G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island," states that the Council of Foreign Relations(CFR) is the "true government" of the United States.
Two questions: "Who" makes up the Council of Foreign Relations? And, "why" would Griffin refer to them as the "true government" of America?
The "who" might be better described as the "who's who." Members include a lot of internationally famous people. Bill and Hillary Clinton, David Rockefeller, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Jimmy Carter, Robert Rubin, Faceed Zhakeria, Angelina Jolie and Madeline Albright are all on the roster. Overall there are about 4500 citizens of the world who hold membership.
The next question amounts to "why" is this significant? Inception of the Federal Reserve is the topic of Griffin's book. It began with a secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia. The goal was to gain control of the world's money supply. The interests represented in that posh resort spawned what later amounted to eight banking cartels. They succeeeded.
For the past 100 years, these "interests" have mastered the art of making money from conflict. Beginning with War World One, they gained huge profits by supplying and outfitting both sides. When they ran out of enemies, they created them. "Monsters" in history such as Hitler and Stalin would never have existed without these cartels.
Which side was "right" and which side was "wrong" was never a question. The only concern was "how much money can be made" from the conflict.
They made money from crisis' as well. The great depression and the 2008 banking meltdown sent huge sums to the cartels.
Which brings us to the looming conflict in today's troubled America. If the policies of the Obama Administration are opposed by so much of the nation, "what if" nullification, the topic of last week's post, came to fruition?
Most say that it wouldn't. Naysayers point out, "secession was decided with the Civil War." But, we're not talking about secession. Nullification originally came up in 1828. There were no banking cartels. There was no Federal Reserve. Few were looking at nullification from the standpoint of "how much money" could be made from it!
This isn't the case today!
It is unlikely that nullification would spawn a second civil war. Americans would not begin shooting at each other over the concept. Fighting for principles and ideologies may sound noble. But today's nation of 315 million is slightly different from the America of 31 million in 1861.
It is highly realistic to assume that a mass population migration would result from nullification. It might start with preference for Obamacare. But Federal laws, not included in the Constitution would be evaluated state-to-state.
Just imagine! Ohio decided to keep Dodd-Frank. Kentucky decided not to. Ohio based banks might respond by moving headquarters to the south side of the the Ohio River. The Buckeye state could keep Dodd-Frank and, as conservatives would predict, "watch banking jobs leave the state." The alternative would be to join Kentucky and nullify it. Right? Proponents of Dodd-Frank would predict the contrary!
Right to Work stands as evidence that conservatives know what they are tolking about. Texas Governor, Rick Perry was accused of "job poaching" by noted conservative, Glenn Beck. But, his appeal to companies seeking a more business friendly landscape has resulted in their moving from heavily unionized states such as California, to Texas.
To implement or nullify Obamacare would have a more far reaching impact! There is no doubt that Americans seeking relief from the law, would flock to those states that nullified it. Conversely, those gaining from Obamacare, would attempt to migrate to states that implemented it.
Relocation is always accompanied by real estate activity. Much is spent on homes, building materials, furniture and, of course, the relocation itself. For banks, this amounts to a need for credit. This translates to money!
But wait! Wouldn't this kind of migration impose hardships on states that conformed to Dodd-Frank and offered Obamacare? According to their supporters, these two Obama initiatives are wonderful. What they can't understand is "why all Americans can't see the light?"
What about the carbon tax? What about alternative energy? What about drilling and energy exploration. What about all of this land owned by the federal government, for that matter?
What about Agenda 21, AKA "Sustainability?" When states begin nullifying federal law, implementing this grand illusion becomes as doable as "putting jelly on the wall with thumb tacks!" So what happened to goal of a "one world government?"
It's still there. Nullification represents a highly profitable detour. In fact, this "detour" could actually be a more effective method of reaching the overall goal.
According to former Idaho Congressmen, Curtis Bowers, the long range globalist objective is to reduce the world's population from seven billion to one billion. This would be accomplished by implementing birth control in developing nations, rationing of healthcare and limiting the world food supplies.
Americans looking for "free stuff" would flock to these more liberal American states. Healthcare, housing, food, transportation and family planning would be available. Then, as supplies became more limited, food stamps would become ration cards, housing would be similar to Stalin era, Soviet apartments, healthcare, including medicine would be rationed or unavailable and children unaffordable.
Without question, nullification would open a barrel of eels! On one hand, the nation would be transformed into the America that our founders envisioned. Conversely, it would create a means of self destruction for part of the country. The surprising factor is that this "true government" of the United States might not have a problem with it.
We always hear the prediction, "they would never let it happen!" But, in this case "they" would make big bucks if it did happen. That is precisely why we cannot dismiss nullification. Over the past 100 years, if there was a loose dollar bill to be had, they were interested.
These globalist banking cartels collectively hold a net worth of roughly 100 trillion dollars. They control artists, polticians and media; literally everything and everyone. The CFR is their front. History has proven repeatedly that "if there is money to be made from anything, whether it be war, crisis or ideology, they're in!
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Nullification- Could it Actually Happen?
There is a segment of America that believes that it could!
Thomas Jefferson believed in it's constitutionality. In a famous 1798 Kentucky case he stated, "Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers...a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy."
Thirty years later, the question of nullification arose in South Carolina. The question was, "could a state nullify a protective tariff?" This was 1828. There was a heated debate, harsh words, threat of war and ultimately, a compromise.
The issue of states rights continued to fester and finally exploded with the firing on Fort Sumter in 1861. A bloody war resulted. More Americans were killed in the four years that followed than in all subsequent wars combined!
Many Americans concluded the issue settled, once and for all. Others never did.
Revisionist historians describe the American Civil War as a war to end slavery in America. True, the Emancipation Proclamation was passed as a war measure in 1863. But the real root of the conflict can be traced to states rights and 10th amendment perception. Almost everyone who supported the Confederacy continued to believe that state law was sovereign to federal law. Much of America maintains this standard even today.
Embedded deep in the Southern psyche is the conviction that the South never really lost; that they were merely starved into submission. Children throughout the old Confederacy were told by their parents and grandparents that the "South would rise again." Economic ruin accompanied by a harsh reconstruction did little to vanquish these wistful aspirations.
One hundred years passed. It was now the 1960's and the forced implementation of Brown versus the Board of Education was in motion. The "second reconstruction" was upon America. This time, however, it went north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Everyone was told that that the measure was "in our best interest." Never mind the fact that an overwhelming majority of all races opposed it! In the end, it weakened educational standards in America, while forcing states to spend money that could have been used for education grants, better pay for teachers and better equipment.
Today Brown versus the Board of Education has been overturned. True, some stubborn school districts,dominated by left wing ideologues continue to resist. The fact remains that nullification could have allowed states to come up with their own plan.
Obamacare is another mistake in the pre-natal stages. Like Brown, those who have supported it so vigorously had good intentions. The problem with Obamacare, like Brown is that both initiatives, are at odds with the original America our framers created.
At first glance, Obamacare and Brown versus the Board of Education would bear little if any resemblance. Brown was a 1954 Supreme Court ruling. Obamacare was partisan legislation that made it through the House and Senate,later signed by the President. The connection comes from the idea that the federal government can impose it's will on individual states, forcing their people or governments to spend their money for a project that they may oppose.
These are examples of "the general government assuming undelegated power" that Jefferson referenced when he proposed "Nullification" as the "rightful remedy."
True, the concept of Nullification goes against the grain of modern American thinking. Proponents are typically pigeonholed as "nut cases, racists, right wing fringe elements" or worse! This is the traditional leftist methodology; "to label those in opposition to their way, out-of-step with the times, imbeciles, racists or morons."
This notwithstanding, there are a lot of Americans, including millions north of the Mason-Dixon line, who think that maybe the South got it right! Perhaps Nullification is the best way to deal with a Federal government grown too large and too intrusive!
Could Nullification actually happen? Don't look now, but it IS happening. We are seeing Nullification legislation in a number of states. Chief Justice, John Roberts was scorned by the right when he wrote the majority opinion upholding Obamacare. But the opinion differed from the original legislation in one key way: The federal government cannot withhold Medicaid funding from states as a punitive measure.
Would Barack Obama stand passively aside and allow Texas, Louisiana, Missouri or Idaho to "opt out" of his signature accomplishment. His markedly definant nature coupled with his confrontational demeanor would suggest not. But that may be the wrong question!
This is not 1861. Nor do we live in the age of innocence. We have television. We have cable. We have the internet. Most Americans in Connecticut won't care if Alabama residents choose not to participate in Obamacare! They certainly are not going to take up arms over such a question!
What about Homeland Security or the Military? Somehow, I don't think so. There is something alien about Americans shooting Americans because they preferred not to participate in a program that has so divided the country. More succinctly, those saying "no" to Obamacare would be exercising their constitutional right. Which brings us to the "eye of the storm!"
The United States Military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the President. If Nullification is indeed legal under the constitution as Jefferson said that it was, then the Military cannot act.
Homeland Security is another question. Is this agency considered bound under the same laws as the Military?
