By David DeGraw

Although most of the Economic Elite live and operate inside the US, they are not concerned for our future. To them, the entire world is theirs and they work intimately with other elites throughout the world against the interests of the US public. Ever since the days of Henry Ford, the Economic Elite have needed a thriving US middle class to increase growth and profits, but now, in the global economy, they view the US middle class as obsolete. They increasingly look globally for profits and they would rather pay cheap labor in countries like China and India. On top of the millions of jobs they have already shipped overseas to increase profits at our expense, they are planning to ship an additional 25% of current US jobs overseas as well.

They now see us as the biggest obstacle to their continued consolidation of wealth and resources. This is why they have stepped up their attack on us.

If you want further proof of this, all one needs to do is study the Wall Street bailout. The entire bailout is strategically designed to eliminate the US middle class. Every time you hear the word “bailout,” you should think “coup d’état.” Here is the definition of  coup d’état:

“A coup d’état or coup for short, is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment… to replace the deposed government with another…. A coup d’état succeeds when the usurpers establish their legitimacy if the attacked government fail to thwart them, by allowing their (strategic, tactical, political) consolidation and then receiving the deposed government’s surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces.

Typically, a coup d’état uses the extant government’s power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says: ‘A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder’, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état.”

The bailout was a financial coup, an intelligence operation to seize control of the US economy and tax system. It is similar to what the Economic Elite have done through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in many other countries throughout the world. It is clearly a case of economic imperialism. When financial coups are carried out in other countries, they call it aStructural Adjustment Program (SAP). The end result is the theft of working class wealth, the privatization of public functions and resources, rising unemployment, the elimination of the middle class and increasing taxation and debt that turns the overwhelming majority of the nation into a peasant class. This is exactly the track we are on now.

Just look at how they have already done this in many other countries, and then look at the “bailout.”

The success of the coup is clear by the control of the US Treasury by Goldman Sachs criminal masterminds Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner, and the continued control of the Federal Reserve by Ben Bernanke.

In 1970, Hank Paulson began his career in the Pentagon working for Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird. In 1972, he then moved to the White House, where he worked for the Nixon Administration. He was “the  assistant to John Ehrlichman during the events of the Watergate scandal for which Ehrlichman was convicted, and sentenced to prison.” After Paulson’s disgraced exit from the political world, he joined Goldman Sachs in 1974, eventually becoming CEO in 1999 when he led an effort to force out Goldman’s previous CEO John Corzine. While leading Goldman, Paulson developed very intimate relations with members of the Chinese elite, visiting the country over 70 times.

In 2004, during his time as Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, Paulson personally led a successful effort to get the SEC to remove the “ net capital rule,” which was a “requirement that their brokerages hold reserve capital that limited their leverage and risk exposure.” This was the biggest reason why the economic crisis happened. With the “net capital rule” out of the way, Goldman Sachs and other major Wall Street firms with over $5 billion in assets were free to engage in high risk/high reward behavior. This led to the housing bubble with the creation of high risk speculation, essentially rigged Ponzi-style scams like “mortgage-backed securities, credit derivatives, and credit default swaps… and other exotic structured finance instruments that only highly-trained mathematicians understand, based on models that are beyond the comprehension of most traders.”

After making over $700 million on these shady high risk activities that created a ticking time bomb in our economy, Paulson left Goldman Sachs to run the US Treasury. Shortly after that, the speculative trading scams blew up, and there was the man who played the most pivotal role in causing the economy to crash now running the US Treasury and in charge of “maneuvering” trillions of dollars in national wealth to “fix” the economy. It was time for Paulson, along with his close confidant Tim Geithner, then heading the NY Federal Reserve Bank, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, to engineer the greatest theft of wealth in history with the “bailout.”

Paulson quickly brought in several former Goldman Sachs partners to help him engineer the coup. A pivotal Paulson asset was former Goldman executive Dan Jester, who Paulson quickly hired as a “contractor.” As Robert E. Prasch recently reported, “Jester was never appointed by Congress or otherwise vetted before taking up his role as the Treasury’s de facto central player in the crucial decisions that marked that fall’s bailout of Wall Street.” Paulson’s most publicized move was the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). This was a blatant no-strings attached giveaway of taxpayer money, handed directly to Wall Street’s biggest players. To oversee the TARP operation, Paulson brought in Goldman Sachs Vice PresidentNeel Kashkari.

Another egregious unilateral move by Paulson was installing Edward Liddy, one of his former board members at Goldman Sachs, as CEO of AIG. Liddy was the Chairman of Goldman’s Audit Committee, making him the most knowledgeable person regarding Goldman’s collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Paulson knew these CDOs would go bust because they were based on fraudulent activities, essentially a massive Ponzi scheme. So Paulson and Goldman Sachs covered their risk by insuring them through AIG, making it pivotal to save AIG and have one of his most trusted allies run the company. With Liddy in place, billions of taxpayer dollars were secretly funneled by the Geithner-led NY Federal Reserve through AIG to Goldman Sachs and several other Wall Street elite counterparties. Without the AIG bailout, Goldman Sachs would have collapsed as a result of their own Ponzi scheme.

The assassinations of Goldman rivals Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and the forced Bank of America acquisition of Merrill Lynch were all equally scandalous actions as well. The hidden hand of the Bernanke-led Federal Reserve’s secret “black magic” tactics — which created and distributed trillions of dollars — turned Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs into bank holding companies overnight, which gave them access to trillions of dollars to furthermanipulate the market and create record setting profits.

Every step of the way, the economic terrorist organization led by Paulson, Geithner and Bernanke held our economy hostage by declaring that all their demands must be met or the entire economy would be destroyed, as a result of the very actions the players being rewarded had taken. (I don’t use the words “economic terrorists” as hyperbole. The threat posed by them and the amount of death, destruction and misery they have already caused the United States is much greater than that caused by Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda – it’s not even close.)

Through the crisis, the fundamental structure of the stock market has been proven to be a scam. The Ponzi scheme activities, outright market manipulation and massive worldwide fraudperpetrated by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, AIG, the three major ratings agencies and several other Wall Street elite firms are blatant. Just in the housing andoil futures markets alone, the criminal activity and economic theft is in the multi-trillions.

By looking the other way, the  SEC, Congress and Presidents Bush and Obama are complicit. An analysis of actions taken, or most often not taken, by the leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties prove that they are now accomplices. They have not only let it happen; they continue to look the other way and have been stonewalling laws, investigations and prosecutions in what is  clearly criminal activity.

If we had a nation of law, none of these things would have happened. This proves to anyone who cares to look that we now live in a Banana Republic. Our democracy has clearly become a farce.

The overwhelming majority of our politicians are now on the Economic Elite payroll. This financial coup started under Hank Paulson in the Bush Administration and has been carried through, without even the slightest hitch, under Geithner in the Obama Administration, and all along Ben Bernanke has been leading the Federal Reserve. Bernanke’s reconfirmation shows you who the co-conspirators are – just look at the members of Congress who voted for it.

All three branches of our government are now complicit in what is literally the greatest theft of wealth in history, along with a mainstream “news” media that keeps going about their “reporting,” as if this wasn’t a crime, business as usual. Nothing to see here…

Obama’s Role

As hard as it is for many Americans to admit, after a year in office it is now obvious, to those who study policy decisions, that Obama’s rhetoric is very far from the reality of his actions. Outside of the tough talk Obama gives concerning “Wall Street Bankers,” all evidence clearly demonstrates that he is their puppet. The list of decisions that he has made to support the Economic Elite at our expense is already extensive.

As mentioned before, the fact that the bailout started under Bush and went straight through without a hitch under Obama is proof enough. On top of this, Obama’s campaign was heavily financed by Goldman Sachs, and prior to the election Obama often spoke with Paulson. An analysis of phone records shows that Obama and Paulson engaged in 26 direct calls prior to the election. “Paulson placed more than twice as many individual outgoing calls to [candidate] Obama (14) as to President Bush (6).”

As soon as Obama was elected, he got rid of all the economic advisors he had during his campaign and replaced them with Wall Street insiders who were committed to “turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway.” He took the main players that caused the economic crisis to begin with, and put them in charge of economic policy.

Right from the start he appointed Tim Geithner, Paulson’s right-hand man, to run the US Treasury. Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, then became Geithner’s Chief of Staff with the direct approval of Obama. Geithner has surrounded himself with many aides that formerly worked for Goldman Sachs, “none of whom faced Senate confirmation.” Obama also allowed Adam Storch, a Goldman Sachs VP, to become “the first chief operating officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division.” Obama even “nominated Goldman Sachs executive Gary Gensler to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates futures markets.” Gensler was “a high-level Treasury official in a 2000,” when he helped create a “law that exempted the $58 trillion credit default swap market from oversight.” Another major player in the economic collapse was  Larry Summers, who Obama quickly appointed as White House National Economic Council Director.

All of this is, in essence, the final stage of a coup d’état, with Obama now serving as their puppet.

Obama clearly has not held the thieves accountable. He has emboldened them in ways that led to record setting profits and bonuses – bonuses that are 100% a direct result of our tax money. He let them take the money, keep the money, and now he lets them continue to makeeven more money.

Even now, with all his new anti-Wall Street talk, his proposals are extremely misguided and weak.

Obama always  deceptively frames the bailout discussion in relation to the $700 billion TARP program. He, along with the mainstream media, always seems to gloss over the fact that the bailout is much more than just the TARP program. TARP is a mere  2% of this multifaceted scam.

His proposal of a tax on Wall Street firms to get some of our tax money back is estimated to bring in $90 billion over the next ten years. That works out to $9 billion a year, compare that to the $150 billion in bonuses handed out by these same firms… just in the past year! The top Wall Street firms would no longer even exist if we didn’t bail them out. Their profits are a direct result of our tax money. If Obama is serious about getting our money back, 100% of the record-breaking bonus money that these thieves gave themselves should be going back into the tax system that it came from to pay down our national debt, lower our tax rates and create jobs.

The $150 billion in bonuses handed out this year cost you $500 of your hard-earned money. For a family of four, that’s $2000 that was taken from you and your family just this year and given directly to Wall Street bonuses. Think about that… Your personal money was taken from you and your family, and given directly to Goldman Sachs CEO Llyod Blankfein. In fact, your direct gift to Wall Street is much more than that; the $2000 your family lost was just for this year’s bonuses, much more of your money was given away in the bailout. The real size of the bailout is estimated to be $14 trillion, which works out to be $46,662 for every man, woman and child in America.

On top of being bailed out with our tax money, Goldman Sachs, which just had its most profitable quarter in its 140-year history, only paid 1% in taxes in 2008!

And now that Obama has given trillions of our dollars to Wall Street, he is all of a sudden soconcerned about our national deficit. That is disgraceful! When it came to the Economic Elite he could give away trillions, but when it comes to the social infrastructure of the American public and creating job programs, we all of a sudden have to be tight with our tax money and make “painful choices.” When looking at Obama’s latest $100 billion jobs program, again, compare that to the $150 billion in bonuses. If you want to know if Obama is serious about creating jobs, just look at where he gave his big “ Jobs Speech” – at the Business Roundtable affiliated Brookings Institution. Thus again, confirming where his true loyalties lie.

Obama’s sudden change of heart after the Massachusetts Senate election defeat is still more empty rhetoric. His new found support for Paul Volcker, and his proposals to bring back Glass-Steagall type laws to prevent another economic catastrophe sound great on the surface, but then you find out that Wall Street firms have already figured out ways around these proposed laws. While it would be great to have Volcker creating the rules over the Goldman Sachs-led team at the Treasury now, he is himself a former Federal Reserve Chairman who represents JP Morgan Chase interests. Jamie Dimon, current JP Morgan Chase CEO and Business Roundtable member, is considered by Obama to be a possible replacement for Geithner at the Treasury. Replacing Goldman Sachs interests with JP Morgan interests is hardly change for the 99% of Americans who have seen their interests ignored thus far. JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs are two heads of the same monster.

An analysis of the “Volcker Rules” shows you the essence of what Obama is all about. The “Volcker Rules” are just more propaganda. First off, the rules do not go far enough. Simon Johnson testified before the Senate Banking Committee and summed them up by saying: “while the principles behind these proposed rules are exactly on target… the specific rule changes would need to be much tougher if they are to have any effect.” Johnson earlier exposed the “Volcker Rules” to merely be a “marketing slogan.”

Jeff Madrick, writing for the Roosevelt Institute, rightly questioned if Obama’s economists even did their homework when putting together the rule. “What is disturbing is how poorly the Volcker rule has been thought through. When first announced, it sounded like a worthy and needed step in the right direction, and a suggestion the Obama team was waking up to reality. But I also expected more sophisticated details to come. So far, there are none… it looks like they didn’t give it much thought before announcing the plan. This is a critical error in judgment.” Even if the flawed laws make it to the Senate floor, the Banking Committee has come out strongly against them as being too little, too late. To sum this all up, this is another case of Obama trying to make it look like he’s doing something, when in reality, he isn’t doing anything.

This is similar to Obama’s $75 billion taxpayer funded foreclosure-prevention program that has been a spectacular failure in stemming the foreclosure crisis. The Obama Administration knew the program wasn’t working from the start, but they just sat back and let it continue to fail, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars in the process.

Even Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the TARP program, said the following in his January 30th report to Congress: “It is hard to see how any of the fundamental problems in the [financial] system have been addressed to date…. Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car.” Now that the “Too Big to Fail” Wall Street elite know that the government will come in to bail them out, they are engaging in even riskier behavior than before.

As President Theodore Roosevelt once declared in a situation much like our current crisis, “Corporation cunning has developed faster than the law of nation or state. Corporations have found ways to steal long before we have found that they were susceptible to punishment for theft. But sooner or later, unless there is a season of readjustment, there will come a riotous, wicked, murderous day of atonement…. These fools on Wall Street think that they can go on forever! They can’t!”

It is hard to face the fact that we have been so taken advantage of and abandoned by the very people we supported and had put our hope and faith into. Americans need to understand that Obama, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans are not looking out for our best interests.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

by David DeGraw

“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes… As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong it’s reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. Abraham Lincoln

U.S. Elite
Institutions:
Federal Reserve
Business Council
Bilderberg Group
Conference Board
Brookings Institute
Advertising Council
Heritage Foundation
Trilateral Commission
Business Round Table
Chamber of Commerce
Federal Trade Commission
Council on Foreign Relations
American Petroleum Institute
American Enterprise Institute
American Bankers Association
Pharm Research & Manufacturers
Public Relations Society of America
American Psychological Association
Project for a New American Century
Securities and Exchange Commission
Committee for Economic Development
National Association of Manufacturers
Carnegie / Ford / Rockefeller foundations
Military / Media / Prison Industrial Complex

I don’t view the Economic Elite as a small group of men who meet in secrecy to control the world. They do feature elements of conspiracy and are clearly composed of secretive organizations like the  Bilderberg Group – this is not a conspiracy theory, this is a conspiracy fact – but as a whole the Economic Elite are primarily united by ideology. They’re made up of thousands of individuals who subscribe to an ideology of exploitation (namely the class war) and the belief that wealth and resources need to be concentrated into the fewest hands possible (theirs).

