Monday, February 16, 2009

The Great American Swindle

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies.....
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency...The banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered”

Thomas Jefferson
1743 – 1826

“If you want to remain slaves of the bankers and pay for the costs of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control the nation’s credit”
Sir Josiah Stamp

The federal bank is not part of our government but a private corporation. It prints and loans money to the government with interest.

Example: The Federal Bank loans the government $100 with 10% interest. With the government only having $100, where does it find the $10 interest to pay back to the Federal Bank. Well it borrows it, with more interest. The perpetual cycle in short means that our government, you and me, will forever be in debt.

When the Federal Reserve pumps money into the system with loans and credit we all feel rich and take out loans and spend. But when the Federal Reserve decides to call in their loans, they create panic resulting in a financial crisis. What we fail to understand is that these actions are a planned manipulation to undermine society and enforce policies that are draconian and destroy our society. All perpetrated by the banks.

These treacherous acts have a history.
1953 -54
2007 – present.

And all caused by ‘monetary policies’ by the FED.

The power to regulate the money supply - is also the power to regulate its value – which is also the power to bring entire economies and societies to its knees.

“Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Founder of Rothschild Banking Dynasty.

It all began when an underground number of bankers decided that a central bank was needed and in 1910 a secret meeting was held to create The Federal Reserve Act. This legislation was written by bankers not lawmakers and was forced by heavy banking sponsorship, aka lobbying, aka bribes, to become law. This was done 2 days before Christmas in 1913 when the majority of congressmen were home with their families. Although Woodrow Wilson, President at the time, signed this legislation, he realized a short time later the damage this legislation would do to America.

“Our great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men...who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations,
chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.

We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No government by free opinion.
No longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men”
Woodrow Wilson.

Banks began to flood the markets with money and then called in these loans prior to the 1920 crash. It became evident to many that the bankers were able to manipulate in their favor the state of the economy.

Charles Lindberg wrote in1921:
“Under the Federal Reserve Act, panics are scientifically created. The present panic is the first scientifically created on, worked out as we figure a mathematical equation”

Again from 1921 – 1929, The Fed increased loans yet again including a bizarre product called the Margin Loan, this enabled investors to purchase large percentages of stocks with ‘marginal’ investments. (Does this ring any bells to our latest financial crises, with the incomprehensible derivates?)

In October of 1929, the banking systems called in its loans. Utter destruction occurred with over 167,000 banks collapsing. The major players then began a spending spree buying up distressed banks. This is again happening right now using the government bailout known as TARP, Troubled Assets Relief Program. This was intentionally supposed to help thaw out the credit crunch. However the bailout money is being used to increase the inventory of the major banks by purchasing the distressed banks. Auctions are also being held across the country, in many cases on the steps of State Courts, of properties once owned by our fellow citizens, now homeless, by banks with funds from the bailout.

Louis McFadden who wrote back in the 20’s;

“A world banking system has been set up here. A superstate controlled by international bankers, acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.
The Fed has usurped the government”

Later Louis McFadden was mysteriously poisoned in 1929 when he began impeachment proceedings against members of the Federal Reserve Board. The impeachment never saw the light of day.

One of the biggest earners for the banking system is war. The government needs more money, the Federal Reserve prints more money, and more interest is earned.

JD Rockefeller earned $200 million in 1919 off of the First World War. In today’s money that’s 2.7 billion.
The war cost the government $30 billion dollars mostly borrowed from the Fed with huge interest.

In fact there is much documentation that World War I, II and Vietnam were part of the bankers plan to make huge profits. All they needed was an event to turn the public opinion in favor. World War I, the sinking of the passenger ship The Lusitania. World War II, Pearl Harbor, where many have gone on record that Japan was provoked for months by policies enacted by President Roosevelt. And Vietnam, the lie that North Vietnamese PT boats attacked two American destroyers known as the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

We now fight two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the reason 9/11.

