Green Shoots? Think Again.

My note: For your financial sake, don’t by in to this BS green shoot economy is turning around propaganda.

NEW YORK, July 29 (Reuters) – The U.S. Treasury sold $39 billion in five-year debt on Wednesday in an auction that drew poor demand, raising worries over the cost of financing the government’s burgeoning budget deficit.

Demand overall was below average, measured by the bid-to-cover ratio of 1.92, the weakest in almost a year.

In a further sign of weakness, yields at the auction were well above expectations, known as a “tail” by market participants.

A key proxy for foreign interest, the indirect bidder category, was slightly above the average of auctions over the past year at 36.6 percent but far below the most recent sale.

“It was just a horrendous result,” William O’Donnell, head of U.S. Treasury strategy at RBS Securities in Greenwich Connecticut, said about the auction.

“It was the weakest bid-to-cover since September 2008, and by my numbers it was the biggest tail since February 1993. It was just a very, very weak result.”

The tail indicates that dealers drove an unexpectedly hard bargain to raise yields, and lower prices, to buy the bonds, which spooked the bond market.

Five-year notes US5YT=RR fell further, last trading down 10/32, with the yield rising to a four week high around 2.66 percent.

Benchmark 10-year notes US10YT=RR surrendered their gains for the day and dropped into negative territory after the sale. They were last trading down 3/32, yielding 3.71 percent versus 3.69 percent at Tuesday’s close.

The five-year sale is part of this week’s record $115 billion in coupon securities being auctioned.

With the government set to issue $2 trillion in new bonds this year to finance economic and financial rescues, investors have been watching for any signs of waning demand for U.S. debt, particularly among foreigners.

Treasury auctions have come under particularly close scrutiny since investors began to question the longevity of the United States’ prized AAA credit rating back in May.

Police Officers Run Backround Check on Obama Placed On Leave

Apparently Barack Hussein wants to keep all the sodomy and cocaine under wraps.

DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. — Two DeKalb County police officers have been placed on paid administrative leave after an investigation revealed they ran a background check on President Barack Obama.A representative for the DeKalb County CEO’s office identified the officers as Ryan White and C.M. Route.Officials said Obama’s name was typed into a computer inside a DeKalb County police car on July 20 and ran through the National Crime Information Center.The secret service was immediately notified and contacted the DeKalb County Police Department.A representative said both officers have been with the department less than five years.A representative said one of the officers denied involvement.An official investigation is being conducted by the DeKalb County Police Department’s Internal Affairs division.It is unclear why the officers ran a check on the president.

The Truth About Romans 13

by Chuck Baldwin

It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, “What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone.” Or words to that effect.

No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let’s be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let’s briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose America’s political leaders really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.

For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject’s bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, “Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government”? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?

So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)

By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Notice that civil government must not be a “terror to good works.” It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America’s legal documents–including the U.S. Constitution–are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law).

The apostle clearly states that civil government is a “minister of God to thee for good.” It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul’s troops? Did Daniel violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king’s command to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God’s principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God’s principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God’s principle of submission to authority?

So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority–even civil authority–is limited.

Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.” Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just “because they said so.” It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government’s laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.

Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America’s “supreme Law” does not rest with any man or any group of men. America’s “supreme Law” does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land.” Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that, in America, the “higher powers” are not the men who occupy elected office; they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:

“Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God’s minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, according to the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any other governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles and Natural Law form the foundation of all three of America’s founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.


As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to “obey God rather than men” and defy their civil authorities.

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore–and blatantly disobey–the “supreme Law of the Land,” the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?

Copyright © 2009 Chuck Baldwin

UK Behind DDoS Attacks Not North Korea

“The UK was the likely source of a series of attacks last week that took down popular Web sites in the US and South Korea, according to an analysis performed by a Vietnamese computer security researcher. The results contradict assertions made by some in the US and South Korean governments that North Korea was behind the attack. Security analysts had been skeptical of the claims, which were reportedly made in off-the-record briefings and for which proof was never delivered.” The Vietnamese security site’s blog is linked from the article, but it is very slow even before Slashdotting. The researchers observed 166,908 zombies participating in the attacks — a number far larger than most earlier estimates.
Update: 07/14 21:24 GMT by KD : Wired is reporting that the UK owner of the IP address in question is pointing a finger at a server in Florida, which it says opened a VPN to the UK machine for the attacks. Once again, the attacker could be anywhere.

