We're experiencing some massive financial "blowback" in the US these days. According to Chalmers Johnson, blowback is defined as "the unintended consequences of U.S. policies kept secret from the American people."
The reason this is important is quite simple - if the people aren't aware of the policies, they're unable to put into context what happens as a result of it.
An obvious example of this is 9-11. Far too many Americans were (and are) unaware of the aggressive foreign policies of the US government over the last 50+ years - assassinations, supporting bloody dictators, and the like - and thus, they can't understand why people would be driven to carry out such horrific attacks.
When we don't understand what the government is doing, we can never, ever understand why the negative results come - and far too often, we run to the government to "fix" the problem it created in the first place.
In regards to our economy, it's not common knowledge that its destruction is being caused by the government itself, which is why it's absolutely crazy to me that people would demand that the politicians go in and "do something" to fix it.
What am I rambling about? Monetary policy.
For decades, the Federal Reserve has been increasing the supply of money - either by lowering interest rates (which causes an influx of new money), or by simply printing more and more dollars.
We all know that when there's more of a commodity, it costs, or is worth, less.
Those eggs you bought a couple years ago for $1.49, that you bought last year for $1.79, and $2.09 last week...want to know why they cost more?
Monetary policy.
There's more and more money available every year, so the dollar itself is worth less. That same buck-fifty that bought you 12 eggs in 2005 now buys you about eight and a half. (well, at my market, that is)
Until we understand how our own government is destroying the dollar and our entire economy, we're never, ever going to be able to turn this mess around.
Ron Paul has been hammering on this issue for quite some time, and he did a great job of it again in his recent statements to Ben "the inflator" Bernanke.
Although I've been looking at individuals and events from the people's point of view for that ten-plus years, I've only recently understood "The Silence."
Pro-people and pro-democracy "gentlemen" -- Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Patrick Henry, etc -- were a tiny minorty among thousands of predator elitist "gentlemen". Their persons, fortunes, and families would have depended on their maintaining The Silence. But Jefferson became a special representative of his faction and the people when he was asked to write the Declaration Of Independence.
The majority of predators intended the DOI to be a throw-away piece of propaganda, of course. It's only real function was to get the contemptible commoners to fight so that the predators could be free of being second-class elites, subjugated to and taxed out of wealth by the British elites. In the face of their intentions for the DOI, it's clear that Jefferson played a trick on them.
The DOI's great founding principles do not square with the pure representative government that the predator elitists had trumpeted for the new nation, beginning in the early 1770s. And they do not square with the "traditional rights of Englishmen", taken from the 1689 English Bill Of Rights and written into our own Bill Of Rights after the Constitution was ratified. However, closely examined, Jefferson's extraordinary, DOI-expressed founding principles do square with the 400-year governance of the Roman Republic.
Jefferson clearly wanted the US to have a traditional republican governance, with sovereign citizen lawmaking in charge. We can infer that from many of his writings, even though he never says it directly. He clearly trusted, however, that US patriots would fight for, live for, and see their nation though the promises of those extraordinary DOI principles -- for a very long time into the future.
Jefferson would also have understood that there was no hope for the way-undereducated majority to best the classically educated predators. But he could plant those founding principles and trust us to make their connections with traditional republican governance when civil society became more educated.
Jefferson did what he could. Other educated members of his faction would have read and understood. They would have seen that it was a pretty good solution for starting the nation with proper principles, for hanging onto their own personal fortunes, and for delaying a political fight that they felt they could not win but that a later civil society surely would.
End of puzzle.
Beginning of a stunning new argument for traditional republican governance. We can have a solid continuity between what we fought for in the Revolution and all subsequent wars, and the political dynamic that is possible in the near future.
The ways in which the DOI's founding principles square with traditional republican governance are unavoidable, irrefutable facts.
Ah, with the benefit of hindsight. Got this quote from a friend and thought it worth passing along. It's a little late now:
"A moment I've been dreading. George (Bush Sr.) brought his ne're-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job."
"Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work." -- Ronald Reagan in his recently published diaries, written May 17, 1986
If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.
Government is the master....not the servant. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
I figure this is an appropriate time to note a few other Mussolini quotes that seem to fit quite well with the function of the US federal government these days:
The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
By the way, the DiLorenzo talk is pretty good...well worth the 20 minutes or so.
Since achieving majority control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrats in Congress have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Only one bill was passed by both bodies and that was vetoed by Bush.
However, every one of the 40 bills contained a special section providing for a residual U.S. military force to remain in Iraq with no time limit to perform the military tasks U.S. forces are now doing.
This week, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced Senate Bill 2633 to redeploy U.S. combat troops from Iraq. It requires that after 120 days, funding in Iraq be limited to the following: conducting targeted military operations against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, providing security for U.S. personnel and infrastructure, training Iraq security forces, providing equipment and training to U.S. troops, and continuing to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq.
The activities listed in Senate Bill 2633 essentially cover the current programs of the U.S. military in Iraq. These programs are now carried out by 162,000 troops. A continuation as specified in the bill would require approximately the same number of troops. Any reductions are likely to be token in size and cosmetic in purpose.
While calling for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, the Democrats in Congress, including Senators Clinton and Obama, are actually providing for an American residual military force in Iraq that will have responsibilities there for many years to come.
A Zogby poll shows that 92% of Americans are intelligent enough to understand that counting votes in secret is dangerous. Of course, this poll shows that 8% of Americans either don't know what to think about secret vote counting or are actually in favor of it. That explains half of Bush's support in the polls.
Everyone knows that the people are supposed to be able to peacefully remove bad leaders through elections, but what if those who control the machines, and their secret vote count, want bad leaders in power? Is there another way that citizens can prevent abuse of power without resorting to violence?
The two-party system has failed America and is continually failing America.
What it has degenerated into is a contest between the fascist faction that controls the Republican Party, which wants to run the de facto American fascist state one way, and the fascist faction that controls the Democratic Party, that has a different idea of how the de facto American fascist state should be run.
The American people just cannot keep doing the same thing, that is supporting and voting for the Republican and Democratic Parties, and expect different results. It is obvious that the two major parties are convinced they have a lock on their support and votes.
This is apparent in that in every political campaign the Republicans and Democrats promise anything they think the American voters want to hear, and then when they are in office they immediately ignore all of their promises.
Therefore, I am in favor of any minor party or independent that wants to challenge the two major pro-fascist political parties. I strongly urge all dissident Republicans that are dissatisfied with the Republican Party to consider supporting and voting for the Conservative, Constitution or Libertarian Parties. Also, I encourage all dissident Democrats to consider supporting and voting for the Green, Populist, Socialist, Socialist Equality and Socialist Labor Parties.
When you vote for these minor parties you are sending the message to the two major political parties that you are tired of being treated with contempt. As far as I am concerned the argument that you are throwing your vote away by voting for a minor party is pure crap. You have not been getting what you want from the two major parties anyway.
Also, the argument that voting for a third party may cause the Democrats to lose is more crap. Ask yourself what you will get if the Democrats win. The only difference between two major political parties is in how the de facto American fascist state will be managed, but it will still be a de facto fascist state.
By the way, we do not have clean elections in America. Our entire democratic political process is rotten corrupt all the way from the way our political campaigns are financed to the actual counting of the votes.
The candidates in the two major political parties are preselected for us by the capitalist class and their corporations when they determine which pro-fascist candidate's political campaigns they are going to finance. The elections themselves are stolen by whichever major political party has the most effective election stealing apparatus.
Therefore, the claim that Nader, or for that matter any third party candidate, cost the Democrats the presidency in 2000 or 2004 is more crap. In my opinion, what happened in both 2000 and 2004 is the Republican election stealing apparatus out performed the Democratic party election stealing apparatus.
Bottom line: Hooray for Nader and all of the third party candidates and independents!
At least they are keeping the idea of a clean democratic political process alive.
Many people do not want to do what is needed to make freedom a lasting benefit today. They rebel at the idea of chaining themselves to responsible behavior, of serving others to get what they want in life. They want life handed to them, even if the price is giving up their liberty to have it.
They have their pride to satisfy.
Inability to satisfy their pride leads to their being envious and angry toward those who achieve prosperity by their works. To them, it is not fair that some people have more, that government should be given the task of leveling the playing field. The appeal to them is that experts with the police power of government will take from those who work, prosper, and share with those who will not and do not.
The politicians have set their sights on people who have no interest in individual freedom and liberty. They have carved out their niche to support individual pride, satisfy envy and anger, and serve the interests of community, interests they define.
They have acquired many buyers for what they sell, which see life a lot easier if they can simply sit down and be fed, clothed and housed by government.
The Gannett national paper USA Today in its photo spread on the gowns of the stars at the Oscars called attention to the orange ribbon worn by the stunning-as-always actress Julie Christie, but failed to accurately describe the message.
Saying she wore a read gown adorned by a small orange ribbon, the paper claimed that the decoration pinned to her dress was to symbolize the ACLU. In fact, as we all know, and as anyone knows who pays any attention at all to what's going on out in grassroots America, that ribbon symbolizes the demand for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Brava to Ms. Christie for her important statement.
And a big Thb-b-b-b-bth! to USA Today for not having a clue!
Michael, in your post, you left out one of my favorites.
"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre - the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum."
"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken on elections in the Baltimore Evening Sun, 26 July 1920
It's more like What - we watch him pine and groom -
for more of Its redemption while we shake.
He claims he's acting in tomorrow's name -
securing fuel for all the world to use.
If his plan fails, who's God will he blame?
I'll be a prophet! Footprints in the Ooze.
Idolatry! This Chief, he sure backslides!
He serves two Kings. Crude Oil overrides.
Bryon D. Howell is a poet currently residing in New Haven, Connecticut. He has been writing poetry for a great number of years. Recently, work of his has appeared in poeticdiversity, Red River Review and The Quirk.
It seems to me, in our political climate of voting for the "lesser of two evils," that people are more interested in supporting the winning "team" than standing up for their principles. Gary North has taken a bit of a stand and written about his own personal "Non-Negotiable Political Demands" - I think it's a pretty good list, but whether you agree with any or all...or none of them, the concept is still good.
The point is pretty simple - it's high time that more people started standing up for principle - and only voting for candidates that stand for the same. If that were the case, we'd have some major "change" PDQ.
By the way, here's Gary's "demands"
Wars that have not been declared by Congress
The maintenance of military bases outside the United States
Military defense treaties (NATO, CENTO, etc.)