And what are We The People doing about this great American swindle. Nothing.

Shouldn’t we be doing something?

Thursday, May 22, 2008

John McCain, the Sacrificial Lamb.

Don’t for one minute think that the Republicans have anything but an alternate motive behind John McCain being the nominee for the Presidential election. A man that has been scoffed at, ridiculed, and only months ago was trailing dismally in the nominee race. And that from his own party. So how can we explain his astonishing revival?

Simple. John McCain will be the Republican’s Sacrificial Lamb.

Deep within the Republican Party ranks, those who pull the power strings have come to the conclusion that it’s better for the next president to be a Democrat.

Think about it.

The last 8 years have seen the USA fall to dismally low levels of efficiency and respect around the world. This has had a significant negative result on America’s well being throughout the world, as both business partner and defender of the peace. The failures are incredible and we’ve only just begun to experience the consequences. We are about to endure some very dark days. The Bush administration’s reckless policies are catching up with us fast. Whoever takes over at the helm will have at least 4 years of hell trying to put things right again.

If the Republican’s win this presidential election in November, they will stand alone as the party responsible for these awful times. History will show 12 dismal years under a Republican president. With this record, the Republicans would by ostracized by the American people for years to come.

So what better solution for the Republicans than to back a lame nominee who has very little chance of winning, and let the Democrats enter the white house. That way in 4 years the Republicans will have a much better chance of getting back into power as all focus will have been shifted on to the Democrats. This way the Democrats will share part of this piece of infamous history even though it all originated from the George W. Bush era.

Imagine too the Conservative jubilation to see not only the failings of a Democratic president, (due to Bush’s mistakes) but with the added bonus that it will be either a black or female president who falls. All of Karl Rove’s Christmases at once.

After all politics is about transferring the blame, not solving the problems.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Human Race v Individual Race............

With the EU allowing cell phones to be used on airplanes, and Virgin Atlantic announcing you can now blow dry your hair while sitting in your seat, a thought occurred to me. When these new marketing tools and policies were being thought of, didn’t anyone consider the inconvenience, annoyance and nerve this would be on the rest of us.

Of course not. With present day evidence that we, the human race, can sit by and watch countries destroy countries, allow starvation to run rampant and do nothing, and watch man commit genocide against fellow man and not be fazed, why would we be perturbed about someone talking non stop nonsense loudly in our ears as we are stuck in our seat.

Well we would.
When it comes to me, I and mine, we’ll turn the world upside down to get our own way. And heaven help us if we are told NO! We become this crazed animal. Ask Naomi Campbell.

So how are the airline companies going to deal with this new threat at 37, 000 feet?

Traveling by air has become more frustrating and difficult as the years go by. (It defies logic). I’ve seen fights before the plane has even taken off. When one traveler discovered his overhead compartment had been filled by another’s luggage before he even took his seat. Out came the invading piece from the commandeered space, and thus up jumped the invading luggage’s owner. Before you knew it, a good old school yard fight was in hand. It was fake Louis Vuitton vs. Samsonite. Where is Don King when you need him?

What will happen when tired, cramped, and fed up hearing your neighbor yelling in his cell phone about nothing for the past 2 hours, a hair dryer suddenly pops out.

How unmoved and apathetic will you be then?

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Review

Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, the need for an independent judiciary separate from legislative and executive branches. This was wise thinking. However the turning point came with the case of Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution mentions no use of Judicial Review to strike down laws although the doctrine has been inferred from that document. However over the last few decades and especially during the 2000 presidential elections, there seems to be a political agenda orchestrated by the Supreme Court in favor of a certain ideology. Therefore the question lies, “is the power of Judicial Review antidemocratic?

