Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Davutoglu’s Visit to Iran Highlights Ankara’s Regional Diplomacy

    Davutoglu’s Visit to Iran Highlights Ankara’s Regional Diplomacy

    Davutoglu’s Visit to Iran Highlights Ankara’s Regional Diplomacy

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 167
    September 14, 2009 04:19 PM Age: 1 days
    By: Saban Kardas
    Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu paid an official visit to Iran on September 12-13. He met the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani and the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili. Following his meeting with Mottaki, Davutoglu and his counterpart stressed the importance they attach to bilateral relations, as well as regional cooperation. Davutoglu noted that the two countries shared deep-rooted historical ties and their neighborly relations are based on the principle of refraining from interfering in each other’s affairs. He outlined many areas where they explored boosting bilateral relations, ranging from economic cooperation to security. Referring to this multi-dimensional partnership, Mottaki described Turkish-Iranian relations as “strategic” (Cihan Haber Ajansi, Anadolu Ajansi, September 12).

    The foreign ministers emphasized that given the centrality of the threat of terrorism facing both countries, they will continue their collaboration in combating this phenomenon, referring to their joint efforts against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK). Davutoglu also highlighted the flourishing economic activity between the two countries, noting that the bilateral trade volume has reached $11 billion annually, despite the global economic crisis. In addition to discussing cooperation in various areas, the two main items on Davutoglu’s agenda were the nuclear issue and energy cooperation. Davutoglu’s meeting came in the wake of the announcement by Washington that it will consider holding talks with Tehran, despite the latter’s reluctance to discuss its nuclear program. Iran forwarded a proposal to the major powers expressing its readiness to discuss global nuclear disarmament, as well as other international issues. Although the White House did not find Iran’s proposals as responsive to its concerns about its nuclear program, it nonetheless showed interest in holding direct talks with Iran (Today’s Zaman, September 14).

    Davutoglu reiterated Turkey’s position that the resolution of the nuclear problem should be based on mutual respect. He also conveyed to Jalili Turkey’s readiness to host negotiations between Iran and Western countries (Anadolu Ajansi, September 13). However, this is not the first time that Turkey has proposed to mediate between Iran and the West, and its previous offers failed to produce any practical results. Reportedly, both Washington and Tehran were reluctant to see Ankara play such a role (EDM, March 10). Following the press briefing with Davutoglu, Mottaki thanked his Turkish counterpart for Turkey’s support for Iran’s right to obtain nuclear energy (Anadolu Ajansi, September 12). Although Ankara remains eager to act as a mediator, what leverage it may hold to convince Tehran to compromise on the Western demands remains to be seen.

    Energy was the other key issue on the agenda. Turkey has a major incentive to help solve the diplomatic problems bedeviling Iran’s relations with the West and bring Iran into the orbit of the European energy security discussions, a policy which is also supported by many European countries.

    Turkey seeks to deepen its energy partnership with Iran, especially considering its efforts to become a major energy hub. Indeed, one of the biggest obstacles before the Nabucco project, which Turkey considers as a strategic priority, is finding suppliers, Iran is the most likely alternative, since it possesses the second largest gas reserves in the world. Turkey indeed has been eager to act as a bridge connecting Iranian gas to the European grid through Nabucco. Although Ankara signed a major energy cooperation deal with Iran in 2007, it had to suspend those plans due to American objections. U.S. sanctions toward Iran prevent the development of the Iranian gas sector and the export of its gas to Western markets. Since its fields are underdeveloped and it needs immense transportation infrastructure, Iran has not emerged as a major player in gas markets, and even has been forced to import gas from Turkmenistan to meet its domestic demand. Prior to the signing of the Nabucco inter-governmental agreement in Ankara, Turkish officials, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan emphasized their willingness to tap into Iranian gas, but U.S. officials reiterated their objection to the Iranian option (EDM, July 14). However, Davutoglu said that Turkey would work to help Iran export its gas to European markets.

    Turkey’s Iran policy resonates well with the recent course of its regional diplomacy. Ankara has fostered closer regional dialogue with Iraq, Syria and other Arab countries in order to create a peaceful neighborhood and develop closer economic partnerships, including energy projects (EDM, August 12). Bringing Iran into the same circle is definitely a prime motive driving Ankara’s policies toward Tehran.

    Davutoglu, as the architect of this policy, appreciates the central role that Iran plays in the region and expresses his aversion to any instability that might be caused by the ongoing diplomatic problems, as well as the developments in Iranian domestic politics. This concern, however, results in a status quo policy of supporting the Iranian government. As reflected in Ankara’s acquiescent attitude during the Iranian regime’s harsh crackdown on the protestors following the disputed presidential elections, Turkey was criticized for not being sensitive to domestic developments in Iranian politics (EDM, June 18).

    Another underlying problem in Turkey’s Iran policy concerns the differing interpretations both parties attach to “regional cooperation.” Iran views regional cooperation as a way to limit the involvement of the West and the United States in regional affairs, as well as to exclude Israel. Turkey, in contrast, values its ties to the West and defines its regional policies in complementary terms. Indeed, such differences of opinion were apparent in Ahmadinejad’s statements following his meeting with Davutoglu, which contained strong anti-Western rhetoric. Ahmadinejad claimed that the improvement of Turkish-Iranian relations is an obligation “in a process whereby great and oppressor powers are in decline” (Anadolu Ajansi, September 12).

    A major test for Turkey’s regional diplomacy might perhaps stem from its ability to foster closer cooperation among its neighbors, while also ensuring that it does not present an anti-Western platform.

    https://jamestown.org/program/davutoglus-visit-to-iran-highlights-ankaras-regional-diplomacy/
  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Over 300,010 readers
    My Mission: God has uniquely designed me to seek, write, and speak the truth as I see it. Preservation of one’s wealth while providing needful income is my primary goal in these unsettled times. I have been given the ability to evaluate, study, and interpret world and national events and their influence on the future of the financial markets. This gift allows me to meet the needs of individual and institution clients.

