Monday, January 28, 2013

comment: "government theft at the point of a gun"

comment reply:
You mean taxes?
I don't consider tax to be theft.
Therefore your overblown rhetoric strikes me as being completely irrelevant.


MY RESPONSE (to Mike Norman Economics Blog)

I don't think this response was to me, although Blogger thinks it was.

I also do not consider taxes to be theft, ESPECIALLY since Fed Govt *CREATES* Dollars in the first place.  Govt spending is a Tax Credit that must be created first, before taxes can be collected.

If Govt was collecting taxes in real goods like chickens or bushels of grain, that would not be true, but Govt collects taxes in Govt currency .... a currency which is a service that facilitates and speeds commerce.


FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH (this is long, no one is forcing anyone to read it, LOL) ....


Money creation --- yes, a centralized power, for better and worse --- could be seen as a curse/blessing.  But mostly a blessing for making commerce easy, easier than raw barter.  There are drawbacks to the centralization that goes along with modern civilization, but most people appreciate the benefits too, and would be lost or very upset if those many benefits were removed, unless replaced by something truly better.



An Austrian econ friend was complaining about "the loss of purchasing power of the Dollar over 100 years", then stated his calculation how everyone would be a billionaire if that "stealing" via "inflation" had not occurred, based only on interest payments on his/our savings.

Even before I discovered MMT, I recognized that this interest income would not exist, nor the quantity of surplus money that he thinks he would have saved, were it not for fiat currency.  Savers could command higher interest with "hard" or "sound" money --- that's the meaning of that term, sound money = scarce money that is more profitable for bankers to save and lend --- but hardly anyone would have any.  "All things being equal" ... things wouldn't be equal to today.


I do believe that Adam Smith was correct, that taxes on mere WAGES from WORK are immoral.  Smith approved of taxes on most profits vs salaries/wages.

I now understand that Progressive economists circa 1800s intended to refine Smith even more on taxation, by focusing tax policy RENT-seekers or RENT-gainers, in contrast to considering all business profits to be "rents", as Marxians would (roughly).  Ergo, abolish corporate or business tax, determine what constitutes "rents" and institute taxation on that, only.

In this way, a small/productive corporation would not be stuck paying the same or higher taxes than a larger or rent-gaining one.

MMT's point on Taxation is that for currency to maintain value via demand, SOMEONE must be forced to pay taxes in that currency. If US taxes were collected in Euros instead, the US Dollar would not stick around.  If taxes were not collected at all, or collected in real goods, the currency would lose value.


The fiat US Dollar can and should be seen as a SERVICE to overall commerce.  "Hard" money eliminates this "service", hurts commerce, favors savers and hoarders, i.e. bankers.

In a similar sense of eliminating the "money" service, libertarians would abolish govts from supplying clean drinking water and handling sewage, privatizing that, and abolish govt regulations.  This was tried in Argentina (Enron) and Bolivia (Bechtel), and also in Kentucky and elsewhere (AIG).  This was a DISASTER, especially for the ubiquitous poor who could not afford the new monopoly pricing rates, could not afford to drink water.  Bechtel, at least, got a contract such that it OWNED property rights to RAIN that falls from the sky, so residents collecting rain off their roofs (out of desperation) were guilty of stealing company property.  Riots ensued.

Bechtel finally quit, but not without forcing Govt (taxpayers) to pay them huge sums for breach of contract.  This is Libertopia in reality.

The main difference in PURE Libertopia is that instead of Govt sending out the army to crush protests and rebellions by force, Corporations would hire private armies to enforce their property rights and crush rebellions, without any "democratic" mitigation.  Rothbard or Mises revealed the nature of these plans with the explanation that privatizing streets and sidewalks would eliminate mass public protests, because events like that would be "trespassing", subject to arrest/violence.  Elimination of public protest by eliminating the public and the commons.  In such a situation, any degree of FORCE by owners against a protesting public would be justified as a response to initiation of force by the "mob".  Like NYC cops vs OCCUPY, but with less restraint.  Whose freedom?  Freedom for the Owners.  Even Madison did not bluntly state THAT degree of contempt for "mob rule", as much as Rothbard did, though this was implemented against protesters and strikers since the beginning.

In essence, and this is not too hidden, Mises/Rothbard WOULD have Governments or Government-like functions, to protect property owners, and protect the Corporatocracy ---- I saw severe inconsistency on declaring the invalidity of private property when that arises out of mixing private enterprise with govt power.


Kevin Carson made these arguments ---- as a pro-market ANTI-Capitalist Mutualist/Anarchist ---- but most Libertarians like Bob Roddis utterly HATE Carson's arguments, despite being usually logically-consistent with Rothbard's radical Lockean logic, but favoring radical working class self-rule and resistance to corporate control.

For example, Carson pointed to routine Libertarian contempt for Labor Unions and some of their "unsavory" tactics short of outright violence, etc., by pointing out that Walter Block wrote a book justifying blackmail and other similar crimes as legitimate commercial transactions.


The living situation in Libertopia would be *similar* to what we see now, with plenty of force still wielded by power elites to "maintain order", and some fraud would continue since "property rights" are determined subjectively in some cases.  The big change would be the elimination of ANY sense of democratic or egalitarian counter-force through "civil society" institutions.

This trends back to the olden days of Pinkertons, Wackenhut, Ludlow massacre, Matewan, etc. before "Liberalism" started meddling with the rights of owners to deal with and dispose of people as they wished.  Remember, Matewan arose because Sheriff Hatfield and the Mayor refused to enforce the demands of the mine owners without a legal eviction order by a judge, so they hired private "detectives" instead.

Big capitalists wanted Govt to do the dirty work for them, or assist them, under the aegis of "Rule of Law".  They were happy to have Govt bring out the Army to enforce order, enforce property rights with machine guns, but were also fine with arranging that under their own initiative --- the only limitation was when mass public outrage appeared in NYC or Cleveland, and that was a major PR problem.


J.P. Morgan and friends went to great lengths to fight diluting gold --- creating "funny money" --- by efforts to make it legal to pay debts in more plentiful silver, the very POPULIST struggle, w support from W.J. Bryan.  Banksters would have *never* supported ultra SOFT currency we have now, unless the proposals were at least somewhat rigged to grant advantages to the elite comparable to the Gold monopoly.


I've seen Rothbard a/o Rothbardians argue for Gold Standard and/or Gold Bullion (flakes or leaf?)

But in the hypothetical absence of Govt, that means Banks must issue 100% Gold-backed currency (we would have to trust banks to not issue more loans than capital base, meaning that some sort of Govt -- privatized "Govt" corporations -- would have to inspect and enforce that rule.

Other than that hypothetical 100% backing of currency by metal, the issuance of legal "money" per se would be abolished.  Trade would resume in unpriced Gold Bullion (we would still have to trust weight & fineness) and every transaction would need to depend on checking spot prices of metal, or haggling about same.  This is supposed to be an improvement?  In isolated ideology, only.

This hypothetical scenario would result in VERY HARD "money" --- hard to get any --- it would REDUCE the velocity of commerce, and it would be a major hassle for people to deal with.   People currently deal with store Gift Cards, even though they are technically losing money on the balance by lending money to the store sans interest.

