New Content: (06/27/2008)
Last Addition: (06/27/2008)
Departments
"If the American people ever allow
private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation,
then by deflation, (i.e., the "business cycle") the banks and corporations
that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until
their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
If there were ever a time to
protest against this corrupt global government -- our Congress, our
President, the Corporate Controlled Media and the Global Corporations
that call the tune -- (not to mention this this bogus election),
this is probably the time. Ron Paul will be there are hopefully,
you will be too. Whether you completely agree with Ron Paul is
irrelevant. If this republic is to continue then the time to stand
up is NOW!!!
The reality of promoting an "issues
based" website, or magazine, is that you are really saying the same things
over and over again. In my case the focus is the "New Agenda for
America" and my "write-in" candidacy for the 2008 Presidential Election.
To that end I am happy to announce that I
have just been endorsed for President of the United States by the United
States Marijuana Party. Another few thousand endorsement and I might
just have snowballs chance in hell of winning
The America people must begin to see who
is really pulling the strings attached to Obama. Our future as a
free and sovereign nation depends on the success of this wake-up call to
America. Our future surely hangs in the balance.
I feel so strongly about this article
that I have placed it on it's own separate webpage in hopes that millions of
Americans will have the chance to read it before the November election.
I am encourage my readers to post a link to this article on their blogs,
through their networks of email contacts and by posting a link from their
own websites (e.g., MySpace Pages, FaceBook Pages etc.).
Make sure you read
"Greenspan's Fraud: How Two Decades of His Policies Have Undermined the
Global Economy." This will give you a good overview of
how Greenspan, as head of the Federal Reserve, has screwed the American
working class over the last 25 years. This book review reveals how
his policies were pivotal in the destruction of our jobs and the
offshoring of our factories: all for the short term benefit of the
elite.
Even more important is the essay
"Collapse, & Takedown Of The U.S.A."
by Richard Cook. As you will read in my comments (a letter to
Richard Cook) this essay both summarizes the history of the globalist
agenda and actually goes on to describe an antidote to thwart their
agenda. This is one of the most important essays that I have read
in many years.
In fact I would consider it
required reading along with his other recent writings, that can be found
at the following link:
I also encourage my readers to
understand and promote the "New Agenda for America." Here are the
initial "planks":
(1) Universal Health Care for All
American Citizens (2) A 20-year moratorium on all
immigration into the United States (3) Legal Marijuana for all
Adults and Medical Patients (4) An immediate reversal to the
Offshoring and Inshoring of American Jobs (5) A strict enforcement on
issues of Separation of Church and State (6) An immediate move from
so-called Free Trade Agreements to Bilateral Trade agreements (7) A major R&D project to bring
energy independence to the United States and the World through recycling, reuse,
ending hyper-consumerism and investing in the development of sustainable energy
sources (e.g., solar, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal) (8) No further ownership of US
Assets (businesses, homes, ports, stock exchanges) by foreign governments or
individuals! (9) Replace the Federal Reserve
with a People's Reserve which allows public oversight
Much more (articles, videos) on
the "New Agenda for America" can be found through the following links:
Through these links you can better
understand the "New Agenda for America." And if you agree with
most of it you can use our graphic files to link to the NAC website from
your own website, FaceBook page etc. I also encourage my readers
to check out the archives additional articles that will further make the
case for a "New Agenda for America."
The last thing I ask is for you to
get on my mailing list. I would
like to start doing more public speaking on the "New Agenda for America"
and want to make sure you have an opportunity to attend.
Over the last few weeks both Obama
and McCain have been fellating (e.g., the act of performing fellatio)
"members" of the various Illegal Alien lobbies: LULAC, MALDEF and
LaRasa. Neither are serous about building a border fence.
Neither are serous about sending out those "No-Match" letters which
would rid this country of 12 to 30 million Illegal Aliens and Visa
overstays. Also note that the sending of these letters could
"create" at least 12 million jobs for American workers. In point
of fact both Obama and McCain have said they will grant all of the
Illegal Aliens citizenship as soon as either of them occupies the
Whitehouse in 2009.
And all of this is happening at a
time when over 5 million Americans will have lost their homes by the end
of 2008. All this is happening at a time when millions of American
jobs are being lost and our factories are being packed up and offshored
to China. All this is happening despite the fact that 80% of
Americans are opposed to giving Illegal Immigrants any form of Amnesty.
So when Obama told a crowd,
yesterday (07/09/2008), that "American kids should learn Spanish" you
should not be real surprised. As the late George Carlin stated so
clearly, "You (the American Citizen) are not part of the club!"
Both Obama and McCain ARE part of the club and I hope, to the goodness
in us all, that we understand this well before the November election.
Of course our founding fathers
provided a solution to a government that no longer abides by the will
and needs of it's people. They provided a good case study for this
solution after signing the "Declaration of Independence" on July 4th,
1776. Today we know that solution as the "American Revolution."
I hate to be the one to say it, but it is probably time for the "Second
American Revolution" to get underway. Every day that we delay
action will increase the likelihood of massive carnage. Failing to
act, at all, will result in the complete destruction of our liberties,
our Constitution and our way of life. But if we act soon
enough -- and that is my hope -- it will result in a bloodless coup and
a rejuvenation of our government that is, once again, in sync with the
will and the needs of it's people.
I believe that my "New Agenda for
America" provides 10 initial planks to begin the rejuvenation of this
Republic. Click on the following link for more information and
videos which explain the "New Agenda for America" in more detail.
"Curious George is always getting
into mischief," says the famous children's book series. And
Presidential Candidate Obama is going to create a lot of irresolvable
mischief for the American people if we don't wake up immediately.
For Obama is nothing less than a shill for the Global Elite. And
about the only thing "curious" about this is the fact that the Corporate
Controlled Media continues to cover up Obama's complicity in the
Globalist agenda.
Let me cite a few examples for
you:
I find it curious, Obama, that you
support NAFTA and the North American Union. Yet the American
people are against it.
I find it curious, Obama, that you
support restrictions on the ownership of guns. Yet the American
people are against such restrictions.
I find it curious, Obama, that you
support granting 12 to 30 million illegal aliens amnesty. Yet the
American people are against it.
I find it curious, Obama, that you
are against Legalizing Marijuana for the adult Americas . Yet the
American people are increasingly for it. And the fact is that
legalizing Marijuana (for adults only) would probably destroy the
Mexican Drug Cartels without sending a single penny of further support
to the Mexican "Narco" Military. It would also destroy
many local city drug gangs. But, of course, you continue to
support Marijuana Prohibition for Adult Americans.
I find it utterly amazing how the
corporate-controlled media continues to cover up the true "globalist"
agenda of Barack Hussein Obama. Of course it is in their
interests to do just that as he is truly "just what the globalists" have
dreamed of: an attractive, articulate, disarming globalist. Only
in such a vacuum could so many Americans see him as the "great hope" for
steering the United States towards a better future. Only in such a
vacuum could so many Americans project their dreams and aspirations on
such a false prophet. In point of fact he is likely to
become our greatest nightmare. And unfortunately McCain is no
better.
Lets just start with the "Yes We
Can" mantra that has followed his campaign over the last year. Few
if any Americans understand that this is a calculated code word that has
strategically been used to "connect" with the Illegal Aliens that he
hopes to convert to full citizenship as soon as he steps into the
Whitehouse. When millions of Illegal Aliens filled the streets of
American in May 2006, that was exactly what they were chanting: except
they were chanting it in Spanish. And what they meant by this was
"yes we can" lobby the Corporate-controlled Congress to grant, 12 to 30
million Illegal Aliens, full citizenship through "comprehensive
immigration reform. In point of fact Obama is in full support of
"comprehensive immigration reform" and has consistently voted that way
on every Senate Bill sent his way.
In point of fact Congress is
"owned" by Multi-National Corporations that want to destroy the American
working class. To destroy the blue-collar work force they
are importing an unsustainable number of Illegal Immigrants from Mexico,
Central and South America. To destroy the white-collar work force
they are importing an unsustainable number of college-educated workers
from India, China and numerous other countries. To make sure
nothing is done to stop the flow of Illegal Aliens from Mexico they
won't build the fence and won't send out those "No-Match" letters that
would identify 99.9 percent of them. To make sure nothing is done
to stop the flow of foreign H1-B, and other foreign Visa holders, they
conveniently fail to track them and send them back when their Visa's
have expired.
I found the following Obama video
on You-Tube which was obviously done by the Obama campaign, since it
draws from multiple simultaneous video sources. Notice how the
camera seems to always stop when it focuses on Hispanic-looking audience
members.
Here is my annotated transcript of
the speech:
I
was one of the chief sponsors of Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The
basic idea was simple. Yes we do have to have genuine border security. I
don't think anyone should argue with that. Yes we have to work with
Mexico and they've got to take some responsibility to provide jobs for
their people and they've got to take some responsibility for the
borders.
We
have to make sure their is economic there as well as here for all
workers. We have to work with employers, so that in a non-discriminatory
way, they are enforcing rules in terms of who can work and who can't.
But make sure that this system better work in a way that doesn't say
that just because your name is Rodriguez suddenly you are not being
hired. But those are all legitimate issues.
And then we need to have a pathway for those people that are
undocumented (e.g., Illegal Aliens) that are here. Because the truth is
when people say "send them all back" we're not sending them all back.
People aren't telling the truth. We would have to use all of our law
enforcement resources. We couldn't go after gang bangers. We couldn't go
after auto theft. We would have to use every single law enforcement
officer and go around and round up folks (e.g., Illegal Aliens) who are
working at restaurants. And some of the same people that are talking
about this stuff are using undocumented workers (e.g., Illegal Aliens)
themselves. Right?
And so what we need to do is be honest any say let's pull people out of
the shadows. Let's admit they have broken the law and have them pay a
fine. I think they should learn English because that will help them. But
don't cut education programs and then say to people, "learn English."
And they're going to have to go back to the end of the line. They can't
get citizenship before people that have been waiting patiently, legally
to come here. And fix the broken legal immigration system. The backlog
is so long that so many people ultimately just say I'm just going to
come here illegally. They can't wait ten years. They might have already
been here (e.g., committing a felony in doing so). They may have me
someone. They might have gotten married. That person is a legal resident
but they can't sponsor them. Now they're supposed to go back for ten
years and wait. People (e.g., Illegal Aliens) don't do that.
So
we've got to have a realistic and practical system. Strong border
security. Get people out of the shadows. And if we do that I think we
can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants (e.g., Illegal
Aliens). Those two things are not incompatible (e.g., especially for the
globalists that want to destroy the American working class).
