Saturday, October 27, 2007
Dumbed Down by the Educational System
The Educational system produces mostly people incapable of critical thinking.
Here is George Carlin's take:
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The woman who submitted the bill doesn't even have any children of her own.
Thank goodness the public's overwhelming negative reaction stopped it.
Now a city in California wants to ban smoking in apartments:
In "Testing for the Fascist Factor", Karen de Coster tests a person's "Fascist Factor" by asking them if they agree with banning smoking on private property. If a person says "yes", she asks, well why not ban blondes in certain restaurants?
arbitrary decrees that invade the self-ownership and private property rights of others. Both decrees are based on the view that one group of persons has the means to control another group of persons and their choices via government fiat. Both decrees are fascist in that they subject the individual to the collective and private property to some notion of "public good."
Is America the "Land of the Free"?
How many of you really asked this question?
Wikipedia defines Statism is defined as follows:
Statism (or Etatism) is a term that is used to describe:
- Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
- A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
The Nanny State and the Police State are two forms of Statism.
The Police State is very much alive in the USA. How many times have you been nervous while driving because there was a police car near your car, despite the fact that you're doing nothing wrong? It gets worse than that. The
| The Police State Is Closer Than You Think |
|by Paul Craig Roberts|
If you think the Neoconservatives are the only ones who voted for this, well, look at this Senate voting record:
~70% of Democratic Senators voted to extend the Patriot Act, including Hillary and Obama.
Goes to show the Dems and the Republicans are both pushing the country towards an Authoritarian, Socialistic state.
Homeland Security is pushing for the militarization of local police departments.
His blog chronicles many excesses of police departments:
If you think Homeland Security was created as a reaction to 9/11, well, the first draft of the Homeland Security Act was written in 1998, during Bill Clinton's presidency:
The Nanny State is more alive than ever.
It is most apparent every time you drive. The speed limits are set artificially low, in the guise of Safety. In reality, the insurance companies lobby to keep speed limits low, so that they can collect extra premiums whenever you get a "point" on your license. This is a classic example of collusion between corporations and government; government passing laws to either enable cartelization, or in order to increase profits of corporations. This is a form of Fascism. And of course, the courts, the PD's, and the cities just LOVE the revenue stream.
Speed limits have very little correlation with safety. In fact, speed limit signs have little effect on the average speeds that motorists drive. That is, motorists will tend to drive at a speed that they consider to be a reasonable compromise between time savings and safety. Drivers who drive faster than average, those that are faster than 85% of other drivers, have the lowest crash rates.
What is the greatest cause of crashes? In one word, inattention. Researchers in Virginia Tech installed cameras to record crashes and near misses in 100 cars over more than a year. Nowhere is speed mentioned:
- Nearly 80 percent of all crashes and 65 percent of all near-crashes involved driver inattention, just prior (within 3 seconds) to the onset of the conflict.
- 93 percent of the rear-end-striking crashes involved driver inattention
And of course, when driving, the police state and the nanny state combine to punish you for behavior that isn't necessarily unsafe. Witness the Kangaroo courts that the traffic courts are.
It's unconstitutional, of course, because it got around the right to a jury trial.
Since 1969 in California, citizens have been denied jury trials for most alleged traffic offenses.
Beginning on January 1, 1969, the state legislature created a new category of criminal offense called the infraction. The state would preserve all its rights in prosecuting these infraction citations as criminal offenses, but would remove the citizen's most basic rights to justice in these cases. For the first time in California history, citizens would be legally denied their right to a jury trial in criminal cases. The community would no longer be the arbiter of justice in these contested criminal cases.
Even red light cameras are a scam. They don't reduce accident rates, and there are better alternatives.
A 3rd manifestation of Statism is over-regulation. Regulatory compliance cost to the economy is 14%: http://mwhodges.home.att.net
This over-regulation completely takes over common sense:
Most Americans don't realize that having a Statist society is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended. And, while the so-called Republicans claim to advocate smaller government, in reality they are anything but. Bush has borrowed more than all previous 42 presidents combined.
