Individual Sovereignty

A Few Propaganda Delusions in the USA

2012-01-14T12:29:00.000-08:00

1. Unemployment is now at 8.5%. Facts--- When figuring unemployment, Feds do not include (because they can't) those who are no longer in "the system"--- such as those who have given up looking for work, and those who are grossly underemployed, and those who have temporary or part-time jobs. No one knows what the real number for unemployment may be, but it is certainly much higher than 8.5%.

2. The war in Iraq is over and our efforts were worthwhile. Facts--- Multiple, coordinated bomb attacks are ongoing; the Shiites and Sunnis are still at war with each other. Water and electricity still are not available 100% of the time in cities and towns. Almost two million Iraqis have emigrated from their country and they don't appear to be returning in any significant numbers. We still have a relatively small number of combat soldiers there. "Trainers" are combat soldiers. Finally, what happened to: "Iraqi oil will pay for most of our activities in Iraq."?

3. The dollar is still sound. [I'm not sure if the Oligarchs are pushing this falsehood anymore.] Facts--- In the last ten years, the dollar has lost 40% of its value. If you've had a bank savings account for the last ten years, 40% of the purchasing power in that account is gone. The dollar nowadays has no intrinsic value; its only value is that it's still (for the time being) the world's reserve currency. Several European countries, China, and Russia (and probably others I'm not aware of) are saying publicly that that has to change. According to them, the world will have a new reserve currency before too long.

4. The government of Iran is a threat to us and the world. Facts--- Iran is surrounded by military bases of the only country in history that has used nuclear weapons on civilians---and used them twice. No wonder they want a nuke. More to the point, the old USSR (whose leaders were at least as fanatical as those in Iran) had about 30,000 nukes; we were able to contain them. Iran is a lightweight compared to the old Soviets. The real reason we're rattling sabers at Iran is because, like Saddam did, they are preparing to accept Euros for oil---instead of dollars. That would not bode well for the health of the buck.

5. The Obama Administration works for all of us, especially the poor, the needy, the unemployed, the sick, the in-the-trenches military personnel, etc. Facts--- Our President is the best friend that the Oligarchs ever had. BP and other oil giants, health insurance companies, crooked investment bankers, and many other transnational corporations all have been served well by the current Administration. Example: they're all too big to jail after they commit crimes. Example: Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan and especially the secret wars in Yemen and Pakistan. [The one in Pakistan no longer is much of a secret.] Example: the President supports the actions of the Fed Reserve Chairman, who purposely has been devaluing the dollar for years. That negatively impacts us all.

Don't misunderstand, the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats.

6. We elect Senators and Representatives; therefore, they represent us in a representative government. Facts--- This one is laughable. The last approval rating I saw for Congress was 9%---not 90%, but 9%. Now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, election costs (including the Presidential election) can run into the billions of dollars---for a single election cycle. That's madness. The Oligarchs paying out those billions get their money's worth; they do not waste their large sums on the elections of people who will represent common folks. Surely we all know that. It should be an axiom. Our government no longer is representative in any sense of the word.

7. Finally, we live in a democracy. Facts--- The USA is (or was meant to be) a Republic. The differences between that and a democracy are significant. For example, in a democracy the emphasis is on the will of the majority; in a republic, the emphasis is on individual rights. In a republic, individual rights cannot be ignored simply because the majority so wishes in some specific instance. In a republic, one is free to do whatever one desires as long as the rights and property of others are not infringed upon. In a democracy, if the majority votes to give up a right (for example, the right to privacy or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures), then all individuals must abide by that vote. That can only be done in a republic if the government resorts to Executive or Legislative Absolutism, which is exactly what has transpired in this country. In such a case, the republic ceases to exist.

One easily and accurately can argue that the USA no longer is a Republic. It was converted to a democracy primarily by Legislative Absolutism (passing laws with no regard for the limitations imposed by the Constitution), then became a Bribe-ocracy, and finally an Oligarchy or Plutocracy. In the current situation, nonelected Democrats and Republicans arguing over anything is both silly and pointless. The Oligarchs run the show.

Cancer, the FDA, Big Pharma, Burzynski, & Fascism in the U.S.

2011-11-21T18:17:00.000-08:00

For this story I'm using Mussolini's definition of Fascism: the perfect marriage of the State and large corporations. I suspect that he knew what he was talking about when it came to that subject.

I'm basing this essay on the completely amazing documentary, Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business. It can be found at http://www.documentarychannel.com/ ; scroll down to "Watch full docs online", click on the movie, then click on "Watch it Now". If that doesn't work, try Googling it. Due to time constraints, I'm greatly condensing the story; I hope everyone takes the time to view the film. It's a fascinating illustration of Fascism in America.

Have you ever heard of the cancer treatment "antineoplastons"? These substances, which have no toxic side effects, were discovered & developed over a period of about 20 years by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski. Basically, the substances turn genes ON and OFF, genes important in fighting cancer. [Everyone gets cancer; usually the body can fight it off.] Even the FDA and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) admit that antineoplastons completely cure a wide variety of cancers in up to 50% of cases. Why not 100%? No one knows; more research is needed. Research is extremely expensive.

About 30-40 years ago, many States had laws allowing individuals, not just large pharma companies, to research & develop new drugs and to conduct clinical trials as long as it was all done within the State. At that time, the Feds agreed. After discovering antineoplastons in the urine of cancer-free patients and cancer patients with none, Dr. B (I'll abbreviate to save time) founded the Burzynski Research Institute (BRI) in Houston, Texas in the '70s. He is not only a medical doctor, but also holds a PhD in Biochemistry. He hired a staff of MDs, chemists, and other researchers and began developing a protocol for antineoplaston cancer treatment. As the months and years went by, he began to experience significant success with people who had tried chemo and radiation to no avail (& were pronounced irreversibly terminal) AND with cancer patients who had opted for no chemo and/or radiation. Shortly thereafter, he began having big problems with the Texas Medical Board, the FDA, and eventually the NCI.

Cancer treatment is a trillion dollar business. Patented chemo treatments (drugs) are a large part of that business. Due to "user fees" charged drug companies by the FDA, the FDA literally is on the payroll of Big Pharma. Some applications for new drugs entail a "user fee" of a million dollars. Half of FDA's funding comes from fees charged to drug companies. It would be naive to think that kind of money won't be protected by any means necessary. But we don't need to speculate; we have the crystal clear case of Dr. B and BRI.

Over a total of 14 years, Dr. B was relentlessly pursued by both the Texas Medical Board and the FDA. Through the Justice Department, the FDA convened a half dozen (one at a time, over years) grand juries attempting to get an indictment on Dr. B. All resulted in no indictment. After a series of strange events (see the movie), the Feds finally got an indictment. This allowed them to seize all of the Dr.'s medical records on all of his patients, as well as research files. After two trials (number one was a mistrial, hung jury), Dr. B was cleared of all 75 charges. None of the charges involved the efficacy of antineoplastons; for some reason, the FDA was not claiming that the good doctor was a quack. Now, one would think after all that, the FDA would cease and desist; that was not to be. See the movie.

The harassment continued and the reason became clear. While the FDA was discrediting Dr. B over all those years, it also was working with a drug company to steal the patents regarding antineoplastons. Eventually the FDA applied for and received eleven (might be one off) patents on antineoplastons, even though Dr. B held patents on those same substances. [One of the antineoplastons couldn't be patented according to Dr. B's attorneys, but it was by the FDA.]

The story doesn't end there. The FDA, according to Dr. B, is using incorrect protocols (dosages, intervals of treatment, types of cancer, etc.) in their clinical trials of the antineoplastons. The result will be unsuccessful trials. You can see where this is going.

There is much, much more to this tale. The movie is almost two hours, and a few times gets a bit tedious; but if you hang in there with it, I think you'll agree that it's a highly explosive illustration of Fascism in America. The documentation alone of the whole shabby affair is worth the watch. The Government-Mega Corporate Complex's control of the cancer industry is laid bare for all to see. It's all about the money.

What Happened to Hemp?

2011-09-14T10:31:00.000-07:00

We're talking here about industrial hemp, a cousin of marijuana. It is well known and scientifically proven that industrial hemp contains so little of the chemical THC (which produces the "high" from smoking marijuana) that the plant cannot be considered a controlled substance. I don't have the time to give this subject the treatment it deserves, but will attempt to cover the highlights in an understandable way.

First, a little history. Industrial hemp was a common crop in America for decades, both before and after the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson grew it for market and George Washington once stated (paraphrased), "Indian hemp is a most useful plant; sow it throughout the land." One of the more common uses back then was in the making of rope. Throughout the 1930s, however, a campaign by the oligarch William Randolph Hearst (Hearst newspapers) was launched to paint a dark picture of hemp. One of the thrusts of the smear campaign was to associate hemp with marijuana. That was the time, of course, of the so-called "reefer madness" propaganda in America. Hearst had invested heavily in the timber industry, and hemp was beginning to be seen as a viable alternative relative to pulp for the manufacture of paper.

Presently hemp is recognized worldwide as a source of: pulp for paper; a wide range of clothing items; biomass fuel; bricks, fiberboard, and shingles for home construction; farm animal feed; and even protein utilized in aquaculture operations. The U.S. imports many hemp products, but farmers here are prohibited from growing the plant. Lakota Indians of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota lined up numerous contracts for raw hemp, but the DEA moved in and destroyed their crop---more than once. Thinking that various treaties [giving them sovereignty] signed with The Feds over the years would be honored, the tribe had passed a law allowing the growth of hemp within their nation. As with most treaties between American Indians and our Fed Government, the U.S. broke the treaty of 1868... again. Farmers in Kentucky and Vermont, looking for a viable rotational crop, attempted to import hemp plants from Canada. Given the long-standing Health Fascist campaign against tobacco, Kentucky in particular needed a crop to supplement (or replace) tobacco. Customs and the DEA put a stop to the importing.

It's important to recognize two things. First, employees of agencies such as the DEA are not elected; they are bureaucrats. Second, they write regulations. Regulations are not legislative in nature; instead, they're administrative. When a legislative bill is passed into law, it is handed over to the Executive Department/Agency charged with enforcing the law. That agency then writes the REGULATION (sometimes called a Rule or Standard) that will be used to bring about enforcement. Regulations usually are much more detailed and comprehensive than are legislative acts (laws). Details can be found in regulations that do not exist in laws. In other words, unelected bureaucrats can add items not found in the legislative act. They also can leave out clarifications that reasonably should be included.

Enter the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The CSA lumps all forms of the genus Cannabis into the same category regardless of THC content. [Marijuana contains anywhere from 3% to 24% of the psychoactive chemical; industrial hemp contains far less than 1%.] Reason suggests that the DEA should have excluded industrial hemp when they wrote their regulation. The primary reason that they did not (according to them) is because they cannot tell the difference between the two varieties from the air. That basically is nonsense. Hemp is grown closely packed, with no light between plants; marijuana plants are more spread out.

The entrenched, establishment industries of paper pulp (from trees) and petro-chemical manufacturing do not want the competition that industrial hemp would engender. In my opinion, that's why the U.S. is the only developed nation on Earth that prohibits industrial hemp farming. I'm open to considering other reasons.

Hemp generates about three times more pulp per acre per year than does timber. Plus, for technical reasons I won't bother with here, hemp does not require chlorine bleaching in order to make the final product (paper) marketable. In terms of clothing fiber, a hemp crop does not require the pesticides necessary to raise a cotton crop. In addition to fiber uses, hemp seed oil is both nutritious and found in numerous skin care products. As a rapidly growing plant and one that chokes out weeds, industrial hemp is a small-farmer-friendly crop with an excellent variety of markets.

Hemp would be good for our dismal economy, the small farmer, and American jobs, and just as importantly, it impacts the environment much less harshly than do timber paper pulp and petro-chemical products. Unfortunately for us, industrial hemp legalization and growing have powerful enemies in the almighty Corporatocracy.

If you can, catch the documentary Hempsters: Plant the Seed online. Interesting and entertaining.

Goldman Sachs and Others Lie

2011-09-11T20:10:00.000-07:00

I've noticed that Goldman Sachs has been blitzing the online national newscasts with commercials claiming that their investments are extremely beneficial to various communities around the country. The whole thing appears to be an effort on their part to untarnish their shabby image. Let's keep in mind why they have a shabby image. Below are a few of the fines or settlements they've paid for wrongdoings.

$550 million for "misleading investors in a subprime mortgage product just as the U.S. housing market was starting to collapse". Business Ethics, July 15, 2010. The SEC stated that investors lost a total of one billion dollars. The SEC charge was "civil fraud".

$27 million for failing to notify the U.K. financial regulatory agency about the investigation resulting in the above $550 million fine. Such disclosure is required under the U.K.'s reporting obligations for financial activity. Robert Barr, "Goldman Sachs FINED $27 Million by U.K. Agency", Associated Press, 9-9-10.

Two million dollars for "violating a waiting period for marketing an IPO before a registration became effective". Ari Weinberg, "Wall Street Fine Tracker", Forbes.com, 7-15-04.

$45.5 million for "NYSE rule violations" in various market activities. Ari Weinberg, "Wall Street Fine Tracker", Forbes.com, 7-15-04.

Citigroup also has been fined millions of dollars for NYSE rule violations, as have Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Bank of America. In fact, dozens of Wall Street firms over and over have been fined millions, sometimes billions, of dollars for misconduct related to market activities. Some of these same firms are the ones to which Hank Paulson convinced Congress to give hundreds of billions of dollars.

A final note--- don't be misled by reports (usually by the national Corporate Media) of Wall Street firms or auto companies "repaying" their government loans. They borrow more money from the government and use that to "repay" previous loans; that is according to several Republican and Democrat lawmakers in DC. These same lawmakers predict that the government will lose $30 billion on loans to General Motors alone. Of course, by "the government" these folks mean the taxpayers.

Radiation

2011-03-18T19:23:00.000-07:00

Having constructed and taught an Environmental Technician Training Program for a private vocational college, as well as having taught numerous HAZWOPER (Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response) classes over the years, I know a little something about ionizing radiation. The main thing to remember about it is this: there is no such thing as a "safe dose" of ionizing radiation. There are instead doses which present an ACCEPTABLE RISK. Some people in government, the field of medicine, and the nuclear industry misleadingly use the term "safe dose" or the phrase "not dangerous". They should know better.

The probability is extremely high that everyone of my generation has radioactive strontium-90 in their bones. The cause of that was above-ground testing of nuclear weapons by various nations (including ours) in the 1950s. Depending upon how close one was to the explosions and numerous other factors, we "downwinders" have various amounts of the substance in our bones. What are the long-term effects? No one knows for certain. Who qualifies as a "downwinder"? Certainly everyone living at that time in both the temperate and tropical latitudes...because of global wind patterns. Those in the arctic latitudes most likely should be included as well.

We humans like to believe that in this day and age we know a lot about most everything on Earth. Well, guess what? People in the '50s felt pretty much the same way. I suspect that people in almost any modern time period felt that way. In the beginning of the Nuclear Age, it was thought that above-ground testing of nuclear weapons was "safe". I'm convinced that a small number of folks in positions of power and/or prestige knew better, but that knowledge never was conveyed to those who not long ago were characterized by the head of BP as the "small people". My point simply is this: those who now are saying that ionizing radiation from Japan will be dispersed to the point of rendering it "not dangerous" either are speaking without a sufficient level of knowledge (because no one has that amount of knowledge) or are being deceitful. I suspect it's the former, not the latter.

Various "experts", especially those in medicine, sometimes say something like: "You get more radiation from natural sources than you will from _________." They seem to think that makes __________ OK...and "safe". It puzzles me that anyone would come to such a conclusion. While it's true that we do receive some amount of ionizing radiation from natural sources, that does not mean it's "safe" to receive additional radiation from non-natural sources. No one knows the long-term effects of low doses/concentrations of ionizing radiation. No one. Such exposure may be an acceptable risk, but it's still a RISK.

A quick note on iodine tablets (usually potassium iodide). They only protect the thyroid (not other organs), and only against radioactive iodine (not cesium, plutonium, etc.).

History has shown us that we should put little stock in whatever the Government or the mega corporations say about ionizing radiation, especially if their pronouncements involve risk assessment. When their representatives claim that such-and-such ionizing radiation is "not dangerous", ALL they mean is that if you're exposed to it, you won't die vomiting and with your skin hanging in shreds. They have no way of knowing the long-term effects. Just remember one thing: "safe" or "not dangerous" only means acceptable RISK.

Tempus Fugit

2011-02-08T20:33:00.000-08:00

My abstract painting is taking more and more of my time, so somewhat regrettably, I must cut way back on posts to this site. Apologies to all, especially the new folks who recently joined/visited. You may wish to utilize this website's Search function and seek posts with the following terms: corporatocracy, or constitution, or republic, or globalization, or fascism, etc. I'm especially pleased with the three-part series on Globalization; that took a lot of work, and I believe it contains much valuable information.

If you care to visit, my new website is:
http://scott-haley.fineartamerica.com/
I've had a passion for art for several decades now, and because "Tempus Fugit", it's now that I must pursue it wholeheartedly.