This is going to take leadership, unfortunately from the President of
the United States. And right now the language that came out during this
last debate. There was some ugly (e.g., honest) language there. It was
much more than being concerned about the borders. It was "them (e.g.,
the Illegal Aliens that are taking our jobs) and us. And whenever we see
people talking about "them vs. us" that's a dangerous thing (e.g., to
the interests of the globalists that want to destroy the American
working class). America is at its strongest when it's just us (e.g., the
globalist elitists). It's not "them vs. us." And that's the kind of
leadership I want to provide as President of the United States of
America. Alright (e.g., you Americans are really dumber than I thought
for swallowing this line of crap).
Well I've got news for you.
We're not as dumb as a rock, Barrack. We know that if we allow you
to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform (e.g., Amnesty for Illegal
Aliens) the population of the Untied States will hemorrhage threefold by
the end of this century, to over a 1,000 million people. And with
water shortages already evident on both coasts such a development will
result in famine, internal strife and quite possibly a complete system
collapse. Is that the future you intend to create for our children
and grandchildren? Well, not if I can help it.
To learn more about Curious
Obama's views on immigration I highly recommend this link:
What the America people need to
understand, and understand immediately, is that Curious Obama has been
groomed for this position by some of the planet's most dangerous
globalists, including the worst of them all, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Brzezinski is arguably one of the most ardent and powerful of the
globalists, next to perhaps David Rockefeller. Here is a brief
excerpt of "America's Role as the First, Only, and Last Truly
Global Superpower" to put this in proper context:
In
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its
Geostrategic Imperatives (1997), he outlines his case for how current
American global supremacy should be used to further a long running elite
plan for the unification of the world under the dictates of the United
Nations.
For those who don’t know, among many other things, Brzezinski was an
advisor to John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and Jimmy
Carter. He was also the first director of the Trilateral Commission and
board member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently he is a top
foreign policy advisor to the Barack Obama campaign for presidency.
Controlling Eurasia With American Imperial Power
From The Grand Chessboard:
"In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the
purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful
handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin
interests of America in the short-term preservation of its unique global
power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasingly
institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that
hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand
imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and
maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries
pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."
I highly recommend that every
American read through this full series of articles because it truly
illuminates the connection between Obama and the New World Order of
Corporate Globalism.
The Grand Chessboard Part 4: Interdependence and the Luxury of War http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Articles/200710/20071022_Chessboard_4_Luxury.htm
This series of articles is truly a
look beyond the base of the "invisible pyramid" of power. This is
the reality behind the unholy alliance of Global Media, Global
Governance and Global Corporatism. This, you might say, is the
real Matrix.
Frankly I am surprised that
Brzezinski has so publicly endorsed -- and admitted to advising Obama --
since it so obviously exposes the fact that Curious Obama is an obvious
shill for the New World Order. And, as the article so clearly
states, both Brzezinski and Curious Obama have one overarching goal in
mind: the "unification of the world under the dictates of the United
Nations."
Think about the issues cited at
the beginning of this article: Free Trade, Globalization, Gun
Restrictions, Marijuana Prohibition, Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
and the dissolution of our sovereignty and our borders. All of
these positions have been rejected by the American people. Yet all
of these positions are embraced by Curious Obama, Zbigniew
Brzezinski and the United Nations. And as I speak your federal
Senators and House members are making every attempt to move forward with
this agenda. That is the real reason that they have the lowest
approval rating of any Congress since such statistics have been
recorded. They are simply TRAITORS and it is time that we wrapped
our heads around that fact.
Of course there is something else
that is curious about this 2008 Presidential election. Early on
there was record support for Ron Paul who is also opposed to just about
everything that Obama stands for. But he was rejected to the
Corporate Controlled Media: the Manufactures of Globalist Consent.
And it appears that Ron Paul has officially given up on his bid for the
Presidency.
And then there is me: Bruce W.
Cain. That would be me. I am also running as a "write
in" candidate for the 2008 Presidency. And though I also have
little hope of moving to the Whitehouse, in 2009, my "New Agenda for
America" sets an agenda that is against Free Trade, Globalization,
Gun Restrictions, Marijuana Prohibition, Amnesty for Illegal
Aliens and the dissolution of our sovereignty and our borders.
Here are the first 10 "planks" of
my agenda:
(1) Universal Health Care for All
American Citizens (2) A 20-year moratorium on all
immigration into the United States (3) Legal Marijuana for all
Adults and Medical Patients (4) An immediate reversal to the
Offshoring and Inshoring of American Jobs (5) A strict enforcement on
issues of Separation of Church and State (6) An immediate move from
so-called Free Trade Agreements to Bilateral Trade agreements (7) A major R&D project to bring
energy independence to the United States and the World through recycling, reuse,
ending hyper-consumerism and investing in the development of sustainable energy
sources (e.g., solar, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal) (8) No further ownership of US
Assets (businesses, homes, ports, stock exchanges) by foreign governments or
individuals! (9) Replace the Federal Reserve
with a People's Reserve which allows public oversight (10) Complete support for
"Internet Neutrality"
And while I may have little chance
of winning I do believe we could use the next 5 months to build a
coalition of American citizens that could easily push back against the
Globalist agenda that will be put in play with the election of Curios
Obama. Here are some additional things that you can do to
promote my agenda:
(3) Have your group or
organization endorse my candidacy and the "New Agenda for America."
So far I have been officially endorsed by the "United States Marijuana
Party" and others are in the process of considering my endorsement.
In closing let me just say that
Obama is not just curious, he is down right dangerous to the future of
the American People and our Constitution. And while it is unlikely
that we can defeat Curious Obama (and his opponent McCain) it is
possibly to form a coalition to oppose him the minute his "globalist"
ass enters the Whitehouse. And if you believe in our future you
owe it to yourself to sign up for what I hope is a peaceful Second
American Revolution. For if we don't begin to mobilize right now,
the window of opportunity could be slammed shut in early 2009.
Yours in Freedom,
Bruce W. Cain
Here are some additional related
videos that relate to this article:
Overview of the "New Agenda for America"
The "New Agenda for America" and the 2008 Presidency
A 20-year moritorium on all immigration into
the United States
Why Lou Dobbs Should Demand A Stop To Legal Immigration
Legal Marijuana for all Adults and Medical
Patients (under MERP Model)
"Why Lou Dobbs Should Support Marijuana Legalization "
Lou Dobbs Demands that Barack
Obama Apologize to Him
Ralph Nader criticized Senator Obama for failing to “take on the white
establishment.” Obama’s reaction was Nader is “delusional.” Nader’s
reaction was Obama is “illusional.”
Obama and his supporters should listen to this criticism and get on
course or the seeds of election failure will have been planted in his
refusal to challenge the corporate elite that dominate the government.
They should ask – is Nader right? If they are honest they will see it is
difficult to point to any issue on which Senator Obama is challenging
the establishment – meaning the corporate interests that fund political
campaigns and get what they want from the federal government.
Early on Obama sent a signal to the military industrial complex that he
would not challenge them with his promise to expand the military by
92,000 troops. Each soldier costs approximately $100,000 annually in
training, equipment, housing, food and other items from which military
contractors will profit. They can rest assured they will get billions in
defense contracts as a result of an even bigger military.
The right wing Israeli lobby has gotten everything they have asked for
from Obama. In his speech to AIPAC Obama added to the written text of
the speech a promise to do “everything” – repeated three times – to
prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, essentially threatening
military attack on Iran. And, he went further than any president or
country and said Israel should have all of Jerusalem – undermining the
Palestinians before any peace negotiations begin.
Obama pledged his support to telecom companies with his recent vote to
support FISA with provisions for telecom immunity for illegally spying
on American citizens. As the new leader of the Democratic Party he could
have galvanized sufficient support to filibuster the bill. He only
needed 40 of the 50 Democrats – but he remained silent.
The health insurance industry is looking forward to the tax payer
subsidies he is promising rather than being challenged by the most
cost-effective and efficient approach to ensuring health care security –
single payer health care. Single payer would put the unnecessary health
insurance industry, which accounts for 25% of the cost of health care,
out of business.
Similarly the big lobby energy companies shouldn’t be too worried since
he has been a supporter of the corn lobby’s mistaken ethanol fuel, the
coal lobby’s phony “clean” coal, and the continued reliance on nuclear
energy. The oil companies should be pleased he voted for their tax
breaks in the energy bill, and not worry much about his rhetoric now
calling for taxes on excessive oil profits.
These, and other positions, are the seeds of Obama’s undoing. This looks
like his election to lose –Republicans are unpopular, Obama will have
three to six times more money than McCain (now that he has opted out of
federal matching funds), and he is showing leads in national and swing
state polls. But Obama should know better than any other candidate,
inevitable candidates do not always win. His opponent Hillary Clinton
proved that point – as did recent Democratic candidates who had big
leads in the summer before the election.
The common thread of Democratic Party failure is running to the right
when the primary is over. This is the consistent Democratic strategy
even though being a flip-flopper or Republican-lite sabotages their
candidates. It tells their voting base: “I’m taking your vote for
granted, you have nowhere else to go” when he should be exciting them so
they work, donate and bring out voters on Election Day. And, it tells
the swing voters that this is a candidate that is business as usual. The
corporate interests will continue to rule the government when he is
elected. And, both groups get the message – this candidate can not be
trusted he will say anything to get elected – and ask themselves “what
does he really stand for?”
Obama, his strategists and his supporters should stop their knee jerk
reaction and ask themselves: Is Nader right? Is he telling a truth I
need to hear?
If they are honest with themselves they will see the truth in Nader’s
comments. When they do the next question is, what should Obama do about
it?
Quite simply, he should put the interests of the people before the
interests of the powerful. Some specific suggestions on key issues:
On health care recognize that we need to start from scratch. The health
care system is the most expensive in the world, leaves tens of millions
with no coverage and leaves those with insurance paying higher premiums,
more of the cost of health care and often fighting for coverage they
have paid for. It is ruining medical practice as doctors spend 20% of
their overhead on dealing with insurance companies. And it is making it
impossible for the U.S. businesses to compete as every other developed
country has health care for all with single payer as the foundation.
Leave an opening so you can consider what you know is the right solution
– health security for all Americans through a single payer system.
