Doors of Zeitgeist

The Debt Deal: All the World's a Stage

2011-08-05T23:20:00.000-07:00

The recent editorial by Robert Scheer on the debt ceiling debate-drama explains how he and many other progressives believe President Obama has sold out the American people on the debt deal. They believe it to be, in a word, disastrous. I tend to agree, but for completely different reasons. There are so many misrepresentations in Scheer's editorial that I feel compelled to set the record straight.

The agreed cuts that the liberal MSM are universally describing as too severe? Zero. That's right, after all is said and done, the federal debt will be at least 50% greater in 2021 than it is today. The Orwellian Newspeak that's being bandied about is to make people believe that there are genuine cuts when in fact these so-called "cuts" are reductions in proposed increases in net spending (i.e., the CBO baseline). From the Congressional Budget Office's budget and economic outlook for 2011 to 2021:

If various provisions contained in the 2010 tax act expire as scheduled and if other laws affecting spending and revenues remain unchanged, the budget deficit will shrink from 9.8 percent of GDP this year to 3.1 percent by 2014, CBO projects. That reduction reflects the scheduled expiration of those tax provisions, continued lessening in the budgetary impact of policies undertaken to provide economic stimulus, and improvements in the economy. Under those current-law assumptions, annual deficits are projected to fluctuate in a narrow range between 2.9 percent and 3.4 percent of GDP from 2014 through 2021.

Even with these highly optimistic assumptions, all of which have proven incorrect thus far, this translates into a total additional debt of $7 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Add to the current debt of over $14 trillion and we are looking at a minimum $21 trillion dollar debt in 2021. (See pages 54 and 87 of the report for projections of total outlays and revenues for the 10-year period, respectively). Any newly proposed "cuts" are only reductions from these proposed increases in net spending.

MSM spin machine: that is not a cut, no matter how you spin it.

Such policies will wreak havoc on the US economy, and the purchasing power of the US dollar through severe inflation. Interest rates will be forced to sky-rocket as no foreign government or institutional investors would otherwise choose to hold severely depreciating US dollars. The net result will be severe price inflation, which will decimate any remaining savings of hard-working Americans, and eventually wipe out the middle class.

Scheer then goes on to describe Obama's "grand bargain" that has got so many progressives reeling:

But to use the word "capitulation" is too kind, since this president, as was Bill Clinton before him, is clearly one of those "New Democrats" who welcomes the opportunity to jettison the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as outmoded political baggage. Otherwise, why would Obama have reached for a “grand bargain” in which he even put Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table before the Republicans rolled him?

Perhaps the one valid complaint in the wake of the-sky-is-falling-Obama-bashing editorials, is the fact that Obama put Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table without Republicans having requested them. There is no reason why entitlement spending needs to be touched at this time. Entitlements are something that can be dealt with using a much longer-term time frame of decades through opt-out options, so as not to upset those who have already paid into these programmes. Even though entitlements are a huge source of spending, they don't have to be a priority given how many Americans are dependent on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is enough to end our wars overseas, bring our troops home, change our foreign policy to one of non-interventionism, and curtail a number of other big government programmes, including the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Homeland Security, FDA, TSA, FEMA, the CIA, and many others. In any case, all these programmes actually interfere with the objectives they purport to be serving. And if that were not enough, they are not authorized by the Constitution.

Just to add some clarity to the Social Security debate, former MSNBC host Cenk Uygur has confirmed with members of Congress that Social Security has a $2.5 trillion surplus — but it has already been spent. That's right, all gone. This is the deeper reason for abolishing big government programmes (warfare and welfare), not because those that wish to do so are evil selfish people that want to see poor dependent people suffer, but because government bureaucrats can't be trusted with the purse strings of other people's hard-earned money. It is far better for individuals to invest their hard-earned money and create their own old-age security and healthcare nets, rather than depend on corrupt politicians to do the right thing: because they won't.

In this quote, Scheer accurately describes the rotten fundamentals of the US economy, but then misses the mark entirely:

Those policies caused the 50 percent run-up of the national debt between 2007 and this week, when the debt ceiling had to be raised. While the trillions wasted made the bankers whole, it did nothing for the 50 million Americans losing their homes or the 20 percent of the workforce that can’t find the full-time employment for which they are qualified. The economy has zeroed out in the past six months, relative to population growth, and in June consumer spending had its biggest drop in two years. The fundamentals are rotten, as reflected in the steep descent of the stock market despite the raising of the debt ceiling.

First, the debt ceiling did not have to be raised. There is plenty of revenue ($200 billion per month; see below) to pay for interest payments so the US would not default, and also cover a few select programmes. But Scheer and his colleagues are missing the bigger picture: they're looking at a 50% run-up between 2007 and today. These very same big government policies represent a 500,000% increase in the debt since 1913! Whether it's welfare-state spending ("social programs") or warfare-state spending ("defence"), it's the same big government profligacy and irresponsibility only with different rhetoric. When will our thought leaders stop buying into the Republicrat/Demapublican narrative?

In a poor turn of logic, Scheer goes on to describe how raising the debt ceiling should have been a no-brainer:

If adults, of either party, had been watching the store, raising the debt ceiling would have been a no-brainer. Instead, the obvious obligation to pay debts that Congress had already incurred was turned into an occasion to wage ideological war on the very idea of government.

This is utter nonsense. Raising the debt-ceiling as a knee-jerk reaction to profligate government spending is an un-brainer not a no-brainer. What will that solve? Only this: to provide a very temporary abatement of economic woes until the next cycle of debt-hike fix becomes necessary. Each fix necessarily becomes larger, and more frequent, until finally the hapless addict baselines. The obligation to pay interest on existing debts is so obvious and doable even without a debt-ceiling hike, why didn't Obama take the issue of default off the table entirely? Why all the "default" fear mongering? It was never necessary, except perhaps for political reasons. The federal government takes in approximately $200 billion in revenue each month. Interest payments are about $20 billion per month. Even after paying Social Security, Medicare, and soldier's salaries, there are still funds left over. There's just not enough to pay for everything. Besides, raising the debt ceiling is treating symptoms not causes.

Here, Scheer explains why purportedly "major cuts" at the present time are such a bad idea:

In the end, Obama agreed to major cuts at a time when the government needs to spend more money on extending unemployment insurance, mortgage relief to avoid foreclosures, and support for state budgets so that more teachers and firemen are not laid off.

Major cuts? Not by a long shot. Actual cuts? Nil (see the CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook). But let me get this straight. The federal government should continue doing what they have been doing for the last decade, unbridled spending, financial stimulus, raising the debt ceiling, bailing out state governments (Scheer, to his credit, wouldn't advocate bailing out banks or companies), treating symptoms instead of root causes, all so we can be here again in 18 months, then 12 months, 6 months, 3 months, ... until we all become accustomed to living in a perpetual state of crisis, and the people will accept any #### their government tells them? Where have I heard this script before?

But I have an honest question for Mr. Scheer and other big government advocates. You see, I'm one of those people that wasn't drinking the MSM housing bubble Kool-Aide of 2006-2007: "Housing prices will go up in perpetuity! Buy! It's a great investment! You'll double your money every few years!" I didn't believe it, nor was I gripped by greed trying to flip homes for a quick buck like oh-so-many people before the musical chairs stopped. Now, why should I be forced to pay higher taxes (cost of a loaf of bread doubling, cost of gasoline, clothing, food, energy, etc. doubling/tripling) through the steep level of inflation that is occurring through continued unbridled government spending? Why am I being forced to subsidize other people's stupidity, greed, and/or gullibility through all this funny money that's debasing my own? Can you explain that please?

As for employment, who provides real jobs? The private sector. Government jobs are paid for with tax payer dollars, so they're not productive since these jobs are a net drain on capital resources instead of being creative of wealth. Whether they're startups, small mom and pop shops, medium-sized companies, or multinationals, when businesses of all forms are taxed to the hilt, either they move their operations overseas, or have to cut expenditures in labour and capital goods, which prevents them from growing. They can do nothing else. This is why, whether we like it or not, in order to increase jobs, we have to provide an environment that is business-friendly. It's common sense. That doesn't mean bailing-out companies that have mis-managed themselves. They should die the slow death they deserve, and be bought out by well-managed companies that can salvage some of their assets, employ some of their people, and otherwise make the best out of a bad situation. Instead, government bureaucrats, in all their infinite wisdom, get involved, penalize the good companies by bailing out the bad ones, and in doing so provide bad companies with an unfair competitive advantage as reward for their mis-management. Can we not see where this is going? I don't blame directors of well-managed companies from wanting to move their operations overseas where the deck is not so terribly stacked against them.

Scheer then enlists the aid of both past Democratic and Republican presidents to explain why increasing the debt ceiling is so necessary:

To cut federal expenditures in the midst of a deep and persistent recession would have been viewed as madness by every modern Republican president, from Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Reagan to both Bushes. Ronald Reagan had no qualms about doubling the entire national debt that had been accumulated by all previous presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter.

That's only because Republicrats and Demapublicans, while appearing to be of different species, have the same genotype: parasite. Are people really so caught up in the Republican vs. Democrat narrative to think there's a real difference?