Then there are the individual state militias. Assuming the regular armed forces stayed out of it, and Homeland Security was ordered by the Administration to "engage," would not they be a factor? They could be. But, a more likely scenario would amount to those in Homeland Security choosing resignation over engagement.
There have even been suggestions that Obama might seek help from the United Nations if it ever came to an outright rebellion. I wouldn't bank on it! For two simple reasons: (1) More than half of the nation opposes Obamacare and (2) There simply isn't the will in America to implement Obamacare on dissenting states by force.
Opponents of Nullification would be quick to remind that "it wouldn't end with Obamacare." Soon the states would be behaving like small countries and that would never do! Or would it? The founders were not imbeciles or morons! This nation was founded as a Republic. We are the United States of America, not the United American States! Our very motto, "E Pluribus Unum" could not have made it more clear:
"From the many, one."
Thomas Jefferson believed in it's constitutionality. In a famous 1798 Kentucky case he stated, "Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers...a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy."
Thirty years later, the question of nullification arose in South Carolina. The question was, "could a state nullify a protective tariff?" This was 1828. There was a heated debate, harsh words, threat of war and ultimately, a compromise.
The issue of states rights continued to fester and finally exploded with the firing on Fort Sumter in 1861. A bloody war resulted. More Americans were killed in the four years that followed than in all subsequent wars combined!
Many Americans concluded the issue settled, once and for all. Others never did.
Revisionist historians describe the American Civil War as a war to end slavery in America. True, the Emancipation Proclamation was passed as a war measure in 1863. But the real root of the conflict can be traced to states rights and 10th amendment perception. Almost everyone who supported the Confederacy continued to believe that state law was sovereign to federal law. Much of America maintains this standard even today.
Embedded deep in the Southern psyche is the conviction that the South never really lost; that they were merely starved into submission. Children throughout the old Confederacy were told by their parents and grandparents that the "South would rise again." Economic ruin accompanied by a harsh reconstruction did little to vanquish these wistful aspirations.
One hundred years passed. It was now the 1960's and the forced implementation of Brown versus the Board of Education was in motion. The "second reconstruction" was upon America. This time, however, it went north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Everyone was told that that the measure was "in our best interest." Never mind the fact that an overwhelming majority of all races opposed it! In the end, it weakened educational standards in America, while forcing states to spend money that could have been used for education grants, better pay for teachers and better equipment.
Today Brown versus the Board of Education has been overturned. True, some stubborn school districts,dominated by left wing ideologues continue to resist. The fact remains that nullification could have allowed states to come up with their own plan.
Obamacare is another mistake in the pre-natal stages. Like Brown, those who have supported it so vigorously had good intentions. The problem with Obamacare, like Brown is that both initiatives, are at odds with the original America our framers created.
At first glance, Obamacare and Brown versus the Board of Education would bear little if any resemblance. Brown was a 1954 Supreme Court ruling. Obamacare was partisan legislation that made it through the House and Senate,later signed by the President. The connection comes from the idea that the federal government can impose it's will on individual states, forcing their people or governments to spend their money for a project that they may oppose.
These are examples of "the general government assuming undelegated power" that Jefferson referenced when he proposed "Nullification" as the "rightful remedy."
True, the concept of Nullification goes against the grain of modern American thinking. Proponents are typically pigeonholed as "nut cases, racists, right wing fringe elements" or worse! This is the traditional leftist methodology; "to label those in opposition to their way, out-of-step with the times, imbeciles, racists or morons."
This notwithstanding, there are a lot of Americans, including millions north of the Mason-Dixon line, who think that maybe the South got it right! Perhaps Nullification is the best way to deal with a Federal government grown too large and too intrusive!
Could Nullification actually happen? Don't look now, but it IS happening. We are seeing Nullification legislation in a number of states. Chief Justice, John Roberts was scorned by the right when he wrote the majority opinion upholding Obamacare. But the opinion differed from the original legislation in one key way: The federal government cannot withhold Medicaid funding from states as a punitive measure.
Would Barack Obama stand passively aside and allow Texas, Louisiana, Missouri or Idaho to "opt out" of his signature accomplishment. His markedly definant nature coupled with his confrontational demeanor would suggest not. But that may be the wrong question!
This is not 1861. Nor do we live in the age of innocence. We have television. We have cable. We have the internet. Most Americans in Connecticut won't care if Alabama residents choose not to participate in Obamacare! They certainly are not going to take up arms over such a question!
What about Homeland Security or the Military? Somehow, I don't think so. There is something alien about Americans shooting Americans because they preferred not to participate in a program that has so divided the country. More succinctly, those saying "no" to Obamacare would be exercising their constitutional right. Which brings us to the "eye of the storm!"
The United States Military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the President. If Nullification is indeed legal under the constitution as Jefferson said that it was, then the Military cannot act.
Homeland Security is another question. Is this agency considered bound under the same laws as the Military?
Then there are the individual state militias. Assuming the regular armed forces stayed out of it, and Homeland Security was ordered by the Administration to "engage," would not they be a factor? They could be. But, a more likely scenario would amount to those in Homeland Security choosing resignation over engagement.
There have even been suggestions that Obama might seek help from the United Nations if it ever came to an outright rebellion. I wouldn't bank on it! For two simple reasons: (1) More than half of the nation opposes Obamacare and (2) There simply isn't the will in America to implement Obamacare on dissenting states by force.
Opponents of Nullification would be quick to remind that "it wouldn't end with Obamacare." Soon the states would be behaving like small countries and that would never do! Or would it? The founders were not imbeciles or morons! This nation was founded as a Republic. We are the United States of America, not the United American States! Our very motto, "E Pluribus Unum" could not have made it more clear:
"From the many, one."
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Obama Agenda, Jefferson Principles Diabolically Opposed
Not that this is a huge surprise!
The healthcare debate moves to the next round. It is improbable that Congress will be successful in slowing the train, even though a growing number of Americans are hoping that they might. In this great time of uneasiness, some solace may be found in turning to the wisdom of our founding fathers.
Let's pretend that Thomas Jefferson is currently amoung us. True, Nancy Pelosi wouldn't see the relevance. But a lot of distraught Independents including Millennials would. Jefferson's take on the "Affordable Health Care Act" would be as follows:
"To propel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
No doubt, Pelosi, Chris Mathews, Rachael Maddow and friends would say, "Get over it Tom!"
However, there is much wisdom in Jefferson's statement. For starters, it is never popular to tax unwilling people. Pelosi and friends would counter in reminding all that the bill did pass and was signed into law in 2010. Never mind that the reconciliation process was needed for final Senate passage. It doesn't matter that the Supreme Court later determined it to be a "tax." Who cares if upwards of 70% of the country is now against immediate implementation!
Some of the strongest advocates of Obamacare are Americans paying little or no taxes. Jefferson had a position on this:
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those willing to work and give to those who would not."
Opponents are vocal in the fact that this legislation grows the government to historic levels. In fact, Obamacare will account for "one-sixth" of the overall economy. Much was buried in the 2700 page proposal. In the end, it became understood that the "Affordable Health Care Act," increased the size and scope of government in a manner that amounted to unprecedented intrusion into the lives of Americans. Jefferson's probable opinion on A.F.H.C.?
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." He added, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Naturally Barack Obama anticipated resistance. His solution was to increase the size of the Internal Revenue Service. This accomplished, he could then instruct them to forcefully collect from those unwilling to succumb. Many if not most Americans fear the I.R.S.. The thought of the President using this unpopular branch of government to enforce a tax opposed by the majority of Americans is seen as strangely un-American. Maybe, this is because it it just that: Un-American.
To this, Jefferson's response would have been, "when people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."
The question becomes, "how much will the American people take?" The administration fears, "not much more." As a result, efforts are in motion to disarm America. Jefferson was very clear on this notion:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." His rationale was specific: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government."
A lot of alarmed Americans have seen the signs and are secretly beginning preparation for the long awaited house-to-house rat war survivalists have predicted for decades. While both liberals and moderates may scoff the thought, we must remember that there are roughly 270 million firearms accounted for in America. It is believed that many more may be unaccounted for. They are in the hands of an estimated 30% of the population.
Such apocalyptic references are greeted with disdain, even spite by the milk toast mainstream. But Jefferson may have seen it differently. He concluded, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
In other words, "you might want to dust off your exit visas, Nancy Pelosi!"
The question that arises is "how was Barack Obama re-elected" if his policies are so unpopular and his methodology so suspect? Perhaps is because they were neither unpopular or suspect to certain parts of the country.
The great megapolis of the Northeast has become a bastion of American liberal ideology. Much relates to the spoils system and the amount of American tax dollars that have been funneled their way. The counter argument amounts to "how many tax dollars" in proportion are sent to Washington by Americans living in these states. Jefferson's observation was quite profound:
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
Ironically, the nation's greatest financial interests reside in the Northeast. G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island" recounts the growth of a banking cartel, outside the framework of the U.S. Government that has systematically stolen trillions from the American people. It began in 1910. 108 years earlier, Thomas Jefferson issued a warning that amounted to prophecy:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property- until their children wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered."
