Please follow us on Twitter @theboldpursuit
by Don Hank
My recent article on dedollarization (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141009) mentioned several countries that were dedollarizing but not the UK, which had not yet joined the fray.
However, the UK has meanwhile taken the most significant and daring step of all. Friday's morning paper says the United Kingdom is issuing SOVEREIGN BONDS denominated in...are you ready for this?
RENMINBI... You can now buy UK bonds denominated in the Chinese yuan!
The UK is the first Western country to do such a thing. Their other bonds were denominated in USD, euros, Japanese yuan and Canadian dollars.
However, don't expect the MSM will ever call this "dedollarization," even thought that is exactly what it is intended.
Anyone who believes that dedollarization is limited to Russia and the BRICS or who believes that dedollarization is not going to affect the supremacy of the dollar in world trade is on the wrong track -- the same track on which the freight train is bearing down on us all.
Time to get off that track.
What is that track called?
It is called bullying by the US oligarchy (relax, Mr. American. YOU have nothing to do with this. Your government is not your own. But a word of caution: believing the MSM propaganda makes you unwittingly complicit). Read about it here.
The remedy is called dedollarization, though none dare name its name, as you may read here:
QUOTE: The French Finance Ministry said it was instead seeking support from EU partners to bolster the use of the euro in international business as a way of reducing the potentially very costly exposure of European firms to U.S. sanctions law. [the term dedollarization is commonly found in the world press but a search with that word on the sites of major online US newspapers brings up next to nothing, as my article linked above shows. Trusting these news outlets can only bring you pain in the long run]
You see? The US oligarchy, acting like the kid who steals your lunch money, thinks its power is unlimited, but it ignores the signs that the rest of the world is sick of being the 90-pound weakling and is beefing up its arsenal to fight back. This feeling of utter invincibility (a misguided sense of American exceptionalism) on the part of US oligarchs is one reason why none of the major news outlets like NYT, WSJ, and even Stratfor will ever talk about dedollarization. They are all victims of normalcy bias. "It can't happen to us." (Here again is my article on dedollarization and the way the press spikes the story)
It is happening right now, but as long as the MSM is muzzled, or muzzle themselves, Americans will be blind-sided by the impact of a world using currencies other than the dollar and the resulting loss of the dollar's value.
Further, none of this news even touches on Russia, but Russia is also the victim of costly sanctions and a stealth program aimed at destroying its trade relations with one of its most important partners, ie, Ukraine. The Soros-induced uprising in Ukraine is falsely portrayed as “spontaneous” but it is anything but (how do we know Soros was behind it? He said so as shown here. But the US government also played a large role, as Victoria Nuland admitted here). The meddling in Ukraine was motivated in large part by the Wolfowitz doctrine of isolating Russia. But it is backfiring big time, as reflected by another item in today's news:
Quote: Germany is the major EU economy most exposed to the Ukraine crisis, given its strong bilateral trade relationship with Russia. In September, the ZEW Index of German business confidence plunged again - hitting a nine-year low.
Here it comes, Folks. The unintended consequences of meddling by the US power elites are raining down on the entire world. Are you ready?
If I had some extra cash, I would invest in one of those renminbi-denominated bonds from the UK or Russia.
by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer
In 1969 I was stationed in South Korea as a member of the Second Infantry Division. My duties carried me within sight of North Korea, and always within easy range of enemy artillery. I was occasionally assigned to armed patrol duties along the Im Jin River, just a proverbial stone’s throw from the border with a nation with which we were technically still at war. North Korean patrols frequently ventured into our area, and sometimes killed our soldiers. The day before my arrival, eight American soldiers were killed there, but their deaths got minimal news coverage, since the Viet Nam War was raging and overshadowed our “little war.”
by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer
One of Sarah Palin’s most important statements during her vice presidential campaign in 2008 was this:
"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."
While at the time her critics denounced that statement as unfair to community organizers, Palin was spot on correct. Her point has been proved prescient. Barack Obama is an abject incompetent at everything except speechifying and golf. His ineptitude is nothing short of horrifying, considering the office he occupies (by which I do not mean that he runs it— he merely occupies it).
The man literally could not run a lemonade stand, much less a nation. His attempts to outsource presidential decision making have produced a virtual samba line of buffoons who could not begin to control the agencies and projects to which they were appointed.
Kathleen Sebelius led the obamacare samba line with failures so thorough and comprehensive that it became clear that she knew absolutely nothing about the healthcare website that she had many months to oversee – a website which not only collapsed the moment she pressed the “start” key, but continues to this day to have critical defects.
