Showing posts with label Sovereignty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sovereignty. Show all posts
Monday, April 23, 2018
The Appalling Gall of the U.S. Government
From beyond the grave, George Orwell must be having a belly-busting laugh. I wonder if he knew that his writings were so prophetic.
On the News tonight (Sunday, April 22), there was a piece titled "Accidental Americans". It was about a few folks who had been born decades ago in the USA, and then shortly thereafter, they and their families went back home to (in these cases) France. By "shortly thereafter", I mean days or a couple of weeks.
Enter the Fed Government's IRS...that's the part of our Gov't to which I'm referring in the title above. The IRS has decided that income taxes should be levied against not only residents, but anyone born here as well...even if they left as babies, never to reside here again. So now these adults in France (and probably some other countries) are faced with US Income Taxes on their French incomes. That makes no sense whatsoever. I challenge anyone to explain sensibly how that action is justifiable.
The US IRS has a long history of exhibiting very little common sense. This is another example of that; additionally, the agency too often adopts Gestapo-like tactics in "enforcement" actions. It also glaringly shows how the Fed Gov't often displays zero respect for an individual's sovereignty.
I suspect that some people, perhaps many, fail to grasp the concept of "sovereignty". It seems that too many people believe only The State has sovereignty, and that the concept does not apply to individuals. In an ethical world/society, The State only REPRESENTS the sovereignty of We the People. It's individuals who possess sovereignty, not governments. That's why Plutocracies and Oligarchies around the globe constantly are propagandizing their citizens to believe that they live in a "democracy". The USA is a prime example: we don't live in a democracy; instead, it's a Plutocracy through and through. It always has been. The few politicians in our history who tried to change that were either marginalized or eliminated.
Wake up, Americans--- the Rich & Super-Rich rule us...to their benefit, and our detriment. Now they're trying to do the same to people who don't even live here, and never have worked here. Kudos to the lady in France who stated in the News interview: "I'm not going to pay it [the U.S.-imposed income taxes].". Why should she? She never worked here in her whole life! The gall of the IRS is beyond the pale.
Not only my opinion. Be Well
Friday, December 13, 2013
These Things are Un-American
For many years, I've seen an incredible amount of Edward Bernays-style propaganda foisted upon the inhabitants of this country. [That type of indoctrination aided our Gov't in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Guatemala in the '50s. The Feds did the same in Iraq, when Saddam worked for the CIA, and the same in Iran during that time period.] I've been here in the USA for a bit over seven decades, all my life, and love this land and its People... especially the American West. For decades, however, the U.S. Gov't (in collusion with mega corporations) has committed a long list of un-american activities. The list is so long, and still growing, that I can present only a few of those activities here today. The following are un-american...and are killing this country.
1. Holding suspects without any kind of trial for years and years is an obscenity. Gitmo is a shame. Even Bradley Manning was held for three years before a trial. This is as wrong as it can be...and violates our founding principles.
2. Murdering two American citizens, one of them a 16-year-old boy, is beyond an obscenity. His father was accused of running an Al Qaeda website and promoting jihad... so our President marked him for death. Never mind that Letters of Marque and Reprisal, permitted under our Constitution, can be issued only by the Congress. Why? Because that's too grave a thing to be left up to only one person. With the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), any U.S. President now can have any American terrorist SUSPECT executed without a trial, even on our soil...that's according to several sources, including an article in Forbes. That violates the U.S. Constitution.
3. Ignoring the Constitution is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. It makes our elected officials truly Outlaws. The instances of such violations are so numerous that I couldn't complete a list of them if I worked on it for 24 hours a day for the rest of my life. That's my best guess, and I don't believe it's an exaggeration. Following are just a few examples of those violations.
4. The PATRIOT Act and spying on Americans--- meta-data mining, and worse. The Fourth Amendment states VERY clearly that we are to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...unless there's a proper warrant..."particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized". You don't have to be an attorney to understand that; an eighth grader knows the meaning of it. The PATRIOT Act does not supercede the U.S. Constitution; no law does. It does, however, violate the Constitution; therefore, under our system of government, it is automatically null and void. Period.
5. Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 (if I recall the Clause correctly) charges Congress with the task of regulating the value of our money...but that duty was turned over to the newly created Fed Reserve by the 1913 Fed Reserve Act. That law, in effect, amended the Constitution without the formal Amendment process. The trouble is...no law supercedes the Supreme Law of the Land. The Fed Reserve is a system of privately owned banks...and the Fed Reserve Act was written by a group of private mega bankers. The conflict of interest is blatant. Supposedly, the FED is overseen by the Gov't...that's an utter, cruel joke. As Greenspan stated, back when, on a PBS News Hour interview, "No one has authority over us."...unfortunately, that's true. As the former House Representative, Alan Grayson, discovered in a Hearing with former Fed Chairman Bernanke, billions of dollars have been sent to banks overseas, but the Chairman didn't know exactly where it went...not even vaguely. There is almost zero accountability when it comes to the FED.
6. As I've pointed out before, there are only three constitutionally permitted uses of the U.S. Military. Two of them are so similar that I usually say there are only two. The Supreme Law of the Land permits our military to be used only for these purposes: to repel invasions; to quell insurrections [in this country]; and to enforce the Law of the Land [if some group is defying our law, as in the case of integration of schools in the South in the '60s]. To increase the number of uses of the military, our Gov't has passed laws such as the War Powers Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. The problem is...no law supercedes the Constitution. Our Outlaw Fed Gov't (those at the highest levels) is aware of that full well. So, all of the current uses of the military in policing the world, are blatantly unconstitutional. There is no question about that.
7. Treaties and other International Agreements, such as NAFTA, CAFTA, TAFTA, and the TPP, along with membership in organizations such as the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank, virtually have given away or sold for a song a large portion of our sovereignty. I've discussed all that in other posts on this Blog; no time or energy to repeat it now. Through the use of propaganda, our Gov't and the Corporatocracy basically have sold us down the river via these mechanisms. It all sounds great when they sell it, but then wealth is transferred to the upper crust and jobs go overseas or South of the Border. Worse still, we become subjected to binding rules not created by our supposed representatives in DC.
8. Perpetual War, including the so-called War on Drugs, has turned this beautiful land into a Fascist State...the Constitution essentially has been shredded, privacy is becoming a thing of the past, and the super-rich are getting exponentially richer at our expense.
There is a better way... but first, we must stop drinking the Propaganda Kool Aid. [Do a YouTube Search for the 10-minute video, Financial Crime. That's a good start.]
Just my opinion.
1. Holding suspects without any kind of trial for years and years is an obscenity. Gitmo is a shame. Even Bradley Manning was held for three years before a trial. This is as wrong as it can be...and violates our founding principles.
2. Murdering two American citizens, one of them a 16-year-old boy, is beyond an obscenity. His father was accused of running an Al Qaeda website and promoting jihad... so our President marked him for death. Never mind that Letters of Marque and Reprisal, permitted under our Constitution, can be issued only by the Congress. Why? Because that's too grave a thing to be left up to only one person. With the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), any U.S. President now can have any American terrorist SUSPECT executed without a trial, even on our soil...that's according to several sources, including an article in Forbes. That violates the U.S. Constitution.
3. Ignoring the Constitution is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. It makes our elected officials truly Outlaws. The instances of such violations are so numerous that I couldn't complete a list of them if I worked on it for 24 hours a day for the rest of my life. That's my best guess, and I don't believe it's an exaggeration. Following are just a few examples of those violations.
4. The PATRIOT Act and spying on Americans--- meta-data mining, and worse. The Fourth Amendment states VERY clearly that we are to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...unless there's a proper warrant..."particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized". You don't have to be an attorney to understand that; an eighth grader knows the meaning of it. The PATRIOT Act does not supercede the U.S. Constitution; no law does. It does, however, violate the Constitution; therefore, under our system of government, it is automatically null and void. Period.
5. Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 (if I recall the Clause correctly) charges Congress with the task of regulating the value of our money...but that duty was turned over to the newly created Fed Reserve by the 1913 Fed Reserve Act. That law, in effect, amended the Constitution without the formal Amendment process. The trouble is...no law supercedes the Supreme Law of the Land. The Fed Reserve is a system of privately owned banks...and the Fed Reserve Act was written by a group of private mega bankers. The conflict of interest is blatant. Supposedly, the FED is overseen by the Gov't...that's an utter, cruel joke. As Greenspan stated, back when, on a PBS News Hour interview, "No one has authority over us."...unfortunately, that's true. As the former House Representative, Alan Grayson, discovered in a Hearing with former Fed Chairman Bernanke, billions of dollars have been sent to banks overseas, but the Chairman didn't know exactly where it went...not even vaguely. There is almost zero accountability when it comes to the FED.
6. As I've pointed out before, there are only three constitutionally permitted uses of the U.S. Military. Two of them are so similar that I usually say there are only two. The Supreme Law of the Land permits our military to be used only for these purposes: to repel invasions; to quell insurrections [in this country]; and to enforce the Law of the Land [if some group is defying our law, as in the case of integration of schools in the South in the '60s]. To increase the number of uses of the military, our Gov't has passed laws such as the War Powers Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. The problem is...no law supercedes the Constitution. Our Outlaw Fed Gov't (those at the highest levels) is aware of that full well. So, all of the current uses of the military in policing the world, are blatantly unconstitutional. There is no question about that.
7. Treaties and other International Agreements, such as NAFTA, CAFTA, TAFTA, and the TPP, along with membership in organizations such as the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank, virtually have given away or sold for a song a large portion of our sovereignty. I've discussed all that in other posts on this Blog; no time or energy to repeat it now. Through the use of propaganda, our Gov't and the Corporatocracy basically have sold us down the river via these mechanisms. It all sounds great when they sell it, but then wealth is transferred to the upper crust and jobs go overseas or South of the Border. Worse still, we become subjected to binding rules not created by our supposed representatives in DC.
8. Perpetual War, including the so-called War on Drugs, has turned this beautiful land into a Fascist State...the Constitution essentially has been shredded, privacy is becoming a thing of the past, and the super-rich are getting exponentially richer at our expense.
There is a better way... but first, we must stop drinking the Propaganda Kool Aid. [Do a YouTube Search for the 10-minute video, Financial Crime. That's a good start.]
Just my opinion.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
A Paradigm Shift in Politics
The word "paradigm" and the phrase "paradigm shift" should be reserved to the natural sciences (and excluded from the social sciences), according to the reknowned Thomas Kuhn--- author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Despite that, the words have found their way into many disciplines; therefore, with apologies to Kuhn, we shall apply them to politics.
The old paradigm in politics---Conservative versus Liberal (not classical liberal) or Right versus Left [or even Republican versus Democrat]---is rapidly dying, or already dead. This notwithstanding popular opinion to the contrary. A new paradigm has been emerging for decades, and so, we are in a paradigm shift of monumental proportions and significance. The new paradigm is not easy to describe or comprehend, but we'll give it a try below.
This description is not meant to be all-encompassing or strictly definitive, but merely an overview of the situation. Nor is it meant to coin terms. For lack of established terms, let's refer to one group in the new paradigm as the Globalist Corporatocracy, or for simplicity, the Corporatocracy. It is comprised of elites in the banking field, the corporate landscape, and the Government (particularly the Fed Govt) who are loosely joined by mutual interests and goals. We shall refer to the other group---much more difficult to define---as the National Sovereignty-Individual Sovereignty-Populist folks, or for simplicity, the Sovereigns.
The Sovereigns, though comprised of dissimilar groups, have evolved into a broad political category largely because of a shared disappointment with Government. Even folks of the Progressive Left have begun to realize that they have common interests and goals with Conservatives (not Neoconservatives) and Libertarians when it comes to issues such as individual rights, and accountability in Government. Many Sovereigns undoubtedly still do not see completely that Government and Corporatism now have a perfect marriage in the U.S., but the opportunist Bush is making that lack of sight more and more a thing of the past.
Our current President (King George), who ran in 2000 on a platform with planks of a humble foreign policy and no nation-building, completely reversed himself once elected. Commentators may crow forever about how 9-11 changed everything, but elements of the Bush Administration had plans for more use of the military and for nation-building LONG before 9-11. We may thank the current Administration, however, for bringing together unlike groups of people who finally are beginning to see the outline of a Shadow Govt (the Corporatocracy).
