Category: Authors

  • Too Big to Fail Or Too Big to Save?

    Too Big to Fail Or Too Big to Save?

    We now have two economic and political philosophies dominating the agenda in Washington.
    The first chaired by John M Keynes and championed by FDR are now known as Keynesians. Their valid point is that when business falters; the government should step in and create jobs so that the money flows from the poor to the top or wealthy. This can done by primarily taxing the more affluent segment of our society, or redistribution of the wealth. The problem here is that this stimulates tax avoidance schemes that show little improvement to the economy and cuts back on needed revenues over time. The Social Security and Medicare programs are now teetering on insolvency. Instead of refining it, politicians have bastardized it beyond recognition. One politician once remarked to me “If FDR knew what LBJ is doing he would be spinning in his grave.”

    The monetarist headed by Milton Freedman and championed by Ronald Reagan, believe is less government interference, lower taxes and more business freedom. In this case the wealthy eagerly invested their monies and new research begat new inventions. 100 years of inventions and progress has been compressed into 10 years. Products that we enjoy today were not around 10 years ago.
    The main problem here is that we did not appoint any umpires or inspector generals to hold back certain greedy individuals that would create many bubbles that are bursting among us today
    Following the old rules will simply foster the “Too big to Fail” syndrome will rack future havoc on our societies as well as the present.

    Our politicians are eager for as showdown battle. This could be an epic struggle for glory and fame, but as in the clash of all battles – the public loses. As this battle unfolds there will probably be more burst of bubbles.

    Right now everyone in Washington is throwing around trillions of dollars on pet projects and ensuing and assuring reelection at the public expenses. We should have term limits of say 12 years and that would curtail the hedonistic atmosphere that prevails in our Congress today. If a Congressman knew they had term limits they would consider it a badge of honor to serve the public. Members would be able to say “calm down” and not let tings get out of hand. Everyone wins. Term limits could be set up by drawing straws. I believe this would entice greater sense of responsibility among our public representatives.
    Our problem today is that the public is tapped out and so are our governments. This is true of most world economies I believe. Who is going to buy our debt? Why bid on a billion bonds when you know there will be another billion coming down the road at a higher rate?

    I received an answer to this question through my email. At first I thought it was a joke, but I started thinking about it. Our economy is the largest in the world by sheer size. You have to combine the next four largest just to equal ours. Europe and Asia depend upon us. So here was the answer in the email. Take the 100 trillion dollars and instead of bailing out the greedy people, divide the trillion dollars among United States citizens. A 100 trillion divided by our population, approximately 304 million comes out to a little over $328,947.37 for every individual. There would be some provisos. First they would have to promise to pay down their debts. Mortgages and credit cards and only allow debit cards thereafter. Free cash must be deposited in a bank and any purchases would be made for cash. No borrowing. Then they would be expected to pay their fair share of income tax. No Tim Geithner here. Anyone convicted of tax fraud faces 10 years jail term and funds and trust held by the entire family will be confiscated. Only the slimiest individuals would put their kids at risk.

    This would also encourage other governments to spread their wealth around. Taxes would have to be paid and banks would have to invest and they must put a certain portion into the newly issued government bonds. States and local communities could decide where and what projects to invest in. with local banks lending the funds.

    It is much easier to watch a local business spend your tax dollars efficiently that watching the federal government. The simple fact is that there are less people to watch!

    Now after the wealth has been distributed, much business will become solvent and healthy. Others that showed a lack of leadership will probably die on the vine. There will be many more to assume the leadership and lessons so generations will be learned.

    During the Panic of 1907 JP Morgan instructed all the NYC bankers to give him their books by Friday and on Monday morning he would tell the presidents who was solvent, who would merge and who was worthless. The Knickerbocker Trust was deemed worthless. It was at that time the nation’s oldest bank. Everyone did as he said without a peep. That was real power and respect.
    So “Too big to Fail” has no historical precedent along with “Too big to save”. Sometimes the market place does the governments work. Xerox is reported to have turned down the personal computer because it would compete with their copying machine. IBM downgraded their person computer for years because their main frame was the big money earner.

    My point is that if we start bailing out large inefficient corporations then this country could end up wallowing in non performing bureaucratic cesspools.
    We are destined to become the economic and political power of the 21st century, but first we must show the world we are internally strong and can make self sacrifices in order to improve the common good.
    Once all debts paid down then the recipients can figure out how much taxes they owe. Then they are free to spend it what ever way they want. This will provide new orders for varied businesses and really jump start the economy for it will produce honest demand.
    Then the US Government can put out for bid 100 trillion dollars of bonds with varied maturities and the savings banks will be ready buyers in order to pay their depositors. Instead of facing a prospect of bidders wanted we will probably face the welcomed problem of allotted the issues that that there is an equal distribution
    During biblical times the slaves were individuals who could not pay back their debts so they had to work them off. It is better than having illegal usury rates.
    This process would instantly halt deflation, but inflation is farther away since goods will be purchased at the cheapest price.
    Large corporations will have to start making sure that their pipeline is full with orders. Those depending upon large orders might someday find their pipeline is empty because they did not cultivate the smaller growing accounts. A nickel can be a dime; a dime can be a quarter etc,
    One sign of a market top is when financial institutions cater to Wealth Management accounts only. The little guy is the seed that NEEDS TO BE PLANTED.
    In order to create a MORE stable form of government we must not bail out the greedy. Their demise will be tragic lessons for future generations. We must also set up a global reorganization of security laws to protect the investor. Countries that do not endorse these safeguards will have be allowed to our markets. This includes their citizens.
    Countries that renege of corporate contracts will eventually have armed aggression. Countries that trade among each other fairly should have a hard time declaring war on each other since the person public pocket book is involved. One does not want to cut off its family food supply.
    So the redistribution of wealth can be done more easily, honestly, and quickly by Congress authorizing the distribution of a $100,000,000.000 among the US citizens who speak English.
    We should have a public program free of charge or how to protect your wealth from unscrupulous money changers.
    You might laugh at the 100 trillion figure, but if we let our Congress run wild with THEIR pet projects we will be at that figure in just a few years and our currency will be debased and gold will have risen beyond even the most optimistic price,
    If you agree with me email this letter to your Congress person and Senator. I am emailing this also to the Federal Reserve because I know they run a tight ship. A few months ago I emailed about the “Uptick Rule” to the SEC and the Federal Reserve. Within a day I had an answer from the Federal Reserve. I have yet to hear from the SEC.
    Cheerio!!!