The people do not elect the Supreme Court’s Judges, but a small group the people have elected do, the President and Congress. This does not automatically make the Supreme Court actions democratic. As we have seen in recent times, ideology and politics play a huge role in decision-making. The 2000 presidential elections were concluded with a Supreme Court ruling that undermined the very core of democracy. The people’s votes were overturned by an interpretation of law. The people would be far better served of many court rulings through a referendum. Such hot topics as Abortion and Gay rights should not be left to an ideologically driven few, but to the people. Especially when the term for a Supreme Court judge is lifetime, which can lead opinions to be outdated. This process can even be viewed as a form of dictatorship, where the peoples view is ignored for the opinion of a few.

Regarding the question whether “courts being granted more power than the other branches”, is a difficult answer to make. Once the judges are elected, it can be argued that yes the courts do have more power. However a case is decided at a lower level, it can be carried over through appeal, ending up in the Supreme Court. Depending on the leanings of the judges, the ruling can go against both legislative and executive branch decisions. It can be many years before the opportunity arises for a change of ‘bench philosophy’, and then this will be influenced by the leanings of the executive and legislative branches.

Ultimately the courts need to arbitrate fairly and without bias. If this is seen as compromised, the public’s confidence will diminish. In our new era of instant information, public opinion is a force to be reckoned with. An unprecedented movement evolved after the 2000 presidential debacle, which was only subdued due to the tragic events of 9/11. The political African American groups who felt disenfranchised during the 2000 elections led this. It’s clear that the eyes of the people are focused on the Supreme Court and its rulings. The courts therefore cannot be complacent and must rule separate and independent of the other braches of U.S. government.

Of course there is the idea of constitutional amendment to correct the growing power of the courts. But are we free enough ideologically today to really conduct this change without adverse affect. With the political system we have today which has evolved so much since the framers created the constitution, the results of a new amendment could be equally dangerous as good. Dare we take the chance or should we learn to realign what we already have and know.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

The Media and Voter Education

The information each voter needs prior to entering the polling booth could be split into two distinctions. The first should be issues that the voter feels affects his or her life directly. Of the nominees, the question should be asked, who is going to provide the voter something that will increase the quality of life for that individual? Whether the issue is more money in the pocket, better health coverage or stronger education for his or her children. The second, on a larger scale, is where is this candidate going to lead my country and my family’s future. Short and long term strategies.

The question is, who is going to provide this information. Ideally a good candidate in touch with the citizens should understand common issues that affect the voting public. It should be fairly easy for a nominee to appeal to the voters portraying these intentions. With the vast supporting staff that nominees maintain, including professional PR people, if their homework has been carried out correctly, the candidate’s agenda should be easy to publicize. Of course using the media as a platform will be essential.

In saying that, media attention seems more interested in publicizing other issues today. As our Presidential race heats up, the media appears focused more on who is winning in the donation race, how each nominee needs to get ‘down and dirty’ to gain percentages, and any scandal that can be found in the candidates closet. John Edward has some interesting ideas yet these are overshadowed by the news of an expensive haircut, as with Giuliani and his cross dressing, or Romney and his religious beliefs. Of course the nominee campaign advisors play and influential role too. Karl Rove destroyed a war veteran in John Kerry by using slander to undermine his credibility, to name only one of Rove’s many victims.

Political candidates play into this absurdity too. Always trying to portray an image suggested by a campaign advisor. One of the oldest tricks was to kiss a baby, which fortunately seems to have faded recently. However a candidate must appeal to all members of society and therefore needs to invoke an image somehow to each and every one of us. At every given chance there is a photo op or media event. As each ‘circus’ roles into town the local media is given front row seats, and the major news outlets have reporters actually traveling with the nominees for that instant breaking smile. The season of debates is upon us although I do feel that nobody since Kennedy has triumphed well in these spectacles.