    Economies Change Principles Never Do

    In my July 2009 letter I wrote that I would not write a letter about investing for a year. Well, economies may change, but never the principles behind them. We have had the worst recession/depression since 1981-1982 and many have called an end to it.
    Let me make one point vitally clear. Today’s stock markets are only for individuals who have extra funds. Funds that are “dear” should remain in a savings account at your local bank where you can watch it. We need a new congress to enact honest reforms that protect us.
    Today’s economists look at all kinds of statistics and come up with many wrong conclusions. Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman, loves the picture of himself in the bathtub surrounded by stacks of financial garbage. If only he had walked around any random town or talked to any local bank or asked a few questions, things might be better today.
    I turned bearish in January 2001 when the Fed lowered the discount rate Jan. 2 and again Jan. 3, 2001. That is the only time it was ever done two days in succession, I believe. Edson Gould’s “3 steps and stumble” rule was transformed into my “2 steps in a row and drop dead” rule.
    So this letter will be more of my opinion and where I stand based upon clear observations.
    Let me state right out that using today’s standards, the economy has bottomed. I use the word bottomed. We should see a mild recovery before we turn down again. The mainstream media will not tell you this because they are all selling something.
    Small businesses grow into big business if they are fairly successful. They hire instead of layoff. They don’t need big bonuses, because the challenge is success and stock ownership. IBM is the only corporation to remain top-dog for over 60 years. J P Morgan is a close second.
    Here is the problem, which we should have learned from the Japanese Economy. Government spending does not mean a hill of beans. What is a hill of beans? Nothing!
    I believe Dr Bernanke’s helicopter speech was meant for the general public – not the politicians in Washington D.C. The “cars for clunkers” was an overwhelming success – short term. I believe this is why the economy bottomed or stopped going down- temporarily.
    If the general public was given a trillion dollars and was told to pay down debts and to spend the remaining moneys wherever they wanted – you would see the overall economy pick up. We might have lost a few car companies, but that is “creative destruction” as one famous economist (Schumpeter) calls it. Small businesses hire and pay employees. Large corporations try to downsize and cut expenses after they have grown. Their earnings are shown with mirrors.
    So there will be no follow-through with all the wasted government spending and this, coupled with more government borrowing and weaker dollar, will cause the economy to slide down again.
    When I started in this business there was a very ugly word and it had to be used sparingly. It was USURY. Banks operate under the Rule of 72. Take whatever interest rate you are paying and divide it into 72. So if you have a 7% mortgage then 7/72 would mean that the bank would double its money every 10.29 years.
    Millions of people who own homes today are getting crushed by Credit Card Companies reaping an immoral return on huge Satanic interest rates. Divide 15% into 72, that is 4.8 years for them to double their money. Paying lobbyists to bribe our Congress is child’s play to these companies. However, the homeowners are careful about what they spend in these scary economic times. They are waiting for price cuts, which is how deflation starts. Cutting prices brings in business, but that puts pressure on employees and companies to stay profitable let alone grow.
    All economic bubbles create a deflationary trend wherever that bubble occurred. We have had several and the world has had its share. This makes consumers cautious. This slows down the economy while owners try to work down excess inventory. This is deflationary.
    The US Government has to borrow trillions of dollars to pay for the misbegotten stimulus funds. Now take the interest rate THEY are paying. Divide that into 72 and that will give how many years it will take the bondholder to double his money. So, sooner or later we must borrow to pay interest rates. What goes around comes around. We are digging a bigger hole for ourselves and we don’t even have a shovel.
    Bank Bonus versus Salaries
    This is a simple problem. Brokers of any sort should never be put in charge of any financial institution. That is worse than putting a fox in the chicken coup. Bankers love a steady salary and following rules. They have their own code of conduct. Brokers hate salaries and a steady paycheck. They need the challenge of competition with a commiserate reward. Most brokers are left hand column readers. The left hand column normally has the sales credits and they check the fattest one first. Good left hand column readers get promoted and end up in management.
    Banks should be able to form their own syndicate to bid on bonds and preferred stocks but not common stocks. Banks should be in charge of Money Market Funds and Brokers should not have cash management accounts. My point is that banks and brokers should be able to compete on a level playing field, but the more aggressive ones can go belly up in bad times. No government bail outs.
    OFF Shore Drilling- Way out
    Two deep water oil wells have recently been discovered in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico that hold billions of barrels of recoverable oil. Also Brazil has discovered light crude 200 miles off shore and they will become a major exporter in a few years. They will be competing with Saudi Arabia.
    It is believed the outer continental shelf on our eastern seaboard holds giant finds. Just think, with our own over-supply of oil our President would not have to bow to oil kings.
    Derivatives
    My long time readers know that I hate derivatives with a passion. They are the Judas of the financial world. It is a complex transaction that derives something to give to someone else. It is a con-job designed to maximize sales credits (commissions) while placating the unwary (on both sides) into a false sense of security and pleasure (believing they have outsmarted everyone else), which is encompassed by a soap bubble that will be pricked over time.
    All or almost all financial problems and disasters have the root cause in derivatives, from the Orange County California to Sub-prime and consequent bubbles. This has cost us more than Health Care ever will. We should ban all future derivative trades right now and then wait five years to see how much better off we are. The President can issue an edict. It is not how much money one makes but how you make it. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
    More advice…..
    Stay away from funds. Remember the sub prime mess started when the mixed AAA debt with junk bonds or sub prime notes.
    The economy is struggling on a lower level and the debt coverage of many bonds is now suspected. Only the CFO and chief executive officers really know what is going on, and some cases they don’t even know. Directors only know what they are told. I have seen directors go down with the ship and they can’t even swim.
    Buy Gold. GLD on the NYSE and CEF are my favorite choices. (Check out on the internet or consult with me about your concerns.) WE are not buying gold because of inflation, but as a hedge that the dollar collapses because of too much debt and a loss of confidence in it. Going back on the gold standard would shut the spending congress down.
    Governments in the future will save for future social projects. This is due to the mess we are in now.
    President Obama did the correct thing when he nominated Benjamin Bernanke for a full term as Federal Reserve Chairman. The Fed is supposed to be politically neutral. The chairman’s former students at Princeton thought he was a democrat when President Bush nominated him. This makes up for the error Donald T Regan, then Secretary of the Treasury under President Regan, made for canning Paul Volker because he was a democrat. Chairman Volker miffed, named Greenspan as his replacement as a joke, and they fell for it.
    I love preferred stocks. Especially Amerco $2.125 cumulative preferred selling under its call price of $25. It is listening on the NYSE and is currently yielding in the 8% range. 85% of the dividend is considered tax free. That amount to an 11% tax free return. Remember the rule of 72! An easy way to keep tabs on this company is to check out the common stock. The common stock is U-HAUL. The symbol is UHAL. If it takes a sudden dive of 10% or more; it is a good chance the company is in trouble.
    I love the Canadians because they have a strong pro-business economy. Their stocks got clobbered also, but their financial system is strong because their bankers thought before they acted. There is a lot of value up there.
    Then there are some local small cap products that have a unique product that can have a positive affect in its application. Companies that provide a need where today there is a black hole. These are very speculative and can be bought in small lots until their fortunes improve over time.
    Finally there is cash and lots of it. In deflationary times there are moments when the chance of a lifetime emerges IF you have CASH.
    So right now I would keep as much cash available where you can retrieve it by writing a check or walking into your local bank for a cashier’s check.
    I still believe we have a rough two years ahead of us with many false starts as far as investments go. The players today believe a new era has started and most are playing by the same rules. A major rule though is that most past leaders fade in the new market. They become a source of funds for new ideas and investments. Stocks that tanked into the teens and single digits have a high marble wall to surmount and you have an ice pick.
    We could have a double dip, but the market could make new lows.
    That is it for now.

