"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."
"Today, we need a nation of
Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who
regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life
and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
John F. Kennedy
New Age Citizen
www.newagecitizen.com December 20th, 2008 Edition [Last Update: January 15h, 2008]
With the crumbling global economy and
"whatnot" it is easy to forget that we are celebrating the birth of
Jesus this December 25th. And regardless of your spiritual
orientation I think we can all agree that the holiday is meant to be an
opportunity to reflect on the prospects for peace and goodwill to all
the peace loving inhabitants of the planet. At any rate there is
probably no contemporary figure that embraced these values more than the
late John Lennon and his group, the Beatles. So lets get started
with a little "All You Need is Love" and John Lennon's "So This Is
Christmas:"
Hope you all enjoyed that. Now
back to reality . . .
Since the last edition of "New Age
Citizen" we have seen actions by Obama that are disconcerting to say the
least. Of course I tried to warn you about Obama early on in my
essay "Curious Obama,"
however, it is now pretty clear that my warnings were right on the mark.
The first evidence of his Globalist
tendencies will be found in the videos I have included within the essay,
"Proof that Obama Supports the
North American Union and the New World Order." In
this essay you will find that Obama is loading his cabinet, and other
high ranking positions, with people that have long supported "corporate
trade agreements," the North American Union and global government: The
New World Order. The second
piece of evidence will be found in the essay
"Yes We Can --
Have Legal, Untaxed Marijuana," where Obama has recently decided
that Legalizing Marijuana is "not in the cards" despite the fact that it
was the most supported initiative at his website
www.change.gov. The third
piece of evidence is discussed in the essay,
"How Not to Solve the Housing
Crisis: Let in More Immigrants." which speaks to Obama's intent to
continue to allow Legal Immigration during a period of unprecedented job
losses by Legal American citizens.
I have also included writings by
other authors that further "connect the dots" between Obama's Globalist
Agenda and other concurrent trends such as the introduction of Military
Troops for civilian enforcement and the planned economic destruction of
the American Working Class in order to force us toward a One World
Government:
* Bailout for the People: “The Cook
Plan” by Richard C. Cook
* Obama & McCain on Professional Workers - Bottom Line American Workers,
YOU’RE SCREWED!
* Army ‘Strategic Shock’ Report Says Troops May Be Needed To Quell U.S.
Civil Unrest
* Obama's Globalist Wish List
With all this in mind we should be
thinking about impeaching Obama, rather than inaugurating him.
=================================
I'm trying to give more continuity to
the homepage by dividing the content into the following sections:
Section
Description
From Editor Bruce W. Cain
Original articles by New Age
Citizen Editor, Bruce W. Cain
Bruce W. Cain in Action
Radio, TV and Live
Appearances.
Articles and Commentary
Articles from the web and
other sources, with the commentary remarks at the beginning of
the article.
Videos for Viewing and
Discussing
Education and Entertaining
videos for personal and group viewing and discussing. I
encourage people to gather groups together at your homes, and
apartments, and view/discuss these videos as a group. The
easiest thing to do is set around a laptop or desktop. A
better solution is to plug your internet connected laptop to
your large screen TV. If you play the video full screen a
large screen TV should easily accommodate viewing by groups of
20 people.
Comment:
I have begun publishing some of my articles at OpEdNews. You can read
the responses to this article at the link above. You can read some of my
other OpEdNews articles at the following links:
What follows is my response to the following article by Naomi Klein:
====================================================
Want to End the Violence in Gaza? Boycott Israel.
By Naomi Klein, The Nation. Posted January 9, 2009.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/klein?rel=hp_currently
====================================================
First let me start by saying that Naomi Klein's, the "Shock Doctrine,"
is one of the most important books of the last 10 years. But Naomi is
dead wrong to insist on a boycott of Israel.
First take a look at Israel. It has been painted into a corner by a host
of countries that have recently been infected with virulent Islamism: a
religion that castigates gays, Jews and basically anyone that have not,
or will not, embrace Islam.
Bush poured gasoline on the Islamic fire by touting "democracy" which
our founding fathers saw as the most reprehensible system in the world,
unless it was contained by a Bill of Rights. Within that Bill of Rights
is a call for absolute separation between church and state. As a result
democratic elections brought Hezbollah to Lebanon and Hamas to the Gaza
Strip.
And to further this destructive calculus we have Saudi Arabia and the
United States fanning the flames of Islamic Fascism as well. The United
States has done this through support for the KLA in Kosovo, the Taliban
in Afghanistan and the ISI in Pakistan.
As a result we now have forming a very dangerous Islamic Crescent
throughout the Middle East which is most definitely in ascendancy as I
speak.
It is curious how Klein, and many others, gloss over some very
inconvenient facts:
(1) Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist.
(2) Hamas has announced, on more than one occasion, that it wants to
wipe Israel off the map.
(3) Hamas has been hurling missiles at Israel ever since it secured
power, through a democratic election, just a few years ago.
The solution to this problem is to destroy Islamism wherever it exists
and that would be in every Muslim country that allows the practice of
Sharia laws. Obama needs to stop any further US economic support to
Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Islamic Theocracies: should they not
immediately eradicate all vestiges of Sharia. That is the only viable
answer.
And before you open your uninformed mouth on this one let us just
consider that this is exactly what had to happen to put Roman
Catholicism back in their place. It is also a solution recommended by
many Muslims including Irshad Manji: the lesbian author of "The Trouble
With Islam."
Before the Enlightenment, and the Reformation, Roman Catholicism engaged
in Inquisitions and Crusades. During this reign of terror both Christian
(e.g., Gnostic) and Pagan believers died by the Roman Catholic sword,
just as non-Muslims are today.
If you go to my the "Dearbornistan" sub web of my website,
www.newagecitizen.com, you will understand the truth of what I am
stating here. Islamism is a disease that needs to be eradicated from the
planet. It is the last virulent vestige of Theocracy that must be
removed from the planet.
Having said that, I would also recommend the removal of a less apparent
theocracy that goes by the name of Corporatism, or simply Fascism. Naomi
Klein is very familiar with this nemisis. This is a religion that
worships money at the expense of everything else -- including the people
it is suppose to serve. Unfortunately it is becoming more apparent, by
the day, that Obama, worships at the Church of Corporatism. And I hope
nothing more than to be wrong on this one.
We have most probably never entered such uncertain times as we find
ourselves today. But that does not mean that there isn't a humanitarian
solution. In the case of Gaza the solution is, in part, the recognition
by Hamas, of Israel's right to exist. And unfortunately if they don't do
this we could very well be seeing the beginnings of the next World War.
Because once the Lebanese Hezbollah unleash from the North, the entire
world will be drawn into this evolving disaster.
Unfortunately, Naomi Klein remains clueless about the danger that Islam
poses, not just to Israel, but to the entire world. And while you chew
on this you might well ask yourself why the US has fanned the flames of
Islamic Extremism for so many, many decades.
I don't have the time or patience to explain this one to you.
Fortunately the following article, by Professor Peter Dale Scott, will
at least suffice as a primer, from which you might begin to understand
the larger "agenda" that is presently being forced upon us.
Martial Law, the Financial Bailout, and War
by Prof. Peter Dale Scott Global Research, January 8, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20090107&articleId=11681
In my estimation this is part of the plan towards world domination by
Globalists such as Kissinger and Brzezinski. I surely hope on wrong on
this one. But unfortunately my predictions have, for the most part,
materialized. I can only hope that Obama and others begin to understand
what I am requesting. Because the truth is, if we can eliminate the
theocratic tendancies of Islam, we might just resolve this problem
without the need for a single additional death.
And all I am asking is that Islam recognize that they have no right to
compel or coerce others to believe in their pathetic misogynistic
theocratic agenda. And if they cannot do that we, the freemen and
freewomen of this planet will have little recourse, other than to
forcefully put them back in their place. And if we could do it to Roman
Catholicism, don't feel too slighted as we insist on also doing it to
Islamism.
WE HAVE NO way of determining which Muslims subscribe to pure Islam. The
reason this matters is that pure Islam is seditious. Islamic doctrine is
more political than religious, and its sole political goal is the
domination of Islam over all over religions and all governments.
It is a Muslim's religious duty to achieve that political goal.
When Muslims move to a country, a certain percentage of them start
agitating for special considerations. They start to organize and
influence the nation politically in a way that is good for Islam and bad
for freedom and equality. When the percentage of the Muslims in a
nation's population becomes high enough, they gain so much political
power that freedoms and rights begin to disappear. (Watch this video to
learn more: http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/10/how-jihadis-invade-country-and-take.html
) Given all this, until we have a way of determining who is dedicated to
pure Islam, no more Muslims should be allowed to immigrate into free
countries.
Does this seem extreme? It's not as bad as it might seem. We already
choose who can immigrate and who cannot. We make the rules. This is our
country, after all. We are not under any obligation to allow anyone to
immigrate who wants to. They do it with our blessing or they don't do
it.
So this policy is simply adding to the already-existing filter.
This is not racist. Islam is not a race; it's an ideology. The policy of
stopping Muslim immigration is simply acknowledging the reality of the
Islamic teachings. I know there are Muslims who reject the violent and
intolerant verses of the Qur'an. But Islam also teaches taqiyya and we
have no way of knowing who is sincere and who is deliberately deceiving
us.
We should not take the chance, at least until we find some way to
discern between people who genuinely reject the political goals of Islam
and those who do not. In the meantime, we should stop all immigration
into free countries by Muslims while we can. You can get the process
started right now by signing this petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/no-more-Muslim-immigration
Does signing a petition do any good? According to ThePetitionSite (the
organization I used to create this petition), the answer is: "Yes —
often, but the answer really depends on a number of factors. In general,
the more a target organization is impacted by public opinion, the more
effective are the petitions. In addition, ThePetitionSite enhances the
credibility of online petitions by centralizing signature collection,
structuring/regulating signature data collection and output,
facilitating communication of petitions via fax, email, etc. and by
using fraud-reduction technology. Remember — the effect of a petition
usually goes far beyond the actual list of signatures. Journalists write
stories about the petitions, signers get inspired to take additional
actions, and other "potential targets" conform their behavior to avoid
being a target."
Petitions can also exert an influence through two powerful principles of
influence: Social proof and commitment and consistency. Petitions have
been known to ignite important public debates.
When this petition reaches 50,000 signatures, I will make sure each
member of the House and the Senate finds out about it. And I will make
sure newspapers and magazines all over the country find out about it.
Your signature will make a difference. Sign the petition today: No More
Muslim Immigration ( http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/no-more-Muslim-immigration
)
I only share a small fraction of the
readings I have done at the website:
www.newagecitizen.com.
But I archive most of my readings in Microsoft Word files. So If
you want to read more here are some additional reading that you can read
or print to read off line.
Each file is dated at the time I
begin adding articles. So the document "AOL081217.doc" was
authored on December 17th, 2008.
For anyone that wants to read the
entire compilation you must get a "membership" by sending $100 (check or
money order to "Bruce W. Cain") to:
New Age Citizen
PO Box 419
Dearborn Heights, MI 48127
For that I will send you a DVD with
hundreds of files consisting of thousands of articles spanning the last
5+ years. The writing are encyclopedic in scope and are formatted
just like the "freebies" that I have provided above. Each article
contains the original text along with a hyperlink to the original
citation. It would take months just to read through all of the
articles.
Upon minimal inspection it
is clear that Marijuana Re-Legalization is the most popular
recommendation to Obama in both the 1st and 2nd www.change.gov polls. So
when is Obama going to bend to the will of the American People?
Note: The following statistics
were collected 12/30/2008 at 3:00 PM EST. This is important to
know as the polling is continuing till at least 12/31/2008. At
that time 44,298 people have submitted 36,864 questions and cast
1,962,040 votes.