And, the neocons that have hijacked the Republican party are statists at home, and imperialists abroad.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Why not get a forensic accountant to figure out where all the money is going? How many % end up in laywers' pockets via lawsuits? How many % end up as malpractice insurance company profits due to litigation? How many % go to needless tests because doctors are afraid of possible lawsuits stating that they "didn't do everything"? How many % are profits for the HMOs? For Big Pharma? How can you even talk about socialized health care without reigning in cost? It will just be expensive for everyone, and some special interest groups stand to make even more money.
II. Health Care in the USA is the most expensive in the world, yet one of the lowest quality in the First World, today. What was it in the 60s?
If health care was better in the USA in the 60s vis a vis other first world countries, what changed?
III. Why can't I buy health insurance like car insurance? Would you like to buy car insurance that covers routine maintenance but which doesn't cover being totalled by a drunk driver? "Oh sorry, you're not covered because you didn't disclose the pre-existing condition that your neighbor is a habitual drunk driver". But that's exactly what a lot of HMOs do. They cover piddly little expenses, but if you need a very expensive operation, they may not cover it.
It makes WAY more financial sense to be covered for events that are UNLIKELY but FINANCIALLY CATASTROPHIC. That is exactly what insurance is supposed to be for.
I would like to buy some health care program that covers say, the first 6 family doctor visits a year (for prevention, which saves money) and then only covers anything over a yearly deductible of $5,000 per year. If I needed $5,000 of health care in one year, it would sting, but wouldn't bankrupt me. A $200k operation, on the other hand, would.
I have some partial answers. In 1973 Nixon passed the HMO Act. It gave tax subsidies to companies that provided health care in the model of the HMO, to the detriment of companies with other business models. The result was that HMOs grew and grew into the size they are today, with no competition from other business models (e.g. health savings accounts)
This is exactly the kind of government regulation, meddling in the free market, that creates
distortion and cartelization, that makes the middle class suffer.
Here are 2 articles talking about deregulating health care:
The HMO Act resulted in the illogical coupling of employment with "discounted" (via tax breaks) health care. If you quit working for a corporation, and try to purchase the same kind of health coverage, you will likely have to spend twice as much. (This is yet another example of laws benefitting corporations)
Re: the above, I can hear the argument, "When you buy insurance as part of a group, like if you work for a corporation, you are pooling risk with your co-workers, so insurance should be cheaper". This is FALSE. If an HMO had 100,000 existing customers, then, if you add yourself alone, from a statistical point of view, you ARE POOLING RISK WITH THEIR 100,000 OTHER CUSTOMERS. It makes no difference then if you join their 100,000 as part of a group of 100, or you join them by yourself.
I think that doctors are way too quick to prescribe expensive, dubious prescriptions drugs, instead of lifestyle changes.
For example, a friend was diagnosed with high cholesterol. His doctor prescribed an anti-statin drug. My friend, displaying more wisdom than the doctor, said "No thanks, I'll try losing weight first". He proceeded to lose 80 lbs in one year (and now looks fit). His cholesterol, HDL, triglycerides etc, are all well within the normal range.
Statins have had dubious drug trials and potentially serious side effects with long term use (which have not been tested).
The American Medical Association is a monopoly. They artificially restrict the supply of doctors, ensuring high salaries (and thus cost to you and me). They also espouse expensive "mainstream" procedures instead of better, lower cost remedies. My realization was when 2 people I know were told they needed surgery to remove their gallbladder due to gallstones. They performed a gallbladder flush, which involves apple juice, some fasting, grapefruit juice, olive oil, and epsom salt. Out the stones went, and an ultrasound confirmed, no more gallstones. I know it sounds incredible, and I've posted about this before, that people are trained to reject anything "outside the mainstream".
Another example is a friend who was found to have some plaque buildup in his heart's blood vessels. He reversed it with Chelation Therapy. Predictably, the doctor poo-poo'ed him, despite that fact that he was surprised at the reversal.
The dollar amount spent on prescription drugs has more than doubled since 2000. This came out in the newspapers recently, but in typical shallow mass media fashion, the question "why?" was never even asked.
The FDA famously protects the interests of Big Pharma, while attacking all manner of "natural remedies" (read: non-patentable drugs, nutrition, or preventives). A google search "FDA lies" will give over a million hits.