    Breaking News:
    The Financial Times Headline dated September 15, 2009

    OBAMA;
    WALL ST
    must
    change

    Compliance sought
    with financial overhaul

    developing ………………….
    Cheerio !~!!!!

    Richard C De Graff
    256 Ashford Road
    RER Eastford Ct 06242
    860-522-7171 Main Office
    800-821-6665 Watts
    860-315-7413 Home/Office
    rdegraff@coburnfinancial.com

    This report has been prepared from original sources and data which we believe reliable but we make no representation to its accuracy or completeness. Coburn & Meredith Inc. its subsidiaries and or officers may from time to time acquire, hold, sell a position discussed in this publications, and we may act as principal for our own account or as agent for both the buyer and seller.

  • Turkish-Abkhazia Ties Test Turkey’s Strategic Partnership with Georgia

    Turkish-Abkhazia Ties Test Turkey’s Strategic Partnership with Georgia

    Turkish-Abkhazia Ties Test Turkey’s Strategic Partnership with Georgia

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 164

    September 9, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    The plight of the Turkish captain of a tanker intercepted by Georgian authorities while carrying goods en route to Abkhazia highlighted the dilemmas of Turkey’s position on the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict.

    Since the war last August, Georgia has blockaded the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and has intercepted various ships carrying Turkish goods. In the latest incident, a vessel transporting fuel to Abkhazia was captured by the Georgian coastguard on August 17. Following the seizure, the Georgian authorities took the captains, one Turkish and the other Azeri, into custody. On August 31, a Georgian court sentenced them to 24 years in prison. The ship was confiscated and brought to Batumi port to be sold in an auction (Today’s Zaman, September 6).

    Growing concerns over the fate of the Turkish captain generated domestic pressure on the government to free him, which prompted the involvement of Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. The Turkish foreign ministry announced that Davutoglu would visit Tbilisi and that the government would do everything possible to secure the release of the captain. Meanwhile, on September 4, the shipping company paid a fee, and it was announced that an appeals court would reconsider the case. Davutoglu visited Tbilisi on September 7-8, and a Georgian court released the Turkish captain on September 8 (Anadolu Ajansi, September 8).

    The case highlighted tensions caused by similar practices by the Georgian authorities. Georgia has been seizing Turkish ships destined for Abkhazia, and in the past decade over sixty ships have been captured. Even prior to the latest crisis, representatives of Turkish exporters and Caucasian diaspora groups in Turkey raised concerns that the Turkish government was too complicit toward the “bullying” of the Georgian authorities.

    Ahmet Hamdi Gurdogan, the head of the exporters association in the Black Sea region, advanced several criticisms of Tbilisi (www.tekilhaber.com, August 25). First, he maintained that although Georgia claims to block all the trade routes to Abkhazia, Georgian coastal patrols cannot do anything against vessels carrying the Russian flag en route to Abkhazia. In a related charge, he argued that the Georgian patrol boats captured the Turkish ships in international waters, even in some cases immediately after they leave Turkish territorial waters. Therefore, Turkish exporters expect the government to flex its muscles, yet considering that Turkey supports Georgia’s territorial integrity and the Georgian embargo in place, the government might do little to stop the interception of Turkish ships in Georgian waters. Nonetheless, during his press briefing on the recent case, a spokesman for the foreign ministry expressed Ankara’s concern that some of the seizures might have taken place in international waters, and Georgia’s actions may violate international maritime laws (www.denizhaber.com, September 2).

    Turkish exporters also complain that the Georgians have turned such practices into an undeclared “piracy” in the Black Sea, since the Georgian authorities allegedly sell the vessels in auctions and demand large sums of money to release the crew of the captured ships. They also claim that in some cases, ships carrying humanitarian goods are also intercepted.

    The representatives of the Abkhazian diaspora in Turkey, also utilize similar arguments, and urge the Turkish government to lift its embargo. Turkey still supports the economic sanctions imposed against Abkhazia by the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Irfan Argun the Speaker of Caucasus-Abkhazia Solidarity Committee, for instance, maintained that the sanctions are creating a major humanitarian crisis in Abkhazia and that Turkey should end its policy of supporting the Georgian embargo and play a larger role in the resolution of the issue of Abkhazia (www.ajanskafkas.com, August 22). Around 500,000 Turkish citizens consider themselves to be of Abkhazian origin.

    At a more fundamental level, this crisis reflects the underlying dilemmas in Turkish policy on the Georgian-Abkhazian dispute. In an analysis published by the Ankara-based think tank close to the foreign ministry, the Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies, it was maintained that Ankara could no longer ignore the new reality in the region and act on the presumption that there was no problem relating to Abkhazia (www.orsam.org.tr, September 1). This line of thinking suggests that Ankara might need to redefine its policies toward the region. It justifies a redefinition with reference to the fact that if the present Georgian embargo continues, it might result in a situation whereby Abkhazia is forced to integrate itself into the Russian orbit both politically and economically. The best way to reverse such a trend, according to this view, would be to end the blockade of Abkhazia.

    Reflecting the demands of the Abkhazian diaspora, deputies from Republican People’s Party submitted a question to parliament. They lambasted the government’s silence and requested that the prime minister explain why the government still insisted on implementing the embargo (www.kafkasfederasyonu.org, August 22).

    Meanwhile, the Georgian attempts to implement the blockade have raised tension in the Black Sea region. The Abkhazian leader Sergei Bagapsh described the activities of Georgian ships in “Abkhazian waters” as piracy, and threatened to destroy them if Georgia did not cease its military activities (Anadolu Ajansi, September 2). A Russian foreign ministry spokesman warned Georgia about its practice of seizing commercial vessels, and said “attempts to enforce a sea blockade on Abkhazia could lead to a serious armed incident” (Anadolu Ajansi, September 3).

    Against this background, Davutoglu visited Tbilisi, where he met his Georgian counterpart Nikoloz Gilauri and President Mikheil Saakashvili. He held a lengthy meeting with Saakashvili about the release of the captain. Davutoglu described Georgia as a “strategic partner,” and reiterated Turkey’s support for its territorial integrity, and for Tbilisi’s NATO membership bid. Davutoglu said “We know very well that without ensuring Georgia’s peace and stability, it will be difficult to meet these goals in the South Caucasus” (Cihan, September 7).