I visited Obama's
www.change.gov website to see if
Marijuana Re-Legalization was leading again, as it came in first in
during the first
poll. At first I was disappointed because the first
Re-Legalization question was ranked 26th of 36,864 questions.
Still not bad. And the leading scoring question was a good one at
that:
"I'm concerned about the banks who
received tax payers money and have had no
accountability. Will this be corrected after President elect Obama is in
office?"
The leading question (above) below
got 9,862 Yes and 600 no votes
But I then typed "marijuana" in
"Search questions" field and clicked to find that 1,071 questions had
been submitted regarding Marijuana Legalization. In other words a
little less than 3 percent of the questions were focused on
Re-Legalizing Marijuana.
And as I went down the list of
"Marijuana" questions I noticed that many had overwhelming percentages
in favor of Re-Legalization and many had "yes" responses of over 2,000.
So there is little doubt that, in aggregate, Marijuana
Re-Legalization is destined to come in first place in the second Obama
poll. In fact I believe there is more support for Legalization in
the 2nd poll than in the first. But Obama's website does not have
the tools available to quantify this.
The only unfortunate aspect of the
Marijuana questions is that they invariably insist on taxing and
regulating it, which I believe to be a very bad idea. This
"legalize and tax" model appears to be an instilled "Pavlovian" response
of far too many Marijuana Re-Legalization advocates. Still, it is
great to see such support for Marijuana Re-Legalization. Perhaps
this second poll will convince Obama that saying "No" to Re-Legalization
is just going to seriously "piss off" the American People?
I would highly recommend that my
readers consider the MERP Model for Re-Legalization over any "legalize
and tax" model. The following links will provide all the
background you need to understand the MERP Model that I had authored
around 2000.
What is more important, right now, is
to get as many votes on "Re-Legalization" as possible. Here is how
you can efficiently register your recommendation for Obama to
Re-Legalize Marijuana.
(2) Click on "Open for Questions: Round two"
(3) Click on "Open for Questions" link on new webpage.
(4) Click on "View Questions"
(5) Type "marijuana" in "Search questions" field and click
From here you can go through
the list of Marijuana Re-Legalization questions and click on the "check
mark" (not the "X") in order to register a "Yes" vote.
Now I have submitted 3 questions that
you can search for with the following respective searches, using the
5-step procedure outlined above.
"If we legalize Marijuana under
the MERP Model (a model similar to laws surrounding home brewing of
beer) we could save 20 billion in DEA funds and destroy the drug cartels
and drug gangs without spending another dime. Obama needs to Re-Legalize
Now!"
[Use "MERP" as the search criteria]
"Obama should implement all 10 planks of the "New Agenda for America" by
May 1st or he should be impeached.
More information at:
www.newagecitizen.com/NAA.htm"
[Use "New Agenda" as the search criteria]
"If Obama doesn't Legalize Marijuana, Stop All Immigration and Bailout
the Legal American worker . . . let's impeach him on July 4th, 2009."
bcainw, www.newagecitizen.com - Economy View response Post a response
[Use "Stop All Immigration" as the search criteria]
Please help me get these
recommendations to the top of Obama's latest poll. It is time to
send the president-elect a serious message.
The following videos should make
clear to every American that Obama is a supporter of the North American
Union and the move towards a New World Order. In the first video
Lou Dobbs connects the dots between some of his recent appointments and
their respective support for such measures. In the second video
Congresswomen Kaptur (OH) describes linkages between Ford Motor Company,
China, Mexico and the Trans Texas Corridor: otherwise known as the NAFTA
Super Highway.
It is my learned opinion that if the
American People don't stand up now millions of Americans will soon find
themselves homeless, jobless and lining up for food at the local
homeless shelters. The time to act is now. I apologize to
all those that put their faith in Obama. But the inconvenient
truth is the Obama is just the latest sycophant for the New World Order
and the "change" that he intends will mean nothing but misery for the
American people.
When I read that Gary Shilling,
president of A. Gary Shilling & Co is encouraging a policy whereby we
increase immigration, in order to sell off OUR houses, I was ready to
look for a hammer to crucify this traitor against the nearest standing
tree. But unfortunately that is most likely going to be part of Obama's
policy if we don't act very soon.
Just consider that in 2008 we have
already lost nearly 2.5 million American jobs and the year is not even
up yet. Normally we should have created 250,000 jobs each month just to
keep current with the new American workers entering the workplace. So
really we are looking at a net loss of 5.5 million jobs. The only thing
that Obama has yet suggested is that he is going to create 2.5 million
jobs over the next 2 years, at a time when forecasters estimate another
million jobs to be lost in 2009 and possibly 2010.
As we are seeing, with each
passing day, Obama is not turning out to be the "champion of change"
that American's hoped to see. Yet the real solution is obvious, yet
carefully kept out of the Mainstream (e.g., Old and Useless) Media.
And that real solution?
Place an immediate moratorium on
all Legal and Illegal Immigration.
We are currently bringing in about
2.5 million Legal immigrants each year and while illegal immigration is
tapering off, a bit, we are still seeing at least 2 million illegal
immigrants coming in each year. That amounts to about 5 million
immigrants, per year, at a time American workers are loosing close to 5
million jobs each year. We are talking about a net loss of American
jobs that could realistically be in the range of 10 million jobs per
year! In light of these facts how could Obama NOT impose such a "time
out" on immigration? Perhaps it's because he really doesn't give a damn
for the American People?
I've been lobbying for a
moratorium on both Legal and Illegal Immigration for at least 5 years
now. And recently conservative Pat Buchannan has joined that bandwagon,
as well as Ron Beck from
www.NumbersUSA.com. You can listen to a more comprehensive list of
my recommendations in the following video.
Challenge for Obama to Stop Home
Foreclosures Now!
In any case we must do something
to save the jobs and homes for Legal American Citizens. So I encourage
you make a point of calling and/or writing your representatives and tell
them "No More Immigration: Legal or Illegal."
You can call you representatives
at the following number:
202-224-3121
You can determine who all of your
Federal, State and Local Representatives are by
clicking here.
In addition I urge you to copy and
paste this article to as many groups and individuals as you can. There
is no time to wait for Obama to "sell us out" come January 21st. The
time to resist is now.
And if you want to get real angry
just go ahead and listen to how Gary Shilling would like to see American
Workers get further screwed. Unfortunately it is exactly what Obama has
in mind, once he gets in office. Perhaps we can deport him back to
Kenya before then?
In order
to prevent another disastrous wave of foreclosures and stem the decline
in home prices, America should allow in more immigrants and give them
incentives to buy homes, says Gary Shilling, president of A. Gary
Shilling & Co.
A smaller version of this plan was successful in Canada and Shilling
notes it could be combined with an expansion of the H1-B visas that
Silicon Valley says are in such short supply.
If "letting in more immigrants to buy houses" sounds like a drastic
step, that's because drastic action is needed.
Because there's too much inventory of unsold homes and not enough
qualified buyers to soak it up, lower mortgage rates won't save the
housing market, Shilling says. That's especially true with unemployment
rising and a "deflation mindset" among potential buyers (i.e., the
longer you wait, the lower prices will go).
A noted and notable bear, Shilling predicts the following will occur
unless drastic action is taken:
Average U.S. home prices will fall another 20% from current levels,
bringing the peak-to-trough decline to 37%.
If prices ultimately do fall 37%, 25 million Americans — or about 50% of
all U.S. homeowners with a mortgage — will be underwater, meaning their
house will be worth less than their mortgage.
Millions of Americans won't be able to make mortgage payments, even if
they're able to refi at today's low rates.
I will expand on this later but I am
basically trying to organize a "grass roots" campaign to Re-Legalize
Marijuana by May 2nd, 2009, under the guidelines of the MERP Model.
Please begin posting the following graphic on your websites, MySpace
pages etc. This is the kind of CHANGE we have been expecting.
And this is the kind of CHANGE we are going to begin to demand.
Please take a moment to look at the following screenshot from Obama's
transition website: www.change.gov
The screenshot was taken on 12/20/2008 and I've preserved it because I
will bet that he will bury this "skunky corpse" in a matter of days.
Why? Because it illustrates that Obama has absolutely no intention
of bending to the will of the American people. The screenshot
shows that the most requested "change" that the American people want to
see is the Re-Legalization of Marijuana.
Let's think about this for a moment.
Nearly 20,000 Americans offered nearly 10,000 suggested changes and
Marijuana Re-Legalization received the most support of any other
suggested change.
So here was how the suggested change
-- that received the most support of ANY other question -- was worded:
"Will you consider legalizing
marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits
on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar
industry right here in the U.S.?"
And here is the insulting response we
got to the most supported suggestion for change, from President Elect
Obama's transition team:
President-elect Obama is not in
favor of the legalization of marijuana. Transition Team,
Washington, D.C.
So Obama thinks he can just "blow us
off" on the issue of Marijuana Re-Legalization despite the good that
Marijuana Re-Legalization could bring:
(1) It would destroy the
Mexican Drug Cartels and local drug gangs.
(2) It would provide some counterbalance to the liberties lost through
the Patriot Act and other legislation that received bi-partisan support
from Republicans and Democrats alike.
(3) It would erase the criminal
records of millions of upstanding American's whose only crime was to use
a harmless non-alcoholic drug.
But of course that is exactly why
Obama will not Re-Legalize Marijuana. Most of his campaign money
came from the very interests that are opposed to Marijuana
Re-Legalization. Consider the following:
* Attorneys will loose out on profiting from the near
840,000
Marijuana arrests each year.
* Drug testing labs will loose huge amounts of revenue.
* The Prison Industrial Complex will be gutted and the US will no longer
have the largest per capita number of its citizens behind bars or in
some other form of judicial control
* The Multi-National Banks that launder billions in drug money, each
year, will loose significant revenue
* Drug gangs, and drug cartels alike, will collapse as Re-Legalized
Marijuana has a “Gatekeeper” effect (e.g., since users will be able to
“brew” their own Marijuana they will have less contact with those that
sell harder drugs such as Heroin, Cocaine and Methamphetamine.
* The government will no longer be able to doing anything with all that
surveillance data they insist on accumulating on each American Citizen.
* Clemency for all non-violent drug use will reduce the absurd amounts
of money spent on the Prison Industrial Complex and the number of felons
will be reduced drastically.
Yep, the same scumbags that financed
his campaign are those most opposed to Re-Legalizing Marijuana.
That is why Obama is "just saying no." Obama is the marionette and
they are the ones pulling the strings.
It is up to us to ensure that his
renouncement does not stand. It is time to stand up and be
counted. Demand that Marijuana is completely Legalized by May 1st,
2009 through the MERP Model:
Please access the following links to
better understand the MERP Model and other aspect of real meaningful
drug reform:
Consider his intransigence to
Marijuana Re-Legalization as a mere prelude to the
Globalist Agenda that Obama is likely to pursue as soon as he becomes
President of the United States on January 20th, 2009.
I know many will call me nuts for
saying it but isn't it time we took this country back?
Just the other day I read through some Yahoo Group responses on the
subject of Re-Legalizing Marijuana. I really had to laugh at
some of the self-defeating postings about the subject of Legalizing
Marijuana. All of them from people that just can't visualize a world in
which Marijuana is as legal as beer. How pathetic. Perhaps they deserve
to be reduced to slaves?
'City dwellers will not be able to grow their own.'
Really. With a 400 Watt HID lamp you
could easily grow 4 plants . . . possible 6. That amounts to about an
once per week.
12 weeks * 4 plants * 2.5 oz/plant . . . or about 10 ounces every 12
weeks: about an once per week.
Now when I "used to smoke" my usage was never more than 2 grams per
week. So unless you are a medical patient, like Angel Raich who consumes
about 2 ounces a week, you're in pretty good shape.
