The strategy to destroy America

In the mid-sixties at the height of the“social revolution” the line between democratic benevolence and outright communism became rather blurry. The Democratic Party, which controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress was used as the springboard by social engineers to introduce a new era of welfare initiatives enacted in the name of “defending the poor”, also known as the “Great Society Programs” These initiatives, however, were driven by far more subversive and extreme motivations, and have been expanded on by every presidency since Republican and Democrat alike.

Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven

At Columbia University, sociologist professors Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven introduced a political strategy in 1966 in an article entitled ‘The Weight Of The Poor: A Strategy To End Poverty’. This article outlined a plan that they believed would eventually lead to the total transmutation of America into a full- fledged centralized welfare state (in other words, a collectivist enclave). The spearpoint of the Cloward-Piven strategy involved nothing less than economic sabotage against the U.S.

Theoretically, according to the doctrine, a condition of overwhelming tension and strain could be engineered through the overloading of American welfare rolls, thereby smothering the entitlement program structure at the state and local level. The implosion of welfare benefits would facilitate a massive spike in poverty and desperation, creating a financial crisis that would lead to an even greater cycle of demand for a fully socialized system. This desperation would then“force” the federal government to concentrate all welfare programs under one roof, nationalize and enforce a socialist ideology, and ultimately, compact an immense level of power into the hands of a select few.

Cloward and Piven claimed that this could be accomplished at a grassroots level through community activism, and that it would facilitate a more compassionate federal authority however, there are numerous problems with these assertions.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy has nothing to do with grassroots activism and accomplishes nothing tangible for the downtrodden poverty class. In fact I would dare to say that Cloward and Piven as well as most social engineers are well aware that the concept ultimately only serves to give even more dominance to the establishment and pilfer even more freedom from the masses.

Cloward-Piven is not limited to the destabilization of state and local welfare programs. It can easily be used against federal level entitlements, and in reality, is much more effective against an entity with the proven tendency towards exponential debt spending. 

Though the federal government may be able to borrow fiat dollars through the Federal Reserve to prolong welfare rolls while the states cannot, a more volatile threat arises when debt monetization begins to wear down the purchasing power of the currency. 

Weakened purchasing power results in reduced consumer activity less industrial growth, less GDP, and obviously, more poverty. The dollar has lost approximately 98% of its purchasing power since 1972, and after 50 years of the so-called “War on Poverty”,  nearly one third of the American population  now repeatedly slips under the official poverty line.

In the past decade alone, the number of people dependent on food stamps and EBT for their survival in the U.S has more than doubled from 25 million people to over 52 million people. Those who receive some kind of payment from the government, including those on social security, disability, and veterans benefits, are approximately 109 million. Americans on social security do not consider themselves welfare recipients because they paid into the system, however, the point remains that if the federal money tap shuts down due to overwhelming participation, the checks will stop whether you paid into the system or not.

In the end, it is the Federal Government itself that is most vulnerable to the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and I believe the goal is to set fire to all social structures in the U.S. then assimilate them into a new globalist system.

The tactic of overwhelming the welfare structure REQUIRES the complicity of the government itself. A grassroots activist movement cannot and will never compel federal and state governments to expand welfare initiatives if they do not wish to. If welfare programs are not expanded beyond their capacity to be maintained, they cannot be overwhelmed. Therefore, government must cooperate with the Cloward-Piven Strategy by generating more and more welfare programs to be exploited. That is to say, the elitists who control our government, regardless of their claimed political party, must want to arrange circumstances to allow for Cloward-Piven to be successful.

Another key component of Cloward- Piven is the existence of an immense number of poverty stricken people. Without a significant portion of the population under the poverty level there is no mass of people to use as a weapon. Again, grassroots activists would be hard pressed to actually create the kind of poverty levels they would need for exploitation.

Saul Alinsky

But wait! Government, along with the aid or direction of central bankers, is able to create any level of poverty it wishes at any time by simply pretending to bungle everything it does. Once again Cloward-Piven ( much like Saul Alinsky’s repertoire of propaganda scams) is far more useful to the power elite than it is to the common citizen.