    In addition to the necessity of responding to the demands made by domestic pressure groups, the risk of Georgian-Abkhazian tensions escalating into a destabilizing regional conflict energizes Ankara to address Georgian-Abkhazian problems. The Turkish government values its partnership with Georgia, but it is also under pressure to realign its policies in light of the geopolitical transformations in the region. It will represent a major challenge for Turkish diplomacy in the days ahead to engage Abkhazia without severing ties with Tbilisi.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-abkhazia-ties-test-turkeys-strategic-partnership-with-georgia/
  • Turkish Press Reacts to Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    Turkish Press Reacts to Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    Turkish Press Reacts to Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 163
    September 8, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
     
    On August 31 a joint statement issued by Turkey and Armenia announced that both had agreed to start talks on the establishment of diplomatic ties and the development of bilateral relations. The parties initialed two protocols to regulate these issues, and the consultations on these will be finalized within six weeks before being forwarded to their national parliaments for ratification (www.mfa.gov.tr, August 31). The announcement generated a heated debate on the future of Turkish-Armenian relations as well as its implications for Azerbaijan and the involvement of other international actors.

    The content of the protocols show that the parties built on the progress they had achieved by April, which was interrupted by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s intervention to allay the concerns of Azerbaijan. Following intense bilateral contacts, secret diplomacy and pressure from the United States and European countries, Turkey and Armenia announced a roadmap for normalization in April, the contents of which remained undisclosed. Due to mounting domestic opposition and protests from Azerbaijan, Erdogan reiterated unequivocally that the progress of Turkish-Armenian relations would be contingent upon Armenia’s constructive attitude in its dispute with Azerbaijan. To relieve Azeri concerns, Erdogan emphasized that Turkey would not proceed with normalization, without an end to the Armenian occupation of Karabakh (EDM, May 14). Although there were concerns that the normalization process might have come to a premature end, the parties maintained their secret dialogue facilitated by Switzerland (EDM, June 30).

    By reiterating their commitment to the peaceful resolution of regional disputes, the parties implicitly recognize the Karabakh issue, but the protocols make no mention of it, nor set it as a precondition for opening the Turkish-Armenian border. In taking this step despite this “missing element,” the Turkish government again raised concerns as to whether it might accelerate the rapprochement with Armenia by decoupling it from the Karabakh issue. Consequently, opposition both domestically and in Azerbaijan expressed discomfort with these developments. In response, Erdogan reconnected the two processes politically, by arguing that the ratification of the protocols would depend on the resolution of Karabakh issue, reflecting Ankara’s concern to keep Baku on board (Vatan, September 2).

    The leverage Azerbaijan exerts over Turkish foreign policy led to different interpretations from the Turkish press. The nationalist media continued to express their unconditional support for Azerbaijan’s position and criticized the government’s recent initiatives (Ortadogu, September 3)

    Many mainstream commentators, however, maintain that returning to the status quo ante might be difficult, and that instead of seeking to restore Karabakh through military means, Baku should focus on diplomatic measures to free the occupied Azeri territories, and in return grant greater autonomy to the area and open a corridor between Armenia and Karabakh (Milliyet, September 3). Although Erdogan might ideally prefer a maximalist position on the return of Karabakh, other actors within the Turkish government also seem to be ready to settle for such an arrangement recognizing the new reality in the region. In fact, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and President Abdullah Gul are interested in seeing the process through and opening the border by the end of the year (Radikal, September 2), despite Erdogan’s occasional nationalistic outbursts.

    Other commentators view the rapprochement as a partly American project and believe that both Turkey and Azerbaijan are urged, if not pressured, by the Obama administration to solve their problems with Armenia. They even suggest that the mediation services provided by Swiss diplomats might only represent a cover for American facilitation between the Turkish and Armenian delegations, which is partly shared by the opposition parties, mainly the Republican People’s Party (Milliyet, September 4; Hurriyet, September 2). The pro-government press, in contrast, challenges these arguments and maintains that searching for foreign actors behind such initiatives reflects a problematic attitude on the part of the Turkish opposition. It presents these recent developments as an achievement of the AKP government and treats them as affirmation of Turkey’s expanding role in regional diplomacy (Star, September 4).

    Explaining the normalization with reference to the involvement of outside actors inevitably raises questions about the motivations of “outsiders.” At this juncture, the role of energy issues is emphasized by the Turkish media. There is a perception that the process is promoted by the West as part of its energy policies. They speculate that Turkish-Armenian normalization is promoted in order that Armenia might emerge as an alternative route to Georgia for the future transportation of Caspian basin resources (Milliyet, September 3).

    Such analyses inevitably ignore the issue of the Russian position. There is already a process underway between Azerbaijan and Armenia toward the resolution of the Karabakh dispute, facilitated by Russia and supported by the United States. Although the Russian side claims that it is playing a constructive role, the Turkish media maintains some skepticism toward Moscow’s intentions. There are media reports maintaining that Russian intelligence found out about the secret talks between Ankara and Yerevan and passed this information to Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, which led him to distance himself from Turkey in April (Milliyet, September 3). If such reports are correct, they might indicate Russian efforts to sow seeds of distrust between Baku and Ankara, and undermine policies to integrate Yerevan into a Western orbit.

    It is unclear whether Aliyev was aware in advance of the signing of the recent protocols, but Ankara apparently made efforts to inform Baku. Indeed, it has been a growing concern for Ankara to comfort Baku about the secret talks with Yerevan, and regain Azeri confidence since the bitter episode in April. A few days before the recent announcement to sign the protocols, Erdogan spoke to Aliyev on the telephone and sent two special envoys to Baku to brief him on the progress in Turkish-Armenian talks (Zaman, August 28). Azerbaijan’s Ambassador in Ankara Zakir Hashimov said that Davutoglu reassured his Azeri counterpart that the border would not be opened before the resolution of the Karabakh issue (Hurriyet Daily News, September 6).

    In the days ahead, a new domestic and foreign policy challenge will confront the AKP government, as it seeks to refine the details of the normalization with Armenia. A breakthrough in Azeri-Armenian talks might untie the knot, but it remains to be seen whether the international and regional pressures on Baku and Yerevan will produce such an outcome.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-press-reacts-to-turkish-armenian-normalization/
  • Metro Views: Denying the ‘other’ Holocaust

    Metro Views: Denying the ‘other’ Holocaust

    moz screenshot

    By MARILYN HENRY

    Friends,   We locked horns Armenian falsifiers again, this time with at Jerusalem Post, Israel:

    Metro Views: Denying the ‘other’ Holocaust
    PLEASE POST your response using the talking points AT THE END (or your own words.)   Make a difference !   Ergun

    Ten years ago, I was in Armenia for Genocide Memorial Day. Armenians from their “galut” around the world had come to Yerevan to participate with local citizens in the solemn commemoration. I was with a group that came from the US, including Henry Morgenthau III. He was there because the government intended to honor his grandfather, the first Henry, who as the US ambassador to Constantinople in 1915 had raised the alarm about the Armenian genocide.