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

The war against working people should be understood to be a real war…. Specifically in the U.S., which happens to have a highly class-conscious business class…. And they have long seen themselves as fighting a bitter class war, except they don’t want anybody else to know about it.” — Noam Chomsky

That being said, there are some definite lead players in this group and it is important that we are not too vague and expose the individuals who publicly lead them. Focusing on the fundamental structure of the US economy, we have people like Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, John Mack, Vikram Pandit, John Thain, Hank Greenberg, Ken Lewis, John J. Castellani, Edward Yingling and Tom Donohue.

In total, the Economic Elite are made up of about 0.5% of the US population. At the center of this group is the Business Roundtable, an organization representing Fortune 500 CEOs that is also interlocked with several lead elite organizations. Most Americans have never heard of the Business Roundtable. However, in my analysis, it is the most influential and powerful Economic Elite organization.

“The Business Roundtable joined the Business Council at the heart of both the corporate community and the policy-formation network and now has the most powerful role…. The Roundtable’s interlocks with other policy groups and with think tanks are presented [below].” G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America?

The Roundtable’s first year of operation was 1972, which coincided with the beginning of the CEO salary explosion, and has been the driving force behind the unprecedented concentration of wealth since their inception. Their dominance over the US economy and government is unparalleled. Their members are a Who’s Who of everything that is wrong with our economy. Here is a partial list of some of their lead members:

——-Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman Sachs
——-James Dimon, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
——-James P. Gorman, Morgan Stanley
——-Vikram S. Pandit, Citigroup, Inc.
——-Brian T. Moynihan, Bank of America
——-Brendan McDonagh, HSBC
——-Robert W. Selander, MasterCard Incorporated
——-Kenneth I. Chenault, American Express Company
——-Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation
——-Glenn A. Britt, Time Warner Cable Inc.
——-Philippe Dauman, Viacom, Inc.
——-Jeffrey R. Immelt, General Electric Company
——-Brian L. Roberts, Comcast Corporation
——-Steven A. Ballmer, Microsoft Corporation
——-John T. Chambers, Cisco Systems, Inc.
——-Randall L. Stephenson, AT&T Inc.
——-Ivan G. Seidenberg, Verizon Communications
——-David G. DeWalt, McAfee, Inc.
——-Steven R. Loranger, ITT Corporation
——-Paul T. Hanrahan, AES Corporation, The
——-Riley P. Bechtel, Bechtel Group, Inc.
——-W. James McNerney , Boeing Company, The
——-Rex W. Tillerson, Exxon Mobil Corporation
——-Marvin E. Odum, Shell Oil Company
——-John S. Watson, Chevron Corporation
——-James J. Mulva, ConocoPhillips
——-John B. Hess, Hess Corporation
——-James E. Rogers Duke Energy Corporation
——-J. Larry Nichols, Devon Energy Corporation
——-Ronald A. Williams, Aetna Inc.
——-David Cordani, CIGNA
——-Jeffrey B. Kindler , Pfizer Inc.
——-Angela F. Braly, WellPoint, Inc.
——-John C. Lechleiter, Eli Lilly and Company
——-Edward B. Rust, Jr., State Farm
——-Andrew N. Liveris, Dow Chemical
——-James W. Owens, Caterpillar Inc.
——-Ellen J. Kullman, DuPont
——-Edward E. Whitacre Jr., General Motors Company
——-Michael T. Duke, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The Business Roundtable is the most powerful activist organization in the United States. Their leaders regularly lobby members of Congress behind closed doors and often meet privately with the President and his administration. Any legislation that affects Roundtable members has almost zero possibility of passing without their support.

For three major examples, look at healthcare and financial reform, along with the military budget. The healthcare reform bill devolved into what amounts to an insurance industry bailout and was drastically altered by Roundtable lobbyists representing interests like WellPoint, Aetna, Cigna, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson. Obama and Congress are trying to please the Roundtable with a bill that supports their interests. This led to the dropping of the public-option put forth in the House bill. However, when it came to finishing the bill, Roundtable members began to walk away from the process. That’s the real reason why the reform bill has stalled. Obama will be meeting with the Roundtable on February 24th, in hopes of getting healthcare reform back on track. After that meeting, he will then hold a bipartisan healthcare meeting with members of congress.

Also being addressed in Obama’s upcoming meeting with the Roundtable are issues concerning financial reform. Almost every aspect of financial reform has been D.O.A. thanks to Roundtable lobbyists representing the interests of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America, HSBC, Master Card and American Express. They even pushed to make sure Ben Bernanke was reconfirmed as the head of the Federal Reserve and they have also guided Obama into focusing on deficit reduction, now that their member companies are healthy again and making record profits after receiving trillions in government subsidies. The Roundtable played a pivotal role in the appointment of Hank Paulson, formerly the CEO of Roundtable member Goldman Sachs, who replaced Roundtable member John Snow as US Treasury Secretary. The Roundtable also strongly lobbied on behalf of current  Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House National Economic Council Director  Larry Summers. Although there has been recent talk of Geithner being replaced at the Treasury, the lead choice to replace him is Jamie Dimon, Roundtable member and CEO of JP Morgan Chase.

The drastic rise in military spending is also a result of Roundtable lobbyists pushing the interests of large military companies like Boeing and Bechtel, along with the largest oil companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, Hess and Chevron.

The Roundtable tells politicians what they want done, and the politicians do it. At times, Roundtable members even write the laws themselves. On financial reform alone, those representing Wall Street firms gave “$42 million to lawmakers, mostly to members of the House and Senate banking committees and House and Senate leaders.” During the 2008 election cycle, they gave $155 million: $88 million to Democrats and $67 million to Republicans. Keep in mind, this is the spending on just their financial reform initiative. When it came to health reform, they gave even more.

When it comes to getting elected, over 90% of the time the candidate who simply spends more money on their campaign wins the election. The Roundtable and politicians recognize this fact, so the overwhelming majority of current elected officials relied heavily on campaign funding from Roundtable members, including President Obama.

Shortly after Obama’s inauguration he held a meeting with Roundtable members at the St. Regis Hotel. The president of the Business Roundtable is John J. Castellani. Throughout the first nine months of Obama’s presidency, Castellani met with him at the White House more than any other person, with the exception of Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue. If you look at the records of people who have spent the most time with Obama in the White House, other than these two, another frequent visitor is Edward Yingling, the president of the American Bankers Association.

These organizations – the Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Association – along with the Federal Reserve, a secretive quasi-government private institution, form the center of the Economic Elite’s power structure. Since the bailout, the Federal Reserve has been working closely with private firm BlackRock. Due to this relationship, BlackRock has emerged as the world’s largest money manager and now manages more assets than the Federal Reserve. They also “manage many of the Treasury Department’s big investments.”

On a global level, you have economic institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, and international treaties like NAFTA. These organizations already form a de facto world government that has rights beyond our constitutional rights and national sovereignty. If the WTO makes a ruling that goes against US law, the WTO ruling supersedes US law and wins out.

Here is how Global Exchange explains these global institutions:

“The World Trade Organization is the most powerful legislative and judicial body in the world. By promoting the ‘free trade’ agenda of multinational corporations above the interests of local communities, working families, and the environment, the WTO has systematically undermined democracy around the world…. Unlike United Nations treaties, the International Labor Organization conventions, or multilateral environmental agreements, WTO rules can be enforced through sanctions. This gives the WTO more power than any other international body. The WTO’s authority even eclipses national governments.

[World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF)]

When the Bank and the Fund lend money to debtor countries, the money comes with strings attached. These strings come in the form of policy prescriptions called ’structural adjustment policies.’ These policies—or SAPs, as they are sometimes called—require debtor governments to open their economies to penetration by foreign corporations, allowing access to the country’s workers and environment at bargain basement prices. Structural adjustment policies mean across-the-board privatization of public utilities and publicly owned industries. They mean the slashing of government budgets, leading to cutbacks in spending on health care and education…. And, as their imposition in country after country in Latin America, Africa, and Asia has shown, they lead to deeper inequality and environmental destruction.”

In addition to dominating our political and economic system, the Economic Elite have already created their own private military. Their private military is now more powerful than the US military. As mentioned earlier, private mercenaries now outnumber US soldiers and receive the lion’s share of military spending.

Corporations like SAIC, Blackwater, Bechtel, Raytheon and Halliburton are composed of the most elite worldwide intelligence and military officers. These are the highly profitable and powerful entities that the Economic Elite turn to when national militaries and intelligence agencies – like the CIA, FBI or other government run entities – can’t get the job done.

For instance, SAIC, a “stealth company” that most people have never heard of, is considered to be the brains of the entire US intelligence apparatus, more powerful than the much more popularly known CIA, NSA and FBI – all agencies that SAIC is deeply intertwined with. I urge you to research SAIC to get a crash course in how the true power structure functions. You can start by reading an excellent investigative report by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele titled, “Washington’s $8 billion shadow.”

The Economic Elite dominate US intelligence and military operations. Other than the obvious geo-strategic reasons, the never-ending and ever-expanding War on Terror’s objective is to drain the US population of more resources and further rob US taxpayers, while using our tax money to create a private military that is more powerful than the US military.

I think any logical person can see the ominous implications of having such a vast and powerful private military and intelligence complex, created for and used, in secrecy, by the Economic Elite. Outside of the blatant economic policy attacks, heavily armed and sophisticated covert powers led by small groups of Economic Elite are now a serious risk and present danger.

In conclusion, these economic and government policy forming organizations, along with their private military and intelligence corporations, form the core of the Economic Elite power structure.

“I think one has to say it’s not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems. Paul Wolfowitz

Although most of the Economic Elite live and operate inside the US, they are not concerned for our future. To them, the entire world is theirs and they work intimately with other elites throughout the world against the interests of the US public. Ever since the days of Henry Ford, the Economic Elite have needed a thriving US middle class to increase growth and profits, but now, in the global economy, they view the US middle class as obsolete. They increasingly look globally for profits and they would rather pay cheap labor in countries like China and India. On top of the millions of jobs they have already shipped overseas to increase profits at our expense, they are planning to ship an additional 25% of current US jobs overseas as well.

They now see us as the biggest obstacle to their continued consolidation of wealth and resources. This is why they have stepped up their attack on us.

If you want further proof of this, all one needs to do is study the Wall Street bailout. The entire bailout is strategically designed to eliminate the US middle class. Every time you hear the word “bailout,” you should think “coup d’état.” Here is the definition of  coup d’état:

“A coup d’état or coup for short, is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment… to replace the deposed government with another…. A coup d’état succeeds when the usurpers establish their legitimacy if the attacked government fail to thwart them, by allowing their (strategic, tactical, political) consolidation and then receiving the deposed government’s surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces.

Typically, a coup d’état uses the extant government’s power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says: ‘A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder’, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état.”

The bailout was a financial coup, an intelligence operation to seize control of the US economy and tax system. It is similar to what the Economic Elite have done through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in many other countries throughout the world. It is clearly a case of economic imperialism. When financial coups are carried out in other countries, they call it aStructural Adjustment Program (SAP). The end result is the theft of working class wealth, the privatization of public functions and resources, rising unemployment, the elimination of the middle class and increasing taxation and debt that turns the overwhelming majority of the nation into a peasant class. This is exactly the track we are on now.

Just look at how they have already done this in many other countries, and then look at the “bailout.”

The success of the coup is clear by the control of the US Treasury by Goldman Sachs criminal masterminds Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner, and the continued control of the Federal Reserve by Ben Bernanke.

In 1970, Hank Paulson began his career in the Pentagon working for Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird. In 1972, he then moved to the White House, where he worked for the Nixon Administration. He was “the  assistant to John Ehrlichman during the events of the Watergate scandal for which Ehrlichman was convicted, and sentenced to prison.” After Paulson’s disgraced exit from the political world, he joined Goldman Sachs in 1974, eventually becoming CEO in 1999 when he led an effort to force out Goldman’s previous CEO John Corzine. While leading Goldman, Paulson developed very intimate relations with members of the Chinese elite, visiting the country over 70 times.

In 2004, during his time as Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, Paulson personally led a successful effort to get the SEC to remove the “ net capital rule,” which was a “requirement that their brokerages hold reserve capital that limited their leverage and risk exposure.” This was the biggest reason why the economic crisis happened. With the “net capital rule” out of the way, Goldman Sachs and other major Wall Street firms with over $5 billion in assets were free to engage in high risk/high reward behavior. This led to the housing bubble with the creation of high risk speculation, essentially rigged Ponzi-style scams like “mortgage-backed securities, credit derivatives, and credit default swaps… and other exotic structured finance instruments that only highly-trained mathematicians understand, based on models that are beyond the comprehension of most traders.”

After making over $700 million on these shady high risk activities that created a ticking time bomb in our economy, Paulson left Goldman Sachs to run the US Treasury. Shortly after that, the speculative trading scams blew up, and there was the man who played the most pivotal role in causing the economy to crash now running the US Treasury and in charge of “maneuvering” trillions of dollars in national wealth to “fix” the economy. It was time for Paulson, along with his close confidant Tim Geithner, then heading the NY Federal Reserve Bank, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, to engineer the greatest theft of wealth in history with the “bailout.”

Paulson quickly brought in several former Goldman Sachs partners to help him engineer the coup. A pivotal Paulson asset was former Goldman executive Dan Jester, who Paulson quickly hired as a “contractor.” As Robert E. Prasch recently reported, “Jester was never appointed by Congress or otherwise vetted before taking up his role as the Treasury’s de facto central player in the crucial decisions that marked that fall’s bailout of Wall Street.” Paulson’s most publicized move was the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). This was a blatant no-strings attached giveaway of taxpayer money, handed directly to Wall Street’s biggest players. To oversee the TARP operation, Paulson brought in Goldman Sachs Vice PresidentNeel Kashkari.

Another egregious unilateral move by Paulson was installing Edward Liddy, one of his former board members at Goldman Sachs, as CEO of AIG. Liddy was the Chairman of Goldman’s Audit Committee, making him the most knowledgeable person regarding Goldman’s collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Paulson knew these CDOs would go bust because they were based on fraudulent activities, essentially a massive Ponzi scheme. So Paulson and Goldman Sachs covered their risk by insuring them through AIG, making it pivotal to save AIG and have one of his most trusted allies run the company. With Liddy in place, billions of taxpayer dollars were secretly funneled by the Geithner-led NY Federal Reserve through AIG to Goldman Sachs and several other Wall Street elite counterparties. Without the AIG bailout, Goldman Sachs would have collapsed as a result of their own Ponzi scheme.

The assassinations of Goldman rivals Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and the forced Bank of America acquisition of Merrill Lynch were all equally scandalous actions as well. The hidden hand of the Bernanke-led Federal Reserve’s secret “black magic” tactics — which created and distributed trillions of dollars — turned Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs into bank holding companies overnight, which gave them access to trillions of dollars to furthermanipulate the market and create record setting profits.

Every step of the way, the economic terrorist organization led by Paulson, Geithner and Bernanke held our economy hostage by declaring that all their demands must be met or the entire economy would be destroyed, as a result of the very actions the players being rewarded had taken. (I don’t use the words “economic terrorists” as hyperbole. The threat posed by them and the amount of death, destruction and misery they have already caused the United States is much greater than that caused by Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda – it’s not even close.)