Finally, Scheer attempts to explain away then-Senator Barack Obama's opposition to raising the debt ceiling during the Bush administration:

In the current debate, Republicans were accurate in reminding that the presidents from their party had to contend with Democratic grandstanding, including by then-Sen. Obama, in opposition to the inevitable lifting of the debt ceiling. But raising the debt ceiling was always assured and never once did the Democrats go so far as to threaten to put the United States of America into default or risk the nation’s perfect credit rating.

One word: distortion. That wasn't grandstanding. That was a more honest Senator Barack Obama speaking from the only place he could — the position of someone who was attempting to uphold his oath of office. An oath every Congressperson and Senator takes: to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. An entire class of politicians have become precisely the enemies they swore to defend against. More than 90% of what the federal government does is a transgression against the Constitution. But who's going to hold politicians accountable? Certainly not the mainstream media. The people? Right.

In any case, the market's response to the midnight-hour debt deal clearly shows that the risk of default was never the real issue. The issue was fundamentals: the inevitable downgrading of the nation's "perfect" credit rating due to profligate, out-of-control, no-end-in-sight government spending.

As for the debt vote, the Washington Post reports the following vote breakdown in the House:

Democratic yeas: 95 Democratic noes: 95

Republican yeas: 174 Republican noes: 66
— —
Total yeas: 269 Total noes: 161

This means 73% of House Republicans backed the measure, while 50% of House Democrats did. In the Senate:

Democratic yeas: 46 Democratic noes: 7

Republican yeas: 28 Republican noes: 19

— —

Total yeas: 74 Total noes: 26

This means 87% of Senate Democrats supported the measure, while 60% of Senate Republicans did.

What's going on? This doesn't look like Democrats got a raw deal at all — rather, it looks like Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House were both overwhelmingly in support of the measure, while Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the House were more evenly split.

Looks almost as if someone stopped the music, forced everyone to exchange Democrat/Republican costumes, re-started the music, and everyone resumed playing musical chairs as per usual. Shenanigans are afoot. But of course, what else is new under the political sun?

References:

1. Robert Scheer, "The Recovery is Dead, Long Live the Recovery."

2. Congressional Budget Office, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021."
3. Cenk Uygur, "Cutting Social Security is the New TARP."
4. Felicia Sonmez, "The Senate debt-ceiling vote: Behind the numbers — and inside the chamber."

Apple Bans WikiLeaks App From App Store

2010-12-26T18:34:00.000-08:00

It is a dark day in the world of the technology chic and savvy. Apple has decided to ban the recent WikiLeaks cable viewing iPhone/iPad application. It would appear we have come full circle. The once revolutionary, avante-garde, free-thinking provocateur, breaking the shackles of technological oppression, and everywhere unleashing the forces of creativity, has taken one step closer towards becoming the well-intentioned but oppressive ruling master, benevolently deciding on matters of import on our behalf.

I've come to understand how very dangerous it is for decision-makers at Apple to unilaterally control what is and what is not allowed on the App Store, especially when such apps do not actually infringe upon any of their terms of service. With power comes responsibility. When the decisions of a decision-making authority benevolently affects it's members, all truly benefit. When they do not, everyone suffers.

Until now, one could reasonably argue that banning certain problematic apps (under the rationale of a curated App Store) were for the benefit of all users, and a superior user experience. All well and good. But this latest decision, in relation to the WikiLeaks cable viewing app, clearly shows Apple is now treading in dangerous territory regarding Constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms.

What if I were to release an iPhone app that shows the level of corruption or malfeasance in government, by shining a light on the source of financial contributions of our elected officials? Would Apple ban such an app because a number of powerful but corrupt public servants demanded it, under threat of censure? Precisely which terms of service are being infringed here?

Apple’s official stance on the removal of the WikiLeaks app is that "it violated [their] developer guidelines," according to the New York Times. Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller added that "[a]pps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or group in harm’s way," which suggests that the guideline the developer violated wasn’t the initial one cited which related to charitable donations.

In any case, which local laws are being infringed, and which individuals or groups does such an app put in harm's way? The app is a viewer for WikiLeaks-related Twitter feeds and recently released diplomatic cables widely available on the web. That same information is already being published by a number of highly reputable news organizations, including The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El Pais, among others. So what's the real issue here?

Decision makers at Apple appear to be bowing to forces that wish to abridge the First Amendment right of free speech, which is essential to a properly functioning democracy. It is evident that banning the WikiLeaks cable viewing app is likely a result of Apple submitting to government pressure under threat of censure as occurred with Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Amazon, and others. As an Apple user, aficionado, and developer for many years, Apple are perilously close to crossing a line with this recent decision. They risk losing credibility as a pioneering and visionary company that has the interests of it's highly creative, rebellious, and avante-garde user and developer base continuously in sight.

Of course, what I or others think as an individuals is ultimately irrelevant — as it will have essentially no impact on Apple's bottom line. But what enough people think, the power of ideas and information coupled to the power that comes from voting with one's dollar according to one's principles, is another story. When a company makes highly political decisions, they risk alienating large swaths of their customer base who do not share those political views.

When one considers how many creative professionals and open source developers employ the Mac platform as their creative platform of choice, I am sure we will see in due course, that informed, thoughtful, creative, and free-thinking individuals will not accept such policy decisions lightly. The demographics of these peoples, by their very nature, precludes them from being oblivious for very long to transgressions against their Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms — an underlying source of creative endeavour. And when thoughtful creative people lash out, watch out! Hell hath no fury like a creative's scorn. Apple is treading on dangerous ground indeed.

Perhaps the single most important factor that provides Apple some breathing room over such ill-advised policy decisions is the insanely brilliant level of product innovation. Enough for many of its users, and probably employees, to simply turn a blind eye towards the less agreeable aspects of high-level decision making, at least for now. As far as products go, they have the Midas touch. For Apple's sake (and ours) let's hope that level of product innovation continues.

References:

1. Bryan Schuetz, "Why was the WikiLeaks App Pulled from the App Store?" GigaOm
2. Alexia Tsotsis, "Apple Removes WikiLeaks App From App Store," TechCrunch
3. Bianca Bosker, "WikiLeaks App Removed From App Store," Huffington Post
4. Michael Grothaus, "Apple Pulls WikiLeaks App from the App Store," Tuaw
5. Brian Osborne, "Apple Pulls WikiLeaks App from the App Store," Geek.com

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks

2010-12-05T20:27:00.000-08:00

It has been an interesting week. Beginning with the release of over 250,000 classified and highly sensitive international embassy cables by the news and whistleblower organization WikiLeaks, to the incitement of violence by public figures like Bill O'Reilly (O'Reilly Factor, Fox News), Sarah Palin (Former Governor of Alaska, and Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate), Mike Huckabee (Former Governor of Arkansas), Tom Flanagan (Political Scientist, University of Calgary), Jonah Goldberg (Journalist, National Review Online), and Jeffrey Kuhner (Journalist, The Washington Times), among many others, calling for the outright assassination of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.

It is worth remembering that verbally inciting others to commit violence is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court held that:

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

The same is true under Canadian constitutional law, which is applicable to Tom Flanagan, being a Canadian citizen (and, embarrassingly, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, and former political aid to Prime Minister Steven Harper). Under Canadian constitutional law:

"Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime]." — s. 319[1], Criminal Code of Canada

Similarly, most Western democracies have anti-hate and anti-violence legislation built into their articles protecting free speech.

So why are so many prominent media figures going off their moral and legal rockers?

Obviously, Julian Assange, front-man for WikiLeaks, has struck more than a few chords. From the WikiLeaks 'Cablegate' website:

"Wikileaks began on Sunday November 28th publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into US Government foreign activities.

The cables, which date from 1966 up until the end of February this year, contain confidential communications between 274 embassies in countries throughout the world and the State Department in Washington DC. 15,652 of the cables are classified Secret.

[…]

The cables show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in "client states"; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.

This document release reveals the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes.

It is no secret that there is a great deal of corruption in U.S. politics and foreign policy. The depth, extent, and sheer pervasiveness is what has remained largely a subject of debate, until now.

Many who have attacked Julian Assange, have characterized his activities as irresponsible, reckless, and even criminal, with no regard for individuals being put at risk as a result of the classified documents being distributed and published. Some have said he is compromising national security by revealing classified information to U.S. enemies, calling it 'espionage' or 'treasonous' and also calling for his execution. Still others have questioned his integrity with his alleged use of illegal blackmail to achieve his desired ends, as well as the latest 'sex crime' allegations.

However, before addressing these allegations, it might be worthwhile examining first principles. It would appear that there is a fundamental difference in political philosophy between those individuals who are calling for severe censure of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and those who support the work in it's attempts at making governments more open, honest, transparent, and accountable. It would be helpful to bring some of the underlying guiding principles of WikiLeaks supporters out into public view to arrive at a better understanding of motivation:

1. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." — Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

2. The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

3. A non-interventionist foreign policy as advanced by Thomas Jefferson, extending George Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

4. A firm belief that access to information is at the heart and soul of a well-functioning democracy. Such views have as their support many illustrious figures in American history, in addition to Supreme Court decisions (see below).