Sincerest thanks to all for your support and kind remarks relative to Individual Sovereignty. From time to time, I'll try to squeeze in a post here...especially when the actions of the one-party corporatocracy are so outrageous that they beg for a scathing comment or two. (I know, that's almost every day.) :)

Be at peace...be well.

The Best Thing in 2010...

2010-12-31T17:05:00.000-08:00

The best thing, that is, relative to peacefully fighting the Corporatocracy, or the Military-Industrial Complex, or the Oligarchy, or the Plutocracy... or whatever one wishes to call it. That "best thing" was the action by Wikileaks.

Many have disagreed already, and I suppose many more will. They think it was a "bad" thing. Their main argument seems to be: the leaks put lives at risk. The only specific life at risk that I've heard about so far is that of an Iranian person; but, there probably are others as well. There are a few possible retorts to that argument, as follows.

1. It is not the job of Wikileaks to secure the safety of a spy. That job falls to the spy and the Government. Apparently they didn't do a good job.

2. To use the Government's own argument, sometimes in accomplishing a greater good, there is "collateral damage". Was it a greater good? Yes. We the People have a right to know what the Corporatocracy is up to, and what its adherents think of other governments. We have a right to know if they are up to no good, and too often they are. Cases proving that number in the hundreds or perhaps thousands. A few examples: the instances of damage to "downwinders", relative to above-ground atomic testing years ago; the instances of damage to soldiers and others who were given LSD without their knowledge; the instances of damage resulting from Agent Orange during the Vietnam War; the instances of damage known as the Gulf War syndrome, almost certainly due to exposure to "depleted uranium" (that's govt-speak for nuclear waste) and untested vaccines; and, the Tonkin Gulf incident, which did not happen the way the Government reported it.

3. How is this significantly different from when the CIA's Valerie Plame was "outed", probably by Dick Cheney via Scooter Libby? I don't recall too many folks (especially "Conservatives") crying foul over that action.

4. If we accept the commonly held belief that our Government must be able to keep secrets from the People in order to operate effectively, then where do we draw the line...and how do we know that the agreed upon line is being properly observed by the govt? Seriously.

5. Similar to #2 above: our central government, as well as mega corporations, have shown over and over that they are not to be trusted. We need to know as much as we can get our hands on in order to keep our health and freedom.

Have a happy New Year.

The Opium of the Masses

2010-11-01T18:06:00.000-07:00

This may be viewed as heresy by some: voting is the opium of the masses in this beloved country. It makes us feel as if we're making a difference in a system that in essence has but one major political party, the hidden Transnational Mega Corporation Party (the TMCP).

Admittedly, there are still a few minor differences between the Democrats and the Republicans; but regarding really significant issues, the two factions of the TMCP basically are identical. Following are some (not all) of those issues---
Both Dems and Repubs support (or do not oppose):
1. continued deficit-spending;
2. a fiat money system;
3. the practice of Legislative Absolutism (see previous posts);
4. an ever-expanding Federal Government;
5. ignoring the Constitution whenever it suits political purposes;
6. unconstitutional wars;
7. extraordinary rendition (kidnapping suspects, then sending them off to countries which countenance torture);
8. infringing on natural rights under the guise of "protection and safety";
9. highly restrictive ballot-access laws, created by the Dems and Repubs to limit political competition from third parties;
10. continued raising of the Federal Debt Limit;
11. the export of jobs out of the USA, which benefits the Corporatocracy and devastates American workers;
12. continued trading with China, a country that imprisons and/or murders Tibetan monks and nuns (as well as ordinary Chinese dissenters) for their beliefs in freedom;
13. the IMF, WTO, and World Bank, all tools of Globalization and the destruction of our Republic;
14. the financial bailing out of private, mega corporations;
15. wasteful, pork barrel spending on projects that should be financed by individual States (assuming that the State voters approve);
16. accepting huge, filtered (through PACs) campaign donations from mega corporations, and then voting accordingly;
17. making back room deals with mega industries (e.g., the deal Obama made with the health insurance industry relative to the passage of ObamaCare--- see the PBS Frontline piece titled, Obama's Deal); and,
18. interventionism regarding other sovereign countries, which involves pre-emptive invasion, or assassinations, or overthrowing democratically elected governments, or attacking with predator drone aircraft without the permission of the leaders of that country.

Our national, elected leaders appear to have only two major concerns: the promotion of mega corporate Globalization, and the expansion of the American Empire. Domestic issues seem to be of little or no concern to the politicos. It is my belief that the Democrats and Republicans have more than had their chances to benefit average Americans. They have failed...and they have failed miserably. They aren't going to change their ways, if history is any indication. I think it's time to begin the long process of dethroning the two factions of the TMCP. Forget the "wasted vote" argument. That's unabashed propaganda from those currently in power. "In power" is not really accurate; they essentially are free-loading puppets of unelected rulers. The point is: they are tainted and corrupt to the core. I'm fairly sure that there are a few exceptions to that rule...but very few.

Mark these words: even if the Republicans make significant gains in this election, not much will change. The Corporatocracy will continue to rule. One could argue, I suppose, that any new political party eventually would become just as corrupt as the Dems and Repubs, but that's not a certainty. One thing that we do know for certain: the current "representative" parties definitely are corrupt, and definitely are puppets. We have nothing to lose by dethroning them and trying a new approach.

No Representation in DC

2010-10-18T22:15:00.000-07:00

This post will be short, but not sweet.

We no longer have a representative government at the national level. Some folks say, "But...we elected them; therefore, they represent us." Sorry, but after getting elected, here's what our "representatives" do:
1. pass legislative bills without reading them [Representative Conyers told one interviewer, "Sit down my son; we don't read any of the bills we pass." This, after the interviewer had asked why the Patriot Act had not been read before passage.];
2. attach unpopular bills as amendments to wildly popular bills;
3. vote themselves a pay raise...during a recession;
4. accept hidden/filtered campaign contributions from certain entities, and then vote in favor of bills that benefit those same entities;
5. give/loan billions of dollars to private mega corporations, while essentially raising taxes on the rest of us;
6. for all intents and purposes, nationalize certain portions of particular industries (AIG Insurance, General Motors, some banks, etc.), while allowing Wall Street insiders to continue trading complex derivatives---about $600 trillion** so far (compare that to the world GDP); and,
7. too often, ignore the limitations placed upon them by the Constitution or abdicate their duties under that document. [Example: it is the duty of Congress to regulate the value of our money.]

Now, I ask you: how is all or any of that being a representative government? I would venture to guess that there is not even one voter in this country who wants any part of the above list.

Yes, we elected them. But their actions after election do not represent us. Instead, their actions represent their own self-interests and those of mega corporations. The rest of us are left out in the cold, chewing on empty promises and sly propaganda.

The worst of it is this: we keep re-electing these liars to office...over and over. Come on, now...let's do things differently. Eh?

**Note: my source was two months old. The new figure for the derivatives total is $1.2 quadrillion; that is about twenty times the total of the world's GDP. It has the capability of collapsing our entire financial system; the crisis is far from over. Keep in mind, too, that the Republicans are just as bad (or a little worse) than are the Democrats when it comes to protecting the Wall Street investment banksters.

Class War, Propaganda, and Debt

2010-10-10T20:34:00.000-07:00

Not long ago Warren Buffett stated, "We're in a class war in this country, and unfortunately, my class is winning." He couldn't be more correct.

We don't like to think in terms of socio-economic "classes" in the US. We prefer to believe that, even though we use terms such as "lower class" and "upper class", somehow those do not apply to us as individuals. We like to believe that our family is in the "middle class", and that so, too, are about 98% of all Americans. We've heard that the so-called middle class is disappearing, but we don't believe it. We really are deluded.

When representatives of the Fed Government tell us (via the Mega Corporate Media) that the recent Great Recession officially ended last year, what they mean is that it ended for the upper class. The disappearing middle class and the lower class are still in a recession, and will be for quite awhile. There is no such thing as a nearly jobless economic recovery, regardless of the propaganda from the Government. When the stock market is doing well, the rich are doing well. The primary way in which the rest of us do well is via decent-paying, somewhat secure jobs.

There is a myth in this country that the overwhelming majority of Americans are involved in the stock market. Undoubtedly many are, especially through pension fund investments; but overall, the involvement for most of us is not to any significant degree. I've seen a number of sources that state: only about 25% of working adults are involved significantly with stocks; but for only the upper class, the number virtually is 100%. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the Mega Corporate Media place undue importance on the stock market when it comes to our economy. Two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending, not by the stock market.

More and more, it's becoming blatantly apparent to the average person that the stock market basically is a racket. For example, high frequency traders who use high powered computers to buy and sell in less than a minute have a huge advantage over regular traders, and may be privy to inside information. They were the cause of the market dropping about 600 points in a flash not long ago. Furthermore, the SEC does not have the capability to keep up with these types of operations. Then, too, there is the whole business of trading derivatives that makes the entire system shaky. [There are about $600 trillion of derivatives out there currently.] Derivatives essentially are worthless, they have no intrinsic value, unless you are an insider.

The mega banks are making debt slaves of us all, and the Fed Government is helping them. Recent claims by national politicians that the latest financial regulatory laws are good for consumers but not for banks or Wall Street are pure, unadulterated propaganda. The recent financial reform, including credit card reform, is nothing but window dressing. [If someone misses a payment, banks still can charge as much as 70% interest from then on; there was a time when that was called usury, and it was illegal.] The mega banks loved the reform, mostly because it failed to address any significant issues. For the most part, it's business as usual for the banks and Wall Street.

Because mid-term elections rapidly are approaching, national politicians now are claiming that they're concerned about deficits and the national debt. Those claims either are lies or propaganda, or both. History suggests that's so. As soon as the elections are over, it will be business as usual. To think otherwise is to be politically naive.

Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. all raided the SS Trust Fund in order to get enough money just to pay the interest on the national debt. I'm fairly certain that Obama, as well, will take his turn. [A small portion of the billions taken was returned to the Fund.] Most of those interest payments go to central banks worldwide. This is not a partisan issue. The Republicans and Democrats are factions of the Transnational Mega Corporation Party (the TMCP), the only major political party in the US. Mega banks are an important part of the TMCP. Obviously, I'm inventing/ coining the name, TMCP; nevertheless, the entity exists, by whatever name or no name. As FDR once said, "In this country, Presidents are selected, not elected." Woodrow Wilson, late in his final term, opined that he feared he had ruined the country by signing into law the Federal Reserve Act. He was right. The Fed Reserve has our government borrow its own money and pay interest to the Fed Reserve Bank, "...a privately owned corporation, and not a federal instrumentality...", according to a 1984 Fed Court decision.

The upper crust of mega banks and other mega corporations, not politicians, rule this land. The politicians are puppets. Those few who are not puppets quickly are marginalized and ostracized by the "mega corporate club", so to speak. This all is so blatantly obvious that it's embarrassing. I love this country, but our central government is a farce. Those who think not are, in my opinion, victims of incessant propaganda.

So, what's to be done? There are many options available to us, but frankly, I don't know which one would be effective. Then there's the question of practicality. My observations over the past fifty years suggest that Americans aren't willing to risk much to bring about political change that matters. That's why several options are not very practical. It would seem to me that at the very least, we should retire about 99% of the incumbents in next month's election...and that applies to both factions of the TMCP. Unfortunately, due to propaganda from the Establishment, I suspect even that won't happen.

New World Order...from Newsweek

2010-09-26T15:24:00.000-07:00

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/26/the-new-world-order-a-map.html

The propaganda is becoming bolder. The article is by Joel Kotkin, an adjunct Fellow with the Legatum Institute of London, and the jist of it is that the importance of national borders has become far less significant due to the rise of "tribal ties" based upon race, ethnicity, and religion. Kotkin/Newsweek provide a world map delineating the suggested new "groupings" of what are now nations. As an example, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden are combined into what Kotkin calls "New Hansa". Canada and the USA become the "North American Alliance". And so on.

The Legatum Institute is a London-based think tank and is part of the Legatum Group, a private global investment firm headquartered in Dubai. Legatum as a whole promotes globalization and so-called "free trade". [For poor countries, it's not free and it's not trade; rather, it is extortion. For wealthy countries, it is the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper crust.]

The Newsweek article goes into some detail as to why Kotkin's groupings make sense, but then ends somewhat abruptly. As far as I can tell, the purpose of the piece seems to be the instilling of the idea that the concept of nation-states is on the demise, and that we should consider the more logical proposition of regional groupings. One can hypothesize that, further down the road, other articles will appear in the mainstream Corporate Media reinforcing that idea. We further can hypothesize that sometime later the idea of a world governing body to coordinate "regions" will be proposed. It's all about the planting of intellectual seeds, making world governance appear to be reasonable.

Kotkin is the author of Tribes, and another book, The Next Hundred Million.

The Last Bastion

2010-09-24T15:23:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, the last bastion against an errant government (not counting armed revolt) is jury nullification. Very early in our country's history, the role of jury nullification as a defense against oppression by the State was unquestioned. It remained so until the 1850s, a time during which many juries began not convicting in prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act. Judges, seeing a mighty demonstration of the power of juries, began to change the rules of the Court. The primary and most devastating change was that juries would no longer be permitted (by judges) to judge the law; they would be confined to judging only the facts of the case.

The new rules were (and still are) a blatant infringement on the rights of juries. That's not just my view...

"The jury has a right to judge both the law and the facts in controversy."
~ John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
~ Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
~ Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941

Juries routinely are told by judges that jury members cannot judge the law, only the facts of the case. Not true. Numerous case decisions have upheld the right of any juror to nullify a "bad" law and vote to acquit. Example: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972). Example: "...it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine law as well as the fact in controversy." [Emphasis added.] State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et.al. 3 U.S. 1 Dall. (1794).

So, why do jurors not know these things? The reason is simple: in Sparf v. United States (1895), the Court decided that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of jury nullification even though the jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged. All judges are aware of this. Rather than inform juries of all their rights, judges tend to intimidate jurors by telling them that they cannot judge the law.

All of this is crucial to individual sovereignty and freedom because governments practice Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), passing laws without any regard for constitutions (Federal and State). Other than bringing suit in a court of law, the aggrieved citizen has no legal and peaceful recourse except to rely on jury nullification. Bringing suit usually is very expensive and time-consuming. Unfortunately, relying on jury nullification depends upon having a fully informed citizenry, and jurors with courage and integrity...therefore, spread the word! We need fully informed juries.

Globalization: Part III, Philosophical Foundations

2010-09-08T14:59:00.000-07:00

In the Scientific Method of Inquiry, there is a very significant difference between a hypothesis and a theory. The hypothesis is an educated guess, a proposed solution to a problem, and is generated after gathering information and making observations relevant to the problem. Prior to that, the first step is to identify the problem. The theory is a tested hypothesis with positive, repeatable results. A theory must stand the test of time before it is accepted as "fact". The Media often misuse the word "theory", as in their use of "conspiracy theory". My best guess is that 99% of all so-called "conspiracy theories" are, in fact, conspiracy hypotheses. A hypothesis is not "proven", even though it may contain some suggestive or even substantiating evidence. Any hypothesis can be based upon very little actual evidence; a theory is an entirely different matter.

I mention all of the above because what follows below is my hypothesis regarding Globalization. The problem I'm attempting to solve is: what caused Globalization, what brought about the ongoing process, what motivates the people involved? There's more to it than simply more profit, more power, and/or a more streamlined business atmosphere. By the way, I do NOT believe that it's a conspiracy. It's more along the lines of individuals and groups with similar interests and mutual goals working sometimes independently, sometimes cooperatively, to attain their objectives.

The first condition responsible for Globalization is the ongoing Neo-Imperialism of both the USA and the UK. We Americans like to think that our nation is not imperialistic. Scholars are divided on the question. Our history is suggestive of a definite imperialistic tendency, and we love the phrase, "Manifest Destiny". Consider these acquisitions of territory: Louisiana Purchase (1803, from France); Florida (1819, from Spain); California and the Southwest (1848, from Spain); Alaska (1867, from Russia); Hawaii (1898, from natives); Cuba (temporarily), Guam, the Philippines (1898, from Spain); and, if you agree with Chalmers Johnson (former CIA analyst), our 800 military bases currently around the world may be considered neo-imperialistic "colonies" of a sort. All this is not even considering the conquering of American Indians. [According to Russell Means (formerly of AIM, the American Indian Movement) and John Echohawk (of NARF, the Native American Rights Fund) there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the term, "American Indian".] Some of the above territories were acquired peacefully, others by war. Finally, in 1898 Mark Twain founded the Anti-Imperialist League, mostly because of our involvement in the Spanish-American War. That seems to suggest that at least some people considered the USA to be imperialistic.

Along with our Neo-Imperialism, there is the concept of American Exceptionalism---the belief that we are more special, of greater good, than other nations. So, the argument goes, if we are in any way imperialistic, it is a benign Imperialism and for the good of the world. That concept is so indoctrinated/ingrained into our consciousness that few Americans ever question it. It is probably found in most of us, especially those who are the public and private Powers-That-Be. Included lately is the belief that we have some sort of Divine Right and Duty to "spread Democracy" around the world...even if people do not want our help. [The majority of Afghan people now want us to leave their country; that same majority does not support the corrupt Karzai government.] This mindset partly is what gives rise to the "American Empire", a controversial term representing our 800 global military bases and our securing of access to foreign resources.