Anarcho-Capitalists going insane about "inflation" usually don't grasp how DEflation is far more disruptive than INflation, especially considering Debt Overhang.  Instead of losing a bit of value on financial assets over time, MANY people were losing entire farms and businesses in the late 1800s for being unable to meet terms of debt repayment in the ubiquitous Depressions and money shocks.  This was an ongoing series of crises, arguably created by private banksters for nefarious reasons .... or simply systemic shortcomings.

Today, despite Soft currency, we are seeing the same situation as the pre-Fed and Gold Std "money shocks" because of insane "hard money" advocates in Congress and Economics (Pete Peterson helped abolish gold/FOREX with Nixon) who -- for no sound reason since we now know better our SHOULD know -- are fiercel fighting against using the power of Govt to restore the real economy.

Lysander Spooner explained, in language I had difficulty grasping today, that ONLY worthless fiat nominal-value money is moral and honest, because hard-linking a money value to a quantity of metal --- by fiat orders of Govt -- is a form of fraud or fiction.  Roddis seems to agree.

Hence, we're stuck with this trade-off.  We could favor PURE anarcho-capitalist money --- i.e. barter at spot prices on everything --- hyper Neoliberalism (read Paul Treanor on that insanity of pushing "markets" to extreme conclusions) --- with the result being that commercial flows aka velocity of money gets slow and sludgy, or we could favor the extreme opposite end of neoliberalism we have now, where $4 Trillion flows around the planet daily and controls against fraud are removed from financial markets (see Matt Taibbi article), with M->M profits on money chasing minor spreads in interest and exchange rates, OR we could point out these grotesque inequities and propose more balanced and democratic solutions and compromise.

I understand why Libertarian/Austrians have been called Marxists on the Right, for their common rigidity and clinging to Ideology without any relation to empirical reality, like a "religion".  Whereas Marx claimed that Scientific Socialism was only valid if it changed and adapted to reality as it emerged and became revealed, Miseans actually REJECT empiricism outright, preferring pure unchecked APRIORI assumptions.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Payroll Tax Cuts and a bigger picture

Mark Kirk on C-SPAN re: Payroll Tax Cuts (and more)
Jonathan Allen, Politico
Lisa Mascaro, LA Times
Sen. Mark Kirk

Today on C-Span, you all discussed Social Security.  However the Washington reporters, not being financially astute, missed the opportunity to raise several issues and challenge Sen. Kirk.  (The main reason this is lengthy is the great quantity of "common wisdom" that must be debunked with what is actually a very simple explanation of our monetary system.)

For example, defining FICA tax payments as Tax Collections vs. SS Contributions.  This is not some new political talking point from Obama.  It was *called* contributions by FDR, but it's still a process of govt subtracting money from everyone's paychecks. 

And where does this electronic money go?  There is no piggy bank.  There is no lock box.  The "trust fund" is an accounting formality.  Social Security is not kept isolated.  Not only are the electronic funds allocated to purchase electronic Treasury Bonds --- some account shuffling --- but for decades now these payroll deductions have been seized upon in propaganda politics as more Federal Tax Revenue, to claim that the annual Budget Deficit is lower.  So the SS "Trust Fund" is already completely intermingled with the Federal Budget -- and it must purchase either T-bonds (not volatile stocks, thank goodness).  Yet it's bogus to claim this as "deficit reduction", and even worse to then turn around and claim that Federal spending is unable to replenish whatever was taken.

Therefore, Social Security in fact *IS* a welfare fund, Mark Kirk --- welfare for military contractors and for other lavish handouts for the Super Rich.

FICA payroll tax was increased dramatically under Reagan already, and ahead of the time it was allegedly needed to be increased.  And this increase was NOT needed, except by politics and American ideology that says that SS must be covered by paycheck deductions.  

Adam Smith believed that taxes should fall on the rich and those who live on investment income.  Even during the great "robber baron" era, Andrew Mellon as USTreas Secy believed that paychecks should not be taxed.  Mellon's income tax was on the top 2% only.  No one below that level even had to file.  This was both a moral argument (Smith's "Moral Sentiments") about limited economic security of people who live on their own labor, and a macro-economic argument about how taxes reduce vital demand-consumption by the working class.  More on that below.


Paul Craig Roberts is a Reagan Republican who was the key architect of Reaganomics aka Supply-Side.   Not only he persona non grata with the GOP these days, grassroots conservatives have attacked him as a "communist" and accused him of being a "traitor", accused him of being one who "hates America", and told him to "move to Cuba".  This is the typical slop of "liberal-bashing", but they didn't realize who they were talking at.   Yet Roberts' economic theories and understanding have not changed.  Conditions have changed since 1980.  (Why is it necessary to explain this point?)

once promoted reductions in high-end taxes to push up development and expansion, to meet high demand, and thereby to reduce inflation --- to meet the conditions of 1980 and to engage comparative advantage with China. (Roberts says it's now all "wage arbitrage" and no advantage to America or to Americans.) Reagan's policies also included some Keynesianism -- Military Keynesianism -- ramped up spending, but only on Defense.  Reagan policies harmed other domestic growth, harmed manufacturing.  What growth occurred was via cheap Greenspan credit bubbles -- unsustainable in the long-term. 

And speaking of Keynesian "stimulus", Keynes did call for cutting spending vs taxation (a.k.a. running a govt surplus) as part of his overall theory.  That was supposed to be implemented whenever the economy is overheating, when approaching full employment for everyone who wants a job and full manufacturing capacity. 

Are we there now?  Obviously, we are at the far opposite end.  This is why Roberts and a fellow Reaganomics guru Bruce Bartlett both promote increased Keynesian domestic spending now.  Of course this must be a "gimmick", as Kirk calls Obama's lightweight stimulus.  Of course this cannot be intended to be a "permanent" policy formula.  It's intended to be flexible to changing conditions --- not an ideological set of beliefs about good vs evil.

Related to Keynes' "anti-stimulus": Keynes' vision applied to monetary policy might also call for reductions in the supply of easy credit a.k.a. raise the cost of credit, such as during an over-heated Bubble.  Clinton and Bush era policies should have included the "Keynesian" slow-down of that Asset Bubble in mortgages and new building. 

That's more a Greenspan issue than Congressional spending, of course, but it is now clear that the entire Elite gang and neoliberal economists were totally committed inflating asset bubbles no matter how disruptive the Crash would be.  They attacked Brooksley Born and others who raised the alarm early.

As far as Social Security, Paul Craig Roberts quoted figures on a huge PAST SURPLUS of several Trillion dollars, and a huge FUTURE SURPLUS of over 30 Trillion dollars, from the CBOs own stats.

Sen. Mark Kirk and his like-minded colleagues should not get away with manipulating these discussions with this particular "austerity" rhetoric
-- nonsense.  Neither should Obama or his "advisors" be granted that luxury.  If Kirk frames his case to his constituents that FICA reduction "threatens" Social Security, of course his constituents are going to call for "keeping" Soc Security taxes high.  But this threat arises from this ideological argument that revenue from workers must balance benefit payments each year.  

That's not sensible -- sound businesses do not balance revenue to income as a knee-jerk policy  --- but this argument is being applied anyhow.  It makes even less sense considering that elected govt is supposed to have more leeway as stewards of the public good, not private profits.  Capitalist govts are supposed to "lose" economically, so the private sector can "win".  That what the following section says about sovereign currency.