On Iraq, get specific on a real exit strategy – not just redeployment of
combat troops, but removal of private security like the Blackwater
mercenaries from Iraq, and the 30,000 to 85,000 non-combat troops that
your advisors say you plan to leave in Iraq after redeploying combat
troops to Kuwait and Afghanistan. Make it clear you oppose Bush’s effort
to get Iraq to agree to 50 long-term military bases, protection of U.S.
troops, mercenaries and corporations from Iraqi prosecution; tell
Americans that if Bush negotiates such an agreement you will undo it and
negotiate a complete U.S. exit from Iraq.
What
do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation
with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of
dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody
realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan
Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s
through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been
between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate
dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a
massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code,
he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work
out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year
we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan
borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't
come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were
beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would
begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit
going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more
dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20
year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to
tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so
instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social
Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid
for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a
commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians
and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social
Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the
first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security
could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid
for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is
today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social
Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to
pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired
and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was
all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python
and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically
dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and
roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or
less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's
history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax
increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class
people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when
moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money
to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire
departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings
account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because
you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures,"
you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit
will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for
another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill
Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds
should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did
George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been
taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being
on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been
borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an
unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to
those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund
George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is
still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick
Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was
either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to
say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social
Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing
from the Boomers as part of the deficit."
As the Associated Press reported on April 6, 2005:
"PARKERSBURG, West Virginia. (AP) -- President Bush on Tuesday used a
four-drawer filing cabinet stuffed with paper representing government
IOUs the president said symbolized the Social Security trust fund's
bleak outlook for meeting Americans' future retirement needs. ...
"'A lot of people in America think there is a trust -- that we take your
money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you
retire, we give it back to you,' Bush said in a speech at the University
of West Virginia at Parkersburg.
"'But that's not the way it works,' Bush said. 'There is no trust "fund"
-- just IOUs that I saw firsthand,' Bush said...
"[Susan] Chapman [of the Office of Public Debt] opened the second drawer
and pulled out a white notebook filled with pseudo Treasury securities
-- pieces of paper that offer physical evidence of $1.7 trillion in
treasury bonds that make up the trust fund."
Later, Senator Rick Santorum made an odd admission for a Republican:
""You can't pay benefits with IOUs," he said on the Senate floor. "You
have to pay it with cash."
And where will that cash - now nearly two trillion dollars - come from
over the next decades as Boomers begin to retire?
Technically (and legally) it's simple - the Social Security Trust Fund
will give back its IOUs to the Treasury Department and in exchange for
them get cash to pay the Boomers' retirement checks. Practically,
though, it'll be a crisis of biblical proportions. In order for the
Treasury to come up with that kind of cash will require either massive
tax increases or increased massive borrowing - at a time when we're
already borrowing so heavily that China is propping up our economy with
weekly loans.
Thus, Bush talks about a "crisis" in Social Security with some accuracy.
But he doesn't dare tell us what the real "crisis" is, or how Reagan and
Greenspan set it up, because when it becomes widely known that the real
crisis is that Reagan set the course to steal Boomers' Social Security
savings, it will destroy the reputation of both supply-side economics
and the Republican Party for generations to come.
That Republicans and "conservative" Democrats have been able to
perpetrate this fraud on America for the past 25 years tracks back to
the initial and ongoing efforts of one man, Alan Greenspan, says Ravi
Batra in his new book "Greenspan's Fraud: How Two Decades of His Polices
Have Undermined the Global Economy."
And the Social Security fraud just outlined is only the beginning. Batra
shows - in extraordinary (and easily understood) detail - how Greenspan
has steadily worked for over two decades to sell out America's
sovereignty and economic interests to those of the multinational
corporations he so loves, and to sell out the working people of America
(and their Social Security Trust Fund) to the super-rich who Greenspan
has always represented.
Greenspan manipulated the stock market so his buddies could get rich,
then warned them just in time to get out before it blew up. He's kept
together tax cuts and pay increases for the CEO class by pumping cheap
money into the economy so the Middle Class will go ever deeper into
debt, setting up a housing bubble that could crash in a way that would
make 1929 look like a mild bump in the economic road. And he's helped
engineer and support international "free" trade policies that have
disemboweled America's manufacturing and information technology sectors,
with the happy result for Republicans that the once-politically-active
and heavily unionized middle class is being replaced by a politically
impotent mass of the working poor, too busy to worry about politics or
challenge corporate news.
Most people, coming across this massive indictment of Greenspan, would
probably react with skepticism. Why wasn't any of this in the paper? Why
haven't I heard Democrats and liberals attacking Greenspan from the
floors of Congress and in the progressive media?
As Batra points out, the truest testament to the power Alan Greenspan
holds is that he's been able to do so much of this behind the scenes. He
gently encourages and nudges, argues and lectures, leaks and
pontificates. He suggests, rather than orders. And, of course, he holds
the levers of the nation's money supply in his hands - making him a more
fearsome threat to a sitting president or political party than J. Edgar
Hoover ever was.
And, Batra documents, Greenspan has not been at all reluctant to use his
considerable power to the benefit of those in office.
One example: During the Reagan and Bush presidencies, he was in favor of
tax cuts. During Clinton's he was against them. During Bush Junior's he
was again in favor of them.
Ravi Batra's book "Greenspan's Fraud" is not only required reading for
all Americans because it so clearly lays out the crimes this man - and
the Republican Party - have committed against the United States of
America, but also because it's such a brilliant primer in macroeconomics
overall. If you never were able to figure out, for example, what
interest rates had to do with unemployment, or how the rich get richer
in America while the poor get poorer, or why when the minimum wage is
increased the economy gets better, Batra explains it all with elegance,
wit, and comfortable clarity.
"Greenspan's Fraud" is one of the most important books you can read this
year. Get two copies, because you're sure to have at least one friend
you'll want to read this book, but your own copy will be so marked up
and beloved that you'll not want to let go of it.
I finally got the chance to read through your article, "Collapse, &
Takedown Of The U.S.A.," last evening and was stunned at the similarity
it has to my "New Agenda for America." Well, I doubt it will seem quite
so similar to you.
But for many years I have been playing around with this "puzzle" of
global realpolitik that has always struck me as a "riddle within a
mystery." My first epiphany occurred when my drug policy interests
focused attention on Iran Contra. I recall very well the conversations I
had with John Kerry's assistants that were involved with the
investigation (Subcommittee On Terrorism, Narcotics and International
Operations (1988)." Specifically I recall how they all felt that the
content of this investigation would lead to the impeachment of Ronald
Reagan for committing what Moyer's would call a "High Crime" in his
later summary of the Iran Contra investigation. In fact they sent me a
complete copy of the subcommittee transcripts which I hold onto till
this day.
Possibly the most troubling event that I witnessed -- far more serious
than the administrations willingness to ignore the Boland Amendment --
was the little incident of Inouye (HI) insisting on not talking about
the "Continuity of Government" program that Oliver North was also
involved. It was almost as if someone had stuck him in the hinee with a
cattle prod. 'This cannot be discussed within the context of these
hearings" Well, these were not his exact words, but that was definitely
the intent of those words. And I recall thinking at that moment,
"something is badly amiss here."
It was during this time that I sensed that something was very wrong with
our government.
In the 20 years that has passed I have sensed the need to derail this
process. To that end I have authored a "New Agenda for America" which,
at first, seems like a hoge poge of political planks. But what I really
have in mind is steering this once great republic towards the
industrious commonwealth that I have always believe that Washington,
Jefferson, Franklin (and a host of others) foresaw.
Here is the list of planks for the "New Agenda for America"
NEW AGENDA FOR AMERICA: Preliminary Planks
==========================================
Help Influence the 2008 Presidency
[More info: http://www.newagecitizen.com and click on topic]
[Video: http://www.newagecitizen.com/NAA.htm]
(1) Universal Health Care for All American Citizens
(2) A 20-year moratorium on all immigration into the United States
(3) Legal Marijuana for all Adults and Medical Patients
(4) An immediate reversal to the Offshoring and Inshoring of American
Jobs
(5) A strict enforcement on issues of Separation of Church and State
(6) An immediate move from so-called Free Trade Agreements to Bilateral
Trade agreements
(7) A major R&D project to bring energy independence to the United
States and the World through recycling, reuse, ending hyper-consumerism
and investing in the development of sustainable energy sources (e.g.,
solar, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal)
(8) No further ownership of US Assets (businesses, homes, ports, stock
exchanges) by foreign governments or individuals!
(9) Replace the Federal Reserve with a People's Reserve which allows
public oversight
(10) Absolute support for Net Neutrality
==========================================
Though I have never read Douglas's book "Economic Democracy" his ideas,
which you summarize, are exactly the intuitive conclusions that I had
reached years ago. "Why should the elite be the only beneficiary of the
technologies that make up our collective legacy as a species?" "Why have
our founders caveat against Central Banking been so completely ignored?"
And then there is the 2008 Presidential Election. Ron Paul appears to
have been systematically eliminated despite such a groundswell of
support. And it is abundantly apparent that neither McCain or Obama have
the will, or wisdom, to forge a new path. See my recent essay on Obama
to understand that he is nothing more than another mouthpiece for the
globalist agenda:
This essay of yours is the most succinct answer, to these questions. Not
only does it summarize the motives of the global elite: it also provides
some solutions. I suppose the big question is what can we do, as mere
mortals, to thwart the further progress of this global juggernaut?
Much has been written about whether a worldwide
plan exists to control events and steer them in the direction profitable
to an elite of the rich and powerful. Is this a "conspiracy theory"?
While it is difficult to be specific about who exactly may be behind
such a conspiracy, if it exists, it is at least clear that the
privately- managed system of global financial capitalism gives ample
opportunity for the world's richest people to combine for their mutual
benefit. Further, global financial capitalism itself is based on the
monopolization of money-creation by a world banking system that is
largely privately owned, even while working through the central banks of
the largest and most prosperous nations. This article postulates the
existence of a coordinated and longstanding matrix set up by the
controllers of money to dominate the movements of history. The article
focuses particularly on what seems to have been an attack that has been
going on for over a century against the independence of the nations of
Russia and the U.S. The article also suggests a series of monetary
reforms whereby the U.S. , or any other nation, can regain its economic
identity and preserve its political freedom. The article was written a
short distance from the reconstructed colonial capitol building in
Williamsburg , VA. On this site on May 15, 1776, the Fifth Virginia
Convention voted unanimously to instruct its delegation at the Second
Continental Congress in Philadelphia to enter a motion for independence.
It may be time to do that again.
Russian philosopher P.D. Ouspensky (1878-1947) wrote, "It is a mistake
to think the times we are living in are like any other. These are
extraordinary times."
