Weimar Republic 2.0: The Obama Version. The Rentenmark, Glenn Beck, and The Future.

  This is a repost of a post I wrote almost exactly a year ago.  Glenn brought this up again a day or so ago, and I agree that this is all very likely.   Here is what he said on his radio show:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/46725/ 

“PAT: And they seem to be setting up exactly what happened in the Weimar Republic to finally turn that situation around.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: And that's after the hyperinflation, what saved Germany? They valued land. They went to a land standard and that's what -- they burned the rest of the money and they based it all on land and what is the Federal Government doing here now? But taking over all our property.

GLENN: They're taking the property. They're --

PAT: 98% of all new mortgages.

GLENN: They've got all -- 98% of all new mortgages are underwritten by the Federal Government. You will become a renter to the Federal Government. If there's any way you can pay off your house, you should pay off your house. And I know people will say that's nuts, but I'm telling you, you've got to own things, because that is what they did in Weimar. They just took it. I don't know if you're going to be able to keep it. We've never been in this situation before. Very few countries have and none of them have come out the other side. That's how dire this situation is.”

 Who Owns The Land in the United States, what is the Rentenmark?

The United States Government owns 30% of all land in the United States right off of the top (see map).  But more than that, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own half of all outstanding mortgage debt or about $6 Trillion worth.  Harder to get a handle one is how much of the still remaining mortgage debt is owned by banks that by virtue of receiving TARP money are run by the Government.  If the bank that you owe your mortgage payment to is run by the government then your mortgage is basically government owned.   The States also own land, one of the guvernator’s ideas in Caulifornya was to sell State parks to the Fed.  As State budgets get worse there may be more who start to think that is a good idea. I think it would be safe to say that very near 50% of land in this nation is owned by the Feral Government. So? In 1914 Germany abandoned Gold as the backing for their currency (we did it in steps finally abandoning it completely in the seventies) and began printing money based on “Trust” in the Federal Government (like the dollar) this was called the Papeiermark.    After WWI Germany was forced to pay reparations to the rest of Europe.  To pay their debt they printed money…well like we are.  This caused inflation to be so horribly bad… well here was the joke: “Grandma put her money in her grocery basket to go to the store, a mugger stole the basket and left the money.”   Soon this currency was totally worthless (this is what happens when you put your trust in the government). Along came Hjalmar Schacht.  He was basically the Hank Paulson/Tim Geithner  of Germany.  What the Germans did to get their currency under control was to create a new currency, the Rentenmark.  The new Rentenmark currency was based on Real Estate.  Horace Schacht mortgaged all the land owned by Germany and created money with the mortgaged land. He sold the German land.  He mortgaged the house.  He sold the farm.  My personal opinion of Schacht was that he did what he felt he had to do given the situation he was placed in.  It did work, but at what price? So…Germany owned a lot of foreign countries a lot of money…and they printed money as fast as they could…to pay their debt…causing their money to be worthless…so then…because they already owned a lot of the land in the country…they mortgaged all the land they owned…and made new money. Hey wait a minute… we are printing money fast enough to make ink worth more than oil…and we owe foreign countries a lot of money…and our country owns nearly half of land and homes in the country… hmmm Beck mentioned this whole scenario on his show one day a month or so ago and I have read up on it since then. My previous theory was that he would run our debt up so much we would go into a world bankruptcy court and and as a condition of accepting a world currency and losing stature in the world our debt would be written off. Obama would sell a Global Currency and Global Government to the American people by saying that we are so screwed we HAVE to accept the global currency, .  But this is even more plausible. Using this idea it also begins to make sense why we have laws preventing oil drilling even though there is a lot of oil left in our country we are just sitting on.  Ditto for coal mining, and many other resources.  IT MAKES THE LAND WORTH MORE. It has to be something similar to this, because no group of even marginally sane individuals could spend the kind of money they are spending without any thought to what will happen. Not that our politicians are sane. So what is the worst that could happen.  Zimbabwe could happen that is what.  All of the information is readily available so here is what happened in a nutshell. In the 80’s and 90’s despite droughts Zimbabwe had a decent economy.  It was largely agricultural but the country also had large mineral deposits which were lucrative.  They had adequate electricity and transportation was good.  Then the new ruler of the country decided to “spread the wealth around” and take all the land from the producers and give it to local “oppressed” people and the agricultural output fell over 50%. To help the problem the Government created they began to regulate, well, everything. As a result “Atlas Shrugged”  Now they have to buy electricity because they cannot fix their equipment.  Foreign investment is gone.  Interest rates are well north of 200% (fantastic but true) and unemployment is around 80%.  It is the Obama model.  It is the change I believe they believe in.

-Kook

Cognitive Dissonance

I thought I better post something before everyone started thinking I was taken by the black helicopters and the X ray vans (sad we know for sure one of them exists) but I havent been abducted yet.

So the other day I was watching the new show on Discovery called Swamp People, where people who look a lot like some of my family, friends, and neighbors are chronicled as they hunt gators in the swamps of Lou'sanna.