But without going further down this road about Social Security, let's BACK UP and discuss "Debt" and "Deficits".  First off, where does your money come from?  Most would say "my job" or "my investments".  But where does the MONEY actually come from?  Take out a bill and look:  United States of America is the SOLE MONOPOLY creator of Dollars -- through it's "Fed" facility.  So much for arguments about "entitlements".  How can we NOT have "govt spending" when MONEY comes into existence ONLY from "govt spending"?  We might as well complain that we have to breathe air.

When a business or person borrows from a bank, they have a liability.  But from the bank's perspective, that loan is an *ASSET*.  As a matter of fact, with "securitization", debt is now an easily-tradeable asset, and can be sold or used as collateral.   The banking system went off the rails with these "creative" techniques, but the fundamantal facts show that this is how banks operate.

Likewise, when a business or person deposits say $10,000 into a bank account, from the bank's perspective that DEPOSIT is the banks' *LIABILITY* to the depositor.  That's a DEBT.  But who has seen any bank panicking about having "too many depositors", and worrying because this represents "too much debt"?  Of course that's silly.  Banks WANT MORE liabilities.  Some give you a gift to open a savings account.

The Federal Govt --- Treasury & Fed --- is similar to private banks but not exactly like banks.   The banking system creates credit and deposits which balance each other.  That's double-entry bookkeeping.  The credit assets and deposit liabilities may not be at the same branch or same bank, but they exist across the US banking system.  On the other hand, the Federal govt creates MONEY ... yet it calls that money "notes".  The Fed has a "liability" to redeem your dollars -- but only with more dollars.  It's circular logic, but this is what we have.

Bank credit has been called "horizontal" money, since credits and deposits are created within the private sector.  The Federal Govt --- on the other hand --- creates what has been called "vertical" money, money from the public sector created freely and pushed down into the private sector.  Money is added to the private sector by Congress  -- deficit spending.  Every NET dollar of financial wealth in existence, over and above balanced assets/liabilities, has been created and spent by Congress.  Every dollar in your wallet says United States of America.

It is therefore impossible to eliminate the "national debt" because that would mean reverting to a barter economy ... BUT "deficit reduction" pushes us towards barter.

People today are already "bartering" -- giving their possessions to pawn shops for food and rent, and some are bartering food and other casual labor with other people who also have no money.  Some are forced to barter sex.  This is a definition of "jobless recovery", aka Depression.

If Congress were to unilaterally order gasoline rationing,
an immediate 20% reduction in fuel availability, regardless of the economic effects, there would be a tremendous uproar.  The "Dictator" Obama would be destroying Capitalism again.  (There is already GOP hysteria uproar over mild regulations on drilling and fracking, how that's "hurting jobs", regulations which are very light considering the heavy impact of the BP disaster, on residents, on business, and on another govt bailout.  Ken Salazar is a Bush appointee.) 

Yet conservatives *WANT* Congress to ration the supply of Dollars -- which are virtual Fed money, created by keystrokes, not bound by physical limits -- regardless of the serious economic effects of dollar shortages.  WHY?   This is not "destroying Capitalism"?  Dollar rationing is fiercely attacking Capitalism, even moreso when we're already in a slump.

When China "loans" money to the USA, that means the central bank takes excess dollars from US corporate purchases, over and above what dollars it uses to purchase oil and other trade, and China deposits those dollars in its Fed securities account.  China uses those dollars to purchase Treasury Bonds, because T-Bonds pay interest every month.  The interest is paid only in more dollars --- electronic form --- which are created by the Fed/Treasury.

There is ZERO risk of Treasuries "defaulting" on creditors.  The Fed cannot run out of dollars, nor the Treasury.  Pure nonsense.  Screw S&P.  That's political BS.  S&P and the other raters said all the Securities filled with "Liars' Loans" deserved AAA "no risk" ratings.  We now pretend such bald-faced liars are accurate oracles of our economy?

We could end this "debt crisis" quickly and painlessly --- if anyone seriously wanted to.  (They don't!)  Congress could BAN corporations from purchasing from China, from transferring dollars to any Chinese firm.   Congress could raise high tariffs and eliminate the Trade Deficit and the Balance of Payments Deficit.  China's exports to the US are the root cause of China's central bank having "excess dollars".  It accepts dollars and converts dollars to Chinese currency for Chinese people, and it must return most dollars to the Fed, for sound financial reasons.  That is "loaning" to the USA.

No one in America wants to cut business with China, except under-employed workers perhaps.

Raising Tariffs might set off Tariff Wars, as during Great Depression, but tariffs would probably create many domestic jobs -- IF that was what they really wanted, then do it.  (They don't!)   Congressmen and other ideologues seem to be SOOOOO concerned about "jobs" whenever they address any policy question.  Demagoguery.  Empty demagogues.  Or tariffs might hurt trade that is helpful for US workers.  It depends on specifics.

Is anyone suggesting new high tariffs?  NO.  Of course not.  Wall Street is BULLISH on China.  They WANT dollars to flow to China.  Far from being pro-Tariff, they are anti-Tariff, and pro "free trade" -- even pushing outsourcing that is subsidized and goosed by the US govt, any by various agencies and political relations.  Therefore, China will keep collecting lots and lots of dollars, so China will keep buying Treasuries.  So America will continue to grow it's "liabilities" (debt) to China.

They're describing normal economic activities as a "crisis".

Here's one more possible solution to the "debt" between the Treasury vs. the Fed.  Never mind the fact that the Fed remits back to the Treasury all it's profits after operating expenses --- including profits from interest-bearing Bonds.  Yves Smith noted that without changing a single law, nor even having to re-interpret "power to coin money" as "power to create money", Tim Geithner could order the US Mint to produce one or two $1 Trillion coins.  The cost would be about $50.  (Heck, they could put Obama's face on them.)  Tim could then give one or more coins to his brother Ben Bernanke at the Fed, and that "debt" would vanish.  Perfectly legal and sound.

Is anyone proposing that?  NO.  Why not?  Many reasons, but mostly because the US *benefits* from its debt position and the wealthy elites *like* those T-bonds and T-bills.  This "debt" situation makes the USA a powerful economic player.  We have a sovereign currency.  And govt creditors like to be rewarded.  They like the "safe haven" of the dollar.  (A year ago, banks were enjoying the "carry trade" spread of (1) borrow huge from the Fed at 0.2%  (2) loan same to the Treasury at 3.0%  (3) Profit!)  Many of the framers of the Constitution were govt creditors.  It's part of the elite gravy train.  Don't expect much change here.

If we REALLY wanted to permanently end the "debt problem", Congress could get behind the NEED Act by Dennis Kucinich.  (Chirp, chirp.) The Fed or its functions would be "rolled into" the Treasury.  The Fed would no longer create "Notes" a.k.a. FRNs, Federal Reserve Notes.  A revamped Fed could create "US Dollars".  These would be debt-free and interest-free.  Treasury would no longer "borrow".  These dollars could then be spent to retire ALL US debt as it comes due.  The US would be debt-free in few years.   The National Emergency Employment Defense Act is no more radical than the original 1913 Federal Reserve Act itself.