'The government is going to trace those who buy from vending
machines and bust them all.'
Only if we allow it. More and more
Americans are arming themselves post election. If enough of us follow
suit they aren't even going to think about this one. 20,000 US Military
against 300,000,000 . . . they wouldn't last a month. And hopefully such
a confrontation would never occur should our soldiers understand who
they are really here to protect: that would be the American People.
'It is very complex to change the Marijuana laws.'
Oh really. First off they just robbed
us to the tune of 8.5 Trillion Dollars in the last 3 months without
breaking a sweat. All that is required to end Marijuana Prohibition is
to pass legislation that would take Marijuana completely off the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970. When we decide to wake up and
pressure our representatives this could also happen in the blink of an
eye.
As Mick Jagger famously said in Street Fighting Man:
Everywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boy
cause summers here and the time is right for fighting in the street,
But what can a poor boy do
Except to sing for a rock n roll band
cause in sleepy London town
There's just no place for a street fighting man
No
Hey! think the time is right for a palace revolution
But where I live the game they play is compromise solution
It is time to stop accepting these "compromised solutions" that get us
absolutely nowhere. It is the favorite ploy of the Global Elite. That is
what you get from the various "drug reform" organizations: MPP, DPA,
NORML and the Ford Foundation sycophants at "AlterNet." Screw them all.
They are more interested in keeping their jobs than solving the problem.
Some one once said that the best way to get nothing done is to form a
committee. That is exactly what these groups are and it is not in their
interest to actually resolve the non-problem of Marijuana
Re-Legalization. Don't you get it. Once
Marijuana is legal there will be no need for their existence.
Obama was screwing us before the election by signing FISA and the
Bailout. Now he's screwing us again even before he gets in office by
telling us he has no intention of Legalizing Marijuana: even though it
was the number one suggestion at his "www.change.gov" website. And he
will be screwing us the minute he does get in office by granting Amnesty
to 12-30 million Illegal's; by allowing 3 million foreigners to take our
jobs, each year, during the worst economic period since the depression.
And he has loaded his appointees and cabinet members with CFR members
and others that are 100% behind the North American Union.
Now is the time for the 2nd American Revolution.
Obama is choosing to be the enemy, of the American People, through the
actions that I have just described above.
The Apocalypse - the lifting of the veil -- is upon us. Those of
the mystic traditions have long predicted a time when a revolutionary
body of knowledge would be "revealed" to the masses. The Internet has
given us that knowledge, largely censored by the Main Stream Media.
We can now understand the lies of the Mainstream Media on a dally basis.
So, now
comes the interesting part -- putting that knowledge to work.
So lets hit the ground running on January 21st. Legalize Marijuana by
May 1st, 2009, or
we're going to send Obama back to Kenya. It is either going to by
"Our Change" or "Your Impeachment." And by all means, if you go to
the Inauguration, bring large banners with you saying "Re-Legalize
Marijuana Now!"
I've been involved in Drug Reform for over 20 years. I have known every
major player from Ed Rosenthal to Jack Herer. I have witnessed as
my fellow activists -- Tom Crosslin and Rollie -- were murdered by the Bush administration
(and now Michigan Governor Granholm) at Rainbow
Farm: just a week before the destruction of the World Trade Center on
November 11th, 2001. I understand the problem
and I know the solution. It is most definitely the MERP Model for
Marijuana Re-Legalization. If you can only watch one video, of mine,
make it this one:
This extemporaneous live lecture is
not really about Marijuana -- it is about destroying the New World
Order and their Globalist agenda. Please take the time to watch it, if you haven't already. The
window of opportunity is closing and the time to act is NOW!!!
Get on my mailing list at the New Age Citizen Website.
Your marching
orders will be coming no later than New Years day. 2009 is not the year
for New Years Resolutions. 2009 is the Year for New Years Revolutions.
Screw Obama. He is a traitor to everything our Founding Fathers stood
for. And his pronouncements and appointments make this clearer
with each passing day.
Lets do something different in 2009.
Let's get off our butts and demand the change that we believe in: Legal
Marijuana and a country by, for and of the American People.
Bruce Cain, Editor of "New Age Citizen,"
talks about the history of Marijuana and how its prohibition is part of a
larger Globalist agenda to push us towards a Post-Constitutional New World
Order where inalienable rights are no longer guaranteed. He believes that
both Obama and McCain have been selected to further this agenda and that
citizens should stop legitimizing the "Election Charade" by writing in the
names of 3rd Party and Independent Presidential Candidates. He further
believes that the American People must organize to stop either candidate
from pushing us further toward a Globalist New World Order when one of them
becomes our next president in January 2009.
This lecture was given before a "live audience" at the Trumbull-Plex Theatre
on Sunday, October 19th, 2008: just 2 weeks before the Presidential
Election. The Trumbull-Plex Theatre is located in Detroit, Michigan. He was
the featured speaker at this event that was celebrating that Michigan will
most probably be the 13th State to Legalize Marijuana for Medicinal use.
Bruce Cain encourages the distribution of this video in order to
de-legitimize the 2008 Presidential Election and challenge the New World
Order in 2009.
If nothing else it is a fact filled journey tracing the history of the
animal kingdom's consensual relationship with mind altering drugs over the
millennia. But it actually goes much further, tracing the role that
Marijuana Prohibition has had in the building of a "Technological Cage" by
which the New World Order is slowly stripping away the inalienable rights
guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The ninth plank of my “New Agenda for America” calls for an end to the
Federal Reserve. I think Richard Cooks prescription is one of the best
models that I have yet encountered to fulfill that requirement.
But to prevent our fall from Democratic Republic to Fascist Empire will
require many other bold, non-compromising changes to occur simultaneously. I
have tried to enumerate some of the more important changes in the 10-Plank
“New Agenda for America.”
Finally, I think the most important thing we can do now, and I mean
immediately, is to impose a nation-wide moratorium on all further
foreclosures or evictions from primary residences. Non-working residents
should also be absolved from paying property and other taxes.
This is the “End Game” of the Globalist Agenda. They want to leave the
American Worker both homeless and penniless in order to impose the final
solution: An Elitist Global Government. Insuring that Americans have
adequate food and shelter, as described above, will defend against what
could otherwise be the fatal blow to the American Working Class.
I like to think of the “New Agenda for America” as an antidote to the
disease that can be described as :”Elitist One World Government.” Each
plank, in one way or another, destabilizes the infrastructure required to
impose :”Elitist One World Government..”
Prepared for the
U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network Annual Conference
New York, N.Y., February 27-March 1, 2009
Submitted by Richard C. Cook
December 12, 2008
This system is not free enterprise, and it is not capitalism.
It is a cancer that is destroying the world.
We Hold These Truths by Richard C. Cook
Originally uploaded by Lorri37
Isn’t it Finally Time to Enact a Basic Income Guarantee?
The lack of individual and family income security in the midst of a
highly-developed economy is a travesty under any circumstances, but the
basic contradiction of “poverty in the midst of plenty” that has plagued the
world since the start of the Industrial Revolution is becoming much worse in
the early years of the 21st century as the Recession of 2008 picks up speed.
Winston Churchill spoke on the subject when giving the Romanes Lecture at
Oxford University on June 19, 1930, a few months after the crash of the U.S.
stock market that started the Great Depression. He said:
“Who would have thought that it would be easier to produce by toil and skill
all the most necessary or desirable commodities than it is to find consumers
for them? Who would have thought that cheap and abundant supplies of all the
basic commodities would find the science and civilization of the world
unable to utilize them? Have all our triumphs of research and organization
bequeathed us only a new punishment: the Curse of Plenty? Are we really to
believe that no better adjustment can be made between supply and demand? Yet
the fact remains that every attempt has failed. Many various attempts have
been made, from the extremes of Communism in Russia to the extremes of
Capitalism in the United States. They include every form of fiscal policy
and currency policy. But all have failed, and we have advanced little
further in this quest than in barbaric times. Surely it is this mysterious
crack and fissure at the basis of all our arrangements and apparatus upon
which the keenest minds throughout the world should be concentrated.”
Evidently we’ve learned nothing since Churchill spoke. Isn’t it shameful—or
just surprising—that since the proponents of “post-modern” economics
restructured the U.S. economy around the concept of a deregulated financial
sector over the past 30 years, income and wealth disparities between rich
and poor have become much worse?
Perhaps we are finally ready to reopen the question of whether human beings
have a right to a sufficient income to keep body and soul together. This
question has been mostly lost since President Ronald Reagan declared in his
1981 inaugural address that, “Government is not the solution to the problem;
government is the problem.”
But it is only government that can authorize and implement what is today
called a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG). Otherwise, if government is trapped
in the ideological straightjacket Reagan and his fellow conservatives put it
in, then the only possible paradigm is Social Darwinism—survival of the
fittest. Today it is not difficult to see that implementation of a BIG, had
it been put in place when the concept still had political life in the 1960s
and early 1970s, would have gone a long way toward ameliorating human
distress from poverty along with assuring a degree of economic justice. And
we would clearly be much better off today.
The last serious efforts at a BIG were President Richard Nixon’s Family
Assistance Plan, which passed the House but was defeated in the Senate in
1970, followed by implementation of the Earned Income Tax Credit for
low-income families, enacted in 1975. Since then, every step toward economic
“reform” has been one permutation or another of trickle-down economics,
including the supply-side tax cuts of the Reagan and Bush II
administrations.
Of course, the purpose of the move to deregulate the financial industry that
has been going on for the past generation was supposed to have been to
create a new “ownership” society based on having our money “work for us.”
But the deregulated bubble economy has now blown up, exposed as the biggest
fraud in history.
Yet even in the midst of massive government bailouts for the banks and the
as-yet-to-be-implemented economic stimulus proposals for the people, a BIG
is never mentioned, not even by progressives. One problem with BIG is that
its proponents always presented it as a transfer-of-wealth program, where a
portion of the earnings of people with earned incomes would be diverted to
support those in need. Even the idea of diverting military expenditures to a
BIG could be viewed as a transfer program, since a smaller war machine would
mean a reduction of salary and benefit payments to military personnel and
civilian contractors.
In other words, even those in favor of BIG have viewed it as a kind of
charity. As such, it is likely safe to say that BIG has little, if any,
chance to be implemented within the U.S. at any time in the foreseeable
future, at least in an amount to have an impact.
But there are other ways to look at the problem. One way is that of the
Social Credit movement, where a regular dividend payment to individuals is
seen not only as fair but is viewed as a necessary balancing force within a
developed economy. But Social Credit concepts, while once a force in the
British Commonwealth nations, is virtually unknown in the U.S. Another way
is shown by the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF), where residents enjoy by right
a share of the resource wealth of the state.
Both Social Credit and the APF as models for action will be discussed in
this paper. The paper focuses on the U.S., though the concepts are
universally applicable, and proposes a method of providing a BIG as part of
a program to rebuild the economy from the bottom up. I call this program,
based on dividend-type approaches, a “Bailout for the People,” as opposed to
the bank bailouts that are adding trillions of dollars to the national debt.
I have presented it previously in articles on the internet as “The Cook
Plan.” (Richard C. Cook, “How to Save the U.S. Economy,” Global Research,
October 10, 2008)
Such a program is urgently needed. There is no time to waste in rescuing our
citizens from the onrushing catastrophe that is befalling an economy where
both manufacturing and family farming were long ago gutted to create today’s
anemic service economy. If things continue to go as they are today, there
could be U.S. citizens starving within a year, and Congress knows it.
A Historic Collapse
As the recession of 2008 deepens, with precipitous declines in employment,
business activity, home appraisals, consumer confidence, and retail sales,
it is evident that the U.S. and the world are facing the possibility of an
economic collapse of Great Depression severity, or worse. Violent crime and
stress-caused illnesses are increasing. Behind each statistic is a human
being or family that suffers.