As former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel,  famously said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before…”

Barack Obama As Lucifer

In light of the Cloward-Piven Strategy which is at its very core a method to artificially induce crisis, the otherwise insane policy actions of the Obama Administration and preceding puppet presidents now become perfectly logical. Obama, after all, has been a long time proponent of the methods of Saul Alinsky, the left wing gatekeeper equivalent to Neo-Con godfather Leo Strauss. Cloward and Piven were also both avid followers of Alinsky, who promoted lies, misdirection, subversion and abandonment of conscience in order to win social power at any cost(special note – Alinsky also dedicated his book ‘Rules For Radicals’ to Lucifer… yeah, to the fucking’ devil).

Under Obama’s watch alone, our real national debt including unfunded liabilities and entitlements has risen to nearly $200 trillion. Our “official” national debt has gone from $10 trillion to $17 trillion in the short time Obama has been in office. Real unemployment including U-6 measurements stands at around 12% of all Americans. Personal wealth and savings have plummeted. Wages remain in stasis while prices on necessary goods continue to rise.

I examined much evidence suggesting that Obamacare was actually designed to fail, and that the bumbling of the Obama White House when dealing with the program was purely deliberate. When coupled with Obama’s handling of the current illegal immigration conflict, I would say that the Cloward- Piven Strategy is in full force.

Why fight tooth and nail against all common sense and history, why lie openly to millions of registered voters to get the program in place, only to allow it to derail because of a poorly designed website!? Because, Obama and his handlers know full well that it will end up costing the country billions that we cannot afford, and aid in a resulting crash.

Why the sudden surge of illegal immigrants into the U.S.? Why not! The White House has made it clear that it has every intention of keeping them within America by allowing the border patrol to ship the detained across the country where they are then released. Obama’s threat to use executive action to force through his own version of the immigration bill is the icing on the cake.

Amnesty is essentially guaranteed, I believe, in the near term, which is why tens of thousands of Central American parents are willing to send their children on a journey where they could very well be kidnapped by sex traffickers or killed. If the White House really wanted to stop this humanitarian crisis, the President would state publicly and clearly that America is not a drive through welfare center, that there will be no free goodies at the second window, and that there will be no chance of amnesty instead of diverting more agents to the border to ensure more illegals are shipped into the interior.

The president does not wish to stop the flood of immigrants exactly because Cloward-Piven requires their presence Not only would this officially add millions of people to welfare rolls, but I would venture to suggest that Obama will likely include automatic sign-up to universal healthcare as part of his amnesty measures.

If there wasn’t enough strain on the social welfare structure before, there certainly will be now.

I would remind readers, though, that in the final analysis this is NOT about Obama. I have seen other commentators including Glenn Beck discuss Cloward- Piven in the past, but always through the blinders of the false left/right paradigm. Obama could not have attained the levels of destabilization he has without standing on the shoulders of those political errand boys who came before him.

Ronald Reagan for instance, was also responsible for signing the Immigration Reform And Control Act of 1986 into law, which was supposed to trade the amnesty of 3 million illegals for greater border security. This new “more comprehensive” security was never implemented by Reagan. 

Both Republican and Democratic regimes have made our current calamity possible, and the leaderships behind both parties are nothing more than paid mascots for international financiers and globalists who have a very different vision of what America should be.

If we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of making the developing crisis about a singularly unimportant man such as Obama, then the elites get exactly what they want – an angry and desperate citizenry out for the blood of a middleman and out for the blood of each other, while they sit back, relax, and wait to swoop in as our financial saviors with strings attached.

For those naïve enough to assume that Cloward-Piven is just a well intentioned activist method, it is important to understand that even if that were so, the effect of the Cloward- Piven Strategy will never achieve the goal its creators claimed to support. In my view, it is probable that they never really intended for it to produce wealth equality or an increased quality of life.

The tactic can only decrease wealth security by making all citizens equally destitute. As we have seen in numerous socialist and communist experiments over the past century, economic harmonization never creates wealth or prosperity, it only siphons wealth from one area and redistributes it to others evaporating much of it as it is squeezed through the grinding gears of the establishment machine.

Socialism, in its very essence, elevates government to the role of all-pervasive parent, and casts the citizenry down into the role of dependent sniveling infant. Even in its most righteous form, Cloward-Piven seeks to make infants of us all whether we like it or not.

