An ever-evolving collection of art, nature and political musings, with a little bit of photography, economics, humor, world news, and the rantings of a bookstore/coffee farm owner living by the beaches of Nicaragua tossed in for good measure.
If you think this weekend’s G-20 meetings in Washington are only about designing short-term fixes to the financial system and regulatory reforms for banks, hedge funds, brokers, mortgage companies and investment banks … think again.
Behind the scenes, a far more fundamental fix is being discussed — the possible revaluation of gold and the birth of an entirely new monetary system.
I’ve been studying this issue in great depth, all my life. And given the speed at which the financial crisis is unfolding, I would be very surprised if what I’m about to tell you now is not on the G-20 table this weekend.
Furthermore, I believe the end result will make my $2,270 price target for gold look conservative, to say the least. You’ll see why in a minute.
First, the G-20’s motive for a new monetary system: It’s driven by and based upon this very simple proposition …
“If we can’t print money fast enough to fend off another deflationary Great Depression, then let’s change the value of the money.”
I call it … The G-20 may propose devaluing all currencies, including the U.S. dollar and the euro.
“The G-20’s Secret Debt Solution”
It would be a strategy designed to ease the burden of ALL debts — by simultaneously devaluing ALL currencies … and re-inflating ALL asset prices.
That’s what central banks and governments around the world are going to start talking about this weekend — a new financial order that includes new monetary units that helps to wipe clean the world’s debt ledgers.
It won’t be an easy deal to broker, since the U.S. is the world’s largest debtor. But remember: Debts are now going bad all over the world. So everyone would benefit.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke … Treasury Secretary Paulson … President Bush … President-elect Obama … former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker … Warren Buffett … and central bankers and politicians all over the world agree a new monetary system is needed. The G-20 may propose devaluing all currencies, including the U.S. dollar and the euro.
So they’ll start hashing out the details to get the new financial architecture deployed as quickly as possible.
If you think I’m crazy or propagating some kind of conspiracy theory, then consider the historical precedent …
To end the Great Depression in 1933 Franklin Roosevelt devalued the dollar via Executive Order #6102, confiscating gold and raising its price 69.3%, effectively kick starting asset reflation.
Only this time, it won’t be just the U.S. that devalues its currency. The world is too interconnected. Instead, the world’s leading countries will propose a simultaneous and universal currency devaluation.
This time, they will NOT confiscate gold. There would be riots all over the globe if they even mentioned the “C” word.
But they don’t have to confiscate gold. Here’s one scenario …
They cease all gold sales and instead, raise the current official central bank price of gold from its booked value of $42.22 an ounce — to a price that monetizes a large enough portion of the world’s outstanding debts. Internal Sponsorship
Legendary hedge fund manager GEORGE SOROS warns:
6,600 Hedge Funds Set to FAIL!
Massive forced sale of up to $1.3 TRILLION in hedge fund assests to slam stocks! YOUR DEADLINE to PROFIT: THIS Sunday, November 17!
INSIDE: The next shoe to drop in this crisis — and how it could hand you gains of 46.1% … 89.9% … 106.7% or more … WITHOUT options, margin or short-selling … Exclusively with ETFs that are as easy to buy or sell as Microsoft or IBM … All for the price of a single gallon of gas: As little as $2.47 per day!
Click here for more information …
That way, just like in 1933, the debts become a fraction of re-inflated asset prices (led higher by the gold price).
And this time, instead of staying with the dollar as a reserve currency, the G-20 issues three new monetary units of exchange, each with equal reserve status.
The three currencies will essentially be a new dollar, new euro, and a new pan-Asian currency. (The Chinese yuan may survive as a fourth currency, but it will be linked to a basket of the three new currencies.)
The new fiat monetary units would be worth less than the old ones. For instance, it could take 10 new units of money to buy 1 old dollar or euro.
New names would be given to the new currencies to help rid the world of the ghost of a system that failed. Additional regulations and programs would be designed and implemented to ease the transition to a new monetary system. The IMF would be at the center of the new monetary system. The IMF would be at the center of the new monetary system.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) would implement the new financial system in conjunction with central banks and governments around the world.
