Is Martial Law a possibility?

[nmap]

Sigaba, you've posed some great questions. My answer to the first one isn't as well-refined as I would like, so I will plan to post it tomorrow afternoon.

As to the second itme, politically, I see Americans as moderates. Older Americans, along with members of the middle and upper middle classes, tend to be a bit more center-right. Young Americans, particularly those with college degrees, tend somewhat toward center-left. All MOO, of course.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

nmap--

If you are so inclined, please consider answering two questions.

First, in this scenario what does the breakdown of public order look like before the public asks for martial law?

I have a strong premise that the future will be quite trying. Presently, the economy is a central issue. Much of my response will be directed to that near-term reality. However, my views are not limited to the current distressing trends, but are also directed toward expectations of broad challenges to our nation, as well as the global economy.

Within the US, we live rather well in comparison to inhabitants of other areas. For example, obesity is a major problem, which at least suggests that we have enough to eat. This is in contrast with other locations. We can easily observe the federal budget, state budgets, as well as local budgets and note that a great many social services exist. These range from health care of one sort or another, to education and libraries, to law enforcement, as well as a multiplicity of other matters. A key issue is that a substantial number of people receive direct benefits of some sort from government.

Let us consider California, along with a number of other states. As matters stand, substantial budgetary problems exist. In the case of California, the budget problems are substantial, and exceed $20 billion, and have little prospect of early resolution. The state will begin issuing IOUs to cover its obligations. So it seems fair to say that a lot of things that Californians are used to will soon be suspended and may never return. In the case of highly affluent people, alternatives will exist. In contrast, those with very limited means may find no viable alternatives to the services they presently consume. This disparity may prove to be a good breeding ground for angry attitudes.

Thus we come to the central question. How will people react when their existing payments and benefits cease? If we suppose that the employment situation is such that no easy alternative source of income exists, then they will face a situation where they are destitute and will regard themselves as having no alternative. What they see as broken promises will cause anger. And the sight of those they regard as rich may increase the emotional response.

It is my supposition that such people will be more likely to engage in criminality. In the case of individuals such as the sick, the elderly, and young children, the person may not themselves choose to steal or rob, or engage in other illicit activity, but there might be an increased likelihood that someone would do so on their behalf. In the face of severe economic stress, then, I expect substantial and ongoing increases in violent crime as well as crimes against property. If we consider the situation in Mexico, where organized crime offers a mechanism for a poor population to generate income, then this seems to validate the model. Areas in the US, particularly border regions, might be susceptible to increases in the same types of crime we see in Mexico should the US economy decline substantially and the so-called social safety net dissolve. In addition, the funding for law enforcement activity may decline.

If crime increases, it seems entirely possible that the middle and upper-middle-class will not be immune to the effects. This is particularly the case if we suppose that the Mexican model, which involves kidnappings and other crimes directed at the affluent, expands across the US border. However, the US affluent classes tend to vote and to have at least some political influence. Furthermore, cities and states may be eager to protect those who continue to generate tax revenue whether through property or income taxes, or other taxes directed at economic activity. So, then, how will both the victims of crime and the government that represents those victims react to the problem?

This is where I believe the possibility of the imposition of martial law exists. Individuals and families that are deeply and chronically afraid will wish to alleviate those fears. While it is possible that they will take personal responsibility for their own safety, this seems unlikely. My conclusion is that those who perceive themselves as likely victims of serious crimes will gladly embrace any tactics or policies they feel will alleviate the problem. Furthermore, they will accept some degree of subjugation in furtherance of that end. We need look no further than the homeowners association in a gated community, wherein residents sometimes pay substantial fees. In essence, the residents subject themselves to more rules, and pay for the privilege, in order to incrementally increase the safety of their property and themselves.

I believe some will note that the founders of our nation had pointed comments about those who would exchange liberty for security. In addition, once a martial law regime is instantiated, a return to the previous state of affairs may prove impossible. That said, I suspect that not enough people are cognizant of the dangers involved, and hence my premise remains intact. At some point, should the economy continue to decline past some critical point, certain elements of the public will demand martial law. Furthermore, their elected officials will give them what they ask for.

