurozone or want to take the risk of leaving,” said French president Francois Hollande.

 

Now you would think from this bold statement that Hollande heads up a country that pays its bills to the EU on time, wouldn’t you? After all, financial pundits are all saying that if Greece leaves the EU, Spain, Portugal and perhaps even Italy could be next. No one mentions France.

However, there’s a colossal French debt that no one wants to talk about, except some brave journalists like Francis Journot at the site Agora, who shows that France is actually the elephant in the EU room.

My translation of the opening paragraph of this extraordinary article follows:

 

The French State’s public debt has reached 6 trillion euros, equivalent to 5 years of tax receipts and nearly 300% of GDP. The process of extravagant financial operations [tentative rendition of cavalerie financière, see below] on the public debt that are available to the government since the banking law of Jan 3, 1973 exposes France more than ever to the volatility of the financial markets and to a default. More-confidential commitments, off the balance sheet and allowed by the State, for payment of retirement pensions of government employees and the like, could also prove impossible to meet in the long run. An exit from the EU could eventually be the only way out of a fraudulent system that is threatening to blow up. [my highlighting] [original text below]

 

This debt has been constantly fed by new loans to ensure reimbursement of the elderly and their interests, as well as new deficits. The amounts kicked down the road in this way are far greater than those payable by the Greeks. But the off-the-books debt is no less than the debt shown on the books. The author makes it clear, citing authorities, that this debt could never be paid without major growth through new investment in industry. Some of the debt is owed to the IMF and hence, represents US exposure.

One rendition of the term I rendered as “extravagant financial operations” is “Ponzi scheme” and that is just a more direct way of saying the same thing.

Now, if a Grexit is a threat to the integrity of the EU, a Frexit would spell certain doom to the already-shaky entity, and the entire globe is exposed.

 

Original text:

La dette publique de l’État français atteint 6 000 milliards d’euros, équivaut à plus de vingt années de recettes fiscales et près de 300% du PIB. Le processus de cavalerie financière de la dette publique auquel les gouvernements ont recours depuis la loi bancaire du 3 janvier 1973, expose plus que jamais la France à la volatilité des marchés financiers et au défaut de paiement. Des engagements plus confidentiels, hors-bilan et portés par l’État, pour le paiement des pensions de retraites des fonctionnaires ou assimilés, pourraient également s’avérer, à terme, impossibles à honorer. Une sortie de l’UE pourrait s’imposer comme l’unique voie de sortie d’un système de cavalerie qui menace d’exploser.

End quote

 

Cavalerie financière is a fraudulent financial practice based on the discrepancies between the amounts and periods for recording income and outflows to mask a failure between resources and debt owed. Other possible renditions include “can kicking” and “Ponzi scheme.”

“Holy” matrimony administered by a Satanic state

by Don Hank  June 30, 2015

Karl Denninger, who normally writes about secular stuff like economics, just wrote a particularly thought-provoking opinion piece on the Supreme Court decision by which that body, intended to be part of the judiciary, took a stab at legislating. Another one. The article was posted by Stephanie Jasky at FedUpUSA:

SCOTUS Steps In It (Gay Marriage)

A long time ago, Steph had said that the notion of the government getting involved in marriage was a scam and that marriage should remain outside of government institutions.

It sounded so outlandish — and also a bit libertarian, that I just filed it away, not knowing how to respond. I tended to disagree but didn’t know why.

Since yesterday, this whole idea of cutting the government out of the marriage business takes on a whole new luster.

I am no longer in a position to disagree and can’t think of any reason why I should.

After all, the government says that the marriage contract can be broken unilaterally under the so-called no-fault law. So unlike any other contract known in law, it is really not a contract at all, but only a scam, because it lacks enforcement potential. Worse, once you put your neck in the government’s noose, and then once the other half files for and gets that divorce, the one with the most property before the marriage is the one who loses, often big time. Men generally lose anyway because mom gets the kids and juicy child support checks, which she is in no way obliged to spend on your kids. She can be the most abusive and negligent mom in the world but she will almost certainly get the kids and the monthly checks. That’s hardwired into the system.

There is something, well, conservative about us conservatives. If it was done a certain way before when we were kids, then that is how it should be done now and forevermore. But what was done before was often part of a desperately wicked system. We just didn’t see it.

It was called “holy matrimony,” but it was contracted within the framework of a mostly atheistic state, which by now has gone Satanic. And even if the officials involved were not in their majority atheists, at least the laws that they were bound by were generally not in any way motivated by Christian principles.

So what was so holy about a marriage certificate?

Nothing. Not even if the ceremony was performed by a priest or pastor or whatever.

None of the Christian spirit of the officiating cleric was transferred to the legal document. Thus, the “matrimony” was not holy at all. It was a suckers’ transaction, a contract of vows that the law had no intention of enforcing, a trap intended only to spread the wealth.

I do not make recommendations. However, I see no wrong whatsoever in performing a wedding in a church, particularly one that has freed itself of its 501(C) status, but without any involvement by the state whatsoever. You can try to stigmatize the children born in that arrangement as “illegitimate” if you like. But you can’t fool kids. They know who mom and dad are and they will generally assign more legitimacy to a good couple of parents than they will to any soulless state apparatus.

I realized a while back that the tax exemption for churches was merely a subterfuge to make religion subservient to the State.

There is no Biblical basis for this system, and its intended result is that pastors, a timid lot to begin with (with some notable exceptions, like Chuck Baldwin), are afraid to speak out against officially endorsed sin.

