Absurdity of Palin Supporters
'Nuff Said. Can we shut her down now?
What's going on in America transcends Left and Right politics. Their focus on Obama is just a distraction. They don't get it: the fall of America is being brought by corporate fascism of which Obama is only one small component.
KDGAS92Q85AM
White House Deal w/ Drug Companies = Failure
The drug companies compromised with the Whitehouse to cut costs by $80b over the next 10 years.
The drug companies then jacked prices by 9.3%. They are now earning $10b per year more than they were before.
The net difference... The drug companies are now earning $2b more each year.
Of course, this is because they have a monopoly. 78% of the market is patented drugs but the limit of patents was raised from 5 years to 12 years.
This is a great deal negotiated by Obama. What a freaking joke.
NAU Federal Reserve Notes – 2009 Series – Initial Release
I just came across these. The North American Union Federal Reserve Notes 2009 Series Initial Release:
These claim to be the "Initial Release - 2009 Series"
Given that the 2010 series hit the web first and had a LOT of flaws in them as far as currency goes, I'll have to say my initial impression is that these are the new and improved fakes.
The see through alignment of the denominations is much better but there are still some problems with the "semi-transparent" nature of these bills...
If you look at a real bill, even more so under intense light, you won't see anything showing through. It's clear from these bills that the creator wanted you to see through it to make it appear "real." Do the test yourself. Get a bill out of your wallet and put it on a table or counter. Do you see the reverse side showing through? How about even a little? What about under the beam of a flash light?
In this series they added the word "Dollar" to the bill to tell you what currency it actually is unlike the last version they released. The designs between the denominations have been standardized too. This is a major improvement in the believability of these bills.
There is a clear lack of continuity between the 2010 and 2009 series. This suggests to me that these are indeed fakes.
Another problem with these bills is the confusion of the designer over the the Note Number Position and the Federal Reserve District Number. These are the numbers associated with these bills:
One - L1
Two - JP Morgan - F6 (previously on the $200 bill for the supposed 2010 series)
Five - B2
Ten - L12
Twenty - A1
Fifty - E5
One Hundred - B2
The Note Number Position on the ten is not even close to possible on the Federal Reserve bill printing presses. Just see this webpage on what these are. If these are meant to be Federal Reserve District Numbers then each of these bills would be coming off their respective presses in San Francisco, Atlanta, New York, Boston, and Richmond. If this is the initial release, they wouldn't have printed them at different locations if they are just "specimens" as the text across each bill states. That's massively expensive to print them at all those locations for just a specimen. Another note worthy catch is that the One Dollar Bill is L1 which is an illegal combination of the District Number. It would be A1 or L12 not L1 unless it was a very large sheet of paper being printed and it was the Note Number Position.
Another thing, they took out the $200 bill and added the $2. JP Morgan is a highly esteemed member of the bankers club and would be placed much higher than the morbid and mostly unused $2 bill. This is just laziness on the part of the designer.
These are not high enough detail to analyze the security strip or the roman numerals on the pyramid. Also, a sheet of bills is not provided as it was the last time. I deemed those to be fake because the note number positions were all the same as were the "holograms." (If the A2 was the Federal Reserve District Number then it would have been illegal: B2 or A1 would be fine but not A2.) This may be a calculated aspect of these images. If you don't put them out in high res they can't be dissected very well for flaws like the ones found in the 2010 series.
My last piece of evidence is that these are 2009 series. There is about 35 days left in 2009. Are they really planning on getting the NAU going within this time period? Given that the 2010 series is so completely under-developed, I find it impossible to believe that 2009 is the year of the NAU.
So, the 2009 series are much better fakes. They are still fakes.
If you designed these fake pieces of trash and are reading this, you better keep your day job. These are awful.
It's worth noting, again, why put so much effort into this? Who are they trying to fool and why? Cointel pro maybe. Why indicate 2009 on these bills?
