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.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Bernanke: Completely Wrong
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
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
Monday, January 4, 2010
What Happened to Our Republic?
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.
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.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Investment Banksters & Derivatives
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.
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.
Monday, December 28, 2009
One of the basics...
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 .
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 .
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Buying Votes
Whether for or against Fed Government involvement in health care, everyone should be outraged by the outright corruption going on in the Senate. I'm speaking, of course, of the so-called "Nebraska Compromise"---a deal in which Nebraska is exempted from paying for increased Medicaid coverage (while the other forty-nine States are not so exempted) in exchange for a Nebraska Senator's favorable vote on the Health Care Bill. Nebraska also gets a new hospital in the deal, a deal the constitutionality of which is highly questionable.
The whole thing is nothing short of buying votes with taxpayer money. The Democrats are so desperate that they no longer even attempt to hide what surely must be both unethical and illegal. [Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of Republicans either.] I'm not positive yet, but I don't believe that the U.S. Constitution permits favoring one State over all the others in such a circumstance.
I suppose that Senators (and others) might say this type of thing is just "politics", and that it goes on all the time. That doesn't make it right, or legal. Some of us think that blaming disembodied, mysterious, uncontrollable forces is simply a poor excuse for bad individual actions.
The whole thing is nothing short of buying votes with taxpayer money. The Democrats are so desperate that they no longer even attempt to hide what surely must be both unethical and illegal. [Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of Republicans either.] I'm not positive yet, but I don't believe that the U.S. Constitution permits favoring one State over all the others in such a circumstance.
I suppose that Senators (and others) might say this type of thing is just "politics", and that it goes on all the time. That doesn't make it right, or legal. Some of us think that blaming disembodied, mysterious, uncontrollable forces is simply a poor excuse for bad individual actions.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The Corporatocracy, Hit Men, & the American Empire
This is old news, but it's applicable to today and well worth reviewing and remembering. It is all detailed in the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004), by John Perkins, who was formerly an economic hit man for the Corporatocracy.
Perkins explains how, when a third world country has resources coveted by mega corporations and/or the Government in the US, those resources are obtained via the following process. If the country with the resources is not cooperative, a series of huge loans to that country is arranged through the World Bank. The money eventually goes to multi-national mega corporations such as Bechtel and Halliburton; they are hired by the country to build ports, industrial plants, roads, etc. When the country is so far in debt that it has little or no possibility of getting out of debt, economic hit men are sent in to strike a deal---for natural resources (such as oil), or favorable votes in the U.N., or agreements for certain other actions. If the economic hit men fail, then the "jackals" (assassins) are sent in, usually from the CIA; if they fail, then the military (as part of a "coalition") is sent in to bring about the desired regime change.
About 1959-1960 a very young, CIA-backed jackal by the name of Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate the President of Iraq, Abdel Qassim. Qassim's major sin was that he was going to nationalize Iraqi oil. At the time, the Iraqi Petroleum Company (IPC) was 95% controlled by the US, Britain, and France. The assassination attempt failed, but Qassim was eliminated anyway not long after that; economic hit men had failed to dissuade him from his plan to nationalize all oil in Iraq, so the CIA orchestrated his demise.
In the early '70s, just after the OPEC oil embargo of the US, economic hit men were sent to the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia to strike the "deal of the century" for the Corporatocracy. President Nixon had taken the US completely off the Gold Standard (because the country was bankrupt) and there was great concern in the Corporatocracy that the world would not accept the US dollar as the globe's reserve currency. In the "deal of the century", the House of Saud agreed to sell its oil for dollars only and to purchase US Treasury Securities; in return the Saudis were guaranteed two very important things--- the Corporatocracy would see to it that they remained in power, and would invest in industry and infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. The economic hit men were successful in swinging the deal.
Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq in 1979. During the '80s, the Corporatocracy decided that they would propose the same deal to Saddam. After all, he was more or less "our man" against the Iranians at that time and was a great purchaser of US arms and munitions. The economic hit men went to Baghdad, but failed to convince Saddam to accept a deal. Jackals were sent in, but failed to assassinate him. The rest is, as they say, history. [He wasn't eliminated during/immediately after the original Gulf War for many reasons, and the explanation of those is too lengthy for this posting.]