Now Christians are at a crossroads.

We now have the opportunity and a compelling motive to break away from the Satanic state. Or we can just fold as we have always done in the past.

One thing is certain: unless we take drastic measures to protect marriage and traditional Christianity as a whole, your pastor or priest will someday be forced to perform gay weddings. Your marriage will then be on a par with something recognized since the earliest times as wicked. The symbolism is unavoidable.

And since most clerics are liberal left-wingers or simply spiritually squishy to begin with, they will pretend that they are just being meek as bidden by Jesus. Aww, how sweet… it is not!

Pastors all over the US are boldly saying “no” to the Supreme Court abomination. But how many of them are willing to put their money where their mouth is and part with their precious tax deduction?

Those who do will certainly be part of that remnant of the end times as mentioned in the Bible. The rest may share the same fate as unbelievers in the Last Judgment.

 

SCOTUS Steps In It (Gay Marriage)

carlin-privileges

 

Part I

So we got the gay marriage opinion and there was much rejoicing.

How foolish you are…

 

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.

 

Half of this is right. The second half is an outrage, but no surprise, and it will have ramifications those on both sides of this argument are not going to like.

First, let me point out to those on the religious right of the aisle: You deserved this decision. More than 15 years ago I wrote a number of letters to the Catholic Archdiocese urging them to ignore state marriage licenses — in fact, to deliberately eschew them and instead celebrate only Catholic marriages. That is, no license, period. If you wanted to have a civil document of some sort, then go see the judge. For a religious marriage, go see a Priest. Never the twain shall meet, for the simple reason that Catholic (and most other Christian sectarian) teaching on marriage was irreconcilable with civil marriage and its provisions and thus by affixing a signature and certification to such a document the Church was profaning itself.

Well, if you fornicate on the Altar you cannot complain when the lightning bolt shows up out of the blue, and it did. Congratulations to all of those Christian faiths that earned what was delivered to you today.

Let us look at the facts, most-specifically the fact that marriage was not subject to “license” until it became fashionable to constrain who could marry. Historically marriages were “recorded” in the family Bible — and nowhere else. Marriage laws in the United States arose from the desire to exclude certain marriage choices, most-particularly those who would choose partners that were of the “wrong” color or heritage. Forcing the celebrants to appear before a Justice of the Peace or Clerk of the Court was a suitable means of enforcing racism.

But this is not the evil found in the decision today. No, that evil is found in the destruction of federalism, the foundation of this nation. This decision puts a nearly-final nail in that coffin, for it embraces not federalism and its principles but rather unification — that is, the principle that there is no union of 50 states but rather one federal government and thus one state, with the arbitrary boundaries between states being mere lines on a map.

The Court could have reached a decision that a marriage contracted in one state had to be respected in the others. That’s Federalism and, incidentally, disrespect of that principle, which was foundational to this Republic and remains so, is the primary reason the Civil War was undertaken.

In other words that I get married to another man in California and then travel to Florida (where such is not legal) doesn’t mean that Florida has to marry two men. It does, however, mean that Florida has to recognize that under California law we’re married. It was the willful refusal to honor this in the 1860 time frame that led states to break away and declare that they were no longer part of the United States and this sort of decision risks that exact same thing happening again.

No, if it does it won’t be because of two gay people demanding a marriage “license.” Rather it will be because some state, say, New York, will demand that Florida impose New York’s tax and regulatory schemes on its population!

Far-fetched? Not at all – this is already being proposed under so-called “Internet sales tax” changes, where nexus is discarded as meaningful and instead a national tax scheme is being cooked up.

So to the religious right who slept with the devil and then got it up the pooper as a consequence we can add all those people dancing in the streets in glee — your turn to get in line and find that it comes long, dry and hard is on tap, and I assure you that the consequence will not be to your liking.

Both groups have made a grave mistake, and unfortunately the outcome may be similar to that in 1861.

 

Part II

None of you who have turned your avatar “rainbow” on Facebook appear to have actually read the Supreme Court opinion.

Why are you celebrating without understanding what you are celebrating? Are you a thinking individual or are you a member of a mob? If the latter, get the hell away from me; you’re dangerous, to be blunt, and I want you nowhere near my person or property. To the extent I can do so I will distance myself from your person and behavior as both are destructive to both self and others.

Incidentally, if it matters, I don’t care who you sleep with. Not only do I have many associates and people I like a great deal who are gay, I also have several friends who are poly-amorous.

But let’s look at first the holding, and then the argument the court accepted in issuing it:

 

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.

 

Now from the opinion itself:

 

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.

(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way.

The new and widespread discussion of the subject led other States to a different conclusion. In 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held the State’s Constitution guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry. See Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003). After that ruling, some additional States granted marriage rights to same sex couples,either through judicial or legislative processes.

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.

Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.

In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

 

I could easily write the longest Ticker of my career as a writer simply by quoting these passages. If you wish to go and look you will find 86 cited examples of the word “rights” in the opinion (and dissents.)

I need not do so; these are illustrative of the fact that the Opinion itself, and thus the court itself, lied, and you’re lapping it up.

A right is a thing that you inherently possess as a consequence of being human. You have the right to free speech. You have the right to freedom of religion. You have the right to keep personal effects, such as papers and property, free from unreasonable search and seizure. You have the right to personal property which may not be taken from you by the government without compensation at its fair market value.

At the moment any entity requires you to obtain a license you no longer have a right — you have a privilege.