[Soak60]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

nmap--

If you are so inclined, please consider answering two questions.

First, in this scenario what does the breakdown of public order look like before the public asks for martial law?...

Nmap answered this more specifically, but to look at it in a broader sense an overall "disaster" resulting in martial law would most likely come either as a result of several crises coming to a head at once, or happening in such quick succession the government cannot recover enough public opinion that it can remain a popular government, with the consent of the people.

To put it in the terms our society was framed in, several powerful minorities (probably definition = 25% of pop+, with people identifying that cause as the "main issue" or "only issue") would need to make a simultaneous or near-simultaneous "power grab" (I put that in quotes because in our society such things are not generally so naked as to deserve that term). This would pit several vocal minorities, with agendas that cannot overlap. Just one minority, with enough drive behind it could become a minor societal revolution, a la the 60s counterculture, with the chance of being simply absorbed by our melting pot. Several of them clashing at once, with the drive of many behind each party, and entirely different agendas, might be enough to have the remainder cry out for some sort of order.

I am talking in terms of extremes; Anti-Socialists grouping with the Moral Majority demanding less government and less crime (contradicting) clashing heavily with low income house holders who have nothing left after the housing crisis, and a good mix in between of people who have lost from the housing crash and the recent scandals from industry deregulation demanding fewer taxes and a lower deficit and more government control and benefits (contradicting). Mixed in with all this is dirty politics and an intense public distrust of elected officials (which we already have).

This would not be like the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate, though I'm sure those would find their way into it. It's about money, and how the government allows us to spend it(!!!), about how far the government controls individual lives as well as regulates our business life, how it protects us from ourselves.

Our government was created with the intent to play many factions off of each other and maintain balance. In the Civil War we had one main dividing issue that was a source of great bitterness. What would have happened if it was North vs South vs West? Or maybe better to say, if the North and the South had both suffered simultaneous internal schisms at the same time they split.

I'll stop here before I erect a Wall of Text. But really,

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Alex

[nmap]

Some things that might be of interest:

The unemployment timebomb is quietly ticking: LINK

Excerpt:

One of my odd experiences covering the US in the early 1990s was visiting militia groups that sprang up in Texas, Idaho, and Ohio in the aftermath of recession. These were mostly blue-collar workers, – early victims of global "labour arbitrage" – angry enough with Washington to spend weekends in fatigues with M16 rifles. Most backed protest candidate Ross Perot, who won 19pc of the presidential vote in 1992 with talk of shutting trade with Mexico.

The inchoate protest dissipated once recovery fed through to jobs, although one fringe group blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995. Unfortunately, there will be no such jobs this time. Capacity use has fallen to record-low levels (68pc in the US, 71 in the eurozone). A deep purge of labour is yet to come.


(I'm not sure I agree with his analysis of the basis for the militia movement; however, the author is respected in many quarters, so I offer it for others' consideration.)

And now a little something I didn't know about...and that others might be surprised by. The Cloward-Piven strategy....

LINK

Supported, in part, by Mr. George Soros.

Notice that they seem to be working to cause such disruption that our present society will fail. Lots of implications in that.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by nmap

Some things that might be of interest:

The unemployment timebomb is quietly ticking: LINK

Excerpt:

One of my odd experiences covering the US in the early 1990s was visiting militia groups that sprang up in Texas, Idaho, and Ohio in the aftermath of recession. These were mostly blue-collar workers, – early victims of global "labour arbitrage" – angry enough with Washington to spend weekends in fatigues with M16 rifles. Most backed protest candidate Ross Perot, who won 19pc of the presidential vote in 1992 with talk of shutting trade with Mexico.

The inchoate protest dissipated once recovery fed through to jobs, although one fringe group blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995. Unfortunately, there will be no such jobs this time. Capacity use has fallen to record-low levels (68pc in the US, 71 in the eurozone). A deep purge of labour is yet to come.


(I'm not sure I agree with his analysis of the basis for the militia movement; however, the author is respected in many quarters, so I offer it for others' consideration.)