America's membership in the United Nations Organization
Graduated ("progressive") income taxation
Tax-funded education at any level
Government licensing of the right to keep and bear arms
The Federal Reserve System's monopoly over money
The Social Security system
Medicare and Medicaid
The Central Intelligence Agency
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
This concept of sticking to personal principles reminds me of a great quote from John Quincy Adams (not necessarily my "favorite" president, but a good quote, nonetheless):
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
Stephen Lendman is a pretty good investigative journalist. I've been following this particular horror show with interest for several years. Apparently it is getting close to implementation, but most people have never heard of it.
If you cut the crap, it boils down to a plan for converting the United States, Canada and Mexico, with Central America to follow down the line, into one country, essentially controlled by big business/government for the profit of big business and the regulation and suppression of the people.
In short, it is a plan for US Big Business interests to rape Canada's natural resources using cheap Mexican labor, backed up by Homeland Security to prevent citizen protests. It is apparently moving along with all deliberate speed at private meetings.
A Canadian on another blog said that there is to be a 25km no protest zone around the meeting to be held this August in Quebec. The zone is to be enforced by the RCMP backed up by the US Military. All planned protests have been denied permits, nor are any protesters to be allowed inside the zone. Here is the link to the article, which is long, but well worth the read. If you are short on time, print it out for later reading. The plan is called:
The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) or "Deep Integration" North American Union
The article was written in the United Kingdom by the Guardian writer David Adam. For some reason, but surely not from ignorance, he failed to mention that a United States Company in the 80's had perfected and eliminated the two most serious drawbacks to using coal in a liquefied form:
A way to remove the sulfur, and
A way to keep the coal particles homogenized (in suspension) while in storage or in pipelines.
This process was developed, proven, licensed, and sold to some oil poor countries around the world by the Company I worked for then. The only negative was that the process cost about 15% more than the cost of natural oil. The best coal to use is anthracite. That is why when President Clinton named the worlds #1 "sweet coal" location (in Utah) as a National Park and outlawed mining there, many people complained.
Especially complaining were those that knew that the #2 low sulfur coal location was in Indonesia owned by the Raidy family that was a heavy (and also illegal I might add- contributors) to the Clinton campaign fund.
Just coincidence, right? Kind of like the Clinton Uranium deal in, was it Uzbekistan?
Anyway, it surprised me that in the Article was a statement that the United States was going to spend money on research to try to come up with something comparable to the Chinese oil from coal. How many out there remember that President Nixon soaked the public for $20 Billion during his reign to - develop a synthetic oil from coal (Project Independence).
Remember the "Windfall Profits" so that Big Oil could raise money for oil exploration? Of course you know that Big Oil took that "oil exploration money" and bought up all the coal reserves that they could. Greed and gullibility go hand in hand.
And as a final laugh, ITT was one of the United States Companies that developed the coal liquefaction process for South Africa in 1934. Actually began the process study in the 1920's.
One other little interesting blurb, one Senator Barak Obama in 2006 tried to get the U S going toward developing use of coal oil as an alternate fuel.
H.L. Mencken quotes always seem to stir up a little something for me. Here's a few of my favorites:
I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.
It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
Here's a pretty interesting/frightening/telling quote from Henry Kissinger:
"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people." -Henry Kissinger
That, in and of itself, might be descriptive of American foreign policy over the past 100 years or so. And this is largely the subject of an excellent book review by Stephen Lendman, "A Century of War"
Here's an excerpt:
In late 1947, the Iranian government demanded an increase in its oil revenue share (meager at the time) and cited Venezuela where Standard Oil had a 50 - 50 arrangement. London wasn't pleased, talks dragged on, and the strategy was to stall and delay. In late 1949, Mossadegh headed a parliamentary commission, a 50 - 50 split was demanded, Britain refused, and by 1951 Mossadegh was Prime Minister. Around the same time, Iran's parliament nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and paid fair compensation for it. Britain, nonetheless, was outraged and reacted.
Full economic sanctions and an oil embargo followed. In addition, Iranian assets in British banks were frozen, and major Anglo-American oil companies supported London. Iran's economy was devastated. Its oil revenues plummeted from $400 million in 1950 to less than $2 million from July 1951 to August 1953 when Mossadegh was ousted by a CIA-British SIS coup. Shah Reza Pahlevi returned to power, sanctions were lifted, and America and Britain regained their client state until 1979 when the same Anglo-American interests turned on the Shah and deposed him.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said on Tuesday some physical interrogation techniques [torture] can be used on a suspect in the event of an imminent threat, such as a hidden bomb about to blow up. In such cases, "smacking someone in the face" could be justified, the outspoken Scalia told the BBC. "You can't come in smugly and with great self satisfaction and say 'Oh it's torture, and therefore it's no good.'"
Wake-up folks. History is repeating itself. America is going down the same road as fascist Nazi Germany.
These are the morally superior people that will gladly turn the rest of us into little bars of soap.
I was outside having a smoke with some people in my building where I work(we were in the designated smoking area) and a gentleman from Belmont was telling us about the ban.
He said that it got passed 3-2 and that the people of the city didn't really get a chance to vote on it at all. Some democracy, huh?
It had all started in an old age home when some of the elderly wanted a full ban on smoking and others wanted designated areas. Well I guess the mayor at the time had it as her calling to implement a full on smoking ban throughout the city even in peoples homes, so she went forward with it.
Apparently if you even see someone smoking and you don't report it, it is considered a misdemeanor.
Report your friends and family to the "authorities" or get a fine. Pay it, or go to jail. That's freedom here in Northern California, folks!
The city gave its citizens 14 months to move before they would fine them for smoking in their house. I guess this man we were talking with has to move because he is a smoker.
One thing I thought I liked about this law was that at least it was only city law, and if you want to smoke move to the next city but from what I have been told it wasn't passed by a majority of the citizens in the city..
I was so upset to hear this story. Will people get fined for eating shitty food, or working in a coal mine because it's bad for them?
When do we as individuals get to make our own decisions, or do the politicians want to make all of them for us?
Korea, they say, was not a war. It was a "Police Action." Which would you rather die as? A "policeman," or a soldier?
Or would you perhaps rather live?
At least Korea had a reason, Flawed, of course, but a reason. Most of the world pitched in to fight On one side or the other.
How many died before it finally burned out?
Vietnam was an accident, turned into a war. A people who fought for their independence. A millennium against the Chinese, A century against the French.
Thousands died, were tortured, jailed.
Overrun by Japan, they fought for freedom. At war's end, they were given back to France, So again they had to fight; At Dien Bien Phu, they won.
The time of rejoicing was short.
Like Korea, the country was divided up. The Western Nations made the decision. South Vietnam to be "ours" North Vietnam to be "theirs."
No one asked the People of their desires.
Once more the Vietnamese had to fight To expel the foreign occupiers, Remove their puppet governments, Reaffirm their independence.
Does hubris come with power, or vice versa?
Advisors were sent in To help build the ARVN army. Then to fight with the ARVN; Finally to die with the ARVN.
Would you rather be No. 1, or No. 58,178?
Rulers were changed as the war went on. The key is, the war went on. The Phoenix burned on its pyre Hatching new warriors for the cause.
For every village that dies, avengers arise.
A new Pearl Harbor was needed, To fully unleash the dogs of war. Tonkin Gulf was the catalyst, A Black Op by the USA.
B-52's can destroy property, but not ideas.
We carpet bombed the north, Poisoned the land with Orange and Purple. Our troops were collateral damage, Not to be recognized for years.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
As the years rolled on, We found it impossible to tell Friend from foe, in a country that Simply wanted us out!
Strange that all peoples resist occupation.
Finally, the last helicopters left Embassy Row. Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City. And we had learned a hard lesson, Now engraved upon a wall.
Only vets learn the real lesson of war.
Thirty years later, Another "Pearl Harbor," Another pair of wars, The foundation poured for yet another Wall.
They who dodged 'Nam start a new war.
Read the above poem again Make the place names Afghan, Iraqi. Substitute DU for Agent Orange. Government denial is still there.
We don't count their dead, or show ours.
Now, in the Pentagon, the plans are made At Bush/Cheney's desperate urging. We, or Israel (with our backing) Are next to nuke Iran!
And thus unleash the final holocaust.
Russia, China, and others, no doubt, Will retaliate with nukes of their own. In time, not long, there will be few left To count our dead, or remember.
The Nuclear Dragon will have eaten us all.
How long will it be before We the People Break the wheel of death? How many more thousands, or millions, to die To be maimed, poisoned?
What happened to our Constitution?
Once upon a time we defended! We fought for freedom, democracy, Not oil and Empire...once upon a time. We don't need Roman Legions.
Bush (amongst others) is pounding the drums for invading Iran, whose oil wealth is similar to Iraq's. It's all quite similar to the Iraq war runup.
Those same oil companies profiting in Iraq stand to rake in about the same amount (or more) from the Iranian oil.
I guess after we invade Iran, lose a bunch more Americans, kill another million people and run up another $2 trillion debt, these same oil companies can add another $21 trillion to their bottom line.
How could the voters not be dissatisfied with our two party political system?
Both parties are under the control of strong pro-fascist factions in their respective parties. The pro-fascist factions in both political parties represent the interests of those corporations that finance their political campaigns. The sole function of the pro-fascist factions in both political parties is to maintain the economic and political power of their supporters.
In addition, they have demonstrated repeatedly over many years that they cannot maintain their power by solving the problems inherent in American-styel "capitalism" or the external problems confronting it.
In fact, it is obvious they are so overwhelmed by the sheer number and size of the problems that they have given up on trying to retain their power by solving them, and instead have created the current de facto fascist state to retain their power.
Further, they have passed legislation to create a fascist military/police state, literally overnight if required, when it becomes apparent in the developing global depression that the only way they will be able to retain their power is by brute force.
Who in his or her right mind would not be dissatisfied with that? Particularly when you are aware that the only differences in the two pro-fascist major parties are relatively minor differences on how their de facto fascist state should be managed.
I commented on a Common Dreams article, but it didn't "make it." Here is part of it that I think does make sense:
I'm really getting very tired of all of this. I think it is about time for about 250 million Americans to do something together, like a general strike, a national blue flu, or a boycott. We are obviously not going to get anything done by the Cheney/Bush contaminated courts, and certainly not by the bought and paid for Legislative Branch, so I fear it just leaves us.
Just suppose Corporate America blew the work whistle and nobody showed up? The teachers rang their bell and no kids filed in? Suppose reveille sounded in camps around the world and nobody got out of their cots?
