FDIC Fund Now In The Negative

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fdic-discloses-deposit-insurance-fund-now-negative

In an unprecedented disclosure, the FDIC has highlighted that it expects the DIF reserve ratio to be negative as of September 30. As there are a whopping 48 hours before that deadline, one can safely assume that the DIF is now well into negative territory: as of today depositors have no insurance courtesy of a banking system that has leeched out all the capital of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Let’s pray there is no run on the bank soon.

Pursuant to these requirements, staff estimates that both the Fund balance and the reserve ratio as of September 30, 2009, will be negative. This reflects, in part, an increase in provisioning for anticipated failures. In contrast, cash and marketable securities available to resolve failed institutions remain positive.

Additionally, the FDIC has now raised its expectation for bank failure costs from $70 billion $100 billion. Feel free to expect this number to continue growing.

Staff has also projected the Fund balance and reserve ratio for each quarter over the next several years using the most recently available information on expected failures and loss rates and statistical analyses of trends in CAMELS downgrades, failure rates and loss rates. Staff projects that, over the period 2009 through 2013, the Fund could incur approximately $100 billion in failure costs. Staff projects that most of these costs will occur in 2009 and 2010. Approximately $25 billion of the $100 billion amount has already been incurred in failure costs so far in 2009. Staff projects that most of these costs will occur in 2009 and 2010.

First Mary Schapiro has failed at her task of “regulating” anything on Wall Street, and now Sheila Bair presides over a newly insolvent institution. Chalk one up to Washington’s success at “containing” the crisis. Zero Hedge wishes Ms. Bair all the luck in the world in returning the DIF to its statutory minimum requirement of 1.15% of all insured deposits (a shortfall of a mere hundred billion or so). Maybe she can convert the FDIC to a REIT and have Merrill Lynch do a concurrent IPO and follow-on offering (while Goldman raises it to a Conviction Buy which incorporates the firm’s expectations for 10% GDP growth in 2010 coupled with projections for $1,000 per barrel of crude)?
FDIC’s full memorandum outlining its failure can be found here.

The Health Insurance Market Isn’t Free

by | Posted on 9/29/2009 12:00:00 AM

With the government’s healthcare plan looming above us, there has perhaps never been a better time for Americans to understand the excessive costs of health care, and the origins of these vast increases.

While many commentators have been quick to blame the free market for these costs, health insurance in America is not completely “free.” For instance, in Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont, there are regulations called “guaranteed issues.” These force insurance companies to accept all comers, regardless of preexisting conditions.

Likewise, more than 30 other states have lesser (but very similar) regulations forcing companies to accept all comers. Such regulations allow individuals to buy insurance as soon as they need a given type of high-cost care. This is like letting a driver who causes a major accident purchase the insurance after the accident and expect all his car repair bills to be paid.

In an effort to protect themselves, insurance companies would prefer to then charge more to the person who waited until he became sick to buy insurance. However, some people cannot afford these higher payments, so the government has imposed price controls.

There are also “community ratings,” which require insurance companies to charge the same amount to all members of a pool. Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington are the most severe. These “community rating” laws effectively force insurance companies to finance people with preexisting conditions, and as a result they vastly increase the premiums for healthy people.

With community ratings in effect, an 18-year-old’s premium is the same as 60-year-old’s. Often, when a young and healthy person sees their premiums rise, he or she drops out of the insurance pool, which then leaves it more full of sick people, again increasing premiums for the remaining members. These community ratings contribute a great deal to the large number of uninsured, and are among the reasons why healthcare in New York and New Jersey is the most expensive in the country.

Another aspect that keeps insurance prices high is government-mandated coverage. The policies vary, but in some states, people who don’t drink alcohol must purchase coverage for alcoholism, nonsmokers must purchase coverage for antismoking programs, non–drug users must purchase coverage for drug-abuse treatment, etc. Some states require consumers to purchase 50 or more types of mandated coverage. Special-interest groups are mainly behind these acts of legislation, which come from people in certain fields who want to expand the market for their services.