    Richard C De Graff
    256 Ashford Road
    Eastford Ct 06242
    860-522-7171 Main Office
    800-821-6665 Watts
    860-315-7413 Home/Office
    rdegraff@coburnfinancial.com 1/21/2009 12:22:56 PM

    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.

  • PRESENTATION OF THE TURKISH VERSION OF  THE BOOK “GENOCIDE OF TRUTH’’

    PRESENTATION OF THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE BOOK “GENOCIDE OF TRUTH’’

    (Note By KIRLIKOVALI: Today, I yield my column to my good friend Yüksel Oktay, a tireless seeker of the truth, a meticulous researcher, and a great writer, who will introduce the Turkish version of a unique book, “GENOCIDE OF TRUTH’’.)

    PART 1: “SOYKIRIM TACiRLERi VE GERÇEKLER –
    Türk aleytari ve tarafsiz yabanci belgelerle diaspora yalanlarinin içyüzü.
    Yazan: ŞükrüServer Aya

    Reported by Yüksel Oktay
    Istanbul Ticaret Odasi, 19 Ocak 2009, Monday

    The program was on the presentation of a book in Turkish and the language of the program and the speakers were also in Turkish. This commentary on the book and the presentation is in English for the benefit of readers in America and other countries.

    The primary purpose of Sukru Aya in publishing his book in English was to inform the foreigners (students, media members, businessmen, legislators, the public, etc.) on a subject which has been told to the world through fabrications, distortions and out right lies. An example of this was a poster displayed at the university’s reception area was a manipulated photograph of Mustafa Kemal.

    Tomorrow Senator Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States and judging from his campaign speeches, he will state that the Ottoman Turks committed genocide against Armenians, which is a lie as shown in Sukru Aya’s book.

    The program started around 11:00 AM in the Conference Room of the Istanbul Commerce University where there were over 80 participants, including the Honorary Chairman of Koc Holding Rahmi Koc, Miss Europe of 1952, Gunseli Basar, Sami Kohen from Milliyet, Tufan Gunes from Huriyet, Ruhat mengi from Vatan and other media members and many dignitaries. There were also three Tarsus American High School graduates, Nabi Eren and Yucel. There were very few students and most of the participants were over the age of 50, an observation also noted by Commerce University Rector Ates Vuran during his opening remarks.

    OPENING SPEECHES

    The first speaker was Lawyer Elif Derbeder representing the brave publisher of the book, Derin Yayinlari. She said that her company strives to publish books in different subjects.

    The second speaker was Lawyer Kegam Karabetyan who also wrote the Preface to the book. He made a passionate speech, first stating that he is an Armenian Turk originally from Kastamonu and now lives in Istanbul, practicing law and getting involved in community projects. Referring to the sad events in the (last quarter of the) 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, Karabetyan stated that some Armenians were used by the Western powers for their own purposes, specifically the Russians, the French and the British, and that he was here to tell the truth. He said that he met Sukru Aya at a conference where the former head of the Turkish Historical Society Yusuf Halacoglu was a speaker. He ended his remarks with Ataturk’s famous saying, ‘’Ne Mutlu Turkum Diyene.’’ (Happy is the one who calls himself a Turk. Note: not who “is” a Turk. One’s considering oneself a Turk is a state of heart and mind, not blood or territory.)

    Next, the rector of Commerce University, Ates Vuran, stated that he read the book himself and also had it reviewed by the Turkish Historical Society. Finding the book to be very useful, he had the university sponsor the first printing of 3,000 and distributed to University libraries and media members.

    The next speaker listed on the program was Bulent Akarcali who has been instrumental in convincing Sukru Aya to publish the book. Unfortunately, Akarcali was not in attendance, probably working on his strategy to win the race for the Mayor of Cankaya as a canditate from AKP. In his place, Prof. Dr. Orhan Cekic made an excellent presentation, including a summary of the decision of the European Council of Justice (Avrupa Adalet Divani) on the lawsuit brought against the EU by an Armenian organisation in France on the Armenian issue, denying the Armenians’ demand that Turkey admit genocide as a condition for EU membership, asking the Armenians to produce a Court verdict saying that it was genocide, which of course does not exist. Prof. Cekic also mentioned that terrible things are taking place such as the murder of many Turkish diplomats since 1973 (like Bahadir Demir in California on Jan 27, 1973) and one Turkish-Armenian, Hrant Dink, in Istanbul on Jan 19, 2007.

    SUKRU AYA’S PRESENTATION

    Sukru Aya also made a passionate speech, first stating that participants from Cyprus, Bursa, Adapazari and other cities had come for the program. He presented backround information on the publication of the English version of his book, which he said had not received the proper attention from the media or the public, stating that since April 14, 2008, only 4 review of his book has been published. Sukru Aya made reference to the Armenian revolts starting with the Zeytoon uprising in 1859, followed by many others including the revolt in Maras in 1895.

    QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

    Before the question and answer session, a short documentary was shown on the atrocities committed by Armenian rebels and the events that led to the re-location in 915. Afterwards, Ruhat Mengi from Vatan took to the podium and objected to Sukru Aya’s statement that the media has not shown enough involvement in the Armenian issue, giving her own struggle as an example, even having to defend her writings in court, especially in a case started by Halil Berktay. She referred to the efforts of Yusuf Halacoglu, wondering why he was dismissed as the head of the Turkish Historical Society who has invited Armenian historians for meetings but was ignored. Then Ruhat Mengi made reference to the ‘’Apology campaign’’, stating that those who started it had close connections with the Armenian diaspora.