The States assert that you may exercise the privilege of operating a vehicle upon the roads if you obtain a driver license. The States assert that you may exercise the privilege of operating a business if you obtain a business license. You may exercise the privilege of carrying a firearm in some states if you obtain a concealed carry permit (a blatantly unconstitutional requirement as the right to keep and bear arms is delineated in the Second Amendment.) I may exercise the privilege of using many of the range lands around Eglin Air Force Base for recreational purposes if I first obtain a permit from Jackson Guard. There are literally thousands of privileges that are all predicated on obtaining a license or permit and none of them are in fact rights, as a right requires no permission from anyone to exercise.

Note carefully that list of cites above. You need no license to engage in sexual activity (such would be deemed outrageous on its face); that is one of your rights. You also need no license to produce a child (unless you live in China, which recognizes no right to procreation!)

The Supreme Court had two options that would have actually addressed the complaints before it without doing what it did. It could have responded to the second part of its holding only, specifically:

 

to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

 

That is Federalism. It is also well within the Supreme Court’s remit and would address the issue in full as put before the court. If you desired to get married as a gay person then you could travel to a state that allows same (much as many people do when they elope to Vegas) and the state you reside in, no matter which one it was, would have to recognize the lawfulness of your act. This, incidentally, is why if you commit a crime in one state and go somewhere else that the act you undertook isn’t illegal the first state can demand (and will win) your extradition to stand trial; this is what Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution explicitly provides:

 

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

 

Respect for the laws of one State, however, does not compel the other State to pass the same laws. This is why income and sales tax rates (and items to be taxed) vary, it is why speed limits vary among states, it is why building codes vary, it is why zoning varies, and it is why business license requirements vary. So long as they do not implicate rights the States are free to form their own legislation, but they must respect enforcement of laws in other States where the conduct in question takes place within that other State, despite someone attempting to evade enforcement by fleeing the jurisdiction.

The other legitimate (and indeed logical) option before the Court was to find that since marriage is a conflation of and implicates a whole list of other rights that the entire process of “licensing” is facially invalid, striking “marriage laws” across the entire country.

Instead what the Supreme Court has legislated is the complete destruction of the entire list of alleged rights they have cited in their opinion! They have reduced your right to co-habitate with, sleep with, procreate with and be intimate with to a privilege, and then have mandated that the States issue licenses to you in order to practice this privilege — but only to the extent that this privilege is extended to everyone else!

For this — the destruction by judicial fiat of fundamental human rights that have resided in each human being for thousands of years, reducing them to mere privilege which now can be revoked or limited, provided that everyone has to live under the same revocation, a huge part of this country cheers?

Government never arrogates to itself power it does not intend to use. If you want examples of what turning marriage into a privilege, along with all the other “rights” attached that the USSC cited will turn into, look toward China where you need a license (permission) to have a child and will be denied permission for a second one, with varying sanctions applied if you do it anyway. Interference of this sort in marriage and everything associated with it, so long as it is equally applied to everyone, was just made legal by this Supreme Court decision since we now have acceded to fundamental human rights being turned into privileges with their associated license.

If you are one of the people cheering this crap here is my response to you and your blatant and outrageous stupidity — indeed, your acceptance of and cheering for the largest single destruction of civil rights ever undertaken in the history of this nation:

Get off my lawn.

 

Will US foreign policy start a mega-war?

by Don Hank  June 29, 2015

A friend just asked me this:

So, my biggest question is, is our foreign policy leading the world into a conflict which will make WWI and WWII look like a slight disagreement, and who would stand to benefit if that were to happen?

 

If a Neoconservative like John McCain is elected, we could well find ourselves heading into a nuclear confrontation with Russia, but Russia comes in a package with China. Both are nuclear powers and each one has nukes that can wipe out the entire US in a matter of minutes. Even if the US launched a preemptive strike and wiped out all major Russian cities, that would leave all the nuclear armed Russian (and possibly Chinese) subs in the ocean off our coast. Human life would essentially be wiped out. Even Soros and Kissinger, two well known war mongers and Russia bashers, recently warned that the Us must be very careful in confronting Russia.

So are we heading into such a conflict?

Our escalation in Ukraine is dangerous. Most Americans would probably say “but we must do something because the Russians want to take over the world.”

Neither the Russians nor the Chinese want to take over the world. Their mental code is much different than ours. Putin has tried and is still trying for a rapprochement with the West but is constantly rebuffed.

But is that his fault, you might ask?

Back when the US was negotiating with the Soviet Union to integrate a non-communist Russia into the Western world, the US promised that NATO would never expand toward the Russian border and would not go into former Warsaw Pact countries.

After the agreement was made, US-dominated NATO almost  immediately broke that agreement and set up a missile base at the Russian border.

The Russians protested and they eventually moved the base. However, they violated the agreement not to go into Warsaw Pact countries, some of which are now NATO members, in contravention of that agreement.

The Russians quietly tolerated this. (But shouldn’t they trust us? NATO bombed Libya and killed Ghadaffi, and that country is still in shambles and refugees from there are pouring into the Italian island of Lampedusa and from there to the rest of Europe. They are Muslims and most go on welfare and stay on welfare. After the Iraq war, Assyrian Christians started abandoning the country immediately to escape severe persecution and death. We invaded but could not control the situation, ever. After our involvement in Egyptian spring, Christians again got the shaft. Here is my own personal glimpse into the aftermath: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140724

Then US NGOs started stirring up a revolt in Ukraine in order to bring down a democratically elected government. Not a good government, but then where is there a good government in Europe? (A huge scandal has broken in UK showing that an incredible number of high ranking leaders there have been involved in an enormous pedophile ring. Credible witnesses are assembled but the government is impeding trials. One of the alleged perps is in his 80s and they are now claiming he is too senile to stand trial, and all that sort of nonsense). Yet we are supposed to think that Ukraine’s overthrown president is somehow more corrupt than other leaders and that the US had a right to infringe on their sovereignty, just as it did in all the color revolutions before that.