But in regard to the sudden illegal immigrant surge at the U.S.-Mexico border, President Obama is indeed using the Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm America.

For a look back on how the Obama Administration brought us to this point enter into evidence two extensive timelines:

The first, is entitled, “ A Timeline of the Obama Administration’s Four Year-Long Conspiracy to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Aliens by Dismantling Enforcement of Our Laws Against Illegal Immigration.

The second, is entitled, “Timeline: How The Obama Administration Bypassed Congress To Dismantle Immigration Enforcement”.

But here are just three very basic examples floating around the news lately that get the idea across easily enough.

Not only did DHS put out a  purchase order  for escort services for 65,000 unaccompanied alien children all the way back in January…

And not only does the 2015 Department of Justice appropriations  report, also released earlier this year, ask for funding for “a pilot unaccompanied alien children program”…

But now, in a direct contradiction of what the administration is telling the American public a  recently leaked Homeland Security memo  admits  the fact that “only 0.1 percent of the Central American minors illegally entering the U.S. having been deported in Fiscal Year 2013 down from two percent prior,” and this “plays a significant role in why the current border crisis is occurring.”

So, in essence, our government officials  knew  this wave of illegal immigrants were coming to our borders and they  planned  for it well before it hit, because they’ve  known  for quite some time the Obama Administration’s policies are  causing  it to happen.

This is in addition to the fact that a  2013 ICE document reveals in detail  the fact that over 36,000  criminal  illegal aliens were  released  from our government’s custody  deportation proceedings  in that year alone. These people had a whopping 88,000 convictions between them, including homicide, sexual assault kidnapping, aggravated assault, car theft, and drunk/drugged driving to name just a few.

Sounds a lot like a set up, doesn’t it?

Well, now Rep.  Steve King, R-Iowa and Rep.  Steve Stockman, R-Texas both agree that the Obama Administration’s policies are derived from a Cloward- Piven strategy — a strategy concocted by radical sociologists to crash the system and transform America into a socialist state.

“I do feel this attempt to flood the border with illegals is a playing out of the Cloward-Piven theory,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

“If you don’t see them bring reinforcements down there to seal the border, that means that, yes, it’s a Cloward-Piven maneuver to flood the country until we get to the point where we are an open-borders country that welcomes everybody, legal and illegal. 

Obama – who studied the chaos strategy at Columbia, according to a classmate – “is trying to do a Cloward-Piven thing with the border".

A political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of ‘a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.

Border resources are already being overwhelmed. The House Homeland Security Chair is calling it a “crisis like nothing I’ve ever seen”. A potential pandemic is becoming more likely by the day, as people crossing into the country are reportedly infected with everything from drug-resistant tuberculosis to HIV to scabies, rabies and dengue hemorrhagic fever — people who are barely being checked out and definitely not properly quarantined from otherwise healthy people. Border Patrol whistleblowers are coming forward,  despite an Obama Administration gag order, to say that they are not being allowed to do their jobs.

This thing is far from under any semblance of control.

Beyond that, with more Americans on welfare programs now than at any other time in American history, a sudden massive influx of enrollees could easily crash the system, leading inevitably to the kinds of civil disturbances the government has been gearing up to respond to by suspending the Constitution and declaring martial law.

Massive influx

In fact, a massive influx of immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border was the main pretext under which the Rex 84 program and its FEMA camps were designed in the first place Regardless of the fact that the Obama Administration is trying to frame this as a “humanitarian crisis,” rest assured it’s a created crisis, and the only way to solve it will be with even more big government. 

By framing the flood of children immigrants as a “humanitarian crisis,” President Obama has greater leverage to offer more legal and physical help to illegal immigrant minors. This in turn creates an even more enticing reason for parents in Central and South America to send their children over the border, often unaccompanied.  Parents know that their children will be attended to once they’re over the border. The result is that the entire system is completely overwhelmed and unworkable.

 Gen John Kelly

Perhaps that is why Marine Corps Gen John Kelly, commander of SOUTHCOM, is calling the recent surge in illegal immigration at America’s southern border “a threat to the United States very existence”.

Black÷White=Two Nations: How About The Facts Instead

Two Nations

Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton

Calling America’s criminal justice system “racist” is not confined to “civil rights leaders” like the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. 


