of individual sovereignty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
The concept seems counterintuitive, but it's the correct thing to do. "I have nothing to hide" will do you no good, and very well may do you some harm...
even if you're totally innocent.
The professor giving the talk is fairly entertaining, so at least try and watch the first ten minutes. You'll enjoy it, and you'll learn one of the basics of sovereignty at the personal level .
Monday, December 28, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Buying Votes
Whether for or against Fed Government involvement in health care, everyone should be outraged by the outright corruption going on in the Senate. I'm speaking, of course, of the so-called "Nebraska Compromise"---a deal in which Nebraska is exempted from paying for increased Medicaid coverage (while the other forty-nine States are not so exempted) in exchange for a Nebraska Senator's favorable vote on the Health Care Bill. Nebraska also gets a new hospital in the deal, a deal the constitutionality of which is highly questionable.
The whole thing is nothing short of buying votes with taxpayer money. The Democrats are so desperate that they no longer even attempt to hide what surely must be both unethical and illegal. [Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of Republicans either.] I'm not positive yet, but I don't believe that the U.S. Constitution permits favoring one State over all the others in such a circumstance.
I suppose that Senators (and others) might say this type of thing is just "politics", and that it goes on all the time. That doesn't make it right, or legal. Some of us think that blaming disembodied, mysterious, uncontrollable forces is simply a poor excuse for bad individual actions.
The whole thing is nothing short of buying votes with taxpayer money. The Democrats are so desperate that they no longer even attempt to hide what surely must be both unethical and illegal. [Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of Republicans either.] I'm not positive yet, but I don't believe that the U.S. Constitution permits favoring one State over all the others in such a circumstance.
I suppose that Senators (and others) might say this type of thing is just "politics", and that it goes on all the time. That doesn't make it right, or legal. Some of us think that blaming disembodied, mysterious, uncontrollable forces is simply a poor excuse for bad individual actions.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The Corporatocracy, Hit Men, & the American Empire
This is old news, but it's applicable to today and well worth reviewing and remembering. It is all detailed in the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004), by John Perkins, who was formerly an economic hit man for the Corporatocracy.
Perkins explains how, when a third world country has resources coveted by mega corporations and/or the Government in the US, those resources are obtained via the following process. If the country with the resources is not cooperative, a series of huge loans to that country is arranged through the World Bank. The money eventually goes to multi-national mega corporations such as Bechtel and Halliburton; they are hired by the country to build ports, industrial plants, roads, etc. When the country is so far in debt that it has little or no possibility of getting out of debt, economic hit men are sent in to strike a deal---for natural resources (such as oil), or favorable votes in the U.N., or agreements for certain other actions. If the economic hit men fail, then the "jackals" (assassins) are sent in, usually from the CIA; if they fail, then the military (as part of a "coalition") is sent in to bring about the desired regime change.
About 1959-1960 a very young, CIA-backed jackal by the name of Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate the President of Iraq, Abdel Qassim. Qassim's major sin was that he was going to nationalize Iraqi oil. At the time, the Iraqi Petroleum Company (IPC) was 95% controlled by the US, Britain, and France. The assassination attempt failed, but Qassim was eliminated anyway not long after that; economic hit men had failed to dissuade him from his plan to nationalize all oil in Iraq, so the CIA orchestrated his demise.
In the early '70s, just after the OPEC oil embargo of the US, economic hit men were sent to the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia to strike the "deal of the century" for the Corporatocracy. President Nixon had taken the US completely off the Gold Standard (because the country was bankrupt) and there was great concern in the Corporatocracy that the world would not accept the US dollar as the globe's reserve currency. In the "deal of the century", the House of Saud agreed to sell its oil for dollars only and to purchase US Treasury Securities; in return the Saudis were guaranteed two very important things--- the Corporatocracy would see to it that they remained in power, and would invest in industry and infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. The economic hit men were successful in swinging the deal.
Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq in 1979. During the '80s, the Corporatocracy decided that they would propose the same deal to Saddam. After all, he was more or less "our man" against the Iranians at that time and was a great purchaser of US arms and munitions. The economic hit men went to Baghdad, but failed to convince Saddam to accept a deal. Jackals were sent in, but failed to assassinate him. The rest is, as they say, history. [He wasn't eliminated during/immediately after the original Gulf War for many reasons, and the explanation of those is too lengthy for this posting.]
The Corporatocracy's interest in Afghanistan began long before the tragedy of 9-11-01. Long story short: Western oil interests needed a pipeline across the country of Afghanistan. Finally, several months prior to our invasion of that country (and prior to 9-11), economic hit men negotiated with the Taliban concerning the proposed oil pipeline. Taliban representatives actually came to the US to negotiate. A deal seemed close, but the whole thing fell through. At that time, according to a French Intelligence analyst by the name of Brisard, CIA representatives told the Taliban representatives, "Either you will accept our carpet of gold [for the pipeline], or we'll give you a carpet of bombs." Then came 9-11; after that came our first invasion of Afghanistan, accompanied by a carpet of bombs. The entire story is detailed in the book, Bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth (2002) by Brisard and DasQuie (both intelligence analysts in France).
If even only a smidgin of all of the above is completely accurate and true, then the implications relative to our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan are obvious and telling.
[Another interesting book (in addition to the two mentioned above) is Robert Baer's See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism (2002).]