Ouspensky, with his mentor, G.I. Gurdjieff, escaped from Russia after
the Bolshevik Revolution, during the Russian Civil War. Though academia
has failed to acknowledge it, this epochal convulsion was financed in
part through the monetary resources of the international financial elite
operating out of London, Amsterdam, New York, Paris, Hamburg, and
Frankfurt.
It was this elite, acting through Western banks, which appears to have
surreptitiously provided the wherewithal for Lenin and Trotsky to
destroy the Russian nation after the fall of the Tsarist regime at the
end of World War I. Support by the Western financiers is discussed by
Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson in his revisionist history, The Third Rome:
Holy Russia, Tsarism & Orthodoxy. (The Foundation for Economic Liberty ,
Washington , D.C., 2003)
The present analysis postulates that the takeover of Russia, whose
backbone was the alliance among the House of Romanoff, the Orthodox
Church, the land-owing nobility, and thousands of self-governing peasant
communes, was one of two major projects which the financiers set out to
accomplish early in the 20th century in a longer-range plan to dominate
the globe. The other was the control and eventual destruction of the
United States of America. That project may be reaching fruition through
the ongoing and seemingly purposeful financial meltdown of 2008.
Why Russia and the U.S. ?
Events affecting nations have their roots in history, and people
underestimate how what happens today is conditioned by the past. The
respective fates of Russia and the U.S. have been linked for a long
time.
The two countries had a close relationship during the American Civil
War, when the Russian fleet anchored in New York and San Francisco
harbors. In 1867, Russia sold the huge expanse of Alaska to the U.S.
Later, the U.S. provided engineering support for Russian industrial
development.
The two continental giants were, during the latter part of the 19th
century, becoming the greatest land powers in the world. With Germany ,
Great Britain 's chief rival for economic might, added to the mix, the
hegemony of the financiers' power base in Britain and northern Europe
was threatened in a way not seen since Napoleon.
Both Russia and the U.S. were largely Christian nations, with a sizeable
portion of the American population, especially recent immigrants, being
members of the Roman Catholic faith. For centuries nothing had been a
greater obstacle to the financial control of nations through war and
finance than the Christian religion and its teachings against usury.
Plus neither the U.S. nor Russia had a central privately-owned bank. The
U.S. had long since gotten rid of its own central banks, the First
(1791-1811) and Second (1816-1836) Banks of the United States . The
whole concept of commercial banking having control of a nation's economy
was alien to the Russian and U.S. mindset.
Instead, wealth came from work. This was expressed by President Abraham
Lincoln in a December 3, 1861, address to Congress when he said, "Labor
is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of
labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.
Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher
consideration."
Lincoln could make such a statement because the U.S. economy, as was the
Russian, was deeply rooted in the soil. The backbone of the two cultures
was the Russian peasant and the American yeoman farmer, as Thomas
Jefferson called him. The merchant and artisan economies of the towns
and cities in both nations were founded upon the wealth of the
countryside which was derived from human and animal labor and from
working the land. Even when industrialization began to flourish in the
latter part of the 19th century, it was fueled in both countries largely
through savings and retained earnings, not bank credit created "out of
thin air" through fractional reserve lending.
Banker Domination
By the early 20th century, the bankers of Europe had a mission before
them. If Russia and the U.S. could be controlled, nothing would stand in
the way of the rule of humanity by the materialistic pseudo- religion of
power and wealth by which the financiers were obsessed. As Max Weber
(1864-1920) wrote in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
the acquisition of wealth was viewed as a sign that a person was one of
the "elect." The financiers' sphere of influence was centered in
northern Europe , where the anti-usury doctrines both of the Roman
Catholic Church and Martin Luther (1483-1546) had been undermined
through the teachings of John Calvin (1509-1564).
As is well known, banking in Europe began in the medieval period with
store-front gold merchants who invented fractional reserve banking by
lending certificates against a gold reserve held for their customers on
deposit. By the time of the Renaissance, banking was centered in Italy
and Germany , then spread north and west to the Netherlands , France ,
and England .
By this time the Catholic prohibition against usury was well- developed.
Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) said charging of interest was "detestable to God
and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity."
Theological historian John Noonan wrote that "the doctrine [of usury]
was enunciated by popes, expressed by three ecumenical councils,
proclaimed by bishops, and taught unanimously by theologians."
("Development of Moral Doctrine," 54 Theological Studies, 662, 1993)
Lending of money at interest was often left to the European Jews, where
statements in various scriptures, such as the Talmud, appeared to allow
the practice when dealing with non-Jews. Some argue that the Vatican
worked behind the scenes by using Jews as fronts for their own lending
operations.
In England , the Tudor and Stuart monarchs made a stand against the rise
of bankers as issuers of currency. As Susan Boskey writes in her book
The Quality Life Plan: 7 Steps to Uncommon Financial Security, "the Mixt
Moneys Case of 1604 in England determined money as a public measure to
be regulated by the state." According to Alexander Del Mar, head of the
U.S. Department of Weights and Measures in the late 19th century and
author of the book, History of Money in America From the Earliest Times
to the Establishment of the Constitution, the Mixt Moneys Case
determined that "the state alone had the right to issue money."
Boskey continues: "For over half a century, this ruling alarmed the
merchants of London who attempted to defeat the Mixt Moneys decision.
The East India Company was the main instigator in the effort, because
they were eager to turn a profit by shipping silver to India in exchange
for gold. Success was achieved with the British Free Coinage Act of
1666, which, according to Del Mar, 'altered the monetary systems of the
world.' He wrote: 'The specific effects of this law were to destroy the
royal prerogative of coinage, nullify the decision in the Mixt Moneys
case, and inaugurate a future series of commercial panics and disasters
which to that time were totally unknown.' Moneylenders known as 'strong
room keepers' began the practice of making interest-bearing loans that
were not backed one- hundred percent by the gold reserves remaining in
their strong room."
"The British Free Coinage Act of 1666," continues Boskey, "marked a
turning point in the role of currency creation as a public measure to
one dominated by moneylenders. No longer was the act of putting money
into circulation directly connected to the actual, existing material
riches of a nation."
About this time, Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) was writing his now-famous
Diary. According to Canadian monetary expert Martin Hattersley, Pepys
"was describing in surprised delight the new institution of banking, by
which the smart investor, instead of paying the goldsmith for
warehousing his valuables, opened an account, and was actually paid
interest for having his money looked after!"
Pepys was captivated by the familiar but pernicious notion that, instead
of working for a living, a person could have his money "work for him."
Aristotle had spoken against this concept 2,000 years earlier: "The most
hated sort of wealth getting and with the greatest reason, is usury,
which makes a gain out of money itself and not from the natural object
of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange but not to increase
at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from
money is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring
resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth, this is
the most unnatural." (1258b Politics)
Hattersley continues: "Who paid for Samuel Pepys' remarkable new
service? Basically, the public did. Pepys, leaving his gold with the
banker, enabled the latter to lend it out to a third party. Pepys had
his 'money in the bank,' and the borrower took the gold. The borrower
naturally paid interest on the loan. Pepys received interest on his
deposit. The same money being (notionally) in the possession both of
Pepys and of the borrower meant an increase in the monetary mass of the
nation. All the holders of money in the nation, therefore, had the value
of their holdings very slightly diluted. There was a profit to the
banker on the 'spread' between borrowing and lending rates. There was a
profit to Mr. Pepys, who at one and the same moment had both money in
the bank and an interest bearing investment. Yet the borrower also
profited. His loan would be at a lower interest rate than that on
capital that had had to be saved up. 'Smart' bank financing put him
ahead of conventionally financed competitors. All three parties gained,
at the expense of the general public, the value of whose money was
diluted through inflation of the monetary mass."
Finally, concludes Hattersley, "Skipping forward three centuries (past
events such as the South Sea Bubble, tulip mania, the railway boom and
the 1929 market crash) we find that the little spot of inflation that
Mr. Pepys indulged in has become a universal way of life. The extensive
capital development of Canada [and the U.S. ] in the post-World War II
boom has been largely financed, not by personal savings and investment,
but by the inflation of the money supply. This has left the thrifty who
invested their little savings from the hard times of the Great
Depression in mortgages, bonds, and life insurance deprived of most of
the rewards of their thrift, and has caused the profits of inflation to
benefit all who could borrow, build, and then repay their capital in
deflated dollars later on."
Hattersley captures the essence of the modern usury-based economy. No
longer is life based on honest human labor and the resources of nature,
but on financial manipulation. This is why religious people have always
viewed usury as a crime. Aristotle placed the usurer in the same
category as others who "ply sordid trades," such as pimps.
Returning to the march of history, in 1688, James II, who had become a
Catholic, fled the British throne. Through the "Glorious Revolution," he
was replaced by the Protestants William and Mary of the Dutch House of
Orange. The main instrument of power of the financiers who supported
them was the Bank of England, founded in 1694.
The next two centuries saw the financiers' control of world commerce
spread through the instrumentality of the British Empire . The bedrock
of British policy was "free trade," which allowed British manufacturers
who paid their workers a pittance to undersell their competitors
elsewhere. This was aided by having the British pound become the world's
trading currency.
With the First Zionist Congress of 1897, one of the financiers'
geopolitical goals became to support the creation of the nation of
Israel , at least partly to dominate the world's crossroads in the
oil-rich Middle East . The oil was needed to fuel the British navy.
The nature and origins of Zionism have been hotly debated in recent
years, as the role of Israel on the world stage has grown. One thing
seems certain: The Jewish religion is by no means monolithic. But its
followers, many of whom opposed the philosophy of Zionism, would now be
drawn into the financiers' power game. From this point on, anyone who
even questioned Zionism would be labeled "anti-Semitic."
As the 20th century advanced, the financier elite became heavily
involved in getting rich off world war and the manufacture of the new
weapons of mass destruction that modern technology made possible.
Warfare and weaponry, combined with control of credit manufactured
through the leveraging of industrial production, were to be the primary
means of putting nations and their populations into debt. A
materialistic slave society was being created, which books like 1984
warned against. Humanity was lured into compliance through the fantasy
world brought about by the mass media by means of advertising, cinema,
and television. Another enticement was the growing availability of
mass-produced consumer goods.
How It Was Done
While World War I and the Russian Revolution still lay a few years in
the future, the international financiers quietly took control of the
U.S. economic system in 1913 through the Federal Reserve Act and the
16th Amendment to the Constitution which provided for the federal income
tax. The purpose of this tax was to use citizens' earnings to pay the
interest on the "funded" national debt. As with the debt owed by the
British people to the Bank of England, this would be one so large the
principle could never be paid off.