Then-Sen. Barack Obama, during the 2008 presidential campaign, said it, too. Blacks and whites, said Obama, “are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates (and) receive very different sentences … for the same crime.”

When the man who became president of the United States says this; the No. 1 law enforcement officer, well it must, therefore, be true, Right?

So let’s examine five major assumptions behind this assertion.

1) Blacks are arrested at higher rates compared to whites, but wrongly so.

Not true. While only 13 percent of the population, blacks accounted for 28 percent of nationwide arrests in 2010 and 38.1 percent of arrests for violent crime (murders, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault).

But are they unfairly arrested? Studies find that arrest rates by race are comparable to the race of suspect identification by victims.

For example, in a given city, x number of robbery victims describe their assailants as black, whether or not the suspect has been apprehended. It turns out that the race of those arrested matches the percentage given by victims. This has been found repeatedly across the country, in all categories of crime where the race of an assailant is identified. So unless the victims are deliberately misidentifying their assailants — unconcerned about whether the suspect is apprehended and knowingly give a false race — blacks are not being “over-arrested.”

2) Blacks are convicted at higher rates and given longer sentences than whites for the same crime.

Not true. Differences in conviction and sentencing rates by race are due to differences in the gravity of the criminal offenses, prior records or other legal variables. A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases in the country’s 75 largest urban areas actually found lower felony prosecution rates for blacks than whites and that blacks were less likely to be found guilty at trial.

3) The sentence disparity between powder and crack cocaine is racist and accounts for a large percentage of imprisoned blacks.

Not true. Concerned about the deadly effect of crack within their own communities, black members of Congress led the charge to pass the 1986 federal drug laws. The bill that was passed — which included the crack/powder sentencing disparity — did so with the support of the majority of black congresspersons.

None at the time objected to the sentencing disparity as “racist.”

In 2006, the feds tried 5,619 crack sellers, and 4,495 of them were black — out of the 562,000 blacks in state and federal prisons at the end of that year. Add in county and city jails, and the figure rises to 858,000.

And states’ crack cocaine laws are not the culprits. Only 13 states employ differing sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder — and their differential is much smaller than that of the feds.

4) The “War on Drugs” accounts for a large number of blacks behind bars.

War on Drugs

Not true. In 2010, blacks were 31.8 percent of all arrests for drug crimes. But arrests for drug offenses are only 12.4 percent of all non-traffic arrests in the country and accounted for 14.2 percent of the offenses for which blacks were arrested.

5) More blacks are in jail than in college.

Not true. “More blacks (are) in jail than college, in every state,” said Jesse Jackson in 2007. That same year, presidential candidate Sen. Obama, echoed: “More young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America.”

If Jackson and Obama refer to black men of the usual college-age years, their claim is not even remotely true. According to 2005 Census Bureau statistics, the male African-American population of the United States aged between 18 and 24 numbered 1,896,000. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 106,000 African-Americans in this age group were in federal or state prisons at the end of 2005. … If you add the numbers in local jail (measured in mid-2006), you arrive at a grand total of 193,000 incarcerated young black males, or slightly over 10 percent.

And according to the same census data, 530,000 of these African-American males, or 28 percent, were enrolled in colleges or universities … in 2005. That is five times the number of young black men in federal and state prisons and two and a half times the total number incarcerated. If you expanded the age group to include African-American males up to 30 or 35, the college attendees would still outnumber the prisoners.”

Brainwashed

Racism against blacks does exists, but it is no longer a meaningful obstacle to success. People are not angels. Some people are rotten. Humans make mistakes — and always will. But the facts do not show a “racist criminal justice system.”

There may be votes in teaching people to think like victicrats. But the problem of the high rates of black imprisonment will not be solved by falsely screaming racism.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4

What If You Lost $7.77 Trillion;; Well, You Did

This report was brought to my attention by a fellow conservative blogger  Miss. Candice Lanier Of  http://www.candicelanier.com/Articles.html The Federal Reserve Bank committed some $7.77 trillion in funds to major Wall Street banks during the height of the 2008 financial crisis, according to report published by Bloomberg News November 28 through a Freedom of Information Act request.

