The current GOP (Greedy Old Pricks) model of a "conservative," is a person who believes in: the freedom of religion....as long as it's the Christian religion; the right to life while at the same time, they embrace capital punishment; the pursuit of happiness........as long as your idea of happiness is the same as theirs; the elimination of welfare........as long as it's not corporate welfare (huge tax breaks, "no bid" military contracts, sweetheart laws that protect big Pharma and big oil, etc.); limited government......and supports the BATF, DEA, Homeland Security, the Federal Reserve, warrant-less wire taps, The USA PATRIOT Act, assassination of its own citizens (without as much as a facade of due process), etc.; a hatred of communism......but supports a "Soviet-style" foreign policy that includes "nation building" and toppling of dictators (except "friendly" dictators).....and laws that have NO authority, in any of the eighteen "enumerated powers," Gitmo, torture, and detention WITHOUT trial; cutting the Federal budget......as long as it doesn't include cutting the Pentagon's budget; talking like a Libertarian, spending like a Democrat, and behaving like a fascist! Honorable men such as Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater are spinning in their graves!
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Canadians on Health Care and the "Drug War"
These are the Canadians (attitudes) that I know. BTW: Don't any of my friends worry about me, and my health care choices. I'm going to court on the 4th of August, in an attempt to exercise my "choices," and see if the Judge agrees that a monthly 67% (of my monthly income) deductible is reasonable. The Canadian model looks pretty damned good to me right now! But being a "good" Republican, I'll vote to destroy my long term health, for my principles. The country is better off without all of us "free loaders" anyways.
Deahttp://www.coloradodaily.
Dear Jessica,
I am a moderate Canadian conservative who has always been fascinated with American politics. Voices like your own will save the American Republican Party. At the moment, the majority of the political discourse in your country and mine is comprised of useless insults and stale talking points. When it comes to universal health care, you have the Democratic Party preaching as if it would create an instant utopia and that everyone will happily pay higher taxes and the Republicans proclaiming that it will be the end of America as we know it. Neither side illuminates us on how they propose to change things for the better, and why they believe that it will work. Federally funded universal health care would be a travesty for America. The reason why the Canadian system was able to work was because it was up to each province to adopt. Saskatchewan was the first to switch from private to public under Tommy Douglas, and every doctor in the province went on strike in protest. However, the medical tourism boom that the province experienced allowed them to raise the doctor's pay to a level that most everyone was happy with, and eventually the system spread across the nation. Allow individual states to hold referendums to see if they want a change, and have public debates detailing the facts of the issues, not simply emotional outbursts, and eventually logic will win out.
When it comes to legalized marijuana, the biggest blockade is the privatized prison system. They are a powerful lobby, and we are experiencing it in Canada. We have gone from complete decriminalization to mandatory minimum six month sentences over the course of eight years, and our prison system is being opened up to private concerns who receive more federal funding if they receive more prisoners. The positives of legalized marijuana would clearly outweigh the negatives.
Marijuana is a gateway drug, and I have seen many of my friends head down a terrible path due to their enjoyment of it. However, it is not the drug itself, but the environment in which the users have to enter to receive it. As marijuana is illegal, you have to be around the criminal element to get your hands on it. This means going to a bad part of town and being in a house where people doing and selling all types of drugs are congregating. Just like under alcohol prohibition, where you were branded a criminal, if a person if forced by the government to be around the criminal element to purchase a product then they are more likely to be surrounded by wanton violence and other illegal activities.
The biggest cash crop in the nation, and no taxes are received from its sale. Bigger than tobacco, which produces millions of dollars in tax revenues every year. Take that money out of the hands of the criminal element. People tend to argue that even if marijuana was legal illegal growers and dealers would still operate. That may be true, but it is equally true that if I wanted to I could buy my alcohol from a bootlegger or buy illegally grown tobacco. The fact of the matter is that if I were able to purchase it from a store, why would I risk my own freedom to purchase off of an illegal seller?
The war on drugs, as it stands, simply isn't working. The Mexican authorities are not holding up thier end of the bargain, and as such there is open warfare in the border towns. If there was no North American market for the stuff, then there would be less violence. Certainly, there would still be gangs operating and trying to smuggle in other drugs, but marijuana is their biggest seller as well. It would be like stopping Foot Locker from selling Nike shoes. They would remain in business, but their profits would be drastically undercut and their ambitions thwarted.