One of the people I was watching TV with said, "It is surprising that the Animal rights folks and other Liberal Whackos let them put this on TV since they are actually killing alligaotrs" Without missing a beat another person in the room said, "well you know it is because Alligators are not cute. A besides they are far from endangered."

So a third person speaks up and says, "I had never thought about the cute facotr before, but you are right."

Finally I joined the conversation and said, "well proving the exception to the rule, Babies are cute, and if they were doing a show on aborting babies the liberals would think that was great empowering educational television."

Which kind of got me a lot of looks from around the room. But it is TRUE. Just this week a lot of you probably saw that crazy old bat in England saying on the BBC that she would smother her child if it was disabled. If only someone had smothered her.

Picture that for a second though...not the aborting of babies...but lets say the aborting of Panda bears. I want to see a show where a bunch of people sneak into a zoo and abort a panda bear. Why the outrage from PETA would be deafening. There would be boycotts and lawsuits, and save the Panda's concerts everywhere. That idiot from U2 would get up at an awards show and say something stupid. There would be black and white ribbons worn on liberal lapels everywhere. For what? According to them a lump of cells.

Maybe we could get a show demonstrating partial birth abortions to fur seals? Why not, they are ok for a woman to do in a lot of people's minds.

Disturbing mental images aren't they? These are the people we are dealing with... People who think it is ok to kill a baby human but will chain themselves to a tree to keep it from being cut down. Or will boycott a KFC for the treatment of chickens. Or will put commercials on TV showing them blowing up adolescent kids who do not believe in global warming but would have you thrown in jail for chaining your dog in your yard.

That is cognitive dissonance.

Peace Doesn't Keep Itself

From the Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell

Saw this today and thought it was particularly brilliant…thought I would share with those who may not be signed up to receive the Morning Bell.

Yesterday afternoon, President Barack Obama told his Economic Recovery Advisory Board: "I realize that we are facing an untenable fiscal situation. What I won't do is cut back on investments like education." Meanwhile what our Commander in Chief is very willing to cut is defense. In Bob Woodard's new book Obama's War , the President is reported telling Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "I am not spending a trillion dollars" on war costs. And he told Vice President Joe Biden exactly why: "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party."
Since 1960, federal spending on education has tripled while test scores have remained flat. Meanwhile, even after factoring the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, our nation will only spend 4.9% of GDP on defense this year compared to a post-Word War II average of 6.5%. Education is arguably a local responsibility that should be controlled at the local level with as little federal interference as possible. And even if you think federal spending on education is necessary, it is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and the Department of Education did not even exist until President Jimmy Carter invented it. But the phrase "provide for the common defense" is right there in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
An explosion in domestic spending, particularly from entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--is the true source of our nation's "untenable fiscal situation," not defense.  Furthermore, our nation's continued economic prosperity is entirely dependent on a peaceful world. With this in mind, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) President Arthur Brooks, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) Director William Kristol, and The Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

[M]ilitary spending is not a net drain on our economy. It is unrealistic to imagine a return to long-term prosperity if we face instability around the globe because of a hollowed-out U.S. military lacking the size and strength to defend American interests around the world.
Global prosperity requires commerce and trade, and this requires peace. But the peace does not keep itself. The Global Trends 2025 report, which reflects the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community, anticipates the rise of new powers—some hostile—and projects a demand for continued American military power. Meanwhile we face many non-state threats such as terrorism, and piracy in sea lanes around the world. Strength, not weakness, brings the true peace dividend in a global economy.

But the Obama administration is simply not doing enough to ensure that our strength is preserved. We now have the smallest Navy we have ever had since 1916 and the oldest Air Force in recorded history. Heritage Foundation Research Fellow for National Security Studies Mackenzie Eaglen writes: "Between 2010 and 2015, total defense spending is set to fall from 4.9 percent to 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), even though the nation has assigned more missions to the military over the past two decades."
Cutting defense spending is not the answer to our economic woes. After years of presidents taking "peace dividends," by starving the Pentagon while drastically increasing spending in other areas, we are needlessly hollowing out our armed forces. When troops go to battle in the future, they will lack resources, and suffer unnecessary failures and our national security will be compromised. Like the looming Obama tax hikes, liberals would like to pin this problem on the Tea Parties, arguing that they are the ones arguing for spending cuts, which liberals say should include defense. For one, that presumes all Tea Partiers are alike, rather than a mix of conservatives and libertarians with differing views. But more importantly, it ignores that many in the conservative movement understand that a strong and modern defense system should not be sacrificed for the unhelpful pork and government largesse typical of recent Congresses. These Tea Partiers, which would include champions such as former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), embrace President Reagan's motto of "peace through strength."
Sacrificing our nation's defenses at the expense of the entitlement state will neither lower our deficits nor protect our citizens. It appears to be the policy of this White House that Washington should no longer be a leader in the world, but instead should be content with managing America’s decline in a "post-American" world. This is not acceptable. Congress must better strengthen our nation by reforming entitlement spending while funding the people and platforms necessary for a balanced defense.

-KOOK