Friday, December 5, 2008
Most people with any sense have known for years that the Fed Govt's price inflation numbers couldn't possibly be correct. They are always lower than actual price inflation numbers. This has been going on for over two decades, at least. The DC crowd lives in its own little world, where up is down, and down is up.
A couple of years ago I conducted my own little micro-study of price inflation at the grocery store. After shopping one day, I wrote down all the items purchased, their brand names, sizes, and prices...a wide variety of everyday items, from breakfast cereal to dog food to paper towels to paper clips to canned peaches to frozen dinners to bananas to Scotch tape, and on & on. One year later, I went back to the same store and bought the same items. The overall price increase was 10.7%; for the period of time involved, the Fed Govt claimed that price inflation was at 2.3%.
Now, admittedly (and obviously), my little experiment didn't cover all sectors of the economy. But still, it was clear to me that something was amiss with the government's estimate of price inflation. [Naturally, it is in the Administration's best interest to keep the number as low as possible...by hook or crook.]
I don't think that Jubak's main point in the article actually is news to a lot of people, but he does a great job of explaining how the government pulls off such fakery. Kudos to Jubak!
Monday, December 1, 2008
I'm sure that's likely, but let's consider another possibility as well. In my opinion, the relaxation of lending rules (which began with Bill Clinton's Administration) was brought about precisely in the hopes of creating a fiasco...so that the Fed Govt could launch a massive intrusion into the marketplace and expand its activities in the private sector. Which has happened. Can I prove that the goal was to create a fiasco? Of course not; it's just an opinion...a possibility. Basically, it's just a hunch. But it does fit right in with the tendency of NeoCons in government to expand the reach of government, and with their proclivity to utilize Machiavellian methods.
Google "Neo-Conned", by Ron Paul.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
There's something wrong with DST, other than the fact that most of the world does not utilize it, so why do we? It's backwards.
If we're going to use it, then use it in the Winter; that's when we need it. Depending upon your location's latitude, it can get dark as early as 4:30 PM in the dead of Winter. We don't need it in the Summer. There really is no need to have it stay light until 10 PM.
Supposedly it saves energy. I don't see how: perhaps we use less electricity for lighting, but we use more gasoline in many cases.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Republican Party is dead; the Democrat Party is dead. Long live the ruling Republi-crat Party, the shill of the Corporatocracy. The coming months and years will benefit only the super-rich, no matter who wins on Nov. 4th. The entire political process at the national level is a farce. Crony Capitalism (not genuine Capitalism) now rules this country---the CEOs of mega multi-national companies have partnered up with Government and pulled off the biggest heist in the history of Mankind...the bailout. It is Cronyism beyond compare. Uncle TOM (Tired Old Media) makes it all possible by feeding the American voters the biggest line of crap ever concocted.
I fear for the future of our children. The Republic of the United States of America is gone.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Ah, yes, the big crisis...requiring the Fed Govt, the Fed Reserve, and central banks in other countries to intervene in the marketplace. Central banks are ordering more cash (that doesn't exist), governments are printing it up (from thin air), and why? So it can be loaned out, thus enabling the banks to earn more interest.
The result will be: inflation of prices of goods and services in the marketplace.
According to the late Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize winner in Economics), the cause of inflation is strictly monetary. Higher prices do not cause inflation, they are a reflection of it. The cause of inflation (of prices) is the inflation of the money supply. The reason is because when the money supply is increased, the value of each unit (e.g., the dollar) goes down; it then takes more units to buy the same item as compared to before the increase in the money supply. A simple way to understand it is: if beaches were made of grains of gold instead of grains of sand, how much would an ounce of gold be worth? [Not much.] In other words, if gold were plentiful, the value of each ounce would be a lot less as compared to when it was not plentiful. Whenever the number of most anything is increased, the value of each unit decreases.
Will the super-rich be hurt by this forthcoming inflation of prices? Not really...not compared to the effect on the rest of us. Bankers, in particular, will just get richer. They now have a lot more nonexistent money to loan out at interest.