Government regulations also prohibit people from buying insurance from companies that are headquartered out of states that have a different set of regulations. This is an obvious barrier to entry, which decreases the supply of competing insurance companies and thus raises the price. As I noted before, each state determines the provisions that insurance companies must abide by. This means that the regulators essentially grant monopolies in each state, since insurance licenses must go through them. The barriers to entry in the health-insurance market are thus appalling.

So long as a market is highly competitive and has little or no barriers to entry, a particular firm acquiring significant market share will not always translate into greater market power. Were it easy for new health-insurance companies to enter into the market, surely we would be seeing a vast increase in them as a response to the record profits of the past few years. On the contrary, the number of health insurance companies has been on a consistent decline because of regulations and barriers to entry.

The current system of employer-provided health insurance traces back to domestic policy during the World War II era. Due to government policy, inflation grew both before and during WWII. As a “remedy,” caps on wage increases were imposed by the government. In response, employers began to offer their employees health insurance to soften the blow and attract quality workers.

The federal government did not consider an increase in health benefits a violation of these wage controls, and in 1943 the IRS ruled that health benefits were tax exempt for workers. After the wage caps were abolished, health insurance benefits became seen as the norm and were not eliminated. For instance, by the early 1960s, General Motors was paying 100% of the healthcare bills for their employees (retirees included).

So, anyone who claims that the high costs of health insurance originated in the “free market” is either severely mistaken or lying.

There are certain groups that profit from these governmental policies: lobbyists, who obviously carry a significant amount of political clout, and the bureaucrats themselves. However, there are many more losers than winners under the current state of affairs; and adding more government provisions would only increase the costs for taxpayers and insurance consumers.

http://mises.org/story/3727

Don’t Believe The Iran Fearmongering

If I could go back in time, I wish I could have read something like this back before we invaded Iraq. I hope the Truth can reach a lot of people so that they can see through the thick layer of BS put on by the Obama administration.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts273.html

by Paul Craig Roberts

Does anyone remember all the lies that they were told by President Bush and the “mainstream media” about the grave threat to America from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? These lies were repeated endlessly in the print and TV media despite the reports from the weapons inspectors, who had been sent to Iraq, that no such weapons existed.

The weapons inspectors did an honest job in Iraq and told the truth, but the mainstream media did not emphasize their findings. Instead, the media served as a Ministry of Propaganda, beating the war drums for the US government.

Now the whole process is repeating itself. This time the target is Iran.

As there is no real case against Iran, Obama took a script from Bush’s playbook and fabricated one.

First the facts: As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, Iran’s nuclear facilities are open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which carefully monitors Iran’s nuclear energy program to make certain that no material is diverted to nuclear weapons.

The IAEA has monitored Iran’s nuclear energy program and has announced repeatedly that it has found no diversion of nuclear material to a weapons program. All 16 US intelligence agencies have affirmed and reaffirmed that Iran abandoned interest in nuclear weapons years ago.

In keeping with the safeguard agreement that the IAEA be informed before an enrichment facility comes online, Iran informed the IAEA on September 21 that it had a new nuclear facility under construction. By informing the IAEA, Iran fulfilled its obligations under the safeguards agreement. The IAEA will inspect the facility and monitor the nuclear material produced to make sure it is not diverted to a weapons program.

Despite these unequivocal facts, Obama announced on September 25 that Iran has been caught with a “secret nuclear facility” with which to produce a bomb that would threaten the world.

The Obama regime’s claim that Iran is not in compliance with the safeguards agreement is disinformation. Between the end of 2004 and early 2007, Iran voluntarily complied with an additional protocol (Code 3.1) that was never ratified and never became a legal part of the safeguards agreement. The additional protocol would have required Iran to notify the IAEA prior to beginning construction of a new facility, whereas the safeguards agreement in force requires notification prior to completion of a new facility. Iran ceased its voluntary compliance with the unratified additional protocol in March 2007, most likely because of the American and Israeli misrepresentations of Iran’s existing facilities and military threats against them.