Amazingly, it took a full year of economic distress, from December 2007,
when economic activity last peaked, to a conference call on November 28,
2008, for the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of
Economic Research to declare that a recession had actually been taking place
during that period. As late as September 15, 2008, Republican presidential
candidate John McCain said, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” a
statement that repeated what President George W. Bush had been intoning ever
since the housing bubble began its rapid deflation in 2006.
But even with the economists and politicians finally acknowledging
reality—it was the recession that propelled Barack Obama to victory in
November—the situation is actually worse than they say. A recession is
defined as declining Gross Domestic Product. But there is a big difference
between the type of GDP that represents transactions that do not add to the
real productivity of the nation—as often happens with financial
paperwork—and economic output that puts money in the pockets of consumers
and workers.
If economic health is measured, for instance, by immediate consumer
purchasing power, it is telling that M1—the money in cash and checking
accounts—has been decreasing, when adjusted for inflation, since December
2003. That was five years ago! The decrease began soon after the Federal
Reserve started raising interest rates following three years of cuts—over
500 basis points—that created the housing bubble in the first place.
With the recession now settling in, with the official unemployment rate
approaching seven percent, and with the number of underemployed or no longer
seeking work running at a similar rate, there has not been a greater need
for a Basic Income Guarantee in the last generation. But the federal budget
deficit has been added to significantly by Secretary of the Treasury
Paulson’s $700 billion financial industry bailout, along with other loans
and bailouts to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, insurance giant AIG, and
additional emergency loans from the Federal Reserve under Chairman Ben
Bernanke.
No one really has a handle on how much government money has been committed,
though $4+ trillion is a reasonable guess. The size of the bailout compared
to government spending for major projects in the past is shown in terrifying
detail in the following graphic by www.voltagecreative.com/blog.
larger view
Still to come are any loans Congress or the Treasury will end up authorizing
to save the auto industry and the costs of Obama’s economic stimulus package
that may approach $1 trillion.
The severity of the crisis and the disastrous effects on working people are
shown by the insistence by many politicians that rescue of the auto industry
be dependent on the willingness of the United Auto Workers to agree to the
gutting of their wage and benefit package. This, along with the huge number
of layoffs in the financial industry, shows that even massive bailouts will
not save the jobs or livelihoods of millions of people.
During the coming year the ratio of the federal deficit to GDP, which peaked
at 125% in 1945, will likely exceed that record amount. The difference is
that at the end of World War II American consumers enjoyed a high rate of
savings because of fulltime employment due to wartime spending, combined
with a dearth of consumer goods. After the war, these savings became
available for economic growth that paid down the national debt. Today,
consumer savings are virtually non-existent. And there is no assurance that
more spending will achieve anything like the full employment of the World
War II era.
So the nation is in uncharted territory, a scenario that is being repeated
around the world with growing poverty, the decline of economic growth, and
imposition of austerities by the International Monetary Fund. Under such
circumstances, a Basic Income Guarantee, were anyone to consider it, cannot
be a simple transfer program, as described above, where those still with
money are required to share a significant portion of it with those who don’t
have it. Rather new methods of funding must be found.
The Failure of Economics
So what is really wrong with the economy? Some say the housing bubble is to
blame, where the banks made credit so easy to get that the prices of homes
inflated beyond their real value. Others blame it on the “toxic debt” from
subprime mortgages that investment banks packaged and sold to unwary
investors. Others blame the unregulated U.S. financial system that generated
huge amounts of speculative investments, accomplished through bank
leveraging, that now have gone sour.
Here’s what economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote recently in Vanity Fair:
“Of course, the current problems with our financial system are not solely
the result of bad lending. The banks have made mega-bets with one another
through complicated instruments such as derivatives, credit-default swaps,
and so forth. With these, one party pays another if certain events
happen—for instance, if Bear Stearns goes bankrupt, or if the dollar soars.
These instruments were originally created to help manage risk, but they can
also be used to gamble. Thus, if you felt confident that the dollar was
going to fall, you could make a big bet accordingly, and if the dollar
indeed fell, your profits would soar. The problem is that, with this
complicated intertwining of bets of great magnitude, no one could be sure of
the financial position of anyone else—or even of one’s own position. Not
surprisingly, the credit markets froze.”
Stiglitz is a former World Bank economist, winner of the Nobel Prize, and
now a noted critic of the world financial system. But what is puzzling,
besides the fact that Stiglitz buys into the basic validity of the world’s
debt-based monetary system, is his apparent failure to recognize the role of
collapsing consumer purchasing power as a principal cause of the freezing of
the markets.
Individuals can no longer get loans because they can’t afford to repay them.
Businesses can’t get loans because consumer income is insufficient to buy
their products. Within the U.S., consumer purchasing power has fallen not
only because of the export of so many manufacturing jobs to low-paying
overseas labor markets like those in China, but also because workers have
not shared in the benefits of constantly rising productivity. See the
following chart from www.Heritage.org that compares growth in productivity
to median household income over almost 40 years:
larger view
As stated, for commentators like Stiglitz, or like Paul Krugman, another
Nobel Prize winner who writes for the New York Times, the debt-based
monetary system run by the banks is a “given” as the unchallenged
centerpiece of the world economy.
Here is Krugman’s prescription from a November 18, 2008, column:
“What the world needs right now is a rescue operation. The global credit
system is in a state of paralysis, and a global slump is building momentum
as I write this. Reform of the weaknesses that made this crisis possible is
essential, but it can wait a little while. First, we need to deal with the
clear and present danger. To do this, policymakers around the world need to
do two things: get credit flowing again and prop up spending.”
But even as Krugman and others argue for more government spending to prime
the economic pump and restore employment—a few more trillion added to the
national debt can’t hurt, they say—such spending can only take place through
deficit financing funneled through the banking system. So their answer to a
crisis marked by overwhelming public and private debt is more debt. Some
call this “Keynesian economics,” and as Richard Nixon famously said way back
in 1971, “We are all Keynesians now.”
The problem is that the world has changed radically since John Maynard
Keynes wrote in the 1930s at a time when the banking system had discredited
itself with the economic collapse that started the Great Depression. Then,
the banks were contracting the currency and causing a liquidity shortage.
But they were brought to heel by the federal government under President
Franklin D. Roosevelt. To get things moving again, the government ran its
own low-cost credit programs through agencies like the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation. And while the government borrowed for job-creation
programs like the WPA and CCC, business and household debt weren’t even
close to what they are today.
What has happened since then is that the full-employment industrial state
that was brought into existence by the New Deal and World War II, and which
produced so much wealth that a BIG—then defined as a negative income
tax—actually was taken seriously as a matter of discussion in the 1960s, no
longer exists. Instead of the industrial state, we have what could be called
the international empire of usury.
By the late 1960s the industrial state was in decline. The key event took
place in 1971 when Nixon removed the gold peg from the dollar and world
currencies began to float. From that point on, credit became separated from
production, and people began to look to paper profits through currency,
resource, and asset speculation as the source of wealth.
Also during the 1970s, the U.S. government worked with OPEC to bring about
radical increases in petroleum prices. The flood of “petrodollars” which
resulted financed the growing U.S. trade and fiscal deficits and caused a
sharp rise in inflation. When the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker began
to attack the inflation with interest rates that would exceed 20 percent,
the worst recession since the Great Depression followed. The recession
lasted from 1979-83 and wrecked the U.S. industrial economy. Never before in
U.S. history had the financiers wielded such dictatorial—and
destructive—power.
The last straw came when the financial industry began to be deregulated to
take advantage of the orgy of greed that had been made possible by
government policy. Accordingly, every period of economic growth since the
1980s has been a financial bubble, including the merger-acquisition bubble
of the Reagan/Bush I years, the dot.com bubble of the 1990s, and the
housing/equity/derivative bubble of the 2000s.
During this time, the U.S. became one of the most grievously mismanaged
nations in history, with every president since Reagan making their own
contributions to the madness. The loss of manufacturing jobs that started
with the Volcker recession accelerated under President Bill Clinton, who
signed NAFTA and gave China most-favored-nation status. Economists like
Stiglitz and Krugman, not to mention those who cling to the myth that what
we have today is really free-market economics, fail to recognize the
tremendous sea change that has made the U.S. economy dysfunctional to its
roots. This means that none of their solutions can solve the problem.
Let me also observe, with respect to the tender concern that economists have
that the credit markets get up and running again, doesn’t this also
illustrate the human tendency to “kiss the whip that scourges”?
The financial system holds everyone hostage, including citizens,
politicians, and economists too. A good analogy might be “Stockholm
Syndrome,” where, according to Yahoo.com:
“Captives begin to identify with their captors initially as a defensive
mechanism, out of fear of violence. Small acts of kindness by the captor are
magnified, since finding perspective in a hostage situation is by definition
impossible. Rescue attempts are also seen as a threat, since it’s likely the
captive would be injured during such attempts.”
Cancer
There is not a single academic or popular economist writing today who admits
that the international empire of usury we have been watching collapse is a
qualitatively different phenomenon from anything seen before and that it has
nothing to do with any of the concepts we are so familiar with such as
democracy, economics, or even capitalism. A better concept might be one
drawn from medicine—what we are seeing is a rapidly metastasizing case of
terminal cancer. The host of this cancer is the population of the U.S., and
the cancer of debt is deadly. The progressive prescriptions of people like
Stiglitz and Krugman, and even those of president-elect Barack Obama, are
like offering a pair of crutches to a cancer patient so ill he can no longer
even stand up.
The international empire of usury has a long pedigree. It goes back to
ancient Sumeria, when debtors first began to be sold into slavery. Excessive
debt ruined many of the Greek city-states and helped wreck the Roman Empire.
During the Middle Ages, usury was such a scourge that the Catholic Church
outlawed it.
The current phase of the empire dates to the creation of the Bank of
England, which was a privately-owned banking institution that made its money
by lending to the British government so it could fight its wars. The Bank of
England was cloned on American soil when the Federal Reserve System was
created by Congress in 1913. The bankers had previously tried take control
of the U.S. through the First and Second Banks of the United States but had
been defeated by democratic forces led initially by Thomas Jefferson.
Since the founding of the nation, there has been a struggle within the U.S.
between pro-and anti-bank forces. The banks finally saw complete triumph in
the 1970s when the philosophy of monetarism took over and assured that a
chronic insufficiency of real money in the economy would be answered by an
exponentially growing amount of bank-generated debt. Monetarism was not
directed solely by figures within the U.S. Rather it was part of a worldwide
financier conspiracy. The “Reagan Revolution” which facilitated it was
matched by “Thatcherism” in the U.K. and similar regimes around the world.
Since American economists have failed so egregiously, we are forced to turn
elsewhere for explanations. The triumph of usury—i.e., cancer—was ably
described by New Zealand author Les Hunter in his 2002 book, Courage to
Change: A Case for Monetary Reform.
“It was the artificial scarcity of money imposed by the application of
monetarist policies that caused the usurious system to mutate from the
industrial and allowed the collection of usury in amounts greater than that
forthcoming as industrial economic rent. What has come to be practiced is a
corruption of the investment practices that, in the past, and particularly
in the industrial systems, had driven civilization forward.
“As investment proceeds within a usurious system, debt securities are
accumulated and valued by the holders as income-earning assets. Of course,
unlike the industrial assets such as the powered machine, a debt security
produces nothing that is real.
“However, monetary income received as interest from compounding debt does
give claim on current output—wealth at the point of sale—as does any form of
economic rent once it has been collected in a monetized economy. Within
usurious society, the rich are made richer and the poor, poorer, for no
justifiable reason.”