Eric Shinseki was widely praised for his service as an army general, but from the moment he stepped into the office of Secretary of Veterans Affairs he was as out of his element as a brain surgeon assigned to build a space ship. Veterans avoidably died as a result of Shinseki’s lack of curiosity about events in his department, and his response was that he felt really bad about that. Oh yeah, he was angry, too.
“Former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu left under a cloud of controversy involving crony capitalists getting millions of dollars in green loans that produced nothing but failed companies,” according to Victor Davis Hanson at the San Jose Mercury News
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton produced a litany of failures during her tenure, but one must grudgingly admit that she spent little time on the golf course (or whatever her pastime might happen to be), and is enough of a control freak that she would have scrutinized every element of HillaryCare, had she been president. The finished product would have been disastrous to the nation, but an efficient disaster, which might actually be the worst kind.
Valerie Jarrett, not Obama, seems to be the actual brains (or lack thereof) behind the operation (or lack thereof). Her qualifications for the job are purely ideological, explaining why no hint of the real world ever factors into presidential decrees.
The worst of Obama’s failures are yet to be exposed to the light of day. His mismanagement of national security makes the Keystone Cops look like James Bond by comparison.
Let’s start with his own personal security, supposedly guaranteed by the Secret Service. Undoubtedly, there are many competent and dedicated agents, but the leadership has besmirched their hard earned reputation. News stories give the impression that the leadership has allowed the service to become infiltrated with drunkards, whoremongers and bunglers. That impression has tainted the entire Secret Service with the sins of the few. This tragic and dangerous corruption in leadership has been going on for years, and nothing proactive was done to foresee and prevent future occurrences. Forget locking the back door, the Secret Service could not even lock the front door of the White House as an intruder sprinted across the lawn and penetrated deep inside the building. Yet another agency head has been forced to resign in disgrace in light of failures so astounding that no fiction writer would dare include such improbable idiocies in their novels.
Let’s continue with Obama’s military incompetence. Here is a man who in a speech at the Army Academy at West Point mispronounced the word “corps” three times. Many people would laugh this off as a mere gaffe, but it reflects an utter unfamiliarity with the most basic vocabulary of the military. Worse, it shows that not one of the people closest to him caught the error before he made it, and no one was able to speak into his earphone (if he even had one) to correct this before he repeated it – twice. Think of what the dismayed cadets were imagining, as they realized this community organizer was their commander.
One might laugh it off were not this gaffe magnified in his blunders that have squandered the gains and sacrifices of thousands of military men who lost their lives or health in battle to secure Iraq.
One might continue laughing if Obama had not claimed credit for ending the war, but now seeks to blame others when it turns out that ending the war really meant losing it.
The laughter dies down when the national security agencies have finally become fed up with this incompetent who continually blames them, not himself, for permitting an entire nation of terrorists to be formed under his nose, now threatening to infiltrate our cities with large numbers of fanatical, suicidal terrorists. All this occurred while Obama refused to attend security briefings by those whom now he blames.
What will it take before those in positions of high power step out of the shadows and perform their actual duty of protecting the nation, protecting it from the onslaught of illegal immigrants, disease, and violence? How can they protect the president when they refuse to protect the nation from the president himself?
Just how long can a samba line of stumbling incompetents get before the laughter finally stops?
Don Hank, Guest Contributor
Several investment advisers are now warning people not to put too much money in the bank, or if you have more than a ‘safe’ amount, to pull some out – and also to divvy up your deposits in more than one bank.
They base this on some new laws being crafted right now in various parts of the world enabling banks to steal deposits under a euphemistic concept known as the “bail-in,” which first reared its hideous head in Cyprus last year (see links below for details on these new developments).
by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer
Throughout history, human life has been dominated by misery. Wars, famines, plagues and natural catastrophes were rampant, not to mention tyrannies that were cruel and oppressive. Life was brutal and short.
A few candles lit the darkness. For those of us fortunate enough to have been born in the Americas and Europe during the twentieth century, it may be difficult to understand what life is (and was) like for those born far from the glow of candles.
by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer
Actually, I’ve said it several times. Here was the most recent: Seven Days in September – Will They Finally Do It?
In an email that I recently sent to friends and colleagues, I asked: Did I predict this?
I was watching Fox News and they were commenting on how unusual it is for
military generals to openly question administration policy.
Yet, some generals have been increasingly doing just that, openly expressing concerns.
This may amount to little or nothing, but in my view, there must be serious worries among high officials about the danger into which Obama is putting the nation.