Perkins explains how, when a third world country has resources coveted by mega corporations and/or the Government in the US, those resources are obtained via the following process. If the country with the resources is not cooperative, a series of huge loans to that country is arranged through the World Bank. The money eventually goes to multi-national mega corporations such as Bechtel and Halliburton; they are hired by the country to build ports, industrial plants, roads, etc. When the country is so far in debt that it has little or no possibility of getting out of debt, economic hit men are sent in to strike a deal---for natural resources (such as oil), or favorable votes in the U.N., or agreements for certain other actions. If the economic hit men fail, then the "jackals" (assassins) are sent in, usually from the CIA; if they fail, then the military (as part of a "coalition") is sent in to bring about the desired regime change.
About 1959-1960 a very young, CIA-backed jackal by the name of Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate the President of Iraq, Abdel Qassim. Qassim's major sin was that he was going to nationalize Iraqi oil. At the time, the Iraqi Petroleum Company (IPC) was 95% controlled by the US, Britain, and France. The assassination attempt failed, but Qassim was eliminated anyway not long after that; economic hit men had failed to dissuade him from his plan to nationalize all oil in Iraq, so the CIA orchestrated his demise.
In the early '70s, just after the OPEC oil embargo of the US, economic hit men were sent to the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia to strike the "deal of the century" for the Corporatocracy. President Nixon had taken the US completely off the Gold Standard (because the country was bankrupt) and there was great concern in the Corporatocracy that the world would not accept the US dollar as the globe's reserve currency. In the "deal of the century", the House of Saud agreed to sell its oil for dollars only and to purchase US Treasury Securities; in return the Saudis were guaranteed two very important things--- the Corporatocracy would see to it that they remained in power, and would invest in industry and infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. The economic hit men were successful in swinging the deal.
Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq in 1979. During the '80s, the Corporatocracy decided that they would propose the same deal to Saddam. After all, he was more or less "our man" against the Iranians at that time and was a great purchaser of US arms and munitions. The economic hit men went to Baghdad, but failed to convince Saddam to accept a deal. Jackals were sent in, but failed to assassinate him. The rest is, as they say, history. [He wasn't eliminated during/immediately after the original Gulf War for many reasons, and the explanation of those is too lengthy for this posting.]
The Corporatocracy's interest in Afghanistan began long before the tragedy of 9-11-01. Long story short: Western oil interests needed a pipeline across the country of Afghanistan. Finally, several months prior to our invasion of that country (and prior to 9-11), economic hit men negotiated with the Taliban concerning the proposed oil pipeline. Taliban representatives actually came to the US to negotiate. A deal seemed close, but the whole thing fell through. At that time, according to a French Intelligence analyst by the name of Brisard, CIA representatives told the Taliban representatives, "Either you will accept our carpet of gold [for the pipeline], or we'll give you a carpet of bombs." Then came 9-11; after that came our first invasion of Afghanistan, accompanied by a carpet of bombs. The entire story is detailed in the book, Bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth (2002) by Brisard and DasQuie (both intelligence analysts in France).
If even only a smidgin of all of the above is completely accurate and true, then the implications relative to our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan are obvious and telling.
[Another interesting book (in addition to the two mentioned above) is Robert Baer's See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism (2002).]
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Obama's War: Part II
He surely owns it now, doesn't he? The reasoning for expansion of the war is: a "surge" in troops now will allow for a sooner end to combat. Please! Give us a break. How many times have we heard that one? The same reason was given (more than once) during the Vietnam war. The same reason was given during the Iraq war; but we still have about 100,000 troops in that country. The war in Iraq hasn't ended yet.
If you were not listening carefully, you may have gotten the impression that the plan now for Afghanistan is to start pulling out troops during July of 2011...for sure. Wrong! That's not what they said, they being Obama, Gates, Clinton, etc. Some troops may be pulled out in 2011, depending upon various conditions; however, that could change, and it does not portend the end of our involvement in that war.
There is nothing new about this "new" strategy. It's all smoke and mirrors for the benefit of an increasingly disgruntled public. As I watched the news tonight, and listened to Obama, Clinton, and Gates, I was sickened by the hemming and hawing, the contradictory responses to Congress, and the slickster way in which the principals laid the groundwork for an extended war in Afghanistan. National politicians appear to think that they're being professional when they equivocate, being honest when they beat around the bush, and being smart when they display a total lack of common sense.
Who are these people?!
If you were not listening carefully, you may have gotten the impression that the plan now for Afghanistan is to start pulling out troops during July of 2011...for sure. Wrong! That's not what they said, they being Obama, Gates, Clinton, etc. Some troops may be pulled out in 2011, depending upon various conditions; however, that could change, and it does not portend the end of our involvement in that war.
There is nothing new about this "new" strategy. It's all smoke and mirrors for the benefit of an increasingly disgruntled public. As I watched the news tonight, and listened to Obama, Clinton, and Gates, I was sickened by the hemming and hawing, the contradictory responses to Congress, and the slickster way in which the principals laid the groundwork for an extended war in Afghanistan. National politicians appear to think that they're being professional when they equivocate, being honest when they beat around the bush, and being smart when they display a total lack of common sense.
Who are these people?!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Immigration, Reproduction, & the Constitution
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.
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.
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://blog.independent.org/2009/10/12/partisan-politics-%e2%80%93-a-fools-game-for-the-masses/
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://blog.independent.org/2009/10/12/partisan-politics-%e2%80%93-a-fools-game-for-the-masses/
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.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Big, Meaningless Squabble
As a Libertarian, it is often amusing to watch "Conservatives" & "Liberals" squabble. It's so meaningless---there's almost nothing left of the Republic of the United States to squabble about. It has been taken from us while well-intentioned folks argue over which side of an obsolete political spectrum is best for the country. And it has been taken from us by people who think way beyond those outdated labels---Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat.