Russia was allied with Britain and France during World War I (1914-18).
But the war against Germany and Austria-Hungary had reached a stalemate
until the tide was turned by entry of the U.S. on the side of the
Allies. Fighting on the eastern front between Germany and Russia was
savage. By the end of the war the Russian Revolution broke out, and,
after a terrible Civil War, the Soviet Union came into being.
It was the financier-controlled press which goaded President Woodrow
Wilson into taking the nation into World War I on the side of England
and France. But it was also part of the financiers' plan to shift the
apparent focal point of their financial power from London to New York .
This was done through the financing of the war by loans made to the
European combatants by the New York banks.
It seemed to be in accord with a plan spelled out decades earlier by
Cecil Rhodes, whereby the U.S. would not only be "recovered" for the
British Empire, but would appear to become the senior partner in the
enterprise. By the start of the 1920s, this objective had been
accomplished. German, English, French, and other European taxpayers were
all deeply in debt to the U.S. banks for the costs of the war.
Also during the war years the financiers had secured the issuance of the
Balfour Declaration signaling British support for the establishment of a
Zionist state in Palestine. The 1917 Declaration was made in a letter
from Arthur James Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, to Walter
Rothschild, Second Baron Rothschild, for transmission to the Zionist
Federation.
During and after World War I, world financial power shifted to the New
York banks through which, however, it would be the London-based elite
exerting de facto control. It might also be said that starting with U.S.
entry into World War I, once you look past the patriotic slogans, the
U.S., its vast productivity, and the blood of its population have been
used in making this country the worldwide military enforcer of
international financier domination.
World War II became the means of consolidating financier control. Prior
to that, during the years of the Great Depression, both Russia -aka the
Soviet Union-and the U.S. were slipping away from the fold. Stalin had
shown his "Bonapartist" tendencies by favoring "Socialism in one
country," as well as by his deadly purges of the financier-controlled
Trotskyite faction and his shocking rapprochement with Hitler in 1939
that seemed to foil the financiers' intent to play off Nazi Germany and
the Soviets against each other.
In the U.S., President Franklin Roosevelt had taken steps during the
Great Depression to rebuild the U.S. economy by exerting an unaccustomed
degree of control over the Federal Reserve System and providing credit
at low rates of interest to homeowners, farmers, and businessmen. This
made Roosevelt seem to many wealthy Americans "a traitor to his class."
Roosevelt saw that a healthy and self-sustaining domestic economy is
essential for the well-being of a sovereign nation. But instead of
looking for ways to create a monetary system based on the productivity
of the economy, as Lincoln had done with the Greenbacks during the Civil
War, Roosevelt left intact the debt-based system overseen by the Federal
Reserve. He added to this system the Keynesian idea of government
deficit spending for public works to create employment. This was
essentially a system whereby government would try to pay its debts by
engendering inflation, a policy that has continued until today.
But World War II thwarted even these stirrings of nationalism in both
countries. In both the Soviet Union and the U.S. , the financiers worked
the levers of debt to build massive war machines. They were also working
through the Western banks, including Brown Brothers Harriman in New
York, to achieve the same ends in Nazi Germany. Eventually Hitler
invaded the Soviet Union, and the U.S. entered the war. Both during and
after the war, operatives from the international financial elite
centered in London were the linchpins of a worldwide matrix of spying,
assassination, terrorism, industrial espionage, psy ops, media
manipulation, and monetary control. This included financing the founding
of Israel as the Western bridgehead in the Middle East in 1948.
Despite the creation of an appearance of conflict between the West and
the Soviet Union through the Cold War, the financiers continued to work
both sides of the fence through their London-based operatives. In the
U.S. they created the modern national security state with both the
National Security Agency and the CIA firmly under their control. Then,
after President John F. Kennedy moved to forestall the neocolonialist
Vietnam conflict and replace the Federal Reserve with a U.S. system of
silver-backed Treasury currency, he was shot dead in Dallas 's Dealey
Plaza on November 22, 1963.
In charge of convincing the public that the Warren Commission was
correct in concluding that Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald,
supposedly a lone deranged gunman, were figures associated with the
financier elite from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Yale Law
School . (See The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up Revisited by Donald
Gibson, 2005.) But in 1979, a report of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations stated that Kennedy was killed by a "probable
conspiracy."
It has been thoroughly documented that since World War II the Western
intelligence agencies, all with close ties to the financial world,
particularly the New York and London investment banks, have been
responsible for engendering wars, revolutions, and mayhem in countries
around the world, causing the deaths of millions of people in Asia,
Africa, Latin America, and southeastern Europe.
Meanwhile, the worldwide arms industry, also under financier control,
have produced the greatest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction ever
seen. After Kennedy was killed, the U.S. moved to arm Israel as the
leading military power of the region. Today nuclear weapons have
proliferated, with Israel , Pakistan , and India becoming nuclear powers
in addition to the U.S. , Russia , Britain , China , and France .
But warfare and weapons cost money, and by the late 1960s the Vietnam
War was sinking the U.S. deeper into debt. The U.S. war machine was to
be the main tool for financier enforcement of their worldwide plan of
domination, but the nation was going broke. The problem was made worse
by heavy federal expenditures for the poor and elderly through such
programs as Medicare and Medicaid.
But President Richard Nixon's Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had a
plan. The government worked out an arrangement whereby Saudi Arabia and
the other OPEC nations would gradually increase the price of oil, with
the profits to be used by the oil-producing nations to buy U.S. Treasury
debt securities. By 1980 the cost of oil would be ratcheted up from
about $3.50 a barrel to $39.50.
The drastic increase of the price of gasoline at the pump acted as a de
facto tax on the U.S. economy. But the plan worked. The "petrodollar"
and "dollar hegemony" were born, with the dollar becoming the world's
reserve currency. Dollars could flood the world only because in 1971 the
Nixon administration had abandoned the dollar's gold peg as a basis for
international currency exchange. Now currencies floated freely in world
markets with speculation and inflation rampant. The economies of the
world were no longer based on production, but on financial manipulation.
It was also the start of the era of monetarism, where the Federal
Reserve thought it could regulate the economy by the raising and
lowering of interest rates.
The Kissinger plan also made the U.S. dependent on Middle Eastern oil
and turned it into the muscle behind the financiers' ambition for Israel
to dominate the region. So now Americans, who had liberated Europe from
the Nazis, had to fight and die for the financiers in the Middle East .
The final conquest of Iraq , starting in 2003, and the planned war
against Iran are the latest phases.
Meanwhile, through the financiers' control of the U.S. Federal Reserve
System, the producing economy was shattered through the Fed- induced
recession of 1979-83, where interest rates were raised to the highest in
history to combat the inflation the financiers had themselves caused by
the oil price shocks. By this time, as some allege, the controversial
concept of "peak oil"-whether it really existed or not-was being used as
a cover for financier manipulation of oil markets by limiting production
in order to maintain prices.
By 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president, the U.S. producing
economy had been devastated by the shutdown of factories and the export
of jobs. The work of wrecking the economy was completed by Clinton 's
embrace of NAFTA, which has largely eliminated family farming in favor
of financier-controlled agribusiness in the U.S. , Canada , and Mexico .
Deregulation of the financial industry began in earnest during the
Reagan years from 1981-89 and accelerated under Clinton .
By this time, the U.S. economy was being kept afloat only through
financial bubbles that allowed the purchase of consumer goods to take
place through more family and household debt. We had the merger-
acquisition bubble of the 1980s, followed by the George H.W. Bush
recession which led to Clinton 's election in 1992. During the 1990s we
had the dot.com bubble fueled by foreign investment. Capital gains taxes
on stock price inflation and counting trust funds like Social Security
as budgetary assets allowed Clinton to balance the federal budget the
last three years of his presidency.
But the dot.com bubble also burst with the loss of $7 trillion of wealth
through the crash of 2000-2001. Next came the Bush bubbles-in housing,
equity funds, commercial real estate, and hedge funds that have been
deflating while threatening to destroy altogether the economic viability
of what was once the world's greatest industrial democracy.
After this, the only bubble left for an economy that appears to be
entering terminal depression may be the current fuel/food bubble that
could result in the starvation of millions worldwide. Now the
longstanding ambition of the financier elite for the destruction of the
American republic may finally be realized-with a lot of help, of course,
from their American friends.
"End Times"
Can it be that the last stage of the U.S. takedown is "The Project for
the New American Century"? Is this ambitious plan for "global
leadership" through military might that was seemingly invented by the "neocons"-many
with dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship-a Trojan Horse?
It certainly appears that with 9/11 as a pretext, the neocons suckered
the U.S. into the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as a means of
military occupation of the Middle East . Certainly 9/11 and the Iraq
invasion benefited Israel, as some Israeli politicians have frankly
stated.
Were the neocons also acting on behalf of the financial controllers in
London and elsewhere? And was one reason the neocons were so eager to
engage in a "clash of civilizations" against the Islamic world the
Koranic prohibition of usury which states, "Those who charge Usury are
in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This
is because they claim that Usury is the same as commerce. However, God
permits commerce, and prohibits Usury." (Koran, Al-Baqarah 2:275)
Prior to 9/11, the Bush administration got Congress to cut taxes for the
highest income brackets, reversing Bill Clinton's budget surpluses. The
tax cut remained in effect, even as the massive expenditures on the
Middle Eastern wars mounted. The consequence has been to bring the
federal government to the brink of bankruptcy.
The last official act of this phase could well be the ultimate insanity
of a U.S. attack on Iran . If successful, this would complete the
Western conquest of the Middle East but may start a larger conflict that
could eventually force the U.S. to withdraw its forces once the money
runs out. Israel would then be at liberty to sweep in to dominate a
region that U.S. military power had devastated.
Whatever may happen overseas, the U.S. economy at home is on the verge
of collapse. It if does, we will have to retreat to our own shores and
face here the edifice of a ruined nation with no manufacturing base, a
crumbling infrastructure, an aging population, insufficient food, poorly
developed resources, and the collapse of the dollar. Of course the
prophets of doom who claim that overpopulation must inevitably lead to
Malthusian scarcity will take all this as justification of their
prejudices. The rumored North American Union, with its currency the
amero, could then follow, both under the control of the financiers.