Is anyone supporting this?  Of course not!  Congress and their elite constituents WANT the Treasury to keep selling Bonds and keep paying interest, because that's how our monetary system and the global monetary system operates.  Ending that would have many troubling ramifications.  The Gold Std was killed a hundred years ago.
Other central banks WANT interest-bearing T-bonds.  Private Banks -- US-based and foreign -- also act as middlemen -- called "primary dealers" -- between Treasury and the Fed during "Open Market Operations".  Private banks are likewise bullish on T-Bonds, unless there's a bigger, better short-term profit opportunity.

So this internal "debt crisis" is also a non-issue.  Rather it's describing how this debt-based financial monetary system functions, by design.  Congress passed these laws and regulations that define our financial system as "
debt-based".  This is why T-bonds pay interest.

Here's the summaryX Trillions of public debt = X Trillions of private assets.  Again, this is similar to how YOUR personal financial assets in your savings account are your bank's debt.  This relationship is called an "accounting identity".

The ONLY way to reduce "public debt" without revamping our entire monetary system is to reduce "private assets", i.e. to shrink the economy.  How is it that so many "pro-business" conservatives and so many "jobs creation" liberals are so strongly committed to policies which MUST shrink the economy ... for no sane or sensible reason?

The Fed and Bernanke hardly sweated when they created some $16 Trillion in "EMERGENCY" buy-ups of "toxic assets" (at "mark-to-myth" prices, not "mark-to-market").  This was said to be necessary to "rescue the banking system".  In reality, the FDIC could have rescued "vanilla" savings with far less spending.  The Fed's actions and TARP were to rescue the exotic stuff, the speculation, the "mortgage-backed securities" and other inflated derivatives. That spending was a choice ... and a bad choice at that.

Is this QE stuff inflationary?  Yes, purposely so.  Not so much to inflate street prices, although prices of commodity futures like energy and food are being inflated, but the intentional plan is to cause inflation in all those other debt-based assets, rather than "Letting the Market Decide" their real value.

Hardly any American outside of financial circles understands Quantitative Easting and the entire huge
maze of bailouts packages and interest-free "loans" for free money used to "pay back TARP", few even KNOW about the Fed's multi-Trillion contribution, let alone some of these other secret deals, nor do people understand all that was done.  All people know about is Obama's $1 Trillion "Stimulus", which failed (naturally) at replacing $14 Trillion in wealth that evaporated from our Main Street "real" (Adam Smith) economy of production and consumption.

Hardly any American fully grasps that TARP and QE were purposely never linked to any Quid Pro Quo to write down inflated mortgage debts on "underwater" homes, nor other debts gone
unpayable in our atrophied and shrinking job market.  OCCUPY understands that "Banks got Bailed Out, We Got Sold Out", which is true.

I guess banks feel that leaving the debts in place WILL result in long-term economic calamity for millions,
economic atrophy, foreclosures, dislocation, forced moving, homelessness, declining values of abandoned properties, but they can still benefit more in the short-term (with govt help?)  than if they did a huge RESET on the entire housing/mortgage market.  Investors would have to take a haircut on their fictional wealth.

They would rather rely 100% on Uncle Sam for a permanent rolling bailout than to take personal responsibility for their own RISK.

Still, even in this unfair situation, the Fed and Treasury and Congress could EASILY provide various semi-permanent "stimulus" options (a) to jump-start industry and (b) to pay for elder-care and so many other things which are not readily compatible with a for-profit business model (EXCEPT with govt spending).  This kind of stimulus spending would add to the "budget deficit" and that means spending would grow private sector assets.  That's good.  FICA suspension is a tiny part of that.

The "welfare state" has long been understood to be an integral part of what was done decades prior to FDR, the "corporate welfare state" of the late 1800s and early 1900s, that Gabriel Kolko and Murray Rothbard and Joe Stromberg and Kevin Carson described.  As long as the US Govt has been applying all it's efforts to help Wall Street gain more money and assist Big Business in outsourcing work and dumping American workers -- really jumping off with Nixon's "Detente" with Mao --- it's only fair and sensible that this windfall and cornucopia
(for the rich) of "cheap labor" production be counter-balanced with commensurate social welfare for the non-rich.  (Kevin Carson's answer is to wipe out all aspects of the corporate welfare state first, then wind down social welfare, as a sane "natural" economy is restored and social welfare is no longer necessary.  How many big Capitalists on the Fortune 500 are lobbying to end their Federal gravy train?  Hello? Koch Brothers?   I didn't think so.)

We KNOW that the Super-Rich are not willing to give up THEIR welfare status.  They fight and lobby like crazy to keep THOSE aspects of "Big Government".  Dean Baker's recent 'conservative' book highlights *many* examples of "wealthfare" that go beyond bickering about taxes.  On the other hand, the original "liberal" aim of Federal taxation in our "fiat" money system *IS* to balance out the economy and to sop up excess financial gains from "unearned" wealth, economic rent.  George Orwell
described in Wigan Pier those "toffs" who lived on "dividends" vs. those lazy coal miners.

A rollback of FICA taxes -- without rationing dollars for so-called "entitlements" -- is one ideal way -- bare minimum -- to actually GROW the economy and truly strengthen Social Security.

Would these kinds of policies drive inflation?  Hopefully!  Ordinary wages have been flat for decades.  Small business could also enjoy some price inflation instead of a deflationary spiral of discounts, sell-offs, layoffs ... and bankruptcy.

The only way in which a "damaging" kind of inflation would occur, would be if the economy grew to full employment and full production, yet the govt KEPT increasing spending beyond that which could cause more growth. 

Hyper-inflation of the past, including Weimar Germany, were caused by intentional inflation of financial assets, and NOT from having an economy "rigged" to increase the wealth and prosperity of of the other 99%.  If people could retire at 50 instead of 65 and STILL spend money, this would further boost the entire economy and make room for youth.  More people could afford to volunteer or work in paid "help" roles for aging Baby Boomers ... or coach children and teens.  There is SOOOO much that could be done, but it goes begging due in large part to the bogeyman of "spending" and "debt" in a debt-based system.  This is crazy.

For more details, see Warren Mosler's Huffington article on "Progressives" (Modern Monetary Theory) (not really a "theory") or various articles on the Pragmatic Capitalism site.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

I hope no one finds these articles in poor taste or incorrect. I supplied several sources to cross-reference, especially since the third and controversial excerpt is by Jared Israel.

Pretty amazing that nobody knows this story and most people THINK the US is either fighting Islamist extremism or some even think that we're fighting Islam itself. That's what being portrayed. After all, we got troops. We're killing Talibans or "towel-heads", aren't we? Our stated purpose is to oppose the culture that supposedly led to 9-11.

So what's this?

The International Development Law Org, led by the US with the largest representation by Iranian legal scholars, not only backed a repressive Islamic Sharia Law constitution for Afghanistan, but the US also categorially excluded secular and moderate Afghanis from their brief modern era.

The "War on Terror" LOL. We are killing factions of conservative Muslim believers --- the more secular groups that believe in liberal values, democracy, and education. See several stories below. My comments in blue.

Kabulpress comments on the Afghan government's “Rape Law”
The law as a tool of oppression against Afghan Hazara Shia (this article does not say that the US-backed IDLO is behind this transfomation, see below)
95% of the Afghan Shia minority are ethnic Hazaras, and Hazaras have no desire for Islamic Sharia Law. These Sharia Laws were written by the Afghan Pashtun Sunni majority to restrict and discriminate against the Hazara Shia.