I've mostly given up hope that Americans who believe in the Republic will ever get out of the purposefully distracting Conservative-Liberal rut. Until they do so, there is no chance whatsoever for this country to once again be a free society...the way our liberal Founders intended it to be.
Machiavelli (whose works are greatly admired by Ledeen, Pearl, Feith, & other once prominent NeoConservative strategists), Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Goebbels, and other Totalitarians all had a formula for the State being able to control the masses: give the People an Enemy (Capitalism, Communism, Hunger, Terrorism, Lack of Health Care, etc.), promote fear of that Enemy, and then take away unalienable rights in the name of Protection and Safety. Both modern-day Conservatives and Liberals do exactly that, although sometimes in completely different ways. The end result is: the State is the Master; the People are the servants.
Wake up, Amerika.
I've mostly given up hope that Americans who believe in the Republic will ever get out of the purposefully distracting Conservative-Liberal rut. Until they do so, there is no chance whatsoever for this country to once again be a free society...the way our liberal Founders intended it to be.
Machiavelli (whose works are greatly admired by Ledeen, Pearl, Feith, & other once prominent NeoConservative strategists), Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Goebbels, and other Totalitarians all had a formula for the State being able to control the masses: give the People an Enemy (Capitalism, Communism, Hunger, Terrorism, Lack of Health Care, etc.), promote fear of that Enemy, and then take away unalienable rights in the name of Protection and Safety. Both modern-day Conservatives and Liberals do exactly that, although sometimes in completely different ways. The end result is: the State is the Master; the People are the servants.
Wake up, Amerika.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Is It a Conspiracy?
Here's an email that I sent not long ago to several internet friends---
I hope you realize that the power structure I'm talking about is NOT a conspiracy. It's right out in the open. David Rockefeller described it publicly in the early '90s. It's an ever-changing bunch of super-rich Elites who happen to have mutual interests, common goals, and who work (both independently and cooperatively) to achieve a mutually desired result. The result they're after is the virtual elimination of worldwide poverty, disease, and war. According to Rockefeller, they believe that can be best achieved by virtually eliminating nations and by having regional govts run by unelected business managers, instead of by corrupt, elected politicians. Rockefeller said that the American people are now "sophisticated enough" to recognize the value of that setup. They firmly believe that they are doing good for the world. The fact that they are getting rich in the process is just a secondary benefit in their minds. Most of these people really are altruists, or at least, sincerely see themselves that way. The only organization that is common to all of them is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); and I suspect that for some of them, membership in the CFR is viewed strictly and only as a requirement to get ahead both politically and financially. The Right Wing thinks only Lefties are members. What a joke---there are just as many Right Wingers in the CFR as there are Left Wingers.
This is not the Bilderberg Conspiracy, or any similar crap. These people Rockefeller is talking about are the movers & shakers of the financial and political worlds. They are not secretive; they're well-known and well-respected. They don't even attempt to hide their support of Globalization...because they believe it is a good thing, and will be the salvation of the world. And they don't care one whit whether their "partners" are Democrats or Republicans. Those labels are no longer important to the people who actually rule this nation.
As long as folks keep focusing their energy on Right Wing v. Left Wing, the Globalization of this country will continue unabated. Eventually the USA will exist in name only. Rights as we once knew them will be history. Economic prosperity will be diverted to poorer parts of the world...even more than it already is...a lot more.
Meanwhile, my Conservative friends (who feel exactly about the Left as you do about the Right) and folks like yourself will still be bad-mouthing each other, and thinking they know who the "enemy" is...who it is that's bad for this country. It's almost comical. Any national politician with any sense at all of his/her financial & political well-being has joined the Globalization bandwagon a long time ago. Right Wing, Left Wing...it doesn't matter.
When your grandchildren are your age, most of the world will be better off economically than it is now, but your grandkids won't be if they still live in this country. That's not a Doomsday scenario...because most of the world will be better off. We currently have about 5% of the world's population, and consume almost 50% of its resources. The Rockefellers, et. al. are in the process of changing that. They're doing it openly...and no one is paying any attention. Instead, they're arguing about which faction of an outdated political spectrum is best for the USA. The whole thing is tragic.
I hope you realize that the power structure I'm talking about is NOT a conspiracy. It's right out in the open. David Rockefeller described it publicly in the early '90s. It's an ever-changing bunch of super-rich Elites who happen to have mutual interests, common goals, and who work (both independently and cooperatively) to achieve a mutually desired result. The result they're after is the virtual elimination of worldwide poverty, disease, and war. According to Rockefeller, they believe that can be best achieved by virtually eliminating nations and by having regional govts run by unelected business managers, instead of by corrupt, elected politicians. Rockefeller said that the American people are now "sophisticated enough" to recognize the value of that setup. They firmly believe that they are doing good for the world. The fact that they are getting rich in the process is just a secondary benefit in their minds. Most of these people really are altruists, or at least, sincerely see themselves that way. The only organization that is common to all of them is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); and I suspect that for some of them, membership in the CFR is viewed strictly and only as a requirement to get ahead both politically and financially. The Right Wing thinks only Lefties are members. What a joke---there are just as many Right Wingers in the CFR as there are Left Wingers.
This is not the Bilderberg Conspiracy, or any similar crap. These people Rockefeller is talking about are the movers & shakers of the financial and political worlds. They are not secretive; they're well-known and well-respected. They don't even attempt to hide their support of Globalization...because they believe it is a good thing, and will be the salvation of the world. And they don't care one whit whether their "partners" are Democrats or Republicans. Those labels are no longer important to the people who actually rule this nation.