So, let's recap. Central banks (like the Fed Reserve) are ordering up nonexistent money from Government printing houses. Governments virtually are giving the money to the banks (they pay something like fifty cents for a $100-bill), so the banks can loan it out at interest. The resulting increase in the money supply causes the value of each dollar to go down, thus there is a de facto rise in prices of consumer goods and services. The super-rich don't mind because they're...well, super-rich. Besides, they sell (on a massive scale) the goods and services that will increase in price. The banks will make more loans and garner more interest. The rest of us suffer.
The Government and the Fed Reserve have resolved another crisis! Yippeekiiyay!
Isn't it obvious by now what's going on...and what part Uncle TOM (Tired Old Media) plays?
Friday, September 26, 2008
"Government seizes WaMu, sells some assets
Largest bank failure in U.S. history; JPMorgan buys $1.9 billion in assets"
JP Morgan [Chase], a major member of the Corporatocracy, has taken another step in its bid to become the world's most powerful bank. Prediction: it will be, if not the biggest, one of the biggest promoters of the move to a cashless society---digital money. Many people think, oh, that will be convenient; they don't stop to consider the dangers. No transaction (unless it's barter) will be private. The Government will have TOTAL access to your "money". Computer errors will be a nightmare. Your digital chip will not be in your control...e.g., if you're in a dispute with the IRS, your chip could just be turned off. [Yes, presently they can freeze your bank account; but some people now have cash squirreled away in safe deposit boxes, or home safes. That would no longer be an option in a cashless society.]
According to the late and eminent historian, Professor Carroll Quigley (Harvard and Georgetown University), the influential and respected Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is a front for the JP Morgan Company. JP Morgan, also according to Quigley, is the Head of the Round Table Group in the United States. [A different bank is the Head of that Group in the UK.] The Round Table Group (again, according to Quigley), has as its primary purpose the establishment of a world government run by CEOs of multi-national companies. The goal of that unelected government is complete control of world economics and finance. That tends to explain JP Morgan's connection (if Quigley's research is accurate) to the CFR. The CFR is highly influential regarding actions of the World Bank, the acquisition and distribution of U.S. foreign aid, and loans to foreign governments.
All of the above, in my opinion, are incentives to ordinary folks to start accumulating something like silver. No matter what the Government designates as "money", be it paper subject to inflation or "digits", I imagine that many (probably most) businesses would still accept silver or silver certificates in transactions. So if your "chip" is turned off, or if there's a computer error saying you have no digits left, at least you'd still be able to buy groceries, gas, etc. for the period of time it takes to correct the problem.
Just a few thoughts from an old hermit.
Friday, August 22, 2008
I doubt seriously that most Republicans and most Democrats have read either of the books cited above...and if the authors are correct (personally, I believe they are), that means that the majority of voters in this country are completely unaware of the fact that it matters very little who gets elected in this country. The Corporatocracy controls 99% of our politicians. The unelected elitists who actually run things think way above concepts such as Repub v. Dem or Conservative v. Liberal. Those are Machiavellian tools used to control and placate the masses (Quigley's "little people"). And it works like a charm.
In the early '90s, David Rockefeller (a self-admitted member of the Corporatocracy) publicly disclosed all that I described above. He said that people were now sophisticated enough to understand the value of a world government run by corporatists...which is the goal of the Roundtable Group (or, Corporatocracy). The world government he envisions has nothing to do with the U.N., but would: 1) be for the good of the people (of course, sure, you bet); 2) would be run by unelected CEOs of multi-national companies; and, 3) would still retain the facade of individual countries and governments.
You may still have faith in the American system, but if Rockefeller, Quigley, and Perkins are correct (and I believe they are), then the American system no longer exists...it only appears to exist. Meanwhile, American voters are distracted by red herrings such as the battle of the Repubs v. the Dems, and the philosophical struggle of the Conservatives v. the Liberals.