By accusing Iran of having a secret “nuclear weapons program” and demanding that Iran “come clean” about the nonexistent program, adding that he does not rule out a military attack on Iran, Obama mimics the discredited Bush regime’s use of nonexistent Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” to set up Iraq for invasion.

The US media, even the “liberal” National Public Radio, quickly fell in with the Obama lie machine. Steven Thomma of the McClatchy Newspapers declared the non-operational facility under construction, which Iran reported to the IAEA, to be “a secret nuclear facility.”

Thomma, reported incorrectly that the world didn’t learn of Iran’s “secret” facility, the one that Iran reported to the IAEA the previous Monday, until Obama announced it in a joint appearance in Pittsburgh the following Friday with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkoszy.

Obviously, Thomma has no command over the facts, a routine inadequacy of “mainstream media” reporters. The new facility was revealed when Iran voluntarily reported the facility to the IAEA on September 21.

Ali Akbar Dareini, an Associated Press writer, reported, incorrectly, over AP: “The presence of a second uranium-enrichment site that could potentially produce material for a nuclear weapon has provided one of the strongest indications yet that Iran has something to hide.”

Dareini goes on to write that “the existence of the secret site was first revealed by Western intelligence officials and diplomats on Friday.” Dareini is mistaken. We learned of the facility when the IAEA announced that Iran had reported the facility the previous Monday in keeping with the safeguards agreement.

Dareini’s untruthful report of “a secret underground uranium enrichment facility whose existence has been hidden from international inspectors for years” helped to heighten the orchestrated alarm.

There you have it. The president of the United States and his European puppets are doing what they do best – lying through their teeth. The US “mainstream media” repeats the lies as if they were facts. The US “media” is again making itself an accomplice to wars based on fabrications. Apparently, the media’s main interest is to please the US government and hopefully obtain a taxpayer bailout of its failing print operations.

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a rare man of principle who has not sold his integrity to the US and Israeli governments, refuted in his report (September 7, 2009) the baseless “accusations that information has been withheld from the Board of Governors about Iran’s nuclear programme. I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member states, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith.”

As there is no legal basis for action against Iran, the Obama regime is creating another hoax, like the non-existent “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.” The hoax is that a facility, reported to the IAEA by Iran, is a secret facility for making nuclear weapons.

Just as the factual reports from the weapons inspectors in Iraq were ignored by the Bush Regime, the factual reports from the IAEA are ignored by the Obama Regime.

Like the Bush Regime, the Middle East policy of the Obama Regime is based in lies and deception.

Who is the worst enemy of the American people, Iran or the government in Washington and the media whores who serve it?

Private Police Force Patrolling Montana Streets

This is a very suspicious story in my opinion. Montana has moved towards state sovereignty, bucked Federal gun laws and has some of the most Constitutionally sound citizens of any state. It seems to me if civil unrest breaks out on a nationwide scale the US wants to have a presence in Montana.

A private security force whose biggest role is helping the U.S. government to “combat terrorism” is now patrolling the streets of a town in Montana, acting as law enforcement but accountable to nobody and operating completely outside the limitations of the U.S. constitution in a chilling throwback to the brownshirts of Nazi Germany.

The American Police Force organization is a paramilitary unit that “provides surveillance, investigative, and military services across the world,” according to its website, which shows men dressed in military fatigues carrying machine guns.

“As part of our mission, APF plays a critical role in helping the U.S. government meet vital homeland security and national defense needs. Within the last 5 years the United States has been far and away our #1 client. Technologies, programs, and services performed by APF have played a very important role in U.S. military and civilian efforts to protect our homeland and combat terrorism,” the website states.

APF were originally contracted to provide security at a previously empty detention center in Hardin, a small town in Montana, but are now patrolling the streets driving SUV’s with “Police Department” printed on them despite the fact that Hardin doesn’t have a police department. American Police Force has no jurisdiction in the area because it is a private organization, not a police force.