The Corporatocracy continues to promote the old political paradigm (Right versus Left) because it makes the electorate easier to manipulate. Nowhere is this more evident than in the mainstream, Corporate Media---which appear to be dominated completely by the Corporatocracy. Edward R. Murrow's warning about the devolvement of (in particular) TV News shows into vehicles controlled by biased Corporatism certainly was right on the mark. The old "divide and conquer" strategy is blatantly obvious in Corporate Media's promotion of an outdated, dying political paradigm. Pitting one group against the other is a good way to keep the shadow government out of the light of exposure. [The premise is: our ills are not due to the Corporatocracy, but rather to the activities of the Right...or, those of the Left.]
In our opinion, the paradigm shift became readily apparent (though it existed previously) shortly after the 1964 Presidential election. Barry Goldwater (the Right) and Lyndon Johnson (the Left) had been through a volatile and heated campaign for the Presidency, and Johnson won in a landslide victory. There were many issues involved, but it eventually boiled down to this: Goldwater was portrayed as a "warmonger", and Johnson was portrayed as the "peace" candidate. Keep in mind that up until the election our involvement in Vietnam was relatively minor. We all know what happened: after being elected to office and sworn in as President, it didn't take Johnson long to begin an exponential escalation of the Vietnam "War" (it was officially known as the Vietnam Conflict, primarily because Congress had not declared war). The "peace" candidate of the Left became the "warmonger" of the Right, so to speak.
Johnson did not run for a second full term, so in 1968 it was Richard Nixon running against Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey definitely could be considered a Liberal, but Nixon---though he ran as one---was no Conservative. At best, Nixon was a Moderate. He ran vowing to end the increasingly unpopular Vietnam "War". We all know what happened: Nixon took office in January, 1969, and our involvement in Vietnam did not end until 1975. [Nixon was out of office by then, due to the Watergate scandal.]
The point of this bit of history is to illustrate that the influence of the Corporatocracy was becoming more and more apparent in the middle to late '60s, and into the '70s. The military-industrial complex made a ton of money because of the involvement of the U.S. in Vietnam. Johnson, the "peace" candidate in '64, most likely was influenced heavily by the military-industrial complex (a major part of the Corporatocracy) to expand the war. Same with Nixon, who had run on a platform of ending the war. The Corporatocracy won---it didn't matter whether a Republican or a Democrat was President.
Other moves by the Globalist Corporatocracy can be seen in my previous post, The Fed Government & the Corporatocracy. The ultimate goal is seamless global business, with the political governments of the world run by a Corporatist shadow government, all for the benefit of billionaires. In all fairness though, we should concede that a few members of the Corporatocracy (e.g., David Rockefeller) do have some altruistic goals---they actually believe that they can save the world (eliminate poverty, etc.) if only we eliminate the restraints of national sovereignty and have a one-world government run by business people (corporatists).
In order for the Sovereigns to be politically effective, they have to throw off completely the old Right-Left paradigm. Should that happen (and it probably will...eventually), a political force will emerge that is fully capable of defeating the Corporatocracy. Until then, we should expect less individual freedom, the virtual elimination of borders, almost zero accountability in government, and more war.
The old paradigm in politics---Conservative versus Liberal (not classical liberal) or Right versus Left [or even Republican versus Democrat]---is rapidly dying, or already dead. This notwithstanding popular opinion to the contrary. A new paradigm has been emerging for decades, and so, we are in a paradigm shift of monumental proportions and significance. The new paradigm is not easy to describe or comprehend, but we'll give it a try below.
This description is not meant to be all-encompassing or strictly definitive, but merely an overview of the situation. Nor is it meant to coin terms. For lack of established terms, let's refer to one group in the new paradigm as the Globalist Corporatocracy, or for simplicity, the Corporatocracy. It is comprised of elites in the banking field, the corporate landscape, and the Government (particularly the Fed Govt) who are loosely joined by mutual interests and goals. We shall refer to the other group---much more difficult to define---as the National Sovereignty-Individual Sovereignty-Populist folks, or for simplicity, the Sovereigns.