What would do this incredible political phenomenon justice would be to stop all of the ‘Hollywood’ style coverage and to really sit down with candidates and let them know what the people need. CNN have tried something on these lines with their ‘YouTube’ questioning. However the stage has not been conducive to real politics for this to be a true success. As per the article by Dave Iverson and Tom Rosenthal, if issues are personal based, the public attention can be captured. What is needed now is to capture the candidate too. The media can play an important role in creating this, but they do need to mediate without the showmanship.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Theories of American Democracy

Two theories offered by C. Wright Mills, Elite Theory, and Robert Dahl, Plurist Theory, both play a role in America’s Political System. There is a huge void between direct decision making and those made through people power. Many of today’s observers whisper these findings, yet due to economical factors are not loud in their objections such as the news media. They play the game.

I believe also that Hyperpluralism plays somewhat of a lesser role but nevertheless is important in the scheme of things. I believe that today’s government is designed in two levels. The first, the ‘upper’ level is that of the Elite power. The second, ‘lower’ level is to appease the people by making them feel, embrace and boast of a ‘democratic’ system. This is where the Pluralists and the Hyper-Pluralists play out their roles.

The Elite power is the fundamental workings of all governments around the world. Each government however uses both Pluralism and Hyper-pluralism to different degrees. Money is power is money. Therefore corporations must seek the help of politicians to ‘bend’ the rules and empower business. In turn the corporations help finance the politician’s aims of gaining power through election. It’s a cycle. If justification needs to be legitimized, then the military is brought on board. As Mills states, “The Interlocking Directorate”

I very much believe in Mill’s point of view regarding the Elite power. When the popular consensus was against the war in Iraq, it was the three controlling powers that ‘overruled’ the desire of the people. The military hungry for war partnered with the administration, the main architect. Companies like Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, the Corporate and third partner, stood to make huge amounts of money. The Elite power was alive and at work.

Mills rejects the conspiratorial and planning explanation. Unlike Mills, I do believe that the Elite power has a written agenda. I believe that there are forecasters at work who dictate how affairs should be managed in years to come. It’s been well documented that the Neo-Conservatives in the mid 90’s had planned the events that are taking place today.

In a book titled 'DC Confidential' by Christopher Meyer, the British Ambassador to the USA from 1997 – 2003, he talks of a visit to Bohemian Grove, an institution that dates back to 19th century. This is an exclusive club where members are carefully selected. The members are made up of the most powerful and famous men in America. Politicians, captains of industry, and even Hollywood notables are members. On Mr. Meyer’s visit, Henry Kissinger gave a breakfast lecture. President Bush Senior, and James Baker, Bush’s Secretary of State flanked him. The theme of Kissinger’s lecture was Iraq and that pre-emptive strikes could be justified.

Maybe where they are not so good at planning is evident in many of the unpredicted outcomes. This has a lot to do with their limited vision due to ideology and religion.

I believe also that it’s in the Elite power’s agenda to ‘dumb’ down the population. I think this has been proved by the difference in demonstrations regarding the Vietnam and Iraqi wars. The apathy of the population has increased ten fold since the late 60’s early 70’s to now. I believe a great deal is down to the starving education budget, which inevitably cuts back on important subjects like Civics and Politics to the mass at an early age. ‘Ignorance is bliss’ could quite easily be the Elite’s mantra.

However on a more grass roots level, Dahl’s theory is true too. There will always be the inquisitive mind. A minority that feels the injustice of the Elite power. As Dahl points out, these people will gravitate to fellow disenchanted people. These people are often the result of economic inequality. Especially in today’s 24/7 constant news story’s, they are able to compare their fortunes with the upper echelon. Feeling cheated, betrayed or exploited they will engage with their local politician for change. Alas the politician believing he is on the verge of becoming an Elite power ‘member’ thinks what’s best for him and his career rather than what is best for his fellow man. Of course the Pluralist system is a much-needed tool for the Elite to control the mass.

An example of this is how the Republican Party uses the Christian based right. The last election was won on the basis of two agendas. Abortion rights versus pro-life and, Gay marriage issues. While the pluralists were busy debating and formulating a collective voting strategy, the real issue, the Iraqi war and its failings, was completely ignored. Karl Rove, George Bush’s senior political advisor, has a reputation of averting attention from real agendas to emotional hot topics for electoral gains.

