http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atIjykihkc
If the stats in the above video are correct, then that's one more reason to pressure Congress to call an Article V Constitutional Convention. [See http://foavc.org/ ]
Currently only the President has to be a natural-born citizen in order to hold elective office. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment should be proposed that requires ALL national politicians to be natural-born, as well as their ancestors (going back, say, 100 years or so). "Unfair", some would say. Really? I guess that means the current requirement for the office of President is unfair as well, eh?
Without that Amendment, it would appear that we easily could have a national government run by Muslims in only several decades or so. Is that bad? Well, it seems to me that it might be...especially given the fact that our government has been converted illegally into a Democracy, as opposed to what it is supposed to be---a Constitutional Republic.
That conversion has been accomplished by means of Legislative Absolutism, a term coined by Supreme Court Justice Harlan in the early 1900s. In a Democracy, where the majority is almighty, almost any law can be put into effect...regardless of the negative impact on individual Rights. In a Constitutional Republic, individual Rights are paramount and the national government is one of enumerated powers---the government can do only what is listed in the Constitution. In other words, Congress cannot pass any law it wishes simply because a majority desires it.
Over the past several decades in my life, I've come across many people who believe sincerely that our government legally can pass any law it wishes, dealing with any subject, as long as a majority favors said law. That simply is not true. It can be (and has been) done illegally, but not legally. Our Constitution strictly limits the areas in which the government can delve; but those limitations have been ignored by Congress (both Democrats and Republicans) for many, many years. For example, nowhere in the Constitution is the central government given the authority to have anything whatsoever to do with education. That matter was reserved (by the Tenth Amendment) to the States or to the People. No Constitutional Amendment has been ratified that gives the Fed Government such authority or power.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The Rarely-Mentioned-War
The United States has close to 1,000 military personnel and around 500 private contractors in the South American country of Colombia. That country has experienced civil conflict to one degree or another for about forty to fifty years. Officially we're there as "advisors" to train the Colombian military and police in tactics useful in the so-called Drug War...because drugs (cocaine) and kidnappings largely are responsible for financing the FARC, the "Revolutionary Front". It probably occurs to most educated people that we're most likely there for other reasons as well---oil supply springs to mind, as does destabilizing Chavez in Venezuela, Colombia's neighbor.
It will be interesting to see if our policy regarding Colombia ever follows the way of our military involvement in Vietnam, where we started out with non-combat "advisors". In addition to advisors, we've provided Colombia (thus far) with billions of dollars, some of that in the form of helicopters, weapons, ammunition, and massive amounts of defoliants (to eradicate coca fields)...similar to what we did in 'Nam. I'm not suggesting that Colombia WILL become another Vietnam for the U.S., merely reminding people that anything is possible, especially when Government is the Master (not the servant).
Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard (Google it) is not only in the Middle East and Central Asia; it is all around the world.
It will be interesting to see if our policy regarding Colombia ever follows the way of our military involvement in Vietnam, where we started out with non-combat "advisors". In addition to advisors, we've provided Colombia (thus far) with billions of dollars, some of that in the form of helicopters, weapons, ammunition, and massive amounts of defoliants (to eradicate coca fields)...similar to what we did in 'Nam. I'm not suggesting that Colombia WILL become another Vietnam for the U.S., merely reminding people that anything is possible, especially when Government is the Master (not the servant).
Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard (Google it) is not only in the Middle East and Central Asia; it is all around the world.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Health Care: A Simple Question
If the Health Care proposal passed by the House is so wonderful, why are the members of both Houses of Congress exempt from its provisions? Or, put another way, why do those who voted for the House Bill believe that they should be exempt from being forced to pay a tax for health care?
If all Americans are going to be forced to cough up money for this measure, then let's be sure to include those who initiated the idea in the first place. They seem to think that they're above the law. But then, why am I surprised--- most elected folks in the central government appear to think that way.