Keep in mind that the IMF is already set up to handle the transition, and has had contingency plans allowing for it since the institution was formed in 1944.
Included in the design and transition to a new monetary system …
A. A new fixed-rate currency regime. Immediately upon upping the price of gold and introducing the new currencies, a new fixed exchange rate system would be re-introduced. The floating exchange rate system would be tossed into the dust bin along with the old currencies.
This would kill any speculation about further devaluations in the currency markets, and drastically reduce market volatility.
B. To sell the program to savers and protect them from the currency devaluation, compensatory measures would be enacted. For instance, a one-time windfall tax-free deposit could be issued by governments directly to citizens’ accounts, or, to employer-sponsored pensions, to IRAs, or Social Security accounts.
Income taxes may subsequently be raised to pay for the give-away, or a nominal global type of sales tax could be enacted to help pay for the new system and the compensatory measures.
C. Additional programs would be designed to protect lenders and creditors. Lenders stand a much higher chance of getting paid off under the new monetary system — but with a currency whose purchasing power would now be a fraction of what it was when the loans were originated.
So programs would have to be designed to help lenders offset the inflationary costs of their devalued loans, probably via the tax code.
Naturally, all this is a bit more complicated than I’ve spelled out above. But that gives you a big-picture outline of what the plan could look like. And I think major changes like these are going to be set in motion at this weekend’s G-20 meetings in Washington.
Would they work?
Yes. They would help avoid a repeat of the deflationary Great Depression. But don’t expect even a new monetary system to put the U.S. or the global economy back on track toward the high rates of real growth that we’ve seen over the last several years. That’s simply not going to happen. Not for a while.
Instead, I’m talking about a massive asset price reflation, negative real economic growth in the U.S. and Europe — but continued real GDP gains in Asia.
The Big Question: What gold price would be legislated to reflate the U.S. and global economy?
I can’t tell you what gold price the G-20 would ultimately agree to. But here’s what they will be looking at …
* To monetize 100% of the outstanding public and private sector debt in the U.S., the official government price of gold would have to be raised to about $53,000 per ounce.
* To monetize 50%, the price of gold would have to be raised to around $26,500 an ounce.
* To monetize 20% would require a gold price a hair over $10,600 an ounce.
* To monetize just 10%, gold would have to be priced just over $5,300 an ounce.
Those figures are just based on the U.S. debt structure and do not factor in global debts gone bad. But since the U.S. is the world’s largest debtor and the epicenter of the crisis, the G-20 will likely base their final decision mostly on the U.S. debt structure.
So how much debt do I think would be monetized via an executive order that raises the official price of gold? What kind of currency devaluation would I expect as a result?
I would not be surprised to see the G-20 monetize at least 20% of the U.S. debt markets. THAT MEANS …
* Gold would be priced at over $10,000 an ounce.
* Currencies would be devalued by a factor of at least 12 to 1, meaning it would take 12 new dollars or euros to equal 1 old dollar or euro.
The return of the Gold Standard?
“But Larry,” you ask, “how could this be accomplished when we no longer have a gold standard? Further, are you advocating a gold standard?” If the G-20 monetizes at least 20% of the U.S. debt markets, gold could easily hit $10,000 an ounce.
First, you don’t need a gold standard to accomplish a devaluation of currencies and revaluation of the monetary system.
By offering to pay over $10,000 an ounce for gold, central banks can effectively accomplish the same end goal — monetizing and reducing the burden of debts, via inflating asset prices in fiat money terms.
Naturally, hoards of gold investors will cash in their gold. The central banks will pile it up. At the same time, other hoards of investors will not sell their gold, even at $10,000 an ounce. But the actual movement of the gold will not matter. It is the psychological impact and the devaluation of paper currencies that matters.
Second, I do NOT advocate a fully convertible gold standard. Never have. There isn’t enough gold in the world to make currencies convertible into gold. It would end up backfiring, restricting the supply of money and credit.
What should you do to prepare for these possibilities?
It’s obvious: Make sure you own some core gold, as much as 25% of your investable funds.