I've rambled a bit here, I know, but that is because I think it is so great to see smart, progressive conservative minds like yourself espousing reasonable solutions to certain problems in society. Your wonderful article here is clearly not scripted or filtered by the mainstream press, and it certainly isn't nearly as fundamentalist as so much of current North American political discourse is nowadays. Congratulations once again, and keep fighting for the safety and freedom of future generations.
Deahttp://www.coloradodaily.
Dear Jessica,
I am a moderate Canadian conservative who has always been fascinated with American politics. Voices like your own will save the American Republican Party. At the moment, the majority of the political discourse in your country and mine is comprised of useless insults and stale talking points. When it comes to universal health care, you have the Democratic Party preaching as if it would create an instant utopia and that everyone will happily pay higher taxes and the Republicans proclaiming that it will be the end of America as we know it. Neither side illuminates us on how they propose to change things for the better, and why they believe that it will work. Federally funded universal health care would be a travesty for America. The reason why the Canadian system was able to work was because it was up to each province to adopt. Saskatchewan was the first to switch from private to public under Tommy Douglas, and every doctor in the province went on strike in protest. However, the medical tourism boom that the province experienced allowed them to raise the doctor's pay to a level that most everyone was happy with, and eventually the system spread across the nation. Allow individual states to hold referendums to see if they want a change, and have public debates detailing the facts of the issues, not simply emotional outbursts, and eventually logic will win out.
When it comes to legalized marijuana, the biggest blockade is the privatized prison system. They are a powerful lobby, and we are experiencing it in Canada. We have gone from complete decriminalization to mandatory minimum six month sentences over the course of eight years, and our prison system is being opened up to private concerns who receive more federal funding if they receive more prisoners. The positives of legalized marijuana would clearly outweigh the negatives.
Marijuana is a gateway drug, and I have seen many of my friends head down a terrible path due to their enjoyment of it. However, it is not the drug itself, but the environment in which the users have to enter to receive it. As marijuana is illegal, you have to be around the criminal element to get your hands on it. This means going to a bad part of town and being in a house where people doing and selling all types of drugs are congregating. Just like under alcohol prohibition, where you were branded a criminal, if a person if forced by the government to be around the criminal element to purchase a product then they are more likely to be surrounded by wanton violence and other illegal activities.
The biggest cash crop in the nation, and no taxes are received from its sale. Bigger than tobacco, which produces millions of dollars in tax revenues every year. Take that money out of the hands of the criminal element. People tend to argue that even if marijuana was legal illegal growers and dealers would still operate. That may be true, but it is equally true that if I wanted to I could buy my alcohol from a bootlegger or buy illegally grown tobacco. The fact of the matter is that if I were able to purchase it from a store, why would I risk my own freedom to purchase off of an illegal seller?
The war on drugs, as it stands, simply isn't working. The Mexican authorities are not holding up thier end of the bargain, and as such there is open warfare in the border towns. If there was no North American market for the stuff, then there would be less violence. Certainly, there would still be gangs operating and trying to smuggle in other drugs, but marijuana is their biggest seller as well. It would be like stopping Foot Locker from selling Nike shoes. They would remain in business, but their profits would be drastically undercut and their ambitions thwarted.
I've rambled a bit here, I know, but that is because I think it is so great to see smart, progressive conservative minds like yourself espousing reasonable solutions to certain problems in society. Your wonderful article here is clearly not scripted or filtered by the mainstream press, and it certainly isn't nearly as fundamentalist as so much of current North American political discourse is nowadays. Congratulations once again, and keep fighting for the safety and freedom of future generations.
Friday, April 03, 2009
I Am A Conservative Christian, And The Religious Right Scares Me, Too
By Chuck Baldwin
The Covenant News ~ December 15, 2004
For those readers who are unfamiliar with my biography, let me here provide a thumbnail sketch of my conservative bona fides:
I attended, graduated, or received degrees from fundamentalist Christian schools such as Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan, Thomas Road Bible Institute (now known as Liberty Bible Institute at Liberty University) in Lynchburg, Virginia, Christian Bible College in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and Trinity Baptist College in Jacksonville, Florida.
I am currently in my thirtieth year as the Senior Pastor of the Crossroad Baptist Church (Independent) in Pensacola, Florida. I was the Executive Director of the Florida Moral Majority in the early 1980's. I was an active member of the local Christian Coalition.