    In this photo provided by the Photlure photo agency in Armenia, a boy pauses in front of a wall-sized poster depicting the faces of 90 survivors of the mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, in Yerevan, Armenia.
    Photo: AP [file]

    The Morgenthaus and I were Jews among the Armenians. After a week together, however, it was hard to remember that the Armenians weren’t Jews. We have much in common: lost families, lost homes, lost countries, lost languages, lives as minorities, a diaspora, fears of assimilation, factions in religious practice – and genocide, as well as foes who would deny that the genocide ever happened.

    BUT THIS also is where Jews and Armenians part. No civilized society will tolerate Holocaust denial. Nearly a century later, however, denial of the Armenian genocide persists, and it pops up in the most unexpected places.

    Most recently it was in the federal appeals court in California. In a ruling on August 20, two members of a three-judge appellate panel did not quite deny the Armenian genocide; it was more like “genocide squelching.” At issue was one of a handful of California laws that collectively extended the statutes of limitations so that Nazi victims, including slave laborers, as well as victims of the Armenian genocide, would have additional time to file various claims for redress from human rights abuses and other losses.

    The Armenians were seeking insurance payments from the period in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire during which they were deported and massacred by the Turks. This was akin to efforts within the Jewish community in the last decade to recover insurance payments for policies written during the Nazi era.

    Jewish insurance claims were handled by an international commission chaired by former US secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger. Armenians fended for themselves. Claims from the Ottoman/World War I era were handled by lawyers who dealt with individual insurance companies. The American insurer New York Life and the French company AXA reached settlements with the Armenians.

    The case in federal court in California pits Armenians against German insurance companies. (Let’s put aside for this discussion that German enterprises should be sensitive to any claim related to genocide, or that it was Hitler who blithely predicted that no one would remember the fate of the Armenians.) The German insurers resisted any discussion of claims, including the possibility of humanitarian settlements with payments to charitable institutions, said Brian Kabateck, the Los Angeles attorney representing the Armenians.

    The German companies argued that US presidential foreign policy prohibits legislative recognition of an “Armenian genocide.” Although more than 40 American states have policies on the Armenian genocide, there is no federal policy recognizing it. Each time in recent years that a congressional resolution appeared likely to affirm that the genocide had occurred, the Bush and Clinton administrations argued against it, saying it would hurt American foreign policy by offending Turkey, a key ally. The Turks have never recognized the genocide; they refer to an Armenian revolt.

    In a very broad statement that went far beyond California’s laws on claims deadlines, the federal appellate panel concluded that “there is an express federal policy prohibiting legislative recognition of an ‘Armenian genocide.’”

    “By using the phrase ‘Armenian genocide,’ California has defied the president’s foreign policy preferences,” the panel ruled.

    It was not swayed by the fact that the federal government has not expressly prohibited states from using the phrase “Armenian genocide.” And the US government did not participate in this case, so its position on how states treat the genocide is entirely unclear.

    Kabateck, the Los Angeles attorney, vowed to appeal to the full appellate court, saying the two judges’ ruling was “genocide-squelching.” “The court says the words ‘Armenian genocide’ when said by any state or local government violates the foreign powers of the US government and is unconstitutional,” he said. “Taken to its logical extreme, if these two judges are correct, no state or local government in the United States may use those words in any capacity.”

    THE COURT ignored the US record, including president Ronald Reagan’s 1981 proclamation explicitly referring to “the genocide of the Armenians,” said Rouben Adalian, director of the Armenian National Institute in Washington. “This decision has so many egregious mistakes it makes one wonder what else was going on. It is frightening to see how even judges could be so misled into dangerous and really shameful territory.”

    There is now concern that the ruling will be used as Turkish propaganda, and to expand the assault on teaching about the genocide in American public schools.

    In June, a federal judge in Boston rejected a lawsuit filed by several students, teachers and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations that challenged Massachusetts’ state curriculum. The education guidelines characterize the World War I-era deaths of Armenians as genocide. Mark Wolf, the chief judge of the US District Court in Massachusetts, said the sensitive questions on the historic tragedy should be debated in the legislature, not the courts.

    American Jews don’t face these horrific fights over atrocities and whether to teach them. New York, New Jersey, California, Florida and Illinois have laws requiring the teaching of the Holocaust. Ten other states have regulations recommending Holocaust education. Twelve states also have Holocaust commissions or councils that support Holocaust education.

    But we surely remember our own battles against Holocaust denial. And as we are aggressive in protecting our history and in protesting contemporary atrocities such as in Darfur, so should we protest the denial of other atrocities of the past.

    0000000000000000000000

    Talking points you can use: ergun kirlikovali

    1) On August 20, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached an important verdict, that the State of California special-interest law passed in 2000, which was authored by an ethnically Armenian lawmaker in the California legislature, is unconstitutional, because it interfered with the power of the national government to conduct  foreign affairs. Both the Turkish government and the Turkish-American community had strenuously opposed the discriminatory 2000 state law,  but the arrogant  Armenian lobby would not listen. They will, now.

    2) How can factual Holocaust be the same as bogus genocide?  Did Jews establish Jewish armies behind German lines, kill noncombatant German citizens in order o establish a Jewish state on German soil during WWII?  Were Jews involved in terrorism, raids, rebellions, treason, territorial demands from Germany, or kill half a million Germans during WWII?  Ottoman-Armenians committed all those heinous war crimes and more during WWI.  Wouldn’t  equating the two be untrue and unethical?   And an insult to the silent memory of the Jewish victims of Holocaust?

    3) Nazi-Armenians passionately Helped Hitler during WWII:  Just google the words “Armenian Nazis”. You will see the 20,000 strong Armenian-Nazi  812nd battallion.  Armenian Nazi party operated radio stations in Armenia during the 1930s.  They were passionate killers of Jews during WWII -just like they were during WWI in Anatolia and the Caucasus.   The Armenian-Nazi  812nd battallion were later rewarded for their criminal anti-semitic acts by being transported all the way to Holland to help with”processing” of Jews there.  Perhaps even those “dark skinned” Nazis who arrested Anne Frank’s family were Armenians.

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Over 300,001 readers
    My Mission: God has uniquely designed me to seek, write, and speak the truth as I see it. Preservation of one’s wealth while providing needful income is my primary goal in these unsettled times. I have given the ability to evaluate study, and interpret world and national events and their influence on future of the financial markets. This gift allows me to meet the needs of individual and institution clients. I evaluate situations first on a fundamental basis then try to confirm on a technical basis. In the past it has been fairly successful.