What do we want? People Power! When do we want it? NOW!!!
In his book, The Great Libertarian Offer, the late Harry Browne outlined a pretty good foreign policy for the U.S. Here's a quick overview:
Non-Interference Our government should express good will and a desire for peace toward all - threatening no foreign country, interfering in no other countries' disputes, arming or aiding no foreign governments, and giving terrorists no motivation to influence our government.
No Foreign Aid or Military Assistance The Constitution grants our government no authority to take your money to support foreign governments. Not only is it unconstitutional, it is unfair by almost any standard. Little of the money reaches the average citizen in the target country. Most of it enriches the rulers - and it helps them stay in power and continue the policies that keep their countries poor.
Security against Attack The Constitution asks the federal government to defend the nation. But we should rely as little as possible on the political and bureaucratic worlds if we want to achieve anything useful. Instead, we should look to those who know how to solve problems and can be motivated to do so by the lure of big profits.
Target the Aggressors, Not the Innocent Suppose that, even with a missile defense, America truly were threatened by a foreign ruler. A Libertarian President would target the ruler himself. He wouldn't order bombers to kill the ruler's innocent subjects.
Sadly, though, all of his recommendations have fallen on deaf ears. But, it's still worth repeating. Read more of Harry Browne's "A Foreign Policy for America."
On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence. We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions. The President is committed to continuing our economic progress, defending our freedom, and upholding our Nation's deepest values.
Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot respond to every message. Please visit the White House website for the most up-to-date information on Presidential initiatives, current events, and topics of interest to you. In order to better receive comments from the public, a new system has been implemented. In the future please send your comments to comments@whitehouse.gov and Homeland Security will quickly take care of you.
On January 10, Swiss-based Manas Petroleum Corporation broke the news. Gustavson Associates LLC's Resource Evaluation identified large prospects of oil and gas reserves in Albania, close to Kosovo. They're in areas called blocks A, B, C, D and E, encompassing about 780,000 acres along the northwest to southeast "trending (geological) fold belt of northwestern Albania."
Assigned estimates of the find (so far unproved) are up to 2.987 billion barrels of oil and 3.014 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. However, because of their depth, oil deposits may be capped with a layer of gas. If so, Gustavson calculates the potential to be 1.4 billion barrels of light oil and up to 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Further, if only gas is present, the discovery may be as much as 28 trillion cubic feet. In any case, if estimates prove out, it's a sizable find.
In its statement, Gustavson reported: "The probability of success for a wildcat well in a structurally complex area such as this is relatively high (because) it is in a structurally favorable area (and) proven hydrocarbon source and analogous production exists only 20 to 30 kilometers away."
Currently, the Balkans region has small proved oil reserves of about 345 million barrels, of which an estimated 198 million barrels are in Albania. Proved natural gas reserves are much larger at around 2.7 trillion cubic feet.
In December 2007, Albania's Council of Ministers allowed DWM Petroleum, AG, a Manas subsidiary, to assist in the exploration, development and production of Albania's oil and gas reserves in conjunction with the government's Agency of Natural Resources.
This development further underscores Kosovo's importance and the cost that's meant for Serbia. Since the 1999 US-led NATO war, it's been all downhill for the nation, the region and its people:
--Kosovo is part of Serbia; at least it was; since 1999 it's been a Washington-NATO occupied colony stripped of its sovereignty in violation of international law;
-- it's been run by three successive US-installed puppet Prime Ministers with known ties to organized crime and drugs trafficking;
-- it's the home of one of America's largest military bases in the world, Camp Bondsteel; the province/country is more a US military base than a legitimate political entity;
-- its part of Washington's regional strategic objective to control and transport Central Asia's vast oil and gas reserves to selected markets, primarily in the West;
-- on February 17 during a special parliamentary session, Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence; the action violates international law; Kosovo is as much part of Serbia as Illinois is one of America's 50 states; to no surprise, Washington and dominant western countries support it; opposed are Serbia, Russia, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Slovakia, Malta, Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus;
-- might makes right; the issue is a fait accompli; the February 17 declaration ignores EU division pitting one-third of its 27 members in opposition; and
-- unilateral western-supported independence mocks the 1999 UN Security Council Resolution 1244; it only permits Kosovo's self-government as a Serbian province; the resolution recognizes the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia;" only a new UN resolution in compliance with international law can change that legally; nonetheless, it happened anyway on another historic day of infamy when Washington again trashed international law and the rules and norms of civil society.
This article presents an interesting catalog of recent legislation that gives our fascist President Bush, or any successor fascist president, Republican or Democrat, the authority to create a fascist military/police state.
Ostensibly, these powers to create a fascist military/police state are required as a defensive measure against terrorism, or to respond to some natural disaster or pandemic. This, of course, is pure bullshit.
What makes these powers necessary is a major crisis in American corporatism. The American elite class, the management of their corporations, their think tanks, the intelligentsia in their universities, all have been aware for quite some time that they are fast approaching the limits in the way American-style capitalism has been managed, but they really do not know what to do next.
The major limitation in the way American capitalism has been managed appears to be a limit in our deficit spending. American capitalism has been kept functioning via deficit spending on an ever greater scale for decades. This all appears to be coming to an end with the dethroning of the American dollar as the de facto global currency.
The 9/11 event was the "Pearl Harbor" they knew they needed to justify the executive branch of the federal government usurping the authority required to create a fascist military/police state. They have been very much aware that in a global depression a fascist military/police state will be required to preserve the economic and political power of the ruling class and their corporate backers.
Drawing on their traumatic experience of the 1930s global depression the ruling oligarchy is certain there will be massive domestic social and political unrest in the looming global depression. The creation of the legislation for a fascist military/police state is a very accurate measure of how much they fear this threat to their economic and political power.
It is also a measure of how completely impotent they are in avoiding a global depression, and how their overwhelming lust for economic and political power limits their options in the management of American "capitalism."
The Greater North American Co-Prosperity Sphere, SPP, being constructed in virtual secrecy, is simply a way for American Big Business to rape Canada's natural resources using cheap Mexican labor, all to be overseen by Homeland Security and Blackwater.
We'll have a new, probably devalued, currency, the "Yanko" or "Amero" and North America will become "Festung Amerika" surrounded by a ring of nuclear missiles (a ring of steel is so passe').
Ultimately the world will have to do what it did in the 1940's to eliminate Hitler's "thousand year Reich," but probably at the cost of life on earth this time.
Anybody who thinks that the government is telling the truth about the plan to shoot down a dead spy satellite--that it's all about protecting us, and not about testing an anti-satellite weapon--has to be really stupid.
And stupid is what the Bush administration and the Pentagon apparently think we are.
They're claiming they need to shoot this thing down because it's got a tank with 1000 pounds of hydrazine, a fuel used for maneuvering satellites while in orbit which is said to be as toxic as chlorine if breathed.
Well, the odds of a tank of hydrazine surviving an 18,000 mph plunge into the atmosphere intact and making it to the ground is basically zero. That sucker will heat up to a fine redhot glow and blow up before it even makes it to the stratosphere.
If you want to know how likely it is that such a tank would make it to ground, check out the pieces of the space shuttle Columbia that made it back to earth when it came down in pieces. That shuttle, a damned sight bigger than this spy satellite, included some heavy pieces of equipment like landing gear that had to carry the full weight of the vehicle on the tarmac, and even that stuff got toasted. (The shuttle also contained tanks of hydrazine, by the way, which didn't make it to earth).
No, the risk of this spy satellite toxifying anyone is nil. The risk of pieces of it, which might make it to earth, hitting anything of consequence is next to nil, especially as the government will be able to give pretty precise warning to the impact area well in advance of its final descent.
So what this is really all about is the government getting an excuse to violate the international treaty against weapons in space, to test a missile it has that it hopes can "take out" a satellite. The Chinese did this last year to one of their own satellites, to widespread condemnation from other space-faring nations, including the US.
The only difference between the US and China here is that the Chinese at least have the integrity to violate international law frontally. The US has to do it dishonestly, pretending it is a public service.
Let's at least not be willing stooges here.
We have had eight years of government by lying. It's not that lies and deception weren't practiced by governments before the advent of the Cheney/Bush regime, but this administration more than any other before it clearly believes that democracy and integrity are simply obstacles to power, and has worked assiduously to try to eliminate them entirely from Washington.
It's past time to bring a little integrity and openness back.
Since man first walked upright, he has engaged in an age-old battle between two sides of himself, each side looking for supremacy and dominance over the other. That battle still goes on between man, as an individual, and man as part of a community.
Few expect each individual to rule community, as in a democracy. Most look to community to rule individuals. This raises a question of how community can rule anything. It has no capacity, on its own, to think, feel, plan, rule or say anything. If it can do any of these things, it is because it has its leader, elected or self-anointed, to do all that.
It boils down to a conflict between all individuals in community, or a few individuals who want to rule it. Only one elite, tribal chief, king, queen or dictator dominates and does the thinking and planning for community.
John Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Translated, it means, ask not what community can do for you, but what you can do to serve your community. He said, as the Democratic Party does now, that "It Takes a Village" and community should always be supreme.
It is the same as saying community interests, which has to mean the interests of its rulers, is more important than individual interests, the interests of each community member on his or her own. This may sound picayune to some, or knit picking to others. It is, however, the most important political difference the world has always faced.
Who is most important? Is the individual? Or, is it the group of individuals making up a community, behaving as a community?
Do the primary elections decide who the Presidential nominee will be? I don't think so..
20% of the delegates that are NOT elected by the primary elections are "Super Delegates", appointed by the DNC and free to vote however they will. They were invented by the Democratic National Committee to "stabilize" the choosing of a Presidential candidate. The articles below will help inform you of this.
In addition, as I understand it, if the delegates from FL and MI, which were not to be counted per the DNC, since they had their primaries too early, might now be counted. Only Clinton's delegates could be counted and that may happen if they decide to do so at the Democratic Convention. Of course, Obama did not run in those two states because the DNC said the votes would not count, so why bother?
One person, one vote? Forget about it. Some votes are worth more than others. You have to know the rules.
Super Delegates (appointed and not elected) will probably be the ones to decide who gets the Presidential nomination at the Democratic Convention.
Maybe we should be writing to Howard Dean to ask that this practice that might steal our democratic Presidential primary vote needs to be fixed. To email him, go to . http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
There are very serious threats to our national sovereignty under way. This bill - on withdrawing from the SPP - pending in the Arizona legislature is an attempt to stop one of them.