The end result has been a multi-trillion dollar deficit that continues to grow with each passing hour. Politicians have talked about solutions. But the end result has been to "kick the proverbial can" down the road. In other words, let future generations deal with the problem. Jefferson's position was very clear on this practice:
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
Including the war that could ultimately engulf America.
Few dare think of this outcome. But don't rule it out. Here's why.
We have a tiny group of international financiers who have gained control of most of the planet's wealth. The have gained advantage in this country largely with the help of non-tax paying Americans. The are literally banking on the rest of America doing nothing.
What about the 30% who control the firearms? Wouldn't the military be more than a match for them? Depends. The military is sworn to defend the Constitution. If it is perceived that the Constitution has been compromised, who knows!
Of course, there would be a much better way. Could not these cartels merely give back what was stolen?
There are currently eight banking cartels headquartered in the Northeast and Europe. Their cumulative net worth exceeds 100 trillion dollars. Nobody knows for certain how they amassed this kind of wealth.
Returning that which was stolen would probably be Jefferson's solution. The common man was always on his radar. History reflects his on going argument with Alexander Hamilton regarding "if" the common man should be trusted with governing latitude.
Perhaps these emerging Millennials may make the final determination. They will be expected to shoulder the burden of an aging population of Social Security recipients. Not to mention a massive debt! Many are shackled by currently unforgivable student loan debt. What happens if they say "nyet" to perpetual thrawl designation?
I sincerely believe that the answer is "not if, but when!" The question may be "how?"
Thomas Jefferson was one of our greatest Presidents. In rediscovering his memoirs, it is easy to conclude that the country is on the wrong track. As times become increasingly grim, reformers will be aided by two factors: (a) A large number of the older Americans who would discourage reform will die out and (b) the left will go too far, insuring a massive counterstroke by the right.
Both are happening as we speak!
Griffin described our currency as "fiat money." As he explained, "we have roughly one-half trillion in gold at Fort Knox. Yet our debt is 17 trillion?" His book described in great detail how our "money" was actually nothing but credit; a promise to be paid. If someone stops paying, the entire house of cards will fall!
The good news is, America has massive wealth under the ground and on top of it. Not to mention the resources and ingenuity of our people. True, the latter has been downplayed in recent times by the Council of Foreign Relations and other globalist entities. But it does remain, a potent force ready to reassume control.
Two things will be necessary. In Thomas Jefferson, we have one of them: a spiritual founder. His insights reflect the wisdom necessary to correct those things that went wrong.
What remains is the need for a contemporary leader. Is there someone out there who can re-introduce America to these Jeffersonian principles? More importantly, do we have a statesman who can restructure the government in a manner that it conforms to them?
The whole world is watching. And waiting.
The healthcare debate moves to the next round. It is improbable that Congress will be successful in slowing the train, even though a growing number of Americans are hoping that they might. In this great time of uneasiness, some solace may be found in turning to the wisdom of our founding fathers.
Let's pretend that Thomas Jefferson is currently amoung us. True, Nancy Pelosi wouldn't see the relevance. But a lot of distraught Independents including Millennials would. Jefferson's take on the "Affordable Health Care Act" would be as follows:
"To propel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
No doubt, Pelosi, Chris Mathews, Rachael Maddow and friends would say, "Get over it Tom!"
However, there is much wisdom in Jefferson's statement. For starters, it is never popular to tax unwilling people. Pelosi and friends would counter in reminding all that the bill did pass and was signed into law in 2010. Never mind that the reconciliation process was needed for final Senate passage. It doesn't matter that the Supreme Court later determined it to be a "tax." Who cares if upwards of 70% of the country is now against immediate implementation!
Some of the strongest advocates of Obamacare are Americans paying little or no taxes. Jefferson had a position on this:
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those willing to work and give to those who would not."
Opponents are vocal in the fact that this legislation grows the government to historic levels. In fact, Obamacare will account for "one-sixth" of the overall economy. Much was buried in the 2700 page proposal. In the end, it became understood that the "Affordable Health Care Act," increased the size and scope of government in a manner that amounted to unprecedented intrusion into the lives of Americans. Jefferson's probable opinion on A.F.H.C.?
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." He added, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Naturally Barack Obama anticipated resistance. His solution was to increase the size of the Internal Revenue Service. This accomplished, he could then instruct them to forcefully collect from those unwilling to succumb. Many if not most Americans fear the I.R.S.. The thought of the President using this unpopular branch of government to enforce a tax opposed by the majority of Americans is seen as strangely un-American. Maybe, this is because it it just that: Un-American.
To this, Jefferson's response would have been, "when people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."
The question becomes, "how much will the American people take?" The administration fears, "not much more." As a result, efforts are in motion to disarm America. Jefferson was very clear on this notion:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." His rationale was specific: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government."
A lot of alarmed Americans have seen the signs and are secretly beginning preparation for the long awaited house-to-house rat war survivalists have predicted for decades. While both liberals and moderates may scoff the thought, we must remember that there are roughly 270 million firearms accounted for in America. It is believed that many more may be unaccounted for. They are in the hands of an estimated 30% of the population.
Such apocalyptic references are greeted with disdain, even spite by the milk toast mainstream. But Jefferson may have seen it differently. He concluded, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
In other words, "you might want to dust off your exit visas, Nancy Pelosi!"
The question that arises is "how was Barack Obama re-elected" if his policies are so unpopular and his methodology so suspect? Perhaps is because they were neither unpopular or suspect to certain parts of the country.
The great megapolis of the Northeast has become a bastion of American liberal ideology. Much relates to the spoils system and the amount of American tax dollars that have been funneled their way. The counter argument amounts to "how many tax dollars" in proportion are sent to Washington by Americans living in these states. Jefferson's observation was quite profound:
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
Ironically, the nation's greatest financial interests reside in the Northeast. G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island" recounts the growth of a banking cartel, outside the framework of the U.S. Government that has systematically stolen trillions from the American people. It began in 1910. 108 years earlier, Thomas Jefferson issued a warning that amounted to prophecy:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property- until their children wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered."
The end result has been a multi-trillion dollar deficit that continues to grow with each passing hour. Politicians have talked about solutions. But the end result has been to "kick the proverbial can" down the road. In other words, let future generations deal with the problem. Jefferson's position was very clear on this practice:
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
Including the war that could ultimately engulf America.
Few dare think of this outcome. But don't rule it out. Here's why.
We have a tiny group of international financiers who have gained control of most of the planet's wealth. The have gained advantage in this country largely with the help of non-tax paying Americans. The are literally banking on the rest of America doing nothing.
What about the 30% who control the firearms? Wouldn't the military be more than a match for them? Depends. The military is sworn to defend the Constitution. If it is perceived that the Constitution has been compromised, who knows!
Of course, there would be a much better way. Could not these cartels merely give back what was stolen?
There are currently eight banking cartels headquartered in the Northeast and Europe. Their cumulative net worth exceeds 100 trillion dollars. Nobody knows for certain how they amassed this kind of wealth.
Returning that which was stolen would probably be Jefferson's solution. The common man was always on his radar. History reflects his on going argument with Alexander Hamilton regarding "if" the common man should be trusted with governing latitude.
Perhaps these emerging Millennials may make the final determination. They will be expected to shoulder the burden of an aging population of Social Security recipients. Not to mention a massive debt! Many are shackled by currently unforgivable student loan debt. What happens if they say "nyet" to perpetual thrawl designation?
I sincerely believe that the answer is "not if, but when!" The question may be "how?"
Thomas Jefferson was one of our greatest Presidents. In rediscovering his memoirs, it is easy to conclude that the country is on the wrong track. As times become increasingly grim, reformers will be aided by two factors: (a) A large number of the older Americans who would discourage reform will die out and (b) the left will go too far, insuring a massive counterstroke by the right.
Both are happening as we speak!
Griffin described our currency as "fiat money." As he explained, "we have roughly one-half trillion in gold at Fort Knox. Yet our debt is 17 trillion?" His book described in great detail how our "money" was actually nothing but credit; a promise to be paid. If someone stops paying, the entire house of cards will fall!
The good news is, America has massive wealth under the ground and on top of it. Not to mention the resources and ingenuity of our people. True, the latter has been downplayed in recent times by the Council of Foreign Relations and other globalist entities. But it does remain, a potent force ready to reassume control.
Two things will be necessary. In Thomas Jefferson, we have one of them: a spiritual founder. His insights reflect the wisdom necessary to correct those things that went wrong.
What remains is the need for a contemporary leader. Is there someone out there who can re-introduce America to these Jeffersonian principles? More importantly, do we have a statesman who can restructure the government in a manner that it conforms to them?
The whole world is watching. And waiting.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Colorado/Washington Pot Laws Prelude for Coming Debate
Early indications suggest that the Department of Justice will take a laissez faire approach to Colorado and Washington's recent Marijuana law changes. The somewhat tentitive wording suggests that it may represent temporary constituent appeasement.