If all Americans are going to be forced to cough up money for this measure, then let's be sure to include those who initiated the idea in the first place. They seem to think that they're above the law. But then, why am I surprised--- most elected folks in the central government appear to think that way.
Friday, October 30, 2009
More of the Same from DC
My sources for this piece are: the previously cited PBS Frontline documentaries The Warning, Breaking the Bank, and Inside the Meltdown; also, a syndicated article by David Sirota, TARP on Steroids.
When Brooksley Born, the woman who formerly headed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under Clinton, proposed regulating the then obscure market of Over-the-Counter Derivatives, she essentially was shut down by Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and others in a series of private meetings and Congressional Hearings. [See The Warning.] A decade or so later, the "toxic" OTC Derivatives played a major role in the recent financial meltdown. Ms. Born, who was ridiculed in the late '90s, was vindicated in 2008-2009. Alan Greenspan, the wizard who seemingly could do no economic wrong, finally had to admit that he was totally wrong in constantly pushing for zero regulation of the Wall Street bankers. Arthur Levitt, former head of the SEC, has admitted publicly that he was wrong about Brooksley Born...and has praised her profusely. He is no longer a power in DC.
What about Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, the financial/economic titans who castigated Born during the Clinton days while relentlessly pushing for zero constraints on the Wall Street Bandits during the Clinton and Bush years...what happened to them? As you may know, they have top economic/financial posts in the Obama Administration. Prior to that, along with Hank Paulson, they were the main architects of the now infamous bank bailouts---one of the greatest heists in modern history. Geithner is now the Treasury Secretary, and Summers is again a top economic advisor to the President of the United States. WOW! What punishment for being so wrong in the past. They are still in positions where they can funnel money to their former Wall Street cronies.
Funny I should mention that. Currently there's a legislative bill known as the Financial Stability Improvement Act. Basically, it's another TARP-in-the-making (Troubled Assets Relief Program), or as Representative Brad Sherman calls it, "TARP on steroids". The bill is being pushed hard by the Obama Administration, especially by Summers and Geithner. More bailouts for Fat-Cats are coming, while the average citizen continues to be gouged by banks because those banks are rushing to beat the regulations taking effect in February. Most people with credit cards (including me) have noticed that their interest rates have skyrocketed up for no good reason.
So it would appear that there is not much "change" from the Bush years regarding OTC Derivatives (still unregulated) and the bailing out of the big, elite bankers (who contribute about equally to Repub and Dem election campaigns). Why am I not surprised.
What does surprise me, though, is the amount of chicanery that we tolerate from national politicians. Here's a thought: in the next election, vote out ALL INCUMBENTS. If things don't improve after that, then in the following election, vote out ALL INCUMBENTS. Etc. How much do we have to take before we see the need for an entirely clean slate? Someone please tell me.
When Brooksley Born, the woman who formerly headed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under Clinton, proposed regulating the then obscure market of Over-the-Counter Derivatives, she essentially was shut down by Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and others in a series of private meetings and Congressional Hearings. [See The Warning.] A decade or so later, the "toxic" OTC Derivatives played a major role in the recent financial meltdown. Ms. Born, who was ridiculed in the late '90s, was vindicated in 2008-2009. Alan Greenspan, the wizard who seemingly could do no economic wrong, finally had to admit that he was totally wrong in constantly pushing for zero regulation of the Wall Street bankers. Arthur Levitt, former head of the SEC, has admitted publicly that he was wrong about Brooksley Born...and has praised her profusely. He is no longer a power in DC.
What about Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, the financial/economic titans who castigated Born during the Clinton days while relentlessly pushing for zero constraints on the Wall Street Bandits during the Clinton and Bush years...what happened to them? As you may know, they have top economic/financial posts in the Obama Administration. Prior to that, along with Hank Paulson, they were the main architects of the now infamous bank bailouts---one of the greatest heists in modern history. Geithner is now the Treasury Secretary, and Summers is again a top economic advisor to the President of the United States. WOW! What punishment for being so wrong in the past. They are still in positions where they can funnel money to their former Wall Street cronies.