The next piece of the puzzle is Neoliberalism; unfortunately, scholars can't seem to agree on the definition of it. The history either, for that matter. My best estimation is that Neoliberalism is an economic (and, some would say, social policy) theory driven by privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization on a global scale. Most of the world has been familiar with the term for at least twenty years, except for Americans. Supposedly, the first test of it as a hypothesis was in Pinochet's Chile in 1973, after the CIA overthrow of Allende; also supposedly, it was a resounding success...depending on how one defines success. It also is the basis for the Washington Consensus, which was brought about largely by Reagan and Thatcher. One might think Neoliberalism merely is some sort of re-packaging of Conservatism, but because it involves mega corporations working closely with national governments and international agencies, it is more akin to Fascism than anything else. Organizations (such as the WTO, IMF, etc.) made up of corporatists and international bankers are telling countries how to operate, rather than the reverse.

That brings us to Supranational Corporatism, involving the Crony Capitalists of transnational mega corporations and their government cohorts. Crony Capitalism is not genuine Capitalism. Instead, it is a collusion of CEOs and their cronies in the government to bring about less and less competition in the global business arena. Together they create a Fascist framework to support activities that virtually erase national borders, eliminate smaller competitors, and marginalize national governments. Because of the supranational corporatists, we are moving gradually toward a feudal-like society with only two classes---the super rich and the poor. International bankers aid and abet the culprits by manipulating money and economies via central banks, creating economic bubbles and crashes that facilitate the looting of commoners. During the last crisis in America, the "Too-Big-To-Fail" companies became even larger, as in the cases of the recent bank mergers and buy-outs.

The corporatists have been influenced in a most significant way by the philosophies of Neo-Imperialism, American Exceptionalism, and Neoliberalism. Globalization is a logical extension of "Manifest Destiny" to the mind of a corporatist, and who better to run the world than American elites, they ask themselves. It's also reassuring (probably on a subconscious/unconscious level) that whatever Americans do must be good for the world.

In the process, the corporatists have become haughty, deceitful, and disrespectful of We the People. Some of them refer to us as "the small people"; their arrogance is palpable. It's important to understand that the transnational corporatists live in an entirely separate, artificial universe. They feel, in general, that they are way above the rest of us, that they can make their own rules and do pretty much whatever they please, legally or illegally. Cutting corners to save money is a given, even when the safety of people is involved. The current BP fiasco is evidence of that---certain cheap materials were used in the well, and warning signs of disaster were ignored...not only by BP, but by Transocean and Halliburton as well. [By the way, British Petroleum was once a public/government operation; Margaret Thatcher privatized it, and it became the private corporation, BP. This is the same BP whose Head referred to the Gulf Coast residents as "the small people".]

The last piece of the puzzle is the Theory of Propaganda and Indoctrination, based on the work of Edward Bernays, the Father of Public Relations, and his most important book, Propaganda (1928). Bernays believed that propaganda (the manipulation of public opinion toward a desired end) was "an important element in democratic society". He went on, "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." An important journal article of his was, "The Engineering of Consent", in which he equated propaganda with the article title. In the political arena, Bernays worked with the old United Fruit Company (Chiquita Brands International today) and the U.S. Government to bring about the overthrow of the democratically elected President of Guatemala in the 1950s. United Fruit then dominated a series of corrupt governments in that country. [A key element of the propaganda demonstrated that the President was a Communist, but he wasn't .]

We Americans seem to believe that other governments propagandize their citizens, but our government does not. I suggest that we are propagandized almost constantly by our government, especially regarding Globalization, the political party not in power at the time, and going to war. I recall a debate of sorts between Al Gore and Ross Perot in 1992 (maybe) on the Larry King Show. Gore was extolling the virtues and benefits of NAFTA...pure propaganda. Perot retorted with his famous (paraphrased), "I guarantee you, all you're going to hear is a giant sucking sound...the sound of jobs going to Mexico!". He was right; and we still have not disengaged our country from NAFTA, which was approved in 1994. The poor people of Mexico are still poor. The only ones benefitting from NAFTA are the corporatists. Then, too, Congress approved CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) in July of 2005.

For several years, the Iraq War has been a boon to a number of transnational corporations: Kellogg, Brown & Root; Blackwater; SAIC; CACI; the Carlyle Group; and others. Prior to our invasion of that country, conferences were held, showing companies how to belly up to the government trough. Propaganda was used to sell the American public on the war: WMDs; Saddam is a really bad man (that was true, but wasn't relevant to constitutional use of the military); the Iraqis want democracy (perhaps, but again, not relevant to constitutional use of the military); and, we have to go there to fight Al Qaida, so we won't have to fight them here (I won't even comment on that one). Some Americans continue to believe that our leaders were sincere, but had bad intelligence reports. Perhaps, but I very seriously doubt it. As mentioned previously, Saddam was about to accept Euros for his oil; that's why he had to go. Plus, there's Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard and Its Geostrategic Imperatives for American Primacy [Emphasis added]. Our almost one billion dollar embassy in Iraq, the largest in the world, signifies that we intend to be in that country for a very long time. All of our troops supposedly will be pulled out next year; we'll see. I sincerely doubt it.

Globalization is taking place largely because of unelected corporatists and the use of propaganda. The world appears to be grinding slowly toward a world governance (or perhaps government) by the Heads of mega corporations and other elites. Nevertheless, there does appear to be some hope for reversing the process. Not long ago in Bolivia, the municipal water system was privatized in a major city...due to a Structural Adjustment Program. The private contractor was Bechtel, a major transnational corporation. Within less than two months of taking over operation of the water system, Bechtel raised the consumer fees by fifty percent. The company also claimed rights to rain water and all the river water. The Bolivian people protested, to no avail. Finally, the People took to the streets en masse and eventually forced Bechtel out. [Under privatization in India, entire rivers have been sold to companies; the government then designates those living along a river and using the water as "water thieves".]

Many South American countries now are reevaluating their entire relationship with the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank. All of the countries there that had bases, except for Columbia, have ousted the U.S. military. We have seven military bases in Columbia, ostensibly for the "War on Drugs"; however, it's more likely the bases are there to combat the country's 40-year-old insurgency, and to intimidate Chavez in Venezuela. There was a successful coup against Chavez in 2002, but almost immediately, Venezuelans restored him to power. [I don't agree with the Chavez philosophy of ruling, but then, it's not my country...and it's none of my business.]

When Kissinger was told that Allende was going his own way, Nixon's Secretary of State responded with, "Chile is a virus that might spread contagion...", meaning, Allende must be stopped before other Latin American countries get the idea that they, too, could be independent of the U.S. Consequently, the coup was carried out. Then began the testing of the neoliberal hypothesis.

One of my great concerns is that most of the American public are largely unaware of the implications of Globalization; and further, that they have almost no interest in discovering anything about it. Without identifying the problem and seeing how it came about, nothing effective can be done to solve it. Globalization (of the sort described here) is exporting manufacturing jobs and making "colonies" out of Third World countries. Furthermore, it is transferring wealth from our Middle Class to the Upper, Upper Class at an astonishing rate. Finally, it is creating a global economic and financial superstructure that is morphing into an unelected world government. It can be stopped if We the People wake up, get organized, and oppose the elites responsible. It appears to me that the first step in opposition is to oust the politicians who have approved the various "Free Trade Agreements" (such agreements are hardly free if they're forced upon Third World countries). We need to disengage from those agreements. Next, we should question loudly who it was that put the unelected World Trade Organization essentially in charge of all global trade, and expose their extortion of poor countries relative to privatization of public services. Voting with your wallet may very well have an impact on the transnational mega corporations, but it would help if it were a coordinated effort. Other boycott type activities surely are possible. Everything we can think of should be done to preserve our sovereignty...oppose all efforts to infringe upon your individual, natural rights, even when the government claims that giving up this or that right is "for your own safety"---that's propaganda.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, it's time to realize (or at least consider) that we are in a massive political paradigm shift. The battle is no longer between Dems and Repubs, Liberals and Conservatives; that's a distraction. The political paradigm now is fast becoming the Globalists v. the rest of us, or Globalism v. Sovereignty. You can see the propaganda in the Global Corporate Media...it's visible every single day. Because of that propaganda, we are focused on the faux battle between two factions (Dems and Repubs) of the Transnational Mega Corporate Party; thus we miss crucial machinations resulting in steady progress toward an unelected world government. The culprits aren't hiding anything...they act brazenly and arrogantly, right out in the open. If we don't start to see it, then we deserve exactly what we get. God help us if that happens.

This post is the end of the series.

Globalization: Part II, Players and Methods

2010-09-01T03:04:00.000-07:00

The Players---

I'm sure you gathered from reading Part I that the IMF and World Bank are key players in the process of Globalization. [I consider them quasi-governmental bodies, rather than non-governmental.] Add to that the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, as well as the central banks of most of the other industrialized countries. It is believed by many serious writers that the IMF/World Bank are merely extensions of the policies of the U.S. Treasury, the Fed Reserve, U.K.'s Treasury, and the U.K.'s Bank of England.

While the above institutions are important, they are no more important than the non-governmental bodies: the transnational mega corporations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, founded in 1922) and its U.K. counterpart, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (aka, Chatham House), and the Trilateral Commission (founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski). The CFR and Chatham House are the anglophile Round Table Groups, described in the late Professor Carroll Quigley's 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope. The best quote from the book: "The tragedy is that we no longer have a representative government in this country, or any country; the hope is that the little people will come to accept that, because there is nothing they can do about it." Again...it was published in 1966. Quigley also claimed that the CFR was a front for the J.P. Morgan Company; keep in mind that the good professor (Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University) was a very well respected historian and scholar.

In 1991, David Rockefeller stated publicly, "Surely it is preferable to have the world run by unelected, supranational, [business] elites rather than the nations of the past with their corrupt politicians." That is the goal of Globalization. The function of groups such as the CFR, Chatham House, and the Trilateral Commission is to provide the philosophical underpinnings, the unquestionable academic justifications, for the governmental policies that result in the implementation of Globalization. Consequently, the CFR publishes academic-level papers such as Building a North American Community (meaning, the North American Union), The End of National Currency, Bretton Woods II: Does the World Need a New Monetary System? (authored by Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic advisor), and Global Economic Governance. The Trilateral Commission pens scholarly papers such as Global Governance, Global Redistribution of Power, and Sovereignty and Intervention. The tremendous influence of these groups on governmental policy cannot be overstated; for all intents and purposes, essentially they formulate most of our nation's foreign policy and perhaps a good deal of our monetary policy.

The Methods---

There seems to be no particular chronological order to these methods; at times one must precede another, but mostly they are all taking place more or less simultaneously. I'll list them here, then expand on each one later: selection of Globalist candidates for national office, and then the marketing of them; introduction and justification of Globalist policies to the intellectual elite of the country; use of IMF/World Bank "Structural Adjustment Programs", thus facilitating U.S. corporate expansion to poor countries; Trade Agreements and the WTO (World Trade Organization); the use of "Economic Hit Men"; facilitating coups in uncooperative countries; the maintenance of approximately 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil; and finally, invasion of uncooperative countries (which is a last resort).

Here's what a national election amounts to in the U.S.: the heads of transnational corporations and other members of the Oligarchy/ Corporatocracy, having identified and groomed pre-selected candidates from the two major parties, make massive campaign contributions (indirectly, through PACs) to both. One candidate or the other may be favored from time to time, but generally either one will do. [There is arguably only one major political party in the U.S.: the Transnational Mega Business Party, with a Republican faction and a Democrat faction.] As FDR once wrote to a friend, "In this country, candidates are selected, not elected." The campaign contributions are necessary because the candidates must be marketed to the voting public, and that requires expensive PR firms and multi-media advertising. PR firms run campaigns, not the DNC, DLC, or RNC. The public usually is not bothered with any details regarding Globalization.

Globalist policies must be "sold" to the intellectual elites because those elites are extremely influential in the Corporate Media, educational institutions, various community groups, the entertainment industry, and government at all levels. A relatively small percentage of the American public actually pays attention to important public matters, and it's useful to have them supportive of Globalist tools, e.g., NAFTA. As mentioned above, the intellectual think tanks (CFR, etc.) "justify" policies and tools to the intelligentsia via scholarly papers and even books. Often the mainstream, Corporate Media present summaries of think tank ideas to the general public.

A key method in terms of the Third World is to convince poor countries to take on massive IMF/World Bank loans...for "development". Attached to each loan or interest reduction on a previous loan are conditions, Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which require actions such as: cutting gov't expenditures, devaluing the currency, privatization of State-owned enterprises, lifting of trade restrictions, enhancing the rights of foreign investors, gearing the economy to exports, and removing price controls and/or State subsidies. Critics have referred to this as virtual extortion. As a consequence, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) have replaced SAPs; however, their contents more often than not turn out to be essentially the same as the old SAPs. The money loaned doesn't go to job development or farm aid, rather it ends up in the wallets of companies such as Bechtel, Hochtief, or Halliburton. They are hired to build ports (for those exports), roads (to get the goods to the ports), water systems, and other infrastructure.

The use of Trade Agreements such as NAFTA to implement Globalization requires no discussion, except to say that there is some controversy regarding the status of NAFTA. Canada and Mexico claim that it's a Treaty; however, it received only 61 votes in the Senate. A treaty requires the approval of 67 Senators. Whether or not it's a Treaty is important because Treaties override U.S. laws.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) plays a major role in the implementation of Globalization. The WTO, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, began in 1995 (replacing GATT) and is the only international body dealing with trade between and among nations. It makes the rules for 97% of all world trade, and publishes research papers such as, The WTO and Direct Taxation. No country can override the WTO's rules. Some critics have called the WTO an embryo world government, and claim that it favors rich countries over poor ones. In any case, it has impacted the sovereignty of member countries. A "treaty" of the WTO, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), extended the world trading system to include the service sector; all WTO members are signatories to GATS. The GATS Treaty is the primary tool of the WTO for the implementation of privatization of services such as municipal water delivery and delivery of electricity.

Economic hit men (a la John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) are used to essentially extort/blackmail uncooperative countries, primarily poor countries. The "hit man" will point out to the leader of the country that his country has a World Bank/IMF loan that cannot possibly be repaid, thus the leader needs to do one or more of a number of things, such as voting a certain way in the U.N. on some issue, or favoring some private contractor regarding a large in-country project bidding process. "Oh, by the way, here's $100,000 for your trouble." Mr. Perkins was never 100% certain who his employer was, but eventually assumed that it was the CIA. His book was a NYT bestseller.

Coups as a tool of Globalization should be self-explanatory. The example of Indonesia was given previously. Sukarno would not cooperate with the IMF, so he was booted out. [Same thing with Allende in Chile.] The dictator Suharto in Indonesia allowed U.S. companies to move in and utilize virtual sweatshops for the manufacture of goods for stores such as the GAP and Old Navy. The U.S. and U.K. have participated in coups in fifty countries since 1953, when the CIA engineered the ousting of the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the Shah. The Shah purchased millions of dollars of armaments from the U.S. and, of course, supplied us with a portion of our oil requirement.

The maintenance of about 800 U.S. military bases around the world is tied in to the final method: invasion of uncooperative countries as a last resort. A prime example is Operation Just Cause, the invasion of Panama in 1989. The dictator Noriega had become uncooperative, especially relative to Nicaragua, thus his drug informant days for the CIA were used as an excuse to invade...without admitting that he was a CIA operative. It all came out a few years later in a few books and the documentary film, Deception in Panama. At the time of the invasion, George Bush the elder was President here, Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, and Colin Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Other examples include our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. While 9-11 provided a fortuitous reason for the invasion of Afghanistan, Taliban representatives were told months before that date, "If you don't accept our carpet of gold [for a pipeline easement across Afghanistan], we'll give you a carpet of bombs." (According to a whistleblower) Plus, according to Brzezinski in 1998, control of Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan (where we now have a military base) and a number of other -stans in Central Asia was a "geostrategic imperative for American primacy". Read into that what you will. In the case of Iraq (which, even according to Bush, had nothing to do with 9-11), Saddam, our former ally, had become uncooperative relative to the petro-dollar. Prior to the invasion, he was on the verge of accepting Euros for oil. If allowed to proceed, that would have ended the petro-dollar and the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That, in turn, most likely would have resulted in a series of events ending with the collapse of our dollar. Plans to invade Iraq were formulated months before 9-11. Saddam, our big buddy in the '80s, had to go. [In the '80s, we supplied him with weapons in order to punish Iran for the overthrow of the Shah and the holding of American hostages. The result was the eight-year Iraq-Iran war.]

In Part III of this series, key understandings will be presented in order to tie everything together. In addition, there will be more on Latin America.