As long as folks keep focusing their energy on Right Wing v. Left Wing, the Globalization of this country will continue unabated. Eventually the USA will exist in name only. Rights as we once knew them will be history. Economic prosperity will be diverted to poorer parts of the world...even more than it already is...a lot more.
Meanwhile, my Conservative friends (who feel exactly about the Left as you do about the Right) and folks like yourself will still be bad-mouthing each other, and thinking they know who the "enemy" is...who it is that's bad for this country. It's almost comical. Any national politician with any sense at all of his/her financial & political well-being has joined the Globalization bandwagon a long time ago. Right Wing, Left Wing...it doesn't matter.
When your grandchildren are your age, most of the world will be better off economically than it is now, but your grandkids won't be if they still live in this country. That's not a Doomsday scenario...because most of the world will be better off. We currently have about 5% of the world's population, and consume almost 50% of its resources. The Rockefellers, et. al. are in the process of changing that. They're doing it openly...and no one is paying any attention. Instead, they're arguing about which faction of an outdated political spectrum is best for the USA. The whole thing is tragic.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
"Political Correctness"
Social engineers and their unwitting dupes have been attempting to impose Political Correctness (PC) on us for quite a number of years. PC proponents, whether in the workplace, Uncle TOM (Tired Old Media), or the Government, are attempting to make conformist drones out of all of us. The reason is simple: we then will be easier to manipulate.
PC indirectly says: you have no right to be an individual if what you say or do might offend someone else's delicate sensibilities; you have no right to be blunt or rude, or to have a weird sense of humor. Well, piss on that. There is NO SUCH THING as the Right to not be offended or insulted, whether deserved or not. Sorry, social engineers, that right does not exist. If you don't like my sense of humor, or bluntness, or rudeness, or poor use of generalization, that's just too damned bad. Feel free to avoid me. If you can't avoid me, then just ignore me. But you have no right to muzzle me; I'm not infringing on your genuine rights, or on your property. It takes all kinds of people to make up this world...including those who are rude, or those with a strange sense of humor. Live with it.
[And by the way, stop jumping to conclusions---just because I make a joke about Polish people, or Irish folks, or Mexicans, or bald people, or fat people, or uptight management types, or short people, or tall people, or blondes, or rednecks, or cowboys, or Indians, or city folks, or young squirts, or old farts, or government bureaucrats, or ANYONE, does not mean that I'm anti-any of them, or that I'm an unworthy person. If you don't like it, just ignore it. If you're too psychologically weak to do that, then that's your problem, not mine. Plus, did it ever occur to anyone that one of the purposes of making an ethnic joke (as an example) is to demonstrate that those who believe the contents of the joke are idiots?! Maybe that's too subtle for some people.]
PC indirectly says: you have no right to be an individual if what you say or do might offend someone else's delicate sensibilities; you have no right to be blunt or rude, or to have a weird sense of humor. Well, piss on that. There is NO SUCH THING as the Right to not be offended or insulted, whether deserved or not. Sorry, social engineers, that right does not exist. If you don't like my sense of humor, or bluntness, or rudeness, or poor use of generalization, that's just too damned bad. Feel free to avoid me. If you can't avoid me, then just ignore me. But you have no right to muzzle me; I'm not infringing on your genuine rights, or on your property. It takes all kinds of people to make up this world...including those who are rude, or those with a strange sense of humor. Live with it.
[And by the way, stop jumping to conclusions---just because I make a joke about Polish people, or Irish folks, or Mexicans, or bald people, or fat people, or uptight management types, or short people, or tall people, or blondes, or rednecks, or cowboys, or Indians, or city folks, or young squirts, or old farts, or government bureaucrats, or ANYONE, does not mean that I'm anti-any of them, or that I'm an unworthy person. If you don't like it, just ignore it. If you're too psychologically weak to do that, then that's your problem, not mine. Plus, did it ever occur to anyone that one of the purposes of making an ethnic joke (as an example) is to demonstrate that those who believe the contents of the joke are idiots?! Maybe that's too subtle for some people.]
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Taxes: "I Want My Money Back"
http://blog.independent.org/2008/08/07/radical-reform-is-needed-in-california/ NOTE: the old link was broken, & I couldn't fix it. The link above is not the original article, but it will suffice.
[Having lived in California for almost 20 years, I couldn't agree more...and couldn't have said it better myself. The chaos at the national level speaks for itself...institutionalized deficit spending, employees of our Fed Govt illegally kidnapping and assassinating people, the Fed Govt violating the Fourth Amendment over & over, the continual expansion of Fed Govt power in the private sector, the bailing out of failed companies, the pursuance of an overseas American Empire, the Fed manipulation of interest rates in order to create economic bubbles, and on & on.]
If the American people had any guts at all, no one would have submitted an Income Tax form today (or any day this year). Instead, we continue to believe that "voting" will save us.
The Republic of the United States of America no longer exists; it only appears to exist. BOYCOTT the Fed Govt at every opportunity. It's the only effective way to send a message. All other methods have failed, and failed miserably.
[Having lived in California for almost 20 years, I couldn't agree more...and couldn't have said it better myself. The chaos at the national level speaks for itself...institutionalized deficit spending, employees of our Fed Govt illegally kidnapping and assassinating people, the Fed Govt violating the Fourth Amendment over & over, the continual expansion of Fed Govt power in the private sector, the bailing out of failed companies, the pursuance of an overseas American Empire, the Fed manipulation of interest rates in order to create economic bubbles, and on & on.]
If the American people had any guts at all, no one would have submitted an Income Tax form today (or any day this year). Instead, we continue to believe that "voting" will save us.