Also, as I’ve noted in past Money and Markets issues, you will want to own key natural resource stocks, and even select blue-chip stocks that will participate in the reflation scheme.
For more details and specific recommendations to follow, be sure to subscribe to my Real Wealth Report.
Attention editors and publishers! Money and Markets issues can be republished. Republished issues MUST include attribution of the author(s) and the following short paragraph:
This investment news is brought to you by Money and Markets. Money and Markets is a free daily investment newsletter from Martin D. Weiss and Weiss Research analysts offering the latest investing news and financial insights for the stock market, including tips and advice on investing in gold, energy and oil. Dr. Weiss is a leader in the fields of investing, interest rates, financial safety and economic forecasting. To view archives or subscribe, visit http://www.moneyandmarkets.com.
The man who predicted the 1987 stock market crash and the fall of the Soviet Union is now forecasting revolution in America, food riots and tax rebellions - all within four years, while cautioning that putting food on the table will be a more pressing concern than buying Christmas gifts by 2012.
Gerald Celente, the CEO ofTrends Research Institute, is renowned for his accuracy in predicting future world and economic events, which will send a chill down your spine considering what he told Fox News this week.
Celente says that by 2012 America will become an undeveloped nation, that there will be a revolution marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches, and that holidays will be more about obtaining food, not gifts.
“We’re going to see the end of the retail Christmas….we’re going to see a fundamental shift take place….putting food on the table is going to be more important that putting gifts under the Christmas tree,” said Celente, adding that the situation would be “worse than the great depression”.
“America’s going to go through a transition the likes of which no one is prepared for,” said Celente, noting that people’s refusal to acknowledge that America was even in a recession highlights how big a problem denial is in being ready for the true scale of the crisis.
Celente, who successfully predicted the 1997 Asian Currency Crisis, the subprime mortgage collapse and the massive devaluation of the U.S. dollar,told UPI in November last year that the following year would be known as “The Panic of 2008,” adding that “giants (would) tumble to their deaths,” which is exactly what we have witnessed with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and others. He also said that the dollar would eventually be devalued by as much as 90 per cent.
The consequence of what we have seen unfold this year would lead to a lowering in living standards, Celente predicted a year ago, which is also being borne out by plummeting retail sales figures.
The prospect of revolution was a concept echoed by a British Ministry of Defence report last year, which predicted that within 30 years, the growing gap between the super rich and the middle class, along with an urban underclass threatening social order would mean, “The world’s middle classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest,” and that, “The middle classes could become a revolutionary class.”
“There will be a revolution in this country,” he said. “It’s not going to come yet, but it’s going to come down the line and we’re going to see a third party and this was the catalyst for it: the takeover of Washington, D. C., in broad daylight by Wall Street in this bloodless coup. And it will happen as conditions continue to worsen.”
“The first thing to do is organize with tax revolts. That’s going to be the big one because people can’t afford to pay more school tax, property tax, any kind of tax. You’re going to start seeing those kinds of protests start to develop.”
“It’s going to be very bleak. Very sad. And there is going to be a lot of homeless, the likes of which we have never seen before. Tent cities are already sprouting up around the country and we’re going to see many more.”
“We’re going to start seeing huge areas of vacant real estate and squatters living in them as well. It’s going to be a picture the likes of which Americans are not going to be used to. It’s going to come as a shock and with it, there’s going to be a lot of crime. And the crime is going to be a lot worse than it was before because in the last 1929 Depression, people’s minds weren’t wrecked on all these modern drugs – over-the-counter drugs, or crystal meth or whatever it might be. So, you have a huge underclass of very desperate people with their minds chemically blown beyond anybody’s comprehension.”