How do we know that the US was behind the Maidan coup?

For at least these reasons:

 

1–Assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland said so in a speech, and she said you and I paid $5 billion of our hard earned money to start this coup.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fYcHLouXY

2–Obama admitted “brokering power transition” in Ukraine: http://rt.com/op-edge/228379-obama-power-transition-ukraine/

3–George Soros admitted to Fareed Zakarias on national TV that his foundation was in on this as well. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140530

ZAKARIA: […deletia…] … during the revolutions of 1989 [you] funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?
SOROS: Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now. [my highlighting]

4–As if we need further proof of Soros’ involvement hacked emails further corroborate this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-01/hacked-emails-expose-george-soros-ukraine-puppet-master

5–Independent reports: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict

 

So what about Russia’s involvement? There were allegations, but the Ukrainian prosecutors could find no evidence: http://en.voicesevas.ru/news/5466-ukraines-prosecutors-have-no-proof-of-kremlin-aide-alleged-involvement-in-maidan-events.html

 

Nuland’s cartoonish description of “peaceful” demonstrators in Maidan “singing hymns” stands in sharp contrast to the fact that 18 police officers were shot and killed. These police were killed, obviously, by the side that Nuland called “peaceful.”

Did the other side perpetrate violence? Probably. But it was after all, a revolution. Bottom line: The US narrative is full of holes and our further escalation of the conflict is folly.

Finally, there is video evidence that Eastern Ukrainians were bombarded from the air:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140724

How do we know that it was the US-supported Ukrainian government?

Almost all of the refugees went to Russia:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12212

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U4HJGdTih4

Nothing tells the story like this.

Best,

Don

 

Is God a team player? many think so.

 

by Don Hank  June 28, 2015

The Russian language news outlet TASS reported objectively on the SC decision to uphold the legality of “gay marriage.” However, at the end of their report, they reiterated the Russian view, as follows in my translation below:

 

Russia’s point of view

In June 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law banning gay propaganda. Russian politicians have repeatedly spoken out against same-sex marriages. Thus, deputy Yelena Mizulina believes that legalizing such unions threw the world a civilizational challenge. “In fact, humanity must answer a simple question: should children be conceived naturally or not?”, – she said.

The Russian Orthodox Church expressed a similar point of view. Patriarch Kirill called to fight for the preservation of traditional values ??in Russia, and to oppose the legalization of gay marriage in France, an example of an attempt to deny the divine truth.

End translation

http://tass.ru/obschestvo/2075064

 

Now let’s consider God’s viewpoint. Why would He fight alongside those American “pro-family” leaders who continue to bash Russia, the only world power that opposes the violation of His laws? Anyone with a functional brain must know that, even if Russian leaders were insincere (for which there is no evidence), the Russian people wholeheartedly support their laws against LGBT propaganda, whereas an increasing percentage of Americans are caving to the propaganda, betraying a shallow to nonexistent spirituality.

Could yesterday’s decision be a reflection of God’s recognition that many in the “pro-family” movement are more political and financially motivated than they are sincere?

This is not speculation pulled out of thin air by any means, as my earlier commentary shows:

http://laiglesforum.com/who-is-working-for-money-peter-labarbera/3350.htm

So far I have received no moral support from the pro-family movement since writing that article. They seem to be “standing by their man.”

What many fail to realize is that God’s work is not a team process where each team member supports the actions of the other, regardless of the morality of his actions. In the OT we see an example of how God works in such instances. Joshua’s army was on a winning streak and was defeating the enemy consistently in all its field engagements. But one day they lost a battle. When Joshua asked God why He had let them down, God said that one of Joshua’s soldiers had taken some booty from the tent of a defeated tribe. That was forbidden. But unlike today’s “leaders,” Joshua knew that God was not a team player fighting alongside them as an equal. He was both the Supreme Commander and the End Goal of the mission itself. Many Americans, like foolish children, firmly believe that God is their equal or that if they pray regularly, attend church and follow the commandments, He “owes” them success in their endeavors.

These are the ones screaming bloody murder in protest at the Supreme Court’s abominable decision. Some are declaring “Give it up. No use fighting,” not realizing that God will take it from here and doesn’t need us. Some pro-marriage organizations with large annual donation incomes will fold.

In today’s world, Joshua’s entire army and its commander would no doubt have denied the misdeed of that soldier, defending the wrongdoer, saying “oh well, to err is human” and gone on to lose battle after battle. (PS: Is the US military winning just wars these days — simply because shrewd leaders, imbued with the atheistic Neoconservative spirit, keep repeating that the wars they wage are “just,” while in reality, they are just using gullible Christians like pawns to do their dirty work? Do our leaders consider morality at all? Are we winning the respect of our allies? What victory “prize” did “Christian” America — and Iraqi Christians — win after the Iraq war?)

God wants strict obedience to Him and He wants perfect honesty. In a truly godly team, if one member failed to uphold godly principles, he would be taken aside and admonished, and if he continued to fail, he would be taken before the group. (That is how Jesus said it should be done.)

