Monday, March 30, 2009

The "Kingdom of Trillion" Located in the "State of Denial"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
UPDATE: We are meeting today in Olympia to begin work on an initiative to overturn the Legislature's new homosexual legislation, should they pass it. That will include an effort to replace certain senators and representatives in upcoming elections who were unable to vote for marriage. Details forthcoming.

If you want to know where we are at this point in American history, you will not need a GPS.

Simply proceed as you are and continue to take every left turn.

This week the G20 meetings begin in London. There is already a huge pushback from the US and our out-of-control economic policies. China has asked for a new currency to replace the dollar for international purposes, while the rest of the world sits in disbelief at Obama's new economic policies.

He is following some of the same policies that Argentina adopted some years ago.

Once upon a time "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" was a fascinating show and it was exciting to see Publisher's Clearing House show up at someone's door about Super Bowl time and give them a million dollars--then later ten million. Forget about it. Now that's little money---peanuts.

Now it's a trillion here and a trillion there. $6 trillion, no, $9 trillion, well, maybe more, we'll see, debt for our children and their children and their children.

How much is a trillion anyway?

We now live in the "Kingdom of Trillion" which is located in the "State of Denial".

Sen. Judd Gregg told the nation Saturday that, "If you take all the debt of our country run up by all of our presidents from George Washington through George W. Bush, the total debt over those 200 plus years since we started as a nation, it is President Obama's plan to double that debt in just the first five years that he is in office."

Out in the Northwest quadrant of this vast new Kingdom is the colony formerly known as Washington State. While only a mere colony, Princess Gregoire and her Court are doing their best to achieve a performance medal from the Kingdom.

During the campaign for her re-election it was a $5.4 billion deficit problem---now after the election, we're talking $9 billion and that was a couple of weeks ago.

Not only is she and her court poised to throw 5 to 10 million dollars on their new domestic partnership, which will become gay marriage program, she and some wise legislators have a plan to fix the problem. You will not believe what they see as part of the solution.

I want to share that and more, as well as some links that can be very helpful. Please read on.

Senator Judd Gregg is a very successful business man. He has earned millions of dollars through wise investments, in fact his expertise is so well known that President Obama initially reached across the isle and ask him to be the Commerce Secretary. At first Gregg agreed, then upon a closer look at exactly what Obama had in mind, he said he could not be a part of it and withdrew.

On Saturday Gregg pointed out during his Republican response to the President's weekly address, that Obama's debt will exceed all debt combined from George Washington through George W. Bush in the history of our country---in just 5 years.

He also said, "He isn't trying to hide this; in fact he is very forthright in stating that he believes that by greatly expanding the spending, the taxing and the borrowing of our government, this will lead to prosperity."


President Obama is betting the farm in a $4 to $10 trillion poker game. And it's your farm he's betting.

I am giving you a link to the Christian Science Monitor news service, which has combined a video of Obama's speech and Judd's speech, both of which are only a few minutes long. This link also includes the text of Judd's speech.

I am also including a link to the National Journal online which is the text on one of the most informative roundtable discussions--from both sides, that I have seen.

And one more helpful link is to the Financial Times online which shows a very brief cartoon of how the "Geithner Plan" for prosperity is supposed to work. The Times is, of course, out of England and is a snapshot of how the financial experts in London feel about "The Kingdom of Trillion". It is not intended to be humorous, but I smiled.

Their closing comment? "Don't bet your last trillion that it will work."

Several have pointed out in the past week that there are a couple of bills in the works in Olympia that are intended to increase the cash flow and help "fix" the Princess' $5, I mean $9, or whatever it ends up being, problem.

HB 2300 is designed to expand gambling across the state.

That's right, they believe that if they expand gambling, they will increase cash flow into the Kingdom and everyone will live happily ever after.

The evidence that gambling can be harmful is overwhelming and undeniable, expect by the Court in the Kingdom and the Princess.

When you see the gambling commission running ads on TV telling the public they fund counseling and recovery programs for people addicted to gambling, you know it is a problem for people.

In fact it is estimated that it costs the economy as much as $54 billion annually.


HB 2321 will expand the availability and convenience of buying alcohol across the state. More stores--in more places. This will also create more revenue for the state.

So the answer in the Colony for increased revenue and a "fix" for their problem, seems to be to get the subjects drunk and send them to the casino.

Yes We Can!