Both Colorado and Washington broke for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Colorado was considered a swing state. Politically, a different verdict would have sent mixed signals. Some recall Alaska in 1980.
At that time, the "Last Frontier" was the only state allowing both recreational use and private cultivation. When the state refused to criminalize the process, they were threatened with funding cuts. Specifically, "make it illegal or lose your highway money." Alaska didn't buck Uncle Sam!
That was then. But this is a different day. Alaska and Oregon now look to be the next states to legalize. From there, who knows? There are two arguments in play. One is moral. The other is ideological.
Some polls indicate that the majority of America favors legalization. But where are these Americans? Could the percentage be different, state-to-state?
Whether legalization is favored or not, the debate offers the perfect opportunity to distinguish conservatives. In short, a true Constitutionalist may be vehemently opposed to legalization. At the same time, he must admit that, in accordance with the 10th amendment, it is the individual state's call! New Conservatives(Neo-Cons) would never bring the 10th amendment into the debate.
The Marijuana question offers a golden opportunity to define conservatism. On one side is the issue itself. On the other side is the principle of states' rights. To many conservatives, "strict construction" is a thorny subject. We have seen it emerge with other issues. Governor Rick Perry and Senator Rick Santorum's reaction to the New York Gay rights legislation heads the list.
Perry would favor a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But, as he proffered, "New York passed a law allowing it and under the 10th amendment, they have that right." Santorum favored other measures short of the amendment process that would have stymied the action.
Does this make Senator Santorum a "Neo-Con?" Probably. He openly favors intervention from Washington, D.C., on an action that is truly within the state's jurisdiction. This is no different than the ultimatum given to Alaska in 1980 by the federal government. An action thwarting Gay marrage or Marijuana legalization would fall under the the definition of "a large, Washington, D.C. based government," their purpose being "to advance and facilite conserative principles."
The Constitutionalist counter is "good, bad, or indifferent, both are state issues," as defined by the constitution. Thomas Jefferson would have thought so!
"E Pluribus Unum" translated is "from the many, one." As an Obama supporter concluded, "it makes it sound like we are a collection of tiny countries." This can't be right! Can it?
Actually, it is! This is what our founders had in mind when they put the nation together. True, there are members on both sides of the aisle who scoff at such a notion. In some cases, utter contempt is the standard.
What is dangerous about this traditional reasoning is that it both contradicts the mantra of "big government knows best," and it is non-partisan. Democrats, Republicans and Independents can find common ground under the 10th amendment's conclusion that "birds of a feather should flock together."
Not convinced? Remember that infamous Tampa, Tea Party sponsored, Republican debate, September 2012? Governor Perry defended a Texas legislative ruling that waived out-of-state tuition for children of illegal aliens. Santorum was joined by Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney in declaring that Texas' action was the incorrect one. Perry reminded the house that, no matter what they thought in Massachusetts, Minnesota or Pennsylvania, it was Texas' business. And, according to the Constitution, it is!
Conservative champion, Glenn Beck has accused Perry of "job poaching." But the Governor retorts, that "each state is meant to be a laboratory." In short, healthly, self sufficient states get better because they are in competition with each other. No longer is the name of the game, "how much can we procure from the D.C coffers?"
Republicans, even more so than Democrats, are threatened by this posture! It amounts to "downsizing and de-emphasizing" Washington. For D.C. influence peddlers, it would represent a mortal wound. Those "big government conservatives," would fear being left high and dry.
Today, the GOP looks to be facing a choice: "redefine their standard of conservatism or go the way of the Whigs!" Both country and party spoke definitively and decisively in 2008 and 2012. Confirmed was that the "Neo-Con" vision was more in step with that of the Democrats.
In essence, the issue isn't as much about Marijuana as it is, "do the states have the right" to make the call? From our founders' point of view, they do!
So there it is; the ultimate threat to our Washington, D.C. establishment. It is relatively easy to understand why any political candidate, especially a candidate for President of the United States, spouting 10th amendment truisms, is considered a threat.
Therefore, if Rick Perry decides to run for President in 2016, he may use that same argument used against Kaye Baily Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Governors race. For those who remember, Hutchinson went down a list of "things that we(in Washington, D.C.) have done for you."
Perry's response: "Those things would be(and should be)better handled from Austin."
Denver and Olympia would agree.
Both Colorado and Washington broke for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Colorado was considered a swing state. Politically, a different verdict would have sent mixed signals. Some recall Alaska in 1980.
At that time, the "Last Frontier" was the only state allowing both recreational use and private cultivation. When the state refused to criminalize the process, they were threatened with funding cuts. Specifically, "make it illegal or lose your highway money." Alaska didn't buck Uncle Sam!
That was then. But this is a different day. Alaska and Oregon now look to be the next states to legalize. From there, who knows? There are two arguments in play. One is moral. The other is ideological.
Some polls indicate that the majority of America favors legalization. But where are these Americans? Could the percentage be different, state-to-state?
Whether legalization is favored or not, the debate offers the perfect opportunity to distinguish conservatives. In short, a true Constitutionalist may be vehemently opposed to legalization. At the same time, he must admit that, in accordance with the 10th amendment, it is the individual state's call! New Conservatives(Neo-Cons) would never bring the 10th amendment into the debate.
The Marijuana question offers a golden opportunity to define conservatism. On one side is the issue itself. On the other side is the principle of states' rights. To many conservatives, "strict construction" is a thorny subject. We have seen it emerge with other issues. Governor Rick Perry and Senator Rick Santorum's reaction to the New York Gay rights legislation heads the list.
Perry would favor a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But, as he proffered, "New York passed a law allowing it and under the 10th amendment, they have that right." Santorum favored other measures short of the amendment process that would have stymied the action.
Does this make Senator Santorum a "Neo-Con?" Probably. He openly favors intervention from Washington, D.C., on an action that is truly within the state's jurisdiction. This is no different than the ultimatum given to Alaska in 1980 by the federal government. An action thwarting Gay marrage or Marijuana legalization would fall under the the definition of "a large, Washington, D.C. based government," their purpose being "to advance and facilite conserative principles."
The Constitutionalist counter is "good, bad, or indifferent, both are state issues," as defined by the constitution. Thomas Jefferson would have thought so!
"E Pluribus Unum" translated is "from the many, one." As an Obama supporter concluded, "it makes it sound like we are a collection of tiny countries." This can't be right! Can it?
Actually, it is! This is what our founders had in mind when they put the nation together. True, there are members on both sides of the aisle who scoff at such a notion. In some cases, utter contempt is the standard.
What is dangerous about this traditional reasoning is that it both contradicts the mantra of "big government knows best," and it is non-partisan. Democrats, Republicans and Independents can find common ground under the 10th amendment's conclusion that "birds of a feather should flock together."
Not convinced? Remember that infamous Tampa, Tea Party sponsored, Republican debate, September 2012? Governor Perry defended a Texas legislative ruling that waived out-of-state tuition for children of illegal aliens. Santorum was joined by Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney in declaring that Texas' action was the incorrect one. Perry reminded the house that, no matter what they thought in Massachusetts, Minnesota or Pennsylvania, it was Texas' business. And, according to the Constitution, it is!
Conservative champion, Glenn Beck has accused Perry of "job poaching." But the Governor retorts, that "each state is meant to be a laboratory." In short, healthly, self sufficient states get better because they are in competition with each other. No longer is the name of the game, "how much can we procure from the D.C coffers?"
Republicans, even more so than Democrats, are threatened by this posture! It amounts to "downsizing and de-emphasizing" Washington. For D.C. influence peddlers, it would represent a mortal wound. Those "big government conservatives," would fear being left high and dry.
Today, the GOP looks to be facing a choice: "redefine their standard of conservatism or go the way of the Whigs!" Both country and party spoke definitively and decisively in 2008 and 2012. Confirmed was that the "Neo-Con" vision was more in step with that of the Democrats.
In essence, the issue isn't as much about Marijuana as it is, "do the states have the right" to make the call? From our founders' point of view, they do!
So there it is; the ultimate threat to our Washington, D.C. establishment. It is relatively easy to understand why any political candidate, especially a candidate for President of the United States, spouting 10th amendment truisms, is considered a threat.
Therefore, if Rick Perry decides to run for President in 2016, he may use that same argument used against Kaye Baily Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Governors race. For those who remember, Hutchinson went down a list of "things that we(in Washington, D.C.) have done for you."
Perry's response: "Those things would be(and should be)better handled from Austin."
Denver and Olympia would agree.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Republicans Hanging on to Dated Legacy
If only Jeb Bush would run for President!
With mid terms approaching, Republicans can only dream of those six Senate seats. There are several combinations that would work. But Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Montana, West Virginia and Alaska look SO winnable. All six states broke for Mitt Romney in 2012. In most cases, the result wasn't close.
Democrats see 2014 as the year where the Repbublicans' last chance(hopefully) comes up short. And it might. If it does, it might be a long time before Republicans are this close to controlling both houses. However, it's no certainty that Dems can split the remainder of the board. 51-47 could easily become 53-45.