I lay all this out not because I'm trying to convince you of its veracity, but rather because it explains why---after 52 years of being a keen observer of American politics---I'm no longer interested in American politics. [I say, "52 years" because my interest began with Mr. Benson's American Govt class in 1956. I proudly wore my "I Like Ike" button. :) ] The whole thing is a charade; the good news is that the charade is becoming more and more obvious.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Following are a few of the (paraphrased) statements by participating judges, lawyers, and law professors.
1. What people think happens in a court of criminal law does not even remotely resemble what actually does happen.
2. About 95% of felony convictions are obtained by plea bargains, regardless of guilt or innocence. Without this greasing of the wheels, the entire system would collapse. [Detailed examples are shown of individuals who basically were coerced into accepting pleas, even though they believed themselves to be innocent. What happens to some who don't accept a plea also is shown.]
3. The court system is a money-generating enterprise. [People who plea out wind up paying court costs, fines, probation fees, and more---even if the case is dismissed later---in the case of multiple defendants.]
This is well worth the watch.
Friday, April 4, 2008
As the U.S. becomes more unsustainable politically, environmentally, and economically, and as it moves closer to the almost complete destruction of unalienable individual rights, more and more people may come to realize that peaceful secession indeed is a viable option.There is nothing whatsoever unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, or unethical about peaceful secession. In fact, obviously it is a very American concept.
Friday, March 28, 2008
I just finished watching the DVD movie, "Rendition"---well acted, well directed, thought-provoking, and a nice little twist to it. Of course, it was Hollywood fiction; however, there was a very interesting documentary in the "Special Features" section. The documentary detailed the cases of two Muslims, one a British citizen and one a German citizen. Devastating stories---both were kidnapped, flown to several overseas prisons (one after the other), and tortured---both physically and mentally. The German was finally released (after many months) in the middle of nowhere, in the dark of night, on foot. After about eighteen months, the Brit was sent to Gitmo where he still has not had a trial.
The longer fictional movie and the short documentary caused me to wonder what has happened to the ethics of ordinary citizens in all countries and the rule of law in general in this country... that we ordinary people allow our governments to kidnap and torture people (whether guilty or not) with barely a peep of protest.
ER is the forceful kidnapping and torture of SUSPECTS, without any regard to the rule of law. One can claim, and many do, that it is necessary for various reasons...and that it saves lives. In other words, a good end justifies the most foul means. That should never be the case, because if we make it so, then the rule of law is meaningless AND there is no end to the use of foul means. A truly civilized society would no longer exist.
Apparently we citizens of the U.S. allow the CIA to conduct ER for one (or more) of the following reasons:
1. we think it is necessary [thus implicitly agreeing that a good end justifies foul means, and that the rule of law sometimes needs to be set aside];
2. we think the victims of ER are guilty...of something...and so kidnapping and torture are justified [never mind that the victims have not been proven guilty in a court of law];
3. it isn't us being kidnapped, so we let it slide [and we cling to the belief that it could never happen to us...unless, of course, a genuine terrorist MISDIALS our phone number...or we know someone who knows someone else who knows still someone else who is a suspect];
4. we believe that there is little or nothing we can do to stop the practice [apparently disregarding the cases where massive protests and boycotts have in fact changed government policy].
5. [there is some other reason of which I am unaware].
Have we lost our minds? This country once stood foursquare against things that we (or more accurately, members of our govt) now do with little or no regret. If we do not have the rule of law, due process, and the guarantee of our day in court, then we truly have very little.
ER is an outrageous affront to a free society. We should be protesting en masse in the streets in every major city in the country. We should be on general strike...we should be shutting down the Fed Govt through boycotts. We should be standing up for the rule of law.
Instead, we let it pass. After all, we have jobs, families, lives to live. Sure, some of us send protest emails, or write letters to the editor, etc. That'll get 'em to stop. Or, we just don't care---it's not important to US as individuals.
[I think I know how McCain & Clinton feel about ER. I wonder how Obama feels about it?]
I find all this incredible. "God" help our children and grandchildren.