"Information is the currency of democracy." — Thomas Jefferson

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." — Patrick Henry

"Nothing so diminishes democracy as secrecy." — Ramsey Clark

"A government by secrecy benefits no one. It injures the people it seeks to serve; it damages its own integrity and operation. It breeds distrust, dampens the fervor of its citizens and mocks their loyalty." — Russell Long

"The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings." — John Fitzgerald Kennedy

"The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed." — United States Supreme Court in NLRB v. Robbins Tire Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978)

"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation … is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry." — Gerard LaForest, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, in Dagg vs. Canada (1997)

With regard to these essential guiding principles, it is also worth noting that every elected official and public servant has sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. Further, the United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century.

Interestingly, there has been far more war, death, and destruction in the world since the U.S. rejection of a non-interventionist foreign policy in the 20th and 21st centuries. This is certainly not coincidence, as the attention afforded select countries in a climate of foreign interventionism has complex geo-political repercussions that cannot be fathomed by policy makers: the sheer volume and intricate nature of interactions and relationships are far too complex to fully comprehend. One need only examine the seemingly endless history of botched U.S. involvement in 20th and 21st century conflict for examples of this. Even if foreign policy makers are well-intentioned (doubtful), the reality is policy decisions intended to favor select nations are ill-conceived at best, as they are rooted in an overly simplistic and essentially myopic view of the world: one that seeks domination, repression, coercion, and control.

National Security

Many argue that we are living in an age of rogue nation states and megalomaniacal dictators who have access to dangerous technologies, and are hell-bent on hostility and aggression towards the U.S. and her allies. And that we must actively work to neutralize such threats to our medium and long-term security.

However, I submit, that it is a history of duplicitous, oppressive, lying, and even murderous action dealing with nations, their heads of state, and their people, that is precisely the reason for so much hostility and aggression directed towards the U.S. and its allies. For a series of clearly documented cases of U.S. intrusion into the domestic affairs of other nations, read John Perkins' excellent and illuminating book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." This is precisely why a foreign policy of non-interventionism and "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none," is not only desirable, but essential.

If the U.S. were to enter into a new era of "cease and desist" as far as military and economic involvement in foreign affairs is concerned, it would find the threats to its medium and long-term security virtually non-existent. The U.S. would be far more respected in the world, and would be in a much stronger position to be arbiters of conflict and promoters of genuine peace, especially when the nations of the world witnessed that it refrained from employing force or coercion even though it possessed the capability to do so. Instead, the U.S. could leave the handling of rogue nation states to those nations that are most affected in the region. And if affected nations requested the diplomatic aid of neutral 3rd party participants then willing parties could provide.

Espionage

The calls for prosecution of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks under the Espionage Act have no legal foundation. WikiLeaks is a news reporting and news analysis organization that provides a forum for whistleblowers to divulge corruption and illegal activity within their organizations. They are no different than news organizations like The New York Times, The Guardian, der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El País. Free speech rights of journalists are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

However, a case could be made for trying the whistleblower, Army Private First Class Bradley Manning under the Espionage Act, being in a similar situation to former military intelligence analyst whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of U.S. government decision-making about the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers. The landmark ruling is instructive as it sets the stage for the primacy of First Amendment rights over Executive need or privilege.

Briefly, on Sunday, June 13, 1971, the Times published the first of nine excerpts and commentaries on the 7,000 page collection. The Times was then prevented from publishing its remaining articles by court order requested by the Nixon administration. On June 30, the Supreme Court ordered publication of the Times to resume freely (New York Times Co. v. United States). The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure. President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press under the First Amendment was subordinate to a claimed Executive need to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the New York Times' right to print classified materials.

Daniel Ellsberg later said the documents, "demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates." He added that he leaked the Papers to end what he perceived to be "a wrongful war".

The question then becomes: should the Espionage Act protect the unconstitutional behavior of our public servants and elected officials, who have sworn an oath of office to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution? The answer is a clear and resounding 'NO'. Perhaps we also need to demand much stiffer penalties for public servants and elected officials who break their oath of office and engage in unconstitutional activities.

Personal Integrity

Many argue that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks are behaving irresponsibly by publishing information that is placing Americans at risk. However, it is not Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks that are behaving irresponsibly and endangering U.S. lives, but rather the U.S. government and their myopic foreign policies by placing Americans and allied troops in harms way in the first place. Remember, the reason provided by the U.S. government for entering into the Iraq war was that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction. This claim turned out to be entirely false. With thousands of American and allied lives forfeited, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians murdered, should this instead not be considered the pinnacle of irresponsibility and opprobrious conduct?

Others have attempted to character assassinate Julian Assange allegedly citing his use of blackmail by threatening to release a 'poison pill' of extra-sensitive classified information. However, upon further investigation, this is not a case of blackmail at all — he is simply protecting his greatest personal asset: his life. He has arranged things so that highly sensitive classified information will be released as a kind of insurance policy, in the event he is kidnapped or murdered. Julian Assange is no fool, and understands full well that his activities and the activities of WikiLeaks will upset more than a few individuals in positions of power. Nonetheless, individuals attacking Julian Assange, realizing they have no legal case against him or WikiLeaks, are now resorting to false 'sex crime' charges involving consensual relations between adults, in an attempt to arrest him and eventually extradite him to the U.S. The spectacle has now officially entered into the realm of the absurd.

Julian Assange, being the public face of WikiLeaks, is knowingly putting his life in danger for a cause no less important than the transparency and accountability of our governments. In time, this will lead to greater peace, justice, and freedom for all peoples through the free flow of information that exposes corruption at the highest levels. Citizens of the U.S. and other countries of the world now have increasingly the power of information at their disposal to hold their public servants accountable. Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks journalists and editors, should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as well as the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism for their selfless, courageous, and ground-breaking work. Army Private First Class Bradley Manning should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honour for his bravery, courage and selfless service to his country.

It is clear that the furor that has been unleashed by the publishing of classified U.S. war and embassy cables is the direct result of decades of lies, duplicity, treachery, oppression and murderous foreign policy at the highest levels. History will pass judgement on people like Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and our elected officials who have sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. Let us rest content then, in the judgement and verdict of history, which, in the end, tends towards truth.

"Three things cannot long be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." — Confucius

Selected Quotes

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." — George Orwell

“The first reaction to truth is hatred.” -- Tertullian

“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” — Winston Churchill

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” — Albert Einstein

"The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold." — Aristotle

"If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it." — Marcus Aurelius

"Honesty is the best policy." — Benjamin Franklin

"Justice and truth are the common ties of society." — John Locke

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities." — Voltaire

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” — Joseph Goebbels

References

1. Fighting Words Doctrine, Wikipedia
2. WikiLeaks Website
3. WikiLeaks Cablegate Website
4. John Perkins, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"
5. Pentagon Papers, Wikipedia
6. New York Times Co. v. United States, Wikipedia
7. Robert Scheer, "Jefferson to Assange," Truthdig
8. Ron Paul, "Focus on the Policy, Not WikiLeaks," Campaign For Liberty

Ground Zero Mosque Demagoguery and Pseudo Polls

2010-09-09T02:40:00.001-07:00

Part of what makes the United States great is precisely that it guarantees rights and freedoms that are not readily available in many countries of the world including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others. It is the Constitution of the United States, and the efforts of its Founding Fathers to ensure that American citizens would continue to live in a truly just and free society, that makes the U.S. great, even though many would argue today that those freedoms are being gradually and methodically eroded.

Some of these often taken-for-granted freedoms include freedom of speech, especially when one disagrees with what others have to say; freedom of religion, even when one doesn't share the same religious views; and, yes, also protection of private property, the freedom to do what one chooses with one's possessions. For these reasons, it is sensible and reasonable that those who hold title to the land at ground zero be allowed to use it as they choose. Otherwise we risk descending down a slippery slope that begins to gut the Constitution and gradually deprive citizens of their rights under certain "special" circumstances.

And who decides what "special" circumstances there will be in exception to guaranteed Constitutional rights? And if we curtail certain Constitutional rights, why not others? Maybe in certain circumstances, free speech should not be allowed, or even the right to peaceful assembly, or religious freedom, or perhaps the right to keep and bear arms, or even the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure? Clearly, we do not want to allow this sort of precedent. The ground zero mosque should not be banned or disallowed precisely on these grounds. We need not agree with the idea of building a mosque at the ground zero location, but we ought to allow it on principles of religious freedom, and protection of private property. Otherwise, our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms increasingly become perilously moot.

Much of the controversy over the building of the ground zero mosque appears to be intentional emotional propaganda on the part of luminary neo-Conservatives, attempting to create civil unrest prior to election season, as well as to justify their illegal wars in the middle east that are based on an imperialistic foreign policy in turn based on fear and propaganda (read: Orwell, 1984). In November we will have U.S. elections, and if Obama and company can be painted as pro-Muslim, pro-Islamist or somehow "un-American," the Republican Party could dramatically increase its chances of placing neo-Conservatives into key congressional and senatorial positions. If the people of the U.S. are going to replace elements of the Obama administration, they ought to do so for the right reasons: for their ill-advised economic policies, their ill-promised foreign and military policies, their ill-conceived healthcare legislation, and generally, their ill-continued Bush-administration policies. Not this colossal Romanesque bread and circuses distraction and highly emotional anti-Muslim propaganda.