The "rebellion of the generals," as one commentator put it, may snowball or not, we shall see. [End of quote]
There may not yet be open rebellion, but the storm clouds are surely gathering. The Conservative Tribune website lists eight generals who have recently and publicly spoken out, in varying degrees, objecting to Barack Obama’s policies.
Major General Bentley Rayburn (US Air Force)
Brigadier General Charles Jones (US Air Force)
General Jack Keane (US Army)
Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin (US Army)
General Patrick Henry Brady (US Army)
Major General Paul E. Vallely (US Army)
Active duty officers:
General and US Southern Command Commander John Kelly (US Marine Corps)
General James Amos (US Marine Corps)
Military officers, especially those still on active duty, take serious risks to their careers whenever they speak out in public in any way that is not in agreement with the president who is, after all, their Commander in Chief. Even retired officers can be recalled to active duty and court-martialed – a little-known fact. For these men, the risks are high, and the penalties can be severe.
It is, therefore, more than a minor news item when such officers reveal their dismay at presidential decisions.
Under normal conditions I would agree that officers should either keep quiet or resign, but these are not normal conditions. A military man’s first loyalty is not to the president, but to the Constitution, and that loyalty may require an officer to speak up.
As it turns out, these generals may have done Barack Obama a favor, and the nation as well. Today, Obama gave a masterful speech (doesn’t he always?) at the United Nations, condemning terrorism in no uncertain terms, and calling for the active eradication of it at all levels, including military, financial and cultural.
While Obama is no General Patton, and while he did allow some leftist sentiment in among his words, the influence of the generals was, in my fallible opinion, clear and distinct. At least, he is no longer calling for understanding what America did wrong to incite the nice terrorists to behave so rudely (oh my, am I being sarcastic?).
Nor is Obama a General Douglas MacArthur, who told us, quite accurately, that when it comes to war, “There is no substitute for victory.”
MacArthur was objecting to the policy of containing communism instead of defeating it. He also made other pronouncements objecting to the policies of President Harry Truman.
Truman fired him.
by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer
We can, and should, separate church from state, but we can no more separate faith in God from public policy than we can separate rights from the Constitution.
The inception of the United States of America is rooted in two opposing philosophies. One of them is the Greek tradition of democracy and reason; the other is the Hebrew tradition of faith and discipline. Or, one might ask, are they really opposed?
These two philosophies somehow fused during the years that saw Christianity rise from an obscure cult of Jews into a major world religion. During that time and later, the Greek idea of democracy gradually took ever firmer hold in Europe, which alongside Christianity, began its thousand year journey toward parliamentary democracy.
This unnoticed revolution took hundreds of years to work its way into the psyche of western thinkers. The pinnacle of that revolution was the founding of the United States.
While many secularists deny that America was founded as a Christian nation, the evidence is just too overwhelming to draw any other rational conclusion. Yes, many of the Founders were Deists, not Christians, but all of them were so well versed in the Bible that their writings are saturated with references to the God of Abraham. The Judeo-Christian influence on their thinking was a dominant factor in the formation of our country. Not one of their statements of principle comes from any other major religious tradition.
Despite the fusion of the Greek and Hebrew worldviews, despite their being joined in the formation of the idea that, “all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,” despite all that, the two worldviews never quite completed their merger. They remained quietly at odds with each other for centuries during a period of truce.
That truce is over. America is once again separating, philosophically speaking, into two warring factions.
One of them is the familiar Christian faith, along with its Jewish root, the belief in a creator God who intervenes in the lives of individuals and nations, and who reveals to us what is morally right, and what is morally depraved.
The other is the secular worldview, which combines atheism and naturalist-materialism. This worldview holds that there is no credible evidence of God, and therefore no reason to believe in what it calls the myths of Christianity. That view avers that nature is all that there is, and that nature is composed only of material governed by mathematical rules.
Such worldviews have consequences. One of the consequences of the Christian worldview is that all humans are regarded as specially created by God for a divine purpose, and are therefore to be treasured in their own right, not at the whim of an earthly ruler.
The consequences of secularism are much darker. While one of the tenets of secularism is that, “Man is the measure of all things,” natural-materialism considers humans to be nothing more than a happenstance by-product of natural processes. If we are considered to be nothing more than biological processes, doomed to oblivion in an uncaring universe, then that cannot help but shape social policy, one that instead of being humanist, is inhumane.
That dark effect has not yet reached its nadir, but only because the old moral traditions are still deeply embedded in our culture. They will not disappear overnight, but with time, the Biblical underpinnings of our culture will continue to erode. Legalized abortion is only one visible effect. It has already redefined what it is to be human, defining it downward. We have seen only the beginning.
