Email
Print
SyndicateWarnings From Insiders: Hyperinflation
By Robert Ringer - Friday, November 28, 2008
I had a long talk yesterday with an old friend, an ex-Congressman who served eighteen years before retiring in disgust. Back in the late eighties, he invited me to give a talk to a group of likeminded conservative colleagues in his office. (A couple of young Congressmen who were at that meeting are now very high-profile politicos, but, to protect their privacy, I will refrain from giving their names.)
Afterward, my friend told me how impressed they had been with what I had to say. But I didn’t buy it, because one of the things I remember most vividly about that meeting was their blank stares. Clearly, those supposedly conservative Congressmen were not prepared to hear my analyses of government, the economy, or the future.
Now, fast-forward twenty years to our private talk yesterday. A few minutes into the conversation, my friend told me that he was in a quandary and wanted my advice. He said he had always kept most of his net worth in cash, because he never trusted the stock market, and he now believes that hyperinflation and the destruction of the U.S. dollar are inevitable. In other words, he sees his cash becoming worthless as a result of government running its printing presses overtime.
I will not share with you what I told him, because I’m not a financial advisor. But, like me, he said he is even more worried about the political consequences of hyperinflation. He said he has been warning his children for years that unless there is a radical backlash from the public, they will live out their lives under a dictatorship.
Interestingly, my late friend William Simon, who served as Secretary of the Treasury under Presidents Nixon and Ford, said similar things to me some thirty years ago. Bill could never figure out why Nixon or Ford didn’t fire him, because he was not shy about letting them know that he believed their fiscal policies were insane. (In this respect, he sounded like an earlier version of former Comptroller General David Walker, who now travels the country preaching a similar message.)
In his book A Time for Truth, Simon quoted himself in an appearance before Congress as follows:
You ask, Mr. Chairman, about the consequences of deficits. But we all know what they are. We all know that neither man nor business nor government can spend more than is taken in for very long. If it continues, the result must be bankruptcy.
In the case of the federal government, we can print money to pay for our folly for a time. But we will just continue to debase our currency, and then we’ll have financial collapse. That is the road we are on today. That is the direction in which the “humanitarians” are leading us.
The problem of deficits, budget balancing, capital markets — all these are important. But it is more important, I think, to understand that these are just early warning symptoms of a disease that threatens the very life of our body politic.
And if we continue to move down this same path, that disease will be irreversible, and our liberty will be lost. [My italics.] I speak of this so insistently because I hear no one discussing this danger. Congress does not discuss it. The press does not discuss it. … The people do not discuss it — they are unaware of it.
No counterforce in America is being mobilized to fight this danger. The battle is being lost, and not a shot is being fired. That, Mr. Chairman, is why for me the last few years in office have been like a bad dream. I am leaving Washington next January. I am going to go home to New Jersey a very frightened man.
Later in the book, Simon pointed out the “time-honored” Republican rationalization for betraying free enterprise: “It’s necessary to stay in power. We can accomplish nothing if we’re out of office. So we have to throw the voters the kinds of bones to which the Democrats have accustomed them.” As they say, the more things change …
This is precisely why the Republican Party is on the verge of extinction. Fox News commentator Mort Kondracke recently opined that the reason the Republicans got clobbered in the House, Senate, and presidential elections is because of “radical voices” like Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Kondracke is one of those people who believe Republicans need to “increase the size of their tent.”
And he’s right. Republicans do need to make their tent bigger and include a larger percentage of the electorate. But they need to accomplish this by selling the incredible benefits of conservatism (and, I would argue, libertarianism) to those people in the middle who — and let’s get real here — vote for the highest bidder.
These “centrists” need to be educated about the realities of government handouts — handouts that can be fulfilled only through printing, borrowing, and taxing. They need to understand that, in the end, they will end up actually losing as a result of such handouts — and those losses are already becoming visible.
Above all, they need to understand that in the very end, they may lose their most precious asset of all: freedom. Yes, they need to be brought into the Republican tent, but as newly minted conservatives, not liberals. The country doesn’t need another liberal party. It already has the Demopublican Party, which needs to be split into its original two factions — Democratic and Republican.