Through the crisis, the fundamental structure of the stock market has been proven to be a scam. The Ponzi scheme activities, outright market manipulation and massive worldwide fraudperpetrated by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, AIG, the three major ratings agencies and several other Wall Street elite firms are blatant. Just in the housing andoil futures markets alone, the criminal activity and economic theft is in the multi-trillions.

By looking the other way, the  SEC, Congress and Presidents Bush and Obama are complicit. An analysis of actions taken, or most often not taken, by the leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties prove that they are now accomplices. They have not only let it happen; they continue to look the other way and have been stonewalling laws, investigations and prosecutions in what is  clearly criminal activity.

If we had a nation of law, none of these things would have happened. This proves to anyone who cares to look that we now live in a Banana Republic. Our democracy has clearly become a farce.

The overwhelming majority of our politicians are now on the Economic Elite payroll. This financial coup started under Hank Paulson in the Bush Administration and has been carried through, without even the slightest hitch, under Geithner in the Obama Administration, and all along Ben Bernanke has been leading the Federal Reserve. Bernanke’s reconfirmation shows you who the co-conspirators are – just look at the members of Congress who voted for it.

All three branches of our government are now complicit in what is literally the greatest theft of wealth in history, along with a mainstream “news” media that keeps going about their “reporting,” as if this wasn’t a crime, business as usual. Nothing to see here…

Obama’s Role

As hard as it is for many Americans to admit, after a year in office it is now obvious, to those who study policy decisions, that Obama’s rhetoric is very far from the reality of his actions. Outside of the tough talk Obama gives concerning “Wall Street Bankers,” all evidence clearly demonstrates that he is their puppet. The list of decisions that he has made to support the Economic Elite at our expense is already extensive.

As mentioned before, the fact that the bailout started under Bush and went straight through without a hitch under Obama is proof enough. On top of this, Obama’s campaign was heavily financed by Goldman Sachs, and prior to the election Obama often spoke with Paulson. An analysis of phone records shows that Obama and Paulson engaged in 26 direct calls prior to the election. “Paulson placed more than twice as many individual outgoing calls to [candidate] Obama (14) as to President Bush (6).”

As soon as Obama was elected, he got rid of all the economic advisors he had during his campaign and replaced them with Wall Street insiders who were committed to “turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway.” He took the main players that caused the economic crisis to begin with, and put them in charge of economic policy.

Right from the start he appointed Tim Geithner, Paulson’s right-hand man, to run the US Treasury. Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, then became Geithner’s Chief of Staff with the direct approval of Obama. Geithner has surrounded himself with many aides that formerly worked for Goldman Sachs, “none of whom faced Senate confirmation.” Obama also allowed Adam Storch, a Goldman Sachs VP, to become “the first chief operating officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division.” Obama even “nominated Goldman Sachs executive Gary Gensler to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates futures markets.” Gensler was “a high-level Treasury official in a 2000,” when he helped create a “law that exempted the $58 trillion credit default swap market from oversight.” Another major player in the economic collapse was  Larry Summers, who Obama quickly appointed as White House National Economic Council Director.

All of this is, in essence, the final stage of a coup d’état, with Obama now serving as their puppet.

Obama clearly has not held the thieves accountable. He has emboldened them in ways that led to record setting profits and bonuses – bonuses that are 100% a direct result of our tax money. He let them take the money, keep the money, and now he lets them continue to makeeven more money.

Even now, with all his new anti-Wall Street talk, his proposals are extremely misguided and weak.

Obama always  deceptively frames the bailout discussion in relation to the $700 billion TARP program. He, along with the mainstream media, always seems to gloss over the fact that the bailout is much more than just the TARP program. TARP is a mere  2% of this multifaceted scam.

His proposal of a tax on Wall Street firms to get some of our tax money back is estimated to bring in $90 billion over the next ten years. That works out to $9 billion a year, compare that to the $150 billion in bonuses handed out by these same firms… just in the past year! The top Wall Street firms would no longer even exist if we didn’t bail them out. Their profits are a direct result of our tax money. If Obama is serious about getting our money back, 100% of the record-breaking bonus money that these thieves gave themselves should be going back into the tax system that it came from to pay down our national debt, lower our tax rates and create jobs.

The $150 billion in bonuses handed out this year cost you $500 of your hard-earned money. For a family of four, that’s $2000 that was taken from you and your family just this year and given directly to Wall Street bonuses. Think about that… Your personal money was taken from you and your family, and given directly to Goldman Sachs CEO Llyod Blankfein. In fact, your direct gift to Wall Street is much more than that; the $2000 your family lost was just for this year’s bonuses, much more of your money was given away in the bailout. The real size of the bailout is estimated to be $14 trillion, which works out to be $46,662 for every man, woman and child in America.

On top of being bailed out with our tax money, Goldman Sachs, which just had its most profitable quarter in its 140-year history, only paid 1% in taxes in 2008!

And now that Obama has given trillions of our dollars to Wall Street, he is all of a sudden soconcerned about our national deficit. That is disgraceful! When it came to the Economic Elite he could give away trillions, but when it comes to the social infrastructure of the American public and creating job programs, we all of a sudden have to be tight with our tax money and make “painful choices.” When looking at Obama’s latest $100 billion jobs program, again, compare that to the $150 billion in bonuses. If you want to know if Obama is serious about creating jobs, just look at where he gave his big “ Jobs Speech” – at the Business Roundtable affiliated Brookings Institution. Thus again, confirming where his true loyalties lie.

Obama’s sudden change of heart after the Massachusetts Senate election defeat is still more empty rhetoric. His new found support for Paul Volcker, and his proposals to bring back Glass-Steagall type laws to prevent another economic catastrophe sound great on the surface, but then you find out that Wall Street firms have already figured out ways around these proposed laws. While it would be great to have Volcker creating the rules over the Goldman Sachs-led team at the Treasury now, he is himself a former Federal Reserve Chairman who represents JP Morgan Chase interests. Jamie Dimon, current JP Morgan Chase CEO and Business Roundtable member, is considered by Obama to be a possible replacement for Geithner at the Treasury. Replacing Goldman Sachs interests with JP Morgan interests is hardly change for the 99% of Americans who have seen their interests ignored thus far. JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs are two heads of the same monster.

An analysis of the “Volcker Rules” shows you the essence of what Obama is all about. The “Volcker Rules” are just more propaganda. First off, the rules do not go far enough. Simon Johnson testified before the Senate Banking Committee and summed them up by saying: “while the principles behind these proposed rules are exactly on target… the specific rule changes would need to be much tougher if they are to have any effect.” Johnson earlier exposed the “Volcker Rules” to merely be a “marketing slogan.”

Jeff Madrick, writing for the Roosevelt Institute, rightly questioned if Obama’s economists even did their homework when putting together the rule. “What is disturbing is how poorly the Volcker rule has been thought through. When first announced, it sounded like a worthy and needed step in the right direction, and a suggestion the Obama team was waking up to reality. But I also expected more sophisticated details to come. So far, there are none… it looks like they didn’t give it much thought before announcing the plan. This is a critical error in judgment.” Even if the flawed laws make it to the Senate floor, the Banking Committee has come out strongly against them as being too little, too late. To sum this all up, this is another case of Obama trying to make it look like he’s doing something, when in reality, he isn’t doing anything.

This is similar to Obama’s $75 billion taxpayer funded foreclosure-prevention program that has been a spectacular failure in stemming the foreclosure crisis. The Obama Administration knew the program wasn’t working from the start, but they just sat back and let it continue to fail, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars in the process.

Even Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the TARP program, said the following in his January 30th report to Congress: “It is hard to see how any of the fundamental problems in the [financial] system have been addressed to date…. Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car.” Now that the “Too Big to Fail” Wall Street elite know that the government will come in to bail them out, they are engaging in even riskier behavior than before.

As President Theodore Roosevelt once declared in a situation much like our current crisis, “Corporation cunning has developed faster than the law of nation or state. Corporations have found ways to steal long before we have found that they were susceptible to punishment for theft. But sooner or later, unless there is a season of readjustment, there will come a riotous, wicked, murderous day of atonement…. These fools on Wall Street think that they can go on forever! They can’t!”

It is hard to face the fact that we have been so taken advantage of and abandoned by the very people we supported and had put our hope and faith into. Americans need to understand that Obama, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans are not looking out for our best interests.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

On February 28th, 1993, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) attempted to execute search warrants at a compound in Waco, Texas. When they were fired upon, the federal government and various members of the compound entered into a 51 day standoff, which was broadcast via radio and TV around the nation, and around the world. At the end of the standoff, a massive firefight and fire broke out, resulting in the deaths of many participants. What Happened When: Waco (WHWW) is a TV episode that examines the events that led up to, happened during, and occurred in the aftermath, of the Waco siege.

At the start of WHWW, the episode examines the background that led up to the standoff. It discusses the undercover sting operation, the allegations of child and sexual abuses, and the weapons violations that the Branch Davidians were being accused of. The show also discusses the initial attempt to serve warrants, followed by how the standoff started. While WHWW does handle the intro to the siege, it focuses mainly on the 51 day standoff, as well as the end result. It follows the FBI (reenacted), various participants’ accounts, and materials gathered from the news broadcasts. The show ends with basic information about the participants after the siege, their jail times, and their new jobs.

While WHWW attempts to show all of the information in a non-judgmental manner, I actually saw far too much of a bias in the production. At the start, it seemed to be somewhat condemning of the manner in which ATF presented the search warrants. It was clear that the producers thought that too much force was used, and that the Branch Davidians were right to be wary.

To me, this was pure and simple bullshit. The federal government (via either Locke of Hobbes, pick one) has the right to enforce laws that do not violate basic rights. As such, they also have the right to any and all needed activities to enforce these laws, which includes issuing subpoenas. If the ATF feels threatened when they are heading out to make a delivery, they have every right to do it while armed and while being prepared for a fight. The show seems to say otherwise, but this is the basic right of each and every ATF agent.

The producers then start to seem judgmental on how the ATF handled the entire standoff. They presented David’s position to be one of peace, and that he would leave if he felt that it would be safe. They also focused on the children, showing them to be martyrs in a battle over religious rights.

To me, this, again, is bullshit. The ATF entered a standoff after being shot at while trying to pursue their legal duty. This was a battle over the right to enforce laws, not the right to an insane and wrong religion. They did their best to allow children to leave, as they did for any adults that so wished. For David, they offered him deals and the like, all of which he refused. The government did their best to end the standoff peacefully while enforcing the law; David did not cooperate or even attempt to end the standoff in a peaceful manner. No matter how the producers wanted to show the event, the government was clearly in the right.

Now, it should have become clear that I am opposed to the production bias of the piece, but one other major issue remains; WHWW seems to indicate that the government is out to get us. The entire piece simply fed into the conspiracy theorists’ wet dream, and it was quite clear that this was the goal. The entire piece was just a giant attack on the government, seemed to claim that there was some governmental conspiracy, and seemed to indicate that the government was overstepping its bounds. The entire episode felt as though it was funded by a conspiracy think-tank, and it worked for them perfectly.

I had some major issues with this. As most conspiracy theories are absolute crap, helping to carry one to mainstream America amounts to contributing to the idiocy of the country. Any mainstream TV show, which WHWW is, only leads to each conspiracy getting more credibility. As this conspiracy is used by far-right and far-left groups in their anti-government bile (according to the Southern Poverty Law Center), I do not believe that the show should have been done in this manner.

I was greatly offended by this TV show. I do not believe that any group has the right to disobey out government, nor do they have the right to believe that they are held to other standards. The Branch Davidians clearly felt as though they were special compared to other Americans, and that they had the right to do things that the rest of us could not. WHWW seemed to be arguing that the group had the right to do this, and I had a major issue with it. I believe that What Happened When: Waco was a horrible production, and that it will only serve to harm the government, and by extension, me, in the future.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

Before we get into the meat of this argument, I would like to quickly address something that I have seen every time I get to debating the current tax system: Is the current tax system Constitutional? If you wish to see the full lists of arguments as the why it is not Constitutional, please see this site. I do not have time to respond to all of those statements, but I can simply say that if something is in the Constitution, more specifically the 16th Amendment then it, by the very definition (http://m-w.com/dictionary/unconstitutional), can not be Unconstitutional. That said, let us get into the actual ‘fair tax’ issue.

What exactly is the ‘fair tax you ask. Well, it is a sales tax that would increase all sales to 30% (they claim 23%, but I will show how fuzzy their math is shortly) and eliminate all income tax. Furthermore, it would give a prebate that is supposed to cover the cost of living for the year (pays you back the sales tax used that year for needed things). Lastly, the fair tax system eliminates the 16th Amendment making it Unconstitutional to have any form of an income tax again.

None of us really like the IRS so anytime there is a call for the abolishment of it, or the institution of another system of tax, we all get really excited and uppity. The call for another form of tax is often a good one, as this current system is highly outdated and is used improperly (tax exemptions), but it could never get rid of the IRS. Even if you no longer call it the IRS, there will always need to be some organization there to make sure everything is working right, and make sure the government knows how much money they have. This is a stab at all new tax proposals, not just the fair tax.

Let us now move into the meat of the fair tax ideas, and see how they boil out. We are simply going to argue the usefulness of this new system, not anything about the current system or any other system.

The first argument I will present against the fair tax is to talk about its fuzzy math. Those who present the math on the site believe that sales tax is inclusive (they use the logic that it would be the same type as the current income tax system). Sales tax however, is an exclusive tax, so it is calculated after the final cost, not the initial. That said, here is how it is calculated according to the website:

Final product is $130.00
Tax was $30.00
30 is 23% of 130, ergo 23% sales tax

Common logic shows that $30 is 30% of $100, not the 23% that the fair tax group says. They even mention on their site (in a harder to reach area) that it is really a 30% tax Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. The fact that they claim one statistic, and then dont mention to tell you that that claim is false automatically makes me suspicious of the group.

While we are on the topic of fuzzy math, let us discuss exactly how we can fund the government with the fair tax. Currently, the Federal Budget is 2.8 trillion dollars. Our countries current GNP (this includes wages, so the math is telling us they will get more than they will) is 11059.3 billion dollars. If we use the 30% tax (the real amount they are taxing), we can see that we only get 3317.79 billion, or 3.31779 trillion. For now, that looks like it is the perfect amount needed to fund our current budget, but what happens if either our government spends more (they are increasing on average .2 trillion a year (meaning 4 years until this is not enough money)) or our country spends less as a people. The current proposal leaves no area for adjustment, and, as it is a Constitutional Amendment we will not be able to change it before we go into a deeper debt.

Another simple thing that the proponents of the fair tax fail to point out is how inflation will effect the tax. Assume that you wish to purchase a nice shiny-new house for a cheap $260,000. With the current fair tax proposal, that makes it $338,000 ($78,000 in tax). Now, while you are waiting to get enough money for that initial payment, inflation kicks in (we go to war or something), and the inflation rate goes to roughly 20% or so. The new house now costs $312,000 with $93,600 in tax coming to a grand total of $405,600. Assuming that inflation continues to rise (as it is apt to do), you can never get to the amount needed for that house.