With Obamacare now accurately positioned as a "tax," many former advocates may be rethinking the entire legislation. Without question, if Republicans retake the Senate, while holding the House, a floor vote will happen. Then those Democrats still holding to their convictions will be forced to defend their vote for a middle class tax increase.
It is fortunate for the Republican establishment that this "diversion" will take forefront. The party has never been closer to a split. This past election and the all out effort to "cram Mitt Romney down the throats" of the base, will not be forgiven or forgotten. The bases problem amounts to identifying friend and foe.
Imagine a triangle. On one corner, you have the traditional "Dewey Rockefeller Republicans." Sean Hannity accurately identifed John McCain as a leader of this faction. He is joined by Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mike Castle, Lincoln Chaffee(now an independent), Lowell Weicker, Dede Scazafava, William Weld and what remains of those originally labeled "liberal Republicans." Today, they are commonly referred to as R.I.N.O.s(Republicans in name only).
Actually R.I.N.O.s of today were pretty much the norm fifty years ago. They didn't change their positions. The party gradually drifted away from them. I can recall Paul Tsongas, a Democrat who referred to himself as a "pro-business liberal." He was considered by most Democrats as "more in tune with Republican" standards. And, from a pure fiscal point of view, he was.
The second end of the triangle is reserved for the "New Conservatives." Many might have been in the "Dewey Rockefeller" camp in 1958.(George H.W. Bush is one who comes to mind) Others came from (not surprisingly) Democrat roots. During the 1950's, many Democrats who took exception to federal intervention on such items as the court ordered busing, school prayer and abortion. They were not to the point where they wanted to discard the overall plan. But, they sought to draw a line. Their support for a strong military gained them much coveted status as "conservatives."
Were they actually conservatives? In their eyes, they were. However, their ideas of conservatism were not that far removed from the Dewey Rockefellers. Nor, did it conflict with the New Deal concept of the "central government managing" the economy. Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul described these new conservatives as "Neo-Cons." According to Paul, they advocate a "large, Washington D.C. based central government to advance and facilitate conservative principles."
The "dogmatics" occupy the triangle's apex. These Republicans seek a "full repeal of Roe versus Wade," advocate a constitutional amendment that would "define marriage as a union between a man and a woman," and to "deport all residents holding no legal status."
"Neo Cons" have successfully connected with this third group by taking a "pro life" stance on abortion. They have also indicated their "anti-gay marriage" preference. In doing so, they have strategically out manuevered the "Dewey
Rockefellers," effectively taking control of the party.
The question is "what percentage" of the true Republican base is represented by all three groups collectively? Surprisingly, it may be less than half. Some say it may be less than one-fourth, more like 20%! If that's the case, who actually composes the base?
During the past 30 years an interesting phenomenon has unfolded. The South, traditionally referred to as the "solid south" switched from reliably Democrat to solid Republican. It actually began in 1964 and continued into the seventies. Jimmy Carter temporarily slowed the defection in 1976. But the reprieve proved to be "fools gold." Carter may have been a Southerner. But his ideology was more consistent with his running mate, Walter Mondale. Southerners eventually figured this out and dumped him in 1980.
Ronald Reagan won the hearts and minds of Southerners with his promise to "reduce the size and cost of government." Out of nowhere emerged a new standard. True, the former California governor lacked the typical Republican pedigree. But his programs were not at odds with party pursuits. A standard had been established. And with it an alternative to the idea of a consolidation of power in Washington, D.C..
So there is lies! True, Appomattox is 148 years in the rear view mirror. But the spirit of states rights(Reagan called it federalism)lives. As a result, a "constititionalist" finds open and accepting ears to their argument that the "founders got it right."
Somewhere between the three corners of the triangle the "meat" of the party has emerged. They are made up of "Reagan Democrats," those who switched parties in the eighties, "10thers," who seek a literal interpretation of the 10th amendment, fiscal conservatives and Libertarians. Because they are a "hodge podge" of interests and viewpoints, they have been slow to assume their rightful place as "party chiefs and captains." However, one leader, one election could change that.
Democrats actually fear this result more than the Republican Establishment. These Republicans do not represent the Harvard or Yale crowd. In fact, most aren't wealthy. This is middle class America manifested. There is much common ground with traditional Democrats, namely JFK Dems. There are likewise countless commonalities with voters who refer to themselves as "Independents." It points to a "Ronald Reagan type" general election result.
Neo-Cons are hoping that Jeb Bush will ultimately throw his hat into the ring. While general election victory will not be assured, a lightly contested primary will be. The GOP status quot will continue. More conservative judicial appointments would be expected. Some sort of a national healthcare compromise would be reached. The military would be maintained. Big business would breathe a little easier.
Democrats know that Bush's nomination will make for a difficult, yet winnable general election. Florida will likely be off the board. John Kasich's selection as running mate could create an "electoral math problem." A Mexican first lady would be something new. But the message and the Republican image would remain largely intact.
The problem stems from "what if Jeb elects not to run?" All indications thus far point in that direction. If he ultimately decides to stay out, the race will be wide open like never before. And, that could ultimately result in a take over by the base.
It took a few years to figure it out. But, smarter minds have prevailed. The present Republican leadership is feeble at best. Money can always be found. And a new direction, complete with dynamic new leadership, stressing traditional American principles can lead to a new American experiment.
With mid terms approaching, Republicans can only dream of those six Senate seats. There are several combinations that would work. But Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Montana, West Virginia and Alaska look SO winnable. All six states broke for Mitt Romney in 2012. In most cases, the result wasn't close.
Democrats see 2014 as the year where the Repbublicans' last chance(hopefully) comes up short. And it might. If it does, it might be a long time before Republicans are this close to controlling both houses. However, it's no certainty that Dems can split the remainder of the board. 51-47 could easily become 53-45.
With Obamacare now accurately positioned as a "tax," many former advocates may be rethinking the entire legislation. Without question, if Republicans retake the Senate, while holding the House, a floor vote will happen. Then those Democrats still holding to their convictions will be forced to defend their vote for a middle class tax increase.
It is fortunate for the Republican establishment that this "diversion" will take forefront. The party has never been closer to a split. This past election and the all out effort to "cram Mitt Romney down the throats" of the base, will not be forgiven or forgotten. The bases problem amounts to identifying friend and foe.
Imagine a triangle. On one corner, you have the traditional "Dewey Rockefeller Republicans." Sean Hannity accurately identifed John McCain as a leader of this faction. He is joined by Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mike Castle, Lincoln Chaffee(now an independent), Lowell Weicker, Dede Scazafava, William Weld and what remains of those originally labeled "liberal Republicans." Today, they are commonly referred to as R.I.N.O.s(Republicans in name only).
Actually R.I.N.O.s of today were pretty much the norm fifty years ago. They didn't change their positions. The party gradually drifted away from them. I can recall Paul Tsongas, a Democrat who referred to himself as a "pro-business liberal." He was considered by most Democrats as "more in tune with Republican" standards. And, from a pure fiscal point of view, he was.
The second end of the triangle is reserved for the "New Conservatives." Many might have been in the "Dewey Rockefeller" camp in 1958.(George H.W. Bush is one who comes to mind) Others came from (not surprisingly) Democrat roots. During the 1950's, many Democrats who took exception to federal intervention on such items as the court ordered busing, school prayer and abortion. They were not to the point where they wanted to discard the overall plan. But, they sought to draw a line. Their support for a strong military gained them much coveted status as "conservatives."
Were they actually conservatives? In their eyes, they were. However, their ideas of conservatism were not that far removed from the Dewey Rockefellers. Nor, did it conflict with the New Deal concept of the "central government managing" the economy. Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul described these new conservatives as "Neo-Cons." According to Paul, they advocate a "large, Washington D.C. based central government to advance and facilitate conservative principles."
The "dogmatics" occupy the triangle's apex. These Republicans seek a "full repeal of Roe versus Wade," advocate a constitutional amendment that would "define marriage as a union between a man and a woman," and to "deport all residents holding no legal status."
"Neo Cons" have successfully connected with this third group by taking a "pro life" stance on abortion. They have also indicated their "anti-gay marriage" preference. In doing so, they have strategically out manuevered the "Dewey
Rockefellers," effectively taking control of the party.
The question is "what percentage" of the true Republican base is represented by all three groups collectively? Surprisingly, it may be less than half. Some say it may be less than one-fourth, more like 20%! If that's the case, who actually composes the base?
During the past 30 years an interesting phenomenon has unfolded. The South, traditionally referred to as the "solid south" switched from reliably Democrat to solid Republican. It actually began in 1964 and continued into the seventies. Jimmy Carter temporarily slowed the defection in 1976. But the reprieve proved to be "fools gold." Carter may have been a Southerner. But his ideology was more consistent with his running mate, Walter Mondale. Southerners eventually figured this out and dumped him in 1980.
Ronald Reagan won the hearts and minds of Southerners with his promise to "reduce the size and cost of government." Out of nowhere emerged a new standard. True, the former California governor lacked the typical Republican pedigree. But his programs were not at odds with party pursuits. A standard had been established. And with it an alternative to the idea of a consolidation of power in Washington, D.C..
