|Wie is Aanlyn|
Daar is slegs 1
gebruiker aanlyn :: 0 Geregistreerd, 0 Versteek en 1 Gas
Meeste gebruikers ooit aanlyn was 48
op Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:16 am
|Ons het 175 geregistreerde gebruikers|
Die nuutste geregistreerde gebruiker is GK63
Ons gebruikers het altesaam 3166 artikels geplaas in 1809 subjects
USA- 32 STATES NOW OFICIALLY BANKRUPT
Aantal posstukke : 1253
Join date : 2010-02-07
|Onderwerp: USA- 32 STATES NOW OFICIALLY BANKRUPT Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:04 am|| |
YEA- CLEAR INDICATION THAT THE NWO IS PLAYING THEIR HAND THROUGH OBAMA TO GET THE EURO TO BE THE ONLY MONEY-SISTEM IN THE WORLD.
Thirty-Two States are Now Officially Bankrupt
$37.8 Billion Borrowed From US Treasury To Fund Unemployment Insurance
Global Research <http://www.globalresearch.ca> , May 23, 2010
Zero Hedge <http://www.zerohedge.com/> - 2010-05-21
Courtesy of Economic Policy Journal we now know that the majority of American states are currently insolvent, and that the US Treasury has been conducting a shadow bailout of at least 32 US states.
Over 60% of Americans receiving state unemployment benefits are getting these directly from the US government, as 32 states have now borrowed $37.8 billion from Uncle Sam to fund unemployment insurance.
The states in most dire condition, are, not unexpectedly, the unholy trifecta of California ($6.9 billion borrowed), Michigan ($3.9 billion), and New York ($3.2 billion). With this form of shadow bailout occurring, one can only wonder how many other shadow programs are currently in operation to
fund states under the table with federal money.
The full list of America's 32 insolvent states is below, sorted in order of bankruptedness :
NOTE : California is $6.9 billion or $6,900,000,000
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility
of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for
Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole
responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization
will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements
contained in this article.
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on
community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The
source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of
Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial
internet sites, contact: crgedi...@yahoo.com <mailto:crgedi...@yahoo.com>
contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to
advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The
material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational
purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than
"fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgedi...@yahoo.com
C Copyright , Zero Hedge <http://www.zerohedge.com/> , 2010
The URL of this material is at:
Aantal posstukke : 1253
Join date : 2010-02-07
|Onderwerp: Re: USA- 32 STATES NOW OFICIALLY BANKRUPT Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:08 am|| |
THE NWO KILLERS ARE ON THE LOOSE IN FULL FORCE. LIKE IN SOUTH-AFRICA- THEY ARE SLOWLY USING THIS BLACK BABOON AS A TOOL TO BRING THE USA- LIKE SA- ON IT'S KNEES. IT TOOK SA JUST 15 YEARS TO CRUMBLE IN A HEAP OF SLIMY FECES- HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE FOR THEM TO BRING THE USA DOWN BEFORE HEY INTRODUCE THE EURO WORLD-WIDE?
Obama’s New World Order
by Robert Maginnis
President Obama released his blueprint last week for pursuing a new world order that offers no compelling vision to guide the ship of state. Rather it dangerously shifts our military’s focus from counterterrorism to nation building and subordinates aspects of our foreign policy to international organizations like the United Nations.
The 2010 National Security Strategy outlines Obama’s strategic approach and priorities for advancing American interests. Obama’s report, which is supposed to be submitted to Congress 150 days after the beginning of the administration, provides a bleak assessment of our current state, abandons key parts of President Bush’s security strategy and identifies Obama’s vision for a new world order with no new approaches.
Obama’s assessment of the current strategic environment is bleak. “We live in a time of sweeping change where events far beyond our shores impact the safety, security, and prosperity of Americans,” Obama writes.
His strategy calls for strengthening “our military’s capacity to partner with foreign counterparts, train and assist security forces, pursue military-to-military ties with more governments.” This means he will refocus military priorities away from more traditional war-fighting to nation building. Preparing other nations to defend themselves has merit but that mission shouldn’t sap scarce resources from more important missions.
Obama’s nation building plan is a whole of government effort. He intends to assemble a civilian expeditionary capacity to join the military in nation building as we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps instead of sending that force to places like Sudan they ought to go to Louisiana to help clean-up the oil or to Arizona to guard our border.
He also states the risk of nuclear attack has increased since the Cold War and nuclear dangers continue to proliferate. We no longer fight wars over ideology, Obama explains, but “over religious, ethnic and tribal identity.” Inequality and economic instability have intensified and “the international architecture of the 20th Century is buckling under the weight of the new threats.”