Yet when they are reaching to this depth for money, the left side of the Court doesn't blink when they tell you they don't know for sure how much their new expanded homosexual benefits plan will cost. And don't seem to care as they rush to pass it. Amounts of $5, $6, $8 million have been discussed. Who knows?

This kind of thinking throughout the Kingdom is beyond ignorance---it is a cult of denial.

I have used a little humor to mask my own tears of concern.

The idea that we can sit back and everything will be alright is as far off the mark as those who have abandoned ancient principles and any moral compass other than relativism, believing they can spend their way out of a financial crises and make things better by selling more alcohol and expanding gambling.

America is being pushed away from free market capitalism toward a European style socialism. Our present financial crises is seen as a huge opportunity by the Obama administration and others who envision a very different America. They call it "change". And they are exploiting the opportunity.

They are bankrupting the country, while their followers are pushing the state toward the edge. All this, while re-ordering our culture, re-engineering the family, redefining marriage and reducing the sanctity of life, at beginning and end of life to a mere choice on any given day depending on how they feel.

It is time for good people to take back their communities and their country.

Thank you for standing with us.

God help us.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. OK, in the last 8 years, you guys have been right about anything zero times. It's your policies that put us in the hole we're in.

    You've cried that the sky is falling so many times, you have no credibility.

    You've had your turn. Now, we're going to try it our way for awhile. Oh, and when the big recovery from the Bush administration happens, we won't expect a thank you, however, you are welcome!

  2. This is overwhelming Gary. I have been recognizing all you have stated but haven't seen it all written out together.

    Unfortunately we also have to contend with the 10/80/10 rule. 10% of the people will do the right thing in an emergency or crisis, 10% will do the actual wrong thing (run back into a burning building), 80% will be frozen (deer in the headlights).

    Thankfully God has designed things such that 10% can make a difference. I hope most of your readers are that 10%

  3. Where was Judd Gregg and Gary Randall's concern when George W Bush more than doubled the debt of all previous Presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton(who actually reduced the debt)? Where were they when Dick Cheney claimed "deficits don't matter" while pushing an unprecedented tax cut for the rich while our nation fought not one but two wars(one of which was a misguided war of choice that Cheney's cabal tricked the nation into supporting with false intelligence)?

    Isn't it telling that the second Gary is out of political power he gets all snippy and sarcastic? Suddenly it's "Princess Gregoire" and other such childish nonsense.

    As for your sniveling about the cost of equality. If we could eliminate the entire state budget shortfall by denying benefits to evangelical marriages would you support it? Of course not! But when it is a minority you despise, the cost of equal benefits becomes paramount. Just more situational ethics.

  4. It all goes right along with his plan to destroy the United States from the White House! He's doing a pretty good job and off to a running start. Woe to those who are deceived by this wolf in sheep's clothing!

  5. Gary, you don't understand the world economic market situation; its origins, its current situation or the reasoning behind the possible solutions, that's clear from your note. But you aren't alone - I run into them in my own extended family. Fortunately with them they don't have an ideological axe to grind so when its explained to them they basically do an Emily Latella and say 'Oh. Well that's entirely different. Never mind.'

    Quick(ish) answer for those who want to research more on their own:

    The current financial crisis is because of the deregulation of Credit Default Swaps (CDS) by then Senator Phil Gramm (boy did we really dodge a bullet when he didn't become the economic adviser to the president) with the stealth passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This totally deregulated the CDS market, allowing these insurance on loan instrument to be taken out on securities that you didn't even own meaning you could take out a CDS on someone else's securities, betting they would fail on which you would then be paid large sums of money. Right, it was gambling and the financial 'masters of the universe' took to it like it was crack.

    Before this Act, CDS were used as genuine insurance to back up credit instruments and there were less than 1 trillion dollars worth of them in the US. By 2007 the amount of CDS had increased over 60 times, with almost half or them being taken out by people who had nothing directly to do with the securities being insured. This influx of 'fake' money fueled the economic boom of the last 8 years, over 50 trilliion dollars of completely fake money that only came into existence if securities defaulted.

    What happened is when the housing market tanked all the CDS taken out on housing-backed securities came due - trillions upon trillions of dollars owed on paper to the owners of people who took them out. All the major financial institutions have gotten on the 'pay out' end of at least some of these CDS and so suddenly their books looked like they owed more money than they had.

    If the CDS didn't exist the housing market problems would be almost trivial to fix in comparison - the CDS debt dwarfs those of the housing market problems and if it hadn't been the housing market it would have eventually been something else that triggered the CDS failure - you can't have that much made up money being potentially owed without it some day coming due for some reason. The housing market was just the match to the fuse, the CDS market was the bomb.