How did this come about? Hunter writes in terms similar to those I used
previously:
In the late 1960s, an aberrant socio-economic phase emerged: the usurious
state, in which the control over money, rather than the ownership of
machinery, is the most important lever of economic and social power.
Investment in debt, and the speculative buying and selling of paper assets,
are the most significant means of accumulating personal wealth.
Hunter provides the following list of characteristics of usurious systems,
features that are agonizingly familiar:
Crushing debt;
A widening gap between rich and poor;
Share markets subject to collapse;
Currency meltdowns;
Mounting social distress;
A pervading belief that the free market should be allowed free reign;
Banks driven by profit but holding tremendous power through their ability to
create and extinguish the national currency, that is, money.
Hunter’s analysis is light-years ahead of U.S. economists, who, even when
playing the role of an “official” opposition, really only enable the
international financial elite to continue their looting unabated. Of course
industrial society is at the mercy of the financial predators, because large
quantities of money are needed for the economy to function. Hunter
continues:
“The accumulation of usurious debt—money-lenders’ assets—became possible
because those in business have an absolute requirement for access to
sufficient working funds to pay costs. (The payment of costs is the main
means of generating the national income; investment makes up the
difference.)
“The money needed as working funds is defined as M1, which is the sum of
base-metal coin, notes, and cheque money. It is this money that is accepted
as the national currency. In many nations, applying monetarist policy has
given business’s working funds—as the ancillary factor of
production—sufficient scarcity value that significant amounts of usury, as
the relevant form of economic rent, can be, and are being, collected.
Monetarism rests on one basic lie—that higher interest rates slow inflation.
Actually higher rates kill economic activity. This is not slowing inflation;
it is wrecking human life. In the long run, higher rates add to inflation by
increasing the proportion of costs that go to pay interest. This system is
not free enterprise, and it is not capitalism. It is a cancer that
destroying the world.
Revolution
The bankers’ takeover of the world economy that began in earnest in the
1970s cannot be undone by Barack Obama’s economic stimulus program or any
other progressive nostrums. Thus, the goal of creating up to five million
new jobs is not likely to succeed, simply due to the enormous amount of debt
the productive economy is currently carrying.
The amount of debt is staggering. If we count individual, household,
business, and government debt, that figure now exceeds $40 trillion,
including the recent bailouts. What the General Accounting Office calls
“unfunded liabilities” of the federal government, due to future costs of
entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, adds another $60
trillion. This doesn’t include outstanding debt for derivatives, most of it
bank-leveraged, which, according to the Bank for International Settlements,
may amount to $1.28 quadrillion worldwide.
Growth in debt through 2006—understated, compared to figures derived by
independent analysts—is shown by the following chart based on Federal
Reserve figures. Note that virtually all of the debt has been incurred since
removal of the gold peg and that its growth is exponential.
larger view
The economic geniuses who write for newspapers like the Washington Post or
give advice to the Federal Reserve have come up with solutions like slashing
Social Security and Medicare benefits or selling more U.S. assets to
creditor nations like China. They refuse to propose the obvious, which is
that the debt must be written off as soon as possible and the monetary
system changed to prevent further debt to be accumulated. Nor do they
realize that debt; i.e., credit, should be viewed solely as a means of
generating working capital, not a permanent millstone around the neck of
humanity.
To overcome today’s tragedy requires a political revolution to remove the
bankers from power. Today they control the political process in the U.S. and
around the world. They control the powerful intelligence agencies of the
Western nations. They control international agencies such as the
International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. They also
control the Western military machine, with NATO now being sworn to protect
Western “neoliberalism,” which means the bankers’ empire.
The only U.S. political figure who has called for revolution is Dr. Ron
Paul, Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination and author
of legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve. In the opinion of this
writer, the only people who have a right to speak of “change” in today’s
political and economic environment—including Nobel laureates—are those who
support this revolution. There is no other way to fight the unlawful
takeover of power by the financiers.
Of course it’s not only politicians, pundits, and economists who have
failed. We are all responsible for our own lives and actions. If the
American people wanted a just economic system and were willing to do what
was necessary to get it, they could have it—now.
What Must be Done
Approximately 20-30 percent of the people in the developed world are doing
just fine financially. They are either professionals, technical experts who
are indispensable in making the world economy function, former government
employees on pensions, or a small minority who live off compound
interest—i.e., the bankers and their dependents. Most of this 20-30 percent,
particularly the latter group, do not seem to have a great deal of
compassion for the majority within their own nations and even less for the
billions of underprivileged people around the world.
For the remaining 70-80 percent who realize, with the recession now having
arrived, that their livelihoods are on a slippery slope downward, possibly
taking them toward personal and family catastrophe, they need only one
thing—MONEY!
For many of these it would be nice to have a job, or a better job. But jobs
are not the answer, even though any time a politician, economist, activist,
or commentator offers an opinion on how to improve the economy they say MORE
JOBS!
And they are completely wrong.
The way to generate income security is not to give someone a job. It is to
give them money. If we began with this simple fact the economy would soon
generate far more jobs than people could fill. Of course some of these jobs
would be low-paying or even volunteer jobs, which would be acceptable
provided that people still had enough to live on and had opportunities to
earn more.
For the world economy to function and for there to be enough produced to
support everyone at a decent standard of living, not everyone has to work.
In fact too many workers get in each other’s way. In 2007 world GDP was $55
trillion. The population was 6.6 billion. Per capita that’s $8,300. It’s not
a large sum, but in many countries the cost of living is far lower than in
the developed nations of the West.
The productivity of a modern industrial economy is phenomenal. It surpasses
the wildest dreams of generations past. The problem today is not a shortage
of goods and services. It is too many goods and services. There is a
worldwide glut of automobiles. The same goes for many other products such as
clothing, CD players, TVs, and most consumer products. This does not mean
that threats like climate change or resource depletion should be ignored.
The reason these threats are not being faced is that industry must work so
hard to cut costs and keep prices down in the face of the catastrophic
shortage of consumer purchasing power.
So why do we need more jobs? Only because we are too cheap and so poorly
informed that we fail to realize that a cash payment to everyone, at least
at a subsistence level, should be viewed as a dividend. It’s something
everyone should receive as the benefit of our incredible producing economy.
It should be treated as a HUMAN RIGHT.
The situation does not require that someone else should be taxed in order
for that dividend to be provided. This is not a transfer payment. It is not
a share-the-wealth scheme. It is the acknowledgment by the economic system
that the universe is bountiful and abundant. Modern industry has tapped into
that abundance. Today the abundance is being stolen by the bankers and their
debt-based monetary system. This is what must be taken back by, and on
behalf of, “We the People.”
If you want to read the history of dividend-economics, study the history of
the worldwide Social Credit movement. I am not going to repeat that history
here. I have written about it in many articles over the past two years, most
of which can be found at www.GlobalResearch.ca. It’s one of the basic themes
in my new book, We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform (Tendril
Press, 2008). You can find a lot of information about Social Credit on the
internet, including the website for the Michael Journal in Canada at
www.michaeljournal.org.
One of the world’s leading experts on Social Credit is Wallace Klinck of
Alberta, Canada, who provides the following commentary on the crisis:
“The base cause of our essential economic, and social, afflictions is…a
fundamental and widening disparity between effective consumer income and
financial prices—resulting essentially from a basic flaw in national
financial cost accountancy involving a premature withdrawal of credit
because of added allocated capital charges in consumer prices. The
consequent widening deficiency of effective purchasing-power forces the
consuming public increasingly into dependency upon debt.
“We are now witnessing the inevitable, entirely predictable, and devastating
results of such folly (or more likely, high policy). Governments are forced
to make a futile attempt to ameliorate this problem by assuming debt to
compensate or accommodate the ballooning private debt. I am sure that the
financial powers look on with almost puzzled amusement as we engage in a
sterile debate about the evils of interest and usury when we obviously have
no strategy to deal with the rapid expansion of debt upon which interest is
demanded. We waste our energy on a misguided and sterile debate while
ignoring the fact that the consumer is charged with capital depreciation but
not credited with capital appreciation.
“In other words, we blindly forgo our inheritance for a mess of pottage. You
only pay interest on debt—eliminate debt and you have effectively eliminated
any tribute of interest or ‘usury.’ There should be no need for any overall
national consumer debt at all—consumers in aggregate should always be
provided sufficient income to purchase the entire final product of industry
without resorting to borrowing. The physical cost of production has been
provided in full when goods are completed, and the financial means to
liquidate the financial costs of that production should be made fully
available as each ‘cycle’ of production is completed.
“Whatever the costs to industry, including interest or service charges, the
consumer should always be in a position to liquidate them with his or her
financial income. Being increasingly inadequate under the orthodox system of
financial accountancy, that consumer income must be supplemented from a
source which originates outside the price-system and does not, therefore,
create new financial costs through its issue. The mechanisms to achieve this
condition recommended by Social Credit are the payment to all citizens of a
National Dividend and to all retailers a compensatory payment in order to
effect a falling price-level, i.e., a Compensated Price.
“When the expenditure of human labor is being rapidly replaced by other
factors of production, as it is in a most spectacular manner, talk of there
being ‘no free lunch’ is entirely irrational from the standpoint of reason,
downright sacrilegious from a theological standpoint, absolutely disastrous
from an economic and social perspective—and absurd from a philosophical
aspect.”
I strongly recommend that readers try to understand and absorb what Mr.
Klinck is saying. He is explaining why everyone doesn’t have to work all the
time for us to enjoy a decent standard of living. People in the U.S.
understood this in the 1950s, when a single breadwinner could support a
family. Does anyone wonder why conditions have changed so much for the worse
since then? In a private message to me dated December 13, 2008, Mr. Klinck
made the following observations on jobs vs. income:
“I find it quite maddening that we have these recent desperate appeals for
industrial state ‘bailouts’ to help industry go on producing even more
unsalable goods, when it should be quite obvious that what needs
‘subsidizing’ is consumption and not production. Of course, as we know from
a Social Credit perspective, these appeals are based on a number of major
misconceptions about national cost accounting, the purpose of industry,
work, and life in general. I think that this erroneous and indelibly
entrenched ‘moral’ mindset is our biggest obstacle. For instance, I heard
extended appeals on television today from the Canadian Autoworker’s Union
for protection of their ‘jobs’, etc. If only we could show them that it is
their incomes and not their ‘jobs’ which should be preserved. They are so
obsessed with ‘work’ that they are blinded to reality.”
We have another well-developed plan for monetary reform here in the United
States with the American Monetary Act proposed by the American Monetary
Institute. (www.monetary.org) This plan would eliminate public debt for
federal government expenditures by returning to a Greenback-type system of
direct government purchasing like we had during and after the Civil War.
Public expenditures would focus on the creation of infrastructure assets as
the basis for the monetary system. The American Monetary Act became part of
the platform of Congressman Dennis Kucinich in his 2008 congressional
campaign. The Act also contains a dividend provision.
Lessons from the Alaska Permanent Fund
We can find one small but extremely important example of dividend economics
in the U.S. by examining the Alaska Permanent Fund which paid every resident
of Alaska a dividend of $3,269 in 2008 out of state resource revenues. The
APF was set up in 1976 when Alaska voters passed a constitutional amendment
calling for a direct payment to individuals rather than turning the money
over to the state bureaucracy for “social services.”
Today the Alaska Permanent Fund is a shining—and rare—example of economic
democracy at work. At first the APF made dividends incremental based on a
person’s years of residency, but the U.S. Supreme Court declared this
provision unconstitutional. The Alaska legislature responded by providing
equal dividends to all residents of six-months or more. The first dividend,
amounting to $1,000, was paid on June 14, 1982.