The most extreme Sunni Mullah theocrats view the Shia not as Muslims, but as infidels who should be killed, have their property confiscated, and women enslaved. (The Nat Geographic article below describes a further cultural divide between Hazara Shia and other Afghani Shia.)

Mullah M. Asef Mohseni, an elderly white-bearded ayatollah, who blames the spread of AIDS on soap operas and music videos on Afghan TV, has been the primary proponent of the Personal Status Law. (passed by "our" govt) He is ironically a Shia, but is from Pashtun Kandahar, the cradle of the Taliban, and represents the 5% of the Iranian- related Shia who are much closer to their theocratic Sunni Pashtun brethren than the democracy-oriented Hazara. To say this is a Shia-motivated law is a fraud.

Mohseni’s past has aligned closely with the Taliban and been supported by Iran’s theocracy. He is an example of how far the Afghan government (that we installed, with that Unocal consultant as President) leans toward Taliban rule.

Mohseni was the leader of the military mujahidin group Harkat-e-Islami during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. He allied with Gulbaden Hekmatyar (Osama Bin Laden's closest ally) and the warlords who wrote the 1993 Afghan constitution which led to the near destruction of Afghanistan and rise of the Taliban. (this is the govt we approve and we now defend)

(The CIA denies that we shipped arms and billions of dollars to Osama Bin Laden, but that's on a technicality. The CIA apparently worked more directly with Gulbideen Hekmatyar. That's according to an article by FAIR and Norman Solomon too. Is it any wonder we can't seem to find Hekmatyar's buddy Osama Bin Laden?)

Mohseni and his puritanical militia were accused of war crimes during and after the Afghan Civil War. He has repeatedly stated his opposition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He has fought against women’s rights and free speech initiatives in Afghanistan. He supported the Taliban movement and urged Shia not to resist it. Mohseni heartily approves of a man’s having four wives, and he promotes the right of elderly men to marry young girls— with no age restriction.

Mohseni’s own sexual abuse controversy

During the Afghan Civil War, Mohseni became the focus of a public controversy when one of his field commanders sent his ten year old sister to Mohseni to be instructed in the Koran. The commander was later killed, and many claim Mohseni was involved— after Mohseni married the girl when she turned fourteen.

Given this and other recent government actions, which have included imprisoning journalists, gagging the media, ignoring widespread political corruption, embezzlement, and drug running, it is not surprising that the EU and NATO are now resisting sending more troops to Afghanistan.

This is what we're fighting FOR, under Bush and under Obama, especially per the 3rd article below. We're actually installing the former Taliban warlords INTO positions of power, and defending them against a chunk of the population that hates them and fears them.

We're backing agents of our old Taliban warlord ally, Gulbideen Hekmatyar. Is this astonishing?

This was the main point of the 1978 effort to destroy the left-wing secular government that existed briefly in Afghanistan, when we launched a covert operation to replace it with a theocratic regime that attacked the govt and their Soviet advisors.

So who then are we killing in Afghanistan, with this surge? We must be killing the anti-govt people which includes SECULAR LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who OPPOSE ISLAMISM AND TERROR. (Note, they are absolutely conservative Muslims, but not Islamists.)

This is the exact same thing as we've done in Iraq, turned it into an Iran-backed Shiite theocracy, with torture and killing of "infidels", moderates of both Shia and Sunni background ... including Westernized secular members of the former Baath Party.

Not surprisingly, this is the same as was done in South and Central America, such as in the brutal Christian theocratic dictatorship of General Rios Montt (Pat Robertson's buddy), and other similar situations, such as Argentina under the Generals.

It's like Alice-in-Wonderland, through the looking glass, or Opposites Day.
The minority Hazara with their somewhat Asian features.
(see photo on website)

The Outsiders
Set apart by geography and beliefs, oppressed by the Taliban, the Hazara people could be Afghanistan's best hope.

Not if the US can prevent that.

The ruling Taliban—mostly fundamentalist Sunni, ethnic Pashtuns—saw Hazaras as infidels, animals, other. They didn't look the way Afghans should look and didn't worship the way Muslims should worship. A Taliban saying about Afghanistan's non-Pashtun ethnic groups went: "Tajiks to Tajikistan, Uzbeks to Uzbekistan, and Hazaras to goristan," the graveyard. And in fact, when the Buddhas fell (blown to pieces by Taliban missiles), Taliban forces were besieging Hazarajat, burning down villages to render the region uninhabitable.
On January 8, the Taliban rounded up young Hazara men in Nayak, the district center. "People were thinking they would be taken to court," recalls Sayed Jawhar Amal, a teacher in the nearby village of Kata Khona. "But at 8 a.m. they were killed. All of them." The men were lined up and shot in public view. When elders from Kata Khona inquired about young men from their community, they were also killed. In all, Human Rights Watch concluded, more than 170 were executed in four days.

Taliban forces burned down more than 4,000 homes, shops, and public buildings. They destroyed entire towns in western Bamian Province. Villagers fled into the mountains, then looked down and watched their homes burn.
After so much hope, so many promises, the Hazaras are feeling ignored by the new government—led as it is by a Pashtun president. (Karzai, our guy) "Anytime we hear news of the Taliban on the radio, our bones turn to water," says Mohsin Moisafid in Kata Khona.
Michelle Malkin reports on this but describes it as the "re-Talibanization" of Afghanistan, not that Sharia was actually imposed by the United States with our appointed Afghan "allies".

comment on Malkin's site:
these people dont want to evolve it seems…
No, it's against US foreign policy to permit those who wish to evolve to have the chance. Same as in Latin America. A corrupt theocratic regime of warlords and landlords is better for control and commerce.

comment on Malkin's site:
This demonstrates two points:
The enshrining of Sharia within the new constitution, via a no law which contradicts Islam provision, makes the ruling perfectly understandable – Ayatollah Khomeni did tell us quite clearly that there is “no fun” in Islam.

That the people of Afghanistan would, following their liberation from the Taliban, go right back to Sharia via a * democratic vote does not bode well for George Bush’s grand vision of * democracy in the Middle East.

* read about "democracy" below

1. Top legal group backs Sharia but the news isn't fit to print
While doing research on the U.S.-led Empire's support for Muslim extremism in Iraq and Turkey, I chanced upon an important Associated Press (AP) dispatch whose contents were never made public.

Based on that AP dispatch, and some of my own research, this is what I know:
On the 16th and 17th of December, 2002, the powerful IDLO (International Development Law Organization) held a conference in Rome, ostensibly to discuss reforming the Afghan legal system.

This conference, or 'Roundtable' as it was called, was followed by a second conference, sponsored by the Italian government.

The AP reported that after the second conference, the director-general of the IDLO made a statement to the press. He said the conference had endorsed the use of Sharia, or Muslim religious law, as a sound basis for any modern legal system!

Nobody has published this news!

(Some people have a problem with the term "Muslim extremism". Instead, some call it "Islamism" or "Islamist". For the sake of reference, Johann Hari interviewed ex-Jihadists (google that) in England. Very interesting cultural article in itself, look it up. Hari mentioned that 93% of Muslims in London oppose Islamism, and prefer a more liberal and modern Islam, leaving just 7% as extremists, but the extremist gangs are dangerous and intimidating to the non-extremists.)
2. Roundtable for Islamism [1]
Searching the Web, I located the IDLO Website. There I learned a bit more.
According to a pre-conference mission statement, the purpose of the Roundtable conference was to help a commission trying to reform the Afghan legal system, laying the basis for a democratic, pluralistic society.