    After Ruhat Mengi finished her comments, I looked around to see if anyone from AGOS newspaper was in the room, the largest circulating Armenian weekly in Istanbul. Quite by coincidence, today was the 2nd anniversary of the murder of Hrant Dink, the founder and the publisher of the Armenian newspaper. There were commemoration services at his grave and other places and almost all newspapers covered the story, including Birgun, with a full front page photograph of Hrant Dink and the funeral procession in the entire back page, which I had also participated in. In an open letter to Turkish readers published in AGOS (9 Jan 2009), Jean Kehayan wrote that those who were signing the apology statement were ‘’Turkey’s Pride.’’

    It will be interesting to see if Birgun and other newspapers will cover this very meaningful and important book presentation. I am sure Ruhat Mengi and others who came to the presentation will. I wonder if the Turkish Daily News (now known as the Hurriyet Daily News) will write about this as they had covered a conference at Bilgi University last year where Sarafian was the star attraction and was given a copy of ‘’Genocide of Truth’’ by Sukru Aya but never mentioned it in any of his endless papers.

    The first question was by Rahmi Koc. ‘’What do you think Barack Obama will do on the Armenian issue?’’ I missed the answer but yesterday, ANCA sent a letter to Senator Obama which should answer Rahmi Koc’s question. I am afraid Senator Obama will support the Armenian Genocide Resolution after he is sworn in as the 44th President of the USA and when he signs the statement on April 24th, 2009. Thus, Armenians will have been allowed to taint the Turkey-America relations.

    I could not stay until the end of the program due to other commitments but took the box of börek and baklava with me which I enjoyed while driving to Esenyurt. Thank you Sukru Bey and his assistant Serpil Hanim for their contributions.

    ***

    PART II:

    Review of the book “GENOCIDE OF TRUTH’’ Written by Sukru Aya
    Review By: Yüksel OKTAY, PE, Istanbul, Turkey, July 16, 2008

    Genocide of Truth is an excellent book with a collection of detailed information from a wide variety of sources which includes many books, articles, newspaper opinions and commentaries from many foreign publications written by westerners over the past 100 years (Over 2,000, according to the author). It is almost like an encyclopedia, presented under 30 chapters, with an Introduction by Prof. Talat S. Halman and a Foreword & Bibliography by the author. Each chapter can be read as a standalone treasury of information on various subjects related to this important issue which has been presented to the world as a one sided and prejudiced tragedy with many fabrications, as shown by many authorities.

    In the Part I of my review, I covered chapters which I am most familiar with which are also the most controversial. These were Chapters 1 through 5 and Chapter 16, Propaganda fabrications (May 11, 2008). The book begins with Chapter 1, “Historical Background”, and ends with Chapter 30, “Status Quo and Conclusive Remarks. There is a long list of Bibliography and a Selected Index and over 400 notes at the end of each chapter which shed further light on the subjects presented. It is a valuable source for anyone interested in solving this number one foreign policy issue of Turkey .
    Part II of my review will cover some of the remaining chapters and summarize for the benefit of those who may not have the time to read the entire book what conclusions one might expect to reach.

    Chapter 6, Divinity for Bigotry and Anarchy, provides statements by many famous figures, including Napolean Bonaparte, Warren G. Harding, Sigmund Freud, Tomas Paine, Mohandas Gandi, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, one of the most respected President of the United States (1809 – 1865), claimed to have the Melunchan ancestary. This is what Abraham Lincoln has stated on divinity:

    “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of scriptures have become clearer and stronger with the advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them. Page 89.”

    Among the many quotations, The New York Times report on Oct. 28, 1915, The Light That Might Go Out in Turkey, includes the following staement from Admiral Bristol, the US Ambassador to the Ottoman State: “Troubled that killings by Armenians and Greeks did not get into the American press, the admiral wondered in his diary, ‘Why aren’t the atrocities committed by the Christian nation more heinous than those committed by Moslem races’, if Christianity is better than Islam.”

    Chapter 7, Distorting Realism Brings Antagonism, offers the readers a variety of excerpts and incidents relating to the Superpowers as defenders of Christianity and Humane values. At the request of Protestant missionaries, England and the U.S. intervene in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire . In fact, Artin Dadyan Pasha, Ottoman Under-Secretary of State Foreign Affairs actually works for the Armenian case and not for the Sultan as referenced in Erich Feigel’s book “A Myth of Terror.” What is also worse is that the Major Powers were directly and indirectly encouraging enmity between the Armenian sects, referenced in another book, “The Great War and the Great Tragedy of Anatolia” by Salahi Sonyel. The author in a Flier Sheet issued after the publication of the book states that this chapter as well as Chapters 14 though 17 show that the claims outlined in the 2007 House Resolution 106 are fabrications.

    Chapter 8, “Di-fused AUTONOMY! (Goal or Pretext?) begins with a statement that the Ottomans were friendly with Dashnaks, something overlooked by most historians and writers, especially the Armenian authors. In fact, the book states that the Dashnak Congress in 1914 was hosted in Erzurum where the Ottomans offered the Dashnaks and Hunchaks autonomy, although the book makes reference to independence as well (which may need to be corrected.). The chapter also makes reference to the aims of British on carving up the Ottoman Empire and the US President Woodrow Wilson’s desire for its complete disappearance, something shared by the US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau.