Hyper-Pluralism is also a much-needed instrument used by the Elite power. This is an ideal place for disguised agendas. A place where the desires of the people, but not those of the Elite, are cycled continuously until attention is either waned or completely lost.

For instance, Polly Diven states in 'A Coincidence of Interests': The Hyperpluralism of US Food Aid Policy, “Building on the “policy Subsystem” food policy selection is a function of its ability to satisfy multiple, coincidental interests”. Diven goes on to say that “The humanitarian rhetoric of food aid is used to improve the political standing of the program both at home and overseas” yet, “as the theory of hyperpluralism predicts, the multiple interests and complex objectives of food aid ultimately undermine its ability to meet domestic agriculture, foreign policy, and humanitarian goals”.

Another area greatly awarded by hyperpluralism is the Universal Health Care debate. Politicians all agree that it’s a travesty that so many Americans do not have health insurance and coverage. It’s a subject that in the public forum makes great viewing on how caring the electoral candidates ‘feels’ our need. Yet none of the great players, Health Insurance Companies, Professional Doctors, Pharmaceutical Companies, want to give up their piece of the pie. Therefore the agenda will forever spin in circles without ever producing an outcome or solution. As for the politicians, they are so heavily funded via contributions from these financial powerhouses, that it remains best to talk about it but not upset or ruffle any feathers. In other words it pays lip service but yields nothing.

As a matter of interest I have read that only a communist system can truly be void of hyperpluralism.
My conclusion is that the three theories do exist and are interwoven in the fabric of American Politics. They are tools that are used to enable power to carry out its agenda and appease the people under a guise of Democracy.

American Political Party Direction - Dealignment

The Decline of the Political Party is without doubt a phenomenon that sits on the near horizon of America’s political system. For decades before today, our social environment asserted its influence on our politics. Party machines held our backs against a wall in regard to our allegiance to parties, and depending on our social status, we were ‘expected’ to follow suit. Voting and supporting a certain party was almost a religion where we could not oppose or beg to differ in our immediate surroundings. Through this Political Parties were an essential part of the system. However the 20th Century awoke with the Progressive reformers who laid the seeds for the decline of the Political Party. With the introduction of TV media, grass roots major party activism is no longer as crucial. Candidates can now by pass the ‘grapevine’ of communication and inform the voters directly reaching the multitudes instantly. Therefore this has made a large section of the Political Parties activities near redundant.

With this new dawn comes a generation of independent voters who unlike before do not need to be part of a party in order to be influenced of a candidates proposals and pledges. As this new breed of voters are not limited by party affiliations and loyalties, they are free to vote more pragmatically, what they feel serves their purpose better. These new practical voters choose by what makes the most sense, as Anis Shivani states, “when voters don’t see the political system able to handle large problems they vote conservatively”. They are freer to choose what they feel are the best candidate policies to handle a problem not necessarily addressed by a relative party.
Studies have shown that voters are willing to vote for a Presidential candidate who is from a different party than a nominee he or she would support in a Congressional race. As reported in the Retro-Politics, Political Typology, November 11, 1999, under the heading, Congressional Test Ballot, “Democrats are much more firmly united behind their party in Congress than they are behind Al Gore”, (Democratic Presidential Candidate). Therefore confirming there is no automatic affiliation anymore when it comes to voter’s actions.

Voters are more likely to choose a personality than a party if this person addresses their concerns. And candidate individualism is a result of not having to depend on a political party once his or her political career has been launched. It’s a catch 22 in its infancy. As more money is pumped into the political system, less is required of a large political organization. Political evolution will set a new format.

What does this tell us? When it comes to the two branches of government, (Executive) President and Congress, the voters, of a more pragmatic nature today, will vote for an individual not guaranteeing any party victory total. This results in Dealignment. If this trend continues, other than a national catastrophe or war, which brings the voters together to support government and congress, Dealignment will be here for some time to come.