In any case, just look at the backgrounds of media luminaries that are most vocal against the building of the mosque at ground zero: Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin. That luminescent mouthful should send a neo-Conservative shiver down one's spine. (Sarah Palin does a nice "Tea-Party / pro-Constitution" talk, but it's rife with rhetoric, short on substance). If one looks closely, one will find that the majority of heavily vocal media limelight critics of the ground zero mosque are staunch neo-Conservative supporters.

As for recent CNN polls that state 68% of the population are against the building of the mosque: 1) can we really trust the implied meaning behind these numbers? and 2) even if those numbers accurately portray American sentiment, it could just as well show how easily people are swayed by emotionally charged, righteously indignant propaganda. However, I'd like to believe that the majority of Americans are more intelligent than that, and what those numbers represent is something quite different.

The Daily Kos' recent article, "CNN's Ground Zero Mosque Poll: It's All in the Question," by Jed Lewison, shone a brilliant light on these poll numbers. In short, there's a big difference between agreeing with the building of the mosque, and agreeing with the right to build it. From the Daily Kos article:

"[T]his is a case where you have to look at the question to understand what the poll means. The question:"

As you may know, a group of Muslims in the U.S. plan to build a mosque two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand. Do you favor or oppose this plan?

"When you ask the question with those words, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that you're going to find a lot of opposition. It's not just that it frames the issue in the same way that Republicans have framed it, it's also that it completely sidesteps questions of tolerance and religious freedom."

"The question didn't even explicitly ask whether people believed the government should intervene to outlaw the mosque; it merely asked whether people supported plans by American Muslims to build it. Those two questions are not synonymous."

"CNN also didn't ask people whether they felt government should ban Muslims from choosing their own place of worship, nor did they ask whether all religious groups in America, even unpopular ones, deserve the same level of protection from the first amendment."

Jed Lewison then goes on to provide suggestions for better poll questions that would get at the heart of the matter. For example:

Do you believe the New York City government should forbid American Muslims from building a private house of worship anywhere in the vicinity of where the World Trade Center used to stand?

And:

Do you believe that every religious group, including the American Muslims building a house of worship two blocks from where the World Trade Center used to stand, deserves the same protection from the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty?

Or, more succinctly:

Should the government control who builds houses of worship and where they're located?

As the author states, these questions get at the core issue: whether the government ought to ban American Muslims from practicing freedom of religion.

"You don't need to be an active proponent of building the mosque to also believe that the government shouldn't ban it."

Well said, Jed.

References:

1. Ron Paul, "Left and the Right Demagogue Mosque, Islam," Campaign For Liberty
2. Jed Lewison, "CNNs Ground Zero Mosque Poll: Its All in the Question," The Daily Kos
3. Nate Silver, "Poll's, Reporting on Ground Zero May Mislead," FiveThirtyEight
4. The Times of India, "Most New Yorkers Against Ground Zero Mosque: Poll"
5. The Daily Beast, "Ground Zero Mosque: Whose For, Whose Against"

The Healthcare Debacle

2009-11-11T01:01:00.000-08:00

Truthdig editor Robert Scheer wrote a recent article that provoked a great deal of dialog on the current healthcare "debate." He went on to say that the debate has nothing to do with socialized medicine versus free-market choice. And, unfortunately, he is absolutely correct—but for reasons that may not be apparent initially. Why? Simply, because there is no free-market choice to speak of, as the big health and insurance companies have a monopolistic stranglehold on the marketplace. This is the antithesis of free-market principles. In a genuinely free-market a plethora of competitors would exist competing on quality of service, product offering, and price, instead of the current regulation-oppressed environment where a smaller competitor is prevented from entering the market due to the sheer compliance cost of innumerable rules, regulations and policies that have been largely advanced by the big health and insurance lobby to protect their financial interests under the guise of protecting the consumer.

Consider this question: how did we arrive at this pseudo-monopolistic situation where healthcare costs are spiralling out of control with no competition in the marketplace to bring prices back to sane levels? The answer is through government rules and regulation. All the required certifications, licenses, legal fees, board examinations, government approvals, etc., has made the current system what it is today. Much of this at the behest of the big health and insurance lobby, and the remainder due to the efforts of the often well-intentioned but misguided social welfare bureaucrats who erroneously believe they are performing a public service.

The solution is not more government, but less government. However, it is not enough simply to say: let government not be involved. The government must also undo the horrendous rules and regulations that keeps these monolithic institutions largely shielded from the competitive effects of the free marketplace and allows them to maintain their virtual monopoly status. The government must first undo the damage and protectionism, then they must step out of the way and let a genuinely free-market function. This is the quickest and most effective method of dispersing the big health and insurance monopolies.

Others say that incorporating a single-payer system would remove all unfairness and injustice and provide universal coverage at a price where industry could still make a reasonable profit. However, this shifts and magnifies the costs from direct consumer-level expenditures, to less apparent increases in taxes and almost completely hidden increases in inflation taxes through debt-based printing-press financing, which eventually destroys the middle class. Within a single-payer system how does one prevent healthcare providers from performing unnecessary procedures, treatments, or diagnostics? Just how does one control costs? The answer is: one doesn't. The consumer is not cost-conscious because cost is completely removed from view and from his or her decision-making process. Can there be any level of efficiency in such a system? "There are always government-controlled price-caps," some quip. Which provider would ever charge anything less than the maximum allowed? And is a price-fixed economy really the direction in which we wish to proceed? Have we really learned nothing from the failed economic policies of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? In these questions, the economic absurdity of such a system quickly becomes apparent.

Many liberal-minded individuals seem to think that a genuine free-market approach to healthcare will leave the common people "for the wolves." This common characterization of the big health and insurance organizations may be accurate, but they have been given free reign precisely because of the protectionism they enjoy from government in the form of rules and regulations that prevent others from entering the marketplace. Remove this protectionism, and the wolves will be busy defending themselves from competitors, instead of gorging themselves silly in the hen house.

There are several alternatives that have not been given any attention in the current public debate, as they require greater individual responsibility, and therefore are politically unpopular. Thomas DiLorenzo, Professor of Economics at Loyola University, discusses the "facialistic" climate of the current healthcare debate, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Nevada, provides a thoughtful four-step solution to the healthcare problem. DiLorenzo also discusses Nobel laureate Milton Friedman's analysis of the history of healthcare supply in America in, "Socialized Healthcare vs. the Laws of Economics." Friedman's key conclusion was that, the more money that was spent on government-run healthcare, the less healthcare Americans received. Thomas DiLorenzo eloquently summarizes:

"The more money that has been spent on government-run healthcare, the less healthcare we have gotten. This kind of result is generally true of all government bureaucracies because of the absence of any market feedback mechanism. Since there are no profits in an accounting sense, by definition, in government, there is no mechanism for rewarding good performance and penalizing bad performance. In fact, in all government enterprises, exactly the opposite is true: bad performance (failure to achieve ostensible goals, or satisfy "customers") is typically rewarded with larger budgets. Failure to educate children leads to more money for government schools. Failure to reduce poverty leads to larger budgets for welfare state bureaucracies. This is guaranteed to happen with healthcare socialism as well."

Bringing up Milton Friedman's ideas is always sure to excite widely disparate and passionate responses. One colorful poster retorts: "I'll ask you to indulge me and help me understand why I should not dismiss Milton Friedman as a eunuch engaged in the universal effort of fourth graders to steal each other's lunch money?" The brief yet entertaining 1979 interview of Milton Friedman by Phil Donahue on Socialism vs. Capitalism should give one a cursory idea. The uniquely informative and highly educational unabridged version of this excerpt is also available in several parts.

Many believe that the principles of a free-market system go against humanitarian ideals. But this is simply not the case. Consider, in a free-market system, enterprise would be freer to address the needs of the less privileged, not because they would be directly involved in humanitarian activity (though this possibility is not precluded), but instead through the pursuit of their own self-interest. They would provide products and services to meet the needs of those less fortunate segments of the population. And this is the fundamental point: it’s through the pursuit of self-interest (contrast to selfishness) that we automatically provide for the needs of others. The underlying idea here is that self-interest can produce an orderly society benefiting everyone. Bringing Adam Smith’s ideas to the forefront of discussion, it's as though there were an invisible hand at work. In the words of Milton Friedman discussing Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand (from his 1979 PBS television series, "Free to Choose"):

“It is as though individuals who intended only to pursue their own separate interest were lead by an invisible hand to promote the public welfare which was no part of their intention. Adam Smith was talking about the economic market: about the market in which people buy and sell. He pointed out that in order for a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker to make an income, he had to produce something that others wanted to buy. Therefore in the process of promoting his own interests and looking to his own profit, he ended up serving the interests of his customers.”

One famous and commonly used quote to justify welfare state policies comes from John Kenneth Galbraith:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

But consider this: is it really “unselfishness” to have one's choice of being altruistic taken away and instead having it forced upon the individual by legislative edict? Who’s really engaged in a superior moral justification for selfishness? The person who wants to leave people free to choose, out of a deep respect for individual choice and liberty—even when they disagree with those choices—or the person who wants to force others to conform to their own views, through rules, regulations, and legislation because they believe they occupy the morally superior higher-ground?

You decide.