    Chapter 9, Atrocities, Van, etc., makes references to the Armenian atrocities and revolutionary acts that go back to 1880s. For a very comprehensive study of the Van rebellions, the author refers the reader to Prof. Justin McCarty’s book, “The Armenian Revolt in Van,” while citing from close to 100 other references.
    Chapter 10, Battlefields (Sarikamish – Gallipoli – Suez ) emphasizes the fact that the Ottoman armies were fighting on many different fronts, something also overlooked and seldom mentioned by some historians and writers. In his book, Inside Constantinople, Epstein, a member of the US Embassy in Istanbul at the time, states that the attcak at Gallipoli was the main reason for the re-location of Armenians.

    Some of the conclusions that the reader can easily reach on the Armenian Issue after reading this book include:

    1. Armenians and Turks lived together for almost a thousand years until the western powers began to interfere in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire and used Armenians for their own purposes.

    2. Towards the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, Armenians began revolts and uprisings against the Ottoman government and started massacring Turks with the aim of creating a state of their own on lands where they were not the majority.

    3. Armenians betrayed their own government and their fellow-Ottoman citizens, the Moslems, by joining the invading Russian forces and with their aid, captured Van, establishing the Armenian Republic of Van , killing over 30,000 Moslem inhabitants. After the relocation and their return, some Armenians joined French forces in fights against the Ottomans in the Cilician region.

    4. During the uprisings, Russia , England , France and Italy provided arms and support to the Armenian guerillas and terrorists and the missionaries from these countries and the United States
    And much more.

    Sukru Aya has not stopped writing about the Armenian issue with the publication of his book. He has summarized new findings that were revealed after the publication of his book, especially a Report submitted to the US Congress by the Near East Relief Fund (now Near East Foundation with headquarters in NYC with an Armenian director) back in 1922. I will cover these and further review of additional chapters in Part III of my review.

    This is a book that should be read by everyone who would like to see this issue resolved and Armenians and Turks everywhere can talk to each other, just like we did with Ara Sarafian when he freely discussed the Armenian issue in Istanbul, who was also presented a copy of the book by Sukru Aya personally.

    ***

    PART III:

    Review of the book “GENOCIDE OF TRUTH’’ Written by Sukru Aya (cont’d)
    Review By: Yüksel OKTAY, PE, Istanbul, Turkey, July 30, 2008

    Armenian genocide is a controversial issue and also a fabrication by many Armenians and their supporters who benefit from it according to those who have studied the events of the end of 19th and the beginning of 20th century with an open mind and without prejudice. Through the efforts of selfish Armenians, the issue has been carried to the legislative organs of 19 countries and 41 States in America, passing Resolutions declaring April 24 as the genocide day. Articles, books, commentaries which support the Armenian claims number in the hundreds of thousands, mostly based on a few books written by Ambassadors and Missionaries as war propaganda and the survivors of the relocation and immigrants to foreign countries. Very few books have been written by Turks and their supporters that show the Armenian genocide is a myth, as best described in a book by Austrian historian, Erich Feigel, “A Myth of Terror” and other books listed below (1).

    On April 14, a new book was introduced to the media and the public which responds to the allegations of the supporters of the Armenian genocide. The 700 page book, “GENOCIDE OF TRUTH’’ , is the result of over 4 years of extensive research and study by an ordinary Turkish citizen aged 78, who happens to believe that the allegations are an injustice and insult to Turkey and Turks everywhere.

    The book is a compilation of information from a multitude of foreign sources, grouped under 30 headings, in order to shed light to certain arguments and thesis. It begins with an Introduction and Chapter 1, “Historical Background”, and ends with Chapter 30, “Status Quo and Conclusive Remarks. There is a long list of Bibliography and a Selected Index and over 400 notes at the end of each chapter which shed further light on the subjects presented. It is a valuable source for anyone interested in solving this number one foreign policy issue of Turkey .

    It is not easy to read the massive work in a few days or weeks, which is unique in its presentation with frequent quotations from interesting people that shed light to the subject matter. As the author states in the Introduction, the purpose of the book is “neither to acquit the Ottoman Administration from the responsibilities of a generally badly managed deportation or relocation process, nor to degrade the Armenian people as a race or nationality.”

    The first four chapters give the background on the Turkish – Armenian relations and the groundwork established by the Armenians to create a state on eastern part of Turkey where they were never the majority through revolts and uprisings which resulted in the massacre of Muslims and Turks.

    The subject covered in Chapter 5, Marvelous Missionaries, is very important, since the American High Schools founded by Protestant missionaries are where I was educated before heading to the United States to attend university. Therefore I would like to present the review of the book in several parts, beginning with this chapter. There has been many commentaries and articles over the years on the role of the missionaries in the creation of the Armenian issue, which is very sensitive and their involvements is not known by the public widely. As a frequent contributor to the study of this issue, I received the following comment from one of my former American teachers:

    “We agree that all of us – including Christian missionaries to the Ottoman Empire and Turkey – need to acknowledge that wrongs were done to all sides during the early 20th century. We need to ask forgiveness of each other. Then we need to find ways to be friends. None of these is an easy step; the hurts are real, even if some of the cause may be dubious. For us, the greatest reason for friendship and healing is that the alternative is grossly destructive. “

    The chapter begins with information on the founding of Missionary Societies in London with the mission of instructing Christians of the Arab East as to what being Christian meant, evidently prompting Edgar Allan Poe to state, “The pioneers and missionaries of religion have been the real cause of more trouble and war than all other classes of mankind.” (P. 57) The first missionary societies in the USA were founded in 1810 which led to the arrival of missionaries in Izmir in 1819 and the opening of a mission in Bursa in 1834. The book tells the story of their expansion in the Ottoman lands and opening of missionary schools in Harput in 1876 as “ Armenian College ” , later renamed as “ Euphrates College .” The Tarsus American High School was established in 1888 and Talas American High School in 1889.

