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.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Good for McChrystal!
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The State and Perpetual War
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.
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.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Mr. Cool Reveals Himself
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Is it Obvious Yet? [re: Offshore Drilling]
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.]
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.]
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Primary Elections
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.
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.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Oil Spill Response
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.]
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.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)