"I think there has been one underlying basic fallacy in the whole set of social security and welfare measures. And that is the fallacy that it is feasible and possible to do good with other people's money. That view has two flaws. If I'm going to do good with other people's money, first I have to take it away from them. That means that the welfare state philosophy of doing good with other people's money, at it's very bottom, is a philosophy of violence and coercion. It's against freedom because I have to use force to get the money. In the second place, very few people spend other people's money as carefully as they spend their own." — Milton Friedman

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the 'Articles of Confederation,' and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted." — James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, 1831

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." — Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." — James Madison

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." — Benjamin Franklin

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power no longer susceptible of any definition." — Thomas Jefferson, 1791

References:

1. Thomas DiLorenzo, "American Healthcare Facialism"
2. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "A Four-Step Healthcare Solution"
3. Thomas DiLorenzo, "Socialized Healthcare vs. The Laws of Economics"
4. The Phil Donahue Show with Milton Friedman (1979)
5. Milton Friedman, "Free to Choose" (1979 PBS Series)
6. Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"
7. Ludwig von Mises Institute, "A Free-Market Guide To Healthcare"

Shock Doctrine: Banking Crisis and Fabian Socialism

2009-04-29T11:30:00.000-07:00

"Hyman Minsky—an economist largely ignored during his lifetime and now held up as something of a prophet—argued that speculative bubbles, and the financial collapses that follow them, are an inevitable consequence of unregulated capitalism. Minsky, an economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis who died in 1996, warned: “The normal functioning of our economy leads to financial trauma and crises, inflation, currency depreciations, unemployment and poverty in the middle of what could be virtually universal affluence—in short … financially complex capitalism is inherently flawed.” He called for socialized banking and stimulus packages to protect workers." — Chris Hedges, Obama Has Missed His Moment

Hyman Minsky got it part right. Yes, much of the current economic mess is the inevitable consequence of unregulated capitalism in our existing system. But one very important point that escapes the notice of most people is that our existing system is not a free market system. Our current system is a centrally-planned system. Free market systems do not have central planners à la Volcker, Greenspan, and Bernanke. The root of these problems goes deeper than most people are willing to look.

Our existing economic system is fundamentally flawed. How so? It is based on a fiat currency system with no intrinsic value, a currency that is not backed by anything other than public confidence. Thought experiment: what would happen if the U.S. dollar was backed by a commodity such as silver or gold? Would it be possible for the arguably well-intentioned but misguided Federal Reserve/government to print money according to their whims? No. Would it be possible for the Fed/government to set interests rates artificially low, thereby allowing for cheap and widespread credit, in turn facilitating the housing bubble and subsequent collapse? No.

The reason we are in this financial mess is not due solely to deregulation. Yes, there was ill-conceived deregulation that took place, but there were equally terrible regulations enacted. For example, regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act (1999, 2005), enactment of the Financial Services Modernization Act (1999), and amendments to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (1999). The problem is not deregulation and overly free markets, but misguided regulation. The Fed made artificially cheap credit available, and the government encouraged and even compelled banks to extend that credit to poor-credit borrowers through many of the regulatory changes/additions mentioned above. As a result, housing prices climbed about 50% in 7 years while all the traditional market forces were trying to pull these prices down through higher interest rates. But the Fed prevented this natural correction from happening through their forced low interest rate policy in addition to bad government regulation and de-regulation. Couple this to massive leveraging of these bad debts (20x-30x, up to 100x in some instances), and we have the current economic crisis.

The root of the problem stems from our debt-based fiat currency system. This system facilitates derivatives, leveraging, and fractional reserve banking. In our current debt-based system, the markets need to be very carefully protected from manipulative/interventionist forces (i.e., artificial interest rates), and greedy casino-style banking interests (i.e., derivatives, leveraging, and fractional reserve banking). These are the excesses pandemic in our current debt-based financial system. Hence the need for regulation. But regulation would not be necessary if the financial system was a real asset-based system, as none of these "casino" capitalism activities would be possible.

The truth is that government knuckleheads (Democrats/Republicans--same difference) haven't the slightest clue what they are doing, nor do they appreciate the repercussions their actions will have on the economy. Why do we trust these people with either regulations or de-regulations that moves us towards increased central economic planning and unmitigated disaster?

The solution to all this is not a move towards socialism and increased government regulation as Hyman Minsky would suggest. That's just putting more power in the hands of our short-sighted knuckleheaded government officials. In any case, would you really trust them with even more control and power over our lives? Perhaps, if they were truly enlightened oligarchs. Perhaps, if they were truly operating in our best interests. But that is far from the case, as any 21st century politically disillusioned socio-politico critic would tell you.

No, what we need to do is replace the existing debt-based fiat currency with an asset-based non-fiat currency. Otherwise the problem will simply repeat itself in a more magnified form at some point in the future. Why? Because, as Hyman Minsky (partly) correctly stated, this boom and bust cycle is built into the existing "casino"-style financial system. We must replace this little piece of valueless paper with a currency that has intrinsic value with mandatory full non-fractional reserve banking. A 100% commodity-backed currency using silver or gold. This would prevent governments and banking institutions from printing money when they wanted it, which includes any form of derivative and/or leveraging, and would be the greatest restraint on government spending, borrowing and bank lending, not to mention dramatically curtailing government's imperialistic prerogative. This would be the end of the military-industrial complex, the end of the welfare state, and the dawn of limited government and a genuinely sound financial system.

References:

1. Ludwig von Mises Institute
2. Works of Ludwig von Mises
3. Works of Murray Rothbard
4. Works of Friedrich Hayek
5. Works of Peter Schiff
6. Works of Ron Paul

Beyond Chutzpah: Israel's Crimes Against Gaza

2009-01-12T14:59:00.000-08:00

I have several Jewish friends that are insistent on showing me the error of my ways. What error? What ways? Well, my tendency to almost single-mindedly focus on the truth and facts of the recent Israeli aggression against the people of Gaza, for example. They say, "It's the fault of the Palestinians and their incursions into Israeli territory." No. It's the fault of the Israeli and U.S. governments and their myopic, aggressive and reckless policies that are in contravention to international law.

Some basic facts:

1) The Israeli military committed the first act of aggression resulting in a termination of the 4-5 month ceasefire on Nov. 4, 2008, by going into Gaza and killing at least six Palestinian militants. According to the official Israeli website, Hamas then retaliated with missile launches (see Norman Finkelstein's quote below).

2) The Israeli blockade of Gaza is an egregious violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions.

3) The United Nations made a statement that 1.5 million Gaza residents are facing an 'alarming' humanitarian situation.

4) Political considerations that Israel will be holding National elections in February. Israel's elections are only a few weeks away, and Likud was leading until the air raids on Gaza began. Kadima and Labour are now up in the polls.

5) Political considerations of Barack Obama taking office in late January, and his plans to press Israel into withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders and sharing Jerusalem.

6) Israel's Gaza offensive is likely to destroy the current Saudi-sponsored peace plan, which had been backed by all members of the Arab League. The plan had called for Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders and share Jerusalem in exchange for full recognition and normalized relations with the Muslim world. Arab governments will now be unable to sell the deal as they face a storm of criticism from their own people over their powerlessness to help the Palestinians of Gaza.

7) The United Nation's yearly vote on the two-state settlement consistently involves international consensus with Israel and the U.S. against about 160 other countries. This settlement stipulates Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders including the return of Jerusalem.

These are just some of the facts. See Eric Margolis' article for a more detailed analysis, or Norman Finkelstein's many scholarly works for a much more in depth and comprehensive analysis.

Look, I'm willing to accept that even the earth is round, that the earth is not the center of the Universe, or that governments do not always have our best interests at heart—if you can make a compelling case. Gather enough evidence, and I will seriously consider it, and even consider changing my views.

But the facts speak for themselves.

As powerful support for what I'm saying I only need to to offer up the examples of Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein, both renown Jewish intellectuals who support much dialog directed at condemning Israeli government policy in the Middle East over the last half century. Their Jewishness does not blind them to the facts of the crimes of the Israeli government and many other governments the world over. It is somewhat akin to an American being able to despise the Bush administration and their reckless policies. Or even an American not becoming offended when others attack his government's reckless policies. This has nothing to do with anti-Americanism, and everything to do with anti-Bushitism and anti-Imperialism.

Many attempt to discredit reports from individuals who present the facts, by citing organizations that serve to attack the integrity of these individuals. These organizations typically engage in a disinformation campaign against an individual if that individual in any way portrays Israeli government policy in an unfavorable light. One example is the honestreporting.com website. The Google search on honestreporting.com returns the following banner statement which describes what honestreporting.com is all about:

"HonestReporting: monitoring mideast media anti-Israel bias. HonestReporting: a fast-action website that monitors Mideast media bias and ensures that Israel receives fair worldwide press coverage."

Anti-Israel bias? Fair worldwide press coverage? Translation:

"HonestReporting: censoring mideast media facts that place Israeli government policy in a negative but accurate light. HonestReporting: a fast-action website that censors Mideast media facts and ensures that Israeli government policy receives unfair and biased worldwide press coverage."

Given this, how confident can one be that the site and its content is truly honest and objective? Whenever I see an individual or organization attack another individual in an attempt to demonize them and destroy credibility, I immediately become suspicious of their motives and what they stand to gain or lose. Instead of attacking individuals or demonizing them, why not judge the statements in question on their own merits and factual content? It seems the honest and truthful thing to do.