The Republic of the United States of America no longer exists; it only appears to exist. BOYCOTT the Fed Govt at every opportunity. It's the only effective way to send a message. All other methods have failed, and failed miserably.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A Genuine Conservative
Paul Craig Roberts was in the Reagan Administration. He has written for both National Review and the Wall Street Journal. As I once was, he still is a Russell Kirk-Barry Goldwater Conservative...a genuine Conservative. [Russell Kirk was the Founder of the modern American Conservative Movement, in the '50s. http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirkbio.html ] In my opinion, if a "Conservative" of today has not read The Conservative Mind, (1953) by Kirk, that person is not philosophically rooted in Conservatism.
The phony NeoCons began their movement in the '70s, in obscure journals; by the end of the '80s, they were well-entrenched in think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, and launched their takeover of the Conservative Movement. By the early to mid-'90s, they claimed to be the representatives of Conservatism. For some odd reason, the American people bought it. Men like William F. Buckley, Jr. were marginalized by the NeoCons, and labeled "Paleo-Conservatives"---a derogatory term invented by the NeoCons, whose ultimate goal is an American Empire, somewhat like the old Roman Empire. That's when I left the Conservative Movement and became a Libertarian.
Here's what a genuine Conservative thinks of Bush-Cheney, the Iraq War, pre-emptive wars, the so-called "War on Terror", etc.--- (The last link is devastating...it has to do with the war in Georgia.)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts109.html
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090203_terror.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08152008.html (scroll down a bit)
The so-called "Conservative" political pundits of today are nothing but shills for the phony NeoCons. True Conservatism has been relegated to the back of the bus. [I keep referring to NeoCons as "phony" because, by their own admission, they are Progressives disgruntled with the lack of aggressive military policy on/by the Left. That's the only thing about which they are disgruntled with concerning the Left. Simply put, they are not Conservatives of any kind.]
Do not think for a moment that presently, with Obama, the NeoCons are out of the picture. They are still as thick as flies and plying their trade in DC. Some are in the Obama Administration...example: Dennis Ross.
All hail the American Empire.
Wake up, Amerika.
The phony NeoCons began their movement in the '70s, in obscure journals; by the end of the '80s, they were well-entrenched in think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, and launched their takeover of the Conservative Movement. By the early to mid-'90s, they claimed to be the representatives of Conservatism. For some odd reason, the American people bought it. Men like William F. Buckley, Jr. were marginalized by the NeoCons, and labeled "Paleo-Conservatives"---a derogatory term invented by the NeoCons, whose ultimate goal is an American Empire, somewhat like the old Roman Empire. That's when I left the Conservative Movement and became a Libertarian.
Here's what a genuine Conservative thinks of Bush-Cheney, the Iraq War, pre-emptive wars, the so-called "War on Terror", etc.--- (The last link is devastating...it has to do with the war in Georgia.)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts109.html
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090203_terror.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08152008.html (scroll down a bit)
The so-called "Conservative" political pundits of today are nothing but shills for the phony NeoCons. True Conservatism has been relegated to the back of the bus. [I keep referring to NeoCons as "phony" because, by their own admission, they are Progressives disgruntled with the lack of aggressive military policy on/by the Left. That's the only thing about which they are disgruntled with concerning the Left. Simply put, they are not Conservatives of any kind.]
Do not think for a moment that presently, with Obama, the NeoCons are out of the picture. They are still as thick as flies and plying their trade in DC. Some are in the Obama Administration...example: Dennis Ross.
All hail the American Empire.
Wake up, Amerika.
Friday, March 6, 2009
H.R. 393: Mandatory National Service
This is a great idea...for a Totalitarian government. It has been stuck in committee for quite some time; pray that it stays there until it dies.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-393
This is a rather bold move by those intent on destroying our Republic. People will understand the negative impact of this, unlike the negative impact of membership in the World Trade Organization, or (initially) NAFTA, or (initially) the relaxation of regulations pertaining to banks (started under Clinton, accelerated under Bush), or the concept of a "unitary presidency" (started by Clinton, greatly expanded by Bush), etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Don't be fooled by the fact that this was introduced by a Democrat. If it ever comes to a vote, Republican Elites will support it as well. Note that part of the bill gives some sort of tax break to soldiers in combat. Now, who could be against that?!...a nice little tactic to eventually get the bill passed. The portion regarding the combat pay tax break should be a separate bill.
In a Totalitarian State, it's not enough that individuals are honest, hardworking, productive, and responsible---thus contributing to Society. Oh no, that's not good enough...they also must be forced to work for the State.
This all, by the way, is under the guise of "Homeland Security". Like the Patriot Act (what a misnomer), Homeland Security is a devious way to eliminate individual rights. Anyone who believes in a free society should be outraged.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-393
This is a rather bold move by those intent on destroying our Republic. People will understand the negative impact of this, unlike the negative impact of membership in the World Trade Organization, or (initially) NAFTA, or (initially) the relaxation of regulations pertaining to banks (started under Clinton, accelerated under Bush), or the concept of a "unitary presidency" (started by Clinton, greatly expanded by Bush), etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Don't be fooled by the fact that this was introduced by a Democrat. If it ever comes to a vote, Republican Elites will support it as well. Note that part of the bill gives some sort of tax break to soldiers in combat. Now, who could be against that?!...a nice little tactic to eventually get the bill passed. The portion regarding the combat pay tax break should be a separate bill.
In a Totalitarian State, it's not enough that individuals are honest, hardworking, productive, and responsible---thus contributing to Society. Oh no, that's not good enough...they also must be forced to work for the State.