President Obama’s strategy discards significant parts of his predecessor’s blueprint. He repudiates the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption by rejecting “the false choice” of “an endless campaign to impose our values.” This was a backhanded comment regarding Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
He drops the concept of the global war on terrorism, arguing we are not waging a “global war against a tactic—terrorism—or a religion—Islam,” but a “war with al Qaeda.”
He also drops the use of the term “radical Islam” or “jihad” because as his spokesman explained, we don’t want “to validate the perception that Islam somehow justifies their violent actions.”
Obama restates his intent to close the prison for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His spokesman argues the prison serves “as a recruitment and propaganda tool for terrorists” and endangers “our troops when they are captured” which has never been proven. An administration spokesman argues that moving enemy combatants to an Illinois prison—the proposed replacement site for Guantanamo—will cut our costs in half. However, he fails to mention the legal and terror threat implications associated with that move.
The President reaffirms his prohibition for “torture,” which allegedly some American interrogators used on al Qaeda suspects, including waterboarding the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Obama claims such methods of interrogation “are not effective means of obtaining information” and they serve as a recruitment and propaganda tool for terrorists. He offers no proof for either claim.
Obama introduces his strategy with dreamy rhetoric that calls for Americans to “see the horizon beyond” our current situation to a world in which “America is stronger.” He calls for “a strategy of national renewal and global leadership” that rebuilds the foundation of “American strength and influence.” But his strategy is mostly generalities and devoid of substance.
Obama’s strategy puts America at the center of the world from which he intends to manipulate our international engagements to address global challenges. He promises to be “steadfast in strengthening old alliances” and expand cooperation with 21st Century centers of influence, such as Russia, China and India. His plan calls for building “deeper partnerships in every region,” and strengthening international institutions like the United Nations and the G-20, the top 20 economic nations, to be more capable of responding to challenges.
The blueprint outlines elements that advance America’s interests. On security he seeks to end the war in Iraq, defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates, and stop the spread of nuclear and biological weapons. He seeks a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace based on a two-state solution and a broader engagement with Muslim communities to “spur progress on critical political and security matters.”
He wants to advance our prosperity by reducing dependence on foreign oil and our cutting our budget deficit. He promises to spend taxpayer money wisely and get our allies to share more of the security burden.
Advancing a just and sustainable international order is an Obama priority. That includes expanding cooperation with nations like Russia, with which we have “reset” relations and pursuing international effort to combat climate change, beginning with the Copenhagen Accord.
But Obama provides little detail on how he intends to realize his global vision. His intentions for our military and engagement with international organizations are revealing and troubling.
“Our armed forces will always be a cornerstone of our security,” Obama writes. Then he outlines plans to “rebalance” our military’s capabilities. He wants our forces to excel at counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and stability operations. Those missions fit the current wars—Iraq and Afghanistan—but not the possible high-intensity conflicts against a near peer competitor like China. Obama promises “We will monitor China’s military modernization program and prepare accordingly to ensure that U.S. interests … are not negatively affected.”
Obama’s plan is to fight the last war over again—terrorism and insurgencies—an option the American people should reject. We need a “rebalanced” armed force that can field a credible full spectrum capability to respond to future challenges from counterterrorism to high-intensity conflicts, and helping others should be part of that strategy.
Obama’s blueprint also calls for significant engagement with international institutions. He naively hopes to galvanize collective international institutional action to resolve the most pressing challenges of our times.
He argues past administrations have engaged organizations like the United Nations “on an ad hoc basis.” He intends to strengthen institutions like the United Nations to “face their imperfections head on and to mobilize transnational cooperation.” Obama is right about the UN’s “imperfections” but it is not the place to mobilize cooperation, at least for America. The UN has proven to be a corrupt anti-Western arena for the world’s malcontents to waste our money on radical and inefficient programs.
“We need a UN capable of fulfilling its founding purpose—maintaining international peace and security,” Obama writes in his strategy. He says “we are enhancing our coordination with the UN … [and] paying our bills,” a dig at former administrations which fell behind on UN contributions. He also promises to help reform the organization’s “overall performance, credibility and legitimacy.” Rather than “enhancing our coordination with the UN,” we ought to distance ourselves from the world body and strengthen alliances elsewhere.
President Obama’s strategic blueprint is devoid of new approaches to solving our nation’s international issues and showing a clear military strategy that ensures our sovereignty. It’s full of rhetoric and little substance with which to guide the ship of state.
Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army.