I will close on an appropriate note by once again quoting William Simon from A Time for Truth:
Support only those candidates who will not waver on the issue of liberty. For too long we have willingly accepted the “lesser of two evils.” But the most urgent counsel I can give you is this:
Stop asking the government for “free” goods and services, however desirable and necessary they may seem to be. They are not free. They are simply extracted from the hide of your neighbors – and can be extracted only by force.
If you would not confront your neighbor and demand his money at the point of a gun to solve every new problem that may appear in your life, you should not allow the government to do it for you.
Be prepared to identify any politician who simultaneously demands your “sacrifices” and offers you “free services” for exactly what he is: an egalitarian demagogue. This one insight understood, this one discipline acted upon and taught by millions of Americans to others could do more to further freedom in American life than any other.
I’m sure glad I went back and read A Time for Truth, because it reminded me all over again why I got along so well with Bill Simon. The man was pushing for a Liberty-Education Revolution clear back in the seventies.
Bill would be very disappointed, though hardly surprised, to see that most Republicans still act like Democrats, that the U.S. debt is now unpayable (except through a massive hyperinflation that would not make China and other creditors real happy with us), and that government is now handing out trillions of dollars to banks, insurance companies, automakers, and homeowners with mortgages in default — against the will of the American people.
Just imagine where we might be had we begun the Liberty-Education Revolution in earnest when Bill Simon first urged us to do so. But, as with drilling for oil, it does little good to lament the past. No matter how long it takes, we had better get this thing going full steam ahead as quickly as possible. When it comes to liberty, I say drill here, drill now.
Trust me: An ugly brew is being prepared for us in Washington as I write this, a brew that is certain to increase government power at an accelerating pace and decrease liberty for you and me.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.
19 Responses to “Warnings From Insiders: Hyperinflation”
Leave a Reply
1500 characters maximum.
As usual, I am in total agreement with this entire article….with one exception. The PEOPLE have spoken.
The PEOPLE have voted for demagogery and handouts.
The PEOPLE don’t care whether or not the President-elect is a constitutionally-valid nominee.
The PEOPLE will gladly “sacrifice” some of their freedoms to obtain goodies and toys without the necessity of personal success in earning them.
The PEOPLE happily re-elect 94% of incumbent [read: REcumbent] legislators, most likely BECAUSE — not in spite of — their pork-flow into local larders….
And, the PEOPLE outnumber us handily. Most likely, they will welcome a tyranny, since that excuses them from the need to think about anything except their own parochial wants.
Today, more than ever, after the Obama clique publicly called the constitutional demand for proof of natural-born citizenship “garbage”, my vision of our future has become far clearer. Please, Robert, tell us how you manage to retain your upbeat, hopeful attitude…and please make it more infectious. I don’t like feeling this way.
As usual, I am in total agreement with this entire article….with one exception. The PEOPLE have spoken.
The PEOPLE have voted for demagogery and handouts.
The PEOPLE don’t care whether or not the President-elect is a constitutionally-valid nominee.
The PEOPLE will gladly “sacrifice” some of their freedoms to obtain goodies and toys without the necessity of personal success in earning them.
The PEOPLE happily re-elect 94% of incumbent [read: REcumbent] legislators, most likely BECAUSE — not in spite of — their pork-flow into local larders….
And, the PEOPLE outnumber us handily. Most likely, they will welcome a tyranny, since that excuses them from the need to think about anything except their own parochial wants.
Today, more than ever, after the Obama clique publicly called the constitutional demand for proof of natural-born citizenship “garbage”, my vision of our future has become far clearer. Please, Robert, tell us how you manage to retain your upbeat, hopeful attitude…and please make it more infectious. I don’t like feeling this way.
I am a deficit hawk.
I am distressed to tears watching our government, and now the Fed, hand out money to anybody/everybody that has their hand out. I may not be the brightest person in the room, but I know that every time the Fed prints another dollar, the one in my pocket is worth less. I also know that every dollar the government spends that it doesn’t have is another dollar of crippling debt that our children will have to deal with. While the current administration doubled our national debt in eight years, I’m afraid that the next administration will double it again in two years. I agree with you Robert: STOP THE INSANITY!!!