Globalization: Part I, Beginning Seeds

2010-08-31T00:06:00.000-07:00

Some people think not, but history is important when attempting to understand current events. Globalization arguably and presently is the most significant event relative to the future of our Republic and our individual sovereignty. Here, in Part I, I'll present the beginning seeds of the phenomenon known as Globalization or Globalism.

In 1944-45, as a result of the Bretton Woods Agreement, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and what finally came to be known as the World Bank were created to help rebuild Europe after WW II. The Agreement, drawn up by the UK and the USA, established the rules/regulations for an international monetary system. Some years later, the IMF and the World Bank began making loans to poor countries, the Third World...and those loans had strings attached. More on that in Part II.

In 1965, General Suharto launched a successful coup against Sukarno in Indonesia, a country rich in resources, potential markets, and potential labor. The coup was known about beforehand by both the UK and the USA, but not revealed to Sukarno. [Sukarno, a strong nationalist, had kicked the IMF/World Bank out of his country...refused their "aid".] After the coup and over time, between 500,000 and one million Indonesians were murdered by the Suharto regime. Our CIA supplied a list, which facilitated the beginning of the massacre, of about 5,000 Indonesian communists to the Suharto regime. During that time, loans were made to Indonesia by the IMF and World Bank...with strings attached.

In 1967, Time-Life Corporation sponsored a meeting in Switzerland, the purpose of which was to plan the corporate takeover of Indonesia...that is to say, the economic (not political) takeover. David Rockefeller, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, representing Chase Manhattan Bank attended, along with dozens of other business luminaries--- representatives of Lehman Brothers, various oil companies, food companies, ALCOA, U.S. Steel, Siemens, various other banks, etc. General Suharto had his representatives there as well. [This is a classic example of Fascism in action--- mega corporations colluding with government cronies in order to control both the People and the economy.]

The large group in Switzerland divided up according to various sectors: banking and finance, food, consumer goods, oil and energy, etc. Each smaller group then hammered out the rules for doing corporate business in Indonesia. As part of the deal, the government of that country obtained another series of loans from the IMF/World Bank.

In 1973, the USA's CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende...because he was a Socialist, and probably had plans to nationalize U.S. businesses in Chile. A brutal dictator, General Pinochet, was installed; some time later, Pinochet's government obtained loans from the IMF/World Bank. Pinochet ruled for seventeen years. Henry Kissinger, a CFR member, chaired the meetings in the Nixon Adminstration that dealt with covert operations in Chile prior to the coup. Also prior to the coup, a Pepsi Cola franchise owner in Chile who also owned a newspaper (which was thought to be a CIA front) was called to DC to update Dr. Kissinger on the political situation.

In the 1980s, Thatcher of the UK built up her country's arms business and made a lot of armament sales to General Suharto of Indonesia. Also during that time, Thatcher and the USA's President Reagan laid the groundwork for what became known in 1989 as the "Washington Consensus"---a series of policies that supposedly would lead to global prosperity and unfettered economic growth by means of deregulation, privatization and trade liberalization (so-called "Free Trade") around the world. In the Third World, such a lofty goal would be attained through use of the IMF and the World Bank. The "Structural Adjustment Programs" of those two institutions supposedly would be the key to success. Details in Part II of this essay.

Government-Speak and Iraq

2010-08-18T16:03:00.000-07:00

Remember "Doublespeak" from Orwell's book, 1984? That's "Government-Speak" in my title above. An example would be one of today's headlines: "Final U.S. Combat Troops Leaving Iraq". Really? The qualifier is: 50,000 "support" troops remain in Iraq. 50,000. Support troops apparently are trainers and/or advisors to the Iraqis.

It has been quite awhile since I served in the Army, but I'm fairly certain of one thing regarding Iraq. There are not 50,000 trainers/advisors left there. At most, my best guess is that there are about 5,000 such troops left in Iraq. The remaining 45,000 or so are combat troops waiting for orders to resume combat, if necessary. They are similar to the troops we still have in Korea, Germany, etc.

At the same time that "combat troops are leaving Iraq", that country's infrastructure is barely functioning. Electricity runs for only about two to five hours per day, and then only in bursts of approximately fifteen minutes at any one time. Safe drinking water is not always available. On top of that, Iraq does not now have a functioning government. Another election was held not long ago, but there was no clear majority, and the various factions have not yet formed a central government. Meanwhile, insurgents have ramped up attacks via suicide car bombs, IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and murder by gunshot. It's not exactly a stable situation.

Don't misunderstand, I'm very happy that about 10,000 more troops have left Iraq. I wish they all had left. My fear is that our Fed Government will be sending those 10,000 (plus a lot more) back before too long. I also suspect that many of my fellow citizens now will think that the Iraq quagmire is "wrapped up", over. I don't think that's the case. My guess is that it's a temporary withdrawal due to politics: Americans currently are fed up with both wars.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and several other -stans in Central Asia make up a big part of Zbigniew Brzezinski's, The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (a 1998 book). Brzezinski, a true Globalist, along with David Rockefeller co-founded the Trilateral Commission (TC) in 1973. The TC is a Globalist, intellectual think tank which shares ideas and leadership regarding the problems and implementation of Globalism. In my opinion, The Grand Chessboard is the driving force behind our Government's foreign policy, and has been since about 1999.

I firmly believe that the Globalists in DC are drowning us in Government-Speak, especially regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other -stans. We are not there primarily because of our desire to "spread democracy", or because of terrorist threats to America, or because certain foreign leaders are brutal. [We were very happy to be dealing with Saddam, the Taliban, and the Shah of Iran, all brutal dictators, when they were cooperating with us relative to oil, pipeline routes, and the continuance of the petro-dollar.] We are there to secure natural resources, transportation routes for those resources, and to preserve the almighty petro-dollar. Most importantly, it doesn't matter relative to this situation whether Republicans or Democrats are in power in DC. Both parties have been co-opted by the Globalists. [And no...it's not a conspiracy; it's right out in the open. Do a search for the membership of the TC, and one for the membership of the CFR. Conservatives may be surprised to learn that Dick Cheney once was the Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR.]

Saddam, our former ally, was preparing to accept Euros for oil just prior to our last invasion of Iraq. That's why he had to go. Had he been allowed to proceed, that would have been the end of the petro-dollar, and the end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That, in turn, would have meant total bankruptcy for the U.S. Our fiat dollar has virtually no value, except for the fact that it is the world's reserve currency. If and when that ends, the dollar most likely will collapse.

A few months before 9-11, representatives of the Taliban were invited here to negotiate a pipeline route across Afghanistan, needed by Big Oil. We knew how brutal they were, but no one in the Government squawked over that then. According to one whistleblower and intelligence agent, the Taliban were told, "If you don't accept our carpet of gold [for a pipeline easement], we'll give you a carpet of bombs."

As a serious observer of American politics for over half a century, I've noticed that with each passing decade national politicians have become more and more Orwellian. The Government-Speak now is nothing short of astounding, and the frequency of it is overwhelming. With unmitigated hubris, the Republican and Democrat Globalists lie to us...and with a completely straight face. Most of them have no shame whatsoever. It is my sincere hope that, come November, 99% (there are a few honest ones, but very few) of the incumbents are voted out of office. Please, I beg of you.

Leave Afghanistan

2010-07-25T16:06:00.000-07:00

It is past time to get out of Afghanistan. Here's why---

1. The Intelligence Service (ISI) of Pakistan (supposedly our ally) aids the Pashtun Taliban. This is the same ISI that reportedly sent $100,000 to M. Atta, one of the 9-11 hijackers. This reason alone is enough to bring our battle-weary, frustrated troops home. These are the same troops who are given highly restrictive Rules Of Engagement, rules that are more suited to police officers than to combat troops.

2. The central government of Hamid Karzai and his brother is corrupt to the core. The Afghanis know this, and they know that we support the same corrupt, central government.

3. We are trying to establish a central government in a country that has almost no history of such a thing.

4. The Pashtun Taliban are at war with Karzai's government. Once again, we are in the middle of a civil war.

5. The new U.S. target date for withdrawal is 2014. The chances are good that by 2014 things won't be much "better" than they are right now. For certain, they'll be worse for us---more dead and disabled troops, more billions of dollars spent fruitlessly.

6. The Soviets committed 500,000 troops to their war with Afghanistan years ago...and they lost. Afghanistan is known as the "Graveyard of Empires" for very good reasons.

7. Polls indicate that over half the population in Afghanistan do not want us in their country any longer.

8. There are many, many more Al Qaida insurgents in Pakistan and Yemen than in Afghanistan. Intelligence estimates put the number of Al Qaida in Afghanistan at about 25-50, out of a total of approximately 25,000 insurgents.

9. Logic suggests that there's a high probability that Osama bin Laden is no longer alive. For one thing, why would he stop releasing video tapes that spurred on his fanatics?

I'll say it again: although there are obvious differences, the war in Afghanistan reminds me greatly of our involvement in Vietnam---corrupt governments in both cases, civil wars, restrictive Rules of Engagement, "winning hearts and minds", horrible losses of life (including "collateral damage"), billions of dollars, and Secretaries of Defense from the corporate world.

Here's who is benefitting from us being in Afghanistan: SAIC (Robert Gates was once on their Board of Directors); Halliburton/KBR; private security companies; and numerous other corporations in the defense industry. We probably also should include the Powers-That-Be in our own Fed Government, as the war allows more expansion of government and more intrusions into our personal lives (because it's part of the so-called "War on Terror").

It is long past time to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. There is much more terrorism in the world now, as compared to before we invaded those countries. Not only that, but our loss of life, limb, and treasure is obscene. And for what... to combat terrorism? I don't think so.

The Pundits Don't Get It

2010-06-26T13:53:00.000-07:00

The pundits/Media entertainers of the so-called Left and Right just don't get it. Or...perhaps they only appear to not get it. Here's what each camp does not seem to understand--

The "Left"---

Commentators/Media entertainers such as Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow appear to believe that the Tea Party Movement (or whatever you wish to call it) and the "Right" are "extreme", possibly "dangerous", and upset for no good reason. Matthews and Maddow fail to grasp that the dissatisfaction in many people is due to Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901) and gross violations of the Constitution. Both Republicans and Democrats have been practicing Legislative Absolutism for decades, thus violating their constitutional oath of office. Google "legislative absolutism + Justice Harlan", but don't use quotes.

Our Fed Government is one of enumerated powers, meaning that We the People (who are sovereigns) have delegated to the central government only certain specific powers. The legislative powers are found in Article I, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution. About 99% of the members of both Houses of Congress often get around that limitation and by-pass the Supreme Law of the Land simply by going ahead and passing laws illegally, in subject areas for which they have no delegated authority. That's why a lot of people are pissed.

The "Right"---

Media Entertainers (who some people think are political commentators) such as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh appear to believe that Democrats and the "Leftists/Socialists" are the main problem relative to disappearing Liberty. Apparently Beck and Limbaugh do not understand that the Corporatocracy (or as some folks call it, the Oligarchy) utilizes Republicans as well as Democrats in its quest for world governance by unelected elites. Past leaders as politically different as FDR and Barry Goldwater warned us that just such a thing was happening. People like Beck and Limbaugh seem to have no clue.

The old political paradigm of Right v. Left or Repubs v. Dems is being used to manipulate We the People. Divide and conquer. The new political paradigm is: Globalists v. the common people, or Globalism v. Sovereignty, or the Corporatocracy v. Nations... or some phrasing along those lines. The Globalists/Mega Corporatists are not genuine Capitalists; instead, they are Crony Capitalists. With their cronies in the central government, they are bringing about the elimination of the Republic of the United States of America. Basically, they are Fascists. Fascism is the marriage of large corporations to the State; it is private ownership, but government control. Plus, as I've said over and over, it's not a conspiracy; it's right out in the open for all to see. The use of the word "conspiracy" is a red herring put out by the Globalist Media.

John D. Rockefeller, probably the King of the Mega Corporatists, once said, "Competition is sin." His old Standard Oil company was broken up by the government into many sub-companies. Most of those were bought up by the old British Petroleum company, known as BP today. One of John's grandsons, David Rockefeller, stated in 1991 (not an exact quote): surely it is preferable to have an unelected body of elites ruling the world rather than the nations of the past, with their corrupt politicians.

The use of the term "socialism" is another red herring. The Mega Corporatists certainly don't want the government to own the means of production; they want to own it. Governments are being used simply as puppets, to give the People the feeling that everything is "democratic".
...........................................................................................................

The misunderstanding that I have attributed to the Right also applies to the Left. Both sides seem to be ignoring the warnings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Barry Goldwater, Carroll Quigley, John Perkins, and in an ironic way, David Rockefeller. Wake up, America.

Good for McChrystal!

2010-06-22T16:30:00.000-07:00

Was it rude?...yes. Did it violate military etiquette?...yes. Was it good for his career?...I doubt it, but the guy is already a four-star General. Was he being stupid?...I don't think so. Did he not know what the impact of those remarks would be?...I think he did know.

There is no question that the civilian government should have control over the military. Does that mean that Generals and their staffs should never publicly disagree with the President or other members of the Administration? No, in my opinion, it doesn't mean that at all. I know it's the politically correct thing to do, but I think We the People have a right to know what the Generals who are prosecuting the war think about the civilians who are in control.

According to the reporter who broke the story, McChrystal and his staff have been extremely frustrated with the Obama Administration for quite some time. In my view, it's too bad that Westmoreland didn't speak up back in the Vietnam days. I believe that this situation in Afghanistan is similar to the one in Vietnam back when. In both cases, I don't think the Oligarchy that rules this country wants (or wanted, in 'Nam) to win the war. What they want is perpetual war. [See my previous post immediately below this one.]

I don't support either war that we're engaged in currently...the troops, yes, but not the wars. Obviously, then, I didn't support the "surge" in Afghanistan requested by McChrystal. [Surge---that's government-speak for expanding the war.] Nevertheless, I see his point of view. As McNamara once pointed out, historically it has taken a ratio of ten conventional troops to one guerilla to win an insurgency-type war. By the time McNamara realized that he had to count North Vietnamese Regulars (as well as Viet Cong) in that ratio, it was too late. [That would have meant one million American combat troops in 'Nam.] If we accept that historical ratio, in McChrystal's case that means
250,000 American/Allied troops in Afghanistan. He won't ever get that. The main reason he won't is not because it would be politically unpopular; rather, it is because the Corporatocracy/Oligarchy doesn't want a resolution in Afghanistan for awhile. In my opinion, that's because the American public hasn't yet been conditioned enough to accept our invasion of the next country, whichever one that happens to be.

No-Drama Obama (the Media gave him that tag, not me) easily could prolong the Afghan War by firing McChrystal. Actually, though, it doesn't much matter whether he does or not, because according to the historical ratio mentioned above, whoever leads the troops does not have enough of them to bring about a favorable resolution anyway. [Thank God...more troops would mean more blood and treasure expended in vain.] The fact is, we need to get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP. Even if we "stabilize" both countries, what happens when we leave? Major combat (by Americans) supposedly is over in Iraq and the country still is not stable. We can't stay in these countries forever, but that seems to be the plan.

The State and Perpetual War

2010-06-16T07:23:00.000-07:00

According to a couple different news stories, one in the New York Times, recent setbacks in Afghanistan have put a "cloud" over the Administration's timetable for withdrawal of troops in that country. Big surprise. :) I remember when they created that timetable; it seemed at the time that few people paid much attention to the phrase, "depending upon conditions on the ground". Most folks seemed to focus on the announcement that we would begin serious troop withdrawals in July of 2011. I also remember when then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld stated that "major combat has ended in Afghanistan". That was in 2003. Will we ever stop trusting these politicians? Apparently they either are extremely short-sighted, incompetent, or out-right liars.

It seems to me the chances are good that we will not be leaving Afghanistan next year, or even in 2012. If by some chance we do leave, I suspect that we'll simply "invade" another country, perhaps Pakistan, or some other -stan in Central Asia, or maybe Iran. We don't, of course, technically "invade" any country (except Iraq); instead, we are invited in by some corrupt puppet government or "government-in-exile", thus it all seems above board. The reason for our 700+ overseas military bases once was the threat of worldwide communism; now it is worldwide terrorism. Or so the story goes.

I agree with those who believed that communism (from certain quarters, at least) was a threat, and I believe that terrorism (from certain quarters) is now a threat. But terrorists usually do not engage in conventional warfare, as did the communists in, say, Korea. Terrorism is best handled by intelligence agencies and law enforcement. If you disagree with that premise, consider this: if we are to combat terrorism with conventional military forces, then those forces will have to remain forever in countries where terrorism is found. If they don't, what happens when we leave? The terrorists simply will come out of the woodwork and pick up where they left off; we will never kill or capture all terrorists.

If one takes a serious look at human history, the conclusion reached regarding war almost certainly has to be that the State loves (or those that rule love) that activity. War provides certain advantages to rulers: common people are manipulated more easily if they have a common enemy; there is the opportunity to obtain and/or secure natural resources; if the rulers have a vested interest in defense industries, then there is the opportunity to make a lot of money; and there is the opportunity to obtain and/or secure transportation routes for resources such as natural gas and oil. [Our interest in Afghanistan seriously began years ago when Big Oil wanted right-of-way for a natural gas/oil pipeline across most of the country.]