The Corporatocracy's interest in Afghanistan began long before the tragedy of 9-11-01. Long story short: Western oil interests needed a pipeline across the country of Afghanistan. Finally, several months prior to our invasion of that country (and prior to 9-11), economic hit men negotiated with the Taliban concerning the proposed oil pipeline. Taliban representatives actually came to the US to negotiate. A deal seemed close, but the whole thing fell through. At that time, according to a French Intelligence analyst by the name of Brisard, CIA representatives told the Taliban representatives, "Either you will accept our carpet of gold [for the pipeline], or we'll give you a carpet of bombs." Then came 9-11; after that came our first invasion of Afghanistan, accompanied by a carpet of bombs. The entire story is detailed in the book, Bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth (2002) by Brisard and DasQuie (both intelligence analysts in France).
If even only a smidgin of all of the above is completely accurate and true, then the implications relative to our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan are obvious and telling.
[Another interesting book (in addition to the two mentioned above) is Robert Baer's See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism (2002).]
Perkins explains how, when a third world country has resources coveted by mega corporations and/or the Government in the US, those resources are obtained via the following process. If the country with the resources is not cooperative, a series of huge loans to that country is arranged through the World Bank. The money eventually goes to multi-national mega corporations such as Bechtel and Halliburton; they are hired by the country to build ports, industrial plants, roads, etc. When the country is so far in debt that it has little or no possibility of getting out of debt, economic hit men are sent in to strike a deal---for natural resources (such as oil), or favorable votes in the U.N., or agreements for certain other actions. If the economic hit men fail, then the "jackals" (assassins) are sent in, usually from the CIA; if they fail, then the military (as part of a "coalition") is sent in to bring about the desired regime change.
About 1959-1960 a very young, CIA-backed jackal by the name of Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate the President of Iraq, Abdel Qassim. Qassim's major sin was that he was going to nationalize Iraqi oil. At the time, the Iraqi Petroleum Company (IPC) was 95% controlled by the US, Britain, and France. The assassination attempt failed, but Qassim was eliminated anyway not long after that; economic hit men had failed to dissuade him from his plan to nationalize all oil in Iraq, so the CIA orchestrated his demise.
In the early '70s, just after the OPEC oil embargo of the US, economic hit men were sent to the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia to strike the "deal of the century" for the Corporatocracy. President Nixon had taken the US completely off the Gold Standard (because the country was bankrupt) and there was great concern in the Corporatocracy that the world would not accept the US dollar as the globe's reserve currency. In the "deal of the century", the House of Saud agreed to sell its oil for dollars only and to purchase US Treasury Securities; in return the Saudis were guaranteed two very important things--- the Corporatocracy would see to it that they remained in power, and would invest in industry and infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. The economic hit men were successful in swinging the deal.
Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq in 1979. During the '80s, the Corporatocracy decided that they would propose the same deal to Saddam. After all, he was more or less "our man" against the Iranians at that time and was a great purchaser of US arms and munitions. The economic hit men went to Baghdad, but failed to convince Saddam to accept a deal. Jackals were sent in, but failed to assassinate him. The rest is, as they say, history. [He wasn't eliminated during/immediately after the original Gulf War for many reasons, and the explanation of those is too lengthy for this posting.]
The Corporatocracy's interest in Afghanistan began long before the tragedy of 9-11-01. Long story short: Western oil interests needed a pipeline across the country of Afghanistan. Finally, several months prior to our invasion of that country (and prior to 9-11), economic hit men negotiated with the Taliban concerning the proposed oil pipeline. Taliban representatives actually came to the US to negotiate. A deal seemed close, but the whole thing fell through. At that time, according to a French Intelligence analyst by the name of Brisard, CIA representatives told the Taliban representatives, "Either you will accept our carpet of gold [for the pipeline], or we'll give you a carpet of bombs." Then came 9-11; after that came our first invasion of Afghanistan, accompanied by a carpet of bombs. The entire story is detailed in the book, Bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth (2002) by Brisard and DasQuie (both intelligence analysts in France).
If even only a smidgin of all of the above is completely accurate and true, then the implications relative to our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan are obvious and telling.
[Another interesting book (in addition to the two mentioned above) is Robert Baer's See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism (2002).]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)