I learned of this first-hand when I started getting a lot of migraines. I traced it to my starting the use of Splenda. (BTW Aspartame also gives me migraines). I've since found a substitute, Stevia, which tastes much better, and has no reported side effects in Japan and South America, where it's popular. Aspartame and Sucralose, on the other hand, have had thousands of complaints filed with the FDA.
Why haven't you heard of it? Turns out that the FDA gave "generally recognized as safe" status to Aspartame and Sucralose, but "has not tested" Stevia, and so it is marketed not as a sweetener, but rather as a food supplement, over which the FDA has little jurisdiction over. The FDA went so far as to seize Stevia cookbooks from a small business.
More details here: http://www.vegsource.com/davis/sweeteners.htm
The Aspartame/FDA story involves Donald Rumsfeld: http://www.stevia.net/aspartame.htm
Incidentally, Rumsfeld made millions on the fake Bird Flu media scare and Tamiflu. Remember all the nonstop fear-mongering coverage of the Bird Flu by the media? Read this:
In the 1960s health care was much better. This is a really good article:
Some people say "modern technology" has made medicine more expensive.
How is it that modern technology has caused the price of each Gigabyte of memory and Hard Disk Space to drop year after year?
Finally, Presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul got a standing ovation when he spoke to medical students at Dartmouth on Health Care. H'es the only candidate who's an M.D.:
Paul began his remarks by telling students that, “the medical system is going well except for a few groups: the patients, the doctors, the hospitals, the labs, and the politicians. Everybody else is happy.
(In the 1960s)
The amazing thing was it was the city hospital and there was no government; there [was] very little insurance and nobody was turned away whether they were illegal or legal, and nobody, nobody was quizzed. If you didn’t have the money, you didn’t pay, and people came in, and it wasn’t that bad. People didn’t lay on the sidewalks. You’re more likely to hear stories today of people being neglected in emergency rooms…and dying on stretchers—because we have managed care.” Paul often came back to this point in referencing the health problems of today.
He is certain that the problems with today’s health care stem from too much government involvement, not too little. “This whole idea that we need centralized economic planning in anything is a fallacy, and it’s a temptation to say, ‘Yes, we can’t have central economic planning for electronics, televisions, and cell phones because we want efficiency of delivery service, but medicine is different.’
Paul was also highly critical of current insurance schemes, claiming that the only things that should be insured are surgeries and other high cost possibilities. Instead of insurance for things like a check-up, Paul favored a medical savings account. “We should allow every individual to take a $3,000 tax credit, and they can put that away and use it to go and pay for their doctor visits.
A major problem with today’s society, according to Paul, is the confusion of “needs” and “rights”: “We have rights to our lives and liberty and we have a right to pursue our happiness and we should have the right to keep the fruits of our labor. We have a moral obligation to help our fellow man.” "That doesn’t mean, however, that we have a right to affordable health care."
Perhaps surprisingly for a doctor, Paul encourages more competition in the field of medicine. Noting that many alternative methods of care have sprouted up in recent years, Paul said the competition would be in the best interest of the patients. The only thing he cautioned against was fraud..
“Under the Constitution, government shouldn’t be in medicine.”
Transcript of portion of interview:
KING: E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"
FOX: Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea...
KING: It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?
FOX: Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
What the posters have found is that in the board of directors of some of the 6 corporations that own most of the media, some names appear over and over again; some of them also appear in the board of directors of some very large banks and other financial institutions; some are on the boards of large oil companies, and have relationships with some of the highest people in government, and some are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Below is a copy of the thread. At the bottom is someone's post about oligarchy and plutocracy.
While doing a little research, I happened to open a Pandora's Box so to speak. I was curious about some of the ownership and leadership of the Media Machine.
One of my first searches was for Time Warner.
Time Warner owns, CNN, AOL, HBO, New Line Cinima, WB, etc.