A long time ago, Machiavelli refined the concept of "perpetual war" in order to control the masses and gain resources. I don't think much has changed regarding War and the State since that time.

At the risk of sounding like a "conspiracy theorist", I don't believe that the national politicians in DC "rule" this country. I also don't believe that the People "rule" this country. Instead, we are ruled by multi-national, mega corporations...Crony Capitalists (not genuine Capitalists). [Crony Capitalists are more like Fascists...they are married to the State.] Most importantly, it's NOT a conspiracy. It's right out in the open for all to see. If you haven't seen it, then apparently you're not looking very hard.

So what can we do to correct the situation? Somehow we have to figure out a way to elect people to office who will not become unduly influenced or controlled by the Corporatocracy. How do we do that? Good question. Perhaps a start would be to demand term limits and genuine campaign finance reform. A Constitutional Amendment may be required. But how do we demand anything? I think different forms of boycotting may be the answer. For example, boycott incumbents of both political parties. Better yet, boycott the parties themselves. Why keep electing and re-electing the politicians who have brought us to this point? It makes no sense. We could boycott elections, but I doubt that will ever happen. Because we really do have taxation without true representation, we could stop paying taxes...but most likely that will never happen, at least, not within my lifetime. I'm open to other suggestions.

I don't claim to know the solution, but I believe that if we don't do something decisive, then this country...We the People as sovereigns...are doomed in terms of a free society. Alexis de Tocqueville warned us in the 1800s of what he termed "soft despotism". Google his name and that term, and see what you think.

Mr. Cool Reveals Himself

2010-05-28T00:22:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama once stated to an interviewer that one of his jobs was to make the Presidency "cool" again. Until his latest press conference, he was having quite a go at that. But then, it all fell apart.

I'm about to state an opinion; you may or may not agree. I'm picking on Obama and the Democrats mostly because they often somewhat haughtily claim to be on the "High Road", and along with the Globalist Media, look down upon the Republicans as nothing more than naysayers. [It's too bad that more Congress people don't say "Nay" to the asinine levels of borrowing and spending by the Fed Government.] Don't misunderstand, though, I don't think much of the Republican Party either.

If you watch Obama's last press conference carefully, quite often you'll see right through the man's polished slickness directly into his true nature. At times his normally composed, clipped speech pattern becomes hesitant, a little confused, and disingenuous. That usually happens while he's trying to relate to the people being impacted by the catastrophic oil discharge in the Gulf. He can't quite get there; he comes off as being too academic, too distant, almost uncaring. At one point the normally eloquent Obama summed up the catastrophe to Gulf residents and the environment as "messed up". That seems to be his grasp of the depth of the disaster. Members of the Press Corps sometimes looked at each other in disbelief according to a few pundits. His performance was dismal and basically demonstrated that he really isn't much of an inspiring leader.

Toward the end of the conference, Obama finally admitted that the Fed Government has been in charge of the oil discharge response since day one. I knew that should be the case because I'm familiar with the 1990 Oil Pollution Act and the National Contingency Plan (dealing with responses to massive oil and hazardous substances spills). I'm convinced that the only reason he finally claimed ownership of the response is because so many critics were asking, "When will the government take over?". That ownership was not apparent prior to the press conference because, in my opinion, the Executive Branch didn't want people to know that the Feds were totally in charge...because the response was perceived as not going well. After finishing speaking, Obama almost ran out of the room...no smile, a somewhat blanched look on his face. He knew he had given a poor performance, that he had not related well to the situation.

That press conference demonstrated to me that Obama is not the person his devoted followers perceive him to be. He's just another slick, millionaire, well dressed, normally well spoken politician who really can't relate to people out of his sphere, or to their suffering in cases like this disaster. I saw the same exact thing in Bush (except for the well spoken part) relative to Katrina.

So much for "cool". Who cares about that in the Presidency anyway? Just once I'd like to see a President who dresses like Ralph Nader, cares like Jimmy Carter, communicates like Ronald Reagan (in his prime), and thinks as well as William F. Buckley, Jr. once did. Oh, and please, no more millionaires.

Is it Obvious Yet? [re: Offshore Drilling]

2010-05-25T19:18:00.000-07:00

Is it obvious yet that offshore oil drilling is a tremendously bad idea? In arguing against that opinion, one could cite the relatively good overall safety record of the offshore drilling industry (as Obama did prior to this accident), but to my mind the current catastrophe eliminates that as a cogent argument. One could cite our need for domestic oil as a necessary evil (so to speak), but that doesn't change my mind either. We could be on a different energy path, or numerous different paths. As the late genius Buckminster Fuller once said (perhaps not an exact quote), "The Sun [solar energy] should be our 'checking account'; oil should be our 'savings account'." in terms of "energy banking".

The current problem well is about 5,000 feet below the water's surface, and look at the difficulties that causes. Now consider this: some of these offshore wells are deeper than that---up to 9,000 feet below the surface. Imagine the trials and tribulations if one of those began discharging oil at the wellhead.

All of this reminds me of a larger issue. In the early '70s (almost forty years ago), this country started to plan seriously for the day when oil would no longer be such an important source of energy. It was the first modern-day Green Movement. Ten years after that, it was all but forgotten. Blame Reagan if you must, but the fact is that most everyone abandoned Green. The corporatists claimed that it was too expensive to switch to solar power, wind power, biomass power, geothermal power, hydropower, hydrogen power, fuel cells, etc. The Media joined in the chorus. Many fragments of Green Energy survive to this day, but there is no longer any comprehensive, dedicated, focused energy policy moving in a completely Green direction.

It takes about twenty-five years for a society to switch from one primary energy source to another. The Executive Branch Department of Energy was created under President Carter for the express purpose of getting this country off foreign oil. [It's fair to say: that was a failure.] Imagine if the Fed Government had continued to offer huge tax credits to corporations who developed affordable Green energy, and if they additionally would have given lucrative government transportation contracts to companies who developed (just as an example) a safe, affordable hydrogen-powered vehicle. Imagine, too, that the Feds offered other incentives as well. The chances are good that we would now be divested of our oil addiction.

None of that happened. I think it's fair to say that the probability is high that Big Oil lobbying played a significant role in our continuing addiction to petroleum. The Republicans and Democrats in office in DC love Oil money... and Banking money, and Defense Industry money, and Big Pharma money, and Airline money, and Big Coal money, and on & on. After all, election campaigns are expensive. :)

We need an energy policy with the stated goal of getting us off oil, and we need to stick to that policy.

[I, having taught Biology, Ecology, and Environmental Science for many years, fully admit to a bias regarding this subject.]

Primary Elections

2010-05-19T12:33:00.000-07:00

DC "outsiders" appear to have done well in the recent primary elections. I was especially pleased to see Arlen Specter defeated and Rand Paul (son of Texas Representative Ron Paul) victorious. It would appear that the "anti-incumbent" mood is producing results. Good news.

But is the news really all that great? The Democrat and/or Republican Parties have been in charge of our government for many, many decades. During that time, unalienable Rights have been encroached upon by our Fed Government, many jobs and a good deal of manufacturing have moved beyond our borders, our borders are not really secure, blood and treasure are expended overseas for questionable reasons, brave troops (who volunteered) are "stop-lossed" via a back-door draft, our money has been devalued to an incredible point, and China (as well as other countries) is calling for an end to the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Every so often in the last half century, I've seen "populist" movements of one sort or another arise on both the Republican and Democrat sides of the coin. In the long run, however, not much of significance ever came from them. Why? Many times I've heard, "If we can just get the right Democrats [or Republicans] in office, then things will get better."; but the situation rarely ever does get much better. Even when it does, it rarely lasts. Why?

It is long past time for us to recognize that both the Republicans and Democrats are either bought and paid for or controlled by non-elected, multi-national, mega corporations, including large banking interests. Why do I say that?...because well respected individuals throughout our history have said it: Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Barry Goldwater, Carroll Quigley, John Perkins, David Rockefeller [on the dark side], and others too numerous to list. I believe them. We have failed to heed the warnings of Thomas Jefferson and Dwight Eisenhower.

While the current anti-incumbent mood is a good thing, it would be much more useful if it extended to the ruling political Duopoly---the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. People keep saying, "But a third party doesn't stand a chance."; I'm sure that's true if people keep believing it, and repeating it, and resigning themselves to it. The Republicans and Democrats have had their chances to do better, but they have failed...and they have failed miserably. They are the incumbent Parties. Kick them out. Send a message to the Corporatocracy. Take back our government. That will not happen via Republicans and/or Democrats.

Oil Spill Response

2010-05-15T19:33:00.000-07:00

Obama has been posturing lately regarding BP's handling of the oil spill in the Gulf. Here's what he's not telling you.

Ever heard of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, or as it's better known, the National Contingency Plan (NCP)? Take a look at this overview---
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/ncpover.htm
Be patient, it loads somewhat slowly.

Here are what some of the various Sections deal with: 300.110, the National Response Team; 300.115, Regional Response Teams; 300.135a, authorizes the predesignated On-Scene Coordinator to direct all federal, state, and private response activities at the site of a discharge. There are many other significant sections.

The current BP oil discharge meets the criteria for the NCP to kick in. So, a few questions arise, as follows.

1. Has the Executive Branch implemented the National Contingency Plan relative to the BP oil discharge in the Gulf?
2. If not, why not?
3. If so, who is the On-Scene Coordinator?
4. What agencies are being coordinated?
5. What is being accomplished by the Federal efforts?

The people along the Gulf Coast deserve answers. We all deserve answers. How about it, Mr. President?

[Thanks go to Alex for generating the idea for this piece.]

Obama and Financial Reform

2010-04-22T19:44:00.000-07:00

Obama and the Democrats are telling lies again. They claim that the current financial legislation will reform the practices of the Wall Street Banksters. The Republicans, unfortunately, contribute to that myth by implying with their opposition that the legislation has significant weight.

In the last crisis, government intervention resulted in several mergers which caused the mega investment banks and commercial banks to become even larger. The current proposed "reform" does nothing to correct that. The OTC derivatives market, which grew from $95 trillion to $600 trillion in a short span of time, is now 95% controlled by our country's five largest banks**. The current proposed "reform" does nothing to correct that either. Most importantly, the current proposed legislation does nothing to separate the regular commercial banks from the Wall Street Bankster investment banks, as did the Glass-Steagall Act. In short, the current proposed legislation does nothing significant; it is designed to appear to be financial reform and protection. It's a fraud.

[** A note on derivatives---
The use of various derivatives can result in accounting fraud by the Banksters, thus allowing them to claim assets that essentially are worthless. The failure of the sub-prime loan market recently was only the trigger for the financial crisis; the basic cause was accounting fraud enabled by the use of some types of derivatives. $600 trillion of derivatives are still out there, and according to Senator Ted Kaufman, the five largest banks hold 95% of those.]

The only sane voice I've noticed regarding this issue is that of Senator Ted Kaufman. For a look at real financial reform (and a blistering criticism of the current package), Google him plus the words "financial reform". This guy seems to understand clearly that Obama, Reid, et.al. are just playing at reform; basically, they are protecting the mega banks.

I smell another Obama backroom deal in the making.

King Barack's Deal

2010-04-11T01:38:00.000-07:00

The following is from a preview of PBS's Frontline show, Obama's Deal, which airs on April 13th. The preview can be viewed online by going to http://www.pbs.org/ and then accessing the Frontline page, and finally the page listing all 90 of Frontline's online shows. Or, simply Google "Obama's Deal" and sift through the results.

How did Obama get the support of the health insurance industry for the new health care law? He made a backroom deal: their support in exchange for the requirement that all Americans be forced to buy health insurance from private companies, with no public option allowed. In the Senate, the lobbyists for the health insurance companies actually wrote the bill. [By the way, that's a common practice in politics---having industry lobbyists write legislative bills.] That's why the Progressive Democrats in the House tried to bypass the Senate Bill completely. They were only partially successful.

Both Democrats and Republicans need to understand something about the above scenario. It is not an example of Socialism; instead, it is an example of Fascism. It is mega-corporations joining with government to force something on the People, most of whom don't want it. Fascism, according to Mussolini, is the perfect marriage of mega-corporatism and the State; it is private ownership but government control.

King Barack enlisted Max Baucus, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, to hold hearings on the health care bill. Progressives were not allowed to testify because they were in favor of the public option. Lobbyists from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, as well as moderate Democrats, were allowed to testify; they favored private ownership, but government control.

So you see, my Republican and Conservative friends, the situation is not quite the way you portray it. This is Fascism, not Socialism. And to my Progressive Democrat friends: you have been outwitted and outmaneuvered by the Fascists again. Finally, to Americans in general: please stop squabbling about Conservatives and Liberals. The enemies are Fascists. Mega multinational corporations and their government cronies are destroying the REPUBLIC of the United States of America. Notice that I said, "Republic", not Democracy. The difference between the two is important.

Yes We Can

2010-04-05T18:31:00.000-07:00

Can we further destroy the Constitution by claiming that Congress has the authority to pass a health care bill under the umbrella of Interstate Commerce? Yes we can. With the passage of Obamacare, the members of the central government think that they now can regulate not just health insurance, but health care as well. I don't know about you, but I get my health care locally from a doctor who does no business out-of-State. Furthermore, it is the individual States that license doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc., not the Federal Government.

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, the original intent of the Interstate Commerce clause was to insure that the individual States would allow commerce to take place between and among them. That, for example, Texas could not say to New Mexico, "Your businesses are not allowed to conduct commerce in this State."

Then, too, there is the issue (contained in the new health care law) of the central government being able to force individuals to buy a service from a private entity. The Constitution gives no such authority to the Fed Government. On that provision alone, the recently passed health care bill is completely unconstitutional.

Can we further destroy the Constitution by claiming that Congress and the Executive have the authority to regulate education under the General Welfare provision? Yes we can. Here's what James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, had to say (paraphrased) about General Welfare: to claim it covers most anything is to completely contradict the concept (to which we adhere) of a government of enumerated powers. The words "General Welfare" merely are an introduction to the powers listed in Article I, Section 8. Congress has only those seventeen powers.

[For those few who may not know, "Yes we can" was a familiar cry during the Obama campaign for the Presidency.]

Obama and many members of Congress are continuing and expanding the destruction of the U.S. Constitution by practicing Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in the very early 1900s), which is and has been done for decades by both Republicans and Democrats. Rather than amend the Constitution, which requires two-thirds of both Houses of Congress AND three-fourths of the States, they instead pass laws to get what they want...and apparently they don't care whether or not the law is constitutional. They are all violating their constitutional oath of office. For some odd reason, we keep electing them to office.

Indefinite Detention for Pre-Crime

2010-03-08T17:25:00.000-08:00

This nightmare is right out of the movie, Minority Report, starring Tom Cruise. http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=5258 If the link doesn't work, go to www.independent.org/blog and do a search for: McCain-Lieberman Bill Flirts with Totalitarianism.

These pathetic, anti-Constitution, national politicians are proposing that the U.S. military be able to detain U.S. citizens without trial (and indefinitely) in the USA for suspected activity. This goes right along with King Obama's idea for "extended detention". No habeas corpus, no lawyer, no trial, no due process, and all based on suspicion...not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's unclear to me exactly what it will take to wake up the American people. If this legislative bill doesn't do it, I fear nothing will. Many (perhaps most) of our elected representatives apparently feel that all they have to do is utter the word "terror", or "terrorist", or "terrorism" and they then have the right to ignore the U.S. Constitution. It's incredible.

Please help send a message this Fall: vote these Fascist types out of office (and that includes Obama in 2012). If bills like this are ever passed, almost anyone could be considered an "enemy of the State" and held indefinitely without trial. What if you say something "suspicious", or buy the "wrong" book, or a genuine terrorist misdials your phone number? What if your neighbor has a grudge, or simply doesn't like you, and then manufactures "suspicious activity" on your part?

I think "...Flirts with Totalitarianism" is a gross understatement. Each of us is a sovereign individual with unalienable rights (and responsibilities). Our Government is not going to protect that status, even though that is its function. It is up to us.

Beaches of Gold

2010-03-01T05:40:00.000-08:00

Have you noticed? The world's most calamitous financial/monetary event may have started just recently. The Fed Reserve, in conjunction with the U.S. Treasury, has been flooding the market with our fiat dollars for some time now... and China has stopped "buying" U.S. debt. [That last bit is Government-speak for: China has stopped loaning us money.] Most likely the only thing that prevented a run on the dollar (for now) is the fact that Japan took up China's slack relative to the buck.

Price inflation in this country has been edging up slowly for the last two months, despite the Fed's Keynesian efforts to keep it down. Grocery prices are the most obvious indicators of that. The primary cause of price inflation is inflation of the money supply, which causes the value of each dollar to decrease. Here's a simple way to understand it: ask yourself, if beaches were made of grains of gold rather than grains of sand, how much would one ounce of gold be worth? Generally speaking, anytime the quantity of some item is increased in a trading system, the value of each unit of that item decreases. That's just as true for fiat dollars as it is for ounces of gold.