    This is a classic letter. Please read it. Cheerio !!!!
    From:
    This sender is DomainKeys verified
    “John Mauldin”
    Add sender to Contacts
    To:
    rdegraff@yahoo.com
    This message was sent to rdegraff@yahoo.com.
    Send to a Friend | Print Article | View as PDF | Permissions/Reprints

    Thoughts from the Frontline Weekly Newsletter
    An Uncomfortable Choice
    by John Mauldin
    August 28, 2009

    In this issue:
    An Uncomfortable Choice
    What Were We Thinking?
    Frugality is the New Normal
    And Then We Face the Real Problem
    The Teenagers Are in Control
    Choose Wisely
    Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, New Orleans, Detroit, and More
    We have arrived at this particular economic moment in time by the choices we have made, which now leave us with choices in our future that will be neither easy, convenient, nor comfortable. Sometimes there are just no good choices, only less-bad ones. In this week’s letter we look at what some of those choices might be, and ponder their possible consequences. Are we headed for a double-dip recession? Read on.
    An Important Announcement
    But first, I want to make a very important announcement. There are not many times in a career when you can say that something new has been created in the financial services industry and that you have been a part of it. But now I can say that and, I must admit, with a little pride in helping to bring a new creation into the world.
    For years, Steve Blumenthal and I have shared a passion for bringing Absolute Return Strategies to all investors, not just the wealthy and institutional investors.
    I want to introduce you to a new mutual fund, one that is different than the typical long-only equity mutual fund. My friends and partners at CMG have created a mutual fund that is comprised of 9 different trading strategies, a “fund of trading strategies,” so to speak; and it’s one that I believe will be strategically suitable for the economic environment that I think we face. And, as a mutual fund, it is open to all investors.
    You can learn more about it by reading a report I have prepared, entitled “How to Deal with Volatility in Extraordinary Markets – Introducing the CMG Absolute Return Strategies Fund.” Simply click here.
    If you are an investment advisor or broker, you especially should read about this new fund and contact CMG directly for more information and reports. Full disclosure: as a consultant to the Advisor to the fund, my investment advisory firm does participate in the fees. And be sure and read all the disclosures and risk factors in the document.
    And now, let’s look at the choices we face.
    An Uncomfortable Choice
    As our family grew, we limited the choices our seven kids could make; but as they grew into teenagers, they were given more leeway. Not all of their choices were good. How many times did Dad say, “What were you thinking?” and get a mute reply or a mumbled “I don’t know.”
    Yet how else do you teach them that bad choices have bad consequences? You can lecture, you can be a role model; but in the end you have to let them make their own choices. And a lot of them make a lot of bad choices. After having raised six, with one more teenage son at home, I have come to the conclusion that you just breathe a sigh of relief if they grow up and have avoided fatal, life-altering choices. I am lucky. So far. Knock on a lot of wood.
    I have watched good kids from good families make bad choices, and kids with no seeming chance make good choices. But one thing I have observed. Very few teenagers make the hard choice without some outside encouragement or help in understanding the known consequences, from some source. They nearly always opt for the choice that involves the most fun and/or the least immediate pain, and then learn later that they now have to make yet another choice as a consequence of the original one. And thus they grow up. So quickly.
    But it’s not just teenagers. I am completely capable of making very bad choices as I approach the end of my sixth decade of human experiences and observations. In fact, I have made some rather distressing choices over time. Even in areas where I think I have some expertise I can make appallingly bad choices. Or maybe particularly in those areas, because I have delusions of actually knowing something. In my experience, it takes an expert with a powerful computer to truly foul things up.
    Of course, sometimes I get it right. Even I learn, with enough pain. And sometimes I just get lucky. (Although, as my less-than-sainted Dad repeatedly intoned, “The harder I work the luckier I get.”)
    Each morning is a new day, but it is a new day impacted by all the choices of the previous days and years. Tiffani and I have literally interviewed in depth well over a hundred millionaires, and talked anecdotally with hundreds over the years. I am struck by how their lives, and those of their families, come down to a few choices. Sometimes good choices and sometimes lucky choices. Often, difficult ones. But very few were the easy choice.
    What Were We Thinking?
    As a culture, the current mix of generations, especially in the US, has made some choices. Choices which, in hindsight, leave the adult in us asking, “What were we thinking?”
    In a way, we were like teenagers. We made the easy choice, not thinking of the consequences. We never absorbed the lessons of the Depression from our grandparents. We quickly forgot the sobering malaise of the ’70s as the bull market of the ’80s and ’90s gave us the illusion of wealth and an easy future. Even the crash of Black Friday seemed a mere bump on the path to success, passing so quickly. And as interest rates came down and money became easier, our propensity to acquire things took over.
    And then something really bad happened. Our homes started to rise in value and we learned through new methods of financial engineering that we could borrow against what seemed like their ever-rising value, to finance consumption today.
    We became Blimpie from the Popeye cartoons of our youth: “I will gladly repay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
    Not for us the lay-away programs of our parents, patiently paying something each week or month until the desired object could be taken home. Come to think of it, I am not sure if my kids (15 through 32) have ever even heard of a lay-away program, not with credit cards so easy to obtain. Next family brunch, I will explain this quaint concept. (Interestingly, I heard about a revival of the concept on CNBC radio, coming back from dropping Trey off at school this morning. Everything old is new again.)
    As a banking system, we made choices. We created all sorts of readily available credit, and packaged it in convenient, irresistible AAA-rated securities and sold them to a gullible world. We created liar loans, no-money-down loans, and no-documentation loans and expected them to act the same way that mortgages had in the past. What were the rating agencies thinking? Where were the adults supervising the sand box?
    (Oh, wait a minute. DThat’s the same group of regulators who now want more power and money.)
    It is not as if all this was done in some back alley by seedy-looking characters. This was done on TV and in books and advertisements. I remember the first time I saw an ad telling me to call this number to borrow up to 125% of the value of my home, and wondering how this could be a good idea.
    Turns out it can be a great idea for the salesmen, if they can package those loans into securities and sell them to foreigners, with everyone making large commissions on the way. The choice was to make a lot of money with no downside consequences to yourself. What teenager could say no?
    Greenspan keeping rates low aided and abetted that process. Starting two wars and pushing through a massive health-care package, along with no spending control from the Republican Party, ran up the fiscal deficits.
    Allowing credit default swaps to trade without an exchange or regulations. A culture that viscerally believed that the McMansions they were buying were an investment and not really debt. Yes, we were adolescents at the party to end all parties.
    Not to mention an investment industry that tells their clients that stocks earn 8% a year real returns (the report I mentioned at the beginning goes into detail about this). Even as stocks have gone nowhere for ten years, we largely believe (or at least hope) that the latest trend is just the beginning of the next bull market.
    It was not that there were no warnings. There were many, including from your humble analyst, who wrote about the coming train wreck that we are now trying to clean up. But those warnings were ignored.
    Actually, ignored is a nice way to put it. Derision. Scorn. Laughter. And worse, dismissal as a non-serious perpetual perma-bear. My corner of the investment-writing world takes a very thick skin.
    The good times had lasted so long, how could the trend not be correct? It is human nature to believe the current trend, especially a favorable one that helps us, will continue forever.
    And just like a teenager who doesn’t think about the consequences of the current fun, we paid no attention. We hadn’t experienced the hard lessons of our elders, who learned them in the depths of the Depression. This time it was different. We were smarter and wouldn’t make those mistakes. Didn’t we have the research of Bernanke and others, telling us what to avoid?
    In millions of different ways, we all partied on. It wasn’t exclusively a liberal or a conservative, a rich or apoor, a male or a female addiction. We all borrowed and spent. We did it as individuals, and we did it as cities and states and countries.
    We ran up unfunded pension deficits at many local and state funds, to the tune of several trillion dollars and rising. We have a massive, tens of trillions of dollars, bill coming due for Social Security and Medicare, starting in the next 5-7 years, that makes the current crisis pale in comparison. We now seemingly want to add to this by passing even more spending programs that will only make the hole deeper.
    Frugality is the New Normal
    I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. The time for good choices was a decade ago. It would have been more difficult at the time, so that is not what we did. And now we wake up and are faced with a set of choices, none of them good.
    Reality is staring back in the mirror at the American consumer, and especially the Boomer generation. The psyche of the American consumer has been permanently seared. We are watching savings beginning to rise and consumer spending patterns change for the first time in generations. Even as the authorities try to prod consumers back into old habits, they are not responding. Borrowing and credit are actually falling. Banks, for whatever reason, now want borrowers to actually be able to pay them back. Go figure.
    Frugality is the new normal. We are resetting the underpinnings of a consumer-driven society to a new level. It will require a major overhaul of our economy. The normal drivers of growth – consumer spending, business investment, and exports – are all weak, and it is only because of massive government spending that the second quarter was not as bad as the two previous quarters and that the coming quarter will be positive.