I have marched and protested against abortion clinics. I have led several pro-life rallies and even led our church to construct A Memorial To Aborted Babies. I have conducted small and large (some drawing crowds numbering in the thousands) pro-life, pro-family rallies and meetings in the Pensacola area and in many towns and cities across the state of Florida.
When Ronald Reagan was running for President, I helped Dr. Jerry Falwell register more than fifty thousand new conservative voters in my state. I have attended White House functions with former President Reagan and former Vice President George H.W. Bush.
I supported and defended Chief Justice Roy Moore and his fight to display a Ten Commandments monument at a pro-Ten Commandments rally in Montgomery, Alabama and even on national television.
I am an annual member of the National Rifle Association and a life member of Gun Owners of America. I have been the featured speaker at several pro-Second Amendment rallies.
No one can honestly question my commitment to pro-life, pro-family, conservative causes. That being said, the Religious Right, as it now exists, scares me.
For one reason, on the whole, the Religious Right has obviously and patently become little more than a propaganda machine for the Republican Party in general and for President G.W. Bush in particular. This is in spite of the fact that both Bush and the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., have routinely ignored and even trampled the very principles which the Religious Right claims to represent.
Therefore, no longer does the Religious Right represent conservative, Christian values. Instead, they represent their own self-serving interests at the expense of those values.
It also appears painfully obvious to me that in order to sit at the king's table, the Religious Right is willing to compromise any principle, no matter how sacred. As such, it has become a hollow movement. Sadly, the Religious Right is now a movement without a cause, except the cause of advancing the Republican Party.
Beyond that, the Religious Right is actively assisting those who would destroy our freedoms. On the whole, the Religious Right comports with those within the Bush administration and within the Republican Party who, in the name of "fighting terrorism," are actually terrorizing constitutional protections of our liberties.
The Religious Right offered virtually no resistance to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the Patriot Act, or the recently created position of National Intelligence Director. Neither did the Religious Right offer even a whimper of protest as President Bush and Republicans in Congress created a first-ever national ID card in the new intelligence bill, which eerily has more in common with early Twentieth Century German and Russian intelligence institutions than anything envisioned by America's Founding Fathers.
Another disconcerting feature of today's Religious Right is its attempt to Christianize political entities which it supports and to demonize political entities which it opposes. This trend is especially scary.
When people are told that they are voting "Christian" by voting for Republican Party candidates, it is being intimated that they are voting non-Christian by voting for any other candidate. This is not only silly on its face, it is downright dangerous!
I don't remember anyone saying people voted "Christian" when they elected the outspoken Christian candidate, Jimmy Carter, President. Yet, Carter, in his personal life, demonstrated as much, if not more, Christianity than does George W. Bush. If you recall, Carter even taught Sunday School in a Southern Baptist Church while President.
However, in spite of the fact that President Bush and the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., have repeatedly supported copious unchristian (not to mention unconstitutional) programs and policies, Christians act as if Bush and his fellow Republicans have ushered in the Millennial Kingdom.
More than that, the Religious Right appears to believe that G.W. Bush is the anointed vicar of Christ. But instead of wearing the garb of a religious leader, he wears the shroud of a politico and a military commander-in-chief.
As such, in the minds of the Religious Right, Bush's war in Iraq is a holy crusade. America is fast taking on the shape of the old Holy Roman Empire and President Bush is quickly morphing into a modern day Caesar.
The willingness of the Religious Right to give President Bush king-like subservience is easily seen in the way they demonize anyone who dares to oppose him. This is very unnerving.
Are we heading for a modern day religious inquisition, this one led not by the Catholic Church but by the Religious Right? Are we witnessing the type of marriage between Church and State that America's founders originally feared?
I used to believe that liberals were paranoid for being fearful of conservative Christians gaining political power. Now, I share their trepidation.
Of course, the sad truth is, neither George W. Bush nor the Republican Party in Washington, D.C. represents genuine Christian or even conservative principles. If they did, they would take their oaths to the Constitution seriously and then neither liberals nor conservatives would have anything to fear, for the U.S. Constitution protects the rights and freedoms of all men.
Unfortunately, when the seed of Bush's unconstitutional policies come to fruition, it will produce large scale fallout economically, socially, and politically. And sadder still will be that, instead of blaming Bush's infidelity to constitutional government and conservative principles, people will blame Christianity and conservatism itself. The result of this miscalculation will doubtless be a massive tide of support for more and greater unconstitutional government, but only under a different name.