For years, just the opposite has been done, from sexually immoral pastors and priests to church members who attack others for doing God’s will, the team pattern is the same. They don’t mention their fellow members’ transgression of attacking a team member for telling the truth, and if anyone does tell an uncomfortable truth, he is treated as a pariah. Without realizing it, in pursuing this practice, the group honors itself and its members above God. Is America not more focused on national pride than on the Creator? Why should He make the effort to save us? We say we are Exceptional, so why is gay marriage being shoved down our throats now? Further. if we are exceptional, what is Russia?

Sadly, I see this pattern everywhere. And yet, Americans expect God to overlook it and save their country from the evil government.

Has it occurred to them that God is not a team player?

Don Hank

 

Their thunderbolt is on the way too

by Don Hank  June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court has now made a decision based on a non-existent defnition of marriage, which had stood for over 5000 years in all the world’s languages, in an illegal quasi-legislative act for which it has no authority. In fact, did you notice that nowhere has the definition of marriage been officially changed. The elites all pretend that the definition has always included same sex unions, but that is not true and it is here that their argument breaks down because it is based on a blatantly false semantic premise. I have been writing for almost a year now on the kind of justice that God is already preparing. The surest kind of divine justice is that God allows the evil doers to lose all common sense. Eventually, their own foolishness turns against them, as explained here http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/110517.

 

Obama absurdly said this SC decision was “justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.”

 

Just a while ago, I forwarded a message about how US companies abroad are avoiding making payments and deposits in the US dollar, a step toward dedollarization and hence toward a loss in the dollar’s value.

But the evil ones brought it on themselves through draconian means such as the fine of 9 billion USD on a bank in France simply for using dollars to transact a payment to Iran. And then the FATCA law that allows the IRS to check on all dollar transactions made in any bank in the world.

Just as power goes to the heads of the supranational elites, it turns inward like a knife, in this case, helping drive the now unstoppable dedollarization movement that is ignored in the msm.

Christian movements have tried hard but in vain to stop the LGBT agenda. But it is not up to men to thwart Satan. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. I will repay.

If it had been up to men, Christian or other, to stop this evil agenda, we’d have been kinder and gentler. But the elites have taken on the Almighty himself. They have shown no mercy, and they will receive not mercy but justice. Like a thunderbolt, indeed!

 

(Our thanks to Rich Hess for this addition)

Where is America’s fear of God’s wrath?

Ezekiel 24:13 In thy filthiness is lewdness: because I have purged thee, and thou wast not purged, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthiness any more, till I have caused my fury to rest upon thee.

 Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

 

 

 

Check mate can’t be far

Don Hank  June 25, 2015

I sent out the following musings to a small group of readers (to join, send request to zoilandon@msn.com):

 

I had wondered aloud here http://laiglesforum.com/how-putins-greek-policy-could-change-the-map-of-europe/3387.htm

about what Putin and Tsipras might be planning, such as a Grexit from the EU and then massive investment in Greece by China and Russia.

Yesterday, the immediate crisis was averted and it seemed like my speculation was precocious.

However, if you look at this report http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/greece-s-scary-calendar-of-debt-payments-due

you see that the agreement reached yesterday was a drop in the bucket and that Greece owes MUCH more that it can’t pay.

Yesterday’s agreement was over petty items like higher VAT for spaghetti and a juggling of tax rates for different localities. Totally meaningless drivel as, for ex, Spiegel noted.

It will not bring Greece an inch closer to solvency.

In July, Greece owes 3.5 billion euros to ECB bond holders and 4.65 million to IMF. This is several times higher than its June payment schedule.

It is quite possible that Tsipras (with Putin giggling up his sleeve in the background) will wait until Greece has milked the EU (mostly Germany) dry before finally declaring Greece bankrupt, exiting the EU, and then accepting whatever Putin (backstopped by China) has to offer, if anything.

If Greece can exit and then grow into prosperity, it is hard to imagine Spain or Italy not being tempted to do likewise. China can float the loans if need be, but will set terms so that it makes money. But most likely it will not follow the lead of the World Bank, for example, which deliberately bankrupts nations to make them vassals (to get a glimpse of how this is done, read the book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins).

From what has been reported of the paltry concessions Greece made this week, it can be assumed that Greece will ultimately default. No doubts about it. Unless of course, the troika gives it a reprieve of, say, 3 years.

So with this Gordian knot burdening the EU, what if Ukraine defaults on its debts in July as Goldman says it must, here

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-25/goldman-sees-ukraine-in-solvency-crisis-likely-default-in-july-ibbnk177

The IMF is one of the troika to which Greece owes billions.

IMF is also owned mostly by the US.

What might happen if the Greeks can’t pay on their 3.5 billion euros and then Ukraine declares default the same month?

End of my email

 

Shortly after that, I received a query from a reader:

“What’s the bottom line?”

 

My answer:

There are 2 possibilities within the framework of EU law and practice:

Either Greece defaults and leaves the Eurozone and probably the EU as well, or the EU continues to kick its debt down the road — which amounts to forgiving the debt, de facto.

Neither scenario has a happy ending for the eurofanatics.

If Greece leaves (Grexit), the EU, esp Germany, will be left holding the bag of unpaid debt. That is free money for Greece, pain for Germany. Other crisis-stricken countries like Spain, Portugal and Italy could watch and decide this is also an option for them as well. If any of them left, it would almost certainly be game over for the EU.