This all, by the way, is under the guise of "Homeland Security". Like the Patriot Act (what a misnomer), Homeland Security is a devious way to eliminate individual rights. Anyone who believes in a free society should be outraged.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Distraction from Globalization
The promulgation of the battle between "Liberals" (a greatly misused word) and Conservatives is nothing but a Machiavellian distraction from the fact that Elites (both Republican & Democrat, "Liberal" & Conservative) are dismantling this Republic via Globalization...and getting rich in the process. It's not the "Liberals v. Conservatives" today; instead, it's the Elites v. the rest of us. Some of the Elites are "Liberal" and some are "Conservative". The old paradigm is long dead, but the Elites use it to mislead and distract us from the fact that they are in the process of "globalizing" the U.S.
There is no hope whatsoever for this country as long as people continue to believe that the battle is between Liberals & Conservatives, or Democrats & Republicans. That may have been true in the past, but today it is a complete charade...a farce. It keeps the masses placated and distracts them from the fact that Republican and Democrat Elites are dismantling our Republic...and getting super-rich in the process. Meanwhile, sincere but misled Americans continue to squabble over issues that pale in comparison to the issue of Globalization.
A worldwide, mega economic structure is being created via Globalization, and in terms of destroying the U.S., it is a gazillion times more important than ALL the so-called "Liberal or Conservative" issues combined. We will be a Third World country relatively soon, and whether it's a Conservative or "Liberal" country won't matter one iota. There will be only the super-rich Elites and the rest of us---the poor.
It breaks my heart to see sincere Americans arguing over things like whether or not the word "God" should be on our money when, at the same time, Globalization (promoted by both Republicans & Democrats, "Liberals" & Conservatives) is completely destroying our country, way of life, and form of government.
For the most part, Americans are asleep at the wheel.
Ask yourself: why do BOTH the Clintons AND the Bush Family support NAFTA? Why do BOTH Republicans AND Democrats support: the World Trade Organization, the concept of a North American Union, the concept of a global currency, the export of American jobs overseas, tax breaks and loans for multi-national companies that move manufacturing facilities out of this country, foreign aid to countries where the "aid" rarely reaches the people, bailouts for companies (and especially CEOs) who don't know how to run a business, and on & on?
Ask yourself: why do BOTH Republicans AND Democrats continue to devalue the dollar with deficifit spending? Why do they not address our HUGE trade imbalance with China?
Ask yourself: why do BOTH Liberals AND Conservatives completely ignore parts of the Constitution when it comes to money, the legal authority of the Fed Govt, and things such as bailouts for private companies?
The fact is, the movers & shakers of both major political parties are on the same team. They are doing everything possible to bring about Globalization, which will be the end of this country as we once knew it. And they are getting rich doing it. Meanwhile, American voters argue about whether or not the Ten Commandments should be displayed in a public building...and think that they can save the country by "voting".
The Constitution is ignored at will by both "Liberals" & Conservatives. [Direct quote: "Stop telling me about the Constitution. The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper." ~ George W. Bush (former King of the U.S.)] The dollar is being devalued at an unprecedented rate by both Republicans & Democrats---during the first 7 years or so of the King George Administration alone (during which Republicans controlled Congress), the dollar lost 40% of its value via deficit spending and the pumping of cash into the system through interest rate manipulation by the Fed Reserve.
Mega, multi-national companies contribute equally to national Democrat and Republican candidates...and they get a big bang for their bucks. These same mega companies are steamrolling this country down the path toward complete Globalization, and their Crony national politicians are the vehicle.
Do some research on David Rockefeller, a prominent Republican Elite. He has stated flat out that the Elites know what is best for the rest of us...and that is (according to him): unelected CEOs of multi-national companies and Foundations running the government of this country, whether the Administration is Repub or Dem, it doesn't matter. He said that Americans are now "sophisticated enough" to realize the value of that setup.
If Americans don't wake up to the fact that we are being bamboozled with the myth of the battle between "Liberals" and Conservatives, within your (not my) lifetime here's what you'll see:
1. the disappearance of our national sovereignty (the name will still be the USA, but it will be meaningless);
2. adoption of a global currency;
3. for all practical purposes, the elimination of our national borders;
4. more & more manufacturing moved overseas;
5. mandatory "national" service for all "citizens";
6. "political correctness" (i.e., conformism) on a global scale;
7. the importation of even more foreign workers;
8. the importation of even more foreign goods and services;
9. economic and monetary policy dictated by an unelected global body composed of the CEOs of mega multi-national companies; and,
10. totally unconstitutional surveillance of commoners.
And it will all be approved of, and brought about by, the Republican and Democrat (Conservative and "Liberal") Crony, Elite political establishment. That is David Rockefeller's vision---he has admitted to it publicly. He is well on his way to accomplishing that goal.
It is, in one sense, Mega Corporate Socialism. But according to Mussolini, it is Fascism: "the perfect marriage of Corporations and the State". The name of the Game nowadays is very plainly: the best way for the Elites to get even richer---and that is through Globalization. Democrats, Republicans, "Liberals", Conservatives---these are all anachronisms to the Elites of today. They think WAY ABOVE any such labels. And they are in the process of totally eliminating the Republic of the United States of America.
In my opinion, pundits such as Coulter, Limbaugh, and any "Liberal" pundit you can name are either in on the scam (through investments in the Mega Corps), totally ignorant, or complete fools. The old paradigm is long gone, and apparently they can't see that.
If it weren't so tragic, the whole thing would be comical.
[I keep putting the word "Liberal" in quotes because all of the Founders of this country were liberal; plus, the word is an adjective, not a noun.]