And now a little something I didn't know about...and that others might be surprised by. The Cloward-Piven strategy....

LINK

Supported, in part, by Mr. George Soros.

Notice that they seem to be working to cause such disruption that our present society will fail. Lots of implications in that.

You playing catch-up? I've already said that, a few months ago. I believe this downfall is deliberate in nature. Even if he's thrown out of office now most of the damage is already done.

And as I've said, the "stupid" ones that put the idiot in office will be the first to feel the "change", no jobs, lower paying jobs, welfare.

Hows that for change.
TS



http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ism#post252837

Originally Posted by team sergeant

I was thinking about a few factors related to the current US and global situation:

The largest "communist" country is backing a substantial amount of our credit.

We talked about perceptions just the other day. I believe the reason we are bailing out in the trillions is two-fold, one factor we know and sort of understand, the other is one that no one is talking about in the media, the dollar may weaken to the point where all confidence is lost. If that happens and the world turns their collective backs on our dollar, China calls in our debt, there is a run on US banks, at that point all will be lost (stock market) capitalism would be dealt a huge blow.

Currently there are a great number of banks, (60 + if I recall correctly) not being identified for Gov loans, why not be identified, the loss of confidence = end of story.

The media (Fox news anyway) keeps harping about how much this far left spending plan is going to cost the average American, and most Americans don’t make the sort of money to repay this sort of debt anytime soon, it might take decades to repay. This might get to the point where the rest of the world begins to realize the US is about to go under and make their own run on the banks, taking us with them.

Couple that with our current far left wing Gov attempting to take over (socializing) health care, the perception will be the extreme left is doing something "wonderful" for the poor masses and we are about to get much much poorer. Again Perceptions.

Again, I believe the extreme left might be executing this plan deliberately and with an agenda. Remember who were obama “favorite” mentors were in college? Remember his mother, extreme left wing radical.

Add to this what nmap posted, poor people are much easier to manipulate than a strong middle class. I could not agree more.

Let’s blame the Ivy League for this mess, blame capitalism, blame big business and begin to socialize all you can in the hope it all falls apart and guess who’s in office to pick up the pieces and give socialism a chance.

Then, IMO the new USSR (United States Socialist Republic) begins to emerge and what a better way to greet socialism than to prove capitalism “doesn’t/didn’t work”.

I believe we are in for the ride of our lives. I hope I’m wrong.

TS

[Team Sergeant]

Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."

Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all -- working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.

This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements -- mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown -- providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests - and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones."These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. "From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy."As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in "the end of welfare as we know it" -- the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. "This wasn't an accident," Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. "It wasn't an atmospheric thing, it wasn't supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."

Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.

In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

All three of these organizations -- ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE -- set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with "dead wood" -- invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people -- thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections.

The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives -- typically featuring high levels of fraud -- with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement," and "direct action" (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries.

Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party," through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left's most ambitious campaigns.




http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6967

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

You playing catch-up? I've already said that, a few months ago. I believe this downfall is deliberate in nature. Even if he's thrown out of office now most of the damage is already done.

It looks like I am....

Here's something else that adds to the mix.

To put it in context, consider the Whiskey Rebellion, back in 1794, as discussed by William Hogeland.

First, current news on California:

Fitch has just downgraded California's debt: LINK

If the rating goes below BBB, the bonds cease to be investment grade. Which means that a variety of entities such as bond funds and pension funds cannot lawfully continue to own them - implying they must sell them. Ahh, but such massive sales can only lead to a meltdown of the municipal bond market - which may well create economic dislocation far more severe than any stock market crash.

NEW YORK, Jul 06, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Fitch Ratings has downgraded the state of California's (the state) long-term general obligation (GO) bond rating to 'BBB' from 'A-'. The bonds remain on Rating Watch Negative. The rating action affects the state's GOs and lease appropriation and related bonds as detailed at the end of this release.