Afterall, how does attacking or disparaging someone advance truth? It does not. It is a tactic of those who are emotionally identified with a position, and lack the ability to defend their positions honestly and factually in the court of informed public opinion. It is the tactic of those who wish to influence public opinion at all cost in order to advance their own agendas, irrespective of truth, fairness, and justice.

Some additional facts.

It is not the government of Israel that is concerned with providing aid for those suffering in Gaza. The Israeli government is the willful instigator of this aggression no matter how their mighty propaganda machines wish to portray events. It is intelligent, upright, honest, and thoughtful Israeli citizens (and other citizens) who are protesting their own governments policies, and as activists, feel the need to act in the face of so much injustice. Here is an example of Israeli citizens acting to help their Palestinian neighbors.

In this debate between Norman Finkelstein, prominent professor and author of several books on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and former US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, host Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! asks Norman Finkelstein to respond to the question on why Israel attacked Gaza:

"Well, the record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Mr. Indyk is correct that Hamas had adhered to the ceasefire from June 17th until November 4th. On November 4th, here Mr. Indyk, I think, goes awry. The record is clear: Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.

Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one, as Mr. Indyk I think correctly points out, to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.

And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas."

Israeli government and Israeli citizens are not synonymous. In fact, I would argue precisely the opposite. Israeli citizens are increasingly realizing themselves to be the victims of their own government's policies. In higher truth, the Palestinian and Israeli peoples are on the same side of this conflict that has been raging for over a half century. They are both led to believe that they are each other's enemies, and that each threatens the existence of the other: enter the fear, carnage, barbarism, and ultimate need for strong central and increasingly totalitarian governments. This thought sends Orwellian shivers down my spine.

For a very comprehensive analysis of all the madness, watch the three part documentary aired some time ago on PBS entitled: "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (2004)." This single very impartial documentary gets to the root of these issues, and what it is that we really need to be concerned with: the rise of the politics of fear.

Governments the world over are corrupt institutions. They are not representative of their people nor do they serve the interests of their people as many would like to believe. They are oligarchical institutions controlled by a few very powerful individuals. The Israeli government is no exception. The greatest enemy of the people of Israel is their own government. It is largely because of Israeli government, and those in charge of policy decisions in that government, that so much suffering exists today in the Middle East. This does not imply that Arab governments are any better by comparison. They suffer from the same oligarchical organization where their people think they are represented. They are not. They too are controlled through propaganda and misinformation. These are the basic tools of oligarchs everywhere. Until we understand this, there can be no lasting peace.

I often hear arguments moving the dialog away from the real issues, and instead bringing the conversation back to ant-Semitism or a reminder of the atrocities committed under the Nazis as a way to justify any and every Israeli policy. Norman Finkelstein deals with this dishonest tendency in his recent books "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History," and "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering."

Governments cannot be trusted. Indeed, they must be kept on an exceedingly short leash. The founding fathers of the United States knew this, which is why they fashioned a constitutional republic with a very limited form of government. Today, people all over the world have come to fear their increasingly powerful governments. It is not right for people to fear their governments; it is government that ought to fear it's people. And until citizens the world over wrest control of their government from the hands of the oligarchs, the world will not know peace.

"Arabs and Israelis are basically the same. We've been beaten on by the world, and now we are beating on each other. We are a group of countries full of good people who listen to leaders who convince us to do terrible things to each other. The truth is nothing but a cycle of ugliness, and the people who started it all are dead." — Anonymous, Danish Jew who survived WWII

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." — Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

References:

1. Eric Margolis, "Israel's 'Fait Accompli' in Gaza"
2. Democracy Now! Debate Between Author Norman Finkelstein and Former Amb. Martin Indyk.
3. Film: "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (2004)"
4. N. Finkelstein, "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History."
5. N. Finkelstein, "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering."

Other:

6. Collected political works of Noam Chomksy.
7. John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"
8. Jimmy Carter, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"
9. James Petras, "The Power of Israel in the United States"
10. Ilan Pappe, "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine"
11. Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict"
12. Michael Neumann, "The Case Against Israel"
13. Paul Findley, "They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby"
14. Rashid Khalidi, "The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood"
15. Alexander Cockburn, "The Politics of Anti-Semitisim"
16. Ilan Pappe, "A History of Modern Palestine"

Bailouts & Buyouts: What Happened to Capitalism?

2008-12-27T11:34:00.000-08:00

There is growing consensus in the mainstream media that the source of all our current economic woes lies in the underlying economic philosophy of capitalism. The main problem with this diagnosis lies in our incorrect and faulty choice of words, which in turn is responsible for our incorrect and confused understanding. What we have today is not "capitalism," it is "disaster capitalism." The original intent behind capitalism in the U.S. which came with the American Revolution, was a free market, anti-mercantislist system. A laissez-faire system where the market would be left free to decide all business and economic activity, free from the intervention of government or any other institution. In fact, the role of government was negative: it was mandated that government refrain from being involved in the market in any way. Instead, their sole economic prerogative was to ensure that the market remained free. Government bureaucrats have since lost that noble free-market vision and instead insist on "fixing" everything. Here is a worthwhile quote from John DiLorenzo's article Celebrating America's Capitalist Revolution.

Thus it was that in 1776, the year that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, so many of the acts of tyranny that King George III was accused of had as their objective the implementation of British mercantilism in the colonies. The American Revolution was at least partly a capitalist, or anti-mercantilist revolution. In the same year that the Declaration of Independence was written Adam Smith published his famous treatise, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The "Wealth of Nations" is a prolonged attack on the policy of British mercantilism and a defense of its opposite: free trade and the institutions of capitalism (even though the term "capitalism" had not yet been coined).

The argument more and more individuals are making, at its core, is the same argument former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan made at one of the recent Congressional hearings. He spoke of the mistake he had made in trusting and believing in free markets. Paraphrasing, he said that his former world-view, that free markets work, was in error, and that now he admitted this error. The only problem with his admission, and the mainstream media's superficial diagnosis, is there haven't been any truly free markets in existence for the better part of a century! Free markets have become increasingly an extinct species since the early 20th century, and since then have increasingly gone down the path towards "disaster" capitalism: the kind of capitalism in which virtual monopolies run rampant under the guise of an interconnected and indecipherable web of subsidiary companies and power and wealth consolidation ad infinitum.

It's not that capitalism doesn't work. If it were real, as in laissez-faire capitalism, where elected representatives honorably performed their duty and ensured markets remained free, it would work. What we have in the U.S. and increasingly all over the world is what Buckminster Fuller called the Grunch of Giants, or to put it colloquially, corporatocracy or corporatism. Large multinational corporations now control our governments and major institutions. And they didn't come into being because of capitalism, but rather through the absence of free-market capitalism parading as capitalism.

Many believe that capitalism results in inevitable wealth and power consolidation. This is not where capitalism takes us. This is where "disaster" capitalism takes us. True capitalism, à la laissez-faire capitalism, takes us in a very different direction. Wealth and power consolidation is not possible under laissez-faire capitalism, as the free market by its very nature would correct for this through greater competition, thereby spreading the wealth and power. Consolidation of wealth and power occurs only when the free market is inhibited in some way. That is, when capitalism is not functioning.

The problem is that many large companies that have lost the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship have instead tried to change the rules of the playing field in lieu of competing. And when corporations succeed in changing the rules of the playing field, we are no longer operating in a free market system: true capitalism is no more. In our time, capitalism has been replaced with something that is 'capitalism' in name only.

An Inconvenient Economic Truth

2008-11-17T21:31:00.001-08:00

I was recently impressed by a video presentation titled "An Inconvenient Economic Truth," by Juan Enriguez. The presenter makes some excellent points concerning our current economic crisis. However, I have two points of contention regarding his diagnosis and proposed solution.

First, Juan makes a statement indicating that the main reason we are in this economic mess is that there was massive de-regulation of the financial markets; that they were too free. This is essentially Alan Greenspan's reasoning in his statement made before a Congressional Committee. But this is a red-herring. The problem is not de-regulation and a free market. A truly free market has never existed in the United States nor anywhere else for that matter, in any substantive form. If it did exist, the market would automatically correct itself. What we do have in the United States and all over the world is central banking, heavily manipulated markets, and fiat currency systems—all anathema to the very idea of a constitutional republic or limited democracy.

The problem is not de-regulation and overly free markets (they're clearly not) but misguided regulation. For example, the Fed made artificially cheap credit available, and the government encouraged and even forced banks to extend that credit to poor-credit borrowers. As a result, housing prices climbed about 50% in 7 years while all the traditional market forces were trying to pull these prices down through higher interest rates. But the Fed prevented this natural correction from happening through their forced low interest rate policy. Couple this to massive leveraging of these bad debts (20x-30x, up to 100x in some instances), and we have the current credit crisis.

Traditional market forces could and would have corrected the problem, if these forces were allowed to function, by not allowing bad debt to circulate in the first place. However, the root of the problem is even more menacing: it stems from the debt-based fiat currency system in use today in the United States and all over the world. This system facilitates derivatives, leveraging, and fractional reserve banking. In our current debt-based system, the markets need to be carefully shielded from manipulative/interventionist forces (i.e., artificial interest rates), and greedy banking interests (i.e., derivatives, leveraging, and fractional reserve banking). These are the excesses pandemic in our current debt-based financial system. Hence the need for "regulation." Regulation would not be necessary if the financial system was a real asset-based system.