 

If Greece stays, then the Troika (ECB, IMF, EU) have to keep up the charade of pretending to accept, each payday, Greece’s absurd and petty little sops, like somewhat higher taxes for some people or commodities, which have almost no effect whatsoever on their solvency. The EU bosses will pretend to be just about to boot Greece out, but Greece will come up with more meaningless “concessions” and will be allowed to remain in the Union, in what amounts to a slow-motion Grexit. But eventually, even the brain-deadest of the brain dead will finally see thru the charade and that is when other countries will get the idea to imitate. The EU will eventually be bled dry and that too will cause it to collapse.

It is a sure bet that Greece will never make a meaningful payment on this debt — because it can’t, so one of these scenarios will take place at some point.

Therefore, the EU is almost certainly doomed in the long run. Likewise, the US, which all but owns the IMF, will also be badly hurt by the default. However, this will be coupled with the dedollarization of world trade orchestrated by the BRICS and now fully underway. A double whammy.

Then what?

Well, the last resort of the Washington Satanists is war. However, when even arch-Neocons Soros (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-21/george-soros-warns-no-exaggeration-china-us-threshold-world-war-3) and Kissinger (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/road-war-russia-weve-already-arrived.html) both warn of war, it is time to stop marching into the lose-lose nuclear confrontation.

As I say, I never make predictions.

But I’ve played chess before and I do know what “check” means. We’ve got check now and we’re just waiting to hear “check mate.”

 

More (our thanks to Rich Hess):

Greece introduces cashpoint tax in desperate bid to raise revenue and stop run on banks as country teeters on brink of bankruptcy

  • Greek ministers expect to raise up to €180 million from the new surcharge 
  • They hope it will also deter savers pulling billions out of struggling banks 
  • Charge of €1 will apply to all ATM withdrawals and transfers over €1,000
  • But those paying money in to their bank accounts will not be affected 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3068975/Greece-introduces-mandatory-surcharges-cashpoints-desperate-attempt-raise-money-stop-panicked-citizens-withdrawing-life-savings-country-s-beleaguered-banks.html#ixzz3e5b3v8f5

 

Do you REALLY want WWIII ?

by Don Hank  June 23, 2015

Pat Buchanan warns in a recent article that unless the dogs of war — like notably John McCain — can be leashed, the world could soon be looking down the barrel of WW III, and unlike past Russian leaders (such as Krushchev, who backed down in the Cuban missile crisis), Putin will not back down.

In fact, not only Putin but the Russian people will not back down. While shopping the other day, I ran into a friend who had spent 5 years studying in Moscow. He said: “Russians are not like we Panamanians or you Americans. They will never back down and will fight to the last man.” I already knew that and was chilled at the thought that some mindless Neocon might decide to take us to the wall with Russia.

As brilliant an analyst as Buchanan is, and as clearly as he sees the hopelessness of a NATO-Russia confrontation, he omits an even more important detail with regard to the holocaust scenario McCain has in mind for the world, and that is, the fact that any confrontation with nuclear armed Russia will automatically become a confrontation with nuclear armed China. Notice that none of the Neocon warmongers is shaking a fist at China, which they truly fear. They are rather launching nonsensical propaganda efforts to engineer a rift between the two countries. That was the plan from the start. Nixon and Kissinger were the pioneers to give China Most Favored Nation status in the midst of the Cold War (this status was granted after Nixon left office but the legislation that allowed it owed to Nixon’s propaganda efforts — lies about how we would open a seller’s market, which turned out to be a buyer’s market). I saw even back then, in the early 70s, that this move was an obvious attempt to drive a wedge between Russia and China. It was a gamble and I saw it as doomed from the start. The idea was that China could be bought by offering it riches through capitalism. Russia would then see the advantages of capitalism and perhaps follow along, or if not, become jealous and fall out with China. Both countries were eventually expected to become Washington loyalists as a result of this new status for China. A few years ago it became apparent that, while both countries would prosper through capitalism, neither one would become a Washington lapdog. Further, they would always remain loyal to each other in important areas, awaiting their chance to acquire a superior economy and superior firepower relative to the US. The Establishment slept through it, convinced they were gods and still believing in the ultimate success of their plan.

Russia and China walked quietly at first. But after the US slapped sanctions on Russia for protecting is own people in Ukraine, Russia’s president made it clear that he, in concert with China, would launch a campaign to break the US hegemony. Putin advisor Sergey Glazyev floated a plan to dedollarize world trade.

According to Zero Hedge:

 

“Glazyev … published an article in Russian Argumenty Nedeliin which he outlined a plan for “undermining the economic strength of the US” in order to force Washington to stop the civil war in Ukraine.

 

China went along with it and then made it clear – through joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean and an enormous joint military parade in Red Square – that it would stand by its old ally. It was the Confucian thing to do. Of course, that is cultural and the State Department doesn’t believe in culture.

The dedollarization plan was joined by US “allies” who almost all deserted the World Bank for the Chinese competitor AIIB. Unlike the World Bank, the AIIB does not foist distasteful requirements on borrowers. Example: Last week an electrician was working in our home here in Panama and we started talking about the World Bank. Now you can hardly imagine an American electrician knowing much about this subject. However, Panamanians are unusually astute about US policies toward their country because these affect their lives — and pocketbooks — in real ways. Mr. Rigoberto volunteered to tell me that there are strings tied to loans from that bank, such as the requirement for the government to “privatize.” Thus, even if the Panamanian government could do a creditable job of building roads on its own, it would be forced by the US-controlled World Bank to give the construction contract to a private company at a higher cost. US companies would normally submit offers and benefit from these juicy contracts. Bechtel often receives the award. To see how this sinister system works, I recommend the book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins. In a word, Perkins lays out how the US negotiates loans with Third World countries that are actually designed to bankrupt them and thus make them puppets. But the AIIB now offers an alternative.