The APF dividend is not a welfare payment. It is a resident’s fair share of
the bounty of the Earth. There are no means tests, no lines to wait in, no
bureaucrats snooping around to find out what someone used the money for. The
APF has not ruined the character of those who get it. A millionaire receives
the same payment as a person living in poverty. Spent into circulation, the
money becomes part of the lifeblood of the community without having to be
repaid and with no interest being charged. Deposited into banks, the money
capitalizes consumer borrowing and economic growth.
In the Fall 2008 Newsletter of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network there
appeared an editorial on the Alaska Permanent Fund by Karl Widerquist, one
of the leaders of the worldwide BIG movement, now a professor at Reading
University in England. This editorial is reprinted as follows:
“EDITORIAL: The Alaska Dividend and the Presidential Election (The views
expressed in this editorial are my own and do not represent the views of
USBIG or its membership. -Karl Widerquist)
“Most people will be surprised to learn that the Republican
vice-presidential nominee and the Democratic presidential nominee have both
endorsed the Basic Income Guarantee. In one form or another both support
policies to guarantee a small government-provided income for everyone. As
reported in the USBIG Newsletter earlier this year, Obama has voiced support
for reducing carbon emissions with the cap-and-dividend strategy, which
includes a small BIG.
“Sarah Palin, like most Alaskan politicians, supports the Alaska Permanent
Fund (APF). Existing rules caused the APF dividend to reach a new high of
2,069 this year. That much had nothing to do with Palin. But, whatever else
you might think of her, she deserves credit for adding $1200 more to this
year’s dividend.… She proposed it to the legislature, and pushed it through,
resisting counter proposals to reduce the supplement to $1000 or $250.
“Most people who learned about Palin at the Republican National Convention
in August would probably be surprised to learn that such a hard-line
conservative supports handing out $16,345 checks to even the poorest
families. Actually, families the size of Palin’s will receive $19,416—no
conditions imposed besides residency, no judgments made.
“The support of politicians like Palin provides evidence against the belief
that BIG is some kind of leftist utopian fantasy with no political
viability. In the one place BIG exists it is one of the most popular
government programs, and it is endorsed by people across the political
spectrum.
“The APF has not become an issue in the campaign, and I doubt she has plans
to introduce a similar plan at the national level, but when the issue has
come up, Palin has taken credit for it as a conservative policy. In an
interview on the Fox News network, Sean Hannity confirmed that Palin
increased the Alaska dividend by $1200 this year. Hannity commented, ‘I have
to move to Alaska. New York taxes are killing me.’
“Sounding like some kind of progressive-era land reformer, Palin replied,
‘What we’re doing up there is returning a share of resource development
dollars back to the people who own the resources. And our constitution up
there mandates that as you develop resources it’s to be for the maximum
benefit of the people, not the corporations, not the government, but the
people of Alaska.’
“Tim Graham, writing for the conservative website Newsbuster.com criticized
NPR’s Terry Gross for asking questions that implied opposition to the APF in
an interview with Alaska Public Broadcasting host, Michael Carey. Graham
writes, ‘Gross walked Carey through the idea that it’s not hard for Palin to
be popular in Alaska when she’s handing every family a $1200 check from all
the oil business. She then elbowed Carey about how that money could have
been better “invested” (as Obama would say) in government programs.’
Suddenly conservatives are ridiculing people they assume do not support
unconditional grants.
“Palin justified a tax increase on the oil companies to support higher BIG
on the PBS Now program before she was nominated for vice-president. ‘This is
a big darn deal for Alaska. That non-renewable resource, of course, is so
valuable …. And of course [the oil companies] they’re fighting us every step
of the way when we say, “Well we wanna make sure, especially as it’s being
sold for a premium, that we’re receiving appropriate value.” … The oil
companies don’t own the resources. They have leases and the right to develop
our resources for us. And we share a value, we’re partners there, because
they do the producing for us. But we own the resources.’ …
“The lesson here is that the APF is a model ready for export. Readers of
this newsletter will know that governments in places as diverse as Alberta,
Brazil, Iraq, Libya, and Mongolia have recently thought seriously about
imitating the Alaska model.
“Some might be tempted to think that the APF isn’t a true BIG and it isn’t
motivated to help the poor. Not so: Jay Hammond, the Republican governor of
Alaska who created the APF, came all the way to Washington, D.C., to speak
at the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network conference in 2004. He told me
that his intention was to create a BIG to help everyone—most especially the
disadvantaged. If he had his way the APF fund would now be producing
dividends four to eight times the current individual level of $2,069.
“Others might dismiss the Alaska model saying that it is a unique case
because Alaska has so much oil wealth. Again, not so: Alaska ranks only
sixth in U.S. states in terms of per capita GDP, with an average income just
over $43,000 in 2006, more than $15,000 per year less than number-one
Delaware, and only $6,000 per year ahead of the national average. Any other
state or the federal government can afford to do what Alaska has done.
“Alaska has oil wealth; other states have mining, fishing, hydroelectric, or
real estate wealth. Governments give away resources to corporations all the
time. The U.S. government recently gave away a large chunk of the broadcast
spectrum to HDTV broadcasters at no charge. Offshore oil drilling will soon
be expanded on three coasts. Everyone who emits green house gases and other
pollutants into the atmosphere takes something we all value and—so far—pays
nothing.
“What was different about the Alaskan situation was that Jay Hammond was
there to take advantage of the opportunity. With the Alaska model in place,
it will be just a little easier for next person at the next opportunity.”
There have been other times in U.S. history when the government “gave away”
wealth. An example was the Homestead Act of 1862 which opened the American
heartland to settlement and helped create one of the world’s most productive
agricultural regions. There was also a time when anyone who walked into a
U.S. Mint could have their gold or silver stamped into coinage—free of
charge.
So why isn’t a dividend like the one provided through the Alaska Permanent
Fund paid to every U.S. resident or, for that matter, to every person in the
world? Please don’t make up any phony “economic” answers to this question.
The answer is obvious—everyone else is being cheated by the monetary system.
The “Cook Plan”
What I am modestly calling the “Cook Plan” is simply to pay each resident of
the U.S. a dividend, by means of vouchers for the necessities of life, in
the amount of $1,000 per month per capita starting immediately as our fair
share of the resources of the Earth and the bounty of the modern industrial
economy. The money would then be deposited in a new network of community
savings banks to capitalize lending for consumers, small businesses, and
family farming.
I am calling it the “Cook Plan” because I have been advocating such measures
for almost two years, ever since I published my first article on the subject
in April 2007 entitled: “An Emergency Program of Monetary Reform for the
United States”. (See Global Research at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5494)
The dividend would total about $3.6 trillion, which, not by coincidence, is
the amount of new debt U.S. residents must incur each year from banks simply
to exist. That borrowing, of course, is on top of borrowing in past years,
because most people do not entirely pay off old loans before taking out new
ones. Debt in this country in recent years has been cumulative, with
interest constantly compounding. The annual dividend I have proposed would
bring a halt to this “grip of death,” as it has been termed by British
author Michael Rowbotham in his book: The Grip of Death: A Study of Modern
Money, Debt Slavery, and Destructive Economics.
Because we have all been brainwashed to believe that the only sources of
government funding are through taxes or the national debt, it is difficult
to believe that a dividend of $3.6 trillion could be paid to residents by
other means. In fact it could, and it would not even require a fund to be
set up like the Alaska Permanent Fund that is replenished by resource
revenues. According to Social Credit theory, the dividend fund could be
created sui generis; i.e., it could be created out of “nothing.”
And why not? John Maynard Keynes pointed out, and everyone realizes today,
that the banking system does just this in creating money “out of thin air.”
It’s what many people refer to as “printing money,” which the Federal
Reserve is doing on a massive scale in bailing out the financial system. The
banks that belong to the Federal Reserve use the purchase of Treasury debt
as collateral, but the money itself is simply issued as credit. The trouble
is we end up paying interest on it, which is why the interest on the
national debt in the fiscal year 2009 budget totals more than $500 billion.
Issuance of credit is mis-defined as the private property of the banks. But
as I point out in the “GAP Chart” at the end of my book We Hold These
Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform:
“The goal of a stable, democratic economic system is achieved by a correct
definition of credit. Credit actually is the means of calling forth the
productive potential of the people. By law it should be part of the public
commons, not the private property of the banks, and treated as a utility
like electricity, water, and clean air. Availability of credit should be a
basic human right, part of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”
Today the banking system has a monopoly on credit which it has seized
unlawfully from the government, where, under the U.S. Constitution, Congress
alone, according to Article II, has the prerogative to “Coin money and
regulate the value thereof.” There is no reason except bankers’ propaganda
why the federal government, as authorized by Congress, could not issue
credit through a citizens dividend, by direct government spending, or by
other means such as loan guarantees or lending for infrastructure. This
would be real economic democracy.
The “GAP” Chart is presented in its entirety as follows:
larger view
As I explain in the book:
“In order for people to be able to pay for a nation’s GDP, sufficient
purchasing power must be generated. Purchasing power is what British
economist John Maynard Keynes called ‘aggregate demand.’ But the income that
is generated through wages, salaries, and dividends is never enough to
consume the GDP, because a portion must be withheld (saved) as retained
earnings for future investment. This is the ‘gap.’ The way society decides
to fill the gap reflects whether it views itself as an empire, where the
rich profit at the expense of the few, or a democracy, where all members of
society have the opportunity to prosper. Under the imperial design, the
‘gap’ is viewed negatively and filled by bank lending at usurious rates of
interest, foreign conquest, the economic growth imperative, aggressive trade
policies, or inflation of the currency. But when, by contrast, the ‘gap’ is
viewed as an opportunity to further democratic ideals, it can be monetized
through public control of credit and issued as direct government spending, a
citizens dividend, or low-cost credit. This monetization of savings reflects
a definition of credit as a public utility, not the private property of the
banks. Keynesian economics tries to compromise between the imperial and
democratic ideals by using government debt to monetize savings, but this
ultimately destroys the currency through bankruptcy or inflation. Today we
are at a late stage of imperialistic monetary policies which have led to
financial collapse. Democratic management of credit has been tried at
various times in U.S. history with great success but never on a sufficient
scale to transform the economy. It is now time to take decisive measures to
replace the economics of empire with those of democracy.
Again, what this model does is show how we can monetize the productive
potential of the nation that today is withheld by businesses from payout as
wages, salaries, and dividends through the withholding of retained earnings.
It is these retained earnings that the business will utilize later to renew
its processes of production through investment. But while these funds are
idle, their creative potential still exists. That potential is the “energy
source” for new consumer purchasing power. It is real, though, like
electricity, invisible until harnessed. The logic is similar to the
explanations of Social Credit by Wally Klinck.
Under the “Cook Plan” the U.S. Treasury would issue the dividend against an
account that represents the productive potential of the nation once the
money is spent. The dividend would not be inflationary, because it would be
matched by production of goods and services within the physical economy. In
fact it would have far less tendency to inflate because it would not have
bank interest charges added to it. And once created it would remain in
circulation—or deposited as savings—because it would not have to go back to
a bank to be canceled as loans now do. Savings would be an important part of
the plan, because today citizens have completely lost the ability to save in
the usury-based economy where cancellation of bank credit along with the
interest charged sucks up all available cash from people’s pockets.
Under the “Cook Plan,” the dividend would be issued as vouchers as a
temporary measure until the program caught on and it was clear the money
would be spent responsibly. The vouchers would be redeemable at any location
licensed to do business for necessities of life such as food, housing,
transportation, clothing, communications, or business/home maintenance. In
fact they could be used for most purchases except things like the lottery,
alcohol, entertainment, etc.