Heavy investors are Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch
When looking at the board of directors, this is what Wiki has to say...
| * James L. Barksdale - Barksdale Management|
* Stephen F. Bollenbach - Hilton Hotels Corporation
* Frank J. Caufield - Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
* Robert C. Clark - Harvard University
* Mathias Döpfner - CEO of Germany's Axel Springer AG
* Jessica P. Einhorn - Johns Hopkins University
* Reuben Mark - Colgate-Palmolive Company
* Michael A. Miles - Altria Group (Parent co. of Philip Morris)
* Ken Novack - former Time Warner - Affiliate Director
* Richard D. Parsons - Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer
* Francis T. Vincent, Jr. - Vincent Enterprises
* Deborah C. Wright - Carver Bancorp
* Edward J. Zander - Chairman and CEO of Motorola Inc.
The Senior Executives are:
| * Richard D. Parsons, Chairman/CEO of Time Warner Inc.|
* Jeffrey L. Bewkes, President/COO of Time Warner Inc.
If you click on Richard D. Parsons you get some interesting info.
A liberal African-American Republican, Parsons served an internship at the New York State Legislature, at which time he was invited to work as a lawyer for the staff of the then New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. When Rockefeller was appointed Vice President of the United States, in 1974, Parsons followed him to Washington D.C., where he worked directly with President Gerald Ford. He also met a deputy attorney general, Harold R. Tyler, and one his aides, a young Rudolph W. Giuliani, with whom he was to be closely associated - supporting him in his campaign for New York mayor and heading his transitional council.
In 1977, Parsons returned to New York and became a partner after only two years at the Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler law firm; Working at the firm was Giuliani. During his eleven years at the firm he took on Happy Rockefeller, the widow of Nelson (who had died in 1979) as a high-profile client. In 1988, he was recruited to serve as chief operating officer of the Dime Bank by Harry W. Albright Jr., who was a former Rockefeller aide. He later became chairman and CEO and oversaw a merger with Anchor Savings Bank; gaining a substantial sum when the Dime Bank was demutualized.
Three years later, in 1991, on the recommendation of Nelson's brother Laurance Rockefeller to the then CEO Steven Ross, Parsons was invited to join Time Warner's board; he subsequently became president of the company in 1995, recruited by Gerald Levin. He helped negotiate the company's merger with America Online in 2000, creating a $165-billion media conglomerate.
In December 2001, it was announced that chief executive Gerald Levin would retire and Parsons was selected as his successor. The announcement surprised many media watchers who expected chief operating officer Robert Pittman to take the helm. In 2003, Parsons made the announcement of the name change from AOL Time Warner to simply Time Warner.
 Prominent connections
From the early 1980s through much of the 1990s, Parsons owned a house at the Rockefeller family estate in Pocantico Hills, (see Kykuit), where his grandfather was once a groundskeeper. For a brief time he had worked for Nelson at the family office, Room 5600, at Rockefeller Center (he currently has a Time Warner office in Rockefeller Plaza at the Center).
Parsons is chairman emeritus of the Partnership for New York City, established by David Rockefeller in 1979, who has known him for many years. He is an advisory trustee of the family's principal philanthropy, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and he sits with David Rockefeller on the board of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation. Parsons is also on the board of the family created Museum of Modern Art.
In 2001, United States President George W. Bush selected Parsons to co-chair a commission on Social Security. Parsons also worked on the transition team for Michael Bloomberg, who was elected Mayor of New York City in 2001. In 2006, Parsons was selected to co-chair the transition team for the incoming Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer.
In August 2006, an article in New York Magazine reported that Parsons will likely run for Mayor of New York City in the 2009 New York mayoral election, claiming that "insiders say it's all but official".
But wait, it gets better. Richard Parsons is ALSO on the board of directors for Citi Group.
Citi Group Board of Directors:
| * Michael Armstrong, Retired Chairman, Hughes, AT&T and Comcast|
* Alain Belda, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcoa
* George David, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, United Technologies Corporation
* Kenneth T. Derr, Chairman, Retired, Chevron Corporation
* John M. Deutch, Institute Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Retired CIA director
* Roberto Hernández Ramírez, Chairman, Banco Nacional de México
* Ann Jordan, Consultant
* Andrew N. Liveris, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Dow Chemical Company
* Dudley Mecum, Managing Director, Capricorn Holdings LLC 1
* Anne Mulcahy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Xerox
* Richard D. Parsons, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Time Warner
* Charles Prince, Chief Executive Officer, Citigroup
* Judith Rodin, President, Rockefeller Foundation
* Robert E. Rubin, Chairman of the Executive Committee and Member of the Office of the Chairman, Citigroup
* Franklin A. Thomas, Consultant, TFF Study Group
* Sanford I. Weill, Retired Chairman, Citigroup
Sorry, didn't mean to post yet, still researching. This is just ONE example of the conflict of interest so to speak. But you guys should get the idea. There is such an influence between Major Money, Politics, and Media. So if your just listening to the Major News networks about the Economy or Elections, consider the source, literally.