So there is lies! True, Appomattox is 148 years in the rear view mirror. But the spirit of states rights(Reagan called it federalism)lives. As a result, a "constititionalist" finds open and accepting ears to their argument that the "founders got it right."
Somewhere between the three corners of the triangle the "meat" of the party has emerged. They are made up of "Reagan Democrats," those who switched parties in the eighties, "10thers," who seek a literal interpretation of the 10th amendment, fiscal conservatives and Libertarians. Because they are a "hodge podge" of interests and viewpoints, they have been slow to assume their rightful place as "party chiefs and captains." However, one leader, one election could change that.
Democrats actually fear this result more than the Republican Establishment. These Republicans do not represent the Harvard or Yale crowd. In fact, most aren't wealthy. This is middle class America manifested. There is much common ground with traditional Democrats, namely JFK Dems. There are likewise countless commonalities with voters who refer to themselves as "Independents." It points to a "Ronald Reagan type" general election result.
Neo-Cons are hoping that Jeb Bush will ultimately throw his hat into the ring. While general election victory will not be assured, a lightly contested primary will be. The GOP status quot will continue. More conservative judicial appointments would be expected. Some sort of a national healthcare compromise would be reached. The military would be maintained. Big business would breathe a little easier.
Democrats know that Bush's nomination will make for a difficult, yet winnable general election. Florida will likely be off the board. John Kasich's selection as running mate could create an "electoral math problem." A Mexican first lady would be something new. But the message and the Republican image would remain largely intact.
The problem stems from "what if Jeb elects not to run?" All indications thus far point in that direction. If he ultimately decides to stay out, the race will be wide open like never before. And, that could ultimately result in a take over by the base.
It took a few years to figure it out. But, smarter minds have prevailed. The present Republican leadership is feeble at best. Money can always be found. And a new direction, complete with dynamic new leadership, stressing traditional American principles can lead to a new American experiment.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
New Round Approaching; Have Republicans Learned Their Lesson?
We can all see it coming!
The shock of losing the 2012 presidential election has worn off for Republicans. Even those heated blame game, post election writings, are mostly a memory. The party is eying the 2014 midterms with vigor.
Obamacare is as large a specter as ever. Dodd-Frank looms as the juggernaut aimed at destroying the financial sector. The other side continues to not get the point that high corporate taxes encourage companies to ship jobs overseas.
What are we missing? Could it be trust? And if so, why?
Cynicism is rampant in America. Republican. Democrat. Independent. As one former CIA operative put it, "it's like a university with a red team and blue team." They are "opponents." But actually, "opposite extremes of the same ingredient."
One disgusted Republican, who referred to himself as a "constitutionalist" described the Washington establishment as "Republicrats and Democans." As he reminded, they posture, then meet behind closed doors and ultimately proclaim that they have "reached a consensus."
When reviewing the pedigree of today's political leaders, it is quickly noted that they generally belong to the same club. It is Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and that infamous creed of Ivy elites. You might call them, "America's ruling class."
Almost sounds like "nobility," doesn't it? I thought that we had left that distinction behind in England, France, Germany or wherever our ancestors came from! Obviously, I was mistaken!
True, you can hail from a university outside the league. But the idea of term limits is something that has been positioned as a guaranteed way of your "non-league" representitive compromising influence. Especially when dealing with the ever growing federal bureaucracy.
In a previous post, we differentiated "New Conservative(Neo-Con) and "Constititionalist Conservatives." We showed the historic ties between the Neo-Cons and the current Democrat leadership. We even attempted to explain how both had impacted the churches.
The Neo-Con methodology mandates a close association(and preferably control) of the central bureaucracy. Because the Constitutionalists seek a more literal 10th amendment application, the bureaucracy is seen as something to downsize, as opposed to manipulate.
History isn't always kind! A suggested link to Leon Trotsky would outrage Republican Establishment types. So would the suggestion that the Democrat leadership is three generations removed from the Frankfort school. Yet, the end result speaks for itself.
Middle America is fuming. We are watching our country gradually melt away. The jobs that have returned have been generally "part time for less money." The cost of healthcare isn't decreasing. College tuition, except in the state of Texas, is skyrocketing out of sight. At every turn we are seeing more government. There is growing concern about a vast erosion of our privacy.
Yes, Americans are slightly cynical! And, for good reason! The question that looms is quite simple: "Can we resume trust in those same "Repubicrats and Democans to work something out, finding a "consensus?" Do we have any real choice?"
Maybe. But we must again consult history. Who was arguably the most effective president over the past fifty years and why?" If you answered Ronald Reagan, we're in agreement. Obviously most Democrats would say Bill Clinton. Some might say John F. Kennedy. For that reason, we will point out a commonality that all three shared.
Reagan, Clinton and Kennedy were "supply siders." They all believed in a market based economy. Barack Obama, the Bushes, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon were Keynesians. They believed that you could spend your way out of a recession. This notation is worth careful study.
John Maynard Keynesian, the famous British economist heavily influenced Franklin D. Roosevelt. Much of Roosevelt's New Deal has the Keynesian stamp. Historians conclude that Keynesian was influenced by Marxist theory.
Clinton, unlike both Reagan and Kennedy did not cut taxes. In fact,under his watch, the American people endured one of the largest tax increases in history. We also witnessed the beginning of the largest wealth transfer ever. This continued through the Bush years and remains in motion as Obama begins his second term.
Somehow, this sounds inconsistent! At least inconsistent with what candidates were supposed to stand for. Or, perhaps the country has simply grown so large and so complicated that a president is naught but a figurehead! At least one group thinks so.
"The Republic" is a grassroots organization that emphatically proclaims that America is neither Republican or Democrat. In fact, they describe the United States as "a corporation." Worse still, we are no longer run by people within our borders. It's truly a "global thing."
Sounds a big "lugubrious," to say the least!
For those not yet on board with "the Republic," another theory beacons. In 1910 a group of high level bankers secretly met at Jekyll Island, Georgia. The topic: "Big banks declining market share." The solution: "The Federal Reserve."
If you have read, "G. Edward Griffin's book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," you noted that these banking interests were largely from the Northeastern U.S. and Western Europe. Through the backdoor tax of inflation, the American people were unknowingly coaxed into paying for World World War one, the Bolshevik revolution, the saving and replenishing of England's 1920's social welfare system, the Great Depression, World War two, the Cold War, Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the banking meltdown.
Inflation was their tool. Case in point: Look how much a dollar bought in 1910. Look how much it buys today! Meanwhile, these same cartels' collective net work has topped 100 trillion dollars! Nobody knows for certain exactly how they accumulated it. But some of us have an idea...
Which brings us full circle as to where we are today. We have a middle class that is shinking with every passing hour. We have a growing number of Americans in poverty. And, we have a tiny enclave of fortunates who are getting more wealthy by the minute. It is eerily reminiscent of Matt Damon's recent box office smash, "Elysium."
America needs a champion. More specificially it needs Ronald Reagan. Or, better yet, two Ronald Reagans.
While Kennedy was part of the club, he was a statesman. Clinton aspired to be part of the club. Where he swooned was after his admission to it. Unlike Kennedy and Reagan, the former Arkansas Governor never faced down the Soviet Union. He served in post Cold War America. His deficit reduction was a fruit of it!
A large number of Americans feel that only a social awakening can alter the decline. A point can be made to encourage life with the same intensity as termination. Yet, the issue maintains the perception of being "hot," or in Karl Rove's words, "toxic."
By the same token another formally "toxic" term may not be as toxic as in times past. The ability of individual states becoming more self sufficient is becoming a talking point. The term "Fedealism"(used to describe Reagan's agenda) is giving way to "individual laboratories" where states are encouraged to "invent" and practice "entrepreneurship."
Naturally, this goes against the grain of the "Neo-Cons." Not to mention, contemporary Democrats. After all, this thinking is polar opposite to their vision of a large, Washington, D.C. based central government, making decisions for us that are, naturally, in our best interest!
Republicans have a choice. If they find "Elysium" sexy, they should embrace a nominee like the last one. For those who think that "going left is safe," remember 2008. Both candidates were "Neo-Cons," by the way.
Conversely, a return to Federalism could be the true path to prosperity. Still, to embrace the 10th amendment is frightening. Our people have been conditioned to see big government as a security blanket. There must be tangibles that accompany change.
There must also be a certain amount of sensitivity exhibited by proponents. The other side will use scare tactics. What makes it even more difficult is opponents to Federalism sit on both sides of the aisle.
Constitutional conservatives can introduce new dialog, long considered "taboo" by Neo-Cons. Discussions about a "wealth transfer" aren't generally initiated by Republicans. Neither is a "Catastropic health insurance pool." Ditto for restrictions on offshore outsourcing and how to they could be "implemented in conjunction with a "cut" in corporate taxes.