I heard Milton Friedman tell Charlie Rose that the deficit would not matter…Alan Greenspan said the same thing…Milt was 93 then…what’s Al’s excuse…
Mr. Ringer,
I can see or understand that conditions for a hyperinflation you talk about are given, which provides the conditions for government to make extraordinary -”unusual” if you will- decisions and actions.
when you refer to a dictatorship in the USA, do you mean:
1- A president who does not leave office by Congress approval (a controlled congress, of course)
2- Election supression or manipulated to
perpetuate in power the current president after some adjustments to law (think Hugo Chavez)
3- Open military force over people
Under this idea of dictatorship and socialism, what do you see for private business? The country businesses becoming parastatals?
It’s hard for me to see the epitome of free entreprise living like a communist country back in the eighties.
My point is that I just can’t picture the US people living like in Cuba, or in the former Soviet Union, which is the ultimate living standard for an egualitarian.
Repeated mention of Obama’s Marxism push me to think in this direction.
Chile became a dictatorship in the seventies when Pinochet took control of government; but private enterprise flourished under that regime. In such way that the last left-wing, socialist governments have not changed the economic rules. Currently, Chile is the strongest economy in South America.
What kind of dictatorship do you see possible for USA?
Castro’s Cuba or Pinochet’s Chile?
So far, the “Conservative” Presidents I’ve seen have done nothing but increase the size of government and increase the size of the National Debt. A lot of “Conservatives” are fretting over what Obama is going to do, but would McCain have been any different? Look at the current “Republican” administration. Did Bush decrease the size of the Federal government? No. The government got far larger under his reign.
I can’t help but think that the “Conservatives” are partly to blame for their problems: they push for amnesty for illegal immigrants while at the same time discouraging poor people from getting abortions. People from the Third World and lower-class people are not advocates of liberty? What a shocker!
I think we’ve arrived here because of our currency- our currency’s worth is dependent on the solvency of the Federal government. It only makes sense that our government gets larger with time. A lot of people could not believe that both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett came out and said they wanted to pay more in taxes. However, Buffett and Gates realize that their net worth is in dollars, and that means that their net worth is dependent on the health of our system. It’s something to think about…
Thank you for a very interesting article. The meat of it (to me) is the point that Kondracke made: “is because of “radical voices” like Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity”. I could add many others like Michael Savage, Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. I am by nature basically a democrat but am completely for fiscal responsibility, I want no free ride from the government, but when I hear nothing but the hatred and/or war mongering spouted from the ilk of voices like that it absolutely turns my stomach. Let alone those who use ‘god’or their church as their justification. It’s despicable. Years ago I never was ‘party’ affiliated and could vote for the person, not the party, but when I hear that sort of bile and vitriol coming from so many republicans, that frightens me more than anything. Indeed the republicans need to open the windows and do a clean sweep of just what their policies are.
Shedding tears and not from Onions.
Response to PurpleOnion:
You don’t sound like a Democrat to me. You sound more like a libertarian. As to Republicans, I think many in the party know that they need to get their act together and recheck their values and beliefs. When they picked McCain, it was obvious they had competely lost their way – and that came right on the heels of George Bush spending taxpayer dollars like a drunken sailor.
Reponse to marantgal:
Any one of your scenarios for a dictatorship is possible, but no one can be certain exactly how a dictatorship might come about. The bottom line is that, throughout history, when people become desperate, they tend to support a orator-demagogue who promises to deliver them from evil.
Hitler and Mussolini are the two most prominent, recent names that come to mind, but the list of dictators who have come to power on the heels of an economic collapse goes back centuries.
BTW, Pinochet was a right-wing dictator, which makes a big difference when it comes to economic issues. While all dictatorships are, by nature, immoral, it’s almost always the left-wing dictatorships that lead to crushing poverty of the masses. When Marxist Salvadore Allende ruled Chile, things were not so rosy for Chileans.
Response to the StrawMan:
You got it right, StrawMan – the People are willing to accept anything in exchange for keeping their synthetic good life intact.