I urge my State of Washington, and all of our other states in the Union, to immediately pass and deliver Companion Joint Memorials to their Congressmen, Senators and the President, and to support legislation in Congress to stop this madness.
We're losing our country. Ignorance and apathy at this moment are not an option.
We are at war, and the enemy is in control of our government (and our elections).
Recession or Depresion? To me this article raises some interesting questions. Which are:
What will the be the reaction of millions of unemployed Americans when the depression hits and they see that the extremely wealthy American capitalist class, and their extremely profitable corporations, are still exporting jobs?
What will be their reaction when they have lost their homes, cars, all of their toys and cannot afford any of their former expensive distractions?
What will be their reaction when the social services they require are under funded and are having their funds cut even further to finance the war machine?
What will be their reaction when those that are still employed see their taxes go up while the fat cats and their corporations completely avoid taxation?
Will they still buy into all of the old bullshit that American "capitalism" is the best of all possible worlds?
At what point will millions of Americans vent their anger and create serious social and political unrest?
At what point will the fascist president, read dictator, in power at the time, enforce all of the legislation on the books to create a fascist military/police state?
At what point will millions of Americans realize the only purpose of the fascist military/police state is to suppress all dissent for the purpose of securing the economic and political power of the elites and their corporations?
What makes this even more interesting is that we very well may get the answers to these question a hell of a lot sooner than anyone currently in power in Washington, D.C. realizes.
I believe it is safe to say that the world's most militarily aggressive, fascist, corporatist state, that also has the reputation of having the world's most aggressive clandestine military operations, is responsible for cutting these undersea communication cables. I, of course, am speaking of the United States.
My question is this: how long can the fascist Bush regime continue with this option for preventing the operation of the Iranian oil bourse?
These sort of clandestine military operations are very disruptive to the interests of international "capitalism." We can expect that there are going to be very strong negative repercussions for the fascist Bush regime from the international capitalist community if this continues.
When this option for disrupting the Iranian oil bourse runs out, and it may run out very quickly, what does the fascist Bush regime do next to stop the operation of the Iranian oil bourse?
The question very quickly becomes: Does the fascist Bush regime have any other option to stop the operation of the Iranian oil bourse that does not run the terrible risk of rapidly escalating into World War Three?
The realization by the oligarchy, which the fascist Bush regime serves, that any further interference with the Iranian oil bourse is not worth the cost may very well result the acceptance among the oligarchy that the American empire is in immediate and drastic decline.
It seems apparent that America is about to enter a severe depression, and that it may be impossible to finance the huge American state-of-the-art war machine and its endless wars. Finally, it may result in the realization that the only way the oligarchy will continue to retain its economic and political power is to immediately impose a fascist military/police state.
Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has an excellent article about how the criminals in the federal government slammed even more violations of the Constitution down our throats.
Americans are worried and even angry about many things. Whether Osama bin Laden is throwing a party because AT&T and Verizon might have to defend themselves in court isn't one of them. Outside of National Review, K Street, and the fear-paralyzed imagination of our shrinking faux-warrior class, there is no constituency in America demanding warrantless eavesdropping or amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms.
There is no constituency demanding that the government spy on all of us. There is no constituency demanding that telecoms get retroactive amnesty.
Period.
The only people calling for this are the politicians themselves. Well, and maybe some of their corporate backers.
Here's a little more from Greenwald:
If Democrats describe what Bush is doing clearly, simply and honestly, then reporters will write it down and read it. It's what they do. Even reporters can understand that when Bush says: "Give me all the new warrantless eavesdropping powers I want and give AT&T protection from lawsuits, otherwise we'll be hit way worse than 9/11," that is pitiful fear-mongering of the type authoritarian politicians always invoke to obtain more unchecked power. Just make that case -- as Democrats did yesterday -- and it will prevail.
There are 14 points of fascism, which George Bush has pushed for/has achieved most of!
They are as follows:
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoatsas a Unifying Cause The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
Supremacy of the Military Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
Rampant Sexism The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
Controlled Mass Media Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
Obsession with National Security Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
Religion and Government are Intertwined Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
Corporate Power is Protected The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
Labor Power is Suppressed Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
Obsession with Crime and Punishment Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
Rampant Cronyism and Corruption Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
Fraudulent Elections Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Read more on these 14 points in Laurence W. Britt's article, Fascism Anyone?
The Iraqi's did not bomb the US on 9-11, remember? They said out of 19 bombers, 15 were Saudis. Not that I want him too, but why didn't Bush go after the Saudis?
Sure he made a big thing of going to Afganistan, but he never accomplished getting Osama, still hasn't. He
Then he comes up with a story of Weapons of Mass destruction and goes into Iraq. Maybe he just wants to prove to his daddy that he is better?
Where was he during Vietnam if he is such a hot shot? We should make a law that when a president goes to war with a country, that he is front and center on the front lines. Maybe we should let him carry a sword or pistol to make him feel powerful.
And after all this fraud, now he wants to "legally" spy and eavesdrop on Americans.
If it's true that people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from investigation, then surely the Bush administration shouldn't mind if investigators examine the secretive and highly suspicious activities of Bush and Cheney -- e.g., Cheney's energy meetings, White House email, CIA torture tapes et al. Reflect Bush's claim right back on him and Cheney.
Demand they cough up the secrets based on their own line: "you have nothing to fear if you're innocent."
Although it most likely will never happen, every legislator at local, state and federal level should carefully examine every existing and proposed law from the same standpoint: what could the most mean-spirited enforcement officer, prosecutor or judge do with this piece if he were to take it to the most extreme?
Then there is the matter of those in the agencies charged with our security (of which I was a part for years).
Since most of their activities are done in secret, out of the realm of public scrutiny and accountability, there is strong temptation to operate outside of the law.
There used to be a saying in this country that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The price of freedom is determined, intense vigilance.
As the Germans learned, the insistent, hysterical and frenzied pursuit of "them" leads to the undermining of security for all.
As we sit on our spreading behinds in slack-jawed stupor and "the ones who want to hurt America" are seen everywhere and motivate every "preventive" action, it is those self-proclaimed protectors who are the ones which are turning our once-free society into a dungeon...with "protector" becoming jailer.
The Germans were duped by a deranged racist who tapped a nation's supposedly wounded pride. The U.S. is being duped by a mental defective sans-contact with reality.
The bigger difference, though, is that the German madman was the actual leader of the descent into fascism, whereas ours is nothing but a mindless monkey dancing another's tune.
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." -Thomas Paine
Tom Paine was the most vocal and politically radical founding father. (He even opposed the ratification of the Constitution, b/c he thought it gave the Federal government too much centralized power.) It's my opinion that Thomas Paine should be the Populist Party's poster boy, and mythical founder.
In response to your recent post, Liberty once lost, is lost forever, I would have to say that of all the founding fathers to quote on protecting liberty or the Constitution, John Adams is by far the worst and least appropriate choice.
Adams holds the distinction of passing the Alien and Sedition Acts, which:
allowed the President the right to deport any foreign, or naturalized citizen from the country for whatever reason (like they were going to vote for the other party).
criminalized public criticism of the federalized government.
Why would Adams do such a thing? Mainly to suppress politcal opponents (the Jeffersonian Republicans).
He also holds the distinction of being the first President to pass an unconstitutional act.
In sum, John Adams abused the Constitution in the worst way possible, so I piss on anything he has to say about it and so should you.
I was reading about the rise of Hitler to power and found that there were eight things he asked the German people to give him (Each of the eight were a surrender of a right they enjoyed per their Rule of Law) so that he and his administration could "protect" the German people from their enemies.
They gave up the rights gladly because Hitler preached that Germany would once again be a great nation if they would be a Christian Nation and trust him to pull them up out of their poverty. Over 90% of the Germans supported him. Once they had given up their rights, they woke up one morning to find that they, the people, were the enemies of the Government.
Every one of those eight have been usurped by this Administration here in the U.S., and way too many people state "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". That's exactly the rationale that the Germans used to give up those rights.
One day it was too late to disagree.
It is now time to examine some of the actions the Third Reich took and the individual liberties they removed from German Law during this period, and then compare them to our "War against Terrorism Law" Remember our Constitution bans the practice of these items :
Denial and Restriction of habeas corpus
Un Authorized Rampant militarism without Congress Approval
Warrantless Spying on all citizens
Arrest and indefinite imprisonment without trial
Secret detention
Secret Prisons
Torture
Unfair Trial Practices
George Bush already has claimed a right to adopt, and has put into practice, every last one of the eight Constitutional protections listed above. He has claimed the right to ignore these banned practices.
The Germans never thought it could happen to them. Neither do a majority of Americans.
On December 31st, 2003, the Army Times published eight pages of photos of our American dead. About 500 at the time. I wrote a poem:
Eight Pages
Eight pages of tiny photos in the Army Times. Beneath each one a name, an age, a rank, a date. Bush and his tame media would greatly prefer That those five hundred be the nameless, faceless, dead.
Five thousand more (the numbers grow each day) Missing arms, legs, blasted faces, lie out of sight, Warehoused by a callous government trying to hide The true cost of war.
Far beyond the billions squandered On Bush's war machine and wealthy cronies, This is the true cost of conquest, The true cost of oil.
Each day these numbers mount. Each day the "collateral damage" and collateral rage rises. Each day this occupation continues, the numbers will continue to rise. How many pages next year, in the Army Times?
The Times never repeated the experiment, but now it would require at least sixty pages, just for the American dead. For the "collateral damage," it would require a multi-volume set, tastefully bound in red leather.
Now, the Democrats are quietly purging the "peace Dems" from key committees and preparing to send more of our youth and more billions into Bush's war machine. Business as usual and the "K" Street money flow is shifting from Republicans to Democrats.
If we can't figure out some way to dump the whole power structure and put some good people into office, we might as well throw in the towel. Writing about it sure isn't working.
One of the best ways to understand the difference between a society based upon community interests, and one where legitimate individual self-interests are supreme, is by the way society deals with change. Most people tend to resist change. Challenging established methods, practices and habits cause discomfort for most. It means having to invest the effort of learning a new habit. Therefore, we can agree that just about everyone will resist meeting or doing something new and different. Change always disrupts no matter how society structures itself.
The Old World societies, based upon community interest being superior to individual self-interests, resist the most. Community has no interests other those given it by its rulers, and no ruler trusts a community willing to change anything. It is hard enough to rule a community that does things the same way all the time, because there are changes in people's age and ability as well as the weather that complicate things enough.