The downgrade to 'BBB' is based on the state's continued inability to achieve timely agreement on budgetary and cash flow solutions to its severe fiscal crisis. Since no agreement was reached by the June 30, 2009 fiscal year (FY) end, the state's controller has now begun issuing registered warrants (IOUs) for certain non-priority payments to preserve cash, and the budget gap to be addressed has increased to $26.3 billion from $24.3 billion. The use of IOUs for non-priority payments would offset cash shortfalls into September 2009 as now currently projected.

The Rating Watch Negative reflects the short-term risk, in Fitch's view, that institutional gridlock could persist, further aggravating the state's already severe economic, revenue and liquidity challenges and weighing on the state's credit. Resolution of the Negative Watch will depend on actions taken to address the cash flow imbalance. The 'BBB' rating indicates that expectations of default risk remain low, although the rating is well below that of most other tax supported issuers. GO debt in California has a constitutional prior claim on revenues, although after education; appropriation debt has a lesser legal claim, but the controller prioritizes payment directly after GO debt service, ahead of other mandatory payments.

With issuance of IOUs for non-priority payments, margins for meeting constitutional and court-required contractual commitments are narrowing. After September 2009, absent any proposed budget and payment adjustments, cash deficits will expand dramatically. Cash flow solutions, including the ability to access short-term borrowing, are inextricably tied to reaching timely agreement on effective and credible budget solutions.

The state's budget revision released in May had forecast a $24.3 billion budgetary gap through June 30, 2010, the end of FY 2010, before proposed solutions; $3.1 billion of proposed solutions were in FY 2009, with the remainder in FY 2010. By failing to reach agreement prior to June 30, 2009, the end of FY 2009, a portion of the $3.1 billion in proposed FY 2009 budgetary solutions has been forfeited; notably, such solutions would have alleviated the cash flow stress forecast in the early months of FY 2010 by reducing or deferring scheduled statutory disbursements, primarily to education. Moreover, under the state's constitutional spending formula for education, foregone FY 2009 proposed solutions lead to higher required spending in FY 2010 and beyond, and pushed the FY 2010 baseline budget gap to $26.3 billion.

The inability of the state to reach agreement has prompted the controller to begin issuing IOUs for non-priority payments, primarily disbursements to vendors, for certain social services, and for tax refunds, in order to ensure payment of priority payments, including GO and lease debt service. The controller's office estimates that $3 billion in IOUs will be issued during July 2009; priority payments of $10.8 billion will be made for education, debt service, Medicaid, payroll, pensions and other mandatory contractual obligations. Projections will be revised to reflect June revenue performance and other changes but as currently estimated, cumulative cash deficits of $3.7 billion are projected through August, offset by $4.5 billion in non-priority payments that could be covered with IOUS, excluding tax refunds. However, by the end of October, the projected cash deficit expands to $16.1 billion, well beyond non-priority spending of only $10.6 billion, excluding tax refunds.

Today's further downgrade to 'BBB' on Rating Watch Negative affects GOs, GO veterans, economic recovery and Cal-Mortgage Loan Insurance Division bond ratings.

Moreover, the following appropriation bonds of the state are also downgraded to 'BBB-' on Rating Watch Negative: --Public Works Board (except for those issued for the Regents of the University of California); --East Bay State Building Authority; --Los Angeles State Building Authority; --Oakland State Building Authority; --Riverside County Financing Authority; --Sacramento City Financing Authority; --San Bernardino Joint Powers Financing Authority; --San Francisco State Building Authority; --Golden State Tobacco Securitization Corporation (series 2005A); --California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank state school fund apportionment lease revenue bonds; --California Judgment Trust; --Shafter Joint Powers Financing Authority; --Taft Public Finance Authority.

Fitch's rating definitions and the terms of use of such ratings are available on the agency's public site, www.fitchratings.com. Published ratings, criteria and methodologies are available from this site, at all times. Fitch's code of conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, affiliate firewall, compliance and other relevant policies and procedures are also available from the 'Code of Conduct' section of this site.



So the bonds go down, and the IOUs issued by California may be worth only pennies on the dollar. People might well sell them, just to get something.