As American society turns further away from God, so it will also turn further away from human rights, from liberty and freedom, and toward tyranny.
The monstrous tyrannies of the mid twentieth century serve as dire warnings. Communism and fascism massacred untolled numbers in Europe, and the imperialism of a false god (emperor) murdered millions in Asia . All were based in a world view that considered individual humans to have no sovereignty, no inherent rights of their own. People were deemed to be simply tools of the state, to be sent to their deaths by the millions, in the pursuit of evil purposes.
Faith is not, of course, a political tool. We do not embrace it for political purposes. That, indeed, would be contrary to what faith in God really is.
Instead, faith is embedded in our human nature. Birds fly, fish swim, and humans worship God. We freely choose to accept faith or to reject it. In doing so, we also choose the consequences, which are either humanity or inhumanity.
Faith is not contrary to reason. True, we can no more reason our way to faith than we can count by ones to infinity. In both cases, we get there all at once. Faith gives context to reason. It affirms that our lives have a plan, a purpose and a meaning far beyond merely the biological. Our deeds have eternal consequence.
Apart from faith, nothing makes sense. Apart from faith, there is no plan, no purpose, no meaning.
Natural materialism strays so far from reason as to even deny that free will exists. Free will makes us into independent, sovereign entities, capable of choosing other than as nature would dictate. Therefore, natural materialism falls apart as soon as it accepts that free will is our nature. Free will cannot be the product of a cold, uncaring universe; it can only be the gift of God creating us in His own image and likeness.
Faith will not destroy reason but uphold it. Faith will not conquer democracy, but give it meaning.
There should be no war between reason and faith, but those who have rejected faith are drawing the battle lines. History is about to repeat itself, but the future is ours.
by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer
In order to better understand the nature of Barack Obama, let us turn to history.
Alexei Petrovich Romanov (1690 -1718) was the son of Peter the Great, czar of Russia. Alexei was supposed to inherit the throne, someday, and his father spent great effort in grooming him for the job. Alas, Alexei was not the stuff of which kings are made. He had neither the interest nor the stamina to lead the army, nor even to oversee the Russian navy’s construction projects. His true interests lay more in poetry than in political pogroms, and more in art than in artillery.
Fearing his father, and with good reason, Alexei ran away to Vienna, and while there, reportedly attempted to persuade the Austrian emperor, Charles VI, to wage war against Peter, with Alexei leading the charge. The emperor might possibly have been persuaded, but his advisors intervened, saying something to the effect, just look at him. He is a delicate, spoiled child of privilege. He does not have it in his nature to lead an army, neither to rule a nation were he to succeed in usurping his father’s throne.
Alexei’s final, fatal mistake was to trust his father, who promised that all would be forgiven if Alexei returned to Moscow. He did. He wasn’t.
Peter the Great tortured Alexei, and also everyone connected with him, including Alexei’s mother, to learn every detail of Alexei’s alleged plot to overthrow Peter. Suffering protracted and unspeakable torment, Alexei finally died in the dungeon.
What does this have to do with today? Just this:
Expecting Barack Obama to wage war against terrorists is like asking a rabbit to kill a lion. As the counselors advised Charles VI concerning Alexei, Obama does not have it in his nature to lead an army, neither to govern a republic. Even were he to be given total power, it would not last. Obama is a speechmaker, not a leader. He is an academic, not a strategist. His effeminate mannerisms are not those of a warrior. They are in his case, a vital signal to be overlooked at our peril.
Obama’s worldview is as surreal as Salvador Dali’s art. He has swallowed hook, line and sinker the suppositions of his radical leftist associates and professors from college onward. He is the Ward Churchill of the Democrat Party. The consequences have proved brutal and devastating.
Obama sees the United States as an inherently unjust nation, based on an inherently unjust Constitution which, as he described it, protects people from government instead of mandating what it is that government must be required to do for the people. This, Obama declares, is where the Founders “got it wrong.”
Obama is willing to kill terrorists, but only if he can do so without political risk, from the golf course. When successful, he struts boldly and claims credit, but when he fails, he whines and blames others.
Like Alexei who astonishingly trusted his treacherous father, Obama astonishingly believes that America’s foreign enemies can be persuaded to abandon their vicious ideology and instead, “listen to reason.” The problem with that is that he is willing to place an entire nation at the merciless mercy of murderous thugs.
Obama could never have been elected by an informed people. Many of those previously uninformed people are just now beginning to understand that. The election of America’s first black president seemed to them such a noble and lofty goal that they thought nothing could go wrong. Everything did.
We are Alexei.