Meanwhile in Russia, things took a surprising turn when the Russian
people threw out their communist controllers in 1991 and established a
Russian republic. The financiers immediately took over through the
government of Boris Yeltsin and began to divide up the nation's
resources through their local allies, the "oligarchs." But the Russian
people refused to comply. Despite desperate poverty, they elected
Vladimir Putin, a nationalist leader who moved quickly to establish a
self-governing Russian state that the financiers and the Western press
clearly intend to take down. Russia is now back on the world scene, and
a revival of the Orthodox Church is taking place. The drama in that
country has not been entirely played out it seems.
As far as the U.S. is concerned, the financiers will have used us for a
century, then thrown us in the trash. The U.S. may well be replaced by
China, which the financiers seem to be grooming as the world's next
military enforcer. China has the advantage of an absolutist one- party
system which has achieved remarkable success in terrorizing its huge
population into obedience and passivity. The financiers would not
hesitate to sacrifice hordes of Chinese to fight both Russia and what
may remain of the U.S. By this time, the European Union will likely have
its own unified nuclear deterrent to protect the financial centers. The
time may come when there will be Chinese bases in the U.S. as
occupiers/military police.
The wisest and safest course for U.S. foreign policy could be a new
alliance with Russia that would rekindle our affinity with that nation
from over a century ago. But how likely is this in a world ruled by the
financiers where the destruction of the two nations is a long-term goal?
One of the tools of financier domination in the meantime will likely be
worldwide famine engineered by artificial shortages. This has already
started and may cause hundreds of millions of people to die and their
resources to be seized. The smokescreens for this will not only be peak
oil but also global warming as a means of dealing with the world's
"surplus eaters." Numerous non-profits and NGOs are greasing the skids
with their insistent lobbying against even responsible economic
development.
Now in the U.S. we will likely see riots, panic, martial law, plagues,
epidemics, and prison camps, much of which has already begun with police
crackdowns, anti-terrorist exercises, declining public health, erosion
of civil liberties, and the world's largest prison population.
It is likely that the "American Century" is over and that the "New
American Century" will really be the "No American Century." Outside of
select pockets of prosperity around financial centers, resorts, and
military installations, the U.S. is being destroyed. As an example, the
residents of once-prosperous towns in Michigan have turned to the
illegal manufacture of meth-amphetamine now that the jobs are gone.
We have been used and abused, though often suckered into it by our own
stupidity and greed. We have allowed ourselves to serve the will of an
alien force-the world's financial elite. Our payback now appears to be a
looming national catastrophe.
Economic Restructuring
Economically, what is left of America must be rebuilt from the ground
up. The flaw is not in the productivity of nature, the availability of
resources, our ingenuity, nor our ability to work. The flaw has been in
the capitalist financial system.
We must now rebuild three things: American family farming, since a
nation that cannot feed itself cannot long exist; then infrastructure
and manufacturing, which will require energy conservation and
redevelopment of our energy resources; then income security tied to
productivity but not always to employment-a basic guaranteed income for
all. The best available treatment of the history and benefits of a
guaranteed income may be found in Steven Shafarman's new book, Peaceful,
Positive Revolution, Tendril Press, 2008.
The concept of a guaranteed income as a benefit of a modern industrial
economy has been around for a long time. But it is often confused with
job-creation. As indicated earlier, during the 1930s, British economist
John Maynard Keynes came up with the idea of using government deficits
to try to out-run unemployment through government- controlled pump
priming. But in the long run his methods were doomed to fail as
debt-based economic growth eventually reached its limits due to
inflation. This is where we are today, with President George W. Bush now
the largest deficit spender in history.
The most successful attempt to define a rationale for an honest and
democratic monetary system, one based on human labor and not financial
chicanery, was the Social Credit movement founded by British engineer
C.H. Douglas (1879-1952). He first set forth his ideas in his book
Economic Democracy in 1918 and continued to teach his system for the
next thirty years, attracting a considerable following in Great Britain
, Canada , New Zealand , and Australia .
Douglas explained the dynamic whereby the incredible productivity of
modern technology can readily be harnessed to provide the material
sustenance for all members of society, but fails to do so because there
is a chronic shortage of purchasing power from the cumulative societal
income realized through wages, salaries, and dividends. The main reasons
income cannot keep pace with prices is that the latter include retained
earnings for savings and reinvestment, along with depreciation of
capital-i.e., the tools and facilities of production.
But the "gap" between prices and earnings (what Keynes was to call
"aggregate demand") was viewed by Douglas as a benefit of a modern
industrial economy rather than the curse which in the Depression was
causing farmers to dump their milk in the fields because consumers
lacked the money to purchase it.
Douglas saw this gap as the natural appreciation of the potential
producing economy to which everyone in society was entitled as monetized
shares. He said this appreciation should manifest in regular payments of
a National Dividend by government from a calculated credit account not
dependent on taxation or government borrowing. The National Dividend
could be paid by a combination of regular stipends to citizens and/or
through a system of price subsidies. And it would be non-inflationary.
Douglas went further by explaining that in real life the price-income
gap was in fact filled-nature abhors a vacuum-but by bank lending at
usury. This was why the banks got richer, while everyone else struggled
just to survive. Banks also use their credit creating ability to acquire
securities, such as Treasury bonds, with the government paying interest
that is compounded because the debt is constantly being re-financed.
Interest on the U.S. national debt is expected to exceed $500 billion in
fiscal year 2009. To pay it, many social programs will be cut.
The technical explanation is provided by Canadian Social Credit expert
Wallace Klinck, "Expanding interest charges being paid on exponentially
compounding debt accumulates due to an industrial cost accountancy error
related to allocating capital charges in retail prices which do not
distribute equal incomes within the same production cycle. The growing
disparity between prices and incomes is progressively worsened by the
replacement of human labor by capital (technology)."
Under the current system, the banks steal the fruits of economic wealth
which properly belong to the public as a whole, both workers and
non-workers, and while the financiers were well aware of Douglas 's
system, they hated it. Word went out in the 1920s that his name was
never to be mentioned in the British press. John Maynard Keyes was said
to have developed his own deficit-spending theories as a means to
counter Douglas 's influence. And when Douglas visited the U.S. in the
late 1930s, he was told to his face that he would never be allowed to
introduce his ideas in this country.
Next Steps
To accomplish a program of real reform will require a strong president
but possibly a political revolution to get one. Congressman Ron Paul has
made history as the first major presidential candidate to call for the
abolishment of the Federal Reserve. He is right. The first thing a
president worthy of the name should do is eliminate the Federal Reserve
as a bank-of-issue, get rid of our debt-based monetary system, and
depose the bankers and Wall Street financiers from the seats of power.
Ron Paul is also right that the U.S. should withdraw its military from
overseas and stop trying to control the world.
What Ron Paul's candidacy proves is that in the internet age, with
financial crises jumping from the headlines every day, and authorities
such as Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Secretary of
the Treasury Henry Paulson manifestly having no intention of making real
changes, the public is ready to listen to new ideas. But even
progressive analysts are so locked into outmoded concepts that they fail
to realize an entirely new type of monetary system is needed.
The basic concept that must be understood, as expressed repeatedly by
this author in past articles, is that credit is a power of nature that
is part of the human "commons." Credit allows society to materialize
value by drawing from future potential productivity into present
actualized reality. Credit therefore should be treated legally as a
public utility, like water or electricity.
Credit is not a mathematical abstraction that should be manipulated into
building pyramids of debt. Such practices are suicidal for an economy.
Rather credit is organic, deriving ultimately from human labor
(including mental labor, as in the application of technology), along
with the sun, the soil, natural resources, and the rain. Thus we have
gone full circle to the beginning of this article, where Russia and the
U.S. were cited as the two nations that best understood where real
wealth comes from.
The management of credit may be licensed to responsible private parties
who are accountable to public authority, but it should never be given
away or "privatized" to individuals or corporations who manipulate it
mainly for their own profit, as banks do today. It is the privatization
of credit through the banking systems of the world which has loaded
humanity with debt, rendered short-term profits the highest priority of
all business endeavor, and made modern industrialization as much a curse
as a blessing.
Note that credit differs in this discussion from the legitimate
investment of capital derived from profits or savings whereby an
individual risks a portion of his wealth through a contract with a
producing entity. Capital markets that facilitate this type of
investment fall under the category of commerce, not usury.
A national monetary system should reflect the treatment of credit as a
public utility and thereby make possible responsible economic activity
and the fair distribution of wealth. Some of the measures which should
be implemented are contained in the American Monetary Institute's draft
American Monetary Act. (www.monetary.org/) The resulting currency could
be issued, not in the form of debt instruments like Federal Reserve
Notes, but silver-backed Treasury certificates as in President Kennedy's
program of 1963.
Features of a new monetary system could be as follows:
A guaranteed income, followed by a National Dividend, should be paid
directly to citizens from a Treasury credit account without recourse to
either taxation or government borrowing. (C.H. Douglas's theory of the
National Dividend as the monetization of the net appreciation of the
productivity of a modern industrial economy is set forth in this
author's Global Research article entitled, "An Emergency Program of
Monetary Reform for the United States ," April 26, 2007.) The National
Dividend, currently estimated at over $12,000 per capita annually, could
be distributed in a variety of ways, in addition to a subsistence
stipend. This could include price subsidies for consumer purchases,
taking over existing Social Security payments, universal health
insurance, or payments to women with young children. Another way to
issue a National Dividend would be to monetize food production, whereby
anyone who delivers food products to wholesalers receives a government
payment as a producer's subsidy, thereby discounting food at the
consumer point-of-sale. This would work in a similar fashion to farm
parity pricing programs of bygone days. As explained by Wallace Klinck,
"Social Credit policy is to compensate retail prices at the
point-of-sale. It is not, however, to subsidize production which would
be subject to consumer choice and fully supported by consumers having at
all times financial income adequate to fully liquidate the costs of
production. That is, production policy is to be determined essentially
by consumers-this being the Social Credit concept of genuine economic
democracy with maximum decentralization, or dispersion, of power over
production policy. Price controls under the present financial
cost-accountancy system, where continued economic activity is dependent
upon an inflationary expansion of credit to meet rising costs arising
consequent to flawed accountancy, is demonstrably impossible. Price
regulation, however, would appear to be both necessary and realistic
under a self- liquidating Social Credit system of finance. Although not
generally recognized, prices are 'controlled,' (or manipulated) under
the present system of finance in a most deleterious manner."
The government should also spend money directly into circulation, as it
did with Greenbacks in the 19th century, both for operating expenses and
for infrastructure projects at the federal, state, and local levels. A
national infrastructure bank could be capitalized by state and local
infrastructure bonds without any impact on the federal budget. Such
spending would again be without recourse to borrowing or taxation.