    But what then? How long can we continue with 10%-plus GDP deficits? We have an economy that is in a Statistical Recovery, fueled by government largesse. In the real world, we are watching unemployment rise, and it is likely to do so through the middle of next year. Deflation is in the air. Capacity utilization is near all-time lows. Housing numbers are only bouncing because of the government program of large tax credits for first-time home buyers and lower home prices. It will be years before construction is significant.
    We will be faced with a choice this fall and early next year. If you take away the government spending, the potential for falling back into a recession is quite high, given the underlying weakness in the economy. A few hundred billion for increased and extended unemployment benefits will not be enough to stem the tide. There will be a groundswell for yet another stimulus package. Another 10% of GDP deficit is quite likely for next year.
    As I (and Woody Brock) have made very clear in these e-letters, deficits that are higher than nominal GDP cannot continue without dire consequences. Good friend Richard Russell writes today:
    “The US national debt is now over $11 trillion dollars. The interest on our national debt is now $340 billion. This is about at 3.04% rate of interest. In ten years the Obama administration admits that they will add $9 trillion to the national debt. That would take it to $20 trillion. Let’s say that by some miracle the interest on the national debt in 10 years will still be 3.09%. That would mean that the interest on the national debt would be $618 billion a year or over one billion a day. No nation can hold up in the face of those kinds of expenses. Either the dollar would collapse or interest rates would go through the roof.”
    That would be at least 30% of the national budget. How would your household do, paying that much as interest? How can you operate when interest payments are 30% or more of the budget? Do you borrow to pay the interest? And the Obama administration openly admits to deficits of over a trillion a year for the next ten years, under very rosy growth assumptions. Anyone outside of Washington and rosy-eyed economists think we will grow 4% next year? I am not seeing many hands go up.
    And Then We Face the Real Problem
    If we do not maintain high deficits, it is likely we fall back into recession. Yet if we do not control spending, we risk running up a debt that becomes very difficult to finance by conventional means. Monetizing the debt can only work for a few trillion here or there. At some point, the bond market will simply fall apart. And it could happen quickly. Think back to how fast things fell apart in the summer of 2007. When perception of the potential for inflation changes, it changes things fast.
    The problem is that we are now in a very deflationary world. Deleveraging, too much capacity, high and rising unemployment, falling real incomes, and more are all the classic pieces of the formula for deflation.
    Let’s look at what my friend Nouriel Roubini recently wrote. I think he hit the nail on the head:
    “A combination of higher official indebtedness and monetization has the potential to yield the worst of all worlds, pushing up long-term rates and generating increased inflation expectations before a convincing return to growth takes hold. An early return to higher long-term rates will crowd out private demand, as lending rates on mortgages and personal and corporate loans rise too. It is unlikely that actual inflation will emerge this year or even next, but inflation expectations as reflected in long-term interest rates could well be rising later in 2010. This would represent a serious threat to economic recovery, which is predicated on the idea that the actual borrowing rates that individuals and businesses pay will remain low for an extended period.
    “Yet the alternative – the early withdrawal of the stimulus drug that governments have been dispensing so freely – is even more serious. The present administration believes that deflation is a worse threat than inflation. They are right to think that. Trying to rebuild public finances at a deflationary moment – a time when unemployment is rising, and private demand is still contracting – could be catastrophic, turning recovery into renewed recession.”
    There are no good choices. Nouriel, optimist that he is (note sarcasm), suggests that there is a possibility that the government can manage expectations by showing a clear path to fiscal responsibility that can be believed. And thus the bond markets do not force rates higher, thereby thwarting recovery.
    And technically he is right. If there were adults supervising the party, it might be possible. But there are not. The teenagers are in control. Instead of fiscal discipline, we are hearing increased demands for more spending. Please note that the very rosy future-deficit assumptions assume the end of the Bush tax cuts at the close of 2010. But raising taxes back to the level of 2000 does not make the projected future budget deficits go away.
    I mean, seriously, does anyone think Pelosi or Reid are going to lead us to fiscal constraint? Obama talks a good game, but he has not offered a serious deficit-reduction proposal, other than further tax increases. And by serious, I mean we need cuts on the order of several hundred billion dollars. The Republicans lost their way and their power (deservedly, in my opinion). Just as at the high school prom, the very few adults are being ignored.
    It is the proverbial rock and the hard place. Cut the stimulus too soon and we slide back into a deeper recession. Let the budget spin out of control for a few years and we will see inflation return, with higher rates and a recession. Raise taxes by 1.5-2% of GDP in 2010 and we are shoved back into recession.
    There are no good choices. If we do the right thing and cut the deficit, it means very hard choices. Can we keep our commitments to two wars and our massive defense budget? Medicare and Social Security reform are not painless. Education? Research? The “stimulus”? But cutting the deficit by hundreds of billions while raising taxes by even more than is already in the works, is not the formula for sustainable recovery.
    Have we grown up? Are there adults in the room? Sadly, I don’t think there are enough. We are still a nation of teenagers. We will do whatever we can to avoid the pain today. We will kick the can down the road, hoping for a miracle. Will we grow up? Yes, but the lessons learned will be hard.
    There are no statistical signs of an impending recession. We are not going to get an inverted yield curve this time, which made it relatively easy for me to predict recessions in 2000 and 2006. We are in a deflationary, deleveraging world. A far different world than in the past.
    I see little room for us to avoid a double-dip recession. It would take the skill and speed of former Cowboys running back Tony Dorsett hitting a very small hole in the line to break us into the open. I see no running back in our national leadership with such ability. As I have outlined above, recession could be triggered again in any number of very different economic environments. It all depends on the choices we make. But the choices lead to the same consequences, at least in my opinion.
    As I wrote in August 2000 and August 2006, I write again in August 2009: there is a recession in our future. I was early both of those times and I am early now, maybe two years early, though I doubt it. And as I pointed out both of those last times, the stock market drops an average of over 40% during a recession. When I was on Kudlow in October of 2006, I was given a hard time about my recession call and prediction of a bear market. I think it was John Rutherford who dismissed my bearish vision. And he was right for the next three quarters, as the market proceeded to rise another 20%. I looked foolish to many, but I maintained my views.
    You have choices. You can buy and hold (buy and hope?) or you can develop a strategic alternative. The next bear market, as I wrote in 2003 and in Bull’s Eye Investing, will likely be the bottom. (It takes at least three of them to really take us to the bottom.) But the next one will change perceptions for a long time. Valuations will drop. Savings will rise even more. And a generation will grow up. The adults will return. Chastened. Scarred. Shaken. But we will Muddle Through. That is what we do. Even my teenagers.
    Choose wisely.
    Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, New Orleans, Detroit, and More
    Only a month ago my fall schedule looked surprisingly light. And then reality hit. I will be at the Schwab conference in San Diego on September 15. If you are going to be there, drop me a note. That is my only trip in September. But then it gets interesting. I celebrate my 60th birthday the first weekend of October, then fly to New Orleans to be at the annual New Orleans Conference, October 8-11. The speaker line-up is better than ever. I find this to be one of the best conferences I go to very year. I have been attending on and off for over 25 years. You should think about this one.
    Then I will spend the next weekend in Detroit, then probably go to New York, then Philadelphia for a CMG conference October 20, then down to Houston, over to Orlando, stop to change clothes and pack at home, and then fly off on a whirlwind trip to Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, speaking at a series of CFA conferences. Orlando in mid-November … and nothing else so far. Switzerland and London in January.
    I recently did an interview with King World News that was quite frankly one of the best interviews I have ever done. Eric King really got me going. It is in two parts. I give you the link to the first part, and the second is in their archives. There are also interviews with a very serious group of names. I am flattered to be included. Click here.
    It is time to hit the send button. I am resisting the temptation to launch into politics, so I need to quit before I do. Suffice it to say, we could see some big changes as we work through our teenage years, back to adulthood.
    Speaking of good choices, the wedding last weekend was fabulous. I am delighted with my new son-in-law. Life goes on, even as my kids struggle to get enough hours of work and money. Henry is at UPS, and work hours are way down and they have a new son. Chad finally got a new job, which may give him enough hours to survive, but not a lot of money. For those of you who think I live in an ivory tower, I do have a view into the lives of seven kids who are very real people, as well as those of lots of friends. I am very well aware of how tough it is out there, and realize how blessed I am.
    You have a great week. Tomorrow I get to go the Dallas Cowboys game in the new stadium in a suite, courtesy of a friend who got the seats from Jerry Jones himself. Not sure where, but it sounds cool. Sometimes life gives you lucky breaks.
    Your amazed to still be writing after all these years analyst,