It's unclear from the methodology explained by Bloomberg's analysis of some 29,000 Federal Reserve documents released how much overlap there is with the Government Accountability Office audit published last July that counted some $16 trillion in Federal Reserve loans to major Wall Street banks. Bloomberg's explanation of its methodology does indicate at least some overlap.

Throughout the financial crisis, Congress remained blissfully unaware that trillions of dollars were being committed by the Fed with the implicit guarantee of the U.S. taxpayer. “We were aware emergency efforts were going on,” Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank told Bloomberg, but “we didn’t know the specifics.” Frank, who announced his retirement November 28 after the Massachusetts state legislature gerrymandered him out of his district, served as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee at the time the bailouts began. That committee is charged with oversight of the Federal Reserve and the banking industry.

Bloomberg noted that most of the major banks receiving the below-market-rate loans made billions in profit from the Federal Reserve policies. The Federal Reserve Bank loaned funds to major Wall Street banks at rates of between 0.10 percent and 0.25 percent and at the same time banks were encouraged  to purchase U.S. Treasury bills. Two-year Treasury bills the federal government was selling were fetching more than one percent interest. The deal borrowing at a discounted rate from one agency of the federal government and taking loans earning interest at a higher rate from another agency of government amounted to a cash transfer from the federal government to the big banks that Bloomberg estimated netted the banks some $13 billion in profit.

The deal produced expressions of outrage from many political candidates, including longtime Federal Reserve critic Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), who condemned the special favors being conferred on the politically connected few. Official Ron Paul for President blogger Jack Hunter, quoting a key part of the Bloomberg report, noted that "details suggest taxpayers paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger." Rep. Paul had predicted the housing and financial crisis with astonishing accuracy as early as 2001.

The Bloomberg report noted that top Wall Street banks benefited most from the deal. "The big six;  JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Morgan Stanley — took 63 percent of the Fed's emergency loan money as measured by peak daily borrowing," the San Francisco Chronicle observed November 29 of the Bloomberg data.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul wasn't the only presidential candidate to take note of the Federal Reserve bailout's favoritism. Texas Governor Rick Perry announced November 28 that “these outrageous secret federal loans to bail out big banks are why Americans are disgusted with the "Business-As-Usual" Washington.”

The evidence also reveals that Federal Reserve intervention in the market helped the "too big to fail" banks get bigger still. "Records shows that during the past five years, total assets at the largest six banks increased by almost 40% and executive compensation rose by 20% to more than $146 billion in compensation last year alone," USA Today reported November 28.

Derek Thompson 

Meanwhile, some observers saw nothing wrong with the transfer of taxpayer funds to big Wall Street banks. Derek Thompson of The Atlantic wrote that the Federal Reserve was being criticized "for doing its job." Thompson stressed that the "job" of the Federal Reserve is to prevent a financial collapse, which he posited would have happened had more major banks failed.

Elijah Cummings 

The bailout revelations have already produced calls for congressional hearings on Capitol Hill. “Many Americans are struggling to understand why banks deserve such preferential treatment while millions of homeowners are being denied assistance and are at increasing risk of foreclosure,” Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a letter released to Bloomberg.com.

COLLAPES: It Can (And WILL) Happen Here

Hi Mr. President; Wanna take a shot at it?

 

If you were to lay all the economists in the country end to end; you still would never reach any conclusion. For every opinion held by one of these practitioners of disinformation, three more will take different and conflicting points of view. Some will even defend the indefensible: LIKE; the federal government's continued deficit spending.

Economists of both liberal and conservative strip each respective reason why deficits don't really matter or, if they do matter, why America's case is special. They argue that even if the debt is growing from year to year, so too is our economy. The United States' gross domestic product (GDP) nearly doubled in the past decade, and it's still one-quarter greater than Japan's and Germany's combined.

Politicians usually seize upon whichever economist's argument suits their agenda at the moment. Reagan was beguiled by a faction of Supply-Side economists that argued that cutting taxes would creat so much economic growth that government revenues would increase and the debt and deficits would vanish. Reagan proposed and got tax cuts through congress, which did prompt incredible economic growth, but failed to substantially reduce the deficit because revenue growth was both overestimated and re-invested in technological advances (SDI) Strategic Defense Initiative; for the promised reductions in government spending to take place, in fact, government spending actually increased during the Reagan years.