Infrastructure spending could be either through grants or low-interest
loans. As with Congressman Dennis Kucinich's current proposed
infrastructure bank legislation, the program could specify that a
requisite proportion of funding be spent on American-made products such
as steel.
We should reform banking by eliminating the catastrophic privately-
controlled fractional reserve system. Instead, the government should
lend money at a low rate of interest to banks, then use the proceeds to
help pay for legitimate government expenditures in the areas of
regulation or services. Use of the proceeds, combined with the new
Greenbacks and savings from no longer having to pay interest on an
unnecessary national debt, would eliminate the need for the federal
income tax, allowing the 16th Amendment to be repealed. In fact, under a
monetary system such as the one described herein, probably three-fourths
or more of the current societal tax burden could be eliminated.
In order to clear the way for these reforms, bankruptcy reorganization
of the entire $50 trillion of existing debt in the U.S. should be
undertaken, with debt being restructured and paid down over time or
simply written off. Bank lending for speculation, such as for mergers
and acquisitions, equity and hedge fund speculation, and purchase of
securities on margin has been explosively enabled through bankers'
ability to move massive amounts of funds electronically. These
leveraging practices should be outlawed, as they are abuses of the
public interest. (According to the London Times, one John Paulson made
$3.7 billion in hedge fund trading last year. "Mr. Paulson's firm,
Paulson & Co, made a fortune from shorting America 's sub-prime mortgage
markets.") A national fuel conservation program with real teeth should
also be instituted. And at least half of the U.S. military budget should
be eliminated, with half of the remainder devoted to energy R&D and
domestic public works. Employees of the military-industrial complex will
find many new career opportunities as the domestic economy revives.
As these measures are taken, the United States will no longer be dancing
to the financiers' tune. We would be helping prepare a future where
man's inhumanity to man as expressed through war and financial
exploitation is no longer glorified. Such a future would be a milestone
in the eventual enlightenment of the human race. But these are measures
that must be implemented now, before it is too late.
While we await these epochal changes, more modest steps may be in order.
The author is often asked for personal financial advice. His advice is
to invest in yourself and in other people. Plant a robust home garden.
Learn new skills. Start community food co-ops that buy local products.
Establish local currencies and barter networks. Join or form a union.
Raise bees. Put kids through school. Get out of debt. Pray and meditate.
Become politically active. Demand change.
Richard C. Cook is a former U.S. federal government analyst, whose
career included service with the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Food
and Drug Administration, the Carter White House, NASA, and the U.S.
Treasury Department. His articles on economics, politics, and space
policy have appeared on numerous websites. His book on monetary reform
is entitled We Hold These Truths: The Promise of Monetary Reform and
will be published this autumn by Tendril Press. He is also the author of
Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan
Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age, called by
one reviewer, "the most important spaceflight book of the last twenty
years." His website is at www.richardccook.com. Questions, comments, or
contributions may be directed to economicsanity@gmail.com .
Comment: Unfortunately Dobb's screws up when
he asks, "Let's be honest. Does Washington even know?" Of course
Congress knows that Corporations are displacing Americans with H1-B's.
They passed the legislation and they are working to make sure that more
Americans are displaced by raising the caps on foreign visas. The
question is what are we going to do about it. I recall that hemp
rope has always made for a efficient and reliable hangman's noose. [BC]
On Monday, we reported that the Nielsen Company, the company that
measures television ratings, has been replacing American workers with
cheap foreign labor. Nielson, like many companies before it, is
replacing good-paying middle class jobs and abusing the federal
government's H1-B visa program process in the future. The biggest users
of H1-B visas in fact are Indian outsourcing companies. Now some
communities are telling Washington they've had enough of seeing jobs in
their communities shipped overseas or labor shipped overseas to their
communities.
Bill Tucker has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The city counsel in Florida is not
suffering quietly the sting of Nielsen's actions. The company is taking
the jobs away from American workers, giving the jobs to foreign workers
on guest worker visas, and requiring the fired workers to train them.
Most of those jobs ultimately will be transferred out of the country.
GREG RUBLEE, OLDSMAR CITY COUNCIL: What Nielsen has chosen to do in
exploiting the H1-B visa program, by American standards, it's
fundamentally wrong and it's fundamentally unpatriotic.
SUZANNE VALE, OLDSMAR CITY COUNCIL: I'm incensed our government would
allow this to happen to the American people. This is all about driving
down the wages in this country. To me, it's unAmerican.
TUCKER: Because of the uproar over the outsourcing, Nielsen said it
would forego millions of dollars in tax incentives this year. It's been
receiving those incentives for the past four years. Counsel members
admit there's nothing more they can do aside from express their anger.
They're calling on Congress and voters to wake up now.
ERIC SEIDEL, OLDSMAR CITY COUNCIL: It's a huge issue that's getting
worse, especially hitting us at times when the economy is not very good.
I think Washington, it's not to pass the buck. I wish we had the
authority to do something. JANICE MILLER, OLDSMAR CITY COUNCIL: People
need to call Senator McCain, and Senator Obama, finding out what their
stance is on this issue. They're running for the president. They need to
find out where they stand. This is important. Our jobs are going
overseas.
TUCKER: Nielsen acknowledges the losses but responds by noting that
roughly 1,300 jobs will remain in the city.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: However, critics are Nielsen and Oldsmar are a little leery of
any promises or assurances from the company. They pointed out that
Nielsen last October signed a $1.2 billion outsourcing contract for the
next 10 years. The deal includes not only information technology
support, but operational support as well.
DOBBS: Has anybody -- well, considered the fact that Nielsen is a
monopoly with perhaps a sliver in this country. And we're letting this
company operate here with impunity, abusing its -- frankly, our market
and our hospitality, and these ignorant so-and-sos are shipping jobs
overseas. Who needs them? Why in the world isn't Congress investigating
why this company has a monopoly. Why in the world are we permitting such
behavior from a company abusing workers in this fashion?
TUCKER: That's what every single member of this city counsel wants to
know. They point out this is legal, it's within the law. Washington has
crafted these policies and they're letting Nielsen do it and they're
angry in their community.
DOBBS: Let's be honest. Does Washington even know? Where the heck are
the Congress -- let's get with the congress in that district and the
senators from that state and find out exactly what they're doing. If
they're going to simply turn a blind eye to this kind of behavior, the
country, the state of Florida, is lost. It's an absurdity to tolerate
this corporate behavior, period.
Bill, if you would do that tomorrow, we'd appreciate it. I know Nielsen
would appreciate it. Thank you very much, Bill Tucker.
Well, a group of Indian politicians is making its preference in our
presidential race known. They're, by the way, for Senator Obama. The
group has organized an 11-day religious ceremony for Senator Obama's
success. The group is also planning to send Senator Obama a lucky charm,
a two-foot tall gold-plated idol of one of the most popular and heroic
gods in Hinduism. Senator Obama says he will try to keep jobs in this
country but "We live in a more competitive world, and that's a fact that
can't be reversed."
That's the kind of wisdom that I'm sure will be appreciated in India if
not particularly embraced in this country. Try again, Senator Obama. How
about you, Senator McCain? Why don't you step up, both of you say what
you're thinking about having good-paying, middle- class jobs in your
country. Where does the worker really fit into the future of the nation?
Got the guts to tell us? I doubt it but we'll look forward to your
response. Up next, the author of an important book, "A Government Ill
Executed," Professor Paul Light joins me. We'll have more on the battle
to reform or dysfunctional government and push back against lobbyists.
Nevada Solar One power plant opened in February 2008. The 400-acre,
64-megawatt, solar power plant is the first built in the US in 17 years
and is the third largest in the world. The plant produces energy to
power about 14,000 homes. Faced with a surge in the number of proposed
solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on
new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental
impact, which is expected to take about two years. (Photo: Reuters)
Denver - Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power
plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar
projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact,
which is expected to take about two years.
The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is
needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of
acres it oversees in six Western states - Arizona, California, Colorado,
Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.
But the decision to freeze new solar proposals temporarily, reached late
last month, has caused widespread concern in the alternative-energy
industry, as fledgling solar companies must wait to see if they can
realize their hopes of harnessing power from swaths of sun-baked public
land, just as the demand for viable alternative energy is accelerating.
"It doesn't make any sense," said Holly Gordon, vice president for
legislative and regulatory affairs for Ausra, a solar thermal energy
company in Palo Alto, Calif. "The Bureau of Land Management land has
some of the best solar resources in the world. This could completely
stunt the growth of the industry."
Much of the 119 million surface acres of federally administered land in
the West is ideal for solar energy, particularly in Arizona, Nevada and
Southern California, where sunlight drenches vast, flat desert tracts.
Galvanized by the national demand for clean energy development, solar
companies have filed more than 130 proposals with the Bureau of Land
Management since 2005. They center on the companies' desires to lease
public land to build solar plants and then sell the energy to utilities.
According to the bureau, the applications, which cover more than one
million acres, are for projects that have the potential to power more
than 20 million homes.
All involve two types of solar plants, concentrating and photovoltaic.
Concentrating solar plants use mirrors to direct sunlight toward a
synthetic fluid, which powers a steam turbine that produces electricity.
Photovoltaic plants use solar panels to convert sunlight into electric
energy.
Much progress has been made in the development of both types of solar
technology in the last few years. Photovoltaic solar projects grew by 48
percent in 2007 compared with 2006. Eleven concentrating solar plants
are operational in the United States, and 20 are in various stages of
planning or permitting, according to the Solar Energy Industries
Association.
The manager of the Bureau of Land Management's environmental impact
study, Linda Resseguie, said that many factors must be considered when
deciding whether to allow solar projects on the scale being proposed,
among them the impact of construction and transmission lines on native
vegetation and wildlife. In California, for example, solar developers
often hire environmental experts to assess the effects of construction
on the desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel.
Water use can be a factor as well, especially in the parched areas where
virtually all of the proposed plants would be built. Concentrating solar
plants may require water to condense the steam used to power the
turbine.
"Reclamation is another big issue," Ms. Resseguie said. "These plants
potentially have a 20- to 30-year life span. How to restore that land is
a big question for us."
Another benefit of the study will be a single set of environmental
criteria to weigh future solar proposals, which will ultimately speed
the application process, said the assistant Interior Department
secretary for land and minerals management, C. Stephen Allred. The land
agency's manager of energy policy, Ray Brady, said the moratorium on new
applications was necessary to "ensure that we are doing an adequate
level of analysis of the impacts."