Trying to make a change and enforce it is even more difficult. This is why the ruler and the community distrust and discourage the lone efforts of the ingenious and creative members of community. The engineer, scientist, seeker-of-knowledge, as well as the productive middle-class artisan and manufacturer are often more of a threat to community than the serf who plods along slowly doing the same job in the same way year after year. This is why the Old World plodded along for so many centuries without any progressive changes. Fear of change was a community foundation.
The New World was different. Change was still suspect and discomforting. Having to learn new habits was still a struggle. These things did not change. What did change, however, is the willingness of Americans to try something new in spite of the effort needed to adjust. The creative inventor was still suspect of being unbalanced and always had to prove himself, but he never faced prison or the hangman for attempting something new and different.
For this reason, America grew rapidly and progressed quickly when compared to the Old World. Creative and inventive individuals, free to pursue their own interests to make something new that others will need, pushed communities forward. The successful inventors prospered as did their communities, as a result. Pioneer Americans had no choice but to confront multiple and often very threatening changes in their environment and life, and they learned to cope and ride the waves.
They were free to question the change, but also free to adopt it when they believed it best. This all happened because their self-interests were also more important than the interests or views of the community.
I often hear apologists for the expansion of state power in the "war on terror" give arguments along the lines of "Name one, just one time the government has actually violated your rights." They seem to claim that unless you can give a list of people in jail for dissent that we have "nothing to worry about."
Well, the key point is that we shouldn't be most worried about individual abuses of power, but rather, the power to abuse.
What I mean by this is quite simple. As long as a power exists, sooner or later some politicians are going to come along and exercise that power. Period.
We've had plenty of direct violations of our liberties - from "free speech zones" to warrantless searches by the TSA, to taking our money at the point of a gun to fund the killing in Iraq - but that comes nowhere close to the powers that this government has now assumed.
CooperativeResearch.org has put together a pretty amazing project...chronicling the loss of civil liberties since 9-11. View all 317 - yes, that three hundred and seventeen! - instances in just the past 6.5 years here.
Think John McCain, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama would give up such great powers? Think again.
John Adams said it best when he wrote, "A constitution of government, once changed from freedom, can never be restored; liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
The only way to make sure that government doesn't abuse its power is to not grant power in the first place.
The baby of political ideology in the world today is less than 400-years-old. It is the successful American Tradition. Remember, that is the one where individual freedom and legitimate self-interest is superior to community interests. The bathwater is the slurry formed in the tub for almost 100 years. It is the dirty water of privileges, corruption and a desire by some to return to the Old World tradition of community interests being superior to individuals.
The fear of 2008 is that we will vote to throw out the bathwater and with it the baby.
The candidates are lining up to run the track. Both lean heavily to tossing the baby out and promising changing to a new nation. They will save some of the residual bathtub slurry of Old World politics to build on, so a few elite can rule the many. Both candidates believe the community is superior to the individuals in it, and that the few in the know must guide the many.
From the many that have, the few who do not will profit. They believe those who have must give to those who have not. It amounts to almost a meaningless election if both sides promise the same result. Neither candidate has any experience running anything. One is rigid, self-centered, and arrogant. The other gives great speeches as his justification for the office sought.
With the baby tossed out, America can start to look like all the other nations in the world, where we sacrifice independence for security. Few really care where the country and its people are going. It is all about style and never substance. It is about getting my share before the treasury dries up. Will anyone try to find the baby once tossed out, or will the world become one big sewer in constant turmoil?
What will our world look like without America and its baby tradition? What will prevent the tyrants and bullies from stepping on toes and creating chaos? Has anyone really thought about a world without American power and individual freedom? Every swell-speaking petty tyrant will have his or her time with a crown, until deposed by another seeking to crown himself.
The many will have to return to the days when food was in short supply, war and famine the daily fare, and the king's men pounding on the door.
What we are witnessing with fascist President Bush's clampdown on flights to the United States is the sort of extreme security measures required for the security of a militarily aggressive fascist state that indulges in overt military aggression.
We see this type of thinking in U.S. foreign policy; such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as covert military aggression likeinserting clandestine military forces inside Iran to incite unrest among Iranian minorities and cutting undersea communications cables to Iran.
The American state is thoroughly despised and hated throughout the Third World because of its long history of brutal exploitation, and overt and covert military aggression against any nation that resists American "capitalist" exploitation.
Therefore, it is thoroughly understandable that the American fascist state finds it necessary to implement ever more extreme security measures.
An excellent article over at Mises.org on the root causes of inflation. Here's an excerpt:
Once a crisis unfolds, central banks are called upon to lower interest rates - in ignorance of the fact that a monetary policy of pushing down the interest rate has caused the misery in the first place. Cheaper borrowing costs, it is believed, would revive the economy by stimulating investment and consumption, thereby adding to output and employment. Lower interest rates would raise the prices of stocks, bonds, and housing, translating into "wealth effects" which in turn strengthen demand.
The obsession with a policy of lowering the interest rate is rooted in a deep-seated ideological aversion against the interest rate. It is a destructive ideology, in particular if the government is in charge of the money supply. Because then the government central bank will lower the interest rate to whatever is deemed appropriate from the viewpoint of the government, pressure groups, and vested interest.
The reality of our economic woes is that it's the policies of our central bank - the federal reserve - that have caused prices to skyrocket.
The Hundred Years' War is unique in history, in that everybody was a loser in that war. It is the only war in history where every single person alive at the beginning of the war (1337), was dead by the end of the war (1453).
The Hundred Years' War, like many other government wars, lasted longer than expected. It actually lasted 116 years, about the length of years that the oldest human beings in human history have lived.
This war was so gruesome, that they even continued fighting right on through the Black Death of 1347-1351, a plague which killed more people in Europe than WWII.
This war also produced such atrocities as the burning at the stake in 1431 of a young 19-year old religious girl named Joan of Arc.
It also produced the brutal atrocities of the infamous Battle of Agincourt in 1415.
Below, is a list of major battles fought in the Hundred Years' War. Why Senator McCain would want another one defies imagination:
Before the "Ron Paul Revolution" most of us had no idea what a caucus was or how it controlled the delegates of political parties. Were we not taught about this procedure in "our" very expensive "Department of Education"?
Could it be that we the common folks might find out how, the elitists have our so-called "democracy" in their total control.
There is no question in most of our minds, that Doctor Paul has enlightened many of us ad to how the adversary manipulates our citizenry.
Ross Perot put himself and his family's future at risk, when he ran as a candidate on a third party platform. If, you are old enough to remember he quit, because the "back room" crowd threatened not only his life but the lives of his family.
It takes iron-clad gigantic balls to stand-up to the International military and banking la costa nostra!
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Patrick Henry were neighbors in the State of Virginia, but more than that, they were the synergy of our first patriots who secured our Bill of Rights.
Were they criticized and questioned? Absolutely, but they pressed forward and with their total resolve established for we their progeny, the Liberty and Freedoms we have enjoyed.
I have a feeling that Doctor Ron Paul is made out of the same Spiritual fiber as our early Patriots. Is there anyone else in the political arena that we can look to for honesty?
From the beginning, judicial independence has been more a sophistry of plausible falsehood, underpinned by unethical intent, than a worthy principle of democratic governance.
It is described as a device to protect the righteous, impartial judicial power from coercion by powerful individuals in government. At too many crucial times, however, the judiciary has proven itself all too willing to rule in favor of the class-race elite, at the expense of the ordinary people.
And, behind the lofty-sounding description, its original intentions clearly included its providing a corruption machine for ensuring profits and power to the right people, as well as keeping the rabble and their excessive democracy down.
Over time, the sophistic device has allowed SCOTUS to create the near-zero social justice environment of the Guilded Age -- ensuring obscenely excessive profits and power to the superrich -- and then to repeat that environment through the 1920s and into the Great Depression. FDR rebuilt the Court, reinstituting it for social justice.
Now, however, SCOTUS and too much of the lower federal bench again represent the interests of the superrich, their fascist corporate sleaze, and their predator politicians.
Worse, SCOTUS is directly guilty of the unconstitutional, felonious, and treasonous creation of the Bush-Cheney Usurpation, which is the most criminal, corrupt, and incompetent US national government in our history. Judicial independence is one of our Constitution's systemic problems.
It is helping to destroy our constitutional governance, and it must be ended.
America's political and sociological departure from the ordinary history of man began 400 years ago when it recognized individual liberty. In America, each person had an "unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
America allowed each to make interests real. American genius invented and produced. They did not plunder or memorialize. Americans prospered, as did their family, community, state and nation. Individual legitimate self-interest proved best, out of all of man's history, for the interests and prosperity of community.
The world is crumbling again, under a religious belief in self-sacrifice. Many claim community, nation and world interests are more important than self-interest. They challenge the right of individuals to exist for their own sake. Genius is condemned again as selfish and something to be feared. Communities have only prospered without conflict when genius is free. It suffers when individual freedom is gone.
America's Declaration of Independence expressed a tradition of community structure. It was not something people had to accept. It reflected the beliefs of 150 years experience with individual freedom. The Enlightenment was a product of America, not of a handful of European philosophers.
Americans created a tradition, stood on their own, supported their families and communities without a recipe of a ruler or church. Those prospering helped those who did not. They did not fear genius, invention and entrepreneurial dream chasing. It was a tradition that built the most productive, creative and prosperous nation in the world.
It was a reflection of individual freedom.
Our politicians are not for free choice. They will destroy the choice individuals have for prosperity through freedom. They believe, as elites, they must design, build and manage all nations of the world. There is no difference from the Old World monarchies and dictatorships. America's traditions have always been under assault by other nations and some in our own ranks.
Now, the entire world is focusing on America. They want to know if liberty can prevail against the assaults. Only time will tell. Only a sufficient rebirth of people's interests in our traditions, its achievements as well as renewed patriotism can prevent America disappearing from the world.
Every day another death, or more. Blown apart, shot, starved, Military or civilian, young or old, Innocent or guilty, they die.
Looking back through history; Egyptian, Jew, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, European or American; As today, they died.
Peaceful farmers raising their crops, Came the conqueror, they died. Poets writing of Peace. A Dictator's decree; they died.
Lovers picnic in a mountain meadow. Overflies the drone, a missile fires; Blast of fire and steel. Must have been terrorists, they died.