A proclamation of "America first" hasn't been heard in recent times. In fact, the current President spent his first year making apologies to our European friends, on our behalf. Strangely enough, however, you haven't heard him apologize to the American people for the number of jobs that have been shipped abroad.
A Constitutional conservative can deride Fortune 500 companies. They can even link them to the same globalist banking cartels who systematically stole trillions from the American people. By merely recounting the policies and philosophies of our founding fathers, Constitutionalists can make the case for a grand exit from the United Nations and Isolationism.
Neo-Cons shiver at the very thought! But, the mood in America is troubled, positively restive! More Americans are feeling that they have been poorly served by their leadership. It won't be difficult to kindle the kind of fire that could really transform Amerioa.
All that is needed is another Ronald Reagan. Preferably two of them.
The shock of losing the 2012 presidential election has worn off for Republicans. Even those heated blame game, post election writings, are mostly a memory. The party is eying the 2014 midterms with vigor.
Obamacare is as large a specter as ever. Dodd-Frank looms as the juggernaut aimed at destroying the financial sector. The other side continues to not get the point that high corporate taxes encourage companies to ship jobs overseas.
What are we missing? Could it be trust? And if so, why?
Cynicism is rampant in America. Republican. Democrat. Independent. As one former CIA operative put it, "it's like a university with a red team and blue team." They are "opponents." But actually, "opposite extremes of the same ingredient."
One disgusted Republican, who referred to himself as a "constitutionalist" described the Washington establishment as "Republicrats and Democans." As he reminded, they posture, then meet behind closed doors and ultimately proclaim that they have "reached a consensus."
When reviewing the pedigree of today's political leaders, it is quickly noted that they generally belong to the same club. It is Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and that infamous creed of Ivy elites. You might call them, "America's ruling class."
Almost sounds like "nobility," doesn't it? I thought that we had left that distinction behind in England, France, Germany or wherever our ancestors came from! Obviously, I was mistaken!
True, you can hail from a university outside the league. But the idea of term limits is something that has been positioned as a guaranteed way of your "non-league" representitive compromising influence. Especially when dealing with the ever growing federal bureaucracy.
In a previous post, we differentiated "New Conservative(Neo-Con) and "Constititionalist Conservatives." We showed the historic ties between the Neo-Cons and the current Democrat leadership. We even attempted to explain how both had impacted the churches.
The Neo-Con methodology mandates a close association(and preferably control) of the central bureaucracy. Because the Constitutionalists seek a more literal 10th amendment application, the bureaucracy is seen as something to downsize, as opposed to manipulate.
History isn't always kind! A suggested link to Leon Trotsky would outrage Republican Establishment types. So would the suggestion that the Democrat leadership is three generations removed from the Frankfort school. Yet, the end result speaks for itself.
Middle America is fuming. We are watching our country gradually melt away. The jobs that have returned have been generally "part time for less money." The cost of healthcare isn't decreasing. College tuition, except in the state of Texas, is skyrocketing out of sight. At every turn we are seeing more government. There is growing concern about a vast erosion of our privacy.
Yes, Americans are slightly cynical! And, for good reason! The question that looms is quite simple: "Can we resume trust in those same "Repubicrats and Democans to work something out, finding a "consensus?" Do we have any real choice?"
Maybe. But we must again consult history. Who was arguably the most effective president over the past fifty years and why?" If you answered Ronald Reagan, we're in agreement. Obviously most Democrats would say Bill Clinton. Some might say John F. Kennedy. For that reason, we will point out a commonality that all three shared.
Reagan, Clinton and Kennedy were "supply siders." They all believed in a market based economy. Barack Obama, the Bushes, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon were Keynesians. They believed that you could spend your way out of a recession. This notation is worth careful study.
John Maynard Keynesian, the famous British economist heavily influenced Franklin D. Roosevelt. Much of Roosevelt's New Deal has the Keynesian stamp. Historians conclude that Keynesian was influenced by Marxist theory.
Clinton, unlike both Reagan and Kennedy did not cut taxes. In fact,under his watch, the American people endured one of the largest tax increases in history. We also witnessed the beginning of the largest wealth transfer ever. This continued through the Bush years and remains in motion as Obama begins his second term.
Somehow, this sounds inconsistent! At least inconsistent with what candidates were supposed to stand for. Or, perhaps the country has simply grown so large and so complicated that a president is naught but a figurehead! At least one group thinks so.
"The Republic" is a grassroots organization that emphatically proclaims that America is neither Republican or Democrat. In fact, they describe the United States as "a corporation." Worse still, we are no longer run by people within our borders. It's truly a "global thing."
Sounds a big "lugubrious," to say the least!
For those not yet on board with "the Republic," another theory beacons. In 1910 a group of high level bankers secretly met at Jekyll Island, Georgia. The topic: "Big banks declining market share." The solution: "The Federal Reserve."
If you have read, "G. Edward Griffin's book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," you noted that these banking interests were largely from the Northeastern U.S. and Western Europe. Through the backdoor tax of inflation, the American people were unknowingly coaxed into paying for World World War one, the Bolshevik revolution, the saving and replenishing of England's 1920's social welfare system, the Great Depression, World War two, the Cold War, Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the banking meltdown.
Inflation was their tool. Case in point: Look how much a dollar bought in 1910. Look how much it buys today! Meanwhile, these same cartels' collective net work has topped 100 trillion dollars! Nobody knows for certain exactly how they accumulated it. But some of us have an idea...
Which brings us full circle as to where we are today. We have a middle class that is shinking with every passing hour. We have a growing number of Americans in poverty. And, we have a tiny enclave of fortunates who are getting more wealthy by the minute. It is eerily reminiscent of Matt Damon's recent box office smash, "Elysium."
America needs a champion. More specificially it needs Ronald Reagan. Or, better yet, two Ronald Reagans.
While Kennedy was part of the club, he was a statesman. Clinton aspired to be part of the club. Where he swooned was after his admission to it. Unlike Kennedy and Reagan, the former Arkansas Governor never faced down the Soviet Union. He served in post Cold War America. His deficit reduction was a fruit of it!
A large number of Americans feel that only a social awakening can alter the decline. A point can be made to encourage life with the same intensity as termination. Yet, the issue maintains the perception of being "hot," or in Karl Rove's words, "toxic."
By the same token another formally "toxic" term may not be as toxic as in times past. The ability of individual states becoming more self sufficient is becoming a talking point. The term "Fedealism"(used to describe Reagan's agenda) is giving way to "individual laboratories" where states are encouraged to "invent" and practice "entrepreneurship."
Naturally, this goes against the grain of the "Neo-Cons." Not to mention, contemporary Democrats. After all, this thinking is polar opposite to their vision of a large, Washington, D.C. based central government, making decisions for us that are, naturally, in our best interest!
Republicans have a choice. If they find "Elysium" sexy, they should embrace a nominee like the last one. For those who think that "going left is safe," remember 2008. Both candidates were "Neo-Cons," by the way.
Conversely, a return to Federalism could be the true path to prosperity. Still, to embrace the 10th amendment is frightening. Our people have been conditioned to see big government as a security blanket. There must be tangibles that accompany change.
There must also be a certain amount of sensitivity exhibited by proponents. The other side will use scare tactics. What makes it even more difficult is opponents to Federalism sit on both sides of the aisle.
Constitutional conservatives can introduce new dialog, long considered "taboo" by Neo-Cons. Discussions about a "wealth transfer" aren't generally initiated by Republicans. Neither is a "Catastropic health insurance pool." Ditto for restrictions on offshore outsourcing and how to they could be "implemented in conjunction with a "cut" in corporate taxes.
A proclamation of "America first" hasn't been heard in recent times. In fact, the current President spent his first year making apologies to our European friends, on our behalf. Strangely enough, however, you haven't heard him apologize to the American people for the number of jobs that have been shipped abroad.
A Constitutional conservative can deride Fortune 500 companies. They can even link them to the same globalist banking cartels who systematically stole trillions from the American people. By merely recounting the policies and philosophies of our founding fathers, Constitutionalists can make the case for a grand exit from the United Nations and Isolationism.
Neo-Cons shiver at the very thought! But, the mood in America is troubled, positively restive! More Americans are feeling that they have been poorly served by their leadership. It won't be difficult to kindle the kind of fire that could really transform Amerioa.
All that is needed is another Ronald Reagan. Preferably two of them.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Blinded by the Name
To most Democrats, the Clinton name is magical.
"Fifty somethings" revert to the promise of 1995 when the gentle breezes of bi-partisanship begin to envelope Washington D.C. They remember the soft, amiable plea of "working together for a common cause." This rare flicker of reason made the case that both sides had good arguments. Yes, Bill Clinton was a master; at getting the mainstream to simply like him.
Reviews are still mixed concerning his overall success. To Democrats, he was the right mix of ideological principle and practical wisdom. Republicans point out that his success came as a result of a Congress and Senate not controlled by his party. All agree on one point: Bill Clinton was more pragmatist than ideologue.