I did not use complicated mathematics or computer generated economic models to make this case. I believe that clear eyes, well researched facts, good sense and lessions drawn from historical experiences of other countries are all the tools one needs to come to some basic conclusions about the economy.

It's as simple as Personal Finance 101. Just as a person who pockets a hefty pay raise can afford to charge more on his credit cards, a country whose GDP is expanding can safely take on more debt. But there's a caveat to this contention that many people neglect to mention, "Debt must remain in some reasonable ratio to income if a person wants to remain solvent.

As long as debt as a percentage of  the country's GDP remained constant or declined, the US could afford to borrow. We got ourselves into trouble when our debt began to grow faster than our GDP, which is the alarming situation we still face to this day. It's true that the past decade our GDP almost doubled, but our debt more than doubled as fast as the percentage of GDP.

To get a better understanding of what I'm talking about, let's look at a little not-so-long-ago history. The country borrowed heavily to pay for World War 2, and at the war's end our debt was 128% of GDP.  But from 1946 through 1974, our debt as a percentage of GDP steadily declined to 35%. Since 1982 though, the percentage has increased dramatically. In 1982 America's debt stood at 36% of GDP. In 1991 it had rose to 64%. Today our debt ot GDP ratio is 72.9% of GDP. What's being deminstrated is that our debt is growing three times faster than the size of our economy. That's why we're in such deep DO-Do. 

Future Politician



Our debt as a percentage Of GDP is higher and growing faster than that of most industrialized nations in the world. It's also indisputable that no government anywhere, ever, has operated for long under these circumstances without its citizens eventually paying a really fucked-up price, and nothing about the United States suggests that we're in any way exempt from this rule of history.

American citizens and institutions are the biggest buyers of US tresury securities, but the total amont we owe to foreigners has soared. The US, like any garden-variety developing nation, is now in debt to the world. A creditor nation is one that has more invested abroad than foreign countries have invested in it, Basic, and a debtor nation is just the opposite. In 1975 we were the world's largest creditor nation, and by 1986, we were had become the world's largest debtor nation, a ignominious position that we still hold to this day.

The issue isn't the percentage of our debt that's held by foreigners; it's the total amount we owe them. The amount matters because that's what we pay intererst on. If we fork over, say, an average of 8% interest on the national debt, we'll send foreign crestors  more than $230 billion this year alone, that's wealth that our kids WILL NEVER see, ever, their money. Moreover, debt securities form the core holdings of US banks and pension funds, including the pension funds of state and local government employees. If the federal government defaults on its debt, first to get obsorbed  will be these accounts.

The degree of our indebtedness means that we must dance to the foreign investors tune, or, they'll stop lending to us. If foreigners stop buying new treasury securities, we won't have the money we need to run the country. If foreigners become reluctant to buy our debt, we have to increase the interest rates we pay in order to make treasury investments more attractive, a move that would have dire consequences for the economy. It's already happened in the spring of 1992, the interest rate on long term treasury securities was bumped up a full point, because the government was unable to attract enough investors at lower rates. 

If foreign investors decide to cash in on their treasury securities, they'll use their money to buy productive assets, such as factories, and entire companies in this country. Foreigners own more than $7.4 trilion in US based assets, to include such American icons as Rockefeller Center, Burger King, Brooks Brothers< Holiday Inn, Columbia Pictures (etc). Forewign ownership of US assets has more than quadrupled since 1980. If the trend continues, as it assuredly will if we don't rein in our and spending, we will have to transferred control ofmost of  our productive assets from ouyrselves and our kids to foreign owners. With ownership will go the stream of profits thhat was to serve as our kids inheritance.

As the United States is about to find out for itself, people and countries get little respect when they're so far in debt that they can't pay back what they owe. The debt we're continually building will very soon deprive us of our wealth, to be sure, but it's also going to cost us our prestige and infuence in the world and take a large bite out of our self-respect. You only have to half-read the newspapers to know that the United States has already lost much of its ability to compete commercially and diplomatically with other nations, Particularly Germany, Russa and China. We don't have the same policy clout we once had overseas, and we can't eventake care of the social problems we have here at home. a country can put things on the tab for only so long before it starts paying a price, and we're about to start paying it.

GOOD LUCK AMERICA