Collateral damage is a convenient term. Doesn't sound like weeping widows, Crying children and shattered homes. Just pay them compensation and forget them.
Forget them all, soldiers, civilians, young and old. Forget the wasteland of war, the trampled crops. There are always lots more where they came from. Forget that every day is an anniversary.
In the continued and progressive march of history, men and women grew from hungry, cold and frightened huddling tribal subjects to confident individuals. The big change took place when America was settled and individuals could at last be free to pursue their own interests, unencumbered by the interests and rulers of community.
This represents the revolution of man and became our great political divide.
The Old World tries to keep the status quo of limitations and rule of a defined community. The New World recognizes each person is valued standing on his or her own. The New world proved, beyond any doubt that prosperity and greater happiness rises from individual freedom.
The Old World has yet to concede this.
This is where we finally do battle, for individual freedom or tyranny. That battle continues even today in America.
While President Bush praises the invasion of Iraq as spreading freedom, while the Democrats in Congress are overcome with admiration for the U.S. troops installing democracy by the barrel of a gun, the rest of the world is saying, "It's the oil, stupid."
The U.S. is stuck in the Middle East, just where it wants to be, without an exit strategy because it never intended to leave, not as long as the area contains 60% of world oil reserves and 40% of world natural gas reserves.
Do the math. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves, more than five times the total in the United States. In addition, it is the least explored of the world's oil-rich nations. It has been estimated that Iraq has 300 billion, yes billion, barrels of undiscovered oil. U.S. forces are now occupying in Iraq one quarter of the world's oil reserves. And these forces are now in position to protect the oil of Saudi Arabia and to threaten the oil of Iran.
At today's prices, which may be low given that consumer demand is growing in China, India, etc., the value of Iraqi oil would be about $30 trillion. The projected cost of the U.S. invasion and occupation is about $1 trillion. I won't try to evaluate the 4000 U.S. dead soldiers and 90,000 U.S. wounded.
Was the strategy of invading Iraq for its oil reserves developed at the secret meeting of the Energy Task Force in late 2001 organized by Vice-President Cheney? The oil and energy executives attending discussed the world situation at length but the administration refuses to release the details. But they can't fool Alan Greenspan, who was clear on the matter in his new book: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraqi War is largely about oil."
While the immense profits were certainly part of the overall plan together with eliminating a dedicated opponent of Israel, neither the money nor Israel was decisive. Probably more important was control of the oil as a tool, or perhaps a weapon in support of U.S. world hegemony.
Modern industrial nations require oil for productivity and consumer satisfaction. Crossing the interests of the U.S. will carry the risk of being shut off from the indispensable liquid. The invasion/occupation of Iraq was more than a defensive measure for oil supplies; it gave the U.S. a potent offensive tool to keep other nations in line with American policies.
For two years now, I have been telling people who insisted that Hillary Clinton would be the next Democratic candidate for president that they were wrong. I even put it in writing a few times.
Now I'm going to really put it out there: Hillary Clinton is Toast. She is not going to be the Democratic nominee.
The reason I always figured she wouldn't make it across the primary finish line was that she was too calculatingly conservative for primary voters.
For years, it has been the case that Democratic primary voters have been more liberal than the broader spectrum of registered Democratic voters. That is because progressive voters have generally been better educated and also more motivated to try to have an impact on the decisions of "their" party than other voters who just mechanically, or out of habit, checked the Democratic box when they registered to vote. Then you have to add to the mix the reality that independents, who vote in the primaries of many of the 50 states, are often, contrary to conventional wisdom, way more "liberal," or better, anti-Establishment, on many issues than are Democrats.
Clinton, meanwhile, is the quintessential Establishment candidate. She has honed her resume, she has cautiously calculated the impact of every critical vote in the Senate. Even as Mr. Bill's unofficial adviser, she played the role of making sure that White House decisions hewed to the center-right, as for example when she pressed him to defund welfare, or to gut habeas rights for death penalty prisoners. Her craven authorship in the Senate more recently for a flag-burning law (it narrowly failed to pass), and her vote in support of the mortally dangerous Kyle-Lieberman bill last year (which would, if passed in its original form, have declared Iran's main armed force, the Revolutionary Guard, to be a "global terrorist organization," thus giving President Bush all the authorization he thinks he needs to attack that country), epitomize her politics.
Moreover, while it does sometimes appear that the Democratic Party has a death wish, I've never subscribed to that theory. I think that party leaders to want do win the White House and to keep control of Congress, not because they want to reform the system, but because they want all the perks, patronage and payola that go to the winner. And I think they all are acutely aware that Hillary cannot win in November against a candidate like John McCain. Indeed, she probably could not win against any of the main Republican hopefuls for president.
My guess is that they'll watch what happens over the next month, and if Barack Obama doesn't keep advancing in the polls and the delegate count, they'll do something to sink her candidacy, which we'll see happen when the so-called Super Delegates--the party "ins" and big-wigs--jump to Obama. The talk at the Democratic National Committee about holding caucuses in Michigan and Florida (the two states that held early primaries against party rules and had their delegations ruled unseatable at the Convention), instead of letting them ultimately be seated, is a direct indication that the Party doesn't want the contest going to Clinton. Clinton won both those primaries, which were held before the Obama surge really got going. If the delegations as voted in the primaries were allowed to be seated at the convention, Clinton would be way out front right now.
I predict they won't be. Those delegates will be reallocated at caucuses at which Obama's people will be dominant.
So for my money, it looks like Obama v. McCain in November.
And a good thing that is, because Clinton v. McCain would have resulted in President McCain.
Obama's "change" rhetoric may be ludicrously empty, but it sounds more real coming from his mouth than from his imitators, including Clinton, and that's enough to bring primary voters, who sure enough do want change, over to his column.
This is a copy of the letter I have called and read, then e-mailed to both my Senators and my Congressman. If you think it hits the mark, send it on to yours and pass it on to your circle. Maybe, if they are not completely isolated from We the People, it will have an impact. We are running out of options, I fear.
***************
The United States lives under the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. Those documents are the core of our existence as a nation.
When you and the other members of the administration took your offices, you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That oath was taken by everybody from Mr. Bush on down and includes Senators and Congresspeople.
When a treaty has been ratified, it becomes a part of the body of United States law. The Constitution says that law will be obeyed.
We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners, therefore we are bound by that convention.
The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees privacy to the individuals of the Untied States in their homes, communications, thoughts, etc.
It is imperative that you as representatives of We the People uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution you promised to protect and defend. You cannot permit Mr. Bush and his minions to continue to wiretap, eavesdrop, and open our communications without warrant, and you cannot permit any force of the United States to torture, isolate, imprison without trial, nor hold trials where the defendant cannot hear the charges and evidence against him.
Do not go along with the Bush regime's desire to retroactively OK all of these abuses, primarily to protect him from war crimes trials and increase his hold upon the citizens of the United States. Doing so will make you an accessory after the fact and likewise guilty of supporting war crimes.
Remember Nuremberg. The world, with us at the forefront, said that these sort of abuses would not be tolerated in a civilized society, and that "I was just following orders" was not an adequate defense. This goes all the way to the top.
Please think about this, then do what is right.
We, personally, will not vote for anyone that will excuse these abuses against human rights and the United States Constitution.
The concept of having to fight "homegrown terrorism" is extremely dangerous. The blurring of thoughts and actions as illegal activities has a very real duo of events that has already occurred in these United States.
And so that no one will even think for a minute that an oversight ( or review ) by the Agency doing the evil deed would result in a punishment of itself, expecting something other than a whitewash of what it did need look no farther that Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Overzealous protectors ( dictators ) are as dangerous to the Constitution as they decide to be.
Looks like the mismanaged SF Unified School District needs more money...again. Is anyone surprised? It seems like they always need more - but the quality of education keeps staying the same or getting worse. hmmmm.
A proposed $198 parcel tax could help city schools keep teachers in its classrooms, but critics call the tax unfair because it taxes commerical and private property at a flat rate.
On Monday, the San Francisco Unified School District board heard the first reading of a proposed $198 annual tax on property owners - both commercial and residential - in The City.
Residents would vote June 3 on the initiative, which requires a two-thirds majority for passage, but the board has yet to move forward officially with the tax.
It seems there's some "dissent" over the issue:
But renter advocates in The City charge that the proposal - a $198 flat tax on all parcels in The City with exemptions for seniors, an adjustment for inflation and mandatory citizen oversight of the revenue - is "unfair" because it does not delineate between large and small property owners. Parcel taxes can be tiered based on square footage of the parcel.
"We would be against that based on the allocation being unfair and pushing the burden onto those who can least afford to pay it," said Janan New, director of the San Francisco Apartment Association.
Critics also argue that the school district has a reputation of mismanaging its revenue.
It seems odd to me that virtually the only debate on the issue is the amount of the tax, and who would pay how much - not whether we should pay more tax at all or not.
Not that I am against better schools and upkeep for schools...I just don't believe that yet another tax on the people of the community is the right step.
First off, our tax dollars have been massively mismanaged so often that new oversight committees mean absolutely nothing to me.
And then, when you raise taxes on business and homeowners the tax falls back onto every day people. Rent prices go up and everyday goods go up to keep up with such high taxes.
We all feel the burden.
Who is to say that this proposed parcel tax will be spent wisely? It probably won't.
I bet the financial oversight committee that they have in mind gets a pretty good sum of this money - nice salaries for all!
I think that concerned parents and teachers should come together as a community without local or any kind of government interference. More would come from that then a bunch of political bureaucrats sitting around a table figuring out new ways to steal our money...
Yesterday, I downloaded one of those "Gestapo" clips John Thurman mentioned in his post. Now, neither one is available.
The case, as I understand it, is, the lady was injured by her cousin and called 911 for help. The deputy arrived on the scene, found her on the floor, assumed she was the assailant, roughed her up, threw her, protesting, into the back of his squad car.
She was driven to the police station, videoed being strip searched by four burly male cops, with one female deputy to do the finger waves. She was then dragged nude down the hall and thrown naked into a cell for six hours. She was later convicted of resisting arrest.
The sheriff says it was all "by the book" and no improprieties happened.
If it was good enough for the gestapo, I guess it should be good enough for our cops, eh?
Bush's new budget proposal? $3.1 Trillion Dollars! That's about $10,218 for every person alive in America. For a family of four that means that the next spending budget of the United States will require $40,872 in Federal Taxes for that year!