Lets move into another area of discussion, one where we can show that the federal government can easily use the fair tax to manipulate the populace into doing what they wish. Lets say that congress wants to ban fatty foods, BAM, they increase the sales tax on that item to 200%, or 300%, or 503844029304%. Why not? There is no mention in the proposal that you can keep congress from adding on sales tax, just that it can not be below the 23%. While the Fairtaxers say that it is ok, as it is self policing (companies adapt to sell more), let us see what else Congress (remember, I am not anti-government, just using this as an example) can do if they see the need. Congress will be able to use the sales tax as a club against any group, company, or item that they do not agree with.

Another downside of the fair tax is that it creates a black market. Sites like Ebay.com, Amazon and the like will need to be shut down, as they create a system that circumnavigates the governments income. Suddenly, we start buying used items because they are cheaper. Now, even though the GNP stays roughly the same, the government is making less money because there is no more sales tax. Soon, the government will need to crack down on these black markets; they will need to shut down drug rings, flea markets, half-priced books, and renegade sub shops. Soon, the government will need to be spending more money (something we already showed they will not have) to make the money.

Let us now move into the next example of why the fair tax is off; The fair tax is unconstitutional as it violates the 14th Amendment. Because of the prebate system, all Americans will be getting a monthly check that covers their living expenses (sales tax on those items) for that month. Now, on the surface that seems like a great idea, but let us see how it violates the 14th amendment. Ok, so, every person gets a check based on the same qualifications, not based on the same area. Boston is more expensive to live in than Columbus, or Nashville, or Hell, Michigan. So, by giving everybody the same amount regardless of area means you are not providing equal protection/provision under the law and violates the 14th Amendment. Why do we wana keep that amendment you ask? Well, without it, we open the door for slavery and the like, which I actually think the Free taxers might be into.

My last issue with the free tax is what it does exactly. By making it so that those who are already poor can not purchase items (which could include stocks, cars, food (after the check, as we all know you can not live on minimum wage with a family), medicine, and the like). This creates a burden on the poor, making them less likely to be able to advance out of their status, and then making them reliant on those of us with more money. Also, it is a digressive tax (see example)
Making less than 30k a year pay 70% of their income
30-50K a year pay 60% of their income
50-80K a year pay 50% of their income
Over 1mil a year, pay 1% of their income

I can not see how any person can call this fair, in any manner of the word.

In the end, I feel that the fair tax is nothing more than a cleverly designed ploy, a Trojan Horse if you will, to get those who have money more, and make those who are poor poorer. This is clearly not a fair tax, in any attempt at defining the word, and it is clearly an example of doublespeak which is intended to make others support it without reason. In the end, any group that specifically lies, and admits to it (but doesnt make it obvious) is worthy of intense scrutiny, and under that gaze, the fair tax falls short. While the Income Tax is not the best system, until we get another that can replace it and replace it well, we need to work on fixing it up.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

How is it that man can feel one emotion, yet keep himself in check from acting on it? How is it that conflicting desires and concepts exist within our soul, yet do not destroy us? How can one thing have competing wants and need? In his treatise The Republic, the philosopher Plato examined these exact questions.

To start his examination, Plato envisioned that the person was made up of two factors: the body and the soul. The body is inanimate, and is comparable to a vessel. The soul is the animate part of a human, controlling the body. Even with this vision, Plato ran into a small problem. He realized that it was possible to desire something, yet want the opposite. This would seem impossible for an entity with one and only one soul.

When discussing this issue with Socrates, Plato was informed that the soul often acted like a city. In the city there is a Philosopher King, the entity that controls and rules the city itself. There are then the Soldiers, who carry out the rule of the kings. Finally, there are the people and merchants, who have desires and wants, but must obey those above them. Plato, always the allegorical type, realized that these same positions are present in the soul. The rational section is clearly the ruler, and it exists like the Philosopher Kings of the city. The spirited section is the enforcer, and it exists like the Soldiers of the city. Finally, the appetitive section is the self-interested part, and it exists like the people, merchants, and simple laborers of the city.

While still sitting (and drinking) with Socrates, Plato realized that there were certain desires that all bodies have. As such, Plato argued that the first section of the tripartite soul would be the appetite section. This portion controls the urges, and quests for fulfillment. It monitors the physical body, attempting to find physical pleasures while avoiding dangers. The appetite seeks to keep the body fed, pain free, and rested. It also controls the urges for material items, regardless of the cost. Simply put, the appetite portion of the soul is the section that strives for the fulfillment of base desires.

After arguing for the existence of the appetitive section of the soul, Plato and Socrates started to discuss how it was possible for a body to ignore, or avoid, their desires. Plato believed that the rational (reason) section of the soul must be what does this. The rational portion of the soul is responsible for reasoning and thinking, as well as complex things such as math, science, and logic. Not only does the rational section reason, it is also the thing that evaluates all urges, and decides what is actually a good idea or not. Unlike the appetitive section, the rational fights urges if it is in the best interest of the body and/or soul. Simply put, the Rational portion of the soul is the section that desires the truth of every situation, and then seeks to bring the body towards it.

The final portion of the soul is the spirited section. This section is the part that controls the body’s passions and the body’s spirits. The spirit is what helps the rational section control the appetitive, and it ensures that the goals of the body are met at all times. Not only does the spirit drive the person, but it is what makes the body want to be better than before. For the same reason that nobody wants to be viewed as evil, the spirit always drives to show the value of the body. Simply put, the spirited portion of the soul is the section that strives for victory and honor, no matter the cost.

Following his conclusion on the parts of the soul, Plato realized that, as the soul mirrors the city, the virtues of the city must also be the virtues of the soul. To keep the soul, just like the city, whole, each portion must maintain the proper order, and fall into its location in the hierarchy perfectly. The rational must make the decisions, the spirited must enforce them, and the appetitive must obey them (while sometimes giving its own advice). If the three partitions of the soul all are balanced, it leads to a moral soul. Plato then concludes that all moral souls are expressed with four virtues: courage, wisdom, moderation, and justice.

The first virtue is that of justice. Now, this is not justice as we know it, but justice as a perfection of the morals, virtues, and soul-placement. Justice is not a virtue on its own, but a virtue that arises once the other three virtues appear in the soul. When the rational portion exercises wisdom, the spirited exercises courage, and the appetitive exercises moderation, then, and only then, does the virtue of Justice appear. Simply put, the virtue of justice is the virtue of knowing they self, and tending one’s soul.

Justice not only serves a role as a virtue, but it also serves the role of the uniter. Plato realizes that the soul can not exist if it is constantly at war, and, as such, one virtue must rise above to keep the peace and order. Justice is the founding virtue, as only by knowing justice can the other virtues be obtained. Without the innate knowledge of justice, there is no way for the rational soul to understand what it is seeking, and, as such, it could never achieve the morals or virtues. Likewise, it is a preserving virtue, as once all four virtues are discovered, it is justice that keeps everything together. Justice is the virtue that ensures that all other virtues are followed and obeyed, and is the one that ensures that the soul does not split apart.

After justice is argued, the next virtue is that of wisdom. Wisdom is not just intelligence, but the logical evaluation of each situation, and how best to approach any new ones. Wisdom is when the rational portion of the soul judges what is right and wrong, and then decides how the body should act accordingly. Simply put, the virtue of wisdom is the virtue that sees the whole, and decides how life is properly lived.

The third virtue is that of courage. Courage is not the concept of facing unseemly odds, but the idea of controlling the body’s fear. Courage is when the spirited portion of the soul reacts to what the body should be afraid of (or not), as defined by the rational portion of the soul. This virtue comes in many forms, from the defense of an unpopular moral position, to standing up against amazing odds. Simply put, the virtue of courage is the virtue that protects and preserves the whole.

The fourth virtue is that of moderation. Moderation is not just the concept of taking your desires in reasonable amounts, but the fact that the soul can put the body’s desires to the side, in order to live properly. Moderation is when the appetitive portion of the soul willingly ignores its base desires, to act in concordance with the wishes of the rational portion of the soul, and when the appetitive portion of the soul serves the rest. Simply put, the virtue of moderation is the virtue that allows for self-control.

Once Plato came up with the concept of the tripartite soul, he started to analyze the best manner in which to obtain the virtues. To do this, Plato realized that an early education in the morals and ethics of the philosophers was the best way. Educating the youth in proper moral procedures would allow for the virtues to be more easily obtained, and for the virtues not to struggle against each other.

Moral education allows for teaching the rational portion to control the other two, and to always seek justice. It also allows the teaching of the appetitive portion to obey and be below the other two sections. Finally, it allows for the teaching of the spirited section to enjoy its position as the enforcer and be subservient to the rational partition, as it would otherwise take over the rest of the soul. Moral education teaches what right (justice) looks like, and allows the parts of the soul to work towards this common goal.

If the youth were educated in the morality of the virtues, they would be more likely to obtain this perfection in their lifetime. By teaching the students the concept of justice, they could start to foster the other three virtues through their early years. By teaching the youth that they must keep their desires in check, the appetitive portion of the soul would become more subservient to the rational portion. Plato believed that moral education was essential for reaching this perfection, as it would bind the soul with the proper behavior.

Throughout the course of The Republic, Plato pondered the questions of what is it that drives the body to do conflicting things. He examined different concepts, played with different theories, and finally settled on his position about the soul. Using various metaphors and examples, Plato was able to show how the virtues came to be, and how the soul itself was split in three. Plato masterfully came up with the concept of the tripartite soul, how to obtain it, and how to reach that desire which all person want – that is, the desire to be complete.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

Hello, and welcome to the first installment of iWant, iNeed, iRecommend for 2010. This is a monthly series that will, simply put, present the top ten iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch applications from that month. At the end of the year, these 120 applications will then go head to head to see which apps become the top ten for the year. If you would like to read my previous top ten lists, as well as all my other iPhone and iPod Touch application reviews, you can see them here. While this list is subjective (as are all top ten lists), I did my best to base this on actual use, not my own opinion. Enjoy.

10. Engadget for the iPhone

As you might have realized by now, I am quite into this whole technology thing. While I use various sites like crave and Slashdot, most of my news comes from Engadget. Lucky for me, Engadget has decided to release an iPhone app that makes viewing their site much, much easier. You can browse articles, stream their videos (without Flash of course), and customize the look to your heart’s content. I love being able to view Engadget on my phone without any distortions. You can grab Engadget for the iPhone and get your nerd on for free.

9. The White House App
Well, the title of this app pretty much speaks for itself. The White House app is provided by the Federal Government (probably with our tax money) in order to get information out to the populace. You can access the briefing room, look at the blog, and look at the news feed. Most impressively, the app allows you to watch speeches, and even live stream them to your iPhone. I believe that the White House app is extremely important, as it allows quick and easy access to important information, and it keeps with Obama’s promise of transparency. You can get the White House App for free today.

8. Google Voice
While Apple might have thought that they blocked Google Voice from the iPhone by banning it from the app store, Google cleverly found a way to get on the device anyway. By using Safari, and building a web app, Google is able to run Google Voice on your iPhone, even if the makers don’t like it. This allows you to make cheap phone calls, have your voice-mails transcribed (I want this on the iPhone as a supported feature), and send free text messages. Frankly, this is a great idea, and will be useful until Apple figures out how to shut it down. While Google Voice is free to run (but costs to call), the build of the app makes it feel like an expensive purchase. Please note, this will not work on the iPad as it has no speaker/microphone.

7. Guerrilla Bob
Let me just start by saying this: Guerrilla Bob is an outstanding, mind-blowing, absolutely, positively amazing game. Hyped it up enough? Well, probably not, as it would be hard to do justice to this iPhone game. Guerrilla Bob is a dual-stick shooter that takes the normal formula (wave after wave of enemies, limited guns, decent animations) and turns it on its head. With stunning graphics, an exceptionally large arsenal, and actual level progression, this game has become one of the best of its kind. Chillingo seems to have hit the gold here, and they took it by a large margin. You can get your finger on the trigger for only $2.99!

6. iCamcorder
Are you jealous of the fact that the iPhone 3GS can record video? Well, with iCamcorder, you no longer need to be. iCamcorder is an application that allows you to ‘record’ video using your iPhone, even if it is not the most recent version. By taking 15 pictures a second, and recording audio in-sync, iCamcorder creates a slide show that, for all intents and purposes, acts like a video recording. This is pretty amazing, and it is quite nice to be able to do the latest thing with some older technology. Get your friends together and record your fun for only $1.99. Please note, this will not work on the iPad as it has no camera.

5. Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars
Grand Theft Auto is one of the most innovative series of the last two decades. Continuing on this legacy, Rockstar Games decided to release their latest iteration on the iPod Touch and the iPhone. The game, which is a basic dual-stick shooter, follows Huang Lee as he tries to avenge his father’s murder. The game is quick, intuitive, and quite fun to play. While it is intensive (which causes some lag occasionally), the overall feel is polished and outstanding, which, of course, is what we have come to expect from Rockstar. While GTA: Chinatown Wars will set you back $9.99, it is well worth the price.

4. Cogs
I hate to admit it, but I am a bit of a nerd (an astounding surprise, I know); when I see a puzzle game, a logic puzzle, or anything that will test my mental capabilities, I go insane. Chillingo (the same people who made Guerrilla Bob, this month’s #7 pick) just released one of the more impressive puzzle games on the iPhone. In Cogs, the user simply manipulates tiles and items to create complex puzzles. While it might sound boring, it is actually a lot of fun. Cogs is a game that leaves me feeling both happy and challenged, which is quite impressive. As a great way to erase boredom on long bus trips, I recommend that you grab Cogs for only $.99 right away.

3. Chomp
While I believe that Chomp is one of the best apps of the month (and probably will be for the year), I was quite conflicted in telling you about it. See, Chomp is an application that allows you to find other applications. You can view reviews of other apps, see which ones are currently liked or disliked, and leave your own reviews. Furthermore, Chomp will recommend apps based on your own reviews, which means that you will be finding new games and products quickly. Basically, Chomp competes with me and this feature, which is why I was hesitant to talk about it. That said, however, as Chomp is an amazing concept and product, I believe that it is an essential for every iPhone and iPod touch out there. Get Chomp for free today, but be sure to come back — please.

2. Tap Tap Revenge 3
Once again, Tapulous has come out with another iteration of the amazing Tap Tap series. While this would seem to be yet another repeat, the company somehow keeps on innovating and updating their new releases. Like the others, you still simply keep beat with your fingers. Unlike the others, however, Tap Tap Revenge 3 lets you create avatars and play online. The fact that you can take out other players is amazing, and actually makes the game quite fun. Tap Tap has grown mightily in the last few months, and I only expect them to keep growing in the near future. You can get your fingers tapping for free right now.

And the #1 iPhone app from January 2010 is…

1. StickBo
“Holy crap!” These were my first words after finishing the first wave of StickBo. This side-scrolling third person shooter allows you to shoot through wave after wave (after wave after wave) of little stick figure enemies. Use a flame thrower, sniper rifle, or my favorite, a simple Bowie knife, as you run across a background littered with enemies, obstacles/cover, and dead bodies. Complete each level only to move onto the next one, which is similar, but is much harder. This game is amazing, and it actually has caused me to yell (curse) at my iPhone many a time. StickBo is one of the best games EVER for the iPhone, and you can play it for free (there are in-app purchases)!

