|
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Something Good is Going to Happen: Explanations, Decipherings and Opening Portals and more...
BP is a plot - Who is behind it - The Rothschild Financial Military- Political-Industrial Cartel
The Rothchilds Power Complex and their minions must be eliminated !
They are "Too Rotten to Rule" , and Obama works for them . He is the replacement evil entity - Kim Jong ' Very' il . 'O' is too Rotten to Rule ! in America- He is the representative and lackey for the NWO- We sure as Hell Don't need his illegal alien ass to head our country - for the Satanic NWO, that wants us dead ,or in complete servitude to them , as serfs. They are against OUR CREATOR GOD, -We are against 'Them", and their master satan.
They are terrorists who threaten humanity and the heath of The Planet Earth !
Who's Mr. Gorsky?
Who's Mr. Gorsky?
IN CASE YOU DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW THIS LITTLE TIDBIT OF TRIVIA, OVER THE YEARS, MANY PEOPLE QUESTIONED ARMSTRONG AS TO WHAT THE - 'GOOD LUCK, MR. GORSKY' STATEMENT MEANT, BUT ARMSTRONG ALWAYS JUST SMILED. ON JULY 5, 1995, IN TAMPA BAY , FLORIDA , WHILE ANSWERING QUESTIONS FOLLOWING A SPEECH, A REPORTER BROUGHT UP THE 26-YEAR-OLD QUESTION TO ARMSTRONG. THIS TIME HE FINALLY RESPONDED. MR. GORSKY HAD DIED, SO NEIL ARMSTRONG FELT HE COULD NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION. IN HIS NEIGHBOR'S YARD BY THEIR BEDROOM WINDOW. HIS NEIGHBORS WERE MR. AND MRS. GORSKY. AS HE LEANED DOWN TO PICK UP THE BALL, YOUNG ARMSTRONG HEARD MRS. GORSKY SHOUTING AT MR. GORSKY "SEX! YOU WANT SEX?! YOU'LL GET SEX WHEN THE KID NEXT DOOR WALKS ON THE MOON !" |
You Will Never See This Again
You Will Never See This Again
Too bad this was another place and time in our history as a nation.
Thought you'd enjoy this! It's one you want your Children and Grandchildren to read. They won't believe this happened, but it DID.
Harry & Bess (This seems unreal.)
Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many, or more important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 42 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.
The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence, Missouri. His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives there.
When he retired from office in 1952 his income was a U.S.Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."
Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."
As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.
Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale (cf. Illinois ).
Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!
I say dig him up and clone him!
If you agree, forward it. If you don't, delete it. I don't want to know one way or the other. By me forwarding it, you know how I feel.
Enjoy life now -- it has an expiration date!
ANTI-OBAMA FILM BLOWS OUT BOX OFFICE
WND EXCLUSIVE
ANTI-OBAMA FILM BLOWS OUT BOX OFFICE
'The largest one-week expansion in independent film history'
Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command." Corsi's latest book is "Where's the REAL Birth Certificate?"More ↓
- inShare7
- Text smaller
- Text bigger
- Will You Boldly Proclaim"I am a Christian"? Sign the pledge now!billygraham.org/I-am-a-Christian
A first-run film that casts new light on Barack Obama’s radical roots already is setting box-office records while an upcoming release that could also unsettle the White House is expected to draw a strong audience.
- Will You Boldly Proclaim"I am a Christian"? Sign the pledge now!billygraham.org/I-am-a-Christian
- Infiniti JX Official SiteAll New 2013 Infiniti JX. Research and Design the new JX.www.infinitiusa.com
On the eve of the Republican National Convention, “2016: Obama’s America” is scheduled for showing in 1,074 theaters, approximately one of every four theaters in the U.S., said Jason Jones, president of Movie to Movement, the non-profit organization promoting the film.
Jones told WND it’s the largest one-week expansion of an independent film in history.
He noted that 35 percent of all tickets sold Thursday on Fandango.com, the No. 1 online movie ticket sales company, were for “2016.”
Jones told WND he expects the audience for the film to grow all the way to the Nov. 6 election.