Like him or hate him, Putin, together with a growing number of key allies, including many that were once loyal to the US, is unraveling this diabolical scheme.

As for that war that John McCain wants, it is clear that the somnolent US public doesn’t even want to discuss it, not even in this critical pre-election time. Conservatives are still focused solely on dismantling the harm that Obama has done domestically, while the Left wants more of the same harm for their fellow Americans.

It is de rigueur for candidates of both parties to condemn Putin, but behind this clownish posturing lies the risk of a real WW III.

Yet all this is too abstract for Joe Sixpack, who yawns at these thorny issues and will leave it all up to the people who destroyed our relationship with our allies and ruined our economy to solve our problems. After all, they’re experts.

Aren’t they?

 

 

How Putin’s Greek policy could change the map of Europe

by Don Hank  June 22, 2015

How Putin’s Greek policy could change the map of Europe

As you know, I do not make predictions about politics and geopolitics. That’s because the givens of the equation keep changing, so really, who knows, ever?

But here is what I suspect might happen to mess up the Neocon plans to defend the title of Master of the Universe.

Now as you know, Putin and Greek President Alexis Tsipras have already pretty much agreed to the construction of one segment of the Turkish Stream pipeline through Greece.

There has been speculation about Russia giving Greece an advance payment on this to help it recover from its acute and chronic crises. (Russia, the sanctioned one, has friends in high places, Beijing for example).

But Tsipras and Putin have been meeting and phoning each other here of late and they weren’t just talking about the weather.

Putin has already told Tsipras he is thinking about lending Greece a lot of money.

I am about 99.99% sure (still not wagering or prophesying) that Putin is gently pressuring Tsipras to leave the EU. Certainly, a sizable enough loan would probably buy him away from Brussels. It would be a fitting countermeasure (not to say vendetta) to the sanctions that the EU has imposed on Russia in the former’s role as lapdog of the US hegemons — is it too soon to say ex-hegemons?

At any rate, once Greece culminated their Grexit, it would be to Putin’s — and China’s (as a backstop to the loan) — advantage to have the EU collapse, at least in a slow motion, since that body is a major player in the unipolar world that aims to make Russia a captive state.

How to assist with that collapse?

By helping Greece become the economic power it once was. Greece was once a manufacturing powerhouse and, in conjunction with its agriculture, that made it reaonably well off.

Joining the EU and Eurozone — experiments in supranational deceptocracy — made it poor, to put it succinctly.

If the BRICS axis can succeed in making Greece prosperous again, then countries like Spain, Portugal and even Italy might eye their experimental results hungrily and decide to get in on the action.

I suspect Russia and China would jump at the chance to buy these countries away as well.

What would that do to Germany, the ringleader of all the policies that thrust Europe into crisis — which benefited Germany as the no. 1 exporter in the region and also as one of the stalwarts that “stood by” Washington in imposing sanctions on Russia?

Well, Germany, would have to adjust to being just another country again instead of the captain of the EU ship. Like the “exceptional” US, it would no longer be the Übermensch of countries (or  might we say Überland?).

And Putin would have that multipolar world he has dreamed about.

Mind you, I am not predicting anything.

But if I were Putin, that is the path I would take — and most likely the one he has in mind.

This is how sanctions can blow up in one’s face if one is careless.

 

Reference:

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/author/pepe-escobar/

 

Iran is “biggest terror sponsor” ?

by Don Hank  June 21, 2015

A reader reminds us that “Iran” is the biggest terror sponsor and has called for death to America for many years. First, why aren’t we dead yet?
Well, because this is a slogan that gets votes, like “I am against abortion,” which candidates keep saying but none have ended the abomination and none intend to. Plus, there have been recent anti-American outbursts by Iranian officials, but many times the government later apologizes. The Iranian people are kindly disposed toward us. So which “Iran” are we talking about?

Carol Giacomo returned from a trip to Iran and reported that the people she met were friendly and none of them wanted us dead. She writes

(http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/how-young-iranians-view-america/?_r=0):

 

“Probably the toughest challenge was to try to answer why America accuses Iran of terrorism when, as one student phrased it, America has been involved in wars and violence ‘all over the world’.”

 

But two weeks ago, the plump cherub in N Korea threatened to nuke us but our political class and msm are not advising us to invaded his country. Why? Because N Korea is not part of the Russia-Iran-China axis that politicians traditionally pretend to be incensed about and promise to stand up to in order to get votes, preying on your fears and ignorance.

Here is the story about the N Korea threat, just 2 weeks ago:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-threatens-nuclear-attack-on-us-10232383.html

No politician has suggested attacking them. Such would not fit in with the absurd Wolfowitz Doctrine, which insists on perpetuating the Necons’ Cold War ad infinitum.

Whenever the entire press and political class have a double standard like this, urging war against a country that is no more hostile than another that is not targeted by the Establishment, there is something deeply wrong.

First, the “terrorists” supported by Iran are terrorists only because the US government says so. If they were assessed objectively, no one would call Hezbollah a terror organization. They are the legitimate defense force of Lebanon and do not support acts of terror in Europe or the US. Second, NONE of the ISIS terrorists are supported by Iran and ISIS is the worst bunch of terrorists the world has ever seen. Third, Iran is valiantly fighting ISIS in Syria. How can a fierce adversary of terror be a terrorist? Only in the fevered Neocon imagination.