Well, folks, there you have it, the top 10 iPhone and iPod Touch applications from January, 2010. If you wanted to buy all of these applications, you would be set back only $15.96. If you have any suggestions for next month’s list, or want to tell me what I missed, please let me know in the comment field.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

by Michael Werbowski

Rarely in the annals of history have we seen such as humongous hoax as the recent “H1N1-pandemic”. What reportedly began in Mexico last spring in Vera Cruz state, at an insalubrious industrial sized pork farm was then upgraded from to a global health crisis. Nine months later it has ended with allegations of an immense imposture on a world-wide scale. A presumably fake flu scare was orchestrated and carefully coordinated apparently from within the WHO’s inner sanctum, in order to boost vaccine sales and the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Were we all fobbed and sold of bill of goods? Was the “false pandemic” really a hoax or are accusations coming from medical experts such as Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (www.wodarg.de/english/index.html)  just conspiratorial blather?

Well let’s look at it from this standpoint. Out of a total planetary population of around 6.8 billion people, only approximately 15,613 deaths [not all of which were actually confirmed] have been directly attributed to H1N1 as of late 2009 (www.flucount.org). In 1918, by comparison the mortality level attributed to the “Spanish flu” was 50 million deaths. This was a whopping 3 percent of the total world’s population which was 1.6 billion at the time. So just based on this measurable scale the Swine flu was indeed a big dud.

Despite this epidemic’s low mortality rate, it was never the less judged by both national government’s medical experts and the UN health officials in Geneva to be a “pandemic”. This alarmist term has been used irresponsibly in a “fast and loose” manner to seemingly panic people and get them to go get jabbed to the delight of the vaccines’ manufacturers. Officials during the height of the hysteria around June, spread highly exaggerated pronouncements about the extent and virulence of the “deadly outbreak” among the populace. Of course this was designed to deliberately scare the populace and it engendered a pandemic of fear which spread further and faster than the H1N1 –Swine flu bug itself.

Misusing terminology and making misleading claims

Pandemic, of course originates from the Greek words “pan” mean all and “demos” or people. Hence an outbreak of a dreaded contagious disease in order to qualify as a “pandemic” must affect the vast majority. This was certainly not the case in Mexico . Yet at a “critical” period in late April 2009 there were 148 deaths “suspected” to be (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/27) directly related to the flu. They occurred in an urban centre with over 20 million people. The “pandemic” prompted a virtual state of emergency to be enacted, which practically paralysed the entire capital.

Not only did governments evidently over- sell the severity of this virus as if it were a great deadly plague, and in the process mislead the public, they were also apparently and willingly gouged by “Big –Pharma” which over –charged their national clients to the delight of the vaccines’ manufacturers.(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/oct/11/swine-flu-vaccine-baxter )

The H1N1 “hoax” turns into a full- fledged “fiasco”

In France the Swine flu “fiasco has resulted in millions of unused doses of the H1N1 vaccine piling up as it approached its expiry date in government warehouses. Since the mass vaccination campaign began last October, around 5 million people go the jab. The French health ministry purchased 94,000 million doses more than would cover the entire population of the country at a cost of $ 1.25 billion. The government stuck with vast quantities of doses which are decreasing in potency is frantically seeking to sell off their left –over stocks (but the manufacturers are reluctant to buy them back!). Others countries like Canada, unable to sell off the vaccines, is offloading or sending them to “needier” countries in the developing world as a gesture of their self-less generosity.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

The movie “Bowling for Columbine” is a 2002 ‘documentary’ that was directed by Michael Moore. The movie follows Moore as he travels around the country, and throughout Canada, in order to explore the concepts of gun control, gun violence, school shootings, and the nature of fear in the nation. The movie, like Moore’s previous films, contains a built in message, and attempts to lead the viewer to the same view. While Bowling for Columbine is a controversial film, it is generally well regarded, and even won an Academy Award.

When I first watched Bowling for Columbine (years ago, when it first came out), I felt as though the movie was too over-the-top. Certain scenes, specific personal reactions/statements, and the obvious lean of the film made me believe that Moore was attempting to overload the viewer. While I do not really know why he would have done this, I felt as though Moore adhered to the concept where, if you repeat a concept often enough, the public will believe it. Clearly, this was Moore’s tactic, and it seemed to be an effective one.

Likewise, I started to believe that the movie was far too scripted. The parts about K-Mart were well timed, but it was clear that the corporation had altered its policies before Moore showed up, and just chose to announce it then. Sure, it was a great PR move for both sides, but it didn’t really work well in the movie. As for the houses in Canada, I know several areas in the US where people keep their doors unlocked, but, like the majority of the US, most of Canada keeps theirs’ locked. I would rather have seen Moore try and fail a few times, to show that there are exceptions everywhere. This would have lent some credibility to the film.

While this was my view on Bowling for Columbine for a while, later viewings, including the one in class, altered this perception. Instead, I started to look into the actual message of the piece, and look into why Moore made this movie in the first place. Sure, greed and the desire for more gun-control are great motivators, but something else must have been driving this piece.

On this note, I started to notice the clear allusions to racism that are prevalent throughout the film. From the animated sequence implying that the KKK and the NRA are one and the same, to the explorations of Cops, the movie clearly focuses in on this racist attitude. As a white male, I always wondered what the big deal is, but the movie helped to explain it to me. Clearly, while the Civil Rights Movement might have gotten more freedoms and rights for blacks, the struggle is still not over; as long as the white population fears the blacks, they will always be kept down.

Fear, that is the word that I was looking for. It is also the theme that Moore was looking for, and looking to convey. Moore wanted to show the amount of fear that out society has, functions with, and manages in our daily activities. Fear of other countries, of blacks, of Mexicans, of neighbors, and even of our friends. Everything single thing shown in this movie explored our fears, and helped to show how, as a nation, we feed on these fears.

To me, this was the most important message in Bowling for Columbine, and the thing that Moore was striving to show. Americans are scared of each other and, as a result, we tend to load up on guns in order to ‘protect’ ourselves. Moore then shows that this protection is not needed, and thus it is futile. This intrigues me, and it causes me to evaluate my positions on other people in this nation. I can trust people more, as I know that they really are not out to covet my wife and steal my cow. Rather, they are as scared of me as I am of them, and we thus are on even footing.

That said, however, I still have issues with the concept of Bowling for Columbine as a documentary. While it might have won an Academy Award in this category, and is marketed as one, that doesn’t make it one. A documentary follows a specific event and/or group, without too much alteration (or manipulation) to the documented footage. While they are allowed to have a positional slant, they should not be guided by the narrator to that slant. Rather, selective editing, within reason, is allowed, directing the viewer to the desired perspective. In Roger and Me, and Blood in their Face, Moore actually makes a documentary; in Bowling for Columbine, Moore makes a feature film. While this is not an important issue, it is something that simply pisses me off.

So, does that mean that Bowling for Columbine is a good move, or that it completes its goal? While the movie was heavy handed, and clearly had an anti-gun slant, I believe that Moore accomplished his goal of getting the implied hidden racism in our society public. He also accomplished the goal of revealing our fear, and how it was stagnating our county. As with all of his other movies, Moore created a good storyline that drew me along, and caused me to question the nature of our state.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

by Nick Turse

In the nineteenth century, it was a fort used by British forces.  In the twentieth century, Soviet troops moved into the crumbling facilities.  In December 2009, at this site in the Shinwar district of Afghanistan’s Nangarhar Province, U.S. troops joined members of the Afghan National Army in preparing the way for the next round of foreign occupation.  On its grounds, a new military base is expected to rise, one of hundreds of camps and outposts scattered across the country.

Nearly a decade after the Bush administration launched its invasion of Afghanistan, TomDispatch offers the first actual count of American, NATO, and other coalition bases there, as well as facilities used by the Afghan security forces.  Such bases range from relatively small sites like Shinwar to mega-bases that resemble small American towns.  Today, according to official sources, approximately 700 bases of every size dot the Afghan countryside, and more, like the one in Shinwar, are under construction or soon will be as part of a base-building boom that began last year.

Existing in the shadows, rarely reported on and little talked about, this base-building program is nonetheless staggering in size and scope, and heavily dependent on supplies imported from abroad, which means that it is also extraordinarily expensive.  It has added significantly to the already long secret list of Pentagon property overseas and raises questions about just how long, after the planned beginning of a drawdown of American forces in 2011, the U.S. will still be garrisoning Afghanistan.

400 Foreign Bases in Afghanistan

A spokesman for the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) tells TomDispatch that there are, at present, nearly 400 U.S. and coalition bases in Afghanistan, including camps, forward operating bases, and combat outposts.  In addition, there are at least 300 Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) bases, most of them built, maintained, or supported by the U.S.  A small number of the coalition sites are mega-bases like Kandahar Airfield, which boasts one of the busiest runways in the world, and Bagram Air Base, a former Soviet facility that received a makeover, complete with Burger King and Popeyes outlets, and now serves more than 20,000 U.S. troops, in addition to thousands of coalition forces and civilian contractors.

In fact, Kandahar, which housed 9,000 coalition troops as recently as 2007, is expected to have a population of as many as 35,000 troops by the time President Obama’s surge is complete, according to Colonel Kevin Wilson who oversees building efforts in the southern half of Afghanistan for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  On the other hand, the Shinwar site, according to Sgt. Tracy J. Smith of the U.S. 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, will be a small forward operating base (FOB) that will host both Afghan troops and foreign forces.

Last fall, it was reported that more than $200 million in construction projects — from barracks to cargo storage facilities — were planned for or in-progress at Bagram.  Substantial construction funds have also been set aside by the U.S. Air Force to upgrade its air power capacity at Kandahar.  For example, $65 million has been allocated to build additional apron space (where aircraft can be parked, serviced, and loaded or unloaded) to accommodate more close-air support for soldiers in the field and a greater intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability.  Another $61 million has also been earmarked for the construction of a cargo helicopter apron and a tactical airlift apron there.

Kandahar is just one of many sites currently being upgraded.  Exact figures on the number of facilities being enlarged, improved, or hardened are unavailable but, according a spokesman for ISAF, the military plans to expand several more bases to accommodate the increase of troops as part of Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal’s surge strategy.  In addition, at least 12 more bases are slated to be built to help handle the 30,000 extra American troops and thousands of NATO forces beginning to arrive in the country.

“Currently we have over $3 billion worth of work going on in Afghanistan,” says Colonel Wilson, “and probably by the summer, when the dust settles from all the uplift, we’ll have about $1.3 billion to $1.4 billion worth of that [in the South].”  By comparison, between 2002 and 2008, the Army Corps of Engineers spent more than $4.5 billion on construction projects, most of it base-building, in Afghanistan.

At the site of the future FOB in Shinwar, more than 135 private construction contractors attended what was termed an “Afghan-Coalition contractors rodeo.”  According to Lieutenant Fernando Roach, a contracting officer with the U.S. Army’s Task Force Mountain Warrior, the event was designed “to give potential contractors a walkthrough of the area so they’ll have a solid overview of the scope of work.”  The construction firms then bid on three separate projects: the renovation of the more than 30-year old Soviet facilities, the building of new living quarters for Afghan and coalition forces, and the construction of a two-kilometer wall for the base.

In the weeks since the “rodeo,” the U.S. Army has announced additional plans to upgrade facilities at other forward operating bases.  At FOB Airborne, located near Kane-Ezzat in Wardak Province, for instance, the Army intends to put in reinforced concrete bunkers and blast protection barriers as well as lay concrete foundations for Re-Locatable Buildings (prefabricated, trailer-like structures used for living and working quarters).  Similar work is also scheduled for FOB Altimur, an Army camp in Logar Province.

The Afghan Base Boom

Recently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Afghanistan District-Kabul, announced that it would be seeking bids on “site assessments” for Afghan National Security Forces District Headquarters Facilities nationwide.  The precise number of Afghan bases scattered throughout the country is unclear.

When asked by TomDispatch, Colonel Radmanish of the Afghan Ministry of Defense would state only that major bases were located in Kabul, Pakteya, Kandahar, Herat, and Mazar-e-Sharif, and that ANA units operate all across Afghanistan.  Recent U.S. Army contracts for maintenance services provided to Afghan army and police bases, however, suggest that there are no fewer than 300 such facilities that are, according to an ISAF spokesman, not counted among the coalition base inventory.

As opposed to America’s fast-food-franchise-filled bases, Afghan ones are often decidedly more rustic affairs.  The police headquarters in Khost Farang District, Baghlan Province, is a good example.  According to a detailed site assessment conducted by a local contractor for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Afghan government, the district headquarters consists of mud and stone buildings surrounded by a mud wall.  The site even lacks a deep well for water.  A trench fed by a nearby spring is the only convenient water source.

The U.S. bases that most resemble austere Afghan facilities are combat outposts, also known as COPs.  Environmental Specialist Michael Bell of the Army Corps of Engineers, Afghanistan Engineer District-South’s Real Estate Division, recently described the facilities and life on such a base as he and his co-worker, Realty Specialist Damian Salazar, saw it in late 2009:

“COP Sangar… is a compound surrounded by mud and straw walls. Tents with cots supplied the sleeping quarters… A medical, pharmacy and command post tent occupied the center of the COP, complete with a few computers with internet access and three primitive operating tables. Showers had just been installed with hot [water]… only available from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 4 p.m…

“An MWR [Morale, Welfare and Recreation] tent was erected on Thanksgiving Day with an operating television; however, the tent was rarely used due to the cold. Most of the troops used a tent with gym equipment for recreation… A cook trailer provided a hot simple breakfast and supper. Lunch was MREs [meals ready to eat]. Nights were pitch black with no outside lighting from the base or the city.”

What Makes a Base?

According to an official site assessment, future construction at the Khost Farang District police headquarters will make use of sand, gravel, and stone, all available on the spot.  Additionally, cement, steel, bricks, lime, and gypsum have been located for purchase in Pol-e Khomri City, about 85 miles away.

Constructing a base for American troops, however, is another matter.  For the far less modest American needs of American troops, builders rely heavily on goods imported over extremely long, difficult to traverse, and sometimes embattled supply lines, all of which adds up to an extraordinarily costly affair.  “Our business runs on materials,” Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp, commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, told an audience at a town hall meeting in Afghanistan in December 2009.  “You have to bring in the lumber, you have to bring in the steel, you have to bring in the containers and all that. Transport isn’t easy in this country — number one, the roads themselves, number two, coming through other countries to get here — there are just huge challenges in getting the materials here.”

To facilitate U.S. base construction projects, a new “virtual storefront” — an online shopping portal — has been launched by the Pentagon’s Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).  The Maintenance, Repair and Operations Uzbekistan Virtual Storefront website and a defense contractor-owned and operated brick-and-mortar warehouse facility that supports it aim to provide regionally-produced construction materials to speed surge-accelerated building efforts.

From a facility located in Termez, Uzbekistan, cement, concrete, fencing, roofing, rope, sand, steel, gutters, pipe, and other construction material manufactured in countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan can be rushed to nearby Afghanistan to accelerate base-building efforts. “Having the products closer to the fight will make it easier for warfighters by reducing logistics response and delivery time,” says Chet Evanitsky, the DLA’s construction and equipment supply chain division chief.