The Sovereigns, though comprised of dissimilar groups, have evolved into a broad political category largely because of a shared disappointment with Government. Even folks of the Progressive Left have begun to realize that they have common interests and goals with Conservatives (not Neoconservatives) and Libertarians when it comes to issues such as individual rights, and accountability in Government. Many Sovereigns undoubtedly still do not see completely that Government and Corporatism now have a perfect marriage in the U.S., but the opportunist Bush is making that lack of sight more and more a thing of the past.
Our current President (King George), who ran in 2000 on a platform with planks of a humble foreign policy and no nation-building, completely reversed himself once elected. Commentators may crow forever about how 9-11 changed everything, but elements of the Bush Administration had plans for more use of the military and for nation-building LONG before 9-11. We may thank the current Administration, however, for bringing together unlike groups of people who finally are beginning to see the outline of a Shadow Govt (the Corporatocracy).
The Corporatocracy continues to promote the old political paradigm (Right versus Left) because it makes the electorate easier to manipulate. Nowhere is this more evident than in the mainstream, Corporate Media---which appear to be dominated completely by the Corporatocracy. Edward R. Murrow's warning about the devolvement of (in particular) TV News shows into vehicles controlled by biased Corporatism certainly was right on the mark. The old "divide and conquer" strategy is blatantly obvious in Corporate Media's promotion of an outdated, dying political paradigm. Pitting one group against the other is a good way to keep the shadow government out of the light of exposure. [The premise is: our ills are not due to the Corporatocracy, but rather to the activities of the Right...or, those of the Left.]
In our opinion, the paradigm shift became readily apparent (though it existed previously) shortly after the 1964 Presidential election. Barry Goldwater (the Right) and Lyndon Johnson (the Left) had been through a volatile and heated campaign for the Presidency, and Johnson won in a landslide victory. There were many issues involved, but it eventually boiled down to this: Goldwater was portrayed as a "warmonger", and Johnson was portrayed as the "peace" candidate. Keep in mind that up until the election our involvement in Vietnam was relatively minor. We all know what happened: after being elected to office and sworn in as President, it didn't take Johnson long to begin an exponential escalation of the Vietnam "War" (it was officially known as the Vietnam Conflict, primarily because Congress had not declared war). The "peace" candidate of the Left became the "warmonger" of the Right, so to speak.
Johnson did not run for a second full term, so in 1968 it was Richard Nixon running against Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey definitely could be considered a Liberal, but Nixon---though he ran as one---was no Conservative. At best, Nixon was a Moderate. He ran vowing to end the increasingly unpopular Vietnam "War". We all know what happened: Nixon took office in January, 1969, and our involvement in Vietnam did not end until 1975. [Nixon was out of office by then, due to the Watergate scandal.]
The point of this bit of history is to illustrate that the influence of the Corporatocracy was becoming more and more apparent in the middle to late '60s, and into the '70s. The military-industrial complex made a ton of money because of the involvement of the U.S. in Vietnam. Johnson, the "peace" candidate in '64, most likely was influenced heavily by the military-industrial complex (a major part of the Corporatocracy) to expand the war. Same with Nixon, who had run on a platform of ending the war. The Corporatocracy won---it didn't matter whether a Republican or a Democrat was President.
Other moves by the Globalist Corporatocracy can be seen in my previous post, The Fed Government & the Corporatocracy. The ultimate goal is seamless global business, with the political governments of the world run by a Corporatist shadow government, all for the benefit of billionaires. In all fairness though, we should concede that a few members of the Corporatocracy (e.g., David Rockefeller) do have some altruistic goals---they actually believe that they can save the world (eliminate poverty, etc.) if only we eliminate the restraints of national sovereignty and have a one-world government run by business people (corporatists).
In order for the Sovereigns to be politically effective, they have to throw off completely the old Right-Left paradigm. Should that happen (and it probably will...eventually), a political force will emerge that is fully capable of defeating the Corporatocracy. Until then, we should expect less individual freedom, the virtual elimination of borders, almost zero accountability in government, and more war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)