I looked up the Median Family Income ( that's half make more, half make less ) for 2006 ( Last date available ) and found the household median income to be about $66,570. That's the maximum total income of 50% of the families in the United States for 2006.
What this means is that the amount of households making less than the tax cost ( $40, 872 ) is about 40% of the households in the United States. Since they can't pay their entire income for Federal Tax, that means that everyone in the upper 60% would have to make up the difference.
The Federal Budget has grown from about 2.1 Trillion in Clinton's last year to the 3.1 Trillion in Bush's Last year. The Annual Budget grew about 139 Billion during the Clinton 8 Years and over the Bush 8 years has grown about 1 Trillion, almost eight times the amount of growth during the Clinton years.
And there are still people who won't impeach Bush, but those same parties did impeach Clinton.
I am not a Clinton fan, I thought Senate should've found him guilty. I think the Democratic and Republican Parties made a deal. You don't impeach and convict us and we won't impeach and convict you.
This type of bargain allows corruption and the loss civil rights, not to mention starting illegal, immoral, uncalled-for wars.
What a sad commentary. Went in on Tuesday and voted Ron Paul.
It happened because of excessive specialization and "professionalism". Here are examples:
"...She actually got a jury trial. Sort of. The jury awarded her 3.8 million dollars. But juries can't be allowed to run around awarding that kind of money to ordinary citizens and making corporations pay it, so the judge - acting alone and without consulting the jury - reduced her jury verdict to $360,000, less than a tenth of what the jury wanted her to have...
...Five members of the Supreme Court didn't think Lily Ledbetter should get a dime so, without consulting with her jury, they tossed Ms. Ledbetter's case completely out of court. She got nothing. Zero. How did they do such a thing? How did they completely eviscerate the jury's decision?...
...The right to a jury trial in a civil case, which looks absolute in the print of the Constitution, is cabined by many judge and lawyer made rules. Most, if not all of these rules, fly beneath the public's radar. They are technical legal rules hidden in legal verbosity designed to make them difficult to understand. These cases operate under rules known as the "Rules of Civil Procedure."...
...The rules pretty well assure that a lay person - who has an absolute right to represent herself without a lawyer - will lose her case long before a jury trial on a technicality of the civil procedure rules which only lawyers and judges understand. Even with a competent lawyer on her side, the chances of her actually having a jury hear and decide her case are vanishingly small..."
The excessive specialization mix with unbridled greed for power and money created an obscenely rich ruling class with judges as their money driven servant.
Any resistant is "cured" by paid by an obscenely rich ruling class assassinations or terrorism...to keep chaos and fear among ordinary citizen alive.
It is feudalism in its worst form and there is not the slightest chance to reverse it peacefully. Any person that is promoting peaceful solution is naïve or an obscenely rich ruling class servant.
One of my many e-mail subscriptions asked me to contact my Senators regarding the upcoming FISA and blanket telcom immunity bills and ask them to vote against them.
I called Senator Cantwell and gave my plea, including a request to vote against the draconian Homegrown Terrorism Bill, then told the aide, "What we the People really need is for the Constitution to be returned, intact and functioning, to the Halls of Government. With that in place, there is nothing we cannot face..."
The response? A dead line. And she is supposed to be the liberal one.
I did the same thing with Patty Murray's aide and she listened to the end, then said she would certainly pass my concerns on to the Senator.
I don't think any of them like to be reminded of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Perhaps a tiny bit of guilt?
Naah, not in our government.
Click Here to take action on the Protect America Act today!
Obama and Clinton both propose a change for America. What change do they propose? For almost a century, the Democratic Party has slowly chipped away at our American Traditions in order to bring the kind of change that Obama and Clinton now openly propose.
Almost four centuries ago, New World Americans made a big change from Old World traditions. It recognized each individual's freedom to pursue legitimate self-interests and aspirations. It provided prosperity for individuals and their families. That prosperity, added to other successful individuals, created prosperous communities and a prosperous nation. This is what Democrats want to change.
Democrats campaign openly on a need to change to the interests of community being superior to the interests of the individual, that "It Takes a Village." Theirs is the image of Robin Hood. Robin stole from the rich to give to the poor. Compassion favors Robin Hood, and he is the hero of the young and uninformed. Without the rich, however, there is nothing to share with the poor. If preventing individuals from working and building prosperity makes the poor better off, then why would America be at a level of prosperity it is now? It would be more like other impoverished Old World nations.
The New World, America, differs from the rest of the world; because it recognized prosperity only comes from individual freedom, never the dictates of a Robin Hood government. Government has never created anything; only taking what the people it dominates produced.
The only change necessary is to reverse what the Robin Hood politicians have done to America in the past century. It would be to go back to the change given us by our American ancestors, of individual freedom, small, non-intrusive government and lots of elbowroom to imagine, design, create and make better products and methods that give prosperity to everyone. Everyone shares the least in equality of outcome, but gains the most with wealth created by free people.
If the envious, angry, depressed and power-hungry bring about a change back to the Old World, a renewed Obama, Clinton and Robin Hood tradition of equality of outcome and poverty, America may never recover.
From the souls of our fallen noble, brave and inspiring patriots we can almost hear a pleading cry;
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead, Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved, and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. --By John McCrae
To those we owe the Liberty and Freedom which we have been blessed, are we to forget their noble efforts with vain and passive duress? Or pass it on to our progeny.
When you watch these videos of an attack on an Ohio woman, try to visualize this violation as being perpetrated on your mother; wife; daughter; granddaughters; girlfriend; sister; cousin; Sunday school teacher or a Catholic Nun.
Also, try to imagine what possible crime this woman could have committed; to deserve the violation she is experiencing from the absolute brute force used on her by two so-called "law enforcement men" weighing at least four times her female structure!
Are these the kind of tactics the Ashkenazim Gestapos used on the women of Germany?
Finally, ask yourself the hard and daunting question: "Is this the America that our Founding Fathers secured for their progeny and us?"
Speculating that the barbarian neocons would maneuver a way through or around our gates; the Fathers established the Second Amendment just to let them know that the people's passivity would not be our final answer!
My wife came in laughing and held up the Seattle Times front page. Big headline of the day? Microsoft courts Yahoo to make gains on Google. Sounds like it could go with Jabberwocky, doesn't it?
Let's see now...we are in the middle of a disastrous occupation of a foreign land. Over a million dead and no end in sight and over a hundred thousand veterans needing vital treatment. Our educational system has collapsed, we are on the knife edge of a major depression. We are in the middle of an alleged election campaign, mostly waged by tweedledee and tweedledum, with the serious contenders all marginalized or bought off.
The United States citizenry has been put trillions of dollars in debt by the current would be emperor and his henchmen.
With all this, what is the big item of the day? Microsoft wants to buy Yahoo for $44.6 billion.
Does that give you an idea of who gets the wine and who gets the dregs?
Otherwise like Ron Paul says, they will chip away a little at a time so we do not recognize the assault on our constitutional rights until we have none.
Young people seem to be stirred by the Obama possibility. I hope it is a sign that people are ready for change.
Perhaps in the near future we can elect a Populist president. Please continue to work and be proactive.
Recently, the TSA - in an effort to improve their awful public image - launched a blog. Yes, the TSA is "reaching out" to all of us - and it's not to pat us down without a warrant...this time.
According to a post at ThinkProgress.org, it didn't kick off too well. In fact, so many commenters were hostile, that the blog was "overwhelmed"
The Transportation Security Administration is having trouble with its new blog, which launched on Wednesday. The team of bloggers tried to set a friendly tone by introducing themselves with lines such as: "Hi! My name is Ethel and I'm from Wisconsin. I like music, I love ice cream, and I adore weird facts." But by mid-day yesterday, comments had already been turned off the original "Welcome" post after "things started to get ugly."
Needless to say, I felt this was a good opportunity to discuss the biggest problem with the TSA - the fact that it's not authorized by the Constitution. So, I decided to write a comment on another of the TSA's new blog posts:
So, where in the Constitution is the TSA even authorized?
In case anyone's wondering, it's not.
The Constitution was written under what's referred to as "positive grant"
This means, that the federal government is only allowed to exercise those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution.
The 10th Amendment makes it clear that EVERYTHING else is left to "the States, respectively, or to the people"
Thus - everything an unconstitutional agency does is in direct violation of the constitution. (and that includes using your money to run this TSA blog)
The point, though, is what's most important. Arguments about the TSA's methods, management, and the like - are a distraction from the true issue - the existence of the TSA is unconstitutional in and of itself.
Whatever is worthwhile to accomplish demands dedication, effort and tenacity !
The icy waters beneath the old North Bridge at Concord, Massachusetts on April 19th 1775 turned red with the blood of our minuteman forefathers. Their tenacious dedication and sacrifice lead to the dawning of the most unparalleled liberties and freedom ever recorded in the history of mankind.
Today, 233 years later, we live in a twilight.
On our watch, we have witnessed the waning of our liberties and the near collapse of our cherished freedoms. However, we have a choice to (a) view our fleeting time as prelude moments of a dirge before the final darkness or (b) to treat our current moments as exciting opportunities just before the resurrection of a new birth.
On our path to restoration, we found ourselves confronted by a looming precipice. Before us lay an impassable crevasse which had been formed to impede us from our Bill of Rights. The controlled and manipulated media and their divisive political maneuverings have encaged our people into two political parties [D] and [R] both of which we have now concluded, are totally orchestrated by the same diabolical ruse.
Just as many of us were about to give-up, miraculously a new bridge in the person of Doctor Ron Paul appeared with an exhilarating message of hope. Suddenly, a new generation of our America's tomorrows burst upon the scene with an enthusiastic synergy which has not been experienced or seen since the Old Bridge at Concord.
Did you see that although Bush signed the Law for National Defense Authorization Act - he claims the right to ignore it?
From OpEdNews
Among the measures Bush's latest signing statement declares the right to violate are: the establishment of a commission to investigate U.S. contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, the expansion of whistleblower protections, a requirement that U.S. intelligence agencies respond to congressional requests for documents, a ban on funding permanent bases in Iraq, and a ban on funding any actions that exercise U.S. control over Iraq's oil money.
When I go to vote on Super Tuesday there is only one candidate that I am supporting because there is only one candidate that supports the constitution.
Ron Paul is a ten term congressman and his voting record speaks for itself.
he has never voted to raise taxes, he has never voted for an unconstitutional war
he has never voted for the USA PATRIOT Act
he has never voted for federal gun control
all in all he has never voted for an unconstitutional bill.