America’s Shadowy Base World

The Pentagon’s most recent inventory of bases lists a total of 716 overseas sites.  These include facilities owned and leased all across the Middle East as well as a significant presence in Europe and Asia, especially Japan and South Korea.  Perhaps even more notable than the Pentagon’s impressive public foreign property portfolio are the many sites left off the official inventory.  While bases in the Persian Gulf countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates are all listed, one conspicuously absent site is Al-Udeid Air Base, a billion-dollar facility in nearby Qatar, where the U.S. Air Force secretly oversees its on-going unmanned drone wars.

The count also does not include any sites in Iraq where, as of August 2009, there were still nearly 300 American bases and outposts.  Similarly, U.S. bases in Afghanistan — a significant percentage of the 400 foreign sites scattered across the country — are noticeably absent from the Pentagon inventory.

Counting the remaining bases in Iraq — as many as 50 are slated to be operating after President Barack Obama’s August 31, 2010, deadline to remove all U.S. “combat troops” from the country — and those in Afghanistan, as well as black sites like Al-Udeid, the total number of U.S. bases overseas now must significantly exceed 1,000.  Just exactly how many U.S. military bases (and allied facilities used by U.S. forces) are scattered across the globe may never be publicly known.  What we do know — from the experience of bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea — is that, once built, they have a tendency toward permanency that a cessation of hostilities, or even outright peace, has a way of not altering.

After nearly a decade of war, close to 700 U.S., allied, and Afghan military bases dot Afghanistan.  Until now, however, they have existed as black sites known to few Americans outside the Pentagon.  It remains to be seen, a decade into the future, how many of these sites will still be occupied by U.S. and allied troops and whose flag will be planted on the ever-shifting British-Soviet-U.S./Afghan site at Shinwar.

Nick Turse is the associate editor of TomDispatch.com and the winner of a 2009 Ridenhour Prize for Reportorial Distinction as well as a James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. His work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, In These Times, and regularly at TomDispatch. Turse is currently a fellow at New York University’s Center for the United States and the Cold War. He is the author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (Metropolitan Books). His website is NickTurse.com.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

For those who followed Ben’s guest post to his site last week, this post should look familiar. This is what I guest posted on his site in return for his post on mine. If you didn’t follow it, enjoy this one!

“You Lie!” When Joe Wilson yelled these words at President Obama, the entire left-wing of our political spectrum stood outraged. They wanted him to resign, Congress to impeach him, and the American public to lynch him. This man dared to insult the Presidency, and they wanted blood.
The Right, of course, defended him.

“That’s Wrong…” When Justice Alito shook his head and whispered these words during the State of the Union, the left again took up arms. They were upset that Alito dared to challenge Obama, even though Obama was outright lying, and Alito was defending the truth. As Alito’s statement countered their desired position, they fought against him.
The Right, of course, defended him.

“General Betray-us.” When a series of commercials produced by Moveon.org talking about General David Howell Petraeus and how he lied to out country showed up on TVs nationwide, the Right took up arms. They challenged the contentions, called the makers traitors, and generally wanted the ads took off air. They were upset that the Left had dared to challenge one of our generals, and they were out for blood.
The Left, of course, defended them.

“…he [Bush] is a moral coward… ” When Albert Gore stated this against then-president Bush, he ired the entirety of the right, yet pleased the left. This statement was regarding the assault into Iraq, and the American response, in general, to the 9/11 attacks. The Right believed that our president had been insulted, that the left was simply politicking, and that Gore was outright insane.
The Left, of course, defended him.

Am I the only person who sees a problem here? In just these four examples, we can see how both sides of the aisle stand around, yelling back-and-forth, arguing over the exact same facts. The Right will defend those of their persuasion, and the Left will do the same in turn, even though they are defending the same thing just days after they attacked it. This seems to be the status quo of American Politics, and nothing will change this.

Yet, it wasn’t always like this. There was a time in this country, long before I was born, where both sides of the spectrum held similar standards and respected each other. There was a time when our parties sat around, found common ground, and actually got stuff done. With the exception of the slavery incidents, until the mid 1900s, the politicians of our nation treated each other with respect, and they held themselves to the same standards that they held each other.

Alas, the modern political climate no longer allows for this sort of standard. Instead, the hot-heads on both sides of the spectrum (also known as Commies or Neo-cons, depending on who you listen to) require all politicians to attack the other side, no matter what. The moderates, who really can’t stand this sort of bullocks, are unable to do anything about it.

This, of course, is where I start to have issues with our political system. As a two-party system, I understand the need to show that ‘your side’ is better than the ‘other side,’ yet, this is only detrimental to our country. We can not have a productive system where the powers that be stand around arguing, and getting nothing done. Instead of working together to better America (and we can all agree that that needs to be done), they are too busy fighting each other.

Now, you might be wondering what the point of this post is. To that, I simply say, the point of this post is to get us, as a people, to stop this sort of rational. It is time that we stop electing people who are hypocritical. Time to stop giving them donations, and stop funding their campaigns. It is time that our nation stands up and says NO MORE, time to show that we believe that double-standards should not exist. It is time to tell our elected officials that we hold them to a high standard, and that they should hold themselves to an equal one.

-Robert M. Barga

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

Please note, while this is a school essay, it has many sources and facts that are quite interesting. Anybody on either side should read it, as I guarantee that they will discover something new. That said, this is written in response to chapter two of “Lethal Logic” by Henigan

When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns

I chose Chapter two, “When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns,” because I have been hearing this phrase for years. Ever since I was a young child, I heard those on the pro-gun side of the debate utilize this rhetorical phrase in order to scare the population into opposing gun control. At the same time, I heard the anti-gun people responding to the phrase, pointing out other countries where this situation has not occurred. I have always been conflicted when dealing with this phrase, and believe that by furthering my research into it, I can learn the truth behind these words.

In Chapter two, Henigan starts his take on this famous phrase by discussing national politicians. When Sarah Palin was the dark-horse Vice Presidential candidate, she uttered a statement that roughly translates into this phrase. Henigan uses this, not to show that the phrase is true, but to show that the general public, and our elected officials, utilize this concept on a regular basis.

Henigan then moves on to the logical problems with this phrase. He starts to examine the claim that criminals will arm themselves, regardless of the gun laws of their nation. To do this, Henigan first considers the fact that curbing gun access is not dependent on whether the criminals will follow it or not. Rather, the mere act of curbing gun rights for the dangerous people, the government is able to enforce and arrest previous and/or current criminals before they commit a crime with the gun.

Staying with this logic, Henigan then explains how the gun laws themselves could keep actual criminals from owning guns. “But what about the possibility that there are potentially violent individuals who are deterred from carrying guns by the illegality of doing so”(Henigan 42)? In this statement, Henigan is stipulating that the mere concept of breaking a law could keep those who would not normally violate the law from doing so with a gun. This would keep the drive-by criminals from getting guns, and thus committing more crimes.

Finally, Henigan finds a second logical problem with the phrase; he discovers that the argument implies that any law-abiding citizen will not be able to defend themselves from the criminal who still has a gun. He argues that main-stream society has various manners in which to protect themselves, and that guns are not needed to do this. Essentially, Henigan is stipulating that even if criminals get guns, the statement’s implications are not valid.

I believe that Henigan’s take on this phrase, specifically when dealing with the common usage of it, is valid and correct. In 1979, Edward Abbey started the mainstream adaptation of this phrase, with his essay known as “Abbey’s Road.¹” Ever since that moment, it is has been a common bumper sticker, a common statement, and a common sign on a fence. A simple Google search of the phrase, or even part of it, will bring up 369,000 hits of sites, articles, and blogs regarding this common concept. From this, it seems clear that Henigan’s views of the commonality and usage of this phrase are correct, and that the general public, and our elected leaders, use it daily.

When Henigan moves on to discuss the concept of a gun ban stopping drive-by criminals from committing gun crimes, I, yet again, must agree with his logic. Henigan argues that people who have the potentiality for violence or violent crimes, yet themselves are not criminals, would have no access to guns. In 1993, Pub.L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, more commonly known as “The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” was signed into law by President Clinton. In the years after the Brady Bill was introduced, including those after the Supreme Court struck down background checks, gun crime in the United States has decreased by 25%², compared to a 14% drop for all other violent crimes.

With an 11% difference in the rate of decline, it is clear that something unique is going on in the gun crime sector of violent crimes. The Brady Bill, which created waiting periods (until they were replaced federally with instant computer checks), clearly is one of the main causes of this decline. The waiting period that was implemented served its purpose by causing those who were simply in rage, but not actually criminals, from buying guns. By requiring them to cool down, their rage would disperse, and they would not add to the statistics. From these percentages, it is clear that Henigan is right yet again, and that gun control will indeed stop the drive-by criminal from ever becoming one in the first place.

Yet another area in which I agree with Henigan is his contention that gun laws will in fact reduce the number of guns used by criminals. Henigan believes that a reduction in the availability of guns will result in less guns being placed into the hands of criminals. In the United States, the number one manner for criminals to obtain a firearm is through straw-purchaser sales; that is, a friend, relative, or a neighbor will go into the store and purchase the gun for them³. By eliminating this legal method of sales, the number one method of illegally obtaining firearms would be removed, and thus, the criminals would be less likely to get one.

While this would only indicate less guns for the criminals, it still does not show that guns would be used less in violent crimes. That said, however, one can see the effect that similar gun bans have had on criminal access to guns based on cases from around the world. After their banning of firearms, the Australian Attorney General stated that “firearms are being used less often in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery in 1998 compared with 1997.⁴” Likewise, after stricter English gun laws went into effect in 1996, the overall violent crime rate decreased by around 5%⁵.

By looking at the results of gun laws from around the world, one can see that stricter gun laws relate to less crimes committed with guns, as well as less violent crimes committed in general. This fact runs contrary to the expressed sentiment of the phrase, and leads credibility to Henigan’s take on it. Clearly, Henigan is right in saying that a reduction in the availability of guns (gun control) has a direct correlation with a reduction in crimes committed with a gun.

While it seems clear that Henigan’s views of this phrase have valid evidence behind them, they still suffer from a few weaknesses. For starters, Henigan seems to believe that criminals who get a gun would be caught by officers prior to using the gun in a crime. Current laws limit the ownership of guns for certain felons, criminals, and paroles. By using this, officers making a basic check-up, or even a traffic stop, would be able to find the gun and get the violent offender off of the street.

While this stipulation seems nice in theory, it suffers a few flaws. Firstly, it assumes that these criminals will have a plain-site gun, as well as have it stored in an easy to access location. It also assumes that the officers will act correctly, and that there will be a time between the purchase of the firearm and its use in crime, when the officers could find it. Obviously, neither of these are guarantees. In Sacramento, California, straw-purchasers purchased and supplied guns to known felons, all 32 of which were used in crimes⁶. Henigan’s contention that criminals with guns could be stopped is shown to be faulty in this and other instances. This clearly reveals a major weakness in Henigan’s presumption.

Another flaw in Henigan’s logic is that he believes that even without guns, Americans will be able to defend themselves against aggressors with guns. Henigan argues that a basic assumption of the phrase is that the population can not defend themselves without guns, and that they will be helpless if the criminals get the guns around the law (already shown that this will not happen). He believes that the population will indeed be able to defend themselves, and that they will not need guns for self-defense.

While there are various techniques for defending oneself from an aggressor with a gun, most of them require extensive training and/or physicality. Furthermore, with an average of 1.5 million uses of firearms as a form of defense per year⁷, it is clear that the American populace utilizes guns as a form of defense. Even if Henigan is correct is stipulating that one can defend themselves without guns, it is clear that guns are an essential defensive tool. As such, his contention is once again flawed.

While the phrase “If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns” might be a fun talking point for politicians and people in the gun-right battle, it is clear that the phrase is rather unfounded. A Henigan points out in chapter two, the assumptions and accusations of the phrase have no grounding, and they are not valid. Though there are a few problems with his logic, the overall argument is sound and well rounded. This common phrase clearly is overused, and, as evidenced in this chapter, should be removed from the public lexicon.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

Recently, I decided that it would be a good idea to allow guest posts on this site. Ben, from the Keeler Political Report, is the first person to write a guest post on Whalertly, and he hopefully will not be the last. Feel free to check out his site, and, if you are interested in posting here on Whalertly, check out my rules for guest posts.

Thanks to the management and staff at Whalerty for the opportunity to offer up a guest post. I decided to tackle one of my favorite topics, the United States Senate, and the elections that go with it. Here is a very early look at the 2010 map. Of course, many things probably will and can change. 36 seats are up, including special elections in New York and Colorado. And as most people know, the current makeup of the Senate stands at 59 Democrats and Democrat aligned members, and 41 Republicans.

The cycle couldn’t have started out worse for the GOP as the scene was surveyed after the 2008 elections concluded. Obama had sky high popularity and the raw number of seats up were on the side of the Democrats. Arlen Specter switched parties to become a Democrat. “Comedian” Al Franken found enough votes and after a lengthy court case, he “defeated” incumbent Republican Norm Coleman. Democrats got to their magic number of 60 seats. In the meantime, five Republicans in purple states announced they wouldn’t seek reelection in 2010 – Kit Bond in Missouri, Judd Gregg in New Hampshire and George Voinovich in Ohio. Jim Bunning in Kentucky followed later in 2009 after first resisting calls to retire; he saw the writing on the wall and probably helped out the party by stepping aside, though certainly it was not the decision he wanted to make. Additionally, Mel Martinez in Florida resigned, and a placeholder was appointed for the rest of his term. Things looked grim. Slowly but surely, the political landscape has changed, and what once looked like another upper chamber massacre for our side tilted back in the direction of the Republicans.

I am operating under the same assumption of most; this will be a good year for the GOP, but at the same time I wouldn’t read too much into what recently happened in Massachusetts. November is still an eternity away.

Lets start with the safe seats as of right now. Barring major scandal, surprise retirement, or a major player entering the field late, the following senators will be returning as part of the next Congress, or the seat will almost assuredly switch hands due to an untimely retirement.

(* denotes appointed senator, bold face indicates likely party switch)

Democrats (7): Inouye (Hawaii), Mikulski (Maryland), Schumer (New York), Wyden (Oregon), Leahy (Vermont), Murray (Washington), Feingold (Wisconsin).

Republicans (12): Dorgan/Open (North Dakota), Brownback/Open (Kansas), Shelby (Alabama), Murkowski (Alaska), McCain (Arizona), Isakson (Georgia), Crapo (Idaho), Grassley (Iowa), Coburn (Oklahoma), DeMint (South Carolina), Thune (South Dakota), Bennett (Utah).

Murray and Feingold, polling has shown, are vulnerable if top-tier candidates enter the race. As of this writing, that has not happened yet. The GOP caught a huge break when Byron Dorgan announced he would not run again in 2010, and basically decided to hand the seat to the Republicans as opposed to running what would have been a tough reelection campaign.

Next up are the seats very likely to stay with the party who currently holds the seat or looking like they will switch.