Just my opinion.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The biggest problem I see for secession is that the first State or region to accomplish it most likely will be overwhelmed with immigrants from the remaining U.S. :)
"Of course, Lincoln’s government acted as if secession were illegal and unconstitutional, and its victory established the practical case that states will be punished if they try to secede, and the Constitution is irrelevant. It did not establish a legal case, however, and the legal (not to mention moral) argument for the right to secede remains strong—so strong that, even if it were denied in the U.S. courts, it would likely be defended in the court of international opinion by many of the world’s nations, including those in the European Union and those that have recently exercised that right (in the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia, for example). And that might make it difficult for the federal government to act against a state that has voted for secession, particularly if there were no overriding moral issues (e.g., slavery) and the state proved agreeable to negotiation over federal property and assets within its boundaries...
"The first question is whether secession is legal—whether the Constitution can be read, and history cited, as permitting (or at least not forbidding) a state to declare its independence from the Union. Scholars have come down on both sides of this issue, but that fact alone suggests that there is a legitimate argument to be made. To put it simply: The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the United States to the states or the people, so states may act unless specifically prohibited. The Constitution in fact says nothing about secession, and, as Southern states were seceding, Congress considered an amendment forbidding secession—a strong indication that secession is permissible. Three of the original thirteen states (Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia) kept an explicit right to secede when they joined the Union, and, since that was never challenged or questioned, it must be a right that all states enjoy. In the 19th century, before South Carolina began the bandwagon of secession in 1860, seven states (Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Georgia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Vermont) enacted acts of nullification—refusing to recognize some or all of the powers of the federal government—without any retaliation by Washington...
This country simply is not working right—as both the war in Iraq and the bumbling of Katrina (at all levels) make clear—and its corruption and inefficiency are harmful to the bulk of the population. The federal government, aside from being bureaucracy bound and politically hamstrung, is too big and complicated and inherently incompetent, and its attempt to provide for 280 million [now 300 million] people and maintain a global empire of 725 military bases has proved to be impossible, placing terrible political and financial burdens on everyone. Secession would allow states to escape this Leviathan, keep their human and financial resources from going down the rathole, avoid association with the failed politics of an ugly empire, and set their own policies (on same-sex “marriage,” abortion, stem-cell research, etc.) without interference from a distant central government increasingly in the hands of corporate interests and neoconservative ideologues. It would allow a blue state a chance to escape from the policies and culture of a red-state government and set its own course. It would, in short, allow people to leave the country they dislike without leaving the homes they cherish. What could make more sense?"
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Please explore the above website.
"Here’s how it will be with Vermont: The leaders of its secessionist movement, the Second Vermont Republic, want to feed, shelter, clothe, and fuel a free republic broken from the empire. This doesn’t mean the little country will sink into Albanian isolation, its citizens ceasing to trade with China or refusing to watch the rot beamed on DirecTV satellites. It will continue to be a tourist destination, its slopes welcoming New Yorkers and Quebecois equally. But the state's secesh want to keep their tax dollars at home and put them toward localized food economies (calling it "food sovereignty"), energy supplies based on wind and water, and credit lines out of community lenders freed from the distant tyrannical rate controls of central banks."
Amen to that.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
1. We no longer have a truly representative government. Anyone who thinks we still do simply is not facing reality.
2. In the last 232 years, the U.S. has become so large and diverse that common individuals no longer are represented in DC. Our central government has evolved into an unwieldy, wasteful, bumbling, out-of-touch monster...with an insatiable appetite.
3. Thanks to both the Democrats and Republicans, the central government essentially has merged with super-giant corporations, creating a Federal Establishment of the money, by the money, and for the money.
4. The sheer size of our population (and its diversity) and our land mass virtually necessitate the implementation of a near-Police-State in order to control the People.
5. The American Empire (created by Globalists of both major political parties) no longer does what is best for this country, but rather does what is best for the multi-national corporations.
6. The professional politicians and the bureaucrats in DC have a one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with individual States and regions of the country.
Secession is nowhere prohibited by the U.S Constitution. As a matter of fact, the original nation-States of New York and Virginia would not ratify the Constitution until their delegates were given assurances that withdrawal from the Union was allowed.