It stands to reason that his "wife," Hillary would attract those still remembering Bill's magic. What is often overlooked is the simple fact that Hillary is not Bill. In fact, if one forgets her eight year stint in the White House as first lady, judging her strickly on her own merit, the clouds begin to gather. The question becomes, "would Hillary truly be the best option for America?"
A few vaguely remember "Hillary care." This was the debacle of 1993, when Democrats attempted to ram national health care down the throats of America. The end result was decisive 1994 losses in the House and Senate, resulting in loss of control in both chambers.
Hillary's subsequent relocation to New York City and Senate run made poltical sense. But, when reviewing her accomplishments at that post, you must dig!
The 2008 Presidential nomination appeared to be hers. During that January primary, I recall working as a Miami precinct captain. Both Republicans and Democrats concluded that she was in, predicting that Barack Obama would be her running mate. Republicans only question was "who" could defeat her in the general election. The notion that "an experienced moderate would stand the best chance" lead to the selection of John McCain.
Barack Obama is evidence that "credentials" mean little in a Presidential election. Hillary's lackluster term as a New York Senator was followed by a close Presidential primary loss. Toss in a stormy, if not suspect stint as Secretary of State and the "stretch" to locate success continues.
In essence, this woman has had every advantage, every benefit of the doubt. She has been embraced by a partisan media. She has been the recipient of a bottomless pool of funding. And, if the truth be confronted, she has accomplished very little in every position of leadership that she has held.
How could this happen? Are Americans blind? Is party affiliation and the promise of boonies so great in our society that we can simply overlook impotence?
Evidently so. We must remember, Hillary Clinton is your consummate globalist. Like Bill, she is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. She favors one world government. She believes in Agenda 21, AKA "sustainability." She is a dedicated disciple of Saul Alinsky.
Poppycock! Nobody believes in any of that stuff! Right?
The majority of America simply can't see this. For starters, it is too deep. Secondly, it is outrageous. It is what conspiracy theories are made of. When anyone of any standing in media begins to laud these accusations, they are quickly dismissed from the limelight.
Americans want peace and security. Any departure threatens most of the nation. True, certain parts of America are more self reliant. But, as a nation, we see government as a "backstop" to catastrope. Most of the country would opt for less freedoms in favor of more guarantees.
What about Americans who don't hold to these convictions? They do exist. And where they dominate, overall prosperity dominates with them. Look at Texas!
During the past five years Texas has created "one of every two" new, full time jobs in America. Companies are flocking to the Lone Star state. True, many are taking advantage of targeted tax incentives to relocate. But, this is the tip of the iceberg! When comparing the entire package, ranging from education to the environment, not to mention the economy, it's all about a more workable system.
Rick Perry has been Governor since 2000. To be sure, his strict, fiscal standards have drawn criticism. His naysayers continue to remind the country of the number of Texans not having health insurance. But the comeback is always the same: "We built a stronger state because we let people keep more of their money."
Can anyone visualize a 2016 Perry-Hillary face-off? Some are beginning to pencil it in.
If there was every a Presidential election that pitted an achiever/accompisher versus a non-achiever/non- accomplisher, it would be this one. Hillary supporters would be outraged with this comparison! But, the truth is what it is. It would be the "New York Yankees versus the Chicago Cubs!"
Rick Perry has a long list of accomplishments, running the second largest state in the Union. Texas has an economy that is 30% larger than Austrailia's. It is an extremely diverse state, sharing 1200 miles of border with a foreign country. Issues such as immigration and defense require actual response, not rhetoric in Texas. He has confronted both successfully, hampered only by Washington, D.C. restrictions.
If it sounds too logical, it is! Perry has critics from both the right and the left. Republicans are split. Smart money suggests that Perry would never get out of the early primaries. His biggest challenge would be to stay alive during the early two "blue state" races. The Governer learned that even his own party members don't want to talk about his Texas report card.
Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are hopelessly divided.
Imagine a triangle. The Bill Kristol "Neo-Cons" are on one end of the triangle, the New England, "R.I.N.O.'s" on the second end of the triangle and the "Dogmatics" on the third end! Perry is neither! True, his contingency represents more than half of the party (Some believe it may be as high as 80%). Doesn't matter! The first two groups control the party machinery. The third group is ready to bolt the party!
Could things possibly look more promising for Hillary? Who cares if her career report card reflects a "C minus!"
"Fifty somethings" revert to the promise of 1995 when the gentle breezes of bi-partisanship begin to envelope Washington D.C. They remember the soft, amiable plea of "working together for a common cause." This rare flicker of reason made the case that both sides had good arguments. Yes, Bill Clinton was a master; at getting the mainstream to simply like him.
Reviews are still mixed concerning his overall success. To Democrats, he was the right mix of ideological principle and practical wisdom. Republicans point out that his success came as a result of a Congress and Senate not controlled by his party. All agree on one point: Bill Clinton was more pragmatist than ideologue.
It stands to reason that his "wife," Hillary would attract those still remembering Bill's magic. What is often overlooked is the simple fact that Hillary is not Bill. In fact, if one forgets her eight year stint in the White House as first lady, judging her strickly on her own merit, the clouds begin to gather. The question becomes, "would Hillary truly be the best option for America?"
A few vaguely remember "Hillary care." This was the debacle of 1993, when Democrats attempted to ram national health care down the throats of America. The end result was decisive 1994 losses in the House and Senate, resulting in loss of control in both chambers.
Hillary's subsequent relocation to New York City and Senate run made poltical sense. But, when reviewing her accomplishments at that post, you must dig!
The 2008 Presidential nomination appeared to be hers. During that January primary, I recall working as a Miami precinct captain. Both Republicans and Democrats concluded that she was in, predicting that Barack Obama would be her running mate. Republicans only question was "who" could defeat her in the general election. The notion that "an experienced moderate would stand the best chance" lead to the selection of John McCain.
Barack Obama is evidence that "credentials" mean little in a Presidential election. Hillary's lackluster term as a New York Senator was followed by a close Presidential primary loss. Toss in a stormy, if not suspect stint as Secretary of State and the "stretch" to locate success continues.
In essence, this woman has had every advantage, every benefit of the doubt. She has been embraced by a partisan media. She has been the recipient of a bottomless pool of funding. And, if the truth be confronted, she has accomplished very little in every position of leadership that she has held.
How could this happen? Are Americans blind? Is party affiliation and the promise of boonies so great in our society that we can simply overlook impotence?
Evidently so. We must remember, Hillary Clinton is your consummate globalist. Like Bill, she is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. She favors one world government. She believes in Agenda 21, AKA "sustainability." She is a dedicated disciple of Saul Alinsky.
Poppycock! Nobody believes in any of that stuff! Right?
The majority of America simply can't see this. For starters, it is too deep. Secondly, it is outrageous. It is what conspiracy theories are made of. When anyone of any standing in media begins to laud these accusations, they are quickly dismissed from the limelight.
Americans want peace and security. Any departure threatens most of the nation. True, certain parts of America are more self reliant. But, as a nation, we see government as a "backstop" to catastrope. Most of the country would opt for less freedoms in favor of more guarantees.
What about Americans who don't hold to these convictions? They do exist. And where they dominate, overall prosperity dominates with them. Look at Texas!
During the past five years Texas has created "one of every two" new, full time jobs in America. Companies are flocking to the Lone Star state. True, many are taking advantage of targeted tax incentives to relocate. But, this is the tip of the iceberg! When comparing the entire package, ranging from education to the environment, not to mention the economy, it's all about a more workable system.
Rick Perry has been Governor since 2000. To be sure, his strict, fiscal standards have drawn criticism. His naysayers continue to remind the country of the number of Texans not having health insurance. But the comeback is always the same: "We built a stronger state because we let people keep more of their money."
Can anyone visualize a 2016 Perry-Hillary face-off? Some are beginning to pencil it in.
If there was every a Presidential election that pitted an achiever/accompisher versus a non-achiever/non- accomplisher, it would be this one. Hillary supporters would be outraged with this comparison! But, the truth is what it is. It would be the "New York Yankees versus the Chicago Cubs!"
Rick Perry has a long list of accomplishments, running the second largest state in the Union. Texas has an economy that is 30% larger than Austrailia's. It is an extremely diverse state, sharing 1200 miles of border with a foreign country. Issues such as immigration and defense require actual response, not rhetoric in Texas. He has confronted both successfully, hampered only by Washington, D.C. restrictions.
If it sounds too logical, it is! Perry has critics from both the right and the left. Republicans are split. Smart money suggests that Perry would never get out of the early primaries. His biggest challenge would be to stay alive during the early two "blue state" races. The Governer learned that even his own party members don't want to talk about his Texas report card.
Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are hopelessly divided.
Imagine a triangle. The Bill Kristol "Neo-Cons" are on one end of the triangle, the New England, "R.I.N.O.'s" on the second end of the triangle and the "Dogmatics" on the third end! Perry is neither! True, his contingency represents more than half of the party (Some believe it may be as high as 80%). Doesn't matter! The first two groups control the party machinery. The third group is ready to bolt the party!
Could things possibly look more promising for Hillary? Who cares if her career report card reflects a "C minus!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)