Funny I should mention that. Currently there's a legislative bill known as the Financial Stability Improvement Act. Basically, it's another TARP-in-the-making (Troubled Assets Relief Program), or as Representative Brad Sherman calls it, "TARP on steroids". The bill is being pushed hard by the Obama Administration, especially by Summers and Geithner. More bailouts for Fat-Cats are coming, while the average citizen continues to be gouged by banks because those banks are rushing to beat the regulations taking effect in February. Most people with credit cards (including me) have noticed that their interest rates have skyrocketed up for no good reason.
So it would appear that there is not much "change" from the Bush years regarding OTC Derivatives (still unregulated) and the bailing out of the big, elite bankers (who contribute about equally to Repub and Dem election campaigns). Why am I not surprised.
What does surprise me, though, is the amount of chicanery that we tolerate from national politicians. Here's a thought: in the next election, vote out ALL INCUMBENTS. If things don't improve after that, then in the following election, vote out ALL INCUMBENTS. Etc. How much do we have to take before we see the need for an entirely clean slate? Someone please tell me.
Monday, October 12, 2009
"A Fool's Game for the Masses"
It's really gratifying to see that I'm not the only one who writes about the two major political parties in this country being a fraud:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=3596
I couldn't have said it better.
So, some ask, what's to be done? There are those who advocate the violent overthrow of the central government. We have that Right under the conditions expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and those conditions seem to exist presently (and for quite a number of years). I am NOT suggesting that course of action, for the simple reason that most likely it would not succeed. Peaceful revolution is a much better option.
Elsewhere on this Blog I've encouraged boycott of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, that course is problematic not because it wouldn't succeed, but rather because most likely it will never get started.
Here's another option; this one could materialize AND succeed. Pressure Congress to live up to its duty to call an Article V Convention. More than two-thirds of the State Legislatures have applied for such a Convention, but Congress has ignored its Constitutional mandate to call the Convention. http://foavc.org/
Before you buy into the completely lame excuses for Congress failing to do its duty in that regard, be sure to read this---
http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60
If the above link does not work, go to http://foavc.org/ and click on "F.A.Q", on the left side of the Home page (scroll down).
An Article V Convention seems to me to be the best available first step in bringing about a much needed, peaceful Revolution in this country. The next step would be to launch a blitz ad campaign aimed at our so-called "representatives" in DC, the purpose of which would be to make it clear that certain proposed Amendments (an Article V Convention only can propose Amendments) are the will of We the People...and if they're not ratified, heads will roll (so to speak). Although there is NO same-subject requirement in Article V, well over two-thirds of the State Legislatures already have applied for a Convention in order to propose a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress has ignored their applications.
It's time to force the DC politicos to adhere to the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=3596
I couldn't have said it better.
So, some ask, what's to be done? There are those who advocate the violent overthrow of the central government. We have that Right under the conditions expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and those conditions seem to exist presently (and for quite a number of years). I am NOT suggesting that course of action, for the simple reason that most likely it would not succeed. Peaceful revolution is a much better option.
Elsewhere on this Blog I've encouraged boycott of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, that course is problematic not because it wouldn't succeed, but rather because most likely it will never get started.
Here's another option; this one could materialize AND succeed. Pressure Congress to live up to its duty to call an Article V Convention. More than two-thirds of the State Legislatures have applied for such a Convention, but Congress has ignored its Constitutional mandate to call the Convention. http://foavc.org/
Before you buy into the completely lame excuses for Congress failing to do its duty in that regard, be sure to read this---
http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60
If the above link does not work, go to http://foavc.org/ and click on "F.A.Q", on the left side of the Home page (scroll down).