The solution Juan proposes is that we need to defend this little piece of paper called the U.S. dollar. No, what we need to do is let it die, and replace it with an asset-based non-fiat currency, instead of a debt-based fiat currency. Otherwise the problem will simply repeat itself in a more magnified form at some point in the future. Why? Because this boom and bust cycle is built into the existing financial system. We need to replace this little piece of valueless paper with a currency that has intrinsic value with absolutely no possibility for fractional reserve banking. A 100% commodity-backed currency, for example, using silver or gold. This would prevent governments and banking institutions from "printing" money when they wanted it, which includes any form of derivative and/or leveraging, and would be the greatest restraint on government spending, borrowing and bank lending, not to mention dramatically curtailing government's imperialistic "prerogative." This would be the end of big government, the end of the military-industrial complex, the end of the welfare state, and the dawn of limited government, a creature that has been extinct in the United States since the mid 19th century.

The basis for the entire U.S. financial system as it stands is a fraud perpetrated on the American people and in direct contravention to the Constitution. In 1913, the prevailing forces finally got their tentacles into the right politicians and forced the Federal Reserve into being through the Federal Reserve Act, in addition to instituting the Federal Income Tax and Internal Revenue Service as the 16th Amendement. Both fraudulent and illegal institutions. Skeptical? Have a look at these fascinating quotes with many more available here.

"For the first time in its history, Western Civilization is in danger of being destroyed internally by a corrupt, criminal ruling cabal which is centered around the Rockefeller interests, which include elements from the Morgan, Brown, Rothschild, Du Pont, Harriman, Kuhn-Loeb, and other groupings as well. This junta took control of the political, financial, and cultural life of America in the first two decades of the twentieth century." — Carroll Quigley (Professor, Georgetown University, mentioned by Bill Clinton in his inauguration speech)

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American president." — Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President

"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." — Henry Ford

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance." — James Madison

Study Says Intellectual Property Should Die

2008-09-16T19:55:00.000-07:00

TorrentFreak recently published an article which brought a great deal of attention to a recent study which indicated that the current "Intellectual Property" system in the world is not working. The original study was published by the non-proft group The Innovation Group and released under a Creative Commons license. Here is a quote from the study:

"The current era of intellectual property is waning. It has been based on two faulty assumptions made nearly three decades ago: that since some intellectual property (IP) is good, more must be better; and that IP is about controlling knowledge rather than sharing it. These assumptions are as inaccurate in biotechnology (the field of science covered by this report) as they are in other fields from music to software."

The study and article caused a great deal of discussion in the online community. What's clear from the ensuing discussion is that many people are confusing things.

The "death" of the existing system of intellectual property rights doesn't mean a lawless, anarchistic land where anyone can steal from anyone, or even a landscape where everything belongs to the state.

The problem with the idea of intellectual property is that it's not property at all, yet it is being treated as property. Say you have a brilliant idea. Does that mean I'm not allowed to think or act on that idea because it is "yours"? Thoughts don't belong to people. They are not property. It's something we do as human beings.

People often give misleading examples of why intellectual property rights are good. Take a software company that spends thousands of man hours creating their software. Isn't it right that all their efforts should be protected from theft? Sure. It would be theft to take the software products, mass copy them, and sell them or pass them off as my own. I have not created anything here. I have only stolen. But if you are a clever software programmer and have the ability to re-create similar software by the fruits of your own mental and physical labour, why should you be prevented from doing so? It is your right to create and produce. Just because someone else has done something before, doesn't mean you should never be able to do something similar. Your approach may be very different, and then again, it may not. But if it is your creation, you must be free to do it; and you also must be free to do what you want with it.

Ideas and thoughts must never be constrained by the abstractions of intellectual property rights. And individuals must be free to re-create an existing technology, medicine, or work of art, for example, based on those original thoughts. It's the specific material product of those thoughts in the creation of something of value that must be protected from theft.

The present system attacks anybody that attempts to re-create anything which already exists, even though such a process of re-creation requires enormous resources of creativity and self-expression of the individual.

"Intellectual Property" rights should disappear and be replaced with "Specific Material Products of the Intellect" rights. And what about the artist who produces a great piece of music? Or the author who produces a great book? These are not "intellectual property." These are specific material products of the intellect, and ought to be protected from wholesale theft or uncreative reproduction and distribution—if that's what the creator wishes.

To be clear, this doesn't imply that you shouldn't be allowed to re-create versions or adaptations of any of these works using your own creative processes. And that's what the present intellectual property system prevents us from doing. It prevents us from taking something, changing it, building upon it, and arriving at something new and beneficial for society.

Indeed, the system as it stands does need to die.

Predicting Recession: Negative GDP, Business Cycles, and Money

2008-06-10T07:22:00.000-07:00

Congressman Ron Paul gave a compelling speech before Congress on May 15, 2000 that predicted much of what has happened in global financial circles, and very likely much of what will come. It's not difficult to see, one hardly needs to extrapolate the data to see the writing on the wall. However, it is important that we have reliable sources of information.

Many in financial circles believe that economic statistics provided by the U.S. government are reliable and accurately portray GDP, for example. According to these statistics, the economy has not shown two consequtive quarters of negative GDP. However, this is only because the official reported numbers are false. If one tracks the statistics according to how they were tracked a couple of decades ago, using (more) real measures, then the truth will out. In fact, we have had at least 12 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. For example, have a look at John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics site.

In actuality, we're in a massive stagflation. And the full force of this tsunami has yet to hit home. Give it a couple more years, and when it does—look out! The efforts on the part of the U.S. government's media machine are almost exclusively for perception management and controlling public opinion, invariably with false information in an ultimately futile attempt to keep the masses pacified thinking everything is just fine.

Further, counter to conventional wisdom, business cycles are not a part of true capitalism. True capitalism has rarely been seen, except perhaps to some degree prior to the institution of the Federal Reserve in 1913, or it's various attempts in the 19th century to obtain a monopoly on money creation in the United States. True captitalism leaves the government to perform only one task as far as economics is concered: protect the free market—keeping it truly free. Laissez-faire Capitalism = True Capitalism.

And what about the argument that business cycles have also occured prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve? Although this may be true to some degree, it is largely due to the same interests involved influencing economic policy that sought to create the Fed in the first place. Prior to the Fed these interest groups did not have the official sanction of government; afterwards they did. For more information read, "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin as one reputable source; there are several others, including works by Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and even Ron Paul.

Ron Paul almost prophetically spoke of a massive economic "pullback" in the years to come. However, quite contrary to what many think, he was not referring to the collapse of the technology bubble but something far more comprehensive and pervasive: he was referrring to a global economic crisis. One in which our entire global economic system would be in a shambles—due largely to the fact that a fiat debt-based U.S. currency has been the world's reserve currency for the better part of a century, coupled to the realization that there isn't enough liquidity to finance this massive "credit card bill." If one reads the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) with any degree of regularity, one will see that over the last 2-3 years many central banks all over the world have been trying very quietly to divest themselves of US dollars, and then downplaying this divestiture in public circles so that they don't overly affect the markets, whilst at the same time ensuring they don't shoot themselves in the foot for the next round of divestiture.

The only way to have real, solid, non-superficial growth is to change the way our money is fashioned. We must divest ourselves of a debt-based Keynsian system in favour of an asset-based Misesian system. And gold-backed, silver-backed or any other difficult to obtain commodity backing is ideal for this purpose.

Ron Paul's insights into the nature of coin, currency and economics, are frighteningly accurate. Much of the economics we learn in college and university is largely a scam to perpetuate the existing power structures, groom us into a deluded self-assured malaise to occupy various positions in these instutitions, with the dangling promise that we too might be powerful, important, and wildly successful. And who knows? If we play our cards right, perhaps one day we might even become the keepers of these houses of cards.

Turn on, tune in, drop out.

U. of Iowa Physicist Weighs in on WTC Collapse

2008-02-29T13:43:00.000-08:00

Perhaps unsurprisingly, even with the enormous quantity of information that is available, people still don't know the facts surrounding the World Trade Centre collapse on September 11, 2001. Crockett Grabbe, a Professor of Physics at the University of Iowa, was recently inteviewed on International News Net (INN) regarding the WTC collapse. The interview sparked some strong reactions amidst the Digg community, specifically, amidst supporters of mainstream media explanations surrounding the occurrences of the 9/11 attack.

But for those who are still unaware of the facts, there were many eyewitness accounts and corroborating video footage of several phenomena that occured just prior to the first tower collapse which look like jets of debris and dust suddenly and violently issuing from various locations on the side of the tower. According to experts, these are consistent with the effects of demolition explosions. Not only, but eyewitness fire department personel who were at the scene are recorded on camera as describing what they saw and heard—a rapid series of loud explosions coinciding with the fall of the first tower.

Interestingly, the smaller WTC 7 building also came down, but it wasn't hit by anything. The lease owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, was later interviewed regarding WTC 7, and this is what he had to say:

"I remember getting a call from the fire dept. commander, telling me that they were not sure they would be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is 'pull it'. And they made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Larry Silverstein himself admitted WTC 7 was pulled. However, upon closer examination, the latter portion of his statement does not coincide with the facts. One doesn't wire up a building with demolition charges in a matter of a few hours. Demolition experts say that the process of preparing a building for demolition requires weeks of planning for structural analysis and selection of the proper location for demolition charges. Why is Larry Silverstein lying? And since there were demolition charges used in WTC 7, what is the possibility that they were used in the other buildings? Especially considering the eyewitness accounts of firefighters and the rapid series of loud explosions with the collapse of the first tower?