3 Exciting Candidates

During such troubling times as we currently find ourselves in, when Marxism is gaining ground at an unprecedented and unchecked pace, it is important to look for the positives. Although admittedly in my eyes they are few and far between, we still have to rally around them. The following three candidates for Congress are all great men with years of dedicated service to the preservation of the Constitution. If you are looking for a way to rescue our nation from the grip of communism please support these candidates. In no particular order they are

Dr. Rand Paul
Peter Schiff
Adam Kokesh

Wal-Mart Backs Obama Health Plan

My note: I have been an outspoken supporter of Wal-Mart for many years. I have always come to Wal-Mart’s defense whenever I hear anyone say something negative about them. I defended Wal-Mart because it is the epitome of the endless possibilities of a free market system, and a testament to Sam Walton’s vision and hard work. If you haven’t read his biography Made In America I highly recommend that you do.

However Wal-Mart has caved to the grip of Marxism, something that I can never forgive. I want this to be a public notice that I will never defend Wal-Mart again. On the outside this may seem like a trivial statement since this site only receives 100 visits per day on average, but in my mind it is a major decision, since as stated above I have always stuck my neck out and defended Wal-Mart on many occasions whether it be to disgruntled employee’s in the store, people online, or random acquaintances. Sam Walton is someone I have always had a deep admiration for and I am very saddened for his sake and the sake of our nation to see the direction in which his company is headed.

By John Carlisle
In a June 30 letter to the White House, Wal-Mart endorsed Obama’s health care plan. The letter was jointly signed by Andrew Stern, boss of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and John Podesta, who led the Obama transition team and is chief executive of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress.

Although the move was unexpected to some, it was no surprise to NLPC. In a Special Report published in 2006 and updated in 2008, I chronicled the company’s move to the Left in a futile campaign to placate liberal critics like Wal-Mart Watch, funded by SEIU. On major issues except for “card check,” Wal-Mart has become a powerful tool of liberal activist groups.

Obama’s plan includes an employer mandate to vastly increase government control over health care ostensibly to provide coverage to 46 million uninsured Americans. Wal-Mart’s support represents a betrayal of the large segment of the business community opposed to the plan, not to mention a betrayal of the free-market principles that made Wal-Mart great.

The letter from Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke was personally delivered by Leslie Dach, Wal-Mart’s executive vice president of corporate affairs and government relations, to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Dach is a veteran Democratic political operative, who once worked for President Bill Clinton, whom Wal-Mart hired in 2006 as part of the company’s ill-conceived campaign to tame its critics.

Wal-Mart’s collaboration with its union enemies on health care is not new. On February 7, 2007, then Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott held a joint press conference with Stern where he announced the retailer’s support for the labor movement’s longtime goal to create a government-run system of universal health coverage. It did no good. Unions continued to fund multi-million dollar campaigns attacking Wal-Mart.

Although Scott stepped down as company CEO in February 2009, he still plays a significant role in the company as chairman of the executive committee of the board of directors.

Wal-Mart has now thoroughly rejected the brilliant entrepreneurial legacy of its founder Sam Walton. Wal-Mart was once hailed as a hero by numerous free market advocates for its success and initial decision to stand up to union bullying. Now, it has joined the ranks of General Motors, Citigroup, AIG and other corporate sellouts to peddle the dangerous expansion of government power sought by the Obama Administration.

Wal-Mart’s betrayal sent shock waves through the business community. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says an employer mandate would force companies to cut jobs, lower wages and drive many out of business.

The National Retail Federation, the main lobby for the industry, said it was “flabbergasted” by Wal-Mart’s decision. “We have been one of the foremost opponents to employer mandates, said Neil Trautwein, vice president of the trade group. “We are surprised and disappointed by Wal-Mart’s choice to embrace an employer mandate in exchange for a promise of cost savings.” Trautwein added that the employer mandate is “the single most destructive thing you could do to the health care system shy of a single-payer system…[and] would quite possibly cut off the economic recovery we all desperately need.”

In a February 9, 2007 interview on the Fox News show, “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” I summed up the problem:

Wal-Mart just doesn’t get it. They don’t understand that there’s no way that you can appease the Left. These people are ideologues. They’re anti-free market, they’re pro regulation and there’s no way you can cave in to their agenda.

Wal-Mart may foolishly believe it is buying peace from Stern and the union bosses. In fact, the company is setting itself up for an even more relentless assault by the Left who now realize it will sell out its friends. The real tragedy is that in jumping on Obama’s nationalization bandwagon, Wal-Mart may be jeopardizing not just itself but America’s economic future.