You ask how I manage to retain an upbeat, hopeful attitude? Well, the truth is that it’s not always upbeat and it’s not always hopeful. But what keeps me going is thinking about the alternative. The thought of being enslaved and living in poverty are great motivators.
“The People” are going to be upset beyond description in the coming years. And the more they yell and scream for “justice,” the more the lefties in power will come up with clever slogans to point fingers at “the rich,” Wall Street, the previous administration … and, without question, all those who “create fear” by telling the public what is really happening.
The trick is to beat them to the punch by getting the Liberty Education Revolution into high gear quickly. You have to tell people what is going to happen, and why it is going to happen, before it even happens. In other words, head off the arguments from the Left before they are able to ingrain them in people’s minds. It’s a race against time.
We still just don’t or refuse to get it!
When you put your faith in man you are doomed to be let down! Are we blind, mans systems, politics, government, solutions, theories, whatever will not work, they never have!
Man has been a total idiot every since he first turned his back on God!
We don’t need to get some Liberty education revolution into high gear! We need to get God back into our hearts, into our daily lives, our thoughts, our behaviors, our institutions, and our actions!
Just look at what we’ve done, the very one that was blessing us, the one that was truly responsible for our prosperity, we’ve basically rejected!
Man is absolutely nothing without God! Man is going against the laws of the universe, against the laws and will of the creator, how can he succeed?
I have concerns, but I am not afraid, I am not worried, because I do what the creator says.
God knows that man faces all these situations and circumstances, what does he tell us to do?
I know people don’t want to hear this kind of talk, everyone is so concerned about being politically correct, well I’m not! I’m concerned about being heavenly correct!
You want the answer, here it is, seek ye first the kingdome of God!
Until we sincerely do that, all other activity is nothing but a total waste of time!
God can not and will not be denied!!
Our national debt is more than 10 trillion dollars. Our national debt was less than 1 trillion dollars on January 20, 1981. Our liabilities connected with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are several times that of our national debt.
The federal government should sell a lot of the land that it owns to raise capital, reduce the national debt, help fund Social Security and Medicare, and do other things. Some of the money the federal government obtains from the sale of federal government owned land should go to State governments. If you type federal government owned land on a search engine, you might be surprised at how much land the federal government owns.
Congress should seriously consider allowing casinos and hotels especially hotels for the wealthy to be built in many national parks. The federal government could obtain a percentage of sales from these casinos and hotels, a property tax from these casinos and hotels, and a 5 percent rooms and meals tax from these casinos and hotels. State governments should get some of the money the federal government obtains from these casinos and hotels.
The least that should be done to grow the economy and create jobs is the indexing for inflation of capital gains, interest from savings accounts, and dividends. If the capital gains tax is not indexed for inflation, people may pay the capital gains tax when they have actually lost money because of inflation.
If the federal government is serious about growing the economy and creating jobs, it should stop taxing capital gains, interest from savings accounts, and dividends. Businesses will have an easier time obtaining loans and investments for hiring workers, training workers, research and development, and plant and equipment. People will have an easier time saving for college tuitions and retirements.
Congress may want to pass a 2 percent national sales tax placed on most things other than food, shelter, health care, and education. If the national sales tax is adopted, the federal income tax on individuals and businesses should be reduced at the same time.
Article 1, Section 8 of Constitution says Congress has the power
“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”
Congress should seriously consider backing our currency with gold, silver, and other commodities. Congress should consider allowing for a lot more mining of our lands and ocean waters.
Congress should eliminate the Federal Reserve or veto many of its decisions. If the Federal Reserve continues to exist, 2 members of the United States House of Representatives and 2 United States Senators should sit on the board of the Federal Reserve. If 3 of these members of Congress wants a Federal Reserve decision to be vetoed, it should be vetoed. A Federal Reserve decision should also be vetoed when a majority of the members of the United States House of Representatives wants a decision to be vetoed. A Federal Reserve decision should also be vetoed when a majority of the United States Senate wants the decision to be vetoed.
An Amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that allows State Legislatures to repeal federal laws, federal regulations, trade agreements and treaties.
An Amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that allows State Legislatures to recall (fire) their Representatives to the United States House of Representatives, their United States Senators, the President, and the Vice President.
An Amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that gives each State at least 3 United States Senators and allows each State Legislature to choose at least 1 United States Senators. Before Amendment Seventeen was passed, State Legislatures chose United States Senators.
Back in the late 50s and early 60s, I called myself a “conservative.” My “mantra” was freedom, individual freedom as the very core of “conservatism.” I had read every “conservative” book and article I could get my hands on and I really thought that “conservatives” actually had the “best interests” of the country at heart.
For decades, I watched “conservative Republicans” work and vote so as to stay in office (but continue to mouth the slogans of freedom) because “if we’re not in power, we can’t do anything.”
I watched them try “to out-Democrat the Democrats.”
I watched Ronald Reagan mouth “conservatism” yet run-up the deficit faster than the Democrats.
And lately, I watched “W” put his “:compassionate conservatism” into action. The result? Terrible losses of freedom under all the “homeland security” legislation and a sky-rocketing of inflation (unbacked fiat currency.) This is “conservatism”?
[Remember, Reagan was a Democrat who admired FDR.]
Richard M Weaver, in his excellent late 40s “conservative” book, “Ideas Have Consequences,” taught me that ideas implanted in the minds of people actually do affect their actions and lives.
After reading “Atlas Shrugged” (upon a 1958 recommendation from one of my “clueless” friends — he called it “a great railroad story”) I realized I was not a “conservative” as I had been calling myself. I was a “classical liberal.” (I now call myself a “libertarian.”)
I may be wrong. But as I understand the dictionary definition, the true meaning of “conservative” is: disposed to preserve the status quo (existing conditions, institutions, etc.) and to agree with gradual development, rather than abrupt change.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: “I didn’t leave my definition of conservative, the definition of conservative left me.” When Edmund Burke wrote his famous “conservative” treatises, “conservative” included huge doses of individual freedom. He and his ilk called themselves “liberals” because liberal stems from the Latin word liber, meaning free.
Modern-day collectivists have “co-opted” the word liberal. No longer does it have anything to do with freedom. It now denotes a big-government collectivist. That is why I used the term “classical liberal” to describe myself at one time; classical in the sense of the old-time meaning.
Pundits, such as you, tend to confuse “Joe Sixpack” by letting the collectivists set the verbal, political agenda. Collectivists have succeeded in establishing themselves as “liberals.”
When Joe Sixpack goes to the dictionary to look up liberal, he inevitably sees a definition that reeks of freedom.
Today, when Joe yearns for freedom from the presence of Leviathan, he thinks of “liberals” who promise freedom.
And whom does he reject? He rejects stick-in-the-mud “conservatives” who want to preserve the status quo.
If you relied on the dictionary, which would you choose?
You and I are “sophisticated,” knowledgeable political “junkies” who keep up with the trends in political verbiage.
“Liberal” now means collectivist and “Conservative” now means liberal. “Laissez-faire” is politically-incorrect, because it means radical, rapacious, predatory, dog-eat-dog “conservatism.”
Here’s the point: general semantics advocates clear and well-understood definitions so that everyone can understand what everyone else actually means by the words that they use. As Ayn Rand put it so succinctly: “Define your terms!”
I advocate using dictionary definitions wherever and whenever possible.
Most people don’t go out every week to buy a new dictionary. I even have one that’s about 100 years old. I have several others of different ages.
Joe Sixpack is lucky to have even one and I guarantee you that most likely it is not a brand new one. So we’re all stuck with old dictionary definitions.
I have been tilting at the semantic windmill for years, trying to get Rush Limbaugh, for example, to stop calling the collectivist/communist/socialist/crypto-Marxist, so-called “liberals” LIBERALS.
Because they ain’t liberal in the dictionary definition of the word.
When Joe Sixpack looks it up, he thinks he wants to be a “liberal.”
I also try to get pundits to stop calling freedom-lovers “conservatives,” because the dictionary says conservatives are advocates of the horrible status quo in which we find ourselves.