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

The documentary 911: In Plane Site, is a very compelling documentary on the 9/11 attacks which goes into much more detail and supports my contentions with clear and indisputable evidence. The first 25 minuntes discuss the Pentagon attack, and the remaing 45 minutes discuss the WTC attack.

Is the Federal Reserve Legal?

2008-02-29T12:04:00.000-08:00

It seems people are waking up as to the legality and constitutionality of the institution known as the Federal Reserve. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives congress the power to "[...] coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, [...]" not an independent non-transparent private institution. Congress is representative of the people. The Federal Reserve is not part of the government and does not represent the people. It is a private institution that operates behind closed doors. They were given the power to coin money in 1913, and this was a direct violation of Article 1, Section 8. One can reasonably conclude that those ultimately behind the Federal Reserve, in order to coerce the U.S. government to perform such an illegal and unconstitutional act, must have been quite powerful indeed, with an enormous amount of resources already at their disposal.

Also, Article 1, Section 10 states that "No State shall [...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [...]" The abandoning of the gold standard by the U.S. in 1933 was a direct violation of Article 1, Section 10. The combination of these two violations of the constitution set the stage for unbridled debt-based spending. Prior to 1933, expensive public undertakings such as war could only be financed by taxes which was only a partial limitation on government, as high taxes to fund public projects would become unpopular rather quickly. Incidentally, prior to 1913, there were no federal income taxes. The apportionment of federal income taxes was passed as law in 1913 as the 16th amendment to the constitution, coincident with the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

The propaganda on the Federal Reserve website, (incidentally it has a .gov address which is just another deception to lend it the aura of being a government institution) indicates that the seven members of the Board of Governors are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. However, in reality this is a mere formality. The prospective members of the board are short-listed by the controlling interests of the Federal Reserve, which are then "selected" by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It's very much like our own so-called democratic process. As a citizen, if you are to select one of seven possible candidates for a government post, all of whom have been pre-selected by the powers that be, do you have any real choice?

For more information on this interesting topic read, "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by Edward Griffin, "A Short History of Money and Banking" by William Gouge, "The Organization of Debt into Currency" by Charles Holt, and essentially anything by Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek. Also informative is the documentary entitled, "The Money Masters" by Bill Still. Slightly tangential but also related, the documentary, "America from Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo.

Congressman Ron Paul's "We the People" Act

2008-02-27T15:29:00.000-08:00

"Any association that's voluntary should be permissible in a free society." — Ron Paul

"The federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." — Ron Paul

As usual, there is a lot of confusion surrounding Ron Paul's political position, and specifically around his We the People Act. It's no wonder, as mainstream media and journalist hacks lacking in even the slightest analytical competency, regularly distort statements and positions beyond even the slightest recognition. For example, there are a number of people on Digg, who maintain that this Act is a removal of the rights and freedoms of individuals from certain segments of society.

This could not be further from the truth. It's easy to be misinformed about Ron Paul's position on civil rights, because so many individuals are putting words into his mouth. The interesting thing with Ron Paul is that his positions are always rooted in the Constitution. But it's not always obvious to the average person continuously barraged by mainstream media spin—often times careful thought and consideration is necessary to see precisely how. Instead of taking his position on issues based on hearsay or what others with little understanding have written, let's take it straight from the man himself.

Here is a good Q&A session that describes how Ron Paul stands on various civil rights issues. There are a couple of inaccuracies lower down (based on incorrect information on the contents of certain legislation)—but they don't affect the accuracy of the Q&A transcripts themselves. For more comprehensive information see this Wikipedia article on Ron Paul's political positions.

For example, take the gay rights / same sex marriage issues. Even though Ron Paul may not personally morally agree with these positions, he will not legislate for or against them, because that would be unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to legislate on moral issues, and Ron Paul understands and respects that. He leaves these issues for the individual states to decide.

It is a similar case with the abortion issue and specifically, Roe vs. Wade. Yes, Ron Paul is pro-life and personally believes that life begins at conception, but he will not legislate anti-abortion federal law based on his personal moral views. But neither will he tolerate pro-abortion legislation for the same reasons—which is why he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade: he wants to repeal legislation that unnecessarily involves the government in moral issues. Again, a Ron Paul administration would leave the individual states to adjuducate on these matters on a state by state basis.

In this mistitled video Ron Paul speaks on the bill; however, detractors often try to use the video to show that his position will result in loss of freedom and liberty. The following is a brief transcript from the video in which Ron Paul speaks:

"My approach is [...] accepting the priniciple that we can, as a legislative body and as a president, [...] remove the jurisdiction of this issue [prayer in schools, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.] from the federal courts.

I have a bill called We the People's Act [...] which literally just takes it [the issues] away from the federal courts. Which means any state could pass a law, pass a prohibition, and it could not be heard in federal court."

Any state, under this proposal, has the right to pass any prohibition legislating, for example, in the case of abortion, either in the pro-life camp, or the pro-choice camp, and whatever they legislate cannot be heard in a federal court. Ron is appealing to all sides on these issues. The point is, even though he is personally pro-life, he doesn't want the federal government involved in legislating one way or another on moral issues. Leave the decision to the individual states based on the will of the people in those states.

Ron Paul is the friend of Christian, and non-Christian, pro-life, and pro-choice, gay rights and Christian values, simply by refusing to involve the federal government in any of these issues, and allowing local groups to decide the outcomes. That is an increase in freedom and liberty, not a decrease. Remember, freedom and liberty doesn't mean "getting my way and enforcing it on everyone" it means allowing for a diversity of "different ways to be gotten"—if they are in fact the will of the majority in a given community. So, convince your local constituency that "your way" is best and "your way" can become locally mandated, provided it is not unconstitutional.

From the Wikipedia summary for the We the People Act:

"If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.

Because the bill forbids federal courts from hearing "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion," a practical effect of this bill might be that atheists could be banned from holding public office in Texas, as its state constitution requires the acknowledgment of a supreme being.[4] However, historically this technicality has not been enforced."

This is accurate and also supports my contention. However, the second last sentence is misleading. Yes, one theoretical effect of this bill might be that athiests could be banned from holding public office in Texas because of funky Texas state laws. However, the Constitution specifically states in Article 6, end of the third clause:

"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now, if state legislators wish to contravene the Constitution on this point, (Texas, Tennessee, and probably several other states do) then it will be up to the people to take this contravening legislation as high up the state court system as possible and get it struck down for what it is—unconstitutional. But notice that the last sentence states that historically this technicality in Texas (and other states) has not been enforced. Why? Because state law makers know they would not be able to get away with it, as the federal government would be forced to intervene. And the people would surely rise up in revolution.

CBS: Will Your Super Tuesday Vote Even Count?

2008-02-26T11:54:00.000-08:00

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." — Josef Stalin (1879-1953), Communist Tyrant and Mass Murderer

This article written for The Raw Story generated a fair bit of discussion on the Digg forums the days surrounding the Super Tuesday vote on Feb. 5, 2008.

From the discussions, there still seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding the problems with electronic voting machines—even with a paper trail receipt. In electronic voting, there is simply no way of verifying that the paper trail which corresponds to one's vote actually corresponds to the digital imprint in the voting machines memory. It is relatively easy for a savvy computer programmer to hack the system so that it prints out on paper what one expects, but actually tallies and records internally in another way altogether.

These considerations aside, reams of evidence suggesting election fraud on the part of Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, and Advance Voting Solutions, have already been collected by the excellent grassroots elections watchdog group BlackBoxVoting.org. They've provided documents and video footage containing expert testimony from a number of credible individuals including security professionals, computer scientists, researchers, professors, and others.

Affiliates of BlackBoxVoting.org shot this video after the New Hampshire primary in January, 2008. The video shows evidence of tampering on ballot boxes, and a complete breakdown of the chain of custody—a clear violation of the public trust.

There is a large body of evidence to strongly suggest that individuals have already manipulated election results in Florida 2000 (Gore & Bush), in Ohio 2004 (Kerry & Bush), and again in the 2006 mid-term elections. In fact, several individuals were convicted of election fraud in Ohio surrounding the 2004 election [2,3]. There is also legal testimony [4,5] to this effect.

All this being the case, should we, in good conscience, tolerate black box technology or chain of custody which may result in the popular vote not being counted? Or even worse, changed?

References:

1. http://uscountvotes.org/
2. http://www.freepress.org/...
3. http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/...
4. http://www.bbvforums.org/...
5. http://www.electionfraudnews.com/...
6. http://www.youtube.com/...
7. http://www.BlackBoxVoting.org/
8. http://www.truthout.org/...
9. http://freepress.org/...
10. http://globalresearch.ca/...
11. http://www.harpers.org/...
12. http://www.projectcensored.org/...
13. http://www.alternet.org/...
14. http://www.iwantmyvote.com/...
15. http://coalition4visibleballots.homestead.com/
16. http://www.solarbus.org/...