What happens next? Let's look back to 1791. (From page 38 of the Hogeland book)

Morris also had his eye on a controversial, incalculably large chunk of debt, scattered in slivers and shards: lOUs from Congress and the army to small farmers and artisans who supplied army goods. There had been no refusing to sell to armed troops: People who readily complied got more chits; those who argued got few or none. States passed laws to seize crops deemed excessive of the needs of families, and who was issuing a chit, the state or the army, wasn't always clear to a coerced seller. In face value, ordinary citizens of Pennsylvania held perhaps $20 million in forced loans, with similar amounts in New York and New Jersey. As the war moved south, Virginians complained of being ravaged by impressment The total may have reached $95 million. But face value seemed meaningless: nobody expected Congress to pay on these things. Pockets were Stuffed with them. After 1780, some states accepted them for taxes, but their purchasing power was pennies on the dollar.

Morris wanted Congress to call in all of those chits and exchange them—at face, not the low market value—for interest-bearing bonds. Speculators would buy the chits in bulk, at the market rate Of pennies on the dollar, from desperate people ignorant of the deal. Exchanging chits at face value for bonds, speculators would create huge profits for themselves and a massive addition to the national debt.

Now an excerpt from page 39:

With debate on the impost raging in Congress, Morris applied maximum pressure, using a counterintuitive tactic: he suspended interest payments on the first tier of bonds, those mainly owned by his friends and associates. If Congress wouldn't raise the money through a federal tax, top bondholders wouldn't get paid. Morris rightly predicted clamor. Influential creditors came to his office; he told them his hands were tied. Talk to Congress, he advised. Get the Articles revised to allow the impost; demand federal laws prohibiting states' populist legal-tender laws, price-control regulations, anti-monopoly rules. Do it high-minded ly, he coached them: invoke widows, orphans, patriotism.

And from page 53:

The Massachusetts assembly had taken an aggressive approach to consolidating and paying its war debts, benefiting the few who held interest-bearing state notes. The assembly paid interest on notes at their value when issued: if depreciation had made a one-dollar note worth 25 cents when issued, the note would be paid at 25 cents, despite having depreciated, by the late 1780s, to 2 cents. Taxes to raise coin for this payoff to state bondholders were already heavy enough; then the state decided to pay the entire principal of its army debt too—and then to pay the principal on the state notes. Further taxes were levied on the people. Though some were payable in various kinds of paper, they were simply not payable at all by many; mass foreclosures ensued.



Parallels?

Now what happens if the bond market is crashed...someone picks up the mess...the Federal government creates a bail-out...

Deliberate in nature, truly. Just like in 1791.

[SF-TX]

The NAACP in Harrisburg, PA is urging the governor to impose martial law in response to an increase in crime.

Harrisburg chapter of NAACP urges martial law
by STEVEN FARLEY Of The Patriot-News
Thursday June 25, 2009, 9:24 PM
Text deleted - see post #162 in this forum on 6/26 by Pete - remember the Search button - Richard

[GratefulCitizen]

There may be another level to their strategy.

Capitalism is quite resilient.
For every scheme devised in D.C., there are vast numbers of businessmen trying to find a way around it.

The "way around it" often has predictable consequences.

Much of the stuff the dims are doing has the effect of increasing the cost of labor...for all businesses.
When the cost of labor increases for all businesses, it becomes cost effective to invest in new technology and renovate their business models.

Eventually, economies do recover.
When they do, businesses which survived the down times will not toss out their successful technology and new models to replace them with labor.

The dims may take some serious losses in 2010 and could even lose the White House in 2012.
However, they will have already permanently expanded the number of those in the lower economic tier.

Even with a strong economy, they will have a voter base who is receptive to the politics of envy.

Perhaps the new, vulnerable dims are being tossed under the bus ("the one" included...) to allow for further entrenchment of established dims.

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

I like the way greatful citizen spells Democrates... dims as in light bullb. cool

[Penn]

nmap, I am of the mind that Cloward, Piven and Mr. George Soros need to be edited with extreme prejudice.

Additionally, I would like to comment on your first post in this thread; whereby you suggested that we take a look at Albert Celente. Since that post, I have paid a great deal of attention to his remarks, and along with the “Be Prepared” thread, view the short term future with caution, behaving accordingly, which brings me to a related point: Gun sales, tax revolt, insurrection.