What to do?
DEFINE OUR TERMS AND STICK TO THEM. Don’t let the collectivists “co-opt” the political battleground. Don’t let them dominate the discussion with their rules.
Don’t let them hide behind the mask of the word “liberal” when they ain’t liberal. Don’t call RINO GOP members laissez-faire, free-market, small-government “conservatives” because they ain’t!
Here’s another one! Don’t use the word inflation to mean a rise in the price-level.
Joe Sixpack can’t possibly understand that inflating the fiat currency with unbacked FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) has any harmful consequences, when the government promotes big WIN-buttons (Gerald Ford’s Whip Inflation Now buttons) as it “leads the fight against rising prices” while shoveling greenbacks out the back door of the Treasury.
In my estimation, you are not a “conservative,” but a libertarian.
Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party gave libertarianism a bad name.
They were “plastered” by the mainstream media and the “conservative” GOP (including Rush Limbaugh) as pot-smoking, rock-and-roll, good-time-Charlie loonies.
We still need to DEFINE OUR TERMS!
Please do so in your writings.
Response to Old_Curmudgeon:
Excellent insights all. You are right about collectivists appropriating the term “liberal.” In the traditional Jeffersonian sense of the word, liberal meant something much closer to what is today referred to as a libertarian.
And you are also right when you say that many well-known conservatives do not understand what a libertarian is. Libertarians have not done a good job of explaining what they stand for. I’ve never smoked pot in my life!
In response to Thinker
Sure we can put our faith in God. However, will that solve our social ills if we still place our faith in bad economics? You know, there is an exact science of economics called Praxeology (the science of Human Action).The vast majority of the people are ignorant of sound economic reasoning. This is the major cause of hardship and disharmony on our planet.
By the way if God is the creator of all, who do you think created the laws of economics? Following your logic we can state that violating the laws of economics is violating God’s law–and demonstrating a complete lack of faith in God.
Credit where it is due. A Time For Truth was ghosted by Edith Efron.
Response to nicmart:
I have heard that many times in the past, but have no proof of it. However, even if Edith Efron did most of the actual writing, I can assure you, from firsthand knowledge, that the thoughts and ideas in A Time for Truth were Bill Simon’s.
In our many private conversations, he was both knowledgeable and unapologetic in his beliefs, beliefs that clearly and unequivocally underscored the contents of the book.
Dear RR:
How come we see all the Google Ads offering “FREE GOVERNMENT GRANTS and YOUR NEIGHBORS MONEY on your website????
I for one would think that this represents DOUBLE-SPEAK by the best of definitions?
Which is it that you really advocate Robert? Freedom or Government Free Lunches?
Dear Mr. Ringer,
Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, fascists, communists, etc. All this expenditure of electricity and effort to name the “leaders” and “influential personnel” of the political and financial mess can be summed up with one word “globalists”. The American people voted, by a large margin, to replace one globalist with another without a whimper or a second thought. One world government, one currency, one army, one ruler. It’s here. The majority have spoken. I would be willing to bet the “change” was mispronounced and should be “chains”. The situation in Mexico, Bolivia, Africa, and Ecuador is a good indicator of what is in store for us here in the states. What if the government told you they owned the rain and all the water? Or the food? If we refuse, they call out the troops. It happened in Bolivia with Bechtel Corp. over water. Only after large protests and at least one death were the globalists forced to retreat. Thus, Eva Morales was elected president, but since he refused to play ball he is now a socialist, communist, friend of Castro, and Chavez. In Mexico, after NAFTA, the factories were closed and moved to Asia, for cheaper labor. Boise Cascade wanted exclusive use of the forests in Mexico, people who protested were jailed and beaten by their own soldiers for protecting their lands from foreigners. The current Mexican president may not have been elected honestly at all, it is a cause of concern, since large areas of Mexico are in a state of rebellion at this time. Travel 20 klics outside of Acapulco and see whose checkpoint you go through. What a crock, how much is enough? Its time for all religious and political persuasions to put our differences aside and recognize the faces of the enemy. If we continue as we have, divided, we all face a change, but probably “chains”.