There is no hope whatsoever for this country as long as people continue to believe that the battle is between Liberals & Conservatives, or Democrats & Republicans. That may have been true in the past, but today it is a complete charade...a farce. It keeps the masses placated and distracts them from the fact that Republican and Democrat Elites are dismantling our Republic...and getting super-rich in the process. Meanwhile, sincere but misled Americans continue to squabble over issues that pale in comparison to the issue of Globalization.
A worldwide, mega economic structure is being created via Globalization, and in terms of destroying the U.S., it is a gazillion times more important than ALL the so-called "Liberal or Conservative" issues combined. We will be a Third World country relatively soon, and whether it's a Conservative or "Liberal" country won't matter one iota. There will be only the super-rich Elites and the rest of us---the poor.
It breaks my heart to see sincere Americans arguing over things like whether or not the word "God" should be on our money when, at the same time, Globalization (promoted by both Republicans & Democrats, "Liberals" & Conservatives) is completely destroying our country, way of life, and form of government.
For the most part, Americans are asleep at the wheel.
Ask yourself: why do BOTH the Clintons AND the Bush Family support NAFTA? Why do BOTH Republicans AND Democrats support: the World Trade Organization, the concept of a North American Union, the concept of a global currency, the export of American jobs overseas, tax breaks and loans for multi-national companies that move manufacturing facilities out of this country, foreign aid to countries where the "aid" rarely reaches the people, bailouts for companies (and especially CEOs) who don't know how to run a business, and on & on?
Ask yourself: why do BOTH Republicans AND Democrats continue to devalue the dollar with deficifit spending? Why do they not address our HUGE trade imbalance with China?
Ask yourself: why do BOTH Liberals AND Conservatives completely ignore parts of the Constitution when it comes to money, the legal authority of the Fed Govt, and things such as bailouts for private companies?
The fact is, the movers & shakers of both major political parties are on the same team. They are doing everything possible to bring about Globalization, which will be the end of this country as we once knew it. And they are getting rich doing it. Meanwhile, American voters argue about whether or not the Ten Commandments should be displayed in a public building...and think that they can save the country by "voting".
The Constitution is ignored at will by both "Liberals" & Conservatives. [Direct quote: "Stop telling me about the Constitution. The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper." ~ George W. Bush (former King of the U.S.)] The dollar is being devalued at an unprecedented rate by both Republicans & Democrats---during the first 7 years or so of the King George Administration alone (during which Republicans controlled Congress), the dollar lost 40% of its value via deficit spending and the pumping of cash into the system through interest rate manipulation by the Fed Reserve.
Mega, multi-national companies contribute equally to national Democrat and Republican candidates...and they get a big bang for their bucks. These same mega companies are steamrolling this country down the path toward complete Globalization, and their Crony national politicians are the vehicle.
Do some research on David Rockefeller, a prominent Republican Elite. He has stated flat out that the Elites know what is best for the rest of us...and that is (according to him): unelected CEOs of multi-national companies and Foundations running the government of this country, whether the Administration is Repub or Dem, it doesn't matter. He said that Americans are now "sophisticated enough" to realize the value of that setup.
If Americans don't wake up to the fact that we are being bamboozled with the myth of the battle between "Liberals" and Conservatives, within your (not my) lifetime here's what you'll see:
1. the disappearance of our national sovereignty (the name will still be the USA, but it will be meaningless);
2. adoption of a global currency;
3. for all practical purposes, the elimination of our national borders;
4. more & more manufacturing moved overseas;
5. mandatory "national" service for all "citizens";
6. "political correctness" (i.e., conformism) on a global scale;
7. the importation of even more foreign workers;
8. the importation of even more foreign goods and services;
9. economic and monetary policy dictated by an unelected global body composed of the CEOs of mega multi-national companies; and,
10. totally unconstitutional surveillance of commoners.
And it will all be approved of, and brought about by, the Republican and Democrat (Conservative and "Liberal") Crony, Elite political establishment. That is David Rockefeller's vision---he has admitted to it publicly. He is well on his way to accomplishing that goal.
It is, in one sense, Mega Corporate Socialism. But according to Mussolini, it is Fascism: "the perfect marriage of Corporations and the State". The name of the Game nowadays is very plainly: the best way for the Elites to get even richer---and that is through Globalization. Democrats, Republicans, "Liberals", Conservatives---these are all anachronisms to the Elites of today. They think WAY ABOVE any such labels. And they are in the process of totally eliminating the Republic of the United States of America.
In my opinion, pundits such as Coulter, Limbaugh, and any "Liberal" pundit you can name are either in on the scam (through investments in the Mega Corps), totally ignorant, or complete fools. The old paradigm is long gone, and apparently they can't see that.
If it weren't so tragic, the whole thing would be comical.
[I keep putting the word "Liberal" in quotes because all of the Founders of this country were liberal; plus, the word is an adjective, not a noun.]
Monday, February 23, 2009
Our Outlaw Fed Government
Obama & Company, though a little better than BushCo when it comes to Liberty, are demonstrating that they really don't understand the Constitution...or, that they are ignoring it.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2441
"National security" does NOT invalidate the Constitution...unless you're a DC Dope...or a Fascist...or some other kind of Totalitarian. "Extraordinary Rendition" (E.R.) is the illegal kidnapping of SUSPECTS, with zero regard for due process. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the Fed Govt to engage in the kidnapping of noncombatants. Anyone who supports E.R. thereby supports a form of totalitarianism and an outlaw government. Like Bush, Obama & Crew support it. That's an outrageous affront to a free society. So much for the glowing words and the engaging smile of the campaign.