U.S. fiat dollars have been increasing (on a net basis) for decades. That's why it takes so many more of them to buy the same item as compared to ten or twenty years ago. I remember buying a pair of Levi blue jeans for $3.95 in 1962. Now they're about $35. The U.S. dollar today is worth about four cents as compared to its value in 1913, the year of the passing of the Fed Reserve Act.

Keynesian economists believe that Government "spending" of fiat money in ever larger amounts can go on virtually forever without any negative impacts on our money or economy. Common sense tells us that continual devaluing of the dollar by essentially printing it out of thin air is bound to have a negative impact sooner or later. The only reason the dollar now has any value at all is because it is the world's reserve currency. But, for how much longer?

As soon as China, Japan, the Saudis, European countries, and others figure out how to dump dollars without taking a horrendous loss, the ongoing Keynesian game will be over. Oil, for example, will be traded with some other form of money; then the inflation of prices here will begin in earnest. Some predict it will be hyperinflation, and the collapse of our economy. I don't think so...not the last part anyway.

We very well may have significant price inflation relatively soon, perhaps even hyperinflation; however, that doesn't necessarily mean our economy will collapse. If sand (the dollar) doesn't work as a medium of exchange, eventually we'll agree to use something else. In the meantime, perhaps different regions will have different forms of "money", and/or we'll barter to a large degree. [Even countries can barter if need be.] One thing is fairly certain: the fiat dollar is on its way out. Don't believe the likes of Ben Bernanke; he was totally wrong regarding his predictions about the housing bubble and, most recently, the overall financial crisis. The Keynesians have been playing their game for over sixty years, but it's about to end. When it does end, our economy is in for a rough transition; but I don't believe that it will collapse.

QUESTIONS

2010-02-17T17:40:00.000-08:00

To all Republicans and Democrats: why are we still in Iraq? Why are we still expending blood and treasure there? We went in originally to find WMD. The ones found were degraded and/or mostly disintegrated. Then the reason for our presence became: Saddam is a brutal tyrant (no question about that), and his regime must be replaced. We found him and he's now dead. His regime has been replaced. Then the reason became: we need to insure that elections take place. They have. Finally, the reason became: we must battle Al Qaida. From all I've read and heard, they're now mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Why are we still in Iraq? Why is our embassy there the largest embassy in the world? How long do we plan on having troops in Iraq? After we leave (if we leave), will the Sunni-Shiite civil war continue?

These are all legitimate questions, and I don't see any national politician addressing them.

Why are DC politicians not answering these questions? Why are not more people asking them?

A Few Items

2010-02-11T05:45:00.000-08:00

Our Federal Government has been "shut down" for three or four days due to the massive storm. Has anyone noticed any difference as compared to when it's "open"? :) Don't get me wrong: even Libertarians believe there is a legitimate need for a central government...for national defense, a money system, a court system, laws governing interstate commerce, and a few other things of that sort. But here's what we don't need: $50 million of federal money spent on an indoor rainforest project in Iowa; $26 million for the Harrisburg, PA Courthouse (a courthouse, OK, but $26 million!); $1.4 billion (in 2001) in erroneous payments in the Food Stamp Program; $13.3 billion (in 2002) in improperly paid Medicare claims; 342 different economic development programs at the Federal level, a great many of which overlap; and on & on. [Facts courtesy of the GAO.]
...........................................................................................................

I'm getting very weary of reading and hearing about "Climate-Gate" and the whole Global Warming argument. The so-called "Conservatives" believe that the warming is due to natural causes (such as solar sunspot cycles), while the so-called "Liberals" or "Progressives" believe that it is caused by human activity which produces Greenhouse Gases (such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, chlorofluorohydrocarbons, etc.).

I don't hold a PhD in anything, but do have an environmental education at the Master's Degree level. I also worked for the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department for seven years and as an environmental consultant for a total of five years, part of which I researched and wrote Environmental Impact Statements. Hello!---the probability is very high that Global Warming is caused by BOTH natural events and gases generated by human activity. Currently we are in a natural interglacial warming period, and industrial-produced gases such as carbon dioxide (billions of tons generated by human activity annually) do trap heat in our atmosphere. The percentage of warming caused by each source is unknown.
........................................................................................................

Uncle TOM (Tired Old Media) often castigates those of us who are pro-Constitutional government and thus pro-limited government as being anti this or that. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as the saying goes; therefore, let me state plainly that those who are for Big Government are anti-Constitutional government and anti-limited government. Both of the above arguments are simply attempts at misdirection and misinformation... and should be ignored by anyone with common sense.
.........................................................................................................

The Articles of Freedom

2010-02-02T10:04:00.000-08:00

http://www.articlesoffreedom.us/ Click on "Articles of Freedom" at the very top of the page, then "Read the Articles". A Table of Contents allows you to get a quick overview and then select those sections that may be of particular interest.

The Articles are the work of the Continental Congress of 2009, a We the People effort, and a brilliant education in the Constitution and Common Law. This very well may be the unifying concept that is much needed in the Liberty Movement. It's Constitutional, comprehensive, practical, and grassroots.

http://www.cc2009.us/

If truly you are interested in restoring the Republic, then check out the above websites...and get involved. Don't expect to agree with every single item presented; however, if you support Freedom and a Constitutional Republic, I believe that you'll be in agreement with a preponderance of the material.

One More Liar

2010-01-24T04:56:00.000-08:00

In the tradition of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney, President Obama has revealed himself (on video tape) to be an outright, bald-faced liar. [I know it's rude to say that...but it's true.] The proof is about an hour into this two-hour-and twenty-four minute movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU [If the link doesn't work, go to www.youtube.com/ and use their Search box to look for Fall of the Republic.] Normally, I'm not too impressed with the efforts of Alex Jones; he's way too bombastic for my tastes. In this video, however, he does a very credible job. I don't agree with everything in it, but there's no denying the Obama lies.

Here are some of the things that Obama has lied blatantly about:
The Fed Reserve and Ben Bernanke;
Signing Statements;
Transparency in his Administration;
Taxes;
The Patriot Act;
Wiretapping and Surveillance;
Investigation of Torture;
Detention Without Trial;
Lobbyists in his Administration;
Time for the public to review Legislative Bills;
NAFTA.

Under no circumstances should he be re-elected, or even currently supported in any way . If We the People ever are to re-take our Government, 99% of all incumbents need to be voted out of office. Obama is at the top of the list.

Here's another interesting approach/solution:
http://www.cc2009.us/

In a very predictable way, Obama now is attempting to again pose as a populist politician, given the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. Despite his affinity for Wall Street Banksters, he's now making speeches about how he plans to clamp down on them and the banks in general. It's all a sham...complete BS. Like most national politicians, he's giving the People what they want to hear--- tough talk. Nothing substantial will come of it. If he wanted to do something really helpful, he would fire Tim Geithner and Larry Summers...and would not support Ben Bernanke. Those things will never happen, and the Banksters (who now have a credit line with the Fed Government of almost 24 trillion dollars) win again. Obama is nothing but a slick huckster.

Change...

2010-01-20T08:47:00.000-08:00

in Massachusetts. The voters finally may be sending a message to DC: we're sick and tired of the status quo...sick to death of shallow Democrats and Republicans who are the shills of the Corporatocracy. At least Scott Brown initially appears to be independent minded and not run by Wall Street Banksters. Time will tell. One thing is relatively certain: voters have indicated great displeasure with the likes of Obama and Pelosi, and with the "one-size-fits-all" approach to health care.

In the meantime, Republicans should not misinterpret the Massachusetts vote. It was not only a rejection of the approach of the Democrats to political matters; it was also a rejection of the "incumbent attitude" of both parties in DC. Incumbents of either party may find extremely rough sailing in the next election. The common people have had it with the DC Elites.

Perhaps the Massachusetts vote was the opening salvo in the new battle to restore the Republic and reject Globalism. Or maybe that's hoping for too much. In any case, the era of Obama Change appears to be in reversal. The Scott Brown win in the Kennedy Dynasty State is a watershed event.

Bernanke: Completely Wrong

2010-01-07T19:58:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChF53LvV4sY&feature=channel

Take careful note of the dates in this video clip, keeping in mind the culmination of the bursting bubble in late 2008.

Peter Schiff, an Austrian Economic School adherent, was laughed at by the Keynesians in the years prior to the recent financial crisis. Ben Bernanke, the Fed Reserve Chairman, was saying pretty much the opposite of what Schiff said. Recent history has shown that Bernanke was completely in error. So, why are we listening to him today? He has proven that he really doesn't know what he's talking about.

Schiff predicts that the next bubble to burst will be the dollar bubble. Bernanke has assured us: that won't happen. He's either ignorant... or lying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO-JLGbrpXI&feature=related

What Happened to Our Republic?

2010-01-04T18:11:00.000-08:00

If you truly care about the title question, then please do the following when you have time. Utilizing the "Search This Blog" function on the sidebar to the left, do a Search for each of the following:
legislative absolutism;
constitutional republic;
corporatocracy;
the new paradigm;
what happened to our country.

A number of past articles will turn up. Over the next few weeks or so, please review them; hopefully, you'll come to the conclusion that favoring one of the major political parties over the other is not the solution to the problem. The problem is way beyond that.

If one does a little digging, what happened to our Republic is fairly obvious. It's the solution to the problem that is the stickler. What is the solution? What can be done to restore the Republic? How can we have a free society? What price Freedom? I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know this for certain: those of us who believe in a Constitutional Republic and a free society are almost completely disorganized...and distracted. We appear to be divided up into a plethora of groups, each pursuing some small portion of a solution.

I've said this before: we need to get organized and focused. It seems to me that the first thing we require is a website that will draw all the various factions of the Liberty Movement to one place. At that place, I think it would be good to propose solutions (action items), discuss them at length, and then vote on each one. Once a course of action is identified (be it one item or several), we can then implement the action(s) in a timely and coordinated manner. If we don't do something along these lines, then we can be relatively certain of a steady march toward complete destruction of our Republic.

To those of you who believe that you are currently involved in what your particular group thinks is the proper solution to the problem, I would ask--- how can you possibly believe that? I've been a serious observer of American politics and the condition of our Republic for over half a century. The progression toward Statism, or Collectivism, or Totalitarianism, or whatever you wish to call it has been unrelenting during that time...and continues to this very day. It doesn't matter which political party is in control, the results are pretty much the same---less individual freedom, and more destruction of our Republic. It doesn't even matter much that, once in a blue moon, some faction of the Liberty Movement has a minor victory. Overall, the Republic continues to be destroyed.

What excuses will we give to our grandchildren? "I wasn't sure what to do." Or, "I tried, believe me. I worked hard for _________." Or, "It happened so gradually that we woke up too late." Or, "The majority didn't want a Republic anymore." Or, "Too many people were apathetic, and didn't even know the value of a Republic." Or, "Some of us tried to preserve Freedom, but it seemed so hopeless, what with the attitudes of most people." Or, blah-blah-blah.

None of that is good enough. Yes, we've tried. Yes, we've worked hard for this or that. But let's be brutally honest---we're losing the battle. A new approach is needed...something way beyond party politics, and something comprehensive. Don't give up.

Investment Banksters & Derivatives

2010-01-01T07:03:00.000-08:00

As the year twenty-ten begins, American voters would do well to reflect upon the scam of financial derivatives. Such reflection is necessary because the derivatives market is still completely unregulated (thanks to Crony Capitalism) and was the major cause of the financial meltdown beginning in 2008 and culminating just recently.

Derivatives, particularly credit default swaps, are the invention of Wall Street Banksters; their sole purpose is to make money for a miniscule fraction of the financial community at the risk of bringing down major institutions critical to Main Street credit availability. Derivatives are sold by Banksters, and then speculation (futures) on those same derivatives are sold, and then speculation on the speculation is sold. When all is said and done, Insider Banksters have made millions of dollars, but the solvency of major institutions is at risk should there be a shock to the whole system---a shock such as numerous defaults on sub-prime loans.

The Obama Administration, particularly Tim Geithner and his cronies, are now adopting the stance of Protector of the People (so to speak) relative to the Wall Street Banksters. Anyone who falls for that must believe that it's wise to have the fox guard the henhouse. Obama et. al. present a public image of promoting financial reform; however, the "reform" thus far is cosmetic. Loopholes abound, and all the elements are in place for another financial meltdown...which means, all the elements are in place for the Banksters to make another killing at the expense of Main Street.

SSDD.

One of the basics...

2009-12-28T07:53:00.000-08:00

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 .

Buying Votes

2009-12-22T23:26:00.000-08:00

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 Corporatocracy, Hit Men, & the American Empire

2009-12-09T13:15:00.000-08:00

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).]

Obama's War: Part II

2009-12-02T18:03:00.000-08:00

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?!

Immigration, Reproduction, & the Constitution

2009-11-25T16:54:00.000-08:00

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.

The Rarely-Mentioned-War

2009-11-21T09:43:00.000-08:00

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.

Health Care: A Simple Question

2009-11-12T08:15:00.000-08:00

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.

More of the Same from DC

2009-10-30T18:49:00.000-07:00

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.

"A Fool's Game for the Masses"

2009-10-12T21:48:00.000-07:00

It's really gratifying to see that I'm not the only one who writes about the two major political parties in this country being a fraud:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=3596

I couldn't have said it better.

So, some ask, what's to be done? There are those who advocate the violent overthrow of the central government. We have that Right under the conditions expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and those conditions seem to exist presently (and for quite a number of years). I am NOT suggesting that course of action, for the simple reason that most likely it would not succeed. Peaceful revolution is a much better option.

Elsewhere on this Blog I've encouraged boycott of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, that course is problematic not because it wouldn't succeed, but rather because most likely it will never get started.

Here's another option; this one could materialize AND succeed. Pressure Congress to live up to its duty to call an Article V Convention. More than two-thirds of the State Legislatures have applied for such a Convention, but Congress has ignored its Constitutional mandate to call the Convention. http://foavc.org/

Before you buy into the completely lame excuses for Congress failing to do its duty in that regard, be sure to read this---
http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60
If the above link does not work, go to http://foavc.org/ and click on "F.A.Q", on the left side of the Home page (scroll down).

An Article V Convention seems to me to be the best available first step in bringing about a much needed, peaceful Revolution in this country. The next step would be to launch a blitz ad campaign aimed at our so-called "representatives" in DC, the purpose of which would be to make it clear that certain proposed Amendments (an Article V Convention only can propose Amendments) are the will of We the People...and if they're not ratified, heads will roll (so to speak). Although there is NO same-subject requirement in Article V, well over two-thirds of the State Legislatures already have applied for a Convention in order to propose a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress has ignored their applications.

It's time to force the DC politicos to adhere to the U.S. Constitution.

The Devastating National Debt

2009-10-08T17:23:00.000-07:00

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.

"Obama's War" in Afghanistan

2009-10-01T14:24:00.000-07:00

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 Big, Meaningless Squabble

2009-08-19T14:06:00.000-07:00

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.

Is It a Conspiracy?

2009-07-06T16:41:00.000-07:00

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.

"Political Correctness"

2009-06-07T05:35:00.000-07:00

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.]

Taxes: "I Want My Money Back"

2009-04-15T19:39:00.000-07:00

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=1824

[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.

A Genuine Conservative

2009-03-17T21:19:00.000-07:00

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.

H.R. 393: Mandatory National Service

2009-03-06T18:45:00.000-08:00

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.

Distraction from Globalization

2009-03-05T22:52:00.000-08:00

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.]

Our Outlaw Fed Government

2009-02-23T19:27:00.000-08:00

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.

Globalization and the Corporatocracy

2009-02-11T10:21:00.000-08:00

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.

"They" Should Abolish the IRS, and...

2009-01-18T21:12:00.000-08:00

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.

Three Cheers for Jim Jubak!

2008-12-05T22:12:00.001-08:00

Jubak's recent article, "Fake Inflation Numbers Masked Crisis", hit the nail right on the head.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/fake-inflation-numbers-masked-crisis.aspx

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!

The Feds Ignored the Warnings

2008-12-01T22:59:00.000-08:00

According to the article below (from Associated Press), regulators in the Bush Administration should have been more vigilant regarding the rules for subprime lenders, but were pressured by lobbyists; as a result, we have the current mortgage fiasco.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417

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.

Daylight Saving Time (DST)

2008-11-02T00:50:00.000-07:00

This little digression from my usual content won't take long.

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.

One Party Rule

2008-10-30T22:14:00.000-07:00

It doesn't matter (not in any significant way, at least) which major candidate comes out on top November 4th. The only real winners will be the super-rich and the CEOs of huge multi-national companies...and their crony U.S. Senators and Representatives. The common person will lose. [For WHY, see the previous three posts on this blog.]

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.

Governments Continue to Enrich Bankers and Cause Inflation

2008-09-29T07:33:00.000-07:00

From MSNBC News: "BREAKING NEWS: Federal Reserve, other central banks make massive cash injection to fight credit crisis"

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?

The Corporatocracy is on a Roll

2008-09-26T06:09:00.000-07:00

Headline:

"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.