Saudi Arabia (together with the US deep state) created and funds ISIS and also created and funds Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and the Taliban.

If you have serous  doubts, read these linked articles below.

And jog your memory to recall that 15 of the 18 terrorists who attacked on 911 were Saudis and ALL were sponsored by the Saudis, as reported here

http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/

As for other terror sponsorship, some reports show that the Saudis outshine them all in terror:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/list.htm

Finally, as I keep reminding you, while Iran has 600 Christian churches within its borders and allows Bibles to be shipped in, Saudi Arabia has banned all Bibles and churches.

If you are going around mouthing the old cliche that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terror without a shred of evidence, you are falling for the propaganda of the Washington elites, who are a more formidable threat to your well being and life than any terrorist group.

 

Further reading:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/combat-terror-end-support-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/03/08/400834/Riyadh-biggest-terror-exporter http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/09/why-does-the-u-s-support-a-country-which-was-founded-with-terrorism-and-is-still-the-main-source-of-islamic-terrorism-today/

UPDATE:

Since posting this, I have had 2 readers who are apparently in thrall to Neocon propaganda accuse me of claiming that Iran is the “good guy.” They then routinely remind me that Islam is evil, period. But that doesn’t explain why the US has warm relations with the Saudis, does it? Or why Christian leaders never call for attacking Saudi Arabia but often call for attacking Iran (as Pastor John Hagee does here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDh1Vr7qajA). What I have been trying really hard to say is that not all Muslims are alike. Since I am a culture buff, I often notice things non culture buffs don’t. Which is why I wrote this: http://drrichswier.com/2014/10/17/inconsistent-foreign-policy-consistently-fails/

I had one reader, Nick, who understands the nuances between Muslim cultures and wants to help spread the word, but he wanted an information source for the 600 churches figure. He also asked about synagogues in Iran.

Here is my response:

Thanks for asking and for helping spread the word and boldly opposing the Washington hegemons. I just now found this:

A Christian leads Iran’s football team
And yes, there are synagogues in Iran, but the Jews have had problems with the Islamic government, as one might expect:
Iran also has issues with the Zoroastrians. Islam is not quite rational, and as people keep reminding me — pretending I didn’t know — there are no good guys, which is why minority religions are not always treated well or even fairly in this Islamic state. The biggest problem is Muslims who convert to Christianity. They can even be executed.
However, there obviously is no rational explanation for treating Iran as a pariah while teaming up with terror-sponsor Saudi Arabia in wars that always redound to the deaths and expulsion of Christians.
Here is a hard and thorny fact for you: Every Christian who has been beheaded in the Middle East lost his life to the Sunni Wahhabi sect supported by the Saudis — US alllies.
NONE Of the Christians were beheaded by the Iranians.
So go ahead and rant that all Muslims are alike. But sometime if you REALLY decide to pull your head out of the sand, ask any Middle Eastern Christian whether they would prefer to live in Saudi Arabia or in Iran. And this time, JUST LISTEN.
I had one such experience with a Coptic Christian, as I reported here http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140724
Our State Department has been supporting the Saudis militarily since the signing of the petrodollar agreement in 1973. Every one of our military conflicts since then has benefited the Saudis and their violent Wahhabism and none has benefited the people of the US.
Best,
Don Hank

Our Father commands: BE WISE

Neocons target gullible Christians

by Don Hank  June 20, 2015

In a nutshell, the atheistic ideology of Neoconservatism is why America did not change for the better when the GOP took over both houses and why a GOP president will not restore our republic. Neoconservatism is an ideology of the Left mimicking conservatism. It pays lip service to Christian ideals but for the sole purpose of deceiving Americans to do its bidding. The idea that the superior man must rule over the inferior man is the centerpiece of Third Reich philosophy which also taught that Christians must be used to implement its policies. But the “Christianity” of the Third Reich was a cynical distortion, like the “Christianity” created in the Neocon image.

An Alternet article titled “Leo Strauss’ philosophy of deception,” names Leo Strauss as an early precursor and Irving Kristol as the founder of Neoconservatism:

Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol, dubbed the “godfather” of the movement,

“has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere.

At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were “a pious fraud.” [my highlighting]

Further:

“According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that “those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.”
This dichotomy requires “perpetual deception” between the rulers and the ruled.”

How is this different from Nazism? How does it square with what Christ taught? It is a cynical trick to enlist the aid of Christians in implementing sinister plots antagonistic to Christ’s teachings.

The proof is not in the upfront idea being sold to the unwitting public. The proof is in the outcome.

GW Bush told the public that he was a born-again Christian (just as Carter had done). Then he proceeded to lead us into a war with questionable justification.

Within one week of our “victory” in Iraq, the Assyrian Christians, who had lived side by side with Muslims for 2 millennia, started to leave the country. Only a small remnant is left, and they are now being slaughtered by ISIS, a creation of these same Neocons (as exemplified by John McCain) working in concert with the Saudis, who ban Christianity in their homeland. And the Left blames Christians for the overall failure to keep the peace in Iraq. But behind these Christians were the Neoconservatives orchestrating the evil.

Jesus said

Be gentle as doves but wise as serpents.

American Christians have pretty much got that first part down pat. The second part is more of a challenge, but we owe it to ourselves and our Lord to focus on regaining that wisdom! After all, obeying only half a commandment makes people half-Christians.

But there is no such thing as half a heaven or half a hell. It’s either all or nothing with the Lord.

Matthew 10:16  ¶Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.