Once received in transactions, providers would then deposit the vouchers in
the community savings bank that had been set up in their locality. In order
to maintain membership in the bank, providers would be required to keep a
certain amount of money on deposit to capitalize lending by the bank within
the community. Loans would be made available under the bank’s fractional
reserve privileges and would be issued at low rates of interest, preferably
no more than one percent plus a premium for default insurance, depending on
the credit status of the borrower. Persons eligible for lending would
include individuals, householders, students, small businesses, local
manufacturing concerns, family farmers, etc.
It should be obvious that this system will completely transform and
revitalize local economies in any nation where it is implemented. One of the
worse features of today’s usury-based economy takes place when global
businesses in league with the banks come into communities and destroy local
businesses by underpricing them. Then these businesses extract all the
liquidity from the community, where people usually are so cash-poor they buy
with credit cards, and return only a fraction to the low-wage workers they
employ.
The “Cook Plan,” with the direct injection of purchasing power into the
community through vouchers, combined with a new system of low-cost credit,
would transform this dire situation completely. It would allow people to
live and prosper without dependence on credit cards, government job-creation
programs, or government welfare bureaucracies. And it would allow a
resurgence of volunteer activities and work at low-paying professions such
as education and the arts.
It Must Be Done Now
Obviously it would take time—though not much time—to work out all the
details of the program, as well as to explain how it would interface with
monetary reform proposals like those of the American Monetary Institute or
resource-based dividend systems like the Alaska Permanent Fund. But in
principle, the “Cook Plan” is sound.
In any case, we cannot afford to wait. Conditions today are nearing an
emergency. Thousands of people are losing their jobs every day as the
recession turns into a monster. Something must be done that has never been
done before. Let President Barack Obama implement his massive public works
program to create jobs. Meanwhile, let the “Cook Plan” be implemented, a
plan that draws on much of the wisdom that has been dormant in recent
decades as the usury-based economy has suffocated the life out of the
world’s economy. It is now time to put that wisdom to work. “We the People”
deserve to live in freedom on this beautiful planet, no matter what the
bankers say.
Wally Klinck sums it up in words that describe every “supply-side” scheme
ever invented, of which the empire of usury is just another permutation:
“The so-called financial ‘crisis’ derives from a faulty financial
price-system which generates consumer prices more rapidly than it
distributes incomes, forcing consumers to rely increasingly on creation of
new money issued as repayable debt in the form of bank loans. When liquidity
becomes eroded to the point where borrowing can no longer be sustained, the
whole financial edifice collapses like a deck of cards. The mass foreclosure
which ensues reveals the confiscatory nature of the financial system,
manifesting a tragedy of human effort.
“In a free society and rational economic system, producers should get their
money from consumers. Subsidizing producers so that they can create more
goods for which consumers lack income to purchase [i.e., supply-side
economics] is lunacy. What is needed is enhancement of consumer income to
balance aggregate purchasing power with aggregate prices in each cycle of
production. This would place consumers in a position to determine the
viability of producers. The physical cost of production is fully met as
production progresses. There should be no aggregate need for consumer debt
whatsoever.
“If society had followed the Social Credit policy of C. H. Douglas who
advocated Consumer Dividends and Compensated Retail Prices instead of the
Fabian Socialist social debt policy of the late economist John Maynard
Keynes, none of the current madness would have occurred. We would be
enjoying increasing prosperity with falling prices and increasing leisure as
should be the case in any modern and civilized society.”
Copyright 2008 by Richard C. Cook
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 in numerous websites and print magazines. His new book, We Hold
These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform, can now be ordered for $19.95
from www.tendrilpress.com. He is 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
www.richardccook.com. Comments or requests to be added to his mailing list
or to purchase his special report on the 2008 election may be sent to
EconomicSanity@gmail.com.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on
welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as
food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. Verify at:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fisc...
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fisc...
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school
education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of
English! Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPT...
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born
children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPT...
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. Verify
at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPT...
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPT...
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &
social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/061...
9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by
the illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPT...
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and
a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their
children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .
Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPT...
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that
crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from
Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and
marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Verify at:
Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass
deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of
between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.' Verify at:
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.or...
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes
Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .' Verify at:
http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
[Note: If you want to access the
links below click on the video link above and access them through the
information section accompanying the video.
Also I must credit the authors of
this video for disclosing what most of us serious activists have known for
quite a long while. The major "drug reform" organizations are becoming
more of an impediment to Re-Legalization than a catalyst. All of these
groups are primarily supported by Soros, Lewis and Sperling and the only
solutions they support are incremental approaches such as Medical Marijuana
and "Tax and Regulate" models. Only the MERP Model will destroy the
cartels, the gangs and restore the liberties of the American People.]
Despite what the MPP (Marijuana Policy
Project) video might suggest, Barack Obama does not support marijuana decrim.
On the subject of cannabis Barack Obama is weak and most certainly does not
support marijuana decrim.
Support a politician in a day and age where 75%+ of voters support medical
marijuana and he says, "I won't risk any political capital for it". Support
that?
That's not worthy of our support or vote.
We are the majority, we know what is right, we demand it!
This video was in response to a series of videos by MPP that seemed to
suggest that Barack Obama was near perfect on marijuana reform.
MPP has responded 7 months and 10,000 views of this video later. We were
glad to see that they have at long last presented a more balanced video in
response to this video. We were heard. MPP acknowledged our points about
their coverage of candidate Barack Obama.
Send a message to Barack Obama that luke warm support and worrying about
political capital is unacceptable on the issues of medical marijuana and
decrim.
Music:
PROSPECT HILL "SOE"
http://myspace.com/prospecthill
No Cuffs for Cannabis !
Honors for this video (4)
#3 - Most Discussed (Today) - Nonprofits & Activism
#36 - Most Viewed (Today) - Nonprofits & Activism
#27 - Top Favorites (Today) - Nonprofits & Activism
#56 - Top Rated (Today) - Nonprofits & Activism
Proof of what I say is true about Obama not supporting marijuana decrim, for
the nitwits that can't be bothered to look and find out for themselves.
Washington, DC: Senator Barack Obama's campaign backed away from statements
made last week affirming the Senator's support for decriminalizing
marijuana, after being confronted with inconsistencies in his past and
present campaigns on the issue by the Washington Times.
A spokesman for Obama's campaign blamed confusion over the meaning of
decriminalization for the inconsistencies, and said that while Obama does
not support decriminalization, "we are sending far too many first-time,
nonviolent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we
should rethink those laws."
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive
Director, at: allen@norml.org. Full text of the Washington Times article can
be found at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/p...
Would Obama supporting marijuana reform help or hurt him in the election?
Smart money says that the 80% that support medical marijuana would be a boon
for his candidacy see this link for more info on how it would help his
campaign! This is 2008 not 1980!
There have been many misinformation posts on Barack Obama and John McCain on
H-1B and F-4 Visas. Bottom line American workers, you are royally screwed by
both candidates.
John McCain wants to increase H-1B Visas. So does Barack Obama. Think either
of them are putting U.S. workers first? Think again! Neither of them will
even co-sponsor S.1035, the reforms for H-1B. L-1. Never even crosses their
lips!
Nielsen replaces workers with H-1Bs from Tata Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJAnZUB6zyE
Both McCain and Obama issue corporate lobbyist talking points that have no
basis in economic reality, completely ignoring the brain drain for the
United States. When U.S. workers. U.S. professionals become underemployed,
labor arbitraged with all of that skill and talent sitting idle, America
further inches towards third world status by refusing to invest in it’s
people and build up expertise from it’s own citizenry.
Even worse, the F-4 Visa, is a dangerous agenda for it tries to turn our
entire educational system into a glorified green card machine. Imagine what
will happen if Americans are forced to compete to even gain entry into our
education system against the world’s population. That is indeed was is
proposed and both candidates endorse it. As usual, both candidates put U.S.
citizens last. Both candidates endorse global labor arbitrage, make no
mistake.
And towards the end of this report on yet another company replacing US
workers with foreign guest workers, note how both campaigns endorse this
idea, either directly or indirectly.
“Purposeful domestic resistance” would require military to “rapidly
determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force
inside the United States.”
Steve Watson & Paul Watson Infowars.net Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008
A recent report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute
warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake
of a series of crises which it has termed “strategic shock.”
The report, titled Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in
Defense Strategy Development, also suggests that the military may have to be
used to quell domestic disorder.
“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense
establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic
order and human security,” the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan
Freir, reads.
“Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic
capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political
and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive
public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are
all paths to disruptive domestic shock.” it continues.
“An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by
a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most
external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human
insecurity at home…”
“Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in
instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands
in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced
by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil
authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility.
Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military
force against hostile groups inside the United States.” Lt. Col. Freir
concludes.
See Pages 31-32 (PDF) for quoted sections.
Freir is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He joined the think tank in
April 2008 after retiring from the U.S. Army after 20 years as a lieutenant
colonel. In his role at CSIS he rubs shoulders with a whole host of
globalist luminaries including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent
Scowcroft and Richard Armitage.
Echoing recent comments made by Pentagon advisors, along with other notable
figures such as Colin Powell and Joe Biden, Freir also warns that the
incoming Obama administration should prepare for a “first term crisis” that
could act as a catalyst for such unrest.
“The current administration confronted a game-changing ’strategic shock’
inside its first eight months in office,” the report reads. “The next
administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of
its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges
routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next
watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense].”
We have recently highlighted plans to station thousands more U.S. troops
inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011, an
expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for
potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror
attack.
“The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United
States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a
nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to
Pentagon officials,” reported the Washington Post last month.
In a September 8 Army Times article, Northcom announced that the first wave
of the troop deployment, which was put in place on October 1st at Fort
Stewart and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed
at tackling “civil unrest and crowd control”.
After a controversy arose surrounding the admissions made in the Army Times
article, Northcom retracted the claim but conceded that both lethal and
non-lethal weaponry traditionally used in crowd control and riot situations
would still be used in the field.
The increasing militarization of America is part of a long term agenda to
abolish Constitutional rule and establish a “military form of government,”
following a large scale terror attack or similar disaster, as Tommy Franks,
the former commander of the military’s Central Command, alluded to in a
November 2003 Cigar Aficionado piece.
Franks outlined the scenario by which martial law would be put in place,
saying, “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a
terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world
– it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to
question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in
order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in
fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps,
very, very important.”
In the short term, the domestic deployment of troops is likely aimed at
combating likely civil unrest that will ensue after a complete economic
collapse followed by a devastating period of hyperinflation.
This warning was again echoed a few days ago in a leaked internal memo from
Citibank.
“The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have
done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have
pushed into the system will feed through into an inflation shock,” wrote Tom
Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist.
The memo predicts “depression, civil disorder and possibly wars” as a
fallout from an economic collapse that many say is on the horizon.
Naturally, the claim that such troop deployments are merely to aid in
disaster relief efforts is a thin veil aimed at distracting from the real
goal. Should a real tragedy occur, volunteers and already existing civil aid
organizations are fully capable of dealing with such events, as we witnessed
on 9/11.
The military are primarily trained to kill people and break things, and
their role during the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts was mainly focused on
detaining people in sports stadiums, shooting alleged looters and seizing
guns from wealthy home owners in the high and dry areas, while real recovery
measures were left to volunteers and local state authorities.
The open admission that U.S. troops will be involved in law enforcement
operations as well as potentially using non-lethal weapons against American
citizens is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the
Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal
government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and
extreme circumstances.
Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, “Whoever, except in cases
and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of
Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse
comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on
October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, “The President may employ
the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States
the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of
a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and
secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”
However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the
original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal,
President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel
bound by the repeal. It remains to be seen whether President elect Obama
will reverse Bush’s signing statement.
The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the
President to deploy troops within the United States.
For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, “(1) So hinders
the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the
State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right,
privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by
law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or
refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that
protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any
situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have
denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”
Is the incoming Obama administration and Northcom waiting for such a
scenario to unfold, an event that completely overwhelms state authorities,
before unleashing the might of the U.S. Army against the American people?