This sounds nice, but I have noticed that every time an Empire-controlled organization uses a nice word like 'democratic,' there's a catch: they are about to do something bad to ordinary people.

The IDLO Website has no report about the actual content of the discussions at the Roundtable.

But we can get an idea from the mission statement and list of participants.

The mission statement begins:
"Afghanistan, an Islamic nation with a rich legal history, is in the process of ending decades of conflict and has entered a new period of reconstruction." [1A]

'Reconstruction' sounds nice, like 'democratic'. So where's the bad thing that's about to happen to ordinary people?

It's hidden in the phrase, "Islamic nation." For you see, the central issue during those "decades of conflict" was: should Afghanistan be defined in religious terms? Should it be governed by Sharia, Muslim religious law? Which in Afghanistan, and some other places, means domination by the harsh and repressive landlord class associated with Muslim fundamentalism.

(Ditto with the Ayatollahs and their families in Iran -- a wealthy, corrupt landlord class.)

(Johann Hari's interviews include one Jihadist who served a prison sentence in Egypt. There he met former members of Muslim Brotherhood, serving long sentences. In prison, they studied the Q'uran and came to the conclusion that Sharia was a personal decision for each Muslim, and that the idea of a Sharia Law Government was not a prescription for Islam but a historical fact of Mohammed's life at the time. That's what the ex-Jihadist told Hari about what learning played a part in his break with Islamism.)

Moreover, this conflict didn't just happen. The U.S. and its imperial allies in Europe and the Arab world put the whole financial/military/technical power of an Empire into empowering Islamic fundamentalism, and mujahideen terrorists, in Afghanistan. [2]

(Even semi-informed Americans knows this history, but we seldom hear it said this way, and we seem to prefer to forget it.)

(The same was done in Iran, according to William Engdahl describing the Islamic Revolution in Iran that carried out many executions. Scholar of "Orientalism", Bernard Lewis, is the guy who came up with the idea that backing competing, divisive, and unstable Islamic theocracies would give the West a stronger foothold in the Middle East, than backing secular dictatorships or democracies. Henceforth, George Ball and the Bilderberg Group decided to covertly back Ayatollah Kohmeini, under the reign of Jimmy Carter. Look up that brief article too, please, William Engdahl on Iran and Kohmeini. Of course that group with George Ball would have included Zbigniew Brzezinski, author of The Grand Chessboard, which includes the same ideas in somewhat more ambiguous terms.)

It would be nice to believe this policy has changed. Dream on. It is obvious from the list of participants that the IDLO Roundtable took as its starting point that Muslim religious law, Sharia, should govern Afghanistan.

(Do you think the US was not backing this? Do you think the US would have backed the IDLO decision if they approved something different, like a genuine democratic-socialist form of government which was simply informed by Islam, in the manner that US govt is ideally informed by Christian ideas??)

Thus among the 60-odd participants were *none* of the teachers, professors, lawyers, judges or government officials who worked in the *secular* government that ran Afghanistan throughout the 1980s.

Instead there were officials from the current US-installed Muslim fundamentalist government, riddled with former mujahideen terrorists.

(These are the same people who were photographed meeting with Bush and Unocal in Texas, prior to Sept 11, who told a female critic "Your husband must be very disappointed with you." These are the same people who Republican Dana Rohrerbacher met when he trekked through the mountains of Afghanistan trying to set up an oil deal, in violation of the Logan Act.)

There were IDLO and UN officials.

There were government representatives from the US, Japan, Germany, Italy, *and Iran*!

(Germany and Japan sent one representative each but Iran got three!)

There was a large group of pro-Sharia scholars, mainly from the Middle East. But not only. For example, the participant from Harvard Law School was one Frank E. Vogel, the "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques Adjunct Professor of Islamic Legal Studies." (!) He runs a Saudi-funded program at Harvard Law. (Just for the record, the Saudis do not fund educational programs out of love of learning. They spend their petrodollars to push Salafi Islam, the Muslim extremism known in the West as Wahabbi.) [H]

The Iranian wing of Muslim fundamentalism was represented by two Sharia judges, Mahmood Akhondy and Mohammad Reza Zandy, and by Ali Gholampour, Third Secretary in the Iranian Embassy in Rome. (The third secretary is often an intelligence post.) (If so, a CIA liaison.)

However, the Iranians had no representatives from U.S. Ivy League schools.
Clearly the conference was not aimed at encouraging Afghanistan to adopt a secular legal system or even to debate the issue. It was organized with an eye to making Sharia respectable in Afghanistan. And not just there:

[Excerpt from the AP dispatch starts here]

The conclusions of that meeting were that Islamic law has "all the elements that are really required to underpin a human rights agenda and a modern state agenda which are completely compatible with international standards," said William Loris, director-general of the International Development Law Organization, which trains lawyers and judges in developing countries. [3]

[Excerpt from the AP dispatch ends here]

Please notice that Mr. Loris did not confine his comments to Afghanistan. According to the IDLO chief, the conference ruled that Islamic law, or Sharia, has all the elements needed for *any* "modern state agenda"!


Monday, December 07, 2009

Obama visited Pakistan in 1981?

This is one response to one email floating around in 2008.

Yes he did. That was at a time when Pakistan was under martial law due to ongoing civil wars in Afghanistan, warlord-fighting-warlord, with the ordinary people caught in the middle and dying like flies, sponsored by the USA by the way.

This was at a time in 1981 when travel was restricted and NO AMERICAN had any business in Pakistan UNLESS they were working for the State Department or the CIA. It's pretty clear that's precisely how Obama worked his way into power.

Reporting that Obama is CIA is not me in any way defending Obama. I do not hold the CIA and it's covert operations to be in any way patriotic, although certainly some of it's officers are, for better or worse. Overall, it's Wall Street's very own paramilitary intelligence outfit, turned into a government agency. The same people that covertly financed Hitler started the CIA, with help from ex-Nazis, and for the Cold War.

President Harry S. Truman, who signed the National Security Act of 1947 creating the CIA out of the older OSS, remarked in 1969 that he never would have signed it if he had known the CIA was going to become the American Gestapo.

Obama's MOTHER Anne Dunham was also travelling around the world, working for USAID, a known front for or extension of the CIA. Ostensibly, she was an archeologist, studying culture. Typical CIA job. They write Doctoral Dissertations and report on the culture, mood, and perhaps on individual "leaders" for the CIA. Christian missionary groups have also been used for covert intelligence gathering and also "public relations".

Like mother, like son. (That history on Anne Durham and other tidbits are available on Wikipedia. No, it doesn't say she's CIA. But it describes her history. Google can find a lot of supporting articles, for which I did not place cites or links to websites. John Pilger is the historian who pointed out the next factoid.)

Obama had also been working for an investment company known to have been a CIA front. This could account for Obama's money for college, etc.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of Obama's allies and unofficial advisors, was the Statesman, Diplomat, National Security Advisor officially or unofficially to every President from Nixon through Bush.