In the meantime, bureau officials emphasized, they will continue
processing the more than 130 applications received before May 29,
measuring each one's environmental impact.
While proponents of solar energy agree on the need for a sweeping
environmental study, many believe that the freeze is unwarranted. Some,
like Ms. Gordon, whose company has two pending proposals for solar
plants on public land, say small solar energy businesses could suffer if
they are forced to turn to more expensive private land for development.
The industry is already concerned over the fate of federal solar
investment tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year
unless Congress renews them. The moratorium, combined with an end to tax
credits, would deal a double blow to an industry that, solar advocates
say, has experienced significant growth without major environmental
problems.
"The problem is that this is a very young industry, and the majority of
us that are involved are young, struggling, hungry companies," said Lee
Wallach of Solel, a solar power company based in California that has
filed numerous applications to build on public land and was considering
filing more in the next two years. "This is a setback."
At a public hearing in Golden, Colo., on Monday, one of a series by the
Bureau of Land Management across the West, reaction to the moratorium
was mixed.
Alex Daue, an outreach coordinator for the Wilderness Society, an
environmental conservation group, praised the government for assessing
the implications of large-scale solar development.
Others warned the bureau against becoming mired in its own bureaucratic
processes on solar energy, while parts of the West are already humming
with new oil and gas development.
Craig Cox, the executive director of the Interwest Energy Alliance, a
renewable energy trade group, said he worried that the freeze would
"throw a monkey wrench" into the solar energy industry at precisely the
wrong time.
"I think it's good to have a plan," Mr. Cox said, "but I don't think we
need to stop development in its tracks."
For those that don't have
"Showtime" let me briefly summarize the series. The plot
revolves around a widowed housewife from an affluent California suburb
who becomes an upper-middle-class marijuana dealer to make ends meet.
Mary Louise Parker plays the widowed housewife, Nancy Botwin.
As much as I like Mary Louise
Parker, and the rest of the "Weeds" cast, I feel obligated to criticize
the premise behind the show. And the premise is that Marijuana
prohibition is just the way it is and the way it is always going to be.
This strikes me as self defeating in so many respects.
First of all Marijuana has only
been illegal for 70 years. Secondly, if Marijuana were legal it
would only cost an adult $20 and ounce to grow what is selling on the
streets for $300 to $600 and ounce. Thirdly, and most
important, we are amazingly close to reaching a majority consensus for
the legalization of Marijuana. In Canada an overall majority of
54% support the complete legalization of Marijuana for adults. In
the United States majorities already exist on the East and West Coasts.
The Central US support for Marijuana Legalization is around 46%.
And throughout the planet, support for Marijuana Re-Legalization grows
with each passing year. Years ago I had predicted majority
consensus by 2010 and I appear to be right on track.
So I, like millions of other
viewers, have watched the last 3 season of "Weeds" and will probably
watch the 4th season as well. But the premise -- that weed will
always be illegal -- prevents us from even thinking about an America
where Marijuana is, once again, legal. In point of fact Marijuana
was legal until 1938 and was the most widely used analgesic during the
mid-1800's. In point of fact virtually every commission on
Marijuana has concluded that it is neither a societal danger, nor worthy
of such a large waste of our tax dollars.
But that doesn't go far enough.
As an expert on drug policy I am well aware that our very own government
is deeply involved in funding "black ops" projects through the black
market distribution of Marijuana and "hard drugs" such as cocaine and
heroin. As Vice President to Reagan, Bush (1) was deeply involved
in the Iran-Contra scandal. This highly illegal operation
allowed the CIA to exchange guns for cocaine, which was then distributed
to West Coast Drug Gangs. This was well documented in Gary Webb's
series, "The Dark Alliance." The cocaine was then boiled with
baking soda and water to become crack which was then used to decimate
the Black and Hispanic ghettos. Finally these poor minorities were
thrown into the Prison Industrial Complex where Bush and his cronies
could make even more profit. This would be funny if it were not so
damn sick and hypocritical.
So "Weeds" basically promulgates
the fiction that Marijuana will always be illegal. And guest
starts like Snoop Dog feed that fiction by appearing on the show.
What a hypocrite!
I would like to propose another
show which we will call "Cannabis," the scientific
name for Marijuana. It would center around a neo-hippie family in
near future where Marijuana is completely legal. The family would
be portrayed as smart, empathetic and loving. They would be into
things like yoga, nutritious eating: basically the antithesis of current
corporate culture. The parents would be portrayed as responsible
adults, not allowing the children access; intervening when they see
signs of overuse etc.
The show could take a
retrospective look at how the Mexican Drug Cartels and Human Smuggling
operations were brought to a halt after Marijuana became legal under the
"MERP" Model, as proposed by author Bruce Cain. It could look at
all the businesses that went out of business after their real business
-- laundering Marijuana proceeds -- dried up. It could look at how
attorneys go bust after loosing the pool of 800,000 Marijuana clients
that used to pound on their office doors each year for legal counsel.
It could look at the closing of drug testing labs that are no longer
required for court ordered piss tests. It could expose how many of
the drug reform groups were never really that interested in seeing
Marijuana Prohibition end.
Now "that's" the show I want to
see. Instead we have this show titled "Weeds" that just keeps the
false propaganda alive. Weed will never be legal: that is the
subliminal message of the show "Weeds." In a sense it is worse
that "Reefer Madness" because it's subliminal message is far more
subtle. And so we continue to watch, week after week. And
the propaganda is so subtle that we forget to even think about what our
society would be like if Marijuana Prohibition were to end.
But since "Weeds" isn't going to
address life after Marijuana Prohibition (1938 - "Its up to us") let me
summarize for you. Our civil liberties would be rejuvenated as
police would no longer have an excuse to search your car or crash you
Saturday Bar-BQ. Hemp fabrics would displace cotton, which is less
durable and requires huge amounts of herbicides and pesticides to grow.
Mexican Drug Cartels, local gangs and the corruption of public officials
would be greatly diminished, resulting in safer neighborhoods and
cities. Access to high-quality Marijuana would diminish the demand
for "harder" drugs such as Cocaine, Heroin and Meth. In this
capacity Marijuana would act as a "Gatekeeper" substance: keeping people
at arms length from the dealers that are hawking the harder drugs.
Terrorist organizations (Islamic extremists, the CIA, NSA), that derive
50% of their revenue from the sale of illegal drugs, would be
economically destroyed.
I can almost envision the theme
song for the show: pot smoker extraordinaire, Louis Armstrong, singing
"Its a Beautiful World."
But seriously, if you want this to
happen then here is what you have to do. Demand that McCain and
Obama support and implement the "MERP" Model for Marijuana reform BEFORE
the 2008 Presidential election. Attend their public appearances
and scream out loudly:
"End the War on Marijuana.
Implement MERP before the election or we won't vote for you."
For once we change our minds, we
can change the course of our future.
Here are a few brief articles
describing the MERP Model:
The MERP Project
The Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy (MRP) Project
In order to raise money for the "New
Agenda for America" -- and to continue with this website -- I am
releasing a series of music CD's. I'm hoping to showcase some of
this music during some of my future public appearances. Currently
"Classical
Guitar Live" is available for purchase and "Gnostic Raw"
is available for pre-order. The mastered version, "Gnostic"
should be available towards the end of 2008. Click
here to place your order.
I've featured some of my
acoustic music
from time to time but have yet to put forth any of my other
compositions. Soon I will be releasing a "Raw" version of the
"Gnostic" music project that
will feature about half of the compositions that will appear on the
final CD. You might say it is something
like the Beatles "Anthology" project in reverse (minus the talent) . . .
as they released early versions of their compositions after selling
their CD rights to Michael Jackson. I, on the other hand, am
releasing the early version first, because the final versions simply
aren't completed.
"Gnostic" is philosophically parallel to the
"New Agenda for America" in many ways. There is the "Hemp
Song" which strongly advocates for the legalization of
Marijuana. "I Know What You Want George" is a rocker
which criticizes George Bush's fascist tendencies.
I
know what you want George
I can hear your feet outside my door
I know what you want George
You’d like to make us your slaves forever more
But your emperors clothes have worn away
And all that’s left is a smarmy corporate whore
Your time is coming
And when the people wake they foil your plan
Your time is coming
And when we rise we’ll take our country back
‘Cus your emperor’s clothes have worn away
And the devil waves behind your back
["I Know What You Want George" by Bruce W. Cain]
"Rainbow
Farm" is an instrumental homage to the massacre at that
occurred at "Rainbow Farm" the week before 911. If I ever
get out lecturing this year I may make an attempt to perform some
acoustic versions of some of the songs.
I wrote "The
Hemp Song" quite awhile ago: shortly after meeting hemp activist
Jack Herer (author of "The Emperor Wears No Clothes") in the early 90's.
It reflects our shared vision of what the world might be like if
Marijuana prohibition were to end. The refrain says it all as it
is only after we change our thinking that we can change our reality.
Any time, any day
Any time that we want it that way
We don’t need your Drug War anymore
Although I admit that many of the
song's predictions are "over puffed" (e.g., Legalization is unlikely to
end Global Warming by itself), there is no doubt that Marijuana
Re-Legalization would have an incredibly positive effect on society.
Of course many attorneys and drug testing labs might not quite see it
that way, however, that is not my concern. It is my hope that this
ballad is embraced by the "grass roots" movement to demand an end to
Marijuana Prohibition throughout the globe.
Hopefully, by the end of 2008, the
final version of "Gnostic" will be mixed, mastered and available for
your listening pleasure. Unfortunately I can be a procrastinator
so it is possible this will never be completed.
"Classical Guitar Live" contains
14 solo guitar compositions that span the 16th to 20th Century.
All were captured from a single performance by Bruce Cain performed when
he was at the top of his form. This live concert has been recently
remastered and is now available for your listening pleasure.
Here is a MP3 version of "Dance of
the Corrigedor" by Manuel deFalla which is one of the compositions on
"Classical Guitar Live"
Anything purchased,
through the links in this column, generate revenue for New Age Citizen
and will help us achieve the policy goals discussed at this website.
In addition to the book links is the "New Age Emporium" link below.
This will take you to our comprehensive digital storefront where you can
purchase anything from books, to DVD's, to computers. This allows
you to purchase things you actually need, while helping New Age Citizen
achieve needed social change. We appreciate your support.
In
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its
Geostrategic Imperatives (1997), he outlines his case for how current
American global supremacy should be used to further a long running elite
plan for the unification of the world under the dictates of the United
Nations. 
What
do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation
with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of
dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody
realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan
Greenspan. 