    A book by Dr. Uygur Kocabasoglu, “ America in Anatolia – the Missionary Schools in the 19th Century Ottoman Empire , Based on Documents,” is a good source of information on the activities of the missionary schools. Another book by a former teacher at American High School Frank Andrews Stone, “Academies for Anatolia”, presents a study of the Rationale, Program and Impact of the Educational Institutions Sponsored by the American Board in Turkey: 1830 – 2005. However, neither one of these books are referenced or included in the Bibliography.
    Chapter 16, “Propaganda Fabrications,” is also very important as it presents information on the role of several early publications which are being used over and over again by authors, academicians and students to deceive the unsuspecting readers around the world.

    The chapter begins with an analysis of the book supposedly written by the US Ambassador to Turkey Henry Morgenthau (1913 – 1915) and based on his diaries, published in the US in 1918. The author tells the story behind this book by referring to a study of Prof. Heath Lowry who has shown that the book did not reflect the true events of the time. Ambassador Morgenthau’s book, also available in Turkish translation, was ghost written for him by Burton Hendrick with input from his Armenian secretary and Armenian translator, with the purpose of bringing the US into war against the Ottoman Empire . The sections below are directly from ”The Murder of a Nation”, a chapter from the book ”Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story”, published as a separate book by the Armenian Benevolent Association, full of slanders against the Ottoman Turks and many fabricated and distorted facts:

    1. p. 51. ”Perhaps the one event in history that most resembles the Armenian deportations was the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella. According to Prescott 160,000 were uprooted from their homes and scattered broadcast over Africa and Europe .
    The Ambassador conveniently omits the fact that it was the Ottoman Turks who saved the Spanish Jews and sent ships to bring them to the Ottoman lands and settled them in Istanbul , Selanik, Bursa and other cities.

    The Ambassador continues on the same page :

    “ Yet all these previous persecutions seem almost trivial when we compare them with the Armenian sufferings, in which at least 600,000 people were destroyed and perhaps as many as 1,000,000.”

    As mentioned in many references, the Ambassador Morgenthau never ventured out from the environs of Istanbul and did not witness anything, as many others like Samantha Power falsely claim in her book. And yet, the HR 106 voted by the US House Foreign Affairs Committee mentions that 2,000,000 Armenians were deported and 1,500,000 Armenian were killed, among many other distorted facts.

    2. p. 6. ”They (Turks) were lacking in what we may call the fundamentals of a civilized community. They had no alphabet and no art of writing; no books, no poets, no art, no architecture; they built no cities and established no lasting states.”

    3. p. 50. ”The only reason for relating such dreadful things as this is that, without the details, the English-speaking public cannot understand precisely what this nation is which we call Turkey.”
    Sukru Aya writes in his book that Morgenthau’s claims were refuted by George A. Schreiner, a distinguished foreign correspondent who served in Turkey at the time and who knew the Ambassador and wrote to him about his concerns on how the truth was twisted to favor the Armenians.

    A book on the relations between the Netherlands and Turkey published in 2007 makes reference to the Dutch Reporter George Nypels who has stated in 1922 that “Ambassador Morgenthau’s widely read book was now judged to be ill-founded.” The book, the Netherlands and Turkey: Four hundred years of political, economical, social and cultural relations – selected essays” also states that the writings of the former US Ambassador were refuted by Ahmed Rustem Bey, a former Ottoman Ambassador to Washington . These are not mentioned in “Genocide of Truth” which could be issued as an addendum, including the addition of Morhentau’s books “The Murder of a Nation”, “Secrets of the Bospohorous” and “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story” to the Bibliography.

    Over the years many articles have been written by Henry Morgenthau’s son, Henry Morgenthau Jr. and his grandson, Henry Morgenthau III, which in a way carry on the mission of their father and grandfather, but the “Genocide of Truth” makes no references to any of these, especially commentaries published in Boston Globe by Henry Morgenthau III. There is also no reference to Samantha Power’s book “ A Problem from Hell – America and the Age of Genocide “, which has the opening chapter devoted to the Ambassador’s work with his photograph and can be found in every library in the US.

    This is a valuable book that will show the readers the other side of the story and every concerned Turk and Turkish American who would like to see an end to the tall tale of Armenian genocide should read it in order to bring out the truth about the Armenian issue and set the record straight.
    End of Part I.

    ***

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    POOR RICHARD’S REPORT                            

    Over 300,000 readers

    Too Big to Fail

    Or

    Too Big to Save?

    We now have two economic and political philosophies dominating the agenda in Washington.

    The first chaired by John M Keynes and championed by FDR are now known as Keynesians. Their valid point is that when business falters; the government should step in and create jobs so that the money flows from the poor to the top or wealthy. This can done by primarily taxing the more affluent segment of our society, or redistribution of the wealth.  The problem here is that this stimulates tax avoidance schemes that show little improvement to the economy and cuts back on needed revenues over time.   The Social Security and Medicare programs are now teetering on insolvency. Instead of refining it, politicians have bastardized it beyond recognition. One politician once remarked to me “If FDR knew what LBJ is doing he would be spinning in his grave.”

    The monetarist headed by Milton Freedman and championed by Ronald Reagan, believe is less government interference, lower taxes and more business freedom. In this case the wealthy eagerly invested their monies and new research begat new inventions. 100 years of inventions and progress has been compressed into 10 years. Products that we enjoy today were not around 10 years ago.

    The main problem here is that we did not appoint any umpires or inspector generals to hold back certain greedy individuals that would create many bubbles that are bursting among us today

    Following the old rules will simply foster the “Too big to Fail” syndrome will rack future havoc on our societies as well as the present.

    Our politicians are eager for as showdown battle. This could be an epic struggle for glory and fame, but as in the clash of all battles – the public loses. As this battle unfolds there will probably be more burst of bubbles.

    Right now everyone in Washington is throwing around trillions of dollars on pet projects and ensuing and assuring reelection at the public expenses. We should have term limits of say 12 years and that would curtail the hedonistic atmosphere that prevails in our Congress today. If a Congressman knew they had term limits they would consider it a badge of honor to serve the public.  Members would be able to say “calm down” and not let tings get out of hand. Everyone wins. Term limits could be set up by drawing straws. I believe this would entice greater sense of responsibility among our public representatives.