According to Two Rivers Authority officials, having the private security force patrol the streets was not part of the contract. “I have no idea. I really don’t because that’s not been a part of any of the discussions we’ve had with any of them,” Two Rivers Authority’s Al Peterson told KULR 8 News. Peterson said that patrolling the streets was on the “wishlist” of APF’s Captain Michael.

The American Police Force is a shady outfit shrouded in suspicion. According to an Associated Press report, questions over the legitimacy of the organization abound.

“Government contract databases show no record of the company. Security industry representatives and federal officials said they had never heard of it. On its Web site, the company lists as its headquarters a building in Washington near the White House that holds “virtual offices.” A spokeswoman for the building said American Police Force never completed its application to use the address,” reports AP.

Furthermore, APF was tasked with filling the empty Hardin detention center with inmates, without any clear indication of where those prisoners would come from.

“It’s unclear where the company will get the inmates for the jail. Montana says it’s not sending inmates to the jail, and neither are federal officials in the state,” according to the report.

Maybe the inmates will be the local population of Hardin if American Police Force is allowed to continue to pose as a law enforcement outfit in the town, which is exactly what they intend to do for at least another month.

Having a private security force whose stated mission is to help the U.S. government “combat terrorism” patrol the streets of small towns in America without even having the authority to do so from local authorities is obviously a frightening pretext and harks back to the private paramilitary forces that helped Adolf Hitler rise to power in Nazi Germany.

Many fear that if martial law is declared in response to a flu pandemic or other emergency, private security forces such as APF will be used by the government to oppress citizens by operating outside of the law.

This is completely unconstitutional and a flagrant threat to the liberty and security of the population of Hardin. The County Sheriff is effectively breaking the law if he doesn’t immediately kick APF out of the area and end the occupation of the town by a private paramilitary army.

Breaking News: Obama Safe Schools Czar Promoted Pedophilia

New audio has been uncovered about soddomite Kevin Jennings who I reported to be degenerate filth back in June of this year (here and here).  In this audio he is heard discussing a 24 year old homo colleague of his told him of molesting a 14 year old boy, Kevin Jennings response?  “I hope you knew to wear a condom”.

You just keep telling yourself that these “gays” are normal.

What’s In The Talmud?

1. ‘We beg Thee, 0 Lord, inflict Thy wrath on the nations not believing in Thee. Take away, 0 Lord, all hope from them. Destroy all foes of Thy nation.’ -Synagaga Judaica, p. 212. Minhagen, p. 23. Crach Chain, 480 Magah.

2. ‘The teachings of the Talmud stand above all other laws. They are more important than the laws of Moses.’ — Rabbi Issael, Rabbi Chasbar, et. al.

3. “The decisions of the Talmud are words of the living God. Jehovah Himself asks the opinion of the earthly rabbis when there are difficult affairs in heaven.” — Rabbi Menechen Commentary on Fifth Book-

4. “Jehovah Himself studies the Talmud standing, he has such respect for that book.” — Tract Mechillo.

5. “It is more wicked to question the words of the rabbis than those of the Torah.” — Michna Sanhedryn 11:3.

6. ‘It is forbidden to disclose the secrets of the law. He who would do it would be as guilty as though he destroyed the whole world.” — Jektat Chadasz, 171, 3.

7. “Every goy who studies the Talmud and every Jew who helps him in it, ought to die.’, –Sanhedryn, 59a, aboda Zora 8-6, Szagiga 13.

8. “To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly.” — Libbre David 37.

9. “If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death.” — Libbre David 37.

10. “A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim asks if our books contain anything against them.”–Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Via 17.

11. “The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.,, — Saba Mecia 114, 6.

12. “When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves.” — Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D.

13. “Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.” -Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L.