    John Mauldin
    John@FrontLineThoughts.com
    Copyright 2009 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved

    Note: The generic Accredited Investor E-letters are not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and Millennium Wave Investments. It is intended solely for accredited investors who have registered with Millennium Wave Investments and Altegris Investments at www.accreditedinvestor.ws or directly related websites and have been so registered for no less than 30 days. The Accredited Investor E-Letter is provided on a confidential basis, and subscribers to the Accredited Investor E-Letter are not to send this letter to anyone other than their professional investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with their personal investment counsel. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the consulting on and marketing of private investment offerings with other independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Absolute Return Partners, LLP; and Plexus Asset Management. Funds recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any advisor’s services or making an investment in a fund, investors must read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure document or offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from the funds they recommend/market, they only recommend/market products with which they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.
    Send to a Friend | Print Article | View as PDF | Permissions/Reprints

    You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print as long as the following is included:

    John Mauldin, Best-Selling author and recognized financial expert, is also editor of the free Thoughts From the Frontline that goes to over 1 million readers each week. For more information on John or his FREE weekly economic letter go to: http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/learnmore

    To subscribe to John Mauldin’s E-Letter please click here:
    http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/subscribe.asp

    To change your email address please click here:
    http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/change.asp

    If you would ALSO like changes applied to the Accredited Investor E- Letter, please include your old and new email address along with a note requesting the change for both e-letters and send your request to wave@frontlinethoughts.com

    To unsubscribe please refer to the bottom of the email.

    PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER.

    John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA) which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS) an NASD registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its accuracy. Investment recommendations may change and readers are urged to check with their investment counselors before making any investment decisions.

    Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs at Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC may or may not have investments in any funds cited above. John Mauldin can be reached at 800-829-7273.
    ________________________________________
    EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here:
    http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/unsubscribe.asp
    Or send an email To: wave@frontlinethoughts.com
    This email was sent to rdegraff@yahoo.com
    ________________________________________

    Thoughts from the Frontline
    3204 Beverly Drive
    Dallas, Texas 75205

    Richard C De Graff
    256 Ashford Road
    RER Eastford Ct 06242
    860-522-7171 Main Office
    800-821-6665 Watts
    860-315-7413 Home/Office
    rdegraff@coburnfinancial.com

    This report has been prepared from original sources and data which we believe reliable but we make no representation to its accuracy or completeness. Coburn & Meredith Inc. its subsidiaries and or officers may from time to time acquire, hold, sell a position discussed in this publications, and we may act as principal for our own account or as agent for both the buyer and seller.