Chuck Baldwin
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Chuck Baldwin Live
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
The Covenant News ~ December 15, 2004
For those readers who are unfamiliar with my biography, let me here provide a thumbnail sketch of my conservative bona fides:
I attended, graduated, or received degrees from fundamentalist Christian schools such as Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan, Thomas Road Bible Institute (now known as Liberty Bible Institute at Liberty University) in Lynchburg, Virginia, Christian Bible College in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and Trinity Baptist College in Jacksonville, Florida.
I am currently in my thirtieth year as the Senior Pastor of the Crossroad Baptist Church (Independent) in Pensacola, Florida. I was the Executive Director of the Florida Moral Majority in the early 1980's. I was an active member of the local Christian Coalition.
I have marched and protested against abortion clinics. I have led several pro-life rallies and even led our church to construct A Memorial To Aborted Babies. I have conducted small and large (some drawing crowds numbering in the thousands) pro-life, pro-family rallies and meetings in the Pensacola area and in many towns and cities across the state of Florida.
When Ronald Reagan was running for President, I helped Dr. Jerry Falwell register more than fifty thousand new conservative voters in my state. I have attended White House functions with former President Reagan and former Vice President George H.W. Bush.
I supported and defended Chief Justice Roy Moore and his fight to display a Ten Commandments monument at a pro-Ten Commandments rally in Montgomery, Alabama and even on national television.
I am an annual member of the National Rifle Association and a life member of Gun Owners of America. I have been the featured speaker at several pro-Second Amendment rallies.
No one can honestly question my commitment to pro-life, pro-family, conservative causes. That being said, the Religious Right, as it now exists, scares me.
For one reason, on the whole, the Religious Right has obviously and patently become little more than a propaganda machine for the Republican Party in general and for President G.W. Bush in particular. This is in spite of the fact that both Bush and the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., have routinely ignored and even trampled the very principles which the Religious Right claims to represent.
Therefore, no longer does the Religious Right represent conservative, Christian values. Instead, they represent their own self-serving interests at the expense of those values.
It also appears painfully obvious to me that in order to sit at the king's table, the Religious Right is willing to compromise any principle, no matter how sacred. As such, it has become a hollow movement. Sadly, the Religious Right is now a movement without a cause, except the cause of advancing the Republican Party.
Beyond that, the Religious Right is actively assisting those who would destroy our freedoms. On the whole, the Religious Right comports with those within the Bush administration and within the Republican Party who, in the name of "fighting terrorism," are actually terrorizing constitutional protections of our liberties.
The Religious Right offered virtually no resistance to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the Patriot Act, or the recently created position of National Intelligence Director. Neither did the Religious Right offer even a whimper of protest as President Bush and Republicans in Congress created a first-ever national ID card in the new intelligence bill, which eerily has more in common with early Twentieth Century German and Russian intelligence institutions than anything envisioned by America's Founding Fathers.
Another disconcerting feature of today's Religious Right is its attempt to Christianize political entities which it supports and to demonize political entities which it opposes. This trend is especially scary.
When people are told that they are voting "Christian" by voting for Republican Party candidates, it is being intimated that they are voting non-Christian by voting for any other candidate. This is not only silly on its face, it is downright dangerous!
I don't remember anyone saying people voted "Christian" when they elected the outspoken Christian candidate, Jimmy Carter, President. Yet, Carter, in his personal life, demonstrated as much, if not more, Christianity than does George W. Bush. If you recall, Carter even taught Sunday School in a Southern Baptist Church while President.
However, in spite of the fact that President Bush and the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., have repeatedly supported copious unchristian (not to mention unconstitutional) programs and policies, Christians act as if Bush and his fellow Republicans have ushered in the Millennial Kingdom.
More than that, the Religious Right appears to believe that G.W. Bush is the anointed vicar of Christ. But instead of wearing the garb of a religious leader, he wears the shroud of a politico and a military commander-in-chief.
As such, in the minds of the Religious Right, Bush's war in Iraq is a holy crusade. America is fast taking on the shape of the old Holy Roman Empire and President Bush is quickly morphing into a modern day Caesar.
The willingness of the Religious Right to give President Bush king-like subservience is easily seen in the way they demonize anyone who dares to oppose him. This is very unnerving.
Are we heading for a modern day religious inquisition, this one led not by the Catholic Church but by the Religious Right? Are we witnessing the type of marriage between Church and State that America's founders originally feared?