“We started at a single theater in Houston, Texas,” Jones said. “It was a huge success, grossing $43,000 on one screen in a week, making it a sure bet for expansion.”
Last week, “2016” had the second highest average box office sales of films in wide release, beating many high-budget films, including “The Dark Knight Rises” and “The Bourne Legacy.” It came in in just behind “Expendables 2.”
Courage
Jones also screened for WND a movie to be released Sept. 14 in more than 1,200 theaters nationwide, “Last Ounce of Courage.” It’s a film about faith, patriotism and commitment to freedom that tells the story of an American family facing the loss of a beloved son in combat.
The film likely will be uncomfortable for a White House that has endorsed limitations on expressions of faith in military funerals.
“This is a movie that will speak to America,” Richard Bott Sr., the founder and chairman of Bott Radio Network. Bott’s Kansas City, Mo.-based radio Christian powerhouse broadcasts through some 90 stations, with a combined coverage of 40 million people in the Midwest.
Bott pledged to promote “Last Ounce of Courage” throughout his network free of charge.
“This is the most patriotic movie I have ever seen,” he said. “It shows why every schoolchild in America must once again be permitted to praise God openly in our nation’s school.”
Robert B. J. Jackson, a former Army specialist who lost both legs in combat in Iraq, is helping to promote “Last Ounce of Courage.”
“The film is a great vehicle for people to understand the price of freedom and the peril our freedoms face every day to a government determined to remove God from America,” he said.
Marshall Teague, a Navy veteran and a former Deputy Sheriff in Memphis, Tenn., is the lead actor in the film.
“Making this film was one of the greatest spiritual and emotional experiences of my life,” Teague said.
“The movie gave me the opportunity to express what I have felt always – the importance of freedom and the sacrifices that have been made for that freedom, from the beginning of this nation to this second,” he said. “The two most important every American can say for the country we live in are ‘Thank You.’”
Jones told WND “Last Ounce of Courage” is a movie “certain to mobilize the Christian community throughout America.”
Hundreds of Christian leaders throughout the nation have already offered to sponsor the movie in their local theaters.
Follow Up Open Letter
Saturday, 25 August 2012
Follow Up Open Letter
After a highly edited version of my open letter was printed in the local newspaper. I decided to send another to all major news outlets in the UK.
Iceland did it. Why can't we?
The IMF-International Monetary Fund released a statement on the 13th of August stating "Iceland holds some key lessons for nations trying to survive bailouts after the island’s approach to its rescue led to a “surprisingly” strong recovery"
Kind Regards
Wiggy.
Iceland did it. Why can't we?
The IMF-International Monetary Fund released a statement on the 13th of August stating "Iceland holds some key lessons for nations trying to survive bailouts after the island’s approach to its rescue led to a “surprisingly” strong recovery"
Shortly after the Bretton Woods institution published a paper urging our current Conservative Government to delay further austerity until growth returns. This paper enforced similar findings by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. Austerity causes much more damage to an economy in recession than it would in times of growth.
Iceland are not in recession and has an incredibly positive outlook on growth for the next 2 years. So what did Iceland do that everyone else did not? Well in order to answer that we must look back to 2008. At the time of the financial crash, Iceland through bank deregulation had allowed it's financial institutions to become bloated with debt. These debts were in fact 10 times larger than their economy. The public uproar that followed these revelations, rivaled our notorious Pole Tax riots of the early 1990's.
With an enormous amount of public support the Icelandic Government took a hardline approach to the situation. First they bluntly refused to make full interest payments to the bond market and declined to blindly bail out financial institutions through public enslavement. They then restricted currency movements in order to stop capital outflow. This also served to cauterize their hemorrhaging economy and defend against speculative attack. This common sense approach pushed most of the financial burden onto those who caused the crash, not the Tax paying public. Allowing Iceland to completely safeguard it's welfare system and shield the unemployed from indigence. They basically did everything we have been told couldn't or shouldn't be done. They Bailed out the people and arrested the corrupt bankers along with complicit politicians. They even indicted a former Prime-Minister! I do understand that there were victims of this closed off approach outside of Iceland. Some of our councils were affected by this. However the Icelandic government had to make tough decisions in order to protect it's people. As all governments should do.