An Article V Convention seems to me to be the best available first step in bringing about a much needed, peaceful Revolution in this country. The next step would be to launch a blitz ad campaign aimed at our so-called "representatives" in DC, the purpose of which would be to make it clear that certain proposed Amendments (an Article V Convention only can propose Amendments) are the will of We the People...and if they're not ratified, heads will roll (so to speak). Although there is NO same-subject requirement in Article V, well over two-thirds of the State Legislatures already have applied for a Convention in order to propose a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress has ignored their applications.
It's time to force the DC politicos to adhere to the U.S. Constitution.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Devastating National Debt
Our national debt is somewhere in the neighborhood of eleven trillion dollars. During the reign of George W. Bush, the debt almost tripled in size. According to a PBS Frontline piece (Ten Trillion and Counting), under Obama and the Democrats, the national debt will grow at a faster rate than it did under Bush. By the end of this year, it will be almost thirteen trillion dollars.
American voters keep electing politicians---both Democrats and Republicans--- who believe in institutionalized deficit spending. Dick Cheney's view (a direct quote) was: "Deficits don't matter." Medicare Part D (drug coverage), ramrodded through by the Bush Administration and criticized as being a gift to large drug companies, is an "entitlement" law that will cost sixty billion dollars this year alone. Remember the bank bailouts, and their architect, Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson? The price tag on those was close to a trillion dollars, if I recall correctly. [Paulson, by the way, was an elite Wall Street investment banker before he was Treasury Secretary.] Essentially, we now have the nine largest banks in this country nationalized by the Fed Government; that's how Frontline's piece, Inside the Meltdown, characterizes the situation. The largest insurance company in the world, AIG (American International Group), also was nationalized---the Feds own 80% of it. It is intimately connected to banking because AIG writes policies insuring that large investment banks in the U.S. and around the world will not go bankrupt.
Under Obama we have the so-called "Recovery Stimulus Plan". I believe the initial cost is about one trillion dollars. $787 billion already has been added to the national debt. According to the OMB, this year's annual budget deficit will be $1.7 trillion, the largest annual deficit in our history. All of this doesn't even consider the cost of any health care legislation.
By 2017, the total national debt (not the annual deficit) is projected to be $21 trillion. Shortly thereafter, it will reach $23 trillion, and then will be more than the economic output of the entire country. Our largest creditor, China, already has stated that it's concerned about the economic viability of the United States. Every day the Fed Government "sells" its debt---that's government-speak for borrowing money. What happens when no one any longer comes to the "sale"?
Government has over-promised relative to "benefits". Either taxes have to be substantially increased, or promised "benefits" have to be substantially reduced...or both.
American voters keep electing politicians---both Democrats and Republicans--- who believe in institutionalized deficit spending. Dick Cheney's view (a direct quote) was: "Deficits don't matter." Medicare Part D (drug coverage), ramrodded through by the Bush Administration and criticized as being a gift to large drug companies, is an "entitlement" law that will cost sixty billion dollars this year alone. Remember the bank bailouts, and their architect, Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson? The price tag on those was close to a trillion dollars, if I recall correctly. [Paulson, by the way, was an elite Wall Street investment banker before he was Treasury Secretary.] Essentially, we now have the nine largest banks in this country nationalized by the Fed Government; that's how Frontline's piece, Inside the Meltdown, characterizes the situation. The largest insurance company in the world, AIG (American International Group), also was nationalized---the Feds own 80% of it. It is intimately connected to banking because AIG writes policies insuring that large investment banks in the U.S. and around the world will not go bankrupt.
Under Obama we have the so-called "Recovery Stimulus Plan". I believe the initial cost is about one trillion dollars. $787 billion already has been added to the national debt. According to the OMB, this year's annual budget deficit will be $1.7 trillion, the largest annual deficit in our history. All of this doesn't even consider the cost of any health care legislation.