I used to believe that liberals were paranoid for being fearful of conservative Christians gaining political power. Now, I share their trepidation.
Of course, the sad truth is, neither George W. Bush nor the Republican Party in Washington, D.C. represents genuine Christian or even conservative principles. If they did, they would take their oaths to the Constitution seriously and then neither liberals nor conservatives would have anything to fear, for the U.S. Constitution protects the rights and freedoms of all men.
Unfortunately, when the seed of Bush's unconstitutional policies come to fruition, it will produce large scale fallout economically, socially, and politically. And sadder still will be that, instead of blaming Bush's infidelity to constitutional government and conservative principles, people will blame Christianity and conservatism itself. The result of this miscalculation will doubtless be a massive tide of support for more and greater unconstitutional government, but only under a different name.
Chuck Baldwin
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Chuck Baldwin Live
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
Monday, March 30, 2009
Chuck Baldwin on Lou Dobbs and Fox News
Thank God For Lou Dobbs
By Chuck BaldwinOver the years, I have been as outspoken a critic of the mainstream press as anyone. For one thing, the vast majority of mainstream media celebrities seem infatuated with liberal politicians. For example, popular news hosts are going gaga in the way they cover the presidential campaign of Senator Barak Obama. Of course, this is standard operating procedure for the majority of the mainstream media. Is it any wonder that so many people across America have serious disdain for America's major news makers?
Furthermore, if CNN is the "Clinton News Network," FOX News is the "Bush News Network." For instance, Sean Hannity is nothing more than a shill for Republicans in general and George W. Bush in particular. The same is true for Rush Limbaugh and countless other media dignitaries.
Genuinely objective reporting is almost nonexistent in today's mainstream media. They all seem to be little more than lap dogs for big-government media moguls, distracting the American public with incessant "news" coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears, while providing almost no coverage of the really important issues impacting America's future survival. Thank God, there is one exception: CNN's Lou Dobbs.
Day in and day out, Lou Dobbs dares to address the truly salient issues that most newsmen are either too ignorant or too afraid to address. For example, Dobbs is the one member of the mainstream press that is willing to not only address the subjects of illegal immigration, the erasure of our national borders, the loss of our national sovereignty, and the burgeoning North American Union, but he courageously tells the truth about it all.
Furthermore, among the national mainstream media, it has been Lou Dobbs, and only Lou Dobbs, that has been willing to challenge the Bush administration's pathetic capitulation to the Mexican government in prosecuting and imprisoning Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, while at the same time giving a confessed Mexican drug dealer amnesty so that he might testify against the agents.
I'm not sure how Lou Dobbs became the courageous champion that he is, or how it is that CNN lets him speak out as freely and forthrightly as he does, but I am sure glad he is on the air. His is a lone but powerful voice for truth amidst a cacophony of phony-baloney "news" reporting and downright propaganda.
If you want to get the "straight scoop" on the issues that are currently threatening America's national sovereignty and independence, Lou Dobbs is your man. Personally, I thank God for Lou Dobbs.
Chuck Baldwin
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Chuck Baldwin Live
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Voices from the Past
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
Thomas Jefferson,
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be saved by the government and nationalized; the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism."
Karl Marx, 1867."[*Karl Marx*, *1867*, */Das Kapital/*, his doctrine of the theory of surplus value]
Thomas Jefferson,
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be saved by the government and nationalized; the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism."
Karl Marx, 1867."[*Karl Marx*, *1867*, */Das Kapital/*, his doctrine of the theory of surplus value]
Indiana State Senator Files Sovereignty Resolution
Friday, February 20, 2009
Indiana State Senator Greg Walker (District 41) is reported to have filed
some form of what has recently come to be referred to as a "" whereby a state reasserts its rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constition and reminds the Federal Government of its constitutionally limited powers.
Although details are still pending a posting of the bill it is
believed to be Senate Concurrent Resolution 37 (2009-2010) and that Senator Dennis Kruse (District 14) and popular Senator Mike Delph (District 29)
might also be working with or supporting Sen. Walker's effort.
As many as twenty states are believed to have had similar resolutions introduced in 2009 including Arizona, New Hampshire (HCR 6) and Oklahoma.
Oklahoma's resolution passed out of their House 83 to 13 this week and
should be headed to their State Senate where a similar measure got hung up last year. The overwhelming 83 to 13 vote should send a clear
message that state legislators from both major parties are growing
tired of Federal authorities and elected officials overstepping clearly
outlined constitutional guidelines and often with unfunded or underfunded mandates.