You only have to look to Europe in order to see these bailouts are not working. The IMF has program arrangements with 11 struggling EU nations. Euro economies are shrinking faster than they are able to make cuts. Draconian austerity measures are beginning to affect billions not just in the Euro-Zone but here in the UK too. Drastic cuts are being made to our front-line services. Enormous bailouts and rounds of quantitative easing are having no positive affect on our economy. They only seem to insure profits for a select few.
Iceland's economy will grow this year by at least 2.4 percent but ours will shrink further or at best, stagnate. An overwhelming amount of evidence is surfacing that seems to cast serious doubt on the UK and EU financial recovery mindset. Bailouts and austerity punish victims and compensate the guilty. Our economy has a very depressing outlook with no real positive signs visible. It will likely get much worse before it gets any better. So my question is.....
Is it time for plan B?
Plan B, Iceland style!Iceland are not in recession and has an incredibly positive outlook on growth for the next 2 years. So what did Iceland do that everyone else did not? Well in order to answer that we must look back to 2008. At the time of the financial crash, Iceland through bank deregulation had allowed it's financial institutions to become bloated with debt. These debts were in fact 10 times larger than their economy. The public uproar that followed these revelations, rivaled our notorious Pole Tax riots of the early 1990's.
With an enormous amount of public support the Icelandic Government took a hardline approach to the situation. First they bluntly refused to make full interest payments to the bond market and declined to blindly bail out financial institutions through public enslavement. They then restricted currency movements in order to stop capital outflow. This also served to cauterize their hemorrhaging economy and defend against speculative attack. This common sense approach pushed most of the financial burden onto those who caused the crash, not the Tax paying public. Allowing Iceland to completely safeguard it's welfare system and shield the unemployed from indigence. They basically did everything we have been told couldn't or shouldn't be done. They Bailed out the people and arrested the corrupt bankers along with complicit politicians. They even indicted a former Prime-Minister! I do understand that there were victims of this closed off approach outside of Iceland. Some of our councils were affected by this. However the Icelandic government had to make tough decisions in order to protect it's people. As all governments should do.
You only have to look to Europe in order to see these bailouts are not working. The IMF has program arrangements with 11 struggling EU nations. Euro economies are shrinking faster than they are able to make cuts. Draconian austerity measures are beginning to affect billions not just in the Euro-Zone but here in the UK too. Drastic cuts are being made to our front-line services. Enormous bailouts and rounds of quantitative easing are having no positive affect on our economy. They only seem to insure profits for a select few.
Iceland's economy will grow this year by at least 2.4 percent but ours will shrink further or at best, stagnate. An overwhelming amount of evidence is surfacing that seems to cast serious doubt on the UK and EU financial recovery mindset. Bailouts and austerity punish victims and compensate the guilty. Our economy has a very depressing outlook with no real positive signs visible. It will likely get much worse before it gets any better. So my question is.....
Is it time for plan B?
Kind Regards
Wiggy.
IMF Advising Against Austerity
Saturday, 25 August 2012
IMF Advising Against Austerity
IMF advises delaying austerity until growth returns
Cutting government spending in a crisis will condemn a country to an even deeper recession and inflict “permanent” damage on the economy, the International Monetary Fund has warned.
Photo: REUTERS
4:49PM BST 24 Aug 2012
In a paper that will only add to the pressure on the Chancellor, the Bretton Woods institution urged governments to delay austerity until growth returns or – if a delay was not possible – to shift the burden of any programme onto higher taxes and larger benefit cuts.
The IMF study emerged as official figures showed that the recession in the UK had not been as deep as previously feared. GDP contracted by 0.5pc in the three months to June, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), less than the 0.7pc decline initially estimated.
Stripping out the effect of the extra day’s bank holiday for the Diamond Jubilee, the economy stagnated – with growth over the three months estimated at zero.