It is long past time to boycott our outlaw Fed Govt; unfortunately, that will never happen. Instead, we will continue down the path toward Totalitarianism, thinking all the way that "voting" is going to save us. Wake up, Amerika.
Just my opinion.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2441
"National security" does NOT invalidate the Constitution...unless you're a DC Dope...or a Fascist...or some other kind of Totalitarian. "Extraordinary Rendition" (E.R.) is the illegal kidnapping of SUSPECTS, with zero regard for due process. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the Fed Govt to engage in the kidnapping of noncombatants. Anyone who supports E.R. thereby supports a form of totalitarianism and an outlaw government. Like Bush, Obama & Crew support it. That's an outrageous affront to a free society. So much for the glowing words and the engaging smile of the campaign.
It is long past time to boycott our outlaw Fed Govt; unfortunately, that will never happen. Instead, we will continue down the path toward Totalitarianism, thinking all the way that "voting" is going to save us. Wake up, Amerika.
Just my opinion.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Globalization and the Corporatocracy
The controlling Corporatocracy in this country basically is in the process of erasing borders and national sovereignty. The CFR has a paper out (Money, Markets, and Sovereignty) explaining why monetary nationalism is a major threat to globalization, with suggestions on how to eliminate national currencies. They have another paper explaining the needed steps to create a North American Union; the title is Building a North American Community. Both the Clintons AND the Bush Family fully support the idea. The ultimate goal is to eventually merge the European Union, the African Union, the North American Union, etc., etc., into one mega economic structure...a world government, but only in terms of economics. Countries will still retain their individual names and "borders", but both will be meaningless as far as finance & economics are concerned.
It's not a conspiracy; it's just maximizing global business. Unfortunately, it will result in re-distributing wealth AWAY from the U.S.---except for the wealth of the Elites. That has already started.
The Corporatocracy doesn't give a hoot-in-hell what we common folk think of all this. There is nothing we can do about it short of a massive boycott of the Fed Govt and mega multi-national companies...and that will never happen.
The whole thing is Cronyism beyond compare. Whether Democrats or Republicans control DC matters not one whit in terms of this "globalization" process. The USA is well on its way to becoming essentially a third world country, with no Middle Class...only the super-rich and the relatively poor.
People have dismissed what I've described above mostly because it has been labeled a "conspiracy theory", which is a Machiavellian tactic that is usually successful. But the whole move to "globalization" has been having some really negative effects on our economy, and two things are becoming obvious to everyone: 1. the Middle Class is suffering due to all this; and, 2. the super-rich are getting richer (and more powerful) due to all this. I have hopes that someday common folk will see through the "globalization" charade. I have almost no hope that they'll do anything effective about it.
It's not a conspiracy; it's just maximizing global business. Unfortunately, it will result in re-distributing wealth AWAY from the U.S.---except for the wealth of the Elites. That has already started.
The Corporatocracy doesn't give a hoot-in-hell what we common folk think of all this. There is nothing we can do about it short of a massive boycott of the Fed Govt and mega multi-national companies...and that will never happen.
The whole thing is Cronyism beyond compare. Whether Democrats or Republicans control DC matters not one whit in terms of this "globalization" process. The USA is well on its way to becoming essentially a third world country, with no Middle Class...only the super-rich and the relatively poor.
People have dismissed what I've described above mostly because it has been labeled a "conspiracy theory", which is a Machiavellian tactic that is usually successful. But the whole move to "globalization" has been having some really negative effects on our economy, and two things are becoming obvious to everyone: 1. the Middle Class is suffering due to all this; and, 2. the super-rich are getting richer (and more powerful) due to all this. I have hopes that someday common folk will see through the "globalization" charade. I have almost no hope that they'll do anything effective about it.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
"They" Should Abolish the IRS, and...
just print more money. I ran into a guy in town who said that very thing to me. He had noticed the messages on my cargo van (that are of a Libertarian nature), and so struck up a conversation. I laughed at his comment and replied, "Yeah, out of thin air, like they do now."
He replied, "I'm serious."
I thought about his comments later, and decided that maybe he's onto something. This government of ours long ago abandoned the principles of the Austrian School of Economics, and instead, embraced Keynesian economic thought. The DC dopes do not care one whit that when they increase deficit spending or print money out of thin air, they further devalue the dollar. So, given that philosophy, what's the difference? Just abolish the IRS and print more money.
They don't need the IRS; all they need is a printing press! At least, according to their economic philosophy, that's all they need.
Do a little research when you have time and discover what it is, according to the Constitution, that constitutes "money" in this country. Then realize that the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, has never been amended to accommodate what passes for "money" today. That's because it is much easier to pass a LAW...even if it's unconstitutional...than it is to amend the Constitution. Plus, despite protestations to the contrary, most of our "representatives" in DC consider the Constitution to be an anachronism. They can't be bothered to amend it.
He replied, "I'm serious."
I thought about his comments later, and decided that maybe he's onto something. This government of ours long ago abandoned the principles of the Austrian School of Economics, and instead, embraced Keynesian economic thought. The DC dopes do not care one whit that when they increase deficit spending or print money out of thin air, they further devalue the dollar. So, given that philosophy, what's the difference? Just abolish the IRS and print more money.
They don't need the IRS; all they need is a printing press! At least, according to their economic philosophy, that's all they need.
Do a little research when you have time and discover what it is, according to the Constitution, that constitutes "money" in this country. Then realize that the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, has never been amended to accommodate what passes for "money" today. That's because it is much easier to pass a LAW...even if it's unconstitutional...than it is to amend the Constitution. Plus, despite protestations to the contrary, most of our "representatives" in DC consider the Constitution to be an anachronism. They can't be bothered to amend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)