Constituents of the Indiana Senators, and other activists including Indiana
Libertarians like former gubernatorial candidate Andrew Horning
(Freedom, IN) and 7th District congressional candidate Sean Shepard (Indianapolis), have supported the idea. Mr. Horning, in fact, wrote
a similar resolution many years back but was unable to find anyone who
would introduce it at that time.
-- Details will be updated as they become available. --
Link to Indiana Senate Concurrent Resolution: http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2009&session=1&request=getConcurrentResolutions
Indiana State Senator Greg Walker (District 41) is reported to have filed
some form of what has recently come to be referred to as a "" whereby a state reasserts its rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constition and reminds the Federal Government of its constitutionally limited powers.
Although details are still pending a posting of the bill it is
believed to be Senate Concurrent Resolution 37 (2009-2010) and that Senator Dennis Kruse (District 14) and popular Senator Mike Delph (District 29)
might also be working with or supporting Sen. Walker's effort.
As many as twenty states are believed to have had similar resolutions introduced in 2009 including Arizona, New Hampshire (HCR 6) and Oklahoma.
Oklahoma's resolution passed out of their House 83 to 13 this week and
should be headed to their State Senate where a similar measure got hung up last year. The overwhelming 83 to 13 vote should send a clear
message that state legislators from both major parties are growing
tired of Federal authorities and elected officials overstepping clearly
outlined constitutional guidelines and often with unfunded or underfunded mandates.
Constituents of the Indiana Senators, and other activists including Indiana
Libertarians like former gubernatorial candidate Andrew Horning
(Freedom, IN) and 7th District congressional candidate Sean Shepard (Indianapolis), have supported the idea. Mr. Horning, in fact, wrote
a similar resolution many years back but was unable to find anyone who
would introduce it at that time.
-- Details will be updated as they become available. --
Link to Indiana Senate Concurrent Resolution: http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2009&session=1&request=getConcurrentResolutions
China Seeks Guarantee
China Seeks Guarantee. 2/12/09.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. China yesterday said that they held $682 billion of our debt and that they were very concerned about the "reckless policies'' of our spending. And they were concerned so much that they contacted our new Secretary of the Treasury and said, We want some kind of a guarantee that our money is going to be worth something if you guys keep spending so much over there and devalue not only your currency, but the currencies throughout the world.
Well, today China reversed its position and said--Luo Ping, the Director General of the Chinese Banking Regulatory Commission--said in a speech in New York, ``We're still going to buy your Treasuries because where else are we going to put our money, because the United States is still the biggest economy and the best place to put our money. But we're really upset with you because you're devaluing your currency, and you're going to be devaluing ours as well.''
And he said this, ``Except for U.S. Treasuries, what can you hold? Gold? You don't hold Japanese government bonds or UK bonds. U.S. Treasuries are still the safest haven. For everyone, including China.'' But, you're devaluing your currency over there, and we don't want ours devalued, but we don't have anyplace to go.
He said further on, ``We hate you guys,'' using his language, ``We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion, $2 trillion or more in dollars, we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys, but there's nothing else we can do.'' Now what does this tell us as Americans?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. China yesterday said that they held $682 billion of our debt and that they were very concerned about the "reckless policies'' of our spending. And they were concerned so much that they contacted our new Secretary of the Treasury and said, We want some kind of a guarantee that our money is going to be worth something if you guys keep spending so much over there and devalue not only your currency, but the currencies throughout the world.
Well, today China reversed its position and said--Luo Ping, the Director General of the Chinese Banking Regulatory Commission--said in a speech in New York, ``We're still going to buy your Treasuries because where else are we going to put our money, because the United States is still the biggest economy and the best place to put our money. But we're really upset with you because you're devaluing your currency, and you're going to be devaluing ours as well.''
And he said this, ``Except for U.S. Treasuries, what can you hold? Gold? You don't hold Japanese government bonds or UK bonds. U.S. Treasuries are still the safest haven. For everyone, including China.'' But, you're devaluing your currency over there, and we don't want ours devalued, but we don't have anyplace to go.
He said further on, ``We hate you guys,'' using his language, ``We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion, $2 trillion or more in dollars, we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys, but there's nothing else we can do.'' Now what does this tell us as Americans?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