14. “As soon as the King Messiah will declare himself, He will destroy Rome and make a wilderness of it. Thorns and weeds will grow in the Pope’s palace. Then He will start a merciless war on non-Jews and will overpower them. He will slay them in masses, kill their kings and lay waste the whole Roman land. He will say to the Jews: ‘I am the King Messiah for whom you have been waiting. Take the silver and gold from the goyim.’ .. –Josiah 60, 6. Rabbi Abarbanel to Daniel 7, 13.

15. “A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated.” — ..9boda Sarah 37a.

16. “A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl.” — &ad. Shas. 2:2.

17. “A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat.” –Hadarine, 20, B; Schulchan 9ruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348.

18. “A Jew may misuse the non-Jewess in her state of unbelief.” — Maimonides, Jak. Chasaka 2:2.

19. ” IF a goy kills a goy or a Jew he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy he is NOT responsible.” –Tosefta. 9boda Za,-a 8, 5.

20. “It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces.”–Schuichan Qruch, Choszen Hajpiszpat jog

21. “Thou shalt not do injury to thy neighbor (Bible), but it is not said, ‘Thou shalt not do injury to a Goy.’ ” — Mishna Sanhedryn 57.

22. “When you go to war do not go as the First, but as the last, so that you may return as the first. Five things has Kanaan recommended to his sons: ‘Love each other, love the robbery, hate your masters and never tell the truth.’ ” — Pesachis F. 113B.

23. “A Jew is permitted to rape, cheat and perjure himself; but he must take care that he is not found out, so that Israel may not suffer.” — Schulchan Aruch, Jore Dia.

24. “A Jew may rob a goy – that is,.he may cheat him in a bill, if unlikely to be perceived by him.” -Schalchan Arach, Choszen Hamiszpat 348.

25. “If a goy wants a Jew to stand witness against a Jew in a Court of Law, and if the Jew could give fair evidence, he is forbidden to do it; but if a Jew wants a Jew to be a witness in a similar case against a goy, he may do it.” — Schalchan .9ruch, Choszen Hasiszpat 28, Art. 3 and 4.

26. “Those who do not confess the Torah and the Prophets must be killed. Who has the power to kill them, let them kill them openly with the sword. if not, let them use artifices, till they are done away with.” — Schulchan Qruch. Choszon Haviszpat 425.5.

27. “All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general’ “–Schalchan arach. Choszen Hasisxpat 348.

28. “Should a Jew inform the goyish authorities that another Jew has much money, and the other will suffer a loss through it, he must give him emuneration.”–Schalchan Oruch, Choszen Maipiszpat 388

29. ‘How to interpret the word ‘robbery.’ A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy.”–Tosefta, Qbda Zara VIRZ, 5.

30. “On the house of the goy one looks as on the fold of cattle.” — Tosefta, Erabin VZZ, 1.

31. “All vows, oaths, promises, engagements, and swearing, which, beginning this very day or reconciliation till the next day of reconciliation, we intend to vow, promise, swear, and bind ourselves to fulfill, we repent of beforehand; let them be illegalized, acquitted, annihilated, abolished, valueless, unimportant. Our vows shall be no vows, and our oaths no oaths at all.” — Schulchan 9ruch, Edit. 1, 136. (The Jewish Kol Nidre [‘All Vows”] Oath has been set to a morbid Jewish music, and is often heard on the radio. it is sung as a chant at each Yom Kippur [Jewish New Year] service [September 17].)

32. “Everything a Jew needs for his church ritual no goy is permitted to manufacture, but only a Jew, because this must be manufactured by human beings and the Jew is not permitted to consider the goyim as human beings.” — Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaiw 14, 20, 32, 33, 39. TaIDud Jebamoth 61.

33.. “A Jewish mid-wife is not only permitted but she is compelled to help a Jewish mother on Saturday (Jewish Sabbath) and when so doing to do anything which otherwise would desecrate the Saturday. But it is forbidden to help a non-Jewish woman even if it should be possible to help her without desecrating the Saturday, because she is to be considered only as an animal.” — Schulchan gruch, Orach Chaim 330.