[Ret.] Lt. Col. Freir’s Known Unknowns report addresses this specifically,
stating:
“A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested.
Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian
authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly
determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force
inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict
termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security
institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by
stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a
massive scale at home.”
The deployment of National Guard troops to aid law enforcement or for
disaster relief purposes is legal under the authority of the governor of a
state, but using active duty U.S. Army in law enforcement operations inside
America absent the conditions described in the Insurrection Act is
completely illegal.
The political left and right need to join forces and denounce this plan for
what it is - another unconstitutional step towards the incremental
implementation of martial law and the militarization of America.
Comment:
About the only thing I disagree with is the notion that there is anything
wrong with extending abortion rights. Women must definitely have a right to
choose in such personal matter as these. But I do agree with Schafly on most
other points. Obama is most definitely intent on perusing a Globalist agenda
and that agenda is most definitely NOT in the interests of the American
People.
When candidate Barack Obama declared himself a "citizen of the world" before
thousands of cheering German socialists, and later pledged to "rejoin the
world community," those weren't just his usual platitudes about "change."
Those words sounded the trumpet for his specific and far-reaching globalist
agenda.
Obama plans to use his presidential power to get the Democratic-majority
Senate to ratify a series of treaties that would take us a long way toward
global rule over our money, our laws, our military, our courts, our customs,
our trade and even our use of energy. Here are the treaties he says he
wants.
The U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which Ronald Reagan rejected in 1982,
is high on Obama's list. LOST has already created the International Seabed
Authority (ISA) in Jamaica and given it total regulatory jurisdiction over
all the world's oceans and all the riches on the ocean floor.
Corrupt foreign dictators dominate LOST's global bureaucracy, and the United
States would have the same vote as Cuba. Likewise for LOST's International
Tribunal in Hamburg, Germany, which has the power to decide all disputes.
Even worse, LOST gives the ISA the power to levy international taxes. The
real purpose of the taxing power is to compel the United States to spend
billions of private-enterprise dollars to mine the ocean floor and then let
ISA bureaucrats transfer our wealth to socialist, anti-American nations.
Next on Obama's list is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was
signed by Bill Clinton but rejected by the Senate in 1999. It would prohibit
all nuclear explosive testing and thereby allow our nuclear arsenal to
deteriorate until the American people are defenseless against rogue regimes
such as Iran and North Korea.
A new Global Warming Treaty began to be written at the U.N. Climate Change
Conference in Poland in order to replace the Kyoto Agreement, which George
W. Bush and our Senate refused to ratify. The new treaty would force
dramatic reductions in our use of energy – i.e., our standard of living –
and impose the "strong international norms" Obama seeks.
Obama is toadying to his feminist friends by pushing ratification of the
U.N. Treaty on Women, known as CEDAW. It was signed by Jimmy Carter in 1980
and persistently promoted by Hillary Clinton, but the Senate has so far had
the good judgment to refuse to ratify it.
This treaty would require us "to modify the social and cultural patterns of
conduct of men and women," to follow U.N. dictates about "family education,"
to revise our textbooks to conform to feminist ideology in order to ensure
"the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women"
and to set up a federal "network of child-care facilities."
Article 16 would require us to allow women "to decide number and spacing of
their children." Everyone recognizes this as feminist jargon for a U.N.
obligation to allow abortion on demand.
Like all U.N. treaties, the U.N. Treaty on Women creates a monitoring
commission of so-called "experts" to ensure compliance. The monitors of the
Treaty on Women have already singled out Mother's Day as a stereotype that
must be eliminated.
Another U.N. Treaty on the list is the U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the
Child, which was signed in 1995 by Bill Clinton but wisely never ratified by
our Senate. This is a pet project of the people who believe that the
"village" (i.e., the government or U.N. "experts") should raise children
rather than their parents.
This treaty would give children rights against their parents and society to
express their own views "freely in all matters," to receive information of
all kinds through "media of the child's choice," to use their "own
language," and to have the right to "rest and leisure." This treaty even
orders our schools to teach respect for "the Charter of the United Nations."
These Obama-endorsed treaties, every one of which would be a dramatic
encroachment on U.S. sovereignty, would be supplemented by trade agreements
negotiated by Obama's trade representative, Ron Kirk. He is an enthusiastic
supporter of the "global economic community" (which means open borders for
"free" trade), of NAFTA and even of the NAFTA Superhighway, which he calls
the "true river of trade between our communities."
Kirk's work to lock us into the global economy will be bolstered by Obama's
secretary of commerce, Bill Richardson, another aggressive promoter of
"free" trade.
Every U.N. treaty would interfere with self-government over some aspect of
our lives and would transfer significant power to foreign bureaucrats, many
of whom hate and envy America. Obama's U.N. treaties are the enemy of U.S.
political and social independence, and Kirk's global economic community is
the enemy of good middle-class American jobs.
Related special offer:
"Trading Away Our Future"
Whistleblower magazine: "HOW GLOBALISM IS DESTROYING THE U.S. ECONOMY"
"The True Story of the Bilderberg Group"
"Brotherhood of Darkness"
"Hope of the Wicked"
We've
all heard the laments: "My grandpa from Sicily learned English, and my
grandma from Minsk got by without welfare. So what's the problem with
immigrants today?"
As Mark Krikorian argues in this provocative book, what's different today is
not the immigrants, but us. Today's immigrants are very similar to those of
a century ago, but they are coming to a very different America -- one where
changes in the economy, society, and government create fundamentally
different incentives for newcomers. In other words, the America that our
grandparents came to no longer exists. And this simple fact must become the
new starting point for the explosive debate about immigration policy.
Krikorian argues that although mass immigration once served our national
interests, in today's America it weakens our common national identity,
limits opportunities for upward mobility, threatens our security and
sovereignty, strains resources for social programs, and disrupts
middle-class norms of behavior.
So as the politicians argue about border fences and amnesty, they are
missing the bigger picture: the harmful impact of large-scale settlement of
all kinds of immigrants, whether legal or illegal, skilled or unskilled,
temporary or permanent, European or Latin or Asian or African. Modern
America has simply outgrown immigration, and we must end it before it
cripples us.
You can watch Krikorian discuss his book
in this 1 hour lecture below:
This appearance of Jimi
Hendrix at Woodstock occurred on my 15th birthday in 1969.
This was apparently the closing act for the Woodstock event.
My what a long strange trip it has been in the 39 years that
have followed this historic concert.
The Disappearing Male is a
CBC documentary about one of the most important, and least
publicized, issues facing the human species: the toxic threat to
the male reproductive system. The last few decades have seen
steady and dramatic increases in the incidence of boys and young
men suffering from genital deformities, low sperm count, sperm
abnormalities and testicular cancer. At the same time, boys are
now far more at risk of suffering from ADHD, autism, Tourette's
syndrome, cerebral palsy, and dyslexia. The Disappearing Male
takes a close and disturbing look at what many doctors and
researchers now suspect are responsible for many of these
problems: a class of common chemicals that are ubiquitous in our
world. Found in everything from shampoo, sunglasses, meat and
dairy products, carpet, cosmetics and baby bottles, they are
called "hormone mimicking" or "endocrine disrupting" chemicals
and they may be starting to damage the most basic building
blocks of human development
I would highly recommend viewing the
video "Inside Job." I find it to be a very sober accounting of
the machinations of the "New World Order" which seriously
challenges some of the faux "conspiracy theories" while
preserving those policies which we must be most concerned.
The first segment is viewable above. The rest can be
viewed by double clicking on the video which will take you to
the YouTube page. There you will find the other segments.
If you are interested in
understanding the beginnings of Saudi Oil and Saudi Terrorism
this Frontline presentation provides a great introduction.
The other 6 parts can be viewed through the link (above).
A "Smoking" Merry
Xmas from Karina
I often feel somewhat jealous
when a cute young lady can get 50 times the video hits, that I
get. But this video is seasonal and cute. My only
real criticism is that she does tend to waste a lot of that
smoke. Would it not be hilarious to see Lisa Ling doing
the same thing at the end of the next video?
This is Lisa Lings 1-hour
piece on Marijuana that she did for National Geographic.
While she is someone I'd definitely want to share a bowl with I
am unsurprisingly unimpressed with this video. Like all
comedies, documentaries and films about Marijuana it fails to
look at the most obvious aspects -- the economics. If
Marijuana were simply Re-Legalized under the MERP Model the DEA
agents, featured within the videos, would be thankfully out of
work. Marc Emory would not be facing extradition to the
United States. The growers would go out of business.
And that is exactly what needs to happen. But if Lisa Ling
happens to read this, let it be known that I'm always available
to present the economic arguments for Re-Legalization.
Unfortunately the chances of that happening are about as small
as Lings pert little chest.
Since I want ALL
immigration into the United States Stopped it would just be
inconsistent to exclude those immigrating from Islamic
countries: like the 1,000 Iraqi's pouring into Michigan each
month. But once you watch this film I have a feeling you
will want an immediate end to Islamic Immigration into the US.
I think it is time to circulate a petition. I don't want
Dearborn to be the next Mumbai. I also want to stop the
Mexican Drug Cartels such as the Zetas and M13.
Unfortunately Obama is set to grant amnesty to 12-30 million
Illegal Aliens and also wants to increase Legal Immigration from
1 to 1.5 million more each year. How can this asshole even
think such a thing when 14 million Americans are out of work and
we have lost nearly 1.5 Million American jobs in the first 10
months of 2008. Can we impeach him before the inauguration
on January 20th, 2009? I'm quite confident that anyone
watching this film will find it disturbing as they discover what
Islam has in store for America. It is becoming less and
less of a surprise with each passing day.
Karl Denninger
summarizes the current situation regarding the "Trillion
Dollar Corporate Bailout." While I don't
necessarily agree with his solutions I do believe he has
done a wonderful job explaining how Paulson's bailout is
nothing short of the greatest robbery in US History.
You can read more from Denninger at:
Is our government
encouraging fraud an excessive risk? Stop the theft of
your tax dollars now! "Call your Congressman
and demand "no expenditure of public funds, of any kind,
to stop what is going on with the housing market.
That means no bailout bill that is going through
Congress. It means no more stimulus checks.
It means no more help for investment banks or commercial
banks that have made millions and millions of dollars,
nor the speculators that have made millions of dollars,
nor those who have just bought a home at a bad time.
It means not allowing the government to take the
desperation of the "home flipper" who has bought 5 homes
and is slowly drowning as his payments continue to
escalate and turn it to the desperation of the
government. Down that road lies great risk: a risk
we cannot afford to take."
Pat
Choate's new book, "Dangerous Business: The Risks of
Globalization for America" is a must read book on the realities
of globalization, trade, the lobbyists surrounding D.C.,
corporatism and China's modern mercantilism. Choate not only
describes some of the corruption, insanity and erosion of the
United States through bad trade deals, elitism and
globalization, he prescribes solutions.
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.
The screenshot was taken on 12/20/2008 and I've preserved it because I
will bet that he will bury this "skunky corpse" in a matter of days.
Why? Because it illustrates that Obama has absolutely no intention
of bending to the will of the American people. The screenshot
shows that the most requested "change" that the American people want to
see is the Re-Legalization of Marijuana.
We've
all heard the laments: "My grandpa from Sicily learned English, and my
grandma from Minsk got by without welfare. So what's the problem with
immigrants today?"
Pat
Choate's new book, "Dangerous Business: The Risks of
Globalization for America" is a must read book on the realities
of globalization, trade, the lobbyists surrounding D.C.,
corporatism and China's modern mercantilism. Choate not only
describes some of the corruption, insanity and erosion of the
United States through bad trade deals, elitism and
globalization, he prescribes solutions.