In the two gun shops I have developed a relationship with, both have openly stated how the “O” is gun salesman of the year and that business has never been better. My thought here is twofold. First, that the relationship with BHO and gun sales has less to do with race and 2nd Amendment, but has more to do with uncertainty and fear. Secondly, that the politician unlike the average American, know who Celente is and see his predication of the future as informed.

Celente, a view not to be ignored, the power elites have reacted too, releasing a report (which was noted here @ PS) via the homeland security department labeling Veterans as a potential threat. In my mind, this proactive precursor, by the power elites, is their first truly visible salvo reflecting their mindset in the coming struggle. One in which the argument will be focused on limiting the access to self defense; under the guise of crime prevention, which will be hyped exponentially, in order that the citizenry prospect of defense, will not be an offensive issue focused on their position, but rather citizen dependence will be in their hands and muted.

When this thread began I was nervous and uncertain of the possibility of martial law. In reading the range of views posted here, I know I am not alone and think it will certainly occur within the next two years, if not sooner. Any scenario that produces a sequence of possible events, or set of unmanageable circumstances: such as this fall season’s coming, fully evolved Swine flu Pandemic; not to mention the weather, finance implosion, etc. will result in the event being bloody = imvho

[nmap]

Another home invasion, again with a group of 7 - this time in Vallejo, CA.

Rhetorical question: How would an individual LEO deal with 7 bad guys at once? Even if there were 2 officers, the situation might develop badly.

As a friend on the local police department commented at lunch one day: "We're not set up to deal with terrorism." I suspect that statement extends to near squad-sized groups of perps.

So...as police budgets face pressure, and bad guys start going around in groups, how will matters go? Hmmm.

LINK

(07-17) 06:16 PDT VALLEJO -- Vallejo police are searching for seven people in a violent home-invasion robbery that targeted a family that was mourning the loss of a relative.

At least one gunshot was fired during the robbery, which happened about 3:45 a.m. July 10 at a home on the 100 block of Gregory Lane, Vallejo police Detective Mat Mustard said Thursday.

At least six people were at the home mourning the loss of a family member. Some were asleep inside, while others were talking in the garage, Mustard said.

The assailants took out handguns and robbed the victims in the garage and forced their way inside. They woke up the sleeping occupants and stole belongings from them before fleeing, Mustard said.

During the robbery, six victims were assaulted, and one of them was hit in the head with a handgun, Mustard said. A shot was fired at one point, police said.

Descriptions of the robbers were sketchy because their were "wearing disguises," said Mustard, who didn't elaborate.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Penn

One in which the argument will be focused on limiting the access to self defense; under the guise of crime prevention, which will be hyped exponentially, in order that the citizenry prospect of defense, will not be an offensive issue focused on their position, but rather citizen dependence will be in their hands and muted.

And they will act through multiple channels. Limits on access to guns and ammunition is, of course, one such channel.

However - let us consider others. It appears we will soon have some sort of national health care. Certainly, it seems likely we will have federal involvement in health care. Therefore, such a system could easily urge (or nudge, to use the current buzzword) doctors to ask certain pointed questions in an effort to discern whether a patient had a tendency to depression, or had difficulty with controlling anger. Such traits might result in reports which would, in turn, result in restrictions on use or possession of firearms.

Likewise, we might consider the increased federal involvement in housing. Could this lead to rules about tenants possessing firearms - or requirements to report ownership? Thus, if a person faced foreclosure and wanted federal assistance, it might be simplicity itself to incorporate rules that would force the person to give up their firearms.

And then we come to bankruptcy, which many face these days. Although Texas permits (as I recall) exemption of two firearms for a family, I strongly suspect most states do not. Once again, an effective back-door mechanism to take firearms from the public.

However, there is also another dynamic. If law and order breaks down, both criminals and citizens may learn something of how to use weapons - and how to organize. I believe this might be regarded as an inadvertent and informal confidence building exercise.

Chef Penn...pm inbound.

[Richard]

...how will matters go?