No More Politics!

2008-08-22T23:03:00.000-07:00

Before leaving WA, I had decided that the late and eminent Professor Carroll Quigley was correct when he stated in his book, Tragedy and Hope, (somewhat paraphrased here) "The tragedy is that we no longer have a representative government in this country, and in most countries; the hope is that the little people will come to accept that...because there is nothing they can do about it." [emphasis added]. Quigley used the term "little people" because he considered himself in the company of the unelected elitists who control/influence our politicians. He was a respected macro-historian, Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown U., and in no way a "nut" or "conspiracy theorist". He called the dynamic group that actually runs this country the Roundtable Group. John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, calls the group the Corporatocracy.

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.

Moving

2008-05-14T14:21:00.000-07:00

I'm in the process of packing and moving out-of-State, so will be offline for awhile...perhaps as long as a few months.
Scott Haley

"The Plea"

2008-04-12T05:46:00.000-07:00

This documentary by Frontline is absolutely devastating in its indictment of the court portion of our criminal justice system. It's in short (10-15 minute) segments, so if you can't spare the time for the whole thing, then try at least to view a couple of the segments.

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.]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/view/

This is well worth the watch.

More on Secession

2008-04-04T22:38:00.001-07:00

Below are more links dealing with secession. The first one, "The Logic of Secession" is superb. The last one provides a fairly comprehensive list of American separatist movements.

http://middleburyinstitute.org/thelogicofsecession.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCkYCfeDM-I

http://middleburyinstitute.org/rightsandfreedoms.html

http://middleburyinstitute.org/registrynorthamericanseparatists.html

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.

Extraordinary Rendition (ER)

2008-03-28T07:17:00.000-07:00

This makes one wonder: how does ER compare to ordinary rendition? Not that it matters much.

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.

The Case for American Secession

2008-03-20T21:16:00.000-07:00

Americans love this land, but many of us are fed up with the corrupt, inept, unrepresentative central government in DC that largely ignores the Constitution. The situation will not change through working within the present subverted system. Peaceful secession is a viable option for many regions.

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. :)

http://www.middleburyinstitute.org/caseforamericansecession.html
Excerpt:
"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?"

Second Vermont Republic

2008-03-09T21:17:00.000-07:00

I emphasize again that secession is nowhere prohibited by the Constitution, and that being under a government is voluntary...at least in a free society.

http://www.vermontrepublic.org/

Please explore the above website.

Excerpt from http://www.goodmagazine.com/section/Features/most_likely_to_secede

"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.

Why Secession Makes Sense

2008-03-02T21:57:00.000-08:00

The United States needs to be broken up...peacefully. If we are honest and objective in our observations of the U.S. in 2008, we can conclude the following.

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:
http://www.goodmagazine.com/section/Features/most_likely_to_secede .

Trailer of the film, A State of Mine:
http://astateofmine.com/trailer.html

The Republic of Lakotah:
http://www.republicoflakotah.com/ .

Smaller, more regional is better.

Why McCain Might Win in November

2008-02-25T12:03:00.000-08:00

Some Democrats think that their Party has a lock on the upcoming election.

Not that I want him to, but the Bomb-Bomb-Iran Man has a good chance of winning the Presidency. Here's why---
1. Nader.
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.

The Flaws in the Constitution

2008-02-18T00:46:00.000-08:00

As much as I defend the Constitution, I don't think we even should have one. Let's not forget that it took well over a year of bitter debate before all of the original States ratified it. The two States at the tail end of that process did so only because they had little economic choice.

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.

A Call to All Ron Paul Supporters

2008-02-10T21:30:00.000-08:00

You can't win a fixed game. There is no point in rehashing all the ways in which the game is fixed; anyone who is up on things knows them. It is now virtually impossible for Dr. Paul to win the Republican nomination. He has vowed to continue to get the Liberty message out, and that's a very good thing; but it should be obvious to all by now that the nomination is not in the cards.

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?

Chain of Custody in NH Recount

2008-02-07T16:09:00.000-08:00

As someone who has taught Chain of Custody procedures [for an Environmental Tech Training Program at a vocational college], I can tell you with absolute certainty that that NH ballots are not being handled properly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHL_YMBolRs

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E

It's beyond belief.

Warlord McCain

2008-01-28T23:45:00.000-08:00

"Bomb-Bomb Iran."
"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---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBiti-ZbeO0

Uncle TOM Gets It Wrong Again

2008-01-20T21:24:00.000-08:00

In a political primary contest, it's the number of delegates that determines the winner; that often corresponds to the popular vote, but not always. Our Uncle, the Tired Old Media, declared Hillary Clinton the winner in Nevada in the Democratic race. Here is the number of delegates won by each of the top two candidates in that race: Obama---13; Clinton---12. Hello, TOM, Hillary lost.

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".

The Corporatocracy at Work in NH?

2008-01-16T20:52:00.000-08:00

There appear to be serious problems with the primary election in New Hampshire.

I can't vouch for either of these, but they raise some questions.

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNHandCount15Percent.htm

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNDieboldExecCriminal.htm

And then there's this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV6qAGigGYY

We all should give serious consideration to this as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs

Finally...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_len_hart_080112_princeton_university.htm
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?

The Lodi Case: Overly Zealous, Unprofessional FBI

2008-01-11T13:30:00.000-08:00

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.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/enemywithin/view/

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.".

Gun Control and the Statist Mind

2007-12-29T22:33:00.000-08:00

Rather than infringe on law-abiding peoples' rights, the Government should severely punish those who initiate force. But then, that makes too much sense.

The Statist mind believes that it is much better to try and eliminate all possible danger, no matter what the cost to law-abiding folks. The Nanny Syndrome involves a belief that the safety and nourishment of "society" trumps any individual right that gets in the way of that lofty goal. Unalienable individual rights?...forget them if they get in the way. The Constitution?...forget it if it gets in the way. Common law precedence [which was: an individual basically is free to do anything as long as that action does not infringe on the rights or property of others]?...forget it. The "good of society" is the greatest good. Some of us think not; we believe that freedom of the individual is the greatest good---as long as that individual does not initiate force or fraud. [If the person does initiate force or fraud, then legally punish that individual severely; don't take away the rights of law-abiding people.]

Statist thinking is that government must "take care of" people, because the world is dangerous and (most of all) unfair. The cost of trying to make the world "fair" is staggering---loss of individuality, loss of freedom, and loss of income on an unprecedented scale. Government not only taxes us to an unnecessary degree, but often charges an additional fee for its "services".

Society is not an organism...it has no rights; it is made up of individuals who have unalienable rights that have nothing whatsoever to do with any government anywhere. Unalienable rights are not the same as "civil rights"; the latter are granted by statute.

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

Even requirements for gun permits are infringements on the unalienable right to self-defense possessed by law-abiding people. Furthermore, the permit requirement often is economically discriminatory; a permit in some places can cost as much as $150.

A great myth surrounding gun control has spread in this country: that a lack of gun control increases crime. Not true at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

The Supreme Court decision on this issue should prove interesting; it is due sometime between April and July.

The Shadow Government: A Bit of History

2007-12-24T20:33:00.000-08:00

This is from Professor Carroll Quigley, the late and renowned macro-historian, who was Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University---and was written about 45 years ago. Excerpts from his book, Tragedy and Hope (1966):
[All emphasis added.]

"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Group has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so...

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments...

"[A] front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations and was a front for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group...

"On this basis, which was originally financial and goes back to George Peabody, there grew up in the twentieth century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy...

"In England the center was the Round Table Group, while in the United States it was J.P. Morgan and Company or its local branches in Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland...

"The American branch of this 'English Establishment' exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript )...

" They were gracious and cultured gentlemen of somewhat limited social experience who were much concerned with the freedom of expression of minorities and the rule of law for all, who constantly thought in terms of Anglo-American solidarity, of political partition and federation, and who were convinced that they could gracefully civilize the Boers of South Africa, the Irish, the Arabs, and the Hindus, and who are largely responsible for the partitions of Ireland, Palestine, and India, as well as the federations of South Africa, Central Africa, and the West Indies...

"It was this group of people, whose wealth and influence so exceeded their experience and understanding, who provided much of the frame-work of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the United States in the 1930's...

"It must be recognized that the power that these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie, and, once the anger and suspicions of the American people were aroused, as they were by 1950, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympathizers...

"Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whittaker Chamber, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations...

The Eighty-third Congress in July 1953 set up a Special Committee to investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations with Representative B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee, as chairman. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the 'most respected' newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions..."

[My point here is to illustrate that those who founded the "Shadow Government" were beyond political party affiliations, right v. left, and all that propaganda. I believe that is still true today...and today, the Shadow Government is greatly expanded and includes many multi-national corps, not just those in banking, oil, and newspapers.]

Money and Shifting Economic Theory

2007-12-22T23:18:00.000-08:00

"The 'Great Inflation' of the 1970's challenged and permanently altered economic theory. It vindicated the once-controversial analysis of Milton Friedman, then at the University of Chicago...

"In a 1970 lecture, 'The Counterrevolution in Monetary Theory', Mr. Friedman outlined 11 propositions about how monetary policy affects the economy. All were wildly controversial, almost disreputable, at the time. Most are accepted today...

"Today, most macroeconomists also accept Mr. Friedman's most famous proposition -- that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon. Contrary to what I learned in macroeconomics class, 'cost push' inflation was a myth. Pay and price increases did not drive inflation; they reflected it. Americans wanted higher nominal wages and prices to keep up as the real value of each dollar declined.

To combat cost-push inflation, the Nixon administration imposed wage and price controls in 1971. Various controls, notably on energy prices, lingered throughout the 1970's. But inflation did not go away, because all these policies treated the symptom, not the cause." [Emphasis added]
From: http://www.vpostrel.com/articles-speeches/nyt/friedman.html
(A New York Times article)

AND...
"The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole...Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world's money..." [Emphasis added]- Prof. Carroll Quigley, renowned, late Georgetown macro-historian (mentioned by former President Clinton in his first nomination acceptance speech), author of Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966).

AND...
"Although much of his trail-blazing work was done on price theory—the theory that explains how prices are determined in individual markets—Friedman is popularly recognized for monetarism. Defying Keynes and most of the academic establishment of the time, Friedman presented evidence to resurrect the quantity theory of money—the idea that the price level is dependent upon the money supply. In 'Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money', published in 1956, Friedman stated that in the long run, increased monetary growth increases prices but has little or no effect on output." [Emphasis added]
From: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Friedman.html

"War Becomes Perpetual...

2007-12-07T18:56:00.000-08:00

when it is used as a rationale for peace." ~ Norman Solomon, from the film at the link below.

This is excellent on propaganda in America. From LBJ to GWB, it details how "officials in Washington" and the media have sold wars to the public via distortions, omissions, and/or outright lies.

To my Conservative friends, yes, it leans Left (and is narrated by Sean Penn); but I'm not part of the Left, and I found great value in it. If nothing else, the Nixon tape on the nuclear option is worth the watch...and why Phil Donahue's show was cancelled...and several other interesting bits.

To those who really don't have time for these hour-plus documentaries, please try and watch at least the first 19 minutes. I don't think that you'll regret it. Can't do 19 minutes? OK...do 15 minutes, or 10.

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/war_made_easy.php

Uncle TOM is Downright Comical at Times

2007-11-30T05:14:00.000-08:00

Our Uncle, the Tired Old Media, is becoming more and more of a farce. The other night on NBC Nightly News netcast, TOM (represented by Brian Williams) had this story...(somewhat paraphrased)...

"The gloves came off in the Republican campaign today. Giuliani and Romney hit each other HARD." Giuliani said that Romney was "just like Hillary", and that during Romney's term as Governor, "crime in the State went up". Romney said that Giuliani "didn't add the figures properly; crime in Massachusetts actually went down during my term".

WOW! I'm not sure if either candidate will ever recover from those wicked blows. Thank you, TOM, for staying on top of this crucial and HARD-hitting political story.

[Surely people can see through this farce. Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee are campaigning for a nomination.]

Oh for the days of Edward R. Murrow.

CFR and the NAU

2007-11-21T02:22:00.000-08:00

In May of 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations published their 175-page Report, Building a North American Community. Below is an excerpt from the description of the Report, and a link to the CFR webpage of same.

"When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America', but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it." [Emphasis added]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/

Those who continue to doubt that plans for the North American Union (NAU) actually exist need to wake up. The United States as we know it soon will be gone.

Republicans and Democrats Just Don't Get It

2007-11-21T02:12:00.000-08:00

The movers & shakers of BOTH major political parties subscribe to the vision of David Rockefeller, a one-world corporate-type government run by unelected elites. [It's NOT a "secret conspiracy"; it just isn't publicized.] Rockefeller stated in the early '90s that a "world government run by supra-national elites surely is preferable to what we have now", and he revealed how the elites in this country have been working for over 40 years to institute such a govt.

The Iraq war is one tiny part of the effort to convince the masses that such a govt is necessary. Plus, a lot of multi-national companies are making a lot of money off the war. Ike was right about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Once the Middle East and Central Asia are "secure", plans to merge the various commerce-based "Unions" can proceed. By then the Asian Union, the North American Union, and the South American Union will have become practical realities. That's why the elite Dems and Repubs want to keep the Iraq war going as long as possible.

To those who STILL don't believe any of this, I would suggest that you research the writings of David Rockefeller and the publications of the Rockefeller Foundation. The journal "Foreign Affairs" is a good source as well. The concept has been discussed (by the elites) in obscure think-tank journals and publications for decades.This bizarre and somewhat insane idea is promoted as being entirely altruistic: supposedly, such a govt would eliminate hunger and war world-wide. Sounds great, but (even if true) keep in mind that in the process wealth will be redistributed ON A GLOBAL BASIS. That's already underway. One method is to funnel funds from USAID and the World Bank to U.S. multi-national corporations, as long as they relocate their factories to foreign countries.

The Old Versus The New

2007-11-15T23:23:00.000-08:00

http://www.johnperkins.org/Preface.htm

The old political paradigm: Dems v. Repubs, Right v. Left, etc.

The new paradigm: Corporatocracy (or Plutocracy, if you prefer) v. us.

The movers & shakers of both major political parties are part of the Corporatocracy. The two-party monopoly in this country is corrupt beyond redemption. Boycott it, or get ready for David Rockefeller's vision of a one-world, corporate-type government run by unelected elites. According to Mr. Rockefeller, that "is surely preferable to what we have now".

"The Inevitable Collapse of the Dollar"

2007-11-04T15:20:00.000-08:00

Is Government really this stupid? Or, is the collapse of the dollar part of the Rockefeller, et.al. plan for a one-world, corporate-type government run by unelected elites?

The collapse of the dollar perhaps would suggest a "need" for the above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3g5lUgkWk

Again, I emphasize that the Rockefeller vision is not a "secret conspiracy". It has been discussed in obscure think-tank journals for decades.

The TASER Police State

2007-10-29T14:01:00.000-07:00

Query: after the first death as a result of tasering by law enforcement, why were tasers not banned from use by law enforcement? There have been dozens of deaths, and yet tasering continues. The TASER (Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle) is a barbaric tool...and being completely misused by some Peace Officers.

It's important to remember that those people who died were innocent; in this country, one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. At least, it used to be that way.

I've seen video clips of people being tasered while in handcuffs, or while two or three officers were holding a person on the ground. People have been tasered for not getting out of their vehicles, or not moving fast enough when an officer says "jump". This whole thing is out of hand. Police now routinely use the TASER in cases where they would not use a firearm or a baton. The ethical questions involved are significant. No one should ever be tasered unless that person actually is attacking an officer or another person.

The militarized police need to take stock of their methods. Many of them appear to be treating every civilian as an "enemy combatant", not as an individual with unalienable rights. Who is providing oversight?

Next will be the tasering of folks involved in peaceful civil disobedience and not threatening officers in any way. That's when you'll know for certain that we now live in a Police State.

Corporate Globalism: The Big Scam

2007-10-24T21:38:00.000-07:00

Globalism is part of a 40-year-old plan to establish a corporate-type world government and redistribute wealth on a global basis. The electorate has been snookered by the elites in the two-party monopoly, both Democrats and Republicans.

David Rockefeller must be pleased as punch. He has stated publicly, ever since the early '90s, that once we have a one-world corporate-type government in place, the world will be so much better off. He's proposing a weird sort of corporate-socialism (my term, not his) in which jobs, wealth, and other resources will be redistributed in order to eliminate poverty world-wide...yeah, right. America, of course, will be the head honcho of this whole ridiculous scheme...and the Corporate Elites will run the whole show from on high. That's why America must be certain to have access to world-wide natural resources.

The first task in the plan was to make multi-national businesses rich and all-powerful---that's pretty much done. Next was to form commerce-based global "Unions"---that's about half done. Next is to totally eliminate national sovereignty. Next is to merge the various economic "Unions". [At the moment, I forget what's after that.]