Another unanswered question is why use important people to the Federal Reserve? This may be designed to make people more angry at the Federal Reserve. I'm not having it. There are plenty of reasons to be angry with the Federal Reserve... this is not one of them.
You shouldn't take these seriously... just like Sarah Palin.
Consuming Kids: Childhood Market Machine
We the people are the externalities of business.
TV is not just not for kids but it's also dumbing you down too. Turn it off. If you have a hard time doing that, start cutting out various shows until you don't need it anymore. TV is an addiction.
Addiction: Addiction is a chronic or recurrent condition proposed to be precipitated by one or more of the following: genetic, biological/pharmacological and social factors. Addiction is characterized by the compulsive use of substances or engagement of behaviors despite clear evidence to the user of consequent morbidity and/or other harmful effects.
California’s unconstitutional IOUs
It's amazing that this has not gotten more media attention.
This is what the Constitution says:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Unconstitutional IOUs from California
So, the question is: what constitutes a “bill of credit?” Well, the United States Supreme Court has dealt with this issue, to define a bill of credit. The source of case law goes back to Craig v. Missouri (1830). In deciding for the majority, Chief Justice Marshall defined bills of credit in the Constitutional sense.
In its enlarged, and perhaps its literal sense, the term ‘bill of credit’ may comprehend any instrument by which a State engages to pay money at a future day; thus including a certificate given for money borrowed…To ‘emit bills of credit’ conveys to the mind the idea of issuing paper intended to circulate through the community for its ordinary purposes, as money, which paper is redeemable at a future day.
But it is contended, that though these certificates should be deemed bills of credit, according to the common acceptation of the term, they are not so in the sense of the constitution; because they are not made a legal tender. The constitution itself furnishes no countenance to this distinction. The prohibition is general. It extends to all bills of credit, not to bills of a particular description.
As far as my research can carry me, this is still considered to be the Constitutional “gold standard” upon which “bills of credit” are defined. It seems quite clear to me, that given Marshall’s definition, the California IOUs absolutely should be considered bills of credit and as such should be considered to violate Article I, Section 10 (as above). I am shocked and amazed that nobody has questioned this, yet.
It's also interesting that we (here in the USA), use the Federal Reserve Notes when this clause specifically states that only gold and silver may be used for legal tender.
Texas Accidentally Bans All Marriage
This is what the Texas Constitutional Amendment says:
"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
From the article:
One thing that is "identical…to marriage," of course, is marriage
It's clear that this needs to be flushed out by the Supreme Court of Texas.
Seriously, if someone was getting a divorce and the partner demanded 50% of everything they totally could argue that the marriage was invalid due to this State Constitutional amendment. Technically, they would win based on the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is another thing all together.
S&P 500 P/E Ratio – The hidden truth
Standard & Poor's New Policy: Concealing the S&P 500 P/E Ratio from the General Public
Some high-level decision-maker at Standard & Poor's has decided that the public should no longer be allowed easy access to this crucial number: the Price/Earnings ratio of the S&P 500.
That number went above 140 on September 30, 2009 -- the highest ever recorded. It had continued upward all year.
...
My guess is that the company came under pressure from the brokerage industry to stop publishing what has to be a frightening statistic for brokers, a statistic that says "Sell!"
In other words, if you use 16 as the normal P/E ratio for the S&P 500 then stocks are about 8.75 times over valued for their earnings.
To put things in context of what exactly this means I'll use the tech bubble in 1999/2000. People bought into the mania that drove stock prices to excessive levels but then it happened... The Crash. P/E ratios pushed towards their historical norm and the NASDAQ fell from 5,048.62 to below 2300.
If you apply the same logic here, we're looking at the S&P index dropping to less than 600. If you account for inflation, it would be 400 in year 2000 dollars by the official CPI index and 300 if you go by the shadowstats.com inflation index.
Will investors realize their stocks are way over-valued? All the while, the media is keeping this very quiet because they don't want to wake the sleeping giant. I'll tell you this: I don't want to be in stocks right now.