We'll improvise, adapt, and overcome - or - perish. We had a couple of those type situations around here last year - until several of the intended victims wound up on the evening news after providing some of the criminals a free dirt nap for their efforts.

Richard's $.02

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

IMHO either:

The Fed is biased toward former private employers and is being rewarded for failure and lies with new powers and renewed appointments of those responsible
or
That is the case and it is strategically exasperating problems to benefit those private interests.

If someone can prove the latter, they are smarter than me (big pool at PS.com), but I think the following will be key...

1. The 2007 implementation of FASB No. 157 "mark to market" accounting, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), forced banking interests to consolidate.

2. The promise of bail-outs for faulty assets in TARP was another measure for the same effect.

"Mark to market" or "fair value" accounting means that companies must value the assets on their balance sheets based on the latest market indicators of the price that those assets could be sold for immediately. Seeing as loans and securities make up the bulk of a bank's assets you can imagine how it effects their profit and loss statement. Particularly if the bank had just bought homes with an artificially inflated book value.

Before MTM took effect in 2007 banks could list the homes they owned at the book value. If the homes were artificially inflated in value, then over time, the value would drop and the bank would be worth less. But forcing a bank to list homes it owns at the price of if they had to sell it immediately had their equity shares (assets minus liabilities) plummet and forced bankruptcy. Many banks wouldn't have gone bankrupt because they would have sat on their non-liquid assets until home prices naturally lowered and investors had incentive to buy and over the course of the mortgage made that bank money.

Paulson promised TARP funds of 700 billion (which is 7 trillion when adjusted to a banks 10/1 fractal lending requirements) to buy up these troubled assets. With a huge public disapproval rating he literally got on his knees and begged Congress for the money, saying that it was the only way to avoid depression, and then privately threatened martial law to select Congress members if they did not comply.

Many larger/healthier banks bought the smaller/weaker bankrupt ones because the reason they went bankrupt was the troubled assets that TARP (the US tax payer) was handing out. When TARP passed Paulson said we can't bail out these troubled assets, and that the first 350 ( 1st 1/2 for Bush 2nd 1/2 for Obama) needed to be handed as the Fed saw fit, with no over site of accounting. Many of these larger/healthier banks were then bankrupt and ones that weren't were often pressured to take bail out money. Unbeknownst to the banks the bailout money came with the oversight requirements of the Fed.

The last time MTM rules were in effect was 1938. FDR ended it saying it caused banks to fail that wouldn't otherwise.

In April 2009 the adoption of FAS 141R and FAS 160 were instituted curtailing MTM policy, in addition to, putting the debt in the hands of taxpayers. Taxpayers were unable to sue banks for misrepresentation of contractual debt agreements due to a interest rate freeze made supposedly in their interest. It should be noted that Fed programs like TARP and PPIP are structured in a way which allows the Fed to tap back into tax payer debt to continue funding the programs.

The Fed will not allow audits, but with the total debt of the US at 57 trillion (or if you have access to the off balance sheet reporting like Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher: over 99 Trillion), it's not hard to imagine what would happen if it were subject to MTM accounting.

That's 190K in the hole for every person in the US (based on 300K population) or 330,000 according to Mr. Fisher. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303024230548323.html

I don't buy that the Quantitative Easing (Debt Monetization) policy of "Helicopter" Bernanke will gradually allow the US to raise interest rates as the economy improves (curtailing inflation); because our fundamental job market has been off-shored.

During the Great Depression 90% of people lived rurally, were largely self sufficient and production of world class goods constituted 70% of the economy.

Today we are import dependant because nearly 90% of the population is non-rural and consumption constitutes well over 70% of the economy.

I don't think this is a political issue as both the Bush and Obama administrations fully support the Fed; giving credence to the "two-headed one body" view of the political parties' fiscal policy. Furthermore, Obama is advocating powers to the Fed, for sole "systemic risk" over site of the financial markets.

My humble (non-inflation adjusted) .02 are: the US can either "sell" the world on forgiving our debt by ending the debt based monetary policy of central banks or inevitably face hyper inflation without having a competitive export market.