Democrats (4): Boxer (California), Gillibrand* (New York), Dodd/Open (Connecticut), Bayh (Indiana).

Republicans (3): LeMieux*/Open (Florida), Kaufmann*/Open (Delaware), Vitter (Louisiana).

Mike Castle is likely to take over “Don’t mess with Joe” Biden’s old seat. I think he would have defeated Beau Biden either way, but this decision will allow the NRSC to have a great pickup opportunity and direct valuable money elsewhere. Either Crist or Rubio will likely hold the former Mel Martinez seat. I have an eye on Indiana; this seat could easily slip into the “lean category.” Democrats did catch one break when embatteled incumbent Chris Dodd decided he would rather retire than face a brutal battle in Connecticut and allowed state Attorney General Blumenthal to take his slot on the ballot. Blumenthal is likely to hold this seat for the Democrats.

The following seats lean towards one party, but could easily shift into the toss-up category.

Democrats (1): Burris*/Open (Illinois).

Republicans (1): Burr (North Carolina).

Burr looks like he is beatable, but no Democrat is polling above him. Many have Illinois as a pure toss-up, but I believe the partisan breakdown of each of these states will help carry the incumbent party to victory in November.

And now where the battle will be fought; the toss-up category. These are seats that could go either way and typically end up going one direction as a block. This was certainly evident in 2002, 2006, 2008, and to a lesser extent in 2004. Once the tide starts flowing one way, it is tough to stop, and is typically only overcome by scandal (Tim Hutchinson, Arkansas 2002) or campaign killing remarks (Pete Coors, Colorado 2004). Sometimes seat theft is a way to add to this tide (Minnesota 2008). Major mistakes in campaigns will also add to this wave, see George Allen in Virginia and Conrad Burns in Montana, both in 2006. The law of averages tells us this will happen in at least one race in this cycle as well, in a race to be determined.

Democrat Held (4): Lincoln (Arkansas), Reid (Nevada), Specter (Pennsylvania), Bennet* (Colorado).

Republican Held (4): Bunning/Open (Kentucky), Voinovich/Open (Ohio), Bond/Open (Missouri), Gregg/Open (New Hampshire).

All of the Democrats on the list have been shown to be trailing in recent polls. Lincoln and Reid look the most vulnerable on the left. Specter switched parties last year, knowing he would have likely lost a GOP primary to Pat Toomey. He now faces a primary against Congressman Joe Sestak. Bennet was appointed when Ken Salazar took a cabinet job and will face his first statewide election this fall.

Republicans have opened up an early lead in all of the seats they currently hold. In Missouri, expect a big battle between two well known names there, Blunt and Carnahan. Both sides face primaries in Kentucky. Rob Portman will be the GOP nominee in Ohio, and will face either Lee Fisher or Jennifer Brunner. Kelly Ayotte is likely to be the Republican in New Hampshire who faces off against Congressman Paul Hodes for the seat being vacated by Judd Gregg.

Summary: As we turn the page to February, the GOP looks in great shape to add to their numbers, Obviously a lot can happen between now and then, however.

If I had to pick right now, I would say the following seats would be gained by the Republicans: North Dakota, Delaware, Arkansas, Nevada, and Colorado. I think it is unlikely that the GOP will hold all of their open seats, and one will probably fall. Until the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania is settled, that one is just too close to call. If the Republicans do end up picking up the current 4 seats I predict, they will have 45 seats to the Democrats 55. Pennsylvania could end up being #46.

(Note: This analysis does not include the potential open seat in Texas, that could come open if Kay Bailey Hutchison resigns this spring, as she has said she will. I will believe this if it occurs. And if it does, the Republicans would be heavy favorites to retain the seat anyways).

- Ben Keeler

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

Here’s the article on the study.

I’m not surprised to hear that, and here’s why.

Hypothetically the “safest” way of texting while driving is for the driver to hold the steering wheel with one hand and the phone in the other. The phone should be held relatively high up within the driver’s line of sight, that way the driver can quickly and easily glance back and forth, switching attention as effortlessly as possible.

The texting while driving laws might curb some driving while texting, but might cause drivers who keep texting to hold the phones relatively low (like near their laps) so that the phones are not visible to law enforcement. Obviously this is the least desirable position, because it dramatically increases periods of inattentiveness and the complexity of switching focus between the phone and the roadway.

So the accident rates don’t change. The safety gains from fewer drivers texting are offset by the drivers who are texting in a less safe manner.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

After having a grand old year in 2009 where exactly 5 of my 10 predictions came true, I decided that it is time to try it again, this time for 2010 (though I was tempted to re-predict for 2009, but then realized that I would still mess it up). Some of these predictions are for fun, some are obvious, and some are outright insane. That said, however, I will do my best to avoid the detection of ‘the evil companies out to get me’ and finish better than last year. Either way, I hope that you will enjoy my view of what technology will be released in the coming year.

1: No More Logins!!
With Twitter, Facebook, and Google Accounts becoming synonymous with the Internet, I expect shared logins to become the norm. Linking a new site with your current Web persona, you will be able to log onto only one site (say, Facebook or Twitter) and then use that to access all of your other sites. This will eliminate the need for reference pages of user names and passwords, and generally make your life more simple. As we Americans love our laziness, I can’t not see this occurring soon.
Barga’s Odds: 110% (I like Yogi Berra)

2: Google Faces an Anti-Trust Suit, Microsoft Will Be a Plaintiff
We all know that Google is creating a massive empire of our information, data, and search queries (which, I am sure, a psychologist would love to play with). However, with more and more market share and purchases, Google is going to become the massive entity that Microsoft was in the mid-’90s, and the are finally going to get nailed for it. I expect the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to be used against Google, and that the old guard (Microsoft, IBM, Yahoo, and…gasp…Apple) will all sign on to fight that monster in Mountain View, California.
Barga’s Odds: 99.999991%

3: Apple Will Release a Tablet
Sure, I predicted this last year, and missed it, but I am willing to risk my honor on trying it again. The current predictions are that this tablet will be announced on the 27th of January (cutting it close here) and will be available later this year. I believe that the tablet will be called an ‘iSlate’ and function very similar to the iPhone, but with more options. Of course, like all Apple products, it will have an absurd price tag.

FYI, I still think that all of the information released, denied, and then ignored is a secret plan by Apple to create the best marketing for an item ever invented by mankind.
Barga’s Odds: 96.5348%

4: Bing Will Continue to Gain Market Share
Released last year with a slew of commercials, Bing was Microsoft’s newest attempt to capture the Internet search market. The new site did exactly what it was supposed to do, and it carved a small hole out of Google’s massive server farm. That said, however, Google is still the dominating force in Internet searching. I expect Bing to continue to grow this year, as people get more and more annoyed by the ads, bad search results, and content farms that plague Google.
Barga’s Odds: 92.5%

5: 4G Devices Will Expand and Grow, Even Without the Needed Technology
After being ignored in the current AT&T/Verizon phone war (there’s a map for that), Sprint started to brag about its amazing 4G network. With 3G becoming the norm on new phones, the other providers will jump on that bandwagon as well. I expect to see phones that offer “4G options”, and the networks to argue that they have the best “4G system” in place. Of course, the fact that a 4G network does not exist, nor is there even a set standard, will not stop them. After all, the American population still thinks that these companies have a true “3G network.”
(speaking of other fake things, what about those “HD Sunglasses?” How can something be in more pixels than in reality? wholesale sunglasses make sense, but those HD ones do not. Hmm, another post maybe)
Barga’s Odds: 88%

6: Amazon, Sony, and Barnes & Noble Will Duke It Out Over the E-Reader Market
After the initial success of the Kindle by Amazon, a large number of companies started popping out their own iterations of the electronic book reader. As of now, three companies have emerged and leapt into the front of the pack. With three competitors, a price war seems to be in order. With this war brewing, I expect the prices of e-books, as well of that of the readers, to drop significantly this year. I fully expect to be able to get e-readers on the cheap, and with much better technology in 2010.
Barga’s Odds: 87.5%

7: Google Will Release a Netbook
Following Chrome’s official launch as an OS, and the success of an Apple Tablet (their version of a netbook), I fully expect Google to release their own mini-computer. This netbook will be low in price and power, but running a Linux-based OS, it will fit perfectly for college and high school students. I fully expect the netbook to take a fair bit of market share, and to keep Google’s stock high (until that lawsuit I keep talking about).
Barga’s Odds: 75%

8: The Big Three Announce New Consoles
With sales dwindling as the recession takes hold, the big three gaming companies (Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft) will react by trying to stimulate the market. They will release new games and toys, and will announce their newest consoles. Microsoft will announce a new Xbox (720 I hope) with a larger hard drive, the ability to use Bluetooth, and a Blu-ray player. Sony will announce a PS4, which will probably be the PS3 in a better body, with a better processor. Nintendo will announce their Wii2, which will be the exact same, except it will support 720i and have a hard drive. The public will love the announcements, and I expect to see them come out around Christmas shopping time.
Barga’s Odds: 70%

9: Apple Admits That They Screwed Up, Fixes the App Market
In an area where I have a great interest, Apple will finally work to fix one of the biggest mistakes with their iTunes-iPhone system. Currently, there are millions of Apps that you can download, but most of them are as useful as a turd wrapped in shiny paper (to my disappointment, that is not the name of a real application). It is far too hard to locate and download useful or great apps (unless you read my iWant feature) and that is a shame. I expect Apple to fix this and allow a full rating system, which uses other users to help match your opinions. Think of it as Netflix for the App Store.
Barga’s Odds: 65%

10: The Cloud Will Die
Yeah, I know that this will not happen, but I still can harbor hope that that damn cloud will be shot down. I do not like the idea that one company can have all of my data, my contacts, and even my phone records. Of course, with more and more companies using Google Docs to run their business, it is clear that mainstream America is against my position, and that they don’t care about their trade secrets. In all honesty, I expect the Cloud to continue to grow, but I hope that it doesn’t.
Barga’s Odds: .000000000057%

Well folks, there you have it. These are ten of the changes in technology that I expect to happen in 2010. Some of these will probably happen, some of them will not, but they should all be interesting to think about. Let me know what you think that I missed, what should be altered, or how clinically insane I am.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

By: Christian Malone

When you hear someone talking about the “fortune” of the Republican Party, you might think that I’m talking about corporate donors, or the provisions thrown out of McCain-Feingold recently by the Supreme Court. no, not at all.

Their great fortune is that the “Tea Party” movement, the grassroots libertarian conservative movement which is turning into a pseudo-party and is currently polling higher than the mainstream Republican Party when compared as an election between these two and the Democrats (I’m assuming that not too many Democrats will be swayed by the “Tea Party”), has not decided to eat the Republican Party alive.

Scott Brown, Senator-elect (R-MA) [just saying that makes me happy], is a man on a path to great things in national politics because he defeated Goliath, securing the seat of the late Edward Kennedy, a great champion of modern American liberalism, and hero to many in the Democratic Party. He secured a seat that was held by a progressive incumbent Democrat for 49 years. An extremely popular progressive Democratic incumbent in a state where Democrats greatly outnumber Republicans (but both are outnumbered by unaffiliated voters). He deserves much credit, and he also should be feared by Republicans, such as John Boehner, because right now he commands the respect of having a mandate from the people of Massachusetts to really stop “politics as usual.” And that means you, House Republican Leadership, and you too Senators. And you, John McCain.

That means: stop the politics of attack and negativity. Noone wants to vote for you, they just don’t want to vote for Democrats. Those that do hold up being a Republican, as if it were a value. Republican is mostly a way of saying I’m not a Democrat, and I lean right. The same way as the Democratic Party is mostly a way of saying I’m not a Republican, and I lean left. It’s a term of division, and of partisanship. I know I just stated the obvious. But that’s my point, division is nothing to celebrate. I am a libertarian, conservative, single-payer supporting, right-wing leaning American, who votes with the Republican party because they usually value firearms rights and generally restrict government intervention.

The Tea Party movement is a movement which rejects the notion that party should be the reason why representatives vote for or against issues and bills. They seem happy enough to elect Republicans for the time being, but eventually they will realize that the Republicans are still just following their leadership in a lot of cases. They still have a Whip, whose job it is to coerce, albeit gently, Republicans to vote with the party line.

This may be the death of the Republican Party. I actually hope so, because that would leave the Democratic Party in a convenient place for me: as a dinosaur; an obsolete mechanism of a long forgotten era of partisanship.

Yes. Before you ask out loud, yes. I realize this is all very ambitious to assume that a grassroots organization which is supposed Republican astroturf could become a major political party and upset the system as we know it. But as a student of history, as well as politics, it is not difficult to conclude that it could happen, and has happened, sometimes with bad results, sometimes good. For the best, but also the worst example I can think of, look at the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. They gained support because they had what the people wanted: prosperity in the face of ruin. The Tea Party may hold the same prospect to a conservative and moderate majority that is tired of the machinations of the two-party system and the implications of constant, highly partisan elections for the House, local offices, Senate, and President to top it all off. And, to prosperity, we add another value that they carry as a banner: Liberty. Combine this with the noble traditions of the United States, and you have a force to be reckoned with.

Finally, the NSDAP had pride. They were proud of being German. They had nationalism on their side. They made defeated Germans feel good about being German again. This is coming from a Political Science major. I’m not analyzing their societal norms, or their morals, i’m analyzing their electoral behavior, so make sure to chill out here. They made people so proud to be German they were willing to persecute anyone who wasn’t Germanic, and wanted to “liberate” their “German” brothers in the Sudetenland, Austria, and so on. This may be what the Tea Party does to a conservative base who was denied anything resembling a spot at the table when the Democrats gained a supermajority in the Senate (Thanks Arlen, you son of a…)["I thought you were a lady! So act like one." (AKA sit down and shut up, or go back to the kitchen. That's what it sounded like to me, but Michelle was very patient with him, more than I would have been. Act like a gentleman then, if you want her to act like a lady.)].

The thing that saddens me is that the reason the Democrats no longer have a supermajority is the death of Ted Kennedy. I pray for his family, and I commend him to the Lord happily, because I really do think that he was trying to fight for the people all those years. God bless you Ted, rest in peace with the Lord. If I had a choice, I’d rather Ted still be here. And Scott Brown could defeat him when the time came. No political gain is worth a life.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

By: Christian Malone

It’s time for some short opinions.

Haha, sorry Barga, I forgot to take credit for my work. No one would believe that you support the criminalization of flag-burning. but that would be funny.

This is my version, I suppose, of the political courage test. I dearly hope that someday in the future, while running for office, someone digs this up and tries to call me out on my positions, because sometimes I don’t get to state them all. I have quite a few positions, as you will see shortly…

This is in no particular order, just in the order in which I think of them (there are more if you click Continue Reading).

Abortion: Illegal in most cases. Legal in the case of medical necessity, legal in the case of rape or incest. The physician will make the decision as to medical necessity. The physician may be held accountable if the abortion is done without any medical cause or these special cases, and the woman may be held accountable if fraud is involved. Late term abortions always illegal, no abortions in the third trimester.