    And so all the 'solutions' involve separating out the housing bonds, which are still actual houses and have value as real estate just no one knows exactly what that is at the moment, from the CDS debt, which is totally made up but still clogs the books. Corral the home loans and figure out their real worth by dismantling them and repackaging, getting speculators to invest in them, and isolate the CDS-caused debt and pay off as little of it as necessary to keep the associated financial institution functional. That's why your 'humor' at the Financial Times explanation is humorous in itself as this is exactly what's trying to be done for the least cost as possible to the tax payer. The only criticism is that its not ENOUGH money because the potential CDS debt is in the 10s of trillions of dollars - 1 or 2 may not be enough to 'stomp out the fires' of the worst of the debt needed to keep the financial institutions solvent.

    Now, if it was only the US doing these things then yes, you could draw a parallel to Argentina because they tried to do this alone. Fortunately (in a way) the entire world is currently in the same boat and all doing the same things - no one is going to be ostracized from the world financial community by taking these actions. And that is what leads us to the 'stealth' solution that is being rumored around the world with the upcoming G20 summit.

    The G20 summit represents the 20 largest economies on the planet that owe virtually all the CDS debt to each other in one form or the other. The rumor is they are considering just forgiving everyone everywhere their CDS based debt. All this made up money will just all 'go away' as if it never existed. This would solve the entire planet's 'toxic debt' problems and everyone would be able to concentrate on the residual real asset issues that remain.

    Now, not as simple as it first sounds - some companies are holding more of these CDS 'money owed' securities than others - their balance sheets would suddenly go to the negative big time, so there might have to be some sort of balancing that would have to happen to save these businesses but that problem would be far easier and less expensive to solve than dealing with these the 10s of trillions of dollars of CDS debt that are drowning the entire financial system. And of course some countries might not want to do this and they would be gently strong-armed into compliance. Still it is a 'simple' solution to the 'CDS due' problem that has crippled the world if they can agree to do it. If not, then the 'pay as little of the CDS with tax payers dollars as possible' solution is all that's left, the solution the current administration is pursuing.

    And that's why I don't understand Gary's and those of his ilk's attitudes. All solutions involve getting this CDS-based money off the books of the financial institutions of the world. No, you can't just pay it all off - there is more CDS debt than the world's financial institutions can pay and remain solvent and we have more than our share of it. Want to make the US a 3rd world nation? - letting the financial businesses of the world collapse would be the quickest and most certain way to go. What we are trying to do is fix the situation with the US remaining the de-facto center of the world economy, a tricky balancing act at the moment to be sure but one that is going to involve at least promising lots and lots of money.

    Remember, we will be getting some portion of all the money being lent out by the government back. Goldman Sachs as already committed to repaying the TARP money they've gotten by the end of the year, AIG (now AIU) has a 5 year plan for repaying its TARP money. These massive outlays of cash are to prevent US and global disaster, if we can pull back from the edge we will make it back in repayments of these businesses that haven't failed that would have and by retaining our status as the center of the world economy over time.

    And this is pretty obvious to anyone who has even bothered to look at the problem but what we hear against it are totally partisan and largely ridiculous complaints - they don't make any economic sense. Its like if the current administration suggests it its considered wrong by default. Forget its the solution suggested by text books going back 80 years, forget the alternatives being suggested are almost guaranteed ways to sink the US economy for good in the eyes of the world, its like the arguments against the solutions suggested are merely because its being proposed by a Democrat, as if they don't want to save the country even more than the party out of power.

    You got a solution to clear 10's of trillions of dollars worth of CDS debt off the books let's hear it - it won't happen with tax cuts, it won't happen with spending cuts that's for certain.

  6. trillion here , a trillion there . Before you know , you owe alot of money .

    President obama campaigned using pay as you go , against earmarks . Looks like he is worse then the Bush administration in spending .

    too bad I had hoped we could have believed this guy .

  7. President obama campaigned using pay as you go,

    But to do so during this time of economic catastrophe would be traitorous and doom the country to economic collapse. That promise will have to wait.

    against earmarks.