More to come.....
Oh, Prescott Bush former member of Directors for CBS.
News Corporation (Believe Fox News) Board:
| * K. Rupert Murdoch|
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
* José María Aznar
FAES - Foundation for Social Studies and Analysis
Former President of Spain
* Peter Barnes
* Chase Carey
President and Chief Executive Officer
The DIRECTV Group, Inc.
* Peter Chernin
President and Chief Operating Officer
* Kenneth E. Cowley
R.M. Williams Holdings Pty. Limited
* David F. DeVoe
Chief Financial Officer
* Viet Dinh
Professor of Law
* Rod Eddington
Haha, this is only the tip of the iceburg IMO.
Check out some of the other Citi Group board of directors.
Lets go down the list. Again, I'm using wiki so far for all my references.
Micheal Armstrong is also on the Council on Foreign Relations.
Alain Belda is also a member of The Conference Board, and has a little bit of history behind him.
lol, this keeps getting better.
Roberto Hernández Ramírez is also a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York - 2002 to present.
Robert E. Rubin... just a BIT on this guy.
Franklin A. Thomas .....
Sanford I. Weill
This guy is on the board for HSBC
*The Rt Hon the Lord Butler of Brockwell, KG, GCB, CVO
Some from JPMorgan:
Stephen B. Burke
Lee R. Raymond
Ellen V. Futter
the deeper I dig, the more apparent that is. MANY of the names above are on the board of other super companies. They are completely tied together, it's really amazing. What I have above is just a HINT of the total picture.
Banks, Media, Oil, Policy are all tied together at the TOP levels. They know exactly what they are doing, and seem to be in total control.
I don't usually quote Wikipedia entires...but here is a good one for our current state of affairs.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
I think there are 3 types of people who push the Establishment Agenda.
In the 1st group are the SHILLS, those to whom it's like a religion,
In the 1st group are the SHILLS, those to whom it's like a religion,a belief system. They are drinking the KoolAid so to speak, but do not know or see the big picture. This applies to the people who are polarized on the left/right axis and vehemently and obnoxiously defend their positions. This group would include the Dan Rather types and the Sean Hannity types. They buy into the left vs. right illusion. Most “pundits” are in this category. I base my opinion on this book:
He's a former CBS correspondent who got kicked out when he wrote an article about the liberal bias so prevalent in the major networks and the NYT. Too bad that in his book he obviously buys into the left vs. right illusion, simply pointing out that there are two ends on the axis, instead of catching on to the real picture.
The 2nd group of Establishment people, whom I will call the DELUSIONALS, are those who know the big picture, but justify defending what they’re doing, by believing it benefits mankind. Human beings inherently can come up with justifications for what they do, even though most others would consider what they’re doing as evil (for example, suicide bombers, Nazi soldiers, etc). The
"The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer:
The 3rd group is the smallest. I will call them the SOCIOPATHS. They are the true megalomaniacs, who don’t care about the welfare of their fellow human beings, and only care about increasing their own power, despite their being extremely wealthy. Note that sociopaths mostly don’t become serial killers. The percentage of psychopaths in positions of power in the business world is higher than in the general population (the Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison types). These types of Establishment people are the wizards behind the curtain. These are the people we don’t see. This book discusses how psychopaths can climb in the business world. Parallels can be drawn in the world of the power elite:
The history of mankind has always been of hegemony. A group will always tend to rise up and dominate the rest. I think the US Constitution was an attempt to prevent it. Alas, it failed.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Everything I Want to Do is Illegal
I've written about this before, about the growth of bureaucracy and death of common sense:
There Oughtta be a Law
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
I have met seemingly intelligent people on both sides of this argument.
