🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi I am Greg B Farr of:
15652 NE Glisan St
Portland, OR 97230-4842
(503)256-1848

And I like to pimp my son out to street people for spare change! And as for
the USA it can go fuck it's self!

gregfarr@earthlink.net
http://www.gaydar.com.au/smudggy
http://my.gay.com/smudggy
Gallery http://www.picturetrail.com/fugitive1
        http://gregsplace.50megs.com

Approx. 1 week ago, during a radio broadcast talk show, 101.1 FM Birmingham
the individual being interviewed echoed this exact same semtiment.

We seem to be at the crossroads of catostrophe unless our states give up and
give totally to Federalism.  Federal Chairman Greenspan approximately Feb.
20, 2004 reported to Congress that agencies that support private quasi
corporations such as Fanni Mae and Gennie Mae must curtail the debt and
assets of these type of organizations.  Interest rates do not ever stay the
same.  I don't see how they can move into negative territory, much anything
is possible.  The next best guess is that these agencies just mentioned will
be on the loosing end of Fed. Rate increases.  If this is the case, the
BONDS issued by these governmemt backed institutions will drop in a freefall
depending on the curve of rate increases.  Who will purchase these bonds as
they fall in price.  Why it will be our Treasury.  Just as Wall Street have
Specialist who are required to purchase stocks during periods of severe sell
offs, our Treasury will be subject to purchase the falling bond prices of
these Government Backed corporations.  The ultimate end is that the
Government will be averaging the cost of the purchases lower and lower,
hence if the situation last long enough, the government will own the bond
assets of these two agencies.  There are other agencies which are backed by
the Treasury, so let this represent just an example.

As our Federal Government prints more and more money to purchase these
falling assets, the Fed. begins to raise interest rates to curb the cash
proliferated by the treasury.  At some point in time, equlibrium will begin,
the economy will stabilize and many people will have a windfall and many
will be bankrupt.

Fed. Chairman Greenspan, today Feb. 25, 2004 testified to a body in Congress
that it should begin the process of increasing the date of retirement for
Social Security, decrease the rate of cost of living for Social Security
recipients, and curtail the benefits of Medicare all under the umbrella of
the baby boomers to begin their onslaught of applications during the year
2008.

All the events just described have been announced 4 years prior to 2008.
The enemy is not so much as how to pay for these items, but WHO will pay for
these benefits.

The problem is that in past history, we knew the enemy, force dictates who
will win the battle.  The scene has changed.  President Bush is bent on
focusing on soverign states who sponsor terrorism, yet these states are
playing it smart and telling us they are against the war on terrorism yet
secretly sponsor religious zelots who strap on a neuclear device and
detonate in a highly populated are of the U.S.A. much like Palestine zelots
do in Israel.  Then who is to blame.  There are no signs of anyone left to
blame, they went up in smoke during the explosion,....who do we blame.  It
smells just like Vietnam all over again. We know who the enemy is, but we
cannot engage the enemy because he/she is silent until the big bang then
there is no evidence to KNOW with certainty whom we should attack. As for
our standing in the World, the world is against us for the most part.

The only thing we can do is prevent our social fabric from rotteness and
strive to be of one mind and accord rather than to create hatred one for the
other.  This would play into the hands of terrorist and cause our nation to
crumble from within.  Of necessity, we must have a more transparent society.
It is difficult for a terrorist to exist in a transparent society.  I don't
know how you feel, but when faced with the possibilities of neuclear weapons
being detonated on our soil I am willing to be more transparent.  If I have
nothing to fear, not breaking the law, I have no fear of transparencey.  We
must secure our borders, we must fight terrorism on all fronts, especially
giving our local law enforcement agencies the tools to do the job.  We need
to use our technology to monitor general activities of social groups,
Churches, any group who has the potential to support terrorism.  I believe
in States Rights, but these rights must give way to a collective effort when
faced with the worldwide terrorism we face.  If we do not employ the
technology we have, how many deaths, radiologial sickness, lost business
will it take for our Nation to fall from within.  The last thing we want is
our own government to be placed in a position to seem to turn against us
while doing it's best to protect us.  Often we do not know our own will in
any particular event because we are so easily swayed in one direction or
another.

Let us ban together as a Nation Under Attack for that is the message we have
received from these terrorist (we are under attack).............whomever
they may be.

Thanks

Larry





"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:B0CVb.12$oF5.2444@read2.cgocable.net...
> CAIRO (Reuters) - A pan-Arab newspaper said Sunday that the al Qaeda
> organization led by Osama bin Laden bought tactical nuclear weapons from
> Ukraine in 1998 and is storing them in safe places for possible use.
>
> ...
>
> The newspaper said al Qaeda bought the weapons in suitcases in a deal
> arranged when Ukrainian scientists visited the Afghan city of Kandahar in
> 1998. The city was then a stronghold of the Taliban movement, which was
> allied with al Qaeda.
>
> Al Qaeda would use the weapons only inside the United States or if the
group
> faced a "crushing blow" which threatened its existence, such as the use of
> nuclear or chemical weapons against its fighters, the paper quoted its
> sources as saying.
>
>
> --
> "We must create a <economic> crisis in order to ensure that there is no
> alternative to a smaller government." - Bush - Imprimus Magazine 1995.
>
> "We seek to remove resources from the control of the state, thereby
starving
> it." - International Society for Individual Liberty - NeoCon Libertarian.
>
> "Throughout his term, Bush has implied tax cuts would starve the
government,
> paying for themselves by causing budget deficits that, in turn, would
place
> heavy pressure on Congress to lower spending." - Jeff Lemieux - Senior
> Economist - Progressive Policy Institute.
>
> "They have an agenda which is to starve the government of revenue. But in
> order to get it through, they keep on having to pretend that the tax cuts
> are affordable, and so they've been suppressing the likely cost of
> everything, including the war on terror." - Paul Krugman - Economist.
>