Firearms: Continue the instant background check system, strengthen the system to include psychological profiles. Punish those who sell knowingly to criminals. Hold firearms manufacturers harmless in sales. Allow non-violent felons to own firearms. Keep no records regarding firearms ownership whatsoever. Allow concealed/open carry everywhere, encourage school teachers to carry openly or concealed in classrooms. Allow graduated licensing for minors, standardize national concealed/open carry licenses and classes.

Narcotics: Decriminalize all forms of narcotics ownership, sales, and use. Criminalize the “cutting” of drugs with harmful substances. Tax recreational drugs very heavily.

Alcohol: Eliminate drinking age. Maintain and strengthen punishment of impaired driving/operation of firearms/machinery. Allow concealed/open carry in liquor-license businesses.

Tobacco: Continue to require the Surgeon-General’s warning on tobacco products. Remove smoking/tobacco age.

Prostitution: Decriminalize. Tax heavily, require disclosure of all medical issues related to STIs, prosecute fraud, abuse, and trafficking. Continue to ban underage prostitution.

Gambling: Allow all forms of gambling, but continue to allow sports commissions to ban officials and players from gambling in their own sports or in certain other related sports.

Roads: Raise speed limits dramatically, shift focus from high speed offences to wreckless driving and intoxication. Improve funding for roads.

Social Security: Allow opt-out of Social Security insurance.

Healthcare: Pay for all medically necessary or expedient procedures. Allow second tier insurance leads to pay for optional, overly risky or experimental procedures. Do not take over hospitals/healthcare practices.

Public Transport: Improve bus system cross-country, build more railways.

Marriage: De-institutionalize marriage, recognize unions between free people associating for tax purposes with one another for sexual or non-sexual reasons. Provide full rights for homosexuals and polygamists.

Flag-burning: Criminalize as an act of war against the United States of America. Prosecute heavily, punish harshly.

Nudity/Topfreedom: Decriminalize nudity as a state of dress in public. Continue to prosecute lewd acts in public.

Defense: Allow for preemptive action. Increase military salary. Create a track by which those who cannot afford college can serve for a period of time either before or after enlistment to pay for college. Continue “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Consider review of sodomy policy in the UCMJ.

Federal disaster aid: Continue to fund FEMA, but make clear that the federal government has no responsibility by law to provide any relief to those affected by disaster.

Police: Make clear that the police exist for the maintainance of the law, and also for protection of the public from lawbreakers, but that the police cannot protect every individual at all times. Encourage private arms ownership.

Financial industry: Deregulate in general, but require disclosure of practices for review by customers and potential customers for all products and services.

Fiat money: Continue practice, but attempt to balance inflation and deflation so the dollar stays steady.

Affirmative Action: Discontinue, but tax those who employ discriminatory hiring practices and who hire based on race. This tax applies to those who, having a complaint filed against them, have been found by an expert to have denied hiring/retention to employees based on race, gender, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation. Exceptions exist for those catering to specific audiences and who explicitly state this in doing business.

Campaign finance: Deregulate.

Welfare: Implement workfare as the only policy for work-eligible individuals. Continue to provide aid to disabled individuals.

Education: Nationalize the primary and secondary public education system. Create guaranteed loans for those wishing to go to post-secondary institutions who show satisfactory progress and reasonable time of completion. Create cap on amount of money loaned.

Voting: Implement Instant-Runoff Voting. Allow increased freedom for third parties and unaffiliated candidates.

Environment: No caps on emissions unless they prove poisonous or harmful to humans. Replace much of America’s power grid with smart grids, allow and encourage building of hundreds of new nuclear power facilities, open and support Yucca mountain facility.

Any other issue: Ask me. There are many issues about which I have less concern, such as prison reform, but would be happy to think about and express my opinion on.

I really do hope someone looks at this when they go to vote for me or not. I am an issues voter, as such, I expect people to judge me by my positions on the issues.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

by William Bowles

“In Post-War Iraq, Use Military Forces to Secure Vital U.S. Interests, Not for Nation-Building” — The Heritage Foundation

And just in case you still haven’t got the point, the same Heritage Foundation document, dated 25 September, 2002 went on to tell us,

“Protect Iraq’s energy infrastructure against internal sabotage or foreign attack to return Iraq to global energy markets and ensure that U.S. and world energy markets have access to its resources.” [1]

Anything that says otherwise in the corporate or state press is just propaganda and/or lies. Period.

Oiling the cogs of capitalism

The turning point when oil took centre stage came significantly as the 20th century began with the world’s most powerful imperial navies, the German and British switching from burning coal to burning oil. From that point on the destinies of Persia and the Arab world irrevocably became central to Western imperial ambitions, so much so that to this day we are living (and dying) with the results, most notably the Palestinians and the Iraqis, not to mention two World Wars where oil was central for all the combatants, not only to fight with but to control.

“Rarely discussed, however, is the fact that the strategic geopolitical objectives of Britain, well before 1914, included not merely the crushing of its greatest industrial rival, Germany, but, through the conquest of war, the securing of unchallenged British control over the precious resource which, by 1919, had proved itself as the strategic raw material of future economic development—petroleum.” — ‘A Century of War’, F William Engdahl, p.38.[2]

Oil extended the range of imperial navies to encompass the globe without the need to refuel, enabling Britain’s navy to take complete control of the world’s oceans and trade routes. One of WWI’s objectives was to deny Germany access to the newly discovered oil fields in what is now Iran. This meant controlling access to the Middle East where British control of the Suez Canal (‘stolen’ from the French) eventually determined the destiny of the people of Palestine and indeed the entire Middle East.

Of course oil is only one component but without it nothing else functions, least of all a mechanized military. No oil, no anything the modern world depends on.

‘The Feb. 17, 2007, Energy Bulletin detailed the oil consumption just for the Pentagon’s aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities that made it the single-largest oil consumer in the world. At the time, the U.S. Navy had 285 combat and support ships and around 4,000 operational aircraft. The U.S. Army had 28,000 armored vehicles, 140,000 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, more than 4,000 combat helicopters, several hundred fixed-wing aircraft and 187,493 fleet vehicles. Except for 80 nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, which spread radioactive pollution, all their other vehicles run on oil.’ [3]

The corporate media would have you believe that anyone who cries ‘Oil!’ when Iraq comes up is some kind of nut, akin to alien abductees, a ‘conspiracist’ no less.

In 2003 when the USUK invaded Iraq I was struck by the desperate pleas in the corporate press that the invasion had nothing to do with oil, accusing those who asserted that oil had everything to do with the invasion were nutty conspiracists living no doubt in Area 51.

“Conspiracy theories abound…. Others claim it was inspired by oil…. [This] theor[y] [is] largely nonsense.” — The Independent, April 16, 2003.

By contrast, the oil companies were not backward in coming forward concerning the central role of oil in the invasion of Iraq, echoing what the suits over at the Heritage Foundation were saying:

“I would say that especially the U.S. oil companies…look forward to the idea that Iraq will be open for business [after the overthrow of Saddam],” says an executive from one of the world’s largest oil companies.”
“What they [the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration] have in mind is denationalization, and then parceling Iraqi oil out to American oil companies…. We take over Iraq, install our regime, produce oil at the maximum rate and tell Saudi Arabia to go to hell.” James E. Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

“It’s probably going to spell the end of OPEC.” Shoshana Bryen, director of special projects for JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), “After the fall of Iraq and the privatisation of its oil, that is.”
“American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil,” Ahmed Chalabi in the Washington Post.

In “The Future of a Post-Saddam Iraq: A Blueprint for American Involvement,” a series of Heritage Foundation documents, sets out a plan for the privatisation of Iraq’s oil and indeed the privatisation of its entire economy. [4]

Is it a conspiracy? Well it depends what you mean by the word. The dictionary definitions are as follows:

1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons;

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose.

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

I would have thought that collectively all fit the description of the invasion of Iraq, after all Bush and Blair conspired to deceive the world by fabricating evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in order to illegally invade the country. They conspired (with others) to destroy a country and steal its resources, ergo: a conspiracy.

That said, there are those who go much, much further, asserting that there is a global conspiracy extending back at least one hundred years and consisting of the political classes of the US and the UK who along with powerful banking and energy conglomerates have sought to control the planet, its resources, markets and labour. But is it a conspiracy or merely imperialism doing what it does best; plunder, murder and colonize? In other words, do we need a conspiracy to explain events? And what if it is a global conspiracy extending back well over a century? It doesn’t change anything, we are still confronted with the same forces.

The proper question to ask is: Why does the corporate/state media insist on using the word conspiracy to pour derision on anyone who questions the prevailing orthodoxy? The answer is immediately obvious: the word conspiracy has been distorted to mean not its dictionary definition but any and all who challenge the reasons supplied by our political masters as to why things happen.

History is littered with all manner of state and/or corporate conspiracies from the Reichstag Fire to the Tonkin Gulf provocation, to the CIA/ITT’s overthrow of Allende in Chile, to Iraq’s non-existent WMD, hence the need to decouple oil and Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan just in case people come to the right conclusions as to why things happen.

Thus language is mutilated to serve the objectives of the corporate class and it’s aided by the real conspiracy nuts who see everything as a conspiracy, sometimes stretching back centuries and involving secret cabals of one kind or another. Connecting the left to this crew serves to degrade our argument and surely this is the objective.

There is no doubt that the international criminal class liase, plot and plan, this is what the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is all about as is Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs), the UK equivalent and both organizations were setup in the opening decades of the 20th century as the ‘Anglo-Saxon Alliance’ firmed up. A roll call of CFR members illustrates the fact that major Western governments are all effectively servants of Big Capital.

Likewise with the Bilderberg group, composed of international ‘captains of industry’ and key policy makers of the political classes of the leading capitalist states. But is it a conspiracy? On one level no, after all, it’s quite legitimate for the ruling classes to plan and organize, this is why Washington DC is bursting at the seams with all manner of ‘Foundations’ and ‘Think Tanks’. Since the end of WWII billions of dollars of public and private finance has poured into these organizations. Their objective? To spread the ‘free market’ and to counter all opposition by fair means or foul.

“…the most powerful men in the world met for the first time” in Oosterbeek, Netherlands [over fifty years ago], “debated the future of the world,” and decided to meet annually in secret. They called themselves the Bilderberg Group with a membership representing a who’s who of world power elites, mostly from America, Canada, and Western Europe with familiar names like David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Lloyd Blankfein, George Soros, Donald Rumsfeld, Rupert Murdoch, other heads of state, influential senators, congressmen and parliamentarians, Pentagon and NATO brass, members of European royalty, selected media figures, and invited others – some quietly by some accounts like Barack Obama and many of his top officials.” — ‘The True Story of the Bilderberg Group’ By Daniel Estulin.[5]

It is clear that modern capitalism has evolved over several overlapping generations with all the appearance of a conspiracy in the broadest sense and of the most sophisticated kind, employing a vast army of operatives that include key elements of the media, academia, business and policymakers both within and outside government. A ‘conspiracy’ to maintain capitalism as the only permissible form of society, how could it be otherwise? There is simply too much at stake and for proof of this we need only look at how this powerful international business/government/media elite conspired to kill COP15 regardless of the consequences.

Family, education and business ties—with the state as ‘mediator’—have created what is now an international network that connects the ruling classes of the most powerful capitalist states, that’s why they have a Bilderberg Group, it’s where business heads, the political class, selected media and academics can meet and formulate strategies and tactics, necessary in a world where communications are now virtually instantaneous. It won’t do to have governments making statements that are out of line with the ‘consensus’, as happens from time to time and illusion briefly shattered.

In a world where the dominant economic forces are a couple of hundred or so major corporations, corporations that de facto, ensure that their respective governments enact policies favourable to their survival and increasing prosperity for the major shareholders, the logical thing to do is to combine over issues that affect them all. I would be extremely surprised if the Bilderberg Group or something like it, didn’t exist.

And the issues are plain to see: Access to and control/ownership of resources; access to cheap labour; free movement of capital; and last but not least, neutralizing challenges to the rule of capital wherever they appear.

Arrayed against us, the people, is a vast apparatus of control and manipulation that embraces governmental, ‘non’-governmental, private foundations, the media, state and corporate, ‘entertainment’ in all it’s wondrous forms, think tanks, institutes, foundations, academia, formal and informal bodies, both national and transnational, associations, ngos and ‘ngos’, charities and ‘charities’, all of which are heavily subsidized by the state and / or corporations. Who needs ‘The Illuminati’ when we have all this arrayed against us?

Notes

1. See ‘In Post-War Iraq, Use Military Forces to Secure Vital U.S. Interests, Not for Nation-Building’ by Baker Spring and Jack Spencer, Backgrounder #1589, September 25, 2002.

“The Administration should make it clear that a U.S. military presence in post-war Iraq will be deployed to secure vital U.S. interests, not as an exercise in so-called nation-building—the Clinton Administration’s open-ended policy of sending American troops into troubled regions where vital U.S. security interests were not directly threatened.”

2. I think the best (and most succinct) analysis of this period has been made by F. William Engdahl in his ‘A Century of War’ Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order’, see my review of it here. Buy the book here at Pluto Books.

3. See ‘Pentagon’s Role in Global Catastrophe: Add Climate Havoc to War Crimes’ By Sara Flounders for data on the gigantic oil appetite of the US Military.

And here’s the source, ‘US military oil pains’ by Sohbet Karbuz, Energy Bulletin, 17 February, 2007. It should be noted that the figures used in the article are over two years old and far from complete, as they only include oil bought directly by the DoD. Whatever the figure it’s staggering, probably as high as $30 billion annually with no sign of any kind of reduction on the horizon, at least according to the DoD:

““In fiscal 2005, DESC will buy about 128 million barrels of fuel at a cost of $8.5 billion, and Jet fuel constitutes nearly 70% of DoD’s petroleum product purchases.”

“For some, this is not enough though. “Because DOD’s consumption of oil represents the highest priority of all uses, there will be no fundamental limits to DOD’s fuel supply for many, many decades.”” — ‘United States Department of Defense … or Empire of Defense?’ By Sohbet Karbuz, 6 February, 2006

4. http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1632.cfm, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1633.cfm

5. See ‘The True Story of the Bilderberg Group and What They May Be Planning Now.’ A Review of Daniel Estulin’s book by Stephen Lendman

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time

What happens when you combine a hockey mom, a small town mayor-turned-governor, and a person who lives in the only wilderness left in the country? Well, normally you would get a re-elected governor, nothing more, nothing less. With Sarah Palin, however, you get a Vice Presidential nominee, a person who abandoned her governorship, and, now, a talk-show host!

Now, I am not too sure if she deserved to even become governor of Alaska, and I am positive that she didn’t deserve to be considered a political candidate (and, she screwed McCain over in the process), but I am really confused as to how she deserves to be a media member.

After all, what has Palin ever done to help this country, to advance this country, or to show that she is intelligent? Palin is a tool, one used by the right, to try and get small town women’s votes, and it failed. After that, she is useless, yet the right seems to not notice this. Instead, they are posturing her in an embarrassing way, and she thinks that she deserves it.

Palin’s show will do nothing to better society, nor will it educate anybody. In fact, it will only spread lies and mis truths, and that is flat out wrong. I hope that few will watch her show, and that it will fail. I will guarantee you this much, I will never watch it.

Fighting the Birther's, one step at a time