    Our problem today is that the public is tapped out and so are our governments. This is true of most world economies I believe. Who is going to buy our debt? Why bid on a billion bonds when you know there will be another billion coming down the road at a higher rate?

    I received an answer to this question through my email. At first I thought it was a joke, but I started thinking about it. Our economy is the largest in the world by sheer size. You have to combine the next four largest just to equal ours. Europe and Asia depend upon us. So here was the answer in the email.  Take the 100 trillion dollars and instead of bailing out the greedy people, divide the trillion dollars among United States citizens. A 100 trillion divided by our population, approximately 304 million comes out to a little over $328,947.37 for every individual. There would be some provisos. First they would have to promise to pay down their debts. Mortgages and credit cards and only allow debit cards thereafter. Free cash must be deposited in a bank and any purchases would be made for cash. No borrowing. Then they would be expected to pay their fair share of income tax. No Tim Geithner here.  Anyone convicted of tax fraud faces 10 years jail term and funds and trust held by the entire family will be confiscated. Only the slimiest individuals would put their kids at risk.

    This would also encourage other governments to spread their wealth around. Taxes would have to be paid and banks would have to invest and they must put a certain portion into the newly issued government bonds. States and local communities could decide where and what projects to invest in. with local banks lending the funds.

    It is much easier to watch a local business spend your tax dollars efficiently that watching the federal government. The simple fact is that there are less people to watch!

     Now after the wealth has been distributed, much business will become solvent and healthy. Others that showed a lack of leadership will probably die on the vine. There will be many more to assume the leadership and lessons so generations will be learned.

    During the Panic of 1907 JP Morgan instructed all the NYC bankers to give him their books by Friday and on Monday morning he would tell the presidents who was solvent, who would merge and who was worthless. The Knickerbocker Trust was deemed worthless. It was at that time the nation’s oldest bank. Everyone did as he said without a peep. That was real power and respect.

    So “Too big to Fail” has no historical precedent along with “Too big to save”. Sometimes the market place does the governments work. Xerox is reported to have turned down the personal computer because it would compete with their copying machine. IBM downgraded their person computer for years because their main frame was the big money earner.

    My point is that if we start bailing out large inefficient corporations then this country could end up wallowing in non performing bureaucratic cesspools. 

                We are destined to become the economic and political power of the 21st century, but first we must show the world we are internally strong and can make self sacrifices in order to improve the common good.

                Once all debts paid down then the recipients can figure out how much taxes they owe. Then they are free to spend it what ever way they want.  This will provide new orders for varied businesses and really jump start the economy for it will produce honest demand. 

                Then the US Government can put out for bid 100 trillion dollars of bonds with varied maturities and the savings banks will be ready buyers in order to pay their depositors. Instead of facing a prospect of bidders wanted we will probably face the welcomed problem of allotted the issues that that there is an equal distribution

                During biblical times the slaves were individuals who could not pay back their debts so they had to work them off. It is better than having illegal usury rates.

                This process would instantly halt deflation, but inflation is farther away since goods will be purchased at the cheapest price.

                Large corporations will have to start making sure that their pipeline is full with orders. Those depending upon large orders might someday find their pipeline is empty because they did not cultivate the smaller growing accounts. A nickel can be a dime; a dime can be a quarter etc,

    One sign of a market top is when financial institutions cater to Wealth Management accounts only.  The little guy is the seed that NEEDS TO BE PLANTED.

                In order to create a MORE stable form of government we must not bail out the greedy. Their demise will be tragic lessons for future generations. We must also set up a global reorganization of security laws to protect the investor. Countries that do not endorse these safeguards will have be allowed to our markets. This includes their citizens.

                Countries that renege of corporate contracts will eventually have armed aggression. Countries that trade among each other fairly should have a hard time declaring war on each other since the person public pocket book is involved. One does not want to cut off its family food supply.

                So the redistribution of wealth can be done more easily, honestly, and quickly by Congress authorizing the distribution of a $100,000,000.000 among the US citizens who speak English.

                We should have a public program free of charge or how to protect your wealth from unscrupulous money changers.

                You might laugh at the 100 trillion figure, but if we let our Congress run wild with THEIR pet projects we will be at that figure in just a few years and our currency will be debased and gold will have risen beyond even the most optimistic price,

    If you agree with me email this letter to your Congress person and Senator. I am emailing this also to the Federal Reserve because I know they run a tight ship. A few months ago I emailed about the “Uptick Rule” to the SEC and the Federal Reserve. Within a day I had an answer from the Federal Reserve. I have yet to hear from the SEC.

    Cheerio!!!

     

    Richard C De Graff

    256 Ashford Road

    Eastford Ct 06242 

    860-522-7171 Main Office 

    800-821-6665 Watts

    860-315-7413 Home/Office

    rdegraff@coburnfinancial.com                                                 1/21/2009 12:22:56 PM

    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.

     

     

     

  • European Energy Security and Nabucco Occupy a Central Place in Erdogan’s Brussels Trip

    European Energy Security and Nabucco Occupy a Central Place in Erdogan’s Brussels Trip

    European Energy Security and Nabucco Occupy a Central Place in Erdogan’s Brussels Trip

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 12
    January 20, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Brussels on January 18 and 19 to discuss Turkish-European relations. The trip, the first of its kind since 2004, comes against the background of criticism that the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has abandoned its commitment to EU membership. Critics point to the government’s reluctance to take steps to break the deadlock in negotiations since the talks started in 2005. The AKP, in contrast, highlights the EU’s own mishandling of the accession process with Turkey and the EU’s internal problems following the 2004 enlargement. As some observers have called 2009 the “make or break year,” Erdogan recently began a new bid to revitalize Turkey’s stalled membership process by appointing a new state minister to lead the negotiations (EDM, January 12). His trip provided an important forum to reaffirm the parties’ willingness to mend fences and renew trust.