By 2017, the total national debt (not the annual deficit) is projected to be $21 trillion. Shortly thereafter, it will reach $23 trillion, and then will be more than the economic output of the entire country. Our largest creditor, China, already has stated that it's concerned about the economic viability of the United States. Every day the Fed Government "sells" its debt---that's government-speak for borrowing money. What happens when no one any longer comes to the "sale"?
Government has over-promised relative to "benefits". Either taxes have to be substantially increased, or promised "benefits" have to be substantially reduced...or both.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
"Obama's War" in Afghanistan
PBS Frontline has an online video that is a preview of a full piece airing later this month, Obama's War. The preview is gritty, with graphic imagery and graphic language. As I watched it, it became obvious that the similarities between the Vietnam War and the Afghan War are striking.
The Viet Cong (VC) were insurgents. The Taliban are insurgents. Eventually the Vietnam War turned to "winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese". General Petraeus very recently announced his "Full Spectrum Operation", which is focused on doing the same thing relative to the Afghans. The VC largely avoided major frontal engagements with the US military; instead, they utilized sniping, ambushes, land mines, etc. The Taliban are (for the most part) doing the same thing. In Vietnam, General Westmoreland kept calling for more and more troops. The same thing (with a different General) is happening regarding Afghanistan. In Vietnam, the VC terrorized the local villagers; in Afghanistan, the Taliban are doing the same thing. The Vietnam War was long and grueling; the Afghan War is entering its NINTH year. Eventually, public opinion in the USA turned against the Vietnam War. Public opinion is finally beginning to turn against the Afghan War as well. Quite rightly, people are beginning to ask, "What is our purpose there?".
The Generals and other officers interviewed on the Frontline piece stated that our purpose in Afghanistan is now to "protect the People from the Taliban". According to those officers, that is our primary purpose. If that's the case, does anyone see this war ever ending? Another legitimate question would be: what happens when we leave the country? Or better yet, does anyone see us ever leaving Afghanistan? If we did, would not the Taliban (who unquestionably are fanatics) simply continue on in our absence?
It is my belief that the next troop increase will be substantially more than the last increase, and that the increases will continue. Essentially, we will become the Afghan Police Force, with no end in sight. On second thought, apparently we are already the Afghan Police Force.
It is long past time to get out of both Iraq AND Afghanistan. It makes no sense to believe that we can be the Police Force of the world. Even if we wanted to do that, we can't afford it.
The Viet Cong (VC) were insurgents. The Taliban are insurgents. Eventually the Vietnam War turned to "winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese". General Petraeus very recently announced his "Full Spectrum Operation", which is focused on doing the same thing relative to the Afghans. The VC largely avoided major frontal engagements with the US military; instead, they utilized sniping, ambushes, land mines, etc. The Taliban are (for the most part) doing the same thing. In Vietnam, General Westmoreland kept calling for more and more troops. The same thing (with a different General) is happening regarding Afghanistan. In Vietnam, the VC terrorized the local villagers; in Afghanistan, the Taliban are doing the same thing. The Vietnam War was long and grueling; the Afghan War is entering its NINTH year. Eventually, public opinion in the USA turned against the Vietnam War. Public opinion is finally beginning to turn against the Afghan War as well. Quite rightly, people are beginning to ask, "What is our purpose there?".
The Generals and other officers interviewed on the Frontline piece stated that our purpose in Afghanistan is now to "protect the People from the Taliban". According to those officers, that is our primary purpose. If that's the case, does anyone see this war ever ending? Another legitimate question would be: what happens when we leave the country? Or better yet, does anyone see us ever leaving Afghanistan? If we did, would not the Taliban (who unquestionably are fanatics) simply continue on in our absence?
It is my belief that the next troop increase will be substantially more than the last increase, and that the increases will continue. Essentially, we will become the Afghan Police Force, with no end in sight. On second thought, apparently we are already the Afghan Police Force.
It is long past time to get out of both Iraq AND Afghanistan. It makes no sense to believe that we can be the Police Force of the world. Even if we wanted to do that, we can't afford it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