The secessionist movement in general in this country has been around for decades. Some of the better known individual movements are: the State of Jefferson (northern California and SW Oregon), the modern-day Republic of Texas, Cascadia, Aztlan, Vermont, California, South Carolina, and the Republic of Lakotah. Vermont has a very active secessionist movement ongoing, with about 66,000 people involved.
Let's keep in mind that being under a government is voluntary; also, our central government does not own the People or the land of this country. If some wish to form their own government, they should be permitted to do so. Did our Founders fight a War of Independence...or a War of Dependence?
Here's an excellent source regarding the philosophy, history, and current state of secession: http://www.middleburyinstitute.org/ .
An excellent commentary on secession:
Trailer of the film, A State of Mine:
The Republic of Lakotah:
Smaller, more regional is better.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Not that I want him to, but the Bomb-Bomb-Iran Man has a good chance of winning the Presidency. Here's why---
2. The Dems talked big prior to last Nov, got elected, and did very little. Plus, they could have stopped the war funding by not proposing ANY funding bill. (There was enough $$$ in the pipeline to bring the troops home safely and quickly.) Many people have not forgotten that. The Dems appear to be big talkers, not big doers. I won't even mention the failure to ________ Bush.
3. Believe it or not, many people think 100-More-Years-in-Iraq McCain is a Moderate. (Yes, unfortunately it's true...that's what they think.)
4. Hillary is despised by a huge number of voters.
5. This is still a racist country...to some degree or another.
6. Some people PREFER a President of one Party and a Congress of the other Party.
7. Illegal immigration is a HUGE issue. McCain isn't much tougher on it than the Dems, but he is a bit.
8. Some Evangelicals are fed up with the GOP, but most would prefer any Repub to any Dem.
9. The Machiavellian use of FEAR is a powerful tool, especially in a country where voters apparently have trouble reasoning.
Prediction: the election will be no cake walk for the Dems.
They should have been promoting Ron Paul behind the scenes. Then they would be guaranteed a victory, given the tastes of 90% of the American electorate.
Monday, February 18, 2008
1. The Constitution had a very nefarious beginning...the original purpose of the meeting was to AMEND the Articles of Confederation, but some of the attendees launched (in secret) a plan to dump the Articles entirely.
2. It was written only for Caucasian males---no one else was considered a full citizen. It took women over a hundred years to get the right to vote. (Actually, they had it all along, but no one enforced it. It is, after all, an unalienable right to participate in the choosing of who governs you, and is not dependent on any government grant.)
3. It is not anywhere nearly as important a philosophical document as is the Declaration of Independence.
4. It assumed that because Supreme Court judges were appointed for life, they would not be politically influenced. That was a major fatal flaw.
5. It contains several minor flaws, such as not defining "General Welfare", and not placing term limits on members of Congress (it never occurred to the Founders that anyone would want to make a CAREER out of political office), and having no penalty on Congress for failing to call an Article V Convention when enough States request it. And there are others.
6. It failed to make crystal clear the fact that secession is allowed. As I've pointed out before, New York and Virginia would not ratify the Constitution until they were given assurances that withdrawal from the Union was allowed.
I really believe we would be better off with a loose confederation of nation-States under the Articles, a model somewhat similar to what Europe is today. All that was needed were amendments for: a common standard for money; some inter-State commerce rules; and taxes for "national" (Confederation) defense. With the Constitution, they tried hard to make a nation where States' rights were more important than the central government, but they largely failed. So today we have a "one-size-fits-all" approach by the plutocracy in DC, which is imposed on the States whether they like it or not. And of course, it is the States who are the People, NOT DC.
I hate to say it, but I believe that the Founders failed in accomplishing what they set out to do...to establish a free society. I stay here because I love the land, and because I've seen nothing better anywhere else. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that this is not the society that our Founders envisioned when they declared independence.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Months ago, I issued a call (on another forum) to all in the Liberty Movement. This piece is a restatement of that call. We cannot change the corrupt system from within that system; at least, history shows us that has not been done in (at a minimum) the last fifty or so years. Something new is needed. The answer does not seem to be a third party because the two-party dictatorship and Uncle TOM (Tired Old Media) have pretty well seen to it that such an approach does not stand a chance of success.