    Erdogan held meetings with Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, High Representative of Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana, and President of the European Parliament Hans Gert Pottering. He also spoke with representatives of the Turkish community, gave a talk at the European Policy Center, and delivered the keynote address at a dinner organized by Friends of Europe.

    Throughout his trip, Erdogan emphasized that his government would make 2009 a “leap year.” Rebuffing criticism that the government lacked determination, Erdogan argued “the EU is our top priority, and we don’t have any alternatives to it.” Showing his self-confidence in Turkey’s future contribution to the EU, Erdogan also said that Turkey would not be a burden on the EU but was ready to share its burdens. He emphasized the compatibility of both sides’ interests, including energy security. On their part, EU officials pressed for more reforms on trade unions and minority rights and underlined the need to convince the European public about Turkey’s accession. Yet, they welcomed Ankara’s efforts to deliver some reforms to comply with the EU’s expectations and stressed the common areas of strategic interest (www.cnnturk.com, January 19, Zaman, January 20).

    Overall, Erdogan appeared to be unwavering from his previous positions. First, he repeated the AKP’s claim that “Turkey did its homework.” Although the EU institutions and domestic pro-reform groups continuously criticize the government for failing to deliver on the reforms required by the EU, Erdogan highlighted his government’s “achievements,” which in his view were sufficient to fulfill Turkey’s part of the agreement. He referred to the recently opened Kurdish-language channel on the state-owned TV network and the legislative reforms on laws regulating foundations and freedom of opinion. With regard to Turkey’s shortcomings in meeting the EU’s demands, he put the blame on the Turkish opposition parties, arguing that they had failed to support the government’s reform efforts in parliament (www.cnnturk.com, January 19).

    Second, Erdogan also repeated his previous criticism of the EU’s unfair attitude in the accession process. Unsatisfied with the slow pace of accession negotiations, Erdogan has been calling on the EU to accelerate the process by opening more than two chapters per presidency (every six months). He asked the future presidencies to break with this “routine.” He also complained about the EU’s delay in approving the end-of-screening reports on nine chapters since 2006. Turkey started talks on 10 of the 35 chapters, and it has completed negotiations on only one. The EU has put several chapters on hold, due to the objections of the Greek Cypriot administration and France (Today’s Zaman, January 20).

    Calling on the EU to revitalize the process, Erdogan said, “We are not requesting privileged treatment; we ask for equal and fair treatment.” He was echoing Euro-skeptic sentiments among the Turkish public, which increasingly feels that the EU is applying double standards against Turkey by treating it differently from other candidates. In that regard, he also maintained that the declining support for EU membership in the opinion polls was caused by negative remarks of some European leaders about Turkey (Hurriyet Daily News, January 20).

    As part of his complains that internal EU politicking posed obstacles to Turkey, Erdogan did not hesitate to name the Greek Cypriots. He lambasted the EU’s decision in 2004 to admit the Republic of Cyprus without resolving the divided status of the island (Anadolu Ajansi, January 19). Since its accession to the EU, according to Ankara, the Greek Cypriots have blocked the start of negotiations with Turkey on crucial chapters, most significantly energy.

    Given the growing importance of energy security on the EU agenda in the wake of the Russian-Georgian war and the Russian-Ukrainian standoff, the implications of the energy issue for Turkey’s membership process occupied an important part of Erdogan’s portfolio. As the Budapest Summit on Nabucco approaches, the EU is to support the Nabucco project, which would transport Caspian gas to European markets through Turkish territory (EDM, January 16).

    Erdogan stated at the European Policy Center on Monday that if Turkey were confronted with a deadlock in the energy chapter, it might have to revise its position on Nabucco. This raised concerns that Turkey might be threatening to use its position in energy security as a bargaining chip for Turkish-EU talks. Erdogan also said that although some countries didn’t want Turkey to cooperate with Iran in energy transportation, “cutting ties with Iran is out of question. Nobody can dictate our [energy] policies” (ANKA, January 19).

    Nonetheless, following his meeting with Commission President Barroso on the second day, Erdogan ruled out a threat, saying that Turkey would not “use energy as a weapon.” Barroso emphasized areas of mutual cooperation and highlighted Turkey’s strategic position in particular. He pointed to the need for a good partnership in energy security between Turkey and the EU and praised Turkey’s constructive role in Middle Eastern diplomacy (Anadolu Ajansi, www.ntvmsnbc.com.tr, January 19).

    European officials constantly remind Turkey that its strategic position alone will not suffice to bring it full membership. Nonetheless, at a time when the EU is pressed hard in energy security, Turkey’s geography apparently does pay some dividends. Responding to Erdogan’s call for help against the EU members blocking negotiations, Barroso promised his full support to start talks on the frozen chapters moving again.

    If both Erdogan and Barroso can keep their promises, the former delivering on postponed reforms and the latter removing internal EU obstacles, Turkish-EU relations may experience a new phase of dynamism, similar to that from 2002 to 2005.

    https://jamestown.org/program/european-energy-security-and-nabucco-occupy-a-central-place-in-erdogans-brussels-trip/

  • Where Will Turkish-Israeli Relations Go After Gaza?

    Where Will Turkish-Israeli Relations Go After Gaza?

    Where Will Turkish-Israeli Relations Go After Gaza?

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 11
    January 19, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    As Israel’s only ally in the region, increasingly vocal criticism from Ankara and the streets of Turkey about the operations in Gaza raises questions about the future of Turkish-Israeli relations. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had refused to talk to Israeli leaders before a ceasefire was reached. Nonetheless, in response to growing calls from across the political spectrum for breaking off ties with Israel or imposing sanctions, Erdogan said that this was out of question, stressing that Turkey could not afford the political consequences of such a decision (Anadolu Ajansi, January 17).