34. “At the time of the Cholhamoed the transaction of any kind of business is forbidden. But it is permitted to cheat a goy, because cheating of goyim at any time pleases the Lord.” –Chuichan Qruch, Orach ChaiD 539.

35. “The Jews are strictly Forbidden to cheat their brothers and it is considered cheating already if onesixth of the value has been taken away from him. Whoever has cheated his brother has to return it to him. Naturally all that only holds towards the Jew, to cheat a goy he is permitted and he is not permitted to return to him what he cheated him out of. Because the Bible says: ‘Thou shalt not cheat thy next brother,’ but the non-Jews are not our brethren, but as mentioned above, worse than dogs.” — aruch hoszen Haniszpat 227.

Download this site before you can’t: http://www.come-and-hear.com/download.html

Bikini Vs. Burka

By: Henry Makow

On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka.

Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini.

One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called “civilizations.”

The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about stripping Muslims of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.

I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.

For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her.It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere.

The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the “nest” where her children are born and reared. She is the “home” maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband.

In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time.

In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.)

As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to “hook up” furtively rather than to demand patient courtship, love and marriage. As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed.

The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason.

Feminism deceives women to believe femininity has resulted in “oppression” and they should adopt male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.

This is the goal of the NWO social engineers: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the “brave new world,” women are not supposed to be mothers and progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered, autonomous sex objects.

Liberating women is often given as an excuse for the war in Afghanistan. Liberating them to what? To Britney Spears? To low-rise “see-my-thong” pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America? If they really cared about women, maybe they’d end the war.

Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for marriage. We are to remain single: stunted, sex-starved and self-obsessed.

We are not meant to have a permanent “private” life. We are meant to remain lonely and isolated, in a state of perpetual courtship, dependent on consumer products for our identity.

This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming “independent,” she is not likely to find a permanent mate.

Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority.

Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.

I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.

The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

The Founding Fathers On Gun Control

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What did they really mean? What were they thinking?… Read on to learn what our founding fathers really said about the right to keep and bear arms.

TO TAKE ARMS AGAINST THE BRITISH
From “A Journal of the Times”, calling the citizens of Boston to arm themselves in response to British abuses of power, 1769:

“Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature and have been carried to so great lengths as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense, and as Mr. Blackstone observes it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

ASSAULT RIFLES, COLONIAL STYLE
George Mason’s Fairfax County Militia Plan, 1775:

“And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, and to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, and always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, and a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls.”

GIVE ME FLINTLOCKS OR GIVE ME DEATH
Patrick Henry, 1775:

“They tell us that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.”

THOUGHTS ON DEFENSIVE WAR
Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong.”

SOUND BITES FROM BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION
Samuel Adams:

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

John Adams:

“Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.”

Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands.”

WE HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY AND HE IS US
Patrick Henry:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

TREAD LIGHTLY
Thomas Jefferson’s advice to his 15 year-old nephew:

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.”

Noah Webster, 1787:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”

ON THE ROLE OF THE MILITIA

James Madison, “The influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, “46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29,1788:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”

James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 6-8-1789

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia,
composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”

Alexander Hamilton, “Concerning the Militia,” 29 Federalist Daily Advertiser, January 10, 1788:

“There is something so far fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery. Where, in the name of common sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular states are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the states ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.”

Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that
army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…”

Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters form the Federal Farmer, 1788:

“Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Trench Coxe, writing as “the Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:

“The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

Thomas Jefferson

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”

George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.”

Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, “Debates in the Several State Conventions” 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia,
1836

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

ANTECEDENTS Connecticut gun code of 1650:

“All persons shall bear arms, and every male person shall have in continual readiness a good musket or other gun, fit for service.”

Article 3 of the West Virginia state constitution:

“A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.”


Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason:

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

A proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, as passed by the Pennsylvania legislature:

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own states or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.”

ROUGH DRAFT
An amendment to the Constitution, proposed by James Madison:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

THE FINAL DRAFT
The Second Amendment, as passed September 25, 1789:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”