The IMF paper echoed recent findings by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research that austerity causes more harm in recessions than at times of growth. “If you diet when you are sick, you’ll probably get a lot sicker,” Nicoletta Batini, one of the authors of the IMF report, told the BBC.
She added that every £1 cut from spending in periods of economic strength might reduce national income by 50p “but if you do it at a bad time, it could be £2 or even more than £2 permanently”.
The report, which did not examine the UK situation but focused on the US, Europe and Japan, was an attempt to identify the best pace and structure of fiscal consolidation. While recommending waiting if possible, it accepted that some countries had no choice but to cut their debts.
In that case, the IMF said: “If consolidations need to be implemented during downturns, they should prioritise increases in net taxes.” It defined “net taxes” as both increases in tax and reductions in benefits. By switching the emphasis of the cuts, she said, governments could maintain infrastructure spending.
“These are painful decisions. But abandoning productive programmes destroys jobs while higher [net] taxes do not – at least in the short term,” she said.
Roughly 40pc of George Osborne’s £123bn consolidation plan is scheduled to come from tax rises, benefit cuts, and lower debt interest costs, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Government is thought to be examining plans for further benefit cuts to redirect the money into infrastructure such as council housing.
Last month, the IMF warned the Chancellor he should relax his austerity programme in next March’s Budget if the outlook has worsened. However, the institution has so far been supportive of the UK policy mix.
The ONS’s decision to revise up its estimate for UK growth failed to restore much confidence in the outlook. The detail provided “further evidence that the purported rebalancing of the UK economy is coming at the expense of growth”, Andrew Benito, a UK economist at Goldman Sachs, said. Net trade deducted 1 percentage point from growth while consumer spending sliced 0.3 percentage points off output.
Steven Bryce, a Credit Suisse economist, said: “This is in line with our view that the UK is currently stagnating rather than contracting.”
Most economists now expect the UK economy to contract this year and for the Bank of England to respond with more stimulus measures. Martin Weale, a Bank ratesetter, said he favoured an interest rate cut over more quantitative easing, if it could be proved rate cuts did not put banks in difficulty.
“If it were clear that the interest rate could be reduced ... without finding some banks got themselves into a position where they had to reduce lending because of the effects of an interest rate cut on their profits, I think I would probably prefer that to more QE, if I was choosing between them,” he told The Herald.
In that case, the IMF said: “If consolidations need to be implemented during downturns, they should prioritise increases in net taxes.” It defined “net taxes” as both increases in tax and reductions in benefits. By switching the emphasis of the cuts, she said, governments could maintain infrastructure spending.
“These are painful decisions. But abandoning productive programmes destroys jobs while higher [net] taxes do not – at least in the short term,” she said.
Roughly 40pc of George Osborne’s £123bn consolidation plan is scheduled to come from tax rises, benefit cuts, and lower debt interest costs, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Government is thought to be examining plans for further benefit cuts to redirect the money into infrastructure such as council housing.
Last month, the IMF warned the Chancellor he should relax his austerity programme in next March’s Budget if the outlook has worsened. However, the institution has so far been supportive of the UK policy mix.
The ONS’s decision to revise up its estimate for UK growth failed to restore much confidence in the outlook. The detail provided “further evidence that the purported rebalancing of the UK economy is coming at the expense of growth”, Andrew Benito, a UK economist at Goldman Sachs, said. Net trade deducted 1 percentage point from growth while consumer spending sliced 0.3 percentage points off output.
Steven Bryce, a Credit Suisse economist, said: “This is in line with our view that the UK is currently stagnating rather than contracting.”
Most economists now expect the UK economy to contract this year and for the Bank of England to respond with more stimulus measures. Martin Weale, a Bank ratesetter, said he favoured an interest rate cut over more quantitative easing, if it could be proved rate cuts did not put banks in difficulty.
“If it were clear that the interest rate could be reduced ... without finding some banks got themselves into a position where they had to reduce lending because of the effects of an interest rate cut on their profits, I think I would probably prefer that to more QE, if I was choosing between them,” he told The Herald.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)