If you identify with one of these 2 groups, did you ever stop and consider that you are being played against each other?
It's a trick question, an illusion. The same way that an illusionist will distract your attention away from what's really happening:
The Republicans and the Democrats, are together, pushing an authoritarian, socialist agenda.
I will now say why I think terrorism is not the most pressing problem.
Colin Powell in his GQ interview:
GQ: Isn’t the new global threat we face even more dangerous?
CP: What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?
I found this post on an online forum, written by someone who writes better than me:
History and common sense teach that Powell speaks truth.
Since 9-11, 100,000 Americans have been murdered — as many as we lost in
Vietnam, Koreaand combined. Yet, not one of these murders was the work of an Islamic terrorist, and all of them, terrible as they are, did not imperil the survival of our republic. (ed: Bankruptcy would.) Iraq
Terrorists can blow up our buildings, assassinate our leaders, and bomb our malls and stadiums. They cannot destroy us. Assume the worst. Terrorists smuggle an atom bomb into
New Yorkharbor or into , and detonate it. Washington, D.C.
Horrible and horrifying as that would be — perhaps 100,000 dead and wounded — it would not mean the end of the
. It would more likely mean the end of United States Iran, or whatever nation at which the chose to direct its rage and retribution. United States
Consider. Between 1942 and 1945,
Germanyand Japan, nations not one-tenth the size of the , saw their cities firebombed, and their soldiers and civilians slaughtered in the millions. United States lost an empire. Japan lost a third of its territory. Both were put under military occupation. Yet, 15 years later, Germany Germanyand Japanwere the second and third most prosperous nations on Earth, the dynamos of their respective continents, Europe and Asia.
Powell's point is not that terrorism is not a threat. It is that the terror threat must be seen in perspective, that we ought not frighten ourselves to death with our own propaganda, that we cannot allow fear of terror to monopolize our every waking hour or cause us to give up our freedom.
For all the blather of a restored caliphate, the "Islamofascists," as the neocons call them, cannot create or run a modern state, or pose a mortal threat to
. The GNP of the entire Arab world is not even equal to America 's. Oil aside, its exports are equal to Spain 's. Finland
Afghanistanand , under Islamist regimes, were basket cases. Despite the comparisons with Nazi Germany, Sudan Iranis unable to build modern fighters or warships and has an economy one-twentieth that of the , at best. While we lack the troops to invade United States Iran, three times the size of Iraq, the U.S. Air Force and Navy could, in weeks, smash 's capacity to make war, blockade it and reduce its population to destitution. Should Iran Irandevelop a nuclear weapon and use it on us or on , it would invite annihilation. Israel
As a threat,
Iranis not remotely in the same league with the Soviet Union of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev, or Mao's China, or Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan, or even Mussolini's . Italy
And why would
Tehran, which has not launched a war since the revolution in 1979, start a war with an with 10,000 nuclear weapons? If the Iranians are so suicidal, why have they not committed suicide in 30 years by attacking us or America ? Israel
What makes war with
folly is that an all-out war could lead to a break-up of that country, with Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Arabs and Baluchis going their separate ways, creating fertile enclaves for al-Qaida recruitment and training." Iran
Now listen very carefully to this interview of Judge Andrew Napolitano
The powers (wiretapping, Patriot Act) that the Federal Government are taking on, are the same as that of the former East Germany, to crush the individual grapes, to make the juice that is the collective. We are being turned into SLAVES, in the name of safety.
The means is FEAR; the goal is POWER; the victim is LIBERTY.
Monday, October 1, 2007
The price of crude oil in US$:
The Federal Debt:
The Consumer Price Index:
Now listen to what Ronald Reagan said about mounting debt and inflation:
What would happen if the US Dollar crashed and the nation went bankrupt? Perhaps, the adoption of the "Amero" will be proposed as "the solution". What's the Amero? It's to the North American Union, what the Euro is to the E.U. Here's a segment on CNBC discussing the Amero:
And here's a CNN segment discussing the North American Union. The NAU is to the U.S., Mexico, and Canada is, as the E.U. is to Europe. Pay attention to the mention of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the list of transnational corporations which are pushing for the legislation, dubbed the "SPP" (Security and Prosperity Partnership):