Very few have paid attention because someone somewhere sometime started saying that the whole thing was an "Illuminati" secret conspiracy... so people who actually read the obscure think-tank journals where all this was OPENLY described, and tried to warn others, were relegated to the tin-foil hat brigade. It's NOT a conspiracy...it's NOT secret (just not publicized)...and it has nothing to do with some Illuminati group. But it does exist...the plans have been pursued ever since the early '60s. The whole scheme has been discussed (by the elites) in journals such as Foreign Affairs for decades. David Rockefeller admitted to all this years ago, and stated that the one-world government to be run as a corporation (by non-elected elites) is "surely preferable to what we have now". (!) That's a direct quote.

We've been sold a bill of goods...and a big part of that is the MYTH that Republican and Democrat elites are somehow very different from each other. They aren't. They support the plan.

To those who still don't believe any of this, I would suggest that you research the writings of David Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Foundation. Globalism IS the Corporatocracy, and the elite movers-and-shakers in both parts of the two-party monopoly are a significant part of the whole thing. The "have-mores" will prevail as long as the electorate allows the elites to divide and conquer...pitting one group against another.

Democratic Socialism?

2007-10-18T06:42:00.000-07:00

A seemingly growing minority in this great land believe that we should convert our form of government to that of Democratic Socialism, or a Social Democracy. They further believe that many unfulfilled "needs" (e.g., a need for national health care coverage) exist amongst the populace, and that a Constitutional Republic is inadequate to meet them. These people are found amongst both Democrats and Republicans. They have been changing our form of government bit by bit by means of Legislative Absolutism for decades, passing laws in areas where the Fed Govt has no Constitutional authority to act. All for the "good of our society".

The only question is: where do we draw the line? Even if we commoners all agree on where that is, it is highly doubtful that the Powers-That-Be will want to stop there. Why anyone thinks that "democratic socialism" will stop at the point of democratic socialism is beyond me.

"Power corrupts, and..." ~ Lord Acton

"There are two enemies of the People: criminals and the government. Let us bind the second with the chains of the Constitution, so that it does not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson

That's exactly what the Founders did: they bound government with the chains of the Constitution. Just because that happened in the late 1780s (and this is 2007) does not mean that the rules no longer apply.

Many feel that last quote is an anachronism at best, a quaint dictum that is no longer applicable in modern-day America. Many others, however, feel that it is a timeless Truth---more applicable now than ever before; and the same folks also believe that the existence of a "need" does not justify any means of fulfilling that need, particularly force.

I really get amused with people who believe that the Founders' concepts are "out-of-date", "old-fashioned", and "from a bygone era". Funny thing...those people never include the concepts of due process, free speech, the right to privacy, civilian control of the military, etc.; they only include items such as the limitations of the Constitution on the central government, or the right to bear arms, or anything else they personally think gets in the way of some Statist agenda.

In our system of government, we have a distinct, legal way to change the rules governing government---Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention. Those who sincerely believe in democratic socialism---and that amounts to (at most) about 20-25% of the populace, notwithstanding all the hoopla to the contrary---need to lobby for a Constitutional Convention, or a series of Amendments... that is, if they want to do things according to the Supreme Law of the Land. [I think all would agree that our form of government is a Constitutional Republic, not a Socialist Democracy. Change it if you can, but do that legally.]

This is all just common sense, and so obvious...is it not?

The Militarization of Police

2007-10-09T19:53:00.000-07:00

Is anyone concerned about this (see the video below)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INdcaeeb3ws

If not, why not?

Collectivism In America

2007-10-02T09:21:00.000-07:00

Admittedly, the image is an exaggeration; nevertheless and more importantly, totalitarianism is totalitarianism---regardless of the flavor.

Both Republicans and Democrats (in general) are promoters of Statism in America today. The Fed Govt has expanded for decades whether Repubs or Dems have been in charge in DC, with ever more intrusions into our personal and professional lives. The claim is that it's all for our own good. Meanwhile, our freedoms continue to erode as the elite one percent get richer and the rest of us get poorer.

One of the reasons the above is happening is because the Corporate Media (shills for the Corporatocracy) continue to promote the myth of Right vs. Left, Republicans vs. Democrats, etc. Divide and conquer. Use fear of the "other group" to manipulate people. Keep the masses from learning who the real adversaries are---the Corporatocracy vs. us.

The goal of the Corporatocracy, as stated by David Rockefeller (paraphrased), is to create a one-world government of supra-national elites (primarily super-rich corporate types) who will run the world as if it were a giant corporation. The elites will make the rules; we will have to live by them. I should emphasize---this is NOT a conspiracy. It's right out in the open for all to see; but it's not publicized, and the Corporate Media rarely ever cover the story. [NBC News actually did cover the Trans-Texas Corridor, which is to be extended through the Great Plains all the way to Canada and thus linking Mexico, the U.S., and Canada in one huge NAFTA Superhighway---eighteen lanes wide. That's all a small part of the plan to implement the North American Union.]

When the North American Union and the Asian Union are in place, eventually they will merge with the European Union, the African Union, and the South (and Central) American Union. Countries will most likely retain their historical names---no need to unduly alarm the public---but all people will be subject to rules created by the international, elitist Corporatocracy. Rockefeller claims that such an arrangement "is surely preferable to what we have now".

One of the ways that common people will be controlled or manipulated in this "New World Order" will be via our medium of exchange---money. If the elites get their way, eventually all money will be digitized and will reside in some version of a personal computer chip. If someone causes the Corporatocracy any trouble, then that person's chip will be electronically disabled...all according to the rules, of course. Tax collection will be done electronically...and will be a snap. Every time you buy something, there will be an electronic record of it available to the world government. Privacy largely will be a thing of the past.

Boycott the Corporatocracy whenever possible. Reclaim your individual sovereignty. [See previous posts on the subject, elsewhere on this blog.] The nightmare described above can be stopped, but voting for a Democrat or a Republican is not going to do it. The elites in the two-party monopoly are part of the Corporatocracy.

Alan Greenspan Did It

2007-09-23T23:54:00.000-07:00

Finally, someone in DC admitted what most people have known for some time: the Iraq War is "largely about oil". He also commented that it's "politically inconvenient" to say so...and, he opined, that is sad. Thank you, Alan, for speaking the truth.

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (by Brzezinski, 1997) spells it all out. The NeoCons bought the thesis lock, stock, and oil barrel.

Hail Caesar...and the grand vision of an American Empire. What a sad (and unconstitutional) vision.

The Tragic Comedy

2007-09-16T11:56:00.000-07:00

The two-party monopoly in American politics is elitist, nonrepresentative, and mostly a tragic comedy.

I think it's all a big show...meant to distract us from the discovery that:
1) our borders slowly are being eliminated;
2) our national sovereignty slowly is being eliminated;
3) our money is virtually worthless (which will enhance the transition to the NAU "Amero");
4) multi-national corporate Globalism rules, not American interests...especially in economic and energy matters;
5) the purpose of a national ID is to keep track of us, not terrorists;
6) some unalienable individual freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the State is nothing but propaganda promoted by central planners;
7) foreign policy is designed to secure foreign natural resources and Corporatocracy business interests;
8) both political parties believe that the Corporatocracy is essential to our survival;
9) Government is no longer the servant; and,
10) the two-party monopoly has, for all intents and purposes, trashed our Constitutional Republic.

The Democrats are as big a tragic comedy as is King George. Except for a few minor corrections in the country's flawed path, the Dems spend most of their time making excuses, squabbling amongst themselves, and doing virtually nothing (or worse, providing support) in regard to the Globalist Corporatocracy takeover of our economy. Their impotence is unbelievable...and damning...and suspicious.

As for the Republicans, well, obviously they have been hijacked by those who believe in the philosophy of Irving Kristol (who formerly was a Trotskyite), the American Empire NeoCons. But even prior to that, Republicans have contributed to all of the points listed above.

The Republi-crats are the elitist Government Club. They all talk a good talk...and every so often produce a flurry of seemingly beneficial activity. Meanwhile, the march toward 1984 continues unabated...and supported by the two-party monopoly.

So, We the People are pretty much shafted...unless...
we boycott the Establishment two-party monopoly on a massive scale, thus crumbling the repressive ballot-access laws, political elitism, and Corporate Media political propaganda. Only then will folks with integrity and honor have a chance of being elected and making a difference. Our only chance is to return to citizen (not professional) politicians. [Our Founders never imagined that anyone would want to make a career out of the snakepit in DC. They figured people would serve a term or three and then go back to their real jobs.]

I don't see it happening anytime soon. Too many people still believe that the rotten political system can be changed by remaining within the bounds of that system (the two-party monopoly). I look back over the last half century and ask myself, "How can they still believe that?".

The MYTH of the Big Differences Between Democrats and Republicans

2007-09-09T08:38:00.000-07:00

99.9% of the professional political hacks either in office or running for office as a Repub or Dem subscribe to (or support)...or at least, do not oppose:

Corporatocracy-promoted Globalism;

no-term-limits, which virtually guarantees corruption;

the bogus "War on Terror";

the bogus "War on Drugs";

the concept of American dominance;

the devastating practice of deficit-spending;

an ever-growing Fed Govt;

a two-party monopoly in politics;

the very idea of political parties (which are completely unnecessary);

soft money in political campaigns;

our destructive fiat money system;

the misapplied Individual Income Tax (all of which goes to pay the interest on the nat'l debt);

the concept that Govt knows best what is good for the individual;

the military-industrial complex;

the concept of Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), which allows the abrogation of the Constitution;

the idea that it's just too complicated to end the war in Iraq now;

the idea that individuals must be forced to pay for items that the majority thinks are necessary, even when there is no Constitutional authority to permit the central govt to delve into those areas;

the welfare state;

the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System; and,

the Patriot Act (which virtually has trashed much of the Bill of Rights).

So, where are the big differences?

Another Tool: Another "Notice"

2007-09-04T08:40:00.000-07:00

For the Record: NOTICE to CEASE and DESIST

Demand for truth is made, of all parties or interests, for full disclosure.

NOTICE
From: scott c. haley

To:______________________________

Regarding: ______________________________________ _________________________________________ _____________________________________________________

____________________________________
____________________________________
__________________________, _________

Dear: ___________________________

This is actual notification that by and through this correspondence:

Your items are refused for cause without dishonor, and without recourse to me, and returned herewith because they are irregular, unauthorized, incomplete, and void process.

Your paperwork is incomplete and defective upon its face due to insufficient law.

All paperwork was received but not accepted.

That I, in my sovereign status possessing unalienable rights, have no contractual or other relationship with you that is in dishonor; therefore your vexatious harassment is a foreign private trespass.

Demand is made that you cease and desist. You are in dishonor.

So done by virtue of common law individual superior court, Skagit county, WA:

This ____ day of ___________, two-thousand seven. ____________________________,
_____________________________ ______________

scott c. haley
Expressly Reserving All Rights.

[Address]

Page one of one page

More Practical Sovereignty

2007-08-27T05:08:00.000-07:00

Once in awhile an individual or business will receive a "Notice" or a "Notice to Comply" from a governmental agency. Such "Notices" are sometimes not proper or lawful. For example, I once received a Notice to Comply from the Environmental Health Dept. of a rural northern California county, regarding how I handled septic waste on my place (at the time) of thirty-eight acres. Said Notice was entirely improper because the department that issued it had never done an onsite inspection. The "inspector" apparently was too busy, or lazy, and was operating on hearsay knowledge. [When I pointed this out, the "Notice" was deleted from their records, I received an apology, and the department took no further action.]

Even if the Notice received is proper and lawful, it is often helpful to oppose it, thereby delaying a re-inspection or administrative action by the agency. Many times (more often than not) agencies are so backlogged with compliance work that they pick only the low-hanging fruit, so to speak. In any case, it is always good to stand up for your rights when you believe that you've done nothing wrong, or you believe that the ordinance in question is excessive or intrusive.

Below is a Notice that you may copy and use when necessary. Simply change my name to yours and change the county (location of Affiant). One way to demonstrate to an agency (especially local or State) that you do not intend their Notice to go unchallenged is to turn right around and issue THEM a Notice. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. It always buys you time.

Notice and Affirmation

Whereas the Declaration of Independence states with clarity that all individuals are endowed with certain unalienable rights; and,
Whereas the Declaration illustrates that said rights are independent of any government; and,
Whereas I affirm that I possess said unalienable rights, and thus possess individual sovereignty; and,
Whereas in Common Law an individual is free to do whatever one wishes, as long as that individual does not trespass upon the rights or property of another individual and honors all lawful contracts;

Now Therefore:

I refuse your paperwork that alleges violations of law or contract foreign to my venue, which no oath, promise, or common law attaches me thereto.

Your documents were received but not accepted.

All items are refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to me.

Your paperwork is returned herewith because it is irregular, incomplete, and void process.

Further foreign intrusion upon my sovereignty by you or any agent of yours shall result in my charge of $200.00 per hour (or portion thereof) for any time that I must spend responding.

Recovery of charges shall be pursued in de jure common law superior court.

No response from you or your agency/department/entity will be taken as agreement with the statements contained in this Notice and Affirmation, according to de jure common law.

I affirm and attest that, to the best of my knowledge, the above is true and correct. So stated by Affiant: Scott C. Haley, in Skagit County, Washington

(signature)_________________________________
Date _____________

Notice and Affirmation received by:
(print name) _________________________________

(signature)_________________________________
Date ______________

More on Boycotting

2007-08-21T22:55:00.000-07:00

This is only my opinion and perhaps many will disagree, but national elections in this country have become truly meaningless. They present us with this choice: a horrible, especially corrupted evil, OR, just a corrupted evil.

I see only two reasonable options left to honorable people:
1. Boycott the Establishment---that can be done minimally, maximally, or anything in-between. (Use your imagination.) One's stage of life plays a big part in how much you're willing to risk.
2. Secession: not as crazy as it sounds. Vermont has a very active secessionist movement currently, with about 64,000 people involved. I've found this site, http://middleburyinstitute.org/ , to be the most responsible and logical of the various secessionist websites.

Armed revolt obviously is out of the question. Any such action would be thoroughly crushed. Pockets of resistance might survive for years, but not enough to matter. Some people are talking about this very action on the web...I think they are very unrealistic.

Only nonviolent civil disobedience will ever change the entrenched DC way of doing things. People have forgotten that being under a government is voluntary, and that we really do have unalienable rights that have nothing at all to do with any government...whatsoever.

There were/are three types of "citizen" (legally) in this country:
1. a citizen of a State of the Union (this is the most important category, Constitutionally);
2. a citizen of "the United States", prior to the 14th Amendment (which really is a different name for number 1 above); and,
3. a citizen of "the United States" per the 14th Amendment (which is clearly different from either of the above, and is one who enjoys "civil" rights---which are granted by Congress).

See: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php

"In drafting the [14th] Amendment, Congress was looking to make its federal laws (the Enforcement Act, the Freedman's Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866) a part of the US Constitution. In doing so they intended to ensure that the freed blacks would have certain privileges and protections remain in place after the United States pulled its army out of the South and restored the Southern states to their previous status as states of the Union. The Amendment would also insure that Congress had the national authority to enforce the provisions of the Amendment upon any state that attempted to violate them."

Civil rights entail allegiance to the Govt; unalienable rights do not. Our present Govt places civil rights ABOVE unalienable rights. Furthermore, it is no longer a representative government; special interests of the Corporatocracy have seen to that.

In general, the Govt of this country is too corrupted to change in any meaningful way... unless it is forced to by nonviolent civil disobedience. (That can be done locally, or individually---it doesn't necessarily mean a massive "March on DC".) Failing that, I see only more of the same in the future. I realize full well that many support the Democrats, and see them as an agent for positive change. I don't; and even after the NeoCons have faded into history, I don't see the Republicans that way either. The movers and shakers of both parties are committed to the Globalist New World Order.

Frankly, having been a serious observer of American politics since 1956, I've concluded that the current dominating corruption of principles by both Democrats and Republicans at the national level will continue until they are both forced out of the American political system. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Government is always best at the local or regional level. Even then it can be a stinker. I'm beginning to believe that we should have stuck with the European model---that is to say, each State being an independent Republic. Of course, the Articles of Confederation would have to be expanded to allow for the military defense of all...meaning, "national" taxes for defense only would have to be implemented.

Naturally, the above will never happen. So we're back to square one. I would like to live long enough to see the time when "citizens" of this great land finally realize that significant, positive change (for peace and Freedom) here will never be the result of voting in national elections. Forty or fifty years ago that was possible, but no longer. The Corporatocracy is firmly entrenched, almost completely out in the open relative to their actions, and has almost absolute control of the voting process---from A to Z.

Boycott the Corporatocracy whenever possible! [EXAMPLES: stop watching the drivel on commercial TV (the major networks already are concerned about losing viewers); stop buying crap made in China; don't patronize Exxon-Mobil stations---the corp has the most obscene profits in the oil industry; stop voting in politicians who spend beyond our means, trample on the 10th Amendment, or believe that it's just too complicated to end the war now; every time you sign ANY Govt form, write "All Rights Reserved", or, "Expressly Reserving All Rights" beneath your name; participate at http://www.downsizeDC.org/ ; whenever possible, buy locally at independent stores---avoid the big chains; etc. Those are ways to boycott at only a minimal level.]