    Likewise, on a live TV show Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan ruled out severing diplomatic relations with Israel, because such a populist move would not serve regional stability and would undermine Turkey’s mediation attempts by closing channels of communication. Nonetheless, Babacan confirmed earlier press reports that he had refused to meet Israeli Foreign Minister “Tzipi” Livni, who wanted to visit Ankara. Babacan told Livni on the phone that unless she wanted to discuss conditions for a ceasefire, “it did not make sense to pay a good-intentions visit” (www.ntvmsnbc.com, January 16). Earlier, Babacan had indirectly criticized American support for Israel, by saying, “Israel will continue its operations as long as it gets a green light from some countries” (www.kanaldhaner.com, January 15).

    Erdogan uses every opportunity to express his criticism of Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the silence of the international community. He has addressed large public gatherings, such as party meetings preceding municipal elections, which have been important forums for airing his views on Gaza. During a party congress, for instance, he questioned the silence of the international community over Israel’s disregard of numerous UN Security Council resolutions (www.cnnturk.com, January 16). Similarly, when UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited Ankara on Friday, Erdogan told him that Turkey had expected the UN to be more proactive (Star, January 17).

    Before his departure to Brussels on Sunday, Erdogan called on the Western leaders to demonstrate a resolute attitude toward Israel. Criticizing international efforts to reach a settlement by excluding Hamas from the negotiation table, Erdogan maintained that “Hamas is a party that won elections. The West, which has failed to respect Hamas’s democratic openings, is responsible for the current situation” (Cihan Haber Ajansi, January 18).

    When addressing the representatives of the Turkish community in Brussels, the developments in Gaza and Turkish diplomatic efforts again occupied a central place. Although he found Israel’s unilateral declaration of a ceasefire important, he said that the continuing presence of Israeli forces in Gaza was an issue of concern and asked Israel to give assurances that it would allow uninterrupted humanitarian aid. Referring to Hamas’s decision to halt its military activities, Erdogan maintained that the new situation approximated what he had sought to achieve through his earlier diplomatic initiatives (www.ntvmsnbc.com, January 18).

    Erdogan’s claim of credit for Turkey’s contributions to regional diplomacy is not baseless. Despite its critical tone toward Israel, Ankara has maintained ties with both parties to the conflict, hoping to find a peaceful solution. In addition to its own diplomatic efforts (EDM, January 5), Turkey has supported the Egyptian plan of January 6, which was also backed by France and called for an end to violence first, followed by talks on allowing access into Gaza and ensuring the security of Gaza’s borders.

    In the run up to Sunday’s Sharm el-Sheikh summit, co-hosted by Egypt and France, a Turkish delegation led by Ahmet Davutoglu shuttled between Cairo and Damascus meeting with Hamas leaders in Syria in an effort to mediate between the parties. On Friday, Turkey had offered the parties its own draft agreement for a ceasefire, which Babacan called a “solid offer.” On Saturday the Turkish delegation told reporters that parties were close to a mutual understanding on the terms of a ceasefire. On Sunday Israel and then Hamas declared a ceasefire (Anadolu Ajansi, January 17).

    President Abdullah Gul represented Turkey at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit, which was also attended by leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Germany, Spain, Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic, as well as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Secretaries General of the UN and Arab League. Gul welcomed the conclusions of the summit but asked Israel to pull out from Gaza entirely and to lift the embargo. He also emphasized the need to reach reconciliation between Palestinian factions for a sustainable peace in the region, which Turkey had advocated since the beginning of the crisis (Hurriyet, January 19).

    Although following the summit the European leaders went to Israel to a dinner hosted by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Gul returned to Ankara. Turkish reporters speculated that Gul had not been on the invitation list and interpreted this as Israel’s grave disrespect toward Turkey (www.stargundem.com, January 18). Gul, however, dismissed these claims and maintained that the European leaders went to Israel to discuss the details of an earlier deal between Israel and the United States, which would regulate American involvement in monitoring the border crossings between Gaza and Egypt (www.ntvmsnbc.com.tr, January 18).

    Since the beginning of the crisis, Turkey has said that it was ready to send troops to the region as part of an international force to monitor either a ceasefire or patrol the border between Gaza and Egypt in order to allay Israel’s concerns about weapons smuggling. Gul told reporters that there had been no decision to for such an international force in Sharm el-Sheikh. As a matter of fact, specific arrangements for monitoring weapons traffic remained unresolved at the summit, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy pledging that the European leaders would provide Egypt and Israel with the necessary technical, military, and naval assistance.

    Gul also emphasized that Turkish-Israeli relations would continue, although Turkey would not hesitate to criticize Israel’s blatant human rights violations, which outraged the entire Turkish population. He maintained that such misguided policies were the greatest threat to Israel’s own security and noted that the Palestinian problem was the source of many problems throughout the world. He asked the incoming Obama administration to contribute to the peace process, noting that “the just and determined involvement of the United States will go a long way toward a long-term resolution of the problem” (ANKA, January 18).

    Turkey’s policy toward the Israeli invasion of Gaza continues to reverberate in its external relations. Whereas Erdogan is praised by people in Muslim countries (EDM, January 15), Ankara is criticized by Western observers who view the recent developments as potentially damaging to Turkey’s relations with the West. According to Dr. Ian Lesser, Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, although Turkey’s initiatives are worthy of praise, by departing from “the transatlantic consensus on how to deal with Hamas,” Turkey “loses credibility as an interlocutor” (Hurriyet Daily News, January 18).

    https://jamestown.org/program/where-will-turkish-israeli-relations-go-after-gaza/

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Turkey: Officials Persuade Hamas To Announce Cease-Fire
    January 19, 2009Turkish officials said on Jan. 19 that they have persuaded Hamas to announce a cease-fire