In my opinion, the first thing we need is a place to meet, organize, discuss, identify and plan for the implementation of action items. A website appears to be the only practical solution. Some person, or some group, needs to step up to the plate and provide this first step. I'd do it myself, but I'm basically dirt poor and a techno-idiot. Free websites will not do because they don't have enough bells and whistles for the task at hand.
Once we have a website, then what? We need to discuss and decide on a plan of action. Personally, I favor boycotts that are planned, coordinated, timed, and implemented on a national scale...and that can be done individually and wherever a person is located. But if someone has a better idea, I'm all ears. The only thing I wouldn't consider is armed revolt. That's a very bad idea that would be doomed to failure and would set this Movement back by decades. We also need to advertise both our website and our goals far and wide. So, again, we need a sponsor with a little money to spend.
At present the Liberty Movement is composed of a variety of subset groups and websites that do not act in a coordinated manner. This has to change if we are to restore our beloved Republic. Again, I stress that such restoration is not going to be accomplished from within the Establishment system. We have to start thinking out of the box; moreover, I believe that we have to start thinking about coordinated, timed civil disobedience.
Something else that could be done along the same lines is to form our own online government, if for no other reason as a visible protest and a visible alternative to the Corporatocracy. Something has to be done. I fear for my son's future, and he's almost thirty-two years old. And so I issue this call, this plea to those who understand and love Liberty---someone, or some group, step up and let's get things rolling.
Comments? Suggestions? Anyone?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
There is no excuse for this travesty---none whatsoever. Elections in this country have become a total joke, what with easily hackable touch-screen voting machines & optical scanners [with viruses that leave no trace & self-destruct] plus the world's shabbiest chain of custody procedures.
It's beyond belief.
Monday, January 28, 2008
"Make it a hundred years...500 years."
"I'm going to bring you more wars, my friends."
This guy is appealing (with crazy talk) to MAYBE 20% of the electorate...and turning off the other 80% or so. What a strategy.
Since many Republicans viewed the Swift Boat attacks against Kerry as legitimate (I'm not saying they were or weren't), maybe they'll also appreciate these---for which I have no opinion as to legitimacy---
Sunday, January 20, 2008
On top of that, did you notice the amount of coverage given to the second place winner in the Republican race in Nevada? Was there any coverage? The marginalizing of Ron Paul continues. In every other race thus far, the second place (and often the third place) winner either has been interviewed or, at least, discussed by the pundits. There hardly was any mention of even Paul's name.
The Corporate Media are busy molding public opinion, convincing people that at this early stage in the Presidential race certain candidates simply are not viable. Keep in mind that some time ago TOM essentially had written off John McCain as being out of the running. Now the Media are busy promoting certain candidates, while at the same time declaring that the Dem and Repub races are "wide open".
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
There appear to be serious problems with the primary election in New Hampshire.
We all should give serious consideration to this:
All of the above may not prove anything definitively, but do raise questions. Are elections being stolen? Is using the hackable, easily corrupted Diebold voting machine or optical scanner a wise idea?
Friday, January 11, 2008
I urge people to watch at least Parts 5, 6, & 7 of this revealing piece (each segment is less than 10 minutes long). Actual interrogation tapes of the suspects are shown, demonstrating the desperation of the FBI to make a case after having paid an informant about $250,000 dollars.
These are examples of how NOT to conduct an interrogation. I say that because I personally knew Professor Fred Inbau, the man most responsible for developing techniques for modern criminal interrogations...and because the ex-FBI consultant in the piece confirms my belief.
This is pretty scary---it demonstrates with painful clarity what can happen when the Fed Govt thinks you're guilty, and you don't exercise your right to an attorney before questioning. As the ex-FBI consultant stated, "It's shameful.".