Zbigniew Brzezinski embraced the strategy of financing, managing, and manipulating Islamic Radical Nutcases as a benchmark of US foreign policy. (might have to scroll down a page to see that link) Brzezinski and the CIA worked together to foment Islamic Radicalism in the Middle East, particularly Afghanistan. Hardcore religious ultra conservative violent nutcases won approval at the highest levels, no matter what atrocities they carried out on innocent civilians.

This is where Obama and his mother probably got connected to serious power, via Brzezinski and Rockefeller, i.e. the banking system and Intelligence, globalization.

The initial push to finance the Islamic Radicals to overthrow the moderate-Leftist government of Afghanistan occurred under Jimmy Carter, but then the Reagan administration continued and expanded what was initially a small covert operation, financed and funneled through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both Intelligence channels and criminals.

The point was not to STOP the Soviets, it was to PROVOKE the Soviet invasion, according to Brzezinski himself in an interview. Even after 9-11, most Washington politicians including Orrin Hatch approved of the policy of financing Islamic Radicals and said if they had to decide they would do it all over again the same way.

Tony Rezko DID support Obama --- he had also arranged a big fundraiser for George W. Bush with Karl Rove. He's a typical switch-hitter, just like the banks. They support both parties, or
whoever they think will win, or whoever they think will be beneficial to them. (Obama did nothing to stop the bankers' looting. Obama did NOT nationalize the banks. He nationalized the banks' red ink from their self-created losses.)

Rezko was Syrian, and possibly has Syrian connections. So does the Pentagon and Bush --- remember, Syria was "assisting" the USA with torturing people we captured or kidnapped and flew there, during the time it was considered an "Axis of Evil". (If they are an Axis of Evil, why was the CIA sending people there and why were they cooperating? Aren't we supposed to be opposed to that?)

A lot of Arab-Muslims actually work FOR the USA, or rather FOR the CIA and the Pentagon --- Osama Bin Laden, for one example. Ditto for Gulbideen Hekmatyar, the Afghani warlord famous for having his henchmen throw acid in women's faces for being "immodest" in some way. CIA has a lot of "bought" or "bribed" or otherwise helpful Muslims in the Middle East.

Not only do we support Radical Muslims in Afghanistan, but William Engdahl published his book on oil which explained how we supported the Mullahs in Iran. British Middle East Expert, Bernand Lewis, who I saw speak at EJ Thomas, came up with the plan that it would be good to support Radical Islamic "factions" to split apart the Middle East, to prevent consolidation and democracy.

Statesman George Ball became committed to that plan, and at a Bilderberg meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany he introduced the plan to oust the Shah "for human rights violations" that we had secretly encouraged, and replace him with the Iranian Mullahs, who are really a set of financial mafia crime families than religious leaders, lest the opportunity open up for actual democracy.

Brzezinski's seminal book, The Grand Chessboard, lays out such a strategy, including "keeping the barbarians from coming together" and relying on a lot of subterfuge and manipulation, to control the vast wealth, energy, and the population of the Middle East. Really, to block them from becoming fully industrialized and self-sustaining.

So this is not some
conspiracy theory about the Bilderberg Conference, or some fringe thing between Lewis and Ball or some, it's the centerpiece of US foreign policy.

Look at Iraq under Bush. Secular socialist dictator (who built Iraq into a most modern westernized society) kicked out and killed. Islamic theocratic radical Shiites, very close to Iran, is who now runs Iraq. The Badr Organization and the Dawa Party of Malaki were both once enemies of the Iraqi people, set off bombs at the University of Baghdad, and tried twice to kill Tariq Aziz the 2nd-in-command under Saddam Hussein. Aziz was Catholic.

Iran hated Saddam because he led a secular nation, not a religious theocracy. America accomplished what Iran set out to do in the 80s, when it was bombing in Iraqi cities and murdering the Sunni infidels. So at least America is consistent (in it's real policies).

This is the REAL core of Obama, and the reason he's following the blueprint of Brzezinski and of Pentagon analyst-promoter Thomas P.M. Barnett, in keeping the Middle East constantly at war and constantly destabilized.

This is why Obama sent 30,000 Americans, when experts say that it would take at least 600,000 to control all the towns and small villages, if we wanted to lock it down. It might seem crazy to you and me (it is), but it makes sense to them, for their interests. Some people call this the New World Order.

Here's a Christian site with a viewpoint on that:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 3:52 PM

And this is the man that 49% of America want for their next President? Unreal!
This letter is from a friend of ours who we believe wrote this with great concern. Both Jan and I think it is important to send this on so anyone that is open to ideas and wants what is best for our country can have good information to use when making up their mind regarding who to vote for. This is not a political slant, but a REAL person doing research on an individual who could be in charge of our country. Just read it and make your own decisions. Gary & Jan
To All My Friends, "...Please take the time to read this. This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.

About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.
I started looking into Obama's life.
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is
very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs
and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did
not apply himself to his studies.

'Barry' (the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.

During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's
family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Neither I, nor any one of my children would
have had money for a trip like this when they where in college.

When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time, he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least!
Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe.
After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for
$12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living
in New York.
By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'.
About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans?

After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm.

Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago.
In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago
Tribune reporter, David Mendelland, claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race.

In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1,650,000 (less than asking price).

With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property?

On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett was Michele
Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any
major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born?
Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran!

Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran.

This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in
Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign
contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from?
The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the
Middle East?
And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own - Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!"
Two questions from a reader:
1. Why did Obama gravitate toward those from the Muslim world?

2. Where are great Americans who influenced Obama's life, other than Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who profaned God in Damning America?



Monday, May 14, 2007

Critique of Naomi Wolf's article: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

Naomi could have done more research. She's right about Bush and Clinton and early signs of fascism of course, but this is a system which has been modified in the USA to not rely on a single leader. Anyone who will transfer power and sovereignty to the Feds, and economic liberty to the mulitnationals, is acceptable.

Watered-down MOONBAT liberal opinions are not going to help the cause. Either go for the gusto or join the Republicans. This is a critique, not a condemnation.

Naomi also left out many things. She implies that fascism could develop some day, simply by the softness of her article. She seems to fail to display intent.
{"It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is."}

Don't be so sure. This statement directly contradicts Zbignew Brzezinski, the guy who founded Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
She could have at least mentioned that.

She could have also mentioned that although it was a surprise attack on Americans, it was not a surprise attack to some 20 or more of our allies, who did warn us, including one of the Taliban leaders. Apparently it must not been that much of a surprise attack to the dozen top American leaders who publicly wished for and hoped for just that event. (People have cognitive dissonance about that, so I'm clarifying that this was written in books and papers.)
It pisses me off so much that Naomi Wolf, as respected as she is, would not simply state the fact that THREE of our top foreign policy experts wrote about Sept 11 in advance as a lucky event they hoped might occur, and the fourth was an organization consisting of some 20 - 50 top people who also almost demanded such an event to jump start more aggressive US foreign policy -- a new Pearl Harbor leading into a New American Century of war. Just like a playbook, their disaster miraculously occurred right on time. [sarcasm] Probably a coincidence. Couldn't involve planning. [/sarcasm]

At very least, it's a treasonous sentiment which should be exposed and questioned, but it's obviously much more. The fact that it's not mentioned should be a clue. These are the same think tanks behind orchestrating the war, and behind the "news" spouted by "experts" on Fox and other major media. Google PNAC or simply "new pearl harbor". That's not just the title of a conspiracy theory book by David Ray Griffin, it's the description of what PNAC said they wanted.