As president he has vowed to bring all of our troops home now from Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Germany, and everywhere else so that we can stop policing the world.
With the money saved by converting to a foreign policy of freedom he would be able to completely get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing.
I am sure that most populists are familiar with Ron Paul but if anyone has more questions please visit http://www.ronpaul2008.com/.
My daughter sent me a DVD and a VCR of the short film Seniors for Peace. This is a group of Seniors, primarily from the Redwoods Retirement Home in Mill Valley California who have demonstrated weekly (They meet Mondays to plan and make posters, etc., then demonstrate on Fridays, rain or shine.)
They managed with the cooperation of students and faculty to ban recruiters from the HS campus, and to block the giving personal information from the school records to the military recruiting offices.
The film is very well done and inspirational to anyone seeing it. Some of the seniors interviewed were in the Blitz in London, or fought in WW-II, or were refugees from European nations overrun by the Nazis.
My plan is to show it at our senior centers and retirement homes on Camano and in Stanwood and see if it doesn't strike a spark up here. I would recommend getting a copy and seeing what you can do with it. Here is the link to the filmmaker and the film.
This link has reviews of the film and, and the bottom has ordering information, donations, etc., and also a link to Seniors for Peace, which I will include here.
I think it is incumbent upon us "old farts" who have seen war and all its horrors in our lifetime to work for peace. There are other ways to solve disputes than by killing anyone who disagrees with us. We have to urge our government to seek them out and use them.
President Bush incessantly describes America's mission as promoting freedom and democracy all over the world. Right now he is doing this in Iraq and Afghanistan at the point of the gun. Tomorrow he might turn his attention and military power to Iran and Pakistan.
However, for the past seven years, the Bush administration has done serious damage to American freedom and democracy here at home, violating the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a number of ways. This must stop-and the presidential campaign should begin the process.
Many of the violations have been done in the name of fighting terrorism. When the president tells us that the struggle will last for generations, American citizens must ask themselves if we are spreading freedom when we surrender our own rights and whether that surrender is effective in promoting appropriate foreign and military policies.
We are engaged in a national election that will decide national policy for at least the next four years. Yet the candidates for the highest office in the land ignore these basic questions, preferring to campaign in generalities rather than rousing the voters to protect their heritage of liberty. Where is the candidate who will challenge government encroachment of constitutional rights by demanding a rollback of the following violations? That would be authentic leadership for change breaking through the banal clichés ordained by the media.
1. The government's assertion that it has the right to spy on Americans at will and without judicial oversight.
2. The government's policy of using torture while calling it harsh interrogation and later destroying the evidence.
3. The government's policy of kidnapping people and delivering them to "black site" prisons around the world where they are tortured and abused.
4. The government's policy on denying the right of habeas corpus to some individuals, locking them up for no reason and detaining them for an indefinite period without charges.
5. The government's policy of funding religious institutions, violating the principle of separation of church and state.
6. The government's policy of going to war without a specific declaration as required by the Constitution, using instead an open-ended "authorization."
There are many other violations, some inherited from previous administrations, some thought up by the Bush administration to increase the powers of the president beyond those granted by the Constitution. We are in a crisis of our civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution but now threatened by semi-dictatorial powers put in place under the cover of a misbegotten war.
As we impose our versions of freedom and democracy on other nations, we must protect them in America. The presidential candidates should take the lead but will do so only if the demand comes from the voters.
The White House has given ever-shifting rationalizations for invading and occupying Iraq, running the gamut from a claim of self-defense to a purported mission of bringing democracy and thus freedom to the citizens of that country.
Dissenters claim that the two central tenets were instead the establishing of a permanent military presence in order to control Iraq's oil resources.
Who's right? The White House or its dissenters? Recently some new evidence has been uncovered. Firsthand source material.
Let's listen to Bush:
"Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."
The President is claiming that Section 1222 could inhibit his ability to defend the Constitution, so he claims the right to ignore it. The drafters of the bill were also sworn to defend the Constitution.
What are the requirements in 1222 that the White House finds so inhibiting?
Here is the entire text of 1222:
No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq
No, this is not a formal confession from the White House. But it is as formal as you can get.
Does America Really Want "Mack The Knife's" Finger Near the Nuclear Button?
Senator John McCain may appear presidential, but one aspect of his fitness for command has been strikingly absent from media scrutiny; and the severity of it is alarming.
With Senator McCain's explosive temper and razor-sharp tongue, is he stable enough to become the next leader of the free world?
Notorious for hurling "f*** you" at colleagues whom he disagrees with, Senator McCain has alienated himself from several lawmakers whom, as President, would have to work with.
Former Rep. John LeBoutillier (R-NY) experienced McCain's rages. "People who disagree with him get the 'f*** you'" he told NewsMax.
McCain admits in his 2002 memoir "Worth Fighting For", "I have a temper; it does not always serve my interest or the public's."
How well will his temper serve We the People's interest when working with Congress, foreign leaders or military generals who disagree with him, especially if deciding on a nuclear option?
How well will his temper serve his supporters who elected him, when he reneges on his campaign promises?
Will he tell them off with the same expletives he uses on his peers?
I ask you Can Insanity be cured? I've heard that Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome. Reminds me of an old joke about this guy who sat through this movie ever minute of every day it was on.
Seems there was a scene in it where the shapely heroine was disrobing and just before the final piece was removed a train comes by, blocking the view of the moviegoer. Asked by the usher why he kept sitting though that movie every time, all day long every day, he told the usher " One of these times that train is going to be late!"
Maybe our electorate is waiting for a late train when it comes to throwing the rascals out. Why else would we vote for a candidate who has an unbroken history of shortchanging the citizens of America? Allow me to give a personal experience of several years back.
Wilber D Mills was a long time member of Congress and was as tainted as they come. But he absolutely wouldn't be beat. When he was running for President two men were convicted of bribing he and David Pryor in the AMPI milk scandals. The bribers went to the pokey but not good ole Wilber D and David P, no sir-e. They did the smart thing; they said they didn't realize they were being bribed. The electorate bought it. Yes they did to! Wilber and David were elected again. The bribers languished in jail.
The next election cycle Mills was opposed by a Ms. Julia Petty. At this time I had an acquaintance with whom I always had a daily 15-minute chat about Politics. On Election Day Mac asked me " Did you vote for that Woman?" If you mean Julia Petty, of course I did", I replied. "Well, he answered, I didn't, I just couldn't vote for a woman." I rebuked him, "You mean you could vote for a crook but not for a woman?" "Yep, he said, At least I know he's a crook"
Today the electorate is faced with a decision. They know that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are going to do anything for the American people. They know it, but are they going to do anything about it? Unfortunately so many will wait for a late train, or refuse to vote against the criminal, and the result will be the same as it has been in the past.
That old saying "If you always do, what you always did, you'll always get, what you always got." So true.
Now there is a way to break this endless cycle. And you know what it is. Don't wait for the train, vote em out! And make smart voting selections. How do you do this? Vote Independent. Afraid of what you'll get? Afraid you'll vote for a crook because you just can't vote for a ...newby?
Why can't you vote for someone who is moral and exhibits a philosophy akin to the Golden Rule? Oh, I get it, you're afraid. At least you know they're a crook. Now that's an absolute display of intelligence! That's the reasoning Mac used. And he got Mills and Pryor again (You always get what you always ..)
The only way a change is going to be accomplished is if YOU do something other than vote for a Republican or Democrat. Two or three cycles of no "Good Ole Boys" will change this country back to our Constitution and political parties who respond to the public.
I call that smart voting. Now is the time to break this cycle of Insanity.
Madame Speaker, I rise in opposition to the extension of the Protect America Act of 2007 because the underlying legislation violates the US Constitution.
The mis-named Protect America Act allows the USgovernment to monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant. This clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Protect America Act sidelines the FISA Courtsystem and places authority over foreign surveillance in the director of national intelligence and the attorney general with little if any oversight. While proponents of this legislation have argued that the monitoring of American citizens would still require a court-issued warrant, the bill only requires that subjects be "reasonably believed to be outside the United States." Further, it does not provide for the Fourth Amendment protection of American citizens if they happen to be on the other end of the electronic communication where the subject of surveillance is a non-citizen overseas.
We must remember that the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 as a result of the U.S. Senate investigations into the federal government's illegal spying on American citizens. Its purpose was to prevent the abuse of power from occurring in the future by establishing guidelines and prescribing oversight to the process. It was designed to protect citizens, not the government. The effect seems to have been opposite of what was intended. These recent attempts to "upgrade" FISA do not appear to be designed to enhance protection of our civil liberties, but to make it easier for the government to spy on us!
The only legitimate "upgrade" to the original FISA legislation would be to allow surveillance of conversations that begin and end outside the United States between non-US citizens where the telephone call is routed through the United States. Technology and the global communications market have led to more foreign to foreign calls being routed through the United States. This adjustment would solve the problems outlined by the administration without violating the rights of US citizens.
While I would not oppose technical changes in FISA that the intelligence community has indicated are necessary, Congress should not use this opportunity to chip away at even more of our constitutional protections and civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to oppose this and any legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Certain pieces of information are conveniently lost by the major media these days. Really important news that opens a window into how the American people are being set up by our high officials for the next 9/11, for example.
Why are high officials in the Bush administration being protected from prosecution as they sell U.S. nuclear secrets to people and governments friendly to al-Qaeda?
Are Washington/Whitehouse Neocons doing it just for money this time? Probably some are. Are they motivated by creating a new, more compelling Pearl Harbor to complete their takeover of this country and the end of our freedom?
Treasonous activities discovered by FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds concerning the sale of U.S. nuclear secrets to Pakistan, Israel, and Turkey - and potentially ones that could provide the missing link to Al-Qaeda's quest for nuclear weapons - are only the tip of the iceberg here. Drug smuggling, money laundering, nuclear spying, and even 9/11 are all exposed in one juicy story nobody wants to cover. Why not?
Why aren't these documented allegations being openly investigated? Too uncomfortable for too many supposedly "anti-terror warriors" in the Bush administration?
I, we, support our troops, our sons, brothers, spouses, family, friends.
Most of us however, do not support this war!
There is a huge difference between supporting our brave troops, and supporting an out of control, dishonest, unethical, uncaring administration.
It's not a partisan matter for citizens to exercise their right to vote for what's right, have the courage to stand up for what's right, and do what's needed to take control of America back from private, selfish, interests by voting their conscience, not a party line of propaganda.
