The Corporatocracy is on a Roll

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!

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

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"

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

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)

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

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?"