“When CNN wants to know about the Top Trends, we ask Gerald Celente.” — CNN Headline News
“A network of 25 experts whose range of specialties would rival many university faculties.” — The Economist
“Gerald Celente has a knack for getting the zeitgeist right.” — USA Today
“There’s not a better trend forecaster than Gerald Celente. The man knows what he’s talking about.” - CNBC
“Those who take their predictions seriously … consider the Trends Research Institute.” — The Wall Street Journal
“Gerald Celente is always ahead of the curve on trends and uncannily on the mark … he’s one of the most accurate forecasters around.” — The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
“Mr. Celente tracks the world’s social, economic and business trends for corporate clients.” — The New York Times
“Mr. Celente is a very intelligent guy. We are able to learn about trends from an authority.” — 48 Hours, CBS News
“Gerald Celente has a solid track record. He has predicted everything from the 1987 stock market crash and the demise of the Soviet Union to green marketing and corporate downsizing.” — The Detroit News
“Gerald Celente forecast the 1987 stock market crash, ‘green marketing,’ and the boom in gourmet coffees.” — Chicago Tribune
“The Trends Research Institute is the Standard and Poors of Popular Culture.” — The Los Angeles Times
“If Nostradamus were alive today, he’d have a hard time keeping up with Gerald Celente.” — New York Post
So there you have it - hardly a nutjob conspiracy theorist blowhard now is he? The price of not heeding his warnings will be far greater than the cost of preparing for the future now. Storable food and gold are two good places to make a start.
Do you realize that Barack Obama recently said that he would not rescind the Bush tax cuts. He said this on ABC, September 7, 2008, IF the economy were in a recession. IF the economy is in RECESSION?! This is worse than a recession! We’re going into the greatest depression and people better beware.
I’ll tell you what I know other people are doing. They are taking their money out of the banks. People with a lot of money are moving it overseas into what they think are safer banks. There’s going to be a day here in the United States that the authorities are going to call a Bank Holiday. AIG is calling for more than $40 billion today. The Feds just bailed out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mac to the tune that could cost taxpayers up to $300 billion or more. Our national debt has been increased to at least $12 TRILLION! The Feds cannot print enough money to save the day.
So, we believe what the government is going to do is call a ‘bank holiday.’ You’re going to hear all those fat mouths out there that were saying that everything was OK, the FDIC was going to insure your money. But, Linda, no one is going to be able to get it out all at once. Just like they did in Argentina and they did it in Brazil when their economies collapsed and their currencies collapsed and their economies were sinking. You’re not going to be able to get all your money out at one time. Our government is going to say, ‘It’s insured. Don’t worry about it, but we need to pause. Take a deep breath.’ Oh, boy, do they love that phrase! ‘Take a deep breath.’
Take a look at this last Saturday’s (September 13, 2008) New York Times. The headlines story on the business page is to just pause and reflect. Don’t panic. Everything is OK. The ship is sinking and the best they can say is, ‘Doesn’t the band sound great!’
We’re going into the worst depression that any living person has ever seen. It’s going to be worse than the Great Depression of 1929 and I’ll give you a some reasons why.
1) In the 1929 Depression, not many people owned homes, so they weren’t carrying that heavy mortgage load. The people who did have homes did not have something called ‘home equity loans,’ which is more money owed on top of the other money. They used to have something else back then called a ‘second mortgage.’ If you had one, you were a loser.
2) Back in the 1929 Depression days, people didn’t have things called ‘credit cards.’
3) The United States didn’t have $14 trillion worth of debt.
4) We still had a manufacturing base in the United States so that when WWII broke out and the economy improved afterwards, we were still able to produce more so than any other country in the world. But now, the U. S. off-shores so much manufacturing now.
5) Back in the Great Depression of 1929, the U. S. government was not $14 trillion in debt and they had a trade surplus, not a trade deficit.
6) We weren’t fighting two wars that have sapped already $2 trillion from our American treasury and it’s getting worse.
Carolina Journal Exclusives
Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs
By Karen McMahan
November 04, 2008
RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S.
House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’
personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert
them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.
Triggered by the financial crisis
the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses
incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances
have been shrinking rapidly.
The testimony of Teresa
Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School
for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most
attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on
Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate
tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs,
and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to
universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social
Rep. George Miller, D-Calif.,
chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared
remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on
Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial
crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’
401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic
Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf
of the American people.”
Currently, 401(k) plans allow
Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a
defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement
savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are
fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their
wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an
employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers
can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.
Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared
in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared
Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the
flawed American retirement income system
The current retirement system,
Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because
tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy
because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger
tax breaks when they do.”