    No you are confused, it was John McCain who was against any earmarks, Obama was for responsible earmarks and against ones slipped in without review like all the ones that Bush allowed in the current budget bill. If there weren't more important things to worry about he might take a stand against even these, but an smart man prioritizes - 1.5% of the budget with most of the earmarks justifiable is not worth fretting about at this particular time. Next budget when it is all done under his watch and the recession has been turned around will be the time to draw conclusions.

    too bad I had hoped we could have believed this guy .

    What was the line from Star Wars III? "Only the Sith deal in absolutes". A president that can't prioritize in the face of emergencies and roll with the punches is pretty useless don't you think?

  8. That promise will have to wait.


    No you are confused, it was John McCain who was against any earmarks, Obama was for responsible earmarks

    Responsible earmarks ?

    LOL The ones the republicans put in ? Or do you jut support the ones democrats do ? Because they put pleanty of them in by both parties I liked Obama because I thought he was different then the slime of either party or idealofgues who defdend them . .I do want to embarrass you , google Obama earmarks . He lied , like the folks before him ,
    We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project," Obama's statement said

    A president that can't prioritize in the face of emergencies and roll with the punches is pretty useless don't you think?"

    Oh yeah I totally agree. Reverend Wright must be thinking wow I never ridiculed kids who had mental disabilities . '0)

  9. " and when the big recovery from the Bush administration happens, we won't expect a thank you, however, you are welcome"

    Ehhh from what I understand we should thank our Great Grand Kids they are paying for all of this .


  10. Bush, Bush, Bush, that's all I hear. The party of progress appears to be lost in the past rather than "moving forward", as they so highly tout. Obama owns the present economy, and all his blunders, like it or not. He will continue to blunder because ha has no idea what he's doing, and has surrounded himself with has beens, who failed in the past. Oops there's that word again past. Change, I think not, just more of the same except for one thing. If we must continue Bush bashing like a daily fix, we need to remember Bush never complained once about the mess Clinton left him.

  11. Obama owns the present economy, and all his blunders, like it or not.

    What blunders? He has prevented a depression, lead economic indicators are indicating a turn around, and he is preventing the total collapse of the US financial community. Win Win Win, so far.

    we need to remember Bush never complained once about the mess Clinton left him.

    You mean the mild recession previous Republican Congress left Bush? The one Bush created 2 large stimulus packages to correct, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? The Enron loophole, the CDS market deregulation? Of course he didn't complain - all his problems were Republican in origin. ;)

  12. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project,

    Ok, other than confirming what I said what was the point of that? I 100% agree, Obama wasn't against earmarks as you claimed. But then you are just an 'anonymous' and might not be the same 'anonymous' that said he was.

    Come on people. google accounts are free - why not register one just for leaving notes here so all you 'anonymous' can at least own the messages you leave?

  13. Oh and Mick, if you have any interest in what the President really thinks about earmarks you should go to and look it up:

    "What you likely have heard about is that this bill does include earmarks. Now, let me be clear: Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination.…"

    "…So I believe as we move forward, we can come together around principles that prevent the abuse of earmarks.

    These principles begin with a simple concept: Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose. Earmarks that members do seek must be aired on those members' websites in advance, so the public and the press can examine them and judge their merits for themselves. Each earmark must be open to scrutiny at public hearings, where members will have to justify their expense to the taxpayer.

    Next, any earmark for a for-profit private company should be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts. The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice, as witnessed by some of the indictments and convictions that we've already seen. Private companies differ from the public entities that Americans rely on every day –- schools, and police stations, and fire departments.

    When somebody is allocating money to those public entities, there's some confidence that there's going to be a public purpose. When they are given to private entities, you've got potential problems. You know, when you give it to public companies -- public entities like fire departments, and if they are seeking taxpayer dollars, then I think all of us can feel some comfort that the state or municipality that's benefitting is doing so because it's going to trickle down and help the people in that community. When they're private entities, then I believe they have to be evaluated with a higher level of scrutiny.

    Furthermore, it should go without saying that an earmark must never be traded for political favors.

    And finally, if my administration evaluates an earmark and determines that it has no legitimate public purpose, then we will seek to eliminate it, and we'll work with Congress to do so."

    - President Barak Obama

  14. "Bush never complained once about the mess Clinton left him."

    Wow you certainly have a selective memory. In reality, Bush and the conservative blamed the largest failure of his Presidency(you remember the 9/11 terrorist attacks - 3000 killed?) on Bill Clinton.

    So, per your "logic" Obama "owns" everything a mere 60 days into his presidency, but Bush didn't "own" national security eight months in. I guess we can just chalk it up to yet another case of Republican situational ethics.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.