Michael Ledeen published a nasty paper called Code Alpha ...


Sunday, November 19, 2006

Ghost of General Patton.

from a friend:
I got an email titled the ghost of Gen Patton from someone the other
day. Here's the website which is the contents of the email.

I won't include the personal communcations between these two people, but basically the sender said "let's not fight about this" and "it was just irony" and "you should have gotten the joke" and "you have no sense of humor", and I strongly believe in my opinions, and you are entitled to your foolish opinions too, but please let's not discuss it or else bad feelings might erupt and you might be mad at me.
my response:

Yeah, the point is TWO Fallacies on the Patton page.
what, shopping?
freedom to do what? shop? fuck? go hunting? watch TV?

sidenote: Patton is a WW2 meme. One, it's not WW2 and every tinpot dictator WE supported and funded is NOT Hitler, and every country who disobeys Wall Street is not the Third Reich marching all over Europe. Two, WE also DID support and fund Hitler, our American elites and future CIA directors did. Oh, and Prescott Bush and his friends funded Nazis while our men were dying on the beaches at Normandy. Too bad Speilberg is too much of a pussy to say that.

How was this freedom infringed?
Even by Osama, IF you believe that? It wasn't.
(I looked on that page, this is HARD CORE PROPAGANDA. Not so much cleverly-clever, but blatantly hard core manipulative. Not as hard core as actually blowing up the towers and showing it on TV a thousand times and pretending the govt was too incompetent to stop those wily Islamic Arab cave-dwellers from Hamburg Germany with CIA credentials up one side and down the other including "educational transfers" from the CFR and Rockefeller, after we spent $12 Trillion on Cold War Defense for 60 years and it doesn't seem to function. No, the webpage is not that hard core, but it's still hard core pushes some buttons.
People get PAID GOOD MONEY from our taxes to compose this shit. The implication to smack you with shame is that people who demand ethics, morals, justice, and straight goddam answers to straight goddam questions from our govt servants are wimpy, soft-hearted, fuzzy-headed, or foolish. Think about that for a minute. This IS a deep way of mind-fucking people. Not that deep, because it's so blatant and crude, but still deep enough to catch a lot of average people. Then Chomsky and his peers can mindfuck the intellectual stragglers by saying that you're wasting time demanding answers about Sept 11, and you're getting duped by neo-Nazis.)
What about our Freedom from to speak freely AND petition the govt for redress of grievances, without getting arrested by Secret Service or detained for questioning by FBI? Who's messing with our freedom?

What about our Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (incl electronic eavesdropping on "subversive communications", and granting the govt the license to use such information in any witchhunt prosecution) without a signed warrant indicating the place and items to be searched and seized? Who's messing with our freedom?

Gosh, Saddam and all those Iraq engineers and doctors and cab drivers really fucked us over on our freedom! All those illiterate Taliban hillbillies piled 20-deep in their pickup trucks really screwed our freedom up. Now Washington, Langley, and Cheyenne Mountain can be on a permanent fishing expedition.
Damn Al-Qaeda.
We never should have hired them for Clandestine Services and put them on government payroll.

"QUO BONO?" means "WHO BENEFITS?" Should Sesame Street do a song on this?

Jay, I'm with you on this:
"OK you whining, panty-wasted, pathetic Maggots,

Explain, how is that NOT an insult?!! Would you walk up to someone and say that to their face? To a "friend"? How would you expect your "friend" to respond. Try that at a football game some time.

Cause it's a "cute" website? Cause your friend said it indirectly with a "message" on a website? ha ha

That's called PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR for people too afraid to stand up and speak their mind and too afraid to engage in a serious argument-debate, and too afraid to fight (verbally, intellectually) for what they claim to "truly believe in".

Probably because they are afraid of someone being "cross" with them, which is a big PART of how the PSYOP works!! (At worst, some of them sling insults and innuendos and call that "fighting for what they believe in", which is total bullshit because they will not engage facts.)

He's a whining, panty-wasted, pathetic Maggot!!!

And Jay, you can send this to him and tell him DO NOT TAKE THIS PERSONALLY, because I don't even know him, I'm just writing off the cuff, so there is NO WAY this could be a personal attack. It's just a debate, mimicking the tactics of that website. Get it? Ha ha. Not meant to really diminish anyone, rather to empower in a reverse psyop way.

If he had the balls to disagree with you intellectually and debate you on the facts, he could explain that in his opinion America IS under attack from Islamic Hordes and he believes everything that Bush, and all the fearmongering psyop media says --- verbatim!
He could argue and sling their talking points at you verbatim, like a MAN!!!!

He cannot stand to hear the counterargument that Washington is at War with Americans! and with innocent people world wide and that has been the case for decades. WE ARE UNDER ATTACK.
Some fascist Islamists like Muslim Brotherhood DO claim to be at war with America --- they blow up our shit overseas inside their countries --- where we got no goddam business --- and they do big operations which are run by guerilla tacticians who work for/with the FBI/CIA --- but they are not "attacking our freedoms". Al-Qaeda IS Muslim Brotherhood, we have used Al-Qaeda for freelance warriors like Manpower or Kelly for 25+ years. Like we're training Mujahiddeen Khalq right now.

Only some pathetic frightened PUSSY would cower in the corner near the TV and let the US Military Machine beat up women and children and innocent father and mothers in their name, and pretend to enjoy some vicarious power trip over it. That's mental masturbation. You will go blind from that!

That's the toughness Hitler and Himmler coached to the SS and SA troops, the mental and emotional toughness necessary to round up and exterminate Jews, even "good Jews", because it was necessary if not pleasureable, in their viewpoint.

The US just wants Americans to be tough enough to joke about it, three steps removed from reality, after the mass murder has been sanitized. And Americans are STUPID enough to think that's courage.
See if you can tear yourself away from your “reality” TV
(yeah, like Iraq War and foreign relations reporting)
and Starbucks for a minute,
pull your head out of your flabby ass – and LISTEN UP!!

By the way, this Abu-Gharaib thing was press-released by the United States Army. Why? To get you thinking about torturing suspects, finding it acceptable, and being subconsciously afraid. Everyone's common sense tells you that torturing suspects means torturing innocent people who are accused of some crime by some spook or some political hack.

Now, political hacks who supposedly can't run schools, or fix levees, or allocate funds effectively to eradicating gross poverty, are capable accurately determining who is guilty and who is a bystander. (Actually, the political hacks DO work those things perfectly, but with different outcomes than they tell you.)

This is to cover up worse, gross, painful torture. Duh. They debate waterboarding so instead they can continue slicing strips of flesh off genitals with a razor and applying salt or acid to the open wound, until the victim screams and agrees to confess to anything just to make the pain stop.
Of course there is no Intelligence gained. What's gained is terror, compliance, false confession, and most importantly legal precedent to torture 'enemy combatants' including American citizens and have their confessions stand as admissable.

Americans are such suckers.

PLEASE, Jay, PLEASE, send this to your fucking pathetic pussy friend (who I do not know and I am therefore not insulting in any way except to try to shock him out of his tube-fed brain with a little humor and hard core facts).