Lauding GRAs as a way to
effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings
incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals
“provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to
middle-class families — and none whatsoever for families too poor to
GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3
percent annual rate of return, although later in her article
Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real
return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for
contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600
annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income
workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government
would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600
for all participants.
In a radio interview with Kirby
Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her
proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just
rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and
spreading — spreading the wealth.”
All workers would have 5 percent
of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the
GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as
would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by
the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write
off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable
Analysts point to another
disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only
half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances
from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after
retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the
interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer
Another justification for
Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony,
Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and
investing skills required to sustain a savings plan.” She cited the
2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she
claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them
to save more for retirement.”
What the survey actually reported
was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce
additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory
government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement
support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the
majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor,
followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income
U.S. households said the “government” was the most important retirement
support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and
“self” first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).
On Oct. 22, The Wall Street
Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private
pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to
address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign
investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to
shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of
private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward
Income and Wealth Redistribution
The majority of witness testimony
during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and
Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and
wealth inequality through redistribution.
On July 31, 2008, Robert
Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections
that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different
incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because
they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and
exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.”
Even people who don’t pay taxes
should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income
Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income
taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller
incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said.
“Moving to refundable tax credits
for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step
toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would
improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,”
Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving
the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security
concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and
sharply widening inequality.”
When asked whether committee
members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs,
Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and
Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.
Miller’s biggest priority has been
on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other
retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright
said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24,
2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.
After repeated questions asked by
Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of
“killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.”
Arguing against liberal
prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis
at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the
current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes” by the
Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising
taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from
international product or capital markets. “Congress can ill afford to
repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the
Great Depression,” Beach said.
Instead, Beach said, Congress
could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of
2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus,
lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes
on capital gains and dividends.
Testifying before the same
committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of
BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one
of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the
U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so
they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity
investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in
Should Sen. Barack Obama win the
presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for
their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker
posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station
WBEZ-FM from 2001.
In the interview, Obama said, “The
Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of
wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice
in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to
you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added
that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.
Although in 2001 Obama said he was
not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the
courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint
one or more Supreme Court justices.
“The real tragedy of the civil
rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so
court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the
political and community organizing and activities on the ground that
are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which
you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.
Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.
"I hate it when they say, "He gave his life for his country." Nobody gives their life for anything. We steal the lives of these kids. We take it away from them. They don't die for the honor and glory of their country. We kill them."-- Admiral Gene LaRocque
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." -- Mahatma Gandhi
my neighbor has been going to the streets and holding up mccain signs...more power to them....it is the american right and what makes our country great...we commend them even thought we don't agree with them.....their experience has sounded kinda fun.....horns being honked...people shouting out words of encouragment..... so.... tonite jodi took the kids and went with a few other women and their kids to the cortez bridge and held up obama signs...they had to leave as they literally felt they were in danger.......when i came home from work, i was greeted by my 7 year old and was told about how the people driving by yelled...fuck you and obama.....how one woman on a scooter yelled obscenities and circled the block numerous times in order to make sure her comments were heard by all ....including the children present.....abbey showed me the finger sign many kept sticking out the window....literally fearing for their safty... and thank God, my family left.....my daughters have presented me with many questions i still am not able to answer.....
i know as a matter of fact that this has NOT happen to my neighbors that has been campaining for mccain all week!..... i will be attempting for sometime to find some sort of logic or rational thought behind these people reactions to my familys' attempt to exercise their constitutional right....at this point i can only believe that most mccain supporters are victims of polarizing carl rove campaign tactics that put us in the mess that we have all experienced these last 8 years. fortunately evident by numerous polls taken, it appears that the mojority of americans have finally woken up and we are finally going to pull ourselves out of the mess the low information voters put us in 8 years ago.
ps. someone stole my obama sign from my front yard.
This footage of the WTC 7 and North Tower collapse recently appeared on YouTube. Note the vertical column of windows blown out just before the collapse on WTC 7. As one commenter noted, the camera man was involved. He knew exactly where to focus and film.